Post by: Tiger1358 on March 12, 2017, 08:41:10 PM
Post by: TONTO on March 12, 2017, 08:50:13 PM
Post by: Tiger1358 on March 12, 2017, 09:09:09 PM
Other than the triploids?Yea, just regular trout that they stock in lakes, and also the ones in alpine lakes that they stock every 3-4 years or so
Post by: lokidog on March 12, 2017, 10:08:49 PM
Post by: Tiger1358 on March 13, 2017, 02:45:13 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 13, 2017, 05:40:39 AM
https://watrailblazers.org/science/crawford/#troutculture
Post by: Roundhead on March 13, 2017, 11:38:32 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on March 13, 2017, 01:11:02 PM
What exactly is your concern?
Post by: nwwanderer on March 13, 2017, 01:13:02 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 13, 2017, 01:33:34 PM
Post by: Stein on March 13, 2017, 01:50:03 PM
Whenever man intervenes with the natural reproduction process, the result is genetic modification.
If you hold that line, you won't eat about 99% of the things that come from a farm today. Man created things like apples, rice, tomatoes and the vast majority of fruits and vegetables.
Post by: huntnphool on March 13, 2017, 02:51:32 PM
Whenever man intervenes with the natural reproduction process, the result is genetic modification.
If you hold that line, you won't eat about 99% of the things that come from a farm today. Man created things like apples, rice, tomatoes and the vast majority of fruits and vegetables.
Not to mention wheat.
Post by: fish vacuum on March 13, 2017, 03:09:02 PM
You can read about the different species of fish here. Some of this has changed a little(i.e. Goldens from CO or CA I believe) There is still some rogue planting done like with Browns. We Trailblazers purchase some of the fish we stock where it is then taken to the different hatcheries to be reared.Interesting links to browse through on the trail blazers site. I'm planning to visit a couple of high lakes this summer.
https://watrailblazers.org/science/crawford/#troutculture
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on March 13, 2017, 03:44:21 PM
Post by: Tiger1358 on March 13, 2017, 05:05:58 PM
No stocked trout are not genetically modified.......I am in the profession. And NO there is no added DNA to Triploid Rainbow. They are most commonly heat shocked 20 min post fertilization for 20 minutes. Some can be pressure shocked also (brook trout)...It all depends on a persons definition of genetically modified. Now Tiger trout are a different story Brown female crossed with brook trout male. A brook trout is actually a Char. Side note: Triploids don't necessarily grow bigger than diploids (that will ruffle feathers). The fish food question is true, and a good question. Much of the fish food diets are corn. Fish byproducts have become depleted and expensive for feed companies.
Thanks for your detailed and informative answer!
Post by: pd on March 13, 2017, 05:31:32 PM
This was a big deal in 2015, when researchers found evidence of nearly 150 cases of HGT in homo sapiens. Yes, human beings carry about 150 (probably much more) instances of changes to our DNA from non-mammalian sources (mostly bacteria, but also fungi and insects). Thus, we humans beings are ourselves "genetically modified."
There is a pretty simple explanation here:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150619-there-is-alien-dna-inside-you
The moral to the story is this: Don't freak out about GMOs.
Post by: Buzz2401 on March 13, 2017, 05:58:12 PM
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on March 13, 2017, 07:31:16 PM
Post by: Tiger1358 on March 13, 2017, 09:48:28 PM
Don't know the answer but would have to say that stocked trout are about the only fish I wont eat. Never ate a stocked trout that I felt tasted very good.
They only taste good if you cook them fresh, once they're in your fridge for a couple weeks or so, there's a weird smell and taste in it. The only good tasting trout I ate were the trout from alpines lakes that I usually catch when hiking or scouting.
Post by: lokidog on March 13, 2017, 10:41:10 PM
Don't know the answer but would have to say that stocked trout are about the only fish I wont eat. Never ate a stocked trout that I felt tasted very good.
They only taste good if you cook them fresh, once they're in your fridge for a couple weeks or so, there's a weird smell and taste in it. The only good tasting trout I ate were the trout from alpines lakes that I usually catch when hiking or scouting.
Personally, I don't think it matters how fresh they are, most taste like crap to me. IMO, it mostly matters what the fish have been eating and how long they have been eating real food. I haven't fished the Alpines, but the only two lakes I'll eat rainbows from are Banks and Lake Saint Claire in Lacey, and not all of them from these lakes, just the one's with deep rich coloring. Oh, Chelan rainbows weren't too muddy tasting.
Niw, the Chars are a different story, never had one I didn't like, though Lake Trout can often be blah tasting.
Post by: singleshot12 on March 14, 2017, 03:50:00 PM
Post by: Tiger1358 on March 14, 2017, 08:21:02 PM
I think genetics determine whether or not a trout tastes good or not. 99% of state planted rainbow trout have poor genetics and are the main reason the meat is white,tasteless and mushy. The quality strains of trout with high oil content and pink meat eat the same feed as the white tasteless ones. There are only a very few select lakes that receive quality trout. Not sure why the state doesn't produce better quality fish when they could easily do so :twocents:
It's much cheaper to feed them with cheap corn and stuff
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on March 14, 2017, 08:53:31 PM
Hey Tiger could you please give the state a little more info on where to get the great feed for trout so they don't have to feed the cheap stuff???
You both are great entertainment :chuckle: :twocents:
Post by: j_h_nimrod on March 14, 2017, 09:06:59 PM
I think genetics determine whether or not a trout tastes good or not. 99% of state planted rainbow trout have poor genetics and are the main reason the meat is white,tasteless and mushy. The quality strains of trout with high oil content and pink meat eat the same feed as the white tasteless ones. There are only a very few select lakes that receive quality trout. Not sure why the state doesn't produce better quality fish when they could easily do so :twocents:
It's much cheaper to feed them with cheap corn and stuff
With trout it is much more likely diet than genetics making for poor quality flesh. Stockers typically have poor quality flesh in general because the most fish were produced for the least $, but if given a season in the wild eating natural feed the fish is completely different. Even in the same lot of fish from a hatchery, when stocked in a pond, you will see a difference in preferred diet and a difference in flesh taste associated with diet. Cheaper feed brands typically make up protein and fat with cheaper sources of each, which is no longer fish based protein and fat. The higher quality feeds make a tremendous difference in flesh quality. Producing fish is not a cheap endeavor and people typically would rather have quantity over quality. Easy one of those 7-11" stockers you get cost 1-3$ to produce and if you can save 15+% on feed that is a big difference. You can typically figure for each pound of fish produced it will take .8-1.1lbs of food, add in labor and facility costs...
Post by: Roundhead on March 14, 2017, 09:09:51 PM
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just stating the scientific fact.Whenever man intervenes with the natural reproduction process, the result is genetic modification.
If you hold that line, you won't eat about 99% of the things that come from a farm today. Man created things like apples, rice, tomatoes and the vast majority of fruits and vegetables.
Post by: Bullkllr on March 14, 2017, 09:26:19 PM
I think genetics determine whether or not a trout tastes good or not. 99% of state planted rainbow trout have poor genetics and are the main reason the meat is white,tasteless and mushy. The quality strains of trout with high oil content and pink meat eat the same feed as the white tasteless ones. There are only a very few select lakes that receive quality trout. Not sure why the state doesn't produce better quality fish when they could easily do so :twocents:
It's much cheaper to feed them with cheap corn and stuff
With trout it is much more likely diet than genetics making for poor quality flesh. Stockers typically have poor quality flesh in general because the most fish were produced for the least $, but if given a season in the wild eating natural feed the fish is completely different. Even in the same lot of fish from a hatchery, when stocked in a pond, you will see a difference in preferred diet and a difference in flesh taste associated with diet. Cheaper feed brands typically make up protein and fat with cheaper sources of each, which is no longer fish based protein and fat. The higher quality feeds make a tremendous difference in flesh quality. Producing fish is not a cheap endeavor and people typically would rather have quantity over quality. Easy one of those 7-11" stockers you get cost 1-3$ to produce and if you can save 15+% on feed that is a big difference. You can typically figure for each pound of fish produced it will take .8-1.1lbs of food, add in labor and facility costs...
:yeah: Very good info right there.
Some of the lakes around here used to get stocked with fish from Trout Lodge (private hatchery). They raise restaurant quality trout and I'm sure they use better feed.I think funding was provided by lake residents or other groups. The meat quality and color was far superior to standard planters. But expensive, and not feasible to do all the time.
I'd add that the longer fish have fed on a natural diet in the lake the better they generally taste. Lakes that get fry planted have better eating fish than those that get catchables. And some lakes with better food sources and water quality simply produce better tasting fish. :twocents:
Post by: lokidog on March 14, 2017, 09:56:24 PM
I think genetics determine whether or not a trout tastes good or not. 99% of state planted rainbow trout have poor genetics and are the main reason the meat is white,tasteless and mushy. The quality strains of trout with high oil content and pink meat eat the same feed as the white tasteless ones. There are only a very few select lakes that receive quality trout. Not sure why the state doesn't produce better quality fish when they could easily do so :twocents:
It's much cheaper to feed them with cheap corn and stuff
With trout it is much more likely diet than genetics making for poor quality flesh. Stockers typically have poor quality flesh in general because the most fish were produced for the least $, but if given a season in the wild eating natural feed the fish is completely different. Even in the same lot of fish from a hatchery, when stocked in a pond, you will see a difference in preferred diet and a difference in flesh taste associated with diet. Cheaper feed brands typically make up protein and fat with cheaper sources of each, which is no longer fish based protein and fat. The higher quality feeds make a tremendous difference in flesh quality. Producing fish is not a cheap endeavor and people typically would rather have quantity over quality. Easy one of those 7-11" stockers you get cost 1-3$ to produce and if you can save 15+% on feed that is a big difference. You can typically figure for each pound of fish produced it will take .8-1.1lbs of food, add in labor and facility costs...
Ugh, can't do bold from my tablet.... "...for each pound of fished produced it will take .8-1.1lbs of food..." That is a helluva good conversion ratio, at .8 you can get more fish than you feed them. I don't think it works quite that way, even though fish are quite high on the feed conversion ratio, salmon needing 1.2-1.5 pounds of feed per pound of fish, chickens are about 1.8 and lamb is about 6.5. The higher the protein level/quality of feed, the more protein it will produce. If you can find a fish that puts on more weight than it eats, a 0.8 for example, you'd be able to feed the world.
Post by: singleshot12 on March 15, 2017, 10:17:38 AM
Slingshot, How do you know the state stocked trout have poor genetics? Tell me more about how genetics contribute to taste? Sounds like you know a lot about everything. Maybe you could also tell us about these "lakes" that receive quality trout. You are a wealth of information my friend so please let the state know how they could easily raise the best quality trout.
Hey Tiger could you please give the state a little more info on where to get the great feed for trout so they don't have to feed the cheap stuff???
You both are great entertainment :chuckle: :twocents:
Didn't mean to come across as sounding like a know it all :rolleyes: I guess I should have stated that my "opinion" was based mainly on personal observation and from people I've known who have worked in both state hatchery and commercial fish farms.
If you truly work in this field you should know the questions you ask and also know Genetics come first. Donaldson trout ring a bell? But of coarse high protein feed and water quality is essential also.
An example of popular lakes stocked with quality trout that you should be aware of are Roosevelt,Ross,and Rufus.
I think more fishers prefer quality over quantity these days
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on March 15, 2017, 11:38:45 AM
Pink meat from a hatchery fish generally equals: either a older fish or a lot of "astaxanthin" in the feed. But.. hey... we could just call it better feed from the feed companies :chuckle:.
Lokidog- actually salmon and trout can convert at a .6 conversion at the fry stage. I know it doesn't sound possible but it is. A lot depends on water temp and % protein fed like you said.
Post by: singleshot12 on March 15, 2017, 12:20:28 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on March 15, 2017, 05:26:39 PM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on March 15, 2017, 09:42:35 PM
I think genetics determine whether or not a trout tastes good or not. 99% of state planted rainbow trout have poor genetics and are the main reason the meat is white,tasteless and mushy. The quality strains of trout with high oil content and pink meat eat the same feed as the white tasteless ones. There are only a very few select lakes that receive quality trout. Not sure why the state doesn't produce better quality fish when they could easily do so :twocents:
It's much cheaper to feed them with cheap corn and stuff
With trout it is much more likely diet than genetics making for poor quality flesh. Stockers typically have poor quality flesh in general because the most fish were produced for the least $, but if given a season in the wild eating natural feed the fish is completely different. Even in the same lot of fish from a hatchery, when stocked in a pond, you will see a difference in preferred diet and a difference in flesh taste associated with diet. Cheaper feed brands typically make up protein and fat with cheaper sources of each, which is no longer fish based protein and fat. The higher quality feeds make a tremendous difference in flesh quality. Producing fish is not a cheap endeavor and people typically would rather have quantity over quality. Easy one of those 7-11" stockers you get cost 1-3$ to produce and if you can save 15+% on feed that is a big difference. You can typically figure for each pound of fish produced it will take .8-1.1lbs of food, add in labor and facility costs...
Ugh, can't do bold from my tablet.... "...for each pound of fished produced it will take .8-1.1lbs of food..." That is a helluva good conversion ratio, at .8 you can get more fish than you feed them. I don't think it works quite that way, even though fish are quite high on the feed conversion ratio, salmon needing 1.2-1.5 pounds of feed per pound of fish, chickens are about 1.8 and lamb is about 6.5. The higher the protein level/quality of feed, the more protein it will produce. If you can find a fish that puts on more weight than it eats, a 0.8 for example, you'd be able to feed the world.
What you fail to see in that conversion is that of overall body weight gained you have a certain percentage of water weight. It seems counter intuitive to think you feed something a pound of food and it gains 1.2 pounds, but it isn't true. With salmonids, in moderate temperatures with good feed and if there is not a need to over exert and burn excess energy, this holds true up until about 1 pound. After that it fluctuates more depending on species and age/size at sexual maturity. There are many variables to this so it is not a hard rule, but with the right conditions it is very common.