Genetics vs Nutrition

[nyantler]

so, if genetics and nutrition are considered by many to have the biggest influences on growing big deer, is there really a point in imposing antler restrictions in an area that historically have neither? I'm assuming the nutrition would have to remain consistent throughout the year(s) and not change drastically from year to year. Take the Catskills for instance, after 3 years worth of AR's, all we're really seeing as far as legal bucks are ones that would probably get a pass in many other areas of NY that do offer those two things.....

What you tend to see with a more structured age class of bucks which some AR programs can give... (mainly because AR's usually come with higher doe harvest plan as well) is an increase is average body weight among the deer because of healthier herds and earlier born fawns. After a period of time where there is a GOOD management plan that includes the protection of younger bucks and ample population control you will get better nutrition (more available food) and allow for the breeding of potentially better blood lines. That's the science and it has been proven. Whether or not protection of young bucks is accompanied by the rest of a good management program is usually where the problem lies and will determine the success of the overall plan.

[NFA-ADK]

Good soil equals good deer.  Basically ths video states that if the deer has the best nutrition gained from great soil it can reach its maximum potential.  The only way to get that potential in your area is to make the soil great.  After a few generations of perfect soil your deer can reach the maximum wieght and antler size. 

 

How long can this take?  Will you ever get the soil right? 

 

The biggest deer I know of are in Western NY farm country with the best soil in the state.  Coincidence?  Others are in the other farm country in Suffolk.

 

The study is about genetics this is why deer from different regions where picked to show that genetics does not determine deer weight and rack size, food and environment (This includes soil.) is what will dictate how big his body and antlers will grow. 

 

Now I just need about 600-700 acres to plant food in and about another 3000 around it to "keep them in my area".  And a winning lotto ticket!  lol

 

 

 

 

[nyslowhand]

Sorry, but after watching the video (MSC study presentation) a 2nd time, I don't see where genetics had anything to do with the results. The MSC assumption was that deer from 3X different soil conditions, with differing wgt/rack sizes were actually genetically different. If you can force feed penned deer, originally from different soil conditions, over 3X generations and as a result have similar wgt/rack sizes between the sub-groups - How was genetics a factor in the original size variations over the 3X soil conditions? The study basically showed that you can make deer bigger by supplementing their nutrition. Alright, improving your soil conditions! Am I missing the genetics vs nutrition results Dr Grant Woods thought he saw in the study?

[nyantler]

Sorry, but after watching the video (MSC study presentation) a 2nd time, I don't see where genetics had anything to do with the results. The MSC assumption was that deer from 3X different soil conditions, with differing wgt/rack sizes were actually genetically different. If you can force feed penned deer, originally from different soil conditions, over 3X generations and as a result have similar wgt/rack sizes between the sub-groups - How was genetics a factor in the original size variations over the 3X soil conditions? The study basically showed that you can make deer bigger by supplementing their nutrition. Alright, improving your soil conditions! Am I missing the genetics vs nutrition results Dr Grant Woods thought he saw in the study?

The genetics may have been different in the study, yet still sufficient genetics in each group to produce a handsome antlered buck... a genetically poor bloodline or genetically mutated bloodline would not have had the same results... The term genetics is sometimes mistaken in its meaning... skewed either to mean extremely good genetic or extremely bad... the reality is that most wild bloodlines have ample genetic makeup to produce handsome bucks in a healthy habitat. Although, each bloodline might produce a different rack configuration and number of typical points... Bucks that are over supplemented in captivity usually produce very large non-typical configurations brought on by whatever Frankenstein nutritional concoction the deer farm is using to produce Ninja Mutant Whitetails even the bad genetics will produce huge mutant antlers.

[nyslowhand]

The genetics may have been different in the study, yet still sufficient genetics in each group to produce a handsome antlered buck...

Confused, are you saying the original (in the wild) 3X sub-groups were different genetically or pretty much similar? Will agree though, probably much larger variation in genetics of bucks in the wild, of similar ages than your basic good, normal or bad bloodlines/genetics.

 

Think a more telling result would have been derived if deer were captured from within the same soil condition area, pick one. Then separated (if possible) by genetics into sub-groups of good, normal, poor, force feed over 3 generations and the results recorded. Believe nutrition would have been shown as a typical % increase over all sub-groups. The good genetics group getting awesome, the normal becoming great and the poor bloodlines becoming more average. Yes, No?

 

So in the end, it isn't merely one or the other, nutrition or genetics. It's both or maybe can't have one w/o the other!

[G-Man]

If genetics was first then releasing a huge buck in the wild from a pen would result in huge racks in the wild,if a penned deer escapes it rack will diminish in size every year it lives in the wild assuming it was mature when it escaped,as stress of breeding, and lack of nutrition take its toll on its health. Though the genetic potential is passed on it does not appear due to nutrition defencies

[nyantler]

Confused, are you saying the original (in the wild) 3X sub-groups were different genetically or pretty much similar? Will agree though, probably much larger variation in genetics of bucks in the wild, of similar ages than your basic good, normal or bad bloodlines/genetics.

 

Think a more telling result would have been derived if deer were captured from within the same soil condition area, pick one. Then separated (if possible) by genetics into sub-groups of good, normal, poor, force feed over 3 generations and the results recorded. Believe nutrition would have been shown as a typical % increase over all sub-groups. The good genetics group getting awesome, the normal becoming great and the poor bloodlines becoming more average. Yes, No?

 

So in the end, it isn't merely one or the other, nutrition or genetics. It's both or maybe can't have one w/o the other!

I'm saying that the genetics may not have been so drastically different as to make a difference in the outcome of the study. I'm not sure that you can change the DNA of a bloodline with increased nutrition, better bloodlines will occur over time most likely as new bloodlines from younger more healthy bucks enter the area... My point earlier was just that... neither is better than the other because both must be present to produce superior bucks at maturity.

 

The other thing some forget is that you cant necessarily tell the genetics of a bloodline by one deer... there are many other factors that can change antler configuration and body size... one being an injury early on in a deer's life that may be mistaken for a bad trait in the bloodline later on. A better sample would be to watching for a trend that occurs among many deer. Plus, just because a deer never gets any more points than eight doesn't mean that he is genetically inferior to a buck that produces 10 points... the genetics are just different not good or bad. there are very few exceptional bloodlines be they great or very poor... most are very natural and healthy bloodlines just different and will produce very handsome mature animals... the Frankenstein deer seldom occurs in the wild

[NFA-ADK]

The point was that hunters believed different genetic are why some parts of the study area had small deer with small antlers and others where larger with good antlers and others where big and heavy deer with large thick and extra points on the antlers. 

 

Theory was the Mississippi bucks where genetically superior because the deer had traveled from up north along the river and that was why they where bigger.  This study had enough deer to show that genetics has nothing to do with size of rack or weight to a degree.  All the bucks captured had very large racks and equal weight by the 3rd generation.  This is where as nyantler stated genetic would determine size and shape of rack.  

 

This knowledge is why we have so many who cultivate the land.  If you can grow enough food with enough nutrition in it, well simply stated you will have a thriving environment with very healthy animals.  Something most non-hunters that have never seen this first hand would never understand how much labor is involved with 95% of the benefit going to the animals.  Probably where the term labor of love was invented. 

 

 

[nyslowhand]

Don't completely disagree with your opinion, just a couple of ideas you've stated seem to go against what I see. In the end, probably a case of what we're seeing, where we hunt. From what I recall, you hunt numerous & possibly differing areas/habitats..? Granted, you probably have a more "big picture" view of this than I do, where nutrition is an equalizer!!

 

For the record and as possibly an extreme example, I hunt an area where there isn't any supplemental or nutritional agr crops within 2-3 miles of my property. Soil conditions are, at best -  poor. Which in my tiny brain, seems to remove any nutritional equalizing factors in overall deer (buck) wgt &/or rack size from the equation. So what I tend to see are strictly the genetic rack configuration or variations being passed on from generation to generation. Whether it be perpetual taller or basket shaped racks, no brow tines or the never more than a big 6pt, Hard for me to justify nutritional variations as a factor when a phenomenal (rack) buck appears and what I'm assuming could be some of his offspring showing up in 2-3yrs. Just my micro-ecosystem view point! Skewed, certainly!

[NFA-ADK]

Consider this:  2-3 miies is really nothing for a big buck to travel looking for doe.  I understand your point of view but those unusual bucks might have been kicked out by a more dominant or bad tempered buck if you can believe that.  Sometimes just down the road has better deer due to agriculture or urban landscape and again soil is usually the reason. 

 

The other issue is some genes are passed on by the doe.  You could see a similar rack with no brow tines from all her offspring as a trait.  Or all the doe in the area could have a no brow tine as a trait.  Then the buck from 3 miles down the road comes to bread them and his brows are over 8 inches.  Yet her offspring still have no brow tines.  Until 2 more generations are breed with the bucks down the road.  Maybe?  Or the doe with the trait is remove?

 

One thing is for sure good soil with good nutrition equals healthy deer.  Large forest do not usually provide the food deer need to thrive.  As a hunter of public land you are right on the money for the most part.  Large heavy canopy woods are poor deer habitat.  The rack deformities I believe are from poor food quality and abundance plus genes will dictate shape unless injured.  No brow tines is a quality in a specific area and I would believe it is from the doe if consistently seen.  Just a theory...

 

 

[nyantler]

Don't completely disagree with your opinion, just a couple of ideas you've stated seem to go against what I see. In the end, probably a case of what we're seeing, where we hunt. From what I recall, you hunt numerous & possibly differing areas/habitats..? Granted, you probably have a more "big picture" view of this than I do, where nutrition is an equalizer!!

 

For the record and as possibly an extreme example, I hunt an area where there isn't any supplemental or nutritional agr crops within 2-3 miles of my property. Soil conditions are, at best -  poor. Which in my tiny brain, seems to remove any nutritional equalizing factors in overall deer (buck) wgt &/or rack size from the equation. So what I tend to see are strictly the genetic rack configuration or variations being passed on from generation to generation. Whether it be perpetual taller or basket shaped racks, no brow tines or the never more than a big 6pt, Hard for me to justify nutritional variations as a factor when a phenomenal (rack) buck appears and what I'm assuming could be some of his offspring showing up in 2-3yrs. Just my micro-ecosystem view point! Skewed, certainly!

 

The science is much different than anecdotal observation... what you see hunting could merely be the kind of luck you have or the small habitat you're observing. Sounds to me more like you're just seeing younger deer with underdeveloped racks... missing brow points isn't necessarily a poor bloodline.. nor is a big six necessarily a mature buck yet... he might be a young deer with a lot of potential... most hunters inability to identify or distinguish between a truly mature buck and a very healthy young buck is where most of the misconceptions

come from. My knowledge isn't opinion... or from just watching the deer while I hunt, it comes from studying whitetails and their biology for the last 25 years outside of hunting.

[thphm]

Interesting vid. how they got bigger bodies and antlers.But it was just a study. Never will happen here because it is illegal to feed deer in NYS. As NFA-ADK  stated the largest deer he has seen were from the western part of the state and long island,soil and what they are feeding on.I never hunted the western part of the state but there seems to be a steady supply of good size deer year to year in that area.Now on long island where I grew up there were many 100 + year old farms = good soil + left over crops which supplied good food + many stands of oak trees more food. I have seen racks from deer taken on L.I. with as many as 21 points , deer that have been gutted and weighing 250 + pounds and some close to 300pounds on the hoof with massive 10 -12 point antlers. In the Catskills I have seen and shot at ( missed under estimated the distance ) As well as 5 other people that missed for some reason a Massive 10 point and big bodied deer , well over 200 pounds and score close to 180.This deer bordered farm land , near NY-PA border. Another one in Schoharie county ( very fertile land) , 300 pounds on the hoof shot the day before opening day ,years ago. But these were not deer that you would see every day. And I do not think you would see them in the large area of heavy wooded land.In the group of us that hunted together one of the fellows had taken a deer that was 7-1/2 old the antlers were no larger the the 3 - 4 year old ones I have pictures of on my property , short and basket racks.

So is it food from good soil or who that deer was bred with.

[growalot]

All I know is what I see and What in over 20 years I have seen is a growth in both body and rack with the ever increasing farming...I also know illegal or not and I can't say legally for sure..but know all the same... guys around me are putting out minerals big time....But the biggest increase has come with the growth of soybean and alfalfa plantings by the big dairy farmers and the very large local crop farmer he does beans...peas ..beets...and grains which he always over seeds with clover. This use to be potato country but the crop farmers sold most of his potato equipment and now does these other crops and is big into rotational and cover cropping.

Edited August 6, 2015 by growalot

[dbHunterNY]

the problem with the study is that genetics were based on an unconfirmed common belief and never truly setup as a control.  in my mind they were an uncontrolled variable the whole time.

[NFA-ADK]

Sorry for writing a book!  Love this stuff!

the problem with the study is that genetics were based on an unconfirmed common belief and never truly setup as a control.  in my mind they were an uncontrolled variable the whole time.

 

Regardless of the exact genetics all buck by 3rd generation wieghed the same.  That to me says the food is the key factor in getting your deer to optimal wieght and health.  They where much smaller with smaller racks and by 3 generation all weighed the same.

 

Now in so far as antlers.  We could discuss it to no end if we wanted.

The way I look at it is this:  Each buck will have a genetic code for the antlers they grow.  (One part from Buck Dad and one part Mother Doe genes 50/50 roughly.)  As they grow to the healthiest and has the best food available that will give him the best antlers.  This age is usually anywhere from 4-8 with largest display of antlers in the 5.5-7.5 age groups. Throw injury, drought, parasites, disease, rut exhaustion and winter hardship into the equation of trying to get a healthy rack and its amazing any deer ever have a symmetrical set in the wild.

 

Will the deer in your woods grow to over 150+ inches in bone?  If the nutrients are available it is possible is what they are trying to say.  Will every area do this, no.  I agree with you dbHunterNY the genes in this study could be the same for 2 of the deer and one might be different.  Not the greatest control but the results show that if given the opportunity all deer with great food become exceptional deer in the eyes of most any hunter, regardless of exact rack configuration.  Think joe already said this.

 

Deer have one hell of a LIFE!!!  Think about if you actually had to survive in the woods as a young baby deer to your first birthday.  Ponder that for a second.  First thing you deal with is a swarm of parasites.  The ones from mom and the hatching spring black flies among others.  Then your chassed by a bear, coyote and even the fox tried to attack you!  (Thanking mom for all the life lessons.)  Any injury, sickness and or infestation of parasites can cause a deformity in your antlers!  If the food you are getting is just enough to survive, you rack will show the results of a hard life.  (Deer antlers get the nutrients last, the body comes first.)  Deformed antlers can be caused by many things but when consistently seen I would think it is not due to poor genes alone yet more to poor nutrients from the food they are eating along with other hardships and stress.  Or as Joe said the hunter is misjudging age and never giving the bucks in the area a chance to age.

 

Interesting topic I must say!

 

[nyslowhand]

the problem with the study is that genetics were based on an unconfirmed common belief and never truly setup as a control.  in my mind they were an uncontrolled variable the whole time.

Exactly what I was getting at! Which made the study solely based on nutrition. As we've read by the posts in this thread, it really is a nutrition &/or genetics issue. Not as the study tries to imply, one vs the other. I've softened my opinion while listening to others that may have a better "big picture" viewpoint. Good nutrition is the equalizer, overshadowing genetics to some degree or making it less obvious. Where nutrition is poor, better or variations in genetics will be more evident. The fine print - generally speaking or as a rule of thumb.

[dbHunterNY]

what I feel the study did prove is that nutrition is important and can have a big impact you can see second to age.  many already know this though.  think about it.  many people have bucks that are the same age on their property season after season yet some are bigger than others.  despite a specific deer will have a taste for food differently, bucks are eating relatively the same food as one another on a property.  all deer eat what's best for them given the chance.

 

we can't just throw out a pile of great foods here in NY year round to supplemental feed.  it takes ridiculous amounts of money AND sweat equity to put in a diversity of food plots to serve deer throughout the year as well as timberstand/habitat improvement to have the nutritional benefits seen in this study.  it is possible though unlike genetics.  genetics you really can't change, even with selective buck harvest and intensive doe harvest.  huge ranches under intensive trophy (not quality) deer management still only see the slightest changes in antler genetics of at least a decade or more.  that's where the "cull buck" term comes from that's not applicable to us less fortunate landowners and hunters.