Animals feel the pain of religious slaughter
Jake Farr-Wharton 13 comments
Few people outside of the Jewish and Muslim communities know or care what ‘Halal’ or ‘Kocher’ meat is.
Dhabihah is the method used to slaughter an animal as per Islamic tradition. Shechita is the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish law. Shechita requires that an animal is conscious and this is taken to mean the modern practice of electrical stunning before slaughter is forbidden.
All Muslim authorities also forbid the use of electrical stunning. Both methods of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact.
The animal typically looses consciousness within 10 to 30 seconds and is dead within 2 minutes (unless the veins and arteries are not completely cut which will prolong the already drawn out death).
A study released this week, performed by Massey University in New Zealand, used electroencephalograms to register readings associated with pain in a massive sample of thousands of calfs. The electroencephalogram readings were corroborated with 8 other mamallian species producing the same readings when pain was induced.
‘Normal’ animal slaughter only occurs after the animal is stunned into unconsciousness and is considered the humane way to for meat produce. When the animal is electrically stunned, the animal does not produce any electroencephalogram reading associated with pain or discomfort.
This latest finding puts a great deal of weight behind the argument that the practice of ritual sacrifice of animals should be discontinued as it has been in Norway.
Over the last several years, I have found it increasingly hard to eat animal meats, mainly due to my inability to detach from the fact that I’m eating something that was alive. This may well have tipped me over the edge.
What do you think, should ritual slaughter of animals be allowed to continue in this same way?
Should the butchers be forced to stun the animals before slaughter?
I have no feelings of attachment, closeness or love for animals and even I find the practice completely abhorrent.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 15th October 2009 | 01:50 PM
...in response to this comment
by The Sting.
Not too controvercial at all mate, and this is an interesting comparrison that you've made. At 8 weeks the foetus is not fully formed, it does not have a fully developed nerves and pain receptors until almost double that time, which is well after the point of no return as far as abortion goes.
With that said, abortion is not torture, it is quick, it is not drawn out, and the foetus doesn't have it's throat cut while it is conscious. If this were the method for abortions, they would be outlawed.
Mikky
Thursday 15th October 2009 | 03:06 PMBloody primitive rituals. Disgusting behaviour.
The Sting
Thursday 15th October 2009 | 03:14 PM
...in response to this comment
by Jake Farr-Wharton.
How can you even say that, what proof do you have.
You say /Not fully developed at 8 weeks/
Yeah not fully, partially tho, and some abortions are done as late as 30 or 40 weeks
You are crying for a cow. You are insane
Rodney
Thursday 15th October 2009 | 03:45 PM
Speaking as a kosher (note the spelling, Jake) keeping Jew who is also a strict vegetarian AND who has also worked in the food industry, I'm going have to point out the fundamental flaw in your article.
The very reason I don't eat meat is because slaughter of animals (and the cruel way they are farmed), religious or otherwise, has nothing to do with humane practices and everything to do with cost savings. Electrocution to stun animals before slaughter? Nonsense. Cows are routinely killed enroute to the execution by the people who work in slaughterhouses through carelessness and are usually killed by a bullet to the head. And if that bullet isn't fatal... well, just wait, it will be eventually. They'll bleed to death on the floor.
Chickens are electrocuted - fatally - first time. They're not stunned before slaughter - they're sprayed with water and then a current is passed through the metal grill they're standing on, to electrocute them. This is because it's cheap, not because it's humane.
There is no such thing as non-cruel or humane killing of animals; *however* the religious killings tend to be *more* humane than the commercial methods, not because they're inherently kinder but because they're smaller scale.
The mass, industrialisation of animal slaughter has lead to extremely cruel practices becoming common place. As the MacDonalds and KFCs of the World demand more and more and cheaper and cheaper meat, the methods of execution become cheaper and more hap-hazard.
You can delude yourself into thinking there's some level of kindness in it - but go take a quick visit to where it's done and you'll soon see how wrong you are.
Finally, I wouldn't be me on RL if I didn't defend Judaism at least a little. In the cases of Islam and Judaism, the knife which kills the animal must be 100% smooth, without a single bump or groove, to ensure the minimum possible amount of pain is involved and death must be as close to instant as possible. Care *is* taken to ensure that the animal feels the minimum amount of pain possible, within the confines available. This utterly 100% cannot be said for the mass slaughterhouses of the commercial West, I am afraid.
You want to stop barbaric practices? Stop eating meat.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 15th October 2009 | 05:29 PM
...in response to this comment
by The Sting.
What proof do I have? I did the research mate, it is freely available with little more than a google search. FYI: without a fully developed nervous system, there is no evidence to suggest that the pain is something that the conglomeration of cells could experience. At 8 weeks, even up to 12 weeks (which is the cut off point for abortion), the foetus can not experience sound, light etc.
While I am no advocate for abortion, having had two wonderful and healthy children, the circumstances that cause someone to seek out abortion are not something that anyone can comment on. If you object to abortion, go nuts; it's none of your business and you have no right to comment, but go nuts.
Late term abortions are the ones performed late in the pregnancy and they are done only when the child or mother are in danger.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 15th October 2009 | 05:42 PM
...in response to this comment
by Rodney.
Rodney, while I am critical of all religion their practices, as you may well have gathered from previous articles, I have a great deal of reverence for Judaism. Sorry for misspelling Kosher, I did spell check!
I can't eat pig. Bacon, ribs, chops, ham; can't eat it. The conditions that these animals endure, said to have the intelligence of a 3 year old child, was too much.
While I can't comment on the slaughter methods you listed above, I made a decision a while back, after having hand raised dairy two cows and a bunch of sheep, to only buy the meat from butchers that 'slaughter humanely', raise their animals free range and DO NOT FEED THEM GRAIN! They've never seen an antibiotic and cost more for a kilo of mince than most people spend on their entire meat budget each week. That and free range kangaroo... that stuff is great.
Eating this meat is about the only meat I can bring myself to eat, at least it's life was good and wholesome, they were healthy and well cared for and killed 'humanely'.
I agree though that there is a major problem with supply and demand driving inhumane killing, but the ritual slaughter is not humane. No matter how sharp the knife, the idea that the cow is suffering for 10-30 seconds, freaking out as the blood leaves it's body and it's hear slows to a stop, it makes me feel ill.
Capn Lou
Thursday 15th October 2009 | 11:09 PMfoie gras is a duck/goose liver dish. it is considered a delicacy but the birds endure one of the most barbaric forms of animal torture. they are force fed sometimes until their stomachs explode kept in small cages no sunlight, no grass crammed into tiny cages with metal/plastic tubes shoved down their throats until their livers have swollen to 10 times its normal size they suffer every moment they cant sleep stretch their wings their anus become swollen & bloated & bleeding the ducks/geese that can't move from pain are eaten alive by rats please google it, see for yourself the horrendous crimes that are been carried out on these innocent birds but be warned it is excruciatingly heartbreaking all because some people want to eat a fatty diseased liver, help put an end to this heineous crime dont eat, buy, sell, or visit restaurants that promote animal cruelty at its worst.... still got your appetite?
Jake Farr-Wharton
Friday 16th October 2009 | 06:31 AM
...in response to this comment
by Capn Lou.
No I don't and I'll never eat goose liver pate` again.
Similarly, the reason I don't eat cheap beef is because the cattle are fed on grain which they are unable to digest. So they get sick, very sick, and require constant increasing amounts of antibiotics. Because they're not able to digest the grain, they put on weight incredibly fast and are ready for harvest at 6-9 months, as opposed to 18+.
So when the local gormet pub tries to sell you a massive grain fed rump steak, insist that you'll only eat free range or fish!
I only eat meat from animals that have killed themselves. Here in California we have quite a few 'suicide' ranches where many different types of depressed animals come to end their lives peacefully. Suicidal meat is guilt-free.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 19th October 2009 | 07:39 AM
...in response to this comment
by Joe Marco.
That is why I like Kangaroo meat so much Joe, the suicidal roos jump in front of big 4WDs and what they can scrape off the pavement goes into my dinner!
Anyone remember that line from Crocodile Dundee? "You can live on it... but it tastes like shit!"
No, roo meat is good, a little gamey, but good nonetheless.
TVBIZ(BOB)
Monday 19th October 2009 | 08:43 AM
I cannot understand why a practise that was used so long ago is till being used now.
These so call religious killings are so out of date. Why? Because back then they did not have electricity to stun the animal so how can they excuse them selves now in not wanting to give another living creature a more humane death?
I eat meat and I admit I vary rarely think of it as being a living creature at an earlier time. I guess the practice of post presentation works for me and many more. If one could see the animal being slaughtered before you took the meat home it would turn most people off. I found this out when I was living in a rural area for a short while although one quickly forgets when you don't associate the animal with the product upon returning to the cities.
I do feel for all living things but I cannot deny my existence as one of the meat eating animal species. I eat to survive like all living creatures on this planet but in saying that I do hope that we can come up with a practice that is at least in our standards less cruel and barbaric then what is happening behind the scenes now. I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen as I know how mankind is still barbaric in how it treats its own kind let alone another type of living creature.
Let's all hope we don't come back as another animal in the next life because if we do you know what is going to happen to you!!!!!!
Trent Greguhn
Monday 7th December 2009 | 05:52 AM
Pigs have the intelligence of a three year old? I didn't know that-- but humans achieve self-recognition around twenty-eight months of age, and as it is currently there are only three species on the planet who have self-recognition-- pigs not being one of them. Though I suppose you could correlate three year old intelligence without the self-awareness.
I agree with Jake on this one, though I am a full fledged meat eater. I've seen a slaughter house and they're anything but humane by my standards. Still though-- I eat meat and have no problem with it, and I do stop to realize it was a living thing at one point. If anything it's good that we're so comfortable with our lives that we can criticize the way in which meat is harvested. Were it among any number of different scenarios, we wouldn't care a bit about the animal dying as long as we were able to feed off of it.
As far as free range goes, here in the US free range could mean any number of things as the department who regulates it does not have a specific definition of what free range actually is. All those loop holes and such.
As far as religious slaughter goes, even accounting for what's been discussed here, it's still inhumane. Almost all slaughter is. Though I remember watching a show that I believe aired originally in Austrailia titled John Safran vs God, in which a people from Africa would take a goat's scrotum, hold it in one hand and cut it open thereby removing one of the testicles to ingest it. Then, they slit it's throat and let all the blood run out. Talk about inhumane-- though the goat does go to feeding people in the community.
All that being said, I think if there's a better alternative to choosing where you get your meat or eggs you should go for it, expenses willing. If it's outside your price range though, don't feel bad. We all have to eat after all.
The Sting
Thursday 15th October 2009 | 12:26 PMFunny how we feel about animals and there rights and pain
A fetus has nerves and pain receptors at 8 weeks, yet they are torn from the womb of the mother with little care or concern
Feel free to champion cows sheep and goats, bash the religious intolerant and the belief a childs life is more important that an animals
Animal rights seem more important than human rights, is that weird?
To controversial?