|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
72 members (desertdog, outdoorguy88, Auburn_03, mdabbs, Bmyers142, BobK, XVIII, Raven, bigfoot15, jmj120, cch, BrandonClark, Morris, doc bar, donia, Fishduck, Chaser357, DGAMBLER, Stewart36567, Vernon Tull, canichols424, WinstonVizsla, sawdust, coldtrail, AC870, twaldrop4, CNC, kyles, Mjh97, CrappieMan, odocoileus, Jstocks, JD_Bowhunter1976, ronfromramer, johnv, brett.smith, TDog93, Bustinbeards, jbatey1, sidehitter, SC53, catdoctor, Bake, JohnG, cajunshooter, jhardy, BrentsFX4, Bandit635, NonTypical, G/H, J_Martin, top cat, Dubie, Melter, booner, fish_blackbass, beerhunter, Coosa1, MikeP, Ron A., having fun now, Johnal3, foghorn, roll_tide_hunts, GrandSlam, jdstephen44, 6 invisible),
984
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,780
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,780 |
According to MSU deer study- nutrition vs genetics, they did a study on three different deer from three different areas of the state. I believe they may have been different sub- species. The basis of their conclusion was that when all three were provided the same nutrition, by the second generation they were all equal size. I said that to say that evidently there is something else in Bankhead and similar that is putting inches on those deer. Age and genetics could be a factor, but that isn’t coming full circle without nutrition.
|
|
|
|
|
