Big bream

[poledark]

I put the ruler on that channel from about halfway along. It is a good 85+to the nearside and 115 to the far side.................no problem :) Just the sort of situation my feeders were designed for

 

 

Den

Edited February 15, 2009 by poledark

[Anderoo]

Can I just check something? I've been assuming that bream like to follow structures as they move around (deep margins, bars, the edge of thick weedbeds, etc.). Is that the case or are they happy milling around in open water?

 

Or do we not know for sure?

[poledark]

One bit of advice I picked up from a match fishing book was that bream like "flat" areas. OK this was advice as to where to expect shoal bream, but I have always found it to be right. I would look for the same sort of area when fishing for any bream. Basically the advice was that you plumb around and fish where the margins (bars) flatten out.

 

Of course, on big waters, you get big flat areas, and the bream probably graze the whole area at some time. There is after all, only a limited amount of natural food, most of it doing its best to remain hidden,so the fish probably spend a lot of effort for the food they do find. Fortunately, fish being almost weightless and cold blooded, they can thrive on quite small amounts of food.

 

I am often amazed at the amount of energy that can be obtained from a very small amount of food. Birds seem to be able to convert a few tiny insects into a vast amount of energy as they whizz around, and they need to use some of that food source to convert into body heat. Fish don't have any of those problems and probably (that word again) it explains why they often seem to "switch off".

 

Den

[Dick Dastardly]

Totally agree Den.Fish dont/dont need to feed anywhere near as much as a lot of anglers believe.In my mind much the reason why the more "non natural" baits dont catch so quickly/well on richer waters.As there are very few times when natural food isnt readily avaiable they simply dont have the need to try new things yet alone switch on to eating them.

[Kappa]

Totally agree Den.Fish dont/dont need to feed anywhere near as much as a lot of anglers believe.

 

I agree fish don't need to feed much, however, I'm interested how much they actually do feed. Clearly SB consume more calories than they need hence their size. I'd imagine that most fish are attempting to grow as much as possible to enable them to carry more spawn etc etc.

 

So fish will eat more than they need purely to survive, so to my question. Is the reason the SB are so big because:

 

A. There is lots of food and they never need to have to move to find any as it is everywhere (therefore they CAN eat more than average bream)

B. They don't eat anymore than the average bream but the food in the SB waters is much more nutritious and thus they grow larger.

 

I think it’s A. Not taking predation, breeding etc etc into account I think animals have evolved to eat as much as they can given the opportunity. It makes sense in terms of evolution as you never quite know where your next meal might come from. Therefore assuming they are, by nature, lazy creatures it is likely that they will accept an easy meal (i.e. your bait) so long as they recognise it as good* food. This is a slight oversimplification however I feel if they are feeding (and thus not breeding or being too scared of predators to feed) they will feed on your bait so long as they are not wary of it.

Rich

 

*'Good' food. There is a scientific formula/theory that zoologists use in relation to foraging animals. It concerns the nutritional value of a food and the amount of time and energy required to find, eat and digest it. Test of many animals show that they always pick the most efficient type of food of that available i.e. lots of small items where they are abundant but fewer large items when the smaller items become scarce etc etc.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Richard Capper

[Dick Dastardly]

I would tend to go with "A" as well Rich. I think SB (due only to their size) must feed more just to maintain their weight as well as put it on.My point was more that due to the normally high levels of food in most SB waters they dont have to work too hard at it or experiment with other food sources! ie during the very short periods where food may be scarce they arnt forced to take anglers baits just because they "have to/must" eat. If that makes better sense?

[Kappa]

they arnt forced to take anglers baits just because they "have to/must" eat. If that makes better sense?

 

Absolutely! I agree 100%. However if you can present an easy meal close to where they are already feeding AND it is instantly recognisable as food to them I think they'll feed on it even if it is 'unnatural' e.g. pellets or brown crumb etc. I could be wrong but I think it will be next to impossible to introduce a completely novel bait to the SB in Wingham, however, some baits will be recognisable as food even though no-one has ever used them.

 

Rich

[poledark]

Fred Wiltons principle and one I go along with, is that fish (and other creatures) will eat any good scource of food, provided it is deemed to be safe. I think that the real problem with bream, is that they seem to get very preoccupied when feeding, more so than most fish. I have "been ignored" more times by large bream, than any other fish (when I knew that the fish were in my swim)

 

Den

[Anderoo]

I agree with all the above.

 

I think when fishing for these fish, what we're basically trying to do is change their natural behaviour. They want to be feeding on bloodworm and tiny shrimp, and weed, in the silty areas rich in natural food. I want them to pick up a couple of bits of flavoured corn, a 10mm boilie, a pellet, or a bit of rubber on an area of clean gravel. I don't think trying to mimic nature is the way to go, or we'd be using a freshwater shrimp on a size 18 and 2lb line. Change their natural state by careful and calculated feeding, and I think you can get them to pick up whatever you want, as long as it's somehow identifiable as 'food'. This probably isn't true 100% of the time (what is!), but it's the way I look at it.

 

For example, I bet if you fished a boilie over a bed of boilies, you'd never catch one. Fish a boilie over a carefully laid out bed of fine crumb, flavours, micro pellet, maggots, casters, corn, and a few boilies, and you've got a chance. It's probably going to be one of the last things eaten after the maggots and casters, but by then you've changed their natural state and you've got the chance you need.

 

It's mixing the unfamiliar with the familiar isn't it? The unfamiliar on its own won't get a look-in. The familiar on its own is a perch and eel magnet.

 

Some things, I'm sure, are recognisable as 'food' even if unfamiliar. I remember stalking chub on a hot day at the river Wey a few years ago. These were very spooky fish. If you saw a couple of them lazing in the sun and dropped a pebble in the edge, they'd scatter. Drop a pellet in, and they'd nail it in a shot, as long as they didn't see you. This was virtually unfished water, so they certainly weren't used to eating this stuff, and a pellet and a pebble sound very similar when dropped into water. Not a great comparison, but interesting nonetheless.

 

This is the reason I wouldn't feel comfortable fishing at range. I need to feel like my baiting is spot on, and the further out I'm fishing the less confident I am. Add in a decent cross-wind (which there always seems to be!) and bait goes everywhere. If I used heavy enough tackle I could get a single bait to 100yards, but an unfamiliar bait on its own probably wouldn't even get a second glance, and a familiar would probably get 'eeled'! My ideal spot is under the rod tip, and I'll be doing a lot more very close range fishing this year.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Anderoo

[lutra]

I think when fishing for these fish, what we're basically trying to do is change their natural behaviour. They want to be feeding on bloodworm and tiny shrimp, and weed, in the silty areas rich in natural food. I want them to pick up a couple of bits of flavoured corn, a 10mm boilie, a pellet, or a bit of rubber on an area of clean gravel. I don't think trying to mimic nature is the way to go, or we'd be using a freshwater shrimp on a size 18 and 2lb line. Change their natural state by careful and calculated feeding, and I think you can get them to pick up whatever you want, as long as it's somehow identifiable as 'food'. This probably isn't true 100% of the time (what is!), but it's the way I look at it.

I agree

 

For example, I bet if you fished a boilie over a bed of boilies, you'd never catch one. Fish a boilie over a carefully laid out bed of fine crumb, flavours, micro pellet, maggots, casters, corn, and a few boilies, and you've got a chance. It's probably going to be one of the last things eaten after the maggots and casters, but by then you've changed their natural state and you've got the chance you need.

I agree with the bed of boilies bit (i never feed full boilies), but why would fine crumb, flavours, micro pellet, maggots, casters, corn, and a few boilies be any better? Its only familiar to the ones that have fed in that kind of trap before.

 

It's mixing the unfamiliar with the familiar isn't it? The unfamiliar on its own won't get a look-in. The familiar on its own is a perch and eel magnet.

 

Some things, I'm sure, are recognisable as 'food' even if unfamiliar. I remember stalking chub on a hot day at the river Wey a few years ago. These were very spooky fish. If you saw a couple of them lazing in the sun and dropped a pebble in the edge, they'd scatter. Drop a pellet in, and they'd nail it in a shot, as long as they didn't see you. This was virtually unfished water, so they certainly weren't used to eating this stuff, and a pellet and a pebble sound very similar when dropped into water. Not a great comparison, but interesting nonetheless.

 

This is the reason I wouldn't feel comfortable fishing at range. I need to feel like my baiting is spot on, and the further out I'm fishing the less confident I am. Add in a decent cross-wind (which there always seems to be!) and bait goes everywhere. If I used heavy enough tackle I could get a single bait to 100yards, but an unfamiliar bait on its own probably wouldn't even get a second glance, and a familiar would probably get 'eeled'! My ideal spot is under the rod tip, and I'll be doing a lot more very close range fishing this year.

Nobody would ever have caught a Wingham bream if they weren't interested in unfamiliar baits, which must to some extent include caster and maggot has well. Its all about flavor (to draw them in) and getting them to have a taste of things (small things first) and if they like it with a bit of luck they will gain in confidence and put their heads down and pick up your hook bait.

 

I don't think fishing on a sixpence is the key to catching more than one fish and I'm convinced heavily baited patches put bream off or make them slow to settle on other waters.