Originally posted by bukkskin
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
is it Genetics or is it food ?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Darton View PostSo, we both agree that age is more important than genetics or food? I don't care if your prized buck is breeding goats! Without the age the genetics and diet do not matter!
But yes, the older they get the bigger they get, until a certain point, then they will decline just like you and I.
And he is not breeding goats for your information, he is breeding a ton of native sorry arzzed hill country does
Hehe
Btw, He is not my prized buck. Just a middle of the road deer that we turned out to improve my buddy's herd, and let him live since I bottleraised him.Last edited by bukkskin; 03-16-2018, 08:21 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darton View PostLol, so killing a deer with superior genetics and diet around the age of .5 to 4.5 years of age produces more results than taking them in there prime of 5.5 +?. Age is the difference, but in a deer pen I guess you can control all of the factors you believe to be important!
Comment
-
Originally posted by elgato View PostThese chicken and egg discussions are always fascinating. Of course it takes great genetics , age and nutrition to grow top end deer.To me the bigger question is are you getting the full potential out of the deer you have? I propose the answer is almost always no. I also propose that almost all herds have the potential to grow deer big enough to satisfy most with just age and nutrition.
Working with native home grown deer we are consistently growing 200"+ bucks essentially every year in two different countries using only age and nutrition { No dmp, ttt or any other 'manipulation'} . Maybe we hit the genetic lottery? Maybe our results aren't transferrable to all herds? Or maybe most herds in the country are simply on insufficient nutrition to realize their full genetic potential and have been for a long time! Its curious that here in La. we are growing bucks far larger than not only our neighborhood but the state at large. Why? Whats the difference? I can say with certainty that our deer are on a higher nutritional plane than any other herd in La. I am aware of. And have been for a long time. And of course we let deer mature.
I will agree it takes a little time { generally challenging in a fast food society } for the full impacts of nutrition to be realized but once established the benefits continue to accrue. I will also agree that genetics can be controlled in a pen environment to grow stupendous deer. In that respect the genetic question is unarguable. Another question remains though...can you work with the genetics available to you and grow deer that meet or exceed your expectations? For me the answer to that question is unarguably yes.
Have you ever been to the Texas Hill country, hunting deer?
If you ever come thru San Antonio and have an extra evening, you and your family have an open invite to share a steak with us at our place.
We can sit by the fence and observe my neighbors native herd.
It is pathetic, not at all the deer you started with in LA or Mexico.
I bet it would be an eye opener for you. Bunch of jackelopes!!!!
You too Darton, come see for yourself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bukkskin View PostRusty,
Have you ever been to the Texas Hill country, hunting deer?
If you ever come thru San Antonio and have an extra evening, you and your family have an open invite to share a steak with us at our place.
We can sit by the fence and observe my neighbors native herd.
It is pathetic, not at all the deer you started with in LA or Mexico.
I bet it would be an eye opener for you. Bunch of jackelopes!!!!
You too Darton, come see for yourself.
I have never hunted the hill country but I did live in Austin Westlake area for a couple years in the late 90's . Had deer hanging out in my yard and saw plenty of the hill country deer while tooling around the area.
I have a 'theory' about the hill country deer. Not being a scientist I am unencumbered with the scientific method so I can go out on a limb not always right but never in doubt. Memory suggests that one of the biggest bucks ever to come out of Texas came from Brady which I think? qualifies as hill country. This before modern management feeding etc. And he was a giant by even todays standards. What would other bucks from the area look like from that time frame?
So what happened to the hill country. My 'theory' proposes that years back the population in the area was much lower and quality was higher. The habitat was very conducive to whitetails and the population exploded.{ Were screw worms an issue in hill country?} With the population explosion habitat was destroyed, nutrition plummeted and the herd suffered. This has continued for a long long time. Only in a relatively recent few years have feeding etc been employed to try improving the herd. Population remains a problem in many areas and in that climate it takes a long long time for habitat to recover.
So what you have is the same reason deer in the FLa. Keys are small....not much quality food for the last good many generations. Hence body sizes shrink adapting to the environment. Much like historically many Asian populations of humans adapted to the environment by being smaller that their well fed coharts in more lush parts of the world.
Thus in a nutshell my 'theory' proposes the hill country deer are small because of gross overpopulation for decades, destroying the habitat, diminishing nutrition creating an epigenetic response to the environment by becoming smaller. This took time. And it will take a long time to recover even with supplemental feeding and crops. By the same token epigenetics can be used to improve genetic responses by elevating the nutritional plane over time. While challenged by habitat destruction but can still be accomplished though it takes generations. Again our fast food want it now society isn't usually patient for such a process. That doesn't mean its not real or that the genetic potential doesn't exist for the hill country to grow bucks comparative to other parts of the country. It simply means that it could take a long time to crawl out of the hole.
Thus back to the question of genetics...I contend that genetics are not static or permanently fixed. Rather, they can be improved ...or diminished...both in the short term somewhat and rather profoundly in the long term . There are numerous scientific studies verifying this.Last edited by elgato; 03-17-2018, 10:53 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by elgato View PostThanks for the invitation and I'll take you up on it should I be passing thru San Antonio.
I have never hunted the hill country but I did live in Austin Westlake area for a couple years in the late 90's . Had deer hanging out in my yard and saw plenty of the hill country deer while tooling around the area.
I have a 'theory' about the hill country deer. Not being a scientist I am unencumbered with the scientific method so I can go out on a limb not always right but never in doubt. Memory suggests that one of the biggest bucks ever to come out of Texas came from Brady which I think? qualifies as hill country. This before modern management feeding etc. And he was a giant by even todays standards. What would other bucks from the area look like from that time frame?
So what happened to the hill country. My 'theory' proposes that years back the population in the area was much lower and quality was higher. The habitat was very conducive to whitetails and the population exploded.{ Were screw worms an issue in hill country?} With the population explosion habitat was destroyed, nutrition plummeted and the herd suffered. This has continued for a long long time. Only in a relatively recent few years have feeding etc been employed to try improving the herd. Population remains a problem in many areas and in that climate it takes a long long time for habitat to recover.
So what you have is the same reason deer in the FLa. Keys are small....not much quality food for the last good many generations. Hence body sizes shrink adapting to the environment. Much like historically many Asian populations of humans adapted to the environment by being smaller that their well fed coharts in more lush parts of the world.
Thus in a nutshell my 'theory' proposes the hill country deer are small because of gross overpopulation for decades, destroying the habitat, diminishing nutrition creating an epigenetic response to the environment by becoming smaller. This took time. And it will take a long time to recover even with supplemental feeding and crops. By the same token epigenetics can be used to improve genetic responses by elevating the nutritional plane over time. While challenged by habitat destruction but can still be accomplished though it takes generations. Again our fast food want it now society isn't usually patient for such a process. That doesn't mean its not real or that the genetic potential doesn't exist for the hill country to grow bucks comparative to other parts of the country. It simply means that it could take a long time to crawl out of the hole.
Thus back to the question of genetics...I contend that genetics are not static or permanently fixed. Rather, they can be improved ...or diminished...both in the short term somewhat and rather profoundly in the long term . There are numerous scientific studies verifying this.
Plus, for generations the herd has been "shot down" from the top, genetically.
You have 2 bucks eating at a feeder. One is a 3 yr old 10 point and one is a 6 yr old 6 point.
Guess who got the bullet??
But, it seems like more and more people are trying to supplement and manage the deer for quality. So that is a good thing.
We shall see.
Thanks
Comment
-
Originally posted by bukkskin View PostI agree,
Plus, for generations the herd has been "shot down" from the top, genetically.
You have 2 bucks eating at a feeder. One is a 3 yr old 10 point and one is a 6 yr old 6 point.
Guess who got the bullet??
But, it seems like more and more people are trying to supplement and manage the deer for quality. So that is a good thing.
We shall see.
Thanks
Comment
-
Originally posted by Encinal View PostGenetics can’t be moved up or down with a rifle, especially in the situation you describe where young deer do most of the breeding.
The next biologist believed that every deer could be a trophy and stopped this. 7 years later most of our deer at 1.5 were either 4 or 6 pts. And there were spikes to be seen every hunt.
You are right that young deer (3.5) do most the breeding, so if you take the spikes out at 1.5 they do not breed.......you move the genetics.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Encinal View PostGenetics can’t be moved up or down with a rifle, especially in the situation you describe where young deer do most of the breeding.
So, let's take it to the extreme.
If the entire North American continent was managed the same way, And I mean every deer participated. None slipped thru the cracks.
For a thousand years(1,000), all bucks were reviewed at 2 yrs old. Anything with greater than 4 points was killed off. Anything with 4 or less points got to live and breed.
After the 1,000 was up. We let them all grow.
Your telling me that we would be in the same position, antlerwise, than if it was the opposite way on culling these 2 yr olds?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outbreaker View PostI was on an intensively managed lease. For 10 years spikes did not count toward buck quotas (I was there the last 2 years). At the end of that we never saw spikes and our 1.5yo deer were normally 8pts (baskets) and I did see one 12pt 1.5yo with a 6" spread and the tines were only about 1". The lease next to us shot a 4.5yo deer that grossed 180+, he looked 6.5 based on nose, body and hocks.
The next biologist believed that every deer could be a trophy and stopped this. 7 years later most of our deer at 1.5 were either 4 or 6 pts. And there were spikes to be seen every hunt.
You are right that young deer (3.5) do most the breeding, so if you take the spikes out at 1.5 they do not breed.......you move the genetics.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bukkskin View PostNot sure I could ever grasp that.
So, let's take it to the extreme.
If the entire North American continent was managed the same way, And I mean every deer participated. None slipped thru the cracks.
For a thousand years(1,000), all bucks were reviewed at 2 yrs old. Anything with greater than 4 points was killed off. Anything with 4 or less points got to live and breed.
After the 1,000 was up. We let them all grow.
Your telling me that we would be in the same position, antlerwise, than if it was the opposite way on culling these 2 yr olds?
For a thousand years all bucks were put in an impossible to achieve hypothetical situation where every buck was correctly selected and shot with a rifle consistently by 30 successive generations of hunters with no other changes to their environment or noise in the system.
Sounds doable... you get on that.
Comment
Comment