Curious if anyone is good at aging a deer by its teeth. I got a european mount, so can only have the top teeth,, so not sure its even possible. One side looks quite a bit more worn than the other. Thanks!

6.5+

1st molar is dished out in both cusps and dentin’s is wider than enamel on third molar

there was a study done years ago about how accurate tooth wear aging and lab (cementum annuli) were. For the tooth wear the took a large number of deer that they knew what the ages were in advance and then had a number of experienced biologist look at the teeth and state what they thought the age was. Then they sent off the teeth to a lab to provide what they said the ages were.

The results were this ........... neither way ended up being very accurate at all. I do not remember the percentages but they were not good.

One of the theories was that deer that are on feed (protein, cottonseed, etc.) teeth do not wear the same as if they are only eating natural browse - much less wear and tear on teeth when eating protein.

So IMO the absolute best way to determine a dead deer's age is to have a history on him which includes trail camera pictures each year that documents him from age 2 or 3 and on.

................

Spent a bit of time discussing this topic with Jack Waymire (Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife biologist) a few years back. Tooth wear aging is an educated guess at best. Wear can be drastically different depending on food sources and environmental factors. Jack’s stance was that tooth wear can be fairly accurate for the first 2-3 years of a deer’s life, then less accurate after that. He had 30+ years experience doing it at that point, so I believe him.

I totally agree. Way too many factors

^^^^100% agree with this.
I have no proof but my opinion is that tooth wear would be more accurate if you were comparing the same area from year to year and no major changes in diet. You would still have no way to verify other than personally following the deer and still no certainty. Getting within one year would be best case scenario.
For years on a big place we would kill about 20 to 30 “mature” bucks. Because of a good camera system and great communication among members almost every deer we would have some history on and make a determination of how old we(collectively from 20ish guys) thought they were. Then we would look at tooth wear and send off to the lab.
Tooth wear would be hit and miss, especially since several guys would look.
I was surprised and disappointed the lab wasn’t more accurate(based on our opinions from history). Maybe lab was correct and we were wrong but a few instances of two years difference made me lose faith.

I believe that there is definitely a difference based on what deer eat. I think corn cause more tooth wear then other foods. Shot a basket (14") 10 last weekend. His last upper tooth was broke in have. I am sure that tooth was bothering him for a while.

If memory serves me the study showed around 50-60% of tooth wear and lab testing was two years or more off of what the real age was - so end of the day that tells me there is not a scientific way to age deer by their teeth - best and only way is to track the deer over the years via cameras and video ...........
we had a buck we had pictures of for five years. Let him ride for two more years and took him when he was seven. Teeth showed he was 5 as well as the lab test -

OP the top teeth are very hard to age from compared to bottom jaws. Top typically have a larger margin of error. I have seen a 2 -3 year difference in Euro tops from bottom jaws. Typically upper, age younger

as far as sending off or annuli aging, It still has a margin of error but, its typically closer then 4th cusp etc. all of are know deer were on or with in a year +-

I may be wrong but thought the labs you sent teeth into had a significantly better accuracy/reliability than string by wear? I agree the best is by far history, but without a tag in their ear that’s also not perfect. I do my best to pick out identifiable fawns/yearlings, but it’s really hard to do so and find them next year.

I put next to no faith in aging by wear. Deer that we have killed that we had years of history with ant teeth to be aged that were in the 6+ year old range that have incredibly little tooth wear. I posted some of them and teach wear by photos is tuff, but most were saying 2-3 years old.

statically less margin of error with cementum annuli aging

now the accuracy rating is in fluctuation depending on source. Deer Association 87% tooth wear, 93% CA aging.

Ive seen know deer wrong with CA but not more then a 1+-. On a 6.5 buck thats still puts it in the none oops range for most part.

for all measurable purposes Id take CA over tooth wear model. If you are going to live and die by tooth, need one person doing it so at-least you are consistent.

i do all three. History(to a degree) ,wear and CA. History is a a pretty good joke at most places, who is documenting 1-2 year old deer?

Mine is all for kicks and sample size (property and number of deer) is small. We scrutinize the deer we have year round cameras on feed/water and it’s nearly impossible the pick yearlings etc out. Every so often we have one with a jacked up ear or an odd coloration but none have hung around to be seen more than 2 years.

we took a buck years ago that we had history on and knew he was at least 6 but most likely 7. CA came back at age 4. I believe the CA is more accurate than tooth wear but I think both can have flaws - wish I could find that study from some years back that showed overall pretty poor results on both getting within 2 years

Your quote "History is a a pretty good joke at most places, who is documenting 1-2 year old deer?"

We do not document 1-2 year old deer but we have so many trail cam pics and videos that once they hit age 3 we start keeping track of them. If ever in doubt we pass and give them another year. Works for us

I think maybe what Bobo meant was if you don’t start tracking till 3, do you really know they are 3? Or maybe that’s just my interpretation. If cementum an…(whatever spelling) is accurate to a year +\- it’s as good or better.

CA is just like anything else, could have the new guy or Friday reporting error, etc. Data sets get crossed. Id sent other incisor if you didn't send both. Human error still exists, why i said I use all three, cross check if you will.


My point is if its not tagged or uniquely marked, even with your deep history on that ranch and the fact you have look at, followed and aged hundreds of deer its still an opinion of 3.5. You will be right more times then not because if your experience but its not absolute. Birth is absolute.

regardless Aging from top teeth is an excise in wasting brain cells

First.....I am horrible at aging deer by the teeth alone..however, if the deer has a potbellied and has a large girth..I can feel that he is mature and the teeth should be worn down to verify that. Teeth alone sometimes not definite how old he is. If he is around sandy ground the teeth may be worn prematurely. If the no. 6 tooth is worn such that it is at an angle ..he should show maturity. I feel I can be right some of the time and wrong some of the time.lol In my area the books say the antler base and beam length can tell some of the story. I put the deer in categories first....young..adult...and mature. This will get me close, but not exact.

I agree that aging from tooth wear is worthless - have seen many many mistakes with this method

That certainly cleared things up.

My understanding is CA is more accurate and effective in a more cold weather environment.

^^^I have heard same. More distinct difference between good times and bad. Thanks Hud.

Our hunting property is a sand box. We sling corn into it year round for the past 16 years. The 5-6 year olds we have shot (age based on body traits, history, and cementum a… test) show very little wear at all, more in line with 3 year old not 6 year old teeth by guides.

When people refer to CA is that xray? We have a lease member that sends all his off to be xrayed.