In reply to Post #113
Hi NW,
Yes, he did awhile ago, but since then he posted the gist of his, then current mix, which used three selected AAs as its main attraction.
I think, at the time, he was in touch with a lot of research that was testing single, double and triple AA attraction.
BB.
Hi NW,
Yes, he did awhile ago, but since then he posted the gist of his, then current mix, which used three selected AAs as its main attraction.
I think, at the time, he was in touch with a lot of research that was testing single, double and triple AA attraction.
BB.
In reply to Post #112
BB
I hope we can agree to disagree on this, everything I have have experienced with my baits suggest that there is far far more to attraction than AA's there really is. And yes I am suggesting carp have taste preferences, absolutely certain.
I really really don't care what science says about either of these statements, it is completely irrelevant to me.
I have never said I use vecon etc as a protein source, I only mentioned it connection with its use as a Human taste enhancer and that it can be overloaded, and the coincidence or otherwise that it is based on HVP.
Thought I would follow your advice and look at the UCN thread, well eventually found it, sorry I missed it was on another forum site. Anyway it has 1500 posts....might be a while before I get through it...but I will let you know what I think.
Bob
BB
I hope we can agree to disagree on this, everything I have have experienced with my baits suggest that there is far far more to attraction than AA's there really is. And yes I am suggesting carp have taste preferences, absolutely certain.
I really really don't care what science says about either of these statements, it is completely irrelevant to me.
I have never said I use vecon etc as a protein source, I only mentioned it connection with its use as a Human taste enhancer and that it can be overloaded, and the coincidence or otherwise that it is based on HVP.
Thought I would follow your advice and look at the UCN thread, well eventually found it, sorry I missed it was on another forum site. Anyway it has 1500 posts....might be a while before I get through it...but I will let you know what I think.
Bob
In reply to Post #1
Hi HW,
And here you are.
Sweet milk bait. from TheBaitMan
FMR omega - 25%
Cornmeal (white) - 20%
Nutrilac. - 20%
Yogurt powder. - 12%
Miccelar Casein - 4%
WPC 80. - 3%
Whey Hydrolisate- 4%
Egg albumin - 2%
Lactose 20 - 3%
Coconut powder - 5%
Niger seeds - 2%
Poppy seeds - 2%
Eggs. - 4-5
CSL liquid - 15ml
To freeze immediately after rolling
Hi HW,
And here you are.
Sweet milk bait. from TheBaitMan
FMR omega - 25%
Cornmeal (white) - 20%
Nutrilac. - 20%
Yogurt powder. - 12%
Miccelar Casein - 4%
WPC 80. - 3%
Whey Hydrolisate- 4%
Egg albumin - 2%
Lactose 20 - 3%
Coconut powder - 5%
Niger seeds - 2%
Poppy seeds - 2%
Eggs. - 4-5
CSL liquid - 15ml
To freeze immediately after rolling
In reply to Post #41
I just tasted my Peptopro and it has a distinct bitter/sour taste while the hydro whey is much more mellow and milky. Not that this really matter much.
I tried introducing both in the tank and both induced food search and sampling. Pepto seemed to be spat out faster. If I should judge from this the whey seemed more popular. However, testing is pretty worthless without repetition so don't take this as gospel.
I just tasted my Peptopro and it has a distinct bitter/sour taste while the hydro whey is much more mellow and milky. Not that this really matter much.
I tried introducing both in the tank and both induced food search and sampling. Pepto seemed to be spat out faster. If I should judge from this the whey seemed more popular. However, testing is pretty worthless without repetition so don't take this as gospel.
In reply to Post #124
You answered your own question mate, before you tested it on the fish in the tank.
All this testing on fish in tanks. Natural carp are effected by the moon. So are carp in a tank, maybe less so, but they are still effected. I know, that if I give some carp in a tank, something on one moon phase... They are not going to take it, or get excited by it. Same thing, right moon phase... Boom.
Not you Viking, but all these scientists, don't even really understand how a carp works in the first place. In my head, their tests mean nothing. The fish does not have a natural diet. Give a starving tank fish, something crap, it will still go mad for it.
Your fishing will tell you far more than any tank test mate. Don't be to wrapped up in that. Honestly.
You answered your own question mate, before you tested it on the fish in the tank.
All this testing on fish in tanks. Natural carp are effected by the moon. So are carp in a tank, maybe less so, but they are still effected. I know, that if I give some carp in a tank, something on one moon phase... They are not going to take it, or get excited by it. Same thing, right moon phase... Boom.
Not you Viking, but all these scientists, don't even really understand how a carp works in the first place. In my head, their tests mean nothing. The fish does not have a natural diet. Give a starving tank fish, something crap, it will still go mad for it.
Your fishing will tell you far more than any tank test mate. Don't be to wrapped up in that. Honestly.
In reply to Post #123
Thanks. Interesting recipe. Had to look up the FMR Omega. Seems to be a vegetable protein mix of non-disclosed composition, but the recommended feed level is 5 to 10% only in agricultural feedstuffs.
Not sure what the coconut powder brings apart from attempting to copy the flavour of Cell (which may/may not be coconut powder).
Overall though, I suspect this is probably a better mix than a lot of the stuff that is sold
Thanks. Interesting recipe. Had to look up the FMR Omega. Seems to be a vegetable protein mix of non-disclosed composition, but the recommended feed level is 5 to 10% only in agricultural feedstuffs.
Not sure what the coconut powder brings apart from attempting to copy the flavour of Cell (which may/may not be coconut powder).
Overall though, I suspect this is probably a better mix than a lot of the stuff that is sold
In reply to Post #126
You are wellcome!
FMR omega it's a soy concentrate from Holland, its AA profile is similar to Standard fishmeal. A substitution in fact.
You are wellcome!
FMR omega it's a soy concentrate from Holland, its AA profile is similar to Standard fishmeal. A substitution in fact.
In reply to Post #127
Yes, it's interesting and has been awaited for some time now. But just as with meat replacers for humans, you can get the nutritional profile right, but in a taste test it fails badly. Sure it will be ok if the staple dieet of the poultry consists of this, they have no other option, but when compared with fishmeal in an actual fishing situation i am not that sure that it will really compete. But who knows, use some high tec protein for the basic nutrients and go wild with the attractors and maybe it is a real alternative.
Yes, it's interesting and has been awaited for some time now. But just as with meat replacers for humans, you can get the nutritional profile right, but in a taste test it fails badly. Sure it will be ok if the staple dieet of the poultry consists of this, they have no other option, but when compared with fishmeal in an actual fishing situation i am not that sure that it will really compete. But who knows, use some high tec protein for the basic nutrients and go wild with the attractors and maybe it is a real alternative.
In reply to Post #122
Hi Christian,
Yes, of course we can agree to disagree without having to resort to comparing genitalia.
I have a couple of questions if I may.
You say you believe there is far far more to attraction than AAs and I agree up to a point, but probably not to such a degree, so can you explain what you think these many other factors are?
I have said I believe that AAs are responsible for at least 90% of attraction.
I wonder what % figure you would put on it?
The UCN thread has a lot of chit chat, but is worth wading through to the end.
BB.
Hi Christian,
Yes, of course we can agree to disagree without having to resort to comparing genitalia.
I have a couple of questions if I may.
You say you believe there is far far more to attraction than AAs and I agree up to a point, but probably not to such a degree, so can you explain what you think these many other factors are?
I have said I believe that AAs are responsible for at least 90% of attraction.
I wonder what % figure you would put on it?
The UCN thread has a lot of chit chat, but is worth wading through to the end.
BB.
In reply to Post #1
Okay NW to answer your initial post and keeping with your instructions (Almost)
Milk Protein Smooth 30%
Micellar Casein 20%
Acid Whey 15%
Hydro Whey Pro 5%
Egg Albumin 5%
Whey Gel 5%
Lamlac 20%
The first six items are from a body building/supplement outlet. The last two are from fishing outlets or in the case of the lamlac from a farming store. Approx protein content 65-70%
However I don't think I would ever use it.....it's too easy to improve with none milk products
Okay NW to answer your initial post and keeping with your instructions (Almost)
Milk Protein Smooth 30%
Micellar Casein 20%
Acid Whey 15%
Hydro Whey Pro 5%
Egg Albumin 5%
Whey Gel 5%
Lamlac 20%
The first six items are from a body building/supplement outlet. The last two are from fishing outlets or in the case of the lamlac from a farming store. Approx protein content 65-70%
However I don't think I would ever use it.....it's too easy to improve with none milk products
In reply to Post #125
Hi Mark,
I believe you are very wrong if you dismiss tank testing.
Here is a short story:
A professors decided to make attractants for several species. He hired another professor to help out and found a person willing to finance the project.
This went on for years, tank testing only. Testing was done in summers and in holidays as both professors had jobs at universities. Chemicals was tested and tested again in combination with eachother. After some years they had several mixes of chemicals ready, all suited for different species. Due to various circumstances this came to a halt due to health issues and as they did not really have the time or the network to have it commercialised. Then they met some guys from a bait company. They agreed to start field testing. Since this was in autumn the first bait they developed was one for arctic char, a popular target species for ice fishing.
The common bait used here was naturals, like maggot, worms and bits of prawn.
A test team was put together. Results was outstanding. On many occations the bait outfished natural baits like maggot by a huge margin. Now remember, this was wild fish that never had seen this bait before. No prebaiting had been done and still the fish often preferred this bait over a bunch of wriggling maggots.
Now, a couple of years later this bait is sold in over 60 shops in two countries. Scandinavias larges distributor of maggots have contacted the company and asked if they could distribute the bait.
Now, tell me again how tank testing is a waste of time?
Hi Mark,
I believe you are very wrong if you dismiss tank testing.
Here is a short story:
A professors decided to make attractants for several species. He hired another professor to help out and found a person willing to finance the project.
This went on for years, tank testing only. Testing was done in summers and in holidays as both professors had jobs at universities. Chemicals was tested and tested again in combination with eachother. After some years they had several mixes of chemicals ready, all suited for different species. Due to various circumstances this came to a halt due to health issues and as they did not really have the time or the network to have it commercialised. Then they met some guys from a bait company. They agreed to start field testing. Since this was in autumn the first bait they developed was one for arctic char, a popular target species for ice fishing.
The common bait used here was naturals, like maggot, worms and bits of prawn.
A test team was put together. Results was outstanding. On many occations the bait outfished natural baits like maggot by a huge margin. Now remember, this was wild fish that never had seen this bait before. No prebaiting had been done and still the fish often preferred this bait over a bunch of wriggling maggots.
Now, a couple of years later this bait is sold in over 60 shops in two countries. Scandinavias larges distributor of maggots have contacted the company and asked if they could distribute the bait.
Now, tell me again how tank testing is a waste of time?
In reply to Post #130
.
Ideal... That's the type of thing I had in mind, thanks!
.Ideal... That's the type of thing I had in mind, thanks!
In reply to Post #129
BB
I have no idea on percentages they add to attraction as some may affect taste as well but I would NOT use a bait that did not contain:
An artificial flavour, or combination of, at low(ish) level....but there are flavours and flavours, I stick to ones I know work, probably got a list of about half a dozen I am confident in.
An EO or aromatic chemical again at low level, again I choose from a very short list and select to compliment the flavour
A palatent to compliment the flavour, these often could be powdered or liquid, these may affect taste more than attraction
Yeast - usually a mixture of ordinary brewers yeast and barocel, although I would use high nucleotide yeast if I could access some...I would not have much confidence in any bait that did not contain yeast
A bulk oil - high level in the summer, low in the winter
In addition in some mixes mainly savoury but not exclusively, I would add a mix of spice powders.
By using these in a bait with next to no free AA's would (has for me) caught plenty of carp however I would not nowadays use a bait without free AA's because as you say they are very attractive. However if I had to choose between AA's and the above I would use my attractor package and not the AA's
My free AA attraction would come from a mixture of hydrolysed powders and liquids. In the summer I would also want some none hydrolysed high protein products, in the winter I reduce the protien content considerably and add starch/sugar and sugary liquids.
I have found that where ever I have fished there are always fish that do not get caught (or caught very often) on boilies, especially fishmeal boilies. Add yeast and spices and bingo, those hard to catch fish start to appear, replace the fishmeal with a starchy product and the effect is even better. So much so that i rarely use fishmeal anymore, relying on milk protien powders for the protien content in my bait. I don't think these baits are any better than fishmeals for quantities of fish they just (for me) seem to pick out the rarely caught fish. I think "natural" fish are less attracted by fishmeals than pellet reared fish.
Hope this explains, Bob
BB
I have no idea on percentages they add to attraction as some may affect taste as well but I would NOT use a bait that did not contain:
An artificial flavour, or combination of, at low(ish) level....but there are flavours and flavours, I stick to ones I know work, probably got a list of about half a dozen I am confident in.
An EO or aromatic chemical again at low level, again I choose from a very short list and select to compliment the flavour
A palatent to compliment the flavour, these often could be powdered or liquid, these may affect taste more than attraction
Yeast - usually a mixture of ordinary brewers yeast and barocel, although I would use high nucleotide yeast if I could access some...I would not have much confidence in any bait that did not contain yeast
A bulk oil - high level in the summer, low in the winter
In addition in some mixes mainly savoury but not exclusively, I would add a mix of spice powders.
By using these in a bait with next to no free AA's would (has for me) caught plenty of carp however I would not nowadays use a bait without free AA's because as you say they are very attractive. However if I had to choose between AA's and the above I would use my attractor package and not the AA's
My free AA attraction would come from a mixture of hydrolysed powders and liquids. In the summer I would also want some none hydrolysed high protein products, in the winter I reduce the protien content considerably and add starch/sugar and sugary liquids.
I have found that where ever I have fished there are always fish that do not get caught (or caught very often) on boilies, especially fishmeal boilies. Add yeast and spices and bingo, those hard to catch fish start to appear, replace the fishmeal with a starchy product and the effect is even better. So much so that i rarely use fishmeal anymore, relying on milk protien powders for the protien content in my bait. I don't think these baits are any better than fishmeals for quantities of fish they just (for me) seem to pick out the rarely caught fish. I think "natural" fish are less attracted by fishmeals than pellet reared fish.
Hope this explains, Bob
In reply to Post #133
Hi Christian,
It may be an “empty” zero protein bait catching very good due to flavor and a decently made boil without flavor (and EO) doing the same.
The story is that I took part as a tester in a little competition of baits provided by new bait companies in my country. There were four testers only. 1 kg of boilies from each bait company we're given to all testers. And they had to fish with this 4 kg of boilies during the whole season. 5 months in Russia it is. All baits proved to be effective at the end.
The first two places took boilies as described. The winner was plain semolina by look. The second one was made without any liquids except eggs and was hard as rock.
These results ware a great revelation for me as I am a rookie baitmaker as it shows that quite different approach to bat construction have a right to live. In this respect joining the forum recently I was not surprised to success of Mark's Spanish 2 bait.
My personal baitmaking experience though very modest shows approximately the same. Every time that I make a new bait the unflavored version is tested first. And catches fish in most cases.
So. I would make my ultimate bait in full conformity with your plan but I do know now that it may be unnecessary to include all this ingredients in the mix.
Hi BB
I can't say definitely about percentage (90/10) either as it is may vice versa just as easily.
Hi Christian,
It may be an “empty” zero protein bait catching very good due to flavor and a decently made boil without flavor (and EO) doing the same.
The story is that I took part as a tester in a little competition of baits provided by new bait companies in my country. There were four testers only. 1 kg of boilies from each bait company we're given to all testers. And they had to fish with this 4 kg of boilies during the whole season. 5 months in Russia it is. All baits proved to be effective at the end.
The first two places took boilies as described. The winner was plain semolina by look. The second one was made without any liquids except eggs and was hard as rock.
These results ware a great revelation for me as I am a rookie baitmaker as it shows that quite different approach to bat construction have a right to live. In this respect joining the forum recently I was not surprised to success of Mark's Spanish 2 bait.
My personal baitmaking experience though very modest shows approximately the same. Every time that I make a new bait the unflavored version is tested first. And catches fish in most cases.
So. I would make my ultimate bait in full conformity with your plan but I do know now that it may be unnecessary to include all this ingredients in the mix.
Hi BB
I can't say definitely about percentage (90/10) either as it is may vice versa just as easily.
In reply to Post #133
Hi Christian,
Thanks for that, a very concise account of your bait philosophy.
As you would expect it differs from mine and I wouldn't be considering using anything like your attractor package.
I think any bait that isn't actually repellant will catch if it contains a reasonable amount of protein.
It seems there will always be a difference of opinions re the contentious additives, like flavours, EO's, palatants, salt and sugars, because it is difficult for the users to definitively prove that they have the positive effect they claim. It's quite possible that some baits work in spite of some of the additives in them and not because of them.
Another factor to further complicate the issue is the competence of the anglers. It seems on most lakes that the top 10% of anglers catch the majority of the fish. So who is actually using a particular bait can have a bearing on how successful a bait is considered to be.
Anyway, we are still agreeing to disagree and that's no problem, because I know my dad can beat your dad.
BB.
Hi Christian,
Thanks for that, a very concise account of your bait philosophy.
As you would expect it differs from mine and I wouldn't be considering using anything like your attractor package.
I think any bait that isn't actually repellant will catch if it contains a reasonable amount of protein.
It seems there will always be a difference of opinions re the contentious additives, like flavours, EO's, palatants, salt and sugars, because it is difficult for the users to definitively prove that they have the positive effect they claim. It's quite possible that some baits work in spite of some of the additives in them and not because of them.
Another factor to further complicate the issue is the competence of the anglers. It seems on most lakes that the top 10% of anglers catch the majority of the fish. So who is actually using a particular bait can have a bearing on how successful a bait is considered to be.
Anyway, we are still agreeing to disagree and that's no problem, because I know my dad can beat your dad.
BB.