Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9676278)

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.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9676282)

I suspected as much, I said earlier that the act of Stunning seems to be more of a health and safety issue than for the benefit of the animal.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9674256)

I agree with Dezzy, the whole "stunning" narrative is to appease the conscience of people who can't quite get their heads around the fact that they find animals cute and adorable but also want to cut them up and eat them.

If you have a problem with animal exploitation and suffering... don't eat meat. If you want to eat meat... accept the fact that animals suffer and are killed to supply you with that meat.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter how they LIVE... I fully advocate good living conditions for animals pre-slaughter, and good living conditions for the slave animals (cows, chickens) who provide us with other animal products whilst alive... but that last little bit where they're rounded up for the meat grinder? Yeah... that part is going to suck for Mr Cow, and it doesn't really matter how that last 2 or 3 minutes goes down.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 9676890)

I agree with this too. I hate reading this stuff or thinking about it too much because it really is horrendous what we do to animals. People glossing over all this and pretending we're somehow morally better than Muslims or Jews because we kill those animals a bit differently are burying their heads in the sand imho

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9676899)

"We kill, skin, chop up and consume the flesh of animals in a NICE way, not like these backwards folks from backwards places :nono:"

It is a barbaric practice but, if we're being totally honest, it's just one of a whole heap of things we put on the morality back-burner in order to live a normal day to day life :shrug:. We exploit animals, we exploit less fortunate humans, we exploit the planet itself. And we are ourselves exploited. But it's how our race now functions from the ground up and doing anything different would be a radical departure from everything we consider to be "a normal life", and it would also be impossible in practical terms, because of how far along we are now. I think I said in another thread recently... Any chance the human race had to go in a different direction ended in the early 1800's with the industrial revolution. The only choices now are to accept / ignore the overall ****show and live happily day to day... Or attempt to fight against it but inevitably fail. I personally just don't have the energy for grand idealism on top of the day to day stuff, so... I'm going to keep eating piggies :shrug:.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 9676890)

I agree with this too. I hate reading this stuff or thinking about it too much because it really is horrendous what we do to animals. People glossing over all this and pretending we're somehow morally better than Muslims or Jews because we kill those animals a bit differently are burying their heads in the sand imho

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 9676905)

Yeah you're dead right. I think probably living in smaller self run communities or tribes would be the best way for humans to live but we'd still probably end up exploiting eachother

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9676907)

that is not the issue here at all, as usual there is a defence mechanism that kicks in if anything negative is said about Muslim practices at all, the lengths some people have gone in this thread to defend slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death while slating stunning is laughable in all honesty. There is no good way to die but you would hope that an unconscious animal feels less pain than one hung upside down and left to bleed to death, nothing to do with religion just common sense.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9676907)

that is not the issue here at all, as usual there is a defence mechanism that kicks in if anything negative is said about Muslim practices at all, the lengths some people have gone in this thread to defend slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death while slating stunning is laughable in all honesty. There is no good way to die but you would hope that an unconscious animal feels less pain than one hung upside down and left to bleed to death, nothing to do with religion just common sense.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9676913)

But...its been proven this is false? And that slitting the throat causes less pain than stunning and bolting

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9676907)

that is not the issue here at all, as usual there is a defence mechanism that kicks in if anything negative is said about Muslim practices at all, the lengths some people have gone in this thread to defend slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death while slating stunning is laughable in all honesty. There is no good way to die but you would hope that an unconscious animal feels less pain than one hung upside down and left to bleed to death, nothing to do with religion just common sense.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9676920)

proof can be offered up for just about anything these days :shrug:

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9676920)

proof can be offered up for just about anything these days :shrug: it just makes me smile that people who will pour scorn on most religious practices will single one or two out and big them up, how does that work?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9676922)

My stance on it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with actually understanding how the brain works. If the blood supply to the brain is cut (such as when the carotid artery is sliced) it takes six to ten seconds to lose consciousness and less than a minute to die. That's < 60 seconds from no pain to death. If the animal is stunned, it has to suffer paralysis, distress, and potentially also pain for several minutes before death.

But that's "laughable" because "Muslims", apparently.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9676920)

proof can be offered up for just about anything these days :shrug: it just makes me smile that people who will pour scorn on most religious practices will single one or two out and big them up, how does that work?

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9676929)

Well..exactly.

I didn't know studies had been done and still thought even before reading that that throat cutting would be a much more humane way of killing animals (if there is such thing as a humane way to kill animals for food..I ponder as a meat eater)

Based on knowing stunning does not anesthetize, just stops the reaction...and knowing that cutting ones self badly, tends to give no pain for a while. So in the case of throat cutting, the pain would never come, as pain certainly does not hit within seconds of a bad cut, where death does occur within seconds from cutting the throat (right)

Was quite happy to read that a study had been done. But equally happy to read studies that show the opposite...infact I am extremely interested to know if there are any studies that say the opposite.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 9676936)

yeah 100%, I cut the base of thumb and severed nerves while i was opening a bottle of wine years ago at work. It happened and I dropped the bottle but I didn't feel a thing, I just looked down and saw all the blood. I think your body goes into shock

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9676922)

They're not unconscious, they are stunned (paralysed) and it's been suggested - with links to evidence - that they feel all of it and take longer to die?

I wonder if you didn't read through the thread and missed the counter-argument... Or if it's just willful ignorance?

My stance on it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with actually understanding how the brain works. If the blood supply to the brain is cut (such as when the carotid artery is sliced) it takes six to ten seconds to lose consciousness and less than a minute to die. That's < 60 seconds from no pain to death. If the animal is stunned, it has to suffer paralysis, distress, and potentially also pain for several minutes before death.

But that's "laughable" because "Muslims", apparently.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9677058)

it is laughable because i guarantee if someone slit a cats throat and hung it up by its back legs to die, there would be calls for the persons genitals to be removed and I literally can't wait for you to disagree with this or at worse call me ignorant, yet another personal attack but I am used to it from you now.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9677058)

it is laughable because i guarantee if someone slit a cats throat and hung it up by its back legs to die, there would be calls for the persons genitals to be removed and I literally can't wait for you to disagree with this or at worse call me ignorant, yet another personal attack but I am used to it from you now.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 9677076)