From memory the book gave a table of the numbers of scent receptors in various species including minnows, trout, carp and catfish. The authors rated the ability to detect scent based purely on the number of receptors as there are no machines yet that can replicate an animal's ability to discriminate between scent.
Thanks for that. Obviously with no machine its hard to say if those receptors are superior or inferior to a dogs. I have read many conflicting research papers, mostly American stuff that suggests some freshwater species have abilities approaching 1M times more than humans which is staggeringly incomprehensible.
Extended barbels (anatomy), they do use them for touch (and navigation through weed, similar to how dogs and cats use whiskers) and taste, foraging. This is confirmed by science. They dont necessarily have to 'touch' a bait to know what it is, but being close to it certainly helps in determining what it consists of.
In a practical sense I believe that fish need different diets at different times of year. They have the ability to locate the food items even at extremely small dilutions of scent or taste and will hunt it down. They are not adversely affected by carriers or other additives used if there is something in the mix that they want or need. That is only my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
I agree with your first point mostly but disagree with second.
Fish do have different requirements but its much more varied than different times of the year, season or temperature. It can be from day to day and hour to hour. It explains why you will catch one day using x brand of pellet or boilie and then totally ignore it the next. This is not always a learned trait to avoid capture, but a real need for a particular nutrient at a specific moment in time. When they have had their fill they will move on. A change of bait would be my advice.
I believe they ARE adversely affected by certain carriers, especially if that carrier (artificial) is recognised as danger/foreign and has masked what it is they seek. They may risk taking the bait if the overriding urge to feed is great enough given no good alternative (and can detect/contains what they want) but I believe you are relying on being able to overcome its fear in many respects. A artificial additive will arouse curiosity and draw fish to your baited area but then it would be pure luck in my opinion as to whether they are confident in taking the hook bait. If they recognise danger by associated and learning they will simply avoid it in preference to a natural, untainted real-food bait. We have all witnessed the bloke in the next peg catching more than us (this bloke seems to follow me around quite a bit), even using the same bait but then its down to method, skill and presentation.
---------- Post added at 22:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------
Worms!
And, sorry Chris, electrolytes are pretty much by definition inorganic. An electrolyte is just a substance that forms ions when dissolved in water. In modern nutritional parlance an electrolyte is simply a mineral added to water to replace minerals lost in sweating.
An electrolyte can be from a dissolved organic or inorganic salt. It can also be from reaction with water.
You will get a chemical reaction from an organic or inorganic. Add bicarb to sulphur for example and it will fizz. In close proximity it will conduct in water.