Advances in The Industrial Production of Halal and Kosher Red Meat

Meat Science 95 (2013) 805820
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
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
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 February 2013
Received in revised form 1 April 2013
Accepted 1 April 2013
Keywords:
Halal
Kosher
Red meat
Pre-slaughter stunning
Animal welfare
a b s t r a c t
The worldwide volume and value of trade in halal and kosher meat and co-products are huge. Muslim countries alone consumed meat estimated to be worth USD 57.2 billion in 2008. The halal and kosher principles
that govern the production of red meat have many similarities, as well as some fundamental differences. Perhaps the most signicant difference is that at the time of slaughter, the animal needs only to be alive to meet
the minimum halal requirement, but must be both alive and conscious for kosher. It is for this reason that
reversible pre-slaughter stunning is acceptable only for halal meat, although a compromise form of postslaughter stunning is now considered kosher in some countries. Extensive research on animal physiology
and welfare has characterised and optimised the methods for stunning livestock, and enabled advancement
in associated technologies. This forms the basis for harmonising the religious and secular requirements for
the protection of animal welfare at slaughter. These technologies and the associated processing practices
for the industrial production of halal and kosher meat are reviewed in this paper.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Denitions and importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Development of halal and kosher meat markets . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.
Halal and kosher red meat production and quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
Pre-slaughter animal restraints for halal and kosher meat production . .
3.2.
Pre-slaughter stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1.
Mechanical stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2.
Electrical stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.
Post-slaughter/post-cut stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.
Halal and kosher slaughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.1.
Post-slaughter processes relevant to halal red meat production
3.4.2.
Post-shechita processes relevant to kosher red meat production
3.5.
Effect of halal and kosher slaughter on meat quality . . . . . . . . . .
3.6.
Debate surrounding stunning and ritual slaughter without stunning . .
3.7.
Regulating halal and kosher meat production . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.1.
New Zealand halal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.
Halal and kosher meat accreditation, certication and authentication . . . . .
5.
Future pre-slaughter technologies for the ritual slaughter of red meat animals .
5.1.
High frequency head-to-body pre-slaughter stunning . . . . . . . . .
5.2.
Interferential current stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.
Transcranial magnetic stunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.
Local or general anaesthesia with natural agents . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.
Pre-slaughter stunning monitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tel.: +64 7 838 5260.

E-mail address: mustafa.farouk@agresearch.co.nz.
0309-1740/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.028
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
806
806
806
807
807
807
807
808
810
811
811
812
812
812
813
813
813
815
815
816
816
816
818
818
818
806
M.M. Farouk / Meat Science 95 (2013) 805820
1. Introduction
There are many slaughter methods that religions and cultures
demand/obligate around the world. The two that are commercially
relevant are the halal and kosher methods of slaughter practiced by
Muslims and Jews respectively. The global trade in red meat and
co-products from animals slaughtered using these two methods is
substantial and growing (EI, 2010; Mintel, 2009; Sunkar, 2008). For
this reason, technologies have been developed over the years to
support the commercial production of halal and kosher red meats,
and regulatory and certifying bodies have sprung up to ensure compliance 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 production is the slaughter of animals without stunning. This method of
slaughter is endorsed by the OIE, European Community, and many
other countries yet it remains extremely controversial from an animal
welfare standpoint (Grandin, 2010). The purpose of pre-slaughter
stunning of livestock is to ensure that animals are insensible to pain
before the act of slaughter. Research has dened the principles that
underpin effective stunning of livestock, and the results of this work
underpin regulations for the protection of animal welfare at slaughter
(Farouk, Daly, Collinson, & Simmons, 2004). Although this legislation
varies from country to country, these differences tend to be minor
and they largely reect historical adaptation to local commercial
procedures. Advances have also been made in the development of
non-invasive methods of reducing pain. Whether or not some of
those nd use in halal and kosher slaughter in the future remain to
be seen.
The debate regarding the welfare aspect of slaughter without stunning goes on. Zivotofsky and Strous (2012) summed up the feelings of
all parties when they wrote the quest should continue to ensure that
the process of animal slaughter is as humane as possible for the sake
of animal welfare.
This paper reviews the relevant aspects of halal and kosher red
meat production.
2. Denitions and importance
Comprehensive reviews of halal and kosher dietary laws can be
found in Al-Qaradawi (1960), Regenstein, Chaudry, and Regenstein
(2003), and Kamali (2008a, 2008b, 2008c).
According to Regenstein et al. (2003) the halal dietary laws determine which foods are lawful or permitted for Muslims and kosher
(kashrus) dietary laws determine which foods are t or proper for
consumption by Jewish consumers who observe these laws.
According to Hussaini and Sakr (1983), halal is an Arabic
word meaning allowed or lawful. The prohibited, forbidden or
unlawful is termed haram. In between halal and Haram are Makrooh
(religiously discouraged or detested) and mashbooh (suspected or
doubtful). Other terms often used include mubah (neutral or indifferent,
Aziz, 1989) and dhabiha (animals slaughtered according to Islamic
dictates). These categories of lawful and prohibited are derived from
Islamic law based on the Holy Qur'an (revealed word of God) and the
teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) compiled and
authenticated in books known as Hadith. Among the central principles
used in determining the permissibility and prohibition of foods in
Islam is the belief that God alone has the right to determine what is
halal and haram; and that good intentions do not make the haram
halal (Al-Qaradawi, 1960).
The kosher dietary laws are based on commandments found in the
Torah which has been interpreted and rened by the Jewish religious
leaders known as rabbis; this system of Jewish law is referred to as
halacha. In these laws food are categorised into four: meat (eishig);
dairy (michig); neutral (pareve); and unacceptable (traif) (Regenstein
& Regenstein, 1991).
The lists of red meat animals that are acceptable for halal and
kosher 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 between
1.6 and 1.8 billion and growing forecasted to represent 27% of the
global population by 2030. Coupled to this is the growing economic
development and disposable income in Muslim countries. These two
factors are the major drivers of halal growth, and potentially the
reasons 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 halal
food and beverage trade is estimated to be approximately USD
1.4 trillion dollars annually. The opportunities that this halal brand
represents are the reason for global food giants as well as small to
midsize companies becoming involved in the manufacturing and
marketing of their products to Muslims worldwide (EI, 2010).
The global Jewish population reached 13.75 million in 2011, with
about 43% of this number living in Israel (Silverman, 2012). In the
USA, home to the second largest population of Jews outside Israel,
the market for kosher food is strong and growing with sales of kosher
foods totalled USD 12.5 billion in 2008 (Mintel, 2009). Regenstein
et al. (2003) reported that in 2001 about USD 165 billion worth of
products have kosher markings on them.
The value of red meat and co-products imported in 2011 into
countries and regions with sizeable population of Muslims and Jews
are shown in Table 1. Sunkar (2008) reported that in 2008, Muslim
countries consumed meat worth USD 57.2 billion with trade in
meat to and from those countries worth USD 7.0 billion. It is very
difcult to estimate the volume and value of halal and kosher meat
traded and consumed around the globe because these meats are not
consumed for religious reasons alone. A recent survey of consumers
by Mintel (2009) found the number one reason people buy kosher
was for food quality (62%); followed by general healthfulness (51%);
third was food safety (34%); and just 14% of respondents purchased
kosher food because they follow kosher religious rules.
The proportion in value of halal and kosher meat traded could
be determined by comparing the value of red meat imports into
UAE and Israel. The World Bank estimated the population of Israel
and UAE to be 7,765,700 and 7,890,924 respectively (Table 2). Only
red meat certied kosher is allowed into Israel and only halal meat
Table 1
Value (USD 1000) of imported halal and kosher red meat and co-products of some
selected countries/regions in 2011.
Importing country/region &
products
Red meat category

Chilled
beef
Frozen
beef
Lamb and Edible

chevon
offal
Halal red meat & co-products

Indonesia
Maghreb
Malaysia
Middle East
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
14,368
57,470
15,435
974,727
63,584
116,900
219,898
183,766
373,661
2,816,453
323,356
176,331
6555
5436
97,047
823,448
233,735
212,909
Kosher red meat and co-products

Israel
World total red meat import
No import 453,546
7898
9025
20,416,452 15,997,636 6,196,566 6,574,085
87,161
3177
38,268
233,193
29,485
10,256
Source: Market Analysis Research, International Trade Centre (ITC) Geneva Switzerland
(http://www.trademap.org/tradestat/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx). Accessed 02
Jan 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.
807
Table 2
Major exporting countries in value of Halal and Kosher red meat and co-products to UAE and Israel respectively.
Halal
Fresh/chilled beef
Australia
Brazil
India
USA
New Zealand
Pakistan
China
South Africa
Netherlands
Kenya
Kosher
Frozen beef
India
Brazil
Australia
Paraguay
South Africa
New Zealand
Netherlands
China
Germany
Kenya
Lamb and chevon

Australia
India
Ethiopia
Pakistan
New Zealand
Somalia
Brazil
China
USA
Kenya
Edible offal
Australia
Brazil
Netherlands
Paraguay
Djibouti
USA
Belgium
Spain
Germany
UK
Frozen beef
Argentina
Uruguay
Brazil
Paraguay
Poland
Panama
China
UK
Australia
USA
Lamb and chevon

France
Chile
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Uruguay
Edible offal
Argentina
Brazil
Uruguay
Paraguay
Netherlands
Panama
China
Poland
UK
France
Source: Market Analysis Research, International Trade Centre (ITC) Geneva Switzerland (http://www.trademap.org/tradestat/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx). Accessed 02
Jan 2013.
could be imported into UAE. The value of red meat and edible offals
imported into Israel in 2011 was USD 471 million and in the same
year UAE import of the same commodity was worth USD 516 million.
This suggests that when population is kept constant, the consumptions of halal meat and kosher are comparable.
Halal and kosher meats are important to the economy of many
countries. The list of the 10 top countries exporting meat to UAE and
Israel gives an indication of the major suppliers of halal and kosher
red 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 slaughtered must be restrained using an appropriate
equipment so as to spare them any avoidable pain, agitation, injury or
contusions (Lambooij, van der Werf, Reimert, & Hindle, 2012). There
are a number of ways animals destined for halal and kosher slaughters
are restrained prior to stunning and/or slaughter. Gregory (2005)
identied six methods that have been used to restrain animals over
the years including casting with a rope, hoisting by a hindleg, restraint
in a straddled conveyor or restraining (V-shaped) conveyor, half
inversion in a rotary pen, full inversion in a rotary pen, and restraint
whilst standing upright. The two rotary pens most commonly used
are the Facomia and Weinberg pens which can be rotated to different
angles; the issues surrounding the use of these methods of restraint
have 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 stress
in animals to be slaughtered, the restraint devices should be non-slip, should possess pressure limiting devices, moving parts should
move 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 Facomia
pen were conditionally acceptable and those without adjustable
sides like the Weinberg pens were not acceptable; and leg clamping
rotating pens or shackling and hoisting and suspension by the legs as
serious problems that should never be used for conscious animals.
Velarde et al. (2010) in a DIALREL report provided further details on
restraining methods to improve the welfare of red meat animals during
ritual slaughter.
The design information and the drawings of the upright restraint
equipment 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: most
animals which are slaughtered for human consumption are killed by
cutting the major blood vessels in the neck or thorax so that rapid
blood loss occurs. If not stunned, the animal becomes unconscious
only after a certain degree of blood loss has occurred. The time between
cutting through the major blood vessels and insensibility, as deduced
from behavioural and brain response, is up to 20 s in sheep and up to
2 min in cattle. The animals which are slaughtered have systems for
detecting and feeling pain and, as a result of the cut and the blood
loss, if not stunned, they will experience pain, fear, panic and other
adverse effects such as the inhalation of blood because of bleeding into
the trachea.
A number of methods of stunning before slaughter are used in the
meat industry. For the purpose of this review only the mechanical and
electrical methods of stunning will be discussed due to their relevance in the pre-slaughter stunning of large animals for industrial
halal red meat production.
3.2.1. Mechanical stunning
According to Blackmore and Delaney (1988), mechanical stunning
of animals for slaughter is achieved by using Penetrative Captive Bolt
or Non-penetrative Percussion Stunning. The basic principles are the
same and involve the transference of kinetic energy from a moving
object to the brain, which results in neuronal dysfunction and/or
destruction, and subsequent insensibility. Early work on mechanical
stunning found that captive bolt stunning of domestic animals, except very large bulls is humane, provided the captive bolt penetrates
the 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 position
at the point where imaginary lines from the eye to horn cross
(Lambooij, 1981), and in hornless sheep at the highest point of
the head when held horizontally and aimed towards the throat; for
horned sheep, the site is just behind the ridge that runs between
the horns and aimed towards the throat (Blackmore & Delaney,
1988). The opinion of the Scientic Panel on Animal Health and
Welfare adopted in 2004 (EFSA, 2004) regarding the mechanical
stunning of cattle and sheep stated the following: (1) penetrative
captive bolt stunning has several animal welfare advantages over
non-penetrating captive bolt stunning (success rate, duration of
unconsciousness) and, if properly used, results in an effective stun,
though eld observations indicate 4% of stuns can be improper,
often due to insufcient head restraint, poor or misapplied position,
inadequate maintenance of the gun or bad quality of cartridges;
(2) compared with penetrative stunning, percussion stunning requires greater accuracy, control of recoil and contact of the pistol
with the head. Head restraint is necessary to ensure consistently
effective stunning; (3) percussion (mushroom) stunning will frequently produce intracranial haemorrhage, cracked skulls and can
release brain tissue. A method of consistently producing an effective
stun using the percussion method without causing skull damage has
808
not been developed; and (5) penetrative captive bolt is recommended

for use for cattle, calves and sheep. The non-penetrating captive bolt
stunning method is unreliable in sheep and calves and should only be
used in adult cattle.
3.2.1.1. Mechanical stunning and halal requirements. Because one of
the basic requirements for halal slaughter is that the animal has
to be slaughtered alive, Penetrative (captive bolt) stunning is unacceptable because the animal will not make a complete recovery if
the stunning is not followed by a slaughter. Gregory (2007) reported
that concussion such as caused by captive bolt stunning is one of
the most effective ways of disrupting brain function and stunning
an animal; it is instantaneous and can be permanent, as evidenced
by the use of evoked potentials electrical potentials in the brain
that occur in response to an external stimulus. Animals that are correctly stunned using captive bolt lost their evoked potentials immediately and they do not return.
With non-penetrative captive bolt (percussion or mushroom
stunning), the percussion-bolt has a blunt end which looks like a
mushroom, designed to concuss without penetrating the brain.
This stun is essentially similar in its effect to the use of penetrative
captive bolt stunning (Gregory, 2007). EFSA (2004) discouraged
the use of mushroom stunning in the slaughter of cattle because
of the doubts it had of its effectiveness and the attendant welfare
issues. The new European Community Council Regulation (EC No.
1099/2009) that came into effect in January 2013 prohibits the use of
non-penetrating captive bolts except in stunning animals b 10 kg.
Anil, Love, Helps, and Harbour (2002) compared penetrating captive
bolt, non-penetrating captive bolt and electrical stunning of cattle and
sheep and found that there was a risk of haematogenous dissemination
of central nervous system tissue with the use of pneumatically- or
cartridge-operated penetrating captive bolt. The dissemination of central nervous system tissue poses a threat to public health in relation
to possible slaughter of animals with preclinical BSE (Anil et al., 2002).
It is known that captive bolt stunning can result in brain material
passing to the lungs via the jugular veins. If future studies show that
BSE prions pass beyond the lungs to the edible carcass, there will be a
move away from captive bolt stunning in large cattle towards electrical
stunning (Gregory, 2005). Eight years since Gregory (2005) made that
observation, captive bolt stunning is still in use in the production of
red meat in spite of the fact that it can lead to cross-contamination of
edible meat with BSE specied risk material (SRM) (Pitardi et al., 2013).
In spite of all the welfare concerns regarding the use of mushroom
stunning, the procedure is accepted for stunning cattle before slaughter by some Islamic organizations (Gregory, 2007).
It is clear that there is a lot of doubt as to the acceptability of
pre-slaughter mechanical stunning in the production of halal meat.
The doubt is much stronger in the use of penetrative captive bolt compared to mushroom stunning. Because Muslims have been advised to
avoid what is doubtful and do what is not, the use of mechanical stunning should be avoided in halal slaughter (Farouk, Sahib, Lennon, &
Daly, 2006).
3.2.2. Electrical stunning
Electrical 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 also
humane from the stand point of animal welfare (Daly & Simmons,
1994). The objective of electrical stunning is to pass sufcient current
through the brain to depolarise neurons which subsequently develop
uncoordinated activity; during this period animals are insensible
(Blackmore & Delaney, 1988). The stunning can be reversible or irreversible by inducing cardiac arrest (Gilbert, 1993; Grandin, 2003). Electrical stunning results in unconsciousness by producing an epileptic
seizure 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 re collectively

in a synchronised pattern (hypersynchronous activity). This is a very
simplied pattern of activity and is unable to allow even the most
basic reexes to function. Complex activity associated with consciousness or sensibility is necessarily absent during this phase. The tonic
phase of physical activity, where the animal is in a rigid, contracted
state with minimal movement, is the initial state at the start of
phase 1. Typically, clonic activity also develops during phase 1, and
involves jerky, kicking movements of the limbs. Reex activity, such
as breathing, pupillary (contraction of the pupils in response to light)
or corneal (blink response to touching the cornea of the eye) is absent
during this phase; (2) phase 2 suppressed brain activity. Phase 1
ends spontaneously and is followed by a period when brain activity is
suppressed; instead of exaggerated activity (which causes the t),
the activity of brain cells are reduced. This happens because chemicals
(neurotransmitters) are released in the brain that dampens down the
seizure state, but this braking system continues to suppress the return
of normal function, and recovery of consciousness is delayed. Clonic
activity can continue into phase 2, but usually the movements subside
and, more commonly, paddling or running movements are seen.
Breathing begins very soon after the start of phase 2 and, gradually,
other reexes become evident. Responses to painful stimuli are not elicited, and overt signs of consciousness, such as coordinated movements
or attempts to rise, are not seen; and (3) phase 3 recovery phase. In
time, normal activity gradually returns and consciousness recovers,
unless this is prevented by bleeding. Typically, the duration of insensibility following an electrical stun is around 60 s, but this can be as
short as 40 s. Phases 1 and 2 are usually of comparable lengths.
3.2.2.1. Electrical stunning parameters. There are a number of electrical
parameters being used around the world to achieve a successful stun.
Some of these are summarised in Table 3. The effectiveness of electrical stunning can be assessed in one of two ways: rst, by the physical
behaviour of the stunned animal through to the time it bleeds
out, and second, by testing the efciency of the electrical stunning
equipment (Gilbert, 1993). According to Gregory (2007), the rst
is to inspect the equipment and make sure that it is delivering the
recommended current for the species and that the electrodes are
being applied at the appropriate position, and the second, is to observe the behaviour of the animal. A common method of assessing
the effectiveness of a stun is the presence of a corneal reex, which
indicates whether the brainstem is responsive (Gregory, 2007).
Properly stunned animals should not display signs of brain stem
activity or sensibility on the bleed rail, such as rhythmic breathing, vocalizations, eye reexes in response to touch, eye blinking and arched
back righting reex with the head bent straight back (Grandin, 2005).
Successful electrical stunning of cattle and sheep can be audited by
scoring a minimum of 100 animals in large plants and 50 in small
plants or an hour of production in very small plants and assigned the
following ratings (Grandin, 2005): (a) Excellent 99.5100% correct
placement of stunning wand or tongs and no vocalization due to energizing the electrode before it is rmly positioned; (b) Acceptable
99.499% correct placement and 1% or less of the animals vocalize in
response to electrode placement; (c) Not acceptable 9896% correct
placement and 23% of the animals vocalize due to energizing
the electrodes before they are rmly positioned; and (d) Serious
problem less than 96% correct placement or more than 4% vocalization in response to electrode placement.
3.2.2.2. Electrical stunning and halal requirements. The two types of
electrical stunning: head-only and head-to-body (head-to back, headto-forelegs and split current), differ in their effect on the stunned animal. Head-only electrical stunning causes the animal to be unconscious
and insensible to pain, yet the animal can fully recover if the slaughter
cut is not made; the head-to-body stunning when correctly applied
stops the animal's heart resulting in death. Immediately following a
809
Table 3
Electrical 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)
Lambs
0.7
0.70.9
0.50.9
0.50.9
0.71.0
0.8
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.25
1.1
0.46
1.5
1.28
1.01.5
0.71.2
0.71.2
0.91.5
0.51.5
0.71.2
1.12.5
0.461.15
1.53.5
2.03.5
2.53.5
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
b1.0
10.0
1.0
Goat
Sheep
Calves
Cattle
Buffalo
Durations range (s)

0.81.5
2.03.0
0.83.0
2.03.0
1.04.0
1.020.0
2.03.0
1.03.0
1.04.0
1.03.0
1.14.0
b1.03.0
2.04.0
2.55.0
3.04.0
Voltage (Ohms)
Reference
300400
250
Gilbert (1993)
Velarde, Gispert, Diestre, and Manteca (2003)
MS 1500:2009
MUI HAS 23103 (2012)
MS 1500:2009;
MUI HAS 23103 (2012)
Gilbert (1993)
Cook et al. (1995)
Anil et al. (2004)
SPAHW (2004)
MS 1500:2009
MUI HAS 23103 (2012)
Gilbert (1993)
SPAHW, 2004
MS 1500:2009
MUI HAS 23103 (2012)
Gilbert (1993)
Wotton et al. (2000)
nen and Kaya (2004)
SPAHW (2004)
MS 1500:2009
MUI HAS 23103 (2012)
MS 1500:2009; MUI HAS 23103 (2012)
300400
400
350
300400
200
300400
400
200
300310
MS = Malaysian Standards (http://www.standardsmalaysia.gov.my); MUI = Majelis Ulama Indonesia Standards.
head-only stun, noxious stimuli applied to the animal do not elicit

movement or autonomic responses. The animals return to normal behaviour within 2040 min, show no evidence of pain, and show no
aversion to returning to the stun situation (Cook, Devine & Blackmore,
1993). According to Gilbert (1993), the head-only electrical stunning
is accepted as humane to the animal, safe for the workers, virtuous
and halal by Muslims worldwide.
Electrical head-only stunning does not kill the animal, and it is
also not painful at the initiation stage and during the stun period.
Leach, Warrington, and Wotton (1980) assessed the physiological response of sheep to electrical stunning in order to determine whether
it is painful to the sheep. The authors concluded that the initiation of
electrical stunning was not a painful experience for the sheep. When
head-only electrical stunning is combined with halal throat cut, a
strong synergy in terms of a rapid irreversible loss of consciousness
and cell death is obtained (Cook, Maasland, Devine, & Gilbert, 1996).
Cook, Maasland, Devine, and Gilbert (1993) explained why
post-stun processes are painless to stunned animals: the goal of a
humane stunning system must be to assure that an animal, prior to
slaughter, is unconscious and analgesic to subsequent slaughter. It
is more important that an animal following stunning cannot form a
coherent mental construct of its external world (a requirement that
seems necessary for perception of pain or anxiety). Neurophysiologically this type of construct appears dependent upon the simultaneous, cooperative activity of many millions of neurons spread
diffusely through the brain. Normal brain function, including consciousness, depends on electrical signals travelling along neurons
(the cells of the brain). For individual neurons to communicate with
each other, the electrical signal triggers the controlled release of one
of several chemicals, called neurotransmitters, at nerve endings.
Once released, neurotransmitters bind onto specialised sites, called
receptors, on the surface of other neurons, thus communicating a
message from one neurone to the other. Following a head-only stun,
the magnitude and the frequency of the brain's electrical signals
increase greatly and the EEG pattern seen is analogous to the type
of recordings seen in humans during Grand Mal epileptic seizures.
In all breeds of cattle and sheep studied, the period of epilepsy
lasted between 19 and 68 s after a stun (Cook, 1992). Electrical stunning also affects brain function by changing the release of several of
the brain's neurotransmitters. Immediately after a stun, the release,
and therefore the action, of two neurotransmitters, glutamate and aspartate, are greatly increased. These two neurotransmitters are important contributors to normal brain functions of arousal, learning,
memory, sexual activity and respiration. However, at the very high
levels released in response to an electrical stun, the result is an
overexcitation of the brain's neurons, a state which produces
an epileptic-like seizure. If, prior to head-only electrical stunning, a
drug is given to the animal to block receptors on the neurons from
binding glutamate and aspartate, then an epileptic-like seizure is
not seen following the stun and the animal remains conscious. This
observation conrms that the neurotransmitters glutamate and
aspartate are responsible for the epileptic-like seizure that follows
successful stunning. A second important physiological change also
follows a head-only electrical stun. If the animal is allowed to recover,
a period of analgesia (decreased perception of pain) exists, as
evidenced by a lack of response to such stimuli as an ear pinch or
foot 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 bringing
about the post-stun analgesia is different to that responsible for the
epileptic-like seizure. A third neurotransmitter that increases markedly after electrical head-only stunning, is gamma-amino-4-butyric
acid (GABA). This neurotransmitter appears to be responsible for
this period of analgesia. The time prole of the GABA release is of
longer duration than that of glutamate and aspartate, and mirrors
the period of observed analgesia (Cook, 1992). Pretreatment with
drugs that antagonise at GABA receptors reduce and abolish post-stun
analgesia in a dose dependent manner (Cook, Maasland, et al., 1993a).
Gregory and Wotton (1988) found that there was a period after
electrical stunning when sheep did not respond to potentially painful
stimuli. The stimuli that were used were electrical stimulation of the
tooth and manual pinching of the ear. Responsiveness was assessed
in terms of either the averaged evoked cortical response or as a behavioural response. The period of insensibility to pain outlasted the
period of insensibility to other sensory modalities, such as those provoked by a light smack on the snout and threatening gestures made
immediately in front of the animal. In other words there was a stage
following electrical stunning when the animal was in a state of analgesia and cannot feel pain.
810
There is enough evidence to conclude that head-only electrical

stunning does not kill the animal before the animal is slaughtered
and the procedure is painless to the animal both at its initiation and
whilst the animal is unconscious before slaughter. Therefore, it is
the opinion of this author that pre-slaughter stunning using headonly electrical stunning is an acceptable method to meet the requirements of industrial processing of halal meat.
3.2.2.3. Electrical stunning equipment/systems. Research in the 1980s at
the Meat Industry Research Institute of New Zealand (MIRINZ) now
AgResearch Ltd. led to the development of a number of slaughter and
dressing equipments including the automatic reversible head-only
electric stunner suitable for the pre-stunning of animals to meet the
halal requirements (Longdell, 1994). This equipment was subsequently
further developed by Jarvis Equipment (N.Z.) Ltd. and became the Jarvis
Electric Beef and Sheep Stunners (Fig. 1) currently being used widely
in 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 Cradle
Immobilizer for halal pre-slaughter stunning and immobilization is
summarised as follows (slight variations may be found depending
on 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 indication
of stun current.
5. When the stun is complete, the nose electrode retracts and the
chin lifter returns to its home position. The Operator then releases
the head restraint which then retracts enabling the exit doors to
open 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 ow from the xed electrodes through the animal's body
to the head bars.
8. After the preset time (usually about 20 s) the immobilizer switches
off. Sticking, rodding and weasand tying can be carried out at this
time on the cradle.
9. The animal is then hoisted, and the wash cycle is started.
The Jarvis sequence described the traditional head-only stun system
which applies an alternating sinusoidal waveform with varying voltages
(350550 V) to deliver constant pre-set current, usually 12 amps. The
frequency with which the current alternates is 50 cycles per second or
50 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 in
terms of animal welfare compared to no stunning at all and is
being recommended for use immediately following halal and kosher
slaughter (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 to
90, 120 and 180 followed by slaughter with or without stunning and
found that the welfare of the calves were compromised by rotating the
restrainer prior to slaughter and recommended the use of post-cut
Fig. 1. Shows the Jarvis MS105 used for manual stunning of sheep and bobby calves (A); The Jarvis Model 1 Handpiece (B) and in operation (C); Jarvis Automatic Lamb Electric
Stunner (D) and top view of a Jarvis Automatic Electric Beef Stunner (E).
captive bolt stunning to lessen the stress on animals slaughtered in rotating restrainers. The Swedish Animal Welfare Agency (2007) concludes
the following with regard to the use of post-cut stunning on cattle: (1)
it is possible to handle animals acceptably in an upright restraint pen
prior to slaughter with post-cut stunning; rotating Weinberg pen is not
an acceptable restraint for the procedure, and (2) post-cut stunning
should only be considered in conjunction with efcient stunning immediately following the cut. Velarde et al. (2010) recommended that
post-cut stunning should be performed immediately and at least 5 s
after the neck cut, without further manipulation of the animal between
the cut and the stunning application.
3.4. Halal and kosher slaughter
There are many similarities in the principles and practice of halal
and kosher methods of slaughter. The halal/kosher cut or gash sticking
is done in order to remove the blood and to kill the animal being
slaughtered. The aim is to deect blood away from the brain to stop
the delivery of oxygen (Gregory, 2007). From the halal and kosher
perspective, the removal of owing blood is necessary because it is
considered an impurity that should not be consumed. Both slaughter
methods demand that the two jugular veins, windpipe/trachea and
throat or oesophagus be severed during slaughtering without decapitating the head during the process.
The basic requirements for the Halal slaughter of animals dened
by 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 America (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 the
death of the animal before it is slaughtered. Stunned animals, if
not slaughtered, must be able to make a full recovery; (2) Allah's
(God) name and glorication must be uttered by the slaughterer at
the time of the slaughter of each animal; (3) effort should be made
to slaughter the animal with one stroke using a very sharp knife;
(4) the slaughtering shall be carried out from the front side (towards
the chest) and not from behind (towards the back); (5) the head should
not be severed from the neck during slaughter; and (6) manipulating
the carcass such as skinning or cutting off the hocks is not allowed
to commence before the animal is completely dead.
The basic requirements for kosher slaughter were described by
Regenstein et al. (2003). Acceptable animals are slaughtered according
to Jewish law by a specially trained religious slaughterman (shochet)
using a special knife (chalef) that is extremely sharp with a very
straight blade at least twice the diameter of the neck of the animal to
be slaughtered. Prior to slaughter the shochet make a blessing asking
forgiveness for taking a life. The shochet checks the chalef before and
after the slaughter of each animal and the cut on the animal's neck
after each slaughter to make sure it was done correctly. Some of the
critical 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 sharpness of the blade cuts; the knife must not be burrowed but rather must
be exposed and visible from the beginning to the end of the cutting;
slaughter must be within the limits within which the knife may be
applied from the large ring in the windpipe to the top of the upper
lobe of the lung when it is inated, and corresponding to the length
of the pharynx; and the oesophagus or the trachea should not be torn
during the shechita incision. If any problem occurs with the knife or the
cut, the animal is rendered treife or not kosher (Regenstein et al., 2003).
3.4.1. Post-slaughter processes relevant to halal red meat production
The 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
811
contains electrodes which contact the animals' head behind the ears
and the tip of the nose; (2) the animal is stunned across the brain
with an electric current of 1.52.5 A, 400 V a.c. for 24 s; (3) the
animal is dropped onto a cradle or moving table and the halal cut
is performed as soon as practicable but usually within 1015 s of
stunning; (4) electro-immobilization electrodes contact the animal
between 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 to
time out (1530 s); (6) the weasand is located, clipped, the animal is
shackled and immobilization ceased; (7) the weasand is rodded and
the animal is thoracically stuck; and (8) normal dressing.
Two of these procedures are controversial from halal and animal
welfare perspective. Electro-immobilization has been disapproved for
its potential to mask improper pre-slaughter stunning (EFSA, 2004)
and thoracic stick came under a strong scrutiny by halal competent authorities in some importing countries.
3.4.1.1. Electro-immobilization. Intense physical activity tonic (rigid)
and clonic (kicking) in the carcass following electrical stunning can
be a problem for staff safety (Gregory, 2007). In order to keep the
animal still and to reduce convulsion, a second electric current is
sometimes applied after the halal cut is made and during bleeding
out. This procedure is mostly used for cattle. Electro-immobilization
is accomplished by attaching electrodes (nose to anus) and passing a
current (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 electroencephalographic studies that adult cattle rendered insensible by electrical
head-only stunning do not recover sensibility (dened as being
when EEG pattern is above 35 V or falls below 10 V for a period of
85 s) during the stun/throat-cut/immobilization operation. Sensibility
was interpreted using the denitions of Newhook and Blackmore
(1982b). Because animals die of exsanguinations rather than from
stunning or electro-immobilization, the procedure is virtuous when
used for halal slaughter (Devine, Gilbert, Tavener, & Day, 1985).
3.4.1.2. Thoracic stick. Thoracic stick is an incision with a knife through
the thoracic inlet directed towards the heart in order to severe the
brachiocephalic trunk (Leigh & Delany, 1987). The NZ industry has
been using thoracic sticking in both sheep and cattle since the advent
of head-only electrical stunning. The original reason for using the
procedure was the convenience of getting a faster loss of blood, and
therefore reducing the requirement for bleeding space. This remains
the most important reason for the thoracic stick in sheep where the
supply of blood to the brain is exclusively from the carotid arteries.
In cattle however, there is an alternative pathway: the vertebral
arteries, which arise from the braciocephalic trunk before the carotid
arteries, which can supply enough blood to the brain to maintain
some level of brain function even if the carotid arteries are severed.
In addition, the carotid arteries in cattle are prone to spasms at the
site of the cut particularly when a blunt knife is used (Anil, McKinstry,
Wotton, & Gregory, 1995), which restricts the outow of blood and
maintains systemic blood pressure (ballooning). The effect of these
two characteristics of cattle is that brain activity can be maintained for
up to 2 min after slaughter (Daly et al., 1986; Newhook & Blackmore,
1982a). Because brain insensibility due to an electrical stun only lasts
about 3040 s, there is a possibility that cattle will become conscious
before they die from loss of blood. Therefore, a thoracic stick is
employed to both severe the blood supply to the brain and produce
a very rapid loss of blood pressure to hasten the death of the animal
(Leigh & Delany, 1987).
Thoracic sticking for cattle involves the halal slaughterman cutting
the skin longitudinally on the neck to the brisket immediately after
the neck is cut; then, a knife is inserted into the thoracic cavity
at the base of the neck to cut the brachiocephalic trunk or, in smaller
animals, the knife can reach into the heart itself. Thoracic sticking is
812
currently executed at about 30 s after the halal cut was made. This
raises the following issues regarding the compliance of the procedure
with the requirements of halal slaughter: (1) is thoracic sticking
necessary? (2) Is the procedure happening too soon before the animal
is dead and could the procedure be the reason for the death of the
animal and not the halal cut? And (3) is the procedure painful to
the animal?
The need for thoracic stick in the slaughter of head-only electrically
stunned cattle has been explained. The main purpose of the procedure
is to quickly reduce the blood pressure in the slaughtered animal
in order to dispatch the animal as quickly as possible. The preferred
Islamic requirement to severe the common carotid arteries, jugular
veins and the trachea is in order to let as much blood as possible to
gush 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 reducing blood pressure in similar fashion to what the halal cut does, the
procedure is not done at the recommended site for slaughtering and
its purpose cannot be likened to that of a halal cut, 2) and if its purpose
is likened to that of a halal cut, then it is tantamount to a second
slaughter. These arguments are countered by: a) a method similar to
thoracic stick known as Nahr used in slaughtering camels and giraffes
by stabbing the animal in the throat, then cutting with the knife
down through to the upper part of the chest is an accepted method
of slaughter (Hussaini, 1993). A similar method of slaughter was recently observed by Gregory et al. (2012) in use for halal slaughter in
Indonesia, b) slaughtering an animal twice such as by a slaughterman
raising his hand before completing the slaughter and then returning to
the process to complete it, although not a preferred practice, does not
render the meat of the animal non-halal, and 3) by the time thoracic
stick is applied, a substantial amount of blood is lost from the animal
and the animal is technically dead.
Although there are no ofcial criteria of death formulated, diagnosis of death in domestic animals is almost exclusively based on the
cessation of the heart and respiratory activity, or that the animal
has been exsanguinated (Knudsen, 2005). With respect to slaughter
animals, the moment of death is less important than the moment
of insensibility, i.e., when the animal no longer responds to painful
stimuli (Knudsen, 2005; Newhook & Blackmore, 1982b). In order to
avoid the continuing philosophical and ethical problems of deciding
which criteria should be considered before an animal can be pronounced dead, Blackmore and Delaney (1988) dened technical
death of slaughter animals as irreversible insensibility due to cerebral
anoxia, usually due to severance of both common carotid arteries or the
vessels from which they arise. The authors (Blackmore & Delaney,
1988) reported that in sheep and lambs slaughtered by severing both
carotid arteries such as in halal cut, the animals can be considered
dead in less than 10 s (Newhook & Blackmore, 1982b). The beating
of the heart or the presence of clonic or other types of involuntary
movements due to muscle spasm caused by electrical stunning should
not be used as indicators of life in slaughtered animals.
Thoracic stick is not painful to the animal because at the time the
procedure is executed in properly stunned animals (~ 30 s after
slaughter), the stunned animal is already technically dead or unconscious and insensitive to pain. Even if the occlusion of the carotid
arteries had occurred and the animal regain consciousness from the
stun (~ 3040 s) by the time thoracic stick was executed, the animal
would have been in analgesic state which lasts for about 5 min after
the stun and thus cannot feel pain (Cook, 1992).
3.4.2. Post-shechita processes relevant to kosher red meat production
The relevant post-shechita steps in kosher red meat production
such as the proper removal of certain veins, arteries, prohibited
fats, 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 injuries
that would render the animal unhealthy before the slaughter. The
inspector checks certain organs, such as the lungs, for any scarring
which would render the animal treif (not kosher). Following the
inspection of organs, certain fats and organs, such as the kidneys,
intestines and sciatic nerves are removed in a process referred to as
porging.
Because blood is not permitted to be consumed, all large arteries
and veins are removed, as well as any bruised meat or coagulated
blood, then the meat is purged of all remaining blood through the
process of koshering. To further remove the prohibited blood, the
meat is soaked in water and salted within 72 h of slaughter. The
soaking is done for half an hour in cool water; thereafter, the salting is
done for 1 h with all surfaces covered with ample amounts of salt. The
salted meat is then rinsed three times and drained throughout and all
the blood being removed must ow away freely. The salt used for
koshering must be of a crystal size that is large enough that the crystals
will not dissolve within the hour and must be small enough to permit
complete 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 than
conventional industrial methods of slaughtering red meat animals,
however, some of the associated pre- and post-slaughter processes
may. The slow decline in blood pressure following a head-only stun
and a neck cut causes blood splash (ecchymosis) in cattle. These are
caused by burst blood vessels and produce obvious blood blisters,
up to about 1 cm in diameter, in a range of muscles and also the
heart, lungs and very occasionally the liver. Blood splash usually
means downgrading the affected muscles and this can be a major
cost (Gregory, 2005). The causes and mitigations of blood splash
were discussed by Gregory (2007).
nen and Kaya (2004) assessed the effect of three methods of
pre-slaughter stunning used for halal meat production no stunning,
head-only electrical stunning and percussive captive bolt stunning
on meat quality and found that percussive stunning improved the quality
of meat including pH, colour, waterholding capacity, and texture and consumer sensory acceptability compared to the other two pre-slaughter
stunning methods.
Hajmmer, Marsden, Crozier-Dodson, Basheer, and Higgins (1999)
reported that kosherisation of beef briskets reduced the APC, coliforms, Escherichia coli and salmonella counts on the samples compared to initial counts.
Koshered meat undergoes rapid colour change (to brown) with
the formation of objectionable odours during refrigeration (Holzer,
Berry, Campbell, Spanier, and Solomon, 2004). This rapid deterioration in colour can be reduced by the use of hydrodynamic pressure
treatment (Holzer et al., 2004).
3.6. Debate surrounding stunning and ritual slaughter without stunning
Ritual slaughter without stunning is allowed in many countries
and accepted by many organizations, yet it remains extremely controversial from an animal welfare point of view (Grandin, 2010).
According to Gregory (2005), the welfare issues during slaughter
without stunning include the stress of restraint, whether the cut is
painful, and whether the animals experience undue distress whilst
it is bleeding out such as the aspiration of blood into the lungs.
Grandin and Regenstein (1994) observed over 3000 cattle and
veal calves in three different U.S. kosher slaughter plants (the plants
had state of the art upright restraint systems). In all restraint systems,
the animals had little or no reaction to the throat cut. There was a
slight inch when the blade rst touched the throat, but this was
much 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 aware
that its throat has been cut.
Rosen (2004) reviewed a number of studies relating to behavioural
responses and assessment of pain following shechita and concluded
that shechita is a painless and humane method of animal slaughter because: (1) it is generally accepted that a functioning, conscious brain is
necessary for the perception of pain. Within the brain, the cerebral
cortex is essential for the perception of pain; (2) the shape and structure of the brain is maintained by the pressure of cerebrospinal uid
within the cerebral ventricles and by the gradient between the
relatively high pressure of the arterial blood owing into it and the
lower pressure in the veins draining it. Sudden change in these
pressures would have a devastating effect on the brain function;
(3) after shechita incision, blood loss is extremely rapid. This applies
not only to the blood that passes from the aorta, up the brachiocephalic
trunk to the carotid arteries, but also to the blood that runs through the
brachiocephalic trunk to the vertebral arteries; and (4) the fall in blood
pressure in the brain is greater than the fall anywhere else in the arterial
tree. This rapid and important fall in blood pressure causes loss of consciousness within a few seconds.
Grandin and Regenstein (1994) accepted that the details spelled
out in Jewish law concerning the design of the knife and the cutting
method if followed properly could prevent animal from reacting to
shechita cut. However, shochets and halal slaughtermen have been
observed using a dull knife or inappropriate knives causing suffering
and affecting the welfare of the slaughtered animal. Daly, Kalweit,
and Ellendorf (1988) compared brain function using visual and somatosensory evoked potentials in adult cattle after pre-slaughter
stunning using captive bolt and slaughter without stunning (Shechita)
and found that slaughter without stunning resulted in greater variability in the time to loss of evoked responses (20126 s) compared
to pre-slaughter stunned animals. Johnson, Gibson, Stafford, and
Mellor (2012) summarised the outcomes of a number of studies in
which the minimal anaesthesia model was used to determine the effect of slaughter of calves without stunning. The results demonstrated
that the act of slaughter by ventral-neck incision without stunning is
associated with pain in the period between the slaughter and subsequent loss of consciousness. A major animal welfare concern is that
of aspiration of blood into lungs whilst the animal is still conscious
following slaughter without stunning (Grandin, 2010). Gregory, von
Wenlawowicz, and von Holleben (2009) examined bovine respiratory
tracts for blood following shechita and halal slaughter without stunning
and captive bolt stunning with sticking and found that the non-stunned
animals continue to breathe during the early part of bleeding whilst the
stunned animals were not. The authors (Gregory et al., 2009) concluded
that animals that were slaughtered without stunning or do not lose consciousness rapidly whilst blood is present in their respiratory tract may
suffer airway irritation caused by the blood.
Another concern about slaughter without stunning is about the rate
at 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) examined
the time to physical collapse of 174 cattle following halal slaughter and
found that false aneurism in the cardiac and cephalic ends of the severed
carotid arteries were the major reasons for prolonged (60 s) consciousness of slaughtered animals. False aneurism can form as early as
7 s and on the average within 21 s following halal slaughter leading to
sustained consciousness due to failure to bleed out properly (Gregory
et al., 2012).
Zivotofsky and Strous (2012) used compelling arguments to challenge the widely accepted view that head-only electrical stunning is
good procedure for improving the welfare of animals during slaughter.
The authors likened the effect of electrical stunning to unmodied
human electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) rather than epilepsy and argued that electrically stunned animals may suffer some of the negative
aspects of ECT such as high incidence of fractures, muscle pain and
813
severe anxiety. They (Zivotofsky & Strous, 2012) further argued that
an animal that is mis-stunned or appropriately stunned but experiences
subconvulsive stimulation events that could occur under the best of
circumstances during electrical stunning may have its welfare
compromised more than the animal slaughtered without stunning.
3.7. Regulating halal and kosher meat production
The production and trade in halal and kosher red meat are affected
by regulations in both producing and importing countries. These
regulations vary between countries (Table 4). Legislations in many
producing countries are concerned mainly with how the competent
authorities ensure religious slaughter meets the minimum animal
welfare requirements and process hygiene leaving the other aspects
to third party regulators/certiers (Havinga, 2010; van der Spiegel
et al., 2012). Other countries such as Australia and New Zealand
issued notices to guide the preparation, identication, storage and
certication for the export of halal red meat and red meat products
(Table 4). The New Zealand halal model is currently considered the
best in the world (Anonymous, 2011). The New Zealand Ministry of
Primary Industries (MPI) which issued the notice and provides for
its oversight received the Halal Journal Award 2011 as the best halal
service provider (Anonymous, 2011). The Journal recognised New
Zealand is the rst non-Muslim country to develop a halal regulatory
framework passed on by the Food Safety Authority, to ensure that the
integrity of their halal supply chain is maintained.
3.7.1. New Zealand halal model
According to MIA (2012), New Zealand exports of red meat
and edible products to Muslim markets were worth NZ$425 million
in 2011. New Zealand exported 153,000 tonnes of halal certied
sheepmeat and beef in 2011. 90% of New Zealand's sheep and beef export slaughter premises are halal certied. Fig. 2 shows New Zealand
halal certied meat exports by volume for the year ended September
2011. The top 3 markets (Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia)
accounted for 51% of total halal certied meat exports. Whilst majority
of halal certied exports go to Muslim countries, there is a signicant
volume (29%) to other countries (Fig. 3).
The New Zealand Model (Fig. 4) was developed jointly by the meat
industry, halal certiers and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority,
now part of the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI). MPI as part
of the model has established a Halal Standards Advisory Council
consisting of practicing Muslim members who are experts in food
safety, Islamic knowledge and quality systems management and audit
to ensure New Zealand's animal products export systems stays at the
forefront of halal international best practice. The council which was
established under the Halal Notice provides MPI with advice on religious technical matters when creating standards for the production
and processing of halal products. In this model, importing halal markets
continue to determine which businesses can provide halal certication
for their particular market. MPI's role is to enforce halal standards required by these markets.
The New Zealand Halal Model has set a new benchmark for other
halal red meat exporting countries to emulate (Anonymous, 2011).
4. Halal and kosher meat accreditation, certication
and authentication
Excellent reviews of the issues surrounding kosher and halal red
meat accreditation, certication, auditing and authentication and the
supporting structures and processes such as laboratories and analyses
have been previously published (Havinga, 2010; Nakyinsige, Che
Man, & Sazili, 2012; Regenstein & Regenstein, 1991; van der Spiegel
et al., 2012).
Because of the rapid growth in the volume and value of trade in
meat and meat products from ritually slaughtered animals around
814
Table 4
Enabling 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.
European Communitya
(EC) No 1099/2009
GCC countriesb
GSO 993/1998
Indonesia
LLPOM MUI HAS 23103, 2012
Contains guidelines for the Preparation, Identication, Storage and Certication

for Export of Halal Red Meat and Red Meat Products. AQIS operational Guidelines
for the Welfare of Animals at Abattoirs and Slaughterhouses (1995) derogations
for a relevant meat inspection authority to approve slaughter without prior
stunning which could accommodate kosher slaughter.
Contain Council regulations/directives on the protection of animals at the time of
killing. It granted derogations from stunning in case of halal and kosher slaughter.
Meat imported from third countries should meet at least equivalent requirements
laid down in the directives.
Contain animal slaughtering requirements according to Islamic law. GSO 0000/2008
and GSO 0000/2008 are drafts general requirements for halal foods and accreditation
of halal food certication issuing bodies respectively. Halal certication required for
all red meat to GCC.
Contains guidelines of halal assurance system criteria on slaughterhouses.
Slaughterhouses must be approved by LLPOM MUI.
Kosher certication required for all red meat. Any food marked with the word
kosher shall also be marked with the name and location of the person certifying
the kashrut or the registered mark in Israel of the organization certifying the kashrut.
Israel
The Standards Institution of Israel (SII). http://www.sii.org.il/

14-he/SII.aspx. Imported meat must be licensed by Israel
Veterinary Services (IVS) and originate from a processing
plant that has been approved by the IVS.
Malaysia
MS 1500: 2009
http://www.standardsmalaysia.gov.my
New Zealand
Animal Products (Overseas Market Access Requirements for
Halal Assurances) Notice 2012. http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/
elibrary/industry/halal-notices/.
United Kingdom
The Slaughter of Animals Regulations 1990 and subsequent
amendments 1995 and 1999 (MAFF 1999).
United States of America USDA Humane Slaughter of Livestock Regulations
(9 C.F.R. 313.190).
Uruguay
GOU Law No. 18,471, 2009. http://docs.uruguay.justia.com/
nacionales/leyes/ley-18471-mar-27-2009.pdf
Contains guidelines for halal food production, preparation, handling and storage
for Malaysia. Slaughterhouses must be approved by JAKIM.
The notice was issued under section 167 of the Animal Products Act 1999. The notice
requires a control programme to be in place in New Zealand in relation to halal animal
products for export to specied markets.
Ritual slaughter without stunning is allowed in UK.
The relevant sections in the regulation deemed ritual slaughter in accordance with
the requirements of a religious faith as humane.
The framework created Honorary National Commission of Animal Welfare, to ensure
the standards of care, protection and respect towards animals are met. The Uruguayan
National Meat Institute designed an animal welfare certication programme focused
on 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 consumers
of these foods, a number of regulatory and certifying bodies have
sprung up in both producing and importing countries to ensure the
compliance 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 the
USA alone; and Riaz (2013) reported the number of halal certifying
bodies around the world to be 111 and growing. Although these
halal certifying/regulatory bodies differ in their standards for certication (See Fig. 5 for symbols of some halal certifying bodies around
the world from Abdul Latif, 2013), the differences tend to be minor
and largely reect variations in the way the preferred, but not the
obligatory practices laid down in Islamic religious texts are interpreted
(Anonymous, 2001; Farouk et al., 2006). The lack of a unied standard is not a major hurdle for halal red meat exporting countries
(Farouk, 2012), however, it confuses these exporters in that they have
to balance the need for commercial efciency, religious requirements
Fig. 2. New Zealand halal sheepmeat and beef exports to Muslim countries showing Iran as the major importing Muslim country in the 80s and early 90s.
Source: Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (MIA) (Personal Communication, January 2013).
815
40,000
35,000
Volume (tonnes)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
U
SA
Ph
ili
pp
Th
in
e
N
es
et
re
rla
nd
s
E
A
U
ce
an
Fr
m
an
O
ea
or
a
K
an
C
fr
A
ad
ic
a
an
th
Jo
rd
So
u
hi
na
e
or
ap
si
a
Si
ng
bi
a
al
ay
ra
A
di
Sa
u
In
d
on
es
ia
*
Fig. 3. Major destinations of New Zealand halal certied 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 deal

with multiple standards at the same time. There is currently a concerted
effort by many international Muslim bodies including the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), World Muslim League (WML), World
Halal Forum (WHF), World Halal Food Council (WHFC), International
Halal Integrity Alliance (HIA) and the Kuwait Institute for Scientic Research to harmonise the standards for certifying halal foods and the
accreditation and training of the certifying bodies around the world.
This move is intended to improve compliance, efciency in halal food
supply, and to arrest the proliferation of certifying bodies which has
the potential to further divide the minority Muslims involved in halal
certication in largely non-Muslim halal red meat exporting countries.
5. Future pre-slaughter technologies for the ritual slaughter of red

meat animals
The search must continue for better technologies to harmonise
the spiritual and temporal requirements of the slaughter of animals in
order 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 high
frequency electrical currents to stun and immobilize red meat animals
pre-slaughter (HFST). The HFST uses similar voltage and amperes settings
Fig. 4. The New Zealand Halal Model adopted with modications from Davies, Amir, and Elidrissi (2011). The model shows the major actors in the New Zealand halal red meat
production.
816
Fig. 5. Some of the halal certication symbols around the world. There are estimated 111 halal certiers and the quest is for a unied standard and symbol.
as the Jarvis traditional head-only electrical stunning settings described

earlier but uses higher frequencies (10002000 Hz) with a square rather
than sinusoidal waveform. The settings used in the traditional system
when applies to full animal body will stop the heart but the modied
system at higher frequency does not and thus can be applied from
either head to leg, head to belly or head to back instead of head-only
in use in the traditional system. The benet of using a high frequency
head-to-body component includes: the procedure does not stop the
heart or kill the stunned animal, muscle activity associated with convulsions is avoided or reduced, and the need for subsequent electrical immobilization to provide operator safety is avoided (Simons et al., 2006).
The latter benet will also take care of the prohibition of the use of
immobilization 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 levels
of 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 including electro-narcosis and electro-anaesthesia (Johnson & Tabasam,
2003; Shanahan, Ward, & Robertson, 2006). Electro-anaesthesia does
not produce convulsions as observed in electro-convulsive therapy,
thereby if an animal in successfully electro-anaesthetised, no kicking
will result, effectively removing the need for immobilization.
According to De Domenico (1982) the IFC procedure is based
on the summation of two sinusoid alternating current signals (A.C.)
with their waveforms slightly offset or out of phase. The frequencies
of the stimulatory currents are higher than the ability of biological tissue to respond to the current. When the two A.C. carrier signals meet
at the target tissue, constructive and destructive interference takes
place. This mixing results in a low-frequency current that consists

of cyclical modulation of the amplitude which is dependent on the
difference of frequencies of the two carrier signals. When the signals
are in phase, the carrier signals sum to a value able to stimulate
the tissue. When out of phase, no stimulation results. This beat frequency is equal to the difference in the frequencies of the two carrier signals.
Because skin impedance is inversely proportional to the frequency of
stimulation, as the frequency of the current increases skin impedance
decreases, therefore, more current will be delivered resulting in a more
effective stun.
5.3. Transcranial magnetic stunning
Lambooij, Anil, Butler, Reimert, Workel, and Hindle (2011) reported
a non-invasive and potentially pain-free stunning method that does not
result in tissue damage referred to as transcranial magnetic stimulation
(TMS). In practice, an intense magnetic eld is generated by passing
a large amount of current through a copper coil. The coil is positioned
close to the head so that the brain lies within this magnetic eld to affect
a stun. This system has been found to be effective in inducing a stun in
broilers. The method requires further improvement but has the potential to be developed as a stunning method in the future, which would
be more acceptable for religious groups opposed to the use of conventional methods.
5.4. Local or general anaesthesia with natural agents
Slaughter stress and pain can be reduced by local anaesthesia
using the commercial anaesthetics currently being used for various
veterinary operations. However, residue in meat would render such
application commercially unviable. Alternatively, there are natural

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. The
stun occurs at the end of the pulse sequence.
817
818
agents being used in anaesthetising sh to improve their welfare at

harvest.
A commercial food-grade sh anaesthetic with iso-eugenol as the
active ingredient (AQUI-S) that has been approved for use in many
countries, 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 using
AQUI-S in rainbow trout was found to be iso-eugenol which cleared
very fast from the sh llets (Meinertz & Schreier, 2009).
The availability of natural anaesthetics for sh raises the prospects
of others suitable for use in local anaesthesia of red meat animals
prior to slaughter. The search for those should continue in order to
nd alternatives that could help harmonise the requirements of
groups oppose to pre-slaughter stunning with those of the groups
who maintain ritual slaughter without stunning compromises the
welfare of slaughtered animals.
5.5. Pre-slaughter stunning monitors
A major issue in halal meat processing is the ability to objectively
monitor the application, and therefore the effectiveness, of a headonly electrical stun. This has assumed a greater importance with the
recent EC stunning and killing criteria that became effective in 2013
(EC, 2009). The criteria require, a) the general parameters for electrical
stunning to be more concretely dened than now and for operators to
evaluate the efciency of their stunning method through animal based
indicators; b) as a consequence, stunned animals have to be regularly
monitored to ensure that they do not regain consciousness prior to sticking; c) electrical stunning equipment should be tted with a device
which displays and records the details of the electrical key parameters
for each animal stunned; d) the device should be placed so as to be clearly
visible to the personnel and shall give a clearly visible and audible warning if the duration of exposure falls below the required level; and e) these
records shall be kept for at least one year. A concept system (SureStun)
that could meet those requirements for head-only electrical stunning
was developed by AgResearch Ltd., New Zealand (Fig. 6). The system
would monitor the successful application of a head only electric stun to
meet the halal requirements by the on-line recording of the brains EEG
pre and post-stun. The system was tested using approved commercial
stunning equipment and was found able to diagnose an epileptic state
conrming a successful stun. However, the system suffered from movement artefact and further developments are being considered in order
for the system to proceed to a commercial environment.
6. Conclusions
The commercial production of halal and kosher red meat is rapidly
growing in importance and so is the controversy surrounding the slaughter without stunning that is used in producing substantial amount of the
meat. All the current commercial types of pre-slaughter stunning are not
acceptable for kosher meat production. Reversible head-only electrical
stunning is widely used for halal but there are still many Muslims
who are oppose to it. However, there is a considerable body of literature
that conrms the compliance of electrical head-only stunning to halal
requirements in that the procedure when properly applied does not
kill the animal pre-slaughter nor affect other important halal requirements such as blood ow during exsanguinations and is not painful.
With further improvement in the methods and the possibility of the
use of high frequencies, reversible electrical stunning may become the
norm in the future for the commercial halal red meat production.
Other issues associated with post-slaughter processing of preslaughtered stunned animals such as thoracic sticking and time of death
following slaughter would remain important for halal red meat production until they are resolved. The kosher requirement that the animal
not only be alive but conscious would render any mechanical or electrical
methods of stunning now or in the future unacceptable. Similarly those
kosher requirements would also invalidate many of the electroanalgesia

methods if or when they become commercially viable as long as they render the animal unconscious prior to slaughter. If an acceptable natural
food grade local anaesthetic could be found and a method of applying
the procedure commercially is developed, then that would harmonise
most of the important requirements of the contending parties in the
pre-slaughter stunning debate. The faith aspect of slaughter and its contribution to improving animal welfare cannot be objectively measured
but neither can it be discounted, hence it remains important in the ongoing debate about animal welfare during ritual slaughter.
References
Abdul Latif, M. (2013). Comparative study between halal international models: The
requirements of accreditation and certication bodies in importing countries.
Presentation at The Second Gulf Conference on Halal Industry and its Services, 2224
January 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 Fil
Islam]. Indianapolis, IN. USA: American Trust Publications.
Anil, M. H., Love, S., Helps, C. R., & Harbour, D. A. (2002). Potential for carcass contamination with brain tissue following stunning and slaughter in cattle and sheep. Food
Control, 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 that
include 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 Pacic Food Industry,
6465.
Anonymous (2011). Congratulations winners of the Halal Journal Awards 2011. The
Halal Journal(40), 39.
Anonymous (2013). Shechita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita#mw-head (Accessed
31 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, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Bonne, K., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Muslim consumer trust in halal meat status and control in Belgium. Meat Science, 79, 113123.
Chaudry, M. M., Jackson, M. A., Hussaini, M. M., & Riaz, M. N. (1997). Halal industrial standards. Islamic Food & Nutrition Council of America.. IL, USA: My Own Meals, Inc.
Cook, C. J. (1992). Stunning science: A guide to better electrical stunning. Proceedings
Twenty-Seventh Meat Industry Research Conference (pp. 137142). Meat Industry
Research Institute of New Zealand.
Cook, C., Devine, C., & Blackmore, D. (1993b). Preslaughter stunning: Assuring humaneness
of 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 stunning
and its implications on assuring humaneness. Australian Veterinary Association
Conference, May 1993, Brisbane (pp. 459462).
Cook, C. J., Devine, C. E., Gilbert, K. V., Smith, D. D., & Maasland, S. A. (1995). The effect of
electrical head-only stun duration on electroencephalographic-measured seizure
and 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 of
amino acid neurotransmitters in the brains of calves and sheep after head-only
electrical 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 on
brain function in cattle and sheep. Proceedings 31st European Meat Research Workers
Conference (pp. 8587).
Daly, C. C., Gregory, N. G., Wotton, S. B., & Whittington, P. E. (1986). Concussive
methods of pre-slaughter stunning in sheep: Effects of captive bolt stunning in
the 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 with
shechita slaughter. The Veterinary Record, 122, 325329.
Daly, C. C., & Simmons, N. J. (1994). The use of high frequency currents for the
pre-slaughter stunning of livestock. CAPAA Engineers' Conference, Gunnedah, NSW,
Australia.
Daly, C. C., & Whittington, P. E. (1986). Concussive methods of pre-slaughter stunning
in sheep. Research in Veterinary Science, 41, 349352.
Davies, R. J., Amir, S. M., & Elidrissi, T. (2011). Halal certication in New Zealand. The
Halal Journal.
De Domenico, G. (1982). Pain relief with interferential therapy. The Australian Journal of
Physiotherapy, 28(3), 1418.
Devine, C. E., Gilbert, K. V., Tavener, A., & Day, A. M. (1985). The use of electrical
stunning followed by electro-immobilization for the humane slaughter of cattle.
New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 33, 47.

Devine, C. E., Tavener, A., Gilbert, K. V., & Day, A. M. (1986). Electroencephalographic
studies of adult cattle associated with electrical stunning, throat cutting and carcass 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 by
pre-slaughter stress, percussion stunning and AQUI-S anaesthesia. European Food
Research and Technology, 233, 447456.
EC (2007). Study on stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses: Final Report Part
1: Red meat. European Commission. DG SANCO Rue de la Loi 200. 1049 Brussels.
EC (2009). European Community Council Regulations (EC) No 1099/2009. Ofcial Journal
of the European Union, L 303, 130.
EFSA (2004). Welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main
commercial 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 llet quality A comparison
with AQUI-S. Aquaculture, 324325, 135144.
Farouk, M. M. (2012). New Zealand meat industry must optimise halal market opportunities. NZ Food Technology, 47(8), 9.
Farouk, M. M., Daly, C. C., Collinson, M., & Simmons, N. (2004). Mechanical and electrical
stunning of sheep and cattle: A review of applied aspects. Client Report. AgResearch
CR 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 of
cattle and sheep for halal meat production: Is New Zealand process compliant? Client
Report. AgResearch CR 1082. Prepared for Meat and Wool NZ, and the Federation
of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) Wellington, New Zealand.
Gilbert, K. V. (1984). Electrical stunning and beef slaughter. Proceedings 23rd Meat
Industry Research Conference (pp. 120126).
Gilbert, K. V. (1993). Electrical stunning and slaughter in New Zealand. MIRINZ Technical
Report 908.. Hamilton, New Zealand: AgResearch Ltd.
Gilbert, K. V., Devine, C. E., Hand, R., & Ellery, S. (1984). Electrical stunning and stillness
of lambs. Meat Science, 11, 4558.
Grandin, T. (2003). Stunning options. Meat & poultry, 118 (October Issue).
Grandin, T. (2005). Recommended animal handling guidelines and audit guide 2005 edition.
Washington, DC, USA: American Meat Institute Foundation, 181.
Grandin, T. (2010). Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science, 86, 5665.
Grandin, T. (2013). Evaluation of methods of restraint for holding (xation) of cattle,
calves, and sheep for kosher and halal slaughter. http://www.grandin.com/ritual/
evaluation.restraint.methods.kosher.halal.html (Accessed 4 Jan 2013)
Grandin, T., & Regenstein, J. M. (1994). Religious slaughter and animal welfare: A discussion for meat scientists. Meat Focus International, 115123.
Gregory, N. G. (2005). Recent concerns about stunning and slaughter. Meat Science, 70,
481491.
Gregory, N. G. (2007). Animal welfare and meat production (2nd ed.). Wallingford, UK:
CABI Publishing, 213226.
Gregory, N. G., Fielding, H. R., von Wenlawowicz, M., & von Holleben, K. (2010). Time to
collapse following slaughter without stunning in cattle. Meat Science, 82, 6669.
Gregory, N. G., Schuster, P., Mirabito, L., Kolesar, R., & McManus, T. (2012). Arrested
blood ow during false aneurysm formation in the carotid arteries of cattle
slaughtered with an without stunning. Meat Science, 90, 368372.
Gregory, N. G., von Wenlawowicz, M., & von Holleben, K. (2009). Blood in the respiratory tract during slaughter with and without stunning in cattle. Meat Science,
82, 1316.
Gregory, N. G., & Wotton, S. B. (1988). Sheep slaughtering procedures. V. Responsiveness
to potentially painful stimuli following electrical stunning. The British Veterinary
Journal, 144, 573580.
Hajmmer, M. N., Marsden, J. L., Crozier-Dodson, B. A., Basheer, I. A., & Higgins, J. J.
(1999). Reduction of microbial counts at a commercial beef koshering facility.
Journal of Food Science, 64, 719723.
Hanefesh (2012). International kosher symbols and food guidance. National Assembly
of Jewish Students (http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/kosher_Food_Symbols.htm.
Accessed 3 January 2013)
Havinga, T. (2010). Regulating halal and kosher foods: different arrangements between
state, industry and religious actors. Erasmus Law Review, 3(4), 241255.
Holzer, Z., Berry, B. W., Campbell, A. M., Spanier, A. M., & Solomon, M. B. (2004). Effect
of koshering and hydronynamic pressure on beef colour, odor, and microbial loads.
Journal of Muscle Foods, 15, 6982.
Hussaini, M. M. (1993). Islamic dietary concepts and practices. Bedford Park, IL. USA: The
Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America.
Hussaini, M. M., & Sakr, A. H. (1983). Islamic dietary laws and practices. Chicago IL. USA:
The Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America.
Iversen, M., Finstad, B., McKinley, R. S., & Eliassen, R. A. (2003). The efcacy of
metomidate, clove oil, Aqui-Sk and BenzoakR as anaesthetics in Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar L.) smolts, and their potential stress-reducing capacity. Aquaculture,
221, 549566.
Johnson, C. B., Gibson, T. J., Stafford, K. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2012). Pain perception at
slaughter. Animal Welfare, 21(S2), 113122.
Johnson, M. I., & Tabasam, G. (2003). An investigation into the analgesic effects of interferential currents and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on experimentally induced ischemic pain in otherwise pain-free volunteers. Physical Therapy, 83(3),
208223.
Kamali, M. H. (2008a). Halal industry within Islamic principles. A shari'ah perspective
on halal and haram. Part 1. Understanding the parameters of halal and haram. The
Halal Journal, 4043.
819
Kamali, M. H. (2008b). Halal industry within Islamic principles. A shari'ah perspective on

halal and haram. Part 2. Revisiting the grey area. The Halal Journal (36,3738, 40).
Kamali, M. H. (2008c). Halal industry within Islamic principles. A shari'ah perspective
on halal and haram. Part 1. Of customs and science for determination of the lawful
& the unlawful. The Halal Journal (3638, 40).
Knudsen, S. K. (2005). A review of the criteria used to assess insensibility and death in
hunted whales compared to other species. The Veterinary Journal, 169, 4259.
Lambooij, E. (1981). Concussion stunning of veal calves. Fleischwirtsch, 61, 98100.
Lambooij, E., Anil, H., Butler, S. R., Reimert, H., Workel, L., & Hindle, V. (2011). Transcranial Magnetic Stunning of broilers; a preliminary trial to induce unconsciousness.
Animal Welfare, 20, 407412.
Lambooij, E., Anil, H., Butler, S. R., Reimert, H. G. M., Workel, L., & Hindle, V. (2012a).
Transcranial magnetic stunning of broilers: a preliminary trial to induce unconsciousness. Animal Welfare, 20, 407412.
Lambooij, E., & Spanjaard, W. (1981). Effect of the shooting position on the stunning of
calves by captive bolt. The Veterinary Record, 109, 359361.
Lambooij, E., van der Werf, J. T. N., Reimert, H. G. M., & Hindle, V. A. (2012b).
Restraining and neck cutting or stunning and neck cutting of veal calves. Meat
Science, 91, 2228.
Leach, T. M., Warrington, R., & Wotton, S. B. (1980). Use of a conditioned stimulus to
study whether the initiation of electrical pre-slaughter stunning is painful. Meat
Science, 4, 203208.
Leigh, P., & Delany, M. (1987). Use of thoracic stick in Halal slaughter of bobby calves.
New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 35, 124125.
Longdell, G. R. (1994). Advanced technologies in the meat industry. Meat Science, 36,
277291.
Meinertz, J. R., & Schreier, T. M. (2009). Depletion of isoeugenol residues from the llet
tissue of AQUI-S exposed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture, 296,
200206.
MIA (2012). Personal communication. Wellington, New Zealand: Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (Inc).
Mintel (2009). 3 in 5 kosher food buyers purchase for food quality, not religion. Mintel Oxygen Report (http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/press-releases/321/3-in-5-kosherfood-buyers-purchase-for-food-quality-not-religion. Accessed 5 February 2013)
MUI HAS 23103 (2012). Guidelines of Halal Assurance System Criteria on Slaughterhouses. Majelis Ulama Indonesia. LPPOM MUI. http://www.mui.or.id/
Nakyinsige, K., Che Man, Y. B., & Sazili, A. Q. (2012). Halal authenticity issues in meat
and meat products. Meat Science, 91, 207214.
Newhook, J. C., & Blackmore, D. K. (1982a). Electroencephalographic studies of stunning
and slaughter of sheep and calves. Part I The onset of permanent insensibility in
sheep during slaughter. Meat Science, 6, 221233.
Newhook, J. C., & Blackmore, D. K. (1982b). Electroencephalographic studies of stunning
and slaughter of sheep and calves. Part 2 The onset of permanent insensibility in
calves during slaughter. Meat Science, 6, 295300.
nen, A., & Kaya, A. (2004). The effect of electrical stunning and percussive captive
bolt stunning on meat quality of cattle processed by Turkish slaughter procedures.
Meat Science, 66, 809815.
Pitardi, D., Meloni, D., Maurella, C., Di Vietro, D., Nocilla, L., Piscopo, A., Pavoletti, E.,
Negro, M., Caramelli, M., & Bozetta, E. (2013). Specied risk material removal
practices: Can we reduce the BSE hazard to human health? Food Control, 30, 668674.
Regenstein, J. M., Chaudry, M. M., & Regenstein, C. E. (2003). The kosher and halal food
laws. Comprehensive Review in Food Science and Food Safety, 2, 111127.
Regenstein, J. M., & Regenstein, C. E. (1991). Current issues in kosher foods. Trends in
Food Science & Technology March, 1991, 5054.
Riaz, M. N. (2013). Strengthening the halal food model. Presentation at The Second Gulf
Conference on Halal Industry and its Services 2224 January, 2013, Crown Plaza Hotel,
Al-Farwaniyah, State of Kuwait.
Riaz, M. N., & Chaudry, M. M. (2004). Halal food production. Washington DC, USA: CRC Press.
Rosen, S. D. (2004). Physiological insights into Shechita. The Veterinary Record, 154,
759765.
Shanahan, C., Ward, A. R., & Robertson, V. J. (2006). Comparison of the analgesic efcacy of
interferential therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Physiotherapy,
92, 247253.
Silverman, A. (2012). The global Jewish population reached 13.75 million in 2011.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/jews-less-than-0-2-of-worldpopulation/2012/09/20/ (Accessed 4 February 2013)
Simmons, N. J., & Daly, C. C. (2004). Electrical stunning of sheep: Principles and auditing
methods. Meat New Zealand Milestone Report E24.. Wellington, New Zealand: Meat
New Zealand.
Simons, N. J., Daly, C. C., Mudford, C. R., Richards, I., Jarvis, G., & Pleiter, H. (2006). Integrated technologies to enhance meat quality An Australasian perspective. Meat
Science, 74, 172179.
SPAHW (2004). Opinion of the Scientic Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the commission related to welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals (Question N
EFSA-Q-2003-093). The EFSA Journal, 45, 129.
Sunkar, I. (2008). The global halal trade, trends and issues. The Halal Journal, 3234.
Swedish Animal Welfare Agency (2007). Report Dnr 20061844. .
van der Spiegel, M., van der Fels-Klerrx, Sterrenburg, P., van Ruth, S. M., Scholtens-Toma,
I. M. J., & Kok, E. J. (2012). Halal assurance in food supply chains: Verication of halal
certicates using audits and laboratory analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
27, 109119.
Velarde, A., Gispert, M., Diestre, A., & Manteca, X. (2003). Effect of electrical stunning
on meat and carcass quality in lambs. Meat Science, 63, 3538.
Velarde, A., Rodriguez, P., Fuentes, C., Llonch, P., von Holloben, K., von Wenzlawowicz,
M., Anil, H., Miele, M., Goga, B. C., Lambooij, B., Zivotofsky, A., Gregory, N.,
820
Bereaud-Blackler, F., & Dalmau, A. (2010). Improving animal welfare during religious
slaughter. Recommendations for good practice. Dialrel Reports (http://dialrel.eu.
Accessed 30 January 2013)
Weaver, A. L., & Wotton, S. B. (2009). The Jarvis Beef Stunner: Effects of a prototype
chest electrode. Meat Science, 81, 5156.
White, P. F., Li, S., & Chiu, J. (2001). Electroanalgesia: Its role in acute and chronic pain
management. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 92, 505513.
Wotton, S. B., Gregory, N. G., Whittington, P. E., & Parkman, I. D. (2000). Electrical stunning of cattle. Veterinary Record, 147, 681684.
Zivotofsky, A. Z., & Strous, R. D. (2012). A perspective on the electrical stunning of
animals: Are there lessons to be learned from human electro-convulsive therapy
(ECT)? Meat Science, 90, 956961.

Advances in The Industrial Production of Halal and Kosher Red Meat

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Advances in The Industrial Production of Halal and Kosher Red Meat

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Meat Science 95 (2013) 805820

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Advances in the industrial production of halal and kosher red meat

Tel.: +64 7 838 5260.

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

Red meat category

Lamb and Edible

Halal red meat & co-products

Kosher red meat and co-products

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

Lamb and chevon

Lamb and chevon

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

not been developed; and (5) penetrative captive bolt is recommended

Epilepsy is a condition in the brain when all brain cells re collectively

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

Current range (A)

Durations range (s)

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

head-only stun, noxious stimuli applied to the animal do not elicit

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

There is enough evidence to conclude that head-only electrical

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

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

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

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

AQIS Meat Notice 2009/08. http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/

LLPOM MUI HAS 23103, 2012

Contains guidelines for the Preparation, Identication, Storage and Certication

The Standards Institution of Israel (SII). http://www.sii.org.il/

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

and the requirements of non-religious and consumer groups and deal

5. Future pre-slaughter technologies for the ritual slaughter of red

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

as the Jarvis traditional head-only electrical stunning settings described

place. This mixing results in a low-frequency current that consists

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

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

agents being used in anaesthetising sh to improve their welfare at

kosher requirements would also invalidate many of the electroanalgesia

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

Kamali, M. H. (2008b). Halal industry within Islamic principles. A shari'ah perspective on

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

S-ar putea să vă placă și