Nothing can change genetics, but one of the reasons deer grow larger antlers in certain areas of the country of others is the availability of minerals in the soil. Those minerals are absorbed out of the soil by plants and the deer eat those plants which transfers those minerals into the deer's system. If a buck is deficient in the important minerals for antler growth, that deer cannot reach his full potential. If, however the deer has 100% of the necessary minerals, then they have the potential to reach 100% of their potential. Obviously there are other factors that will keep a buck from reaching his full potential like weather or stress, but the reasoning behind providing mineral supplements is to help those deer to have 100% of the minerals they need regardless of their environmental limitations. I have actually seen a study where deer from an area that typically don't grow large antlers and was mineral deficient were moved to a very mineral rich environment and in 3 generations, those new bucks were equal to or exceeding the bucks that were originally from that same mineral rich environment.
Why isn't there a test for that to see if the area is mineral deficient? Also I use the monster raxx as well and I can't remember who it was that posted that they noticed that it seemed that after using monster raxx that pics showed that the bucks did not seem as busted up rack wise as had been in the past?
A soil test tells us exactly that. I believe there is a direct correlation between soil quality and antler potential. I'm the one that posted that and I don't have an empirical evidence, just an observation. My observation was that I believe that deer that consume extreme amounts of salt possibly grow antlers that are more brittle, not necessarily that Monster Raxx made them less brittle. The removal of the excess salt from their diet is what I'm basing that theory on.
I believe in soil testing but really have no baseline to compare to native unimproved soil. It's easier to pour a bag of mineral and set up a camera. I do get pictures of bucks from year to year and look at growth but there is no way to figure if antler growth is maximized or if what I am using is helping. I do get satisfaction that the product is working when I get pics of a doe with fawns hitting the mineral stump knowing I am using a quality product that has beneficial nutrients in it.
All you have to so to link antler size to nutrition and soil health is look around at the areas of the country (world) that has the most frequent occurrence of massive huge bucks. Pretty much tells the story in a glance...
Sure over the average but in St.Louis and Lake County North side of Lake Superior very poor very shallow soil, historically some very large antlered bucks from those counties, there are exceptions to every rule.
I would venture to say that most of those vary large antlered bucks were well up there in age. A 6.5 year old buck in just about any area will be pretty impressive, it's just really hard in most parts of the country to ever see buck that reaches his full maturity, hunting pressure in those counties are probably some of the lowest in the country(I could be wrong), the terrain and access makes hunting those areas beyond difficult in most instances.
They also contend with wolves and that makes them ultimate survivors and to be honest most of the registered big deer in that area were killed before people began to contemplate age. It was at one point of the hot beds of bucks registered to B & C but this was well before Iowa was growing the big deer.
