I see. I was referring to the way cattle are killed for slaughter in the U.S., of course, but I assume similar practices are used elsewhere in the world, as well. So, if a knife is used and the animal is killed by surprise, how does that make its manner of death any more humane, or is that the objective?

Gary

Hi GaryR55, if you read back through the thread, we've discussed those aspects a few times. Kosher and Halal slaughter is also practiced in the U.S.A. as well as many other western countries. There are those who feel it's more cruel as well as those who feel it's more humane.

Knife slaughtering, because it involves lots of gushing blood, is perceived to be more painful because it is more bloody. Not so. Old time butchers could lead a hog to the boiling container, while working a very thin-bladed knife into its jugular, and by the time it got there, it died peacefully and w/o distress. Having butchered pigs, goats and sheep, I think the most traumatising part of the whole deal is binding their feet. The knife must be sharp, but when it is, the animals can bleed to death w/o apparently sensing pain. Gory, yes. Humane? It certainly can be.

Yes, but it's slower, I'd rather have the instant lights out, the lots of gushing blood part comes no matter which method you use.



Even my basic butchering book recommends a .22 slight off-centre between the eyes as being more humane. As for the old time guys, here's a video that shows how it's usually done by the old timers I know (warning: it's as graphic if not more so than Proteus' original video).

In fact, so would I. But guns were in short supply a couple millennia ago, as well as absent from many households today, including farms.

Still don't have, don't want guns. But I can/do have a sharp knife for butchering smaller critters. I don't automatically condemn butchers using slaughtering knives, since I've seen both guns and knives used. The skill of the butcher is the most important thing, regardless of his equipment, in making death humane.

BTW, that incident has sparked the most massive beef recall to date, although likely most of the meat has been consumed already.

Yeah, good point, I was thinking about this thread today when I heard the news talking about the largest ever beef recall in the USA.

We're supposed to be predators, or at least, carnivorous, right? And what do carnivores eat? The young, the old, the injured and the unhealthy members of a herd FIRST! Why? Because the strong and healthy manage to get away, leaving the others to their fate. Would we eat those cows? Like I already said or thought - we already have!

Yep, and, at this point, it doesn't matter, anyway. What a waste of potentially good beef! I can see the usefulness of the law, though, concerning "downers," and keeping them out of the food chain because they might have "mad cow" disease, but, when they clearly don't, they're just removing good food from circulation. In a world in which millions are starving on grain-based diets, how sick is that?

Oh, by the way, we're actually omnivores, not carnivores.

Gary

Maybe you are, I know I'm a carnivore.

A carnivore (IPA: /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/), meaning 'meat eater' (Latin carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour'), is an animal with a diet consisting mainly of meat.

from

Hindsight logic. I still wouldn't eat them. And I encourage you, if at all possible, to buy locally from farmers you know.

I realize not everyone has this luxury, and it is a luxury. I just happen to reside in an area where humane treatment of farm animals is taking hold and there are numerous small, family-owned farms. I hope it spreads. I swear to you, it tastes better. And it's easier to swallow.

Agree with the waste part, however, it's not as bad as it seems. Much of it has been eaten. That held in warehouses as frozen goods will be kept refrigerated until enough samples are tested to determine if any particular batches are contaminated. If so, those batches will ostensibly be destroyed. In fact, they'll end up in pet food somewhere - if the consumers are fortunate.

And some days I'm a carnivore; some days an omnivore. But the more "omni" I devour, the harder it is to maintain my blood sugar. Then I have to retreat to being a "carni" for a couple days.

Maybe it's as simple as it seems; you are a carnivore and eating like an omnivore is bad for you.

On looking over my extensive list of fruits and vegetables for which I am intolerant, or perhaps downright allergic, you may well be correct. But I'm not giving up apples or cherries, so there!

No. Incorrect. I don't know what your source was, but a carnivore eats meat exclusively. That's what the term means and that is why it is distinct from an herbivore or an omnivore. Humans are omnivorous, meaning they are capable of eating both plants and animals, as opposed to be limited to either. You may, like me, have a preference for meat over fruits and veggies, but the human species is omnivorous, regardless.

Gary

I cited it. Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Out of interests sakes, what do you consider dogs?