SLAUGHTERHOUSE - BBC2 last night...
Discussion
Anybody watch this "Glasshouse" look inside an abbatoir in the North last night ??...
Amazing program and very thought provoking, totally addictive to watch despite the gruesomeness of the program.
Amazing to see how they diversified into HALA and KOSHER alongside the "normal" slaughter :hurl: ...
Weird bunch of blokes that work there though :yes:
Amazing program and very thought provoking, totally addictive to watch despite the gruesomeness of the program.
Amazing to see how they diversified into HALA and KOSHER alongside the "normal" slaughter :hurl: ...
Weird bunch of blokes that work there though :yes:
hughesie2 said:
Weird bunch of blokes that work there though
That one guy looked and spoke like a Nick Park character (Wallace & Gromit etc....). Very interesting programme, if a little gruesome in places. I had a feeling that I might turn veggie by the end of it.
>> Edited by Mrs BlueCerbera on Tuesday 5th July 08:00
It certainly was an interesting program.
An unusual insight into the working man, his predujices, his preferences, his intelligence and lack thereof.
And an important demonstration of where meat comes from.
We owe a debt to these guys. They make the middle-class illusion of meat coming from Sainsbury's in polystyrene and clingfilm possible.
Could I do it? Yes. Am I glad I don't have to? Yes.
If you eat meat you have to embrace the fact that your meal comes from the death of an animal...you can ask that its death be as painless as possible...but its death is an inevitable consequence of your hunger.
An unusual insight into the working man, his predujices, his preferences, his intelligence and lack thereof.
And an important demonstration of where meat comes from.
We owe a debt to these guys. They make the middle-class illusion of meat coming from Sainsbury's in polystyrene and clingfilm possible.
Could I do it? Yes. Am I glad I don't have to? Yes.
If you eat meat you have to embrace the fact that your meal comes from the death of an animal...you can ask that its death be as painless as possible...but its death is an inevitable consequence of your hunger.
Don said:
If you eat meat you have to embrace the fact that your meal comes from the death of an animal...you can ask that its death be as painless as possible...but its death is an inevitable consequence of your hunger.
Or you could laugh at the pig having a heart attack in the car park...
Never did find out what they did with it when they carried it off in the wheel barrow !!
The humour i found a bit much, but understandable given the circumstances that they worked in...
Mrs BlueCerbera said:
Weird bunch of blokes that work there though
Very interesting programme, if a little gruesome in places. I had a feeling that I might turn veggie by the end of it.
>> Edited by Mrs BlueCerbera on Tuesday 5th July 08:00
Spooky - I said exactly the same thing to my wife. Wondered when the sequel to "Chicken Run" was coming out.
I'm glad that the psychos that work there are:
a. gainfully employed
b. we know where they are
That chap with tats was absolutely mental. "Patch" I thought was quite a good lad, and alot more intelligent than his colleagues.
yes, i watched it and with farming and livestock background, i have also been in side a couple during the operation, it is very factory like, in atmosphere and mentallity.
i have always thought that all meat eaters should see at least once, a big animal like a bullock being slaughterd. it is actually very moving seeing it done for the first time and thought provocking.
after seeing it, did i wish to continue eating meat? in my case yes, these animals are bred then fed, to ultimately land on our dinner plates. they don't begin life in little plastic containers.
as for the guys why work in them, they are just like all other people, the rest of us. many very sain and rational, doing a job and the odd misfit here and there who has landed work there more by accident than design. all doing a job most people would find impossible. in fact great credit to them because one guy said he was happy work there and earn a living rather than claim anything.
next time at your local supermarket and you buy a pound of steak, remember, it probably started life about 31 months before, was bred by a farmer, sold on to a fattener at about 14 months, fed until about 24-30 months, a visit to a cattle market, then a last journey, to get the chop. i always think i hope the animal had a good life and thank you, it was very tasty.
i have always thought that all meat eaters should see at least once, a big animal like a bullock being slaughterd. it is actually very moving seeing it done for the first time and thought provocking.
after seeing it, did i wish to continue eating meat? in my case yes, these animals are bred then fed, to ultimately land on our dinner plates. they don't begin life in little plastic containers.
as for the guys why work in them, they are just like all other people, the rest of us. many very sain and rational, doing a job and the odd misfit here and there who has landed work there more by accident than design. all doing a job most people would find impossible. in fact great credit to them because one guy said he was happy work there and earn a living rather than claim anything.
next time at your local supermarket and you buy a pound of steak, remember, it probably started life about 31 months before, was bred by a farmer, sold on to a fattener at about 14 months, fed until about 24-30 months, a visit to a cattle market, then a last journey, to get the chop. i always think i hope the animal had a good life and thank you, it was very tasty.
billb said:
almsot threw up when watching it esp when they cut the cows throat and the blood jetted out. what bollox all this done in the name of religion.
At the time such practices were proscribed it was the most practical, least painful and therefore most humane way of killing the animal. Sure its messy - but its very quick.
Don said:
almsot threw up when watching it esp when they cut the cows throat and the blood jetted out. what bollox all this done in the name of religion.
At the time such practices were proscribed it was the most practical, least painful and therefore most humane way of killing the animal. Sure its messy - but its very quick.
tell that to the animals that were hung up by one leg there whole bodies shaking as the blood poured from their necks - in this day and age shouldnt be allowed. fffing religion
billb said:
almsot threw up when watching it esp when they cut the cows throat and the blood jetted out. what bollox all this done in the name of religion.
This is by no means conclusive but heres what a study done by the University of Hannover found on Halal slaughter versus Western methods:
A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.
The Halal method
With the halal method of slaughter, there was no change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.
The 'Western' method
Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal seizes to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
Don said:
fffing religion
Read omohat's post and have a think before saying deeply offensive things.
What are you most concerned with? The animal or your own sensibilities.
Meat doesn't come in polystyrene and clingfilm.
>> Edited by Don on Tuesday 5th July 11:27
he made an interesting scientific post and maybe i'm wrong re amount of pain i'm just going on what i'm seeing. Howevere i stand by my religion remark to justify killing something in a particular way cos of religion says so is a cop out.
what are you concerned aboutthe animal or imposing your beliefs on others
To be fair, Omohat's post seems to be lifted directly from the website of Mustaqim Islamic Art and Literature, whose head was general secretary of the Islamic Party of Britain for 15 years, so you might say it has an agenda. While Omohat has pasted most of the article, he missed the conclusion which seems to put a certain perspective, or bias, on the rest of the article:
'Islam is a balanced way of life. For Muslims, the privilege of supplementing their diet with animal protein implies a duty to animal welfare, both during the rearing of the animal and during the slaughter. Modern Western farming and slaughter, on the other hand, aims at the mass consumer market and treats the animal as a commodity. Just as battery hens are easier for large-scale egg production, Western slaughter methods are easier for the meat industry, but they do neither the animal nor the end consumer any favours. The Islamic way guarantees a healthier life for the animal and a healthier meat for the consumer.'
A quick look on the internet shows lots of other research and commentary commenting on the cruelty of Halal.
'Islam is a balanced way of life. For Muslims, the privilege of supplementing their diet with animal protein implies a duty to animal welfare, both during the rearing of the animal and during the slaughter. Modern Western farming and slaughter, on the other hand, aims at the mass consumer market and treats the animal as a commodity. Just as battery hens are easier for large-scale egg production, Western slaughter methods are easier for the meat industry, but they do neither the animal nor the end consumer any favours. The Islamic way guarantees a healthier life for the animal and a healthier meat for the consumer.'
A quick look on the internet shows lots of other research and commentary commenting on the cruelty of Halal.
billb said:
he made an interesting scientific post and maybe i'm wrong re amount of pain i'm just going on what i'm seeing.
And yes you may indeed be wrong or possibly right you and I are not in a position to say. We're not scientists. (Well I am - but not an agricultural biologist).
More studies are probably a good idea, though.
billb said:
Howevere i stand by my religion remark to justify killing something in a particular way cos of religion says so is a cop out.
Religion is very much about human history. Many "religious" "rules" grew up out of a need to educate the masses. Rules like not stealing, not murdering, not eating pork (at the time it was infested with parasites that could kill), not screwing around (at the time venereal diseases were a huge killer) and so on.
The rule about Halal killing seems to me to be about ensuring that animals were killed using the most humane method available at the time. And it still may be a more humane method.
One should not write off people's cherished and venerated customs and religious beliefs lightly.
Your casual remark has no basis in fact that you can support - not a good enough reason to have made it. Come back with some facts (as omahat did) and argue your case if you want to be disparaging about something that a huge number of people hold very dear and therefore will be offended by your remark.
billb said:
what are you concerned about the animal or imposing your beliefs on others
I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you. I'm not a muslim!
I just have an innate respect for religious views - despite the fact I may disagree with them. I'd ask you to be the same.
No offence BTW - I'm not trying to be personal about this. I would like you to see that there is more than one point of view and being disparaging about religion as a whole over one issue really isn't necessary.
Don said:
billb said:
he made an interesting scientific post and maybe i'm wrong re amount of pain i'm just going on what i'm seeing.
And yes you may indeed be wrong or possibly right you and I are not in a position to say. We're not scientists. (Well I am - but not an agricultural biologist).
More studies are probably a good idea, though.
billb said:
Howevere i stand by my religion remark to justify killing something in a particular way cos of religion says so is a cop out.
Religion is very much about human history. Many "religious" "rules" grew up out of a need to educate the masses. Rules like not stealing, not murdering, not eating pork (at the time it was infested with parasites that could kill), not screwing around (at the time venereal diseases were a huge killer) and so on.
The rule about Halal killing seems to me to be about ensuring that animals were killed using the most humane method available at the time. And it still may be a more humane method.
One should not write off people's cherished and venerated customs and religious beliefs lightly.
Your casual remark has no basis in fact that you can support - not a good enough reason to have made it. Come back with some facts (as omahat did) and argue your case if you want to be disparaging about something that a huge number of people hold very dear and therefore will be offended by your remark.
billb said:
what are you concerned about the animal or imposing your beliefs on others
I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you. I'm not a muslim!
I just have an innate respect for religious views - despite the fact I may disagree with them. I'd ask you to be the same.
No offence BTW - I'm not trying to be personal about this. I would like you to see that there is more than one point of view and being disparaging about religion as a whole over one issue really isn't necessary.
dam and i was in the mood for a good anti religion arguement
it was a "casual" remark and not meant to cause particular offence and angusfaldo if someone is going to be condescending to me than i will quite happily retaliate with equal playground banter - i think i know "Meat doesn't come in polystyrene and clingfilm" having worked in europes largest burger plant.
and don yes we're prob both wrong its just i do not think people should use religion to justify an arguement to the way things are done. I'm sure it was appropriate to cut throats years ago but i would have thought there are better methods today ( although cant guarentee so )
no offence intended but if religion if going to offend me by insisting on cutting throats that i have the right to slag it off back
>> Edited by billb on Tuesday 5th July 12:02
hughesie2 said:
If you eat meat you have to embrace the fact that your meal comes from the death of an animal...you can ask that its death be as painless as possible...but its death is an inevitable consequence of your hunger.
Or you could laugh at the pig having a heart attack in the car park...
Never did find out what they did with it when they carried it off in the wheel barrow !!
The humour i found a bit much, but understandable given the circumstances that they worked in...
Nothing funny in the remotest about death my friend, least of all heart attacks.
From what little i know of them, theyre extremely painful.
Rob Ustly said:
To be fair, Omohat's post seems to be lifted directly from the website of Mustaqim Islamic Art and Literature, whose head was general secretary of the Islamic Party of Britain for 15 years, so you might say it has an agenda. While Omohat has pasted most of the article, he missed the conclusion which seems to put a certain perspective, or bias, on the rest of the article.....
Fair enough although if you would prefer to read the original article on the study without any of the spin put on it by the website you can find it at:
[url]www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm[/url]
(Its just a reprint of the article from German Vetirinary Weekly without any commentary)
My take on it without all the spin isn't necessarily that Halal is more humane, but that it doesn't seem to be any more cruel either.
Rob Ustly said:
]A quick look on the internet shows lots of other research and commentary commenting on the cruelty of Halal.
All i can find with a quick look is lots of commentary on how cruel Halal/Kosher is but not much research to go with it. If you've got anything I'd like to take a look.
Also what they were doing to the sheep was not Halal for several reasons:
1 - Halal (or Kosher for that matter) says nothing about hanging a live animal upside down before cutting its throat. That was a decision made by the slaughterhouse to make it easier to process the carcass..
2 - You're not supposed to slaughter an animal in front of other animals so it does not feel unnecessary fear (e.g with the cow).
3 - Most importantly its not Halal without the prayer said before cutting the animals throat.
Did they actually say that the sheep were being slaughtered for Halal meat? Frankly I can't believe that any Muslim body certify them as Halal as they weren't meeting any of the criteria for Halal meat except the throat being cut. The only animal i saw being slaughtered correctly from a Halal/Kosher point of view was the cows.
deltafox said:
Nothing funny in the remotest about death my friend, least of all heart attacks.
From what little i know of them, theyre extremely painful.
as somebody who lost his Father to a heart attack i think i know its not funny, my comment was merely aimed at the tatooed t
t that thought it was funny, watch the programme did we Deltafox ??Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff