Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in US

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Verdantic
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:52 am UTC
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby Verdantic » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:48 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Exsanguination seems a good way to stop brain function


Exanguination is not a good method to produce unconsciousness in cattle. It takes 30-100 seconds for unconsciousness to occur in calves after a bilateral cut severing both carotid arteries and jugular veins as they have an additional blood supply through the back of the neck (see here, page 10: http://www.publish.csiro.au/books/download.cfm?ID=2975). Furthermore, most reversible stuns do not last longer than 45 seconds.


Telchar wrote:Actually both halal and kosher require the animal be conscious


It's scripture, of course there are multiple interpretations. The majority of Halal and Kosher meat in Australia (and, it seems, the EU) is produced through use of reversible stunning.


Derek wrote: I can't imagine this being a major issue. Aren't Kosher and Halal usually advertising points?


Not to me, and not to Yurell either. I prefer my meat humanely slaughtered, and I do not consider slaughter of animals without insensibility humane.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby yurell » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:21 am UTC

Verdantic wrote:
Derek wrote: I can't imagine this being a major issue. Aren't Kosher and Halal usually advertising points?


Not to me, and not to Yurell either. I prefer my meat humanely slaughtered, and I do not consider slaughter of animals without insensibility humane.


I believe he's saying 'wouldn't the meat be sold with the Halal / Kosher label if it is so, since that makes the meat more likely to be sold?'

The answer to that is 'not necessarily'. A lot of unlabelled H/K meat is sold in Australia (I don't know about the rest of the world), especially in supermarkets. One reason that it may not be labelled is because it would draw attention to the practice, or because of the unfortunate Islamophobic trends in the case of Halal (but to show it's not just Islamophobia, here's the RSPCA on kosher meat).

It's a case of both animal cruelty and religious organisations being above the law (or 'special' in the eyes of the law), both of which I have strong objection to.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:19 am UTC

Verdantic wrote:Exanguination is not a good method to produce unconsciousness in cattle. It takes 30-100 seconds for unconsciousness to occur in calves after a bilateral cut severing both carotid arteries and jugular veins as they have an additional blood supply through the back of the neck (see here, page 10: http://www.publish.csiro.au/books/download.cfm?ID=2975). Furthermore, most reversible stuns do not last longer than 45 seconds.

Your link didn't work. Try again?
I'm not sure if the notion of stuns not lasting longer than 45s is pro-stunning or anti-stunning. Can you clarify?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby yurell » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:23 am UTC

The link works fine for me. Maybe it's an outside Australia thing? The text they're referencing is:

After a similar bilateral cut, unconsciousness occurs in 13 to 25 seconds in pigs, and in 30 to 100 seconds in calves. Calves have additional arteries near the cervical vertebrae. These arteries supply blood to the brain and are not severed in the normal sticking process. Thus to be effective, stunning must render the animal unconscious for the above periods plus the time between stunning and sticking. This creates a strong argument for the use of irreversible stunning in some species as most reversible stuns do not last longer than 45 seconds.


Any typos are my own, because it wouldn't allow copy/paste.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Verdantic
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:52 am UTC
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby Verdantic » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:11 am UTC

Thanks Yurell! No idea what's going on with the link, but hopefully what Yurell copied over answers your question, Izawwlgood. Animals don't recover from irreversible stuns, often it kills them outright.

And thanks for clarifying Derek's question. To be certified for Halal export in Australia, a slaughterhouse must produce 100% Halal meat (excepting things like emergency kills). They therefore use reversible stunning (electrical for lamb, percussion for beef) in the processing of all animals slaughtered at that plant, no matter where that product is to be consumed.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:32 am UTC

I'm still not following entirely: is it supposed that a stun, whether or not the animal recovers, is better than the time it takes for an animal to lose consciousness from exsanguination?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby yurell » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:37 am UTC

It's saying that the reversible stun wears off before the animal dies, therefore there can be nearly a minute where the animal is suffering as it bleeds to death through a gigantic cut in its throat, and so a permanent stun should be used instead.
Or, as is their manner, not so much 'should' as 'creates a strong argument for', because by God we can't risk upsetting religious minorities.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:12 am UTC

Ah. I suppose in the scheme of things, risks of 'error in stunning' isn't much different than 'error in throat slicing'. Is it known what the rates of error between the two are? And I thought the argument with throat slicing was that it causes such a massive blood loss to the brain that the animal loses consciousness in seconds?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby yurell » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:20 am UTC

I don't know what the error rate between the two is, but there is a provision in the document that should there be an error in the throat-slicing the animal is to be stunned immediately, so both methods have the same fail-safe (if you somehow cocked-up once, stun them). However, I think that even if the throat-slicing works perfectly correctly it's still immoral.
Regarding your question about that method, as is said in the document Verdantic provided it takes 30-100 seconds for the animal to lose consciousness from a slit throat, whereas they're only temporarily stunned for up to 45 seconds. This means that even if they're stunned the instant before their throat is slit, there's still a 55 second window where the animal is in agony as it bleeds to death before finally falling unconscious.


And if I'm going to learn anything, by the end of this thread I'll be able to spell 'unconscious' >.>
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
buddy431
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby buddy431 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:28 am UTC

Why is this discussion happening here? Horse meat isn't kosher, so you don't have to worry about it. Why don't we actually discuss the ways that Horses are killed in the U.S. - exactly the same way cows are. Or discuss the hardships put on horses being hauled over the border to be slaughtered in Mexico or Canada.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby yurell » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:36 am UTC

buddy431 wrote:Why is this discussion happening here?


Because I said:

I don't see anything wrong with the farming & slaughter of any animal for human consumption, so long as they're treated humanely at both stages. Which is why I won't eat halal/kosher meat and am shying away from chicken (given the living conditions of many of the animals).


And was questioned about Halal/Kosher meat. Now we're discussing the humane slaughter of animals in general ... I'm sure if someone has a specific complaint against slaughtering horses in the US they'll make it since it's pertinent to the OP (I don't think that anyone has contested otherwise so far), and if a mod thinks this is too far off topic they'll tell us to take it elsewhere / split this thread for it. As it is, since we're still on the topic of animal slaughter methods I feel this is still a fairly pertinent discussion.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
caisara
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:21 pm UTC

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby caisara » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:08 am UTC

.
Last edited by caisara on Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
zombie_monkey
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Slaughtering horses for human consumption now legal in U

Postby zombie_monkey » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:34 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Guinea pig is generally eaten in South America, where they are native too. It's called cavy there. It tastes ok.


As Derek has already pointed out, they were domesticated as a food source, keeping them as pets is a new practice and not generally done in the parts of South America where they were domesticated. They used to be a delicacy reserved for religious festivals and such, but this has been changing and they're eaten regularly now.
[...] one famous painting of the Last Supper in the main cathedral in Cusco shows Christ and the twelve disciples dining on guinea pig.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests