Evening chaps.
Looking at the individual milk proteins available and realising that the selection for each type is vast.
Which got me thinking for the percentage of milks required in a bait it would be possible to use 2/3 different types of say (whey) to get to that ratio, which obviously have different attributes solubility, protein, Aa's etc.
But what would be people's train of thought of combining the different types say whey/casein when you could just use one which would have a similar taste profile.
And why would you choose one over the other?
Whey or casein for instance?
Thanks Tom.

In reply to Post #1
You might want to add different milks to aid gelling/setting of the bait or different meshes to adjust the coarseness of the mix.

In reply to Post #2
Thank you Blankasorus, I understand utilising different forms of casein for example because they offer different things but I'm more interested in the thinking behind combining two different, because there seems to be all variants within casein or whey range.
And if you were to select one over the other, what would be the reasoning?

In reply to Post #3
I think you may get a load of different answers on this one, Tom!
Personally if I had to choose one, I'd go for WPC80, as it covers lots of boxes in terms of binding, partial solubility, protein content, and one that casein is lacking a little in-taste (albeit to a human palate).
There's an excellent discussion on milks in Sam Barleys podcast with Dean (aka Saggybelly) of Scientific Baits. Well worth listening to, one of the best recorded bait discussions I've ever heard (tho I massively disagree with Dean over enzymes, but that's nothing to do with milks).

In reply to Post #4
Thanks Nemesis.
😂
Thought I might get a few different answers.
I only listened to that podcast yesterday 😁.
Am I right in thinking the selection of different milks in each category (whey for example) was limited when a lot of the original recipes were conceived, so a combination of milks was chosen.
But it would actually be better to use one or the other, from a complimentary perspective, which is now possible.

In reply to Post #4
Can you tell me how I listen to this podcast please. Would I be able to listen on an iPhone.?

In reply to Post #6
The Carp Angler Chronicles, Wayne. I think you should be able to get it from their site if you Google it.

In reply to Post #7
You are a gentleman. Thank you.

In reply to Post #4
Going off topic now but do you believe Sam is right thinking there is some interesting side effects to enzyme activity?

In reply to Post #9
I found that part interesting too, the only comparison I could draw would be when you have particles at there various stages of fermentation and at a certain time they are just right.
Well that's how I found it easiest to interpret the concept.

In reply to Post #9
Good question. I certainly don't think the enzymes are attractive in themselves, but i do wonder that during the hydrolysis process, that purely by the physical degradation of the likes on milks, fishmeals, spices etc, that maybe organic acids, oils are released. Pure speculation though.

In reply to Post #11
I agree, but have no facts to back it up.
When you use the protein binding enzyme transglutaminase I believe ammonia is released but not sure what happens with other enzymes.

In reply to Post #12
Proteins will turn into amino acids, I would say extremely good free form

Starches into sugars

In reply to Post #13
Absolutely very beneficial, but that would be possible to achieve by just putting the hydrolysate into a bait, or adding sugars and free AAs.
The discussion in question was if there was other substances being released in the process that might be interesting thus making it a point putting the actual enzyme(s) into the bait.

In reply to Post #14
Enzymes are utilised in the carp's metabolic/ physiological (after oral intake of bait) processes and within baits.
The former are complicated processes and in terms of fishing, interest in enzyme action is largely restricted to bait

We also need to keep in mind the definition of an enzyme, it regulates/ initiates chemical reactions without chemical changes to itself under set parameters of principally specificity, temperature and concentration.

So in basic terms the chemicals produced from a reaction initiated/regulated by enzymes will be known, there will be no “hidden” chemicals although there may be a change in physical properties such as solubility, viscosity etc .

In reply to Post #15
I was just thinking about your perspective on this, and as if by magic lol

Solubility

In reply to Post #14
Cut this out of my post below. I was replying to Viking

I think there could be a couple of benefits, enhanced attraction, breaking the peptide bonds down and tuning them into free form ACIDS. From my days in the gym, the building blocks of proteins

You could also look at the digestibility of the bait, get it right and your are giving the carp a massive boots to its basic digestion tract, in simple terms, enabling it to get the most out of the bait

You raise a very valid point though, can a protein hydroslate compensate for an enzyme. Same could be said for using glucose instead of a starch and an enzyme. Maybe enzymes offer a more natural and controlled attraction effect in their breakdown?

In reply to Post #15
Unless there is a way to show / prove that the action of an enzyme adds more than the production of an end chemical, that could be added to the bait in a known quantity, in it's pure form. Why risk the uncertainty and expense of relying on an unknown outcome?

When carp eat their natural food they benefit from the enzymes within the snails, bloodworm, shrimps etc.

There are probably enzymes in there faeces as well. I remain to be convinced that enzymes are not attractive to carp, it could be the waste products from the enzymatic products as has been suggested but it could be the enzymes themselves.

I am also conflicted by the reason hydrolysed products are effective (are they or is it just fashionable to say so) as all you read are that free amino acids are the most effective attractors yet most commercially produced hydroslates contain very few, the protein break down only gets as far as peptides.

With hydrolysed products you obviously do not get any gaseous waste products you get with enzymes working within your bait. I think a history of the most effective baits suggests that the active part plays a big part but mimicking the process does seem to work.

It can get a bit technical this bait game...

In reply to Post #1
In the old days the reasoning behind using different milk proteins was to arrive at the perfect protein, for the fish that is. From a cloudy memory, whey or lactalbumine contains more leucine, casein more methionine, etc. So a balancing act to get the optimum level of essential AA. Soy isolate was usually in the mix as well.

Not sure if the fish really care, to me only whey is still (very!) useful.

In reply to Post #20
Thanks Inzenity.
Very interesting and much appreciated 😁.

In reply to Post #8
Bit late to the party here but if you haven't found it yet Blankosaurusrex you can listen on the built in podcast app on your phone or download any podcast app and listen. Including Spotify. Or you can listen on our website if you prefer.
We recorded a second interview with Dean that will go live tomorrow. Can't remember if we covered milks and enzymes again as I haven't edited it all yet and I was pretty sloshed by the end!

I'm still of the opinion that there MIGHT be some magic happening when enzymatic activity happens on certain macros. Things outside our current comprehension (or my comprehension at leas!). Proving it scientifically is not easy, science just doesn't back it up. That being said- I'm no scientist!

In reply to Post #22
What's the macros, single chains?

It's basic chemistry for me. An egg can be made up of proteins, fats etc etc. The protein fraction could be a chain of amino acids such as CLYZX (example) the predigestion in a basic summary breaks these down and frees them up into single acids C L Y Z X or depending on the enzyme it might not break them all down fully, you might get C L YZ X. No different to the enzymes in our body, breaks them down and we absorb the amino acids, same as starch's, into glucose

If we listen to the amino acid buffs on here where that's all a carp can sense

I think the real advantage is the activ, a reaction and if that can continue under the water, in a sense, pumping free form attraction out in a natural breakdown I would say that would be extremely attractive to all fish and pond life

Happy to be wrong. I believe Mysty is a chemist?

In reply to Post #11
I tried to look a bit more into this last night, and skimmed a paper called "Development of Volatile Compounds during Hydrolysis of Porcine Hemoglobin with Papain"
I seem to show that during hydrolysis a lot of different substances is formed.
Quote:
Compounds that were found to increase with time of hydrolysis but were not found in the
controls without enzyme... ...These compounds must therefore be a result of the enzymatic hydrolysis.

The level of some of those fluctuate during the process, for example in some the level after 3 hours is a lot higher than the level after 5 hours.

Hi MM, great to see you back here:
You wrote:
"So in basic terms the chemicals produced from a reaction initiated/regulated by enzymes will be known, there will be no “hidden” chemicals although there may be a change in physical properties such as solubility, viscosity etc ."

I guess the side effects described in the above paper mainly are due to Maillard process and oxydation of the products of the hydrolysis (as it says) but possibly still to have an impact on the bait. As some levels fluctuate it may be theoretically possible that one or several active compounds is at a more attractive level during hydrolysis that it might be in the finished hydrolysate.

Scozza, I think that it might also be a benefit of in-bait-enzymes, a more steady release of the aminos and peptides than in a bait where these are in free form.

In reply to Post #24
Hi Viking
We seem to be a little at odds here;

“Compounds that were found to increase with time of hydrolysis but were not found in the
controls without enzyme... ...These compounds must therefore be a result of the enzymatic hydrolysis”

The compounds were formed due to ongoing reactions between products formed by the hydrolysis reaction and existing chemicals ,the enzyme is purely catalysing the primary hydrolysis reaction

“So in basic terms the chemicals produced from a reaction initiated/regulated by enzymes will be known, there will be no “hidden” chemicals although there may be a change in physical properties such as solubility, viscosity etc ."

Read my statement above that you have quoted again, carefully, it was made to address your comment below;

“When you use the protein binding enzyme transglutaminase I believe ammonia is released but not sure what happens with other enzymes.”

Specific enzymes are used to produce specific known effects , of course there can be interactions between the known products of that reaction ( hydrolysis etc) and other chemicals that may be present, however in terms of bait these can be identified.

A further quote from your post
“I guess the side effects described in the above paper mainly are due to Maillard process and oxydation of the products of the hydrolysis (as it says) but possibly still to have an impact on the bait. As some levels fluctuate it may be theoretically possible that one or several active compounds is at a more attractive level during hydrolysis that it might be in the finished hydrolysate.”

We have carried out extensive research on the use of amino acids/ peptides in baits using added amino acids , amino acids/peptides from various protein hydrolysates ( including enzyme and acid hydrolysis) and “ in bait” enzyme hydrolysis.
We have found no evidence to indicate that the use of enzymes, in terms of bait construction, provide any advantage as you hypothesise above, the assumptions you have made are also somewhat flawed when the overall processes are compared.

In reply to Post #25
Hi MM,

“Compounds that were found to increase with time of hydrolysis but were not found in the
controls without enzyme... ...These compounds must therefore be a result of the enzymatic hydrolysis”

This was a quote from the paper, not my statement.
As you say these are probably caused by products from the hydrolysation, like the AAs reacting with each other.
My opinion was that it theoretically the fluctuation and rice in levels of aldehydes etc possibly might make the hydrolysate more or less attractive at different times in the prosess.

My preferred method is simply to hydrolyse the various high protein ingredients with a protease, then use starch or fiber based binders to keep it al together, then stabilize or freeze.

Have you found any indication of peptides being important?

In reply to Post #26
Yes I realised it was a quotation from the report

Carrying out the hydrolysis the way you described is more effective than attempting to hydrolyse the complete mix.

Peptides have a role to play in terms of digestibility and certainly lake bacteria are quite effective in breaking them down, and there can be solubility advantages. How effective they are depends on their molecular weight, amino acid arrangement and composition.

There may also be some palatability affects dependant on the “ mother “ protein , protease enzyme used and hydrolysis conditions together with the properties described above.

In reply to Post #27
Hi MM,
I noticed I did get something wrong in my earlier post, it said " like the AAs reacting with each other." but what I meant was " like the AAs reacting with other substances"

I have found that a mix of proteins sources seem more effective than single sources.
Regarding the peptides, I asked because I believe I read a patent regarding the use of specific peptides as attractants (for other marine species)

In reply to Post #28
Sounds logical.
A broad mix of divers peptides means different leaving groups what can interact with the chemoceptors.