Science Fish Suffer Up to 22 Minutes of Intense Pain When Taken Out of Water - Animal suffering is a difficult thing to quantify, but scientists have recently developed a standardized framework that factors in the intensity of negative states like stress or pain and the length of time they're experienced.

https://www.sciencealert.com/fish-suffer-up-to-22-minutes-of-intense-pain-when-taken-out-of-water
https://archive.ph/jB5Gf
IMG_3699.webp
Each year, a trillion or so fish are pulled from the water, typically destined for our plates. While it's hardly a pleasurable outcome for the animal, a new study has just put a sobering number on their suffering.

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) hail originally from the Pacific Ocean's cold water tributaries, but are now a popular food fish worldwide, farmed in every continent except Antarctica.

Most of the time they are killed by asphyxiation, either in open air or ice water. While this is a cost-effective way to kill fish en-mass, an international team of biologists, led by Cynthia Schuck-Paim from the Welfare Footprint Institute, has found that each fish can experience up to 22 minutes of intense pain with this method.

Animal suffering is a difficult thing to quantify, but scientists have recently developed a standardized framework that factors in the intensity of negative states like stress or pain and the length of time they're experienced.

It's called the Welfare Footprint Framework, or WFF. The hope is that it will allow people who work with animals – biologists, veterinarians, zookeepers, farmers, etc – to compare and improve animal welfare standards.

"Societal concern about the impacts of production practices on animal welfare is rising, as evidenced by consumer-driven movements, labelling efforts, accreditation schemes, policies and legislation that prioritize animal welfare," the study's authors write.

"Our findings provide the first quantitative estimates of pain during fish slaughter, demonstrating the potential scale of welfare improvements achievable through effective stunning methods."

IMG_3700.webp
Sifting through stacks of published scientific papers, the team created a detailed picture of the experience of a fish out of water.

Just five seconds of air exposure triggers a neurochemical response we might associate with negative emotions in ourselves. Behaviors such as vigorous twisting and turning further demonstrate an intense aversion reaction.

Without water, the delicate gill structures that exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide stick together, causing CO2 from respiration to accumulate. These rising levels trigger nociception – the body's alarm system – which causes the fish to gasp. Eventually the elevated CO2 levels acidify the animal's blood and cerebrospinal fluid, ultimately resulting in unconsciousness.

Depending on the size of the fish, and the conditions in which it is slaughtered, these distressing experiences can last anywhere between 2 and 25 minutes.

"When standardized by production output, this corresponds to an average of 24 minutes per kilogram, with over one hour of moderate to extreme pain per kilogram in some cases," the authors note.

They estimate that electrical stunning, which has been proposed as a humane alternative for killing fish, could save up to 20 hours of moderate to extreme pain per US dollar of capital expenditure.

But brain scans have found the effectiveness of electrical stunning can vary widely: ideally, the animal should be rendered immediately and wholly unconscious until death. With current stunning methods, this isn't always the case.

"The welfare impact and effectiveness of any stunning method also depends critically on the entire harvest process, being affected by cumulative pre-slaughter stressors," Schuck-Paim and colleagues write.

"The WFF can also be used for assessing the welfare impacts of these processes and identifying priority areas for effective intervention."

While it's difficult for many of us to confront the cost of our human activities from an animal's perspective, this comparable measure of animal experience offers a clear picture of where improvements can be made for the welfare of our food stocks.

By quantifying the pain associated with this most common fish slaughter method, we may find better ways to care for the billions of animals that feed us each year.

The research is published in Scientific Reports.

IMG_3701.webp

Edit: I now have that stupid jingle in my head and it refuses to leave.
I got a brain and I feel pain
(It’s Simple)
 
Last edited:
another example of this attitude becoming more prevalent is in a lot of European countries you can get into legal trouble for not clubbing and bleeding a fish and letting it suffocate
But that's just like clubbing a baby seal! We need to come up with a convoluted way of humanely killing fish, ideally one that makes even bottom feeders like catfish and tilapia less accessible to commoners!

Make them listen to this shit on repeat.
View attachment 7570518

Similar vibes:
 
They actually do, I posted a bonsai tutorial and I had a bunch of comments saying how I was heckin evil for torturing trees. The heat map meme is real
People really need to just accept that they are not morally superior just because of what you eat.

Unless it's something that deliberately causes suffering like in various Chinese dishes or foie gras.
 
People really need to just accept that they are not morally superior just because of what you eat.

Unless it's something that deliberately causes suffering like in various Chinese dishes or foie gras.
Why issue is what is the line for causing deliberate suffering. I know there a lot of obvious cases like many chink dishes but there are also edge cases. For example if I am purging crabs and feeding something to make them clear their bowels, that is surely unpleasant for them but with many crabs it can be the difference between edibility or not.
 
Why issue is what is the line for causing deliberate suffering. I know there a lot of obvious cases like many chink dishes but there are also edge cases. For example if I am purging crabs and feeding something to make them clear their bowels, that is surely unpleasant for them but with many crabs it can be the difference between edibility or not.
I thought there were people who thought the shit in crabs and such were delicacies?
 
Yeah, thats why you spike the brain, or if your feeling primal, club it like Smeagol. It also keeps the fish better because it releases less stress chemicals. Not killing the fish is either laziness or because of it's difficulty on a commercial scale. Either way, I'd shoot for reducing suffering in factory farms first. I like fish but on the Great Chain of Being, they're closer to minerals than they are to God and the Angels
 
For example if I am purging crabs and feeding something to make them clear their bowels, that is surely unpleasant for them but with many crabs it can be the difference between edibility or not.
Ah I see, I didn't see this before.

Well, that seems like a necessary step to avoid disease/inedibility/etc. I am talking about stuff where the suffering seems to be the point.
 
Ah I see, I didn't see this before.

Well, that seems like a necessary step to avoid disease/inedibility/etc. I am talking about stuff where the suffering seems to be the point.
A lot of Asians would say however that the taste of adrenaline/terror not being in the meat makes it inedible. Not saying it’s right but a lot of those cultures make the argument it’s making it more edible:

I am just at the point where I am skeptical of any moralizing around food because the slippery slope seems to be really bad in this case
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Elim Garak
Back