This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I found this interesting reading, it seems to be from somebody who knows what they're talking about...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/neil-payne/halal-kosher_b_4935344.html
Post edited at 10:05
In reply to Timmd: I'm going hazard a wild guess that the author of that piece is Jewish and is merely defending what he wants to do anyway.
In reply to Timmd:
He doesn't sound like a knowledgeable person.
No reference to bolt procedures in large animals.
Anecdotal speculation on electricution.
No reference to gas procedures.
No reference to abbattoir forced air to remove smells from live animals.
No reference to the feeding of stock by abbattoirs.
No discussion of the unnatural inversion of the animal to carry out halal.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/fawc/files/Cattle-inversion-for-religious-slaughter...
And thinks slitting a throat which only severs a small proportion of nerves leaving >90% of nerves live is more humane than destroying the nervous system/brain and rendering the animal unconcious.
Biased and ill-informed.
He doesn't sound like a knowledgeable person.
No reference to bolt procedures in large animals.
Anecdotal speculation on electricution.
No reference to gas procedures.
No reference to abbattoir forced air to remove smells from live animals.
No reference to the feeding of stock by abbattoirs.
No discussion of the unnatural inversion of the animal to carry out halal.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/fawc/files/Cattle-inversion-for-religious-slaughter...
And thinks slitting a throat which only severs a small proportion of nerves leaving >90% of nerves live is more humane than destroying the nervous system/brain and rendering the animal unconcious.
Biased and ill-informed.
Post edited at 10:33
In reply to Timmd:
So this person thinks he can gauge the feelings of the country about animal welfare and meat production by looking at the occupants of a football stadium. So if I go to Waitroes and do the same survey could I therefore determine totally the opposite, or should I go one step further and head to Beanies in Sheffield to determine that everyone in the UK is actually vegetarian!
Dogma Vs Science, FIGHT!
So this person thinks he can gauge the feelings of the country about animal welfare and meat production by looking at the occupants of a football stadium. So if I go to Waitroes and do the same survey could I therefore determine totally the opposite, or should I go one step further and head to Beanies in Sheffield to determine that everyone in the UK is actually vegetarian!
Dogma Vs Science, FIGHT!
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I feel the weight of your argument.
> I'm going hazard a wild guess that the author of that piece is Jewish and is merely defending what he wants to do anyway.
I feel the weight of your argument.
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
^this
> He doesn't sound like a knowledgeable person.
> No reference to bolt procedures in large animals.
> Anecdotal speculation on electricution.
> No reference to gas procedures.
> No reference to abbattoir forced air to remove smells from live animals.
> No reference to the feeding of stock by abbattoirs.
> No discussion of the unnatural inversion of the animal to carry out halal.
> And thinks slitting a throat which only severs a small proportion of nerves leaving >90% of nerves live is more humane than destroying the nervous system/brain and rendering the animal unconcious.
> Biased and ill-informed.
^this
In reply to Timmd:
If someone presents actual substantive evidence that halal/kosher is kinder or no more cruel, then I'm willing to listen. There are ways of measuring levels of stress and pain in animals (e.g. stress-hormone levels, electrical activity in the brain) that could produce such evidence.
As it is that piece is simply opinion, and I'm always dubious about mere assertions used to back-up a stance that has been arrived at for other reasons (e.g. "this method of slaughter is sacred; it's a tradition passed from Prophets to men ...").
If someone presents actual substantive evidence that halal/kosher is kinder or no more cruel, then I'm willing to listen. There are ways of measuring levels of stress and pain in animals (e.g. stress-hormone levels, electrical activity in the brain) that could produce such evidence.
As it is that piece is simply opinion, and I'm always dubious about mere assertions used to back-up a stance that has been arrived at for other reasons (e.g. "this method of slaughter is sacred; it's a tradition passed from Prophets to men ...").
Good points well made:
Note to self, drink more tea before posting.
Note to self, drink more tea before posting.
In reply to Timmd:
Right, I'm going to go through that article pice by piece, but focussing ONLY on the stunning at slaughtering aspect - not the rearing of the animals up to the point of slaughter. I will also be focussing mainly (all figures) on the slaughter of cattle.
Then at the end of this, I'm going to post a link to a video of an animal being slaughtered by a halal method, and if I can find one, a video of an animal being stunned.
I'm not going to pretend I am un-biased, I am STRONGLY against halal slaughter, but my reasons are from first hand experience and also backed up by science.
Muslims and Jews are against stunning as it's seen as cruel, unnecessary and unhygienic
Secondly, there is nothing kind in stunning
Focussing on electrical stunning (as this is the kind referred to in the article):
i) Stunning is defined as: "...immediate loss of consciousness which lasts until death..." according to the The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995.
ii) it is known that the brain cannot perceive a painful stimulus until 150ms after the application of the stimulus. It is also known through EEG analysis of bovine brains at the time of stunning that the animal is rendered unconscious within 15-20ms, and global epilepsy is achieved within 200ms when using head only electrical stunning. So the animal is unconscious roughly 10x faster than it is able to perceive the pain of stunning.
iii) Following the stun, the animal will experience a tonic phase of epilepsy, where all muscles contract. This results in the forelimbs extending and the hindlimbs flexing. This phase lasts for approximately 10 seconds. Following the tonic phase there is a clonic phase which is characterised by uncontrolled physical activity (the kicking and flailing phase that is so often, yet wrongly, associated with suffering). During both these phases the animal is totally unconscious and therefore unable to perceive any stimuli - including pain. The ONSET of recovery begins 37 seconds following the stun.
iv) The average time taken for loss of brain function following exsanguination in cattle is 17 +/- 4 seconds. Taking the 37 seconds until the onset of recovery 37-(17+4)=16 seconds. As a result the stick (act of severing the blood vessels) must occur within 15 seconds of the START of the stun, to ensure death before recovery can begin. It is worth noting that the 17 seconds is only achieved if both the carotid arteries and both jugular veins are cut. If only one carotid artery and one jugular is cut time to death (in sheep - I don;t have access to cattle times) increases to 70 seconds. If both carotids remain intact, but both jugulars are severed (a very poor stick may result in this) then time to death increases to 298 seconds.
So I hope from the above you can see that a) stunning itself is NOT painful, cruel or inhumane. b) that in the case of both stunned and not stunned animals the skill of slaughter-man giving the stick is key. If a stun and the stick is carried out correctly then the act of slaughter is non-painful.
This is in stark contrast to a stick in an animal that has not been stunned. I'm not going to go into the evidence that cutting an animal causes pain as I like to think that everyone reading this will realise that is true.
As the the claim that stunning is unhygienic, I assume that related to the claim that: For example, having blood remain in the carcass of the animal is common within meat that is stunned .
This is simply incorrect. As we have just seen electrical stunning is recoverable (hence the section about time to stick). An animal would not be able to recover if its heart had stopped after the stun, so the heart must still be beating. As the heart is still beating in both stunned and non stunned animals there will be no difference in the effectiveness of exsanguination and hence the volume of blood left in the carcass. Ignoring the fact that blood is not viewed by the majority to be unhygienic.
So, I'm sorry, but the views in that article and the views held by ANYONE who states that stunning is cruel are ill-informed. There is no doubt that stunning reduced suffering in animals at slaughter when used correctly. I am not trying to say there are never mistakes, there are. Sometime it goes wrong, after all, humans are in the chain of events. But in the vast majority of cases stunning is a welfare friendly act.
This link shows a captive bolt stun (note - stun, not slaughter, the animal is not dead at this point), followed by some un-stunned slaughters. I'd ignore a lot of the writing as this is clearly a video designed to have a huge emotional impact. But have a look for yourself. Probably NSFW, but depends upon your work I guess!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=545_1345800806
I can't actually find a video of electrical stunning of cattle, but here is a link to stunning a lamb. Sorry its from the TV, but here you go:
youtube.com/watch?v=zcUQjWB88UA&
Sorry this has turned out so long, but it is something I really feel strongly about.
Right, I'm going to go through that article pice by piece, but focussing ONLY on the stunning at slaughtering aspect - not the rearing of the animals up to the point of slaughter. I will also be focussing mainly (all figures) on the slaughter of cattle.
Then at the end of this, I'm going to post a link to a video of an animal being slaughtered by a halal method, and if I can find one, a video of an animal being stunned.
I'm not going to pretend I am un-biased, I am STRONGLY against halal slaughter, but my reasons are from first hand experience and also backed up by science.
Muslims and Jews are against stunning as it's seen as cruel, unnecessary and unhygienic
Secondly, there is nothing kind in stunning
Focussing on electrical stunning (as this is the kind referred to in the article):
i) Stunning is defined as: "...immediate loss of consciousness which lasts until death..." according to the The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995.
ii) it is known that the brain cannot perceive a painful stimulus until 150ms after the application of the stimulus. It is also known through EEG analysis of bovine brains at the time of stunning that the animal is rendered unconscious within 15-20ms, and global epilepsy is achieved within 200ms when using head only electrical stunning. So the animal is unconscious roughly 10x faster than it is able to perceive the pain of stunning.
iii) Following the stun, the animal will experience a tonic phase of epilepsy, where all muscles contract. This results in the forelimbs extending and the hindlimbs flexing. This phase lasts for approximately 10 seconds. Following the tonic phase there is a clonic phase which is characterised by uncontrolled physical activity (the kicking and flailing phase that is so often, yet wrongly, associated with suffering). During both these phases the animal is totally unconscious and therefore unable to perceive any stimuli - including pain. The ONSET of recovery begins 37 seconds following the stun.
iv) The average time taken for loss of brain function following exsanguination in cattle is 17 +/- 4 seconds. Taking the 37 seconds until the onset of recovery 37-(17+4)=16 seconds. As a result the stick (act of severing the blood vessels) must occur within 15 seconds of the START of the stun, to ensure death before recovery can begin. It is worth noting that the 17 seconds is only achieved if both the carotid arteries and both jugular veins are cut. If only one carotid artery and one jugular is cut time to death (in sheep - I don;t have access to cattle times) increases to 70 seconds. If both carotids remain intact, but both jugulars are severed (a very poor stick may result in this) then time to death increases to 298 seconds.
So I hope from the above you can see that a) stunning itself is NOT painful, cruel or inhumane. b) that in the case of both stunned and not stunned animals the skill of slaughter-man giving the stick is key. If a stun and the stick is carried out correctly then the act of slaughter is non-painful.
This is in stark contrast to a stick in an animal that has not been stunned. I'm not going to go into the evidence that cutting an animal causes pain as I like to think that everyone reading this will realise that is true.
As the the claim that stunning is unhygienic, I assume that related to the claim that: For example, having blood remain in the carcass of the animal is common within meat that is stunned .
This is simply incorrect. As we have just seen electrical stunning is recoverable (hence the section about time to stick). An animal would not be able to recover if its heart had stopped after the stun, so the heart must still be beating. As the heart is still beating in both stunned and non stunned animals there will be no difference in the effectiveness of exsanguination and hence the volume of blood left in the carcass. Ignoring the fact that blood is not viewed by the majority to be unhygienic.
So, I'm sorry, but the views in that article and the views held by ANYONE who states that stunning is cruel are ill-informed. There is no doubt that stunning reduced suffering in animals at slaughter when used correctly. I am not trying to say there are never mistakes, there are. Sometime it goes wrong, after all, humans are in the chain of events. But in the vast majority of cases stunning is a welfare friendly act.
This link shows a captive bolt stun (note - stun, not slaughter, the animal is not dead at this point), followed by some un-stunned slaughters. I'd ignore a lot of the writing as this is clearly a video designed to have a huge emotional impact. But have a look for yourself. Probably NSFW, but depends upon your work I guess!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=545_1345800806
I can't actually find a video of electrical stunning of cattle, but here is a link to stunning a lamb. Sorry its from the TV, but here you go:
youtube.com/watch?v=zcUQjWB88UA&
Sorry this has turned out so long, but it is something I really feel strongly about.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It looks more like he identifies as muslim to me, or his wife is muslim or he's on a mission to embrace Islam.
I don't believe the UK government will allow this legislation to pass. Why? The Jewish lobby won't allow it for one.
This is a common racist trope, much more prevalent on PuffPo since they appointed Medhi Hasan. Muslims outnumber Jews by 10-1 in the UK, but they lack power. The Joos OTOH have the power not just to complain but actually to not allow things because the Joos have real power cos they control the media, the banks, the toilets etc.
He also says on his twitter feed that he was involved in the muslim stun or not stun debate a few years ago, could be because he was working at a slaughterhouse and he says he had to reject animals killed by stunning (as not halal).
Which is an apposite point, since if 90% of halal meat in the UK is stunned then this article is pretty much a waste of time, unless he means that the people who want non-stunned halal must be able to access it.
From his feed:
the basis of halal once you properly understand its essence is love/mercy
Mmkay.
It's all standard, off the peg identity politics.
> I'm going hazard a wild guess that the author of that piece is Jewish and is merely defending what he wants to do anyway.
It looks more like he identifies as muslim to me, or his wife is muslim or he's on a mission to embrace Islam.
I don't believe the UK government will allow this legislation to pass. Why? The Jewish lobby won't allow it for one.
This is a common racist trope, much more prevalent on PuffPo since they appointed Medhi Hasan. Muslims outnumber Jews by 10-1 in the UK, but they lack power. The Joos OTOH have the power not just to complain but actually to not allow things because the Joos have real power cos they control the media, the banks, the toilets etc.
He also says on his twitter feed that he was involved in the muslim stun or not stun debate a few years ago, could be because he was working at a slaughterhouse and he says he had to reject animals killed by stunning (as not halal).
Which is an apposite point, since if 90% of halal meat in the UK is stunned then this article is pretty much a waste of time, unless he means that the people who want non-stunned halal must be able to access it.
From his feed:
the basis of halal once you properly understand its essence is love/mercy
Mmkay.
It's all standard, off the peg identity politics.
In reply to winhill: Meh, different gang same silly idea, both have outdated food preparation rituals, neither eat pork, both chop bits of their willies off, it's almost like the ideas arose as a result of geography rather than a sky pixie handing them out.
In reply to winhill:
If it's so merciful maybe the Yanks ought to consider it as an alternative to the Big Needle.
If it's so merciful maybe the Yanks ought to consider it as an alternative to the Big Needle.
In reply to Timmd:
For any particular kind of beast it should be perfectly possible to determine one method of slaughter that causes the least suffering whilst maintaining sufficient hygiene etc.
The fact that we have more than one method for cows (for example) is therefore unacceptable, as it implies that all but one method are not the best.
This seems bloody obvious without delving into the details of the methods.
I suppose things aren't so simple if the animal is stunned first.
For any particular kind of beast it should be perfectly possible to determine one method of slaughter that causes the least suffering whilst maintaining sufficient hygiene etc.
The fact that we have more than one method for cows (for example) is therefore unacceptable, as it implies that all but one method are not the best.
This seems bloody obvious without delving into the details of the methods.
I suppose things aren't so simple if the animal is stunned first.
In reply to sweenyt:
Anyone who thinks slitting the throat of a conscious animal is humane needs to reassess their understanding of the word 'humane'.
Anyone who thinks slitting the throat of a conscious animal is humane needs to reassess their understanding of the word 'humane'.
In reply to sweenyt:
you can see the difference the process makes by the way the animal reacts. it really doesn't take a load of tests to see that stunning is just so much less brutal.
you can see the difference the process makes by the way the animal reacts. it really doesn't take a load of tests to see that stunning is just so much less brutal.
In reply to Timmd:
No animal should have to suffer Halal, just so someone somewhere feels secure that his imaginary friend will be happier for it.
No animal should have to suffer Halal, just so someone somewhere feels secure that his imaginary friend will be happier for it.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
are the uk looking into banning this practice?
i really hope so,religion shouldnt be above the law in a non religious country.
are the uk looking into banning this practice?
i really hope so,religion shouldnt be above the law in a non religious country.
In reply to Timmd:
Come on Timmd, you're better than this. You must at least be able to distinguish between anecdotal (and spectacularly misinformed) ramblings and the weight of properly conducted, welfare-driven research.
I used to think that the Huff was a breath of sceptical fresh air. Stooping to this tripe just smacks of nailing the coffin lid down from the inside.
> I found this interesting reading, it seems to be from somebody who knows what they're talking about...
Come on Timmd, you're better than this. You must at least be able to distinguish between anecdotal (and spectacularly misinformed) ramblings and the weight of properly conducted, welfare-driven research.
I used to think that the Huff was a breath of sceptical fresh air. Stooping to this tripe just smacks of nailing the coffin lid down from the inside.
In reply to mark s:
No.
Our Dave, the prime minister, visited Israel this week. And gave an assurance that he would NEVER give in to calls to ban non-stun slaughter.
Spoon-faced, self-serving buffoon that he is. In celebration of Dave's comments, a Jewish academic said that it was possible that Dave is descended from Moses. Such is the greasiness of politics.
> are the uk looking into banning this practice?
> i really hope so,religion shouldnt be above the law in a non religious country.
No.
Our Dave, the prime minister, visited Israel this week. And gave an assurance that he would NEVER give in to calls to ban non-stun slaughter.
Spoon-faced, self-serving buffoon that he is. In celebration of Dave's comments, a Jewish academic said that it was possible that Dave is descended from Moses. Such is the greasiness of politics.
In reply to mark s:
The Chief Vet has called for it to be banned. Unfortunately Nick Clegg and David Cameron have responded by licking the arses of the religious lobby.
> are the uk looking into banning this practice?
The Chief Vet has called for it to be banned. Unfortunately Nick Clegg and David Cameron have responded by licking the arses of the religious lobby.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
wankers,find it hard to stomach how much politicians kiss the arses of jews.
wankers,find it hard to stomach how much politicians kiss the arses of jews.
In reply to mark s:
are you kidding! the Minority always has right in the UK.
> are the uk looking into banning this practice?
> i really hope so,religion shouldnt be above the law in a non religious country.
are you kidding! the Minority always has right in the UK.
In reply to mark s:
Really? Perhaps you've got a list?
> wankers,find it hard to stomach how much politicians kiss the arses of jews.
Really? Perhaps you've got a list?
In reply to Timmd:
Where was god during the holocaust? Take a break from godding, gone on his hols, or just reverted to being imaginary again.
I mean, if the involuntary slaughter of hundreds of thousands of your fellow believers doesn't make you doubt your imaginary friend's love for you, let alone his existence, is there any hope for you?
Where was god during the holocaust? Take a break from godding, gone on his hols, or just reverted to being imaginary again.
I mean, if the involuntary slaughter of hundreds of thousands of your fellow believers doesn't make you doubt your imaginary friend's love for you, let alone his existence, is there any hope for you?
In reply to stroppygob:
Let's not divert this thread from the real crux of the issue. After all, it's not just the jewish method of dispatch that's being discussed.
Let's not divert this thread from the real crux of the issue. After all, it's not just the jewish method of dispatch that's being discussed.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Fair comment, but it's the same sort of stupidity which drives this inhumane slaughter.
Fair comment, but it's the same sort of stupidity which drives this inhumane slaughter.
In reply to Timmd:
we can all agree that livestock get treated cruelly. so is transporting the animals to the slaughter house really anymore humane.
when you see one of those trucks go by you can actually smell them shitting themselves. they know there going of for slaughter and the ride could be for hours. surly the fear is worst than the death
we can all agree that livestock get treated cruelly. so is transporting the animals to the slaughter house really anymore humane.
when you see one of those trucks go by you can actually smell them shitting themselves. they know there going of for slaughter and the ride could be for hours. surly the fear is worst than the death
In reply to Ban1:
how do you suppose they know what a slaughthouse is?
how do you suppose they know what a slaughthouse is?
> we can all agree that livestock get treated cruelly. so is transporting the animals to the slaughter house really anymore humane.
> they know there going of for slaughter
In reply to Ban1:
Can you prove that the animasls know their destination? Didn't think so.
I watched a very interesting if slightly odd program about the design of slaughter houses, they had designed a place where cows would naturally follow the desired route to their final destination purely out of curiosity without being encouraged in any way.
The thought that goes into making the whole process of slaughter is quite amazing and says a lot about the country. Ignoring all this effort because of religion is just crazy, surely they have to conceded that science moves on so modern methods should be embraced.
Can you prove that the animasls know their destination? Didn't think so.
I watched a very interesting if slightly odd program about the design of slaughter houses, they had designed a place where cows would naturally follow the desired route to their final destination purely out of curiosity without being encouraged in any way.
The thought that goes into making the whole process of slaughter is quite amazing and says a lot about the country. Ignoring all this effort because of religion is just crazy, surely they have to conceded that science moves on so modern methods should be embraced.
In reply to gethin_allen: i was at a slaughter house once when pigs were dropped off.what they say in deliverance is not a lie.they knew what was happening.
In reply to sweenyt:
Excellent post!
As has been said up thread, this needs to be posted in the comments on the OP's link.
Excellent post!
As has been said up thread, this needs to be posted in the comments on the OP's link.
In reply to mark s:
How? How can they possibly know what was about to happen to them?
> i was at a slaughter house once when pigs were dropped off...they knew what was happening.
How? How can they possibly know what was about to happen to them?
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Do you think eyes and ears work differently on animals going to slaughters?
Then why wouldn't their other senses work the same.
Do you think eyes and ears work differently on animals going to slaughters?
Then why wouldn't their other senses work the same.
Post edited at 08:20
In reply to gd303uk:
Your question assumes the animals know what a slaughterhouse is. and even if they could 'smell the death' how would they possibly make the connection that they were about to die? I'm assuming (quite rightly) that these animals haven't been to an abattoir before so have no prior experience to make the connection that the sights,smells, sounds mean certain death.
Your question assumes the animals know what a slaughterhouse is. and even if they could 'smell the death' how would they possibly make the connection that they were about to die? I'm assuming (quite rightly) that these animals haven't been to an abattoir before so have no prior experience to make the connection that the sights,smells, sounds mean certain death.
In reply to mark s:
You can think like a pig. Quite some claim, I must say.
> i was at a slaughter house once when pigs were dropped off.what they say in deliverance is not a lie.they knew what was happening.
You can think like a pig. Quite some claim, I must say.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Made me giggle!
E
> You can think like a pig. Quite some claim, I must say.
Made me giggle!
E
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
why wouldnt they?
animals have fear,i heard the noise they made as they were been killed.they were not screaming with joy.
> How? How can they possibly know what was about to happen to them?
why wouldnt they?
animals have fear,i heard the noise they made as they were been killed.they were not screaming with joy.
In reply to Timmd:
animals are not stupid. they sense things and they know whats going to happen to them
animals are not stupid. they sense things and they know whats going to happen to them
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
How do youknow this?
How do you know animals don't know what is happening?
I suggest you read a little temple Grandin ,
This animal has never seen the inside of this building, what do you think he is thinking now?
youtube.com/watch?v=LUkHkyy4uqw&
What do these animals think?
youtube.com/watch?v=ECJwRKngYBs&
How do youknow this?
How do you know animals don't know what is happening?
I suggest you read a little temple Grandin ,
This animal has never seen the inside of this building, what do you think he is thinking now?
youtube.com/watch?v=LUkHkyy4uqw&
What do these animals think?
youtube.com/watch?v=ECJwRKngYBs&
In reply to redsonja:
I think we are getting slightly off topic.
We are not talking about the fear/potential fear that may be experienced in transit/at the slaughter house, we are talking about the difference between stunned vs non-stunned slaughter.
I think we are getting slightly off topic.
We are not talking about the fear/potential fear that may be experienced in transit/at the slaughter house, we are talking about the difference between stunned vs non-stunned slaughter.
In reply to sweenyt:
You've made some great points! Can you tell us where all the cash extorted by the halal religious levy goes to?
You've made some great points! Can you tell us where all the cash extorted by the halal religious levy goes to?
In reply to sweenyt:
thanks for the liveleak link...i had thought death by sharp knife was quick and effective but it's far from it. The lambs were very troubling.
If the law of the land is stunning, then it's time for the god botherers to adapt.
thanks for the liveleak link...i had thought death by sharp knife was quick and effective but it's far from it. The lambs were very troubling.
If the law of the land is stunning, then it's time for the god botherers to adapt.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
> You can think like a pig. Quite some claim, I must say.
The love that dare not squeak its name?
In reply to Timmd:
Hundreds of millions of people around the world are inadequately educated and centuries behind the times.
Any sense of identity that requires ignorance is a disgrace.
That our leaders are too frightened to stand up for science and education is also a disgrace.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26463064
Hundreds of millions of people around the world are inadequately educated and centuries behind the times.
Any sense of identity that requires ignorance is a disgrace.
That our leaders are too frightened to stand up for science and education is also a disgrace.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26463064
Post edited at 16:33
In reply to Jim Fraser:
The real disgrace is the total lack of what everyone these days calls "tranparency"
Animal welfare is a big marketing ploy: telling us that these chickens or those pigs led happy lives gives the producer the right to charge more for their product.
That's fair enough: I can elect to pay more, hoping that the guff about happy critters is true, or buy the value joints and not worry too much about rearing and slaughter methods.
What is wrong is that halal meat is not usually labelled as such and the much vaunted "transparency" has gone out of the window.
Gauging by the responses on here, most of us would choose not to eat halal meat if we were given the information on the packaging. Which is precisely why it isn't labelled as such.
The real disgrace is the total lack of what everyone these days calls "tranparency"
Animal welfare is a big marketing ploy: telling us that these chickens or those pigs led happy lives gives the producer the right to charge more for their product.
That's fair enough: I can elect to pay more, hoping that the guff about happy critters is true, or buy the value joints and not worry too much about rearing and slaughter methods.
What is wrong is that halal meat is not usually labelled as such and the much vaunted "transparency" has gone out of the window.
Gauging by the responses on here, most of us would choose not to eat halal meat if we were given the information on the packaging. Which is precisely why it isn't labelled as such.
In reply to gethin_allen:
I remember a film from the USA about a girl who designed such a system to make the procedure more humane... needless to say at the end the baddies took over again and her humane system was demolished. I can't remember if it was just fiction or based on reality. The system involved a spiral corridor IIRC.
> I watched a very interesting if slightly odd program about the design of slaughter houses, they had designed a place where cows would naturally follow the desired route to their final destination purely out of curiosity without being encouraged in any way.
I remember a film from the USA about a girl who designed such a system to make the procedure more humane... needless to say at the end the baddies took over again and her humane system was demolished. I can't remember if it was just fiction or based on reality. The system involved a spiral corridor IIRC.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I find it funny how kebab shops always advertise their meat is Halal yet never see a muslim ordering one...
I find it funny how kebab shops always advertise their meat is Halal yet never see a muslim ordering one...
In reply to redsonja:
and comments like that makes people ignore you at parties
> any slaughter of animals for human consumption is sickening to me
and comments like that makes people ignore you at parties
Would hanging work for slaughtering animals? It was the execution method of choice here, after all
I'm imagining a room which the animal victim is led into, noose around the neck, floor drops away, spinal cord severed, then animal lowered out of the way for the next one. No blood or semi-stunnings, and maybe a bit less time for the animal to realise what's going on
Wouldn't work for poultry, probably, and maybe cows/pigs/sheep have necks that are too strong compared to people
I'm imagining a room which the animal victim is led into, noose around the neck, floor drops away, spinal cord severed, then animal lowered out of the way for the next one. No blood or semi-stunnings, and maybe a bit less time for the animal to realise what's going on
Wouldn't work for poultry, probably, and maybe cows/pigs/sheep have necks that are too strong compared to people
In reply to Timmd:
I don't know why they need to slaughter animals when they could just amputate a leg for us to eat. It's much more ethical and vegetarians would be able to cross back over and enjoy a Big Mac.
I don't know why they need to slaughter animals when they could just amputate a leg for us to eat. It's much more ethical and vegetarians would be able to cross back over and enjoy a Big Mac.
Post edited at 00:19
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
I saw the clip on Countryfile about halal sheep "processing" and thought it looked preferable for reduced stress/cruelty than the slaughter of pigs with stunning tongs
> (In reply to sweenyt)
>
> you can see the difference the process makes by the way the animal reacts. it really doesn't take a load of tests to see that stunning is just so much less brutal.
>
> you can see the difference the process makes by the way the animal reacts. it really doesn't take a load of tests to see that stunning is just so much less brutal.
I saw the clip on Countryfile about halal sheep "processing" and thought it looked preferable for reduced stress/cruelty than the slaughter of pigs with stunning tongs
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
The stunning of the animal induces an epileptic seizure which can look like the animal is in distress but they are positively unaware of what's happening. When there's a razor sharp knife slicing through your neck while you are awake, you are acutely aware of the pain. I cut myself shaving the other day, I should know!
The stunning of the animal induces an epileptic seizure which can look like the animal is in distress but they are positively unaware of what's happening. When there's a razor sharp knife slicing through your neck while you are awake, you are acutely aware of the pain. I cut myself shaving the other day, I should know!
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Yes, that's why a lot of people say we should use science rather than feelings to try to determine what is actually occurring, evidence rather than guessing.
> The stunning of the animal induces an epileptic seizure which can look like the animal is in distress but they are positively unaware of what's happening. When there's a razor sharp knife slicing through your neck while you are awake, you are acutely aware of the pain. I cut myself shaving the other day, I should know!
Yes, that's why a lot of people say we should use science rather than feelings to try to determine what is actually occurring, evidence rather than guessing.
In reply to winhill:
Exactly. Our emotions can deceive us. Saying stunning is cruel when there's enough evidence to the contrary just shows people's lack of understanding.
Exactly. Our emotions can deceive us. Saying stunning is cruel when there's enough evidence to the contrary just shows people's lack of understanding.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
It's a mistake to use your own experiences for comparision. But if you are doing that you would need to have experienced a decent electric shock before you can make any reasonable attempt at comparing the two.
> I cut myself shaving the other day, I should know!
It's a mistake to use your own experiences for comparision. But if you are doing that you would need to have experienced a decent electric shock before you can make any reasonable attempt at comparing the two.
In reply to timjones:
That was a tongue in cheek comment.
edit: and i have just realised that yours might have been too?
double edit: I touched an electric fence once. does that count?
That was a tongue in cheek comment.
edit: and i have just realised that yours might have been too?
double edit: I touched an electric fence once. does that count?
Post edited at 11:09
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
It was a tongue in cheek comment from someone who has experienced both severe electric shocks and serious cuts.
My body can block out the pain of nasty cuts for quite some time before I feel a thing, sadly it can't do anything to alleviate the instant and incredibly, intense pain of electric shocks.
I haven't got a clue how my experience of these two events relates to that of other people and I can't even begin to guess at how it relates to other species.
> That was a tongue in cheek comment.
> edit: and i have just realised that yours might have been too?
> double edit: I touched an electric fence once. does that count?
It was a tongue in cheek comment from someone who has experienced both severe electric shocks and serious cuts.
My body can block out the pain of nasty cuts for quite some time before I feel a thing, sadly it can't do anything to alleviate the instant and incredibly, intense pain of electric shocks.
I haven't got a clue how my experience of these two events relates to that of other people and I can't even begin to guess at how it relates to other species.
In reply to timjones:
Even electric shocks which render you unconscious?
> It was a tongue in cheek comment from someone who has experienced both severe electric shocks and serious cuts.
> My body can block out the pain of nasty cuts for quite some time before I feel a thing, sadly it can't do anything to alleviate the instant and incredibly, intense pain of electric shocks.
Even electric shocks which render you unconscious?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Interesting this - imagine you're on death row - the bloke comes in and says "you've been a good boy these last 25 years on death row so we're going to give you a choice - electric chair or we're going to slit your throat with a big knife"
Which do you choose?
E
Interesting this - imagine you're on death row - the bloke comes in and says "you've been a good boy these last 25 years on death row so we're going to give you a choice - electric chair or we're going to slit your throat with a big knife"
Which do you choose?
E
In reply to Enty:
When you find Dr Doolittle in the abattoir do let us know.
But to answer, I'd go for being unconscious when my throat's cut. What about you?
> Interesting this - imagine you're on death row - the bloke comes in and says "you've been a good boy these last 25 years on death row so we're going to give you a choice - electric chair or we're going to slit your throat with a big knife"
> Which do you choose?
> E
When you find Dr Doolittle in the abattoir do let us know.
But to answer, I'd go for being unconscious when my throat's cut. What about you?
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
Countryside also did a - now legendary - puff-piece a few years ago on 'enriched' battery cages, and how great they were.
Waste.Of.Space.
> I saw the clip on Countryfile about halal sheep "processing" and thought it looked preferable for reduced stress/cruelty than the slaughter of pigs with stunning tongs
Countryside also did a - now legendary - puff-piece a few years ago on 'enriched' battery cages, and how great they were.
Waste.Of.Space.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
This ^^^^ and anyone who says otherwise is being a bit disingenuous if you ask me.
E
>
> But to answer, I'd go for being unconscious when my throat's cut. What about you?
This ^^^^ and anyone who says otherwise is being a bit disingenuous if you ask me.
E
Post edited at 17:57
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Presumably if a change to the law is being proposed then there already is such measured evidence. Disgusting thought expt time... ...if I had to choose execution by stunning (electrical or bolt) vs a thick knife cut to the neck, I'd choose the knife cut! Losing the ability to move limbs (being obtunded) is not the same as being made unconscious, and I'm not convinced how that could be definitively measured. However, provided complete transection of the carotids, loss of consciousness would be very rapid indeed, within low single figures of seconds, even though "life" may continue by virtue of continued heart beating.
> If someone presents actual substantive evidence that halal/kosher is kinder or no more cruel, then I'm willing to listen. There are ways of measuring levels of stress and pain in animals (e.g. stress-hormone levels, electrical activity in the brain) that could produce such evidence.
Presumably if a change to the law is being proposed then there already is such measured evidence. Disgusting thought expt time... ...if I had to choose execution by stunning (electrical or bolt) vs a thick knife cut to the neck, I'd choose the knife cut! Losing the ability to move limbs (being obtunded) is not the same as being made unconscious, and I'm not convinced how that could be definitively measured. However, provided complete transection of the carotids, loss of consciousness would be very rapid indeed, within low single figures of seconds, even though "life" may continue by virtue of continued heart beating.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
How can you prove that they are doing that?
> Even electric shocks which render you unconscious?
How can you prove that they are doing that?
In reply to contrariousjim:
Tell me everything you know, without looking it up, about vertebral arteries in cattle. And people.
And don't confuse being obtunded with being obtuse
Tell me everything you know, without looking it up, about vertebral arteries in cattle. And people.
And don't confuse being obtunded with being obtuse
In reply to maisie:
You're right.
I have been largely addled from lack of sleep for the past six months, to be fair. Thinking hasn't been amongst my strong points, and drinking tea and vaguely functioning has been an achievement. The reason why probably isn't relevant.
> Come on Timmd, you're better than this. You must at least be able to distinguish between anecdotal (and spectacularly misinformed) ramblings and the weight of properly conducted, welfare-driven research.
You're right.
> I used to think that the Huff was a breath of sceptical fresh air. Stooping to this tripe just smacks of nailing the coffin lid down from the inside.
I have been largely addled from lack of sleep for the past six months, to be fair. Thinking hasn't been amongst my strong points, and drinking tea and vaguely functioning has been an achievement. The reason why probably isn't relevant.
Post edited at 18:31
In reply to Enty:
I'd be asking them to let me sharpen the knife
> Interesting this - imagine you're on death row - the bloke comes in and says "you've been a good boy these last 25 years on death row so we're going to give you a choice - electric chair or we're going to slit your throat with a big knife"
> Which do you choose?
> E
I'd be asking them to let me sharpen the knife
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Interesting question. I'm sure that anyone who saw me on the two occasions where I've experienced decent electric shocks would have judged me to be unconscious. They would have been very, very wrong ;(
> Even electric shocks which render you unconscious?
Interesting question. I'm sure that anyone who saw me on the two occasions where I've experienced decent electric shocks would have judged me to be unconscious. They would have been very, very wrong ;(
In reply to timjones:
However did you manage to get two such shocks to your head?
> Interesting question. I'm sure that anyone who saw me on the two occasions where I've experienced decent electric shocks would have judged me to be unconscious. They would have been very, very wrong ;(
However did you manage to get two such shocks to your head?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
They weren't to my head. How do you know that they would have been less painful or that I would have been less concious to the pain if they were?
> However did you manage to get two such shocks to your head?
They weren't to my head. How do you know that they would have been less painful or that I would have been less concious to the pain if they were?
In reply to timjones:
You don't get that choice - go one choose one of the other two choices in front of the UKC massive - dare you!
E
> I'd be asking them to let me sharpen the knife
You don't get that choice - go one choose one of the other two choices in front of the UKC massive - dare you!
E
In reply to Timmd:
We KNOW they are unconscious after the appropriate shock to the head because the scientific research has been done observing the brain activity post shock - it is not just a subjective observation
We KNOW they are unconscious after the appropriate shock to the head because the scientific research has been done observing the brain activity post shock - it is not just a subjective observation
In reply to Timmd:
PS this is in contrast to the electric chair which is not designed or configured to being about instant unconsciousness and can be a relatively slow and extremely painful death
PS this is in contrast to the electric chair which is not designed or configured to being about instant unconsciousness and can be a relatively slow and extremely painful death
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
That's fine- you have your preferences and I have mine.
But why do meat producers shrink away from telling us which method was used so that we can make an informed choice? A simple logo would be enough.
They'll tell me if chicken is free range, tuna is dolphin friendly, pork is outdoor reared -but not if meat is halal slaughtered. There must be a reason for this and I suspect it's that they don't WANT us to know.
That's fine- you have your preferences and I have mine.
But why do meat producers shrink away from telling us which method was used so that we can make an informed choice? A simple logo would be enough.
They'll tell me if chicken is free range, tuna is dolphin friendly, pork is outdoor reared -but not if meat is halal slaughtered. There must be a reason for this and I suspect it's that they don't WANT us to know.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I don't have a Halal meat preference ! I just commented on two tv clips - one showing a slaughterman having a bit of a tustle with some pigs, trying to apply head tongs to administer the shock, and the Halal sheep seemingly blithely unaware of their approaching last moments. I wonder whether, in the overall scheme of meat production, there is such a big difference in cruelty.
I'm all for food labelling, but if you are worried about eating Halal meat should you be avoiding game as well ?
I don't have a Halal meat preference ! I just commented on two tv clips - one showing a slaughterman having a bit of a tustle with some pigs, trying to apply head tongs to administer the shock, and the Halal sheep seemingly blithely unaware of their approaching last moments. I wonder whether, in the overall scheme of meat production, there is such a big difference in cruelty.
I'm all for food labelling, but if you are worried about eating Halal meat should you be avoiding game as well ?
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
I'm thinking about the times I've cut myself with something very sharp and not noticed until I've seen the blood, and how I feel when I have a 'hypo', which is when diabetics have low blood sugar, and I feel feint and weird. In theory I'd pass out eventually if my blood sugar kept dropping.
I'm wondering if there's not a lot of difference in the end if the knife is sharp enough, that it might be felt by the animal but not actually painful, they might just feel funny blood loss as they pass out.
edit: This is just a wonder, mind you.
I'm thinking about the times I've cut myself with something very sharp and not noticed until I've seen the blood, and how I feel when I have a 'hypo', which is when diabetics have low blood sugar, and I feel feint and weird. In theory I'd pass out eventually if my blood sugar kept dropping.
I'm wondering if there's not a lot of difference in the end if the knife is sharp enough, that it might be felt by the animal but not actually painful, they might just feel funny blood loss as they pass out.
edit: This is just a wonder, mind you.
Post edited at 15:36
In reply to Timmd: How deep were your cuts, Tim? Did you go deep enough to go through veins? Arteries? Any tendons or ligaments severed?
In reply to Timmd:
Stop it.
It hurts. Don't confuse inflammatory pain with slicing through gigantic nerve trunks.
You're still better than this
Stop it.
It hurts. Don't confuse inflammatory pain with slicing through gigantic nerve trunks.
You're still better than this
In reply to Sir Chasm:
http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm
This is interesting reading.
It is a Muslim/Islamic site, but at first glance it appears to reference a scientific study.
I've only just skim read it so far...
> How deep were your cuts, Tim? Did you go deep enough to go through veins? Arteries? Any tendons or ligaments severed?
http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm
This is interesting reading.
It is a Muslim/Islamic site, but at first glance it appears to reference a scientific study.
I've only just skim read it so far...
In reply to Timmd:
Not as clear cut as the study above suggests.
http://www.grandin.com/ritual/slaughter.without.stunning.causes.pain.html
Not as clear cut as the study above suggests.
http://www.grandin.com/ritual/slaughter.without.stunning.causes.pain.html
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...