Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 124
  1. #21

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

    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.
    From a spark a flame will burn

    English by birth, Cockney by the Grace of God

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    4,587
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by watatoad View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Berty Guest

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

    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Herts
    Posts
    12,106

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Philip View Post
    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.

  5. #25

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

    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....

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Herts
    Posts
    12,106

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

    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.

  7. #27

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

    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..

  8. #28

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The bad one View Post
    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.
    From a spark a flame will burn

    English by birth, Cockney by the Grace of God

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    4,587
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by watatoad View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Herts
    Posts
    12,106

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

    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.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Two New Records
    By Simon Vicos in forum Coarse Fishing
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 24-11-2005, 15:46
  2. What's the most horrendous mess
    By Ron Troversial Clay in forum Coarse Fishing
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 18-11-2003, 20:20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •