According to the BBC, almost 50,000 salmon escaped after the farm was damaged during Storm Ellen:
The article goes on to say that the salmon can be distinguished from wild stock by damage to their fins. Why are their fins damaged? Is it maltreatment, are they genetically modified or were they injured while escaping (I assume not if they are all affected)? I would rather like to know before buying any more salmon in a supermarket.
fin erosion seems to be a thing with farmed salmon ...
I think it?s simply down to stocking density in the pens. Thousands of salmon milling around in a confined area inevitably end up colliding a lot. That and disease/parasite damage.
You?ll find fin damage on all supermarket salmon as it?s all farmed.
Tim
I love the way some retards seem perfectly happy to support the sorts of trades that are causing this sort of animal cruelty whist attempting to mock those who are actually doing something about it.
Cheers, T i m
Well, I'd hate to be the person charged with branding 50000 salmon.
Also what happens if they breed with the normal ones? Are they sterile salmon, who castrates salmon? More questions than answers here. Brian
When are you going to start?
By not eating fish, I already have.
Cheers, T i m
Apparently (according to something I saw on the TV) a fish had more taste sensors on it's outside than a penguin (I think they said) has in it's mouth so it's likely the fish tastes more of the animal eating it does than it's consumer tastes of it. ;-)
I think they have babies Brian, although it may be unlikely they would make it to the spawning grounds with the fin damage and general poor health.
I don't think so (not checked), they are just 'farmed' in floating 'cages' and swim round and round for 3 years until they are sucked out, suffocated to death and processed (generally by migrant workers).
"Because they?re adapted to navigate vast oceans and use all their senses to do so, fish suffer immensely because of the cramped conditions and lack of space on fish farms. The tight enclosures inhibit their ability to navigate properly and cause them to knock against each other and the sides of the enclosures. This jostling causes sores and damages their fins."
"Many species of farmed fish are carnivorous, which means that additional fish must be caught from our already-exhausted oceans in order to feed them. It can take 1 pound or more of fish from the ocean to produce 1 pound of farmed salmon or sea bass."
At least you didn't do anything to add to the tedium.
Bit of a bummer for the fish developing a taste for penguins. Good job the fish are dead before visiting the chippy, that is a bad time to find out what raw batter tastes like.
No and no.
Bastards, those migrant workers.
Uh huh. And those escaped fish will just starve to death 'cos there are no pesky humans to catch fish for them? One pound of fish to produce one pound of fish - effishency. Forget that salmon, it's all about that bass.
At least they now have a chance, unlike the 6000 cows that drowned in steel cages or the 2000 sows (and piglets) that burned to death in crates.
How difficult would it have been to have fitted a manual sprinkler system?
The decision though was probably more just let em die (as they are going to anyway) and claim on the insurance.
Not.
Never been much of a fish eater, certainly since there were issues with the cod stocks.
Cheers, T i m
In close proximity and under stress they nibble each others extremities. Wild salmon are solitary apart from when they return home to spawn.
Chickens and pigs can do the same but fish are out of sight out of mind.
The wonders of factory farming.
And why they trim chicks beaks and piglets tails (no anaesthetic), because it's for 'animal welfare' ...
And don't scream when you hurt them.
And the people who support the same, whilst considering themselves 'animal lovers'? ;-(
Some people criticise those who keep and maintain animals yet have pets, keep them in unnatural conditions and torture them for the duration of their life.
They are the same sort who will take their animal to a vet to prolong the suffering.
Because they are forced into veganism by the 'loved' ones thing they should subject everyone else to their own lifestyle.
Just goes to show that "wrong place, wrong time" is always a factor in disasters.
Doubt the cows would have benefited.
You think that. Perhaps the farmer thought differently.
It is.
Whoosh!
Bit like vegetables, then.
But not necessarily does...
This coulda-woulda-shoulda type of nebulous argument is common in the perception-management industries such as the 'climate change emergency alarm system' and veganism, and the more gullible are taken in by it.
You've merely taken a possible edge-case and extrapolated to all but absurdity.
How does that improve their welfare? No-one is saying that "We won't catch that particular fish because T i m won't eat it".
So nothing was ever achieved by a boycott then? Or by the operation of demand on supply?
T i m ' s one-man boycott and its reduction of demand will make no difference whatsoever to any fish, which seems to be the whole point of his conversion to the perception-managing industry known as veganism. Ask him to point to which fish he's saved.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.