06-29-2020, 05:33 AM
Great discussion, but it only goes on to prove that we don't all know as much as we think and we agree on even less.
The problem with being a science geek, and an ex-engineer, is that we have this problem of thinking that all of the science and education we have acquired during the 40+ years of work and 25+ years of schooling has taught us something. So, being guilty of that, I am going to interject here. Still, I am not sure you will be able to predict what side I am coming down on in the end!
First item to note that that few of our "teachers" have the intellect they claim. If they were as smart we would want them to be, they would have gone to work for someone that pays better. Second item to note is that when a company tells us something they are like politicians, we are getting only part of the truth, the truth as they want us to see it. So, I will provide you what I have learned through my own resources, and through verification with multiple sources. I encourage you to do the same. What you will get is a lifetime summary so no footnotes this time. I actually learn more when I find I am wrong.
1) Mildog, your information is good, but it does have some issues as I see it.
"Berkley is of the leaders in scent research in regards to angling. I was fortunate to tour their test tanks and facility many years ago. In talking to one of the researchers he told me some interesting things. Two widely used scents/additives that anglers use and many seem to think work were Garlic and Salt. In their research they showed they were very ineffective and were not very attractive to fish. He also said the main reason salt got its place in plastic lures was that it was cheaper than the plastisol used to make the baits so they could make more lures with the same amount of plastic and it was cheaper so they made more money. In some cases it could make the bait softer for better action or feel."
You were in part misled on Garlic and Salt.
Salt was indeed added to plastics to replace plastic, but if you ever tried molding with salt you would find that first and foremost, it makes plastic harder, not softer; a softener must also now be added. It is in itself cheaper than plastisol, but it is a serious pain in the back side to add, mix, and suspend for molding. Gary Yamamato made the salted bait famous but he added it to make plastisol heavier. Without salt, plastisol floats and only a heavy hook will sink it; with salt, it sinks more reliably. Actually, the added cost in time and equipment is more expensive than the replaced plastisol. I am sure that Berkley left that part out because they were not willing to pay royalties for the process (Patent), a process that Gary had to pay for as well. The fact that marketers figured that salt taste good to humans sure did not help any. In my observations, two identical baits, one with and one without, salt will cause fish to hold on longer to the salted bait, but I see no actual increase in the attractiveness of it. PS, yes, I do inject many of my own soft plastics and PM me for the best ratios and types of salt for more details.
As for Garlic, I mention to my customers that I have never ever seen a garlic clove growing in water, or a marshmallow, or ........ Nevertheless, the same company, Berkley, makes Powerbait flavored with Garlic or corn or marshmallow, or ....... So, if it does not work, why ad it and advertise it? So many customers claim it has proven more effective then the other flavors in the exact same color, used side by side, that it leads one to question if they are all wrong. Berkley has claimed to have spent millions of dollars to find the best scent/scents, and they are now one of the biggest producers of garlic scented baits. It leads me to either invalidate all Berkley claims, or at least believe they found their test were invalid and have revised their opinion.
2) Water does not mix with oil! Wrong! In fact, that is like telling us that you must have clouds for it to rain. Any of us with a little age and experience in the outdoors knows that we have been rained on with sunny skies. The truth is that the rain may have blown miles from the clouds, so in part it is true.
Oil and water seem to not mix, but that is not completely true. It looks like they don't but if you go to any good handbook of physics and chemistry you can find that rate that specific oils dissolve in water, disperse in water, an dilute in water. You can also find the rates that water will do the same in oil. It IS true that oil does not dissolve a lot in water, and that it can take a long time, but it will. So, the argument that fish cannot detect an oil based scent is incorrect, but the statement that water based scents will be stronger is also true. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of a scent may not be related to the strength, but to the quality of the scent. Claims to the contrary are marketing hype at best.
3) Is WD-40 a pollutant? Methane is a pollutant, as is Carbon Dioxide, so you must go kill yourself, because I know you fart and breath. But, wait, the body decomposes and the gasses it creates are Methane and Carbon Dioxide, so DON'T KILL yourself, just don't fart and don't breath!
Most of everything we do creates pollutants and most pollutants are recycled by nature. The same is true for every living creature on earth, human or otherwise; only the amount and intent, if any, is in question. The whole issue of how much is to much, and is our impact too great, is a tough one. I would say that we should leave it to smarter minds, but in reality, the Politicians we vote for seldom have IQ's greater than below normal (IMHO)!
I have seen WD-40 used for fishing. Most of the time I do not find it overly persistent, and indeed less than the surplus oils from boat trailers and motors. I have seen shad oil slicks that were far more extensive and persistent. Is there a difference in oil derived from shad, sardines, chub, or dinosaurs? I know that we can refine and purify dino oil and it is called gas, but it is actually quite natural. Biologics eat/consume it, UV light destroys it, and plants utilize the degraded components. Nevertheless, too much is too much. Too much water will kill you. Too much oxygen can kill you. To much fishing can kill you. Never mind, no it won't and if it did I still would not/could not stop.
I do not advocate giving citations for using WD-40 as a fish attractant, just as I don't advocate giving citations for using commercially based, biologically sourced, oil based attractants! Nevertheless, I do advocate personal responsibility in using WD-40. I would encourage personally restricting the amount of it, and I would discourage promoting it in public (call it your own personal secret weapon). I also do not advocate making personal attacks against anyone using it. To much of what we do, our rights, are being eroded by self proclaimed experts based on overreaching group think. Let's use a little respect for personal rights, a little real science, a little common sense. Let's prove the old adage wrong, the one that says "common sense ain't so common anymore"!
The problem with being a science geek, and an ex-engineer, is that we have this problem of thinking that all of the science and education we have acquired during the 40+ years of work and 25+ years of schooling has taught us something. So, being guilty of that, I am going to interject here. Still, I am not sure you will be able to predict what side I am coming down on in the end!
First item to note that that few of our "teachers" have the intellect they claim. If they were as smart we would want them to be, they would have gone to work for someone that pays better. Second item to note is that when a company tells us something they are like politicians, we are getting only part of the truth, the truth as they want us to see it. So, I will provide you what I have learned through my own resources, and through verification with multiple sources. I encourage you to do the same. What you will get is a lifetime summary so no footnotes this time. I actually learn more when I find I am wrong.
1) Mildog, your information is good, but it does have some issues as I see it.
"Berkley is of the leaders in scent research in regards to angling. I was fortunate to tour their test tanks and facility many years ago. In talking to one of the researchers he told me some interesting things. Two widely used scents/additives that anglers use and many seem to think work were Garlic and Salt. In their research they showed they were very ineffective and were not very attractive to fish. He also said the main reason salt got its place in plastic lures was that it was cheaper than the plastisol used to make the baits so they could make more lures with the same amount of plastic and it was cheaper so they made more money. In some cases it could make the bait softer for better action or feel."
You were in part misled on Garlic and Salt.
Salt was indeed added to plastics to replace plastic, but if you ever tried molding with salt you would find that first and foremost, it makes plastic harder, not softer; a softener must also now be added. It is in itself cheaper than plastisol, but it is a serious pain in the back side to add, mix, and suspend for molding. Gary Yamamato made the salted bait famous but he added it to make plastisol heavier. Without salt, plastisol floats and only a heavy hook will sink it; with salt, it sinks more reliably. Actually, the added cost in time and equipment is more expensive than the replaced plastisol. I am sure that Berkley left that part out because they were not willing to pay royalties for the process (Patent), a process that Gary had to pay for as well. The fact that marketers figured that salt taste good to humans sure did not help any. In my observations, two identical baits, one with and one without, salt will cause fish to hold on longer to the salted bait, but I see no actual increase in the attractiveness of it. PS, yes, I do inject many of my own soft plastics and PM me for the best ratios and types of salt for more details.
As for Garlic, I mention to my customers that I have never ever seen a garlic clove growing in water, or a marshmallow, or ........ Nevertheless, the same company, Berkley, makes Powerbait flavored with Garlic or corn or marshmallow, or ....... So, if it does not work, why ad it and advertise it? So many customers claim it has proven more effective then the other flavors in the exact same color, used side by side, that it leads one to question if they are all wrong. Berkley has claimed to have spent millions of dollars to find the best scent/scents, and they are now one of the biggest producers of garlic scented baits. It leads me to either invalidate all Berkley claims, or at least believe they found their test were invalid and have revised their opinion.
2) Water does not mix with oil! Wrong! In fact, that is like telling us that you must have clouds for it to rain. Any of us with a little age and experience in the outdoors knows that we have been rained on with sunny skies. The truth is that the rain may have blown miles from the clouds, so in part it is true.
Oil and water seem to not mix, but that is not completely true. It looks like they don't but if you go to any good handbook of physics and chemistry you can find that rate that specific oils dissolve in water, disperse in water, an dilute in water. You can also find the rates that water will do the same in oil. It IS true that oil does not dissolve a lot in water, and that it can take a long time, but it will. So, the argument that fish cannot detect an oil based scent is incorrect, but the statement that water based scents will be stronger is also true. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of a scent may not be related to the strength, but to the quality of the scent. Claims to the contrary are marketing hype at best.
3) Is WD-40 a pollutant? Methane is a pollutant, as is Carbon Dioxide, so you must go kill yourself, because I know you fart and breath. But, wait, the body decomposes and the gasses it creates are Methane and Carbon Dioxide, so DON'T KILL yourself, just don't fart and don't breath!
Most of everything we do creates pollutants and most pollutants are recycled by nature. The same is true for every living creature on earth, human or otherwise; only the amount and intent, if any, is in question. The whole issue of how much is to much, and is our impact too great, is a tough one. I would say that we should leave it to smarter minds, but in reality, the Politicians we vote for seldom have IQ's greater than below normal (IMHO)!
I have seen WD-40 used for fishing. Most of the time I do not find it overly persistent, and indeed less than the surplus oils from boat trailers and motors. I have seen shad oil slicks that were far more extensive and persistent. Is there a difference in oil derived from shad, sardines, chub, or dinosaurs? I know that we can refine and purify dino oil and it is called gas, but it is actually quite natural. Biologics eat/consume it, UV light destroys it, and plants utilize the degraded components. Nevertheless, too much is too much. Too much water will kill you. Too much oxygen can kill you. To much fishing can kill you. Never mind, no it won't and if it did I still would not/could not stop.
I do not advocate giving citations for using WD-40 as a fish attractant, just as I don't advocate giving citations for using commercially based, biologically sourced, oil based attractants! Nevertheless, I do advocate personal responsibility in using WD-40. I would encourage personally restricting the amount of it, and I would discourage promoting it in public (call it your own personal secret weapon). I also do not advocate making personal attacks against anyone using it. To much of what we do, our rights, are being eroded by self proclaimed experts based on overreaching group think. Let's use a little respect for personal rights, a little real science, a little common sense. Let's prove the old adage wrong, the one that says "common sense ain't so common anymore"!