Angling Times 11th Jan Record Roach?

Today's AT has a superb picture of a roach/chub hybrid caught from the Trent weighing 4-4-0, yet some of the experts are dithering, and where's the DNA?

What do you think?

big hybrid

Haven't seen it yet. Must go and get a copy.

Hybrids are bizzare, I once had a fish at thruumpton that looked to me to be a cross between a chub and a bream it was by far the strangest creature I have ever seen.

Hydrids are very common, especially roach/bream, roach/rudd and rudd/bream.

I have never yet managed to catch a hydrid from The Idle and I do examine every fish I catch.

Refuse to buy AT until they acknowledge that Fishingmagic is the best and most popular fishing website of all.

In my book I believe it is a hybrid, probably a rare roach/chub. Thiscould be a specimen few of us will see in our lifetime, so I can appreciate the difficulty in identifying it.
That said, it was worth printing as the guys on the Trent believe they had a roach, so it was a case of sharing it with the angling world then everyone can have an opinion.

I'm not sure. It does look a little 'Chublike' but comparing it with the Roach on the opposite page, all the individual idenfication points (fins etc) look similar.

It was suggested that because it's such a big old fish that it may well look a little strange.

Maybe it is a Roach.

My prediction - The BRFC with take 2 years to decide it's not a Roach, but without a definitive reason!

We have had some real quality roach on the Cray, but some are just huge knocking 3lb. Some look like big Rud, but with deep bodies, whilst others look like Big roach but very chunky, and god how they fight.

Im not 0ne for weighing every catch, but have had several up to 2lb 12oz and am sure other regulars have had bigger, we've seen bigger, especialy whilst working from the boat in out of the way stretches.

Ive had bites that have ripped the feeder rod out the rest and had a big roach charge up river.

Its not every session we catch big Roach/hybrids but sometimes. Even 4 or 5 in a session.
I dont think for one minute we have record breaking fish, but some are not far off local records.

I haven't seen it yet.

As soon as I can clear all these customers I have I will have a look.

Richard,

Since posting this thread this morning I've had more chance to read through AT. It's good to see you promoting our campaign on DNA. Regarding the fish, I stick to my gut reaction of roach/chub, a roach? never! An ide or hybrid of one? a possibility.

When I published my article on the BRFC last year I sent a copy to the BRFC. I've never had a reply, and issues like DNA, the 2 record rudd that the Irish record fish committee won't accept, and the doubts about the seatrout record remain unanswered.
Perhaps the press conference in February will tell us more?

The comments on DNA testing in the AT gives the impression that dissection is the only way of accurately identifying hybrids and that DNA testing of records is something that might be possible in future but will be expensive.

DNA methods of identifying hybrids were being used to validate dissection techniques 30 years ago. In the days when the bodies of fish were required to claim a record dissection was used to identify fish not because it was the most accurate method but because it was cheap. DNA methods were then and remain today the most accurate and only objective way to prove a fish is a true specimen and not a hybrid.

When killing fish to claim records became unacceptable to anglers the BRFC had no real option but to rely on methods that they knew were unreliable. The BRFC should have been open that this was the case. That they were not has led to a great deal of confusion regarding identification and a general lowering of standards as to what anglers will label as being true specimens. Many anglers myself included are of the opinion that one or more of the records on the current record list are in fact hybrids.

For several years now it has been possible to use a DNA sample from a single scale and it is easy to preserve scales and test them later. The cost of testing is cheap but there is a major cost initially establishing the genetic markers that identify a true specimen of a given species.

Two years ago the EA sponsored research that established the genetic markers for Crucians during research into UK Crucian populations. This means you can now cheaply establish whether a fish is a true Crucian from a single scale.

The research also positively identified for the first time hybrids in wild UK populations that were the result of backcrosses between a hybrid and a true specimen. Such fish (known as f2?s) can be far harder to differentiate from true specimens than first generation (f1) hybrids.

During other research triple hybrids have been bred specifically Roach x Bream x Rudd and Roach x Bream x Chub. The only way to accurately identify such fish would be DNA.

So now we have a 4lb 4oz ?Roach? from the Trent. It?s been suggested that it is a Roach x Chub hybrid. Roach have lower lateral line scale counts than chub and their hybrids have higher scale counts than Roach. The fish in the photo has a Lateral Line Count of 39 so it is unlikely to have chub in it. My guess taking into account its shape, coloration, mouth, tail shape and lateral line scale count would be Roach x Rudd but without a scale we will never know.

Andy, can you let us know the cost of both setting up the species profile for DNA testing and the latter test itself?

Just curious.

The Proposal put to the BRFC would have cost them nothing.

Once the cost issue had been dealt with they apparently decided there would be too many difficulties associated with collecting scales from potential record fish.

You can lead a horse to water...

I think that roach/chub hybrids are extremely rare. Both roach and chub spawn in different areas and often at different times for the milt and spawn for both species to be intermixed. The roach/rudd looks to be far more likely.

I have watched the chub and the roach spawning on the River Leam in Warks on more than one occasion

There are lots of gravel pits along the side of the Trent where roach/rudd hydrids exist. During flood conditions such fish could easily get in the Trent.

I have just spent all morning gazing at the picture. There are two aspects of this fish that make me say it's not a true roach.

1: The dorsal fin is set too far back. This is seen quite clearly one page 3

2: The scale count along the lateral line is not correct. I make 39 after counting several times.

I would say it was a roach/rudd hybrid.

If it were a roach/chub I would expect the mouth to be a lot bigger.

What a pity we can't examine its throat teeth.

Though it looks like a roach/chub to me, I checked the figures for this hybrid and this fish doesn't meet it. It certainly isn't a roach, and I've never seen a roach/rudd like this.

Anyone got figures for Ide?

the large picture side view of the fish does have a chubby look and the tail and penduncle look chubby but the opposing picture looks more roach like. i think i will go with the f2 theory that this is a hybrid x roach.

I know hybrids are rarely able to breed but occassionally they can and I think this fish is the result of such vigour.

unfortunatly this is a fish that is going to split opinions, all i can say is well done to John Button and I wish I had caught it! )

It's certainly a very interesting specimen, so interesting, I often wonder whether this fish should have been preserved for posterity.

Like it or like it not, you can only get at the real truth on the dissecting table.

"The Proposal put to the BRFC would have cost them nothing.

Once the cost issue had been dealt with they apparently decided there would be too many difficulties associated with collecting scales from potential record fish"



Andy, just spoke to Marsh and he asked me to put this up..........

"Tell him he's talkin out the back of his ass then ;o)

The cost is prohibitive !!!

The intial work was done as a project and not as a matter of routine that we could send in samples of fish to dna !

EA will be making a statement about it and i Trust there Judgement far more that a fookin amateur!"

Marsh




ps Andy..you been texting my mobile this morning from an old number??????