DNA ...a new era for records or the start of a big mess ...

[watatoad]

After thinking about this and doing a bit of reading then considering the amount of hybrids about. I am beginning to wonder if any perfect pure DNA specimen of any fish actually exist just thinking about Carp, Goldfish, Commons, Koi, Mirrors, see what I mean.

 

[The bad one]

After thinking about this and doing a bit of reading then considering the amount of hybrids about. I am beginning to wonder if any perfect pure DNA specimen of any fish actually exist just thinking about Carp, Goldfish, Commons, Koi, Mirrors, see what I mean.

With Cyprinus carpio (king carp) commons, leathers, mirrors and Koi they are the same species Eg they are all king carp. In the main it's man that has brought about the physical differences by selective breeding of "freaks" for the want of a better word.

If such crosses with either goldfish or crucians is achieved, they would be unlikely to attain the weight to produce a record fish, as both species are much smaller. Ergo, the prodigy of such parents would be restricted by the smaller parent.

It's why hybrid bream never reach the size of true bream of record size.

---------- Post added at 15:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:46 ----------

Alan one of the reason why yes. But to you and I clipping a bit of fin off we know what we want, But to the general angling public I can see them hacking half a fin away to send as a sample

Got to be honest here, when I've taken a scale off a roach you wouldn't even know it had been removed. It's unnoticeable in the scale patterning and I've had to look hard to find where I've taken it from. There's something about roach of all species and the ease in which they shed scales that's a bit mystifying. Whether that's a predator defense mechanism or not I'm not sure
Removing a scale is also the accepted norm for the EA when age profiling all species.

Take your point about sufficient species separation, but given the amount of research in DNA and genetics on fish (its sexy and where the money's going) I've never come across such a problem being raised in any of the literature I've read.

 

[Berty]

Phil is right, scales are the only way to go, anyone who has watched a pike attack in clear water will know the ease that roach lose scales.

No need to start slicing bits off!......lets face it this sort of thing aint going to happen much, its narrowed down to roach, rudd, and crucians.

The roach is our heritage......we have to get it right.




Now i need a lie down, as i suspect do's Phil..........all this agreeing.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

I don’t think the weigh sling makes any difference to the scale testing process does it ?
It just means you include the weight of the weigh sling (wetted weight …I am sure you will add…) …onto the total weight of the fish when your testing.

So for example..a hypothetical situation...imagine someone puts in a a claim for say a 9.15oz Chub. Weigh sling weighs say 1.8oz wetted…so BRFC know the total weight was 11.7oz hanging on the hook of the scales.

They then test the scales in the predetermined weight increments up to their max weight and back down again. Lets say for augments sake a pair of 12 pound weigh masters was used to weigh the fish by the angler. They test those scales at say 8oz increments (or other increments of their choosing) .. right up to their 12 pound max and back down again.

They find the scales are reading 1oz heavy at say 1 pound to 4 pound and 1oz light at 4 pound to 8 pound and exact at 8 pound to 12 pound. Then when they do the weights back down they find it weighs still exact at 12 down to 8 and still 1oz light from 8 to 4 but from 4 to 0 they are now weighing 2oz heavy rather than 1oz

Now the tricky bit. I am not sure if there is a standard industry protocol for how you do this but I (as in me personally) would always err on the side of worst case scenario. In other words I would take the worst possible case which here was the scales weighing 2oz heavy from 4 down to 0 and use that as my reading. So the actual record weight of the Chub claimed at 9.15 + 1.8 wetted sling would be installed at the new record at 9.13 (11.7oz less 1.8oz for the sling less 2oz max scale error = 9.13oz)

I don’t know what weights and measures do once they have the scale profile….in other words do they also take worst case scenario or do they just look at the error on the scales at the record weight of the fish (+ sling)…

I know it sounds long winded but what I am trying to explain would actually be pretty easy in practice…

Philip,

It's worked out at the claimed weight, and the sling will matter. Try it and you will see a difference, dry sling, damp sling, wet sling, there will be several ounces in difference.

I am not telling anyone how to suck egg's, but when weighing fish, the sling goe's on the scale's, zero the scales, put the fish in the sling and weigh, thats you weight. The reason I said the BRFC would need the sling or what ever is used, is that some anglers put the fish in a sling, then zero the scales, then put the sling and fish on the scales.

The problem with that method is, you don't get a correct reading, by the time you have done the above, returned the fish, then checked the sling on the scales, the sling will be lighter due to water loss. Some wash the sling then check the weight, wrong again, as you don't know if the sling has to much water in it, or not enough. We may only be talking an ounce or two in some case's, but that maybe the difference between the fish being a record or not.

 

[Philip]

Ray I am not sure what your point is here ?

I am talking about an idea for the BRFC to keep a master set of weights to validate a potential record claimants scales rather than send them to a weights & measures office. I am not talking about the weighing procedure the angler follows when he catches the fish.

You appear to be telling me how to correctly weigh a fish ...which I am well aware of....

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Philip,

As i said, I am not telling anyone how to suck eggs, I am sure you know just how to weigh fish correctly. I was pointing out the different ways anglers weigh fish.

The BRFC wouldn't be able to do the job of checking scales, to check the scales correctly, you have to take everything into account. That can be done when you take the scales to weight's and measure's. If the BRFC did the job, all those making a claim would have to be present when the scales are checked, to make sure it is done correctly, in the same way the angler weighed his fish.

 

[Philip]

Ray I guess we could turn this round forever but I still don’t see your point, sorry.

DNA aside what I am suggesting is no different to the current setup for claiming a record fish…so the angler has to do all the same things…witness, scales, photos etc etc … none of that changes at all…the BRFC still do all that.

The only difference I am suggesting is that for the scale accuracy check rather than ask the angler to send them to a weights and measures office the BRFC do the accuracy check themselves. The reason I am suggesting it is because in the past a set of scales sent to 2 different weights and measures offices came back with different results.

How the BRFC could do that scale check I already explained about 2 posts back so I won’t repeat it here.

Whats confusing is that you say the BRFC can’t do the scale check because the weights and measures take “everything into account” …but what does that mean exactly ?

As I see it weights and measures have one job...-to check the accuracy of the scales- …the BRFC would then ensure that everything was taken into account…like the sling and the weighing procedure and so on..

 

[watatoad]

With Cyprinus carpio (king carp) commons, leathers, mirrors and Koi they are the same species Eg they are all king carp. In the main it's man that has brought about the physical differences by selective breeding of "freaks" for the want of a better word.

If such crosses with either goldfish or crucians is achieved, they would be unlikely to attain the weight to produce a record fish, as both species are much smaller. Ergo, the prodigy of such parents would be restricted by the smaller parent.

It's why hybrid bream never reach the size of true bream of record size.

---------- Post added at 15:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:46 ----------

Yes, although I know they are one species. I think there are many who do not.

Yet perhaps as the record table expands and the hybridization increases. surely there are more likely to be fertile offspring thereby increases in sizes are on the cards as well as an increased difficulty in differentiation. Plus surely it must be considered that as with any species the more carefully controlled breeding and as any Carp angler or for that matter angler will say 'make em bigger.' Don't you think selective breeding is very likely to overcome that with and without genetic manipulation within a few generations.

 

[The bad one]

Yes, although I know they are one species. I think there are many who do not.

Yet perhaps as the record table expands and the hybridization increases. surely there are more likely to be fertile offspring thereby increases in sizes are on the cards as well as an increased difficulty in differentiation. Plus surely it must be considered that as with any species the more carefully controlled breeding and as any Carp angler or for that matter angler will say 'make em bigger.' Don't you think selective breeding is very likely to overcome that with and without genetic manipulation within a few generations.

As to your first point really we are only talking about carp here, as their little or no interest in the other species that hybridise from the fish breeders/dealers, roach, rudd, bream. No mega bucks in them species.

So hybridisation would remain at the level its at now for them. Effectively there's no change over what it is now.

For any of the 3 of these species to hybridise with another it needs a particular set of circumstances to happen and they are quite rare.

As to fertile hybrids of these species, studies have shown that between 7-10% of them are fertile, the other 90+ % are totally infertile. A whole generation of hybrids could live their lives and die before another generation is spawned.

Meddling with carp has as I said gone on for hundreds if not thousands of years. What the future will bring through genetic manipulation not selective breeding can only be guessed at.

But there has to be a market demand for them. Take Simmos selective breeding of fast growing strains, a club I'm in stocked them in one of their waters, but there's a general backlash starting to creep in from many of the carp anglers. They'd rather have the original stocked fish than catch an ugly Simmos fish.
Echo holds the same principle.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Philip,

I don't know how you got two different readings for the scales, but what if anything was being weighed, or were you just having the scales Calibrated ??.

The BRFC are not Qualified to check scales, as I said before, it is not as simple as many think. I also said it is down to how the Angler weigh's the fish, did he zero the scale's and then weigh, if not, what was the reading on the scales before weighing, How would the BRFC know if the angler wasn't there to show them ???,

Having been in the situation I know how it works, and how easy it can be to get it wrong. The worst thing would be if an angler used Digital scales, I have never found a set that weigh's correct all the time, and the Fox scales were the worst by a mile. A low battery and digital scales weigh incorrect.

 

[Philip]

Philip,

I don't know how you got two different readings for the scales, but what if anything was being weighed, or were you just having the scales Calibrated ??.

The BRFC are not Qualified to check scales, as I said before, it is not as simple as many think. I also said it is down to how the Angler weigh's the fish, did he zero the scale's and then weigh, if not, what was the reading on the scales before weighing, How would the BRFC know if the angler wasn't there to show them ???,

Having been in the situation I know how it works, and how easy it can be to get it wrong. The worst thing would be if an angler used Digital scales, I have never found a set that weigh's correct all the time, and the Fox scales were the worst by a mile. A low battery and digital scales weigh incorrect.

Ray, ok, I think this is all boiling down to 2 points..

1) You are saying checking the accuracy of scales needs a qualified person from weights and measures to do it and I am saying that its not that difficult and the BRFC could do it themselves.

...You might be right ! …but what I still fail to understand is what exactly do the weights and measures people do to test a pair of scales thats so technical that it needs a “specialist” weights and measures person to do it ? …don’t they basically just do what I outlined earlier on and test the scales at a range of weights from Min to Max and back to Min again ?

2) You are saying that the angler would need to be present if the BRFC did the scales check.

....What I don’t follow with that is does the angler have to be present when the weights and measures people do the scales check ? Or put it anothert way when you had you Roach ratified did you actually have to go to the weights and measdures office and show them how you zeroed the scales and weighed the fish ? ...or yet another way of puttng it ...who actually asked you to show them how you zeroed the scales and weighed the fish ?

 

[Berty]

It's simple.

The scales are checked by weights and measures for a + or - in their accuracy.

The BRFC talk to the angler to determine how the fish was weighed....eg, with a just wetted sack or in a tesco bag (by far the best!)


The DNA people verify the fish is a real roach, crucian, whatever.......and that the scale matches growth rates and is age related.


It's so simple, all it needs is someone to supply a f%*+ing scale and to talk to the BRFC!!

 

[Philip]

Well that’s what I thought as well !

The weights and measures just do the scale check and give a + or – and the BRFC talk to the angler to make sure the weighing procedure and everything else was done ok.

Thats why I don’t see why if the BRFC did the scales check why the angler suddenly has to be present to explain things any differently than he did anyway....but Rays been through it so he will know better than anyone...

...Btw interesting you choose a Tesco plastic bag..they were my choice as well ! ....now its a Carrefour one....

 

[Berty]

Philip.......the BRFC will reject your claim in that bag

 

[andy nellist]

I was present at the scales check of the scales that were used to weigh the new record Perch. I also spoke to the captor about precisely how he weighed the fish before the scale check was performed.

The BRFC could perform the scale check but apart from the high cost of purchasing a full set if weights the issue is how to get the scales from the captor to where they are being tested. You can't ask the captor to put them in the post because they might get damaged.

I actually did a 4 hour round trip to collect a set a while back and then went and had them tested only for the captor to then not bother making a claim.

The DNA profiles are developed using fish from a wide variety of locations. For example the Roach profile developed at Exeter University by Professor Charles Tyler and Dr Patrick Hamilton included DNA results fir roach from as far away as Siberia.

The BRFC carried out a DNA test on a scale from a claimed 4-10-8 roach in 2009 the result was that the fish was clearly identified as a roach x Rudd hybrid which had a true roach and a true Rudd for parents.

Taking a single scale is simple, it's easy to store (hook packet then freezer) and provides not only enough DNA but also a very clear indication of the size of the fish.

 

[The bad one]

I was present at the scales check of the scales that were used to weigh the new record Perch. I also spoke to the captor about precisely how he weighed the fish before the scale check was performed.

The BRFC could perform the scale check but apart from the high cost of purchasing a full set if weights the issue is how to get the scales from the captor to where they are being tested. You can't ask the captor to put them in the post because they might get damaged.

I actually did a 4 hour round trip to collect a set a while back and then went and had them tested only for the captor to then not bother making a claim.

The DNA profiles are developed using fish from a wide variety of locations. For example the Roach profile developed at Exeter University by Professor Charles Tyler and Dr Patrick Hamilton included DNA results fir roach from as far away as Siberia.

The BRFC carried out a DNA test on a scale from a claimed 4-10-8 roach in 2009 the result was that the fish was clearly identified as a roach x Rudd hybrid which had a true roach and a true Rudd for parents.

Taking a single scale is simple, it's easy to store (hook packet then freezer) and provides not only enough DNA but also a very clear indication of the size of the fish.

Thanks Andy for clearing up the above points. For those that don't know Andy sits on the BRFC as a coarse member.

 

[Philip]

I was present at the scales check of the scales that were used to weigh the new record Perch. I also spoke to the captor about precisely how he weighed the fish before the scale check was performed.

The BRFC could perform the scale check but apart from the high cost of purchasing a full set if weights the issue is how to get the scales from the captor to where they are being tested. You can't ask the captor to put them in the post because they might get damaged.

I actually did a 4 hour round trip to collect a set a while back and then went and had them tested only for the captor to then not bother making a claim.

The DNA profiles are developed using fish from a wide variety of locations. For example the Roach profile developed at Exeter University by Professor Charles Tyler and Dr Patrick Hamilton included DNA results fir roach from as far away as Siberia.

The BRFC carried out a DNA test on a scale from a claimed 4-10-8 roach in 2009 the result was that the fish was clearly identified as a roach x Rudd hybrid which had a true roach and a true Rudd for parents.

Taking a single scale is simple, it's easy to store (hook packet then freezer) and provides not only enough DNA but also a very clear indication of the size of the fish.

Brilliant, thanks for jumping in Andy.

I think on the DNA front what you say pretty much nails it for me. DNA clearly IS the way to go. Whats really interesting is the point about how you can determine not just the species but the size of the fish as well …never knew that. How are they doing it….are they drawing the conclusion of size based on age or is it more complicated?

Regarding getting scales to and from the captor…to be quite honest I find it a liberty that someone catching a record and wanting to make a claim would expect you or someone else from the BRFC to make a 4hour round trip to get them…if I was ever in the fortune position of being able to make a claim, believe me I would drive my own scales down from Scotland if I had to. You could make it part of the claim process – “angler to provide BRFC with the scales in person”...sorted.

Point taken on the cost of the weights…but it is a one time cost…. Anyway its just a suggestion based on the fact that I would have far more confidence in you guys doing the check than anyone else, a vote of confidence if you like…& tell you what, if you guys ever did decide to do it I would help chip in for the weights..

There you go…putting my money were my mouth is

 

[904_cannon]

A good point about a fish scale also providing a good indication of the fish size, and age to some extent.

Ray was right about weigh scales having to be checked throughout the full range, not merely checked against another set of good known scales.
In a former life when I had to repair/calibrate weigh scales I used to carry a full set of weights, even for scales that were used for no more than an A5 envelope. Hugging those weights, a toolbox, laptop and other gear sometimes over a quarter mile through a city centre, and then having to make a trip back to feed the parking meter, sure kept me fit(ish) I now use one of the weights as a door stop in the kitchen

There was talk of the Predation Action Group providing DNA testing kits to be used on fish suspected of being killed/attacked by otters; any update?

Just a thought; If anyone really wanted to 'cheat' what is to stop the using of two sets of scales, faulty/uncalibrated when weighing the fish and then giving different scales to W&M to be checked?

I can remember some years ago a 'name' angler (at the time) causing a stink by suggesting that some anglers were changing over the dial faces of Avon's so that they appeared to weigh more.

 

[Berty]

I suppose if someone really wanted to cheat and things were meticoulsly worked out then they could.

It can happen in most things, rigged football, boxing etc etc.

We can only hope that witness's are reliable etc.........the BRFC have members amongst them, of whom Andy is one, who are very astute and i have more faith in todays BRFC than any in the past.

I'm convinced that on the imformation they are given they will reach a conclusion that is correct for angling.

 

[904_cannon]

We can only hope that witness's are reliable etc.........

Thats what I thought when I copied the video clip of the then Tees Nat record chub. Two witnesses and the captor and all appeared to be 'merry'