Hind weights

ScottM11

Well-Known Member
Just wondering what weights you fellow Highland Red hind stalkers are getting?

Had 3 beasts through the larder today, a yeld hind and a hind with a stag calf at foot. The yeld hind was 176 lbs/12 stone 8 whilst the hind with calf was 152 lbs/10 stone 12. Both hinds were also pregnant, both with stag calves. So far every hind through the larder has been pregnant with stag calves. My understanding, limited as it may be, is that hinds have to be in a better condition to mother a stag than they do to mother a hind i.e. good condition = stag calf, poorer condition = hind calf.

Is this consistent with what the rest of you are finding? These deer aren't fed although they do maraud down from the hills onto fertile arable land during the winter months.

All the best,


Scott
 
Sex of the calf has had nothing to do with condition in my experience but await vet input. All weights seem to be up in the Eastern Highlands this year.
 
JSo far every hind through the larder has been pregnant with stag calves. My understanding, limited as it may be, is that hinds have to be in a better condition to mother a stag than they do to mother a hind i.e. good condition = stag calf, poorer condition = hind calf.

I think this is referred to in the Clutton-Brock book based on the reds on Rum and I also have it in my mind that there was a paper in Nature some years back, maybe not deer though, but which indicated that the condition of the mother could determine the sex of a calf. I must read the Clutton-Brock again to see exactly what he says. What I do remember is that he believed that stags which got a very good start in life tended to be bigger stags for the whole duration of their lives but that this sort of nurturing took more out of the hind and even a hind raising a relatively poor stag calf had to put more into it than when raising a hind calf. I don't recall if he clearly indicated if he thought that hinds in good condition were more likely to have stags but will check up on it as I have the book somewhere here.

I can't comment on reds but certainly the sika in Ireland are in great condition at the minute and have more fat on them than I've ever seen. If it is anything like Lewis then you Uibhisteachs have had a pretty easy few years recently so the deer should be doing well.
 
Right, here is what Clutton-Brock says in the summary of the chapter on the subject:

"There was no evidence that the sex ratio of red deer calves in our study area varied with factors likely to affect the mother's body condition, though there was a tendency for male calves to be born earlier in the season than females."

Now this is a relatively old book and maybe there has been newer research on the subject but it is the only book I own that addresses the subject. I wish I could remember even what animal was involved in the Nature paper as I remember finding it very interesting at the time, but the time might have been nearly 10 years ago :)
 
Thanks for that Caorach. We've had pretty easy winters compared to the mainland, although the gales don't seem to want to stop at the moment.

My point is all what's been told to me by past keepers, experience more than any real research as far as I know. Interesting that there seems to be an element of truth in it, although very little and I would class it as a myth based on that research. I own 50 Texel sheep and have far more experience with sheep than I do deer so I tend to compare and contrast and they're not that different. Couldn't get my head around the fact that better condition would consistently produce males although no doubt about it that the males would take more out of the mother so perhaps Mother Nature does play her part. Looking back on past lambing returns, it's 50/50 really and the greedier sheep tend to have females so there goes that conclusion. These sheep might have that element bred out of them though as they're commercial through and through whereas the deer are 100% wild, originally from the Isle of Rum.

Interesting about the males being born quicker. Assuming it's the same as in humans and in sheep, that the baby itself decides when it is born when it is too big for the womb, the male of the species must grow quicker and is therefore ready to be born earlier. Or perhaps the hind is in better condition earlier in the rut so conceives a stag, the later hind is in poorer condition as the rut goes on and the weather worsens so conceives a hind? Who knows by the sounds of it. Interesting stuff.

Good to hear about your Sika. As a matter of interest, a'bheil Gaidhlig agad? Sounds like it based on your user name and 'Uibhisteachs'


Scott
 
last 6 hinds I culled, gralloched, head and legs off ranged between 38 and 44 kg's, calves not included but yearling hinds are. All hinds shot this year have not been pregnant, which I found astonishing but tis' true.
 
I dragged one off the hill that was 70kg this year (hill weight) had a couple of 'emotional' moments during that drag!

Learnt a a couple of things , I'm not fit enough , look at the terrain BEFORE you shoot it , ghillies radios don't work if you shoot a fatty !
 
I got a big ol' girl a while back, 79kg head and legs off clean. I nearly busted my gut dragging her so decided i would go and look for some help. Didnt find anyone to help but i did find a wobbly old wheel barrow that nearly made me weep with joy when i found it. That was an eyes bigger than belly experience let me tell you. Best bit about the tough extractions is they are the hunts that survive in the memory banks.
 
Interesting about the males being born quicker. Assuming it's the same as in humans and in sheep, that the baby itself decides when it is born when it is too big for the womb, the male of the species must grow quicker and is therefore ready to be born earlier.

Again referring to the Clutton-Brock book he found that stags had a longer gestation period and were born with a higher body weight so the only conclusion I can reach is that these hinds were covered earlier. It would be interesting to see if there is any more recent research on this which might untangle this all as there is clearly something complex going on but it just seems to me like we've no idea what it is.

No Gaelic I'm afraid, or very little. My girlfriend has it as she is from the West Side so I can understand all the basic commands (come here, get your boots on and go to sheep, wash the dishes etc.) plus I know the names of the trout lochs :)
 
The hinds ive been getting so far, larder weight vary between 34kgs and 44kgs with two just scrapping over 50kgs, I too am finding more than usual numbers of stag calves, also told to me by a fellow stalker was that mother condition influenced sex of calve, True or not, just thought id share with you.
All hinds shot on open hill in Perthshire.
 
Your weights seem massive , do these deer have access to seaweed as well as the grass fields ? . An average HILL stag in scotland probably "only" weighs about 196 lbs (14 stone) . Our hinds are coming into the larder at about 100 lbs with 120 lbs being big , so far our smallest calf was 36 lbs hill weight.
 
Not to sure about this, but I always thought that when the living was easy, ie plenty food and easy winters, that a herd overall produced more female offspring and when times were hard, more males or yeld.
I could be wrong though, it has happened before !
 
I would have thought weights would be up this year compared to last due to a mild winter last year, cracking summer and mild autumn/early winter this year. Plenty of food about and prolonged growing season well into autumn. Also due to this a lot of calves will be at foot.
 
Thanks for that Johnny, interesting to see similar findings from mainland Scotland as well as the same knowledge being passed on.

10.9 - I don't know what the definition of a hill stag is other than the difference between that and a park/woodland stag. These deer are 100% not woodland/park deer although whether I would class them as hill stags I don't know. They have access to most of what they come across on this island, except for the few plantations that are fenced off. Good genes and access to the crofters fertilised grass on the machair land is what I would say contributes to the big weights. Our biggest stag this season was 22 stone 1, close second came in at 21 stone 9.

You could indeed be right Mossypaw, I'm merely enquiring as to what other people have been told and/or are finding.

Thanks for that Basil, hadn't thought of that as to why a large percentage of the hinds I come across have a calf at foot and are also pregnant with another. Our calving percentage has always been higher than the mainland (usually around 44% compared to 20odd%) due to our mild winters.

PKL, that's interesting that none of them have been pregnant. Have they had a good covering of fat on them, say between half an inch to an inch on their sternum?

Scott
 
Wow, huge weights, shot an English woodland red hind at 167lbs larder weight and thought she was massive! This is an area that sees 25st stags frequently, but as said they live well all year round. I would of thought that's an unheard of weight on the hill?? My experiences hill stalking sees an average weight of probably 100-ish lbs at a guess....and a couple of those can make for a heartbreaking extraction!
 
Wow, huge weights, shot an English woodland red hind at 167lbs larder weight and thought she was massive! This is an area that sees 25st stags frequently, but as said they live well all year round. I would of thought that's an unheard of weight on the hill?? My experiences hill stalking sees an average weight of probably 100-ish lbs at a guess....and a couple of those can make for a heartbreaking extraction!

i quite often get hinds up to 80kg down here, I shot a yearling stag and his mum this morning, total combined weight was 120.5kg. They were very similar in size so I would have guessed at the hind being 65kg to his 55kg give of take, I thought she was small....... Although the drag to get them out suggested otherwise.
i wouldn't be surprised to see hinds round here occasionally get to and over 90kg, but with stags reaching 160kg+ (larder weight) that's not all that surprising.
 
Back
Top