Whitetail/Soil Region research

Pretty interesting research here:

http://www.growingdeer.tv/#/whitetail-antlers-and-genetics-fact-or-fiction

Nutrition sounds like the main ingredient

Alabama as a whole will never produce what mississippi does bc of soil, that mississippi mud is something special. Look in the alabama record book deer and the counties with the most deer with the exception of jackson co, are in the blackbelt. Most of miss has what the blackbelt has. Better soil, better plants, deer take up more nutrients. As simple as that

My exerpt from the alabama has the worst gentics post last week.

Did you watch the video? Their scientific research indicates with improved nutrition for 2+ generations; deer from sandy pine woods regions could catch up to deer from the Delta region.

I've always heard big deer come out of Cahaba due to genetics. I'd certainly rank Cahaba pretty low in available nutrition as so much of it is replanted pine and a few food plots (rye/clover) here and there. I was just up around Swan Creek this weekend and there are 1000's of acres of soybeans. Yet, I don't hear much about big bucks harvested up there. That's Limestone Co. I believe.

The areas in the TN valley produce some giant deer. Morgan, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison.

So Matt; what's your opinion of the research in the video from MSU ?

Good to hear. You'd think they would, but I guess I'm out of the loop.

We tend to keep it quiet up here Joe.

Yep,. all along the Tennessee river. I hear there's some sho nuff grown uns on that Bankhead Forest place too.

Great info. So for a 2nd generation buck fawn to be 4 it's 6 years from improving your nutrition until you'll see larger mature bucks. It's a long process!

I definitely don't disagree with what the video states. Nutrition does play a huge role. However genetics plays a huge role as well. There's a reason people with high fences throw in deer from different states. You cant take a 50 lb doe and buck from the keys of Florida, give it optimum nutrition and except to have giant racked deer

I worked on this project as a research technician in it's infant stages. I was an undergrad at MSU assisting Graduae students with the capture and captive husbandry of the wild caught deer they started with. The F1 offspring we would capture, weigh, measure, take DNA, and tag. Of course I wasn't there long enough to see the results, considering it was a very long study. I have kept up with the annual updates, as I worked for the MDWFP for almost 4 years following graduation. I've also read a couple of theses the follow the progress.

I completely agree with the results and we all assumed that would be the case. Highly fertile soil grows big deer. If you're not in an area with high soil fertility then you'll see a smaller average per age class than your neighbors in good soil fertility. Genetics in a free ranging herd has never been a problem.

I know of a few enclosures that have deer that are all native blood lines with no outside the state genetics, and they're very impressive. Even the northern strain genetics don't typically grow antlers as large in lower soil fertility areas as they do in higher fertility.

The reason people introduce the northern strain deer is because they've been bred for the highest quality antler features for several generations now. You can do the same thing with southern whitetails, but on average, will still see lower averages. You bring northern deer down here on our soil, and in a couple generations they're averages will probably come down. Meaning, on average, even in controlled environments, you're not going to grow northern strain deer in AL as big as you could grow them in Wisconsin.

Age and nutrition. It isn't rocket science.

Dr. Grant knows his stuff and his show is really informative each week. If you've kept up with it at all you've seen what he has been able to do on his poor soil in the ozarks. Patchwork clear cuts, prescribed fire, year round quality food available, and laying off the trigger has payed large dividends for him.

OK, first I'm assuming something here so correct me if I'm wrong. In Alabama, you would consider the black belt high fertile soil, correct? If so, why does the high fertile soil only affect deer. Cows, coons, possums, turkeys, squirrels, donkeys, etc. same as everywhere else. Now I know this for a fact on the other animals. Even had this discussion a couple of weeks ago with a cattleman that has cows scattered all over and they are all the same. I saw probably 30 deer just today in the black belt and the big ones do appear larger than deer say where I live.

So it seems like you'll need at least 7-8-9 years of nutrition supplementation to achieve said goals. According to his research it takes 3 generations to achieve what he referred to as good quality soil region deer, and once that third generation is 4-5-6 years of age (average/ideal harvest age) you should see your goals achieved. Granted there are a number of other environmental aspects that were seemingly not included like drought, land carrying capacity, the wandering tendencies of free range deer, and ....
I guess it is achievable under ideal conditions, extensive management, and deep pockets.
Just my thoughts

Y'all are totally missing the point of this research. You are not going to increase your body weights or antler growth in a wild herd anywhere like they have in this study. The point is nutrition being equal, all deer populations pretty much have the same potential.

Central AL, other animals are certainly effected the same way. Trap 100 racoons from Mobile County, the black belt soils in Wilcox County, the upper coastal soils of Fayette County, and the highly fertile younger soils of Brown county KS and report back to me their weights. Do the same for turkeys. Highly fertile soils are the foundation and driving force to the growth rates of everything grown there.

Gonna have to disagree with you on that. I KNOW average cattle weights of same age (calving in Nov. time frame) are about the same. Just worked a bunch of calves a couple of weeks ago. Weighed every one. In and out of the Black Belt. Thus the conversation with the cattleman. I also added donkeys and you may wonder why? I know those averages where the same also.

I'm not guessing on the weights of wild animals either. I already know they are different.

Are the adult weights of cows the same in the different soil regions? I'd speculate not. The cattle I see in the Midwest look larger to me than say a herd of cows in the sandy coastal region. I know they're larger. Don't have to speculate.

Regardless of how soils affect other animals, they do in fact, affect deer growth and antler development.

If you look back you see I said I can visual see the difference in deer. It just doesn't make sense to me. I also thought you were talking growth weights of the same aged animals. In Alabama, cows inside the black belt = cows outside. Turkeys, not enough of a difference to tell: In other words, it may go fro 20lb. gobbler to a 20.5 lb gobbler. But they would have to be weighed and known age. The cows are known ages (within 48 hrs.) and weight.

Isn't keeping a cow in a 100 acre pasture surrounded by barbed wire and hay in winter the same as AL deer raised in a high fence and fed? So therefore the cows aren't "Wild"

All I can speak for are Alabama cows inside the Black Belt as in the Orrville/Safford are versus in Autauga/Chilton Co. area. No difference. Now I have spent a fair amount of time in Wyoming but don't know the average weights for comparison. They do LOOK much bigger but they have MUCH thicker fur giving that appearance. I don't disagree by looks the deer appear bigger in the Black Belt but have no numbers to back it up as I'm sure do. And don't even ask about the donkeys!!

Actually, in our discussions we got on something close. The cattleman reasoned that the cows on the prairie soil, that when it gets wet stays wet and is pure hell, exert so much energy in the winter walking and staying warm, the other cows can keep up in weight. Wildlife can get away to higher and warmer places.

Oh one other thing. Deer ain't cows. Can't apply anything about cattle to deer.

Oh, so you meant everything grown there but cows.

Thanks for the opinions Matt.

I enjoy studies like this but It never adds up. Just my two cents.

A couple of you have stated it doesn't make sense. What about it doesn't make sense? I'm asking an honest, non sarcastic question.

I dont think anyone trully disagrees with the video. Habitat management with providing optimum nutrition and age will lead to big deer. The only thing that I have to disagree with is the genetics side of the situation. I've hunted areas in the blackbelt where big 6 pts and 8pts were the standard. At another club about 20 miles away, we killed several 10's 12's and an 18 point was killed that scored 186. Both had the same habitat management in place and for the most part the same things were planted in the fall with nothing planted in the summer. And in the end, the human nature of us as hunters is wanting to kill big deer and see alot of deer. Thats why a hunting lease in millers ferry, selma, and safford will cost you more than a lease in chilton county. These areas have been known to grow big deer and have great genetics. Could you grow big deer in chilton county with those ingredients? I'm sure you could. But i doubt it will ever amount to what you could do in the areas listed above. I guess for me the video was leading more towards genetics aren't a huge factor but optimum nutrition and habitat management is key and you can yield near the same results regardless of soil. On a side note, habitat management done the right way for optimum nutrition will cost a ton of money. Maybe people can afford it, but with as high as lease prices are and how much people already spend on hunting I just dont feel like its realistic.

Matt,
You mention that nutrition being equal, all deer populations have pretty much the same potential.
In a post before that you said highly fertile soil grows bigger deer (which I agree). But the two statements appear to conflict. On one case you mention that fertile soil grows bigger deer but in the other you say if you feed them all the same nutrition they all have pretty much the same potential. Maybe I misunderstood your statements, but I believe that in the black belt fertile soils they have the extra advantage over non fertile soils. For example, if you were managing same size, same circumstances 2 large plantations that were totally commited to whitetail deer management with generous budgets and one was in the orrville/safford or Portland landing area, and then other plantation was in north Chilton county I believe the dallas county farm would blow away the north Chilton county farm by a minimum of ten inches average on a mature buck (if not 20+). While a strong management plan is the best and first thing you can do to improve habitat anywhere, wouldn't that extra it factor be purchasing a farm in an area with highly fertile soils if it was an option. I read some of your posts and think you would agree but the all deer with the same nutrition = same potential statement through me off. Also, I would think the cows in safford would be bigger than the cows in north Chilton but there would be a lot more factors than just they were all being weighed at the same age (e.g. number cows, number acres on subject tract, topography, water, supplemental feeding, reproductive rates, etc). Another question is it seems to be that certain areas within the black belt soil are better than others even with nutrition being equal? Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks

bowhunt, yeah I think you did misunderstand. By saying nutrition, I meant if all deer were eating the same vegetation from the same soil type, then we wouldn't see much regional variation in average antler size and body mass. I said more fertile soils grow bigger deer because they're eating better quality forage with a higher nutrient content. Obviously, deer are very genetically diverse, just like humans. A grown man can range from just over 3' to over 7', even on the same diet. That's why the study looked at averages. And that's all you can look at. Individual antler characteristics vary tremendously from one deer to the next, even in prime soil types. If you look at the B&C and P&Y club's entry map you'll see the areas that produce the most Book deer are also some of the most fertile regions, and vice versa. Areas with few or no entries have poor or sandy soils. That's not genetics. It's not coincidence that higher quality antlers follow higher quality soils. The point of this study was to inform deer managers that you're basically stuck working with the deer you have based on soil type, and there isn't a dang thing you can about that. Work with what you have, understanding that genetics is not the reason certain areas don't produce high scoring deer. It's because of the dirt they're raised on.

Just out of curiosity, has there been any research in our state about the differences in the deer within the state? Back when the state was restocked majority of the state was restocked from deer in clarke county and a few other places within the state. However, i know some places recieved deer from michigan, wisconsin and so forth. Given the amount of time im sure those areas have interbred with deer from our state to where you could not tell much of any genetic difference. I hear people all the time talk about how bankhead and the black warrior produce bigger deer due to their northern strain introduced there. Any proof to that? or any research done?

What I think you are missing from that is that these days, good grass can be grown on either soil type. It will just be a different type of grass and fertilized differently. Cattle weights I DONT THINK will be nearly as affected by soil types as deer antlers (the point of this study, this post, this thread, this website AND this discussion, prior to your juvenile attempt at thread derailing, in order to throw your negative two cents in).

What DOES have a huge effect on cattle weight gain is weather and pests (fly's, worms, other parasites). THOSE two effects would be VERY similar between the Safford (prairie dirt) and Orrville (more sand than prairie) and the Autaugaville and Statesville areas.

This is on soil affects on deer. I don't have the numbers on deer but I do on cows. Now, Matt and I disagree on the affects on other animals. I'm not mad with him. It was a discussion where we both made our points on soil affects. There may be other factors with caged animals like Reptar said but the fact is I have the numbers to back up what I'm saying. Now, Robert, show your numbers to back up that I'm wrong. As Matt says, people with the feet on the ground doing the work every day generally knows.

Matt,
When you look at the black belt soils map you will see that most all of Dallas county is in the "black belt." I know not all black belt soils are created equal. When you reference this with the Dallas county soil map it mentions all the different types of soils. some soils it mentions as steep which are not as good but there are a good many that are considered "prime farm land." Do you know how/ what would you look for in the data to determine which of the prime farmland type is the most fertile? There is also other soil types in neighboring Lowndes county that is considered "prime" farmland. How can you tell which is best or is this an agronomist question?

If Matt can't help you Skinny is good at this.

We have taken DNA from deer all over the state to try and determine if they're more closely related to their sticking source population, or the native remnant deer that were here before stocking. I haven't heard of any of the results coming back yet.

On Black Warrior and Bankhead, you happen to be speaking to the biologist out there. There were 105 deer released on Bankhead in 1925-26. It has always produced large deer, and I can tell you with full certainty we still have that influence there, with a November breeding date, and the general appearance if the deer body characteristics are those of the upper Midwest region. Of course we've had some southern deer interbreed with them and it's actually a jacked up mess now, but that northern influence is alive and well 90 years later. Keep in mind that a lot of the bedrock under the soil there is limestone, very fertile, and the TN valley feeds a lot of Bankhead deer through the summer, with corn and soybeans. Add a rough environment and hard to hunt landscape and you get OLD deer.

i thought most deer in alabama were restocked from primarily texanus and virgianus genetic stock? with a scattering here and there of various others.

no matter i think the main reason people seem dissapointed is still #1 age killed, #2 nutrition, # habitat.

the main point of the soil discussion is that preferred soils provide more nutrition, i think in the black belt there are several excellent soils. prarie soil, sandy loams.etc the main influence coming from the abundance of fossilized micro fauna.the worst soils in the blackbelt are probably limestone cedar flats, plenty of nutrients but very alkaline, and low spots surrounded by sandy loam, seems like the sand comes to the top in pot holes and doesnt hold moisture well. however all that being said major nutritive elements are easy to supply and trace element deficencies can be solved through soil testing and custom fertiliser blending if something is grossly out of wack,
its funny to me people arguing about the genetic potential of a herd they have no intention of allowing to reach that potential.How can you complain about something you havent seen.

i mean how many people in alabama actually live or hunt in an area where deer have unlimited high quality food sources, are pressure free enough that deer can actually comfortably eat it without running from the field every 10 seconds in fear of its life. and the deer are at least some fair portion of the herd dies from old age. if thats not the case you probably havent seen a full expression of you herds potential,

i also think some areas having better deer can be contributed to lots of things, if you shoot 8 point or better for 20 yearsno matter the age, then logic would dictate that most superior antler deer will be killed at 2 yrs old,and those deer dont have much chance to breed, now those 1,2,3,,4,5,6 points are allowed to live and breed because they are out of bounds. what do you think will happen over time?

other areas management bucks ,low point count or small rack bucks are removed at 3 1/2 to give them a chance to overcome nutritional early age issues, if they dont show potential by then they are removed, and high antler count deer are off limits till 5 1/2 yrs of age, give that 20 or so years and see if there is a diffrence.

Think about this way. The modern cow has had mans influence since way back in human history. The modern cow is bred to be completely reliant on man. You either grow them grass to eat, feed them feed, feed them hay, or a combination of all. Cattle guys have the cow thing down to a science. They teach college courses on cows. People know how to get the most out of a cow via feeding, haying, and grassing. So cow weights aren't nearly as variant as deer weights.

Deer, however, live in spite of man. If we disappeared their numbers would flourish because they don't rely on us to live. Thus, they are more reliant on the natural make up of the environment around them. Better soil basically means more acorns per acre, more forbs, more natural browse, more complete nutrition all around, and more likelihood of ag crops being nearby as well.

Since deer are completely reliant on the sweet bounty that mother earth provides it makes sense that better soils, in general, mean bigger deer. Add in the fact that many of these "great soil" places also specialize in growing pure protein sources like beans only furthers the natural advantage that good soils provide to deer.

I read where the deer in far southwest bama are a total different subspecies of deer. I forget the name but it oughta be chitteous dinkeous. Now one of the old state records came from Baldwin County a long time ago in a time when there weren't many deer and there weren't pine plantations everywhere.

Don't know about the subspecies for a fact, but the antlers on most deer in mid to southern Baldwin/Mobile Counties as well as NW Florida have a distinct different appearance from those farther north.

Thanks. Anyone is welcome to reply. It would be interesting to see if the fertile soil areas (that seem to stand out for producing trophy deer)have the edge due to the genetic restocking origin of the deer, if this had any effect of if something else made the difference. If all are prime farm land, properly fed, managed, etc what makes a few areas better even though they are all black belt prime soils in optimum managed conditions?

Ok. So the main issue I have with the video is that it basically says after two generations under the same great conditions it doesn't matter what part of the state because you are going to have the same results. Matt re states it in his post about "nutrition being equal, all deer populations pretty much have the same potential." But he then later mentions fertile soil is a difference maker essentially arguing both sides! I have a hard time believing that you could put 5,000 acres under optimal management conditions in Baldwin county and 5,000 acres under the same optimal conditions in Dallas county and the results of buck harvest be the same in several years. Everyone agrees that nutrition, habitat, age structure, and etc. are the most important things one can do on there property. However, to say that it doesn't matter after several generations where you are that you will all end up with the same results (under optimal management conditions) sounds false.

Bowhunt, I still think you are misunderstanding. You're concluding something that is not there. Neither they, nor me, have stated that with the most rigorous of habitat management scenarios lesser quality soils can produce what greater quality soils can produce. It's the complete opposite rather. You can not, under any circumstances, level the playing field in regards to soil fertility regardless of what you do management wise. You can not replicate these study results in a free range herd. They (we) collected deer from the different soil types, raised them all in completely controlled environments, in enclosures, and the deer that were collected from lesser quality soils caught up with the deer that were collected in prime soils, after a couple of generations. No amount of habitat improvements in poor soils will replicate those results in wild free ranging deer. Conclusion; the reason deer in certain areas of poor soil quality are that way because of the poor soil quality. You can not change that with habitat improvements. Why? Because you can not change your soils productivity. Sure, you can lime, fertilize, burn, thin timber, manage early successional habitat, etc but you are still not going to grow deer in Conecuh county, AL like they do in Madison County, MS.

I think you may believe that they raised the wild caught deer and their offspring in enclosures near their capture sites. Is that what it is? Because they did not. They transferred them all to the MS State deer pens, and then the offspring were either raised there or at local cooperators.

Thanks Matt. So, I guess my issue in the study was that they put all the deer in a captive facility on the same soils and same nutrients and then they evened out in a couple years. Or, they took the deer from the super soil and the deer from the poor soil and put them all in medium quality soil thus dumbing down some and building up the poor soil deer made nutrition the same and in two generations they all ended up the same. Nothing earth shattering here, it all makes good sense, but what would be more interesting is why are certain areas of the black belt producing bigger bucks than others. We know nutrition and optimal management are the cornerstones to success, but some areas do better than others in the black belt. What is that extra x factor, is it purely just the soil is a little better, is it an area where northern deer were restocked way back when, or? I'll give you an example. there are locations in the east and the west area black belts that both have large landowners properly managing there forests yet you tend to see, on average bigger bucks in the west Alabama black belt.. Soil, genetics, ?

Genetics could be a player, or like you said, the stocking source of the deer that are there.

interesting