|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/23/2012
Posts: 16
|
walkintall wrote:No big deal. I'm not a geneticist, but I play one on message boards.  What your saying is still not quite correct. Good nutrition just means that a deer is better able to compete at life and is more likely to survive to pass his genetics on. But, his genetics have nothing to do with what he ate. What he looks like has everything to do with what he ate. If you just meant to say the deer down there might have good genes, but their lack of nutrtion doesn't allow them to show it, then I can't disagree with that.  Your last statement is what i mean, if deer in south ms were fed the same as deer in the delta, they would eventually (many,many years) get to nearly the same level. problem is, the soil is not the same.. but that was my whole point about having a high fence, you can feed them what you want, ultimately growing much larger racks in the future.. and if momma is healthy, she will pass healthy fawns and so on 
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/8/2011 Posts: 461
|
whitetail99 wrote:Your last statement is what i mean, if deer in south ms were fed the same as deer in the delta, they would eventually (many,many years) get to nearly the same level. I think you're making a case for evolution.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/15/2010
Posts: 228
|
whitetail99 wrote:Your last statement is what i mean, if deer in south ms were fed the same as deer in the delta, they would eventually (many,many years) get to nearly the same level. problem is, the soil is not the same.. but that was my whole point about having a high fence, you can feed them what you want, ultimately growing much larger racks in the future.. and if momma is healthy, she will pass healthy fawns and so on You want very much for genetic make-up to rely on nutrition. That is not correct. If you agree with my last statement, then you don't need many many years. If you take that deer you put in that pen and fed it wonderfully, and then fed it's offspring wonderfully, and then fed it's offspring wonderfully over many generations....or even centuries....etc. Those same deer would be no different genetically than if you had fed them pine cones instead. They'd be the same...just poorer fed.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Premium, Registered
Joined: 2/25/2010
Posts: 277
Location: New Orleans, LA; Perry County, MS
|
SNOT wrote:I think you're making a case for evolution. No he is not. He's making a case for improving herd health by better nutrition/soils. Most of the deer in Mississippi share the same genetics as "pine comb bucks", they just grow much bigger when they get to eat well and live long enough to reach their prime. Here is something I found on Noble.org {" We hear it all the time from guys on the Mississippi coast, 'Ah, we have bad genetics.' I want to say to them, 'Well, you're also in some bad soil, man.'" Some 70 to 80 percent of the deer released throughout the state of Mississippi came from the Leaf River Refuge in the southern part of the state, where soil quality is poor. Today, however, deer from the Leaf River Refuge lineage now live in areas with good quality soils, and by and large, DeYoung said, most of these deer are bigger than the original stock source. They're not just bigger to the eye, he said, but rather, they're statistically bigger, on average 20 Boone and Crockett inches bigger. The same was true with doe body weights. In fact, dressed weights of does on the better quality soils were five to 15 pounds heavier in than the source population.} (http://www.noble.org/press_release/2008/InTheNews/deer_genetics.html)
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Groups: Premium, Registered Joined: 2/26/2010 Posts: 3,492
|
dat yat wrote:No he is not. He's making a case for improving herd health by better nutrition/soils... That may be what he Meant, but that dang sure ain't what he Said. He SAID that better food ultimately creates better genes. And that's simply not true at all.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Premium, Registered
Joined: 2/25/2010
Posts: 277
Location: New Orleans, LA; Perry County, MS
|
RT8 wrote:That may be what he Meant, but that dang sure ain't what he Said. He SAID that better food ultimately creates better genes. And that's simply not true at all.
Wow. I read way back to post 99, he sure did say that. I don't think anyone who understands could really mean that. The article on Noble explains the concept pretty well.
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/8/2011 Posts: 461
|
RT8 wrote:That may be what he Meant, but that dang sure ain't what he Said. He SAID that better food ultimately creates better genes. And that's simply not true at all.
Exactly.....it's not too hard to understand.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/23/2012
Posts: 16
|
dat yat, that is exactly what I meant, Yes i did use "genes" but was not talking about its actual genotype. sorry. O Was just talking about the deers antlers (not genotype)... The whole thing started by saying if someone were to let a deer out of a highfence it would not remain big outside the highfence.. which is false, due to the deer being so healthy.. that is all i was saying.. each year it would drop a little, but it would not drop to be a scrub buck.. Sorry for my inappropriate use of the word genes
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/15/2010
Posts: 228
|
whitetail99 wrote:dat yat, that is exactly what I meant, Yes i did use "genes" but was not talking about its actual genotype. sorry. O Was just talking about the deers antlers (not genotype)... The whole thing started by saying if someone were to let a deer out of a highfence it would not remain big outside the highfence.. which is false, due to the deer being so healthy.. that is all i was saying.. each year it would drop a little, but it would not drop to be a scrub buck.. Sorry for my inappropriate use of the word genes Yes, it would definitely take longer because the deer had a healtheir starting point, but I don't think it's false. I think the deer would become a "scrub buck" alot quicker than you think because now it's having to search for food, squabble over food, escape more predators, and, let's not forget about rutting activities. Excess nutrients are stored as fat and glycogen. By the end of January, fat reserves are "gone" for mature bucks outside of a pen. When not eating right, the body turns to it's muscles to get nutrients when the fat is gone and breaks the muscles down to get them. In the context of antlers only, as you say, I believe the scenario I described above would be similar. For instance, if the body's muscles need calcium(every cell needs it, not just muscles), and my calcium intake has been reduced from excess to not enough because now I'm not being fed, then guess where my body is going to take it from to feed my muscles? Its gonna take it from the bone.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 5
Location: Pass Christian
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/7/2010 Posts: 178 Location: Gulf Coast
|
goindeep1997 wrote:Scored 162 2/8 Post some pictures when you get your mount back. Can't wait to see how it turns out.
|
|
|