[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I agree,but even if people paid more,I am not confident animals would be treated in the kindest way possible,no one is monitoring them really,just randomly undercover people will go in and report on the scum that get their kicks (literally) by scaring and torturing these animals, infact I ask myself can an animal lover ever work in an abattoir ? As for halal, I wont even go there.

If we had to go into a killing room to buy our meat, most of us would become vegetarian.

I don't know about halal or kosha slaughter because until its been proven that stunning doesn't just paralyze the animal, then it could turn out that slitting a throat with a sharp knife is kinder and quicker.

Having run a livery yard, I've stood with horses killed with a bolt to the head and with horses that were euthanized with lethal injection. Lethal injection looks much less violent to the horse owner but having witnessed both, I would say a bolt was quicker and kinder.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Having run a livery yard, I've stood with horses killed with a bolt to the head and with horses that were euthanized with lethal injection. Lethal injection looks much less violent to the horse owner but having witnessed both, I would say a bolt was quicker and kinder.

Yeah I've read this, there have been human "lethal injection survivors" (basically where they got it wrong and the person didn't die) who describe having been able to physically feel their heart and breathing slowing and experiencing serious internal feelings of panic / anxiety, while externally there were no signs of distress.

My gut feeling with the practice of stunning, is that it is simply to make the moment of death "more palatable" for the humans who are going to be doing the eating. They don't thrash and flop around and let out a death rattle so it all LOOKS kinder and more peaceful... the truth in all probability, is that they're still feeling all of the same things, they've just had their body's ability to react removed. Not only that but it actually draws out the process; stun - killing blow - death takes at least twice as long as just killing blow - death (which is seconds, if done properly). Stunning is for us... not for the animals. Sanitizing death for a comfortable existence. I stand by what I originally said; anyone who can't get their head around the realities of animal slaughter, and can't comfortably ignore it without the "white lies" about it, shouldn't be eating meat at all.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yeah I've read this, there have been human "lethal injection survivors" (basically where they got it wrong and the person didn't die) who describe having been able to physically feel their heart and breathing slowing and experiencing serious internal feelings of panic / anxiety, while externally there were no signs of distress.

My gut feeling with the practice of stunning, is that it is simply to make the moment of death "more palatable" for the humans who are going to be doing the eating. They don't thrash and flop around and let out a death rattle so it all LOOKS kinder and more peaceful... the truth in all probability, is that they're still feeling all of the same things, they've just had their body's ability to react removed. Not only that but it actually draws out the process; stun - killing blow - death takes at least twice as long as just killing blow - death (which is seconds, if done properly). Stunning is for us... not for the animals. Sanitizing death for a comfortable existence. I stand by what I originally said; anyone who can't get their head around the realities of animal slaughter, and can't comfortably ignore it without the "white lies" about it, shouldn't be eating meat at all.

Yup. Agree with all of this.

Also have actually seen a video of a lethal injection survivor before and its not pretty at all. Read a few accounts of it too...sometimes it takes hours to die.

Stunning most likely does just stop the thrashing, I do think they still feel it but are unable to react. Only way they wouldn't actually feel it (IMO) is to actually anesthetize the animals first, which would be too costly to consider.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

We don't actually know it causes less pain when stunned though.

I would prefer the animal to go through as little pain as possible, of course. But if I am going to eat meat, it seems a little hypocritical to complain about how the animal is killed. I care more about how the animal lives before it is killed (using eggs as an example, though chickens aren't killed for eggs...I will only buy free range)

Though that said, I don't research where my meat comes from either tbh. I just assume that farmers keep them in decent conditions :S

Yeah, I place more value on living conditions too, death is death and will be similarly traumatic for the animal regardless of method so it's better to focus on giving the animals good living conditions.

[Withano]

Surely we should all go halal if we care more about their living conditions

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah I agree with this tbh

I know animals suffer so I can have a bacon sandwich or whatnot. No matter how they are killed, they are still just...used...for my meal. Its not a nice thought to contemplate so I also see why people use the 'they were stunned' argument...but as far as I know, theres not actually proof that stunning stops the pain or anything?

So if we are not sure we don’t bother stunning them and allow a method that we know won’t reduce the pain they feel. That doesn’t make much sense to me. Tying to minimise their suffering can never be a bad thing. Not trying and suggesting primitive religious superstition has more value is backwards thinking in my opinion.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

So if we are not sure we don’t bother stunning them and allow a method that we know won’t reduce the pain they feel. That doesn’t make much sense to me. Tying to minimise their suffering can never be a bad thing. Not trying and suggesting primitive religious superstition has more value is backwards thinking in my opinion.

Like what's been said, stunning an animal is not an anaesthetic. Cutting an animal's throat will cause it pain regardless of if you stunned it or not first. The act of stunning is not an act of kindness but more likely an act of health and safety to prevent the animal from lashing out.

Being hit with a tazer or a stun gun wouldn't prevent you from feeling any pain that would follow, why do you think that would be the case for an animal?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Withano

Surely we should all go halal if we care more about their living conditions

I was reading a report from an abattoir vet yesterday. She visited a halal slaughterhouse because she wanted to see how the animals reacted. She reported back that the sheep that had its throat cut reacted more to her waving a hand in front of its face than the knife that cut its throat. She was amazed by the lack of reaction and reported back that the sheep didn't seem to be aware its life was in danger.

[jaxie]

I would have thought it rather silly for a vet, or anyone really to expect a sheep to be afraid of a knife. It might never have seen one before and certainly would never have used one so why would it be aware it's life was in danger? What a bizarre thing for a 'vet' to suggest and I'd have to question the credentials and intelligence of anyone writing such an article. That doesn't mean it would be any less unpleasant or distressing to be stabbed in the neck with a knife and left to bleed to death.

Not being an expert I can't claim to know for sure the thoughts and opinions of a sheep (aside from the obvious that the sheep is unlikely to have come across many knives in the grass) nor effects of tasers or stunning but would have thought and hoped this rendered the poor animal unconscious rather than just paralysed so that there wasn't an awareness at point of death. That is certainly what the word stun seems to suggest to me. It definitely sounds much kinder than bleeding to death for the sake of an archaic ritual which makes no real difference to the actual meat ingested.

And I can't see anyone has produced any evidence to suggest an animal slaughtered in religious ceremony is kept during it's life any more kindly than any other farm animal.

[Cherie]

Doesn't stunning an animal render it unconcious? Anyone who has had an operation knows you feel no pain so why would it be different for an animal? hanging upside down while slowly bleeding to death is more acceptable because they have lived in a field? no can't get my head around argument, being killed is not a great option but if I were to choose how I would die I know the choice I would make

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I would have thought it rather silly for a vet, or anyone really to expect a sheep to be afraid of a knife. It might never have seen one before and certainly would never have used one so why would it be aware it's life was in danger? What a bizarre thing for a 'vet' to suggest and I'd have to question the credentials and intelligence of anyone writing such an article.

That's not what I said. The sheep does not see the knife but as its throat was cut, it didn't react. It did however, react to the vets hand in front of its face.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I would have thought it rather silly for a vet, or anyone really to expect a sheep to be afraid of a knife. It might never have seen one before and certainly would never have used one so why would it be aware it's life was in danger? What a bizarre thing for a 'vet' to suggest and I'd have to question the credentials and intelligence of anyone writing such an article. That doesn't mean it would be any less unpleasant or distressing to be stabbed in the neck with a knife and left to bleed to death.

Not being an expert I can't claim to know for sure the thoughts and opinions of a sheep (aside from the obvious that the sheep is unlikely to have come across many knives in the grass) nor effects of tasers or stunning but would have thought and hoped this rendered the poor animal unconscious rather than just paralysed so that there wasn't an awareness at point of death. That is certainly what the word stun seems to suggest to me. It definitely sounds much kinder than bleeding to death for the sake of an archaic ritual which makes no real difference to the actual meat ingested.

And I can't see anyone has produced any evidence to suggest an animal slaughtered in religious ceremony is kept during it's life any more kindly than any other farm animal.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Doesn't stunning an animal render it unconcious? Anyone who has had an operation knows you feel no pain so why would it be different for an animal? hanging upside down while slowly bleeding to death is more acceptable because they have lived in a field? no can't get my head around argument, being killed is not a great option but if I were to choose how I would die I know the choice I would make

We aren't stunned like cattle when we have an operation. Stunning causes permanent damage to the brain and we know it causes paralysis. What we don't know much about is the conscious state of the animal.

When we have an operation we are anesthetized which means we are put into a medically induced coma with intravenous medicine and gas. Even then, we have cases of anesthesia awareness where the patient is aware of what's going on, feels the pain but is paralyzed and can't react. Its uncommon but it happens.

[Kizzy]

I love the rosy picture painted of the clean clinical process painted by the advocates of stunning used in our 'traditional' abattoirs. Ignore the exposes into how they ignore even basic animal welfare standards, the fact they can see, hear, smell the fear as they are literally herded towards the stun/bolt.
Ask yourselves if it is so effective why are there guidelines on the best practice for signs of consciousnesses?

At the moment there are differing rules for different animals, horses can't be killed in sight of another horse, pigs can be gassed I'm assuming this is due to them being classed as more sentient?... that looks about to change though and they will soon be as inhumanely disposed of as everything else.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8023826.html

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/red-meat...illing-animals
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a8025656.html

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Doesn't stunning an animal render it unconcious? Anyone who has had an operation knows you feel no pain so why would it be different for an animal? hanging upside down while slowly bleeding to death is more acceptable because they have lived in a field? no can't get my head around argument, being killed is not a great option but if I were to choose how I would die I know the choice I would make

People having operations are anaestatized. Stunning is not anaestetic.

The comparable thing would be being tazered. After which people still do feel pain.

Edit. I see DR explained this much better than me. Should read all new replies before adding my own

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

People having operations are anaestatized. Stunning is not anaestetic.

The comparable thing would be being tazered. After which people still do feel pain.

Edit. I see DR explained this much better than me. Should read all new replies before adding my own

Having never been stunned I don't know and neither do most people claiming to know how it feels I was making the comparison about being unconscious, and I love how people think its fine to be killed in a gruesome way if they have had a great lifestyle

[Tom4784]

Being slaughtered for meat is gruesome no matter how you do it, it's just that the original method is easier on our conscience while there's no proof that either method is better for the animal.

A good lifestyle is way more important than a good death because, at a slaughterhouse, there are no good deaths but we can do our best to make sure the animals are cared for and happy before that.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Being slaughtered for meat is gruesome no matter how you do it, it's just that the original method is easier on our conscience while there's no proof that either method is better for the animal.

A good lifestyle is way more important than a good death because, at a slaughterhouse, there are no good deaths but we can do our best to make sure the animals are cared for and happy before that.

Totally agree.
It's very important that my eggs and meat come from an animal that has had a happy life.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

That's not what I said. The sheep does not see the knife but as its throat was cut, it didn't react. It did however, react to the vets hand in front of its face.

It kind of is what you said. I find it very hard to believe a sheep having it's throat cut didn't react.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I love the rosy picture painted of the clean clinical process painted by the advocates of stunning used in our 'traditional' abattoirs. Ignore the exposes into how they ignore even basic animal welfare standards, the fact they can see, hear, smell the fear as they are literally herded towards the stun/bolt.
Ask yourselves if it is so effective why are there guidelines on the best practice for signs of consciousnesses?

At the moment there are differing rules for different animals, horses can't be killed in sight of another horse, pigs can be gassed I'm assuming this is due to them being classed as more sentient?... that looks about to change though and they will soon be as inhumanely disposed of as everything else.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8023826.html

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/red-meat...illing-animals
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a8025656.html

No one is painting a Rosy picture. Some are just saying anything that decreases suffering is better. I can live with the closure of all abbatoir. I can't quite believe people are happily promoting throat cutting and letting animals bleed to death. Go figure.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by jaxie

It kind of is what you said. I find it very hard to believe a sheep having it's throat cut didn't react.

Well I cleared that up by re-explaining what she said. As for feeling it, that's debatable because many people who have been stabbed claim to of not felt anything more than what they thought was a punch or a slap. https://www.ranker.com/list/what-bei...e/kellen-perry

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Well I cleared that up by re-explaining what she said. As for feeling it, that's debatable because many people who have been stabbed claim to of not felt anything more than what they thought was a punch or a slap. https://www.ranker.com/list/what-bei...e/kellen-perry

Being stabbed and having your throat slit from ear to ear are vastly different

[Tozzie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Both Kosher and Halal meat ends up on our supermarket shelves unlabeled because both Jews and Muslims don't eat certain parts of an animal and so those parts are re-distributed to everyone else.

Killing an animal is never friendly. Some say that Kosher and Halal slaughter is kinder, others say its crueler. Nobody has ever been able to prove that stunning an animal renders it unconscious. Scientists still question if the animal is just paralyzed and can, therefore, feel the pain.

How can it be kinder.........I know if I had to be killed I'd want to be stunned first and not just get my throat cut and hung upside down to let my blood drain out of my body

[Tozzie]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...halal-row.html

I support the ban. Britain is generally considered a nation of animal lovers, I know I am, and should not put aside its ideals to appease the religious views of minority groups. We should never bow down to such pressure.

There are always other options for those that don’t want to either eat any meat or eat meat that hasn’t been slaughtered in a certain way. To expect the nation as a whole to accept such cruelty when it generally goes against their own beliefs is unacceptable. Animals have rights too.

I know there will be the usual cries about killing any animals for food is wrong but at least we try to do so in a humane way. We should not abandon that to satisfy the few. I also abhor any sports that cause suffering to animals and would personally ban them so that argument is not applicable here.

I most definately support the ban and if I had my way animals wouldn't be eaten. I hate the idea that humans kill for food when there is so much other types of food for us to eat such as:
Fresh fruits and vegetables.
Grains. Whole grain bread.
Nuts, Peanuts and Seeds
Soy Foods.
Beans, Peas and Lentils
Dairy Products and Eggs.

[DemolitionRed]

The scientific facts from Deutsche Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift (German veterinary weekly) volume 85 (1978), pages 62-66
This is a real study that was translated by http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm The original study can be downloaded as a PDF


A team at the University of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.


The Halal method

With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.


The Western method

Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.