In reply to Post #135
BB
Any bait will catch carp, what ever the protein content. I suspect you dismiss my comment that some carp are just not attracted to fishmeal boilies, otherwise why would you stick with a bait which only relies on AA' s for attraction. You are missing out buddy, seriously missing out. Use a range of attractor and some starchy ingredients and you are in reality actually fishing for more fish. This is because there are now more carp that will be attracted and/or like the taste of your bait so more chance of taking your hookbait.
I know Viking has commented on some positive experience of tank tests but I remain unconvinced so while you think you have a level of proof that substantiates your ideas, in my opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that you have no more proof than I have to back up our ideas.
You are right about quality of angler, of course it will effect the success or otherwise of a bait. But if an individual fisherman compares his own results while using different baits it gives a useful comparison.
Here's a thought for you, there has been a lot of posts/topics regarding alternative hook baits recently. I know from experience that using them over a bed of boilies can be very successful, in fact I now have some of Marks specials to try out.....but, with the most successful baits that I have used (my own creations) the most successful hookbaits have been slight variations (hard hookers and pop ups) of the main base mix, far outfishing alternative hook baits. Not sure this means anything but it might.
Bob
BB
Any bait will catch carp, what ever the protein content. I suspect you dismiss my comment that some carp are just not attracted to fishmeal boilies, otherwise why would you stick with a bait which only relies on AA' s for attraction. You are missing out buddy, seriously missing out. Use a range of attractor and some starchy ingredients and you are in reality actually fishing for more fish. This is because there are now more carp that will be attracted and/or like the taste of your bait so more chance of taking your hookbait.
I know Viking has commented on some positive experience of tank tests but I remain unconvinced so while you think you have a level of proof that substantiates your ideas, in my opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that you have no more proof than I have to back up our ideas.
You are right about quality of angler, of course it will effect the success or otherwise of a bait. But if an individual fisherman compares his own results while using different baits it gives a useful comparison.
Here's a thought for you, there has been a lot of posts/topics regarding alternative hook baits recently. I know from experience that using them over a bed of boilies can be very successful, in fact I now have some of Marks specials to try out.....but, with the most successful baits that I have used (my own creations) the most successful hookbaits have been slight variations (hard hookers and pop ups) of the main base mix, far outfishing alternative hook baits. Not sure this means anything but it might.
Bob
In reply to Post #126
Hi NW,
I run the recipe through my program and think that coconut meal there is for “add fat” purpose.
To open up the milk taste might be another.
FPM
Hi NW,
I run the recipe through my program and think that coconut meal there is for “add fat” purpose.
To open up the milk taste might be another.
FPM
In reply to Post #137
Hi FPM, "run it through your program"? Would you be willing to tell us more on this?
Hi FPM, "run it through your program"? Would you be willing to tell us more on this?
In reply to Post #81
Hi NW,
Into continuation of anti-attractant topic. The rubbish one.
I googled some words and found out that there is a new science - Marine chemical ecology called.
Lot of interesting.
“Chemical cues play critical roles at every level in marine systems, but the omnipresence and impact of these cues are inadequately recognized. For most marine species, chemical cues determine whether they consume, fight with, run from, or mate with the creature next to them—as well as whether they are eaten by, infected by, or overgrown by natural enemies. Individuals can assess sex, social status, and even whether a potential mate is sperm depleted or sperm sufficient using chemical cues. These cues can be so powerful that male crustaceans will guard, carry, and attempt to mate with sponges, air-stones, rocks, or golf balls if these have been treated with the correct pheromone (Asai et al. 2000, Hardege et al. 2002, Breithaupt & Thiel 2008).”
The last sentence is for BB (hi BB) attention especially. I doubt AA are able to provoke such a strong behavioral response as pheromones do.
Among other functions of such chemical cues is one quit wondrous. There such micro beasts as microbes and bacteria as you may know. So there are findings that they can guard their food “ ....bacteria compete with larger animal scavengers by rendering carcasses chemically repugnant. Because food-fall resources such as carrion are major food subsidies in many ecosystems (Britton & Morton 1994)”
Now, let's imagine that these beasts suddenly got a lot of easy and tasty food as our hydros which are protein broken by enzymes alike a carrion on the bottom. What will you do being a microbe (a hungry one)? Right ! You will try to contain the food for yourself - making “carcasses (of a bait) chemically repugnant”.
So, I doubt that microbes are able to frighten such a big animal as carp, but they make do it towards zooplankton. And what is zooplankton for carp? Right - food. But not only food but a marker of calmness and security. No Zoo around bait - no interest from fish side.
We know very little about underwater chemical language as far as I see so it may be not a rubbish at all.
Hi NW,
Into continuation of anti-attractant topic. The rubbish one.
I googled some words and found out that there is a new science - Marine chemical ecology called.
Lot of interesting.
“Chemical cues play critical roles at every level in marine systems, but the omnipresence and impact of these cues are inadequately recognized. For most marine species, chemical cues determine whether they consume, fight with, run from, or mate with the creature next to them—as well as whether they are eaten by, infected by, or overgrown by natural enemies. Individuals can assess sex, social status, and even whether a potential mate is sperm depleted or sperm sufficient using chemical cues. These cues can be so powerful that male crustaceans will guard, carry, and attempt to mate with sponges, air-stones, rocks, or golf balls if these have been treated with the correct pheromone (Asai et al. 2000, Hardege et al. 2002, Breithaupt & Thiel 2008).”
The last sentence is for BB (hi BB) attention especially. I doubt AA are able to provoke such a strong behavioral response as pheromones do.
Among other functions of such chemical cues is one quit wondrous. There such micro beasts as microbes and bacteria as you may know. So there are findings that they can guard their food “ ....bacteria compete with larger animal scavengers by rendering carcasses chemically repugnant. Because food-fall resources such as carrion are major food subsidies in many ecosystems (Britton & Morton 1994)”
Now, let's imagine that these beasts suddenly got a lot of easy and tasty food as our hydros which are protein broken by enzymes alike a carrion on the bottom. What will you do being a microbe (a hungry one)? Right ! You will try to contain the food for yourself - making “carcasses (of a bait) chemically repugnant”.
So, I doubt that microbes are able to frighten such a big animal as carp, but they make do it towards zooplankton. And what is zooplankton for carp? Right - food. But not only food but a marker of calmness and security. No Zoo around bait - no interest from fish side.
We know very little about underwater chemical language as far as I see so it may be not a rubbish at all.
In reply to Post #138
Hi Poots,
It's just an Excel spreadsheet I was presented with when I started learning how to make baits. It's all about calculating AA composition of a bait. Everyone can make it for himself. I was lucky not to begin from a zero point. I've enhanced it a lot of course. It contains AA profiles of 100+ base mix ingredients I may choose from.
In short it is a tool to make HNV bait fast and easy provided that you now basics about ingredients and their role in a mix.
Hi Poots,
It's just an Excel spreadsheet I was presented with when I started learning how to make baits. It's all about calculating AA composition of a bait. Everyone can make it for himself. I was lucky not to begin from a zero point. I've enhanced it a lot of course. It contains AA profiles of 100+ base mix ingredients I may choose from.
In short it is a tool to make HNV bait fast and easy provided that you now basics about ingredients and their role in a mix.
In reply to Post #140
Sounds like a very thorough and modern approach, not like the times we would write it down on scraps of paper.
Sounds like a very thorough and modern approach, not like the times we would write it down on scraps of paper.
In reply to Post #140
Excel spreadsheets are fine once they are set up how you want it set up.
Until then, they are a b*llache, setting up the rows and excel formulas, or until you have to add extra columns for new ingredients data.
You can also include cost of finished bait.
Can help massively though on some stuff.
Paper/computer theory and ideas still have to work on the mixing bowl/rolling table, then the big trial in the real world fishing situation
Excel spreadsheets are fine once they are set up how you want it set up.
Until then, they are a b*llache, setting up the rows and excel formulas, or until you have to add extra columns for new ingredients data.
You can also include cost of finished bait.
Can help massively though on some stuff.
Paper/computer theory and ideas still have to work on the mixing bowl/rolling table, then the big trial in the real world fishing situation
Does anyone else think some people think way too into this whole bait thing? Been rolling my own over 20 years and I haven't a clue what half of this thread even means. I just get stuff, chuck it together and see how it goes. More often than not it works well, my latest creation is by far the best I've ever made and regularly out fishes other baits massively. Seems to me people are looking for the holy grail of boilie but imo that doesn't exist.
In reply to Post #143
Maybe overthinking, the holy grail doesn't exist, you are right. But we would all like to maximise our results.
How did you learn to roll bait ? It is a process of learning, trial & error.
You would think differently if none of your home made Bait caught nothing all the time.
But you catch carp on it.
You have an interest in making bait, clearly, that interest keeps us thinking alike on carpforum
This thread is just aimed at the higher end of possible attraction and nutrition in carp baits.
But like you know, it isn't the be all and end all.
we can catch on maggots & casters, tigers & tutti's.
Maybe overthinking, the holy grail doesn't exist, you are right. But we would all like to maximise our results.
How did you learn to roll bait ? It is a process of learning, trial & error.
You would think differently if none of your home made Bait caught nothing all the time.
But you catch carp on it.
You have an interest in making bait, clearly, that interest keeps us thinking alike on carpforum
This thread is just aimed at the higher end of possible attraction and nutrition in carp baits.
But like you know, it isn't the be all and end all.
we can catch on maggots & casters, tigers & tutti's.
In reply to Post #142
Right. Whatever you want. Fat, salt content, ratios between ingredients, between aminos, non protein ingredients ...etc . The most difficult part of it is to find data of AA composition of ingredients and it's most impossible in case mixes (like bird foods or spice mixes).
Data of free aminos content is another lever.
S&D
I recall you question concerning milky proteins. There is another feature of their attractiveness to carp. Once broken they give some chemical cues into the water familiar to the fish. The right ones cues.
Right. Whatever you want. Fat, salt content, ratios between ingredients, between aminos, non protein ingredients ...etc . The most difficult part of it is to find data of AA composition of ingredients and it's most impossible in case mixes (like bird foods or spice mixes).
Data of free aminos content is another lever.
S&D
I recall you question concerning milky proteins. There is another feature of their attractiveness to carp. Once broken they give some chemical cues into the water familiar to the fish. The right ones cues.
In reply to Post #145
Yes FPM
Milk proteins and Pre digested, hydrolysed ingredients, free Amino's, are another world. I'm only just looking into it myself.
Bird foods are tightly guarded secrets, the competition would probably be able to copy them if too much information was available.
I like your Russian bait input on here. Different countries anglers look at the same topics and end goal, from a different angle.
Yes FPM
Milk proteins and Pre digested, hydrolysed ingredients, free Amino's, are another world. I'm only just looking into it myself.
Bird foods are tightly guarded secrets, the competition would probably be able to copy them if too much information was available.
I like your Russian bait input on here.
Different countries anglers look at the same topics and end goal, from a different angle.
In reply to Post #143
I agree with you ip100. There are so many factors, variables and unknowns in the equation. Fairplay to those that spend the time pulling it apart. I really enjoy putting a bait together, learning about ingredients and find it very rewarding to catch on homemades. For me the deep science part takes it a little too far, and the fun starts to reduce. But I understand that on the flip side, the deep science increases enjoyment for others.
I agree with you ip100. There are so many factors, variables and unknowns in the equation. Fairplay to those that spend the time pulling it apart. I really enjoy putting a bait together, learning about ingredients and find it very rewarding to catch on homemades. For me the deep science part takes it a little too far, and the fun starts to reduce. But I understand that on the flip side, the deep science increases enjoyment for others.
In reply to Post #147
In reply to Post #143
Does anyone else think some people think way too into this whole bait thing
Depends what your passion is. Some people love it 
I take an interest but I know when I've had enough. It makes perfect sense to me to create a bait that meets the dietary requirements of our quarry from a lot of perspectives.
Catching them is something else
Does anyone else think some people think way too into this whole bait thing
Depends what your passion is. Some people love it
I take an interest but I know when I've had enough. It makes perfect sense to me to create a bait that meets the dietary requirements of our quarry from a lot of perspectives.
Catching them is something else
In reply to Post #136
Hi Christian,
I don't dismiss any of your comments, like one or two on here who have said, re flavours etc. than they will not even listen to counter opinions. I try to keep an open mind and form my opinions based on the evidence presented. If an opinion of mine is proven wrong, I'm happy to change it, because what I'm interested in is the true reasons why and how things work.
Now, re your fishmeal comment, I haven't heard that said before, but my comment to that broad statement, would be, that it is far more complicated than that, because a fishmeal boilie is not a standard item.
There will be f/m baits that are very well constructed, using supplementary proteins to address FLAA and include complementary hydros which will produce a very effective feed signal, and that will prove to be successful all year round. At the other end of the spectrum will be a poorly made f/m with an unbalanced feed signal.
Re your attractor package, the scientific view on those additives is well known and says that there is little to nothing in them which will induce a food search response. Conversely, I have read many comments like your own where anglers have tested ingredients with comparison trials and are convinced of their results.
This is puzzling anecdotal evidence in the face of the science view, but I lean towards the science view and form my opinions around the products and chemicals that science does endorse.
Re my lean towards the science view, yesterday, on the fermenting boilies thread, MM gave the detailed scientific answer to the question he was asked re the growths on aging boilies. Nobody else knew the answer and seemed content to accept the explanation. Well, for years on this and other forums, people like MM have been answering tech questions on all matters of bait science which have mostly been gratefully accepted.
Now, product analysis is standard procedure in chemistry, and I ask myself how come science can get it right in most cases, except in the case of those contentious additives?
I'm not saying you and others are wrong. I'm saying that in my opinion, the weight of evidence is not on your side. I'm actually getting frustrated with these discussions, because I would like to get to the bottom of these issues and discover what is really going on.
Re your question about alternative hookbaits, I would think that when using your most successful baits, their feed signal is superior to that of the alternative hookbaits which would explain the success of the matching hookbaits. But if the alternative hookbaits work better, then I would think the opposite is the case.
Carp will tend to home in on the most stimulating feed signal.
BB.
Hi Christian,
I don't dismiss any of your comments, like one or two on here who have said, re flavours etc. than they will not even listen to counter opinions. I try to keep an open mind and form my opinions based on the evidence presented. If an opinion of mine is proven wrong, I'm happy to change it, because what I'm interested in is the true reasons why and how things work.
Now, re your fishmeal comment, I haven't heard that said before, but my comment to that broad statement, would be, that it is far more complicated than that, because a fishmeal boilie is not a standard item.
There will be f/m baits that are very well constructed, using supplementary proteins to address FLAA and include complementary hydros which will produce a very effective feed signal, and that will prove to be successful all year round. At the other end of the spectrum will be a poorly made f/m with an unbalanced feed signal.
Re your attractor package, the scientific view on those additives is well known and says that there is little to nothing in them which will induce a food search response. Conversely, I have read many comments like your own where anglers have tested ingredients with comparison trials and are convinced of their results.
This is puzzling anecdotal evidence in the face of the science view, but I lean towards the science view and form my opinions around the products and chemicals that science does endorse.
Re my lean towards the science view, yesterday, on the fermenting boilies thread, MM gave the detailed scientific answer to the question he was asked re the growths on aging boilies. Nobody else knew the answer and seemed content to accept the explanation. Well, for years on this and other forums, people like MM have been answering tech questions on all matters of bait science which have mostly been gratefully accepted.
Now, product analysis is standard procedure in chemistry, and I ask myself how come science can get it right in most cases, except in the case of those contentious additives?
I'm not saying you and others are wrong. I'm saying that in my opinion, the weight of evidence is not on your side. I'm actually getting frustrated with these discussions, because I would like to get to the bottom of these issues and discover what is really going on.
Re your question about alternative hookbaits, I would think that when using your most successful baits, their feed signal is superior to that of the alternative hookbaits which would explain the success of the matching hookbaits. But if the alternative hookbaits work better, then I would think the opposite is the case.
Carp will tend to home in on the most stimulating feed signal.
BB.