AG bucks VS Browse bucks

[Bedbug]

This is spot on. Largest factor is subsoil pH balance and mineral content both grown into natural browse/crops and direct intake by the deer. The genetics are a result of evolution to their surrounding soil content.

In areas of very poor soul quality like big woods there's just not enough minerals available to convert plant matter into proteins that supply big antler growth no matter what there food source is. They've evolved to adapt to that.
Sorry for the long post

I guess I don't really see it this way, are you trying to say that the genetics adapt to the soil in the areas they live? Can you explain more on this? I'm not saying they aren't adaptable to their surroundings, I just see vastly different genetics in the same area with the same soil content, that seems to hold true of all areas. We have talked about before how on Bill Winke's farm he grows 200 inches and 130 inch 5 year old bucks, same farm, same area, same soil. The only difference is the genetics, not the soil. I guess I don't see bigwoods deer and farmland deer with vastly different genetics, especially if you compare NW MN deer to NE MN deer, no doubt they are adaptable but one just has access to better food at a younger age. The bigwoods has alwasy and continues to produce some huge deer, I hunt near the canadian border in NE MN and while these huge antlered bucks are rare I know of plenty of huge bucks & booners shot over the years even with the so called poor soil, the way you are wording it is these deer don't get that big when many of them do.

What I often see is deer catch up and still grow huge racks once they hit an older age class, they probably give up some inches to their better fed farmland bucks but you would really need a cloned deer living in these areas to see how they turned out to know for sure. There are also those deer that just have "IT" when it comes to genetics, bigwoods 1.5 year old 8 pointers are rare but I do see them from time to time. Same goes for big racked 2 and 3 year olds in the bigwoods, rare again but they are out there. Generally speaking the better deer numbers you have you start to see more of this genetic diversity. There is no denying the food can make a big difference but if it was the key to everything we wouldn't see these huge deer in the bigwoods.

Yeah I'm sorry the way I worded the big woods example was kinda blunt. I'm not much of a writer. When you say you often see deer catch up at a mature age class that's the direct impact of the food there environment is able to produce during growth. bone development takes priority over available nutrients. From the time the fawns in the womb until there done growing. "Big burner" gave a good explanation of this earlier in the thread.

The genetics do adapt to the soil though. Without going on a long tangent. The deers environment shapes the natural selection from the gene pool and the soil is the base of their environment. Northern MN is a good example The big woods bucks of NE MN have evolved around harsh winters, low food availability, and low densities producing noticeably different genetics than those of the sediment rich NW MN.
I hope I'm not coming off as some know it all trying to sound important. Just hoping to contribute to the rest of the helpful info on this thread.

[headgear]

Yep completely understand they put their nutrition into their body growth first. I just don't see the correlation between soil and genetics, not saying I have all the answers either and totally agree about deer adapting to their environment and genetics playing a roll there but I seem to be missing a big piece of information how the soil change genetics or the other way around, or maybe I am reading it all wrong. If all things being equal, say Winke's farm or a bigwoods area what separates a 130 inch 5 year old from a 180 inch 5 year old on the same land other than vastly different genetics? I know for fact these deer exist in both of these areas so I see it more like big racked deer have different genetics than your smaller racked mature deer all eating the same food on the same soil. The soil doesn't seem like the key ingredient in these cases, just big racked genetics being passed down from deer to another.

Maybe there is a misconception about food in the bigwoods too, there is abundant food in the bigwoods, much more than people realize. No doubt the nutrition is not a rich as farm country deer but I don't think it is as poor as people think either otherwise these huge bigwoods deer wouldn't exist either.

[stash59]

Yep completely understand they put their nutrition into their body growth first. I just don't see the correlation between soil and genetics, not saying I have all the answers either and totally agree about deer adapting to their environment and genetics playing a roll there but I seem to be missing a big piece of information how the soil change genetics or the other way around, or maybe I am reading it all wrong. If all things being equal, say Winke's farm or a bigwoods area what separates a 130 inch 5 year old from a 180 inch 5 year old on the same land other than vastly different genetics? I know for fact these deer exist in both of these areas so I see it more like big racked deer have different genetics than your smaller racked mature deer all eating the same food on the same soil. The soil doesn't seem like the key ingredient in these cases, just big racked genetics being passed down from deer to another.

Maybe there is a misconception about food in the bigwoods too, there is abundant food in the bigwoods, much more than people realize. No doubt the nutrition is not a rich as farm country deer but I don't think it is as poor as people think either otherwise these huge bigwoods deer wouldn't exist either.

I believe at the onset the poorer soil affects the deer herds body size. Which later translates to antler size. As a herd in general.

I also read somewhere that over population of an area affects the genetics for body size. Which then affects antler size. The study said that genetics for smaller bodies won out because smaller bodies require less food intake.

Headgear I believe in the far north like the bigwoods of Minnesota. Weather can play a huge factor in both body and antler size. A buck conceived before an extremely tough winter. May never catch up to it's cousin born even a few miles away. Where conditions may not have been as bad or better food was available. Figure in a tough year the year before and it's mother would be overstressed already. Especially if the summers were dry. So any fawns would be behind schedual.

But yes all things being equal. Bucks born the same year and same area. One's a less than average 7 point. The other an exceptional 10. It's all genetics that cause the difference.

Northern bigwoods is also affected by amount of food available. Old growth mature forests are poor deer habitat. No matter the soil condition. Look at the B&C records. Many northwoods entries occurred after the heyday of the logging of the virgin timber. Which opened up thousands of square miles of habitat. That provided tons of rich easily accessible deer foods.

This can be seen on smaller scales today. Larger logged over areas can get some dandies in an area that had none before. As long as pressure isn't to bad.

[Steve Heiting]

From the myriad of places I've hunted, I think the four factors that influence antler size, in order of importance, are soil, food, age and genetics.

I have hunted sandy soil regions as well as those with heavy clay, and the body/skeletal/antler difference can be stunning. I've shot 4.5 YO bucks in sand country that gross-scored 115-130, and even the thickness of their skulls compared to bucks from clay soil regions is less. My heaviest sand soil buck was a 4.5 YO pre-rut that field-dressed at 189 pounds, while all of my 200-pound plus bucks came from areas with clay soil.

The food factor goes beyond farm fields vs. browse. Quality and abundance of the food matters. We saw this in eastern Montana this year where they experienced heavy drought through the summer. Four of us shot four bucks, all of which had thin antlers, and all the bucks we saw that we didn't kill seemed to have thin antlers. When we butchered our bucks we found zero fat, even though it was the onset of the rut. I hope they don't have a bad winter out there this year because deer losses could be a problem.

[headgear]

I believe at the onset the poorer soil affects the deer herds body size. Which later translates to antler size. As a herd in general.

Very true but is the soil quality over stated? Bigwoods bucks seem to prove that to some extent, not saying it doesn't make a difference but is the difference smaller than people think? You also have Bergmann's rule which says the further north an animal lives the larger body size they need to make it through the winter. Moose and Caribou do just fine in seemingly "poor" soil conditions and grow a ton of bone.

I also read somewhere that over population of an area affects the genetics for body size. Which then affects antler size. The study said that genetics for smaller bodies won out because smaller bodies require less food intake.

Very mush agree here, over population will lead to poor overall health and lack of food, over a longer time period I'm sure the deer would get smaller.

Headgear I believe in the far north like the bigwoods of Minnesota. Weather can play a huge factor in both body and antler size. A buck conceived before an extremely tough winter. May never catch up to it's cousin born even a few miles away. Where conditions may not have been as bad or better food was available. Figure in a tough year the year before and it's mother would be overstressed already. Especially if the summers were dry. So any fawns would be behind schedual.

Completely agree, I can see it every year with the bucks we shoot. Mild winters = longer tines and healther deer. Hard winters = stunted racks, tines and bodies.

But yes all things being equal. Bucks born the same year and same area. One's a less than average 7 point. The other an exceptional 10. It's all genetics that cause the difference.

Northern bigwoods is also affected by amount of food available. Old growth mature forests are poor deer habitat. No matter the soil condition. Look at the B&C records. Many northwoods entries occurred after the heyday of the logging of the virgin timber. Which opened up thousands of square miles of habitat. That provided tons of rich easily accessible deer foods.

This can be seen on smaller scales today. Larger logged over areas can get some dandies in an area that had none before. As long as pressure isn't to bad.

No arguments on any of these, it could be we are in complete agreement but just having a slight misunderstanding based on a few words here and there.

[headgear]

From the myriad of places I've hunted, I think the four factors that influence antler size, in order of importance, are soil, food, age and genetics.

I don't know that we can put an importance or order on them because take one away and everything else can suffer.

I have hunted sandy soil regions as well as those with heavy clay, and the body/skeletal/antler difference can be stunning. I've shot 4.5 YO bucks in sand country that gross-scored 115-130, and even the thickness of their skulls compared to bucks from clay soil regions is less. My heaviest sand soil buck was a 4.5 YO pre-rut that field-dressed at 189 pounds, while all of my 200-pound plus bucks came from areas with clay soil.

But even then I bet these sames poor soil regions have produced some huge deer, one or two samples from one person might not be enough data to make any conclusive evidence. Kind of like people, they seem to come in all shapes and sizes.

The food factor goes beyond farm fields vs. browse. Quality and abundance of the food matters. We saw this in eastern Montana this year where they experienced heavy drought through the summer. Four of us shot four bucks, all of which had thin antlers, and all the bucks we saw that we didn't kill seemed to have thin antlers. When we butchered our bucks we found zero fat, even though it was the onset of the rut. I hope they don't have a bad winter out there this year because deer losses could be a problem.

Agreed, you will also see better racks whe we get a lot of rain in the summer, just that extra plant grow & added nutrition.

[stash59]

I believe at the onset the poorer soil affects the deer herds body size. Which later translates to antler size. As a herd in general.

Very true but is the soil quality over stated? Bigwoods bucks seem to prove that to some extent, not saying it doesn't make a difference but is the difference smaller than people think? You also have Bergmann's rule which says the further north an animal lives the larger body size they need to make it through the winter. Moose and Caribou do just fine in seemingly "poor" soil conditions and grow a ton of bone.

I also read somewhere that over population of an area affects the genetics for body size. Which then affects antler size. The study said that genetics for smaller bodies won out because smaller bodies require less food intake.

Very mush agree here, over population will lead to poor overall health and lack of food, over a longer time period I'm sure the deer would get smaller.

Headgear I believe in the far north like the bigwoods of Minnesota. Weather can play a huge factor in both body and antler size. A buck conceived before an extremely tough winter. May never catch up to it's cousin born even a few miles away. Where conditions may not have been as bad or better food was available. Figure in a tough year the year before and it's mother would be overstressed already. Especially if the summers were dry. So any fawns would be behind schedual.

Completely agree, I can see it every year with the bucks we shoot. Mild winters = longer tines and healther deer. Hard winters = stunted racks, tines and bodies.

But yes all things being equal. Bucks born the same year and same area. One's a less than average 7 point. The other an exceptional 10. It's all genetics that cause the difference.

Northern bigwoods is also affected by amount of food available. Old growth mature forests are poor deer habitat. No matter the soil condition. Look at the B&C records. Many northwoods entries occurred after the heyday of the logging of the virgin timber. Which opened up thousands of square miles of habitat. That provided tons of rich easily accessible deer foods.

This can be seen on smaller scales today. Larger logged over areas can get some dandies in an area that had none before. As long as pressure isn't to bad.

No arguments on any of these, it could be we are in complete agreement but just having a slight misunderstanding based on a few words here and there.

Just goes to show the complexity of it all. Nature's gonna do what's best for the animal. Despite needing more food. The Bergmann's rule takes presidence for overall herd survival up north.

As far as caribou and moose. I believe their digestive systems are just different enough to take advantage of what plants are actually available for food. In those areas.

Personally I'd rather hunt for and kill a big northwoods buck. Rather than a farmland buck. The whole northwoods experience is what appeals the most to me. Love solitary feeling I get there.

Unfortunatally until my health improves. I'll have to settle for struggling to get a farmland/marsh buck.

[Steve Heiting]

But even then I bet these sames poor soil regions have produced some huge deer, one or two samples from one person might not be enough data to make any conclusive evidence.

In the region where I live, which has mostly sandy soil, 200-pound field-dressed weight bucks are extremely rare. While true (read "actually weighed") 200-pounders are rare anywhere, you never hear of them here. 160s, 170s, occasionally 180s, but not 200s.

Re: "one or two samples" ... well, let's say it's way more than that. The skeletal differences I've seen applies to does, too. Clay soil seems to produce sturdier deer.

[headgear]

Steve how big of an area are you talking and about where is it? Nothing specific just a county name or something general. You said "hunted" so that sounded like you maybe didn't spend a ton of time there so I could be wrong.

[Steve Heiting]

Steve how big of an area are you talking and about where is it? Nothing specific just a county name or something general. You said "hunted" so that sounded like you maybe didn't spend a ton of time there so I could be wrong.

I'm comparing clay country deer in Ashland County, WI (34 years experience), as well as northwest Ontario (~10 years experience). Sand country is Vilas and Oneida counties in WI (~20 years experience).

Having lived in all three WI counties, I can say with all certainty it's easier to grow a lawn in clay country, too!

[headgear]

Steve I can't really discount what you say you are seeing/shooting in your specific areas and I do agree they are rare but a county is a big place, I would guess there are plenty of 200lbs bucks shot in these counties on an annual basis. So many factors go into to growing a 200lbs buck, a lot of them probably get shot as 3 and 4 year olds too so if they never reach their potential the numbers can look more skewed. I also wonder how many bigwoods bucks die of old age. I kind of feel a buck needs to get into that 5+ age bracket to have the best odds of dressing over 200, its just not easy to get them there and then shoot one to confirm it. Not at all saying your soil observations are off, just that there is plenty of potential to get large bodied deer in these areas given they get to an age class to get there.

[dagger]

I agree with Dan that it has more to do with genetics. Here in NH they eat browse and acorns and we get some bucks that'll never be anything and we get some true giants. There's no farm country anywhere near me.

[Kraftd]

These are the kind of beast conversations I love!

To me, if you're really focusing on honing in on areas for true world class deer, net booners and above, it's an odds game and the best way to get there is finding a place that has age, soils, and genetics. I personally think that over the long haul, food may be the least limiting of these factors, though season to season can matter a lot.

I think most of the upper midwest have the potential genetics within the herd for these kind of deer. The higher the deer numbers (provided the land can support the higher numbers) the great chance the genetics will show through. Age is all about pressure and local hunting culture more the most. Iowa limits NR pressure and seems to have a reasonable culture of passing younger deer, similar to Buffalo Co. WI, though pressure there is somewhat limited by little public land and a long history of big bucks that has favored large managed private.

If genetics are generally taken as a given in the midwest, and liklihood of age is similar, the better soiled areas (higher mineral contents etc.) are going to give you the best chance for a buck to achieve it's peak antler growth. Food certainly helps all that, but as headgear mentioned, over the long-haul some season may be impacted but generally a mature buck will have chances to reach peak.

To me the food/weather limitations are really the most different in deer 4.5 and under. In that case food and milder weather lets the deer physically mature earlier and they are going to tend to have larger antler earlier in life, even if they would peak at the same score at 5.5 plus.

Just some of my thoughts, again,love these kinds of conversations.