Halal / non-Halal meat slaughter. What's the crack?
21 Jun 2012, 1:47 pm
DC wrote:
If you read the actual paper his conclusions do not match his data.
In his experimental description he states that the captive bolt instantly produces unconsciousness and an inability to feel pain compared to ritual slaughter that takes 10-13 seconds in his very, very small sample size but in his conclusion he goes on to claim that captive bolt is less efficient than ritual slaughter.
In his experimental description he states that the captive bolt instantly produces unconsciousness and an inability to feel pain compared to ritual slaughter that takes 10-13 seconds in his very, very small sample size but in his conclusion he goes on to claim that captive bolt is less efficient than ritual slaughter.
Let's look at the translators text:
Quote:
The investigations had the following results:
a) For slaughter by ritual cut:
1. After the bloodletting cut the EEG initially is the same as the EEG before the cut. There is a high probability that the loss of reaction took place within 4 – 6 seconds for sheep and within 10 seconds for calves.
2. The zero line in the EEG was recorded no later than after 13 seconds for 17 sheep and no later than 23 seconds for 7 calves.
3. Thermal pain stimuli did not cause an increase in activity.
4. After the cut the heart frequency rose for calves within 40 seconds to 240 heart actions per minute and for sheep within 40 seconds to 280 heart actions per minute.
b) For slaughter after captive bolt application:
1. After captive bolt stunning all animals displayed most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.
2. The zero line in the EEG was reached for 4 calves after 28 seconds.
3. For two sheep the cerebral cortex activity only stopped in one half of the brain, whilst it continued in the other in the –region (up to 3.5 Hz) until the bloodletting cut.
4. The bloodletting cut resulted for all animals in a brain activity (e and d waves).
5. Thermal pain stimuli caused an increase in activity in one sheep.
6. The heart frequency rose directly after stunning to values above 300 actions per minute.
In summary the following conclusions are possible:
1. Slaughter after captive bolt stunning
A. Calves
After captive bolt stunning most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) occurred in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.
B. Sheep
Similar disturbances were also seen in sheep, but besides the somewhat higher frequency there are still clearly superimposed waves. For one animal waves could be recorded after pain stimuli until after the 200th second. Apparent cramps were registered for all sheep with the exception of one animal.
2. Slaughter in the form of ritual cut
A. Calves
After the bloodletting cut loss of reaction (loss of consciousness) occurred with high probability within 10 seconds. A clear reaction to the cut could not be detected in any animal. For 7 animals a zero EEG was recorded no later than after 23 seconds. Cramps occurred in the animals regularly only after the brain currents had stopped.
B. Sheep
After the bloodletting cut loss of reaction (loss of consciousness) occurred after 10 seconds the latest. A clear reaction to the cut could not be detected in any animal. The zero line was recorded no later than 14 seconds after the cut. Cramps only occurred after the zero line had been detected and were much shorter than after captive bolt stunning.
The slaughter in the form of ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to the EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions.
During the experiments with captive bolt stunning no indications could be found for proscribing this method for calves.
For sheep, however, there were in parts severe reactions both to the bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli. A proof of the reliable effectiveness of captive bolt stunning could not be provided using the methods applied.
a) For slaughter by ritual cut:
1. After the bloodletting cut the EEG initially is the same as the EEG before the cut. There is a high probability that the loss of reaction took place within 4 – 6 seconds for sheep and within 10 seconds for calves.
2. The zero line in the EEG was recorded no later than after 13 seconds for 17 sheep and no later than 23 seconds for 7 calves.
3. Thermal pain stimuli did not cause an increase in activity.
4. After the cut the heart frequency rose for calves within 40 seconds to 240 heart actions per minute and for sheep within 40 seconds to 280 heart actions per minute.
b) For slaughter after captive bolt application:
1. After captive bolt stunning all animals displayed most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.
2. The zero line in the EEG was reached for 4 calves after 28 seconds.
3. For two sheep the cerebral cortex activity only stopped in one half of the brain, whilst it continued in the other in the –region (up to 3.5 Hz) until the bloodletting cut.
4. The bloodletting cut resulted for all animals in a brain activity (e and d waves).
5. Thermal pain stimuli caused an increase in activity in one sheep.
6. The heart frequency rose directly after stunning to values above 300 actions per minute.
In summary the following conclusions are possible:
1. Slaughter after captive bolt stunning
A. Calves
After captive bolt stunning most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) occurred in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.
B. Sheep
Similar disturbances were also seen in sheep, but besides the somewhat higher frequency there are still clearly superimposed waves. For one animal waves could be recorded after pain stimuli until after the 200th second. Apparent cramps were registered for all sheep with the exception of one animal.
2. Slaughter in the form of ritual cut
A. Calves
After the bloodletting cut loss of reaction (loss of consciousness) occurred with high probability within 10 seconds. A clear reaction to the cut could not be detected in any animal. For 7 animals a zero EEG was recorded no later than after 23 seconds. Cramps occurred in the animals regularly only after the brain currents had stopped.
B. Sheep
After the bloodletting cut loss of reaction (loss of consciousness) occurred after 10 seconds the latest. A clear reaction to the cut could not be detected in any animal. The zero line was recorded no later than 14 seconds after the cut. Cramps only occurred after the zero line had been detected and were much shorter than after captive bolt stunning.
The slaughter in the form of ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to the EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions.
During the experiments with captive bolt stunning no indications could be found for proscribing this method for calves.
For sheep, however, there were in parts severe reactions both to the bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli. A proof of the reliable effectiveness of captive bolt stunning could not be provided using the methods applied.
It seems to me that their conclusions do match their data. For calves, the study clearly indicate no concern, and a loss of sensation of pain from captive bolt was clearly found. The same was not true of sheep, and nowhere does the study suggest that.
And while ritual slaughter takes between 10 and 23 seconds for zero line EEG, they note for both types of animal: "A clear reaction to the cut could not be detected in any animal."
Quote:
Having made his conclusions he then starts speculating about morality, religion and law which is probably why his tiny research study got him a reputation for being 'controversial'...
It is also worth noting this:
If you are unsure what a 'hydraulically operated tilting equipment' is check this out:
http://www.butina.eu/fileadmin/user_upl ... leisch.pdf
Yup, that is one giant beast of a machine doing the slaughtering.
The exception for ritual slaughter has led to slaughtering being allowed by a bloke with a knife doing a 12 hour shift, you really think a knackered bloke on minimum wage is going to perform as consistently as a big bad uber machine?
It is also worth noting this:
Quote:
during a ritual slaughter, carried out according to the state of the art using hydraulically operated tilting equipment and a ritual cut
If you are unsure what a 'hydraulically operated tilting equipment' is check this out:
http://www.butina.eu/fileadmin/user_upl ... leisch.pdf
Yup, that is one giant beast of a machine doing the slaughtering.
The exception for ritual slaughter has led to slaughtering being allowed by a bloke with a knife doing a 12 hour shift, you really think a knackered bloke on minimum wage is going to perform as consistently as a big bad uber machine?
I am not making the case for either method. All I am saying is that the veterenary studies are inconclusive.
_________________
--James
21 Jun 2012, 1:51 pm
YippySkippy wrote:
Is there a reason we can't render the animals unconscious in the same way we do people who are about to have surgery? That seems pretty quick and painless.
Yes there is a very good reason.
It was suggested and certain members of a certain religion screamed 'Silence! I kill you!'.
Sane, rational and compassionate, accept that if we have to have industrial scale slaughter it should be in the most humane way possible and cause the least amount of distress.
Religious wingbats just scream and scream and scream until they get what they want, which is to carry on doing what has been done thousands of years completely ignoring any form of progress in the intervening time.
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
21 Jun 2012, 2:54 pm
We render humans unconscious before surgery by giving them drugs. The meat would probably have traces of the drugs in it, so that would rule that out. Also, it would cost a lot more to do it that way and then the price of meat would go up.
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
21 Jun 2012, 3:03 pm
OliveOilMom wrote:
We render humans unconscious before surgery by giving them drugs. The meat would probably have traces of the drugs in it, so that would rule that out. Also, it would cost a lot more to do it that way and then the price of meat would go up.
There are loads of drugs used for exactly that purpose, the cost of drugs for humans is deliberately kept artificially high to make obscene profits in the US you can walk into a pet shop and buy fish antibiotics for $5 that would cost thousands if sold under the human brand name but the actual pills are identical, straight off the same production line just in a different bottle.
Economics isn't the problem, religion is.
21 Jun 2012, 4:05 pm
DC wrote:
There are loads of drugs used for exactly that purpose, the cost of drugs for humans is deliberately kept artificially high to make obscene profits in the US you can walk into a pet shop and buy fish antibiotics for $5 that would cost thousands if sold under the human brand name but the actual pills are identical, straight off the same production line just in a different bottle.
Economics isn't the problem, religion is.
Economics isn't the problem, religion is.
The administration of anesthesia to an animal meant for human consumption is a woefully dangerous practice. We already face a significant issue of growing antibiotic resistance due, in part, to subtherapeutic use in the food chain. The use of anathesia in slaughter would represent an even greater danger because there would be no oppotunity for metabolic clearance before animal was slaughtered and the meat entered the food chain. No veterenarian or medical officer of health would ever permit the use of anathesia in animals that were intended for human (or animal) consumption.
As for the economic issue, I suggest that if anything, the economics of food production has been far more responsible for practices in the industry.
Meat producers are the recipients of vast amounts of government subsidy to keep the prices of meat artificially low. And further regulatory barriers are put in the way of small producers being permitted to participate in the marketplace.
For example, in this province, farmers who wish to raise, say, half a dozen head of cattle or a few dozen sheep for meat are prohibited from selling it unless the animals are slaughtered at an approved abbatoir. And the regulatory requirements have been drafted in such a way that no farmer can ever build a facility that will obtain approval for such small scale use. So rather than sell their animals to a distributor at a loss, they simply vacate the marketplace.
Meat producers are interested in only one thing: fast animal growth, maximal product for minimal investment in food and land, and the fast and efficient slaughtering of animals and distribution of meat to consumers.
To the extent that calm animals are easier to kill than agitated one, producers are interested in keeping animals calm, but the interest always lies in favour of ease and efficiency of production, not any respect or care for the animal.
_________________
--James
21 Jun 2012, 7:50 pm
Visagrunt, I do not see your connection between the development of antibiotic resistance and the failure of the target animal to metabolically clear sedatives; are you suggesting that the humans who eat such animals will become resistant to sedatives? Or do such drugs have some important action on bacteria, in addition to sedating vertebrates, that I haven't heard of?
Pyrite
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,247
Location: Mid-Atlantic United States
21 Jun 2012, 11:51 pm
androbot2084 wrote:
So does that mean I am a sinner if i eat meat and I get high?
I don't know the Islamic view but in Jewish theology it's only a sin for Jew to break those rules, what is believed to constitute a sin in this regard for non-Jews is a much vaguer formulation only saying not to "tear a limb from a living animal," it's actually rather difficult not to meet that standard.
_________________
AQ 40. EQ 10/SQ 92. AS 184/NT 18. dx.
22 Jun 2012, 12:54 am
ruveyn wrote:
johansen wrote:
that is a good question as there are plenty of knockout agents and sedatives that are cheap.
chloroform, anyone?
chloroform, anyone?
Putting something in the animals bloodstream may affect the quality of the meat. That is why animals are stunned and bled when slaughtered.
ruveyn
yeah but i'm fairly confident they can find something both natural (dissipates and or is negligible) , and cheap.
22 Jun 2012, 6:35 am
If people commenting would care to actually read some of the documents and comments already posted they would find that chemical methods of killing animals are widely used.
Oodain wrote:
pig slaughter in denmark uses a pit filled with co2 to render the pigs unconscious, almost immedieately after they come out fo the pit they pierce the major arteries in the neck with the animal hanging head down, death is quick and the animal is already unconscious when the bloodletting occurs.
The document already posted by Visagrunt:
http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfa ... anasia.pdf
Quote:
MODES OF ACTION OF EUTHANATIZING AGENTS ......................................................................................5
INHALANT AGENTS ................................................................................................................................................6
INHALANT ANESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................................6
CARBON DIOXIDE .......................................................................................................................................................7
NITROGEN, ARGON .....................................................................................................................................................9
CARBON MONOXIDE ...................................................................................................................................................9
NONINHALANT PHARMACEUTICAL AGENTS..............................................................................................11
BARBITURIC ACID DERIVATIVES ...............................................................................................................................11
PENTOBARBITAL COMBINATIONS .............................................................................................................................11
CHLORAL HYDRATE..................................................................................................................................................11
T-61 .........................................................................................................................................................................12
TRICAINE METHANE SULFONATE (MS 222, TMS) ....................................................................................................12
POTASSIUM CHLORIDE IN CONJUNCTION WITH PRIOR GENERAL ANESTHESIA ...........................................................12
UNACCEPTABLE INJECTABLE AGENTS ......................................................................................................................12
INHALANT AGENTS ................................................................................................................................................6
INHALANT ANESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................................6
CARBON DIOXIDE .......................................................................................................................................................7
NITROGEN, ARGON .....................................................................................................................................................9
CARBON MONOXIDE ...................................................................................................................................................9
NONINHALANT PHARMACEUTICAL AGENTS..............................................................................................11
BARBITURIC ACID DERIVATIVES ...............................................................................................................................11
PENTOBARBITAL COMBINATIONS .............................................................................................................................11
CHLORAL HYDRATE..................................................................................................................................................11
T-61 .........................................................................................................................................................................12
TRICAINE METHANE SULFONATE (MS 222, TMS) ....................................................................................................12
POTASSIUM CHLORIDE IN CONJUNCTION WITH PRIOR GENERAL ANESTHESIA ...........................................................12
UNACCEPTABLE INJECTABLE AGENTS ......................................................................................................................12
What is the point in taking part in a thread if you ignore all the evidence that is posted and simply regurgitate opinion formed on the spot without actually bothering to think a little about the issue and do some research when the research material is handed to you on a plate?
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
22 Jun 2012, 10:52 am
meh dc was nice enough to point it out as i was self indulgently quoting myself
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
Last edited by Oodain on 22 Jun 2012, 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
22 Jun 2012, 1:01 pm
LKL wrote:
Visagrunt, I do not see your connection between the development of antibiotic resistance and the failure of the target animal to metabolically clear sedatives; are you suggesting that the humans who eat such animals will become resistant to sedatives? Or do such drugs have some important action on bacteria, in addition to sedating vertebrates, that I haven't heard of?
At the outset, let me note that I'm speculating a little here. I'm not a veterenarian, and my experience with anaesthesia is concerned with keeping a patient alive, rather than euthenasia.
That being said, my two biggest concerns are drug tolerance and adverse reaction.
Drug tolerance is not limited to antibiotics. A patient exposed to extended use of a drug may require increased concentration of the drug to achieve the same therapeutic effect. Eventually, the drug becomes useless because a sufficient concentration cannot be achieved below the threshhold of toxicity. Tolerance is a potential impact of long term exposure to almost any type of drug.
The second concern relates to adverse reactions from exposure to anaethetic drugs. While allergic reactions to anaesthesia are rare, there are a number of other potential complications depending upon the nature, concentration and length of exposure. Acquired sensitivity is also a potential concern.
These concerns depend, in part, on the type of anaesthesia used. Normally, general anaesthesia actually refers to a cocktail of multiple compounds. General anaesthesia may include a sedative to induce sleep, an analgesic to diminish or impede the sensation of pain and a muscle relaxant to mitigate reflex response to pain. Not all of these might be required in a slaughter situation, but I suspect the first two would be required. There's no point in sedating an animal if you are going to induce pain and wake it right up again, and there might be no point in mitigating pain if the reflex response is just going to kick in anyway.
The entry of the drugs into the meat of the animal will depend very much on their speed and mechanism of action, and the speed with which the animal is exsanguinated after anaesthesia. But if the drugs have had sufficient opportunity to work, chances are that the drugs are widely distributed, unless we are dealing with some extremely localized componds introduced epidurally--which would, of course, requried a veterenarian, significantly increasing the cost of slaughter.
_________________
--James
