• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Barbel Diet Analysis

Ash, it was a bit tounge in cheek to suggest global warming would have a different effect on the Ouse to the Thames :). As for Redmire, I don't think anyone doubts that those fish grew a hell of a lot bigger than carp in similar waters. Many gravel pits with low stock density and plentiful natural food have never produced the size of fish that Redmire did. That is why I feel genetics of certain fish play a big part in their growth potential. After all, does it not in other creatures? It just seems more apparent in fish due to the often significant size difference in fish from the same waters.
 
Sorry Alex, sense of humour bypass moment there.

Thing is carp are a different beast to barbel when it comes to their gene pools. Carp have been selectively bred for the pot for centuries.

If we take a stock pond full of carp, one breeder took scale patterns as his preference, and other picked the quickest growing, and then another breeder who is left with the lefteovers. And then all these breeders started their own stock pond and each had 3 breeders taking from their stock pond along the same lines as the the first: you can imagine the genetic variation in all that lot.

I doubt barbel have ever been selectively bred, we may see some distinct patterns emerge in the future as all these rivers recently stocked with barbel will be with Trent fish from Calverton. I say might, but I doubt it.

If I catch an Ouse barbel today I'll ask it about it's genetic heritage
 
What is the history of the Redmire carp? It maybe genetics but also i suspect a set of very favourable environmental factors plus no angling pressure for quite some time. The difference with animals and birds is that they have greater freedom of movement - the Redmire carp were going nowhere - so it is difficult to maintain a restricted gene pool unless it is somewhere like the Galapagos (vague memory of A level biology). The more i have thought about this - food and growing season seems crucial as up to recently fish in the south were generally larger than in the north and it is climatically slightly warmer in the south so there is a longer growing season...and this is were global warming comes back in but i struggle to see how it effects one river at the same latitude as another differently.
 
OK folks, could all those catching claimed fish of over 15lbs measure them in centimetres from the tip of the nose to the fork of the tail and pass the details on to someone senior on the site who:
  1. Will collate the data
  2. maintain the anonymity of the captor and venue
  3. is willing to do this and report back to those BFW members who give a damn

We needs some evidence.

P.S. I don'y think any volunteer is going to be inundated with facts and figures...
 
were not the Ouse fish slightly manipulated in that eggs were stripped from the biggest fish on there a few years back and the resultant offspring were reared to about 5lbs or so then re introduced so escaping normal predation etc. and hey presto a large number of big fish. If not its a nice idea :)
 
Has anyone been watching the recent re-runs of record breaking fish with Matt Hayes and Mick Brown? At the start of each programme Matt speaks to a guy called Nigel Hewlett of the Natural History museum who is (was?) also a member of the record fish committee. Last nights episode featured Dorset Stour chub and Matt asked Nigel what he thought the reason for the major size increase in chub was. Nigel answered quite emphatically that he thought it was down to water quality. When asked if global warming could be a factor he seemed a bit unconvinced saying it was very difficult to scientifically gauge any effect climate change would have on fish size increasing. He was a little bit more open to the idea of rich baits going in but no more so than saying it could have an effect. Generally though, the guy seemed to favour an improvement in water quality as the main reason.
 
Missed that one Alex,:mad:
Did he say why water quality would increase the size of chub?
Increased longevity perhaps or greater abundance of natural food?

I've been trying to find any data on average UK river temps. over the past 30 odd years without success,...plenty of predictions for the future of course.

I think Ash made a valid point about carp DNA which went someway to shooting down my genetics theory!
 
He didn't really elaborate, just said he thought that improved water quality was the main reason. I don't think anyone's theories are shot down Dave, because all any of us can do is offer opinions. If I had to say I'd probably think a little bit of everything has had an effect overall with some conditions being more responsible for fish size increases on certain rivers and other factors being the predominant cause elsewhere. One thing I am certain of is that, on the Cherwell at least and probably the Ouse and Thames as well, signal crayfish are the single most influential factor in the huge increase of chub sizes.
 
Many of the Northern rivers are spate rivers.

The fish have to swim harder and are probably fitter than many of the Southern softie fish that can laze about and get fat.

Graham
 
Ash - i do not want to knock your theory but do we even know what the dominant genes are - i do not think there is a gene for quickest growing as such, so there may be a difference but perhaps no what we might expect? If we take humans as an example general size ie weight, which i think is what we started with, is more down to food quality/amount ie for most of us the more we eat the heavier we will get if it is the 'right' sort of food and environment rather than genes per se...so water quality could be a basic starting point.
Alex - what channel is this on?
 
Paul Dowgill said:
Ash - i do not want to knock your theory but do we even know what the dominant genes are - i do not think there is a gene for quickest growing as such, so there may be a difference but perhaps no what we might expect? If we take humans as an example general size ie weight, which i think is what we started with, is more down to food quality/amount ie for most of us the more we eat the heavier we will get if it is the 'right' sort of food and environment rather than genes per se...so water quality could be a basic starting point.
Alex - what channel is this on?
Click to expand...
Genetics are everything when it comes to body weight length height or whatever else you can think of in humans, what we do as individuals for instance as in over eating is a variable, and a individuals choice.

Of course we all strive for cleaner rivers, however in my youth the Bristol Avon was certainly 'dirty' and yet we caught Roach that we could only dream of now, and of course the Bream shoals were legendary with match weights often over 100lb. However now it is a different story, so why the huge downturn it this once prolific river? Certainly water quality has improved, is the price we pay?
 
Neil genetics may programme us at birth but nutrition has the major effect on growth etc so they are far from everything when it comes to size, otherwise we would have no control over how fat we get :) Without food it don't matter what the genetics say as we ain't going to grow and i don't think i have read anywhere that there is a fat gene :D So we are now into metabolism, which could bring us back to the fish diet. And of course with barbel there is also the gender difference. Is the growth rate of females outstripping that of males?
 
Paul Dowgill said:
Neil genetics may programme us at birth but nutrition has the major effect on growth etc so they are far from everything when it comes to size, otherwise we would have no control over how fat we get :) Without food it don't matter what the genetics say as we ain't going to grow and i don't think i have read anywhere that there is a fat gene :D So we are now into metabolism, which could bring us back to the fish diet. And of course with barbel there is also the gender difference. Is the growth rate of females outstripping that of males?
Click to expand...

Paul, you seem to be attributing diet solely as the factor which controls size, without labouring the point it is not the most important component.

In nature and indeed fish it is fact that females are generally larger than males in most species, diet has no part on this. It is genetic.

Diet over thousands of years serve to shape the genes, I understand that, but I am dubious that diet would have a major impact on any species in a short span of time. But of course if we penned in some species and fed them a high nutritional diet that would increase body weight, as in a Carp fishery, or perhaps Adam's Mill, but it would not effect the wider genetic pool I would think. But we are really in the area of selective breeding now, and we know the problems this can create, and is really just a sub species, as is the Dog is to the Wolf.
 
Paul Dowgill said:
Ash - i do not want to knock your theory but do we even know what the dominant genes are - i do not think there is a gene for quickest growing as such, so there may be a difference but perhaps no what we might expect? If we take humans as an example general size ie weight, which i think is what we started with, is more down to food quality/amount ie for most of us the more we eat the heavier we will get if it is the 'right' sort of food and environment rather than genes per se...so water quality could be a basic starting point.
Alex - what channel is this on?
Click to expand...

Hi Paul, I wasn't on about dominant genes rather that carp will have a much more varied gene pool than barbel due to selective breeding. I doubt there is much genetic variation in proper Wildies for instance.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Have we even established that barbel have got bigger? I dont think so.

They are just fatter, and therefore weigh more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread really has deviated from the original.

I would add that the interpretation of those reports could be questioned.

Surely all the results show is Barbels ability to make use of available food resources? What use is this diet breakdown without a control group of naturally behaving, not angled for, not fed barbel?
 
Ash which was my point about the Itchen fish - is this the size they should be typically and as i said above, and you mention, are these larger barbel fat (if one can have that in fish)? The original papers suggest the percentage make up of the barbel's diet and so given over the last 10+ years we have had a preponderance of bigger fish and genetics does not usually act that quickly in terms of evolution, we are still wondering why. The folk of my parents generation were not as obese as mine - genetics, no, what we eat as Dave noted.
My point about gender is that we are aware of the largest fish growing so much but these are females, have males grown in similar proportion - do we know and if they haven't why? More research needed - or we could just go fishing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top