Deer aging....

[redblood]

i see so many threads on age this deer, and many are mine lol. But i challenge everyone to get meaningful feedback if you are lucky enough to harvest that deer (and share the results with us). There are alot of companies out there now that do the cementum annuli deer aging with just the extraction of a single tooth. Its very affordable and gives you the most accurate results (short of holding the birth certificate). the deerage.com guys are great. They catalog their results. I know that aging by jaw bone extraction gives some feedback, but its also varies greatly by diet, occlusion and other factors. it not expensive and results are fairly fast. I have done 2 so far, but plan on doing every buck i harvest from here on out.

Whitetail Deer Aging • Experts in Cementum Annuli Forensic Aging

Experts in Whitetail Deer Aging and other game! We offer premium aging packages to ensure you get the most accurate age for your whitetail.

deerage.com

 

[backyardtndeer]

I have been tempted to send off some teeth to verify, but never have. Would be nice to see how they compare, and then make a plaque with teeth, pics, and analysis results by age classes.

 

[megalomaniac]

Only sent one off.

I thought he was 8.5, and deerage confirmed.

 

[TheLBLman]

Despite Cementum Lab Aging appearing to be more accurate (and it should be), human lab error has been known to make this method less accurate aging by tooth wear.

In a particular region, aging by tooth wear provides excellent trend data, even though it is often off by a year. But then, even when cementum lab aging is off by a year (or more), would most hunters ever know that, or just take it as the gospel?

That said, I would generally expect cementum lab aging to be more accurate than the old tooth wear method. Just be aware human error is omni-present, and some deer are born as "tweeners".

 

[BSK]

There are alot of companies out there now that do the cementum annuli deer aging with just the extraction of a single tooth. Its very affordable and gives you the most accurate results (short of holding the birth certificate).

I disagree with this. In studies with known age deer (deer were captured as fawns, ear tagged, and released [so the researchers knew exactly what year each deer was born]), cementum annuli was NOT the most accurate at determining age. The old tooth wear method was. However, toothwear tends to under-age deer, especially with the oldest deer. In fact, by the time toothwear indicates an age of 5 1/2, all of the deer in the study were 1 to 2 years older than that.

The problem with cementum annuli is Southeastern late-summer droughts. These late summer droughts will produce a slowed growth ring in the teeth that looks just like the winter slowdown. Then rains return in fall, the vegetation flushes (and acorns begin to fall) and the deer increase their growth rate again. For cementum annuli, this will produce 2 growth rings in the same year, producing an age that is too old.

 

[TheLBLman]

The problem with cementum annuli is Southeastern late-summer droughts.

The other problem being human error.

Because of all the factors, regardless which aging method is used, there is still a good chance a deer closest to 4 1/2, may get aged as either 3 1/2 or 5 1/2, one method known to more often under-age, the other more often to over-age.

But really bad aging errors, like calling a 6 1/2 a 2 1/2, would be more likely with the lab aging where humans lose track of which jawbone is which jawbone, overwhelmed by the receipt of perhaps hundreds of jawbones arriving in the mail daily in November-December?

When the chain of custody becomes longer, more mistakes become easier?

 

[Ski]

Deer aging has always been so subjective and nuanced. I've never trusted it. Until there's a definitive method that produces at least near perfect accuracy I'm not putting much stock in it. As of now all I could trust any of it for is very general age classing, not specific aging. He's younger than 3yrs, older than 3yrs, or ancient. So far as I've seen that's about all the accuracy any method has shown.

 

[BSK]

The other problem being human error.

Because of all the factors, regardless which aging method is used, there is still a good chance a deer closest to 4 1/2, may get aged as either 3 1/2 or 5 1/2, one method known to more often under-age, the other more often to over-age.

But really bad aging errors, like calling a 6 1/2 a 2 1/2, would be more likely with the lab aging where humans lose track of which jawbone is which jawbone, overwhelmed by the receipt of perhaps hundreds of jawbones arriving in the mail daily in November-December?

When the chain of custody becomes longer, more mistakes become easier?

Well said TheLBLman.

 

[BSK]

Deer aging has always been so subjective and nuanced. I've never trusted it. Until there's a definitive method that produces at least near perfect accuracy I'm not putting much stock in it. As of now all I could trust any of it for is very general age classing, not specific aging. He's younger than 3yrs, older than 3yrs, or ancient. So far as I've seen that's about all the accuracy any method has shown.

I agree that estimating age using any method is fraught with errors. However, I strongly feel that the field-judging age method is the best at classifying bucks into general age categories: yearling, middle-aged, mature. Of course, there will always be bucks that are outside the norm with this technique as well, but it's the "percent wrong" I'm concerned with, and I think field-judging has a fairly low "percent wrong" when it comes to fitting one of those three categories.

Just a personal opinion, but I think the field-judging method's greatest weakness is in differentiating 3 1/2 from 4 1/2 (middle-aged from mature). I'll have bucks I'm constantly bouncing back and forth between those two categories, simply because that particular buck is bigger or smaller in body than his same-age cohorts. Kind of like trying to guess the age of some of these college football players. I see Freshman that are 6' 6" and 350 lbs. That is way outside what is normal for a 18-19 year-old male, but it does happen. However, it makes it hard to guess their real age.

 

[Ski]

I agree that estimating age using any method is fraught with errors. However, I strongly feel that the field-judging age method is the best at classifying bucks into general age categories: yearling, middle-aged, mature. Of course, there will always be bucks that are outside the norm with this technique as well, but it's the "percent wrong" I'm concerned with, and I think field-judging has a fairly low "percent wrong" when it comes to fitting one of those three categories.

Just a personal opinion, but I think the field-judging method's greatest weakness is in differentiating 3 1/2 from 4 1/2 (middle-aged from mature). I'll have bucks I'm constantly bouncing back and forth between those two categories, simply because that particular buck is bigger or smaller in body than his same-age cohorts. Kind of like trying to guess the age of some of these college football players. I see Freshman that are 6' 6" and 350 lbs. That is way outside what is normal for a 18-19 year-old male, but it does happen. However, it makes it hard to guess their real age.

I would agree with that. Field judging on the hoof seems far and above the most accurate method I've seen. I was referring to tooth wear and cementum aging after death.

 

[BSK]

I would agree with that. Field judging on the hoof seems far and above the most accurate method I've seen. I was referring to tooth wear and cementum aging after death.

The way I look at cementum annuli is it is pretty good at getting ages of Southeastern deer (which are most susceptible to drought-related errors) within +/- 1 year of age. Toothwear is good for getting a minimum age, realizing it is will under-age the oldest deer.

 

[Southern Sportsman]

Bout what does it cost to send off a tooth for aging?

 

[Tn Joe]

Bout what does it cost to send off a tooth for aging?

Around $40

 

[megalomaniac]

I agree that estimating age using any method is fraught with errors. However, I strongly feel that the field-judging age method is the best at classifying bucks into general age categories: yearling, middle-aged, mature. Of course, there will always be bucks that are outside the norm with this technique as well, but it's the "percent wrong" I'm concerned with, and I think field-judging has a fairly low "percent wrong" when it comes to fitting one of those three categories.

Just a personal opinion, but I think the field-judging method's greatest weakness is in differentiating 3 1/2 from 4 1/2 (middle-aged from mature). I'll have bucks I'm constantly bouncing back and forth between those two categories, simply because that particular buck is bigger or smaller in body than his same-age cohorts. Kind of like trying to guess the age of some of these college football players. I see Freshman that are 6' 6" and 350 lbs. That is way outside what is normal for a 18-19 year-old male, but it does happen. However, it makes it hard to guess their real age.

Good example side by side... Buck on right is 4.5, maybe 5.5... buck on left is 3.5.

Buck on left is much bigger body frame wise. Older buck on right has a small frame, but needs Ozempic badly.