Soil quality does not predict plant nutrition available to white-tailed deer

[Howboutthemdawgs]

He also has a large unfenced section in his Louisiana property too. He often shows pictures of both saying you can’t tell the difference between the unfence and the fence. Of course age structure matters too. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that my bucks could get to be 20 years old, and they would not have the mass that his have due to nutrition.

Maybe he can chime in but I’m almost 100% certain his Louisiana place is all fenced. It’s Mexico he runs fenced and not fenced.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

The Hanson buck was only 3 years old. The biggest typical I ever saw was a 3 year old that as a two year old was only about 110”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the Hanson Buck was three years old I’ll donate my last dollar to the Clinton foundation. I’m not sure what janky science said that but statistically there’s almost a less than zero chance that deer was 3

 

[Telemark]

If the Hanson Buck was three years old I’ll donate my last dollar to the Clinton foundation. I’m not sure what janky science said that but statistically there’s almost a less than zero chance that deer was 3

That's what I was thinking, but I'm far from an expert.

 

[Catscratch]

Nutrition matters, and it's not just for the individual as it's generational. Low nutrition represses genes that expend energy and lessen chances for survival. A population that has been on a high nutritional plane for several generation will have genes turned on that produce bigger deer.

 

[T-Max]

When I worked out West our wild game biologist used to discuss a study on elk in arid regions. There was a theory on why desert elk grew such tremendous racks. The hypothesis was that desert plants didn't typically grow very big and contained less water, but had comparable nutrients of plants that grew much larger making them very nutrient dense. The theory was that a belly full of those small plants contained more nutrients than a belly full of the more lush vegetation therefore making each bite more beneficial. One of the academics here could probably find the study. Interesting concept considering those are some of the poorest soils we have.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

When I worked out West our wild game biologist used to discuss a study on elk in arid regions. There was a theory on why desert elk grew such tremendous racks. The hypothesis was that desert plants didn't typically grow very big and contained less water, but had comparable nutrients of plants that grew much larger making them very nutrient dense. The theory was that a belly full of those small plants contained more nutrients than a belly full of the more lush vegetation therefore making each bite more beneficial. One of the academics here could probably find the study. Interesting concept considering those are some of the poorest soils we have.

I can’t speak to that but one of the theories I’ve held on to is those elk don’t have to migrate out of the high country and back. Therefore 100% of their energy during antler growing season can be focused on nutrition as opposed to chasing a snow line up and down 12,000’ mountains

 

[Mortenson]

You know, I always questioned that. They found a shed later from the year prior and it went like 90”. Assuming a 20” spread that would have made him a 200” typical 2 year old. I think they have quieted down on the 3 year old claim since then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's probably the 2nd most famous "3.5" year old buck, the Rath from MN. Also no chance in Hades he was 3.5

 

[T-Max]

Here's probably the 2nd most famous "3.5" year old buck, the Rath from MN. Also no chance in Hades he was 3.5

I never realized the Rath was speculated to be that young. I bought all the Legendary Whitetails books when I was younger. Read them cover to cover. Favorite typical was the Bills, and favorite non-typical was the Rath. Back in the day!

 

[BenA]

He also has a large unfenced section in his Louisiana property too. He often shows pictures of both saying you can’t tell the difference between the unfence and the fence. Of course age structure matters too. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that my bucks could get to be 20 years old, and they would not have the mass that his have due to nutrition.

His Louisiana place is fenced. I'm almost certain he's mentioned before the reason he fenced it was he couldn't grow big deer without it there. He had it unfenced for years, but it wasn't until the fence went up that he was able to grow bigger bucks.

 

[Telemark]

When I worked out West our wild game biologist used to discuss a study on elk in arid regions. There was a theory on why desert elk grew such tremendous racks. The hypothesis was that desert plants didn't typically grow very big and contained less water, but had comparable nutrients of plants that grew much larger making them very nutrient dense. The theory was that a belly full of those small plants contained more nutrients than a belly full of the more lush vegetation therefore making each bite more beneficial. One of the academics here could probably find the study. Interesting concept considering those are some of the poorest soils we have.

I always figured that a smaller body is beneficial in a warmer and dryer climate. A smaller rack isn't necessarily much of an advantage, so evolution selected for smaller bodies but not smaller racks in some desert deer populations.

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

You know, I always questioned that. They found a shed later from the year prior and it went like 90”. Assuming a 20” spread that would have made him a 200” typical 2 year old. I think they have quieted down on the 3 year old claim since then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We had a 2 1/2 y/o one year with 4 drop tines that would have grossed in the mid 150's. Went 198 when harvested as a 5 1/2

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

Here's probably the 2nd most famous "3.5" year old buck, the Rath from MN. Also no chance in Hades he was 3.5

265# field dressed is not a 3 year old deer even with large bodied northern genetics. Average dressed is going to be about 190-210 as a 3 year old for this area.

 

[Ben.MN/WI]

Unless a deer was easily identified as a fawn with a missing ear, odd coloration ,etc., I think it is almost impossible to give a definitive age for most wild deer. I think a lot of the bucks people think are superstar 2 and 3 year old bucks are actually much older, but with some body characteristics of a young deer.

I've sent in a lot of buck teeth for CA aging, and while that isn't perfect, it was eye opening how much older the bucks were than we thought. We had one come in younger than I expected - a 140" 8 pointer that was only a 3 year old while we had about 10 bucks that were older than we assumed. Plenty of the 110" bucks we thought were 2 or maybe 3 years old came in much older.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

The study BenA posted is interesting as I live in a region of the US with some of the poorest soil in the country. Sounds like the limiting factor in attaining body and antler mass in regions with poor soils is THE AMOUNT of forage, specifically native forbes, but not the ability of those native forbes to transfer the nutrients required for that mass.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Unless a deer was easily identified as a fawn with a missing ear, odd coloration ,etc., I think it is almost impossible to give a definitive age for most wild deer. I think a lot of the bucks people think are superstar 2 and 3 year old bucks are actually much older, but with some body characteristics of a young deer.

I've sent in a lot of buck teeth for CA aging, and while that isn't perfect, it was eye opening how much older the bucks were than we thought. We had one come in younger than I expected - a 140" 8 pointer that was only a 3 year old while we had about 10 bucks that were older than we assumed. Plenty of the 110" bucks we thought were 2 or maybe 3 years old came in much older.

Amen. I’d say less than 40% of time is the hunter right about the age after 2.5. Even CA is wrong a bunch that it can’t even be taken as gospel

 

[Baker]

My observation is that high level nutrition raises the quality of all age classes just as low level nutrition compromises all age classes. Both work generationally as well meaning you see a shift in the bell curve of all age classes affected by nutrition over time resulting from epigenetic response. Also and obviously, nutrition affects deer aging. Deer on a higher nutritional plane tend to live longer, have bigger bodies and can express higher quality for more years later in life.

Maturity--which differs a little with the different subspecies---allows for fullest genetic expression. The beauty of nutrition is that the window for fullest expression is longer with deer on a high nutritional plane. And if one is not in an environment where most deer reach full maturity for whatever reason nutrition still lets the younger classes be better,

 

[RGrizzzz]

I could of swore that I just saw a study recently the fertilizer did increase palatability, I don't think it necessarily was focused on better nutrition. Also better soils are going to produce more biomass in general. Which could be good or bad I guess depending on the size of your herd. Some level of browsing is good in terms of foliar quality. New growth on plants is more nutrition than mature vegetation (not talking about seed production).

Pass the Phosphorus

This blog doesn’t just write itself. So Duane and I are always looking for fun and interesting stuff to share. It’s not always easy especially after almost 10 years of posts! I asked Duane if he had any cool trail camera videos to give me some inspiration. Instead, I got a paper published in...

www.deer.psu.edu

 

[omicron1792]

His Louisiana place is fenced. I'm almost certain he's mentioned before the reason he fenced it was he couldn't grow big deer without it there. He had it unfenced for years, but it wasn't until the fence went up that he was able to grow bigger bucks.

I thought he fenced half of it and had like 1200 of unfenced there.

 

[BenA]

I thought he fenced half of it and had like 1200 of unfenced there.

No. He had 1350 and his neighbor had 1150. They fenced the entirety about 2009-10. For 40 years before that of owning and managing it, they rarely shot or even saw deer over 3.5. In over 30 years they never shot a 170 and only a couple 160s. After putting them in captivity, they started killing 190-200s. (Summarizing from what he has said in the past)

 

[omicron1792]

@Baker can you clarify? I was almost positive you had a low fenced area too.