Advances in the Industrial Production of Halal and Kosher Red Meat

Meat Science 95 (2013) 805820

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Meat Science

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /meatsc i

Review

Advances in the industrial production of halal and kosher red meat

Mustafa M. Farouk AgResearch Limited, Ruakura Research Centre, East Street, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand

Tel.: +64 7 838 5260.E-mail address: [email protected].

0309-1740/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.028

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 8 February 2013Received in revised form 1 April 2013Accepted 1 April 2013

Keywords:HalalKosherRed meatPre-slaughter stunningAnimal welfare

The worldwide volume and value of trade in halal and kosher meat and co-products are huge. Muslim coun-tries alone consumed meat estimated to be worth USD 57.2 billion in 2008. The halal and kosher principlesthat govern the production of red meat have many similarities, as well as some fundamental differences. Per-haps the most significant difference is that at the time of slaughter, the animal needs only to be alive to meetthe minimum halal requirement, but must be both alive and conscious for kosher. It is for this reason thatreversible pre-slaughter stunning is acceptable only for halal meat, although a compromise form of post-slaughter stunning is now considered kosher in some countries. Extensive research on animal physiologyand welfare has characterised and optimised the methods for stunning livestock, and enabled advancementin associated technologies. This forms the basis for harmonising the religious and secular requirements forthe protection of animal welfare at slaughter. These technologies and the associated processing practicesfor the industrial production of halal and kosher meat are reviewed in this paper.

2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8062. Definitions and importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806

2.1. Development of halal and kosher meat markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8063. Halal and kosher red meat production and quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807

3.1. Pre-slaughter animal restraints for halal and kosher meat production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8073.2. Pre-slaughter stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807

3.2.1. Mechanical stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8073.2.2. Electrical stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808

3.3. Post-slaughter/post-cut stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8103.4. Halal and kosher slaughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811

3.4.1. Post-slaughter processes relevant to halal red meat production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8113.4.2. Post-shechita processes relevant to kosher red meat production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812

3.5. Effect of halal and kosher slaughter on meat quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8123.6. Debate surrounding stunning and ritual slaughter without stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8123.7. Regulating halal and kosher meat production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813

3.7.1. New Zealand halal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8134. Halal and kosher meat accreditation, certification and authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8135. Future pre-slaughter technologies for the ritual slaughter of red meat animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815

5.1. High frequency head-to-body pre-slaughter stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8155.2. Interferential current stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8165.3. Transcranial magnetic stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8165.4. Local or general anaesthesia with natural agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8165.5. Pre-slaughter stunning monitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818

6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818

rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.028mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.028http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.028&domain=pdf

Table 1Value (USD 1000) of imported halal and kosher red meat and co-products of someselected countries/regions in 2011.

Importing country/region &products

Red meat category

Chilledbeef

Frozenbeef

Lamb andchevon

Edibleoffal

Halal red meat & co-productsIndonesia 14,368 219,898 6555 87,161Maghreb 57,470 183,766 5436 3177Malaysia 15,435 373,661 97,047 38,268Middle East 974,727 2,816,453 823,448 233,193Saudi Arabia 63,584 323,356 233,735 29,485United Arab Emirates 116,900 176,331 212,909 10,256

Kosher red meat and co-productsIsrael No import 453,546 7898 9025World total red meat import 20,416,452 15,997,636 6,196,566 6,574,085

Source: Market Analysis Research, International Trade Centre (ITC) Geneva Switzerland(http://www.trademap.org/tradestat/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx). Accessed 02Jan 2013.Maghreb = Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.Middle East = Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar,Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, UAE and Yemen.

806 M.M. Farouk / Meat Science 95 (2013) 805820

1. Introduction

There are many slaughter methods that religions and culturesdemand/obligate around the world. The two that are commerciallyrelevant are the halal and kosher methods of slaughter practiced byMuslims and Jews respectively. The global trade in red meat andco-products from animals slaughtered using these two methods issubstantial and growing (EI, 2010; Mintel, 2009; Sunkar, 2008). Forthis reason, technologies have been developed over the years tosupport the commercial production of halal and kosher red meats,and regulatory and certifying bodies have sprung up to ensure com-pliance to the religious aspects of producing these meats (Farouk,2012; Longdell, 1994; Weaver & Wotton, 2009).

One common aspect of commercial halal and kosher red meat pro-duction is the slaughter of animals without stunning. This method ofslaughter is endorsed by the OIE, European Community, and manyother countries yet it remains extremely controversial from an animalwelfare standpoint (Grandin, 2010). The purpose of pre-slaughterstunning of livestock is to ensure that animals are insensible to painbefore the act of slaughter. Research has defined the principles thatunderpin effective stunning of livestock, and the results of this workunderpin regulations for the protection of animal welfare at slaughter(Farouk, Daly, Collinson, & Simmons, 2004). Although this legislationvaries from country to country, these differences tend to be minorand they largely reflect historical adaptation to local commercialprocedures. Advances have also been made in the development ofnon-invasive methods of reducing pain. Whether or not some ofthose find use in halal and kosher slaughter in the future remain tobe seen.

The debate regarding thewelfare aspect of slaughter without stun-ning goes on. Zivotofsky and Strous (2012) summed up the feelings ofall parties when they wrote the quest should continue to ensure thatthe process of animal slaughter is as humane as possible for the sakeof animal welfare.

This paper reviews the relevant aspects of halal and kosher redmeat production.

2. Definitions and importance

Comprehensive reviews of halal and kosher dietary laws can befound in Al-Qaradawi (1960), Regenstein, Chaudry, and Regenstein(2003), and Kamali (2008a, 2008b, 2008c).

According to Regenstein et al. (2003) the halal dietary laws deter-mine which foods are lawful or permitted for Muslims and kosher(kashrus) dietary laws determine which foods are fit or proper forconsumption by Jewish consumers who observe these laws.

According to Hussaini and Sakr (1983), halal is an Arabicword meaning allowed or lawful. The prohibited, forbidden orunlawful is termed haram. In between halal and Haram are Makrooh(religiously discouraged or detested) and mashbooh (suspected ordoubtful). Other terms often used includemubah (neutral or indifferent,Aziz, 1989) and dhabiha (animals slaughtered according to Islamicdictates). These categories of lawful and prohibited are derived fromIslamic law based on the Holy Qur'an (revealed word of God) and theteachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) compiled andauthenticated in books known as Hadith. Among the central principlesused in determining the permissibility and prohibition of foods inIslam is the belief that God alone has the right to determine what ishalal and haram; and that good intentions do not make the haramhalal (Al-Qaradawi, 1960).

The kosher dietary laws are based on commandments found in theTorah which has been interpreted and refined by the Jewish religiousleaders known as rabbis; this system of Jewish law is referred to ashalacha. In these laws food are categorised into four: meat (fleishig);dairy (michig); neutral (pareve); and unacceptable (traif) (Regenstein& Regenstein, 1991).

The lists of red meat animals that are acceptable for halal andkosher meat production are discussed at length in Regenstein et al.(2003). The ones common to both Muslims and Jews include cattle,sheep and goats.

2.1. Development of halal and kosher meat markets

The population of Muslims is estimated to be anywhere between1.6 and 1.8 billion and growing forecasted to represent 27% of theglobal population by 2030. Coupled to this is the growing economicdevelopment and disposable income in Muslim countries. These twofactors are the major drivers of halal growth, and potentially thereasons for halal becoming the biggest brand in the world (Farouk,2012; Sunkar, 2008). According to the World Halal Forum Secretariat(http://www.worldhalalforum.org/secretariat.html), the world halalfood and beverage trade is estimated to be approximately USD1.4 trillion dollars annually. The opportunities that this halal brandrepresents are the reason for global food giants as well as small tomidsize companies becoming involved in the manufacturing andmarketing of their products to Muslims worldwide (EI, 2010).

The global Jewish population reached 13.75 million in 2011, withabout 43% of this number living in Israel (Silverman, 2012). In theUSA, home to the second largest population of Jews outside Israel,the market for kosher food is strong and growing with sales of kosherfoods totalled USD 12.5 billion in 2008 (Mintel, 2009). Regensteinet al. (2003) reported that in 2001 about USD 165 billion worth ofproducts have kosher markings on them.

The value of red meat and co-products imported in 2011 intocountries and regions with sizeable population of Muslims and Jewsare shown in Table 1. Sunkar (2008) reported that in 2008, Muslimcountries consumed meat worth USD 57.2 billion with trade inmeat to and from those countries worth USD 7.0 billion. It is verydifficult to estimate the volume and value of halal and kosher meattraded and consumed around the globe because these meats are notconsumed for religious reasons alone. A recent survey of consumersby Mintel (2009) found the number one reason people buy kosherwas for food quality (62%); followed by general healthfulness (51%);third was food safety (34%); and just 14% of respondents purchasedkosher food because they follow kosher religious rules.

The proportion in value of halal and kosher meat traded couldbe determined by comparing the value of red meat imports intoUAE and Israel. The World Bank estimated the population of Israeland UAE to be 7,765,700 and 7,890,924 respectively (Table 2). Onlyred meat certified kosher is allowed into Israel and only halal meat
http://www.worldhalalforum.org/secretariat.htmlhttp://www.trademap.org/tradestat/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx

Table 2Major exporting countries in value of Halal and Kosher red meat and co-products to UAE and Israel respectively.

Halal Kosher

Fresh/chilled beef Frozen beef Lamb and chevon Edible offal Frozen beef Lamb and chevon Edible offalAustralia India Australia Australia Argentina France ArgentinaBrazil Brazil India Brazil Uruguay Chile BrazilIndia Australia Ethiopia Netherlands Brazil Argentina UruguayUSA Paraguay Pakistan Paraguay Paraguay Australia ParaguayNew Zealand South Africa New Zealand Djibouti Poland Brazil NetherlandsPakistan New Zealand Somalia USA Panama Uruguay PanamaChina Netherlands Brazil Belgium China ChinaSouth Africa China China Spain UK PolandNetherlands Germany USA Germany Australia UKKenya Kenya Kenya UK USA France

Source: Market Analysis Research, International Trade Centre (ITC) Geneva Switzerland (http://www.trademap.org/tradestat/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx). Accessed 02Jan 2013.

807M.M. Farouk / Meat Science 95 (2013) 805820

could be imported into UAE. The value of red meat and edible offalsimported into Israel in 2011 was USD 471 million and in the sameyear UAE import of the same commodity was worth USD 516 million.This suggests that when population is kept constant, the consump-tions of halal meat and kosher are comparable.

Halal and kosher meats are important to the economy of manycountries. The list of the 10 top countries exporting meat to UAE andIsrael gives an indication of the major suppliers of halal and kosherred meat and meat products in the world (Table 2).

3. Halal and kosher red meat production and quality

3.1. Pre-slaughter animal restraints for halal and kosher meat production

Animals to be slaughteredmust be restrained using an appropriateequipment so as to spare them any avoidable pain, agitation, injury orcontusions (Lambooij, van der Werf, Reimert, & Hindle, 2012). Thereare a number of ways animals destined for halal and kosher slaughtersare restrained prior to stunning and/or slaughter. Gregory (2005)identified six methods that have been used to restrain animals overthe years including casting with a rope, hoisting by a hindleg, restraintin a straddled conveyor or restraining (V-shaped) conveyor, halfinversion in a rotary pen, full inversion in a rotary pen, and restraintwhilst standing upright. The two rotary pens most commonly usedare the Facomia andWeinberg pens which can be rotated to differentangles; the issues surrounding the use of these methods of restrainthave been previously discussed (Grandin, 2010, 2013; Gregory,2005; Lambooij, Anil, et al., 2012; Lambooij, van der Werf, et al.,2012). Grandin (2013) recommended that in order to reduce stressin animals to be slaughtered, the restraint devices should be non--slip, should possess pressure limiting devices, moving parts shouldmove steadily and the concept of optimum pressure must be used.In terms of the welfare ranking of restraint devices, Grandin (2013)ranked the ones that held animals in an upright position as excellent;rotating restraint boxes with adjustable sides such as the Facomiapen were conditionally acceptable and those without adjustablesides like the Weinberg pens were not acceptable; and leg clampingrotating pens or shackling and hoisting and suspension by the legs asserious problems that should never be used for conscious animals.Velarde et al. (2010) in a DIALREL report provided further details onrestrainingmethods to improve thewelfare of redmeat animals duringritual slaughter.

The design information and the drawings of the upright restraintequipment can be found in Grandin (2013).

3.2. Pre-slaughter stunning

The purpose of stunning is to render the animal insensible (Gregory,2007). EFSA (2004) explained the purpose for stunning as follows:mostanimals which are slaughtered for human consumption are killed by

cutting the major blood vessels in the neck or thorax so that rapidblood loss occurs. If not stunned, the animal becomes unconsciousonly after a certain degree of blood loss has occurred. The time betweencutting through the major blood vessels and insensibility, as deducedfrom behavioural and brain response, is up to 20 s in sheep and up to2 min in cattle. The animals which are slaughtered have systems fordetecting and feeling pain and, as a result of the cut and the bloodloss, if not stunned, they will experience pain, fear, panic and otheradverse effects such as the inhalation of blood because of bleeding intothe trachea.

A number of methods of stunning before slaughter are used in themeat industry. For the purpose of this review only the mechanical andelectrical methods of stunning will be discussed due to their rele-vance in the pre-slaughter stunning of large animals for industrialhalal red meat production.

3.2.1. Mechanical stunningAccording to Blackmore and Delaney (1988), mechanical stunning

of animals for slaughter is achieved by using Penetrative Captive Boltor Non-penetrative Percussion Stunning. The basic principles are thesame and involve the transference of kinetic energy from a movingobject to the brain, which results in neuronal dysfunction and/ordestruction, and subsequent insensibility. Early work on mechanicalstunning found that captive bolt stunning of domestic animals, ex-cept very large bulls is humane, provided the captive bolt penetratesthe skull of the animal at the correct site (Blackmore, 1979; Daly,Gregory, & Wotton, 1985; Daly, Gregory, Wotton, & Whittington,1986; Daly & Whittington, 1986; Lambooij, 1981; Lambooij &Spanjaard, 1981). The correct site in cattle is in the frontal positionat the point where imaginary lines from the eye to horn cross(Lambooij, 1981), and in hornless sheep at the highest point ofthe head when held horizontally and aimed towards the throat; forhorned sheep, the site is just behind the ridge that runs betweenthe horns and aimed towards the throat (Blackmore & Delaney,1988). The opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health andWelfare adopted in 2004 (EFSA, 2004) regarding the mechanicalstunning of cattle and sheep stated the following: (1) penetrativecaptive bolt stunning has several animal welfare advantages overnon-penetrating captive bolt stunning (success rate, duration ofunconsciousness) and, if properly used, results in an effective stun,though field observations indicate 4% of stuns can be improper,often due to insufficient head restraint, poor or misapplied position,inadequate maintenance of the gun or bad quality of cartridges;(2) compared with penetrative stunning, percussion stunning re-quires greater accuracy, control of recoil and contact of the pistolwith the head. Head restraint is necessary to ensure consistentlyeffective stunning; (3) percussion (mushroom) stunning will fre-quently produce intracranial haemorrhage, cracked skulls and canrelease brain tissue. A method of consistently producing an effectivestun using the percussion method without causing skull damage has
http://www.trademap.org/tradestat/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx


not been developed; and (5) penetrative captive bolt is recommendedfor use for cattle, calves and sheep. The non-penetrating captive boltstunning method is unreliable in sheep and calves and should only beused in adult cattle.

3.2.1.1. Mechanical stunning and halal requirements. Because one ofthe basic requirements for halal slaughter is that the animal hasto be slaughtered alive, Penetrative (captive bolt) stunning is unac-ceptable because the animal will not make a complete recovery ifthe stunning is not followed by a slaughter. Gregory (2007) reportedthat concussion such as caused by captive bolt stunning is one ofthe most effective ways of disrupting brain function and stunningan animal; it is instantaneous and can be permanent, as evidencedby the use of evoked potentials electrical potentials in the brainthat occur in response to an external stimulus. Animals that are cor-rectly stunned using captive bolt lost their evoked potentials immedi-ately and they do not return.

With non-penetrative captive bolt (percussion or mushroomstunning), the percussion-bolt has a blunt end which looks like amushroom, designed to concuss without penetrating the brain.This stun is essentially similar in its effect to the use of penetrativecaptive bolt stunning (Gregory, 2007). EFSA (2004) discouragedthe use of mushroom stunning in the slaughter of cattle becauseof the doubts it had of its effectiveness and the attendant welfareissues. The new European Community Council Regulation (EC No.1099/2009) that came into effect in January 2013 prohibits the use ofnon-penetrating captive bolts except in stunning animals b 10 kg.Anil, Love, Helps, and Harbour (2002) compared penetrating captivebolt, non-penetrating captive bolt and electrical stunning of cattle andsheep and found that there was a risk of haematogenous disseminationof central nervous system tissue with the use of pneumatically- orcartridge-operated penetrating captive bolt. The dissemination of cen-tral nervous system tissue poses a threat to public health in relationto possible slaughter of animals with preclinical BSE (Anil et al., 2002).It is known that captive bolt stunning can result in brain materialpassing to the lungs via the jugular veins. If future studies show thatBSE prions pass beyond the lungs to the edible carcass, there will be amove away from captive bolt stunning in large cattle towards electricalstunning (Gregory, 2005). Eight years since Gregory (2005) made thatobservation, captive bolt stunning is still in use in the production ofred meat in spite of the fact that it can lead to cross-contamination ofediblemeatwith BSE specified riskmaterial (SRM) (Pitardi et al., 2013).

In spite of all the welfare concerns regarding the use of mushroomstunning, the procedure is accepted for stunning cattle before slaugh-ter by some Islamic organizations (Gregory, 2007).

It is clear that there is a lot of doubt as to the acceptability ofpre-slaughter mechanical stunning in the production of halal meat.The doubt is much stronger in the use of penetrative captive bolt com-pared to mushroom stunning. Because Muslims have been advised toavoid what is doubtful and do what is not, the use of mechanical stun-ning should be avoided in halal slaughter (Farouk, Sahib, Lennon, &Daly, 2006).

3.2.2. Electrical stunningElectrical stunning is the most common method of stunning

before slaughter (Gregory, 2007). It is attractive because it is cheap,suited to high throughputs of animals and can be automated. It is alsohumane from the stand point of animal welfare (Daly & Simmons,1994). The objective of electrical stunning is to pass sufficient currentthrough the brain to depolarise neurons which subsequently developuncoordinated activity; during this period animals are insensible(Blackmore & Delaney, 1988). The stunning can be reversible or irre-versible by inducing cardiac arrest (Gilbert, 1993; Grandin, 2003). Elec-trical stunning results in unconsciousness by producing an epilepticseizure in the brain. The epileptic state is composed of three phases(Simmons & Daly, 2004): (1) phase 1 fully developed epileptic seizure.

Epilepsy is a condition in the brain when all brain cells fire collectivelyin a synchronised pattern (hypersynchronous activity). This is a verysimplified pattern of activity and is unable to allow even the mostbasic reflexes to function. Complex activity associated with conscious-ness or sensibility is necessarily absent during this phase. The tonicphase of physical activity, where the animal is in a rigid, contractedstate with minimal movement, is the initial state at the start ofphase 1. Typically, clonic activity also develops during phase 1, andinvolves jerky, kicking movements of the limbs. Reflex activity, suchas breathing, pupillary (contraction of the pupils in response to light)or corneal (blink response to touching the cornea of the eye) is absentduring this phase; (2) phase 2 suppressed brain activity. Phase 1ends spontaneously and is followed by a period when brain activity issuppressed; instead of exaggerated activity (which causes the fit),the activity of brain cells are reduced. This happens because chemicals(neurotransmitters) are released in the brain that dampens down theseizure state, but this braking system continues to suppress the returnof normal function, and recovery of consciousness is delayed. Clonicactivity can continue into phase 2, but usually the movements subsideand, more commonly, paddling or running movements are seen.Breathing begins very soon after the start of phase 2 and, gradually,other reflexes become evident. Responses to painful stimuli are not elic-ited, and overt signs of consciousness, such as coordinated movementsor attempts to rise, are not seen; and (3) phase 3 recovery phase. Intime, normal activity gradually returns and consciousness recovers,unless this is prevented by bleeding. Typically, the duration of insensi-bility following an electrical stun is around 60 s, but this can be asshort as 40 s. Phases 1 and 2 are usually of comparable lengths.

3.2.2.1. Electrical stunning parameters. There are a number of electricalparameters being used around the world to achieve a successful stun.Some of these are summarised in Table 3. The effectiveness of electri-cal stunning can be assessed in one of two ways: first, by the physicalbehaviour of the stunned animal through to the time it bleedsout, and second, by testing the efficiency of the electrical stunningequipment (Gilbert, 1993). According to Gregory (2007), the firstis to inspect the equipment and make sure that it is delivering therecommended current for the species and that the electrodes arebeing applied at the appropriate position, and the second, is to ob-serve the behaviour of the animal. A common method of assessingthe effectiveness of a stun is the presence of a corneal reflex, whichindicates whether the brainstem is responsive (Gregory, 2007).Properly stunned animals should not display signs of brain stemactivity or sensibility on the bleed rail, such as rhythmic breathing, vo-calizations, eye reflexes in response to touch, eye blinking and archedback righting reflex with the head bent straight back (Grandin, 2005).Successful electrical stunning of cattle and sheep can be audited byscoring a minimum of 100 animals in large plants and 50 in smallplants or an hour of production in very small plants and assigned thefollowing ratings (Grandin, 2005): (a) Excellent 99.5100% correctplacement of stunning wand or tongs and no vocalization due to ener-gizing the electrode before it is firmly positioned; (b) Acceptable 99.499% correct placement and 1% or less of the animals vocalize inresponse to electrode placement; (c) Not acceptable 9896% correctplacement and 23% of the animals vocalize due to energizingthe electrodes before they are firmly positioned; and (d) Seriousproblem less than 96% correct placement or more than 4% vocaliza-tion in response to electrode placement.

3.2.2.2. Electrical stunning and halal requirements. The two types ofelectrical stunning: head-only and head-to-body (head-to back, head-to-forelegs and split current), differ in their effect on the stunned ani-mal. Head-only electrical stunning causes the animal to be unconsciousand insensible to pain, yet the animal can fully recover if the slaughtercut is not made; the head-to-body stunning when correctly appliedstops the animal's heart resulting in death. Immediately following a

Table 3Electrical parameters used or accepted for the head-only stunning of red meat animals for Halal meat production.

Animal specie Min Amps Current range (A) Durations (s) Durations range (s) Voltage (Ohms) Reference

Lambs 0.7 0.70.9 0.8 0.81.5 300400 Gilbert (1993) 3.0 250 Velarde, Gispert, Diestre, and Manteca (2003) 0.50.9 2.03.0 MS 1500:2009 0.50.9 0.83.0 MUI HAS 23103 (2012)

Goat 0.71.0 2.03.0 MS 1500:2009;MUI HAS 23103 (2012)

Sheep 1.0 1.01.5 1.0 1.04.0 300400 Gilbert (1993)1.0 1.020.0 400 Cook et al. (1995) 3.0 350 Anil et al. (2004)1.0 2.0 SPAHW (2004) 0.71.2 2.03.0 MS 1500:2009 0.71.2 1.03.0 MUI HAS 23103 (2012)

Calves 0.9 0.91.5 1.0 1.04.0 300400 Gilbert (1993)1.25 1.0 200 SPAHW, 2004 0.51.5 3.0 MS 1500:2009 0.71.2 1.03.0 MUI HAS 23103 (2012)

Cattle 1.1 1.12.5 1.0 1.14.0 300400 Gilbert (1993)0.46 0.461.15 b1.0 b1.03.0 Wotton et al. (2000)1.5 10.0 400 nen and Kaya (2004)1.28 1.0 200 SPAHW (2004) 1.53.5 2.04.0 300310 MS 1500:2009 2.03.5 2.55.0 MUI HAS 23103 (2012)

Buffalo 2.53.5 3.04.0 MS 1500:2009; MUI HAS 23103 (2012)

MS = Malaysian Standards (http://www.standardsmalaysia.gov.my); MUI = Majelis Ulama Indonesia Standards.


head-only stun, noxious stimuli applied to the animal do not elicitmovement or autonomic responses. The animals return to normal be-haviour within 2040 min, show no evidence of pain, and show noaversion to returning to the stun situation (Cook, Devine & Blackmore,1993). According to Gilbert (1993), the head-only electrical stunningis accepted as humane to the animal, safe for the workers, virtuousand halal by Muslims worldwide.

Electrical head-only stunning does not kill the animal, and it isalso not painful at the initiation stage and during the stun period.Leach, Warrington, and Wotton (1980) assessed the physiological re-sponse of sheep to electrical stunning in order to determine whetherit is painful to the sheep. The authors concluded that the initiation ofelectrical stunning was not a painful experience for the sheep. Whenhead-only electrical stunning is combined with halal throat cut, astrong synergy in terms of a rapid irreversible loss of consciousnessand cell death is obtained (Cook, Maasland, Devine, & Gilbert, 1996).

Cook, Maasland, Devine, and Gilbert (1993) explained whypost-stun processes are painless to stunned animals: the goal of ahumane stunning system must be to assure that an animal, prior toslaughter, is unconscious and analgesic to subsequent slaughter. Itis more important that an animal following stunning cannot form acoherent mental construct of its external world (a requirement thatseems necessary for perception of pain or anxiety). Neurophysiologi-cally this type of construct appears dependent upon the simulta-neous, cooperative activity of many millions of neurons spreaddiffusely through the brain. Normal brain function, including con-sciousness, depends on electrical signals travelling along neurons(the cells of the brain). For individual neurons to communicate witheach other, the electrical signal triggers the controlled release of oneof several chemicals, called neurotransmitters, at nerve endings.Once released, neurotransmitters bind onto specialised sites, calledreceptors, on the surface of other neurons, thus communicating amessage from one neurone to the other. Following a head-only stun,the magnitude and the frequency of the brain's electrical signalsincrease greatly and the EEG pattern seen is analogous to the typeof recordings seen in humans during Grand Mal epileptic seizures.In all breeds of cattle and sheep studied, the period of epilepsylasted between 19 and 68 s after a stun (Cook, 1992). Electrical stun-ning also affects brain function by changing the release of several ofthe brain's neurotransmitters. Immediately after a stun, the release,

and therefore the action, of two neurotransmitters, glutamate and as-partate, are greatly increased. These two neurotransmitters are im-portant contributors to normal brain functions of arousal, learning,memory, sexual activity and respiration. However, at the very highlevels released in response to an electrical stun, the result is anoverexcitation of the brain's neurons, a state which producesan epileptic-like seizure. If, prior to head-only electrical stunning, adrug is given to the animal to block receptors on the neurons frombinding glutamate and aspartate, then an epileptic-like seizure isnot seen following the stun and the animal remains conscious. Thisobservation confirms that the neurotransmitters glutamate andaspartate are responsible for the epileptic-like seizure that followssuccessful stunning. A second important physiological change alsofollows a head-only electrical stun. If the animal is allowed to recover,a period of analgesia (decreased perception of pain) exists, asevidenced by a lack of response to such stimuli as an ear pinch orfoot shock. This analgesia lasts between 5 and 15 min after the stun.If the animal is pre-treated with drugs that block the glutamate/aspartate receptors, resulting in a conscious animal after the stun,the analgesia is still present, suggesting that the mechanism bringingabout the post-stun analgesia is different to that responsible for theepileptic-like seizure. A third neurotransmitter that increases mark-edly after electrical head-only stunning, is gamma-amino-4-butyricacid (GABA). This neurotransmitter appears to be responsible forthis period of analgesia. The time profile of the GABA release is oflonger duration than that of glutamate and aspartate, and mirrorsthe period of observed analgesia (Cook, 1992). Pretreatment withdrugs that antagonise at GABA receptors reduce and abolish post-stunanalgesia in a dose dependent manner (Cook, Maasland, et al., 1993a).

Gregory and Wotton (1988) found that there was a period afterelectrical stunning when sheep did not respond to potentially painfulstimuli. The stimuli that were used were electrical stimulation of thetooth and manual pinching of the ear. Responsiveness was assessedin terms of either the averaged evoked cortical response or as a be-havioural response. The period of insensibility to pain outlasted theperiod of insensibility to other sensory modalities, such as those pro-voked by a light smack on the snout and threatening gestures madeimmediately in front of the animal. In other words there was a stagefollowing electrical stunning when the animal was in a state of anal-gesia and cannot feel pain.
http://www.standardsmalaysia.gov.my


There is enough evidence to conclude that head-only electricalstunning does not kill the animal before the animal is slaughteredand the procedure is painless to the animal both at its initiation andwhilst the animal is unconscious before slaughter. Therefore, it isthe opinion of this author that pre-slaughter stunning using head-only electrical stunning is an acceptable method to meet the require-ments of industrial processing of halal meat.

3.2.2.3. Electrical stunning equipment/systems. Research in the 1980s atthe Meat Industry Research Institute of New Zealand (MIRINZ) nowAgResearch Ltd. led to the development of a number of slaughter anddressing equipments including the automatic reversible head-onlyelectric stunner suitable for the pre-stunning of animals to meet thehalal requirements (Longdell, 1994). This equipment was subsequentlyfurther developed by Jarvis Equipment (N.Z.) Ltd. and became the JarvisElectric Beef and Sheep Stunners (Fig. 1) currently being used widelyin the red meat industry around the world (Weaver & Wotton, 2009;http://www.jarvisengineering.com/box.shtml).

The sequence of the Jarvis Electric Beef Stunner and Fixed CradleImmobilizer for halal pre-slaughter stunning and immobilization issummarised as follows (slight variations may be found dependingon the type of cradle used in immobilization):

1. The animal walks into the stunning box.2. Operator pushes the stun bottom and the chin lifter rises putting

the animals' head into the stun position.3. The nose electrode activates. Electric stun then occurs from nose to

neck [Voltage 550VAC (supply); time 3.5 s; current 2.04.0 amp].4. The Operator continues to push the stun bottom until the stun

current has been registered the ammeter gives visual indicationof stun current.

Fig. 1. Shows the Jarvis MS105 used for manual stunning of sheep and bobby calves (A); TStunner (D) and top view of a Jarvis Automatic Electric Beef Stunner (E).

5. When the stun is complete, the nose electrode retracts and thechin lifter returns to its home position. The Operator then releasesthe head restraint which then retracts enabling the exit doors toopen and the animal rolls out.

6. Ritual throat cut is carried out within 10 s of animal rolling out.7. The operator pushes the immobilizer start button, which allows

current to flow from the fixed electrodes through the animal's bodyto the head bars.

8. After the preset time (usually about 20 s) the immobilizer switchesoff. Sticking, rodding and weasand tying can be carried out at thistime on the cradle.

9. The animal is then hoisted, and the wash cycle is started.

The Jarvis sequence described the traditional head-only stun systemwhich applies an alternating sinusoidalwaveformwith varying voltages(350550 V) to deliver constant pre-set current, usually 12 amps. Thefrequency with which the current alternates is 50 cycles per second or50 Hz similar to the frequency in household mains.

3.3. Post-slaughter/post-cut stunning

Post-cut stunning is practiced in some European countries (EC,2007). This method of stunning is seen as an improvement interms of animal welfare compared to no stunning at all and isbeing recommended for use immediately following halal and kosherslaughter (Gregory, Schuster, Mirabito, Kolesar, & McManus, 2012).Lambooij, Anil, et al. (2012), and Lambooij, van der Werf, et al. (2012)evaluated the welfare of veal calves that were restrained and rotated to90, 120 and 180 followed by slaughter with or without stunning andfound that the welfare of the calves were compromised by rotating therestrainer prior to slaughter and recommended the use of post-cut

he Jarvis Model 1 Handpiece (B) and in operation (C); Jarvis Automatic Lamb Electric
http://www.jarvisengineering.com/box.shtml


captive bolt stunning to lessen the stress on animals slaughtered in rotat-ing restrainers. The Swedish Animal Welfare Agency (2007) concludesthe following with regard to the use of post-cut stunning on cattle: (1)it is possible to handle animals acceptably in an upright restraint penprior to slaughter with post-cut stunning; rotating Weinberg pen is notan acceptable restraint for the procedure, and (2) post-cut stunningshould only be considered in conjunction with efficient stunning imme-diately following the cut. Velarde et al. (2010) recommended thatpost-cut stunning should be performed immediately and at least 5 safter the neck cut, without further manipulation of the animal betweenthe cut and the stunning application.

3.4. Halal and kosher slaughter

There are many similarities in the principles and practice of halaland koshermethods of slaughter. The halal/kosher cut or gash stickingis done in order to remove the blood and to kill the animal beingslaughtered. The aim is to deflect blood away from the brain to stopthe delivery of oxygen (Gregory, 2007). From the halal and kosherperspective, the removal of flowing blood is necessary because it isconsidered an impurity that should not be consumed. Both slaughtermethods demand that the two jugular veins, windpipe/trachea andthroat or oesophagus be severed during slaughtering without decapi-tating the head during the process.

The basic requirements for the Halal slaughter of animals definedby the GCC Member States and contained in Gulf standards Update(GSO 993/1998), Indonesia (MUI HAS 23103, 2012), Malaysia(MS 1500:2009) and The Islamic Food & Nutrition Council of Amer-ica (Chaudry, Jackson, Hussaini, & Riaz, 1997; Riaz & Chaudry, 2004)include: (1) the animal should be alive at the time of slaughter;pre-slaughter treatment such as stunning must not result in thedeath of the animal before it is slaughtered. Stunned animals, ifnot slaughtered, must be able to make a full recovery; (2) Allah's(God) name and glorification must be uttered by the slaughterer atthe time of the slaughter of each animal; (3) effort should be madeto slaughter the animal with one stroke using a very sharp knife;(4) the slaughtering shall be carried out from the front side (towardsthe chest) and not frombehind (towards the back); (5) the head shouldnot be severed from the neck during slaughter; and (6) manipulatingthe carcass such as skinning or cutting off the hocks is not allowedto commence before the animal is completely dead.

The basic requirements for kosher slaughter were described byRegenstein et al. (2003). Acceptable animals are slaughtered accordingto Jewish law by a specially trained religious slaughterman (shochet)using a special knife (chalef) that is extremely sharp with a verystraight blade at least twice the diameter of the neck of the animal tobe slaughtered. Prior to slaughter the shochet make a blessing askingforgiveness for taking a life. The shochet checks the chalef before andafter the slaughter of each animal and the cut on the animal's neckafter each slaughter to make sure it was done correctly. Some of thecritical considerations during the slaughter include (Anonymous,2013): the cutting of the neck must be made without interruption,delay or pausing; no pressing down of the knife so that only the sharp-ness of the blade cuts; the knife must not be burrowed but rather mustbe exposed and visible from the beginning to the end of the cutting;slaughter must be within the limits within which the knife may beapplied from the large ring in the windpipe to the top of the upperlobe of the lung when it is inflated, and corresponding to the lengthof the pharynx; and the oesophagus or the trachea should not be tornduring the shechita incision. If any problem occurs with the knife or thecut, the animal is rendered treife or not kosher (Regenstein et al., 2003).

3.4.1. Post-slaughter processes relevant to halal red meat productionThe following outlines the process of halal slaughter typically

being used in New Zealand following head-only electrical stunning(Gilbert, 1984): (1) the animal is restrained in the head bail that

contains electrodes which contact the animals' head behind the earsand the tip of the nose; (2) the animal is stunned across the brainwith an electric current of 1.52.5 A, 400 V a.c. for 24 s; (3) theanimal is dropped onto a cradle or moving table and the halal cutis performed as soon as practicable but usually within 1015 s ofstunning; (4) electro-immobilization electrodes contact the animalbetween the nose and the anus and power is turned on (8090 V d.c.,10 ms pulse at 15 pulses/s); (5) electro-immobilization is allowed totime out (1530 s); (6) the weasand is located, clipped, the animal isshackled and immobilization ceased; (7) the weasand is rodded andthe animal is thoracically stuck; and (8) normal dressing.

Two of these procedures are controversial from halal and animalwelfare perspective. Electro-immobilization has been disapproved forits potential to mask improper pre-slaughter stunning (EFSA, 2004)and thoracic stick came under a strong scrutiny by halal competent au-thorities in some importing countries.

3.4.1.1. Electro-immobilization. Intense physical activity tonic (rigid)and clonic (kicking) in the carcass following electrical stunning canbe a problem for staff safety (Gregory, 2007). In order to keep theanimal still and to reduce convulsion, a second electric current issometimes applied after the halal cut is made and during bleedingout. This procedure is mostly used for cattle. Electro-immobilizationis accomplished by attaching electrodes (nose to anus) and passing acurrent (300 mA 80 V peak, 14.3 Hz, 5 ms square wave for 3037 s)through the animal (Gilbert, Devine, Hand, & Ellery, 1984). Devine,Tavener, Gilbert, and Day (1986) concluded from electroencephalo-graphic studies that adult cattle rendered insensible by electricalhead-only stunning do not recover sensibility (defined as beingwhen EEG pattern is above 35 V or falls below 10 V for a period of85 s) during the stun/throat-cut/immobilization operation. Sensibilitywas interpreted using the definitions of Newhook and Blackmore(1982b). Because animals die of exsanguinations rather than fromstunning or electro-immobilization, the procedure is virtuous whenused for halal slaughter (Devine, Gilbert, Tavener, & Day, 1985).

3.4.1.2. Thoracic stick. Thoracic stick is an incision with a knife throughthe thoracic inlet directed towards the heart in order to severe thebrachiocephalic trunk (Leigh & Delany, 1987). The NZ industry hasbeen using thoracic sticking in both sheep and cattle since the adventof head-only electrical stunning. The original reason for using theprocedure was the convenience of getting a faster loss of blood, andtherefore reducing the requirement for bleeding space. This remainsthe most important reason for the thoracic stick in sheep where thesupply of blood to the brain is exclusively from the carotid arteries.In cattle however, there is an alternative pathway: the vertebralarteries, which arise from the braciocephalic trunk before the carotidarteries, which can supply enough blood to the brain to maintainsome level of brain function even if the carotid arteries are severed.In addition, the carotid arteries in cattle are prone to spasms at thesite of the cut particularly when a blunt knife is used (Anil, McKinstry,Wotton, & Gregory, 1995), which restricts the outflow of blood andmaintains systemic blood pressure (ballooning). The effect of thesetwo characteristics of cattle is that brain activity can be maintained forup to 2 min after slaughter (Daly et al., 1986; Newhook & Blackmore,1982a). Because brain insensibility due to an electrical stun only lastsabout 3040 s, there is a possibility that cattle will become consciousbefore they die from loss of blood. Therefore, a thoracic stick isemployed to both severe the blood supply to the brain and producea very rapid loss of blood pressure to hasten the death of the animal(Leigh & Delany, 1987).

Thoracic sticking for cattle involves the halal slaughterman cuttingthe skin longitudinally on the neck to the brisket immediately afterthe neck is cut; then, a knife is inserted into the thoracic cavityat the base of the neck to cut the brachiocephalic trunk or, in smalleranimals, the knife can reach into the heart itself. Thoracic sticking is


currently executed at about 30 s after the halal cut was made. Thisraises the following issues regarding the compliance of the procedurewith the requirements of halal slaughter: (1) is thoracic stickingnecessary? (2) Is the procedure happening too soon before the animalis dead and could the procedure be the reason for the death of theanimal and not the halal cut? And (3) is the procedure painful tothe animal?

The need for thoracic stick in the slaughter of head-only electricallystunned cattle has been explained. Themain purpose of the procedureis to quickly reduce the blood pressure in the slaughtered animalin order to dispatch the animal as quickly as possible. The preferredIslamic requirement to severe the common carotid arteries, jugularveins and the trachea is in order to let as much blood as possible togush forth in order to kill the animal fast and to minimise suffering.It may be argued that: 1) despite the fact that thoracic stick aids in re-ducing blood pressure in similar fashion towhat the halal cut does, theprocedure is not done at the recommended site for slaughtering andits purpose cannot be likened to that of a halal cut, 2) and if its purposeis likened to that of a halal cut, then it is tantamount to a secondslaughter. These arguments are countered by: a) a method similar tothoracic stick known as Nahr used in slaughtering camels and giraffesby stabbing the animal in the throat, then cutting with the knifedown through to the upper part of the chest is an accepted methodof slaughter (Hussaini, 1993). A similar method of slaughter was re-cently observed by Gregory et al. (2012) in use for halal slaughter inIndonesia, b) slaughtering an animal twice such as by a slaughtermanraising his hand before completing the slaughter and then returning tothe process to complete it, although not a preferred practice, does notrender the meat of the animal non-halal, and 3) by the time thoracicstick is applied, a substantial amount of blood is lost from the animaland the animal is technically dead.

Although there are no official criteria of death formulated, diagno-sis of death in domestic animals is almost exclusively based on thecessation of the heart and respiratory activity, or that the animalhas been exsanguinated (Knudsen, 2005). With respect to slaughteranimals, the moment of death is less important than the momentof insensibility, i.e., when the animal no longer responds to painfulstimuli (Knudsen, 2005; Newhook & Blackmore, 1982b). In order toavoid the continuing philosophical and ethical problems of decidingwhich criteria should be considered before an animal can be pro-nounced dead, Blackmore and Delaney (1988) defined technicaldeath of slaughter animals as irreversible insensibility due to cerebralanoxia, usually due to severance of both common carotid arteries or thevessels from which they arise. The authors (Blackmore & Delaney,1988) reported that in sheep and lambs slaughtered by severing bothcarotid arteries such as in halal cut, the animals can be considereddead in less than 10 s (Newhook & Blackmore, 1982b). The beatingof the heart or the presence of clonic or other types of involuntarymovements due to muscle spasm caused by electrical stunning shouldnot be used as indicators of life in slaughtered animals.

Thoracic stick is not painful to the animal because at the time theprocedure is executed in properly stunned animals (~30 s afterslaughter), the stunned animal is already technically dead or uncon-scious and insensitive to pain. Even if the occlusion of the carotidarteries had occurred and the animal regain consciousness from thestun (~3040 s) by the time thoracic stick was executed, the animalwould have been in analgesic state which lasts for about 5 min afterthe stun and thus cannot feel pain (Cook, 1992).

3.4.2. Post-shechita processes relevant to kosher red meat productionThe relevant post-shechita steps in kosher red meat production

such as the proper removal of certain veins, arteries, prohibitedfats, blood, and the sciatic nerve have been thoroughly reviewed(Anonymous, 2013; Hanefesh, 2012; Regenstein et al., 2003).

Following shechita, the animal is checked for any internal injuriesthat would render the animal unhealthy before the slaughter. The

inspector checks certain organs, such as the lungs, for any scarringwhich would render the animal treif (not kosher). Following theinspection of organs, certain fats and organs, such as the kidneys,intestines and sciatic nerves are removed in a process referred to asporging.

Because blood is not permitted to be consumed, all large arteriesand veins are removed, as well as any bruised meat or coagulatedblood, then the meat is purged of all remaining blood through theprocess of koshering. To further remove the prohibited blood, themeat is soaked in water and salted within 72 h of slaughter. Thesoaking is done for half an hour in cool water; thereafter, the salting isdone for 1 h with all surfaces covered with ample amounts of salt. Thesalted meat is then rinsed three times and drained throughout and allthe blood being removed must flow away freely. The salt used forkosheringmust be of a crystal size that is large enough that the crystalswill not dissolve within the hour and must be small enough to permitcomplete coverage of the meat.

Any meat that is left to soak for more than 24 h in meat exudates/drip is considered pickled and not kosher.

3.5. Effect of halal and kosher slaughter on meat quality

Ritual slaughter per se should not affect meat quality more thanconventional industrial methods of slaughtering red meat animals,however, some of the associated pre- and post-slaughter processesmay. The slow decline in blood pressure following a head-only stunand a neck cut causes blood splash (ecchymosis) in cattle. These arecaused by burst blood vessels and produce obvious blood blisters,up to about 1 cm in diameter, in a range of muscles and also theheart, lungs and very occasionally the liver. Blood splash usuallymeans downgrading the affected muscles and this can be a majorcost (Gregory, 2005). The causes and mitigations of blood splashwere discussed by Gregory (2007).

nen and Kaya (2004) assessed the effect of three methods ofpre-slaughter stunning used for halal meat production no stunning,head-only electrical stunning and percussive captive bolt stunning onmeat quality and found that percussive stunning improved the qualityofmeat including pH, colour,waterholding capacity, and texture and con-sumer sensory acceptability compared to the other two pre-slaughterstunning methods.

Hajmmer, Marsden, Crozier-Dodson, Basheer, and Higgins (1999)reported that kosherisation of beef briskets reduced the APC, coli-forms, Escherichia coli and salmonella counts on the samples com-pared to initial counts.

Koshered meat undergoes rapid colour change (to brown) withthe formation of objectionable odours during refrigeration (Holzer,Berry, Campbell, Spanier, and Solomon, 2004). This rapid deteriora-tion in colour can be reduced by the use of hydrodynamic pressuretreatment (Holzer et al., 2004).

3.6. Debate surrounding stunning and ritual slaughter without stunning

Ritual slaughter without stunning is allowed in many countriesand accepted by many organizations, yet it remains extremely con-troversial from an animal welfare point of view (Grandin, 2010).According to Gregory (2005), the welfare issues during slaughterwithout stunning include the stress of restraint, whether the cut ispainful, and whether the animals experience undue distress whilstit is bleeding out such as the aspiration of blood into the lungs.

Grandin and Regenstein (1994) observed over 3000 cattle andveal calves in three different U.S. kosher slaughter plants (the plantshad state of the art upright restraint systems). In all restraint systems,the animals had little or no reaction to the throat cut. There was aslight flinch when the blade first touched the throat, but this wasmuch less vigorous than an animal's reaction to an eartag punch.There was no further reaction as the cut proceeded. Both carotids


were severed in all animals. It appears that the animal is not awarethat its throat has been cut.

Rosen (2004) reviewed a number of studies relating to behaviouralresponses and assessment of pain following shechita and concludedthat shechita is a painless and humanemethod of animal slaughter be-cause: (1) it is generally accepted that a functioning, conscious brain isnecessary for the perception of pain. Within the brain, the cerebralcortex is essential for the perception of pain; (2) the shape and struc-ture of the brain is maintained by the pressure of cerebrospinal fluidwithin the cerebral ventricles and by the gradient between therelatively high pressure of the arterial blood flowing into it and thelower pressure in the veins draining it. Sudden change in thesepressures would have a devastating effect on the brain function;(3) after shechita incision, blood loss is extremely rapid. This appliesnot only to the blood that passes from the aorta, up the brachiocephalictrunk to the carotid arteries, but also to the blood that runs through thebrachiocephalic trunk to the vertebral arteries; and (4) the fall in bloodpressure in the brain is greater than the fall anywhere else in the arterialtree. This rapid and important fall in blood pressure causes loss of con-sciousness within a few seconds.

Grandin and Regenstein (1994) accepted that the details spelledout in Jewish law concerning the design of the knife and the cuttingmethod if followed properly could prevent animal from reacting toshechita cut. However, shochets and halal slaughtermen have beenobserved using a dull knife or inappropriate knives causing sufferingand affecting the welfare of the slaughtered animal. Daly, Kalweit,and Ellendorf (1988) compared brain function using visual and so-matosensory evoked potentials in adult cattle after pre-slaughterstunning using captive bolt and slaughterwithout stunning (Shechita)and found that slaughter without stunning resulted in greater vari-ability in the time to loss of evoked responses (20126 s) comparedto pre-slaughter stunned animals. Johnson, Gibson, Stafford, andMellor (2012) summarised the outcomes of a number of studies inwhich the minimal anaesthesia model was used to determine the ef-fect of slaughter of calves without stunning. The results demonstratedthat the act of slaughter by ventral-neck incision without stunning isassociated with pain in the period between the slaughter and subse-quent loss of consciousness. A major animal welfare concern is thatof aspiration of blood into lungs whilst the animal is still consciousfollowing slaughter without stunning (Grandin, 2010). Gregory, vonWenlawowicz, and von Holleben (2009) examined bovine respiratorytracts for blood following shechita and halal slaughter without stunningand captive bolt stunningwith sticking and found that the non-stunnedanimals continue to breathe during the early part of bleedingwhilst thestunned animalswere not. The authors (Gregory et al., 2009) concludedthat animals thatwere slaughteredwithout stunning or do not lose con-sciousness rapidly whilst blood is present in their respiratory tract maysuffer airway irritation caused by the blood.

Another concern about slaughter without stunning is about the rateat which animals lose consciousness due to its implication on pain/distress following the slaughter (Gregory, Fielding, von Wenlawowicz,& von Holleben, 2010). The authors (Gregory et al., 2010) examinedthe time to physical collapse of 174 cattle following halal slaughter andfound that false aneurism in the cardiac and cephalic ends of the severedcarotid arteries were the major reasons for prolonged (60 s) con-sciousness of slaughtered animals. False aneurism can form as early as7 s and on the average within 21 s following halal slaughter leading tosustained consciousness due to failure to bleed out properly (Gregoryet al., 2012).

Zivotofsky and Strous (2012) used compelling arguments to chal-lenge the widely accepted view that head-only electrical stunning isgood procedure for improving thewelfare of animals during slaughter.The authors likened the effect of electrical stunning to unmodifiedhuman electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) rather than epilepsy and ar-gued that electrically stunned animalsmay suffer some of the negativeaspects of ECT such as high incidence of fractures, muscle pain and

severe anxiety. They (Zivotofsky & Strous, 2012) further argued thatan animal that ismis-stunned or appropriately stunned but experiencessubconvulsive stimulation events that could occur under the best ofcircumstances during electrical stunning may have its welfarecompromised more than the animal slaughtered without stunning.

3.7. Regulating halal and kosher meat production

The production and trade in halal and kosher redmeat are affectedby regulations in both producing and importing countries. Theseregulations vary between countries (Table 4). Legislations in manyproducing countries are concerned mainly with how the competentauthorities ensure religious slaughter meets the minimum animalwelfare requirements and process hygiene leaving the other aspectsto third party regulators/certifiers (Havinga, 2010; van der Spiegelet al., 2012). Other countries such as Australia and New Zealandissued notices to guide the preparation, identification, storage andcertification for the export of halal red meat and red meat products(Table 4). The New Zealand halal model is currently considered thebest in the world (Anonymous, 2011). The New Zealand Ministry ofPrimary Industries (MPI) which issued the notice and provides forits oversight received the Halal Journal Award 2011 as the best halalservice provider (Anonymous, 2011). The Journal recognised NewZealand is the first non-Muslim country to develop a halal regulatoryframework passed on by the Food Safety Authority, to ensure that theintegrity of their halal supply chain is maintained.

3.7.1. New Zealand halal modelAccording to MIA (2012), New Zealand exports of red meat

and edible products to Muslim markets were worth NZ$425 millionin 2011. New Zealand exported 153,000 tonnes of halal certifiedsheepmeat and beef in 2011. 90% of New Zealand's sheep and beef ex-port slaughter premises are halal certified. Fig. 2 shows New Zealandhalal certified meat exports by volume for the year ended September2011. The top 3 markets (Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia)accounted for 51% of total halal certifiedmeat exports.Whilstmajorityof halal certified exports go to Muslim countries, there is a significantvolume (29%) to other countries (Fig. 3).

The New ZealandModel (Fig. 4) was developed jointly by themeatindustry, halal certifiers and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority,now part of the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI). MPI as partof the model has established a Halal Standards Advisory Councilconsisting of practicing Muslim members who are experts in foodsafety, Islamic knowledge and quality systems management and auditto ensure New Zealand's animal products export systems stays at theforefront of halal international best practice. The council which wasestablished under the Halal Notice provides MPI with advice on reli-gious technical matters when creating standards for the productionand processing of halal products. In this model, importing halal marketscontinue to determine which businesses can provide halal certificationfor their particular market. MPI's role is to enforce halal standards re-quired by these markets.

The New Zealand Halal Model has set a new benchmark for otherhalal red meat exporting countries to emulate (Anonymous, 2011).

4. Halal and kosher meat accreditation, certificationand authentication

Excellent reviews of the issues surrounding kosher and halal redmeat accreditation, certification, auditing and authentication and thesupporting structures and processes such as laboratories and analyseshave been previously published (Havinga, 2010; Nakyinsige, CheMan, & Sazili, 2012; Regenstein & Regenstein, 1991; van der Spiegelet al., 2012).

Because of the rapid growth in the volume and value of trade inmeat and meat products from ritually slaughtered animals around

Table 4Enabling regulations of some exporting and importing countries for halal and kosher red meat production and distribution.

Country/region Relevant regulation Additional information/requirements

Australia AQIS Meat Notice 2009/08. http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/export/meat/elmer-3/notices/2009/mn09-08.

Contains guidelines for the Preparation, Identification, Storage and Certificationfor Export of Halal Red Meat and Red Meat Products. AQIS operational Guidelinesfor the Welfare of Animals at Abattoirs and Slaughterhouses (1995) derogationsfor a relevant meat inspection authority to approve slaughter without priorstunning which could accommodate kosher slaughter.

European Communitya (EC) No 1099/2009 Contain Council regulations/directives on the protection of animals at the time ofkilling. It granted derogations from stunning in case of halal and kosher slaughter.Meat imported from third countries should meet at least equivalent requirementslaid down in the directives.

GCC countriesb GSO 993/1998 Contain animal slaughtering requirements according to Islamic law. GSO 0000/2008and GSO 0000/2008 are drafts general requirements for halal foods and accreditationof halal food certification issuing bodies respectively. Halal certification required forall red meat to GCC.

Indonesia LLPOM MUI HAS 23103, 2012 Contains guidelines of halal assurance system criteria on slaughterhouses.Slaughterhouses must be approved by LLPOM MUI.

Israel The Standards Institution of Israel (SII). http://www.sii.org.il/14-he/SII.aspx. Imported meat must be licensed by IsraelVeterinary Services (IVS) and originate from a processingplant that has been approved by the IVS.

Kosher certification required for all red meat. Any food marked with the wordkosher shall also be marked with the name and location of the person certifyingthe kashrut or the registered mark in Israel of the organization certifying the kashrut.

Malaysia MS 1500: 2009http://www.standardsmalaysia.gov.my

Contains guidelines for halal food production, preparation, handling and storagefor Malaysia. Slaughterhouses must be approved by JAKIM.

New Zealand Animal Products (Overseas Market Access Requirements forHalal Assurances) Notice 2012. http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/halal-notices/.

The notice was issued under section 167 of the Animal Products Act 1999. The noticerequires a control programme to be in place in New Zealand in relation to halal animalproducts for export to specified markets.

United Kingdom The Slaughter of Animals Regulations 1990 and subsequentamendments 1995 and 1999 (MAFF 1999).

Ritual slaughter without stunning is allowed in UK.

United States of America USDA Humane Slaughter of Livestock Regulations(9 C.F.R. 313.190).

The relevant sections in the regulation deemed ritual slaughter in accordance withthe requirements of a religious faith as humane.

Uruguay GOU Law No. 18,471, 2009. http://docs.uruguay.justia.com/nacionales/leyes/ley-18471-mar-27-2009.pdf

The framework created Honorary National Commission of Animal Welfare, to ensurethe standards of care, protection and respect towards animals are met. The UruguayanNational Meat Institute designed an animal welfare certification programme focusedon bovine animals under the framework in 2010.

a EC member countries where ritual slaughter without pre-slaughter stunning occurs include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands,Portugal, and Spain; and not in Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Sweden (EC, 2007; van der Spiegel et al., 2012).

b GCC member countries consist of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and the Sultanate of Oman.


the world and the increased demand for assurance by the consumersof these foods, a number of regulatory and certifying bodies havesprung up in both producing and importing countries to ensure thecompliance of these products to the halal and kosher requirements(Ahmed, 2008; Bonne & Verbeke, 2008; Farouk, 2012; Regenstein& Regenstein, 1991). The National Assembly of Jewish Students(Hanefesh, 2012) listed up to 80 kosher certifying bodies in theUSA alone; and Riaz (2013) reported the number of halal certifyingbodies around the world to be 111 and growing. Although these

Fig. 2. New Zealand halal sheepmeat and beef exports to Muslim countries shoSource: Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (MIA) (Personal Communica

halal certifying/regulatory bodies differ in their standards for certifi-cation (See Fig. 5 for symbols of some halal certifying bodies aroundthe world from Abdul Latif, 2013), the differences tend to be minorand largely reflect variations in the way the preferred, but not theobligatory practices laid down in Islamic religious texts are interpreted(Anonymous, 2001; Farouk et al., 2006). The lack of a unified stan-dard is not a major hurdle for halal red meat exporting countries(Farouk, 2012), however, it confuses these exporters in that they haveto balance the need for commercial efficiency, religious requirements

wing Iran as the major importing Muslim country in the 80s and early 90s.tion, January 2013).
image of Fig.2http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/export/meat/elmer-3/notices/2009/mn09-08http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/export/meat/elmer-3/notices/2009/mn09-08http://www.sii.org.il/14-he/SII.aspxhttp://www.sii.org.il/14-he/SII.aspxhttp://www.standardsmalaysia.gov.myhttp://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/halal-notices/http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/halal-notices/http://docs.uruguay.justia.com/nacionales/leyes/ley-18471-mar-27-2009.pdfhttp://docs.uruguay.justia.com/nacionales/leyes/ley-18471-mar-27-2009.pdf

30,000

35,000

40,000

20,000

25,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

Vo

lum

e (t

on

nes

)

0

Malay

sia

Chin

a

Cana

da

Kore

a

Oman

Fran

ceUA

EUS

A

Indo

nesia

*

Saud

i Ara

bia

Sing

apor

e

Jord

an

Sout

h Af

rica

Philip

pine

s

The N

etre

rland

s

Fig. 3. Major destinations of New Zealand halal certified meat showing that a substantial amount of the exports goes to non-Muslim countries.Source: Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (MIA) (Personal Communication, January 2013).


and the requirements of non-religious and consumer groups and dealwithmultiple standards at the same time. There is currently a concertedeffort by many international Muslim bodies including the Organiza-tion of Islamic Countries (OIC), World Muslim League (WML), WorldHalal Forum (WHF), World Halal Food Council (WHFC), InternationalHalal Integrity Alliance (HIA) and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Re-search to harmonise the standards for certifying halal foods and theaccreditation and training of the certifying bodies around the world.This move is intended to improve compliance, efficiency in halal foodsupply, and to arrest the proliferation of certifying bodies which hasthe potential to further divide the minority Muslims involved in halalcertification in largely non-Muslim halal red meat exporting countries.

Fig. 4. The New Zealand Halal Model adopted with modifications from Davies, Amir, and Eproduction.

5. Future pre-slaughter technologies for the ritual slaughter of redmeat animals

The search must continue for better technologies to harmonisethe spiritual and temporal requirements of the slaughter of animals inorder to ensure that the process is as humane and compliant as possible.

5.1. High frequency head-to-body pre-slaughter stunning

Simons et al. (2006) described a recent development in the use of highfrequency electrical currents to stun and immobilize red meat animalspre-slaughter (HFST). TheHFST uses similar voltage and amperes settings

lidrissi (2011). The model shows the major actors in the New Zealand halal red meat
image of Fig.3

Fig. 5. Some of the halal certification symbols around the world. There are estimated 111 halal certifiers and the quest is for a unified standard and symbol.


as the Jarvis traditional head-only electrical stunning settings describedearlier but uses higher frequencies (10002000 Hz) with a square ratherthan sinusoidal waveform. The settings used in the traditional systemwhen applies to full animal body will stop the heart but the modifiedsystem at higher frequency does not and thus can be applied fromeither head to leg, head to belly or head to back instead of head-onlyin use in the traditional system. The benefit of using a high frequencyhead-to-body component includes: the procedure does not stop theheart or kill the stunned animal, muscle activity associatedwith convul-sions is avoided or reduced, and the need for subsequent electrical im-mobilization to provide operator safety is avoided (Simons et al., 2006).The latter benefit will also take care of the prohibition of the use ofimmobilization to control animals contained in EC (2009) regulations[Article 13 (3b)] that came to effect in January 2013.

5.2. Interferential current stunning

There are a number of electroanalgesia procedures of varying levelsof invasiveness used in acute and chronic pain management (White, Li,& Chiu, 2001). One of the non-invasive ones is the interferential current(IFC) therapy. IFT is currently used for pain management in humans in-cluding electro-narcosis and electro-anaesthesia (Johnson & Tabasam,2003; Shanahan, Ward, & Robertson, 2006). Electro-anaesthesia doesnot produce convulsions as observed in electro-convulsive therapy,thereby if an animal in successfully electro-anaesthetised, no kickingwill result, effectively removing the need for immobilization.

According to De Domenico (1982) the IFC procedure is basedon the summation of two sinusoid alternating current signals (A.C.)with their waveforms slightly offset or out of phase. The frequenciesof the stimulatory currents are higher than the ability of biological tis-sue to respond to the current. When the two A.C. carrier signals meetat the target tissue, constructive and destructive interference takes

place. This mixing results in a low-frequency current that consistsof cyclical modulation of the amplitude which is dependent on thedifference of frequencies of the two carrier signals. When the signalsare in phase, the carrier signals sum to a value able to stimulatethe tissue.When out of phase, no stimulation results. This beat frequen-cy is equal to the difference in the frequencies of the two carrier signals.Because skin impedance is inversely proportional to the frequency ofstimulation, as the frequency of the current increases skin impedancedecreases, therefore, more current will be delivered resulting in a moreeffective stun.

5.3. Transcranial magnetic stunning

Lambooij, Anil, Butler, Reimert, Workel, and Hindle (2011) reporteda non-invasive and potentially pain-free stunningmethod that does notresult in tissue damage referred to as transcranial magnetic stimulation(TMS). In practice, an intense magnetic field is generated by passinga large amount of current through a copper coil. The coil is positionedclose to the head so that the brain lieswithin thismagnetic field to affecta stun. This system has been found to be effective in inducing a stun inbroilers. The method requires further improvement but has the poten-tial to be developed as a stunning method in the future, which wouldbe more acceptable for religious groups opposed to the use of conven-tional methods.

5.4. Local or general anaesthesia with natural agents

Slaughter stress and pain can be reduced by local anaesthesiausing the commercial anaesthetics currently being used for variousveterinary operations. However, residue in meat would render suchapplication commercially unviable. Alternatively, there are natural
image of Fig.5

Fig. 6. Diagram of the AgResearch SureStun System concept on the left of the picture and on the right a typical recording using the prototype system of the EEG (green) pre and post stun together with the strobe pulse control signals. Thestun occurs at the end of the pulse sequence.

817M.M

.Farouk/Meat

Science95

(2013)805

820
image of Fig.6


agents being used in anaesthetising fish to improve their welfare atharvest.

A commercial food-grade fish anaesthetic with iso-eugenol as theactive ingredient (AQUI-S) that has been approved for use in manycountries, has been used to successfully anaesthetise Atlantic Cod(Digre et al., 2011; Erickson et al., 2012) and Atlantic Salmon (Iversen,Finstad, McKinley, & Eliassen, 2003). The primary residue of usingAQUI-S in rainbow trout was found to be iso-eugenol which clearedvery fast from the fish fillets (Meinertz & Schreier, 2009).

The availability of natural anaesthetics for fish raises the prospectsof others suitable for use in local anaesthesia of red meat animalsprior to slaughter. The search for those should continue in order tofind alternatives that could help harmonise the requirements ofgroups oppose to pre-slaughter stunning with those of the groupswho maintain ritual slaughter without stunning compromises thewelfare of slaughtered animals.

5.5. Pre-slaughter stunning monitors

A major issue in halal meat processing is the ability to objectivelymonitor the application, and therefore the effectiveness, of a head-only electrical stun. This has assumed a greater importance with therecent EC stunning and killing criteria that became effective in 2013(EC, 2009). The criteria require, a) the general parameters for electricalstunning to be more concretely defined than now and for operators toevaluate the efficiency of their stunning method through animal basedindicators; b) as a consequence, stunned animals have to be regularlymonitored to ensure that they do not regain consciousness prior to stick-ing; c) electrical stunning equipment should be fitted with a devicewhich displays and records the details of the electrical key parametersfor each animal stunned; d) the device should be placed so as to be clearlyvisible to the personnel and shall give a clearly visible and audible warn-ing if the duration of exposure falls below the required level; and e) theserecords shall be kept for at least one year. A concept system (SureStun)that could meet those requirements for head-only electrical stunningwas developed by AgResearch Ltd., New Zealand (Fig. 6). The systemwould monitor the successful application of a head only electric stun tomeet the halal requirements by the on-line recording of the brains EEGpre and post-stun. The system was tested using approved commercialstunning equipment and was found able to diagnose an epileptic stateconfirming a successful stun. However, the system suffered from move-ment artefact and further developments are being considered in orderfor the system to proceed to a commercial environment.

6. Conclusions

The commercial production of halal and kosher red meat is rapidlygrowing in importance and so is the controversy surrounding the slaugh-ter without stunning that is used in producing substantial amount of themeat. All the current commercial types of pre-slaughter stunning are notacceptable for kosher meat production. Reversible head-only electricalstunning is widely used for halal but there are still many Muslimswho are oppose to it. However, there is a considerable body of literaturethat confirms the compliance of electrical head-only stunning to halalrequirements in that the procedure when properly applied does notkill the animal pre-slaughter nor affect other important halal require-ments such as blood flow during exsanguinations and is not painful.With further improvement in the methods and the possibility of theuse of high frequencies, reversible electrical stunning may become thenorm in the future for the commercial halal red meat production.

Other issues associated with post-slaughter processing of pre-slaughtered stunned animals such as thoracic sticking and time of deathfollowing slaughter would remain important for halal red meat produc-tion until they are resolved. The kosher requirement that the animalnot only be alive but consciouswould render anymechanical or electricalmethods of stunning now or in the future unacceptable. Similarly those

kosher requirements would also invalidate many of the electroanalgesiamethods if orwhen they become commercially viable as long as they ren-der the animal unconscious prior to slaughter. If an acceptable naturalfood grade local anaesthetic could be found and a method of applyingthe procedure commercially is developed, then that would harmonisemost of the important requirements of the contending parties in thepre-slaughter stunning debate. The faith aspect of slaughter and its con-tribution to improving animal welfare cannot be objectively measuredbut neither can it be discounted, hence it remains important in the ongo-ing debate about animal welfare during ritual slaughter.

References

Abdul Latif, M. (2013). Comparative study between halal international models: Therequirements of accreditation and certification bodies in importing countries.Presentation at The Second Gulf Conference on Halal Industry and its Services, 2224January 2013, Crown Plaza Hotel, Al-Farwaniyah, State of Kuwait.

Ahmed, A. (2008). Marketing halal meat in the United Kingdom. British Food Journal,110(7), 665670.

Al-Qaradawi, Y. (1960). The lawful and the prohibited in Islam [Al-Haram Wal Haram FilIslam]. Indianapolis, IN. USA: American Trust Publications.

Anil, M. H., Love, S., Helps, C. R., & Harbour, D. A. (2002). Potential for carcass contamina-tion with brain tissue following stunning and slaughter in cattle and sheep. FoodControl, 13, 431436.

Anil, M. H., McKinstry, N. G., Wotton, J. L., & Gregory, S. B. (1995). Welfare of calves 1.Investigations into some aspects of calf slaughter. Meat Science, 41, 101112.

Anil, M. H., Yesildere, T., Aksu, H., Matur, E., McKinstry, J. L., Erdogan, O., Hughes, S., &Mason, C. (2004). Comparison of religious slaughter of sheep with methods thatinclude pre-slaughter stunning, and the lack of difference in exsanguinations,packed cell volume and meat quality parameters. Animal Welfare, 13, 387392.

Anonymous (2001). Halaalan thoyyiba: A global Halal standard. Asia Pacific Food Industry,6465.

Anonymous (2011). Congratulations winners of the Halal Journal Awards 2011. TheHalal Journal(40), 39.

Anonymous (2013). Shechita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita#mw-head (Accessed31 December 2012)

Aziz, A. K. (1989). Focus on Halal Food. Food Review, 2831.Blackmore, D. K. (1979). Non-penetrative percussion stunning of sheep and calves. The

Veterinary Record, 105, 372375.Blackmore, D. K., & Delaney, M. W. (1988). Slaughter of stock. Publication no. 18.

Foundation for Continuing Education of The N.Z. Veterinary Association, MasseyUniversity, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Bonne, K., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Muslim consumer trust in halal meat status and con-trol in Belgium. Meat Science, 79, 113123.

Chaudry, M. M., Jackson, M. A., Hussaini, M. M., & Riaz, M. N. (1997). Halal industrial stan-dards. Islamic Food & Nutrition Council of America.. IL, USA: My Own Meals, Inc.

Cook, C. J. (1992). Stunning science: A guide to better electrical stunning. ProceedingsTwenty-Seventh Meat Industry Research Conference (pp. 137142). Meat IndustryResearch Institute of New Zealand.

Cook, C., Devine, C., & Blackmore, D. (1993b). Preslaughter stunning: Assuring humanenessof slaughter. An update of recent developments in Europe. (Utrecht, The Netherlands).

Cook, C. J., Maasland, S. A., Devine, C. E., & Gilbert, K. V. (1993a). Preslaughter stunningand its implications on assuring humaneness. Australian Veterinary AssociationConference, May 1993, Brisbane (pp. 459462).

Cook, C. J., Devine, C. E., Gilbert, K. V., Smith, D. D., & Maasland, S. A. (1995). The effect ofelectrical head-only stun duration on electroencephalographic-measured seizureand brain amino acid neurotrasmitter release. Meat Science, 40, 137147.

Cook, C. J., Maasland, S. A., Devine, C. E., & Gilbert, K. V. (1996). Changes in the release ofamino acid neurotransmitters in the brains of calves and sheep after head-onlyelectrical stunning and throat cutting. Research in Veterinary Science, 60, 255261.

Daly, C. C., Gregory, N. G., & Wotton, S. B. (1985). The effect of captive bolt stunning onbrain function in cattle and sheep. Proceedings 31st European Meat Research WorkersConference (pp. 8587).

Daly, C. C., Gregory, N. G., Wotton, S. B., & Whittington, P. E. (1986). Concussivemethods of pre-slaughter stunning in sheep: Effects of captive bolt stunning inthe poll position on brain function. Research in Veterinary Science, 41, 353355.

Daly, C. C., Kalweit, E., & Ellendorf, F. (1988). Cortical function in cattle during slaughter:Conventional captive bolt stunning followed by exsanguinations compared withshechita slaughter. The Veterinary Record, 122, 325329.

Daly, C. C., & Simmons, N. J. (1994). The use of high frequency currents for thepre-slaughter stunning of livestock. CAPAA Engineers' Conference, Gunnedah, NSW,Australia.

Daly, C. C., & Whittington, P. E. (1986). Concussive methods of pre-slaughter stunningin sheep. Research in Veterinary Science, 41, 349352.

Davies, R. J., Amir, S. M., & Elidrissi, T. (2011). Halal certification in New Zealand. TheHalal Journal.

De Domenico, G. (1982). Pain relief with interferential therapy. The Australian Journal ofPhysiotherapy, 28(3), 1418.

Devine, C. E., Gilbert, K. V., Tavener, A., & Day, A. M. (1985). The use of electricalstunning followed by electro-immobilization for the humane slaughter of cattle.New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 33, 47.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita#mw-head


Devine, C. E., Tavener, A., Gilbert, K. V., & Day, A. M. (1986). Electroencephalographicstudies of adult cattle associated with electrical stunning, throat cutting and car-cass electro-immobilisation. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 34, 210213.

Digre, H., Erickson, U., Skare, J., Lea, P., Gallart-Jornet, L., & Misimi, K. (2011). Biochemical,physical and sensory quality of ice-stored Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) as affected bypre-slaughter stress, percussion stunning and AQUI-S anaesthesia. European FoodResearch and Technology, 233, 447456.

EC (2007). Study on stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses: Final Report Part1: Red meat. European Commission. DG SANCO Rue de la Loi 200. 1049 Brussels.

EC (2009). European Community Council Regulations (EC) No 1099/2009. Official Journalof the European Union, L 303, 130.

EFSA (2004). Welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the maincommercial species of animals. The EFSA Journal, 45, 129.

EI (2010). Halal drives fresh meat growth, but in adequate supply remains an issue.Euromonitor International. http://www.euromonitor.com/ (Accessed 4 Jan 2013)

Erickson, U., Lambooij, B., Digre, H., Reimert, H. G. M., Bondo, M., & van der Vis, H. (2012).Conditions for instant electrical stunning of farmed Atlantic cod after de-watering,maintenance of unconsciousness, effects of stress, and fillet quality A comparisonwith AQUI-S. Aquaculture, 324325, 135144.

Farouk, M. M. (2012). New Zealand meat industry must optimise halal market oppor-tunities. NZ Food Technology, 47(8), 9.

Farouk, M. M., Daly, C. C., Collinson, M., & Simmons, N. (2004).Mechanical and electricalstunning of sheep and cattle: A review of applied aspects. Client Report. AgResearchCR 1027. Prepared for Meat and Wool NZ, Wellington, New Zealand.

Farouk, M. M., Sahib, M. A., Lennon, A., & Daly, C. C. (2006). Stunning and slaughter ofcattle and sheep for halal meat production: Is New Zealand process compliant? ClientReport. AgResearch CR 1082. Prepared for Meat and Wool NZ, and the Federationof Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) Wellington, New Zealand.

Gilbert, K. V. (1984). Electrical stunning and beef slaughter. Proceedings 23rd MeatIndustry Research Conference (pp. 120126).

Gilbert, K. V. (1993). Electrical stunni

Advances in the Industrial Production of Halal and Kosher Red Meat

Documents

Transcript of Advances in the Industrial Production of Halal and Kosher Red Meat