|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #113
Just read it again this morning, some great input by all and loved TC input at the time, refreshingly brilliant 
Wish they all still posted. All good info and thought provoking for a bloke in a shed.
And edit - does anybody know where I can get a good quality winterised nut oil
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #114
Totally agree, Anglers pre soak baits as they believe there more readibly taken as the fish think they've been in the water a lot longer and are someway safer.. I think it's a case of there more palatable. And a lot easier to eat.
I've used mainline Cell for a bit in the past. They going like soggy bread not long after being in the water ( might give you some idea of its make up..  ). But that's the reason I think th Carp can't get enough of it..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #113
I've found that pre- soaked and therefore soft baits are eaten more quickly and in greater quantities than rock hard ones. Seems to pass through quicker comes out like paste.
|
|
|
|
That was a nice read...
Digestibility, often mentioned in the incorrect context.
Digestibility is the amount of food that can be absorbed and converted into nutrition, it isnt the same as being able to pass through a fishes gut. Thats gut transit time.
If its not digested it doesnt bung them up as its just shat out, like sweetcorn skins.
Several posts mention how fast they can crap it out. Some mention carp being bunged up with bait. Lots of variables here...
Do soft pasty baits pass through more easily, or do baits with more texture pass through quicker due to peristalsis!
Water temperature is the biggest effect on gut transit times. Also, consider a carps gut, a long pipe with no stomach to get bloated. The faster they push it in one end the faster it comes out the other end.
I have done many tank tests to witness how feeding a trickle can slow down gut transit, but give them a double dose and the crap gets shot out everywhere and I'd need to vacuum the tank so I dont create an ammonia spike and overwhelm my poor filter bacteria.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #111
 I just like things that work well, under the right circumstances 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #110
Not me I like expensive 😂
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #108
You need to read all 6 pages, it has some good properties one of which is its cheaper than fishmeal...some people like cheap
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #108
Yes, that's why Peter and I will stick to using fish meals.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #106
Why use something that has a negative effect?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #106
Just pm'ed you, mate! Many thanks!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #105
Just dragged out my copy of Handbook on Ingredients for Aquaculture feeds. It says that poultry meal as a sole protein source depresses performance. it is recommended that for omnivorous fish a maximum level of 35% is used but with other sources (fishmeal) and is only used to replace some of the fishmeal. It also says you should consider adding lysine, methionine and tryptophan as these are low. If you PM me your email address i can send you some pictures of the pages on this
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #104
Nice! I also will keep my eye on new ingredients, but leave the poultry meals for now.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #103
If you have one good mix then just use it....like I say I have been on the same bait for 10 years now
With spare time due to car racing being off this year I am playing around with a new mix but more out of interest than need. I am still making and using 1-2kg a week of the old mix 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #102
I currently have a very nice fishmeal mix and a bird/nut/milk mix. I also wanted to add a good meat meal mix, but now I wonder why. If I have both mixes that work well, why? Lol
Think I will let this idea go.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #101
I never fully tested the BM2 mix, it was 'work in progress' when I packed it all in. In theory though it still had 20% fishmeal so the poultry meal only need to be part utilised.
For the last 10 years I have used the same mix based on the BM1.
|
|
Bait