Nutrition vs. Genetics

[Natty Bumppo]

Does anyone honestly think you can even remotely affect the genetics of a wild herd given the fact that the bucks that frequent your land today could have come from miles and miles away when they dispersed from their mothers? The majority of the "genetics" you see on your land do not stay on your land and likely came from somewhere else anyway. Proven fact.

Agreed. I personally do not think that, no. Moreover, I also do not think that "anybody" or "anywhere can grow big bucks" as somebody posted earlier, for the exact reasons you cited. On my 30 acres of what is considered to be some of the poorest whitetail range and soil in the country, it's just not realistic to think that I, or any small property owners on poor range, can grow big bucks.

 

[wiscwhip]

Agreed. I personally do not think that, no. Moreover, I also do not think that "anybody" or "anywhere can grow big bucks" as somebody posted earlier, for the exact reasons you cited. On my 30 acres of what is considered to be some of the poorest whitetail range and soil in the country, it's just not realistic to think that I, or any small property owners on poor range, can grow big bucks.

BUT ^^^ one has to remember that "big" is relative, age is static. 130" might be "big" for someones area, and might be average for someone else, a 5.5yo is 5.5 anywhere you go!

 

[Natty Bumppo]

BUT ^^^ one has to remember that "big" is relative, age is static. 130" might be "big" for someones area, and might be average for someone else, a 5.5yo is 5.5 anywhere you go!

Agreed. Around here we don't have big bodied, big antlered, or old deer. I'm in a "if it's brown it's down" state. Of course Massachusetts can produce some monsters...but those are exceedingly rare. A 130" deer would be a once in a lifetime deer (for a majority of hunters). A 5.5 yo? Unheard of.

 

[tynimiller]

Agreed. I personally do not think that, no. Moreover, I also do not think that "anybody" or "anywhere can grow big bucks" as somebody posted earlier, for the exact reasons you cited. On my 30 acres of what is considered to be some of the poorest whitetail range and soil in the country, it's just not realistic to think that I, or any small property owners on poor range, can grow big bucks.

To an extent yes but I've grown up and make my hunting days on Small Acre set ups :D

No, one cannot magically raise the age demographics in their area by 2 or 3 years but there is no reason even on a small acre setting that a guy cannot continue to target the top 20% of the area bucks age wise and in the process possibly save a couple in a year by not slinging an arrow or launching lead. I've seen it, and been on both sides. Growing up on just 9 acres, I have watched a solid 115 inch 2.5 year old walk away and WATCHED from my stand it get shot...but have also been AMAZED at even in a highly hunted area how many deer passed have lived.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Pa. is like Natty's situation. If a 5 pt. with a 10" spread walks out to 95% of hunters here, it's dead. In Pa., even in ag areas with good soil, if a buck doesn't get some age on it, it's potential will not be realized. A 130" buck here is probably most hunters' " buck of a lifetime " - probably a 3.5 yr. old deer at minimum, and probably a 4.5 deer. I'm talking averages for Pa. There are, of course, the outliers that live to be 4.5 and up and can get to 150" or greater. Those are not common.

The one common thread for Pa. is that the greatest numbers of good bucks are taken in areas where ag is more prevalent and the soils are better. Age, as a percentage of the buck population, gets higher where hunting is not permitted or is very restricted, and that is nearer the suburban areas. No rifle hunting in those areas - bow or slug only, if access is even allowed.

 

[Tap]

Laugh if you want on 100 years of stats. Wi has 6x the entries as Pa. Msu did a study on soil regarding antler base mass and the epicenter was sw wisconsin. But if i had to buy land in Pa it would be in the red counties. Btw thx for the trump vote pa

The red zones of that Pa map doesn't represent soil quality or genetics. It represents age structure.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

To an extent yes but I've grown up and make my hunting days on Small Acre set ups :D

No, one cannot magically raise the age demographics in their area by 2 or 3 years but there is no reason even on a small acre setting that a guy cannot continue to target the top 20% of the area bucks age wise and in the process possibly save a couple in a year by not slinging an arrow or launching lead. I've seen it, and been on both sides. Growing up on just 9 acres, I have watched a solid 115 inch 2.5 year old walk away and WATCHED from my stand it get shot...but have also been AMAZED at even in a highly hunted area how many deer passed have lived.

I agree for the most part. A lot depends on the resources of the surrounding area and the surrounding deer hunting culture. Around me I have no ag anywhere for probably 50 miles. I don't even have hard mast. Deer and true big woods browsers. Low densities. When hunters around here see any legal buck, they'll take it. That's the culture. I do try to target the top 20% of bucks...but then the season ends and I'm the only one in the neighborhood who doesn't have vension in the freezer and I begin to question passing the 4 pointer in October?

The one thing I have going for me is time. Been hunting for 30 years...but only in the past 2 or 3 have I been able to do some food plots and TSI and other management on my own small 30 acres. I do have faith that passing those on those 4 pointers will pay off eventually.

 

[Tap]

Interesting topic. I know that you can't change the genetics of the herd, but when it comes to individual deer, I feel genetics and age play a bigger role than nutrition. Some bucks are growers and some just plain won't grow.

At what age can a hunter determine a buck's antler potential? I've had a few particular bucks that were 100% identifiable because of some characteristic. One buck in particular, had white feet...easy to recognize him. As a yearling, he was a spike...not just a spike, but a little spike. Most uninformed hunters would say he had poor genes. As a 2.5 year old, he developed into a respectable 8 point of maybe 85 inches or so. His rack gained at least 70 inches. His growth curve was skyrocketing. The reasons for his slow start (and a lot of other bucks that get"culled") can't be proven but I believe a lot of "inferior" yearlings are just late-born, or orphaned and take an extra few years to catch-up, and they will often end up having far better racks as an adult than the yearling that started of with a multi branched rack.
Here's that buck. I think, the "cull crowd" would have killed that buck in an instant as a yearling. It's a shame he disappeared after 2.5.
He was wounded as a 2.5 year old and carried a x bow bolt for months before he disappeared.
Him as a yearling...


And him at 2.5. "Culling" an immature buck based on enters is never a good idea, and for most guys, it's just an excuse to drop the hammer.

 

[bwoods11]

Age + habitat + genetics +quality food

Add in 320 acres or more of lightly hunted ground and you are probably going to shoot some nice bucks.

I would argue that the DNR in your state will have a large impact on what makes it to adult size. Look at what Iowa and Kansas produce in terms of true giants. The key is gun season is in December.

 

[Mortenson]

Tap, I absolutely agree that small racked yearlings are often late born. Also I think a few probably have poor genes, but I'd never shoot one for that reason. It can't be proven. To answer your question, I'd say generally a buck will show its potential by 3.5. I'm not a management/cull type guy. Not saying it's 100% wrong either. We have a hard time getting deer to 3.5 let alone 5.5+.

 

[chucker66]

My Dad used to say "Once a spike always a spike". I just have to laugh these days.

Chuck

 

[Mortenson]

Can you cull/manage Buffalo co? Hell no. Or a mountain range? Nope. Can culling help a little 500 acre timber that stands alone? I don't know, just asking. Does that answer have to be yes or no? Can it help 1%?

Also, Novemberforever, sometimes there's a possibility there can be too much of a good thing. How many outfitters were running in Pike co? Some areas of it really got decimated I've heard.

 

[Tap]

Age structure? Another site has an interesting thread on this subject. Here was the first pic from a Psu study. It is a Pa mtn area buck. Whats his age? I guessed 2.5 or a really poor 80 inch 3.5yo. Well he is 6.5!factors? No pressure, old enough but crap soil/nutrition. Look at the Pa map where the mtns are. Psu said many deer die of old age but will never produce antlers.

There's no doubt that soil quality effects nutrition which effects antler and body growth.
But there has been an on-going up-tick in the antler quality of the northern tier/mountain zones of Pa. Those counties are producing much better bucks than they used to. I think that is attributed to declining hunting pressure and an improving natural food in those areas. Hunting pressure in Pa has definately shifted toward the counties that are red and orange on that map.
Back in the 1990's (?) there was a huge tornado that ripped through Northern Pa. In the years proceeding the tornado, the area produced the typical, scrawny, mountain deer. In the years following the tornado, the destruction zones started to produce higher quality bucks...2 reasons for that...browse quality increased and the area got harder to hunt and the age structure got older. The soil quality didn't change. Now, any one of those bucks, regardless of their rack quality, would produce a better rack if they lived in the mid western bread basket.
There have been some very impressive bucks killed in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh urban area) and that ain't due to soil quality as much as it's due to having an old age class of bucks. It seems like there is a direct correlation between how fast Allegheny County soil (and farmland) has disappeared and the increase of trophy antlers.

 

[shawnv]

Without age it's only a guess as to what your herd genetic is. I live a couple miles North of Buffalo County and I would argue that my core area has some of the best genetics anywhere (number of 6x6, 6x7, 7x7 typicals) and a better top end than much of BC. While BC has really good genetics, many other areas are arguably better.

What's interesting is that even where it's a prime area there is no golden rule. My old lease in BC, our groups best was 208" with over a 140" average but there were also plenty of mature bucks around that never would top 130's. I would say in fact there are lots and lots of 130's mature in the entire county.

As far as BC goes, unless you own a large chunk and can keep the pressure low you are going to be fighting come November where the deer movement will be suppressed (not as bad as other areas of WI). But let me take a stand in one of the plains states then and I'll have a much more enjoyable hunt personally.

 

[bwoods11]

11975[/ATTACH] I have noticed in certain counties in Iowa, that some areas have great genetics and others have good genetics, but maybe not (top end). Right now I have a lot of 8s on my farm, where as the last farm I had in Warren County, IA there were a bunch of split rack bucks with kickers and stickers, all adding up to higher scores.

The potential world record archery buck shot near Osceola was 20 miles away, and that area (Clarke) seems to have better genetics than my area. Although my neighbor shot a 203 last year, so I am not too worried about the area.

The pic above was one that I wish I could have shot....neighbor got him. Genetic freak

 

[Tap]

Imo maybe 40% of mature bucks in top producing counties will ever net 125. We have watched unique bucks (double throat patch, ect) they may gross 130 but net out of book. A 120 3.5, does not make a 140 4.5, 160 5.5, 180 6.5.

I can't remember where I read it, but it was a reputable article/author that said only 15% of bucks can reach 150 inches regardless of age or nutrition.

SW Pa

 

[shawnv]

Getting too bent over inches can cost us a good hunt. I decided to try and chase a big public land buck all while I had this guy (Maybe 130" gross) that I know to be at least 5.5 in Washburn County coming out 10 of 14 days in daylight. The public land buck got shot by another hunter and by the time I decided to hunt this guy he was all over the place and I never got closer than 100yrds from him *minus one night he was coming in for my son but hit the spot where a coyote walked through 5 minutes earlier and turned around.

 

[yoderjac]

Does anyone honestly think you can even remotely affect the genetics of a wild herd given the fact that the bucks that frequent your land today could have come from miles and miles away when they dispersed from their mothers? The majority of the "genetics" you see on your land do not stay on your land and likely came from somewhere else anyway. Proven fact.

Not genetics, but epigenetic expression. It does take more scale than most have. It is not easy. Our suburbs are perfect examples where barren stands of timber were turned into a patchwork of fertilized edge habitat and we saw deer sizes increase.

You are correct to point out that it will be tough for folks who don't own large tracts or don't have significant collaborative acreage adjoining. Half of the underlying genetics are pretty stable. Does tend to form family groups and as long as the population is kept in check and they have good habitat, they will stay. There are two issues with bucks. First is that when bucks don't have an abundance of does locally, they will move very large distances during the rut to breed. I'm not sure how that can be dealt with effectively. The second is that does push their male progeny out of the area. This dispersal is natures way of preventing genetic isolation. One can shoot does with twins presuming one is a button. That button has a higher chance of survival and will likely stay.

Keep in mind that triggering epigenetic characteristics is different than trying to change the genetics of the herd. Consider the study itself. The underlying genetics were always present. All that was changed was what was turned on and off in the offspring based on the environmental interaction of the parent.

The effect of changing habitat is changing the genetic expression of subsequent generations of deer that live in it. The larger the geographic scale of the change, the greater the number of deer that are impacted. While studies show that you are not going to impact the underlying genetics in a free ranging herd, you can impact the epigenetic expression.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Tap, post #59 - It's the same in the S.E. corner of Pa. There are some monsters lurking around the cities. The Allentown-Reading-Phila. corner has some great bucks, but much of the area they roam - you can't hunt. So age gets better. There is still a good amount of ag in the S.E. corner, the same as the Pittsburgh corner, so great food just adds to the size of the deer. Some of the does I see at local deer processors would dwarf does from the mountains.

I do agree though, that racks are getting better in the mountains in the last few years. Antler restrictions are playing a part in that ( more age ), and many of the camps are planting high quality food plots ( half-baked attempts in the past - better knowledge of plots now ). There are also the newly cleared gas pipelines which got planted to clover, birdsfoot trefoil, timothy, burnet, and native grasses. Areas that were miles of unbroken, mature, mountain woods loaded with mountain laurel now have available greens to feed deer.

Another good thing I see happening in the northern tier mountains is when the state has a timber sale, they put exclusion fences around the logged areas to keep the deer out for 5 years or so. Even with low deer numbers there in the mountains, a cut area will draw every deer around to hammer the new growth. Tree shoots, seedlings and saplings now get a chance to get established in those logged areas and they get very thick. Once the fence is removed, the browsing happens on the lowest, newest growth, but the deer don't wipe out the area - many of the new trees are big enough to survive the browsing.

These mountain areas still have the same soil, but the increase in better quality food at camp food plots, gas pipelines, and timber sale cuttings has improved the racks of deer for sure. We're not Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, or Minnesota, so we'll never threaten their book-buck numbers, but rack size HAS improved. I doubt the mountains will ever see the numbers of big racks that the S.E. and S.W. corners of Pa. have. Much of suburbia is really a sanctuary.

 

[yoderjac]

Tap, post #59 - It's the same in the S.E. corner of Pa. There are some monsters lurking around the cities. The Allentown-Reading-Phila. corner has some great bucks, but much of the area they roam - you can't hunt. So age gets better. There is still a good amount of ag in the S.E. corner, the same as the Pittsburgh corner, so great food just adds to the size of the deer. Some of the does I see at local deer processors would dwarf does from the mountains.

I do agree though, that racks are getting better in the mountains in the last few years. Antler restrictions are playing a part in that ( more age ), and many of the camps are planting high quality food plots ( half-baked attempts in the past - better knowledge of plots now ). There are also the newly cleared gas pipelines which got planted to clover, birdsfoot trefoil, timothy, burnet, and native grasses. Areas that were miles of unbroken, mature, mountain woods loaded with mountain laurel now have available greens to feed deer.

Another good thing I see happening in the northern tier mountains is when the state has a timber sale, they put exclusion fences around the logged areas to keep the deer out for 5 years or so. Even with low deer numbers there in the mountains, a cut area will draw every deer around to hammer the new growth. Tree shoots, seedlings and saplings now get a chance to get established in those logged areas and they get very thick. Once the fence is removed, the browsing happens on the lowest, newest growth, but the deer don't wipe out the area - many of the new trees are big enough to survive the browsing.

These mountain areas still have the same soil, but the increase in better quality food at camp food plots, gas pipelines, and timber sale cuttings has improved the racks of deer for sure. We're not Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, or Minnesota, so we'll never threaten their book-buck numbers, but rack size HAS improved. I doubt the mountains will ever see the numbers of big racks that the S.E. and S.W. corners of Pa. have. Much of suburbia is really a sanctuary.

Good example of scale. Timber operations are typically large acreage. Although the soils will still be a limiting factor compared to high quality soil areas. However, the volume and quality of food improve for multiple generations. So, there are two factors at play, one may be age based on antler restrictions, and the other is nutrition.

Granted, this an anecdotal observation of larger racks in the mountains but provided it is true, one could ask how much of the nutritional improvement is due to epigenetics. I think if you look at the year over year change in that study, you would have an estimate.

Thanks,

Jack