Kill It, Cook It, Eat It.

[the.fee.fairy]

Did anyone else see this?
I wanted to watch it to find out for myself how humane the slaughter process is.

They had windows in a slaughterhouse so that people could watch the slaughter process - basically, from live animal to piece of meat.

The first one was chicken (never eating chicken again until a more humane process is invented), then beef (not convinced on this one either), then lamb (definitely not eating lamb again) and then pork (ditto).

Quick overview of each:

Chicken: Hung up by their feet, then dipped in an electrified bath, then they have a knife put through their throats to cut the carotid arteries. They then go into a bath of hot water to loosen the feathers, then they go through the plucking machine, then they get dressed.

I didn't like this one. There were chicken that were distressed at being hung up, then there were other ones that appeared to miss the lectrified water. The plucking machine was brutal!! It was like a tunnel with rubber 'fingers' on discs that spun to take off the feathers. Brutal is the only word i can think of to describe it.

Beef: The calves were taken into the abbatoir, and led singly into the stunning pen, where a bloke fired a captive bolt into their forehead. They fell to the floor and were rolled through a trapdoor to the next part. Then they were hung up by their back leg and had their throats cut. After they'd finished bleeding, they were taken along to be skinned, eviscerated (i think that's the word) and dressed.

The beef i thought was the most humane. Death was very quick for the calves. After the bolt went in, they appeared to be unconscious. The bolts were fired seconds after the calves walked into the stunning pen so they didnt reallt have time to register what was about to happen. There was only one that i didn't like the look of, it seemed to be struggling on the hook, more than the twitching of the others, it really appeared to be trying to get off the hook. Watching the men skin the calf was like watching a craftsman at work!! I have the say, they impressed me.

Lamb: Much the same as the beef, but an electrical stunner was used instead of the bolt.

Didn't like the lamb one, not a bit. The stunning seemed to take too long. The lamb was being held in a corner of the stunning pen while a bloke clamped the stunner on. It just took too long for my liking. There were a few more that seemed to 'come round' after being put on the hook. One was really struggling and looked like it was trying to get off the hook. It was horrible!

Pork: Same as the lamb

Didn't like this one either for the same reason. I didn't like the stunning process, it took too long.


Overall, i found it a valuable experience to watch it, but i still don't believe it is humane enough for me to eat meat for the forseeable future.

If someone can enlighten me, then i'd be welcome to hear it!

[Muddypause]

Didn't see that particular programme, but I've seen similar in the past. One thing I've never understood (maybe there actually is a good reason for it) is the need to stun the animal, rather than kill it outright, cleanly, dead straight away. Why go through a clearly fallible stunning process before bleeding the animal to death?

Incidentally, the Food Programme (IIRC) on Radio 4 visited a French abattoir a little while ago - there, they stun the cattle after it is hung up by its back legs.

[the.fee.fairy]

I don't understand why they have to stun the animal. I'm a firm believer in giving an animal a humane death, and i can understand why they stun them. Stunning after hanging is barbaric!! But, like you, i don't see why the animal can't be killed outright.

The only thing i can think of is that it might need its heard beating to bleed it successfully. There must be another way though.

There was a bit on the last one, where they showed a pig being killed in a spanish village the 'traditional' way. i didn't watch a lot of that one, it was too cruel. the pig was basically held down and stabbed in the neck. I had to cover my eyes and put my fingers in my ears for that one. it was screaming in distress.

I think if i either had good reasons why the slaughter process has to be that way, or confirmation that the animal definitely does not suffer...none of them, then i might eat meat again. but until then, no way.

I'll eat chicken from smallholders - they tend to dispatch quite qickly. My aunt used to do it either by wringing the neck, or with an axe. Death was instant, the spinal cord was severed, so the animal was dead straight away.

[red]

I seem to remember from teh HFW program where they went with the lambs to the abatoir- that the lamb was still kicking after its head was removed... - so you have to question whether the ones you saw struggling on the hook where actually there or not. dunno - didn't see this program - meant to.

I'm all for it though - I think people should be made aware of the truth about meat. I'm a confirmed omnivore myself. I think it shoudl be an informed choice.

[the.fee.fairy]

oooh Muddy:

I was reading the INEBG bok last night, and there was a bit about them keeping and killing pigs - the bloke who killed them shot them, n the forehead, so they were killed instantly. Therefore, itmust be possible (and permittable) to kill an animal outright without 'stunning' it first.

[Bonniegirl]

An animal needs to be bled as quickly as possible once it has been despatched while the heart is still pumping, in order fort he blood to drain.
So I would assume that in an abbatoir that the time between killing and bleeding would be too long, so thats why they are stunned, they are not dead when they are bled.

It isn't a good practice and there is always room for improvement.

We raise out own animals here for the freezer. They are not sent of on a truck to be put through that kind of stress. Have you ever wondered why some joints of meat are tough? It's because during the last few moments of it's life it is stressed causing an adrenaline rush, it's that rush that makes the meat tough.

As I said we raise our own, here in New Zealand we have mobile homekill/butchers. They shoot the animals there and then in the paddock. The animals are happily grazing on some nice grass, or a bale of fresh hay and boom they're dead! They know nothing of it, happy until the end with no stress or fear. I still get sad when it's their turn but I know they had had the best life they could have right up until that moment.
They are bled quickly and then skinned, quartered and taken away to be hung for a week. You haven't tasted meat until you've tasted homekill.

When we first arrived in NZ it didn't take me long to stop eating meat, I couldn't bring myself too buy anything from the supermarkets. But I eat our own meat, I know what kind of life they've had, what they've eaten what they've been treated with. I very rarely eat meat when I'm out.

Someone wrote a wonderful piece about animals and their deaths, if I can find it I will post it on here for you to read.

[Bonniegirl]

Here it is, it was posted on an NZ forum, in a heated argument about what animals may or may not feel, think or may not think about at their time of death, I think it's very well written

I quote:

"Just over a year ago one of my cows died and I spent some months in an increased state of anxiety about cows, gullies, and nasty accidents. I felt a huge guilt about that cow having ended up where she did and so spent quite a bit of time thinking my way through and around the issue.

When my cow, 410, fell in the gully where she subsequently died, what did she think or feel? Did she feel regret for the step in the wrong place which led to her slip into the hole from which she couldn't escape? Or did she simply wait? For what did she wait? For rescue? For numbness? For death?

I wondered one evening, when I hadn't seen old Ivy for a couple of days, what she would be thinking and feeling if she was then in a gully, stuck. It occurred to me that one of the things she would be unlikely to feel is regret. To grieve the end of life for long, one must feel guilt or regret for things done or not done. Cattle live and die in the present, they don't think about what's next and I don't believe they rationalise and go over what has been. They do remember, obviously quite well, things, places, people and events, but they do not consider them in the same ways we do.

I read Chasing Daylight, a book written by a dying man about detaching himself from his life and relationships and becoming more conscious of his present, rather than living in the past or future, it occured to me that that appears to be how animals operate. How else could they eat grass for three quarters of their day without boredom, ruminate for the rest of the time they're not sleeping? If they had conscious ability to plan the future or to dissect the past, they could not live as they do. Were they in the wild, their movements would be dictated by the weather, where they could find feed and water, and the needs to mate, give birth and avoid predators. Those motivations are immediate and animals go where they're mostly safe, not because they plan it, but because they end up where they are least often attacked, or where the feed is plentiful, or wherever is the best water and shelter.

A cow, deprived of her calf, mourns it for a short period, but she does not appear to remember it in the longer term. When she meets her calf again, she knows the animal is familiar, but I do not observe a particular recognition: there is no nosing and licking as mothers do to their calves, no nudging of udder by the former calf. The animals have achieved independence from each other and behave as any adult bovines together.

Regret requires anticipation of the future, because regret includes that for things which will not be, if one is facing one's own, or another close companion's death.

That's where I sit on this matter. For all that we might wish it otherwise, everyone will die and for some it will be easy or quick and for others it will be hideous. I suspect that on the continuum of pain and suffering, it's still a darned sight easier to be a cow on a stock truck for three hours and up a chute to a quick end than to be in the position of many other beasts and people at their ends!

How much of the angst around animal killing is a discomfort in ourselves about the inevitability of death?

And, do you think it really matters much to a cow if she goes off to the works at five or fifteen? It's not as if she didn't get a chance to do a big overseas trip or write her lifestory or see her great grandchildren become famous! I don't imagine that cows do much measuring of time."

[red]

oooh Muddy:

I was reading the INEBG bok last night, and there was a bit about them keeping and killing pigs - the bloke who killed them shot them, n the forehead, so they were killed instantly. Therefore, itmust be possible (and permittable) to kill an animal outright without 'stunning' it first.

my parents keep cattle and decided it would be less stressful to get someone in to bump off the bullock in the field rather than put him throught he stress of being transported and then slaughtered. the man with the gun and licence arrived. He shot it in the head, but it still was not a quick death. there was plently of thrashing about and stress catching the animal to start with.
so its not clear cut.

[the.fee.fairy]

Thanks for the info bonniegirl about bleeding.

I still don't like the idea that the animal might 'come round' before they've bled to death.

If it was obviously stunning as in damaging the brain so much that the animal is brain-dead, or has no knowledge then i'd find it more acceptable.

Out of interest - why does the animal have to be bled? Is it a convenience thing - as in there's not loads of blood around when its being butchered? Or is it a meat thing - does it make the meat better? There's still blood around in any cut of meat - think bloody steaks, but would there be a lot more if the animal weren't bled beforehand?

There's so much i don't know about meat production, and i'd like to be fully informed as to the whys and hows of a lot of it.

[Shirley]

I know that chicken needs to be bled because it makes for tough meat otherwise... not sure about other animals but assume it's similar - not to mention it must make life a lot easier for butchering etc.

[Bonniegirl]

oooh Muddy:

I was reading the INEBG bok last night, and there was a bit about them keeping and killing pigs - the bloke who killed them shot them, n the forehead, so they were killed instantly. Therefore, itmust be possible (and permittable) to kill an animal outright without 'stunning' it first.

my parents keep cattle and decided it would be less stressful to get someone in to bump off the bullock in the field rather than put him throught he stress of being transported and then slaughtered. the man with the gun and licence arrived. He shot it in the head, but it still was not a quick death. there was plently of thrashing about and stress catching the animal to start with.
so its not clear cut.

Oh dear red, that's awful, next time they want to get someone who's a good shot. The fella who has done ours is very good, they drop straight away!

t.f.f.... I found this as to why you need to bleed animals, it is very necessary I'm afraid!


http://www.mountain-breeze.com/kitchen/game/bleed.html

[the.fee.fairy]

thanks for that, its interesting.

One thing though - '...since game birds are always dead or nearly so...'
and '...If the animal or bird is then hung up, or in the case of larger animals, placed so the head and shoulders are below the body, the blood drains very rapidly from the carcass.
Thorough bleeding can result only when a large blood vessel is opened immediately after killing while the animal is still warm. '

These statements seem to point to the fact that the animal can be dead when it is hung fo bleeding.

In the abbatoir on the program, there was literally a trapdoor i the floor that the animal rolled through to go to the hanging station. It wasn't a long journey, it took seconds and the animal wasn't conscious, so they didn't walk there!!

So...if an unconscious animal can be rolled through a trapdoor and hung to bleed, why can't a dead one. i understand that the heart pumping makes the blood run faster, but from the above statements, it seems that if you bleed the animal as soon as possible after death, then it will still 'empty'.

I don't want to sound like a militant vegetarian...i'm not, i am honestly trying to get my head around why the slaughter process seems so inhumane. i'm not trying to have a go at anyone or anything like that, and i'm sorry if i'm being a bit simple, but i do genuinely want to know these things. i believe its important to know where your food comes from and why, and to treat the animals with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

i just can't understand, or get to grips with the 'stunning' process. If you can kill an animal outright by shooting it in the forehead, or breaking the neck in the case of chickens, then why the stunning bit? It takes just as long as shooting the beast does, but leaves a chance, however small, that the animal is going to 'come round' or still have some knowledge or, god forbid, still feel pain.

[Bonniegirl]

I know exactly how you feel t.f.f it's something that has bothered me too, that's why I prefer the homekill method, they have no idea what's happening.

I've always felt abattoirs a bit barbaric

I'm afraid I have no answers sadly

[the.fee.fairy]

That's ok. i prefer the homekill method too, there's a lot less stress and the animal doesn't get a chance to register what's happening before its dead.
That's the way i think it should be!

I just have this need now to know why the abbatoirs work in the way they do.

[Bonniegirl]

Why not write to the one nearest you? It would be interesting to see what kind of response you would get. Especially as they have been screening abbattoir practices!

I wonder how many people have given up eating meat because they watched the same programme you did?