• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

In reality can Barbel really know the difference ?

I think we can take it for granted that fish can taste Graham, hence the preference for some baits. Instinct is the key word in this thread I think :)
 
Mike Hodgkiss said:
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
Click to expand...

I think you're right Mike, like all creatures wild or otherwise, they can be tempted by their version of a mars bar!
 
When attempting to draw parrallels with human feeding behaviour we should probably look more to those within countries/communities etc. where food is not readily available and abundant. I think I could safely say without contradiction that we (well in Berkshire anyway) have become conditioned to expect food to be permenantly and easily available and as such, survival behaviour based on the need for food has arguably diminished to a negligible level. Let's then look at Africa and the communities where the need to acquire food and water is a daily and dominant struggle. Food of whatever kind would you imagine be consumed in a bid to replenish energy stores, and I would suggest that this would be done even in the knowledge that there might be long term harm being caused to the body. Hunger is the bodies director of behaviour and action, and the urgent and present need to deal with it would I think outweigh long term harm considerations. How many instances have there been where thirst has made people drink water they know to be harmful to them- causing dysentery and often resulting in death. I am deliberately leaving out of this commentary the prospect of outside intervention and sophisticated thought which would be above that available to fish.

I can only believe that fish generally retain the instinct that they must eat what they can and when they can because they there is no evolutionary dynamic that has conditioned them to have complete faith that food will always be available. Their need for food will undoubtedly change during the course of a year, affected by many different dynamics.

How a fish determines what it should consume/digest is another mystery. We have that understanding because we can apply sophisticated analysis to the contents of food items and match this to the way that a body functions. So I can only presume that food items contain triggers, triggers that compel the fish to act. Those triggers may be stronger in certain food items. Presumably taste and smell are part of those trigger mechanisms. Once food is consumed then the body's digestive system takes over to extract what it needs and discard the rest. So if something had an enchanting aroma and tasted divine, a fish would clearly consume it. But if it had no nutritional value such that the body discarded the majority of it, then the health of the fish would suffer and presumably it would be conditioned to seek out other food items? Or, the fish would die. Either because there was no change in behaviour or there was no alternative food source available.

So if a bait contains sufficient triggers, and perhaps even with science it was possible to incorporate the strongest determinable ones, and was consistently introduced into the river then the fish would presumably seek the food out and then, over time, repeat that food shopping trip because now they are hooked. And then they really are hooked and a new pattern emerges, one of becoming a bit more wary each time they visit because now we have an association of danger. Which is rubbish for them. You then have a conflict. Great and available food but spookily some danger. Once danger prevails as the dominant mindset then the bait is blown. And the cycle begins again.

Well that's what I reckon anyway.
 
Personally I think this has been a good discussion,with people stating their views without antagonism or sarcasm.I have a great interest in this subject as although I have no qualifications I have spent almost 50years gathering information from every source I could find.
To the question 'do fish show a preference for HNV baits' my answer has to be an emphatic YES .This is based on the results I have seen since the night in the summer of 1967 when having been puzzled for some time by the fact that I was catching more carp than anglers who were far more experienced and competent than I was.I realized that in some way the bait I was using was more attractive to the fish than the bread-paste and potatoes(the normal carpbaits at that time)that the others were using,and that night the early idea of HNV baits was born and I have never fished with anything other than HNV baits since.
It is my belief that fish have no option but to investigate anything new in their environment and to check among other things if it is edible or not.I also believe that fish have evolved to gain the best from their environment for instance a carp from a poor lake is not sick or ill as a human or animal would be if food was in short supply,it just does not grow as fast or as big as a carp would in a richer water.In a natural water I believe fish cover their nutritional requirements by feeding on a variety of the natural items available to them and showing a preference for any item which contains a nutrient they are deficient in.If baits are introduced they will react to them in the same way as they do to the natural items and in my opinion the higher the nutritional value the bait has for the fish the more acceptable it will be,once the fish has eaten and digested a small amount of that particular bait.
This does not mean that fish cannot be fooled into taking a bait which will do them harm, evolution may have taught them to recognise nutrients they need but we can introduce baits which as well as these nutrients they need will also contain substances that will harm them,and as these items are not naturally found in waters evolution has not had time to teach fish to avoid them.In my opinion one of these is Peanuts which have a number of useful nutrients but contain Polyunsaturated oil at a level that is not found in a fish's natural diet and can cause them harm.
 
Mike Hodgkiss said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

I don't think there is any real harm done by broadening the OP's question to include carp...I think there are enough parallels in the feeding habits of the two fish species to draw conclusions based on experiences gained with either one. Having said that, this next part of my reply is wide of the mark, so sorry Joe.

Mike, I think your comment about carpers not fishing in weed is a bit of a generalisation, and far from the norm, certainly with 'old skool' lads. It is true that many inexperienced carp anglers are loath to fish into weed, but much of that is down to taking the 'never angle for fish in a situation where you stand little chance of landing them' mantra a little too far. Having said that, if there are only small holes in tough weed, lilies etc., then it is risky. Not impossible, but risky. Fishing up tight to a bed of whatever is one thing, you can hook and hold...but a small hole in tough old lilies is something else again, it means that even if you do hook and hold, you can only pull them towards you...which means you are pulling them into the lilies between you and the bank...scary stuff.

Anyway, getting back to carp/barbel being able to determine what is or isn't a good food source. Surely they would need to do that, at least to some extent, in order to survive? They CANNOT just eat anything they come across willy nilly, regardless, because if they did that, they would eventually die. They must seek out food that satisfies their needs...I can't see how that can NOT be true. I think we are confusing things a bit here. In my opinion, nature would have to be very foolish indeed if it did not endow every creature with a means of determining what was/was not the food it required to survive.

For instance, you could trick a sight feeder such as a lion into attacking a robotic gazelle. It may move a bit weirdly, but at least it would be sending out enough 'good' signals to trigger the lions hunt/kill instincts. You could also add artificial aromas and flavours to further con it into trying to eat it once it had caught it. The lion would probably sense that things were not quite right, but hey...it's hungry :D However, things would really go downhill once it had eaten a few....had you been a cheapskate and manufactured the thing using an edible, but non nutritious substance. The lion would decide quite quickly that eating these rather odd gazelles did absolutely nothing to satisfy it's hunger, and from then on avoid them like the plague.

Not a perfect analogy, but near enough. You can get boilies for carp fishing which are universally known as 'attractor' baits. They have almost no nutritional value, but are packed solid with enough artificial attractors, stimulants etc. to draw the fish and trigger the 'eat me' instinct. They aren't perfect in that respect, but good enough to trigger the 'Something isn't QUITE right, but hey, I will give it a go' response...which is enough to get it caught. What you can't do is prebait extensively with these things. If you do that, over a period of time...as you would do very effectively with a decent quality nutritious bait, you give the fish time to learn that they are no good for them...and learn they do. You will catch naff all :D (except perhaps the odd fish that hadn't yet tried them and learned...or occasional 'mug' fish :p)

Now I know you will say that is a 'learned' response, not an instant, instinctive, foolproof recognition of quality food by the fish...but that's what we are talking about in reality. Fish CAN detect certain signals from food that they recognise, which they instinctively know is what they need, and this induces them to eat that item...but they can also be tricked by false signals that at least trigger a partial, or curiosity response. I don't think we are as clever as we think at conning them in that way...but it only takes one mistake. Allay it natural survival instincts just enough to induce it to try something...and occasionally, that's job done. Alternatively, feed them a constant supply of quality food that they recognise as such...and you will catch 'em no problem, in quantities, repeatedly. After that, you need to introduce only minimal amounts of that bait to start them searching for it, and if you feel it has 'blown', you only require minor changes to keep that bait working for a long time.

Fish are not geniuses, nor scientists with a degree in nutrition...but they are a creature designed by nature, and they succeed because natural selection has enhanced that original blueprint until it is near to perfect at surviving in it's own environment....it KNOWS what to eat, even if our superior intellect finds ways to trick it's instincts now and then...in my opinion.

Cheers, Dave
 
I think we assume too much by thinking fish actually know what is good for them, they are foragers and as such will probably eat anything that that is vaguely edible and available.

As mentioned koi carp will first take bread crust and then move on to the highly beneficial specially manufactured bespoke pellet (HNV).

They know what they like, not necessarily what is good for them.

But of course as a disclaimer this could all be a load b.s.
 
Neil Smart said:
I think we assume too much by thinking fish actually know what is good for them, they are foragers and as such will probably eat anything that that is vaguely edible and available.

As mentioned koi carp will first take bread crust and then move on to the highly beneficial specially manufactured bespoke pellet (HNV).

They know what they like, not necessarily what is good for them.

But of course as a disclaimer this could all be a load b.s.
Click to expand...

Having said that Neil, Fred managed to totally outfish carp anglers who were using bread when he started using HNV :)
 
Fred Wilton said:
Personally I think this has been a good discussion,with people stating their views without antagonism or sarcasm.I have a great interest in this subject as although I have no qualifications I have spent almost 50years gathering information from every source I could find.
To the question 'do fish show a preference for HNV baits' my answer has to be an emphatic YES .This is based on the results I have seen since the night in the summer of 1967 when having been puzzled for some time by the fact that I was catching more carp than anglers who were far more experienced and competent than I was.I realized that in some way the bait I was using was more attractive to the fish than the bread-paste and potatoes(the normal carpbaits at that time)that the others were using,and that night the early idea of HNV baits was born and I have never fished with anything other than HNV baits since.
It is my belief that fish have no option but to investigate anything new in their environment and to check among other things if it is edible or not.I also believe that fish have evolved to gain the best from their environment for instance a carp from a poor lake is not sick or ill as a human or animal would be if food was in short supply,it just does not grow as fast or as big as a carp would in a richer water.In a natural water I believe fish cover their nutritional requirements by feeding on a variety of the natural items available to them and showing a preference for any item which contains a nutrient they are deficient in.If baits are introduced they will react to them in the same way as they do to the natural items and in my opinion the higher the nutritional value the bait has for the fish the more acceptable it will be,once the fish has eaten and digested a small amount of that particular bait.
This does not mean that fish cannot be fooled into taking a bait which will do them harm, evolution may have taught them to recognise nutrients they need but we can introduce baits which as well as these nutrients they need will also contain substances that will harm them,and as these items are not naturally found in waters evolution has not had time to teach fish to avoid them.In my opinion one of these is Peanuts which have a number of useful nutrients but contain Polyunsaturated oil at a level that is not found in a fish's natural diet and can cause them harm.
Click to expand...

Fred reading your story of you catching more Carp when more experienced and competant anglers were failing reminded me of some thing that happened to me many years ago . I fishing for Barbel in the weir run off at Holt Fleet on the Severn .
Bait was hemp and caster and after about 20 minutes of of regular feeding . The first Barbel would be caught and on a good day you catch up to 10 fish .

Then it all changed one day when I turned up to fish . I started fishing using my usual hemp and caster bait and could not get a bite all afternoon and in to the early evening . Then this guys turns up and starts fishing not far from where I was and with in a short space of time starts catching Barbel .

So I go over to him and tells him my story how I had been there all afternoon and not had a bite . He tells me he is using Halibut pellets and would I like to try some .

He gives me a handfull and of I go back to where I was fishing and within minutes I was catching Barbel on Halibut pellet when casters had completly failed .
I have often wondered since why the casters failed when the Hailibut succeded ?
 
Joe,HNV bait can certainly make a big difference in takes, although the bait that I was using was not overly nutritious the difference it made compared to bread-paste and potatoes was such that there was a rumour that I was using drugs ( on the fish not on myself),
 
I must admit Terry that I never learned the art of trotting a float but I have caught a lot of chub on HNV floater and feel sure if you trotted with it and compared it with flake the results would surprise you....Fred
 
Simon Lush said:
Just spent 20 minutes on a long winded reply and it bloody timed out, can't be bothered to start again !!
Click to expand...

Simon, I wouldn't worry old chap. I absolutely take my hat off to you as an angler, and in photographic skill levels....but when it comes to boring folk to death with 'long winded replies', I can beat you hands down, so you were onto a loser anyway :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
I think its fair to say that over the last 15 pages there has been a fair mix of opinions! As with any discussion on this subject over the years there will always be those that buy into the HNV theory and those that simply won’t, that’s all good as far as I am concerned. It would be a boring world if we all agreed ! For me though, i think the theory is sound and will use the approach on occasions if I think it will be beneficial to do so.

Over the last 40 or so years the mainstay of my fishing, for Barbel, Tench etc has revolved in the main around the Maggot/ Caster/ mass bait principle, I think I do it well, it has caught me a lot of fish, and it takes a lot to shift me from that approach.

One such example nowadays is my Barbel fishing which in the main revolves around tracking down small groups of big fish, a normal day will see me fishing anything up to a dozen swims so clearly a mass bait approach is just not a viable option both from a mobility and a cost point of view ! What I need if I find one of these fish is a bait that I KNOW they will take (unless I mess the thing up) and that is either Trout pellets (not many) or an HNV bait which over the years has worked everywhere its been used after a very limited amount of introduction, if everything goes right then half an hour later the fish is back in the river after having its photo taken :) Meat baits will be taken at times but I could not even begin to count the number of fish that have ignored or worse still shied away from a lump of spam or whatever sitting in a swim, that won’t do I’m afraid, that’s a day or days of effort wasted to me so I no longer use it. Plus, pellets aside I want a bait I know no-one else is using, which I can be fairly sure they aren’t ! Its not in any way as sophisticated as Freds bait, I just don’t have the time or discipline to go along that road, but it is a good bait nutritionally and they recognise it as such, obviously :)
 
Fred Wilton said:
I must admit Terry that I never learned the art of trotting a float but I have caught a lot of chub on HNV floater and feel sure if you trotted with it and compared it with flake the results would surprise you....Fred
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right Fred, but reckon I'll stick with using my loaf;)
There's a certain special joy in catching chub on flake under a stick float,...on a par with freelining lobs.
ATVB
Terry

Simon..flavoured pellets/flavoured paste wrap? And I'm sure you've read and are fully conversant with Westie's take on it.
 
Simon Lush said:
I think its fair to say that over the last 15 pages there has been a fair mix of opinions! As with any discussion on this subject over the years there will always be those that buy into the HNV theory and those that simply won’t, that’s all good as far as I am concerned. It would be a boring world if we all agreed ! For me though, i think the theory is sound and will use the approach on occasions if I think it will be beneficial to do so.

Over the last 40 or so years the mainstay of my fishing, for Barbel, Tench etc has revolved in the main around the Maggot/ Caster/ mass bait principle, I think I do it well, it has caught me a lot of fish, and it takes a lot to shift me from that approach.

One such example nowadays is my Barbel fishing which in the main revolves around tracking down small groups of big fish, a normal day will see me fishing anything up to a dozen swims so clearly a mass bait approach is just not a viable option both from a mobility and a cost point of view ! What I need if I find one of these fish is a bait that I KNOW they will take (unless I mess the thing up) and that is either Trout pellets (not many) or an HNV bait which over the years has worked everywhere its been used after a very limited amount of introduction, if everything goes right then half an hour later the fish is back in the river after having its photo taken :) Meat baits will be taken at times but I could not even begin to count the number of fish that have ignored or worse still shied away from a lump of spam or whatever sitting in a swim, that won’t do I’m afraid, that’s a day or days of effort wasted to me so I no longer use it. Plus, pellets aside I want a bait I know no-one else is using, which I can be fairly sure they aren’t ! Its not in any way as sophisticated as Freds bait, I just don’t have the time or discipline to go along that road, but it is a good bait nutritionally and they recognise it as such, obviously :)
Click to expand...

I liked that Simon, pretty well sums up my thoughts too. Introduce a bait with decent grade ingredients that have good nutritional value, and the fish will like the signals it gives out via it's soluble content. Because of that, they will try it, instinctively understand it's value, and from then on actively search it out every time you introduce a little more. The angler regularly catches when using it and the fish benefit from it's high grade food content...what more could you ask from a bait?

I cant get out anywhere near as often as I would like in recent times, very rarely get out at all now to be honest. So sadly, I can't realistically go down that road now...but I had some tremendous catches when I did. Happy days.

Cheers, Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top