This was always my school of thinking about bait . Nowdays with all these gluggs and goos that are very powerful so much so you can detect the smell from yards and yards away . Do you think everyone is over powering flavours these days ?

In reply to Post #1
Yes, with chemicals.

In reply to Post #1
Yes absolutely!!. If you consider a carps ability to find and eat unflavoured chick peas that have very little "smell" compared to a boilie it does make you wonder exactly how effective glugs, sprays etc actually are. I came to that conclusion a while ago and now have a kilo of bait "flavoured" with 15ml liver hydro and 1ml of flavour and results have been much better since using it.

John Baker advocates very low doses of his flavours and also says his basemixes will work without adding any "extra"flavours.

As below, yes with chemicals.

Just another element to carp fishing to keep the industry going and to keep the companies in profit. No different to lots of the terminal tackle / companies out there.

In reply to Post #1
I think in some cases, say for example busy day ticket lakes, its a case of he who shouts loudest gets heard first. On a lake with no pressure then I think Rod was right when he said" if you can smell it it's too strong". Carp can find a single Tiger nut, if it's on its own. Could they pick one out hidden in a load of strongly flavoured boilies? Hmmm.

On the flip side why does a carp have to smell anything to eat it?

Bread for example probably has no scent underwater but has caught millions of carp.

In reply to Post #7
Bread is a great example of extremely low level attraction yet as you say very very effective.bread dough has virtually no smell but baked bread does. It's that smell imo that's very water soluble and also detectable at levels as low as 5ppb that's doing the job for you.

In reply to Post #8
Carp can't smell anything. You can't smell under water. Smell is air born

In reply to Post #9
That's very true, I perhaps should have said taste rather than smell. My post was aimed at the water soluble aromatic compounds that are present in many of our favourite baits including bread that imho makes bread so attractive

In reply to Post #9
You're splitting hairs here with syntax. Smell or taste is subjective.,to the environment . I have hay-fever, and I can taste pollen from trees as soon as I drive into a road that has blossom laden trees. At the same time my body has a reaction to the pollen. Can anyone say for sure that fish don't have a similar reaction to similar elements in their environment.?

In reply to Post #11
No splitting hairs , carp cannot smell .

In reply to Post #12
I can't smell underwater, but I can taste **** if I'm swimming in it. I would soon be swimming away from it. I suggest you don't go swimming in the seas around the south coast at the moment. If you value your health.

In reply to Post #12
Carp can detect substances/chemicals in the water without touching/tasting them, which is very similar to our sense of smell. Some of those chemicals trigger the fish to investigate the source, once they find the source and touch it then sense of taste kicks in...and yes I understand there is a bit of a cross over between these senses but my experience is that they are separate and both need addressing to get the best out of a bait.

In reply to Post #14
Going back to the op, do those levels need to be as inflated as bait companies tell us....

In reply to Post #12
How do you know?

Done a quick Google and this come up from a article in carpology

Now I am not saying they are correct either but that's a bold statement to say that carp can't smell.

The carp's sense of smell is highly sensitive, far more so than humans and allows it to detect low levels of chemicals given o by natural prey such as bloodworm, snails or other crustaceans. They are also able to distinguish between sweet, savoury and salty substances.

In reply to Post #1
I posted a thread about the CC Moore Northern Special wafters recently and the two pots I ordered arrived with a sachet of liquid flavour inside. Unlike last time I used these baits I'm not going to add the liquid flavour to these and just see how I get on. I must admit, I'm starting to be of the opinion (no pun intended) that less is certainly more!

In reply to Post #14
I doubt it, but not convinced it does any harm either.

In reply to Post #17
I do the same mate or if I did add some just use one packet for about 4 pots so there is hardly anything In with them

Personally I think a move away from artificial smells/tastes in any more than tiny amounts is the way forward. I did a lot of research around fermentation and some of the compounds and aromas that are created albeit at tiny levels should be easily detected by carp. Some research suggested that yeast can produce amyl acetate as a bi product again in very small amounts but again very detectable by carp. With these levels as low as 5ppm to be detected it , in my mind backs up the theory of less is definitely more.

In reply to Post #15

reply to Post #14
Going back to the op, do those levels need to be as inflated as bait companies tell us....   



Years ago Rod Hutchinson made some bait up with 5ml of flavour per 6 eggs and sent it off for analysis. The return letter stated that the flavour level was miles over the best level (for some reason 500 times springs to mind), yet still acceptable.

Now that is a flavour, although I don't know whether that was a NI, Natural or Artificial.
From that I have always used flavours at the lowest recommended dosage.

I have a feeling though that glycerine/glycerol based flavours the glycerine itself is an attractor, and that some natural flavours made from the natural product, especially meat based and sweet flavours can be used at higher levels. In fact Chocolate Malt was recommended at something like 20ml per 6eggs.

Then we have other liquids, yeast extract, hydrolysates or liquid liver.
We probably don't need as much as we use. A light covering that can mix, dissolve and spread through the water is enough. Instead we might be using far more than we need.

If you are using particles, hemp especially, you can see how the oil is spreading across the lake. While oil may not be an attractor, some of the hemp juice is going to mix, (form an emulsion) and spread under the surface. The hemp juice itself is enough, so do we have the same from other particles, a thin attractor or is it visibility?

It's interesting that you list the categories as NI, Natural, Artificial, in that order, is that how you perceive/prefer them?

The fishing bait industry seemingly isn't regulated to the same extent (if at all?) as the food industry where legal descriptions and declarations are strictly controlled...

In the real world flavour declarations are, in descending order of perceived 'naturalness';

Natural 'named source' flavour - eg Natural 'strawberry' flavour. To meet this declaration 95% of the flavouring components (so not including carriers etc) must be derived from that named source, in this example strawberry.

Natural flavour - no name included, this can still be a strawberry flavour but does not meet the threshold around the named source.

Flavour - again this can be a strawberry flavour but isn't 'natural'. This is where the old terminology of 'artifical' now sits.

There is also a half way house between the first two where you'd have "Natural strawberry flavour with other natural flavours"
The definition of natural is set out in detail, but the overarching theme in the food industry is 'not by the hand of man'. So synthetic 'nature identical' flavours are now just 'flavours' and not natural.

For completeness of my waffling, there are a couple of other categories that have their own regs eg smoke flavours too.

Just thought some of you may find that atleast a tiny bit interesting!!!!

In reply to Post #22
Yes I do, thanks for that.

In reply to Post #21
Sent it off to who? And for analysis in comparison to what?

In reply to Post #24
Read bait chapters in The Carp Strikes Back. I can't remember absolutely everything

Don't forget Rod Hutchinson was one of the original innovators and pioneers in flavours and selling base mixes. He got samples from various sources, so quite possibly or probably one of them.

In reply to Post #25
I think you're getting the story mixed up. He sent chocolate malt to someone who got the ratios mixed up and used 50ml per lb, not 5ml. But still caught. Diacetin base iirc

In reply to Post #26

I think you're getting the story mixed up. He sent chocolate malt to someone who got the ratios mixed up and used 50ml per lb, not 5ml. But still caught. Diacetin base iirc



No Mate, I know in The Carp Strikes Back he did send some bait off for analysis, I've read and reread that book so many times.

I also knew about the overload of Chocolate Malt and the story of Mally wanting to use it in France every year.

Diacetin is glycerine based, a diester, basically changing or removing the hydrogen to an alkaline element.

In reply to Post #27
That one was his point was around flavour strength - 5ml of a 1000-1 strength flavour he was sent in a pound of bait was 7 (not 500) times the optimum for HUMAN consumption/taste. But still safe to use.

You also had a discussion about one companies 1000-1 could be completely different to another's, depending on the concentration they started with, so JB could be right that 1ml of his flavour is enough, whereas another company that cuts and re bottles flavours might need 5 ml for the same amount of active ingredients.

So it can't be said that less is more, unless you know what's the makeup in the first place.

I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference, over-flavoured or bland as old socks....each and everything in-between catches thousands of Carp every year....

Carp are big greedy water pigs who need food, put it in the right place and they will 9 times out of 10 eat it if they are hungry, catching them is a different matter altogether though!

In reply to Post #29
very true

every bait on the market must be wrong then

In reply to Post #30
Or designed to catch the angler Joss.....

In reply to Post #27
Maybe read it one more time and clarify what you are saying?

In reply to Post #32
Perhaps the strength of the actual taste of the bait, as opposed to the smell, is more important.......

In reply to Post #33
Taste is everything.
Get them receptors twitching, and if they enjoy the taste, with minimal effort eating it, more greed, win win.

Discussion is good, makes you think.
It is enjoying, or finding what works best for you, on your water, that matters TBH.

We have all seen anglers catch on things that shouldn't. from eye watering strong smell & taste, or barely detectable.

It's interesting thinking, look at what FW did with his over flavoured hookbaits, so much for the theory on repellents!

Saying that I have never been a fan of the pub chuck and pineapple wanger myself but without doubt it works. Mt fishing has always been based around a quality food source as a whole on the basis of giving them something they like to eat but it has not been the best tactic over the years on some waters though

I think the biggest element is the fish, if everybody is fishing food baits then an attention picker comes along and vice versa. Carp who have not seen much bait I have found relatively easy to catch, start with angling pressure and naturals it's a different ball game for me altogether

In reply to Post #1
The problem is when this statement was first coined back in the day flavours were low quality, sweeteners etc weren't great either, this is why bait making is a minefield, what we think smells great might not catch much, but something that we think doesn't have much smell to it could still be a winner it's all trial and error really

In reply to Post #32
Frothey put the correct figure in. I said it was an 'overload' although I couldn't remember how much, which is why I put the statement in brackets about how overloaded, even saying that I wasn't sure how overloaded the level was.

He also went on to clarify about flavours being sold on, cut and still sold as original.

I don't need to clarify, someone else took the trouble to correct my ambiguity or mis-memory.

In reply to Post #36
Arguably flavours were better/more effective back then. Sweetners weren't great?

Just think of all the flavours/attractors that came from back then that people are still trying to replicate......

In reply to Post #29
My opinion is you're half right.
I do really think you can get a bad bait - one that a fish will never eat. I also think there are baits that will only be eaten well after introduction or only in desperation.

The issue with flavours is they are the 1% that we all believe make the difference but a decent bait probably has 20 other fish attracting properties so what was meant to enhance / optimise can be counterproductive.

I only really trust myself now with natural attractors so that I know my heavy handedness won't render my bait totally useless!

Realistically how can a human never mind a fish tell what's in "food" or how "food" taste likes before eating it?
If you eat a burger you wouldn't know what's in it just that it tastes good or not.
If a burger tasted bad would you know what the next burger that looked the same would taste any different?

Let's be fair carp will eat anything infront of them if they are hungry???

In reply to Post #40
A carp can "taste" the food before it eats it.
It's tasting the surrounding water and detecting the food signals. No, not just "smell" but actually tasting the bait before it even picks it up.
Yes... we know about chemoreception and olfactory sensing.
But the above is a simplified explanation.

“At the back of the nostril there is a sensory surface called the olfactory epithelium, as water passes over this surface it allows the carp to sense any substance dissolved into that water and determine whether or not it is a good food source"

In reply to Post #31
Yeap...like most things in life, marketing sells afterall mate

In reply to Post #40
yes, BUT, if said burger smelt horrible you wouldnt put it in your mouth to try it

In reply to Post #43
I dunno, Maccy's don't do too badly.

In reply to Post #44

In reply to Post #40
Let's be fair carp will eat anything infront of them if they are hungry???

True, once caught one years ago and I coughed up some old rotten reed shoots!

All this quality bait and they won't touch it, I wonder why

In reply to Post #40
There are many waters where carp are at inflated levels, overstocked, waters which carp need to eat absolutely everything to survive.
The 'survive' instinct being stronger than the risk of being caught, and the low nutritional value of the food item.

Then there are waters where the level of natural food is easily enough to support the fish present, and carp can quite literally choose what they eat.

You have smell, in some foods, admittedly mostly desserts, but some other foods as well I can smell ingredients. I can smell the banana in the Banoffee pie, and know to avoid it. I can smell when onions are in the burger patty.
If I go past a burger van, greasy spoon or fish and chip shop, and I can smell rancid fat I know not to eat there.

Carp can avoid foods, and the high flavour level repellent is not necessarily true when it is used as an individual single bait. The single bait may be investigated, and since carp do not have hands, they use their mouth.

However fish that flavour in a food source, or even within a few baits and it can repel, or create another effect of fish trying to feed where the flavour level is acceptable.

In reply to Post #46
True, once caught one years ago and I coughed up some old rotten reed shoots

That's a strange reaction. Don't you catch many?

In reply to Post #47
You must have a strange diet if only some foods have smells?

In reply to Post #48

In reply to Post #50
This is a recurring theme i have been seeing for two years
Anglers using various baits and not sponsored, results are poor or at best, average!
You give them something that you know is good and bang, those same anglers see a huge upturn in results on all the different waters at all times of the year.
Is the bait better or did all of those anglers suddenly get better at angling and it's a fluke they all caught more on average?
I can name one boilie (but I won't) that dozens and dozens of customers ring me complaining about week in week out.
Like I have always said, not all baits are equal
I can tell that just by feeding them to carp!

In reply to Post #51
Does it rhyme with cell?

In reply to Post #52
😂😂😂no it's not cell
I hear quite positive things about cell normally 😍