F3 - www.Fishing Films & Facts.co.uk - PRODUCT REVIEW

DO SYSTHETIC BAIT ADDITIVES REALLY WORK: THEY WOULD BE POTENTIALLY GREAT MONEY EARNERS IF THEY DID. HERE WE LOOK AT THE CLAIMS OF ULTRABITE.

In the 1970�s, the angling press proudly heralded the arrival of a brand new concept in bait. Apothogel was an artificial product made to superficially look like and supposedly taste like a lugworm. According to all the hype, this was a bait no fish would be able to resist. How many times have we all heard that claim before. None the less, it grabbed all the headlines at the time, and was even featured on the BBC TV science program 'Tomorrows World'. So where is Apothogel now. If my memory serves me right it didn�t even see its first year out before being withdrawn from the shelves. I tried it and found it useless. That however doesn�t stop people continuing to search for what would be the Holy Grail of angling. New formulae appear on something of a regular basis, often in a blaze of publicity, then, like Apothogel, they are gone.

As a scientist, I would never dismiss the claims of any super formula out of hand. I was once given a jar of synthetic paste by the then Berkley tackle importer Terry Eustace who promised it was the magic formula for catching trout. I promised to give it a try and left it at that. One day when setting out to fish Esthwaite lake which is an any method day ticket fishery, I remembered to put the jar into my tackle bag. Eventually, having caught my day limit on sweet corn and worm, I forced myself to try a lump of the paste on a running leger rig. Each time I cast it out I did not have time to set the bite indicator up before line was pouring from the reel. Smearing it onto a fly brought about similar measures of response, even on patterns that had previously caught nothing for hours. So it doesn�t pay to dismiss magic formula claims out of hand. That was Berkley Power Bait by the way.

The most recent formulation I was given to try out is a smear on liquid called Ultrabite. Reputedly at great cost, this has been developed jointly by Kiotech and CEFAS (Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences). Ultrabite contains what the literature describes as 'Factor X' developed by Dr. Andy Moore and his team at CEFAS and patented by them. I therefore felt it my to apply all of my scientific training to field testing this particular product, employing the kind of objectivity that would preclude any hint of bias or experimental error. After all, it might just turn out to be another Berkley Power Bait or even better.

INTRODUCTION

For many years, anglers, tackle companies and fishery scientists have strived to discover a formulation which could either be used to enhance the attractiveness of hook baits to fish, or for use as the basis of a totally synthetic bait. In 2001 a fish attractant jointly researched by Kiotech and CEFAS went on public sale. Listed here is a summary of the claims made for that product which is sold under the market name of Ultrabite�.

Ultrabite is revolutionary because it combines sex pheromone, food and bite producing aromas
Ultrabite is the first government approved fish attractant and is endorsed and used by Matt Hayes
Ultrabite attracts male and female fish and is available in 10 species profiled formulae

METHOD

Two identical four-foot long traces were constructed from 40 pounds breaking strain monofilament with a 3/0 hook at one end and a swivel at the other. At the mid point a 12 inch dropper with a 3/0 hook was attached. On one trace a micro bead was placed just behind the hook on the point. On the other trace an identical bead was placed behind the hook on the dropper. This was done to identify the hook baits treated with the Ultrabite. These rigs were then fished on two similar boat-fishing outfits. Lugworm bait from the same source was applied to all four hooks across the two traces, one with general formula Ultrabite applied to the bait on the point, the other with Ultrabite applied to the bait on the dropper. This meant that both outfits would be fishing in an identical manner comparing like with like across the two traces in the same vicinity, and comparing the claims made for Ultrabite by putting the two baits on the same trace in direct competition with each other. This was felt necessary to eliminate so far as possible claims that fish feeding around one trace and not the other might influence the result. Experimentation was carried out over three consecutive trips.

RESULTS

A total of 46 fish are recorded in Table 1. These comprised 23 whiting, 18 cod, 2 dabs, 1 lesser spotted dogfish, 1 pouting, and 1 small conger. Statistical analyses of these data has not been seen as necessary as the raw data speaks for itself.

Table 1

Trip	Ultrabite	Ultrabite	Plain bait	Plain bait
No.	On point	On dropper	On point	On dropper
1	3	0	3	10
2	4	4	4	4
3	5	2	3	4

DISCUSSION

It could be argued that three trips and 46 fish hardly constitutes exhaustive testing. But at �14.99 for a pack of 20 @ 50 ml vials in the UK, any reasonable angler would not be seen as over optimistic in expecting at least one positive result out of the three. The best Ultrabite could manage here was to match the untreated baits, which clearly is not good enough. Statistically, 61% of the total catch was taken on untreated baits, and 39% by those treated with Ultrabite. I suspect that had this trial gone on for longer the results would have evened themselves out across both the treated and untreated baits, and between those on the droppers and those on the point. Whether or not Ultrabite treatments targeting specific species such as bass and cod would give more encouraging results is an area for further research.

Bait additives generally over the years have not given good results. The only two attractors I have field tested which have shown any positive correlation between application and increased fish catches have been WD40 and pilchard oil. Both work best with cartilaginous species such as tope, rays and bull huss which have particularly well developed olfactory senses enabling them to track down highly scented baits more efficiently that other fish. Pilchard oil with its thick, viscous, sticky nature may well cling to baits longer than less adhesive liquids giving it a potentially longer period of attraction which would greatly increase the chance of any bait coated with it being found. WD40 is less viscous, but again clings well. In addition to this, WD40 can be particularly effective when injected into the body cavity of sandeel baits which are head hooked and lashed to the trace to prevent body cavity rupture. Ultrabite is far too expensive to inject, and as most species of fish feed better when the tide is running, could have a tendency to be washed off a bait before it has time to work.

REFERENCES

You can find out more on the Internet by using the key words Ultrabite, Kiotech, and CEFAS, or by going directly to www.ultrabite.co.uk