How much bigger can they get????

[shooter]

Having read about the new record carp capture this morning it got me thinking jusy how big it is possible for a carp to grow in this country?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Is it actually possible that a carp bigger than the one captured recently exists somewhere out there, possibly in the depths of some 'trout fishing only' reservoir, or do you think the carp will need tonnes of anglers bait (and obviously a bit of spawning) to reach such huge proportions?

 

Oh, congrats to the new record holder. Bravo.

[Jamie Thornton]

I believe a Carp of 70lb will be caught soon enough - maybe in the next decade? Surely there is Carp that big out there somewhere! Who knows how big Two-Tone will get? In general I think Carp of 100lb is possible but VERY VERY rare and probably never will be caught if it existed!

[Alan Fawcett]

Elton

 

What happened to that pic of the "little" carp caught in thialand??

[davidP]

I have doubts that an 'unknown' record carp will appear from a non-carp water. Yes, there will always be the odd 40 popping up, but I don't think we're likely to see a 50 or bigger for a couple of reasons.

 

The first is the lack of specialist bait full of god-knows-what additives, appetite enhancers etc going into the water. These I think are the main reason for the fact that the carp record has added so much in 20 years. I think it also accounts in no small part for the increased number of big tench/bream/barbel as well. Improved bait in large volume = big (lazy?) fish.

 

The 2nd reason is that the specialist carp venues & breeders have put a lot of effort into finding/producing fast growing strains of carp and these are what are being stocked and grown on at exraordinary rates. The 'old' venues don't tend to have this strain of fish and I personally don't think they have the potential to grow so big. Modern-strain carp put on yearly weight increases that are much higher that the older strains. Consequently they reach their target weights much more rapidly and pack in a lot more growing before they reach the point where they 'mature' and stop growing. If a modern strain carp reaches 20lb in 5 years (or 30lb in 7 years in the case of Wingham) then it still may have 15 years growing time ahead of it. If an old carp on the other hand takes 10 years to reach 20 then it doesn't take too much calculation to realise that it's potential maximum is much lower. Having said that I have my doubts that the modern strain carp will actually live as long as the old strain - live fast, die young!

 

Does anybody know if any research has been done in ths area? I know a lot of data exists from Redmire which shows I believe that some of the fish lived 60+ years even though they didn't grow much once they reached 25 to 30 years old. How does this compare to the modern strain?

 

[ 30. August 2002, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: davidP ]

[tj]

You`ve pretty much nailed it on the head there David,although I personally don`t think additives and high proteins have that much effect on Carp.

I`m sure the only way we`ll get a 70lb fish in this country is if they are brought in from foreign venues illegaly or from new strains.Then again I don`t believe records matter that much.I`m sure Lee Jackson would say that he enjoyed the experience of catching the fish he`d sought out rather than the record.....I think.

Congratulations Lee.

[Nightwing]

Over here in the states, completely wild "old strain"(I say that only because they were first introduced well over 100 years ago, and have not had any growth management) carp occasionaly hit 70 lbs. They are extremely rare, but they do get there. Our record in MI(colder weather, shorter growing season even then the U.K.) is right around 62lbs, but most top out in the low 50's, and a 40 is considered fairly large. Wild 30's, however, are legion.

They do this, however, without the benefit of any baiting at all. All growth is due to wild foraging.

[Jamie Thornton]

Elton, you mentioned the Thailand Carp which I guess you got on the same Carp site I'm thinking of. Its well over 200lb if you dont already know but want considered a record. The world record is 82lb 3oz. Does anyone know why this 200lb Monster Carp wasnt considered a record?? Is it a different breed of Carp then? Any help would be great!

 

[ 31. August 2002, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Thornton ]

[Jamie Thornton]

Ok I just found the site and it is an amazing 220lb. Take a look for yourself at

www.carp-uk.net/carprecords.htm

Its a stonker of a Carp - just look at its mouth!! The 82lb 3oz is very impressive too - Well done to them!

 

[ 31. August 2002, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Thornton ]

[mpbdsnu]

davidP:

I have doubts that an 'unknown' record carp will appear from a non-carp water. Yes, there will always be the odd 40 popping up, but I don't think we're likely to see a 50 or bigger for a couple of reasons.

 

The first is the lack of specialist bait full of god-knows-what additives, appetite enhancers etc going into the water. These I think are the main reason for the fact that the carp record has added so much in 20 years. I think it also accounts in no small part for the increased number of big tench/bream/barbel as well. Improved bait in large volume = big (lazy?) fish.

 

The 2nd reason is that the specialist carp venues & breeders have put a lot of effort into finding/producing fast growing strains of carp and these are what are being stocked and grown on at exraordinary rates. The 'old' venues don't tend to have this strain of fish and I personally don't think they have the potential to grow so big. Modern-strain carp put on yearly weight increases that are much higher that the older strains. Consequently they reach their target weights much more rapidly and pack in a lot more growing before they reach the point where they 'mature' and stop growing. If a modern strain carp reaches 20lb in 5 years (or 30lb in 7 years in the case of Wingham) then it still may have 15 years growing time ahead of it. If an old carp on the other hand takes 10 years to reach 20 then it doesn't take too much calculation to realise that it's potential maximum is much lower. Having said that I have my doubts that the modern strain carp will actually live as long as the old strain - live fast, die young!

I agree totally David, I think all the claims one hears of 'hand-fed' carp at 70odd lb, and 80odd lb are pure nonsense! We can all guess at a carp's weight whilst it is in the water - but it is what it weighs on the bank in accurate scales that counts!

[Steve Burke]

Interesting topic and one very dear to my heart!

 

It would be nice if one of my fish at Wingham broke the record, but I think it unlikely.

 

Rather what I'm trying to do is to produce fish with the highest average weight I can. My notional target for the carp is an average of 30lbs. A tall order perhaps, but so far so good.

 

However, it doesn't automatically mean I'm likely to produce a record.

 

Record fish are almost invariably freak fish. They're well above the average weight for their water, and only a few waters are likely to contain freak fish at any one time, if ever.

 

I also don't agree entirely about the conventional wisdom of HNV baits like boilies automatically meaning a big increase in weight.

 

Sure, in waters where the fish are overstocked (meaning most these days, including many gravel pits), boilies can make a big difference. However, the difference is likely to be a lot less marked in waters that have a more natural stocking level.

 

Having said that Nature doesn't aim for the maximum weight as I am, but rather a stock of fish with the maximum chance of passing their genes on to the maximum number of surviving offspring.

 

Many waters have had a big increase in the weights of their fish, especially carp, tench and bream. This has happened even in waters that are rarely if ever fished, let alone seen a lot of HNV bait. I believe the main reason is the over-fertilisation of the waters and the water table with nitrates and phosphates from agriculture.

 

I feel that it's even more significant that the last 3 waters to have produced record carp (Redmire, Wraysbury & Conningbrook) all had low fishing pressure for the 15 years or so the fish were growing in length. During this early phase of their lives I feel that low fishing pressure is more important then the benefit of HNV baits,

 

Later on when they're growing in girth only, I feel that the reverse is true, and the benefit of HNV baits outweighs the disadvantages of increased fishing pressure.

 

These comes about for a variety of reasons. Rod Hutchinson wrote about good anglers soon sussing out the richest feeding areas, which the carp then learn to avoid, having to make do with lesser swims.

 

Even more important I think is that pressured fish are more wary of what they eat and thus eat less food in a given time, which of course hits their growth rate.

 

This is one of the reasons why I restrict the fishing pressure at Wingham to a very low level indeed, especially during the 15 years or so that the fish are growing in length.

 

[ 31. August 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Steve Burke ]