DNA Testing

[Phil Hackett HC/PCPL, SCT with Pride]

Congratulations to Andy et al for the persistence.
Still working my way through the scientific report and coming to terms with the terminology used in it. Genetics and DNA testing isn?t my field.
But I do have two questions so far from what Mark has said, and it is this ? Why did you or the good doctor think it needed lab conditions to store DNA samples?

We are lead to believe that DNA testing is now so advanced that unsolved crimes are now being solved with the slightest DNA material that?s 30-40 years old and even older. Such material predates DNA testing by 20 years and therefore was at best stored in quite course conditions. I understand that amplification methods, which weren?t available even 10 years ago, are now possible and through it, DNA science is able to unlock the secretes the material holds.

So if it can be done with such old material that had to a greater or lesser extent degraded, what was the problem with material that was a week or month old?

This isn't a criticism, just a inquisitive scientist asking questions

 

[Phil Hackett HC/PCPL, SCT with Pride]

As the thread has drifted a little away from the topic (now?t unusual there then:0) and into weight of fish and how they are putting it on, whether bait is responsible, winter weights being heaver, etc.

What has appeared to be missed regarding winter weights is the fact that fish from January onwards are starting to reach peak fitness for spawning. Females are also starting the egg formation process, which would increase the weight of the fish the more advance the process becomes.

 

[Mark Wintle]

Phil,

Good questions. The important difference between the DNA testing being done at this level and forensic testing is the degree of sophistication. The fish DNA testing uses very little amplification and relies on (by forensic standards) a lot of material. We thought, or were given to think, that any deterioration of the sample should be avoided. We weren't absolutely sure that even a scale would be good enough ie have enough DNA in it, never mind a swab. All a swab takes is some slime from the outside of the fish yet it did work; whether a swab could be taken, left to dry then tested some time later has yet to be proved. But a scale or fin clipping appears to be fit for purpose. Also surprisingly the good doctor was reasonably certain from the results that all of the 6 samples that I got from one fish did come from one fish based on the results.

In simple terms, advanced amplification is very expensive which is why the simplfied method is being adopted. That said the sophistication of even the simple and cheap method continues to improve which is why these tests were better than those that the EA did (using 6 allelles not 5).

 

[carl pepper]

whats puzzling me more than anything else is why the BRFC have not only NOT researched the DNA technology themselves (or have kept it very quiet if they have, which is stupid anyway) but appear not to have offered much support for you lads who have done such a tremendous job.

Or is that not right, did they give you their backing in any way at all?

 

[GrahamM]

I'd like to say that they offered their full support but, for reasons known only to themselves, the British Record Fish Committee never offered any encouragement or enthusiasm for research into DNA testing, which is why we set out to prove, at our own expense, that it was both viable and realistic. Even with our offer of substantial funding we never had one communication that even said, 'thanks, but no thanks.'

But now the hard and expensive work has been done we are asking the BRFC to embrace the method and make the British Record Fish List the most accurate historical record it has been since its inception.

If it can't be that then, at least in my view, we shouldn't bother with a record list at all.

 

[Bob Watson]

What authority has the BRFC got? Is it "officially recognised" or is it just a committee set up and run by a group of people. Wouldn't all like minded (people who want accuracy) anglers convert to a new and more accurate list, does it have to be BRFC. Historically, if people aren't happy they usually do something about it. What about the NMW (Nellist,Marsden, Wintle list) and whoever else was involved? The more initials the better. It might get a bit too big for a lapel badge though!

NMWDNAPBRFL,, there's a gobful.

Don't like the Tories, kick em' out, don't like the local vicar, kick him out, don't like the BRFC, nick their good records, ignore their dodgy ones, kick em' out and start afresh!

 

[Jeremy Airey]

Hello Guys
Long time off this board but this topic peaked my interest.
Whilst I can appreciate all the hard work and effort AN et al. have put in on this am I the only one who really doesn't give a flying whatsit about records and such.
BTW who exactly is going to PAY for these DNA tests which I believe aern't exactly cheap and for that matter just how is the BRFC funded??
I also fully concur with BWs thoughts on the BRFC and would add other bodies like the IGFA to my 'get stuffed' list too.
But then again I suppose what floats my boat will sink other peoples.
regards
Jeremy

 

[GrahamM]

The BRFC is self-appointed, but that shouldn't matter providing they do a good job, and for the most part they do when they are not being aloof to the rest of us. Many of those on the committee do a lot of hard work, but that shouldn't mean they can ignore feedback and offers of help.

There are plenty who don't give a stuff about records and that's fine, and I'll admit it wouldn't break my heart if we didn't have a record fish list.

But my attitude towards any record fish list, whether it be national or local, or whatever, if we're going to have one, let's have it right.

DNA tests on fish samples cost about ?100.00 each. When you consider that we're only talking roach, rudd and crucian carp there are not going to be many claims that require DNA tests each year. Don't forget that potential records have to satisfy other criteria before they even get to the DNA testing stage. So how many claims for record roach, rudd and crucian carp are submitted each year? Would 10 be an over-estimation?

Then the ?1000.00 that FISHINGmagic has offered towards the cost of DNA tests each year should go quite a long way.

This offer was made a year ago and I'm still waiting for a response.

 

[Jeremy Airey]

Hello Greame
I can agree with what and if there is to be a 'BRFC' then it should be the best it can be.
I suppose that I am most definately not a 'committee' man.
Now here's a thought wouldn't you also need to include bream, chub and all cyprinid species claims on the 'need to test' list?
I just hope there are undisputedly 'pure' control samples of the relevant species DNA for comparison.
That might be a problem in these days of mixed species waters and all the kinky spawning practices that go on.
regards
Jeremy

 

[GrahamM]

Hello Jermy
Control samples (genetic profiles) are already established for crucian carp and, I believe, for roach and rudd.

There may be a case for silver bream and chub, but as for the rest it would surely not be necessary. I mean, you're hardly likely to confuse a 20-odd pound common bream with anything else and the only species it's likely to hybridise with, roach and rudd, will only reduce the total weight rather than enhance it.

No, we just need to be realistic with DNA testing, using it on the obvious species, and only when those species have passed the usual criteria of record claims procedure that is already in place. For instance, there would be no point in DNA testing a crucian carp that had the wrong scale or fin ray counts.

The bottom line is that DNA testing is the last resort, and only necessary with certain species.

If you look back at the record claims made over the last few years you will see that very few DNA tests would have been necessary.

 

[Jeremy Airey]

Greame
The point I was trying to make is when is a 'whatever' not a 'whatever'.
Say for instance that 20lb bream was found to be 0.5% roach would it then be eligible for the bream record?
I just wonder where the line would be drawn that's all with the degree of accuracy that's possible nowadays.
regards
Jeremy

 

[GrahamM]

Jermy
As I said, you've got to be realistic about it. A potential record bream (which would be a fish of more than 20lbs) would not be DNA tested.

The line should be drawn at a sensible point and beyond crucians, roach, rudd and silver bream it is in the realms of being a nonsense.

 

[Chub King]

I've heard nothing from the BRFC on the issue of DNA or the confusion caused by the recent minnow 'record'. And I'm not holding my breath (cos I might asphyxiate!).
Come too thing of it, I'm not sure I've ever had a BRFC member ring me up off their own back on BRFC-related business...
Perhaps they just don't have much to say?

 

[Jeremy Airey]

Hello Greame
I'm kindof playing devil's advocate here.
In reality as far as I am concerned if it 'looks, swims and smells like a 'whatever' that's fine by me.
To be really sickening about all this I measure my fishing success in 'enjoyment' not kgs/lbs and my best fish ever is always the next one I catch.
regards
Jeremy

 

[Matt Brown]

Congratulations to everyone who put the time, effort and money into making this work.

I've always been fascinated with the record fish and how the size of fish varies from one venue to another.

I think the BRFC ought to jump on board and they will surely loose credibility if they don't.

Bob raised a point regarding what might happen if certain expensive syndicate waters were proven to have hybrids. They wouldn't want that to get out would they?

I can see more waters banning the making of a claim, especially one where a sample might be taken for DNA testing.

 

[Chub King]

The thing is Matt no fishery manager is ever going to be able to prevent paying anglers from taking samples from their fish. Anglers will want to know if they're fishing the 'right' waters.
I will be very surprised if, in the very near future, we won't discover whether some very big stillwater roach from the better known venues are the real deal or not. It's the first thing I'll want to know as soon as DNA profiles for roach, rudd and silver bream become available.
In fact, I'd be mightily surprised if someone hasn't already taken some samples from big fish they've caught from Lynch and Arena! I know I would have done.

 

[Matt Brown]

A friend and I were talking only yesterday about probably the same big roach stillwater. I think you're right that testing will be done, the only barriers being cost and how easy the prodedure is from the anglers point of view.

 

[paul williams 2]

Whether the BRFC and record fish lists are officially in existence or not a record list or lists will exist.....we will still see headlines proclaiming the biggest of this or that ever caught......and why not??

I'll say one thing about all this....the BRFC is not keen to move with this because of FM daring to raise certain issues about fish that were being caught by people with an interest in the BRFC........fish that may (did have in my opinion) have had SOME hybrids amongst them......and those with an interest didn't want to debate just to deny.

Shame if raising an issue that causes concern for the record list causes the BRFC to clam up.......time to bury the hatchet and move on!

 

[paul williams 2]

Chub King.....a catch of huge "roach" from a water near to Linch hill were said by the captor to appear to be hybrids.......i heard (but only second hand)that his honesty went down like a ton of bricks with the water owners!

 

[jason fisher]

some of the huge roach in the waters near to linch hill are just huge roach though they arent all hybrids.

has anyone heard any comment on the matter from anyone in the brfc yet.

keep up the good work messers nellist and wintle