is it Genetics or is it food ?

[deer farmer]

I've seen 5 bucks with the smallest being a nice 8 on one of the plots and around 10 does on the food plots @ 1 time. I only have about 15 acres of plots and about 4 acres is the biggest, it is all Duranna clover. So I do not expect to see large numbers on these size food plots. But I love setting up on the hill and watching the fawns, does and buck groups in the food plots. like UF, I have one food plot where no matter what I plant, they will come, 365 days a yr. And I think it is the Food first, Genetics second and age last on the list of growing bigger deer and bigger racks.

[Encinal]

So the thread doesn't die, I'll ask a question to everyone on here.....

How many deer have you seen at 1 time in a plot you planted?

140ish

[Roscoe]

Had 54 hogs on it about 3 months ago.

I feel your pain. Lol

I feed a lot of hogs every year. For whatever reason they don't root my plots up, they just graze. I'm thankful for that at least.

[Capt.Bryan]

Could you achieve what you have done on your place on a Florida ranch with same results or would genetics become a factor?

With a high fence I would not doubt it could be done. Florida is not known for a trophy deer state, but one thing I'd do know about Florida is it must have a high deer population since their hunting season is nearly 100 days long and you are allowed 2 bucks per day. With hunters being allowed 2 deer per day then I would be quick to assume deer do not reach 6 plus years of age.

I think alot of people start off with the wrong appoach to growing deer. If you are in an area where native deer in the wild with no supplemental feeding at maturity reach 115", some people believe hey I can throw up a high fence and feed them better and in 5 years I will have 200" deer. That is not the case at all. You need to set realistic goals first. Can I take those 115" deer and in 5 years have 140" deer yes, you may even have a few deer that are extrordinary reach 150. Now if you go out and shoot those 140-150 inch deer you have just eliminated your best genetics. Cull out more does and the lesser bucks that do not have what you desire and raise your standards. And go another 6- 8 years and you should start seeing even more improvements.

Several years ago I talked to Gary Swartz about his Tecomate lablab and he explained to me pretty much what Elgato preaches. Star county was not known for its trophy deer, so he bought 1000 acres that was in the middle of a 8000 acre high fenced ranch and started his experiment with nutrition and age. His goal was to produce 160 inch deer consistently.
He gave his experiment 6 years and noticed that in 5 years he reach his goal and even surpassed it with some deer. So he kept raising his standards and noticed that bucks would continue to get bigger through 8 years of age.with proper nutrition. If you have ever seen any of the hunts on his or David Morris' ranch they don't shoot them until they reach 7.5 plus years old and they hardly ever have more does in a sendero than bucks. Too many does create too much competition for food. Now it's been 20+ years and they have several 200" deer every year but remember that was not his original goal.

A true native deer management plan may take 15-20 years before you start seeing their true potential.

[Razrbk89]

So the thread doesn't die, I'll ask a question to everyone on here.....

How many deer have you seen at 1 time in a plot you planted?

On a farm I used to hunt up here on White River it wasn't unusual to see 80-90 deer in the wheat field/plots later in the season or when the river was up. Did a doe shoot down there two years ago in February after a snow and counted 13 legal bucks and 64 does in one of those wheat patches. At our deer camp I hardly ever see more than 20 in the plots, they're just not as concentrated.

[unclefish]

I feel your pain. Lol

I feed a lot of hogs every year. For whatever reason they don't root my plots up, they just graze. I'm thankful for that at least.

They don't root mine either for some reason.....got them trained lol.

[d_e_smith]

They don't root mine either for some reason.....got them trained lol.

Mine are trained as well until Spring hits..if temps dip in a hurry in the evenings there's a really good chance a deer hunt will get ruined and WWIII breaks out.

[EastTexun]

I followed the thread on QDMA that Unclefish referred to a few days ago and learned quite a bit from it. My takeaway from that article, along with others that have been posted here and on other sites, is that genetics can be significantly affected by forage availability(soil characteristics) in terms of "turning on" or "turning off" certain genetic traits as food sources become more or less available. So, the argument could be turned on itself similar to the chicken or the egg argument. El Gato's experience provides the support that above normal nutrition and forage availability allows those previously suppressed genetic traits to express themselves over time, solely due to less environmental stress. Or, look at Kansas, Illinois, etc where the deer grow to massive proportions. Those "genetics" are bought and sold, but it could be argued that the reason that genes exist is because those deer have been raised for generations on a nutritional plane far and above those of the Texas hill country. In my opinion, and I am a few days late on this, the food does have a significant effect on the long-term genetics of the deer herd. Age and proper nutrition in the short run work to properly express those genetics that longer term herd and forage management allowed to become "normal".

[KingsX]

With a high fence I would not doubt it could be done. Florida is not known for a trophy deer state, but one thing I'd do know about Florida is it must have a high deer population since their hunting season is nearly 100 days long and you are allowed 2 bucks per day. With hunters being allowed 2 deer per day then I would be quick to assume deer do not reach 6 plus years of age.

I think alot of people start off with the wrong appoach to growing deer. If you are in an area where native deer in the wild with no supplemental feeding at maturity reach 115", some people believe hey I can throw up a high fence and feed them better and in 5 years I will have 200" deer. That is not the case at all. You need to set realistic goals first. Can I take those 115" deer and in 5 years have 140" deer yes, you may even have a few deer that are extrordinary reach 150. Now if you go out and shoot those 140-150 inch deer you have just eliminated your best genetics. Cull out more does and the lesser bucks that do not have what you desire and raise your standards. And go another 6- 8 years and you should start seeing even more improvements.

Several years ago I talked to Gary Swartz about his Tecomate lablab and he explained to me pretty much what Elgato preaches. Star county was not known for its trophy deer, so he bought 1000 acres that was in the middle of a 8000 acre high fenced ranch and started his experiment with nutrition and age. His goal was to produce 160 inch deer consistently.
He gave his experiment 6 years and noticed that in 5 years he reach his goal and even surpassed it with some deer. So he kept raising his standards and noticed that bucks would continue to get bigger through 8 years of age.with proper nutrition. If you have ever seen any of the hunts on his or David Morris' ranch they don't shoot them until they reach 7.5 plus years old and they hardly ever have more does in a sendero than bucks. Too many does create too much competition for food. Now it's been 20+ years and they have several 200" deer every year but remember that was not his original goal.

A true native deer management plan may take 15-20 years before you start seeing their true potential.

Again I think I'm being misunderstood. I was referring to doing what he did before he highfenced the place producing a 190" class buck but do it in Florida
Just pointing out genetics play an important if not the most important role in the systems weather it's lying dormant in the deer you currently have,it is there already in my opinion as the most important ingredient to being able to move a bell curve.
FTR I respect Elgato and what he has done and others on here who have done similar lifelong dedicated work to learn more about whitetail deer. The man upstairs gave us an awesome playground on earth to play around in and nomatter what you attribute your successes to I've always enjoyed the different ways to learn and progress in this whitetail game. Crazy fun and addicting isn't it!

[Encinal]

Again I think I'm being misunderstood. I was referring to doing what he did before he highfenced the place producing a 190" class buck but do it in Florida
Just pointing out genetics play an important if not the most important role in the systems weather it's lying dormant in the deer you currently have,it is there already in my opinion as the most important ingredient to being able to move a bell curve.
FTR I respect Elgato and what he has done and others on here who have done similar lifelong dedicated work to learn more about whitetail deer. The man upstairs gave us an awesome playground on earth to play around in and nomatter what you attribute your successes to I've always enjoyed the different ways to learn and progress in this whitetail game. Crazy fun and addicting isn't it!

People are going to think I'm wrong about this... but here goes.

Genetic baseline bell curves don't move unless you start selecting who breeds who... basically... selecting a section of the bell curve to breed and reproduce... creating a new shifted curve.

The genetic curve isn't the curve that the score of the deer in a herd fall in ... it is what deer in a herd have the potential to score. Your deer herd can only APPROACH the genetic potential Curve... it is the upper limit.

On native places... this curve is never quantifiably shifted with selective harvest on a herd wide basis... people say they have shifted it with a rifle... but there is so much noise from nutrition and age which is usually improved at the same time selective harvest is being done... that it can be attributed to those rather than genetic improvement.

Even those in the know who swear up and down that they CAN shift it... are talking about shifts in margin of error quantities... even if you could take nutrition out of the equation.

How much of the "success" that we attribute to selective harvest is really the product of the Vogt Effect?

I started thinking the extremes you would have to go to to manage for genetics in the pasture... The only thing I could think to do would be to run the buck population through bottlenecks in population... killing 90% of them at a time and letting the top 10% breed... but to what end? That type of program would be unhuntable... Sure... it would be scientifically interesting for the guy running the experiment... but what about enjoyment of the rest of the recreational hunters on the property? Revenue? etc?

I stopped worrying about genetics a long time ago... if you are in a closed system, it just doesn't matter.

[Artos]

I'm scratching my head a little bit here Marco...how much importance do you throw towards culling or is the carry capacity / numbers game more of a priority??

The last part kinda sent me off down a dirt road.

[Encinal]

I'm scratching my head a little bit here Marco...how much importance do you throw towards culling or is the carry capacity / numbers game more of a priority??

The last part kinda sent me off down a dirt road.

Carrying capacity for me... which is a COMBINATION... of habitat use and feed consumption.

Both are considered... feed bill gets a little too high... deer numbers get looked at...

I'd rather feed less deer than feed less per deer. Habitat same way... I'd rather 1 deer be on an acre of good habitat... than 2 deer be on an acre of bad habitat.

[elgato]

Interesting and we agree totally that shifts don't happen with a rifle. As I've said before I believe when you cull all you've done is remove a mouth. I also agree with your comments on carrying capacity . Because of the feed bill I'm going to reduce our La. herd some this year.

I'm curious about your comments above regarding the bell curve. Do you believe nutrition can shift the curve which is part of my understanding from the Vogt. research, Stedmans epigenetic talk etc or do you believe that we are simply moving towards some overriding fixed peak. All theoretical I suppose but interesting to consider.

[KingsX]

People are going to think I'm wrong about this... but here goes.

Genetic baseline bell curves don't move unless you start selecting who breeds who... basically... selecting a section of the bell curve to breed and reproduce... creating a new shifted curve.

The genetic curve isn't the curve that the score of the deer in a herd fall in ... it is what deer in a herd have the potential to score. Your deer herd can only APPROACH the genetic potential Curve... it is the upper limit.

On native places... this curve is never quantifiably shifted with selective harvest on a herd wide basis... people say they have shifted it with a rifle... but there is so much noise from nutrition and age which is usually improved at the same time selective harvest is being done... that it can be attributed to those rather than genetic improvement.

Even those in the know who swear up and down that they CAN shift it... are talking about shifts in margin of error quantities... even if you could take nutrition out of the equation.

How much of the "success" that we attribute to selective harvest is really the product of the Vogt Effect?

I started thinking the extremes you would have to go to to manage for genetics in the pasture... The only thing I could think to do would be to run the buck population through bottlenecks in population... killing 90% of them at a time and letting the top 10% breed... but to what end? That type of program would be unhuntable... Sure... it would be scientifically interesting for the guy running the experiment... but what about enjoyment of the rest of the recreational hunters on the property? Revenue? etc?

I stopped worrying about genetics a long time ago... if you are in a closed system, it just doesn't matter.

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

[Encinal]

Interesting and we agree totally that shifts don't happen with a rifle. As I've said before I believe when you cull all you've done is remove a mouth. I also agree with your comments on carrying capacity . Because of the feed bill I'm going to reduce our La. herd some this year.

I'm curious about your comments above regarding the bell curve. Do you believe nutrition can shift the curve which is part of my understanding from the Vogt. research, Stedmans epigenetic talk etc or do you believe that we are simply moving towards some overriding fixed peak. All theoretical I suppose but interesting to consider.

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.