is it Genetics or is it food ?

[Encinal]

A lot of great points and I think you've been practicing to enter politics oneday.

Why do you say that? lol

[KingsX]

Why do you say that? lol

Lol.

[d_e_smith]

They are only approaching their genetic max potential. The plot of all those max potentials is the curve im talking about... it removes nutritional noise for the sake of argument.

Makes sense. And culling undesirables doesn't shift anything, it just highlights part of the curve.

[txwhitetail]

Our management buck harvest of 4.5 yr old and older bucks that meet our criteria (4.5 and older with 8 main frame points or less) has accounted for around 28-30% of our buck population of each age class as an average for 3 years. First year it was 39% and this past year it was around 24%. We use the cam pics and hunting/field sightings/surveys as are basis for the number of mature bucks on the ranch. Of course this program will take a few years to see any type results from the new offspring.

I really think you can definitely help your genetic pool by eliminating the bottom end of each age class year in and year out. In addition I really don't like feeding deer that wont ever reach our ranch goal of a mature buck. I really don't know of a better way to keep numbers in check along with any genetic improvement as a bonus than eliminating those bottom end deer of each "mature" age class.

[dragonsdaddy]

yes

[Killer]

Some of the best managment info i have ever read on this form! Great Information!! Enjoyed reading the differnt perspectives.

[Encinal]

Another couple of things on Bell Curves in General...

The bell curve is set up to "show" you what the "mean" deer is... that's the number that is always talked about... It generally lies somewhere between 115 and 140. This number means absolutely nothing to most people... who wants to push to grow 115" deer into 125" deer?

The number that matters is the right hand tail of the curve and where it lies... the area under the curve past your "goal" marker divided by the total area under the curve represents the percentage of deer you can expect out of your herd to surpass your goal score.

That's the real representation of success.. for example you are trying to "shift" the curve into throwing out 5 160"+ deer per 100 instead of 2... thats a number a landowner or lease manager can understand.

Another thing to consider is the inherent flaws of the measuring system used to make the curve... one number tells you nothing about the genetic traits of a deer herd... just the potential to reach a number of score...

In my way of thinking... it is much more valuable to split up the components of score and build a unique curve for each one. These would add up to the original curve... but their differences would help you begin to see the genetic profile of your particular region.

For example... My place in South Texas has a very above average incidence of long beams, with good mass and nearer to average tine length.

Deer in the hill country have weaker mass, VERY weak beams and average to above average tine lengths.

People that recognize ecoregion traits have known this for years... but its never been represented to my knowledge with statistical data...

[Razrbk89]

People that recognize ecoregion traits have known this for years... but its never been represented to my knowledge with statistical data...

I love to look at the difference in antler characteristics from place to place. Every time I'm at someone else's deer camp I make it a point to look at all their racks. More often than not, you'll be able to notice a common feature/s among many of them. It's so interesting to me that the next camp 2 miles down the river may have noticeably different antler characteristics.

I'm no professional biologist or manager, but for you guys with lots of knowledge about it, how big of a role does soil quality play? I'd have to guess that soil plays a huge part in a wild/non-supplemented deer's development potential because it directly influences the quality of browse available. In my personal experience, in the poor soil of the south Ar. pine woods, or in the rocky Ozarks, a 4.5 y.o. 125" buck is a pretty nice one. Meanwhile, many clubs in the richly soiled delta produce 4.5 y.o. 160" deer with regularity.

Im sure soil quality differs considerably from place to place in the different Eco-regions of Texas. I'd like to see how much that works into the equation.

[Capt.Bryan]

I'm no professional biologist or manager, but for you guys with lots of knowledge about it, how big of a role does soil quality play? I'd have to guess that soil plays a huge part in a wild/non-supplemented deer's development potential because it directly influences the quality of browse available. In my personal experience, in the poor soil of the south Ar. pine woods, or in the rocky Ozarks, a 4.5 y.o. 125" buck is a pretty nice one. Meanwhile, many clubs in the richly soiled delta produce 4.5 y.o. 160" deer with regularity.

Im sure soil quality differs considerably from place to place in the different Eco-regions of Texas. I'd like to see how much that works into the equation.

I would assume that the delta area has always been a heavy agricultural area producing rice, sorghum, soybeans, corn and wheat. So year after year that area has had nutrition that isn't available to other parts of the state. In turn it has curved their genetic potential. That is essentially what we are all trying to do with our food plots and supplemental feeding on a smaller scale.

The soils in Texas do vary greatly, for the longest the hill country with its rocky soil was only known for the high deer numbers but through management changes and supplemental feeding it produces some really nice deer now. South Texas with its rich red clay soils have always been known for their big deer, but you may have 1 hunter for every 500-1000 acres in some of the thickest brush that offers some of the highest native protein available in the state. East Texas is poor gumbo clay with big hardwood forests being mostly cut down and planted in pine trees except along the rivers and creeks where you can still find some decent hardwoods. Around where I live it used to be covered up with large farms of rice, soybeans and sorghum. But now the the farms are being sold to developers to build subdivisions and we have probably lost 80% of our local agriculture.

Other than Elgato and Encinal how many of you know what the potential is for native deer in the areas you are trying to manage? Most of us can tell you what the average deer we see is but what is the best deer seen or killed in your area? What are your realistic goals to produce from your property?

[deer farmer]

You don't have to travel to different regions of Texas to look @ different soils, Just come to m place and I can show you red clay based soil, sandy loam soil, and sand and compose soils with simi truck loads of compose. The food plots have been adjusted each season and I have just about fine tuned the plants to soil for what works in each spot. And I never claimed to be a farmer but I may have to trade up tractors to an air-conditioned tractor

[BrandonA]

You don't have to travel to different regions of Texas to look @ different soils, Just come to m place and I can show you red clay based soil, sandy loam soil, and sand and compose soils with simi truck loads of compose. The food plots have been adjusted each season and I have just about fine tuned the plants to soil for what works in each spot. And I never claimed to be a farmer but I may have to trade up tractors to an air-conditioned tractor

Thats kinda how are place is in Mills county.

[unclefish]

So my take away from all the good info on here is:

Those areas which are said to have bad genetics actually may just have bad nutrition (and/or soils) and that over time improving them can be done if you vastly improve nutrition.



You can certainly improve soils very easily too....just keep adding organic matter every year and till as little as possible.....if at all.

[BrandonA]

So my take away from all the good info on here is:

Those areas which are said to have bad genetics actually may just have bad nutrition (and/or soils) and that over time improving them can be done if you vastly improve nutrition.



You can certainly improve soils very easily too....just keep adding organic matter every year and till as little as possible.....if at all.

That is my take as well. I also think that habitat improvement and nutrition is the quickest way to improve your deer herd. Along with population management.

[BrandonA]

Will also ad this has been a great thread. Thanks for starting it.

[IbeHuntn]

Great read and lots of great info. now my 2 cents . It takes all three for a buck to make his full potential. if you take away just one the buck will not reach his full potential. poor nutrition, crappy genetics or just not letting a buck mature. however potential varies by location.