Need help from you guys regarding the science behind…and terribly curious.
Read too many accounts from Muslims and non-Muslims, whom each advocate their way of slaughtering for being more humane. The scientists of each faction have their own reasonable explanations as well, so I am confused.
From the Straight Dope community, which I hope to be neutral, what does the science say?
It’s like asking whether hanging or injection is a more humane way of executing people. The answer is going to be an opinion. I can’t imagine a scientifically objective answer.
Forgive my astonishing ignorance here, but is there a difference between halal slaughter and kosher? My understanding is that both require a single cut with a very sharp blade, which was probably the most humane method up to the invention of firearms or electrocution.
Well perhaps there is no scientific objective answer whether a flea bite is worse than having a hand amputated with a blunt knife. But nevertheless there would be a clear consensus, based on obvious criteria such as severity of pain.
Similarly in discussing what methods of slaughtering animals is more humane, the obvious criteria are factors like severity and duration of (apparent) pain and distress.
Try reading this - plenty good science in here, but it is pretty old (1980):
Mechanical Electrical and Anesthetic Stunning Methods for Livestock
http://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=8&article=1003&context=v1_ijsap&type=additional
The conclusion - various stunning methods render the animals insensible and compliant with various levels of difficulty and reliability, making slaughter easier and preventing pain. However, immediate direct slaughter (bilateral carotid incision) introduces insensibility only slightly slower than stunning (only seconds max) and with generally a lower level of stress hormones.
It is a bit of a judgement call, but I go with electrical stunning. Modern electrical stunning is fast, reliable and painless, as long as it is immediately followed with bilateral carotid incision. All commercial slaughter in New Zealand follows this method.
I’ve also read a slightly more recent study on the same topic (from the early 90’s, when I worked for the organisation that conducted the research), but it isn’t searchable on the internet. The conclusion (about determining sensibility and pain response during slaughter with and without stunning) was in line with the above article.
From a practical perspective - no.
It sounds pretty horrific but as DrFidelius points out it was probably as humane as you were going to get before bolt guns started being used, and more humane than a hammer to the head which was another non-halal cattle slaughter technique. Modern slaughter techniques are IMHO more humane in that death is more swift and animals may be stunned before being killed.
As for halal vs kosher slaughter, hie thee to Wikipedia. Short version: they’re pretty similar but not identical, and both appear to require the animal to be conscious at the time of slaughter.
Conscious sounds… Cruel? Or is there a reason behind this?
If halal/kosher slaughter results in a lower level of stress hormones, wouldn’t that be evidence that it’s less painful? Stunning first might prevent the animal from fighting back, but that doesn’t imply that it’s not feeling the pain.
It’s humane for the animal to be unconscious, but the process of getting it unconscious (especially with the technology of the time) generally isn’t.
Wild guess : might have been made mandatory in order to make sure that only animals in good health/shape would be slaughtered (as opposed to some terminally ill cattle). I doubt many cared about the well-being of animals, one way or another (avoiding pain or deliberately causing it) so I suspect you can rule out cruelty.
I’m not sure what were the traditional non-religious methods for slaughter before the modern era. I’ve seen pigs being slaughtered in farms in the 70s, and they sliced their throat while the animal was hanging from its feet and perfectly conscious. No clue what they used to do with sheep, cows, etc…
FWIW, my local slaughterhouse doesn’t do the “sting 'em” thing, or at least they didn’t do it some 15 years ago. When they decided to include a Halal line, the first steps included giving a tour of the facilities to a group of local Muslims (including a few who they’d identified as having some knowledge of butchering), who were happily surprised to find out that the practices were pretty much the same.
No hanging the animals up until they’ve been killed, they get killed standing up and then get hung up for bleeding.
The first 2 paragraphs of the abstract of the review article answer this. In fact, the opening sentence states “A good stunning method must render an animal unable to experience pain and sensation prior to hoisting and slaughter.” Stunning does more than just keep the animal still; the paper goes over the different ways consciousness is determined. Epinephrine release from stress inducers has to do with meat quality, not the animal feeling pain.
I can.
Measure stress hormones
Brain imaging of the pain center
Timing (there’s a certain amount of time that it takes for signals to reach the brain. If you can destroy the brain faster than that, it’s physically impossible for the creature to have experienced anything)
I don’t doubt for a moment that a stunned animal is unable to experience any pain during the hoisting and the slaughter. But doesn’t the pain of the stunning itself count? Who of us would not object to a unconsciousness-producing zap from a taser?
Is the brain able to register it before it shuts off? If not, and you never wake up to find out what happened, then it’s moot.
They actually do test these things when decided how best to kill animals. I’ll have to look up the reference, but cutting an animal’s throat quickly with a very sharp blade apparently produces little to no pain as long as the edges of the cut are prevented from bumping into each other, aka you have to hold the animal’s head up while it bleeds out.
Obviously hanging the animal up before cutting its throat is incredibly stressful and painful.
Modern stunning methods render the animals immediately unconscious. It is thought to be slightly more humane than cutting the throat.
Meat from stressed, suffering animals is no good, so there are multiple motivations at play here, both animal welfare and money.
Yes, not so wild. One Muslim view (that is, a view held by some traditional Muslim communitites) is that it is prohibited to eat carrion, and that the requirement not to eat blood is to more or less a prohibition on raw meat. (And no Count Dracula or Maasai stuff.)
I feel that quickly stunning or otherwise destroying the brains ability to process pain or any other cognitive functions is the most humane. Before any other stressful, fearful or painful actions are taken.
Bleeding out alone, takes more time to deaden the brain processes.
If you must do Halal. Make sure the animal’s brain has been instantly made unable to process any further actions.
This may seem a religiously disrespectful comment. Feel free to censor it, whoever does that.
Why do some of the most radically devout Muslim followers. Not treat the human beings they slaughter, as well as animals when doing the deed?
Written with full knowledge that being a follower of Islam, as well as many other religions, comes in variety of temperance and acceptance.
The only GQ answer to that question is that humans are not slaughtered, and so slaughter rules don’t apply. Humans might be murdered, or executed, or slain in other ways, but if you’re not doing it to get meat, it’s not slaughter.