I just want to ask if any one else has noticed how much larger the teeth are on Aussie pigs than that seen here in the states? Even the small ones seem to stick up 3 or 4 inches. I'm not talking about after taxidermy when the tusk can be pulled out but freshly killed pigs. How does the true Russian compare? Male/ Female?
Capmed

"TRUE RUSSIAN" doesn't mean jack $hit!

Jeez that frustrates me! No offence meant to anyone but the Eurasian/European wild pig, Sus scrofa and subspecies do not all originate from Russia.

The pigs in Russia tend to be larger, this is due to genetics and climate. Cold climes tend toward the natural selection of larger specimens.

The question you ask about the Aussie pigs is a very interesting one.

My own personal theory is that with the mix of European/Euraisian wild pigs, wild pigs from the neighboring islands and plain old domestic pigs that have been released over the last 200 odd years, a different strain or type has prevailed in different areas depending on the terain.

Cool, food ritch areas in the southern plains and mountains tend to produce huge pigs that often sport small tusks. These animals are very similar to the domestic pigs, they havn't been sculpted by that land so much.

The areas of inland outback NSW and QLD have populations of very small, tusky and wiry pigs that a very similar to the European or Asian subspecies.

Nothern Australia seems to get something of a mix of these two extreme.

This is what I have come across in my own experience.

The females don't grow tusks that are worth mention. I have killed some very old sows that had incisors that were a little longer than usual, but nothing like what a boar grows.

Another factor is that if the domoestic blood previals in a given specimen, it will grow quickly in bulk, but the tusks take time to grow, so you end up with apparently big animals that are in fact reletivly young.

One strange thing I have noticed around north western NSW and south western QLD is the imbalance of boar to sows.

When I was there last we shot 30 pigs, if think about 27 of them were boars.

I can post pics of some good examples of this but at the moment Imagestation doesn't seem to want to let me.

If you're still curious I'll try again later.

[ 12-05-2003, 20:10: Message edited by: EXPRESS ]

We do get some big pigs up here but not all have big tusks. I agree with EXPRESS. The pigs in my area are a mix of the Euraisian/Timor pigs and domestic stock. For some pics of a bit of both check out my pics in this forum. The black and white boar was big in the body but short in the tooth dept. We got a smaller boar that same day that had bigger tusks.

Mate I like shooting 'back o Bourke, on a property at Yantabulla. The pigs there don't get over 35kg, although we did see a spotted boar a few times that might have been 40 or 45. He became somthing of a grey ghost on that trip.

Anyways, the pigs there, as small as they are have huge tusks! most had at least 2 inches poking out one came out of the jaw at just over 7 inches. These pigs' tusks were also typically quite thin and with a tight curl to them.

Down in the Victoria Highlands they get a lot of big fat pigs with short, thick tusks.

Just a small correction. Animals are not larger in cold climates for a given species because natural selection. They are larger to stay warmer. As the bulk of the animal increases, the body mass increases disproportionately to the surface area of the animal. There is a technical term for this that escapes me.

Maybe that is what fat people are generally "hotter" than skinny people.

I remembered the term! It's called Bergmann's Rule.

"Larger animals usually have smaller surface areas relative to their body masses and, therefore, are comparatively inefficient at radiating their body heat off into the surrounding environment. Relatively less surface area results in relatively less heat being lost."

[ 12-07-2003, 23:05: Message edited by: Longbob ]

I was trying to come up with the correct term as well Longbob, I think Bergmanns' rule is an evolutionary law.
Thanks for the key.

Then why are Samoans so damn big?

Because they are fat!

I really haven't noticed any difference in tusk size. I think animal size is totally dependent on environment. I've seen a lot of boars from the Texas coast and they probably average 175# but they can grow some good tusks.

tusk sizes is ofcourse related to 4 factors

genetics
age/health
diet
environment.

If the tusker has got good genes, they'll show even when he's small... I've pull 2" OUT of the gum from 130# pigs... and 1" from 250s.... from the same area, in the same year

age... face it, a 10 month old, 90-120# just hasn't had time to finish growing

diet... if they weren't eating enough during their intial growing, they aint gunna have big tooffesses

area/environment

here's the kicker.... on soft soils, one frequently sees larger tusks than on sandy/rocky/dry soils... I believe this to be in direct relation to the wear of the soil and the wear on the tusks.

jeffe

If you start comparing then the Warthog will shame them all, but whats this all about, when it comes to a trophy it's measured by what is consider big in a specific geographical area...

I have shot some monster bucks in So. Texas and they only measured 135 points, by fenced standards thats not much of a buck, but for a wild whitetail thats pretty darn good...

I know areas where a 27" Mule deer is a real trophy and other areas where it takes a 34" deer to even get someone to look at it...

Bottom line is size is relevant to what is available in the area being hunted...One of my prize treasures is a 119 B&C Coues deer.....

It really is disgusting to hear some barber shop expert say I'm a mule deer hunter, who wants to shoot a wimpy whitetail or some such silly statment as that.........