What is the weight of these roach

[no-one in particular]

Caught two roach yesterday, using my arm as a guide, one was about 12inches long the other a bit longer, maybe 13/14 inches. There girth was about 5/6 inches I think but was unmeasured. Any one got an idea? thanks...

 

[beerweasel]

A Roach of 12 inches should be 12oz to 1lb.
You say the girth was 5/6 inch, that's the same as a peeled banana.
I think you mean 5/6 inch in depth.

 

[S-Kippy]

I dont know about roach but 13 inches long and 6 inches in girth is a banana to be proud of !

 

[chub_on_the_block]

i would say a around a pound for a 12 inch roach - if you dont include the tail. Im not sure but i think fork length is usually used in length/weight tables - length from tip of mouth to fork of tail.

 

[no-one in particular]

Do you know where I can get a length weight table. I have tried Google but, only get American stuff...and thanks for the replies.

I got the girth bit wrong, I did mean depth, I have only been fishing for 40 years so, plenty to learn ..

I measured the roach from mouth to tip of tail so, got that wrong as well but, I guess the bigger fish was about 12/13 inches from the fork to mouth.

I guessed they were around a pound but, have never weighed fish, I just judge from average size of water fished; small fish, average fish, good fish, very good fish sort of thing. Having caught these two very good roach I thought I aught to start estimating the weight of some of the fish I catch and maybe weighing them if they are very good fish.

 

[Mark Wintle]

My 1971 Angling Times diary has a table; it's a well-published one but the increase in weights is far from linear!

Roach

11" 1-2
12" 1-3-4
13" 1-8-8
14" 1-14-12
15" 2-5-8
16" 2-14

Hope that helps.

There is a big variation according to condition; I've had roach of 16" that scraped 1-8 but these were very old fish.

 

[no-one in particular]

Thanks Mark W, I did try to search for previous threads on this as I knew you had talked about this before and had a lot of knowledge on this; particularly for roach. My two fish were in good condition so, I suspect they were over the 1lb mark and by the table nearer 1.5 lb.

What I am after is a table that covers all freshwater species; something handy that can be kept in the tackle bag, just for quick reference. A size/ weight ratio for chub, bream etc, Does it exist? Tried brief per functionary search but, nothing about-- it seems.

 

[no-one in particular]

Mark Wintle has kindly sent me a table which I have thanked him for, (by the way Mark hows the book going, I hear good things about it.) But, the table is quite old though and only covers 3/4 coarse fish. I am surprised there is not more information about on weight for size scales. Perhaps more work should be done on this..Could roach be substituted for rudd Mark or would this be very different.

 

[Mark Wintle]

Mark Wintle has kindly sent me a table which I have thanked him for, (by the way Mark hows the book going, I hear good things about it.) But, the table is quite old though and only covers 3/4 coarse fish. I am surprised there is not more information about on weight for size scales. Perhaps more work should be done on this..Could roach be substituted for rudd Mark or would this be very different.

The tables are just about the only ones ever published; they're a rough guide at best - ignore the thousandths of a pound on the pike and salmon, lucky to get within a pound! - and the simple answer to knowing the weight of what you've caught is to carry some lightweight scales. When I was a 13-year-old kid I relied on the w-f-l tables but soon invested in Little Samson scales.

There have been changes over the years in fish weights per length. Look at barbel and chub pics from 40 years ago and you'll soon see that barbel of around 31" from 1970 would weight not much more than 10lbs but a similar length fish today would usually be 14lb or more. Much the same with chub which were long and skinny in the 60s and 70s, especially from waters like the Hants. Avon yet the 23" 4lb chub of 1970 is more likely to be over 6lbs at 23" today, a size of chub very rarely encountered 40 years ago.

Condition does play a part; I had two roach on Friday that were out of condition, one much more so than the other. Both were 14" but they weighed 1-9 and 1-3 yet in absolute prime condition either might have touched 2lbs.

As for rudd then I guess adding 10% to the roach table wouldn't be far wrong but still only a very rough guide.

The Big Roach book is still selling steadily, very well-received and I'm glad I finally succeeded with it; now available via an Amazon shop which cuts postage.

 

[no-one in particular]

Mark W-I know your right, any table is only going to be so so. And weighing fish should not be a problem, a spring balance on the landing net etc, a minute. I don't know why; I just have always caught my fish, enjoyed them and then want to put them back as soon as possible. But, occasionally, I think I should weigh a fish and I thought a good table would give me a good guide as to when I should. Like most anglers I guess I am not that good at guessing the weight, probably have over estimated them on many occasions and I thought it was about time I got a better judgement. I am just a bit surprised that there is not more comprehensive detail around on this. We have only been at it for 3 million years! Anyway, thanks for all your help and the table; I am pleased the book is doing well for you.

 

[goonch]

Nothing comprehensive on the subject because it's impossible to come anywhere close to accuracy with length alone. If you have the girth too then that would help but it still won't be completely accurate and after all the faffing about of getting length and girth you would have been better off just weighing it.

Get yourself some Little Samson scales and keep them in the bottom of your bag for the rare occasions you want to weigh something. Like you, I rarely bother these days, but I like to weigh the odd fish either just to keep my eye in when guessing them or because it looks enormous Sadly the latter situation rarely comes about...

 

[smufter]

i would say a around a pound for a 12 inch roach - .

That's not bad.
I was charged £2.95 for a piece of cod the other night that could have been no longer than 8".

 

[no-one in particular]

You're probably right Goonch, I have got a little samson somewhere buried under a load of stuff, I think its been there for 30 years. I will dig it out. Just thought a comprehensive table in the tackle bag would not be a bad idea. I know where 12 inches measures along my arm for a quick guide.

You must live in 1970 or up north Smufter, its nearly£5 for an 8 inch cod and 16 inches of batter were I live.

 

[itsfishingnotcatching]

its nearly£5 for an 8 inch cod and 16 inches of batter were I live.

Bl**dy Hell, 8" is a "mini-fish" at our chippy

 

[jcp01]

Is this of any use? I compiled the roach graph by measuring some of my own fish and plotting them along with those from a list published by Faddist in "Roach Fishing' 1949. The curve was computer generated so it's clean and perfect. You'll notice that the smaller fish don't fit along it very well but as they grow they come into line. That could be to do with innaccurate weighing at very low weights which is a common problem with scales meant for weighing comparatively large ones.

http://idlersquest.blogspot.co.uk/p/weightlength-curves.html

On the whole Mark's Angling Times 1971 list does agree very well with it, all come within an ounce of the predicted weight for length and many are spot on. I've added the Angling Times weights and Mark's 16 inch fish at 1:08. Click on the graph for a better view...

It's subject to variation of course but gives a rough guide to what they should weigh at various lengths. As Mark rightly say's, abnormalities such as a very old lean fish that might well have approached three pounds in its prime can come down to a very low weight (long & lean) whilst the fish I caught suffering a tapeworm infestation was the length of a one-two but had 11 ounces of parasites in its gut (short & fat) giving the appearance of a near three-pounder in girth.

On the whole though, roach don't vary so much. Such a graph cannot be made for chub for instance — the variations they display can be enormous from one river to the next. I've seen a seven-pounder from the Dorset Stour only the length of a Warwickshire Avon four pounder. It was built like a carp !

 

[jasonbean1]

out of interest....wouldnt it be easier to weigh them?

 

[jcp01]

Yes it would!

But, the graph wasn't really made to give a handy ready reckoner, though it functions as one. I made it this time last year so I could predict a fishery's maximum potential weight for roach. The curve on my graph shows what is the maximum feasible weight for an English roach and that's somewhat larger than Ray Clarke's 17.5 inch 4lb 3oz English record and perhaps five pounds. Don't scoff though, the numbers make it certain that can happen because the curve hasn't flatlined at his fish! Another half inch and we're there...

However, the maximum weight a roach can feasibly make is far larger still and will be something like six-pounds or more. Again, no laughing matter because it is possible...

This will explain why, with pictures of a bona fide roach of five-eight and still growing ~

Idler's Quest: Roach Length/Weight Curve - A New Record is out There, Somewhere...

That Rhine roach was 19-20 inches long. The English curve can never achieve that length because it can't ever get beyond 18 inches. Take Ray Clarke's weight and plot it on the higher German curve — that's a long and lean fish by comparison that can grow larger still whereas Ray's fish had pretty much reached its limit.

In a nutshell the higher a fishery's curve, the faster they grow in length, and the longer they get before age stops growth, the heavier they can potentially be.

 

[chav professor]

Interesting stuff Rufus and great blog!

 

[sagalout]

Hello rufus, I am an avid reader of your blog, I didn't realise that was you although it does it explain why your avatar looked familiar.

 

[Fred Bonney]

My guess is Mark that charts are readily available in single species groups, perhaps with a bit of research somebody could get around to producing a table.