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.
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!
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.
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
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?
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!!!!
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.
Yes I do, thanks for that.
In reply to Post #21
Sent it off to who? And for analysis in comparison to what?
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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
very true
every bait on the market must be wrong then