Am I correct in guessing that it's otherwise white fat that turns blue? It looks like there's actual muscle in there that is still red.
Which makes a lot more sense, since dyes can only darken right? You can turn white fat blue, while red muscle would at most turn a somewhat darker purple which might not be so obvious?
The blue is sufficient but not necessary for the animal to be impacted by the poison. It is a very vibrant blue though, and anyone would be concerned if they opened an animal and saw that.
I assumed that the blue colour would be from internal bleeding (venous blood being apparent at the skin level), but:
> Diphenadione is a vitamin K antagonist that has anticoagulant effects and is used as a rodenticide against rats, mice, voles, ground squirrels and other rodents. The chemical compound is an anti-coagulant with active half-life longer than warfarin and other synthetic 1,3-indandione anticoagulants.[3][4] ... Rat poisons with diphacinone are often dyed bright blue to signal toxicity.[8]
Blood isn't actually blue. It can appear blue under the skin, but that's only because of refraction[0]. I'm pretty pale[1] and I can tell you that the blue looks NOTHING like that blue. It's much darker and much fainter. Not close to neon at all. Which, btw, as soon as it touches the air it's not going to look blue anymore.
While I don't think the average person is going to notice or care about these "nuances" I would be pretty surprised if anyone that huts would not immediately notice. The "well I look at my veins and they are blue" argument only holds up if you don't look at the pictures in the link. Like they just look very different. Easy to sound right while being very wrong (and often hard to explain why it is wrong without sounding like nitpicking). It's not like they're hunting horseshoe crabs...
Go grab a thin colored sheet of plastic (or anything transparent will do). Hold it up to the sky and look through it. What color is the sky?
Now yes, the sky will be yellow or whatever color the plastic is but if you go around and start telling everyone that they'll call you crazy.
If you really want to get into it, colors are also determined by what everyone else sees. You could be colorblind and what color something is to you is not what color that thing is to everybody else. Or you could take the sun itself, which everyone agrees is yellow except some armchair expert redditor who once heard in science class that "the sun is green" and is willing to discount his eyes rather than hear the rest of the discussion where it is white because it emits in a broad spectrum and appears yellow on Earth because the blue sky removes some colors before we can see it. So you can imagine a future civilization where most people don't live on Earth might call the sun "white" but for now everyone will call it that because it is yellow. This is a bit in your favor but you might notice the main point of my previous comment isn't about blood looking blue so much as the pigs being fucking neon blue and that blue looks nothing like blood and could not be mistaken for the same thing. Look at the pictures.
> Veins close to the surface of the skin appear blue for a variety of reasons. The factors that contribute to this alteration of color perception are related to the light-scattering properties of the skin and the processing of visual input by the visual cortex, rather than the actual colour of the venous blood which is dark red.[6]
I get what you mean, but this is also like saying a butterfly doesn't have color.
The blue in blue eyes (and green) is a structural property, not a pigment property. This is also why eye color changes for these people much more dramatically than people with darker colored eyes (see Hazel eyes).
It's color caused by structure, but that doesn't make it not a color. A lot of things aren't going to "have color" if you use that definition. Including the sky...
Human blood can turn blue when consuming enough (collodial) silver?
Like when rich people consumed food and beverages from pure silver plates (100's of years ago) their blood supposedly turned purple/blueish. Hence the term (at least in Dutch) that "he is of blue blood" = he rich af.
Perhaps, but according to etymonline the term comes from Spain, where certain families described themselves as having "blue blood" to emphasize that they had no Moorish ancestry. The contrast being drawn isn't one between nobles and laborers. It's between indigenous nobles and intrusive nobles.
Literally my first thought was "They Live!"[0]. Like that color is so unnatural and even that pattern has been copied for many other Sci-Fi movies that I'd think there'd be a very strong association with "alien"
As others have pointed out, it is a dye used in poisons to show it is there.
To quote George Carlin "I am always thinking big questions like, Why is there no blue food?". This is also why most food handling gear in manufacturing is blue coloured. Easy to see.
Vaguely related,there was a small chemical spill near my house about a month back and it made it to the local creek. You could tell because they add that neon blue dye so that it is obvious when there is a spill.
Manufacturers add a bright blue triphenylmethane-type dye to baits so any subsequent observation of the carcass—can easily recognize contaminated tissue.
The dyes are large, planar aromatic molecules designed to resist rapid breakdown in the environment or the animal’s digestive tract.
Lost a pet dog that ate a mouse killed when my sister set out a warfarin bait. It was gruesome. Please, please think very carefully when using poisons. Secondary affects are very common, and can be tragic.
There was a guy in the sauna a few years ago bragging about how he had killed a ton of rats in his yards using poison. He said "the hawks love it they are feasting!". 0 ability to connect the full consequences of adding a bunch of poison to an ecosystem.
And warn neighbors at least if putting out poisons for anything. It only takes 5 minutes to give them a heads up about the situation, what to look for (mouse carcass) and what signs if their pet happens to eat the animal and receives some of the poison itself. Though many modern poisons are less toxic to animals that eat the poisoned animal, it can still harm them.
Not when the neighbours themselves are hell-bent on killing off animals because they're just sick humans. Happened to me in London when a neighbour laced bait meat contaminated with rat poison for a bunch of strays that frequented our streets.
Are you responding to my comment? Because I can't figure out what the hell yours has to do with mine unless you completely lack common sense.
Yes, everyone knows you don't tell sick people that enjoy poisoning animals where the poison is. But don't be a dick, do tell your normal neighbors (the vast majority unless you're extremely unlucky) so their pets aren't harmed or can receive prompt treatment.
Information on why some states and the Feds have chosen to attempt to eradicate feral pig populations:
> How are feral pigs destructive? Let us count the ways.
They are invasive and cause millions of dollars in agricultural damage each year, rooting and trampling through a wide variety of crops. They prey on everything from rodents, to deer, to endangered loggerhead sea turtles, threatening to reduce the diversity of native species. They disrupt habitats. They damage archaeological sites. They are capable of transmitting diseases to domestic animals and humans. In November, a woman died in Texas after being attacked by feral hogs—a very rare, but not unprecedented occurrence.
They also breed extraordinarily quickly. Females are capable of reproducing at only 3 months old, are fertile year round, have a gestation period of only 115 days, and produce litters of 4-6 per pregnancy. Even with control efforts, populations have been growing at a rate of ~20% annually.
Yeah I’ve heard that you can legally use corn with alcohol poured over it as bait for wild pigs in some states. When they’re good and drunk, you turn your headlights on and start shooting. Playing the national anthem while doing it helps disorient them as well.
The cause is known: "Blue tissue and flesh can be a sign of rodenticide ingestion, which can occur by eating bait – which often contains dye to identify them as poison."
Would you prefer: "Wild pigs' flesh turning neon blue in California don't eat wild pig or other game meats you kill because they're eating the rodenticide people put out there - authorities are concerned people will not know and get sick"?
Looking at the title I can see your point - you're thinking something like "Rodenticide consumption turns pigs' flesh blue" would have been better? I try to stick with the original title, but since I had to edit it to make it fit anyway, I guess I could have made it less click-baity. Thanks for the suggestion.
Leaving the title as is was the right thing. It's an interesting story. Thanks for sharing. My complaint is more with phys.org (and the entire rest of the attention economy) that is foremost focused in getting your attention instead of informing.
The title makes it sound like the cause is unknown and so this is mysterious, a possible cause for panic. Hence why GP specifically leads with that the cause is actually known and even explained in the article...
It describes a phenomenon that a layperson would find extraordinary, and does not mention the cause, which is in fact known. It's reasonable to interpret this as suppressing the cause from a title which reasonably ought to mention it.
Yes and no. OP's title says alarm: great fear and concern. However, there was reporting back in 2015 (https://gilroydispatch.com/blue-pig-shot-at-morgan-hill-ranc...) about this identical issue. The cause and the solution was known then, and even before.
It's a pun. I think? The article references squirrel bait as the cause. "Bait" combined with an article that you click on. So ... "click" "bait." Get it?
The tipoff is that people usually write it as one word, "clickbait," when talking about a sensationalistic title designed to simulates clicks generating ad revenue.
OK, so maybe that person's joke wasn't so successful, but it seems like a fairly gentle attempt, which shouldn't be punished.
I thought headlines were supposed to be a quick summary of the article as much as possible. Now I see many headlines that are basically "click to learn why!"
> "California's wild pigs being poisoned: Authorities are sounding the alarm"
Well, that one would be an outright lie. Authorities are quoted in the piece. They say they're aware of the situation and it's caused by rat poison. They are not alarmed, nor do they suggest anyone else should be alarmed.
Casual reminder that rat poison does not selectively kill only rats. Even if it works as intended, the poisoned rats will get eaten and the poison will flow up the food chain.
> Any idea why the meat of a wild pig was being processed in CA? What would they have done with it?
From the article:
Burton said his company discovered the affected animals when it was hired by an agriculture firm in late February and March to trap wild pigs that were going into the firm's fields.
His company traps the pigs and then euthanizes them according to state law, he said. He usually donates the carcass and meat of the pigs to low-income families.
Wild boar and javelina (though it's a different species) both make some great breakfast sausage. I tend to like game meat as a breakfast meat in general.
For people who want a picture: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wild-pigs-...
Ok that is exactly what they said, blue, neon blue.
Wow - noticeable at least!
Am I correct in guessing that it's otherwise white fat that turns blue? It looks like there's actual muscle in there that is still red.
Which makes a lot more sense, since dyes can only darken right? You can turn white fat blue, while red muscle would at most turn a somewhat darker purple which might not be so obvious?
> Wow - noticeable at least!
The blue is sufficient but not necessary for the animal to be impacted by the poison. It is a very vibrant blue though, and anyone would be concerned if they opened an animal and saw that.
I assumed that the blue colour would be from internal bleeding (venous blood being apparent at the skin level), but:
> Diphenadione is a vitamin K antagonist that has anticoagulant effects and is used as a rodenticide against rats, mice, voles, ground squirrels and other rodents. The chemical compound is an anti-coagulant with active half-life longer than warfarin and other synthetic 1,3-indandione anticoagulants.[3][4] ... Rat poisons with diphacinone are often dyed bright blue to signal toxicity.[8]
Blood isn't actually blue. It can appear blue under the skin, but that's only because of refraction[0]. I'm pretty pale[1] and I can tell you that the blue looks NOTHING like that blue. It's much darker and much fainter. Not close to neon at all. Which, btw, as soon as it touches the air it's not going to look blue anymore.
While I don't think the average person is going to notice or care about these "nuances" I would be pretty surprised if anyone that huts would not immediately notice. The "well I look at my veins and they are blue" argument only holds up if you don't look at the pictures in the link. Like they just look very different. Easy to sound right while being very wrong (and often hard to explain why it is wrong without sounding like nitpicking). It's not like they're hunting horseshoe crabs...
[0] https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/is-blood-blue
[1] Pale enough that a phlebotomist once told me I was the easiest person to draw blood from because it is so easy to see my veins.
If something “appears” as a color then that’s the color it IS.
The reason anything is the color it is is because that’s how it appears.
Am I missing something?
It’s like saying, “oh the sky is only blue because it scatters blue light”. Well then the sky is blue. Full stop.
“Red paint is only red because it happens to absorb certain other color spectrums leaving mostly red light”. Ok then it’s red.
Now yes, the sky will be yellow or whatever color the plastic is but if you go around and start telling everyone that they'll call you crazy.
If you really want to get into it, colors are also determined by what everyone else sees. You could be colorblind and what color something is to you is not what color that thing is to everybody else. Or you could take the sun itself, which everyone agrees is yellow except some armchair expert redditor who once heard in science class that "the sun is green" and is willing to discount his eyes rather than hear the rest of the discussion where it is white because it emits in a broad spectrum and appears yellow on Earth because the blue sky removes some colors before we can see it. So you can imagine a future civilization where most people don't live on Earth might call the sun "white" but for now everyone will call it that because it is yellow. This is a bit in your favor but you might notice the main point of my previous comment isn't about blood looking blue so much as the pigs being fucking neon blue and that blue looks nothing like blood and could not be mistaken for the same thing. Look at the pictures.
Look at that blue sky through sun glasses. It may longer be blue to you but I assure you the sky is still blue to everyone else.
Venous blood isn't blue.
> Veins close to the surface of the skin appear blue for a variety of reasons. The factors that contribute to this alteration of color perception are related to the light-scattering properties of the skin and the processing of visual input by the visual cortex, rather than the actual colour of the venous blood which is dark red.[6]
Huh, thanks.
As another commenter mentions, there is no blue food. (Though technically plants can be blue.)
Eyes can't be blue either.
The blue in blue eyes (and green) is a structural property, not a pigment property. This is also why eye color changes for these people much more dramatically than people with darker colored eyes (see Hazel eyes).
It's color caused by structure, but that doesn't make it not a color. A lot of things aren't going to "have color" if you use that definition. Including the sky...
Human eyes aren't pigmented blue, but they are still blue.
Only in the sense that venous blood "is" blue.
We don't see the blood in veins, and it wouldn't be blue if we could, but I would agree that veins are blue.
Human blood can turn blue when consuming enough (collodial) silver?
Like when rich people consumed food and beverages from pure silver plates (100's of years ago) their blood supposedly turned purple/blueish. Hence the term (at least in Dutch) that "he is of blue blood" = he rich af.
Or that's all a myth. Not sure.
> Hence the term (at least in Dutch) that "he is of blue blood" = he rich af.
This is usually said to refer to the fact that someone's skin is so pale you can see the veins through it.
(Also, it refers to pedigree rather than wealth, in English...)
I would expect silver to turn things black, not blue.
(Although see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria )
They would hide from the sun to get extra veiny, because they could
Perhaps, but according to etymonline the term comes from Spain, where certain families described themselves as having "blue blood" to emphasize that they had no Moorish ancestry. The contrast being drawn isn't one between nobles and laborers. It's between indigenous nobles and intrusive nobles.
Like the programmers in our time
see also blue people - https://www.thecollector.com/blue-fugates-kentucky/
elevated methemoglobin in human blood causes brown blood causes blue skin
> there is no blue food
Have you eveer seen a blueberry? Or a Concord grape? Or a damson plum?
Why not?
Haemorrhages can take on a purple colour (like a black eye), but nothing like the sky blue colour those pigs were.
Can’t imagine seeing meat that color and thinking “yeah I’ll go ahead and eat that.”
Literally my first thought was "They Live!"[0]. Like that color is so unnatural and even that pattern has been copied for many other Sci-Fi movies that I'd think there'd be a very strong association with "alien"
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live
I'd be real tempted if it were bright green just for the Dr. Suess reference.
No good pictures, and bad quotes from the "expert" what kind of reporting is this?
> No good pictures
There are several good pictures...
If you had dark mode on there’s a bug where the pictures don’t load. I turned it off and could see the pics. (Safari iPados]
They Live
[flagged]
As others have pointed out, it is a dye used in poisons to show it is there.
To quote George Carlin "I am always thinking big questions like, Why is there no blue food?". This is also why most food handling gear in manufacturing is blue coloured. Easy to see.
Vaguely related,there was a small chemical spill near my house about a month back and it made it to the local creek. You could tell because they add that neon blue dye so that it is obvious when there is a spill.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/17/banyule-...
[dead]
Manufacturers add a bright blue triphenylmethane-type dye to baits so any subsequent observation of the carcass—can easily recognize contaminated tissue.
The dyes are large, planar aromatic molecules designed to resist rapid breakdown in the environment or the animal’s digestive tract.
Lost a pet dog that ate a mouse killed when my sister set out a warfarin bait. It was gruesome. Please, please think very carefully when using poisons. Secondary affects are very common, and can be tragic.
There was a guy in the sauna a few years ago bragging about how he had killed a ton of rats in his yards using poison. He said "the hawks love it they are feasting!". 0 ability to connect the full consequences of adding a bunch of poison to an ecosystem.
And warn neighbors at least if putting out poisons for anything. It only takes 5 minutes to give them a heads up about the situation, what to look for (mouse carcass) and what signs if their pet happens to eat the animal and receives some of the poison itself. Though many modern poisons are less toxic to animals that eat the poisoned animal, it can still harm them.
Not when the neighbours themselves are hell-bent on killing off animals because they're just sick humans. Happened to me in London when a neighbour laced bait meat contaminated with rat poison for a bunch of strays that frequented our streets.
Are you responding to my comment? Because I can't figure out what the hell yours has to do with mine unless you completely lack common sense.
Yes, everyone knows you don't tell sick people that enjoy poisoning animals where the poison is. But don't be a dick, do tell your normal neighbors (the vast majority unless you're extremely unlucky) so their pets aren't harmed or can receive prompt treatment.
Information on why some states and the Feds have chosen to attempt to eradicate feral pig populations:
> How are feral pigs destructive? Let us count the ways.
They are invasive and cause millions of dollars in agricultural damage each year, rooting and trampling through a wide variety of crops. They prey on everything from rodents, to deer, to endangered loggerhead sea turtles, threatening to reduce the diversity of native species. They disrupt habitats. They damage archaeological sites. They are capable of transmitting diseases to domestic animals and humans. In November, a woman died in Texas after being attacked by feral hogs—a very rare, but not unprecedented occurrence.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/feral-pigs-are-inv...
They also breed extraordinarily quickly. Females are capable of reproducing at only 3 months old, are fertile year round, have a gestation period of only 115 days, and produce litters of 4-6 per pregnancy. Even with control efforts, populations have been growing at a rate of ~20% annually.
Yeah I’ve heard that you can legally use corn with alcohol poured over it as bait for wild pigs in some states. When they’re good and drunk, you turn your headlights on and start shooting. Playing the national anthem while doing it helps disorient them as well.
Which national anthem? Does it have to be the national anthem, or do other songs work as well?
It's a little hyperbolic
But also...... kinda not hyperbolic, given the industry that has sprung up around this:
https://www.helibacon.com/texas-helicopter-hog-hunting/
The New Zealand national anthem will put them to sleep.
Anything with (the late) Ozzy in it works too.
Amerika, f*** yeah!
Comin' again to shoot the motherf**ing pigs, yeah!
Can watch videos on YT of people in helicopters shooting em with rifles
The other one that's wild, when they lift a bail of hay and like a thousand rats shoot out and these little terriers destroy the rats
Click bait.
The cause is known: "Blue tissue and flesh can be a sign of rodenticide ingestion, which can occur by eating bait – which often contains dye to identify them as poison."
The photo in the photo Independent link shows the colour being so vivid that flesh looks plastic. I learned something.
Would you prefer: "Wild pigs' flesh turning neon blue in California don't eat wild pig or other game meats you kill because they're eating the rodenticide people put out there - authorities are concerned people will not know and get sick"?
Seems wordy.
How about: "California hunters find wild pig meat tainted neon blue by rat poison"
Looking at the title I can see your point - you're thinking something like "Rodenticide consumption turns pigs' flesh blue" would have been better? I try to stick with the original title, but since I had to edit it to make it fit anyway, I guess I could have made it less click-baity. Thanks for the suggestion.
Leaving the title as is was the right thing. It's an interesting story. Thanks for sharing. My complaint is more with phys.org (and the entire rest of the attention economy) that is foremost focused in getting your attention instead of informing.
I’m not sure how reporting on a thing of concern that is happening counts as clickbait. That’s just… reporting.
The title makes it sound like the cause is unknown and so this is mysterious, a possible cause for panic. Hence why GP specifically leads with that the cause is actually known and even explained in the article...
Title doesn’t say anything about whether the cause is known or isn’t.
It describes a phenomenon that a layperson would find extraordinary, and does not mention the cause, which is in fact known. It's reasonable to interpret this as suppressing the cause from a title which reasonably ought to mention it.
Yes, that's how hinting works: you don't spell the stuff out. Hence why it's a bait (something misleading), and not an outright lie.
Yes and no. OP's title says alarm: great fear and concern. However, there was reporting back in 2015 (https://gilroydispatch.com/blue-pig-shot-at-morgan-hill-ranc...) about this identical issue. The cause and the solution was known then, and even before.
It's a pun. I think? The article references squirrel bait as the cause. "Bait" combined with an article that you click on. So ... "click" "bait." Get it?
The tipoff is that people usually write it as one word, "clickbait," when talking about a sensationalistic title designed to simulates clicks generating ad revenue.
OK, so maybe that person's joke wasn't so successful, but it seems like a fairly gentle attempt, which shouldn't be punished.
No, it's a sensationalistic title designed to stimulate clicks generating ad revenue.
I think your brain is a bit starved for excitement if this title reads as sensationalistic for you.
I thought headlines were supposed to be a quick summary of the article as much as possible. Now I see many headlines that are basically "click to learn why!"
Sounds like CA banned the poison in question in 2024 for precisely this reason: wild animals may consume the poison.
The poison was coming from baited squirrel traps which the pigs were seeking out and eating from.
It's only clickbait if the cause was the important part of the article for you.
[flagged]
How can you make that claim if the poster is lifting a quote from the article in question itself!
If you Ctrl+F the article you’ll see they didn’t, it’s a different quote from elsewhere.
The article does not say it’s a mystery, neither does the headline, just that it is happening and alarming. It is and it is.
>Blue tissue and flesh can be a sign of rodenticide ingestion, which can occur by eating bait – which often contain dye to identify them as poison
Community cats are cheaper than rat poison.
In many areas, cat rescues will supply food, spay/neuters, flea meds, etc. for the ferals.
Here in New Zealand they kill the local wildlife and are about as bad as rats.
Grooming traps work wonders, although pricey.
https://wafcwg.org.au/information/felixer-grooming-traps/
https://thylation.com/products/
https://southwestnrm.org.au/project/felixer-cat-grooming-tra...
They identify cats and fire a goopy toxin onto the cat fur.
That's fucking evil.
A lesser evil than introduced feral cats taking out unique ecosystems in AU & NZ.
Killing an intelligent critter by spraying poison on them is evil and inhumane.
There are plenty of cats.
Some of our native birds have gone. Some have gone as low as five remaining. Get cats out of New Zealand.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_robin
And your suggestion for eliminating feral cats is?
Or are you in favour of the death of bilbies, quokkas, quolls, potoroos, et al en masse?
These nice ladies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7h9V4aKlJw
like to flush ferals out with grass fires and net, spear, or shoot them as they flee and either toss them or take them home to eat.
clickbait headline - could easily be made less offensive and more informative :
"Wild pig flesh turns neon blue after eating rodent poison"
California, Authorities, and Alarm are all unneeded
> "Wild pig flesh turns neon blue after eating rodent poison"
That is the worst imaginable headline. No part of it is news, it is trivia.
How about:
"California's wild pigs being poisoned: Authorities are sounding the alarm"
Eh, too much news, boring.
Could there be a way to mix the two headlines to make the story both interesting and informative?
> How about:
> "California's wild pigs being poisoned: Authorities are sounding the alarm"
Well, that one would be an outright lie. Authorities are quoted in the piece. They say they're aware of the situation and it's caused by rat poison. They are not alarmed, nor do they suggest anyone else should be alarmed.
exactly. the clickbait is how it raises fear of a credible nearby threat -
Hey I live in CA!
Ohh... the Authorities!
The Alarm is raised!
the rest is evocative and loaded terms too, "wild" "pigs" "flesh!" "neon" - but at least they are unexaggerated.
It's a gross headline
Casual reminder that rat poison does not selectively kill only rats. Even if it works as intended, the poisoned rats will get eaten and the poison will flow up the food chain.
Even worse: toxins can often become more concentrated as you move up a contaminated food chain.
Humph. Just another librul scare story. /s
Good
Down for some green eggs and ham, but not blue ham..
Would you like it in a house? Would you like it with a mouse?
This was discovered while someone was "processing" a pig.
"Processing" usually means taking the meat out for consumption, the skin for leather, etc.
Any idea why the meat of a wild pig was being processed in CA? What would they have done with it?
> Any idea why the meat of a wild pig was being processed in CA? What would they have done with it?
From the article:
Burton said his company discovered the affected animals when it was hired by an agriculture firm in late February and March to trap wild pigs that were going into the firm's fields.
His company traps the pigs and then euthanizes them according to state law, he said. He usually donates the carcass and meat of the pigs to low-income families.
Eat it- plenty of people hunt boar for the meat just like other wild animals. I'm not the biggest fan of the taste but have friends that enjoy it.
Wild boar and javelina (though it's a different species) both make some great breakfast sausage. I tend to like game meat as a breakfast meat in general.