comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 7 hours, 24 minutes ago
Do people really think this halal meat has been blessed as in by some ancient religious doctrine.

A billion chickens flying along a conveyor belt at a 100 miles an hour.

They must be quick at reciting prayers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------




HC thats a good find regarding the stunning issue, will be interesting to see if them tests were falsified to suit an agenda like all the tests previous apparetly were.

comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 2 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 8 minutes ago
Is the goal not to kill the animal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without it suffering yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So when it is stunned it does not suffer 😅

"we know a lot more now than we did 11 years ago on how an animals body works."

What is that statement based on?

My wife, who is very much an expert on animal anatomy says that halal killing, when performed correctly, is one of the quickest and most humane ways of causing that animal's demise.

My wife, who is very much an expert on animal anatomy says that halal killing, when performed correctly, is one of the quickest and most humane ways of causing that animal's demise.

-----------
Henrys, that's good to establish, though halal slaughter is basically slitting the throat. Did your good lady explain what it is that makes it such a quick and humane way?

I don't know, hence the question.

It is quick, so by definition it is humane. To be clear, all the regulated methods of killing animals are fairly quick, so fairly humane.

TBH, for me, all this focus on how the animal actually is physically put to death is kind of missing the point. From an animal welfare point of view, the animal's treatment prior to slaughter (dead is dead) should be paramount.

Also the environment in which is dies is important. It's not quite leading it to its demise whilst playing soothing classical music as opposed to a screaming blood-bath.- but that is the gist of it. Most methods of actually bringing about the end are much of a muchness - it would be stupid for the abattoir to stress the animal in death as a surge in adrenalin devalues the final product.

Killing animals on an industrial scale is a fairly horrible thing even if you gave them a hand-job whilst tickling them to death with a feather, these are grim places, and a lot (not all) of this talk of concern is nonsense frankly.

Some of the cruellest farming practice is in dairy farming and egg production, and the best thing you can do if you're really bothered is buy organic (but that's not great) - but that costs a few pence more and puts people off.

it would be stupid for the abattoir to stress the animal in death as a surge in adrenalin devalues the final product.

----------
This is what happens in stunning when the animal is still alive unable to move and frightened, adrenalin rush through the blood stream, which then can't go anywhere except remain in the flesh.

comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 3 hours, 2 minutes ago
"we know a lot more now than we did 11 years ago on how an animals body works."

What is that statement based on?

My wife, who is very much an expert on animal anatomy says that halal killing, when performed correctly, is one of the quickest and most humane ways of causing that animal's demise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your wife should get onto the BVA let them know her findings.

She's a member of the BVA.

I'm still curious what's happened in the last 11 years, we're always finding out new things - but I wasn't aware of some seismic shift in understanding animal physiology in the last decade.

Your wife should get onto the BVA let them know her findings.

Reply | Add Comment | Complain | Share

comment by HenrysCat (U3608)

posted 18 minutes ago

She's a member of the BVA.

-------------

comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 57 minutes ago
She's a member of the BVA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So she disagree's with the BVA?

comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 57 minutes ago
She's a member of the BVA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So she disagree's with the BVA?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Where did I say that?

Religious leaders claim 6.6% of stunning fails when in fact it's 0.0004% which is 16,500 times safer than what they claimed. So they're basically fudging the figures.

comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Alasnomoresmithandjones (long live Israel) (U15157)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 57 minutes ago
She's a member of the BVA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So she disagree's with the BVA?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Where did I say that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does you so called vet of a wife believe stunning is the most humane way of slaughtering an animal?

Why 'so called'? Swings and roudabouts, did you read all of my previous post?

comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 12 seconds ago
Why 'so called'? Swings and roudabouts, did you read all of my previous post?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does she or not? You only have to google Halal and kosher slaughter to find most leading vets disapprove of ritual slaughter.

"stunning is the most humane way of slaughtering an animal"

"disapprove of ritual slaughter"

These are not equivalent statements.

And your googling will not tell that at all. That is your interpretation of what you are reading.

Calling it a ritual slaughter is not accurate, it's not something down just to kill an animal for the sake of it.

It's killed to be eaten. The methodology is to ensure a lot of the blood as possible is drained out of the animal prior to consumption.

Just to be clear: it is not the same thing to say "this is the best way" and "this is the only acceptable way".

Am not going to address the issues posed at me individually as will be here all day so will try and encapsulate into this post

Firstly fellas you are arguing apples and oranges. why? because the stunning process is not the end, but is teh beginning of what is seen as ''humane''. All it does is paralyse the animal. The cut is done while paralysed but still alive. This may look nice as teh animal cant move but is it?

The tests done are brain waves for religious slaughter without stunning.

With stunning the animal is not dead so its twice the anguish and pain

As for Temple Jardin she is not against religious slaughter but asks for better checks. Her verdict is that conventional slaughter with preliminary stunning, and religious slaughter without stunning, are both acceptable when conducted properly

As for the BVA I give you some quotes from teh Guardian

So even if one believes, despite the lack of scientific consensus, that religious slaughter is cruel, it is deeply troubling that the BVA has chosen to focus its attention on religious slaughter rather than other, far more pressing animal welfare issues. For example, between 2009 and 2011 the campaign group Animal Aid filmed secretly and found evidence of unspeakable cruelty and illegal activity in eight of nine randomly chosenBritish slaughterhouses: animals were kicked, slapped, stamped on, and even burned with cigarettes. We are yet to hear of a campaign by the BVA to root out this kind of cruelty.

the European Food Safety authority found in 2004 that the failure rate for the much-trumpeted penetrating captive bolt stunning in conventional mechanical slaughter may be as high as 6.6%, and up to 31% for non-penetrating captive bolt and electric stunning. This equates to millions of animals each year that experience incredible suffering. But the BVA has not mounted a campaign on this.

https://youtu.be/wip8_L7cwNE


I don't know much about this kind of thing but I remember seeing the above video. Not so much the words but the video itself.

Im sure European slaughterhouses are as gruesome, but I haven't seen a clip

Foxx, we're singing from the same song sheet. This current obsession with how animals are dispatched is somewhat disingenuous at best. I've held lifelong concerns on animal welfare, as has my 'so called' wife - and those few seconds between being an animal and being meat are way down the list of welfare concerns for anyone with half an idea about the industry.

and those few seconds between being an animal and being meat are way down the list

----------------------------

YOU MONSTER!!!!

comment by Redd Foxx (U19849)
posted 14 minutes ago
the European Food Safety authority found in 2004 that the failure rate for the much-trumpeted penetrating captive bolt stunning in conventional mechanical slaughter may be as high as 6.6%, and up to 31% for non-penetrating captive bolt and electric stunning. This equates to millions of animals each year that experience incredible suffering. But the BVA has not mounted a campaign on this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you not read my previous post Fox?

Religious leaders claim 6.6% of stunning fails when in fact it's 0.0004% which is 16,500 times safer than what they claimed. So they're basically fudging the figures.