The Role of Genetics & Nutrition - Study by Mississippi State

[bgleaton]

Here's an article published by Mississippi State about the role of genetics and nutrition:

https://extension.msstate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/publications/p3013.pdf

This is a very interesting article and back's everything up that elgato and others have said for a number of years about NUTRITION being the most important factor. It also shows that feeding protein and improving the natural habitat will not cause immediate results - it may take up a generation or two.

There are three take-home messages from this
research:
1) Stop worrying about genetics! Although genetics
do control body and antler growth of individuals,
they are not the cause of regional variation
in body and antler size. Besides that, our
other research has proved that genetics cannot
be managed in free-ranging populations.
2) Focus on nutrition. These results are empowering
because they show a clear link between
body and antler quality and nutrition, which is
something you can improve on your property.
Habitat management and supplemental food
plots will yield results.

Just wanted to pass this along.

[Deerguy]

It's a good article. However, while the bullet point does mention food plots, they go on the explain that controlling deer numbers and native habitat management are the key elements to increasing available nutrition.

[txwhitetail]

Ill stop worrying about genetics when genetics dont play a part in living organisms.

People that want to shoot 170s regularly dont look for low fence leases in Kerr county. Regional genetics play a huge role in what the realistic top end of your place can be.

I know you are talking more about manipulating genetics as it relates to management.

When working population control (and in turn habitat improvement) I will still take the smallest and least desirable of the buck age classes first to meet harvest goals.

[bgleaton]

I totally agree with you guys. Controlling deer numbers and native habitat are key elements. We will continue to remove the lesser quality bucks that are 3.5yrs and older just to help continue to keep the better quality bucks and keep the numbers below the lands carrying capacity. I just thought the whole thing about the doe sending signals to her fawn to not grow as large due to the poor environment was very interesting and how big the gains were after the second generation were 3yr olds.

[Deerguy]

When working population control (and in turn habitat improvement) I will still take the smallest and least desirable of the buck age classes first to meet harvest goals.

That's the smart way to do it. But, it doesn't necessarily alter the genetic capability of the deer herd, it just removes the deer that phenotypically will never meet a desired goal.

[txwhitetail]

I totally agree with you guys. Controlling deer numbers and native habitat are key elements. We will continue to remove the lesser quality bucks that are 3.5yrs and older just to help continue to keep the better quality bucks and keep the numbers below the lands carrying capacity. I just thought the whole thing about the doe sending signals to her fawn to not grow as large due to the poor environment was very interesting and how big the gains were after the second generation were 3yr olds.

That has been shown in livestock as well. As conditions improve over generations the size of our livestock increases. Just look at the sizes of horses and cows vs say 100 years ago.