PDA

View Full Version : Trout Feeding by Species


Crockett
04-26-2011, 10:28 PM
This is pretty anecdotal but I noticed this past Friday that several folks that went after specks caught a lot of fish (50,100,etc) but the others who were fishing for rainbows did terrible with many skunked even. I was wondering if sometimes one species might be 'on' while the other is not. I guess I just assumed in the past both bows and specks would be on if the conditions are the same but now I am wondering if that might not be true. Has anyone ever seen that kind of thing happen?

BlueRaiderFan
04-27-2011, 01:38 AM
Could it be that the specks are in areas that are less fished and are therefore more gullable?

duckypaddler
04-27-2011, 07:34 AM
My post was from the week before:smile:

But yes that is why I like to catch brookies as opposed to Rainbows.

I have had days where in Raven Fork Gorge where we caught 95% Brook trout, and other days where it was 70% Rainbows. I've talked to Daniel about this and he said West Prong will do the same thing sometimes. I'm sure they feed a different times, just can't figure it out the how & why:rolleyes:

Last Wednesday I caught 31 Brookies in a row & no Rainbows, even though they were in the stream I was fishing. Then on the way out caught 2 Rainbows in some lower pools including my park best at 10.75 inches:biggrin:.

And 3 of my best days this year, I'm pretty sure I fished water that had not seen anyone this year yet:biggrin:. That would be my advice if you want a good count day. BRF has it right about remote Brookies being stupid, and the fish in Little Rv have PHD's. How many people fish between Metcalf & Elkmont, or Tremont in a day? Add the rock chunkers, etc.

And Crockett, did you even consider the fact that Spotlight refuses to follow my advice about stopping by LRO to get the blessing from Paula & The Fish Lady. I mean, when you Bear hug Byron as opposed to giving Paula a nice handshake, what did you expect?;)

But yes your question was pretty anecdotal and there are 100's if not thousand of factors at play. While I believe they do indeed feed at different times, I have no idea when or why, but think your comparision is a little far fetched.

Crockett
04-27-2011, 08:27 AM
Thanks for the ideas guys. I have been trying to figure it out cause on Friday I fished a lower stream with bows but got nothing not even a hit then went up to the speck stream and the action was crazy good. Could have been anything though like you said. Could have been fishing behind someone on the bow stream or any number of other things. I wish there was a magic answer but if so then those who figured it out might not be wanting to share it cause you know that would be some valuable information to have :biggrin:.

GrouseMan77
04-27-2011, 09:41 AM
Could it be that the specks are in areas that are less fished and are therefore more gullable?

I really don't consider specks "gullable". They are opportunistic.

narcodog
04-27-2011, 10:01 AM
I really don't consider specks "gullable". They are opportunistic.

+1 more so than Bows. Where Specks live their food source is limited in the first place.

narcodog
04-27-2011, 10:08 AM
There are couple of factors that have to be taken into consideration. Weather and time of day. When fronts roll in it puts the trouts off their feed, bass fisherman know this also. Time of day, I fished last Sunday and between 1300 hrs and 1930 hrs you could not but a fish. At 1940 to 2030 hrs you couldn't keep them off the hook. But at the same time they were being selective and keying in on Lt Cahill's even though there were some March Browns coming off. One other thing happening some were taking emerger's while others were taking the duns.

We talk to a fellow that had started to fish early and he had had very good success but around 1200 hrs the fish just cut off. Many factors to consider and very little time to do it in.

David Knapp
04-27-2011, 12:06 PM
Interesting topic...I would guess that it is not so much that one species is "on" so much as how you are fishing. Brook trout and rainbows tend to prefer slightly different water in the stream and more importantly could be feeding on two entirely different stages of the current hatch or available food. I'm guessing that those of you fishing for brookies are generally throwing dry flies. If you switched to nymphs fished deep, the ratio would probably reverse itself with you catching more rainbows than brookies, or at least a more even split... In my experience, brookies seem to like sun more than any other species I have fished for and thus will feed much higher in the water column on a sunny day than the rainbows will consistently do.

BlueRaiderFan
04-27-2011, 08:30 PM
I really don't consider specks "gullable". They are opportunistic.


Opportunists should make wise decisions that they profit from. I believe that the bows down low have seen many more flies and are therefore more educated on average than brookies. I know Ian Rutter agrees with me. Brookies may have less food sources as well...don't know about that one. Probably a combination of both.

buzzmcmanus
04-27-2011, 08:51 PM
Interesting topic...I would guess that it is not so much that one species is "on" so much as how you are fishing. Brook trout and rainbows tend to prefer slightly different water in the stream and more importantly could be feeding on two entirely different stages of the current hatch or available food. I'm guessing that those of you fishing for brookies are generally throwing dry flies. If you switched to nymphs fished deep, the ratio would probably reverse itself with you catching more rainbows than brookies, or at least a more even split... In my experience, brookies seem to like sun more than any other species I have fished for and thus will feed much higher in the water column on a sunny day than the rainbows will consistently do.

Excellent observation!

old east tn boy
04-27-2011, 09:47 PM
Fished Tremont Monday in slightly high water. Overcast with a few sprinkles and a couple of thunder claps. Only saw one other fisherman. Used a #14 yellow stimulator and a BH prince #16 nymph dropper. Things were slow but bigger fish were active. Caught my best Rainbow in the park so far, a nice fat 13 incher. Two others were 10 and 11 inchers. Interestingly I caught about half on the dry and half on the nymph even though I saw few bugs and no rising fish.

I think location and water conditions most often prevail. I don't think it is species related. All fish get hungry, right?

GrouseMan77
04-28-2011, 04:54 PM
Opportunists should make wise decisions that they profit from. I believe that the bows down low have seen many more flies and are therefore more educated on average than brookies. I know Ian Rutter agrees with me. Brookies may have less food sources as well...don't know about that one. Probably a combination of both.

BRF - Let me first make it clear that I am just disagreeing and this is nothing personal.

Webster’s Dictionary states that the definition of opportunistic as “taking advantage of opportunities as they arise” and one of the listed examples is “feeding on whatever food is available”.

In Ian's book Fly Fishing for Brook Trout in Great Smoky Mountains National Park he states the following: "Brook trout have never been known as particularly choosey when it comes to flies. Voracious predators, they will often eat anything they can get down their throats." I would tend to think this would define them as "opportunistic". I couldn't find where Mr. Rutter said that brook trout were "gullable"...whatever that is.

Ducky - Shame on you! I'd think that you'd show the brookies a little more respect. "Stupid" is pretty harsh. Come on man!

Plateau Angler made an excellent point.

BlueRaiderFan
04-28-2011, 07:58 PM
No worries. I've learned to let it go even if it is personal ;) Can't have the interweb getting me all riled up! :biggrin: It's an interesting question.

whitefeather
05-04-2011, 11:55 AM
Wind, rain, sun, barometric pressure, moon phase, time of day, sunlight on the water, shade, coloration of the water as opposed to coloration of the fly (what do they really see?), surface, subsurface, bottom feeding conditions, and who's on first base in Yankee Stadium all seem to have some degree of effect on the feeding habits of trout. Well, maybe not the last one! LOL! :biggrin:

In freestone waters that have an abundance of insect species but a relatively short supply of them, why does one species ignore enormous hatches of flies swarming around in the air and on the water, going up my nose, covering my glasses, and face, to feed on stone nymphs on the bottom.

In a word I think it's "preference".

Trout, according to experts like Rick Haefle, the biologist fisherman, won't exert any more energy to obtain food than it gets from the food it obtains. So there is a plus side equation which says that the trout will never go "in debt", energy wise, to feed. They rest even during large hatches, because they would be "in the red", otherwise.

So they feed on larvae and nymphs (filet mignon) as opposed to the surface flies (low grade hamburger), because they get more nourishment from the larvae and nymphs and don't have to work hard to get it.

Since we fly fisherman consider what we do as a sport, as opposed to the "corn dunkers" (yuk) going to the grocery store, I think we have to be content with the "mysteries" of the trout. If we wanted to catch more fish we would all just buy some night crawlers and take home stringers of fish.

Not gospel, mind you, just my observations, which may be totally whack at times! If I had it figured out, I would selling books about it and give up fishing altogether because the streams would be "over populated" with more fisherman than I care to rub elbows with. So I guess I don't even want to figure it out!

P.S. Corn dunking should be illegal on any stream that holds water.

The people who leave cans of corn dumped over on the river bank are as bad as outright poachers. Their trash corn eventually goes into the stream and the trout will go after it like piranha.

CORN kills Trout! They go for it because it rings their "dinner bell", but, the starch and the hull in corn kernels cannot be digested by trout, it plugs their bowels and they die because they can't expel it!

And that is a fact!

NDuncan
05-04-2011, 04:46 PM
P.S. Corn dunking should be illegal on any stream that holds water.

The people who leave cans of corn dumped over on the river bank are as bad as outright poachers. Their trash corn eventually goes into the stream and the trout will go after it like piranha.

CORN kills Trout! They go for it because it rings their "dinner bell", but, the starch and the hull in corn kernels cannot be digested by trout, it plugs their bowels and they die because they can't expel it!

And that is a fact!



I think the idea that corn could kill a trout by plugging their bowels is a popular myth, not a fact.

See what the state of PA's research showed:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/pages/qa/fish_regs/corn_chum.htm

If you think about it carefully, it really makes no logical sense. A corn kernel can't be broken down or passed but the much harder and tougher and many times larger exoskeletons of grasshoppers and other beetles can? Or even crayfish? Whole turtle shells? I remember a picture of rainbow that JayB caught that had a grasshopper that was unbelievably large in comparison to the total length of the fish. If they can pass the indigestible parts of these things, then a corn kernel isn't going to do anything to them.

GrouseMan77
05-04-2011, 05:22 PM
Could say something a tad gross about the corn but I'll let it slide.

Crockett
05-04-2011, 06:29 PM
Could say something a tad gross about the corn but I'll let it slide.

Thanks for letting it slide on out there untouched Jason that was more than I wanted to process :biggrin:

whitefeather
05-04-2011, 06:54 PM
The trout have digestive acids which will and are designed to digest large natural prey, even mollusks. These are inhabitants of the trout's environment.

Corn isn't natural to trout. And many scientists disagree with the so called studies. A lot of the so called scientific studies are pure bull that are perpetuated to gain grant money. Some will say and write almost anything for it, just like their bretheren in politics.

Dogs can't digest corn either, especially whole kernal corn. It is a large part of dog food though because its cheap "fill" but they don't get any nutrition from it. They just pass it on through. Trout don't because it is alien to their digestive systems which are small in comparison.

Even many smaller humans like young children and some adults can't diggest corn, and it has been a part of a humans diet for thousands of years.

Bugs are protein. Corn is starch, the things glue are made of. Rethink the logic. The studies did point out that corn was detrimental to hatchery trout. No body said it killed them instantly.

NDuncan
05-05-2011, 12:37 PM
Without getting too much into the technical details of the difference between the exoskeleton of invertebrates and the outside of corn kernel, there really isn't that much chemically different between them. The corn kernel is made of cellulose and the bugs skeleton is chitin, both of which are starchy polymers, both of which are completely indigestible to pretty much all vertebrates, except for strict vegetarians such as cows who have 4 stomachs and constantly regurgitate and re-chew to really mechanically break it down. The stomach acids in a trout aren't any different than in any other creature that that produces gastric acids... they are all proton soups. Although some made have more or less concentrated acid, they are all in a very similar pH range.

The study I referred to had one tank of trout fed nothing but corn for 54 days and one fed nothing but trout pellets. In both groups, no fish died during the study period. So trout can survive on a diet of nothing but corn. They much digest and absorb some nutrients, otherwise they would have starved to death. 54 days is certainly long enough for death to occur due to a bowel blockage, and this was not observed. They didn't report the corn diet as being detrimental to the health of the trout, only that the trout fed corn didn't grow as much as the trout fed trout pellets. So yeah, they were probably somewhat malnourished, and this inhibited their growth, but it was by no means lethal or detrimental.

Should trout eat nothing but corn? No, obviously. But will eating an occasional handful of kernels kill them? No, it won't. Just like all of the rocks and sticks and bug skeletons, crayfish, shells, etc that they do eat and encounter in their natural environment don't kill them. They don't breakdown or digest these things, they either regurgitate or pass them, just like they do (as well as we do) with parts of a corn kernel that can't be digested. It's not glue. It's fiber. Trout regularly eat, and pass things much bigger than a corn kernel, so they don't any problem passing them, even if they are alien to their diet. If anything, that makes them pass them quicker.

You say that "many scientists disagree with the 'so-called' studies". But you don't prove any evidence of that. I think this is where my beef with your original statement comes from. You stated "Corn kills, trout - it is a fact" but provided no proof, no studies, no references, no evidence of any kind. It's not that I am a big supporter of corn fishing- I'm not. I strictly fly fish, I've never used corn as a bait and I don't care to. It is just reckless to perpetuate statements as truth that have no basis in scientific fact. It bothers me to see such bad information spread so matter-of-factly and I feel like I have to correct something so blatantly untrue, even if I can't convince you, if it stops one person from further spreading the myth.

I showed you where my info came from. You provided anecdotal comparisons and suggested that most of the work in the scientific realm is falsified in someway to get grant money. I can tell you right now, there isn't much grant money out there for studying trout digestion. The scientists that do what you say (and they are out there) tend to try to jump on the bandwagon of whatever is the current hot topic in science in the media - climate, cold fusion, nano anything, etc. They go where the big bucks are, not to niche areas that receive scant funding and very little publicity so it is highly unlikely that this study would thus contaminated.

Corbo
05-05-2011, 02:28 PM
I believe stream or river brookies are less fussy because most brook trout water is less fertile when it comes to stream borne insects.

Pond brookies in Maine are often very fussy during a hatch; when the green drakes come off in July in the evening hours you need a really big dry fly (size 8 or bigger), but when they're midging you got to go really small and hope to get lucky. Pond brookies have lotsa time to eyeball stuff before they eat it and as they are not expending energy fighting a current they can be very frustrating.

It is my observation that larger browns prefer emergers over dry flies so I often fish parachutes with trailing shucks or CDC with trailing shucks.

When it comes to corn I am dumbfounded.... is it the color, the smell or what that makes trout eat corn?

Bfish
05-05-2011, 09:06 PM
When it comes to corn I am dumbfounded.... is it the color, the smell or what that makes trout eat corn? It is nearly the size and shape of pellets at the hatchery. Also commercial trout pelletized food contains a larger amount of corn product.

Crockett
05-05-2011, 09:17 PM
It is nearly the size and shape of pellets at the hatchery. Also commercial trout pelletized food contains a larger amount of corn product.

So if that is the case then wild trout woudn't be attracted to corn naturaly but maybe they might "test" it if it floated by.

Grouseman you are right now I am going to be known as the guy that started that "corn" thread lol.

whitefeather
05-05-2011, 10:18 PM
So if that is the case then wild trout woudn't be attracted to corn naturaly but maybe they might "test" it if it floated by.

Grouseman you are right now I am going to be known as the guy that started that "corn" thread lol.

Crockett,

No, I was the foolish one who introduced the "corn" angle on this thread. I'll take the blame.

However, in order to prove my point, after much research on this subject, I would have to post links to volumes of studies on this subject, not just a single clinical study (which is not scientific evidence) made at one hatchery, by one biologist, on hatchery raised trout, not wild trout.

And who would read them anyway?

My fault! I don't regard hatchery trout, raised in packed conditions, on an diet of unnatural food, and raised to be exterminated at the "grocery store" anyway, as true trout.

In respect to this forum, its members, and to Arm and Hammer (Paula, I love your avatar), I choose not to do so.

But my conclusion is not changed one iota.

As for wild brookies, they seem to really like yellow, they are curious, and respond to a free meal, so they might just go for corn too.

Just my opinion based on an anicdotal guess and a maybe or two.

I certainly won't be the one to "test" the waters, for sure.

JayB
05-05-2011, 11:01 PM
Crockett,

...a single clinical study (which is not scientific evidence) made at one hatchery, by one biologist, on hatchery raised trout, not wild trout.

....Just my opinion based on an anicdotal guess and a maybe or two.



I think a single clinical study using controlled conditions is more cientific than your anecdotally based opinion. I think the digestive systems of wild and hatchery raised trout are physically similar enough to tell if corn will constipate them to death or not.

If you truly have volumes of scientific evidence proving that corn kernels cannot be passed by the diestive system of trout causing death, please feel free to email the links to me at JBELL1120@gmail.com, I would love to read through those and discuss them at length off the forums.

Whitefeather, Im not piking on you, and I hope to meet you on a stream one day, shake hands, and talk about the fishing, however it does kind of burn me when people state "facts" that are really opinions, and then go out of their way to deny the science behind what may be the truth.
I understand a lot of people distrust a lot of the scientific community because of a few controversial areas, and some famous cases of scientific fraud , however I assure you that 99.999 % of the people conducting scientific research in whatever field it may be, biology, medicine, chemistry, or physics are very passionate about what they do and are working hard to do a excellent job and find the "truth". I'm not sure what profession you are sir, but I'm sure you wouldnt appreciate it if someone called every member of your profession corrupt and incompetent (you aren't a lawyer or politician are you? ;-) )

Jay