They can be from the sane genetic pool, but that doesn't mean all that pool carries over. After 50/50 you don't know what you have. Things might average 75/25, but that's not what you truly have.
I don't see it nearly as clearly as dominant/recessive genes, or any kind of latent genes.
Trying to word it and best I can; in the wild, for reproduction pretty much spring condition of the cow trumps everything. That is the number one thing for reproductive success (a live calf). Other factors can contribute to that, such as in the fall the most dominant male usually does the breeding. So dominant male might be the best body condition, not the biggest rack. Now, make food pretty even across the table and the dominant bull that was previously the one that could maintain the best body condition doesn't have the same advantages over the other bulls, because with good feed its easier for them all to maintain body condition, so other things start to come into play because body condition doesn't become the primary factor. What I'm saying is in the wild, the bull who spent the most effort on growing the biggest rack might not be in the best condition during breeding season, however that can change with good food resources. So then even within what was a pool of say topped out 330 bulls, when you only have the larger racked bulls breeding, you will be selecting for bigger and bigger racks. It doesn't mean that it will only be genes for 330's passed on, as things change. How else could we get bigger racks? Otherwise it would be a constant drop in size. It's like dairy cows that have been selected for more and more elk production, or selecting for higher and higher calving weight, or wean weight. To think that they can't get better, would mean that you can't ever do better than what us currently put there, we'll that's quiet opposite in livestock. Now in livestock we of course select and cull all the time, but it still happens in the wild too. Like a cow that puts too much of her energy and reserves into a larger calf might not have the energy to actually grow that calf, so it dies. Good feed helps to prevent that, allowing it to carry on.
In the end, yes nutrition grows big antlers, but it's not the only factor.
It's interesting what the Eastern herds are doing, it's generally thought that they are in better conditions than their western cousins, and they are growing well. So feed in a sense is a primary contributor over time to developing, but you can't just throw feed to an elk and expect it to suddenly grow to be a 400" bull.
Tho in the East, many of the supplement companies want hunters to think you can feed something to the deer and you will grow 200" bucks, it doesn't work like that. Over many generations it might happen, but it doesn't happen short term. Still takes selection, and that happens if we are a part of it or not.
I think you should compile it and send it in.
