Does soil quality effect deer size

Here's a summary of what they talked about.

Basically, they talked about nutrition being a major factor on size. And, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Recent studies sampled forages across a large portion of the whitetail's range. They found that the nutritional level of the same forages to be pretty much equal across the range for the same plant species. So, a new leaf on a ragweed plant has the same nutritional quality no matter what soil it grew on.

The quantity of highly nutritious plants is higher in better soil quality regions, but the quality of the same exact plants are the same.

Soil does not determine the quality of the plants nutritional level. Soil determines the quantity of those high quality nutritional plants.

Put wild deer in pens from different soil quality regions, and in a few generations, the size of those deer is pretty much equal after being given the same diet.

So, areas that have high quality soils do typically produce larger deer, but not because of the soil itself. It's because of the quantity of nutritional forage available.

That's all I can think of right now.
 
Good summary. That information may or may not be common knowledge on this forum but it’s definitely not common knowledge. Glad to know there are those lucky enough to research these topics. Educating the hunting public is easier said than done but I’m all for it. I want to suck start a pistol every time I here “this mineral grew this rack on this free range buck”. The only thing that might drive me more crazy are all the “black panther” sightings in the Carolinas. Almost as bad as Bigfoot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think the takeaway there is the importance of naturally occurring forages. If they are there, they exist because it's the right soil conditions for them in that spot. If ragweed for example, wasn't doing it's best in a given spot, it'd get boxed out by something better suited to grow there. So we know that ragweed right there is the best version of itself.

When we place forages in places they weren't occurring naturally, that's when nutritional content can get sketchy. My interest in naturally occurring forages has really peaked this year and it's been fun learning about new things on the landscape that I'd previously ignored. Willowherb is one I found for the first time this season, and had never heard anyone talk about. Deer like it on my place, and I've added it to my species head count in my clover.
 
The research promotes what we're doing as habitat and wildlife managers. We can't do a broad scale, all inclusive soil quality change across our entire piece of ground. But, we can manipulate the landscape so the "quantity of quality" is greater. It can make us take a closer look at our landscape to see if we're squeezing all of the wildlife benefit out of it that we can. Those forgotten corners of our habitat charge can be improved upon. We can ask ourselves if the nutritional plane of our grounds can be raised by some type of habitat manipulation.

I don't know how many people have done or witnessed a browse survey before. A line is placed for a certain distance across a random area. Plant species and amount of browse are determined. Under a closed canopy, that transect line looks a lot different than in an area that has had recent TSI work done.
 
I think we might get twisted up in definitions. When I say high soil quality and big deer, I have a picture in my mind that might be different than yours.So,....

If one were to map the natural range of the whitetail range, and then add to it what are called "prime" farmlands, you would see where some of the "biggest" deer live. Soil is one part of the equation. Land use and land management, determined by the best uses of that land, are important as well.

If the question is, can an individual re-create that naturally occurring situation on a poorer parcel, the answer is - it depends! I would argue, that with enough time and money, probably, but I think most don't consider the effort involved.

800px-Prime_farmland_USA_1997.png
 
Lots of areas could grow big deer, but there are natural gaps in the calendar that make those things tough. That's where land use practices create hot pockets of big deer. In transition areas from woods to ag with covers and intact crop residue, I bet you'd find the biggest damn deer on earth. Its when you get away from a 12-month program that things fall apart.

In my area, deer are on their own for about three-four months when the snow gets prohibitively deep and there is no sign of it letting up. Short of a well financed feeding program or significantly stepped up logging, there isn't much can be done to rival what's produced in the Mississippi river valley. May-October, I'd put money down that says I've got as good or better natural forage than most places in the US. But 6 good months won't cut it for producing big deer.
 
I was aware of the last study....which I’m hoping proves true eventually. We are in year 4 of extensive hinge cutting and plotting. My natural genetics are modest. We’ve killed a couple big bodied 51/2+ deer that won’t go 120”. We have had one buck approaching 130 or so. Hoping to see some improvement in another five years or so. I doubt we’ll ever see 150 in these mountains.... The cool thing, even with trespassers, poachers, illegal baiting, and limited acreage, we are able to target older deer.
 
I think the information is encouraging. The genetic potential of deer outside the main agricultural areas is rarely reached. Not because the soil is poor but because, in most cases, the landscape is not managed well or maybe at all. The loblolly pine forest of the SE come to mind. Not because that habitat can’t be managed for wildlife but because it’s generally not.

The meat eater crew purchased a small parcel for a giveaway they’re doing. They mentioned a statistic I thought was interesting. Private ground purchased or leased in America was about half of the total acres of public ground available for hunting. That’s a HUGE amount of private ground that could potentially be improved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Elkaddict said:
I was aware of the last study....which I’m hoping proves true eventually. We are in year 4 of extensive hinge cutting and plotting. My natural genetics are modest. We’ve killed a couple big bodied 51/2+ deer that won’t go 120”. We have had one buck approaching 130 or so. Hoping to see some improvement in another five years or so. I doubt we’ll ever see 150 in these mountains.... The cool thing, even with trespassers, poachers, illegal baiting, and limited acreage, we are able to target older deer.
Click to expand...

How big is the parcel you’re managing? What factors do you think are the most critical to advance the age class in your area? asking for a friend :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weekender21 said:
How big is the parcel you’re managing? What factors do you think are the most critical to advance the age class in your area? asking for a friend :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
We are on 207. I focus on having the best habitat around and limit pressure. There is no ag within 5 miles. We did 23 acres of hinge cuts (saving oak and apples). It is incredibly thick compared to much of the surrounding woods and has transformed the browse across the entire property. We’ve got 17 acres of plots (4+ in corn, 5+ in brassica, and the balance in clover/chicory or grain). We hunt low pressure. I try not to shoot unless 5+...others are asked to hold out for 3 or older. We only take 2 or 3 bucks. We take 3-4 does which isn’t enough....but they guarantee mature bucks are close by during the rut. We have learned that a shot in or near the plots kills mature deer sightings for 2-3 days.
 
X-farmerdan said:
I think we might get twisted up in definitions. When I say high soil quality and big deer, I have a picture in my mind that might be different than yours.So,....

If one were to map the natural range of the whitetail range, and then add to it what are called "prime" farmlands, you would see where some of the "biggest" deer live. Soil is one part of the equation. Land use and land management, determined by the best uses of that land, are important as well.

If the question is, can an individual re-create that naturally occurring situation on a poorer parcel, the answer is - it depends! I would argue, that with enough time and money, probably, but I think most don't consider the effort involved.

View attachment 17007
Click to expand...
You have made good points. There are many factors at work that relate to deer size beyond soil quality. What about mean temperature? Or genetics, left over from a different era, or introduced from another area? And stress, due to predators, wild or human, which keep deer from feeding undisturbed. Also, natural selection of breeding stock ie. in a truly wild area big deer have a better chance of survival, which removes smaller deer from the breeding pool, whilst in not so wild areas survival rates for smaller deer may be better, changing genetics again in a slightly different way, and many other contributing factors as well. Either way, a soil test and applying the correct amendments can fix poor soil in most in a food plots if that's the limiting factor in an area.
 
Chainsaw said:
And regular rainfall coupled with frost free growing days is a biggie as well.
Click to expand...

And how about number of days with all forage under snow for the guys up north. It seems reasonable based on the science that a winter like 2018/19 could set genetic potential back multiple years, not just the following year.
 
I have some thoughts I need to get out of my head. First, I don't think anybody that's written in response to the initial post has had an "ah" moment. We all seem to be coming at the question from our own unique perspectives (and that's being kind).

The original question was, "Does soil quality affect deer size?" It's a simple question, but one that begs more development. Is it a question of a direct and complete correlation and causation?

I think the answer is a resounding NO! It sure helps but it isn't necessary to grow a (single?) big deer. Maybe the answer is a resounding YES if you want to grow a lot of big deer. I think Ben had it right in his post above.

It isn't the soil quality, it's the quality and quantity of the potential food sources that soil productivity supports. Nobody argues that point. And that leads to the subject of genetics. It's mentioned in a lot of posts above. I thought that had been demystified some time ago. Whitetail genetics are whitetail genetics. Sometimes those characteristics are suppressed by any number of environmental stress. Quality and quantity (in relation to herd size?) of food, cold stress, social stress, heat stress, financial inequality, car - deer collision stress, and how many others can you think of?

If you really want deer to get big, just leave them alone! You know what I mean. Change the original question to Does not killing deer lead to bigger deer?

Here's my last thought - and I'll leave the door open to argument - If, somehow, we were able to study every square mile of whitetail habitat, capture every deer on each of those square miles, and weigh them - or measure antlers, or capture shoe size or some other measurement to determine deer size, we could then create a list of the elements the environments have in common. High soil "quality" might be one of the factors. We could even give it a weight. Perhaps it accounts for 40% or 10% of all the reasons. I don't think we've answered that question.

Now, with that list in hand, your hand, I would contend you could not recreate those conditions even remotely. You might be able to mimic three out of 10 or maybe four out of ten, but not all of them. For that, you need to go where it happens. What I just asserted applies to almost everyone, but for a few. Those folks are the pros. You'll find a number of them here.
 
weekender21 said:
And how about number of days with all forage under snow for the guys up north. It seems reasonable based on the science that a winter like 2018/19 could set genetic potential back multiple years, not just the following year.
Click to expand...
It sets back potential period.

In the bad winters, our deer die. In the good winters, they survive, but there is always a recovery period that has to happen before they get to growing again. Those spring pictures of skinny deer with ribs showing are hard to look at, but they make it. That's why I push as hard as I can to put out a hell of a buffet for the months that I can.
 
X-farmerdan said:
I have some thoughts I need to get out of my head. First, I don't think anybody that's written in response to the initial post has had an "ah" moment. We all seem to be coming at the question from our own unique perspectives (and that's being kind).

The original question was, "Does soil quality affect deer size?" It's a simple question, but one that begs more development. Is it a question of a direct and complete correlation and causation?

I think the answer is a resounding NO! It sure helps but it isn't necessary to grow a (single?) big deer. Maybe the answer is a resounding YES if you want to grow a lot of big deer. I think Ben had it right in his post above.

It isn't the soil quality, it's the quality and quantity of the potential food sources that soil productivity supports. Nobody argues that point. And that leads to the subject of genetics. It's mentioned in a lot of posts above. I thought that had been demystified some time ago. Whitetail genetics are whitetail genetics. Sometimes those characteristics are suppressed by any number of environmental stress. Quality and quantity (in relation to herd size?) of food, cold stress, social stress, heat stress, financial inequality, car - deer collision stress, and how many others can you think of?

If you really want deer to get big, just leave them alone! You know what I mean. Change the original question to Does not killing deer lead to bigger deer?

Here's my last thought - and I'll leave the door open to argument - If, somehow, we were able to study every square mile of whitetail habitat, capture every deer on each of those square miles, and weigh them - or measure antlers, or capture shoe size or some other measurement to determine deer size, we could then create a list of the elements the environments have in common. High soil "quality" might be one of the factors. We could even give it a weight. Perhaps it accounts for 40% or 10% of all the reasons. I don't think we've answered that question.

Now, with that list in hand, your hand, I would contend you could not recreate those conditions even remotely. You might be able to mimic three out of 10 or maybe four out of ten, but not all of them. For that, you need to go where it happens. What I just asserted applies to almost everyone, but for a few. Those folks are the pros. You'll find a number of them here.
Click to expand...

Excellent thoughts, although I don’t think they’re inconstant with many of the posts above.

As far as genetics being demystified, maybe on this forum but this forum is not a good representation of the general hunting population....or general non hunting population for that matter. In fact, and I’m only speaking from my personal perspective, this forum is the best place I’ve found for accurate information concerning everything deer habitat.

I do consider the podcast from the OP a good source of accurate information. Maybe being a born and raised Carolina boy increases my tolerance for the “unbearable” parts of the aspiring “deer experts” podcast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mennoniteman
IT TAKES TWICE THE LAND TO GROW 3 YEAR OLD BUCKS AS IT DOES TO GROW 2 YEAR OLD BUCKS
Replies
18
Views
1K
yoderjac
yoderjac
M
Mixing turnips, radishes, and/or rape with Crimson Clover and Awnless wheat?
Replies
13
Views
1K
bossgobbler
B
yoderjac
Very quick season...But not for good reasons.
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
yoderjac
yoderjac
wbpdeer
Portland Tennessee Chestnut Project 2021
Replies
12
Views
2K
wbpdeer
wbpdeer
H
Deer Lease Question
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Turkish
T
Back
Top