More humane way to slaughter animals?

[chitoryu12]

I was just having a talk with a girl at school yesterday. She's not a vegetarian, but she rarely eats meat because of the way the animals are killed. However, when I asked her what method she would propose, she could not come up with one.

Unfortunately, I am not well-versed on animal-slaughtering techniques. What are the current methods used, and what would be a more humane way to do it.

On a slightly related note, she also thinks that we should not kill animals because we no longer need to eat all the meat we can get to survive, which is actually a contradiction because while she claims to not be opposed to slaughtering animals, she finds it cruel in general, so I am quite confused as to exactly what her real opinion is.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Sounds like she doesn't like the idea of animals being killed, and because of that no one should kill animals for food.

[Covenant]

Girls do that... I don't get it. Meat isn't unhealthy whatsoever, and it's a rather useful part of our diet. It can make you fat and give you heart disease if you eat a ton of fatty gross meat and not enough veggies, but a vegetarian diet can also be gross and unhealthy if you're not smart about it.

But if you're smart about it, you can eat meat. The only reason to be concerned is the ethics of the slaughter. However, even if we don't eat meat, we'll still need to kill plenty of animals, like deer.

If you really wanted a fast, humane, painless way to kill something, you could always bring back the guillotine. People shouldn't confuse the spasms of a damaged or severed nervous system with actual pain, so even if you behead a cow in a split second, it'll still flail. However, objectively, the cow is not 'in pain' due to the fact that those aren't reaching the cow's logic centers--which are now gone.

If she's unhappy with that, and makes the arguement of wanting to be sure the brain isn't feeling pain or terror for the second or two before the blood leaves it (or something) then I suppose you could always use some sort of apparatus to crush the skull rapidly, or blow the cranium out with a shotgun. It's a bit messy, but the most 'humane' way to go, since there's no chance of it feeling terror or pain or anything.

In any case, it's more humane than what a natural predator does to a cow when it brings one down. If she wants us to shoot all the wolves so that they can't eat the cows, then that's just silly, so at some point, something is gonna die for the sake of something else--be it animal or man as the killer.

[Solauren]

Most animals are killed with a high powered air press blow to the back of the head. it kills faster then nerve conduction, so they literally don't know what hit them, or that they are even hit.

At least, that's how it was in the documentary I saw, which was on Ontario slaughterhouses. No idea about other places, but I'd assume it's the same. It's cheap, cost effective, and clean.

[LadyTevar]

Sometimes I think that citykids should be taken to a farm and shown how animals are slaughtered ... and then made to HELP.

Of course, this doesn't always work. A school friend of mine who lived on a farm refused to eat chicken. Why? She'd watched her dad chop a chicken's head off, and then got to witness the old adage come true. So, no more chicken, because she kept seeing that one running around with no head.

Me, on the other hand, I got to skin squirrels and watched my dad and brother skin deer. One of my uncles raised cattle and owned a slaughterhouse. So I knew exactly where those little white-wrapped packages of meat came from. Still don't bother me ... but don't ask me to shoot Bambi myself. I'll eat him, but I've never been able to shoot him myself.

[Darth Wong]

Don't the Muslims have rules about slaughtering animals humanely? Isn't that what "Halal" means? Or am I misinformed about this?

[SirNitram]

Don't the Muslims have rules about slaughtering animals humanely? Isn't that what "Halal" means? Or am I misinformed about this?

I had always been told it was roughly the same as Kosher.

[Spin Echo]

Don't the Muslims have rules about slaughtering animals humanely? Isn't that what "Halal" means? Or am I misinformed about this?

I thought Halal was along the same lines of kosher. The actual method of death is slitting the throat. IIRC, they are considered to be more painful to the animal because it is not stunned before hand, the reasoning being the animal wouldn't be able to stand for the slaughter. This made some sort of sense in the past, as an animal that couldn't stand on its own was likely diseased. Doesn't make so much sense now.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Most animals are killed with a high powered air press blow to the back of the head. it kills faster then nerve conduction, so they literally don't know what hit them, or that they are even hit.

At least, that's how it was in the documentary I saw, which was on Ontario slaughterhouses. No idea about other places, but I'd assume it's the same. It's cheap, cost effective, and clean.

As I recall from An Anthropologist on Mars, a large portion of the slaughterhouses in America were designed by a particular high functioning autistic woman, who specifically designed them to be merciful. Right down to making sure the cattle couldn't see other cattle being killed. It's been a long time since I read it, so no details.

[Pick]

Temple Grandin.

[Seggybop]

On a slightly related note, she also thinks that we should not kill animals because we no longer need to eat all the meat we can get to survive, which is actually a contradiction because while she claims to not be opposed to slaughtering animals, she finds it cruel in general, so I am quite confused as to exactly what her real opinion is.

I don't see how it would be unreasonable to say that you'd prefer to kill the minimum number of animals necessary to provide for balanced nutrition. If you think that it's not good to kill animals in general, but you also acknowledge that you do need some animal material to be healthy, it would make sense.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Honestly from an animal welfare standpoint, I find that the conditions under which commercial farms keep their animals are far more ethically objectionable than whatever method they choose to do the slaughtering.

[Covenant]

Honestly from an animal welfare standpoint, I find that the conditions under which commercial farms keep their animals are far more ethically objectionable than whatever method they choose to do the slaughtering.

This is certainly true. The real suffering comes from the way they're raised. I personally wouldn't want to skin anything, but I certainly understand that carcass gets dragged through an awful lot of ugly before it ends up nicely sliced for my consumption.

[Hillary]

Honestly from an animal welfare standpoint, I find that the conditions under which commercial farms keep their animals are far more ethically objectionable than whatever method they choose to do the slaughtering.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

That's what always annoys me about such people - they're so selective. Large numbers people protested in the UK about fox hunting (not that I support it, incidentally) but will still be happy to eat produce from animals that have lived in appalling conditions.

Don't the Muslims have rules about slaughtering animals humanely? Isn't that what "Halal" means? Or am I misinformed about this?

Unfortuntely, they have rules about slaughtering animals inhumanly. The conscious animal's throat is slit - the rules state the animal needs to be conscious.

Rather shockingly, the UK Govt allow this practise as it is a religious custom.

[Lagmonster]

Don't the Muslims have rules about slaughtering animals humanely? Isn't that what "Halal" means? Or am I misinformed about this?

Halal preparation focuses on blood drainage. Dabihah is the way that Halal food should be prepared: It's a fast, deep slash with a sharp knife to cut the jugular and cartoid but leave the spine untouched.

From the Koran:
"Forbidden to you are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which the name of other than Allah hath been invoked; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it; that which is sacrificed on stone; also is the division by raffling with arrows: that is impiety."

Edit: It should be noted that in Canada, ritual slaughter is protected in CFIA legislation.

[Lagmonster]

Honestly from an animal welfare standpoint, I find that the conditions under which commercial farms keep their animals are far more ethically objectionable than whatever method they choose to do the slaughtering.

See, that's funny, because at a glance I can't seem to find information that's not put out by animal rights wingnuts that shows that developed nation farms create inhumane living conditions for livestock, or provides regulatory support for inhumane treatment of livestock.

I suppose a start would be to know what you - or Covenant, or Hillary - consider 'ethically objectionable' when it comes to livestock storage and treatment.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Honestly from an animal welfare standpoint, I find that the conditions under which commercial farms keep their animals are far more ethically objectionable than whatever method they choose to do the slaughtering.

See, that's funny, because at a glance I can't seem to find information that's not put out by animal rights wingnuts that shows that developed nation farms create inhumane living conditions for livestock, or provides regulatory support for inhumane treatment of livestock.

I suppose a start would be to know what you - or Covenant, or Hillary - consider 'ethically objectionable' when it comes to livestock storage and treatment.

First off, dont attack the source, attack their arguments. The fact is, people without a vested interest in animal rights/welfare dont do the research. Sort of like how you dont find organizations chronicaling the rights abuses suffered by gay people that are not gay rights groups.

Second, what I meant by my first post is that caring about how the animals are treated is more relevant than worrying about how they are killed. I myself have an interesting ethical stance in regard to animal welfare... But, were I to find factory farming unethical (, I would find practices such as crowding intelligent pigs in meat lots so laden with toxic gases (from the buildup of urine and feces) that 60% of the human workers develop respiratory problems.

http://www.factoryfarming.com/pork.htm

After the sows give birth and nurse their young for two to three weeks, the piglets are taken away to be fattened, and the sows are re-impregnated. An article in Successful Farming explains, "Any sow that is not gestating, lactating or within seven days post weaning is non-active," and hog factories strive to keep their sows '100 % active' in order to maximize profits. When the sow is no longer deemed a productive breeder, she is sent to slaughter.

Prior to being hung upside down by their back legs and bled to death at the slaughterhouse, pigs are supposed to be 'stunned' and rendered unconscious, in accordance with the federal Humane Slaughter Act. However, stunning at slaughterhouses is terribly imprecise, and often conscious animals are hung upside down, kicking and struggling, while a slaughterhouse worker tries to 'stick' them in the neck with a knife. If the worker is unsuccessful, the pig will be carried to the next station on the slaughterhouse assembly line — the scalding tank — where he/she will be boiled, alive and fully conscious.

That sort of treatment is what I would consider ethically questionable.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

A lot of the same problems are rampant in chicken factory farms, but the cute Purdue label with the chickens frolicking happily on the front doesn't really give a whole lot of insight into what happens.

Some of the same problems about boiling the animals alive happens. It's a minority of course, but over a year, it amounts to a large number.

Typically, chickens (in cages) can have anywhere from slightly less to slightly greater than a standard American sheet of white paper as their living space. For the life of a broiler chicken, you spend it here, unable to much other than sit or stand because there's so little space. These chickens also tend to hover over huge piles of shit that are allowed to accumulate for months, creating boils on the animals and, due to the stench and chemicals in the air, breathing disorders, blindness, etc.

Breeding, combined with certain growth hormones intends to fatten specific parts of the chicken, such as the breast, but it ends up creating strain on joints and other parts of the chicken. In these cases, many snap their legs or have chronic joint pain.

To an extent, researchers think there is also psychological distress by pointing out the rhythmic flapping and banging against walls, cages, etc. It's probably due to being confined around so many other chickens in small spaces combined, without a stable social hierarchy developing.


Some of the standards for chicken handling are also bad. A handler is aloud to hold animals by the feet up to three or so in each hand, and they are anything but gentle when they throw them around. It's not deliberate sadism, it's just a product of the profit-driven "maximize the penny saved" philosophy.

Breeder chickens tend to have it better than broiler chickens from what I've read, but they are often starved purposefully in order to induce moulting when they start to lose utility. Most of these animals rarely, if ever, see the outside, and such vast quantities of them all packed together are breeding grounds for disease, which often requires lavishing them with buckets of antibiotics just to keep them alive (like with cattle because of the diet fed).

Some practices are practical, such as cutting off the beaks, but that itself is partly a product of the factory system.


Then you have environmental issues, which is another story entirely. Chicken and pig shit, at least in the past, have polluted entire rivers and whole sections of bays: the companies simply keep everyone in court, pay the fines. I think this problem happened off the Delmarva Peninsula. A whole section of the Bay was turned into a dead-zone.

[Covenant]

Second, what I meant by my first post is that caring about how the animals are treated is more relevant than worrying about how they are killed. I myself have an interesting ethical stance in regard to animal welfare... But, were I to find factory farming unethical (, I would find practices such as crowding intelligent pigs in meat lots so laden with toxic gases (from the buildup of urine and feces) that 60% of the human workers develop respiratory problems.

This is where I stand as well. To me, livestock are not a topic of huge ethical concern, but it's ridiculous for someone to be concerned about 'pain and suffering' caused by the way they're killed if they're raised in a sort of crammed-in factory farm environment. You would think that the slaughter would be far less distressing to the cattle or hogs than being crammed into cages, fed utterly bizzare mixtures of food, and then transported in sometimes terrible conditions.

Honestly, the department of agriculture has been extremely negligent in this, going so far as to stop testing of aimals so that beef buyers wouldn't lose confidence in the cattle stock. That's cruel to the animals, but it's also cruel to us, so it's not the best example. So getting numbers from them, or others, are going to be difficult--since that's really the only regulatory group, and they aren't doing their job 100 percent of the time.

I'm no vegetarian. I think preparing an animal for eating may be messy and smelly, but I don't think it's unethical to eat meat. But denying that the conditions some of the stock are raised in can be a bit uncomfrotable, and at worst incredibly dangerous, would be naive. It's not the norm, I suspect, but for someone to complain about the way an animal is slaughtered--and nothing else--sounded like the vegetarian gal didn't really know much about it. So even though I'd explain this to her while eating a hamburger, it's not like it's a huge secret that animals don't always get the best treatment in a farm.

[chitoryu12]

On a slightly related note, she also thinks that we should not kill animals because we no longer need to eat all the meat we can get to survive, which is actually a contradiction because while she claims to not be opposed to slaughtering animals, she finds it cruel in general, so I am quite confused as to exactly what her real opinion is.

I don't see how it would be unreasonable to say that you'd prefer to kill the minimum number of animals necessary to provide for balanced nutrition. If you think that it's not good to kill animals in general, but you also acknowledge that you do need some animal material to be healthy, it would make sense.

Actually, she said straight out that we don't need to kill animals anymore, as in it's cruel because it's "unnecessary killing". She compares it to murdering someone for the hell of it. She still eats chicken because she knows that she needs the nutrients, but she still opposes animal slaughter. What, does she think that chickens are killed in a more humane way than other animals.

[Lagmonster]

Some of the same problems about boiling the animals alive happens. It's a minority of course, but over a year, it amounts to a large number.

How many is a 'large' number? Evidence for this number is where? Which country?

These chickens also tend to hover over huge piles of shit that are allowed to accumulate for months, creating boils on the animals and, due to the stench and chemicals in the air, breathing disorders, blindness, etc.

Evidence of unsafe working conditions/animal living conditions/waste mismanagement?

Breeding, combined with certain growth hormones intends to fatten specific parts of the chicken, such as the breast, but it ends up creating strain on joints and other parts of the chicken. In these cases, many snap their legs or have chronic joint pain.

Evidence. Jesus Christ, I'm not saying I'm not willing to believe it happens, but for the love of fuck, evidence! Come on, smack me down a peg! Prove you aren't just quoting PETA bullshit at me!

To an extent, researchers think there is also psychological distress by pointing out the rhythmic flapping and banging against walls, cages, etc. It's probably due to being confined around so many other chickens in small spaces combined, without a stable social hierarchy developing.

Which researchers? Which research?

Some of the standards for chicken handling are also bad. A handler is aloud to hold animals by the feet up to three or so in each hand, and they are anything but gentle when they throw them around. It's not deliberate sadism, it's just a product of the profit-driven "maximize the penny saved" philosophy.

Evidence of violation of handling and transportation of animals cruelty regulations (In Canada that would be the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Health of Animals Regulations)?

Then you have environmental issues, which is another story entirely. Chicken and pig shit, at least in the past, have polluted entire rivers and whole sections of bays: the companies simply keep everyone in court, pay the fines. I think this problem happened off the Delmarva Peninsula. A whole section of the Bay was turned into a dead-zone.

Yes, environmental issues exist with factory farming. Not debating that.

You might want to read the report from Agriculture Canada's Farm Animal Welfare and Codes of Practice Consultation Workshop in 2002, the results of which are helping to steer government interaction with farmers today. You'll find it on the Agri-Can website.

[Lagmonster]

You would think that the slaughter would be far less distressing to the cattle or hogs than being crammed into cages, fed utterly bizzare mixtures of food, and then transported in sometimes terrible conditions.

Transported in terrible conditions, huh? Tell you what: Sections 61 to 80 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Meat Inspection Regulations. Quoting section 62: "(1) No food animal shall be handled in a manner that subjects the animal to avoidable distress or avoidable pain."

There, I found YOU the regulations that govern the handling and transportation of livestock for slaughter. You find ME the evidence of gross failure to enforce or follow said regulations by food producers.

[Covenant]

Of the Canadian FIA? I'm not Canadian. I'd be looking at the US Department of Agriculture for my meat products.

[Covenant]

Crud, entered too quick. I was trying to paste something. Like I said, I'd be using the US services, not the Canadian ones. Maybe you guys are better about animals than we are? Certainly wouldn't be the first time. Regardless, the numbers are hard to find because the government actively discourages decent investigation and prosecution of these cases when it could hurt the market. Here's a nice speech from a Senator, however, about the subject.

(U.S. Senate - July 09, 2001, Senator Robert Byrd)

"Our inhumane treatment of livestock is becoming widespread and more and more barbaric. Six-hundred-pound hogs--they were pigs at one time-- raised in 2-foot-wide metal cages called gestation crates, in which the poor beasts are unable to turn around or lie down in natural positions, and this way they live for months at a time.

On profit-driven factory farms, veal calves are confined to dark wooden crates so small that they are prevented from lying down or scratching themselves. These creatures feel; they know pain. They suffer pain just as we humans suffer pain. Egg-laying hens are confined to battery cages. Unable to spread their wings, they are reduced to nothing more than an egg-laying machine.

Last April, the Washington Post detailed the inhumane treatment of livestock in our Nation's slaughterhouses. A 23-year-old Federal law requires that cattle and hogs to be slaughtered must first be stunned, thereby rendered insensitive to pain, but mounting evidence indicates that this is not always being done, that these animals are sometimes cut, skinned, and scalded while still able to feel pain.

A Texas beef company, with 22 citations for cruelty to animals, was found chopping the hooves off live cattle. In another Texas plant with about two dozen violations, Federal officials found nine live cattle dangling from an overhead chain. Secret videos from an Iowa pork plant show hogs squealing and kicking as they are being lowered into the boiling water that will soften their hides, soften the bristles on the hogs and make them easier to skin.

I used to kill hogs. I used to help lower them into the barrels of scalding water, so that the bristles could be removed easily. But those hogs were dead when we lowered them into the barrels.

The law clearly requires that these poor creatures be stunned and rendered insensitive to pain before this process begins. Federal law is being ignored. Animal cruelty abounds. It is sickening. It is infuriating. Barbaric treatment of helpless, defenseless creatures must not be tolerated even if these animals are being raised for food--and even more so, more so. Such insensitivity is insidious and can spread and is dangerous. Life must be respected and dealt with humanely in a civilized society.

So for this reason I have added language in the supplemental appropriations bill that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to report on cases of inhumane animal treatment in regard to livestock production, and to document the response of USDA regulatory agencies.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies have the authority and the capability to take action to reduce the disgusting cruelty about which I have spoken.

Oh, these are animals, yes. But they, too, feel pain. These agencies can do a better job, and with this provision they will know that the U.S. Congress expects them to do better in their inspections, to do better in their enforcement of the law, and in their research for new, humane technologies. Additionally, those who perpetuate such barbaric practices will be put on notice that they are being watched.

I realize that this provision will not stop all the animal life in the United States from being mistreated. It will not even stop all beef, cattle, hogs and other livestock from being tortured. But it can serve as an important step toward alleviating cruelty and unnecessary suffering by these creatures."

[Lagmonster]

I'll get this right out there: Saying that there are no inhumane farmers is like saying that there are no corrupt politicians; what is important is how much effort is being placed into identifying problems and coping with them.

It also bears understanding that farming is a business with two sides; In normal production, you make as much of your product for as cheaply as possible. Economic sense tells us that you want to do the same for animals - the more meat you make, the more money you can make. They problem is that most farms exist with a profit cap. That cap manifests itself as several things, one of which is adherence to the animal cruelty and welfare acts which dominate developed nation's agriculture laws. But that cap itself is also SELF-imposed by the fact that stressed and unhappy animals do not make for good livestock, and sick animals can't be used for anything at all. While there certainly are farmers who don't understand this, the majority work within the boundaries of both professional sense and federal regulation.

What is more likely is inhumane treatment in developing nations, where regulation is weak or government inspection nil. And what is also very likely is environmental hazards produced by modern mass-farming, such as toxin disposal, ground-water contamination and damage to grazing lands.

I would find practices such as crowding intelligent pigs in meat lots so laden with toxic gases (from the buildup of urine and feces) that 60% of the human workers develop respiratory problems.

Hydrogen sulphide poisoning is a hazard known to pig shit lagoons, as well as small-operations farms (like mom-and-pop farms that sell only in rural auctions), but an actual mass production hog pen which was found to not be cleaned out regularly would be shut down for both worker and animal health reasons - inspectors would have their pick of criminal offenses to level in such a case these days. Besides which, humans operating in waste removal for high-density barns (especially in winter) wear respirators; Not doing so would be like working a welding torch in a speedo.

Waste mismanagement is not the norm among the animals: Sick pigs can't produce healthy piglets if they're in gestation cycles, and sick pigs can't be eaten, so farmers actually have more to gain from cleaning out pig shit and poisoning the environment, like local lakes and groundwater (also horribly illegal) than in having barns and housing stalls which don't vent properly and hurting their own production. Which they do, and there are environmental fine reports to back that up.

http://www.factoryfarming.com/pork.htm

Where are the evidences of the claims made by that article? What might be better than your veggie site would be, say, an animal welfare report based on inspection data (here in Ontario, for example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, OSPCA, OMAF and OFAC work together to monitor offenders and produce a report, complete with lists of offenders and fines handed out as well as an analysis of the effectiveness of regulation enforcement).

After the sows give birth and nurse their young for two to three weeks, the piglets are taken away to be fattened, and the sows are re-impregnated. An article in Successful Farming explains, "Any sow that is not gestating, lactating or within seven days post weaning is non-active," and hog factories strive to keep their sows '100 % active' in order to maximize profits. When the sow is no longer deemed a productive breeder, she is sent to slaughter.

Note that all they quote is that sows which aren't gestating are deemed non-active, followed by the author's claim that hog factories drive their sows 100% of the time. While it is absolutely true that hog factories maximize birthing rates, they are limited by federal regulation and inspection of birthing facilities to maintain the health of the sow. In the US and Canada, I think - and I cannot confirm this - that litter rates average two per year, or about four months out of every six spent in a birthing crate.

You might be interested in knowing that pig arthritis is actually often brought on by Mycoplasma hyorhinis infections, but which has been reported more than once by PETA-like organizations as a result of inhumane cramping of sows in stalls. If you see that one, check your source.

More than that, what most people don't understand is that pregnant sows tend to fight if not kept separate, so free range is a bad plan. That said, birthing stall usage is on a decline, and frankly I agree with the move to reduce their usage in favour of different holding techniques. But be careful not to say that birthing stalls actually harm the animal; This is the kind of thing where you should find a reliable report that demonstrates that sow health is compromised by birthing or fallow stalls, or even that they produce significantly elevated stress levels in the animals. In fact, I encourage you to do so for my education and yours.

Prior to being hung upside down by their back legs and bled to death at the slaughterhouse, pigs are supposed to be 'stunned' and rendered unconscious, in accordance with the federal Humane Slaughter Act. However, stunning at slaughterhouses is terribly imprecise, and often conscious animals are hung upside down, kicking and struggling, while a slaughterhouse worker tries to 'stick' them in the neck with a knife. If the worker is unsuccessful, the pig will be carried to the next station on the slaughterhouse assembly line — the scalding tank — where he/she will be boiled, alive and fully conscious.

I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and say that a manual procedure for killing animals is never going to result in suffering. The goal is to minimize suffering, because no matter how many times you decapitate a chicken sooner or later you're going to miss and just wing the fucker and have to go back in for the finish. So what's acceptable to you? One animal that suffers in a thousand? In a hundred? In a million? How reliably applied does the stunning and slaughtering process have to be to be considered a humane process?