Interesting subject! I liked and agreed with the MS State study. If you take the age, genetics, and nutrition formula, age is easy to control anywhere in the State regardless of region. I would agree that genetics plays only a small role in the wild population as far as antler size IN FREE-ROAMING DEER, so that doesn't make much difference regionally. That leaves nutrition which would take in soil types, mineral availability, and land use and deer POPULATION. The blackbelt was better in the soybean era but so was most of the rest of the State. I would say the blackbelt had a higher percentage of its ground in beans and that made a big difference. I also think that mineral availability in blackbelt soils makes a difference. Lost of calcium and phosphorus in these soils and I would assume this is transferred to deer through growing vegetation.

Even some counties "outside of the blackbelt" like Elmore and Wilcox have some blackbelt dirt so, IMO, any of these counties have as good a chance of producing high end bucks as any other. No real difference in Dallas, Lowndes and Wilcox, for instance. However, I would rather have land in the blackbelt than anywhere south, and the TN river valley is probably just as good, again, due to soil quality.

Quantity and quality of plants make a difference also. Large acreage of beans will provide a lot more opportunity for the "right" deer to find high protein diet through most of it's life. A couple 10 acre lab-lab fields WONT. A 2,000 acre, well-managed, burned, quail plantation full of native browse, legumes, and fawning cover (and, yes, pine trees!) provides the same kind of food quantity and quality. This would reflect land use and landowner size as well, so well managed large landholding in Russel, Bullock and Barbour (edge of blackbelt) get the nod.

Bottom line, it's all about soils and what is growing on them!