DNA Testing

Can't believe I'm first in here with hearty congratulations for Andy on his groundbreaking work on fish identification.

The sooner this methodology is adopted the better, even if removing a scale will result in claims for the first ever 'leather' barbel should the traveller continue to get caught with undue regularity - yes, I know, it won't be neccessary for barbel unless you confuse one with a very big gudgeon!

Gone will be the mystery of whether certain roach waters are full of hybrids or true roach, no more chubxroach, no more roachxbream, no more roachxrudd, no more ruddxbream hybrids, no more brown goldfish.

And dace...

No argument, no contest. Sorted.

I take it this will work for other species?

The only downside I see is that some folk might pack in fishing after reviewing their big fish lists while others will flock only to the new superwaters with certified geneology.

I guess some water owners will ban the testing of fish on the basis that the circus might desert the place if the fish were found to be in any way 'tainted'.

Won't it be great though, to be able to say without fear of contradiction that the fish caught in the various circuit waters are exactly what they are meant to be.

At least the future of crucian carp fishing will prove very interesting.

So, where can we purchase the chemicals. How much do they cost? Are there any H&S implications? Where do we send the evidence? How much will a test cost?

Surely a breakthrough like this cannot be restricted to record fish only...?

It has the potential to change the face of modern specimen hunting as we know it.

Doh! Two other threads started whilst I was typing...

Can we pull all three into one please?

The only way I can do it is by copying messages across like this and then deleting the others:

From Graham Whatmore:
I find this article very revealing in the sense that it took interested fishermen to put together an acceptable method of testing record fish. Not your committeees or scientists or 'authorities' but genuinely interested individuals who took the time to try and establish an acceptable marker for establishing true specimens.

You deserve the highest praise, all three of you for initiating this scheme and lets hope it proves to be foolproof and accepted. Well done lads.

From Ron Clay:

I fully concur. A good piece of work well done.

One of the points regarding the identification of a true crucian carp that comes out in the photos is the split lateral line.

From Peter Jacobs:

Totally agree with the above!

Hopefully, the BRFC will now pick up the ball and run with it.

As Graham said, it is now up to them to adopt this or not.

From Matthew Nightingale:

With all the recent controversy about the Traveller etc. why do we bother with record fish? They are only large because we are feeding them with some of the most high protein food stuffs available; pellets and boilies.

Don't have the figures with me but hadn't the Traveller increased significantly in weight in the space of a couple of weeks? Not on the natural resources of the river I would venture.

I can see how, in the past, catching the biggest chub or perch was an achievement but now catching the biggest fish, especially carp or barbel, is mainly the function of how many kilos of pellets have been fed into a particular swim. It all seems a bit sterile to me.

From Alan Tyler:

Couldn't agree more. I hate to admit that the yanks might have got anything right, but they are more concerned with the length of their fish - trout, at any rate - than weight, and I do think length is a better measure of a fish, for it only increases or stays the same. None of these silly arguments about whether Charlie the chub was a more noteworthy capture after scoffing a six-ounce signal cray. A twenty-incher is bigger than an eighteen incher, full stop.

From Ron Clay:

That's not only true with some of the Americans, but the Dutch and the Belgians also put a lot of emphasis on the size of the fish and not the weight.

Record fish should always be put into perspective as far as I am concerned. If anglers want to rate specimen fish by weight alone, who shall say them nay? Personally I am also concerned with the condition of the fish.

An obese overweight person would never be held up to be a perfect specimen of humanity would he (or she)?

From Bob Roberts:

Barbel are notorious for their weight fluctuations over the course of a season, anything like 20 per cent in some cases and the gaining of weight can be dramatic.

The number of barbel anglers on the Trent at the present moment is tiny compared with summer but you'll find those fish have packed pounds on since the pressure went off them, surely proving beyond doubt that anglers bait alone isn't the greatest influencing factor.

If piling in bait is enough to grow a fish to record proportions why do fish in other rivers that probably receive more bait than the Ouse fish not smash through the 20lb barrier? Why is it only on Adams Mill, how many other stretches of the Ouse do 18's and 19's never mind 21's?

Why is the capture of the biggest known barbel in the UK regarded as a controversy? I can see it being regarded jealously but in this day and age when anglers are far more advanced in their techniques, tackle, baits and determination than perhaps they were 50 years ago, once the location of a big fish is discovered it will be caught repeatedly.

Would you decry the capture of big perch from the Ouse? Surely they are repeat captures? The Stour Chub? Arena and Lynch Hill roach, two-tone the carp?

Where does it end?

And if you make it the longest fish then sooner or later a new record barbel would be established and 20 anglers would go and catch it. All at exactly the same length, give or take a millimeter or two.

What's the difference?

Don't forget the Yan ks have IGFA records. The fish are weighed, not measured, and the achievement measured aginst the various line breaking strains, thus encouraging the use of inappropriate and ultralight lines.

Probably best left well alone. Many anglers need targets be they personal or national.

Well, now that you guys have done the hard work, how will the BRFC respond? They seem to have agreed to review the processes at their next meeting.
But, bearing in mind the latest minnow record controversy, do we really trust them to get it right? Are our record lists in the right hands? To my mind those questions still need to be answered.
Of course it's not an easy job. There are no rewards and very little thanks involved with looking after the lists. But sometimes a more efficient and professional approach is needed. For example, grams and drams cannot be confused so that an angler is informed he has caught a record when he hasn't.
If confidence isn't boosted soon I can see another record fish list split occuring.

It's not been easy trying to convince them that DNA testing is the way to go and whilst playing Devil's Advocate is one way to respond a little encouragement would have helped too.

Especially considering that all the groundwork has been done at the expense of Andy and FM.

Bob you have a point.

There are people who will jump to the conclusion that it's angler's baits that make certain species grow to large sizes.

Personally I am sure that rivers like the Trent and the Ouse are solid with natural food. Species like barbel can grow very big on a diet of organisms that never exceed about a quarter of an inch in length. In the case of the Trent, snails I think make up a tremendous percentage of what barbel eat.

I once found a dead small barbel by the Trent and I cut it open. Its gut was solid with snail shells.

I was told years ago that it takes 7 lbs of pellets to produce 1 lb of trout flesh. An that is in a stew pond where there is no current for the fish to fight.

I daresay that it takes more than double this amount to put 1 lb of flesh on the average barbel. One has only to start doing a few sums and you can see that an enormous quantity of high protein boilies etc is needed to make a deal of difference to the weight of say a double figure fish. And in the average Trent barbel swim there are certainly quite a few barbel about.

And they tend to put on more weight in winter when there are less anglers about!

You are right Bob, we do tend to over-exaggerate the effect of high protein baits on fish.

In support of my conjecture (which is all it is and I'm happy to defer to greater knowledge) think about how many pellets (not to say maggots, boilies and the rest of it) cross the counters of our tackle shops. I live near Preston; there will be maybe a dozen, maybe more, tackle shops in the area and the majority of the bait sold will end up in the Ribble; it must have the effect of boosting the natural size of fish.

The articles tell most but not all of the story. It has been a long struggle to get this far; even arranging these tests, from trying to catch true crucians, getting pure ethanol to store samples, figuring out valid tests, getting the tests done and then into publication has taken around 8 months.

What it has proved is that you don't need lab conditions to take and store samples because we deliberately stored the samples in realistic conditions without ethanol to mimic an angler claiming a record. Members of the public cannot ordinarily obtain pure ethanol and surgical spirit is no good.

It is now as simple as taking a verified scale/fin clip, drying it, putting it in a hook packet and posting it to a representative to arrange testing. We tested swabs because we were told they would not work yet they did. We could explore this area further though it is not the best method. Not obvious in the picture of the clipped fin is where regrowth of the clipped fin has occured. This crucian lives in my aquarium so we could observe the regrowth, and have a fish available for retesting should the need arise (he's not very big!).

So to answer Bob's question about obtaining chemicals - it's a non starter this is a test for a suitable lab. But the genetic profiles for the fish that we are concerned with are available.

One point that got confused in the AT article is the quote re 95% certain.

For fish that are pure crucian, pure goldfish, pure carp or F1 hybrids between any of these three the test is close to 100%. For a fish that is a F2 hybrid ie a crucian x goldfish backcrossed with a crucian then it is 95% certain. I doubt whether such a fish has ever been entered as a record.

A test such as this is the icing on the cake ie only to be arranged once the weight, photos, witnesses, legality etc have been verified. Of course, you still take the sample at the time of capture. In the case of the current record it is a pity that a sample was not taken when it was recaptured last year, perhaps if is recaught that might be arranged?

The ball is in the court of the BRFC. I know that Andy and myself are perhaps regarded as their strongest critics but we have the interests of a accurate record list at heart rather than any personal vendettas.

Well done gents.....it is hard work just earning a living without giving up valuable fishing time to turn out something like this.

I do hope the BRFC take an interest in the work and see that this is the most foolproof way for identifing our "dificult" species and false (though not always intentional) claims.

The whole FM/BRFC/HYBRID issue has been constructive critism from the very start....it's time to put personal issues, if they exist, to bed and get on with the job......a genuine as is possible record fish list!

Personally i believe Andy should be on the BRFC.....but it's not my place to put him foreward.

It's about time this fiasco was sorted out!
Congratulations must go to Andy, Mark and the FM team, well done...!
You've all done the hard work and put the money up to fund it, now the BRFC (what's Bristol Rovers FC got to do with it? Sorry had to slip that in!) must act on the outstanding findings.
Hopefully AT and AM will get right behind you, how about it Greg?

Well done lads, brilliant.

I hope the weeklies give FM, Graham Andy et al the credit they deserve and don't just refer to them as a "SITE"

It must be difficult to keep critism on a constructive level when the old pals act is against you!

Sorry to go on but i remember the origins of the debate.....and the "shutting out" bordering on ridicule from one weeklie!

Just picked up me AT, well done Greg, no mention of funding by FM though?
How much did the EA put in compared to FM?

Well done and congratulations to Andy for sticking with it.
I remember talking about this last year.

Great work lads. Any chance of a new Crucian carp section on FM? =P