Religious Slauhter_evaluation of Current Practices in Sellected Countries

7/21/2019 Religious Slauhter_evaluation of Current Practices in Sellected Countries

1/10

Religious slaughter: Evaluation of current practices in selected countries

A. Velarde a, P. Rodriguez a, A. Dalmau a, C. Fuentes a, P. Llonch a, K.V. von Holleben b,M.H. Anil c, J.B. Lambooij e, H. Pleiter f, T. Yesildere g, B.T. Cenci-Goga d,a IRTA, Spainb BSI Schwarzenbek, Germanyc University of Cardiff, UKd University of Perugia, Italye ASG Veehourderij, Netherlandsf Meat and Livestock, Australiag Istanbul Veteriner Hekimler Odasi, Turkey

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 2 December 2012

Received in revised form 11 July 2013

Accepted 12 July 2013

Keywords:

Slaughter

Halal

Kosher

Shechita

Animal

Welfare

As part of the project Religious slaughter (DIALREL): improving knowledge and expertise through dialogue and

debate on issues of welfare, legislation and socio-economic aspects, this paper discusses an evaluation of current

practices during Halal and Shechita slaughter in cattle, sheep, goats and poultry. During religious slaughter, ani-

malsare killed with andwithout stunning by a transverse incision across the neckthat is cutting theskin, muscles

(brachiocephalic, sternocephalic, sternohyoid, and sternothyroid), trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular

veins and the major, supercialand deepnerves of the cervical plexus. In thisreport, the restraint methods,stun-

ning, neck cutting, exsanguination, slaughter techniques and postcut handling in the abattoir were assessed for

religious slaughter. Information about the procedures used during religious slaughter in Belgium, Germany,

Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Turkey and Australia was collected by means of spot visits to abattoirs. To

standardizethe information gatheredduring the spotvisitsthree guidelines weredesigned, one for eachspecies,

and translated into the national languages of the countries involved. The document included questions on the

handling and restraint methods (stunning, neck cutting/exsanguination/slaughter techniques and postcut

handling performed under religious practices) and for pain and distress of the animal during the restraint,neck cutting and induction to death in each abattoir. Results showed differences in the time from restraining

to stun and to cut in the neck cutting procedures and in the time from cut to death.

2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Religious slaughter is carried out legally in the European Union in

licensed slaughterhouses by authorized slaughter-men of the Jewish

and Islamic faiths. Other animals to be slaughtered must be stunned to

cause immediateloss of consciousness until death is causedby bleeding.

For reasons of depopulation, animals can be killed outright, using the

specied methods set out in the EU legislation (Anonymous, 1993,

2009). However, there are special provisions made for slaughter for

religious purposes. The legal requirement for stunning does not apply

to the slaughter of animals by the Jewish method, by a Jew, licensed

by the authority and duly licensed by a Rabbinical Commission, or by

the Muslim method, by a Muslimlicensed by an appropriate, recognized,

religious authority. Nevertheless, the law does require religious

slaughterto be carried outwithoutthe iniction of unnecessary suffering

(Anonymous, 1993, 2009).

The Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22nd December 1993 on the

protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing applies to the

movement, lairaging, restraint, stunning, slaughter and killing of

animals bred and kept for the production of meat, skin, fur or other

products and to methods of killing animals for the purpose of disease

control (Anonymous, 1993, 2009). The new EU Regulation 1099/2009

introduces new arrangements for slaughter licenses from 1st January

2013 (Anonymous, 2009). The new regulation includes the following

denitions: slaughterhouse: any establishment used for slaughtering

terrestrial animals which falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No.

853/2004; restraint: the application to an animal of any procedure

designed to restrict its movements sparing any avoidable pain, fear or

agitation in order to facilitate effective stunning and killing;stunning:

any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness

and sensibility without pain,including any process resulting in instanta-

neousdeath;killing: anyintentionally induced process which causesthe

death of an animal, slaughtering: the killing of animals intended for

human consumption, competent authority: the central authority of a

Meat Science 96 (2014) 278287

Correspondingauthorat: Dipartimentodi Medicina Veterinaria,Laboratorio di Ispezione

degli Alimenti, Universit degli Studi di Perugia, via San Costanzo, 06126 Perugia, Italy. Tel.:

+39 075 585 7929; fax: +39 075 585 7976.

E-mail address: [email protected](B.T. Cenci-Goga).

0309-1740/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.013

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / m e a t s c i
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.013http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.013http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.013mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.013http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.013mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.013http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.013&domain=pdf


2/10

Member State competent to ensure compliance with the requirements

of this Regulation or any other authority to which that central authority

has delegated that competence (Anonymous, 2009). Regarding this

delegation of authority, the religious authority in the EU MemberStates,

on whose behalf slaughter is carried out, shall be competent for the

application and monitoring of the special provisions, which apply to

slaughter according to certain religious requirements. As regards said

provisions, the religious authority shall operateunder the responsibility

of the ofcial EU member state veterinarian, as dened in the Regula-

tions 1099/2009 (Anonymous, 2009). According to Annex 1 of the

cited Regulation 1099/2009, the stunning of farm animals prior to

slaughtering can be performed using the following methods: mechani-

cal methods (penetrative captive bolt device, non-penetrative captive

bolt device,rearm with free projectile, cervical dislocation, percussive

blow to the head), electrical methods (head-only electrical stunning,

head-to-body electrical stunning, electrical water bath) and gas

methods (carbon dioxide at high concentration, carbon dioxide in two

phases, carbon dioxide associated with inert gases, inert gases). Stun-

ning must not be carried out unless it is possible to bleed the animals

immediately afterwards. Stunning before slaughter is therefore a statu-

tory requirement in Europe and is done to induce unconsciousness in

animals, so that slaughter causes no anxiety, pain, suffering or distress.In the majority of the countries of the European Union, religious

slaughter is exempt from stunning (Cenci-Goga et al., 2010). For the

Jewish and Muslim communities, the animals are required to be alive,

healthy and have suffered no injury at the time of slaughter. To meet

these requirements, slaughter without stunning is done in licensed

slaughterhouses or, occasionally, during religious festivals on commu-

nal grounds. It should be noted that some local Islamic authorities ac-

cept a stunning method, provided it does not kill the animals based on

their interpretations of the religious requirements.

In an attempt to study the incidence and to assess the different prac-

tices of religious slaughter of cattle, small ruminants (sheep and goats)

and poultry, data was collected by means of a survey based on spot

check visits to abattoirs in the EU, Turkey and Australia.

2. Materials and methods

Information about the procedures used during religious slaughter in

Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Turkey and

Australia was collected by means of spot visits to abattoirs. The data

was collected by the DIALREL partner from each country. A question-

naire was completed before the spot visit to gather data on the number

of animals slaughtered, restraining methods and stunning method,

when applicable (Cenci-Goga et al., 2013).In each country, the abattoirs were selected using simple random

sampling from a list of premise-identication numbers to ensure a rep-

resentative sample of plants from the completed questionnaires. Within

each selected plant, slaughtered animals were sampled by systematic,

random selection. Between 10 and 114 animals were selected per abat-

toir, approximately proportional to the total number of slaughtered an-

imals (Tables 1 and 2).

To standardize the information gathered during the spot visits, three

guidelines were designed, oneforeach species, andtranslated into the na-

tionallanguagesof thecountriesinvolved.Thedocumentwasdivided into

two parts. The rst part of the document gathered information about the

handling and restraint methods, stunning, neck cutting/exsanguination/

slaughter techniques and postcut handling, carried out during religious

slaughter in each abattoir. One important point was the quality of bleed-

ing: an animal was considered to be bleeding well when, after neck cut-

ting, both carotid arteries and both jugular veins were completely

sectioned, a strong bloodow could be seen and there was no obstruction

due to a retraction of the vessels' walls. The second part of the document

was designed to assess the signs of pain and distress of the animal during

restraint, neck cutting and induction to death. In this second part, a mini-

mum of 10 animals per abattoir were assessed. If the abattoir slaughtered

duringboth Halal andShechita, two different questionnaires were lled in

for each slaughter practice. The questionnaire can be found under Annex

1. All auditors, at least two per unit, were trained according to a specic

work package of the project. In short, data collection in each country for

the assessment of animal welfare was based on the same methodology

and protocol. The training sessions included: i) a discussion on the

results from the questionnaires andthe denition of the sampleof slaugh-

terhouses visited; ii) a discussion of the protocol used for spot-visits and atraining session includinga visit to theabattoir to ensurereliability andre-

peatability between experts; and iii) an explanation of the protocol forthe

meetings with religious authorities. A visit was organized to a slaughter-

house during religious slaughter without stunning to assess the protocol

on the eld, followed by a discussion to nalize the standardization of

the different protocols and data collection.

2.1. Data collection in the different countries during Halal and Shechita

slaughter

Table2 shows the choice of slaughterhouses,selectedusing simple ran-

dom sampling from a list of premise-identication numbers to ensure a

representative sample of plants from the completed questionnaires.

Table 1

Number of questionnaires received per country, slaughter practice and species.

Country Total Slaughter practice Species for Halal (and Kosher)

Halal Kosher Cattle Small ruminants Poultry

BE 56 56 0 42 14 0

DE 30 30 0 15 9 6a

IT 29b 25 3 9 (1) 12 (1) 4 (1)

NL 2 2 0 0 2 0

ES 42 39 3 17 (2) 18 4 (1)

UK 15 14 1 3 (1) 7 4

AU 2 1 1 1 (1) 1 (1) 0

TR 141 141 0 90 45 6

a The6 questionnaires represent 12 plants,as someof the questionnairescoveredcom-

panies with more than one plant.b One questionnaire was sent back with no data for reasons of privacy.

Table 2

Slaughterhouses selected for the spot visits. In brackets, the number of observed animals per plant.

Country Cattle Sheep Poultry

Halal Kosher Halal Kosher Halal Kosher

No stu n Electr Pre cut penetr Pre cut nonpenetr No stun No stu n Electr Pre cut nonpenetr No stun Elec tr G as No stun

BE 2 (37, 67) 1 (18)

DE 1 (82) 1 (90) 3 (30, 26, 28) 2 (60, 30) 1 (50)

IT 2 (30, 14) 1 (79) 1 (114) 1 (70)

NL 1 (10) 1 (18)

ES 2 (30, 30) 1 (30) 2 (30, 30) 1 (30) 2 (30, 30)

UK 1 (16) 1 (31) 1 (31)

AU 1 (30) 1 (40) 2 (30, 30)

TR 2 (30, 30)

279A. Velarde et al. / Meat Science 96 (2014) 278287


3/10

Slaughtered animals were sampled by systematic random selection. Be-

tween 10 and 114 animals were selected per abattoir, approximately pro-

portional to the total number of slaughtered animals per day, using the

formulax= Z(c/100)2r(100 r), where ris the fraction of responses,

andZ(c/100) is thecritical value forthe condence level c, witha 20% mar-

gin of error and a 95% condence level (Bruce, Pope, & Stanistreet, 2008).

The following subchapters describe some peculiarities, when present.

2.1.1. BelgiumCattle: two abattoirs with Halal slaughter without stunning were

visited. The numbers of animals evaluated in each abattoir during the

spot visits were 37 and 67. Sheep: one abattoir with Halal slaughter

without stunning was evaluated. The number of animals evaluated

was 18.

2.1.2. Germany

Cattle: one abattoir that performed Halal slaughter with electrical

stunning was visited. The spot visit was conducted during a religious

festival (Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrice). The number of animals

evaluated during the visit was 82. Sheep: four abattoirs that performed

Halal slaughter were visited. Three of them stunned the animals electri-

cally, head-only before neck cutting. Theother one did not stun and was

visited during a religious festival. The numbers of animals evaluated

were 30, 26 and 28 in the abattoirs with electrical stunning and 90 in

the abattoir without stunning. Poultry: three abattoirs that performed

Halal slaughter with stunning were visited. Two abattoirs used an elec-

trical water bath and the third used a mixture of 40% CO2 and 30% O2 in

the rst phase and 80% CO2in the second phase to stun the animals. In

the abattoirs using the electrical water bath, the numbers of animals

evaluated were 60 and 30, whereas 50 animals were evaluated in the

abattoir using gas stunning.

2.1.3. Italy

Cattle: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter without stun-

ning were visited. The numbers of animals evaluated during the visit

were 30 and 14.Sheep: two abattoirsthat performedHalal and Shechita

slaughter without stunning were visited. The number of animals evalu-

ated during the visit was 79 for Halal and 114 for Shechita slaughter.Poultry: one abattoir that performed Shechita slaughter was visited.

The number of animals evaluated during the visit was 70.

2.1.4. The Netherlands

Cattle: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter were visited. In

one of the abattoirs the animals were stunned using non-penetrating

captive bolt. Thenumbers of animals evaluatedwere 18 (with stunning)

and 10 (without stunning).

2.1.5. Spain

Cattle: three abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter were visited.

Two of them did not stun animals and the other one stunned animals

prior to neck cutting using a penetrating captive bolt. Thenumber of an-

imals evaluated by abattoir was n = 30. Sheep: three abattoirs thatperformed Halal slaughter were visited. Two of them did not stun the

animals and the other one stunned animals prior to neck cutting using

a non-penetrating captive bolt. The number of animals evaluated per

abattoir was n = 30. Poultry: two abattoirs that performed Halal

slaughter with stunning prior to neck cutting using an electrical water

bath were visited. The number of animals evaluated per abattoir was

n = 30.

2.1.6. United Kingdom

Cattle: three abattoirs that performed Halal (two abattoirs) and

Shechita (one abattoir) slaughter were visited. During Halal slaughter,

one abattoir did not stun the animals, whereas the other abattoir

stunned the animals using a non-penetrating captive bolt. The numbers

of animals evaluated were 16, 31 and 31, respectively.

2.1.7. Australia

Cattle: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter with stunning

prior to neck cutting were evaluated. The rst abattoir used a non-

penetrating captive bolt for stunning, and the second used electrical

head-only stunning. The numbers of animals evaluated were 40 and

30, respectively. Sheep: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter

with stunning prior to neck cutting, using electrical head-only system,

were visited. The numberof animals evaluated in both abattoirs was 30.

2.1.8. Turkey

Cattle: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter without stun-

ning were visited. The number of animals evaluated in each abattoir

was 30.

3. Results

The data obtained during the spot visits was classied according

to restraint methods, stunning system and slaughter method. The

process was divided into three sections: 1) Time from restraint to stun

or restraint to cut, depending on whether the animals were stunned

or not; 2) neck cutting procedure; and 3) time from cut to death. Infor-

mation on the procedures of current Halal and Shechita practices was

collected by means of spot visits in 17 cattle (Halal = 16 and

Shechita = 1), 12 sheep (Halal = 11 and Shechita = 1), and 6 poultry(Halal = 5 and Shechita = 1) abattoirs.

3.1. Halal slaughter

Tables 3, 4 and 5show the number of abattoirs visited and animals

inspected, according to the restraining method and the use of pre-

slaughter stunning during Halal slaughter for the different groups of

species.

3.1.1. Cattle slaughtered without stunning

Ten abattoirs for Halal slaughter without stunning were evaluated.

One of them turned the animals 45, three turned them on their side

(i.e. 90), two turned them on their back (a 180 turn) and four

restrained the animals in an upright position (with modied ASPCA[American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] pens). The

length of the blade of theknives used for neck cutting in Halalslaughter

Table 3

Number of abattoirs visited and animals inspected according to the restraining method

and the use of pre-slaughter stunning in cattle.

Cattle Without stunning With stunning

Restraining method Abattoirs Animals Abattoirs Animals Total

Turned 45 1 30 0 0 1

Turned on their sides (90) 3 54 1 30 4

Turned on their backs (180) 2 60 1 82 4

Upright 4 150 4 119 9

Total 10 294 6 231 16

Table 4

Number of abattoirs visited and animals inspected according to the restraining method

and the use of pre-slaughter stunning in sheep and goats.

Sheep Without stunning With stunning


Hoisted before neck cutting 3 139 0 0 3

Manually on their sides 2 108 1 30 3

Upright 0 0 5 144 5

Total 5 252 6 174 11

280 A. Velarde et al. / Meat Science 96 (2014) 278287


4/10

was 29.6 1.79 cm with a wide variety of shapes, whereas size and

shape were more consistent for Shechita (the typical, 40 cm Chalev

knife). In all abattoirs, the operator performing the cut had received re-

ligious training. In all cases, the religious practices were always super-

vised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian), as required by regulation

(Anonymous, 1993, 2009).

3.1.1.1. From restraint to cut.Differences in the time interval from re-

straint to cut were observed among the different restraint systems

assessed. The time was longer in cattle turned 45 and turned on their

side than in those turned on their back or remaining in an upright posi-

tion (Fig. 1). During restraint, the animals struggled (Annex 1 and

Fig. 2). Differences were also found among the different restraint sys-

tems assessed. All cattle turned on their side (90) struggled (Annex

1), which was more frequent than in the other systems assessed. Fur-

thermore, the percentage of animals that struggled was also higher in

cattle restrained in the upright position than in those turned on their

backs (180). Animals also vocalized (Fig. 3) during the restraint. The

percentage of animals that vocalized was higher in cattle turned on

their back (38%) than in those restrained in the upright position (10%)

or turned on their side (0%).

3.1.1.2. Cutting procedure.Three of the 10 abattoirs assessed a hyperex-

tension of the neck (i.e., the neck assumed an unnatural position dueto the use of ropes for a better access by the slaughter man to the sub-

hyoid region) to the cattle to facilitate neck cutting. Two of these abat-

toirs used an upright restraining system and in the third, animals

were turned on their backs.Fig. 4shows the number of cuts (each cut

is considered as being in one direction) in relation to the orientation

of animals. The mean number of cuts made with the knife was higher

in cattle restrained in an upright position or turned on their back than

in those turned on their side or turned through 45, respectively. After

neck cutting, differences in animals that bled well were observed be-

tween the different restraint methods assessed (Fig. 5). The percentage

of animals that bled well was lower in animals restrained in theupright

position compared with other methods.

Table 5

Number of abattoirs visited and animals inspectedaccording to the restraining method in

poultry.

Poultry Without stunning With stunning


Hoisted before nec k c utting 1 70

No restraint, sitting on a belt

for gas stunning

1 50

Shackling for electrical water

bath stunning

4 150

Total 1 70 5 200

Fig. 1.Cattle without stunning. Time interval from the beginning of restraint to neck

cutting in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed.

Fig. 2.Cattle without stunning. Percentage of animals struggling during restraint in rela-

tion to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 3.Cattle without stunning. Percentage of animals vocalizing during restraint in rela-


Fig. 4. Cattle withoutstunning. Numberof knife cuts during neckcutting in relation to the

different positions of the animals assessed.

Fig. 5.Cattle without stunning (including Shechita). Percentage of animals that bled well

after neck cutting in relation to the position of the animals assessed.

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B5%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B4%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B3%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%80


5/10

3.1.1.3. From cut to death. After neck cutting, thepercentage of struggling

cattle (Fig. 6) and vocalizing cattle (Fig. 7) was evaluated. Differences

between examplesof differentrestraint methods were found in theper-

centage of cattle that struggled after neck cutting. The percentage of

struggling cattle was higherin the animals turned on their sides in com-

parison to those restrained in the upright position and turned on their

backs. In addition, struggling was also higher in animals restrained in

the upright position than in those turned on their backs. Vocalization

only occurred in animals that were turned on their sides or turned on

their backs. A higher number of animals that were turned on their

sides vocalized, compared with animals turned on their backs. After

neck cutting, loss of consciousness was assessed through theloss of pos-

ture (animal recumbent and hypotonic), according to the modied vet-

erinary Glasgow coma scale (Macintire, Drobatz, Haskins, & Saxon,

2012). Differences were found in the time within which the animals

lost posture among the restraint systems assessed. The posture was

lost earliest when cattle were turned on their sides. This was followed

by animals that were turned 45 or that were slaughtered in the upright

position and nally, the time to loss of posture took longest when ani-

mals were turned on their backs (Fig. 8). In the latter case, only hypo-

tonic posture was recorded with animals turned on their backs.

3.1.2. Cattle slaughtered with stunningSixabattoirs, where cattle were stunned beforeslaughter, were eval-

uated. The stunning methods used were penetrating captive bolt in one

abattoir, non-penetrating captive bolt in three abattoirs and electrical

head-only stunning in two abattoirs. In one abattoir, cattle were turned

on their sides, in another they were turned on their backs, and the re-

mainder (4 abattoirs) restrained the animals in the upright position.

The blade length of the knives used for neck cutting was 23.1

4.00 cm. In ve of the six abattoirs evaluated, the operator performing

the cut had received religious training. In all cases the religious practices

were always supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).

3.1.2.1. From restraint to cut.The time from restraint to stun, the stun to

cut interval and the animal behavior occurring during these intervals,

such as struggling and vocalization,were assessed. Differences between

the three restraint systems evaluated were found in the time taken for

cattle to enter the box until they were stunned. This time was higher

for cattle turned on their backs thanin cattle turned on their sides or an-

imals restrained in the upright position. It was also higher in cattle

turned on their sides than in animals in the upright position (Fig. 9).

As regards the stunning system, 18 and 38% of the animals stunned

with electrical head-onlyshowed rhythmic breathing at 30 and 60 s, re-

spectively, after application of the current. When a penetrating captive

bolt was used, 13% of the animals showed rhythmic breathing at 30 s

after stunning, which had disappeared in all animals 30 s later. In the

case of animals stunned with a non-penetrating captive bolt, the rhyth-

mic breathing was not assessed because it is considered inconsistent by

several authors. With the introduction of the new Directive (EC) No.

1099/2009 (Anonymous, 2009), non-penetrating captive bolt guns are

no longer permitted to be used for adult animals from January 2013,

and they are only permissible in animals under 10 kg. This is the result

of scientic debate which concluded that the current design of non-

penetrating guns is not effective enough (Anil, 2012). Differences

were found in the time from stun to cut among the different restraint

systems assessed (Fig. 10). The time from stun to cut was longer in an-

imals turned on their sides than in animals restrained in the upright po-

sition or turned on their back. In addition, the stun to cut interval wasalso longer when animals were restrained in the upright position than

when they were turnedon their backs.The percentageof animals strug-

gling (Fig. 11) washigher in those animals turned on their backs than in

those in the upright positions or turned on their sides.In addition, it was

also higher when they were in the upright position than when turned

on their sides. Vocalization was not observed in any animal during

restraint.

3.1.2.2. Cutting procedure.The number of cuts with the knife during the

neck cuttingwas evaluated anddifferences were found betweenthe dif-

ferent restraint systems used in the abattoirs that were assessed

(Fig. 12). The number of cuts was higher in animals turned on their

sides than those in an upright position or turned on their backs, and

Fig. 6. Cattlewithout stunning. Percentage of cattlestrugglingafterneckcutting in relation

to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 7. Cattlewithout stunning. Percentageof cattlevocalizingafterneckcutting in relation

to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45 and

upright.

Fig. 8. Cattle withoutstunning. Time to lossof posture(recumbence or hypotonic animal)

after neck cutting in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed.

Fig. 9.Cattle with stunning. Time interval from the beginning of restraint to stun in rela-


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B9%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B8%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B7%80http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B6%80


6/10

higher in cattle restrained in an upright position than in animals turned

on their backs. At the same time, bleeding after neck cutting was

assessed, and it was observed that the percentage of animals bleeding

well differed between the different restraint systems used. Cattle that

were turned on their sides bled well in a higher percentage of animals

than animals restrained in the upright position or turned on theirbacks. At the same time, the percentage of animals bleeding well was

higher when animals were restrained in the upright position than

when they were turned on their backs (Fig. 13).

3.1.2.3. From cut to death. Measured 30 s after neck cutting, the percent-

age of animals with a loss of rhythmic breathingwas 13% when animals

were turned on their sides (penetrating captive bolt) and 18% when

turned on their backs (electrical head-only). Thirty seconds later, the

percentage of cattle with loss of rhythmic breathing had increased to

51% in the animals turned on their backs.

3.1.3. Sheep slaughtered without stunning

Five abattoirs for Halal slaughter without stunning were assessed.

Three of them hoisted the animals before neck cutting, and two turnedtheanimals manually on their sides (90). Thebladelength of theknives

used was 22.2 1.82 cm. In all abattoirs, the operator performing the

cut had received religious training. In all cases, the religious practices

were always supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).

3.1.3.1. From restraint to cut. Struggling was assessed whileanimals were

restrained until neck cutting was performed. During the spot visits,

struggling was only evaluated in animals hoisted before neck cutting(n = 139) and in animals slaughtered manually on their sides (n =

108), and no differences were found between methods (60 and 67%,

respectively,Fig. 14). Differences were found in the time from the be-

ginning of restraint to neck cutting between the different restraint

methods used in the abattoirs assessed. The restraint to cut interval

was longer when sheep were hoisted before neck cutting (45.0

2.07 s) compared to when animals were turned mechanically (7.2

0.32 s), or manually (3.2 0.56 s) on their sides. In addition, the

restraint to cut interval was longer in sheep mechanically turned on

their sides than in those restrained manually (Fig. 15).

Fig. 10.Cattle with stunning. Time interval from stun to neck cutting in relation to the

different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 11.Cattle with stunning. Percentage of animals struggling during restraint in relation

to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 12.Cattle with stunning. Number of knife cuts during neck cutting in relation to the

different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 13. Cattle with stunning. Percentage of animals thatbled wellafterneck cuttingin re-

lation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 14. Sheepwithout stunning. Percentage of animals struggling during restraint in rela-

tion to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals upright.

Fig. 15. Sheep withoutstunning.Time interval from thebeginning of restraint to neckcut-

ting in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals

upright.

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B5http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B4http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B3http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B2http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B1http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B0


7/10

3.1.3.2. Cutting procedure.During the cutting procedure, the number of

knife cuts differed according to the restraint method (Fig. 16). One cut

was made on all sheep restrained manually on their sides, whereas an

average of two cuts was observed in animals hoisted during the neck

cutting process. All the animals assessed in the different abattoirs

were evaluated as having a good blood loss.

3.1.3.3. From cut to death.After neck cutting, loss of consciousness was

assessed through the loss of posture (animal recumbent and hypoton-

ic), according to the modied, veterinary, Glasgow coma scale

(Macintire et al., 2012). Only hypotonic posture was recorded for

hoisted animals (Fig. 17). Differences were found in relation to the re-

straintmethod used. Loss of posture (animal recumbent and hypotonic)

appeared earlier when sheep were restrained manually on their sides

(23.0 2.20 s) than in animals hoisted before neck cutting (76.0

3.44 s).

3.1.4. Sheep slaughtered with stunning

Six abattoirs that stunned sheep and goats pre-slaughter were eval-

uated. In one abattoir the animals were turned manually on their sides

and in the other ve, the animals were slaughtered in the upright posi-tion. The stunning methods used in the abattoirs assessed were: non-

penetrating captive bolt (1 abattoir) and electrical head-only stunning

(5 abattoirs). The blade length of the knives used was 20.0 1.00 cm.

In all the abattoirs, the operator performing the cut had received reli-

gious training. In all cases, the religious practices were always super-

vised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).

3.1.4.1. From restraint to cut. No differenceswere found in the restraintto

stun interval (Fig. 18) between animals restrained manually on their

sides and animals restrained in the upright position. During restraint,

7% of the sheep slaughtered in the upright position struggled but this

did not occur in any of the animals restrained manually on their sides.

3.1.4.2. Cutting procedure. Differences were found between both re-

straint systems in relation to the number of knife cuts made during

neck cutting (Fig. 19). The number of cuts performed during neck cut-

ting was higher in sheep slaughtered in the upright position than in an-

imals restrained manually on their sides. All the animals assessed bled

well.

3.1.4.3. From cut to death.After stunning and neck cutting, the percent-

age of animals that lost their rhythmic breathing was assessed to com-

pare the effect of the restraint. However, no animals showed this

reex in either restraint method.

3.1.5. Poultry slaughtered with stunning

Five poultry abattoirs that were performing Halal slaughter with

previous stunning were assessed duringthe spot visits. In four abattoirs,

the stunning method used was either an electrical water bath stunning

or exposure of the birds to mixtures of oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide

(CO2) in nitrogen (N2). In all the abattoirs surveyed, poultry was shack-

led before stunning with the animals sitting on a belt, with the excep-

tion of those that were stunned with gas. In animals stunned

electrically, the average magnitude of the current was 2.4 0.62 A to

20 birds. The RMS voltage (volts) and frequency (Hertz) of the applied

current were 118.5 11.35 V and 248.3 50.61 Hz, respectively.The average time of application of the current ow to the birds was

7.6 2.41 s. In the case of the poultry stunned with gas, a mixture of

40% CO2, 30% O2and 30% N2for the rst phase and 80% CO2in atmo-

spheric air for the second phase was used. The exposure time was 60

and 120 s, respectively. In three abattoirs (2 electrical stunning and 1

with gas) the neck cutting procedure was performed automatically

using a horizontal rotary knife. In the two remaining abattoirs, the

neck cutting was manual. The blade length of the knives used was

10 cm in one abattoir and 20 cm in the other. In three of the ve abat-

toirs assessed, the operator performing the cut had received religious

training, whereas in the other two situations no training at all had

been offered. In all cases, the religious practices were always supervised

by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).

Fig. 16.Sheep without stunning. Number of knife cuts during neck cutting in relation to

the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals upright.

Fig. 17.Sheep without stunning. Time to loss of posture (recumbence or hypotonic ani-

mal) after neck cutting in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No

data for animals upright.

Fig. 18. Sheep with stunning. Time interval from thebeginning of restraint to stunin rela-

tion to the different positions of the animals assessed.

Fig. 19.Sheep with stunning. Number of knife cuts during neck cutting in relation to the

different positions of the animals assessed.

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B9http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B8http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B7http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B1%B6


8/10

3.1.5.1. From restraint to stun.The average time between shackling and

stunning was 57.0 16.99 s in those birds that were electrically

stunned. During this time the animals remained inverted and sus-

pended by their legs. The stun to cut interval (measured from shackling

after gas exposure to cut,Fig. 20) was longer in gas than electrically-

stunned poultry (32.0 0.00 vs. 15.0 0.95 s).

3.1.5.2. Cutting procedure.No differences in the percentage of animalsthat bled well were observed between either of the stunning systems

assessed (Fig. 21). In addition, the type of neck cutting used (manual

or mechanical) had no effect on bleeding efciency.

3.1.5.3. From cut to death. None of the animals stunned with gas showed

rhythmic breathing. Immediately after stunning, 11% of the animals

stunned electrically showed rhythmic breathing. During neck cutting

this incidence rose to 15% and 30 s later fell to 5%. Then 60 s after

neck cutting all the animals stunned electrically showed an absence of

rhythmic breathing (Fig. 22).

3.2. Shechita slaughter

During the spot visits, 3 abattoirs (one slaughtering cattle, one sheep

andone poultry) were visited and215 animals (31 cattle, 114sheepand

70 broilers) were assessed. In the cattle abattoir, the animals were

slaughtered in the upright position. Sheep abattoirs hoisted the animals

and in poultry abattoirs, the animals were shackled before neck cutting.

None of the abattoirs stunned animals pre-slaughter.

3.2.1. Cattle slaughtered without stunning

In the abattoir assessed, animals were slaughtered in an upright

position in a modied Cincinnati (ASPCA) pen. The blade length of the

knife used was 40 cm. The operator performing the cut had received

religious training. Religious practiceswere supervised by a meat inspec-

tor (or veterinarian).

3.2.1.1. From restraint to cut.When the animals entered the restraining

box, the time between restraint (calculated from the closing of the

box) and neck cutting was assessed along with any struggling of the

animal during the whole procedure. The time from restraint to cut

was 34.0 5.21 s and during restraint, 40% of cattle struggled.

3.2.1.2. Cutting procedure. During the neck cutting procedure, an average

of 3 cuts was performed on each animal. Other parameters, such as

vocalizations and bleeding, were not assessed during this spot visit.

3.2.1.3. From cut to death.It was found that 30 s from the start of bleed-

ing, all the animals assessed had lost posture.

3.2.2. Sheep slaughtered without stunning

In the abattoir assessed, the animals were hoisted before neck cut-

ting. The blade length of the knife used was 25 cm. The operator

performing the cut had received religious training. Religious practices

were supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).

3.2.2.1. From restraint to cut. Individual assessment wasmade for each of

the 114 animals not only of the time interval between shackling and

neck cutting, but also of the percentage of the animals which struggled.

The time from when the animals were shackled until neck cutting was

performed was 229.0 5.52 s. The percentage of animals that strug-gled was 100%, and this lasted 24.0 0.11 s after the animals were

shackled and hoisted.

3.2.2.2. Cutting procedure.The number of knife cuts performed during

neck cutting and the percentage of animals that struggled during this

phase were measured and it wasfound thatall animals received a single

cut.

3.2.2.3. From cut to death. It was found that 30 s after bleeding, all thean-

imals assessed were hypotonic.

3.2.3. Poultry slaughtered without stunning

In the abattoir assessed, animals were manually hoisted before neck

cutting. The blade length of the knife used was 13 cm. The operatorperforming the cut had received religious training. Religious practices

were supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).

3.2.3.1. From restraint to cut. Individual assessment wasmade for each of

the70 animals not only of the time interval between shackling and neck

cutting, but also of the percentage of the animals which apped their

wings and the duration of this behavior. The time from restraint to

neck cut was 26.2 1.39 s. 83% of birds apped their wings at some

stage between shackling and neck cutting and the duration was

6.1 0.57 s.

3.2.3.2. Cutting procedure.The number of cuts performed during neck

cutting was 1.0 0.00. The percentage of poultry struggling during

the bleeding was 7%.

Fig. 20.Poultry with stunning. Time interval from stun to neck cutting in relation to the

stunning method used.

Fig. 21.Poultry with stunning. Percentage of animals that bled well after neck cutting in

relation to the stunning method used.

Fig. 22.Poultry with stunning. Percentage of animals with rhythmic breathing after stun-

ning and after neck cutting in relation to the stunning method used.

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%B2http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%B1http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/image%20of%20Fig.%E0%B2%B0


9/10

3.2.3.3. From cut to death. After neck cutting, 100% of the animals

assessed apped their wings. The apping lasted 21.0 1.12 s after

cutting.

4. Discussion

Theresults of this surveyonly provide a selectivesnapshotof current

practice and do not constitute a complete representation of the Halal

and Shechita slaughter practice, as performed in the countries studied.Although monitoring involved only some aspects of the slaughter prac-

tices at each site and the number of animals assessed at each slaughter

plant was not representative of the situation in each given country,

this is the rst attempt to describe the practices for religious slaughter

in Europe. Taking into account the cited limitations, some important as-

pects of the slaughter were documented and possible interpretations

are presented.

4.1. Cattle slaughtered without stunning

The restraint to cut interval was very variable among the restraint

systems assessed. These differences among restraint systems could be

due to differences in animal handling, head restraint, design of the

restraining system, weight of the animal and the degree of applied re-

straint (Grandin, 1998). In all the restraint systems assessed, the ani-

mals struggled and vocalized. However, the highest levels of both

struggling and vocalization were observed when animals were turned

on their sides, compared to when they were restrained in the upright

position or turned on their backs. The restraint to cut interval was also

the highest in the rst case, so a correlation between both factors

could be expected. When the upright position and turned on their

backs are compared, it is found that in the case of the upright position,

the animals struggled more and in the case of being turned on their

backs, more animals vocalized. Struggling and vocalization are related

to pre-slaughter handling and the restraint system used in the slaugh-

terhouse (Grandin, 1998). Both behavior parameters indicate fear,

pain or stress during restraint (Gregory, 2004; von Holleben et al.,

2010). During neck cutting, the number of cuts was higher in animals

slaughtered in an upright position. This could be due to the variabilityamong the operators' capabilities for cutting with their hand rotated.

In contrast, animals turned 45 required the lowest number of cuts.

The percentage of animals assessed that bled well was the highest

when animals were turned on the sides or when they were turned

45, and it was the lowest when animals were slaughtered in the up-

right position. This is in line with the result showing that the time to

loss of posture or recumbent and hypotonic animal is shortest for ani-

mals restrained lying on their sides.

After neck cutting, animals with a higher number of cuts (turned on

their back and upright position) took more time to loss of posture or for

the animal to be recumbent and hypotonic. The quality of the cut is es-

sential for bleeding and quick loss of consciousness and signs of life

(Grandin, 1998).

4.2. Cattle slaughtered with stunning

The restraint to stun and the stun to cut intervals were variable

among restraint systems. These variationsdepended not only on the re-

straint system and the stunning systems used, but also on the operator

involved in the process. However, according to the spot visits carried

out in the present study, the lowest restraint to stun interval observed

was when animals were restrained in an upright position and the

highest when they were turned on their backs.The percentage of strug-

gling animals was higher with the turned on the back systemcompared

with the upright position or turned on their sides, which agrees with

Dunn (1990). In addition, struggling could also be related to the highest

restraint to stun interval registered in the case of animals turned on

their backs. The bleeding of the animals after neck cutting was different

between different restraint systems. For animals turned on their sides,a

higher percentage of animals that bled well was recorded, when com-

pared to animals restrained in the upright position or turned on their

backs, the latter showing the lowest percentage. Animals that received

a higher number of cuts during the neck cutting procedure had a better

bleeding, contrary to what was observed in cattle slaughtered without

stunning.

4.3. Sheep slaughtered without stunning

The restraint to neck cut interval was very different between the dif-

ferent restraint systems and was the highest recorded in those animals

that were hoisted before neck cutting and the lowest in those animals

manually restrained on their side. These intervals are related not only

to the restraint method used, but also to the operator performing the

cut. Poorly trained or incompetent operators involved in the neck cut-

ting process can increase the restraint to cut interval, thus negatively

inuencing animal welfare. Higher incidences of struggling were pres-

ent in the animals manually restrained on their sides than in those

hoisted before sticking. Struggling indicates fear, pain or stress during

restraint. The number of cuts performed during neck cutting ranged

from 1 to 2. The animals hoisted before neck cutting took longer to be-

come hypotonic after neck cutting, than the animals manually turned

on their sides.

4.4. Sheep slaughtered with stunning

The restraint to stun interval was not inuenced by the restraint

methods and the stunning system used in the abattoirs visited. The an-

imals slaughtered in theupright position struggled, whereas those man-

ually restrained on their sides did not. This could be due to the different

skill levels of the operators restraining the animals by hand or manually

restraining the animal and handling them by holding their legs. The re-

straint method had a direct effect onthe numberof knife cuts. The num-

ber of cuts was higher in animals restrained in the upright position than

in animals restrained manually on their sides. This could be related to

the fact that it is easier to cut the animal when it is on its side, rather

than when it is in an upright position. In all cases, the animals bledwell. All the animals showed an absence of rhythmic breathing after

stunning with both restraint methods assessed.

4.5. Poultry slaughtered without stunning

The time from restraint to cut was high, when compared to regular

slaughter, but poultry only apped their wings for a very short time at

some time between shackling and neck cutting, much shorter than in

the commercial plant where animals are stunned by a water bath.

Only one cut was performed during neck cutting and the percentage

of poultry showing excitation during bleeding was very low.

4.6. Poultry slaughtered with stunning

The stun to neck cut interval wasinuenced by the stunning system.

This interval was longer in poultry stunned with gas than in poultry

stunned in an electrical water bath. In both stunning systems, animals

bled well. However, the loss of consciousness was affected by the stun-

ning system. None of the animals stunned with gas showed rhythmic

breathing after stunning. However, 15% of the electrically stunned ani-

mals showed this reex at the moment of neck cutting and 5% of

them showed it 30 s later. Although the absence of rhythmic breathing

movements is not as acceptable a method of identifying loss of con-

sciousness in birds as in mammals (Anastasov & Wotton, 2012), the

high percentage of rhythmic breathing after electrical stunning indi-

cates that the settings of the stunning system or the interval between

the end of current ow and cut might have been suboptimal in the

assessed plants.



10/10

5. Conclusions. Ritual slaughter and animal welfare:

a possible conciliation?

The results and discussion from our research can be taken further. In

fact, everyone should manifest their own religion in ways that have the

minimum, negative impact possible on every other living being and,

more generally, on the human habitat. This duty persists even when,

by comparing the different principles involved, a specic manifestation

of religious faith is legally permitted.In ritual slaughtering, at a supercial level the key issue seems to be

the lack of animal stunning and the restraint techniques employed. The

legislation in all European Union member statesassumes thatan animal

will suffer less if made unconscious prior to slaughtering. The bioethical

principles of precaution and responsibility impose consideration of this

possibility.

There are three main points to take into account:

a) observations and research will strike a balance between religious

practices and the scientic minimization of animal suffering. In par-

ticular, it is appropriate to specify the notion of animal integrity in

every religion and to distinguish it from mere animal vigilance. In

fact, based on previous experiences in other European regions, it

may be possible to identify techniques that limit the state of animal

vigilance without causing any injury that may impair its integrity;

b) more research is developed on possible, religiously acceptable stun-

ning, as, in fact, appears to be happening already;

c) the legitimate, economic needs of abattoirs do not prejudice their

observance of the time and techniques required for a correct execu-

tion of slaughtering, and of ritual slaughtering in particular.

The need to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals, the need to ob-

serve basic health and hygiene rules and the need not to offend people's

feelings have led to a general rejection of spontaneous and uncontrolled

ritual slaughtering, performed in unauthorized abattoirs, without ade-

quate veterinary inspection.

The problems arising in countries where Muslim immigration is

more substantial call for an urgent setup of specic, ritual slaughtering

facilities to accommodate the numerous slaughtering at the time ofcertain religious festivities, e.g., slaughter houses could, as an exception,

remain open on those occasions. However, we must not forget that the

spontaneous, uncontrolled slaughtering of animals is not practiced

exclusively by the Muslim community. It is, in fact, performed on multi-

ple occasions on both religious and secular grounds. This is why any

observation on ritual slaughtering should be the starting point for a

broader debate on a more responsible relationship between humans

and animals. The issue of the higher economic costs for consumers

implied by a correct, bioethical approach of this relationship needs to

be addressed. It is the entire legislation and especially its enforcement

on animal farming for slaughter purposes which raise doubts, requiring

structural interventions to actually respect the aforementioned ethicsof

care. In fact, theconditions which arean increasing partof the industrial

production process and under which these animals are forced to live as

they mature, theway they are taken to the slaughter house and theway

slaughtering is performed are often less than ideal in terms of respect

shown to animals.

Acknowledgments

This research was supportedby a grant from the EU:EC funded pro-

ject No.: FP6-2005-FOOD-4-C Religious slaughter, improving knowl-

edge and expertise through dialogue and debate on issues of welfare,

legislation and socio-economic aspects (acronym: DIALREL). The

authors express their sincere appreciation to members of Polyglot,

Perugia, Italy, for carefully reading and commenting on the manuscript.

References

Anastasov, M. I., & Wotton, S. B. (2012).Survey of the incidence of post stun behaviouralreexesin electrically stunned broilers in commercial conditions and the relationshipof their incidence with the applied water bath electrical parameters. Animal Welfare,

22(2), 247256.Anil, M. H. (2012). Effects of slaughter method on carcass and meat characteristics in the

meat of cattle and sheep. (In (Vol. 2013)).Anonymous (1993). Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of

slaughter or killing.European Community Ofcial Journal,340, 2134.Anonymous (2009).Regolamento (CE) N. 1099/2009 del Consiglio del 24 settembre 2009

relativoalla protezionedegli animalidurante l'abbattimento.Gazzettaufciale dell'unioneeuropea L 303 del 18 novembre 2009 (Vol. 1099/2009).

Bruce, N., Pope, D., & Stanistreet, D. (2008). Quantitative methods for health research: apractical interactive guide to epidemiology and statistics.Wiley.

Cenci-Goga, B. T., Mattiacci,C., De Angelis, G., Marini, P., Cuccurese, A., Rossi,R., & Catanese,B. (2010). Religious slaughter in Italy. Veterinary research communications,34(Suppl. 1),S139S143.

Cenci-Goga, B. T., Sechi, P., Cuccurese, A., Poeta, A., De Angelis, G., Marini, P., Mattiacci, C.,Rossi, R., Pezzato, R., Salamano, G., & Santori,P. (2013). Religious slaughter: data fromsurveys and spot-check visits in Italy and animal welfare issues.Society and Animals,

21(5) (000-000).Dunn, C. S. (1990). Stress reactions of cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two

methods of restraint.Veterinary Record,126, 522

525.Grandin, T. (1998). Solving livestock handling problems in slaughter plants. In N. G.

Gregory (Ed.),Animal welfare and meat science (pp. 4263). Wallingford, O xon (UK):CAB Int.

Gregory, N. G. (2004). Physiology and behaviour of animal suffering. Oxford: BlackwellPublishing.

Macintire, D. K., Drobatz, K. J., Haskins, S.C., & Saxon, W. D. (2012). Manual of small animalemergency and critical care medicine. UK: Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.

von Holleben, K. V., Wenzlawowicz, M. V., Gregory, N., Anil, M. H., Velarde, A., Rodriguez, P.,Cenci-Goga, B. T., Catanese, B., & Lambooi, J. B. (2010). Report on good and adversepractices. Animal welfare concerns in relation to slaughterpractices fromthe viewpointof veterinary sciences.Dialrel Deliverable n. 1.3. Cardiff University.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(13)00340-9/rf0005

Documents

Religious Slauhter_evaluation of Current Practices in Sellected Countries