When the term factory farming is used, what will come to most people’s minds is miserable sows, trapped in farrowing crates, in which they cannot even turn around, or endless stretching sheds of Frankenchickens, with terribly short lives of misery and pain. But increasingly, it also means fish farming, aquaculture (also including shellfish and crustaceans) having grown five-fold in the past three decades – and this is taking its toll.
This, however, is an industry in trouble, particularly the farming of the most commonly produced fish in Europe, Atlantic salmon. A total of 1.9 million tonnes of that were sold in 2023, 99% of which were farmed.
Factory farming fish
As the New Scientist reported last year, these farms are increasingly being threatened by mass die-offs, frequently caused by fluctuating ocean temperatures and poor living conditions. Salmon farming is also harming wild salmon populations, already under threat from the climate crisis and poor water quality. (In 2023 the International Union for Conservation of Nature classified global wild Atlantic salmon populations as “near threatened” and reclassified UK populations as “endangered”.)
The use of feed containing wild-caught fish is taking food away from people in the Global South, an issue that is getting increasing attention. Recent research has shown it takes up to 6kg of wild fish to produce 1kg of farmed salmon, highlighting the alarming level of extraction required to keep this industry afloat. This is further plundering our already struggling wild fish populations.
Mass die-off events
In response to a rising tide of scrutiny surrounding open-net salmon farming, intensive land-based salmon factories are being pitched as the solution. That is the story behind the unfortunate final failure last week of a court case that aimed to stop the first facility of its kind in Grimsby. This was still a legal landmark, the first reported case where animal welfare considerations were considered in planning matters.
But the timing of that ruling is – for the proponents of the proposed facility – unfortunate. For in the same week in Japan, a similar facility reported a mass die-off of 170,000 fish, “due to human error and breach of procedures”. This followed a similar mass facility incident in Japan in 2024, when 50,000 fish died.
In Canada the ‘poster child’ for land-based aquaculture, Sustainable Blue, which claimed to produce the “most responsibly raised salmon on the planet”, not using antibiotics and having “zero discharge” into the environment, went into receivership after it lost 100,000 fish in a mass die-off following a disastrous equipment failure, when the filter used to remove carbon dioxide failed.
Welfare concerns for factory-farmed fish
There is no doubt that fish experience pain. A recent study of the slaughter of rainbow trout, broadly comparable to salmon, estimated that they “endure an average of 10 minutes of intense pain during air asphyxia”, much like the salmon in those tanks would have experienced. It is an image of hell that you’d need Dante’s skills to fully describe.
Unsurprisingly, when I visited Grimsby with the NGO Animal Equality UK to meet local campaigners against the fish farm, I found many opponents concerned about the kind of hell that could be created on their doorstep, as well as its environmental damage to a deprived local community. And what the clean-up from a disaster such as those in Japan and Canada could mean for the local area really does not bear thinking about.
Additionally, if the project goes ahead, it will create huge demands on electricity, will pave over a local wildlife site, and will produce as much sewage as 400,000 people – Cleethorpes has a population of fewer than 30,000. (And most of the site is in that community, despite it using the Grimsby name.)
I have just put in a written question to the government asking what assessment they have made of these risks.
Grimsby fishing
Grimsby has a proud tradition as a traditional fishing port, and there’s little doubt that the company is seeking to profit from that, but what’s proposed is nothing like the fishing on which Grimsby’s traditions are built. It is a factory, an image of hell, and yet the council failed to consider animal welfare as a potential material land-use consideration.
If the Grimsby site goes ahead, it would have an annual production capacity of 5,000 tonnes, equating to 2,500,000 fish each year raised in crowded, barren conditions without natural light or habitat.
Even if nothing ever goes wrong, which seems unlikely, the best possible outcome is that these iconic creatures, which migrate thousands of miles in the wild, will be forced to swim around the 50 pens in endless circles, fighting for space until slaughter or premature death.
Cynically exploiting Grimsby’s fishing heritage in its PR, the factory is promising to boost employment in the area, offering 80 new jobs. Cllr Henry Hudson: “Grimsby is very lucky to be chosen.” However, the unreliability of this nascent industry (as demonstrated by Sustainable Blue) is a threat to job security. This is a start-up business with no proven track record.
Food security should be paramount
This project does not support food security but deepens reliance on an unsustainable food production system that is depleting our oceans. Surely investing into the already thriving renewable sector in the region would be a more stable option for the region’s employment and future economic success.
It’s time to turn the tide on this exploitative industry. And to question the whole place of salmon as a regular mass part of our diet. I see it all the time at catered events in the House of Lords and elsewhere. But why? It is presented as a luxury product, but it should be seen as an environmental and humanitarian disaster product, wholly indefensible.
