According to the RSPA ``All available scientific evidence points to the fact that animals that are slaughtered without being stunned suffer painful, prolonged deaths'' (http://www.politicalanimal.org.au/election-information/humane-slaughter)

On the other hand, we read the following from a 1978 Research Paper, entitled``Experiments for the objectification of pain and consciousness during conventional (captive bolt stunning) and religiously mandated (“ritual cutting”) slaughter procedures for sheep and calves.''

``The slaughter in the form of ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to the EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions.''

Their specific finding were that pain was shortest under the ritual slaughter:

``a) For slaughter by ritual cut:

1. After the bloodletting cut the EEG initially is the same as the EEG before the cut. There is a high probability that the loss of reaction took place within 4 – 6 seconds for sheep and within 10 seconds for calves.

2. The zero line in the EEG was recorded no later than after 13 seconds for 17 sheep and no later than 23 seconds for 7 calves.

.......

b) For slaughter after captive bolt application:

1. After captive bolt stunning all animals displayed most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.

2. The zero line in the EEG was reached for 4 calves after 28 seconds.

....''

[originally published in Deutsche Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift (German veterinary weekly) volume 85 (1978), pages 62-66, authored by By W. Schulze, H. Schultze-Petzold, A.S. Hazem, and R. Gross (translated by Dr Sahib M. Bleher, Dip Trans MIL). Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18968848/Conventional-Slaughter-vs-Halal-A-Scientific-Examination]

The RSPCA website therefore appears to be misleading.

1978 experiments, Grateful?
So, 33 years ago some researchers decided that the ritual killing methods for slaughtering cattle were less painful than also using the stun-gun?

Do we know if the stun-guns manufactured today are any more effective than back then (33 years ago)?
I also have to ask how many of the 'ritual slaughterers' who don't use stun-guns actually do the job 'properly'?

Obviously, there would not be any need for stun-guns if the original practice was known to be universally humane.

I also know that before I would let anyone cut my throat, I would far rather be rendered unconscious first.

How about you Grateful?

grateful

Hello Grateful & welcome to OLO are you convinced RSPCA are wrong?

http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html

I am sure you will like to read the world accepted methods on many slaughter methods from world wide accepted Halal slaughter abattoirs.
So much more has been done since Germany.

`#`The slaughter in the form of ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to the EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions.''#

The difference,is our slaughter first renders the animal unconscious while on its feet then in one second &than-a-second two-motion movement cuts the then exposed spinal cord. That causes a cessation of bio electric impulses that goes to the animal’s brains & once thats gone they cant feel stress- pain.

Oh there is a lot of evidence to this- but be assured the link i provided has info for you.

How did you become interested in Halal Slaughter methods btw grateful. Are you studying to be a vet? Anyway, the German stuff really is outdated. If you looked at my posts you will see i have a interest in this because the Koran says we should treat animals with kindness.

Goodnight grateful

having left much unsaid at kerryannes topic on the rspca
i will restrict myself yet again here

except to say..all death is murder
sometimes its by the hand of man..which bears karmic feedback
other times its bacteria..which is the karma

i eat meat..thus must share the guilt
but no one has clean hands in this violation of the rule 5

undenyably seeds are living..
or rather were living..prior to being crushed..
to make our daily bread..or vego salad

[i guess thats why we should pray over our food
that died..so we can 'live']

as jesus said..let ye with unclean hands
not cast the first stone

that we do to the least..[the beast]
we do to god..sustaining it its living..equally as he sustains ours

death is not dead
we each are spirits
having an incarnate materialistic 'life'..experience

its not as much..what we say
but what we chose..or didnt chose..to do

those who thought to slaughter
will in eternity..get slaughterd
[if they love to slaughter]

the promise reads
more shall be given

but the assurance is...those who rape pilage murder
can only do this..upon 'their own'..[other rapists killers murders]

so be carefull what you chose..to love to do
gods highest law is mercy...grace

forgive them lord..
they know not..what..we do did to others
will in time be done..upon you

For anyone with patience, the link below connects with a fairly long article - with some interesting footnotes - on cooking lobsters at the Maine Lobster Festival. It highlights some of our attitudes we humans adopt as we contemplate our food choices.

http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster

"You get the water boiling, put in the lobsters one at a time, cover the kettle, and bring it back up to a boil. Then you bank the heat and let the kettle simmer—ten minutes for the first pound of lobster, then three minutes for each pound after that... A detail so obvious that most recipes don’t even bother to mention it is that each lobster is supposed to be alive when you put it in the kettle. This is part of lobster’s modern appeal: It’s the freshest food there is."

And the question raised is also obvious.

"So then here is a question that’s all but unavoidable at the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, and may arise in kitchens across the U.S.: Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure? A related set of concerns: Is the previous question irksomely PC or sentimental? What does “all right” even mean in this context? Is it all just a matter of individual choice?"

The corollary here is, I suppose, what is the ethical difference between cutting an animal's throat, and boiling it alive?

And before you say "lobsters can't feel anything", I suggest you read the article.

Incidentally, I'm not a vegetarian, so I don't know the answers. Just the questions.

Country folk think differently to city folks and societies differ in the emotive value placed on certain animals. The only relevant addition I could make is a personal observation:

When I was ten I got a slug gun, my older bros would take me to the canal and we would shoot rats, one time on the way back they asked if I could hit a bird in a tree, I shot, I hit, bird fell and I felt a strong pang of conscience, never shot another bird, but shot rats the next week. The value we put psychologically on other living things varies but the tenet of if we must kill there should be minimum pain is in all but 5% of us, it is called a conscience.