Halal meat

Beano

Lau2976 wrote: »

I do believe people need to be more educated on the matter which is why I have witnessed slaughtering before, both religious and non religious. The problem is Halal and Kosher,in my experience of it are not done by skilled people in this country and when it is, depending on your sources it still causes more pain.

And I agree, which is why I promote veganism

And this 2 to 8 minutes you keep referring to is the time taken for the animal to bleed out. It loses consciousness pretty much immediately and is not suffering during this time.

Beano

Lau2976 wrote: »

Based on one experiment.

do you have experiments that show they do suffer? So far only one scientific cite has been provided and it didnt come from you.

simonw

Beano wrote: »

That doesnt change the fact that the animals slaughted by the halal method did not suffer.

The link I posted referenced a 2009 study that says they do

Tokyo

simonw wrote: »

Citation needed.

Is that the 1978 study referenced here? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html#.VGYpX8m8bkM

Yes it is:
https://saadus.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/hasil-penelitian-hewan-sembelihan-vs-setrum-english-hanover_report_1978.pdf

Schulze's comments aren't mentioned in the summary report, but even if they were to hold true (which has yet to be proven), they don't negate the results from the first part of the experiment (I - Halal Method)

Beano

Lau2976 wrote: »

f were splitting hairs, it doesn't say blunt knife it says blunt weapon, anybody could argue a blunt knife is sharp.

would you try to cut anything with a blunt knife when using a sharp knife is easier?

Lau2976

Beano wrote: »

would you try to cut anything with a blunt knife when using a sharp knife is easier?

if it were the knife avaliable and I needed the money.

Beano

Lau2976 wrote: »

if it were the knife avaliable and I needed the money.

now you're just being silly. a slaughterhouse is only only going to have a butter knife available?

simonw

mike_ie wrote: »

Yes it is:
https://saadus.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/hasil-penelitian-hewan-sembelihan-vs-setrum-english-hanover_report_1978.pdf

Schulze's comments aren't mentioned in the summary report, but even if they were to hold true (which has yet to be proven), they don't negate the results from the first part of the experiment (I - Halal Method)

The 2009 study in the new scientist link I posted contradicts that

We also investigated the EEG effects of stunning
by non-penetrating captive bolt and the ability of such stunning to ameliorate the response to ventral-neck incision. The results demonstrate
clearly, for the first time, that the act of slaughter by ventral-neck incision is associated with noxious stimulation that would be
expected to be painful in the period between the incision and subsequent loss of consciousness. These data provide further support
for the value of stunning in preventing pain and distress in animals subjected to this procedure. We discuss the development of the
minimal anaesthesia model and its adaptation for use in the investigation of slaughter by ventral-neck incision as well as considering
the contributions of these studies to the ongoing development of international policy concerning the slaughter of animals.

Lau2976

Beano wrote: »

now you're just being silly. a slaughterhouse is only only going to have a butter knife available?

Have you tried cutting leather with a scissors, or a sharp kitchen knife? It's nearly impossible.

But the letter written by scientists claims the practice - banned in Sweden, an EU member - is extremely cruel to animals.
“Research carried out by an international group of experts on the ritual in slaughterhouses confirmed that the slaughter carried out through slits to the throat and bleeding with no loss of consciousness is extremely inhumane and causes unimaginable suffering to the animal. We appeal to you when deciding on ritual slaughter to take into account the facts established by numerous research [into the method of slaughter],” the letter says.

I'm unable to post links.

spyderski

I've witnessed many, many cattle being slaughtered by both western (captive bolt) and Halal method. From the observers point of view, the captive bolt looks cleaner, but I've often seen animals having to be shot 2/3 times with this method. The guys I've seen killing Halal have all been incredibly skilful and the animal is dead within a second - the "knife" (which is closer to a sword) is razor sharp and almost decapitates the animal. The prayer thing is a bit off though......

The halal slaughters I have seen were in Ireland, BTW.

Like anyone, I am slightly conflicted between a love of meat and a love of animals, but I'd say the Halal method is slightly more humane, at least what I have personally seen.

ChippingSodbury

Lau2976 wrote: »

I'm lucky enough to get my meat off a fully transparent farmer.

Wow, I never knew the Invisible Man went back into farming when the TV work dried up...

Lau2976

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

Wow, I never knew the Invisible Man went back into farming when the TV work dried up...

Oh yeah. He really knows his chops.

Custardpi

@Spyderski. I asked this question before & got a smart alec reply from Beano, maybe you'd know better & are actually polite enough to answer. Are there independent checks in slaughterhouses in Ireland where Halal/Kosher slaughter is carried out to ensure that both the equipment used (i.e. the sharpness of the blade) & the method employed (i.e. the knowledge, skill, conscientiousness of the worker involved) are of a high enough standard & minimise animal suffering? If so, who is this specific element of inspection carried out by? Thanks.

Beano

Custardpi wrote: »

@Spyderski. I asked this question before & got a smart alec reply from Beano, maybe you'd know better & are actually polite enough to answer. Are there independent checks in slaughterhouses in Ireland where Halal/Kosher slaughter is carried out to ensure that both the equipment used (i.e. the sharpness of the blade) & the method employed (i.e. the knowledge, skill, conscientiousness of the worker involved) are of a high enough standard & minimise animal suffering? If so, who is this specific element of inspection carried out by? Thanks.

I did not give you a smart alec reply. My name isnt even alec. I gave you the name of the ultimate judge.

Nodin

Lau2976 wrote: »

Have you tried cutting leather with a scissors, or a sharp kitchen knife? It's nearly impossible..

Most kitchen knives are made of shite, tbh.

A cows hide is not leather. It is turned into leather by various processes.

You should read up on what happens if an artery is cut.

Tokyo

I realise that I'm crossing back and over between halal and kosher a little in this post - apologies - but the purpose of the ritual Jewish slaughter is to avoid unnecessary pain to the animal. The animal must be killed "with respect and compassion", and for this reason the blade must be razor-sharp, producing the kind of surgical cut that causes the least pain and quickest death. Any nick in the blade, which may cause the flesh to painfully tear, or any unnecessary delay in the slaughter, renders the meat unfit to eat. The shochet, the person doing the slaughtering, must be a pious person, fully aware of the relevant laws, so as far as I am aware, Judaism is the only major religion to propound specific rules for the benefit of animals.

Now I've dispatched quite a few animals in my time through various means - I've hunted all of my life, and have lived in rural areas in various other countries where animals were slaughtered at home through various local methods, and it's my personal experience that

1. I've yet to see a local method of slaughter that hasn't evolved to put as little stress on the animal as possible, within the confines of the tools that are available.
2. what happens in practice is not nearly as neat, clean or quick as a textual explanation of the theoretical fastest dispatch.

Now we can play whataboutery all day with blunt knives and poke fun at the worlds religions, but the fact is that captive bolt is equally as fallible. If stunning is not done properly (either due to an incompetent human or malfunctioning mechanism) the result is the animal is butchered alive. This happens from time to time in commercial slaughterhouses. However, what captive bolt has going for it in big slaughter houses is - it's quick (as in you can get through more animals in a day), it doesn't take a huge amount of skill to operate one proficiently, and it's an aesthetically pleasing form of slaughtering animals.

What a lot of people actually want is a guilt free hamburger, without having to put too much though into where it came from, and personally if I had my way, every person who eats meat would have to hunt and kill something for themselves at least once in their lifetime, to teach them an appreciation for their prey, and respect for taking its life, unfortunately that's not how the modern world works.

Lau2976

I'm not sure if others have cited this experiment done in NZ in 2009

Johnson's work, funded by the UK and New Zealand agriculture ministries, builds on findings in human volunteers of specific patterns of brain electrical activity when they feel pain. Recorded with electroencephalograms, the patterns were reproducible in at least eight other mammal species known to be experiencing pain.

Johnson developed a way of lightly anaesthetising animals so that although they experienced no pain, the same electrical pain signals could be reliably detected, showing they would have suffered pain if awake.

The team first cut calves' throats in a procedure matching that of Jewish and Muslim slaughter methods. They detected a pain signal lasting for up to 2 minutes after the incision. When their throats are cut, calves generally lose consciousness after 10 to 30 seconds, sometimes longer.

Cut-throat practice

The researchers then showed that the pain originates from cutting throat nerves, not from the loss of blood, suggesting the severed nerves send pain signals until the time of death. Finally, they stunned animals 5 seconds after incision and showed that this makes the pain signal disappear instantly.

I apoligize again for not being able to post links but the experiment was Prof Craig Johnson

lanos

I have seen a horse killed with a captive bolt to the forehead. The horse collapsed in a split second. No staggering or swaying. Instant death by a qualified vet. No visible distress in my opinion. I will never be convinced Halal method is humane and experiments can be falsified for various reasons. As a consumer, I don't require proof. Halal method is cruel. Everybody knows it.

lanos

lanos wrote: »

experiments can be falsified for various reasons. As a consumer, I don't require proof. Halal method is cruel. Everybody knows it.

lol
Well I'm glad we cleared that up conclusively so

masculinist

lanos wrote: »

I have seen a horse killed with a captive bolt to the forehead. The horse collapsed in a split second. No staggering or swaying. Instant death by a qualified vet. No visible distress in my opinion. I will never be convinced Halal method is humane and experiments can be falsified for various reasons. As a consumer, I don't require proof. Halal method is cruel. Everybody knows it.

I feel the same way. Now I am open to the possibility that any method can be botched but feel if all things are equal and done with equal skill that a shot of a bolt to the seat of consciousness - the animals brain , to eliminate its consciousness immediately has to be a lot less painful than a shot to the body via a cut of the throat while the animal remains conscious. The seat of consciousness is the brain so why not go directly there when putting the animal to sleep ?

lanos

bluewolf wrote: »

lol
Well I'm glad we cleared that up conclusively so

nothing is cleared up conclusively
I expressed an opinion
That's all
LOL

Justjens

Custardpi wrote: »

@Spyderski. I asked this question before & got a smart alec reply from Beano, maybe you'd know better & are actually polite enough to answer. Are there independent checks in slaughterhouses in Ireland where Halal/Kosher slaughter is carried out to ensure that both the equipment used (i.e. the sharpness of the blade) & the method employed (i.e. the knowledge, skill, conscientiousness of the worker involved) are of a high enough standard & minimise animal suffering? If so, who is this specific element of inspection carried out by? Thanks.

There are enough checks done on all aspects of livestock slaughter, by vets before they are even allowed to enter the chute and afterwards to verify the meat is fit for human consumption.

The Dept of Ag checks everything else religiously (pardon the pun) and every large abattoir in this country that fills those lovely supermarket trays kills using the Halal method.

And this is their own certification body: http://halalcertification.ie/halal/islamic-method-of-slaughtering/

Justjens

masculinist wrote: »

I feel the same way. Now I am open to the possibility that any method can be botched but feel if all things are equal and done with equal skill that a shot of a bolt to the seat of consciousness - the animals brain , to eliminate its consciousness immediately has to be a lot less painful than a shot to the body via a cut of the throat while the animal remains conscious. The seat of consciousness is the brain so why not go directly there when putting the animal to sleep ?

Because sometimes that is a moving target and there is a lot more stress on the animal in restraining it.

masculinist

Justjens wrote: »

Because sometimes that is a moving target and there is a lot more stress on the animal in restraining it.

do they not deserve just a little bit to be humanely restrained for a brain bolt ? I love meat. I eat it every single day but thats the least we can do for them since they provide us with so much enjoyment...

brevity

I don't think there is ever going to be a humane way of slaughtering animals for mass food production.

Rezident

It's unnecessarily cruel and unusual, although so is forcing women to wear black letter-boxes in the desert heat, so maybe it could be worse for the animals if you annoy them, say by drawing cartoons etc.

Tail Docker

Go to a meat factory, watch "Halal slaughtering" and then come back and comment. It's sh1t. The animals suffer dreadfully. I have utterly no, zero, zilch time for Halal methods.

HandsomeDan

Islam

Justjens

A visit to an abattoir is a very humbling experience and is something that anyone who eats meat should do, whether it's slaughtered Halal or by gun.

supersean1999

brevity wrote: »

I don't think there is ever going to be a humane way of slaughtering animals for mass food production.

youth in asia.

meathstevie

A competently placed cut Halal style will cause unconsciousness followed by death in moments since the blood supply to the brain is severed and a massive amount of blood loss occurs very quickly.

Beano

Lau2976 wrote: »

I'm not sure if others have cited this experiment done in NZ in 2009



I apoligize again for not being able to post links but the experiment was Prof Craig Johnson

that was the one cited earlier

Lau2976

Beano wrote: »

that was the one cited earlier

The one posted by simonw that wasn't disputed it disproved. I noticed after I posted it.

Justjens

Beano wrote: »

that was the one cited earlier

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html#.VGaP8GebjFU

Brain signals have shown that calves do appear to feel pain when slaughtered according to Jewish and Muslim religious law, strengthening the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane.
"I think our work is the best evidence yet that it's painful," says Craig Johnson, who led the study at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Johnson summarised his results last week in London when receiving an award from the UK Humane Slaughter Association. His team also showed that if the animal is concussed through stunning, signals corresponding to pain disappear.
The findings increase pressure on religious groups that practice slaughter without stunning to reconsider. "It provides further evidence, if it was needed, that slaughtering an animal without stunning it first is painful," says Christopher Wathes of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has long argued for the practice to end.
Stunning result

In most western countries, animals must be stunned before they are slaughtered, but there is an exemption for religious practice, most prominently Jewish shechita and Muslim dhabiha. Animal welfare groups have long argued that on welfare grounds, the exemptions should be lifted, as they have been in Norway.

Johnson's work, funded by the UK and New Zealand agriculture ministries, builds on findings in human volunteers of specific patterns of brain electrical activity when they feel pain. Recorded with electroencephalograms, the patterns were reproducible in at least eight other mammal species known to be experiencing pain.
Johnson developed a way of lightly anaesthetising animals so that although they experienced no pain, the same electrical pain signals could be reliably detected, showing they would have suffered pain if awake.
The team first cut calves' throats in a procedure matching that of Jewish and Muslim slaughter methods. They detected a pain signal lasting for up to 2 minutes after the incision. When their throats are cut, calves generally lose consciousness after 10 to 30 seconds, sometimes longer.
Cut-throat practice

The researchers then showed that the pain originates from cutting throat nerves, not from the loss of blood, suggesting the severed nerves send pain signals until the time of death. Finally, they stunned animals 5 seconds after incision and showed that this makes the pain signal disappear instantly.
"It wasn't a surprise to me, but in terms of the religious community, they are adamant animals don't experience any pain, so the results might be a surprise to them," says Johnson.
He praised Muslim dhabiha practitioners in New Zealand and elsewhere who have already adopted stunning prior to slaughter. They use a form of electrical stunning which animals quickly recover from if not slaughtered, proving that the stunned animal is "healthy", thereby qualifying as halal.
Pressure drop

Representatives for both faiths responded by claiming that stunning itself hurts animals. A spokesman for Shechita UK says that the throat cut is so rapid that it serves as its own "stun", adding that there is abundant evidence shechita is humane.
"Shechita is instantaneous, and due to the immediate drop in blood pressure and [oxygen starvation] of the brain, the animal loses consciousness within 2 seconds," he says. "It conforms to the statutory definition of stunning, in that it is a process which causes the immediate loss of consciousness which lasts until death."
Ahmed Ghanem, a halal slaughterman based in New Zealand, says that blood doesn't drain properly from stunned animals, although this has been countered by recent research at the University of Bristol in the UK.
Ghanem cites a 1978 study relying on EEG measurements led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Hanover, Germany, apparently concluding that halal slaughter was more humane than slaughter following stunning. But Schulze himself, who died in 2002, warned in his report that the stunning technique may not have functioned properly.

Spaniel heaven

The extent to which halal slaughter adds to suffering is debatable. it can be done well or be a complete mess. if undertaken by a pro, the difference in suffering is minimal, having seen it first hand i must admit that the animals were given due respect more so than in some conventional factory's.

so my take would be its ok so long as its strongly regulated

Lau2976

Spaniel heaven wrote: »

The extent to which halal slaughter adds to suffering is debatable. it can be done well or be a complete mess. if undertaken by a pro, the difference in suffering is minimal, having seen it first hand i must admit that the animals were given due respect more so than in some conventional factory's.

so my take would be its ok so long as its strongly regulated

There shouldn't be a difference in suffering at all.

Tail Docker

Spaniel heaven wrote: »

The extent to which halal slaughter adds to suffering is debatable. it can be done well or be a complete mess. if undertaken by a pro, the difference in suffering is minimal, having seen it first hand i must admit that the animals were given due respect more so than in some conventional factory's.

so my take would be its ok so long as its strongly regulated

Bullocks.

getzls

It should be clearly labelled as Halal.
And not in wee tiny print either.

Anyone not wanting to eat it can then avoid it.

Especially Christians who would view Halal meat to be blessed in the name of a false God.