Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

It's the lack of stunning that causes the problem, really. Regardless of how effective you are, the animal will recognise it's just got it's throat slit and it's bleeding out on the floor. I'm not sure it's economically viable to clean up all evidence of slaughter after each slaughter anymore.

Even boltgun slaughters use stunning now despite the fact that, by all evidence, the animal will be instantly killed when shot through the head.

The whole thing seems like it's just, "But that's not the real Islam."

True, true, it's not ideal. But a skilled butcher will be able to deliver a fatal cut in one blow and this is a privilege we've given to Jewish butchers, so why not Muslim butchers too? Likewise ending halal slaughter altogether is a crude tool, when we could merely mandate stunning before the killing blow - the UK for example already has this sort of slaughtering for halal animal produce where they deliver a stunning blow/electrocution that leaves the animals unconscious but not dead, awaiting the killing blow, fitting both Islamic and Western moral law

Also you could totally clean all the blood up with a simple drain and water

[wobbly]

Even apples are halal!

I guess technically? But if someone couldn't figure that out without being told maybe they should hold off on eating until they learn the difference between a plant and an animal.

Well technically if it rolled down the same conveyor belt as a bit of pig, or sat in the same truck without being cleaned, whether it makes sense or not it may not be... get's even trickier with processed foods where they add or sorts of stuff you wouldn't expect.

[nullBolt]

Azov is anti-EU. They have little to no interest to stop such referendum.

The majority of Europe is anti-EU nowadays, at least from what I've seen.

It was a great endeavor, but an obviously failed one.

True, true, it's not ideal. But a skilled butcher will be able to deliver a fatal cut in one blow and this is a privilege we've given to Jewish butchers, so why not Muslim butchers too? Likewise ending halal slaughter altogether is a crude tool, when we could merely mandate stunning before the killing blow - the UK for example already has this sort of slaughtering for halal animal produce where they deliver a stunning blow/electrocution that leaves the animals unconscious but not dead, awaiting the killing blow, fitting both Islamic and Western moral law

I'm talking about the UK and the stunning blow. It's not used in halal butchering since a significant portion of Muslims believe that it's not acceptable.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm talking about the UK and the stunning blow. It's not used in halal butchering since a significant portion of Muslims believe that it's not acceptable.

No I'm pretty sure they believe that the killing blow being a boltgun is unacceptable, but as long as the death is one from the draining of blood from the throat any stunning along the way is halal

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve

I'm sourcing the guardian who are sourcing an FSA report I can't find, so assume they're full of shit - but assuming they're not, by FSA estimates only 12% of Halal slaughter is carried out without stunning prior to throat cutting, and if Muslims care much about the stunning they haven't made too much of a fuss about it

I think now that we have the technology readily available to render animals unconscious before slaughter it should be mandated, but the Guardian's estimate of the FSA's estimate of halal slaughtering would only necessitate the reduction of the 12%

[nullBolt]

No I'm pretty sure they believe that the killing blow being a boltgun is unacceptable, but as long as the death is one from the draining of blood from the throat any stunning along the way is halal

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve

I'm sourcing the guardian who are sourcing an FSA report I can't find, so assume they're full of shit - but assuming they're not, by FSA estimates only 12% of Halal slaughter is carried out without stunning prior to throat cutting, and if Muslims care much about the stunning they haven't made too much of a fuss about it

I think now that we have the technology readily available to render animals unconscious before slaughter it should be mandated, but the Guardian's estimate of the FSA's estimate of halal slaughtering would only necessitate the reduction of the 12%

I did actually find the report.

It's a bit worse than the Guardian was saying with it ranging from 81% to 88% depending on the animal (what the hell is the point in lying about this?) but it doesn't seem that bad.

It's still technically against halal to not stun the animal, though, but if people are willing to ignore that then that's fine.

[Reelya]

Even apples are halal!

I guess technically? But if someone couldn't figure that out without being told maybe they should hold off on eating until they learn the difference between a plant and an animal.

Technically, if you read islamic sources, Halal means all the things that you are allowed to eat.

http://www.icv.org.au/index.php/publications/what-is-halal

What is Halal?

Halal is an Arabic word meaning lawful or permitted. In reference to food, it is the dietary standard, as prescribed in the Qur'an (the Muslim scripture). The opposite of halal is haram, which means unlawful or prohibited. Halal and haram are universal terms that apply to all facets of life. These terms are commonly used in relation to food products, meat products, cosmetics, personal care products, pharmaceuticals, food ingredients, and food contact materials.
...
In general every food is considered halal in Islam unless it is specially prohibited by the Qur'an or the Hadith.

BTW: I was kidding about being anti-halal. It was in relation to a facebook group who won't buy anything if it's proven to be halal (which should technically mean, almost everything).

[Loud Whispers]

Technically, if you read islamic sources, Halal means all the things that you are allowed to eat.

If you're being semantic, everyone is referring to Dhabihah when they refer to Halal slaughter, the slaughter in accordance with what makes an animal halal. An animal not slaughtered in accordance with the rights is haram.

Also interesting is that a Jew or Christian can slaughter halal, but a Hindu cannot. Here's a cheeky conundrum, can a halal butchery legally discriminate against a Hindu?

[Loud Whispers]

I did actually find the report.
It's a bit worse than the Guardian was saying with it ranging from 81% to 88% depending on the animal (what the hell is the point in lying about this?) but it doesn't seem that bad.
It's still technically against halal to not stun the animal, though, but if people are willing to ignore that then that's fine.

Dohohoho, the Guardian are a very naughty newspaper

[Reelya]

Well, the Jews in the report have a zero % stun rate. Don't see anyone complaining about that ... but an 81% stun rate at muslim slaughterhouses is worth a campaign? Biased a bit?

1,314(3%) were slaughtered by the Shechita (Jewish) method at 4 establishments, with 10% of these were stunned immediately after bleeding

1,727(4%) were slaughtered by the Halal (Muslim) method at 16 establishments.  84% of these were stunned before slaughter, and less than 1% stunned after bleeding.

... and they don't even collate data on how many European slaughter houses stun properly.

Cattle slaughter

The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull. The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the concussive blow.

If an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst conscious.

In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'. However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient" restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.

You're talking a quarter of a million cows in the UK killed without stunning at "western" slaughterhouses" vs a couple of hundred at muslim ones. That's 1000 to 1 ratio. Muslims are responsible for 0.1% of the suffering.

[Graknorke]

Technically, if you read islamic sources, Halal means all the things that you are allowed to eat.

http://www.icv.org.au/index.php/publications/what-is-halal

Yes I know. I live in Yorkshire m8, Muslims out the gills. I just thought you were being upset over apples being marketed as halal as though it were something special.

[Loud Whispers]

Well, the Jews in the report have a zero % stun rate. Don't see anyone complaining about that ... but an 81% stun rate at muslim slaughterhouses is worth a campaign? Biased a bit?

Only the Jews who adhere to the Shechita rites forbid stunning, and they likewise court controversy whilst also making a much smaller percentage of kosher slaughters, itself a much smaller percentage of slaughters. We also do not know the exact numbers as they're estimates by the FSA, but 19% of Halal slaughters carried out would mean 21,660,000 animals conscious as their blood is drained - I have argued against the one extreme of making this a solely Muslim issue and solely a Halal rites issue, now I am arguing against the extreme of making this a solely Muslim issue vs Jewish issue

[Reelya]

http://www.viva.org.uk/what-we-do/slaughter/slaughter-farmed-animals-uk

Cattle slaughter

The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull. The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the concussive blow.

If an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst conscious.

In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'. However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient" restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.

Number of cows not properly stunned in UK slaughterhouses = 230000 / year. The number at Jewish slaughter = 1314 * 0.9 = 1182, number at muslim slaughterhouses = 1727 * 0.16 = 276. Why are we singling out halal butchers again? I call bullshit on the "animal welfare" argument. There are literally 1000 times the scale at regular slaughterhouses of not-stunned animals.

It's a non-story born in racism, plain and simple.

[Loud Whispers]

Cattle slaughter

The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull. The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the concussive blow.

If an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst conscious.

In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'. However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient" restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.

Number of cows not properly stunned in UK slaughterhouses = 230000 / year. The number at Jewish slaughter = 1314 * 0.9 = 1182, number at muslim slaughterhouses = 1727 * 0.16 = 276. Why are we singling out halal butchers again? I call bullshit on the "animal welfare" argument. There are literally 1000 times the scale at regular slaughterhouses of not-stunned animals.

It's a non-story born in racism, plain and simple.

You are using the statistics for failed stunning

114m (annual halal slaughter for animals) per year x 19% (estimate that are not stunned) = just under 22m animals where stunning is not even attempted

Though we can go back to just calling people raycis, that will be conductive towards a well-reasoned argument

For fucks sakes why am I being the voice of reason you guys should be telling me to tone it down

[Reelya]

Most animals slaughtered are chickens (about 95%), and the report stated 88% for that not 81%, your numbers are a bit off there because you're taking the biggest number of animals, but multiplying that by the non-stun rate for a small number of animals. Because chickens make up an overwhelming percentage of that 114 million it doesn't make sense to base your count on 81% at all, because that was for like 1-2% of the total animals slaughtered.

The total slaughter for the UK is around 1 billion animals, and out of that 945 million are chickens. So any way you look at it, almost all the animals you're talking about are chickens when you just throw up a total. in this way, the Guardian were 100% accurate when they said the average is an 88% stun rate. It is, if you do it on a per-animal basis.

Even a relatively small failure rate means more suffering in UK slaughterhouses in general than the emphasis on halal would merit. If 114 million is correct, then it makes up 1/8th of the national slaughter. A 5%-10% failure rate in regular slaughterhoses for 1 billion animals is 50-100 million stun failures per year, which could near the total of all halal animals, stunned or not.

[Loud Whispers]

Most animals slaughtered are chickens (about 95%), and the report stated 88% for that not 81%, your numbers are a bit off there because you're taking the biggest number of animals, but multiplying that by the non-stun rate for a small number of animals. Because chickens make up an overwhelming percentage of that 114 million it doesn't make sense to base your count on 81% at all, because that was for like 1-2% of the total animals slaughtered.

Yeah, makes more sense to try make separate estimates for poultry (this includes ducks and turkeys, it's not just the statistic for chickens)

The total slaughter for the UK is around 1 billion animals, and out of that 945 million are chickens. So any way you look at it, almost all the animals you're talking about are chickens when you just throw up a total. in this way, the Guardian were 100% accurate when they said the average is an 88% stun rate. It is, if you do it on a per-animal basis.

If we're using a Vegan magazine as a source on UK butchery (why), and the Guardian did not say that m8 and they'd even then not be accurate, good generalization though

Even a relatively small failure rate means more suffering in UK slaughterhouses in general than the emphasis on halal would merit. If 114 million is correct, then it makes up 1/8th of the national slaughter. Even a small 5% failure rate is far more suffering animals than all the non-stunned halal animals.

This line of logic is limitless in its blockheadedness, we should not worry about immigrant rapists because we already have rapists, we should not worry about two demographic bombs because we have one, why should we worry if the gov collects our information when private comps already do e.t.c.
Except even worse because it substitutes the original quandary with an imagined one, so it becomes we should not worry about unnecessary suffering caused by bad slaughter practices because bad slaughter practices might exist

Also I know we're being totes meta and analyzing what makes a good source and shit but using a Vegan magazine as a source on British slaughtering is shit, because they're full of shit - percussive failure rate is low, electrical nonexistent and gas nonexistent (though gas is too slow acting imo, electrical instantaneous)

Looking at the stats as well (not from Vegan magazine, from Gov estimates), on a monthly basis (averaged from Oct-Dec2015) there were 89,667 Steers per month, 61,333 Heifers per month, 16,000 young Bulls per month, 66,667 Cows and Adult Bulls per month, 9,000 Calves per month, adding up to 242,667 cattle per month or 2,912,004 cattle per year. 3% (referencing the 2013 stats from the FSA) of that is 87,360 with Shechita method, or 4% for the Halal method for 116,480 with 16% of that unstunned for 18,636 with just throat slit.

For sheep, lamb and goat that is another story, because you cannot make a kebab without glorious lamb, and such meat has been prized before and after the rise of Islam for being readily available and quality. Again with averages from the same month from the save gov study:
1,183,667 clean sheep, 143,000 Ewes and Rams, for a total of 1,323,667 monthly or 15,884,004 annually. Shechita slaughtered (1% est.) ones make up 158,840 annually, halal slaughtered (50% est.) 7,942,002 annually with 1,508,980 of those annually slaughtered without stunning
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cattle-sheep-and-pig-slaughter

For poultry:
78,266,667 broilers monthly, 3,966,667 broiler fowl monthly, 1,400,000 Turkeys monthly for 1,003,600,008 poultry annually. 10,036,000 annually are Shechita slaughtered (1%), 301,080,002 are Halal slaughtered (30%) of which 36,129,600 are unstunned before slaughter.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/poultry-and-poultry-meat-statistics


To put this into a more visible form, simply mandating stunning before cutting the animal's throat open would:

• Mean 105,996 cattle a year are not conscious when the cut is made
• Mean 1,667,820 goats and lambs are not conscious when the cut is made
• Mean 46,165,600 chickens are not conscious when the cut is made

That's a lot of animals suffering for little reason as the change needed to effect such a massive reduction is a very minor one, one already adopted by the majority of everyone, kosher, halal and peter, it's why I don't understand why this is such a big argument when there is an obvious solution that is inevitable and whether by action on the ground up or top down it's already happening lol
Why is there so much mass deb8