Hubbry Logo
Fish slaughterFish slaughterMain
Open search
Fish slaughter
Community hub
Fish slaughter
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Fish slaughter
Fish slaughter
Fish slaughter
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Fish slaughter is the process of killing fish, typically after harvesting at sea or from fish farms. At least one trillion fish are killed each year for commercial consumption. Some fish harvesting uses controversial methods like suffocation in air, carbon-dioxide stunning, or ice chilling that have been called inhumane by many organizations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health. However, due to many cultures' reliance on fish, some alternative methods of slaughter have been developed, including percussive stunning, pithing, shooting, and electrical stunning. While these methods are considered effective, they still face criticism, with some arguing that no method of fish slaughter can ever be truly humane.

Numbers

[edit]
Main article: World fish production

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a total of 156.2 million tons of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and other aquatic animals were captured in 2011. This is a sum of 93.5 million tons of wild animals and 62.7 million tons of farmed animals. 56.8% of this total was freshwater fish, 6.4% diadromous fish, and 3.2% marine fish, with the remainder being molluscs, crustaceans, and miscellaneous.[1]

The number of individual wild fish killed each year is estimated as 0.97-2.74 trillion (based on FAO tonnage statistics combined with estimated mean weights of fish species).[2] The FAO numbers do not include illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, nor discarded fish. If these are included and over-reporting by China subtracted, the totals increase by about 16.6% to 33.3%.[2] A similar estimate for the number of farmed fish slaughtered each year is 0.037 to 0.120 trillion.[3]

Mid-sized trout farms in the UK may process more than 10,000 fish per hour. They are often operated by only a few people, and it may be necessary to kill trout on short notice or even at night.[4]

Welfare indicators

[edit]
Main article: Animal welfare science

The main argument against fish slaughter, and inhumane slaughtering practices, is that fish can feel pain.[5][6] Sentience is defined as consciousness and an ability to perceive feeling. The degree of fish sentience is a debated topic in many countries.[7] The apparent differences between fish and humans have led to fish welfare being often overlooked in ethical discussions.[8]

Research on fish suffering during slaughter relies on measures to indicate when fish are stressed. Some indicators used by welfare studies include[9]

Following electric stunning, as fish gradually resume consciousness, they begin to make rhythmic gill-cover movements. Based on EEG correlations, it is believed that stunned fish remain insensible until they have resumed rhythmic gill patterns.[10] This can be used as a convenient assessment tool for the effectiveness of electric stunning.[4]

Fish cognition is also more advanced than commonly believed.[8] For example, in studies, some fish showed a capability to remember other fish and places.[11]

Inhumane methods

[edit]

In 2004, the European Food Safety Authority observed that "Many existing commercial killing methods expose fish to substantial suffering over a prolonged period of time."[12]

The Aquatic Animal Health Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health considers the following slaughter methods inhumane.[13] Some ethicists have gone further and argued that there are no available humane slaughter methods for fish.[14]

Air asphyxiation

[edit]

Air asphyxiation is the oldest slaughter method for fish and is considered inhumane because it can take the fish over an hour to die.[9] One Dutch study found that it took 55–250 minutes for various species of fish to become insensible during asphyxiation.[15] Fish that evolved for low-oxygen environments take longer to die. At higher temperatures, fish lose consciousness more quickly.[16]

Meat quality and shelf-life are also diminished when this method is used.[9]

Ice bath

[edit]

Also called live chilling, the ice bath method involves putting fish in baths of ice water, where they chill and eventually die of anoxia. Because chilling slows metabolic rate and oxygen needs, it may prolong the duration until death in some instances, with some cold adapted species taking more than an hour to die.[9] On these grounds, the Farm Animal Welfare Council's 1996 report on farmed-fish welfare stated: "The cooling of live trout on ice after they have been removed from water should be prohibited."[17] In contrast, later research suggested that for warm Mediterranean species such as sea bream and sea bass, the method might at least be preferable to air asphyxiation, with fish showing lower levels of stress indicators.[9] Research in 2009 showed that ice water is faster and less stressful than anaesthetics for killing tropical ornamental fishes like zebrafish.[18]

CO
2 narcosis

[edit]

Most often applied for salmon and trout, CO
2 narcosis involves filling the fish water with CO
2 to produce acidic pH, which injures the brain. The procedure is apparently stressful, as evidenced by fish swimming vigorously and trying to escape from the tank. CO
2 immobilizes the fish within 2–4 minutes, but the fish remain conscious until subsequent stunning or killing.[9]

Salt or ammonia baths

[edit]

Salting involves application of salt to the container holding the fish, the salt applied should be just enough to weaken the fish. Salting of fish as a slaughtering (killing method) is only applicable to freshwater species.

Exsanguination without stunning

[edit]

Exsanguination is the process whereby an animal is cut so that it bleeds to death. Fish are cut in highly vascular body regions, and the process is stressful unless the animals are unconscious. If not stunned, according to behavioral and neural criteria, fish may remain conscious for 15 minutes or more between the time when major blood vessels have been cut and when they lose consciousness.[12][19] Eel brain activity may not cease for 13–30 minutes after decapitation, and some fish may remain sensible for 20–40 minutes after evisceration.[20]

Evisceration without stunning

[edit]

In evisceration without stunning, the fish is simply eviscerated alive without being stunned. The fish is instead restrained until it stops struggling.

More humane methods

[edit]

Percussive stunning

[edit]

Also known as knocking, percussive stunning involves hitting the fish's head with a wooden or plastic club, called a priest. One or two appropriate blows can disrupt the brain sufficiently to render the fish insensible and potentially even kill it directly. However, applying this method correctly requires training and effort. Percussive stunning must be applied one fish at a time and so is typically only used for large fish, such as salmon and trout. If the operator is skilled, percussive stunning can be among the most humane methods and can also yield high meat quality.[9] One comparison of slaughter methods found that percussive stunning had the best welfare performance as measured by low hematocrit, low plasma glucose, low lactate, and high muscle energy charge.[21]

For some fish species, there are automated percussive stunning tools, such as a pneumatic club for salmon.[9] However, building an automated machine to process, orient, percussively stun, and bleed bulk quantities of small fish would be difficult.[4]

Pithing

[edit]

Pithing, also known as ikejime (or ikijime), involves sticking a sharp spike through the brain of the fish. If done properly, it can kill quickly, however, if the operator misses the brain, the results may be stressful for the fish, which is why resources such as the ikijime.com database[22] have been developed to define the brain location of many popular fish species. As with percussive stunning, spiking is used to kill one fish at a time and so is mainly used for large species such as tuna and salmon.[9]

Shooting

[edit]

Shooting large fish is also possible.[13]

Electrical stunning

[edit]

Electricity can be more humane than alternatives if applied correctly.[23] In addition to potentially producing unconsciousness quickly, stunning reduces the stress of restraint and being removed from water.[24]: 167–168 

If electrical parameters are not optimized, electrical stunning may produce immobility without loss of consciousness, which is inhumane.[9][20][24]: 167  There is little public data comparing optimal stun settings found by researchers with the settings used in commercial slaughter operations, so it is unknown how effective real-world stunning is.[25]: 7  In addition, proper stun parameters vary significantly by species.[24]: 168 

Electricity may introduce bleedspots, so proper settings are required.[23]

In June 2024, the Centre for Aquaculture Progress, a non-profit organization dedicated to fish welfare in Europe, oversaw a comprehensive study of European consumer attitudes to electrical stunning. The study found that 83% of consumers endorsed pre-slaughter electrical stunning for sea bream and sea bass and that 80% were prepared to pay more for fish that had been slaughtered humanely.[26]

Modern systems

[edit]

Systems have been developed to slaughter large numbers of fish whilst maintaining welfare standards.

A paper published by Jeff Lines and his collaborators in 2003 announced that stunning trout for 60 seconds in an electric field of 250 V/m r.m.s. with a sinusoidal waveform of 1,000 Hz rendered them permanently unconscious without degrading meat quality.[4] A stunning system, called HS1, has been developed in accordance with Lines' study. The system first stuns fish and then keeps them unconscious, through electronarcosis, until death. The machine has been widely adopted in the UK, processing an estimated 80% of all UK trout killed for meat.[27] According to the Humane Slaughter Association's James Kirkwood: "Before ten years ago there was no way to humanely kill farmed fish en masse – they died slowly through suffocation when harvested from the water. This welfare benefit affects millions of fish."[28]

Regulations

[edit]

No welfare standards exist for the trillion or more fish harvested from the wild each year.[29]

Since 2008, Norway has banned CO
2 stunning.[20] By January 2010, 80% of Norwegian fish-slaughter facilities had switched to either percussive or electrical stunning.[30]

Germany has banned use of salt or ammonia baths.[20]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Fish slaughter

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Fish slaughter denotes the killing of from wild capture and , chiefly for and , encompassing 1.1 to 2.2 wild finfish and 78 to 171 billion farmed finfish annually. Predominant methods involve asphyxiation via air exposure or ice slurries, evisceration while alive, and mechanical crushing during haul, practices that induce physiological stress responses observable in empirical data. The application of techniques—such as percussive , brain spiking, or electrical immobilization—aims to render fish insensible prior to death, yet these remain infrequent in wild owing to scale and operational hurdles, with greater uptake in controlled settings. Central to discussions is fish : fish display avoidance behaviors and neural activations to harmful stimuli, but lack the telencephalic structures linked to affective in mammals, suggesting responses driven by reflexive rather than conscious mechanisms. In jurisdictions like the , fish fall outside humane slaughter mandates, prioritizing efficiency over welfare equivalency. This exemption underscores causal realities of aquatic harvesting, where empirical welfare improvements must balance vast volumes against feasible interventions.

Scale and Economic Context

Global Production Volumes

Global fisheries and production reached 223.2 million tonnes in 2022, including 185.4 million tonnes of aquatic animals, with capture fisheries contributing approximately 90 million tonnes and 94.4 million tonnes of animals. Estimates indicate that this volume corresponds to the slaughter of 1.1 to 2.2 trillion wild-caught finfish annually on average from 2000 to 2019, alongside approximately 130 billion farmed finfish in recent years such as 2022. These figures underscore the vast scale, where wild capture has remained relatively stable since the late 1980s, fluctuating between 86 and 94 million tonnes per year, while has expanded significantly. Aquaculture production of aquatic animals grew from 43 million tonnes in 2000 to 94.4 million tonnes in 2022, reflecting an average annual increase that has outpaced wild capture stagnation. In wild fisheries, small pelagic species such as anchoveta (Engraulis ringens), herring (Clupea harengus), and sardines dominate by volume, often comprising over half of marine catches due to their use in fishmeal production. Farmed production is led by carps (various Cyprinidae species), tilapia (Oreochromis spp.), and salmon (Salmo salar), which together account for a substantial portion of the 94.4 million tonnes, with carps alone representing about 18% of global aquatic animal output in recent years. Asia dominates production, accounting for roughly 90% of global aquaculture volume, driven primarily by China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam, which together produce over half of the world's total fisheries and aquaculture output. This regional leadership reflects intensive freshwater and marine systems, contrasting with more modest contributions from Europe (e.g., salmon in Norway) and the Americas (e.g., salmon in Chile). Overall, the combined sectors provide a critical protein source, with aquatic animals supplying about 17% of global animal protein intake as of 2022.

Economic Significance and Food Security

The fisheries and aquaculture sector, integral to fish slaughter processes, generated a first-sale value of USD 452 billion for aquatic animals in 2022, with capture fisheries contributing USD 157 billion and USD 295 billion. This economic output supports approximately 62 million jobs in worldwide, primarily in where 95% of aquaculture is concentrated. These livelihoods sustain coastal communities and contribute to GDP in developing economies, where the sector often represents a vital source of income and export revenue exceeding hundreds of billions annually. Fish supplies 17% of global animal protein consumption, providing essential for over 3 billion and comprising up to 50% of animal protein intake in some low-income coastal and island nations. In 2022, total production reached 223.2 million tonnes of aquatic animals, bolstering amid rising global demand and protein shortages in regions dependent on affordable . Small-scale fisheries alone account for at least 40% of catches, delivering 20% of dietary animal protein on average to 2.3 billion , highlighting the sector's disproportionate role in averting . Stricter regulations on fish slaughter methods, aimed at welfare improvements, risk increasing operational costs and prices, thereby threatening access in price-sensitive developing markets. Regulatory compliance burdens in already impose annual losses of up to USD 807 million in some regions, potentially amplifying inefficiencies in high-volume capture relative to less regulated systems. Comparative data show European import prices for fishery products averaging 60% higher than in , linked to divergent regulatory stringency that favors cost efficiencies in non-EU markets and could exacerbate food insecurity if global standards tighten without yield offsets.

Biological Foundations

Fish Physiology and Sensory Capabilities

Fish possess a central nervous system lacking the neocortex and associated higher brain regions found in mammals, with the pallium serving analogous but simpler functions in sensory processing. Electrophysiological studies confirm the presence of nociceptors in teleost species, such as rainbow trout, which detect noxious mechanical, thermal, and chemical stimuli via unmyelinated C-fibers and thinly myelinated Aδ-fibers, eliciting primarily reflexive avoidance behaviors rather than evidence of integrated conscious experience. In contrast, searches for nociceptors in cartilaginous fishes (chondrichthyes), including elasmobranchs like sharks, have yielded negative results, with sensory responses appearing more primitive and lacking the specialized fiber types observed in teleosts. The system, a mechanosensory network of neuromasts embedded in canals along the body, enables detection of water vibrations, pressure gradients, and low-frequency movements in both and cartilaginous fishes, facilitating orientation, prey detection, and predator avoidance without equivalence to nociceptive pathways. In s, this system includes anterior and posterior components for fine-scale hydrodynamic sensing, while cartilaginous fishes integrate it with electroreceptive for detecting bioelectric fields, enhancing predatory capabilities in low-visibility environments. These sensory modalities operate reflexively, processing environmental cues through and circuits rather than cortical integration. Fish respiration relies on gills extracting oxygen from water via countercurrent exchange, paired with a single-circuit cardiovascular system where deoxygenated blood passes directly from the heart through gill capillaries before systemic distribution. This setup renders fish highly susceptible to anoxia, as gill collapse upon air exposure halts oxygen uptake within seconds, and exsanguination disrupts circulation rapidly, inducing insensibility through cerebral hypoxia in as little as 10-30 seconds depending on species and size. In teleosts, the gill arches support efficient blood oxygenation under normoxia but fail quickly under stress, underscoring anatomical vulnerabilities exploitable for swift physiological shutdown during handling.

Evidence on Pain Perception and Consciousness

Fish possess nociceptors capable of detecting noxious stimuli, triggering reflexive behaviors such as escape attempts, rubbing affected areas, or reduced activity following injections of acidic substances in species like rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Electrophysiological recordings confirm these receptors respond selectively to mechanical, thermal, and chemical harms, distinct from touch mechanoreceptors. Administration of analgesics, including morphine at doses of 20 mg/kg, attenuates these responses, restoring normal feeding and activity levels within hours, indicating modulation of nociceptive pathways. Debate persists on whether such nociception equates to conscious pain involving subjective suffering, as fish brains lack neocortical structures or pallial homologs essential for phenomenal consciousness in tetrapods. Behavioral indicators, including anomalous swimming or trade-offs in learned avoidance tasks, lack persistence beyond immediate threats, with fish exhibiting rapid and no evidence of long-term emotional sequelae observed in mammals. Self-recognition, a proxy for self-aware consciousness, fails in most fish via mirror tests, where individuals treat reflections as conspecifics rather than self; isolated reports in cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) involve face discrimination but do not demonstrate mark-directed behaviors confirming integrated . A 2025 analysis of air asphyxia in inferred approximately 10 minutes (range 1.9–21.7) of "moderate to intense " from surges and ventilatory distress, yet this equates biochemical stress markers—reflexive in anoxic ectotherms—with experiential , bypassing neuroanatomical prerequisites for . Evolutionary divergence underscores instinctual prioritization: sensory systems emphasize rapid sensorimotor reflexes for survival in aqueous environments, rendering anthropomorphic attributions of mammalian-like unsubstantiated absent causal links to higher . Claims of definitive capacity, as in certain advocacy-influenced reviews, often overlook these gaps, privileging behavioral analogies over structural evidence.

Stress Responses and Welfare Metrics

Stress responses in fish during slaughter manifest through measurable physiological biomarkers, primarily elevated levels in plasma or tissue, which serve as indicators of hypothalamic-pituitary-interrenal axis activation, and increased lactate accumulation due to anaerobic glycolysis under hypoxia or handling stress. In exposed to pre-slaughter crowding, plasma concentrations rose significantly alongside lactate and glucose, reflecting acute metabolic shifts that correlate with handling intensity rather than presumptive subjective experience. These biomarkers provide empirical proxies for physiological arousal, with peaks often observed within minutes of stressors like netting or air exposure, though their elevation can vary by species and factors. Welfare metrics for slaughter efficacy emphasize time to insensibility, objectively assessed via (EEG) through suppression of evoked responses such as somatosensory (SERs) or visual evoked responses (VERs), indicating cortical dysfunction. Electrical stunning typically achieves EEG silence in seconds for species like , rendering fish insensible prior to killing, whereas asphyxiation in air or ice slurry prolongs this to minutes, with behavioral agitation persisting until brain function ceases. For gill-cut salmon, average time to loss of VERs averages 4.7 minutes, highlighting method-specific delays in achieving insensibility. Cessation of brain activity is further quantified by (ATP) depletion in neural tissues, where rapid under stress or anoxia signals irreversible metabolic failure, though direct measurements remain less common than muscle assays. Electrical methods accelerate ATP breakdown to confirm , contrasting with slower depletion in unstunned exposed to air, where residual activity may sustain reflexes. In salmonids, such as , rigor mortis onset—marked by postmortem muscle stiffening—varies by slaughter method and serves as a metric linking stress to , with pre-slaughter exhaustion hastening rigor entry within 1-2 hours versus delayed onset (up to 4-6 hours) under rapid , thereby preserving texture without implying welfare beyond observable tissue . This correlation underscores causal effects of handling on ATP reserves and pH decline, independent of broader debates.

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Practices

In pre-modern eras, fish slaughter methods emphasized practicality for subsistence and short-term preservation, prioritizing rapid dispatch to enable and reduce bacterial growth in unrefrigerated conditions. Larger fish were typically killed by percussive blows using wooden clubs or mallets, known as a "" in some European traditions, applied immediately after capture to sever the and . This technique, documented in medieval English practices around the 10th–15th centuries, allowed fishers to process hauls efficiently from nets or lines, flinging stunned fish into baskets for subsequent bleeding via or cuts. Smaller or bulk catches often underwent air asphyxiation, the oldest recorded method, where fish suffocated on deck or in containers, though this could extend and compromise flesh quality due to buildup. In , particularly , the technique emerged by the (1603–1868) as a refined approach for premium catches, involving a sharp spike inserted into the to induce instant unconsciousness, followed by gill severance for bleeding and a needle along the spine to halt signals. This method minimized postmortem autolysis and onset, preserving texture and flavor for market or immediate use, reflecting cultural emphasis on resource quality amid limited preservation options. Historical texts and practices indicate similar spiking or throat-slitting in Chinese from the (1368–1644), where pond-raised were held alive in transport vessels but dispatched on-site to facilitate quick evisceration and drying or salting. Regional differences stemmed from geography and infrastructure; European coastal communities, constrained by distance to markets before widespread in the , favored immediate clubbing and gutting for salting or hauls, as seen in fisheries from the onward. In contrast, Asian riverine systems enabled live holding in aerated containers, delaying slaughter until consumption, which reduced spoilage risks but required fresh kills via cutting to avoid blood retention. These practices ensured protein yields, with universally applied post-kill to drain blood and extend through methods like sun-drying or smoking, though efficacy varied with ambient temperatures and species.

20th Century Industrialization

The industrialization of fish harvesting accelerated in the early with the widespread adoption of steam-powered trawlers, enabling larger-scale operations compared to sail-powered vessels. By the 1920s and 1930s, fleets expanded, particularly in regions like and the , where vessels could process catches on board or deliver to shore facilities for rapid handling. Factory ships emerged prominently in the mid-1950s, allowing distant-water fleets to gut, freeze, and store fish at sea, which minimized spoilage and supported extended voyages. These vessels typically employed mass asphyxiation by unloading fish into holds or bins, followed by icing or chilling to preserve quality during transport. In the United States, canneries standardized mechanical gutting and processing lines by the early 20th century, integrating conveyor systems to handle high volumes efficiently after efforts. This shift from manual labor to semi-automated lines in facilities like those in and increased throughput, with canneries processing millions of fish per season to meet growing domestic and export demands. Post-World War II technological advancements, including and for locating schools, further boosted capture rates, transitioning slaughter methods toward rapid onboard asphyxiation and icing to maintain product amid surging global trade. Aquaculture's industrialization gained momentum after 1950, particularly in , where the first commercial farms were established in 1970, marking the onset of cage-based farming in coastal waters. These operations initially relied on simple netting systems and manual harvesting, often involving air exposure or ice slurry for slaughter to facilitate gutting and chilling on site. Global fish production volumes expanded approximately fivefold from 22 million tonnes in 1950 to over 110 million tonnes by 2000, driven by these industrial methods and supporting for a that doubled in the same period. This growth underscored the efficiency gains from mechanized capture and processing, enabling reliable protein supply despite environmental pressures.

Post-2000 Advances in Aquaculture

Since the early 2000s, automated percussive systems have been integrated into processing lines, delivering targeted blows to the head via pneumatic hammers calibrated to fish size, achieving immediate in the vast majority of cases when sufficient force (typically 8-10 bars) is applied. These systems, building on prototypes tested around 2005 for species like with dual-channel throughput for higher efficiency, minimize variability from manual methods and support rapid slaughter rates exceeding hundreds of per minute in industrial settings. For , proper calibration ensures brain disruption leading to insensibility within milliseconds, followed by for quick . Research in the 2010s, including assessments by the , highlighted limitations of (CO2) immersion—such as prolonged aversive behaviors and flesh quality degradation due to —prompting exploration of alternatives like electrical in water. Electrical methods, applied via electrodes in transport water, induce tetanic spasms and loss of posture in under one second for salmonids, reducing the need for dewatering and associated handling stress that can elevate levels and lower fillet yield by up to 5%. In-water electrical preserves swim bladder integrity and minimizes physical damage, enhancing post-slaughter meat stability and economic returns through better product quality. Recent trials, such as those in 2024 on , evaluated cold saline immersion (−6°C, 5% NaCl) as a rapid chilling alternative, achieving via osmotic shock and in seconds comparable to percussion, with lower initial stress markers (e.g., reduced lactate accumulation) and improved delay for processing efficiency. These methods collectively enable in-tank or flow-through , curtailing air exposure and mechanical trauma, which studies link to 10-20% yield improvements from sustained muscle reserves. Adoption in European aquaculture has scaled with , prioritizing operational rapidity over manual interventions.

Slaughter Methods

Methods for Farmed Fish

Electrical stunning methods for farmed typically involve either immersion in a water bath or direct application to the head, using alternating or pulses ranging from 100 to 200 volts at frequencies of 50 Hz to induce immediate via disruption and ventricular fibrillation, achieving insensibility within 1 second and in 1-5 seconds when parameters are optimized. These systems are applied in controlled settings, such as for or , where fish are crowded into baths before processing, and are recommended by the (EFSA) for species like seabass and seabream when field strengths exceed thresholds for epileptiform activity. Adoption remains variable, with electrical methods feasible for high-throughput operations but requiring equipment calibration to avoid recovery, as suboptimal voltages can lead to incomplete . Percussive stunning employs mechanical force to destroy tissue, using pneumatic pistols, automated temple-impact devices, or non-penetrative captive bolt guns delivering blows at air pressures of 8-10 bars to the cranium, rendering insensible in under 1 second through immediate . This technique suits larger individual like sturgeon or in onshore facilities, where manual or semi-automated tools ensure precise targeting of the , followed by or evisceration; for smaller , automated lines integrate percussive heads to minimize handling stress pre-stun. Industry use is growing in regions prioritizing welfare, though challenges include operator training to prevent glancing blows that risk incomplete insensibility. Chemical methods, such as immersion in (CO2) baths or overdose with clove oil (), induce narcosis leading to loss of over 1-5 minutes, depending on concentration and , before killing via prolonged exposure or secondary steps like chilling. CO2 , often at 60-70% in water or gas mixtures, accelerates compared to air exposure but can cause aversive gasping behaviors indicative of distress prior to insensibility, while clove oil provides suitable for smaller batches yet raises concerns due to potential residue retention affecting fillet quality and regulatory limits. These approaches are less favored for commercial scale owing to slower onset and processing delays, though CO2 avoids some chemical residues and is used in some EU facilities pending faster alternatives.

Methods for Wild-Caught Fish

Most wild-caught fish are killed through asphyxiation, either by exposure to air on deck or immersion in ice slurry, particularly for small pelagic species such as anchovies, sardines, and mackerels captured in high volumes via purse seines or midwater trawls. These methods result in death over periods ranging from 5 to 60 minutes, with electroencephalogram (EEG) studies on species like gilt-head seabream showing cessation of visual response after approximately 5 minutes in ice slurry or 5.5 minutes in air, though full insensibility may take longer. Logistical challenges in commercial fisheries, including the need for rapid processing amid rough seas and large catches, limit the adoption of individualized stunning, making asphyxiation the predominant practice for the estimated 1.1 to 2.2 trillion wild finfish captured annually. For larger species like and , slaughter often involves gutting and without prior to preserve meat quality, with held in live wells on vessels until processing. are typically dispatched via spiking or clubbing to the head before arterial , which requires cutting under the gills or along the latch to drain blood over 5 minutes while keeping the wet, but this sequence does not always ensure immediate unconsciousness in high-volume operations. may undergo similar tailing or spinal followed by , though commercial practices frequently prioritize speed over pre-slaughter insensibility due to the animals' size and the fisheries' scale. Over 90% of wild-caught globally undergo non- methods, driven by the infeasibility of applying electrical, percussive, or CO2-based stunning to billions of individuals in pelagic fisheries, where vessels process tonnes per haul without for mass anesthetization. While some vessels use live wells or limited CO2 immersion for short-term holding, these do not reliably induce rapid unconsciousness and are not scaled for the primary catch of small pelagics, which constitute the of the trillion-plus annual harvest. Post-harvest chilling in ice slurry serves dual purposes of killing and preservation but prolongs stress responses in surviving .

Comparative Effectiveness of Methods

Electrical and percussive methods achieve rapid insensibility in , typically within less than 1 second for percussive via immediate cessation of neural and ventilatory activity, compared to asphyxiation in air or , which prolongs stress responses over 5-30 minutes depending on tolerance to hypoxia. In comparative trials on species such as European sea bass and , electrical stunning followed by killing results in elevations of approximately 5-fold over baseline, versus 8-fold increases with asphyxiation, correlating with reduced accumulation and preserved muscle levels that support extended shelf-life and minimize pH drops leading to softer textures. Non-stunned methods like live chilling or CO2 exposure show variable depletion, with electrical methods outperforming in maintaining pre-rigor energy stores for improved fillet firmness and reduced drip loss. Pre-slaughter stress from delayed insensibility contributes to blood spotting via petechial hemorrhages in muscle tissue, a defect more prevalent in asphyxiated fish than in those rapidly stunned and exsanguinated, as documented in sea bream and salmon processing data where stun-to-kill sequences limit vascular rupture. Implementation trade-offs include higher upfront equipment costs for stunning in wild-caught processing, estimated at 10-20% additional operational expense relative to basic gutting without prior insensibility, though these are offset by quality premiums in premium markets; for farmed fish like trout, stunning integrates at under 3% of total production costs without profitability loss.
MethodTime to InsensibilityCortisol Fold-IncreaseGlycogen Preservation Effect
Percussive Stunning<1 sMinimal immediate spikeHigh, supports rigor delay
Electrical Stunning + Kill<1-5 s5-foldHigh, reduced drop
Asphyxiation5-30 min8-foldLow, accelerated depletion

Regulatory Frameworks

European Union Standards

Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, effective from January 1, 2013, establishes standards for the protection of during killing, including farmed bred for food production, mandating methods that spare from avoidable pain, distress, or suffering where technically feasible. For farmed such as , the regulation promotes prior to slaughter—typically via electrical, percussive, or gas methods—to induce immediate , though Annex I permits certain derogations for low-volume operations or where stunning equipment is impractical, prioritizing operational efficiency in some cases. Compliance audits reveal inconsistencies; while electrical is standard in much of the salmon sector, overall adherence remains incomplete for other species like , seabass, and , with uptake limited by equipment costs and technical challenges, and no comprehensive EU-wide enforcement data indicating full implementation. Wild-caught fish fall outside the primary scope of Regulation 1099/2009, as at-sea killing does not align with definitions, leaving a regulatory gap with no mandatory requirements despite calls for voluntary guidelines. In the 2020s, the Platform on has issued non-binding best practice recommendations for handling and water quality in , but enforcement for wild capture remains minimal, with ongoing advocacy for roadmaps to integrate humane technologies like electrical pulses in gear. The Humane Slaughter Association's May 2025 report, "Humane Slaughter of Wild-Caught Fish," outlines a policy roadmap urging policymakers to develop enforceable standards for over 1 trillion annually caught finfish, highlighting evidence that pre-slaughter reduces stress responses but faces adoption barriers due to vessel-scale inefficiencies. These standards impose higher operational costs on EU producers compared to regions like the , where federal requirements for stunning are absent, potentially distorting supply chains by favoring imports from less regulated sources. Economic analyses indicate that mandatory stunning in EU adds minimal production cost increases—estimated at under 1% for —yet implementation gaps persist, as evidenced by persistent use of live chilling or asphyxiation methods that fail to ensure rapid insensibility, undermining the regulation's welfare objectives. Audits and studies underscore challenges, with member states varying in oversight rigor, leading to critiques that efficiency exemptions dilute protections despite verifiable welfare benefits from compliant .

United States Approaches

The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 requires that such as , sheep, , and later be rendered insensible to pain before slaughter, but explicitly excludes and other poikilothermic species. This omission leaves without federal mandates for pre-slaughter stunning or insensibility, allowing methods like immediate , evisceration, or chilling that prioritize operational speed over welfare considerations. The (NOAA) administers voluntary seafood inspection programs focused on , sanitation, and grading under and Critical Control Points (HACCP) standards, but these do not impose requirements for humane slaughter techniques in . Participation in NOAA's fee-for-service inspections certifies compliance with and product standards, such as sensory assessments, yet welfare during killing remains unaddressed, reflecting a regulatory emphasis on risks and market viability rather than animal . In aquaculture, practices vary by species and region, with channel catfish processors in states like Mississippi commonly using percussive stunning—via mechanical blow to the head—prior to decapitation and evisceration to improve handling efficiency and product quality. Wild-caught fish face minimal oversight, with at-sea slaughter typically involving rapid gilling, gutting, or icing without stunning, as federal laws like the Magnuson-Stevens Act govern catch limits and sustainability but not killing methods. This decentralized approach, absent binding welfare rules, enables streamlined processing that minimizes delays and equipment needs, supporting the U.S. sector's role in delivering cost-effective protein; alone faces regulatory costs comprising 9–30% of operations, and further mandates could elevate expenses without commensurate benefits in a market driven by volume and affordability.

International and Other Regional Variations

In , the world's largest producer of aquaculture products with over 27 million tonnes of slaughtered annually as of 2023, common practices include ice slurry immersion and live followed by on-site killing, often without prior to induce insensibility, prioritizing efficiency in high-volume operations. These methods, which may involve asphyxiation or evisceration while conscious, align with export standards focused on hygiene and product quality rather than welfare, as domestic regulations lack mandatory requirements for most . Indonesia, the second-largest global fish producer with approximately 58% of its output from wild capture fisheries as of recent assessments, employs processing techniques emphasizing rapid chilling and gutting for species like tuna and shrimp to preserve freshness in tropical conditions, but slaughter often occurs via manual methods such as clubbing or bleeding without electrical or percussive stunning due to resource constraints in small-scale fleets. Export-oriented processing adheres to international hygiene protocols, yet welfare considerations remain secondary to economic viability in both wild and farmed sectors. The (FAO) issues voluntary guidelines, such as those in its for Responsible Fisheries, which stress sustainable resource use and but provide only general, non-binding recommendations on welfare, with minimal species-specific directives for slaughter to avoid unconsciousness or pain. These frameworks influence global standards indirectly through member states but defer to national priorities, often sidelining welfare in favor of productivity in high-output regions. Across many developing nations, fish slaughter regulations are sparse or nonexistent, as limited and deter adoption of technologies, with practices geared toward ensuring protein access for populations rather than mitigating potential , reflecting a where economic harm from stringent rules outweighs welfare enforcement. This approach sustains artisanal and industrial fisheries but leaves over 70% of global farmed finfish without legal protections against inhumane killing methods.

Debates and Controversies

Animal Welfare Claims and Evidence

Animal welfare organizations assert that experience comparable to higher vertebrates during common slaughter methods like asphyxiation in air or ice, which can prolong for minutes to hours, leading to stress responses such as erratic thrashing and elevated levels. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) documents these issues in farmed , where practices such as live chilling or gill-cutting without prior insensibility cause avoidable distress, and recommends percussive or electrical to achieve rapid, verifiable before dispatch. Proponents base these claims on early 2000s research identifying nociceptors in skin and , alongside behavioral changes—such as rubbing injured areas, reduced feeding, and anomalous swimming—following acid injections or injuries, which analgesics like mitigate, suggesting subjective analogs rather than mere reflexes. Studies from this period, including EEG recordings showing awareness during immersion for up to 9 minutes and instant insensibility via electrical currents in , underpin arguments for mandatory to align welfare with standards applied to mammals. In 2025, the Humane Slaughter Association outlined a roadmap for wild-caught , targeting over 1 annual captures by promoting on-vessel electrical or percussive , positing that unmitigated distress in species like (conscious up to 2 hours post-capture) scales to welfare impacts rivaling livestock industries in aggregate intensity due to numerical dominance. While invoking precautionary principles amid debates, such advocacy tends to underemphasize evidentiary gaps, including the scarcity of data on sustained behavioral shifts—such as long-term avoidance or guarding—beyond immediate nociceptive reactions, which differ from mammalian profiles.

Industry and Economic Critiques

Industry stakeholders have critiqued mandatory fish stunning requirements as economically burdensome, especially for wild-caught fisheries involving small pelagic species like sardines and anchovies, where on-board implementation is logistically infeasible due to vast volumes processed at sea. In such operations, the scale—often involving billions of fish per haul—precludes individual or batch stunning without halting efficient trawling practices, potentially adding prohibitive labor and equipment costs that erode thin profit margins in low-value markets. Current unregulated slaughter methods enable sustained global supply chains, keeping seafood affordable and supporting food security, whereas mandates risk supply disruptions analogous to broader regulatory burdens that already cost U.S. aquaculture producers $807 million annually in lost revenue. Certain stunning techniques, such as , face industry opposition for degrading flesh quality, which directly impacts and consumer preferences. CO2 exposure induces excessive production, rendering slippery and prone to handling damage during filleting, while also prolonging the pre-rigor period and causing fluctuations in muscle tissue that accelerate spoilage. These effects contrast with traditional non-stun methods like immediate or icing, which preserve texture and freshness valued in premium markets, particularly in regions favoring live or freshly killed . Producers argue that avoiding such methods maintains product integrity without compromising economic viability. Even in farmed sectors, where feasibility studies claim low incremental costs—averaging 0.10 €/kg across production—industry voices highlight hidden implementation challenges for smaller operations, including retrofitting and training, that could amplify expenses beyond modeled figures and disadvantage exporters competing with non-regulated global suppliers. Unfettered practices have historically stabilized prices despite rising demand, averting shortages; enforced , by contrast, might precipitate hikes similar to those from cumulative compliance pressures, underscoring a preference for pragmatic efficiency over unproven welfare premiums in a sector prioritizing volume and accessibility.

Scientific Skepticism on Sentience

Scientific skeptics contend that fish lack the neural architecture required for or phenomenal , as their telencephalon does not contain homologues to the mammalian or associated structures for affective processing, such as laminated pallial regions, topographical sensory maps, or microcircuitry enabling subjective experience. Instead, fish exhibit —reflexive responses to noxious stimuli mediated by subcortical circuits—without evidence of the conscious integration necessary for or states, a distinction supported by studies where behavioral reactions to persist post-telencephalon removal. This absence of requisite connectivity implies that claims of fish anthropomorphically project human-like onto simpler neural systems. Recent studies from 2022 to 2023 purporting sentience, such as those by Crump et al., have drawn criticism for conflating reflexive behaviors (e.g., tail flicking or rubbing) with indicators of , often by selectively citing supportive data while disregarding contradictory findings like failed replications of stress-induced or behavioral changes in species such as and sunfish. Skeptics apply of scientific prudence, noting that low proportions of unmyelinated C-fibers (4-5% in versus 80% in mammals) limit capacity for prolonged affective responses, and experimental designs frequently fail to falsify instinctual alternatives to conscious . experiments further undermine pain memory claims, as rapidly adapt to repeated noxious stimuli without demonstrating learned aversion or distress recall beyond immediate reflexes. From an evolutionary perspective, attributing to overlooks the selective pressures on prey , where energy allocation to subjective would impose fitness costs without advantages; rapid, reflexive suffices for threat avoidance, while conscious pain represents a later innovation tied to advanced telencephalic expansion in mammals and birds. Absent robust, replicable evidence distinguishing reflex from sentience, skeptics argue that precautionary welfare policies—such as slaughter method mandates—impose undue regulatory and economic burdens on fisheries, prioritizing unverified assumptions over empirical human nutritional needs.

References

  1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/estimating-global-numbers-of-fishes-caught-from-the-wild-annually-from-2000-to-2019/83F1B933E8691F3A552636620E8C7A01
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10936281/
  3. https://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/hsa15403---humane-slaughter-of-wild-caught-fish---report-designweb4-%283%29.pdf
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12122825/
  5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227691401_Is_humane_slaughter_of_fish_possible_for_industry
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4356734/
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245032250_Can_fish_really_feel_pain
  8. https://www.hcn.org/issues/51-6/fish-how-should-we-treat-fish-before-they-end-up-on-our-plates/
  9. https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/fao-report-global-fisheries-and-aquaculture-production-reaches-a-new-record-high/en
  10. https://fishcount.org.uk/fish-count-estimates-2/numbers-of-farmed-fish-slaughtered-each-year
  11. https://www.fao.org/3/cd0683en/online/sofia/2024/world-fisheries-aquaculture-production.html
  12. https://www.fao.org/3/cd0683en/online/sofia/2024/aquaculture-production.html
  13. https://www.fao.org/3/cc0461en/online/sofia/2022/world-fisheries-aquaculture-production.html
  14. https://www.iffo.com/aquaculture
  15. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/07/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2025-2034_3eb15914/full-report/fish-and-other-aquatic-products_ed13346f.html
  16. https://www.fao.org/3/cd0683en/online/sofia/2024/world-fisheries-aquaculture.html
  17. https://www.fao.org/3/cd0683en/online/sofia/2024/fisheries-aquaculture-employment.html
  18. https://pharosproject.eu/blog/the-powerful-global-impact-of-fisheries/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8771179/
  20. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08448-z
  21. https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/farmed-fish-corporate-commitments/
  22. https://www.aquaculturenorthamerica.com/regulatory-burden-costs-u-s-aquaculture-807m-yearly-study-finds/
  23. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/56c2b99c-e41e-4940-b3d4-088fcd111a4d/content
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8061727/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6790376/
  26. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=acwp_vsm
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1546509806250106
  28. https://karger.com/bbe/article/80/2/80/51941/The-Neuroecology-of-Cartilaginous-Fishes-Sensory
  29. https://actascientific.com/ASVS/pdf/ASVS-02-0107.pdf
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848601006779
  31. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Guidelines-on-Euthanasia-2020.pdf
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1691351/
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159103001138
  34. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2022.788289/full
  35. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208420120
  36. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04272-1
  37. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfb.15386
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286921008_Fish_pain_An_inconvenient_truth
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10341563/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7168993/
  41. https://www.mdpi.com/2410-3888/8/8/414
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484862400454X
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4762244/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11428536/
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229095666_Electrical_stimulation_of_Atlantic_salmon_muscle_and_the_effect_on_flesh_quality
  46. https://www.humaneworld.org/sites/default/files/docs/hsus-report-animal-welfare-farmed-fish-at-slaughter.pdf
  47. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1011
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3038323/
  49. https://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/publications/harvestingfishdownload-updated-with-2016-logo.pdf
  50. https://regia.org/research/life/fishing.htm
  51. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2023/09/30/food-drink/ikejime-fishing-technique/
  52. https://jygprofishing.com/blogs/fishing-reports/ikejime-honoring-tradition-elevating-culinary-excellence-and-the-ikejime-pro-kit
  53. https://brill.com/view/journals/tpao/111/3-4/article-p353_4.xml
  54. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/commercial-fishing/brief-history-groundfishing-industry-new-england
  55. https://exhibits.fishingheritagecenter.org/exhibits/industry-timeline/
  56. https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-31
  57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3104987
  58. https://alaskahistoricalsociety.org/about-ahs/special-projects/alaska-historic-canneries-initiative/alaska-salmon-cannery-chronology/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315036743_The_Industrialization_of_Commercial_Fishing_1930-2016
  60. https://en.seafood.no/news-and-media/news-archive/celebrating-50-years-of-modern-aquaculture/
  61. https://www.aquafeed.com/newsroom/news/50-years-of-modern-aquaculture/
  62. https://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics-query/en/global_production
  63. https://www.aac-europe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Slaughter_report__AAC_report.pdf
  64. https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/prototype-stunner-tested-on-rainbow-trout/
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848609009910
  66. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1011
  67. https://www.hsa.org.uk/humane-harvesting-of-fish-electrical-stunning/electrical-stunning-2
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848624000024
  69. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jwas.12095
  70. https://vkm.no/download/18.403921ea19776a4cf8e9cc2d/1750254888134/Publikasjon_Assessment%2520of%2520welfare%2520aspects%2520in%2520stunning%2520and%2520killing%2520of%2520farmed%2520fish.pdf
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6726217/
  72. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/3032/303243563011/html/
  73. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1190
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12524040/
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381370628_Evaluation_of_non-penetrative_captive_bolt_stunning_as_a_method_of_slaughter_for_white_sturgeon_Acipenser_transmontanus
  76. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/animal-science/articles/10.3389/fanim.2024.1405554/full
  77. https://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/hsafishslaughterreportfeb2018.pdf
  78. https://animalwelfareobservatory.org/uploads/common_files/stunningreport_1728292271.pdf
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4397339/
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848607004711
  81. https://www.trjfas.org/pdf.php?&id=674
  82. https://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/The_Used_of_Clove_Oil_Anesthesia_on_Giant_Gourami_Fingerlings_Osphronemus_gourami_Transported_in_The_Morning_With_Different_Durations.pdf
  83. https://ija.scholasticahq.com/api/v1/articles/24370-fish-welfare-the-use-of-co2-to-avoid-fish-suffering-during-preparation-to-processing.pdf
  84. https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/vetr.5685
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10951671/
  86. https://www.ciwf.com/media-and-news/press-releases-statements/fishcount-study/
  87. https://seagrant.whoi.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/WHOI-G-88-001-Tips-on-Tuna-Handling.pdf
  88. https://hau.repository.guildhe.ac.uk/id/eprint/18236/1/K.%2520James%2520Humane%2520stunning%2520or%2520stun%2520killing%2520in%2520the%2520slaughter%2520of%2520wild%2520caught%2520finfish%2520OCR%2520Upload.pdf
  89. https://www.hsa.org.uk/unacceptable-methods/unacceptable-methods
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848624008482
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848624007786
  92. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Aquac.287..139A/abstract
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848616303131
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352513425005034
  95. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1828051X.2020.1759465
  96. https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/killing-methods-post-slaughter-quality-part-1/
  97. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/are.14217
  98. https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/new-report-reveals-minimal-cost-fish-welfare
  99. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230005192_The_Effect_of_Stunning_Methods_on_Rigor_Mortis_and_Texture_Properties_of_Atlantic_Salmon_Salmo_Salar
  100. https://www.hsa.org.uk/humane-harvesting-of-fish-percussive-stunning/percussive-equipment
  101. https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-welfare/eu-animal-welfare-legislation/slaughter-stunning_en
  102. https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/files/eurogroupforanimals/2024-12/2024_12_Stunning_results_EU_aquaculture_report.pdf
  103. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/15/19/2812
  104. https://animallaweurope.org/wp-content/uploads/Research-Note-7_The-Treatment-of-Farmed-Fish-Under-EU-Law.pdf
  105. https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/eu-platform-guidelines-propose-way-forward-fish-welfare-aquaculture-sector
  106. https://www.hsa.org.uk/press/new-policy-roadmap-outlines-path-to-more-humane-slaughter-practices-for-wild-caught-finfish
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480927/
  108. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/catfish-farm-abusing-its-fish-animal-rights-group-says-yes-n1276823
  109. https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/33123-wild-caught-fishing-faq-march-2022
  110. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/seafood-commerce-trade/seafood-inspection-manual
  111. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/35374/noaa_35374_DS1.pdf
  112. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2024-11/Part-5-Grading-Standards-11.22.24.pdf
  113. https://extension.msstate.edu/agriculture/catfish/processing
  114. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies
  115. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jwas.70005
  116. https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/how-does-aquaculture-contribute-to-u-s-seafood-production-and-the-economy/
  117. https://faunalytics.org/live-fish-transport-chinas-hidden-welfare-issue/
  118. https://files.fwi.fish/China_Scoping_Report.pdf
  119. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/indonesia-mmpa-imports-assessment-20231024.pdf
  120. https://www.kelolalaut.com/details/articles/1710/wild-caught-vs-farmed-why-processing-techniques-differ-drastically
  121. https://www.marindojaya.co.id/en/fish-processing-service-indonesia
  122. https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/publication/94127
  123. https://ethicalseafoodresearch.com/new-fao-guidelines-for-sustainable-aquaculture-fail-to-sufficiently-address-animal-welfare/
  124. https://rr-europe.woah.org/app/uploads/2023/11/2_fish_welfare_transport_slaughter_manfrin.pdf
  125. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288767866_Effect_of_pre-slaughter_carbon_dioxide_anesthesia_on_flesh_quality_of_Tilapia
  126. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23308249.2023.2257802
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.