Ferox Primary Food Not Genetics

DryFlyFishing · 13-09-2010 11:53am #1

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marine-environment/species/fish/freshwater/ferox

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Uploads/Documents/FW24%20%20Ferox%20Trout%20mx.pdf

a few monts ago i had this conversation with the Britts... hhhmmmm ...

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/ear-ground/62813-genetics-ferox-trout-primary-food.html

stylie · 13-09-2010 1:45pm

Why dont you log back in and tell them only some Ferox are genetically different to Brown trout ?

DryFlyFishing · 13-09-2010 2:00pm

stylie wrote: »

Why dont you log back in and tell them only some Ferox are genetically different to Brown trout ?

Admin of the flyforums.co.uk was under a lot of pressure from the user members so they banned me from the site as i would not take there fishing book reading as fact.. lol...

all trout in different locations are genetically different ... it is there location / climate / multiple food sources and abundance of food that determines when / what time in there life...they have to start eating fish to grow... and be a ferox (primary food is fish)

its called the evolution of trout over thousands of years ...due to climate change ... and a bundance of food......

i think those Britts dont believe in evolution...

by the way humans all come from the same source of DNA... Race...... pitty i did not bring that one up.... lol

ironbluedun · 13-09-2010 2:12pm

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

all trout in different locations are genetically different ....

thats true..........but trout do not have a specific 'time' when they start feeding on fish fry, you can catch a half pound fish on a fry pattern and a ten pound fish on a dry fly.....no hard and fast rules....trout will feed on whatever is available...i dont believe that when trout reach maturity or a certian age or size that they forget about insects and seek out small fish for food.....look at big trout cruising and feeding on spent gnat, green peters, murrough etc....and not a small fish to be seen anywhere.

DryFlyFishing · 13-09-2010 2:16pm

ironbluedun wrote: »

thats true..........but trout do not have a specific 'time' when they start feeding on fish fry, you can catch a half pound fish on a fry pattern and a ten pound fish on a dry fly.....no hard and fast rules....trout will feed on whatever is available...i dont believe that when trout reach maturity or a certian age or size that they forget about insects and seek out small fish for food.....look at big trout cruising and feeding on spent gnat, green peters, murrough etc....and not a small fish to be seen anywhere.

i agree.. they just eat more fish than they did before to grow... its called survival of the fitest... so they live longer...

different lakes have less food in them... (high land Lough or low land lough)

which lake do you think the trout will start eating each other more so at a younger age?

because of lack of food in highland lakes they have a retarded evolution compared to low land fish ... as the high land fish have to eat fish sooner to survive...

Low land fish turn ferox at a later age... ( on the corrib the trout turn ferox at 4.5lb-5Lb) as in there primary food source needs to be fish to survive.... hence the reason there flesh goes white... as these guys eat so much small fish...

ironbluedun · 13-09-2010 2:31pm

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

i agree.. they just eat more fish than they did before to grow... its called survival of the fitest... so they live longer...

no doubt about it that large trout do feed on a fish diet, but not solely, especially in early season when an angler lands a trout often a small roach or skimmer bream etc will be spit up into the net, so then fish are an important part of the diet.

I have a simple view on it, trout are opportunists and will feed on whatever is readily available to them (including young trout). In early spring when insects are few in numbers trout irrespective of size will feed on the previous seasons fry until the first buzzers arrive.... in late spring and summertime there are far more insects (flies) and the trout can easily feed on these as they are abundant and provide the energy required therefore they will mostly eat insects but fry too ....in autumn (about now) fly life tapers off and the trout that are feeding feed on this years fry before water temps drop/spawning starts....

i have often thought that it is much easier to catch trout (with the fly rod) when they are feeding on insects rather than those that are feeding on fry/fish....anyone else agree.

DryFlyFishing · 13-09-2010 2:46pm

ironbluedun wrote: »

no doubt about it that large trout do feed on a fish diet, but not solely, especially in early season when an angler lands a trout often a small roach or skimmer bream etc will be spit up into the net, so then fish are an important part of the diet.

I have a simple view on it, trout are opportunists and will feed on whatever is readily available to them (including young trout). In early spring when insects are few in numbers trout irrespective of size will feed on the previous seasons fry until the first buzzers arrive.... in late spring and summertime there are far more insects (flies) and the trout can easily feed on these as they are abundant and provide the energy required therefore they will mostly eat insects but fry too ....in autumn (about now) fly life tapers off and the trout that are feeding feed on this years fry before water temps drop/spawning starts....

i have often thought that it is much easier to catch trout (with the fly rod) when they are feeding on insects rather than those that are feeding on fry/fish....anyone else agree.

agree with it all..

but what do you think about what the britts think? or should i say all the books that they read.. lmao

ironbluedun · 13-09-2010 2:50pm

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

but what do you think about what the britts think?

Cant answer that, I only read the first three pages of that thread it got too repetitive for me.......

you make a point about books that to a certain extent is true...often angling books/magazines have statements that are incorrect and contain errors, but for the larger part I am sure this is unintentional, but it is important to keep the mind open and just because something is in print does not make it true. look at the news papers and the crap they print.

DryFlyFishing · 13-09-2010 3:05pm

ironbluedun wrote: »

Cant answer that, I only read the first three pages of that thread it got too repetitive for me.......

you make a point about books that to a certain extent is true...often angling books/magazines have statements that are incorrect and contain errors, but for the larger part I am sure this is unintentional, but it is important to keep the mind open and just because something is in print does not make it true. look at the news papers and the crap they print.

it gets repeditive because they are wrong...

fontanalis · 13-09-2010 6:28pm

Isn't there a difference between Ferox (sub species) and pisciverous (fish eating)?

coolwings · 13-09-2010 6:58pm

It is likely that the genetic difference in a "true" ferox allows it to develop more efficient fish hunting abilities, compared to a "normal" brown trout.
The ability of ferox to take on shoals of smaller fish is noticeable. The switch to fish would be a function of numbers of fish vs other food items, and ability to catch fish vs other hunting abilities.
So big browns eat fish, sure, but ferox do it better.
My limited experience is big browns chase perch in shallows and near weeds, an extension of their insectivorous feeding, but ferox hunt in open water and near structure, a different feeding strategy.
Their roach prey are pelagic, more like char than perch, which are more weed oriented.

fontanalis · 13-09-2010 7:04pm

coolwings wrote: »

It is likely that the genetic difference in a "true" ferox allows it to develop more efficient fish hunting abilities, compared to a "normal" brown trout.
The ability of ferox to take on shoals of smaller fish is noticeable. The switch to fish would be a function of numbers of fish vs other food items, and ability to catch fish vs other hunting abilities.
So big browns eat fish, sure, but ferox do it better.
My limited experience is big browns chase perch in shallows and near weeds, an extension of their insectivorous feeding, but ferox hunt in open water and near structure, a different feeding strategy.
Their roach prey are pelagic, more like char than perch, which are more weed oriented.

Wasn't one of the ideas that Ferox arrived just after the ice age when char started to populate the deep glacial lakes so that was their food source and it explains them being present in loughs with char.
Before developments in genetic testing the term ferox seems to have been interchangeable with a large brown that fed on small fish.
I suppose the best way to look at it is that ferox are derived from stock/gene pool that evolved/adapted to grow big based on eating fish while big browns that eat fish do so on the basis that insect/invertebrate can no longer sustain them.

fontanalis · 13-09-2010 7:05pm

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

Admin of the flyforums.co.uk was under a lot of pressure from the user members so they banned me from the site as i would not take there fishing book reading as fact.. lol...

all trout in different locations are genetically different ... it is there location / climate / multiple food sources and abundance of food that determines when / what time in there life...they have to start eating fish to grow... and be a ferox (primary food is fish)

its called the evolution of trout over thousands of years ...due to climate change ... and a bundance of food......

i think those Britts dont believe in evolution...

by the way humans all come from the same source of DNA... Race...... pitty i did not bring that one up.... lol

But they share a more recent common ancestor to each other than ferox.

Rycn · 13-09-2010 7:27pm

From wikipedia:

Salmo Ferox or Ferox, from the Latin for "fierce" is the name given in Victorian times to large brown trout that grow far in excess of the weight of their "ordinary" brethren. They are "only" brown trout, Salmo Trutta. But they have learned to access a richer form of food than their less predatory cousins, by taking up an almost wholly piscivorous diet.

Dryfly, you are right imo, they were talking shite over in that other place.

DryFlyFishing · 13-09-2010 8:12pm

Rycn wrote: »

From wikipedia:

Dryfly, you are right imo, they were talking shite over in that other place.

yea I totally agree with you

and to think they kicked me off that forum for trying to educate them... LMAO

you should see the crap thos guys talk although some of it is very funny

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/64120-banned.html

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62554-new-edition-troutslayer-dry-fly-special.html

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62467-do-irish-wild-trout-like-corrib-trout-deserve-bit-more-respect.html

Rycn · 13-09-2010 8:26pm

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62554-new-edition-troutslayer-dry-fly-special.html

Why wasn't this guy banned? It is a little funny though

DryFlyFishing · 13-09-2010 8:29pm

Rycn wrote: »

Why wasn't this guy banned? It is a little funny though

you meen the guy that did the trout slayer mag.. lmao...

he was on the side of the C&R's ... so he is a good boy....

i slap the head off big WILD fish with the back of my 310gramm knife... so im a bad boy...

it was very funny i thought though especially the stuff about bear grills and the new kite fishing technique ... lmao

they were just looking to tar and feather me...

to be fair to the english etc that gave out about me ... they do have a point with respect to, they destroyed most of there water systems and it probably makes them very angry to see a big WILD trout being smacked...

probably brused there egos also to see someone catching a lot of big WILD trout... all of them are stocky bashers or small wild trout fishermen... they don’t get much stuff like us lot...

Rycn · 13-09-2010 8:38pm

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

you meen the guy that did the trout slayer mag.. lmao...

he was on the side of the C&R's ... so he is a good boy....

i slap the head off a fish with the back of my 310gramm knife... so im a bad boy...

it was very funny i thought though especially the stuff about bear grills and the new kite fishing technique ... lmao

they were just looking to tar and feather me...

Ah well what can ya do, at least u know u were right.

DryFlyFishing · 13-09-2010 8:43pm

Rycn wrote: »

Ah well what can ya do, at least u know u were right.

so true... LMAO:D:)

it was like talking to a brick wall...:pac:

you should go on there and post this thread... LMAO

WILL YOU POST THIS THREAD heheheheheheheh

fontanalis · 13-09-2010 8:45pm

Rycn wrote: »

From wikipedia:

Dryfly, you are right imo, they were talking shite over in that other place.

There were genetic tests done on ferox from fish taken from three lakes. One in Ireland and two in Scotland. Each of the three fish were more closely related to each other than they were to any of the brown trout in each of their lakes thus implying that ferox trout share a more recent comon ancestor than other brown torut, so they are born ferox and it's hard wired in to their DNA to feed on fish more so than brown trout probably due to being established at an earlier date when char were already present.

http://www.charr.org/species/ferox.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00595.x/abstract

DryFlyFishing · 13-09-2010 8:48pm

fontanalis wrote: »

There were genetic tests done on ferox from fish taken from three lakes. One in Ireland and two in Scotland. Each of the three fish were more closely related to each other than they were to any of the brown trout in each of their lakes thus implying that ferox trout share a more recent comon ancestor than other brown torut, so they are born ferox and it's hard wired in to their DNA to feed on fish more so than brown trout probably due to being established at an earlier date when char were already present.

http://www.charr.org/species/ferox.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00595.x/abstract

did you read the two links at the start of this thread

we have gone past all that old research sure it was useless...... just dopes looking to get fame and talk crap about stuff..... and lecture... and all they did is make a nation dumb

coolwings · 14-09-2010 12:13am

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

did you read the two links at the start of this thread
...
we have gone past all that old research sure it was useless...... just dopes looking to get fame and talk crap about stuff..... and lecture... and all they did is make a nation dumb

Hmm ... pretty scathing there with the science bashing - have you done much research into ferox?

The material you referred to does not state that ferox are the same as browns genetically. It states there are various types of ferox in Rannoch. Since there are more than one type of char present in Rannoch the presence of ferox varieties is entirely to be expected,

... Data from Loch Rannoch samples, for example, have shown that a wide genetic variability exists within its ferox population...

Varieties within ferox, a new discovery, but they are still ferox..

snow ghost · 14-09-2010 1:20am

Tasmania would be a good place to determine whether it is food or genetics, as all what are now considered 'wild' brown trout there were introduced there from a small number of river sources, so if they have large wild ferox trout then is it food???

Here could lie the answer Dry Fly Fishing, you may have to take a trip to tassie to go in search for the truth that you seek:

"on Thursday 21 January 1864, the three masted clipper ship Norfolk set sail from England with a cargo of 90,000 Salmon ova (from the Severn and Dovey Rivers) and 2700 Brown Trout ova, obtained from the Itchen River near Winchester, the Wye at Hight Wycombe, the Wey at Alton and the Test at Whitchurch. The voyage took 84 days and the Norfolk arrived in Melbourne on 15 April 1864, where it was found that 80% of the eggs had survived. They were then transported to Tasmania where they arrived on 20 April and taken to the Plenty River, to the site of the first salmon and trout hatchery in the Southern Hemisphere. This was called the Salmon Ponds and had been established here because it had cold water and was a tributary of the Derwent River which would give the young fish a clear passage to sea. The Salmon Ponds Hatchery was built in 1862 and is still open for visitors today. On 4 May 1864 the trout began to hatch, with the salmon hatching the next day. From that day the streams and waters of Australia have never been the same. The biggest Brown trout caught in Australia was 29 pounds and was taken from the Huon River, Tasmania."http://www.fishing-boating.com/articles/goldate/tassie_trout.htm

ironbluedun · 14-09-2010 8:49am

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

yea I totally agree with you

and to think they kicked me off that forum for trying to educate them... LMAO

you should see the crap thos guys talk although some of it is very funny

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/64120-banned.html

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62554-new-edition-troutslayer-dry-fly-special.html

http://www.flyforums.co.uk/general-fly-fishing-discussion/62467-do-irish-wild-trout-like-corrib-trout-deserve-bit-more-respect.html

i do not look at that forum.....i will have a look through those threads...you say they are funny...i need a good laugh.
as for your comments/thoughts about catch and release well you are way off the mark on that one....considering the advancements in angling technology imagine if EVERYONE killed the fish they caught....most of us would be fishing places like rathbeggan ponds and horrible places like that....

ironbluedun · 14-09-2010 8:53am

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

..
i slap the head off big WILD fish with the back of my 310gramm knife... so im a bad boy...

definitely

DryFlyFishing · 14-09-2010 8:59am

ironbluedun wrote: »

definitely

well do you think i should inject them or electrocute them... like what is done to humans LMAO

o god not this again...

an average shop bough priest is only about 120 grams...

my knife is 310 grams its like an iron bar...

does the job... first whack... only reason i smack a few times is because there is residual neural activity and fish can death shake.... before rigamortis sets in...

DryFlyFishing · 14-09-2010 9:00am

snow ghost wrote: »

Tasmania would be a good place to determine whether it is food or genetics, as all what are now considered 'wild' brown trout there were introduced there from a small number of river sources, so if they have large wild ferox trout then is it food???

Here could lie the answer Dry Fly Fishing, you may have to take a trip to tassie to go in search for the truth that you seek:

"on Thursday 21 January 1864, the three masted clipper ship Norfolk set sail from England with a cargo of 90,000 Salmon ova (from the Severn and Dovey Rivers) and 2700 Brown Trout ova, obtained from the Itchen River near Winchester, the Wye at Hight Wycombe, the Wey at Alton and the Test at Whitchurch. The voyage took 84 days and the Norfolk arrived in Melbourne on 15 April 1864, where it was found that 80% of the eggs had survived. They were then transported to Tasmania where they arrived on 20 April and taken to the Plenty River, to the site of the first salmon and trout hatchery in the Southern Hemisphere. This was called the Salmon Ponds and had been established here because it had cold water and was a tributary of the Derwent River which would give the young fish a clear passage to sea. The Salmon Ponds Hatchery was built in 1862 and is still open for visitors today. On 4 May 1864 the trout began to hatch, with the salmon hatching the next day. From that day the streams and waters of Australia have never been the same. The biggest Brown trout caught in Australia was 29 pounds and was taken from the Huon River, Tasmania."http://www.fishing-boating.com/articles/goldate/tassie_trout.htm

whats the average fish size down there?:)

DryFlyFishing · 14-09-2010 9:02am

ironbluedun wrote: »

i do not look at that forum.....i will have a look through those threads...you say they are funny...i need a good laugh.
as for your comments/thoughts about catch and release well you are way off the mark on that one....considering the advancements in angling technology imagine if EVERYONE killed the fish they caught....most of us would be fishing places like rathbeggan ponds and horrible places like that....

well as you well know i release most of my fish.... only keep the good eaters... release all trout under 2.3 lb and 99% over 4.5 unless they were looking as if they would have red flesh...

DryFlyFishing · 14-09-2010 9:12am

coolwings wrote: »

Hmm ... pretty scathing there with the science bashing - have you done much research into ferox?

The material you referred to does not state that ferox are the same as browns genetically. It states there are various types of ferox in Rannoch. Since there are more than one type of char present in Rannoch the presence of ferox varieties is entirely to be expected,

Varieties within ferox, a new discovery, but they are still ferox..

considering all trout come from the same DNA and Race.. and that it is only evolution that has changed the way they feed i.e there is more food around so trout have changed the way they feed ... but in other lakes there is still very little food... other than eating each other...

there is no such thing as a ferox species... and the trout that people say are ferox are just a stunted evolved trout over thousands of years... therefore there is no difference between a so called ferox and a so called non ferox as they all came from the same DNA...

sure don’t humans eat each other when they are put in an environment of starvation????? does this not change the chemical makeup of them and change there body shape ...

and that is why when a trout grows big for its location eating nymphs shrimp etc.. it needs more and more fish to eat and becomes ferox...

in other words all trout are ferox well that is if they were lucky enough not to be eaten themselves and grew big enough for there location.. to have to primarily eat fish...

ironbluedun · 14-09-2010 9:37am

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

well do you think i should inject them or electrocute them... like what is done to humans LMAO

o god not this again...

an average shop bough priest is only about 120 grams...

my knife is 310 grams its like an iron bar...

does the job... first whack... only reason i smack a few times is because there is residual neural activity and fish can death shake.... before rigamortis sets in...

i have never electrocuted anyone so i cant comment,, although i think of a few i would like to (where is Bertie when you want him).... what do you mean "o god not this again" that will never never never go away. thankfully.

don't have a priest...haven't got a clue how heavy they are and couldn't care less....i am happy to see you return small fish.....as i have said on here many times i do not mind anyone taking the odd fish for the table, about 1 or 2 a week is fine if you are that hungry..... some fishery 'scientists' believe it is better to take larger fish as they are less likely to spawn, i am no scientist but dont trust anything the fishery board people say so just to be safe i put them all back.

I cant see why you have been banned from that english forum (although a lot of the posters are Irish) some of that stuff about bear grylls and that kite crap is very sad indeed. some of it is too personal.

coolwings · 14-09-2010 9:43am

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

... sure don’t humans eat each other when they are put in an environment of starvation????? ...

On the other hand I eat steak, but am in no danger of becoming bovine ....
Food choices will affect morphology of a specie but over times like 20000 generations, not a lifetime.

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

... and that is why when a trout grows big for its location eating nymphs shrimp etc.. it needs more and more fish to eat and becomes ferox ...

I take it you mean a big trout becomes piscivorous because it's enhanced ability to handle larger food size begins to include more fish items and less insect items. Agreed.

DryFlyFishing wrote: »

... in other words all trout are ferox ....

No. That's an assumption which is not borne out by genetic research to date.
They have common ancestors, but ferox have bred seperately and evolved into a different sub species, not a different species (under the fertility criteria).
However it has been demonstrated that lions and tigers can successfully interbreed with mans intervention, but not in the wild, and they are different species of cats. This is the criteria under which ferox trout are a different species from brown trout.

Ferox Primary Food Not Genetics

Comments