Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Netherlands set to ban halal/kosher slaughter without stunning watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    Yes there is. The knife has to be kept in a sharpened state in order to allow for a swift and easy slaughter and to minimise pain.
    That's kind of a no brainer, I mean anybody carrying out ritual slaughter is going to do that. What I was alluding to is the fact with shechita the knife must be of a certain size, at least 1.5/2 times longer than the width of the animals neck depending on species. In addition to that the knife must not have a tip. Knives must also be rigorously checked for imperfections both before and after use. I'm not aware of such guidelines regarding halal methods of slaughter so in many cases smaller knives will be used which is problematic.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This wint go through without someone crying that their human rights are being infringed
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mohamed aden)
    Hmmm you are aware that if you looked closely that the latest my studies pre-dates back to 2004 (30 years ?? no im sorry), but even if your comment was directed mainly towards the fellow who brought the studies from 1978. The answer is yes! the studies i have brought forward 27 years later do back up crazycake93's studies. Therefore the challenge is clearly presented
    Actually you're misunderstood. You cited the findings from only one study, that by Schulze et al. in 1978. 'Schultz' is a spelling mistake from Duaa Anwar's book and this section is found on most, if not all, pro-Halal websites and cited as the main/only body of evidence in favour of Halal slaughter. However we have already discussed the inadequacies of this study.

    'Voices of Islam: Voices of Life: Family, Home, and Society - Volume 3' is a book by Vincent Cornell, the section you quoted does not prove that Halal slaughter is any more or less humane nor does it cite any studies which support your viewpoint. This is part of what you quoted: "According to studies of the correctly preformed Halal method of slaughter, the animal registers little pain and died quickly," - the author acknowledges that Halal slaughter causes pain and he claims that "studies" support this, this contradicts the study by Schulze et al. and your claims that Halal slaughter is painless or less painless.

    'The Everything Koran Book' is also not a study but a book by Duaa Anwar. For a start this is far from an independent study or book for it is one written by a Muslim, for Muslims. Also bear in mind that she has limited experience in the field having never studied meat science or animal welfare formally (her degree in fact is in Fine Arts). The only study she cites is the one by Schulze et al.

    "If you could present a study (legitimate source!!), that clearly heavily support that stunning is a less painful ordeal than by all means cite it!"
    Here's a reference list from a note pack on Red Meat Welfare, they support most (if not all) of what I've said. If you haven't the time pay particular attention to the studies in bold. Plug them into google scholar and you will be able to read the abstracts at the very least:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Anil, M.H. 1991. Studies on the return of physical reflexes in pigs following
    electrical stunning. Meat Science. 30, 13-21.

    Anil, M.H., McKinstry, J.L., Gregory, N.G., Wotton, S.B. and Symonds, H. 1995. Welfare of Calves - 2. Increase in vertebral artery blood flow following exsanguination by neck sticking and evaluation of chest sticking as an alternative slaughter method. Meat Science. 41 (2), 113-123.

    Anil, M.H., McKinstry, J.L. and Wotton, S.B. 1997. Electrical stunning and slaughter of pigs. Fleischwirtschaft 77 (5) 473-476.

    Brambell, F.W.R. 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. London:
    HMSO Cmnd. 2836.

    Cook, C.J. 1993. A guide to better electrical stunning. Meat Focus International. March 128-131.

    Cook C.J., Devine C.E., Gilbert K.V., Smith D.D., Maasland S.A. 1995. The effect of electrical head-only stun duration on electroencephalographic-measured seizure and brain amino-acid neurotransmitter release. Meat Science 40 (2): 137-147.

    Daly, C.C., Kalweit, E. and Ellendorf, F. 1988. Cortical function in cattle during slaughter: Conventional captive bolt stunning followed by exsanguination compared with shechita slaughter. Veterinary Record. 122, 325-329

    Daly, C.C. and Whittington, P.E. 1989. Investigation into the principal determinants of effective captive bolt stunning of sheep. Research in Veterinary Science. 46, 406-408.

    Daly, C.C. 1990. Stunning and slaughter an overview - Meat Quality from gate to plate. Proceedings of a two-day course organised by the Meat Technology Service, Division of Meat Animal Science, University of Bristol, Langford.

    Farm Animal Welfare Council. Five Freedoms. http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm

    Gregory, N.G. and Wotton, S.B. 1984a. Sheep slaughtering procedures. 2. Time to loss of brain responsiveness after exsanguination or cardiac arrest. British Veterinary Journal. 140, 354-360.

    Gregory, N.G. and Wotton, S.B. 1984b. Time to loss of brain responsiveness following exsanguination in calves. Research in Veterinary Science. 37, 141-143.

    Hoenderken, R. (1978a). Elektrische bedwelming van eslachvarkens. PhD thesis, State University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

    Hoenderken, R. (1978b). Electrical stunning of pigs. In: Hearing on Preslaughter Stunning. The National Food Administration, Upsala, Sweden,. 29-38.

    MAFF. 1995. The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations. Statutory Instruments No. 731 (London HMSO).

    Popesko, P. 1973. Atlas of topographical anatomy of the domestic animals. Philadelphia, London, Toronto; W.B. Saunders Company. Volume I.

    Raj, A.B.M. and Gregory, N.G. 1996. Welfare implications of the gas stunning of Pigs 2. Stress of induction of anaesthesia. Animal Welfare 5, 71-78.

    Raj, A.B.M., Johnson, S.P., Wotton, S.B. and McKinstry, J.L. 1997. Welfare Implications of gas stunning pigs: 3. The time to loss of somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electrocorticogram of pigs during exposure to gases. TheVeterinary Journal 153, 329-340.

    Wotton, S. 1995. Stunning in pigs. Meat Focus International. 4 (3), 105-108.

    Wotton, S.B. and Gregory, N.G. 1986. Pig slaughtering procedures: time to loss of brain responsiveness after exsanguination or cardiac arrest. Research in Veterinary Science. 40, 148-151.

    Wotton, S.B. 1996. New advances in stunning techniques for slaughter animals. Meat Focus International. 461-465.

    Wotton, S.B., O’Callaghan, M. 2002. Electrical stunning of pigs: the effect of applied voltage on impedance to current flow and the operation of a fail-safe device. Meat Science. Vol 60/2, 203-208.


    (Original post by sixthformer)
    When carried out correctly the sudden drop in blood pressure to the brain renders the animal brain dead within seconds and many researchers have found Dhabiha to be less stressful and painful to the animal than modern western methods of slaughter.
    Where is the evidence for this?

    The intention behind all of this is to ensure that the meat is fresh and free of impurities, the animal is given proper respect and Allah is thanked for providing us with food.
    With all due respect you cannot remove all of the blood from a carcass by Halal slaughter, it is physically impossible. On a similar note there is very little (if any) difference between the amount of blood drained during Halal slaughter or conventional slaughter with prior stunning.

    Comparison of religious slaughter of sheep with methods that include pre-slaughter stunning, and the lack of differences in exsanguination, packed cell volume and meat quality parameters

    Abstract:
    UK legislation requiring pre-slaughter stunning has certain exemptions for religious slaughter. Supporters of both Muslim (Halal) and Jewish (Shechita) slaughter methods claim that the efficiency of the bleed out is adversely affected by stunning. In this study, electrical stunning followed by neck cutting, and captive bolt stunning followed by neck cutting, were compared with the Muslim slaughter method (neck cutting without stunning) in sheep. Total blood loss and percentage blood loss, expressed as a percentage of live weight, were calculated and compared between groups. In addition, the time taken to reach 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% of total blood loss was calculated and compared. There was no apparent difference in the packed cell volume levels between groups. Slaughter method did, however, affect meat pH and colour. The results show that the bleed out after neck cutting is not adversely affected by electrical or captive bolt stunning; nor is an improved bleed out achieved by neck cutting without stunning.
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00004/art00001

    Comparison of Halal slaughter with captive bolt stunning and neck cutting in cattle: exsanguination and quality parameters

    Abstract:
    Some supporters of religious slaughter methods claim that efficiency of bleed-out is adversely affected by stunning. Our previous study carried out in sheep at an abattoir comparing the Muslim method of slaughter without stunning with pre-slaughter stunning using a captive bolt or by electrical methods concluded that bleed-out is not adversely affected by stunning, nor improved by a neck cut without stunning. In this paper, a similar study carried out in cattle is reported. In this study, captive bolt stunning followed by neck cutting was compared with the Muslim slaughter method without stunning. The total blood loss, percentage blood loss expressed as a percentage of live weight and percentage loss of estimated total blood were calculated and compared between each group. In addition, the time periods taken to reach 25, 50, 75 and 90% of total blood loss were also calculated. There was no significant difference between the two stunning groups for any of these blood loss variables. The results, subjected to statistical analyses, also showed no apparent difference in the PCV levels and meat quality parameters between treatments. These results confirm the findings with sheep and show that the bleed-out is not adversely affected by captive bolt stunning, nor improved by a neck cut without stunning in cattle. It is anticipated that these findings may help promote the use of stunning methods during Halal slaughter.
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00004/art00002
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Dustinthewind*)
    If you are so concerned about animals and the pain they feel regardless for how long, then don't eat meat....

    The fact is there are conflicting studies on this and opinions.
    1. The argument in bold is complete rubbish, I have argued against so many times.

    2. The fact is that seeing as the bill is probably going through, then a majority probably support it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There is a part of the animals in Holland? wtf? o.O
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Those references were taken from a resource on red meat welfare published by Bristol University, an institution renown for it's work in meat science and animal welfare. Those are the original sources for most (if not all) that I have mentioned, you should be able to view the abstracts by searching on google scholar or using the interlibrary loan system at your local library or institution.

    Pleading ignorance does not validate your own argument or magic all of the contravening evidence away.



    Physical trauma damages nerves and it causes inflammation, this is what precipitates pain - using a sharp knife or cutting implement does not circumnavigate this. It wasn't that your friend didn't experience any pain rather that he went into a state of shock (probably as a result of intense pain, the sight of cutting his finger off, etc) which would eventually inhibit pain and his recollection of events.

    Electrocution is a different process to stunning.



    Hormones and artificial growth promoters are banned EU wide in food producing animals.



    Only if you use an excessively high current which is avoided because as you note it decreases meat quality.



    What you're talking about isn't a problem with the science behind stunning but rather the application. If you take measures to avoid pre-stun shocks and use a variable voltage stunner (it is only a matter of time before they become an industry standard) you improve animal welfare and meat quality significantly.



    Strictly speaking the aim of stunning is not to kill the animal, you're merely rendering the animal unconscious until the point of death and it is possible to recover from.

    Some mechanical stunners are capable of killing animals (eg; your mushroom head non penetrative stunners) however they are rarely used because of the stress they place on the operator's arm (the concussive force is so strong that it causes repetitive strain injuries).



    Certainly with respect to poultry heavier animals receive a better stun because they have a greater amount of contact with the metal shackles.





    Are you aware that this is the only study to support Halal slaughter, it's results have not been replicated in over 30 years and that significantly more, more recent studies oppose this?



    Funnily enough the main/only study to support Halal slaughter involved just 32 animals.





    As I said in an earlier thread:

    "With mechanical stunning what you're trying to achieve is a 'knockout punch' sort of effect on the brain, to do this you need to accelerate the brain within the skull to ~40m/s, the average for most captive bolt guns is around 50m/s. Now most captive bolt guns do this in the space of 1.2-1.5ms which is significantly faster than the brain is able to register sensation or pain.

    As for electrical stunning the aim is to induce a tonic/clonic epileptic seizure whereby the animal is unconscious and unable to feel pain. While this can take as long as 200ms (it is often shorter) the current inhibits normal brain activity within this window anyway."




    They only agree because it is in their own (mutual) interests however that does not validate what they're fighting for.
    Which studies?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crazycake93)
    Which studies?
    Check out the spoilered list in my last post.

    EDIT: You may also find these interesting:

    "Blood in the respiratory tract during slaughter with and without stunning in cattle" - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0&searchtype=a

    "Time to collapse following slaughter without stunning in cattle" - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4&searchtype=a

    "False aneurysms in carotid arteries of cattle and water buffalo during shechita and halal slaughter" - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7&searchtype=a

    "Welfare of calves — 1. Investigations into some aspects of calf slaughter" - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6&searchtype=a

    "Electroencephalographic responses of halothane - anaesthetised calves to slaughter by ventral-neck incision without prior stunning." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19471325

    "Amelioration of electroencephalographic responses to slaughter by non-penetrative captive-bolt stunning after ventral-neck incision in halothane - anaesthetised calves." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19471328

    "Blood aspiration during slaughter with and without stunning in cattle" - http://www.icomst.helsinki.fi/ICoMST....2.Gregory.pdf

    "Electroencephalographic studies of adult cattle associated with electrical stunning, throat cutting and carcass electro-immobilization. (1986)" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16031242

    "Electroencephalographic studies of calves associated with electrical stunning, throat cutting and carcass electro-immobilisation. (1987)" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16031393
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 10, 2011
Poll
Are you going to a Festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.