In reality can Barbel really know the difference ?

[Ian Hugo Arnott]

Edam used to be the bait for barbel on The Royalty and even I was successful when a schoolboy. I have also had success using Danish Blue and really smelly Blue Stilton, which of course chub love.

Years ago on the Kennet large pieces of bread flake were an absolute killer bait for Barbus Maximus.

Sausages were really popular on the Lower Thames in the early 60s before we moved on to luncheon meat, but over the years I have had more success with lobworms than any other bait.

Great thread this, fascinating stuff chaps!

Regards,

Hugo

 

[Dave Taylor]

Salmon and cheese

Don't want to veer too far away from Joe's original question, but an old friend of mine used to have great sport with the Mole barbel by wading out into the shallows of Betchworth weir and trotting small cubes of cheese under the farbank conker trees. Not giving much away here as the weir has long since been ruined in the name of renewable energy!

Regarding my comment on otters preferring just the ' good bits', I looked in on the excellent " Avon Diary " this evening and saw John L's picture of the wrist and tail of what was once a fresh run salmon grilse,... now that beggar was definitely peckish!
John raises some good points in today's entry which would be better discussed on another thread I think.

 

[Stephen Goderski]

Very high in vitamin 'E' apparently.

What, otters?

Definitely thread of the year - well done to all who have contributed

 

[David Gauntlett]

Evening David . 6-8lb line depending on the weediness of the swim , size 12 or 14 hook . Biggest carp , just short of 30 lb

Thanks Mike, that's much as I thought it would be.

Now, I know you will already be well aware of all that follows, and no doubt will have anticipated my response the moment you read my question However, because your thoughts are reasonable, I decided to bore you silly with my counter thoughts anyway

In my opinion, in a normal, average, old style carp fishery, the tackle you describe is not suitable for those setting out to deliberately catch these fish. As the carp in your lake go up to almost 30lb, then that is definitely the case. You could (and I have) land 30lb carp on 6lb line and a 14 hook, no problem...in a snag free fishery, or clear area of a fishery. However, where snags, lily patches, weed beds etc. are abundant (in other words, your average carp lake) it would be daft if not irresponsible to make a habit of fishing for them with such light tackle. The now immensely popular, purpose dug, snag free commercials are totally different of course, the carp match lads happily use lighter tackle than that regularly...no reason not to in those ponds, and it works beautifully (although the average size of fish is of course much smaller than 30lb)

The tackle you use for tench fishing IS vastly better for inducing a bite from a carp, hence why you are getting them...and the carp lads are not....it's not a mystery. Small baits, small hooks, light line IS going to get you more bites from carp, end of. Getting them out consistently on that gear is another matter however...if it could be done, it would be done. Also, the lower the stock in a water, the more challenging it becomes. Catching carp from very low stock, traditional carp lakes (which yours is patently not) where bites are a rare occurrence, frequently requires that your bait remains in the water, undisturbed, for very long periods (sometimes days) to stand any chance. In those circumstances the bait needs to be tough enough and large enough to withstand constant nibbling and/or avoid being taken by small fish. That is precisely why boilies were developed, and things such as tiger nuts are used, you absolutely cannot do that with maggots etc, it's just not feasible. Also, the larger sizes of these baits are not suited to the use of small hooks, it doesn't work. Horses for courses mate, a compromise between the ultimate in attracting a bite, and the tackle to do the job reliably in your average carp lake. A couple of maggots or casters, or a single grain of corn, a tiny cube of meat, whatever...on an 18 hook to 3lb line, with constant feeding, would get you bites all day/night long on many of the more prolific waters...but it would be totally unfeasible on the more traditional style of carp lake.

Just my thoughts mike.

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Mike Hodgkiss]

Evening David . Interesting response . The water in question , and it is only a pond really .Is basically two 3rds open water , and one 3rd dense lily beds . Virtually all of the carp anglers fish nowhere near the weedy third , despite the fact that the carp clearly prefer the area , it is shallow , very clear and they are easily visible . Instead they choose to fish in the open water areas , largely I think because of the absence of snags , i.e. weeds ,and the relatively open nature of the swims . The swims in the weedy areas are fairly confined holes in the lilies . In short it is more convenient for them to fish these areas relying on the carp to come out of the weeds tempted , no doubt by their irresistible boilies . I reckon if they fished in the weeds they would catch more . I don't think my success in hooking the carp is solely down to the relatively fine tackle , more due to the fact that the carp feel safer ,AND they are eating bait that is not boilies , a bait I think the carp are wary of . Take your point about boilies lasting a long time though. Returning to the original point of this thread , we have veered on to carp , however I still do not think that carp or any other fish know what is best for them in terms of nutrition , I believe they will pick up baits that they are attracted to by smell , taste ,or simply availability , granted they can be schooled in to taking particulary baits by pre baiting etc , however in time they will develop a degree of wariness if they get caught a few times . I do not believe that fish have any innate ability as has been propounded by some contributors to this fascinating thread .

 

[Alex Gowney]

Evening David . Interesting response . The water in question , and it is only a pond really .Is basically two 3rds open water , and one 3rd dense lily beds . Virtually all of the carp anglers fish nowhere near the weedy third , despite the fact that the carp clearly prefer the area , it is shallow , very clear and they are easily visible . Instead they choose to fish in the open water areas , largely I think because of the absence of snags , i.e. weeds ,and the relatively open nature of the swims . The swims in the weedy areas are fairly confined holes in the lilies . In short it is more convenient for them to fish these areas relying on the carp to come out of the weeds tempted , no doubt by their irresistible boilies . I reckon if they fished in the weeds they would catch more . I don't think my success in hooking the carp is solely down to the relatively fine tackle , more due to the fact that the carp feel safer ,AND they are eating bait that is not boilies , a bait I think the carp are wary of . Take your point about boilies lasting a long time though. Returning to the original point of this thread , we have veered on to carp , however I still do not think that carp or any other fish know what is best for them in terms of nutrition , I believe they will pick up baits that they are attracted to by smell , taste ,or simply availability , granted they can be schooled in to taking particulary baits by pre baiting etc , however in time they will develop a degree of wariness if they get caught a few times . I do not believe that fish have any innate ability as has been propounded by some contributors to this fascinating thread .

I have to disagree Mike. I think ALL creatures have an innate ability to recognise what's good for them, even if they don't know it. Otherwise many creatures would become extinct by not eating what they need as opposed to just eating what they like. Maybe that ability is brought to the fore by a desire to eat something, as in dogs eating grass, but I believe it's essential for all creatures to survive.

 

[Neil Smart]

I have to disagree Mike. I think ALL creatures have an innate ability to recognise what's good for them, even if they don't know it. Otherwise many creatures would become extinct by not eating what they need as opposed to just eating what they like. Maybe that ability is brought to the fore by a desire to eat something, as in dogs eating grass, but I believe it's essential for all creatures to survive.

Well consider there are certain creatures that have not become extinct because of restriction in their prey, or diet preference but have adapted to change and have evolved to suit that criteria.

Animals largely are very adaptable, and diet has been fundamental in shaping the ongoing changes in species. Of course grazing animals have a limited choice in food source so any change in this respect means they just have to move to find pastures new, as in Wildebeast and more.

Actually dogs don't eat grass for nutrition but as a means to vomit to 'cleans' the gut from rotten food they picked of carcass on the African plains, it's a short period of time from that African hunting dog to our domestic pet.

Humans of course even though we are most educated of all species do have to be schooled as to what food is good and what is not, I guess then it is merely a case of availability, we have a huge choice of foods available to eat, but so do fish, and I would bet that fish would still would prefer to pick out the less nutritional foods in favour of taste, probably a lot like the fools that fish for them

 

[Neil Smart]

What tackle (line b/s, hook size etc.) are you generally using when you are tench fishing Mike? Honest answer please

And, what is the maximum size of the carp in your lake?

Cheers, Dave.

I had a bet that you would get the White Paper treatment from the Hon Gentlemen as to how you should fish for Tench in a carp infested lake Mike.

Thanks Dave, keep on giving

 

[Alex Gowney]

I appreciate why dogs eat grass Neil, but instinct tells them to do so I would think.

 

[Graham Young]

After following all of this very interesting thread I am still undecided whether fish can tell or not although I am still leaning towards them not being able to.

If they can tell the difference why are so many fish including Barbel caught on artificial baits? there is also the question of why so many Carp are caught on zig rigs using pieces of coloured foam

I realise that they may be caught on them because they are "testing" whether its food or not but surely if they can tell the difference they would know without having to mouth the bait?

 

[Alex Gowney]

I think it's less simple than that Graham. I believe the fish will know instinctively what is the most benefit to them but that doesn't mean they will ignore everything else. I don't think for one minute that they make an informed choice as to what they eat, as we all know they will eat pretty well anything. This doesn't mean they won't actively search out the better quality food/bait should it become available. To go back to Tony Miles book "Elite Barbel", it seemed without question the fish were actively searching for the HNV bait. It would be interesting to know what the barbel would do if it found an HNV boilie sat next to lump of meat! Maybe like us faced with an apple or an ice cream! I guess the barbell would probably eat both if neither had a hook in them but the supposition would be the HNV had attracted the barbel in the first place as opposed to the meat.

 

[Chris Jones]

If they can tell the difference why are so many fish including Barbel caught on artificial baits? there is also the question of why so many Carp are caught on zig rigs using pieces of coloured foam

I've no trouble in believing that fish can sense a food source in the water that then triggers a feeding response, yet not recognise an idividual item of that food. I've seen it in carp that had never been fished for. The introduction of certain baits caused a very obvious feeding response in fish that weren't actively feeding before. Unfortunately, they didn't recognise the baits that provoked the response. They rooted merrily through the muck just a few yards downwind of the bait.

Fake baits usually rely on the triggering of the feeding response having already been induced. Fake corn being used over a bed of real corn, hemp, pellet etc. The fish are already rooting and simply pick up the fake amongst the real. Whilst by no means impossible, fake baits don't usually produce much in total isolation.

Zigs can rely on simple curiosity, fish don't have hands to pick anything up, or on a dramatic feeding response having been triggered by something else. Try using a foam zig, in isolation, on a low stocked water. Unless you get exceedingly lucky, you might just find that you wait an awful long time for a fish to show any interest whatsoever, if they ever do. Different ball game on an overstuffed water where they're always hungry, or if you use something (riser pellets, sloppy spod mixes, groundbait cloud) to provoke them into actively looking for food.

 

[Graham Young]

It seems that any arguments put forward are unable to say definitely one way or another, if I can let me ask something else.

If we accept that humans are more intelligent than fish would it not follow that humans would be able to tell what was better for them to eat, its obvious that the two live in different worlds and their senses are different and also have developed differently but the same in that they both have sight, smell and possibly taste (I don't know if fish can taste) without being told the human I would suggest does not know what is better unless he has been designed to recognise that meat has more nutrition than grass merely through it tasting better remember humans used to think allsorts were ok to eat before they were told it was bad for them.

Could the same be said of fish? i.e. that they know instinctively by taste that some foods are better for them than others? they cannot recognise the fact other than by instinct, is that instinct taste or something else? what is it that will cause fish to actively seek out a bait?

 

[Joe Fletcher]

I think it's less simple than that Graham. I believe the fish will know instinctively what is the most benefit to them but that doesn't mean they will ignore everything else. I don't think for one minute that they make an informed choice as to what they eat, as we all know they will eat pretty well anything. This doesn't mean they won't actively search out the better quality food/bait should it become available. To go back to Tony Miles book "Elite Barbel", it seemed without question the fish were actively searching for the HNV bait. It would be interesting to know what the barbel would do if it found an HNV boilie sat next to lump of meat! Maybe like us faced with an apple or an ice cream! I guess the barbell would probably eat both if neither had a hook in them but the supposition would be the HNV had attracted the barbel in the first place as opposed to the meat.

Alex you say the fish were actively searching for the HNV bait ? I assume the HNV bait had been put in the swim and released a food trigger ?
I would assume the same could be said if any other bait/food that had been introduced in to the same swim and released a food trigger that Barbel would go looking for it ? and assuming that the Barbel had not been spooked ?
That they would pick up and eat what ever that food item was ?

Barbel like any other wild creature need food to survive and if they feel safe and have not been spooked they will eat what ever is on offer ?

 

[Alex Gowney]

Joe, that may be the case but if you read the book you will get a more overall picture. When Tony Miles conducted his campaign on the notoriously difficult Kickles farm stretch he had results that clearly suggested he was doing something right. As he is one of our most successful and experienced anglers I think he was definitely thinking along the right lines by introducing a HNV bait. But as I say Joe, you need to read the book for a good overall view.

 

[Mike Hodgkiss]

I have to disagree Mike. I think ALL creatures have an innate ability to recognise what's good for them, even if they don't know it. Otherwise many creatures would become extinct by not eating what they need as opposed to just eating what they like. Maybe that ability is brought to the fore by a desire to eat something, as in dogs eating grass, but I believe it's essential for all creatures to survive.

It's the words innate that trouble's me Alex . We , as humans have no clue what is innate in a creatures mind [ if indeed it has a mind , getting deep this ] . What we do know with fish is that they will eat most things that come their way , and will show a preference towards something that attracts them and / or is freely available , but that alone does not come close to being an illustration of innate ability . If fish KNOW what is good for them why do carp clearly gorge on some foodstuffs chucked in by anglers [ [ evidenced by the many distended bellied carp that are caught ] . They are obese , that's clearly not good for them , their innate ability is not protecting them there is it ?

 

[Alex Gowney]

Graham, I don't think we will ever know 100% either way. Humans obviously know what is best(?), although what's good for you one week is bad for you the next! With human intelligence and self awareness and the ability to reason it's likely that our natural instincts of prehistoric times are largely eroded. We can pick up a book or go online for any nutritional information we need. Our ancestors couldn't do that but presumably they had a good idea of what was beneficial or the race would have died out.

 

[Alex Gowney]

Maybe innate is the wrong word Mike. But every creature that still thrives obviously has an instinctive knowledge of what it needs for that survival, even if it's only knowledge contained in taste buds. I doubt nature would provide a good food source that tasted repellent or it would defeat the object.

 

[Mike Hodgkiss]

Fish will follow their instincts , they will feed when they feel safe , are hungry and the food attracts them or their is a lot available , i.e. getting in while the going is good like fish at Mayfly time . I do not however believe these instincts always leads them to eat the foods that are best for them , see my bloated belly carp example

 

[Graham Young]

Graham, I don't think we will ever know 100% either way. Humans obviously know what is best(?), although what's good for you one week is bad for you the next! With human intelligence and self awareness and the ability to reason it's likely that our natural instincts of prehistoric times are largely eroded. We can pick up a book or go online for any nutritional information we need. Our ancestors couldn't do that but presumably they had a good idea of what was beneficial or the race would have died out.[/QUOTE]


Its that kind of thing I was getting at, before studies showed what was bad for us we ate whatever was available so we couldn't have known what was good or bad for us unless it was something instinctive within a sense such as taste perhaps, maybe that instinct has been lost by us but fish being wild creatures have retained it? can fish taste?