Denmark bans religious slaughter

[Ash Tray 10]

Yes I have, I've seen an animal post stunning in a halal food processing factory using electrodes.

I asked the question because of your comment regarding the skull crushed in during the bolt method.

 

In reality the hole in the skull is very clean and around 5mm, as a young butchers apprentice I handled beast heads on a weekly basis.

[altus 538]

You seem to have made your mind up on that already.

 

As you've dodged the question, I've had to.

[boyfriday 21]

The bolt or electric stunning are painless.

 

As I said earlier, I believe stunning is designed to placate the lily livered who are unable to rationalise their love of meat with the destruction it entails.

 

Your comment is as facile as Muslims and Jews proclaiming that sticking a beast without stunning is 'painless', of course it involves pain, I cant imagine a mammal being struck with a bolt, electrocuted or having it's throat cut not experiencing pain or some form of pre slaughter anxiety.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2014 at 09:01 ----------

 

I asked the question because of your comment regarding the skull crushed in during the bolt method.

 

In reality the hole in the skull is very clean and around 5mm, as a young butchers apprentice I handled beast heads on a weekly basis.

 

..and you're telling me creating a 5mm hole in the skull of an animal, without the intention of killing it doesn't cause it pain?

[Ash Tray 10]

As I said earlier, I believe stunning is designed to placate the lily livered who are unable to rationalise their love of meat with the destruction it entails.

 

Your comment is as facile as Muslims and Jews proclaiming that sticking a beast without stunning is 'painless', of course it involves pain, I cant imagine a mammal being struck with a bolt, electrocuted or having it's throat cut not experiencing pain or some form of pre slaughter anxiety.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2014 at 09:01 ----------

 

 

..and you're telling me creating a 5mm hole in the skull of an animal, without the intention of killing it doesn't cause it pain?

 

To be quite honest BF I had you marked down for more gorm than you've just shown.

I suggest you look up the word 'stun' in the dictionary.

[WeX 10]

There was a right uproar wasn't there?

 

don't feed the idiots trolls.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2014 at 09:19 ----------

 

Around 90% of halal meat processed in the UK is pre-stunned.

 

http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter

 

The RSPCA report that its 12% of Halal that is not pre stunned. Kosher, I'm unsure of the numbers but PlainTalker has pointed out that its 100%. I cannot find any information on the pre-stunning of animals slaughtered for Kosher meats, so I think PT is correct.

 

FYI it is the RSPCA's view that ALL meat should be pre-stunned, so this is not a anti-religious argument. It is purely one of animal rights and the mis-treatment of animals by some sections of some religious groups.

 

There is a reason why I, being neither Muslim or Jewish am legally obligated to pre-stun animals I wished to slaughter on an industrial level.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2014 at 09:24 ----------

 

..and you're telling me creating a 5mm hole in the skull of an animal, without the intention of killing it doesn't cause it pain?

 

A device the size of a hand-held drill is brought to the animal's head, a trigger pulled and a four-inch bolt shot into its brain, causing it instantly to collapse. The unconscious calf is hoisted upside down and slaughtered seconds later with a massive cut to its throat, showering the floor with a torrent of crimson blood.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14779271

[boyfriday 21]

The RSPCA report that its 12% of Halal that is not pre stunned. Kosher, I'm unsure of the numbers but PlainTalker has pointed out that its 100%. I cannot find any information on the pre-stunning of animals slaughtered for Kosher meats, so I think PT is correct.

As far as I know, prestunning is not permitted for Kosher meat.

FYI it is the RSPCA's view that ALL meat should be pre-stunned, so this is not a anti-religious argument. It is purely one of animal rights and the mis-treatment of animals by some sections of some religious groups.

Yes, I know this, but as I and others have pointed out the pre-stunning of animals was rarely discussed until it could be used as a stick to beat Muslims with, particularly ironic given that 88% of halal meat is pre-stunned and Ive never heard complaints about Kosher meat. Incidentally, it might probably be the RSPSCA's view that no animals were slaughtered at all.

There is a reason why I, being neither Muslim or Jewish am legally obligated to pre-stun animals I wished to slaughter on an industrial level.

I agree, but suspect it's to placate those who are unable to associate their affection for meat with the quite startling act of drawing a blade across an animal's carotid artery. Commercial slaughter houses aren't pleasurable working environments, it involves killing and death, there's no way to sanitise it other than be seen to be doing something to minimise suffering, frankly Im not convinced pre stunning does, given the methods employed

[scousemouse 10]

Uk to follow Denmark? Don't hold your breath! Wouldn't want to upset certain people now would we?

[Zamo 10]

I think that we should not slaughter animals, full stop.

 

That is an answer to a different question and is ducking the issue.

 

It is a given that you do not agree with animals being slaughtered for food but they are and there is little prospect of that changing in our lifetimes. So, from an animal welfare perspective, that just leaves the question of how it is done.

 

Do you agree or not that certain methods of slaughter are like to cause more pain and suffering and should therefore be banned? Is the slitting of an animals throat so they bleed to death a method of slaughter you are OK with or would another method be preferable (even if still far from your ideal)?

[aliceBB 10]

I agree, but suspect it's to placate those who are unable to associate their affection for meat with the quite startling act of drawing a blade across an animal's carotid artery. Commercial slaughter houses aren't pleasurable working environments, it involves killing and death, there's no way to sanitise it other than be seen to be doing something to minimise suffering, frankly Im not convinced pre stunning does, given the methods employed

 

I agree with everything BoyFriday has said and I think that a short trip to the average British abbatoir would make vegetarians out of all but the most stong-stomached or desensitised of us. The whole process of being killed industrially is terrifying for cattle - they are visibly distressed from the moment they arrive. I am not being sentimental about this - farmers will tell you exactly the same thing. Stunning must be intolerably painful, especially if inexpertly done and having to be repeated (as is not uncommon). Having taught a fair few kids (usually boys) who have gone on to work in the local slaughterhouse, I was not encouraged that animal welfare was top of their agenda. A worrying number of them seemed to relish the prospect of killing - it was a real badge of honour for them when they got to blast some cow's brains with a stun gun. Then idea of 'caring' about the level of suffering in the animals' last moments pre-death was an alien concept to them. I was at a local farm when they were culling catttle during the foot and mouth epidemic and it was very different.

 

I have no axe to grind - or bolt-gun to wield - here, as I don't eat meat. But I have heard it argued that slitting the carotid artery with a very sharp knife causes negligible pain (compared with stunning), plus a huge drop in blood pressure and thus, almost instant loss of consciousness. This is why it was prescribed in the Old Testament (on which Islamic and Jewish slaughter practices are based) - it is in fact more humane.

 

I'm not saying I agree with that - I don't know. Both methods seem unsatisfactory to me.

Edited February 18, 2014 by aliceBB

[Ash Tray 10]

That is an answer to a different question and is ducking the issue.

 

It is a given that you do not agree with animals being slaughtered for food but they are and there is little prospect of that changing in our lifetimes. So, from an animal welfare perspective, that just leaves the question of how it is done.

 

Do you agree or not that certain methods of slaughter are like to cause more pain and suffering and should therefore be banned? Is the slitting of an animals throat so they bleed to death a method of slaughter you are OK with or would another method be preferable (even if still far from your ideal)?

There are people on here who think that slitting an animals throat is painless.

[aliceBB 10]

That is an answer to a different question and is ducking the issue.

Actually, it isn't. It's what I think about [a particular method of] slaughtering animals for food. You asked me what I thought and I told you.

 

It is a given that you do not agree with animals being slaughtered for food but they are and there is little prospect of that changing in our lifetimes. So, from an animal welfare perspective, that just leaves the question of how it is done.

No it doesn't. False argument. I do not agree with what the Syrian, or North Korean governments are doing to their own people although there seems very little prospect, if any, of their changing their practices any time soon. That doesn't mean I have to prescribe a less violent or terrifying way for them to murder their own citizens.

 

Nearer home, for example, I believe strongly that all babies should be breastfed. I am qualified in this field (infant nutrition) and have on occasions been asked to speak/hold classes on feeding generally, giving equal value to breast and bottle. It would not be appropriate for me to do that and I have refused.

 

I hope you take my point. If I do not agree with animals being slaughtered, full stop, it is illogical to expect me to have a view on the best method of slaughtering them.

 

 

Do you agree or not that certain methods of slaughter are like to cause more pain and suffering and should therefore be banned? Is the slitting of an animals throat so they bleed to death a method of slaughter you are OK with or would another method be preferable (even if still far from your ideal)?

I do not know, since I am not an animal physiologist. But FWIW, see my comments at the end of my #57. Edited February 18, 2014 by aliceBB

[Zamo 10]

I agree with everything BoyFriday has said and I think that a short trip to the average British abbatoir would make vegetarians out of all but the most stong-stomached or desensitised of us. The whole process of being killed industrially is terrifying for cattle - they are visibly distressed from the moment they arrive. I am not being sentimental about this - farmers will tell you exactly the same thing. Stunning must be intolerably painful, especially if inexpertly done and having to be repeated (as is not uncommon). Having taught a fair few kids (usually boys) who have gone on to work in the local slaughterhouse, I was not encouraged that animal welfare was top of their agenda. A worrying number of them seemed to relish the prospect of killing - it was a real badge of honour for them when they got to blast some cow's brains with a stun gun. Then idea of 'caring' about the level of suffering in the animals' last moments pre-death was an alien concept to them. I was at a local farm when they were culling catttle during the foot and mouth epidemic and it was very different.

 

I have no axe to grind - or bolt-gun to wield - here, as I don't eat meat. But I have heard it argued that slitting the carotid artery with a very sharp knife causes negligible pain (compared with stunning), plus a huge drop in blood pressure and thus, almost instant loss of consciousness. This is why it was prescribed in the Old Testament (on which Islamic and Jewish slaughter practices are based) - it is in fact more humane.

 

I'm not saying I agree with that - I don't know. Both methods seem unsatisfactory to me.

 

Perhaps if they had bolt guns when the old testament was writen that would be prescribed as the preferred method? How is it possible for man to come up with a better idea than an all-powerful god?

 

I suppose the test of what you really think is how you would prefer to be despatched yourself. I'd take the bolt into the brain. Would anyone really opt to have their throat cut?