Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
SlowSteve

Is there any evidence based data for bait making?

Recommended Posts

Hello all.

 

I have been looking around for information of flavor preferences, but can't find anything with any rigour behind it.

 

There are loads of people who will happily tell you "I am catching more on Bait X than Bait Y", but every single report I've read - in magazines, books etc, all have the same flaw - they are what Richard Walker called a "Hemp and Grain" problem. So - it's not like science.

 

Hemp and grain problem

Lets say there is a lake with some carp in it which people fish for. A new angler turns up and asks "Whats the best bait" - and gets told "Hemp - bail in the hemp if you want to catch". So - he bails in hemp and catches fish. Some days he catches a few fish and some days he catches lots of fish but he always uses Hemp. So - when he has a bad day, he doesn't blame it on the hemp.

 

One day, the tackle shop doesn't have any hemp, so he boils up 10 kg of grain. One of two things happen - he either has a good day or a bad day. If he has a bad day, it gets blamed on the grain - he doesn't use it again. If he has a good day, he tells his friends - "Hey - look at all the fish I caught on grain!!".. So, they start using it at the lake and they catch fish. Now, the lake becomes known as a "Grain Lake" - you MUST use grain if you want to catch fish!!!! etc etc etc

 

The reality is that some days are just better or worse than others - it happens kind of randomly. People attach feelings to random events, but they're not real.

 

It's a confirmation bias - people remember things that work well better than things that don't.

 

If you replace Hemp and Grain with "NASH 4G vs NASH The Key" its the same thing.

 

Put a different way - you wouldn't want your doctor to choose life saving medicine the way that most people choose bait.

 

Anywho.

 

Does anyone know of any more SCIENTIFIC research that has been done? For example, using two different baits on the same rig in the same swim for perhaps 20 sessions? Or doing some form of regression study on, for example, hours per fish using Caisin protien vs using Whey based protien etc etc? Or maybe the fish farms have done research?

 

Stuff like rods, reels and especially line, has a lot of science behind it. I'd like to see if there is anything in the bait world?

 

 

As an example: I have kept a fishing diary for the last 20 years. Based on this, and controlled for only when I am using a Lift method, and only when using mussel as bait, I can see that I can see that when I add blood or dried blood to the ground bait ( what ever ground bait I'm using) or loosefeed, I go from catching 1 carp every 2.1 hours of fishing to 1 carp every 1.8 hours - so adding blood increases my catch rate by around 16%. I can also see it makes big positive impacts for tench, small impacts for chub and pretty much halfs the chance of catching barbel or grayling.

 

It's this sort of things I'm looking to get hold of. Has anyone, maybe the bait makers, done this sort of study? if so, can someone post some links?

 

Ta

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As an example: I have kept a fishing diary for the last 20 years. Based on this, and controlled for only when I am using a Lift method, and only when using mussel as bait, I can see that I can see that when I add blood or dried blood to the ground bait ( what ever ground bait I'm using) or loosefeed, I go from catching 1 carp every 2.1 hours of fishing to 1 carp every 1.8 hours - so adding blood increases my catch rate by around 16%. I can also see it makes big positive impacts for tench, small impacts for chub and pretty much halfs the chance of catching barbel or grayling.

 

 

I can't add anything of any interest but thanks for sharing this little piece very interesting  :)

 

I would have thought due to the cut throat nature of the bait making business any results they have obtained will be a very closely guarded secret, there will come a time when they have to declare what is in there bait on the packaging but I still thing most of them are doing no more than us blokes in sheds cobbling ingredients together to help gain that extra % 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost - IT IS MY OPINION - your logic is flawed if you intend to work on the, - 'catching 1 carp every 2.1 hours of fishing to 1 carp every 1.8 hours' theory,... or in my opinion it is flawed unless you have the exact same conditions each time, and that is highly unlikely, but that is personal opinion and based on lake/river angling compared to tank testing.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A SPITE AT YOUR CONFIDENCE OR YOUR LOGIC IF IT MAKES YOU HAPPY!!! (Caps obviously typed deliberately as to not offend)
As for the bait testing - there are absolutely hundreds, possibly thousands of places to look in regards to bait-making and the research carried out on it. ('it' being different ingredients used). You just have to be prepared to read a lot and take much with a pinch of salt. (not too much salt though).
 
If you want to get technical - read Watanabe, Nose, Takeuchi, Ogino as a starting point and work your way out from their. Their findings will open your eyes wider than you thought possible. (it requires translation, or a lot of it does)

As for 'makers' testing and sharing information with you regarding what 'works' and what doesn't, and why - to divulge the reams upon reams of paperwork carried out and the time, effort and cost - good luck with your quest on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'there will come a time when they have to declare what is in there bait on the packaging'

Think it is supposed to come into fruition this year, hutch.
I could possibly be wrong, and it could be next year, but either way - weight doesn't have to be classed/shown and neither does the 'exact' product. ie - fishmeal is fishmeal and not a 'specific' type, if you get where I'm going.

 

,... that is what I am led to believe, at least.

Edited by Turnip
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Think it is supposed to come into fruition this year, hutch.

I could possibly be wrong, and it could be next year, but either way - weight doesn't have to be classed/shown and neither does the 'exact' product. ie - fishmeal is fishmeal and not a 'specific' type, if you get where I'm going.

 

I thought it was this year as well but have seen no evidence of it yet, I have seen sticky bags with ingredients listed on the bag but like you say fishmeal is just that and which type it is although most use LT 94, also like you highlight even with ingredients listed would still make it difficult to replicate due to the quantities being missing 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turnip.

 

No offense taken.

 

The reason I am comfortable-ish with my method is that I don't fish a lot of different methods, so I can control my calcuations for things like bait. I have 20 summers and 20 winters of fishing and plenty of fish caught, so it's mathmatically "OK" as an approach. Good enough at least to notice big factors - like blood = good for carp, bad for barbel. It's ***NOT*** good enough for small things - is Brand X of Caisin better than Brand Y, where there might only be 1/2% difference in it.

 

I have read most of the authors you posted. Nose is a trout guy, and trout are part of the salmo family, so I don't think much can be used - they are totally different in all sorts of ways to carp. Watanabe and Ogino are focused on weight gain rather than food selection - i.e. I like greek yoghurt more than chocolate, but chocolate makes me gain weight faster. Ogino would suggest feeding me chocolate, although youghurt would be a better bait to catch SlowSteves. Not seen Takeuchi before - I'll go digging for him. thanks for this.

 

 

As for the bait makers - I'm not expecting any form of trade secrets from them, but I would assume that at least some generic information is available or has leaked out. 

 

Really why I'm looking is for two reasons. The first is selfish - I usually only fish short sessions, and if I could go from averaging 1-2 fish per session to 2-3 fish per session then that would be good.

 

The other reason is because bait isn't cheap - especially for kids or people who aren't working, knowing that cheap Bait X is *about* as good as expensive Bait Y means they can put their money into other things.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll need to look at scientific data in PDF form, there are loads available, but and its a big but, its hard reading, try to read between the lines, I have found again and again,

Bloodworm Extract

Maple Syrup

Citric Acid

Some Salts

Have all been tested, but in tanks, various countries have scientific data available. Japan, India and America are to name but a few. The problem with looking at angling literature, is a lot of it is biased, to get a true representation you'll need to start looking at a lot of data. I in the middle of doing so and it consumes a lot of time. Ive read papers on pellets with isolated aminos being tested, all sorts,

 

The funny thing is, no matter what you come up with, it still needs to be put in front of fish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, nm, but it sure does present headaches.

Not the presenting the food in front - the constant reading and translating and then skipping irrelevancies - or what is thought to be irrelevant, only to read 5 pages later that what is mistaken as 'irrelevant' turns out to be important, but termed in a way which doesn't really make sense in English. :mrgreen:

So many places to read from and deciphering which route to take is all the fun. Expensive, but fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wont get an argument, but I'm sure you can see where your post left the question I posed. It wasn't done to incite or annoy you.

 

The question I would ask in relation to the 3 tanks - were the fish identical? Obviously not. How could they be. So my comment would be that the fish, before entering the tanks could have been ill in some way (no possible way of knowing without an autopsy) - maybe a tad far-fetched, but then you have to ask, and not directed at you - Does a fish only eat boilie? What else was available to the fish, food wise? What was the contents of the bait used?

I have not read the article, so I can't comment on that part.

As for fattening the fish - you could also look the other way and say, that the 'lean' fish is underfed, under-nourished. Proof would be required I grant you, but there are many Stonkers in the rivers that have never seen a boilie.

As for shortening the lifespan of any particular fish by feeding it a 'decent' diet, whereby everything a fish requires is in the bait - I would be inclined to say that the fish contracted something that killed it, or contradict the statement and say - the bait itself was not substantial in the dietary requirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all.

 

I have been looking around for information of flavor preferences, but can't find anything with any rigour behind it.

 

Here ya go something to be getting on with. http://www.nativefishlab.net/library/textpdf/16185.pdf reactions of aquarium carp to food and flavors and http://www.bouillettes-dependance-baits.com/res/site19627/res552278_taste-common-carp.pdf taste sensitivity of common carp.

 

Most studies will be tank based as you can control most but not all of the external factors that may sway results but in a pond situation the data would be skewed by too many veriables.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit.

Was trying to add something, but the edit facility has gone.....

 

What I would also add, although you may see it as winding you up - trust me - no intentions of it - but, can you not see what I was saying in 1 of my very first posts I made here re: shelflife boilies?

 

Was it the Amino Cycle that got pushed aside to make way for the preservative?

Was it the preservative?

What, if anything was the conclusion of the autopsies carried out on the dead fish?

 

Surmising here, but, 5 will get you 10 that the results, if any, returned a verdict of a digestive tract malfunction, be it way of constipation or through way of malnutrition. As I say, surmising, but that would be the answer I would give without knowing the content of the boilie other than 'shelf-life'.

 

Thanks for keeping it non-combatant, and hopefully we can move on in the future in the same vein.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the crux, though, cm.

The boilie isn't, nor has it ever (from Fred's era up to the present day) been - ',... engineered to produce food for the pot.'

People who choose to do so - I can assure you, are wealthy or stupid. I bagsy say they are the latter.

I'll clarify that - A good quality bait - regardless of who makes it - is going to be expensive (£1k is expensive to a home-roller, whereas £500k to a manufacturer could be deemed so).

Look how many have to be paid. Ingredient supplier(s). Company. Advertising. Bait-shop mark-up, and that is missing some out.

I was yappin with Phil the other week - don't read this as promotion, please. Using it as an example.

For 200 kilo of dry/wet mix (excluding rolling), a home-roller would pay £1300, or near enough. That bait would then be affordable at just over £4.50 a kilo. The bait company - if it were to use the same ingredients - doubtful if the price would hit £2.50 a kilo, yet they would be forced to sell at stupid money. Through necessity rather than profit?

 

A good quality bait is just that. Good quality.

Not the Whey and Albumen way, but with decent eggs and ingredients with known growth, health properties.

This is what takes the time to develop a bait.

 

As the OP asked - experiments do take place in many forms, be-it, by way of chemical analysis, bait 'tweeking' every ingredient (take a couple of g's off here and add it somewhere else) and/or a combination of both.

I would certainly not limit my vision on reading from carp/fishing forums or magazines.

Much of my learning comes from reading properly conducted science experiments. Much of it going above the bald-spot, but can be learnt, or at least recognised as being 'good'.

That is where I would suggest to look.

 

Cheers for the links Bish.

Got the latter but not the first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The links posted by Bishops were great - ***Exactly*** what I was looking for.

 

They are a bit dense, but I have worked through them. I will write a separate post (probably tomorrow ) with a separate post to boil them all down and make it simple to read for everyone.

 

Interestingly - it looks like some absolutely core elements of a lot of baits actively put fish off. And some weird stuff looks very effective. It also explains *WHY* HNV baits are effective as well - it's not about the nutrional value, it just so happens that the a core component of highly nutrional bait happens to be one of the most powerful attractors for carp.

 

The other thing is that, because of the way the measurements are done, it's clear that there are definately "Works only with hair rigs" and seperate "Works without hair rigs" baits. And not actually a vast amount of cross over. Which is awesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit.

Was trying to add something, but the edit facility has gone.....

 

What I would also add, although you may see it as winding you up - trust me - no intentions of it - but, can you not see what I was saying in 1 of my very first posts I made here re: shelflife boilies?

 

Was it the Amino Cycle that got pushed aside to make way for the preservative?

Was it the preservative?

What, if anything was the conclusion of the autopsies carried out on the dead fish?

 

Surmising here, but, 5 will get you 10 that the results, if any, returned a verdict of a digestive tract malfunction, be it way of constipation or through way of malnutrition. As I say, surmising, but that would be the answer I would give without knowing the content of the boilie other than 'shelf-life'.

 

Thanks for keeping it non-combatant, and hopefully we can move on in the future in the same vein.

Turnip, the article put it down to the preservative. They used one type of boilie.

 

For your reference.

 

http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-Times/Section/News--Catches/General-News/June-2008/Presevatives-Are-they-killing-our-fish/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Androoooo - you've just made an old'ish man very happy. Thanks for that.

I've not read the article before and was unaware of the testing which took place.

Now I am one hell of a happy bunny to read that my view-point is shared by others with the facilities to carry out far more advanced trials than I could possibly achieve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Turnip, the article put it down to the preservative. They used one type of boilie. 

 

To put a slightly different slant on this the human food chain is now littered with food that is stuffed with preservatives as everyone wants extra self life out of there problem the flip side is we now have an obesity problem, ready made boilies follow the same suit and are stuffed full of preservatives so the compnay in question can get the most self life out of there product so it is no surprise that the boilie fish died also highlights that shelf life boilies on mass are not good for your fish stocks if your a fishery owner 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boilies, apart from their convenience value, are a collection of chemicals that would probably be banned in the human food chain, they have the properties of fattening fish, and producing obesity in a wild creature, there are many lakes around where I live where they are banned, they are not the be all and end all, and as Nick agrees , they are a pretty inefficient bait, should all the research go down this route or should we be pursuing different avenues, think on friends.

That maybe the case for a lot of companies/people but some of us like to look at every single aspect to try and produce a good rounded bait. Boilies are primarily aimed to catch, using high attractor levels, for the whole, but like I said some of us like to try and produce a bait which doesn't have any long term detrimental effect.

Its just a case of being selective with your ingredients, a lot of companies won't afford this expenditure as its not viable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote cm -

Boilies, apart from their convenience value, are a collection of chemicals that would probably be banned in the human food chain, they have the properties of fattening fish, and producing obesity in a wild creature, there are many lakes around where I live where they are banned, they are not the be all and end all, and as Nick agrees , they are a pretty inefficient bait, should all the research go down this route or should we be pursuing different avenues, think on friends.

 

 

I really hope you read this the way it is intended, cm. No malice, I assure you, but I would very much like to know how you would feel, and if your sentiments would be the same if, every member, and every guest of this message board were to take up your encouragement to try the bait you are strongly advocating in another thread.

What if everybody who fishes the waters that the advocated bait is used on - your water - were to throw 10 kilo in a week - how long would it take for the damage to come to fruition?.

However, I haven't tried the bait, and I would imagine that the bait is of a very good standard, but I would also ask you this - do you know what the ingredients are for a certainty. By that I mean 100% ingredients and not something that has 'inadvertently' been forgotten to be listed.

The thing is - the baits that are made by the likes of hutch, nm, moose, Frank, Nick and many others - you don't know what the ingredients being used are, and you certainly don't know the amount of research that has gone into making those gentlemen's baits. You know them better than I, but by reading the threads they have contributed too - it is safe to say they are not '11d short of a shillin', and from what a couple of them have posted by way on their selective bait ingredients, it is clear to see that their choice is of extremely good quality, and that is looking through my layman eyes, mate.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Go on you old git - admit it - you're a secret 'Boilie Basher' like the rest of us. :wink::mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Edited by Turnip
Link to post
Share on other sites

Boilies, apart from their convenience value, are a collection of chemicals that would probably be banned in the human food chain, they have the properties of fattening fish, and producing obesity in a wild creature, there are many lakes around where I live where they are banned, they are not the be all and end all, and as Nick agrees , they are a pretty inefficient bait, should all the research go down this route or should we be pursuing different avenues, think on friends.

well said,since ive started my summer tench campaign using maggotts,corn and worms i cant stop catching carp and from what i can see the carp/boilie anglers arent doing aswell. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...