Nicely colored stocked trout

[Mike]

I had not heard that Hatchery system within the PFBC had stepped up the use of the feed that produces brighter colored trout, but a WCO who received Huntsdale Hatchey trout indicated that all three species were nicely colored. Keep an eye open for the improvement and decide for yourselves.

 

[Dave_W]

I'm curious about this feed. Are there studies that reveal improved coloration based on artificial diet?

I've heard that adding paprika can produce better coloration but perhaps this is just an old wives' tale.

 

[timbow]

Paprika is pretty much an old wives tale. To increase color you would need to use a quality mix of carotenoids, such as astaxanthin. These are widely used in the reef community to brighten colors in fish. I believe the product comes from shrimp??

 

[troutbert]

This has all been thoroughly discussed on paflyfish.com before.

It's done with synthetic pigments, which are supposedly chemically the same as the natural pigments. (Much like Vitamin C is synthesized.) They've been used by the salmon farming people for many years.

https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/products/products-solutions/products_solutions_tools/Products_solutions_tools_salmon.html

I remember a PFBC hatchery employee saying his goal was to produce hatchery trout that looked just like wild trout. And I think that is fine, as long as those trout are clearly marked so that they can be distinguished from wild trout.

Otherwise, wild trout surveys can be called into question, along with everything that goes along with classifying streams as wild trout streams, as Class A streams etc.

 

[wildtrout2]

Mother Nature always has the upper hand. :-D

Edit: Click pic and it rotates, for some reason.

 

[Maurice]

^^ +1 Like!

It shouldn't be the goal of hatchery managers to "create" the look of wild trout. I am not anti hatchery or stocked trout. I have a bit of experience handling tens of thousands of nursery raised browns. And using high protein feed to finish out holdovers that bring on extreme coloration. My experience indicates that the coloration can be introduced and enhanced but if it doesn't happen within the first 6 months when the spot patterns develop in the fry stage the color infuses into the black spots, fins, flanks and not the red/orange spots like on a wild brown trout.

In addition, fingerling raised trout supplied by the commish have their coloration/spot pattern determined,based on (CAFO)concentrated feed operations, enhancement is possible but see above for the result.

Now, introduce a hatchery spawned sac fry into a natural environment to fend and feed for itself and you cannot tell the difference between them and a wild trout.

Also, while rare, the iridescent blue/black eye spot can develop on a stocked trout over a few seasons providing confusion but it rarely exhibits the significance of a wild brown form the same watershed.


thats all I have to say about that.

 

[outsider]

"It shouldn't be the goal of hatchery managers to "create" the look of wild trout."

Why couldn't or shouldn't this be a seconday or terchiery goal? If they bring a product that is more pleasing to the eye, closer to the color of wild fish, what is the problem?

 

[ryansheehan]

That's an awesome pic, can't remember seeing such a clear and vivid spot on the adipose fin before. Nice work.

 

[FarmerDave]

Photoshop.;-)

 

[troutbert]

outsider wrote:
"It shouldn't be the goal of hatchery managers to "create" the look of wild trout."

Why couldn't or shouldn't this be a seconday or terchiery goal? If they bring a product that is more pleasing to the eye, closer to the color of wild fish, what is the problem?

There isn't a problem, as long as they have a way to clearly mark the wild trout in a way that distinguishes them from wild trout.

Otherwise, there would be no way to accurately assess trout populations.

And water quality regulations and wetland protections based on streams being assessed as wild trout waters could be easily challenged in court.

The trout can be marked with fin clips.

 

[wildtrout2]

troutbert wrote:

outsider wrote:
"It shouldn't be the goal of hatchery managers to "create" the look of wild trout."

Why couldn't or shouldn't this be a seconday or terchiery goal? If they bring a product that is more pleasing to the eye, closer to the color of wild fish, what is the problem?

There isn't a problem, as long as they have a way to clearly mark the wild trout in a way that distinguishes them from wild trout.

Otherwise, there would be no way to accurately assess trout populations.

And water quality regulations and wetland protections based on streams being assessed as wild trout waters could be easily challenged in court.

The trout can be marked with fin clips.

It's a good point you bring up Dwight, it makes perfect sense.

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:

outsider wrote:
"It shouldn't be the goal of hatchery managers to "create" the look of wild trout."

Why couldn't or shouldn't this be a seconday or terchiery goal? If they bring a product that is more pleasing to the eye, closer to the color of wild fish, what is the problem?

There isn't a problem, as long as they have a way to clearly mark the [d]wild[/d] [color=0000CC]stocked [/color]trout in a way that distinguishes them from wild trout.

Otherwise, there would be no way to accurately assess trout populations.

And water quality regulations and wetland protections based on streams being assessed as wild trout waters could be easily challenged in court.

The trout can be marked with fin clips.

I thought it was good point too, at first. But lets discuss it a little bit.

I agree that it is important for experts to be able to tell the difference in locations when sampling to determine classification. But certainly not necessary in all or even most cases (IMO). I don't think it would warrant the additional expense of handling and marking every stocked trout.

Sure it would help identify which ones are stocked if they are stocking adult size brown trout over a good wild population, but even then... an expert should be able to tell the difference. And even if they can't, they should be able to adjust accordingly through statistical methods based on the number of fish stocked in that stream, and the number of sub-adult in the sampled population.

Besides, they shouldn't be stocking those anyway.;-)

I think this is also less important for adult rainbow (since there aren't all that many reproducing populations) and adult brook trout (easier to identify a stocked from wild in most cases).

Fingerlings might be a different story; however, the locations where these are stocked are very limited.

And other then trying to determine whether an already known decent stream has improved to class A, how often do they survey stocked streams to determine classification?

Aren't all or nearly all stocked streams classified already?

When looking for streams to add to the natural reproduction list (where this is more important), I think the vast majority are not stocked. Even if a few migrated there it shouldn't be a big issue since I think they are already counting all trout (including stocked) in the overall biomass. And finding only adult trout does not qualify for the designation.

Please consider this as just opinion, and I do find it to be an interesting discussion.

 

[ryansheehan]

If the biologist have any questions about wild vs stocked just post it here, we will solve it :lol:

 

[DaveS]

You could always just eat any fish in question... everyone knows wild fish taste better.
????

 

[outsider]

When I stocked the Tully I was too preoccupied in the moment to notice. Except for the select rainbows. Wow, so crimson.

 

[Reeder]

I am thinking the color enhancements are already happening. I recently hit the Keystone Select stretch on Loyalsock Creek. I caught between 20-25 fish, mostly rainbows. These were all fresh stockies from 2 or 3 days prior. Half of them were the typical silver color with a very light pink stripe and about 12 inches long. The other half were all like footballs, 14-18", completely covered in black spots...tail, fins(what fins were left), mouth, eyes, stomach. They had the brightest and most vibrant colors I have ever seen on freshly stocked trout, just as good and probably better than what you would expect to see on a holdover. Deep purples and bright reds on fins, gill plate, lateral line. The green was even more vibrant. A couple of them even had the red strip under the jaw like a cutbow. Two very different batches of rainbows were dumped out of the same truck, that's for sure.

 

[KenU]

Aren’t we having enough trouble differentiating between wild and stocked trout already?! This just causes more confusion. The difference is: they are not wild. Never will be!

 

[JustFish]

Rainbow from today at French Creek no filter. I thought this fish’s colors were pretty rich for being a stockie, but I’ve been out of the game for seven years. First trout since 2011.

Picture won’t upload for some reason

 

[Reeder]

Clipping the fins of every stocked fish is quite an investment of time and money, and contrary to the proper fish handling techniques that we often encourage.

 

[Opie610]

outsider wrote:
When I stocked the Tully I was too preoccupied in the moment to notice. Except for the select rainbows. Wow, so crimson.

I had the privilege to catch a few of the bigger rainbows in the Tully this week and outsider is spot on they are definitely beautiful fish this year.