The Lone Key to Big Bucks?

[SD51555]

The Growing Deer TV folks put up a very interesting video today discussing the correlation between soil and buck quality. The gist of it is that areas with high quality soils consistently produce bigger bucks than areas of poor soil quality. I've been pondering this a lot lately when thinking about mineral supplements and soil amendments. Most cases, what we're adding to our soil is the same stuff that's in a mineral blend, or additions that free up the ability of the soil to move those nutrients into a plant.

Seems like running nutrients into a plant first and then into deer would work more effectively than putting it on a pile. Could it be as simple as getting the soil right and then planting the right plants that deer crave and which are also conduits for high nutrient uptake like soybeans?

http://www.growingdeer.tv/#/whitetail-antlers-and-genetics-fact-or-fiction

 

[wiscwhip]

Could it be as simple as getting the soil right and then planting the right plants that deer crave and which are also conduits for high nutrient uptake like soybeans?

Not quite, you still can't shoot them when they are 2.5 years old. The key is to let them walk. They will find the nutrients they need to grow antlers in most cases. Can quality dirt that produces quality food help? Sure, look at how many bucks come from the fertile farming areas of the country. Then one can also look at how many great bucks came from the far Northwoods regions of MN and WI back in the days when those bucks could live to be 5 or 6 years old, lots of really impressive deer in those cases as well and the dirt and food was average at best.

 

[bwoods11]

Age is the second big key!

 

[j-bird]

Just keep in mind - this goes WAY beyond our plots. The natural soil fertility in your area affects everything the deer eats, good or bad.

 

[wiscwhip]

No matter how subjective that timeframe is, time is the common denominator in producing large, mature deer, whatever the antler size may or may not end up being. You can produce a huge set of antlers on a 2.5 yo deer, it is done behind the fence all the time. That doesn't mean that deer is mature or at his peak antler development, that can only be achieved through age.

 

[bat man]

I think it boils down to deer per hunter. Supply and demand creates age. You need lots of bucks per hunter to get that age. Or a really tall fence.

 

[West Branch]

I see it with the bucks that I have seen shot by people around where Wright, Mcleod, and Meeker counties meet. Good soils and farmland with a lot of corn and soybeans, but not many deer. But I know some guys that hunt a wooded area of ~50 acres next to some swamps and fields and shoot at least one buck a year and I think they shot 3 in 2013. They say "bucks don't grow any bigger around here" and they are all yearlings with 7-8 point racks with brow tines :eek:. I think they have shot 6 yearling bucks in 2012-2014.

Don't get me wrong, they can shoot whatever they are happy with, but from conversations it appears they WANT to shoot bigger bucks. They just don't have any :rolleyes:.

 

[bat man]

We have lost 10% of our hunters and have 50% fewer bucks. P&Y and B&C records show what happens. 2 bad winters sure played a part in antler growth compounding the fact, but B&C records are down over 75% in a decade.

 

[sandbur]

Those of you who have visited the Sandbox know that I am surrounded by ag land. Many farmers are using soil consultants and they watch trace minerals/pH on these lighter soils. We can grow some pretty decent bucks on these soils, probably better than in the past when less monitoring of the soils was done.

We need higher deer numbers to generate more buck fawns. And hopefully keep some cover left in this area.

Chris-I like to look through the pictures of bucks in Outdoor News and guess if they are from farm country or big woods. Tine length will get me over 80% accuracy. Big woods bucks have some beautiful old gnarly racks but often lack tine length if one is into scores.

 

[Jeff23]

If you talk about growing big bucks, the three requirements are so intertwined I don't believe you can put one factor much higher than the others. You need age, genetics and nutrition, in no particular order. You can have one of the three and still get a decent buck, two of the three and get a good one, but it takes all three to get a great one. The thing about amending soil to affect the nutritional opportunities for the deer is that it's more difficult to do with a large portion of their diets: browse.

 

[sandbur]

If you talk about growing big bucks, the three requirements are so intertwined I don't believe you can put one factor much higher than the others. You need age, genetics and nutrition, in no particular order. You can have one of the three and still get a decent buck, two of the three and get a good one, but it takes all three to get a great one. The thing about amending soil to affect the nutritional opportunities for the deer is that it's more difficult to do with a large portion of their diets: browse.

I read a quote from a Texas ranch owner. In wild hers, he feels you need plenty of does so lots of buck fawns are put on the ground. Genetics are a grab bag in wild herds (or the very large fenced properties in Texas). His point was that only a small per centage of those buck fawns have genetic potential for trophies. 100 buck fawns in an area quadruple your chances of a great buck over an area with only 25 buck fawns.

In much of Minnesota, we just need more deer. Most of us would be happy with any mature deer, regardless of point score.

 

[Jeff23]

I read a quote from a Texas ranch owner. In wild hers, he feels you need plenty of does so lots of buck fawns are put on the ground. Genetics are a grab bag in wild herds (or the very large fenced properties in Texas). His point was that only a small per centage of those buck fawns have genetic potential for trophies. 100 buck fawns in an area quadruple your chances of a great buck over an area with only 25 buck fawns.

In much of Minnesota, we just need more deer. Most of us would be happy with any mature deer, regardless of point score.

I agree with much of that, so long as the number of deer doesn't have a negative effect on nutrition, which would result in robbing Peter to pay Paul. Someone once told me (and I have no idea if it's supportable or true) that the average mature whitetail buck will score approximately 150". So, depending on your qualifications for "trophy", and assuming that statement is true, all the nutrition and age in the world won't result in a trophy buck with around half the bucks.
I feel for you guys in MN. We have dealt with some of the same things in PA, but there are many differences between the two states so I'm not sure I have a firm grasp on the subtleties of your situation. I will say that, for the future of hunting in MN, I hope your population increases and SOON. The loss of hunters is a much more daunting specter to our way of life than anything improved by miniscule deer populations.

 

[sandbur]

I agree with much of that, so long as the number of deer doesn't have a negative effect on nutrition, which would result in robbing Peter to pay Paul. Someone once told me (and I have no idea if it's supportable or true) that the average mature whitetail buck will score approximately 150". So, depending on your qualifications for "trophy", and assuming that statement is true, all the nutrition and age in the world won't result in a trophy buck with around half the bucks.
I feel for you guys in MN. We have dealt with some of the same things in PA, but there are many differences between the two states so I'm not sure I have a firm grasp on the subtleties of your situation. I will say that, for the future of hunting in MN, I hope your population increases and SOON. The loss of hunters is a much more daunting specter to our way of life than anything improved by miniscule deer populations.

The guy from Texas had put in protein feeders.

I agree with the nutrition if deer numbers get too high. Our numbers are far below that point.

 

[dipper]

The key to mature bucks?
Answer: avoid Minnesota, except the place I hunt, it's loaded. I didn't hunt there last year, but they shot 2 150 class studs. I got a 146 the year before. Must be better soil than the guys on here
:cool::):D;)

 

[SD51555]

The key to mature bucks?
Answer: avoid Minnesota, except the place I hunt, it's loaded. I didn't hunt there last year, but they shot 2 150 class studs. I got a 146 the year before. Must be better soil than the guys on here
:cool::):D;)

You got the Midas touch man.

 

[dipper]

Way too many up tight haters, just trying to loosen things up a little. Things are too serious around here.....

 

[sandbur]

Way too many up tight haters, just trying to loosen things up a little. Things are too serious around here.....

It isn't going over real well, dipper.

 

[MoLandOwner]

^^^good point guys. Time is a bit subjective...on my old place I really needed 3.5 years for a buck to approach/surpass 125". Here, it appears I need at least 4.5 years. I'd guess in some areas of MO and IL that bucks could approach that measure in 2.5 years. On my folks' old place...most bucks likely would have required 5.5 years to get there, and even then I doubt most would given the overall poor nutrition/low level of minerals in the soil.

Yep!