Genetics matters a ton if we are talking a Kansas buck vs. an Alabama buck. If we are talking about purely the difference in one Alabama buck vs. another Alabama buck, genetics isn't playing a big factor. 90% of this state was restocked with the same deer from the southwest AL swamps, with Bankhead and Choccolocco being the primary exceptions. If you have a January rut, you have SW AL swamp genetics. So the rest is easy. You have to let the buck reach 4-5 years old to compare apples to apples, and then the rest is nutrition and normal variations (3 bucks with the same parents and nutrition might have totally different racks).

Also you can't just put out minerals and lime your fields one year and expect immediate results. A Mississippi study proved that it takes multiple generations of deer getting quality nutrition to get the max out of genetics. If a buck's mother or even grandmother had poor nutrition, it programs the offspring to limit their size in order to prepare them better to survive in a low nutrition environment. And with most food coming from woody browse, it is nearly impossible to completely mimic the overall nutrition a deer will get in the Black Belt by planting food plots, supplemental feeding etc in a poor soil region.

The bottom line is if I'm looking to buy prime deer land in Alabama, I am looking for a place with great soil and low hunting pressure, not where the locals claim the genetics are better.

Biggest problem in Alabama is age and high grading 2-3yo bucks. I picked up a new lease last year that’s surrounded by public land (Mullberry WMA). Mullberry has an antler restriction. (*To be legal for harvest all antlered bucks must have a minimum of at least 3 points (1-inch or longer) on at least one main beam.). Last year I had pics of 4 bucks that were 4.5 or older. 3 of the 4 were big 6’s and the 4th is a big 7. IMO this is a prime example of “high grading”. The 2-3yo 8s get killed while all the 6s get passed. On this particular tract and based on camera surveys only 20-25% of the bucks are bigger than 6 points.

We can all guess about this, but there is phenomenal research that answers the question pretty well. Genetics don't matter nearly as much as you'd think. And it's far more complicated than I'd guess.

My TN farm is loaded with deer, we see more bucks than doe most years. Terrible dirt on those rolling hills. I have no food plots, my neighbor has plots all over his farm. They kill more overall deer than we do but the bucks are the same. Biggest we've killed between both of us is mid 130's, in the last 10 years the bucks have very little to no brow tines. 8 miles down the road, a friend of mine has a farm and there have been 3 in the high 150's and a ton of bucks in the 140's. Difference to me is, this guy grooms his dirt, no till plants and plants what the deer need to grow successful racks. He also feeds like crazy all during the off season.

Then you have Paint rock Valley, I know of 1 that went 186 and another a little over 190. Both high mountain deer, probably never grazed a crop field. Thats genetics

This is what I have found in my research. It takes at least 3 generations to start to see a difference. And if your soil sucks, then nothing you plant can effectively take up the soil nutrients into the plant, for the deer to consume. And the nutrients that help build racks taste like crap, which is why you need to mix it in salt to get the deer to ingest it. I am seeing better production on fields we limed last fall versus this fall.

People like to talk about how there is plenty in the woods for the deer to eat, which is probably true. However none of it is 25 to 30+% protein like you produce with a nice limed and fertilized plot of soybeans, or clover. That means healthier deer from fawns up.

I would think that river bottom soil would be pretty fertile through Paint Rock Valley.......Doesnt that soil originate from limestone?

That's not true......There are numerous native plants high in protein......Check out teaweed and vervain.....

The weird thing is that where I live there are deer killed that are 5 years old that will be a 150 inch deer. Then right around the corner you'll see a 5 or 6 year old that doesn't score 110. I'd think it has to be the genes because they are eating off the same dirt.

This is just a theory……but I think one place that there may be some legitimate effects occurring from genetics is through dominant doe lines that stay in one area over the course of numerous generations……People look at that big 160 inch buck and say that they want him to spread his genes around but in reality what I think is probably more important is the doe he was born from. I think it is more likely that someone seeing reoccurring traits over and over is running through the local doe lines because the distribution of buck genes across the landscape are much more random and dispersed.

According to the old timers there was a repopulation effort in this area in the 50's that had a strain of Wisconsin deer. I believe it because there seems to be 2 strains of deer in this area. Some grow huge and have big horns, then there are those that don't.

You know that’s really not that long ago when we’re talking about the number of generations of a population that has cycled through since……. I’ve done a decent amount of tracking down around Eufaula and across the line into Georgia and its interesting to see ones come from that area….Maybe I’m just imagining it but there’s always something that just looks different about the GA deer…..

I really think the main players are the does though and not so much the bucks like we perceive it to be. Just look at the rut map that Shaw posted in the other thread at how the rut dates buffer across the river into Alabama around Eufaula……You’re looking at the doe population in that pic basically and I think the reason it plays out like that is because females don’t generally move around a lot…..If a doe gets old she does it in one location and then raises generations of offspring in that same location……Her genes that she is passing onto to daughters and granddaughters are not spread around much…..Whatever might be getting handed down from female to female to female stays pretty isolated unless the deer are forced to move around more for some reason like maybe increasing densities in closed canopy mountains………Again, this is all just spitballing ideas but I do think theres something to the idea of dominant doe lines carrying these reoccurring traits.

Don’t does carry somewhere around 50% of their offsprings antler genetics? Which is one of the main reasons you cannot changed genetics in a wild herd by shooting bucks!

I'll take genetics over anything else. Great soil fertility, great amounts of feed, etc, will only take you as far as the genetics will let you go.

Yep. Some studies show it to be slightly more than 50%.

I'm going to call BS on that.

He’s a Breeder. Not uncommon with superb genetics

yep...

I think this says it all.