[Closed] Ritual meat slaughter.

The whole thing has been orchestrated by the bolt-gun marketing board

OK, so that's all very interesting. But there's nothing new in what you say, what's your opinion on it?

IMHO killing animals is never going to be particularly humane, or pleasant. But I eat meat and accept that it's part of the process and never going to be a fluffy or happy experience.

I was listening to this on the radio the other day, any links to back this up?

Kill religion, not animals.

And the 'muslim expert' who was on radio 5 trying to justify halal slaughter on the grounds that he had studied the issue at length and that animals probably didn't experience pain and suffering was both laughable and disgusting.

Religion will die out eventually and it's a shame I won't be here to point and laugh when it does.

My uncle owns a slaughterhouse and put of going halal for as long as he could- his experience of it is that it's worse for the animal but also far more upsetting for his workers.

I try and avoid it if I can.

I buy Halal all the time. It's loads cheaper.

that it's worse for the animal

This directly contradicts what I just read.

How is it worse?

People who decide these things should think: If it was my throat being cut, which method would I choose?

Theres always the possibility that what you read wasn't actually true or accurate Wopster. Where was it you read it? The Mail or the Telegraph?

What he experiences first hand every day contradicts what you read on the internet?

Well, that's that then, I think you won that argument!

This directly contradicts what I just read.
How is it worse?

People who thinks it's better, that's what they write.

People who think it's worse, that's what they write.

If you believe the first one you read, then it's just the luck of the draw really.

There's a lot of dispute about it- there's also dispute within judaiism and islam as to whether stunning is acceptable beforehand. I for one welcome our new grey area overlord.

TBH I think a lot of the distaste comes from people who believe that normal slaughter is completely humane and painless, which is cobblers.

binners - Member

The whole thing has been orchestrated by the bolt-gun marketing board

They are persuasive.

[img] [/img]

Sorry, where the heck did you read that? Reference? I understand that goes against the current findings in animal welfare science literature.

The Times. Although it WAS an "opinion" piece, but thanks for your patronising condescension, "munrobiker".

current findings in animal welfare science literature.

Reference, please.

I buy Halal all the time. It's loads cheaper.

😆

Thats me too. Tesco's Halal is waaaay cheaper.

At the end of the day if you object to the way an animal is killed DONT eat any meat as all animals for food aren't kept on pristine meadows and pampered. I've said this many a time, when I see ickle lambs/sheep on a ride I always have Lamb for tea..

despite the fact that the BVA and RSPCA contradict those arguments?

face it - by continuing this practice we're putting animal welfare after fairy stories.

Other methods are subject to mistakes and inaccuracies

Its a bit of a Straw man really, isn't it?

'Halal or Kosher slaughter done properly is more humane than Stunned slaughter done badly'

Well, no shit Sherlock 🙁

I don't see any sky fairy based justification for anyone being allowed to slit animals throats when its ordinarily prohibited, especially given the fact that there is an internal debate within islam over whether stunning immediately prior to slaughter actually makes an animal Haram!

Reference, please.

After you.

I'm not really concerned about all the religious flimflam - my interest is in what is the most instantaneous and pain-free method of slaughter. All the praying and whatnot is neither here nor there.

Also, if the ritual method IS actually the most efficient (in these terms), then it appears to me that this is an attack on the religion, and the "concern" for the animals is just a bit of cover for anti-islamic or anti-semitic attack-dog behaviour.

Here's an interesting response from the "PETA" website:

"The video shows some un-Islamic practices indeed but the spasms of the animal and gushing of blood are reflex actions. The animal in unconscious. Is Islamic slaughter cruel? The question of how an animal should be slaughtered to avoid cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from the throat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now bought neatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean the animal didn’t have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that the animal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usually achieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt into a sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels. The scientific facts A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout. The Halal method With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages. The Western method Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move. Not all is what it seems, then. T[i]hose who want to outlaw Islamic slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak.[/i] The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain."

My italics - linking, again, to my reference to the actual reason for banning hunting foxes with hounds...

Thought this was going to be about masturbation...wanders off...

The Times eh? That renowned beacon of editorial independence and higher truth. And an opinion piece too eh? I thought the Times only had one opinion…

[img] [/img]

. I've said this many a time, when I see ickle lambs/sheep on a ride I always have Lamb for tea..

Why's that then?

Here's an interesting response from the "PETA" website:

If they had their way I think we'd all be vegetarians.

binners are you aboot' this weekend?

None of the animals we eat die in their sleep from old age. Is there a most preferable way to die? Mine is to go as quickly and painlessly as possible. I'm not sure having my throat cut would be my first choice but I'm not going to to volunteer to try each method and give feedback.

If they had their way I think we'd all be vegetarians.

Third level vegans actually - you're not allowed to eat anything that casts a shadow. 😉

Hora - you taking me out for dinner then? I'll mail you to find out where we're going? Do I need to get dressed up?

None of the animals we eat die in their sleep from old age. Is there a most preferable way to die?

My point. If anybody would care to actually engage with it instead of just jerking off.

Ah we both replied at the same time.

The Times. Although it WAS an "opinion" piece

I think you need to be careful what you read, where you read it and how much if it you take in.... today its the Times, tomorrow its the Metro, next week it's the Mail or the Star...

Here is something written by a friend containing references to actual science, for your interest

http://fluffysciences.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/ritual-slaughter/

my interest is in what is the most instantaneous and pain-free method of slaughter.

On that basis halal isn't for you - it might be many things, but instantaneous it isn't. Not exactly the same, but I suppose it is fairly firsthand unlike most people who write for the Mail / Times / Sun... I've dispatched a fair few deer by cutting their throats. I'll be first to admit that these weren't in "ideal" conditions of a slaughterhouse, nor am I anywhere near as proficient as people who do it for a living, but it takes time for an animal to bleed out and fade into unconsciousness. I can't comment on what level of pain is felt during this time but I'd take a shot to the back of the head any day.

It all looks like an attack on religion

The media and popular reaction is not an attack on religion. It's to some extent xenophobic criticism of Muslims and Jews but imvho it's also a form of "cheap compassion" - cheap because it doesn't involve the person doing the criticism actually having to get off their arse and do something or sacrifice anything. It's a lot easier to ban kosher/halal meat if you never eat the stuff - it's a lot easier to tell Japanese people to stop eating whale meat than it is to change aspects of your own life that have a damaging effect on the environment (like cheap flights)!

Interesting. The results from the "foam breath" study seem to stand against the German EEG and ECG results.

It would seem that, on balance, there is either little to choose between the two methods or even that the ritual methods are actually more humane to some degree.

So it seems to me that it IS the religions that are being attacked, rather than the effectivity of the methodologies...

binners can you shave your hands this time. The pink nail vanish was nice but you are furrier than me

by continuing this practice we're putting animal welfare after fairy stories.

Do you want me to
1. kick you in the balls then slit your throat
2. slit your throat and then kick you in the balls

Its an important welfare issue for me 😉

TBH i have never understood why meat eaters who accept factory farming, artificial insemination, battery chickens, foi grass, veal eating lobsters cooked alive in boiling water [ surely worse in anyones book??] suddenly get a moral outrage at a religious method of slaughter and become all humanitarian

You kill stuff to eat. Its your choice but you will never make it nice

my reference to the actual reason for banning hunting foxes with hounds

If you try a third time someone might bite.

Ritual Meat Slaughter

great name for a band?

IGMC

Junkyard, you forgot about oysters. Those poor little molluscs are picked straight out of their shells and chewed to death! Where is the humanity? 😀

If you really want to see how humane Halal slaughtering is, I strongly recommend you sit and watch 'Earthlings' tonight. It's a feature length documentary and genuinely eye opening. Free to watch on YouTube.

Please don't be put off by the name or the fact that it's narrated by Jouaquin Pheonix.

Forgive my lack of knowledge of meat eaters barbaric practices. 😉

Anyway back to the real issue that fox hunting thing why did they ban that ?

I have obersved, first hand, both normal slaughter with stunning, and Jewish Kosher slaughter. It is not just the slitting of the throat that is of concern to me but the restraint required beforehand, which in the one I observed involved a "tilt table" in which the cow is essentially crushed and then swivelled upside down before the neck was cut. In contrast the cattel being stunned walkd into a crush and were dropped instantly with a single shot.

Based on personal experience I support a complete ban on religous slaughter techniques.

I've witnessing both bolt gun and slit throat methods of slaughtering an animal I wouldn't say the later is any more human. What you see in the Halal videos promoting it as a more human method where a prayer is said for the animal before it is turned calmly upside down it throat cut and allowed to bleed out is far from the reality of what happens in a slaughter house. The animals are herded through a narrow pen before been led into a cage. The animal is stunned to prevent it kicking about as the cage is turned up side down and the throat slit. Sometimes the first cut works bit more often the animal wasn't stunned sufficiently the first time so is still kicking about and more than one cut is required or the throat is ripped out to kill it. Not halal as your not supposed to touch the animal again until it has bleed out and dead. Regardless of the animal been dead or still clinging to life it is dumped from the cage, hung, gutted and skinned.
A bolt to the head isn't much better as they are herded down a similar pen before getting diverted into pop up cages where there head emerges to receive a bolt in the head killing it out right or stunning it enough that it is hung, skinned and gutted before it has chance to know what is happening.
Both are pretty nasty ways for an animal to have it's life ended but whilst one pretends to be more humane but reality is far from it the other is a more efficient industrial method of achieving the same end.

Enjoy your lunch.

"See". "Witnessed". Not, "measured", then?

Perhaps you haven't read the whole thread.

Ritual Meat Slaughter

A very measured statement.

So - it turns out that "kosher" or "halal" meat is from animals that have been more humanely slaughtered than any method used in other abattoirs. This is because the immediate interruption of the blood supply to the brain as it is throat-cut with a VERY sharp blade, results in immediate unconsciousness in the animal.

Other methods are subject to mistakes and inaccuracies that often result in a comparatively lengthy and painful death, but these are the methods currently being legislated for.

Funnily enough when I WITNESSED animals being killed I didn't think to run up to them to ask "Did the bolt in the head hurt a lot and would you have preferred to have your throat slit? By the way God bless you for your sacrifice"

Ritual Meat Slaughter
My new favorite onanism euphemism.

Quality. 😆

In contrast the cattel being stunned walkd into a crush and were dropped instantly with a single shot.

[img] [/img]

Funnily enough when I WITNESSED animals being killed

But you just looked. You didn't take any EEG measurements to judge whether or not they were conscious and felt any pain. Is my point.

As in my previous lengthy paste. Which you obviously didn't read. Or maybe did, and then forgot.

I find it hypocritical meat eaters worry about the pain an animal feels just before they are about to feel nothing ever again, compared to the suffering experienced on a daily basis from the conditions some animals have to live in.

I find it hypocritical meat eaters worry about the pain an animal feels just before they are about to feel nothing ever again, compared to the suffering experienced on a daily basis from the conditions some animals have to live in.

BINGO. In one.

I'll alert the media.

Meanwhile, why is one of two at least comparable methods of slaughter being subject to discrimination in law?

Animal drops straight down I assumed was in less pain than one that was struggling.

Your lengthy post doesn't say if was done in a slaughter house and I'll guarantee it wasn't but most likely a lab or other controlled environment. If you read my post you will have noticed I highlighted the differences between the ritual and industrial slaughter of the animals. I don't think the supermarkets sell halal meat killed by PETA but I'll look on the label just to make sure.

Woppit, rather than just read one version see it with your own eyes and make your mind up.

In the most recent observational study by British vets, around 13% of cattle who were subjected to religious slaughter tried to get to their feet *after* their throats had been cut.

Large mammals, cattle particularly, have veins on the back of the neck as well as around the throat - cutting the throat doesn't kill them instantly and for many means they effectively inhale their blood and still have brain function at the point they are hung up - the brain can take several minutes to lose conciousness.

There's no need for this to happen and it's abhorrent - if a surgeon operated on patients without anaesthesia in almost all cases they would lose their right to operate and likewise if pet owners willingnly caused suffering to their companion animals they would be subject to prosecution.

When techniques to avoid this trauma are readily available we should not be making the sort of exceptions to our laws that now mean up to 2/3 of all meat is slaughtered according to religious doctrines that less than 10% of the population follow.

As a bare minimum, consumers need to understand the differences between stunning / religious slaughter and should be able to make choices based on clear labels on food packaging.

I find it hypocritical meat eaters worry about the pain an animal feels just before they are about to feel nothing ever again, compared to the suffering experienced on a daily basis from the conditions some animals have to live in.

that's why you should only ever buy british high welfare meat, free range, freedom food.

vegetarians are probably reponsible for more animal deaths than meat eaters though, through pesticides and pest control, but insects don't count do they. I'd say that's equally or more hypocritical?

😛

Large mammals, cattle particularly, have veins on the back of the neck as well as around the throat - cutting the throat doesn't kill them instantly and for many means they effectively inhale their blood and still have brain function at the point they are hung up - the brain can take several minutes to lose conciousness.

A-ha.

None of the animals we eat die in their sleep from old age

Strangely, at this point, I feel a string of quotes from Douglas Adams coming over the horizon.

Omeglian Mega-cow anybody?

Tissue engineering will solve this debate 😈

EEG actually registers a bowl of jelly as being alive - how exactly does it tell us whether an animal with massive brain trauma is in pain?

Page 1. Item 21.

*yawn*

If you went to the vet to get an animal put down and he did it by slitting it's throat would you be happy about it?

Depends if its a cat meh.

If its a dog and edible?

There seems to be a dichotomy here. Either fairy-story "ritual" killing (do they flounce in high heels clacking the maracas around before slitting the throat?) or bolt.

Perhaps stepping back and saying "Of *all* the ways of slaughter, not just these two, is the most humane method of slaughter?". Then both sides can suck it up, as it may be neither.

For all I know it could be low-flying pianos that are the most humane.

As in my previous lengthy paste. Which you obviously didn't read.

I got as far as "PETA" and stopped reading. As far as credible sources go, I'd sooner hear what the Daily Mail had to say.

I'll alert the media.

Meanwhile, why is one of two at least comparable methods of slaughter being subject to discrimination in law?

AdamW - Member
For all I know it could be low-flying pianos that are the most humane.

A nice boost for the once thriving UK Piano manufacturing industry too. 🙂

I got as far as "PETA" and stopped reading. As far as credible sources go, I'd sooner hear what the Daily Mail had to say.