B
Bob Shuttleworth
Guest
Anyone know of a weight to length table for chub? (or any guesses how much a 24" chub might weigh?)
N
NottmDon
Guest
I would imagine girth would also have to come into the formula Bob. Some Trent chub look monsters but when you weigh them its as if their completely hollow.
P
Phil Hackett PCPL with Pride
Guest
Agree with Don girth is important.
This may sound blas?, its not, but I don?t weigh chub unless they look 5 lb +.
A case in point happened last week, I had a fish that looked to be over 5 lb based on it girth size. My mate said ?no its not!? Not convinced at his insistence, I weighed it and it was 5.2.
This may sound blas?, its not, but I don?t weigh chub unless they look 5 lb +.
A case in point happened last week, I had a fish that looked to be over 5 lb based on it girth size. My mate said ?no its not!? Not convinced at his insistence, I weighed it and it was 5.2.
Mark Wintle
Well-known member
As an example of chub weight/length/girth, the one in my article this week (6-2) is just 21.5" long but with a girth of 15.5". Other ones I measured this summer were two at 23" both with 15" girth and weighing 6-11 and 6-12. I've seen a 24" fish with 14" girth only make 6-2 because the girth was only at one point rather than along some of the length. So a 24" fish could be any thing from less than 5lbs to well over 8lbs (some in this area have measured chub with 17" girths!).
A
Andy "the Dog" Nellist
Guest
The rough guide for chub is Length x Girth x Girth / 800 = weight in pounds
Graham Whatmore
Senior Member
Maybe its me but I would have thought it was quicker to weigh the blooming thing in the time it takes to measure it.
Interestingly Andy, I checked your method against Mark's sizes and they came to
1. 6.45lb
2(2 fish) 6.47lb
3. 5.9lb
Like you say its an estimate thats within an acceptable range.
Interestingly Andy, I checked your method against Mark's sizes and they came to
1. 6.45lb
2(2 fish) 6.47lb
3. 5.9lb
Like you say its an estimate thats within an acceptable range.
C
Chub King
Guest
Mark, what kind of breakdown are your captures on the Stour? Do you catch many 2 and 3lb chub? Do you catch more 'fours' than anything else? Big 'sixes' in summer is great fishing!
I flogged the Welland to death summer and winter for three years but never managed a 'five'. Anyone posting here fish the river?
I flogged the Welland to death summer and winter for three years but never managed a 'five'. Anyone posting here fish the river?
Mark Wintle
Well-known member
The variation in estimated to actual using formula is partly due to variations in actual shape. The biggest two had hollow bellies but massive shoulders. 10 years ago I had a 21.5" chub that only went 4-8, if you saw the picture you'd see why, nothing wrong with it just slim. Some of the low fives I've had this summer have been 21 - 22" long but not had the depth and shoulders of the big ones.
For Greg, the breakdown has been :-
3 x 6
11 x 5
38 x 4
23 x 3
8 x 2
with no overlaps ie 6+ fish not included in 5+ fish.
For Greg, the breakdown has been :-
3 x 6
11 x 5
38 x 4
23 x 3
8 x 2
with no overlaps ie 6+ fish not included in 5+ fish.
Graham Whatmore
Senior Member
Some fish can be very deceptive as regards weight when you look at them. I had a chub on the Wye last year that looked for all the world like a big five and we couldn't believe it when I weighed it at 3lb 11oz. I weighed it three times to make sure and checked the scales when I got home but everything was pukka.
This was just after the start of the season so I put it down to loss of weight due to spawning and although broad backed its belly was a bit flat, so yes I understand what you mean Mark.
This was just after the start of the season so I put it down to loss of weight due to spawning and although broad backed its belly was a bit flat, so yes I understand what you mean Mark.
E
ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)
Guest
In the 60s/early 70s didn't the Hampshire Avon chub carry a parasitic worm which left the fish 'hollow'In other words chub which should have(going by visual size) weighed a lot more than they did
N
NottmDon
Guest
Wonder if that parasite was in the Trent Ed? Some years back a guy in a match I fished had some stonking chub but when they were weighed we were all shocked at the result. They didnt look lean,hence the term 'hollow chub' was used. That was at Hoveringham by the way,lovely stretch of river.
Frank Hartnell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2002
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
Graham is right - Wye chub are very long for their weight and a 22inch Wye fish will often be under 4lb. There seem to be a few Wye fish that don't have the torpedo shape but are fat barrels and these may be worth catching weight-wise. Fifteen years ago I got fed up weighing 22 inch Wye fish and finding them almost always under 4. I don't think they got enough to eat!
E
ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)
Guest
I don't know if it was in the Trent Don --
but I know it was in the Avon and I think in the Stour...
I used to know what it was called but age 'dims' the memory .......
but I know it was in the Avon and I think in the Stour...
I used to know what it was called but age 'dims' the memory .......
I've found in the last two seasons that length and weight aren't that closely correlated for both chub and barbel from the Ribble. I've been pleasantly surprised more than once to find that a fish weighed more than I expected given its length and conversely a few have weighed less than expected. I'm not using any theoretical tables but a few years experience.
Two comments-surely time of year matters and maybe all this high protein bait going in is making fish "chunkier".
Two comments-surely time of year matters and maybe all this high protein bait going in is making fish "chunkier".
M
mark williams 4
Guest
Just out of interest, I graphed the weight/lengths provided in Cacutt's Chub Study Group book, and the scatter was quite wide. A 3 1/2lb chub could be anything from 17 to 20 inches long.
The figures came from the Peterborough Specimen Group in the 1960s/70s.
However, I plotted the median, includinng an extension as the record of 'real' fish only went up to 4lb 10 oz, and for the record, the length/weights were:
25 ins - 6lb 8 oz
24 ins - 6lb 4oz
23 ins - 6lb
22 ins - 5lb 5oz
21 ins - 4lb 10 oz
20 ins - 4lb 4oz
19 ins - 3lb 8oz
18 ins - 3lb 4oz
17 ins - 2lb 12 oz
16 ins - 2lb 5oz
Mark Wintle makes the point well above, that chub can really pack it on in the right conditions, so measuring them is a bit of an academic exercise.
Incidentally, when I worked on AT, there was a claim for the chub record and a picture which showed the fish being held. I could tell at a glance that it wasn't the weight the captor claimed, but in conjunction with Peter Stone, who supplied his own length/weight measurements, could demonstrate that the fish was only 19 inches long. How? Men's hands are suprisingly uniform, most measuring between 3 1/2 and 4 inches across the knuckles. So you could use the guy's hands as a measure to work out the length, approximately.
The figures came from the Peterborough Specimen Group in the 1960s/70s.
However, I plotted the median, includinng an extension as the record of 'real' fish only went up to 4lb 10 oz, and for the record, the length/weights were:
25 ins - 6lb 8 oz
24 ins - 6lb 4oz
23 ins - 6lb
22 ins - 5lb 5oz
21 ins - 4lb 10 oz
20 ins - 4lb 4oz
19 ins - 3lb 8oz
18 ins - 3lb 4oz
17 ins - 2lb 12 oz
16 ins - 2lb 5oz
Mark Wintle makes the point well above, that chub can really pack it on in the right conditions, so measuring them is a bit of an academic exercise.
Incidentally, when I worked on AT, there was a claim for the chub record and a picture which showed the fish being held. I could tell at a glance that it wasn't the weight the captor claimed, but in conjunction with Peter Stone, who supplied his own length/weight measurements, could demonstrate that the fish was only 19 inches long. How? Men's hands are suprisingly uniform, most measuring between 3 1/2 and 4 inches across the knuckles. So you could use the guy's hands as a measure to work out the length, approximately.
Mark Wintle
Well-known member
Mark,
Interesting figures but I fear that something has gone wrong in the calculation.
This is a big assumption but fish being 3 dimensional one would expect that given an incease in all three dimensions that the fish would increase in a more exponential manner but the figures you quote have variances between 4 and 11 ounces for each inch added but not an increasing increase.
So if a 20" fish weighed 4lbs one would expect a 25" fish to weigh 4lbs x 1.25 x 1.25 x 1.25 = nearly 8lbs, assuming it got proportionally thicker and deeper.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree? or just barking?
Must admit I've always been a bit dubious of weight for length tables for this reason.
Going back to another posting, it was Avon chub that suffered from pomporynchus laevis, hosted by shrimps and badly exacerbated by the weedcutting regime of the 60s and 70s. On the Stour there was hardly any weedcutting but a lot of dredging from 1950 to 80 that laso had an adverse effect on the chub.
Interesting figures but I fear that something has gone wrong in the calculation.
This is a big assumption but fish being 3 dimensional one would expect that given an incease in all three dimensions that the fish would increase in a more exponential manner but the figures you quote have variances between 4 and 11 ounces for each inch added but not an increasing increase.
So if a 20" fish weighed 4lbs one would expect a 25" fish to weigh 4lbs x 1.25 x 1.25 x 1.25 = nearly 8lbs, assuming it got proportionally thicker and deeper.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree? or just barking?
Must admit I've always been a bit dubious of weight for length tables for this reason.
Going back to another posting, it was Avon chub that suffered from pomporynchus laevis, hosted by shrimps and badly exacerbated by the weedcutting regime of the 60s and 70s. On the Stour there was hardly any weedcutting but a lot of dredging from 1950 to 80 that laso had an adverse effect on the chub.
A
Andy "the Dog" Nellist
Guest
When I first heard of the formula I measured quite a few chub afterwards and found it to be pretty good.
The thing that was very clear (and surprised me) was that girth had a much much greater effect on weight than length.
My pb chub is in the picture on the right. It was 23" long with a huge girth (sadly I didn't measure it) and weighed 7 lb 13 oz.
The largest I've measured both length and girth for was a fish of 7 lb 5 oz which was 22 1/4 " x 16 ".
The thing that was very clear (and surprised me) was that girth had a much much greater effect on weight than length.
My pb chub is in the picture on the right. It was 23" long with a huge girth (sadly I didn't measure it) and weighed 7 lb 13 oz.
The largest I've measured both length and girth for was a fish of 7 lb 5 oz which was 22 1/4 " x 16 ".
M
mark williams 4
Guest
Mark. I take your point; I have checked, and all I can say that if you plot the median line on the graph, that's what you get - it's not a straight line, and I have to say that I'd like more data on big fish which would really help show the depth of variation of length/weight.
I've seen pictures of really big chub, and they look as if there's a touch of bream in them, they're so deep!
In my pike fishing experience, my one 30 (from Llandegfedd) looked like a high double in the water, but had the beam of a boat. One fish I caught in a defuncy trout water was the length of a 20 but went 12lb - so emaciated I considered smacking it on the head.
So, I agree totally; length/weight tables are all bo**ocks. The only purpose in measuring fish and relating that to weight is to guage the health of the fish/water, and that IS interesting.
I've seen pictures of really big chub, and they look as if there's a touch of bream in them, they're so deep!
In my pike fishing experience, my one 30 (from Llandegfedd) looked like a high double in the water, but had the beam of a boat. One fish I caught in a defuncy trout water was the length of a 20 but went 12lb - so emaciated I considered smacking it on the head.
So, I agree totally; length/weight tables are all bo**ocks. The only purpose in measuring fish and relating that to weight is to guage the health of the fish/water, and that IS interesting.
F
Frank "Chubber" Curtis
Guest
Why bother measuring unless you're doing research. Just weigh the bloody things.
People moan about fishing getting to technical but just how much more technical can you get than this thread.
People moan about fishing getting to technical but just how much more technical can you get than this thread.
B
Bob Shuttleworth
Guest
Thanks for all the replies guys. Agree that weighing would be preferable to measuring, but not much good when the scales are in my other fishing bag in the garage!