- Jan 11, 2012
- 6
- 3
- 8
OK. Let’s start with a little story. A few thousand years ago humans, the Greeks in this case, believed what we call the “sun” to be Helios, a god crowned with the shining aureole of the Sun, drove the chariot of the sun across the sky each day to earth, circling Oceanus and through the world-ocean returned to the East each night. For all they knew, this was why the sun rose from the East, travelled across the sky, set in the West and then rose in the East again. As human civilization developed so did it’s sphere of knowledge especially with regard to science and technology. Empirically derived objective and quantifiable data gleaned from the the sciences of physics and astronomy, would add the human sphere of knowledge the facts that the sun is a burning ball of gas and that it “moved” across the sky because the earth rotates on an axis. Thus humans reconciled their belief systems with the knowledge they gained from science and technology and amended and reformed their beliefs accordingly.
I don’t believe this thread was ever meant to say this is the humane, respectful way of doing the “deed”. The rest of you are barbarians. The OP posed a question on HOW, if one chose, to incorporate gas or stun methodology into the kill process. Then came all the comments about the ridiculousness of all the feelings and “wussiness.” These sorts of comments turned the technically inclined discussion into a debate about ethics. One could argue, that us “wusses” and “wimps” should just be left alone to take care of the deed in whatever manner we’re most comfortable with. Then this debate over ethics would be moot and us “wusses” and “wimps” can get back to our exploration of technique and methodology. Don’t get me wrong, anecdotal evidence from the membership of an online community such as this is INVALUABLE, especially to those of us just starting out and looking to soak up knowledge. Offering one’s personal experience, technique and observation and allowing the community to consume it however it wishes to is the amazing thing about online forums. But belittling people, especially newbies, is of no value to the community. All we ever wanted to do was explore an option. Some of us may very well end up ripping the heads off our chickens with our teeth after trying this and various other methods. We’re just weighing our options and reconciling these options with our values and beliefs. We all have unique sets of values and beliefs, some including a greater inclination to anthropomorphizing. What’s so wrong about that? We’re trying to figure out a way to slaughter OUR chickens in OUR homes. You’re not paying us, didn’t invite us to come to you to perform this service for you.
“What’s so funny about peace, love and understanding?”
That said, some points of clarification:
1) Asphyxiation is not the same as poisoning. I think people are jumping to capital punishment, etc when they hear “gassing”. Poisons, mainly cyanide based, were used in gas chambers to kill human beings. Poisons enter the biological system and disrupt vital processes in the organism. In the case of cyanide, the cyanide ion binds to an enzyme necessary in the cellular process of using O2 to make energy. Once dead traces of the cyanide will be present in the organism. Think “CSI” testing for poisons, alcohol etc. Asphyxiation is the deprivation of O2 to the organism, usually by some physical means. This brings us to
2) Some posters have commented on how they would rather not ingest CO2 whether it’s naturally occurring or not. Using CO2 to asphyxiate the meat bird would not bind the CO2 to the bird. The CO2 displaces the O2 in the air that the bird breathes. It does not enter the bird. To understand this you need to know how gases are exchanged in the process of respiration. In short, spent blood high in CO2 and low in O2 goes to the lungs. There the blood is exposed the air inhaled. The the concentration of O2 in the air is usually higher than that in blood and the concentration of CO2 in the air is usually lower than in the blood. By Fick’s law of diffusion, diffusion will occur from higher concentration to lower concentration, thus CO2 goes out and O2 goes in. By increasing the concentration of the CO2 and decreasing O2 in the air the bird breathes, the diffusion process is made less and less efficient. Depriving the organism of O2 for a prolonged duration would thus kill it. The CO2 that we’ve introduced in our “gassing” method has not be bound to the organism. This brings us to
3) CO2 is willfully and enjoyably ingested by people ALL the time in the form of carbonated beverages. In the next hour 27 million Cokes will be drunk, this doesn’t include Pepsi, 7-Up, Perrier, beer or champagne. So that’s how much CO2 gas we are consuming. We buy organic, free range, blah blah blah meats by mail and they arrive packed in dry ice. The argument that “gassing” the bird before the kill would mean ingesting CO2 unnecessarily isn’t really strong in light of this and the previous point.
As to the issue of pain and stress and how can we really know since the bird can’t tell us, let us first separate the physiological components of stress/pain from the emotional and psychological and focus on just the former for now. There is “reliable” data for this. (“Quantifiable and reproduceable” would be my choice of wording.) The issue of “reliability” of this scientific data is, I suppose, left to the individual to decide whether they trust the data produced by scientists or a particular individual scientist. There are plenty of people who don’t believe in global warming or Santa.
4) It has been shown that “humanely” killed animals have less cortisol in their systems than those slaughtered in the standard way. (How do we know? Because we can observe it and quantify it objectively in controlled experiments.) The studies tend to focus on beef and the “hugging” contraption I mentioned in an earlier post. Cortisol is the “stress” hormone, it acts to control the quick conversion of glycogen in muscles to glucose for a “fight or flight” response to stress. The by product of converting the glycogen is lactic acid. (The burn you feel when exercising is the build up of hydrogen ions from the lactic acid. It interferes with electrical signals in your muscles and nerves, slows energy reactions, and impairs muscle contractions.) It’s also been documented that lactic acid is a key factor in better tasting meat. It’s necessary to produce meat, that’s tasteful and tender and of good color. The acidic environment also deters growth of bacteria during the post kill butchering. “If the animal is stressed before and during slaughter, the glycogen is used up, and the lactic acid level that develops in the meat after slaughter is reduced. This will have serious adverse effects on meat quality.” (source: Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations).
5) Pain is something the brain creates in reaction to some stimulus to get the organism’s attention: “Hey, we’re some place or you’re doing something that can potentially cause cellular damage. Please make changes accordingly or else I’m going to continue to make you hurt.” The very basic response is controlled by the hind brain. Science and technology has added a greater understanding of physiology, biochemistry, neurobiology, and neurology to the human sphere of knowledge. We know that the physiology of the hind and brain and the basic responses to pressure and heat are similar in structure and function across vertebrates. The great difference in brain structure from humans to apes to chickens is the development of the cortex. This is where the emotional/psychological experience of pain is processed. In this area, the difference between human and chicken is great. A wounded animal can be objectively observed to display depressed behaviors like lethargy, loss of appetite, seclusion, etc., same as a human. With our greatly development cortex and our brains natural inclination, imperative even, to categorize, compare and label, it’s not unnatural for some people to wonder if animals might experience psychological pain in a manner similar to humans given the physiological structures that can be correlated between species. Is the psychological experience of pain in humans absolutely unique to us and only us?
6) By “slow” I meant gradual. The CO2 gassing would not take an hour. It would minutes or even seconds but this needs to be tested and verified and reproduced. That’s the point of exploring this methodology and posting of it here in this thread. The key is to GRADUALLY displace the air with CO2 rather than immediately exposing the bird to high concentrations of the CO2, ie, going from 1% to 100% immediately. This will cause irritation to the soft tissues in the nose, mouth and eyes. This is probably due to the fact that these tissues aren’t adapted to these concentrations of CO2 with regard to gas diffusion and moisture evaporation (I’m speculating.) Thus the brain creates pain to get the animal to move away from what is causing the disruption. It’s the same principle behind not decompression sickness or altitude sickness. If it’s done gradually, it’s not a huge problem or discomfort. The goal is to anesthetize the bird so that it is not aware or conscious for the incision to the carotid. The bird would die from the loss of blood. The idea is that the bird goes from unconsciousness to death without an awareness of the death itself. (The method I propose does not include pithing or decapitation.)
The way humans slaughtered livestock a thousand years ago compared to a hundred years ago wouldn’t show great differences. Why should it? There wasn’t much new and revolutionary information and knowledge on the matter to be reconciled against the tried and true practices and people’s ethical beliefs. In the last hundred years, the human species has made astounding gains in areas of biochemistry, neurology, psychology etc. We now have the information and knowledge available to us. Some of us are amending and reforming our beliefs and values to incorporate these advances in science and technology. As a result we are searching for a method to slaughter animals that will be comfortable for them and YES also comfortable for us.
Back to Helios. Remember him? How is he relevant? I’m going to postulate that not many if anyone still believes that Helios is making the sun travel across the sky or that the “glowing orb” in the sky that give us light and warmth is a fiery chariot. As a species our sphere of knowledge holds answers to this phenomena, answers derived from empirical experimentation and observation. So we amend what we believe is factual and ethical. With our growing base of “brain science” and animal behavior knowledge, maybe it’s time to consider an amendment to what is a “humane,” “respectful,” “ethical” method of slaughtering animals and a redefinition of whatever these words mean to us as individuals and as a society.
Let’s not forget that the backyard chicken movement is borne of our desire to eat healthful foods free of pesticides, hormones and so on and so forth. Why? Because our knowledge of the adverse effects of such things has expanded and we thus reconciled this new information with our core set of beliefs and values and we made a change to those beliefs and values and now strive for “organic” food.
But hey, even with all the evidence available some people just won’t believe in certain psychological experiences in animals or that the sun is a big burning ball of gases.
I don’t believe this thread was ever meant to say this is the humane, respectful way of doing the “deed”. The rest of you are barbarians. The OP posed a question on HOW, if one chose, to incorporate gas or stun methodology into the kill process. Then came all the comments about the ridiculousness of all the feelings and “wussiness.” These sorts of comments turned the technically inclined discussion into a debate about ethics. One could argue, that us “wusses” and “wimps” should just be left alone to take care of the deed in whatever manner we’re most comfortable with. Then this debate over ethics would be moot and us “wusses” and “wimps” can get back to our exploration of technique and methodology. Don’t get me wrong, anecdotal evidence from the membership of an online community such as this is INVALUABLE, especially to those of us just starting out and looking to soak up knowledge. Offering one’s personal experience, technique and observation and allowing the community to consume it however it wishes to is the amazing thing about online forums. But belittling people, especially newbies, is of no value to the community. All we ever wanted to do was explore an option. Some of us may very well end up ripping the heads off our chickens with our teeth after trying this and various other methods. We’re just weighing our options and reconciling these options with our values and beliefs. We all have unique sets of values and beliefs, some including a greater inclination to anthropomorphizing. What’s so wrong about that? We’re trying to figure out a way to slaughter OUR chickens in OUR homes. You’re not paying us, didn’t invite us to come to you to perform this service for you.
“What’s so funny about peace, love and understanding?”
That said, some points of clarification:
1) Asphyxiation is not the same as poisoning. I think people are jumping to capital punishment, etc when they hear “gassing”. Poisons, mainly cyanide based, were used in gas chambers to kill human beings. Poisons enter the biological system and disrupt vital processes in the organism. In the case of cyanide, the cyanide ion binds to an enzyme necessary in the cellular process of using O2 to make energy. Once dead traces of the cyanide will be present in the organism. Think “CSI” testing for poisons, alcohol etc. Asphyxiation is the deprivation of O2 to the organism, usually by some physical means. This brings us to
2) Some posters have commented on how they would rather not ingest CO2 whether it’s naturally occurring or not. Using CO2 to asphyxiate the meat bird would not bind the CO2 to the bird. The CO2 displaces the O2 in the air that the bird breathes. It does not enter the bird. To understand this you need to know how gases are exchanged in the process of respiration. In short, spent blood high in CO2 and low in O2 goes to the lungs. There the blood is exposed the air inhaled. The the concentration of O2 in the air is usually higher than that in blood and the concentration of CO2 in the air is usually lower than in the blood. By Fick’s law of diffusion, diffusion will occur from higher concentration to lower concentration, thus CO2 goes out and O2 goes in. By increasing the concentration of the CO2 and decreasing O2 in the air the bird breathes, the diffusion process is made less and less efficient. Depriving the organism of O2 for a prolonged duration would thus kill it. The CO2 that we’ve introduced in our “gassing” method has not be bound to the organism. This brings us to
3) CO2 is willfully and enjoyably ingested by people ALL the time in the form of carbonated beverages. In the next hour 27 million Cokes will be drunk, this doesn’t include Pepsi, 7-Up, Perrier, beer or champagne. So that’s how much CO2 gas we are consuming. We buy organic, free range, blah blah blah meats by mail and they arrive packed in dry ice. The argument that “gassing” the bird before the kill would mean ingesting CO2 unnecessarily isn’t really strong in light of this and the previous point.
As to the issue of pain and stress and how can we really know since the bird can’t tell us, let us first separate the physiological components of stress/pain from the emotional and psychological and focus on just the former for now. There is “reliable” data for this. (“Quantifiable and reproduceable” would be my choice of wording.) The issue of “reliability” of this scientific data is, I suppose, left to the individual to decide whether they trust the data produced by scientists or a particular individual scientist. There are plenty of people who don’t believe in global warming or Santa.
4) It has been shown that “humanely” killed animals have less cortisol in their systems than those slaughtered in the standard way. (How do we know? Because we can observe it and quantify it objectively in controlled experiments.) The studies tend to focus on beef and the “hugging” contraption I mentioned in an earlier post. Cortisol is the “stress” hormone, it acts to control the quick conversion of glycogen in muscles to glucose for a “fight or flight” response to stress. The by product of converting the glycogen is lactic acid. (The burn you feel when exercising is the build up of hydrogen ions from the lactic acid. It interferes with electrical signals in your muscles and nerves, slows energy reactions, and impairs muscle contractions.) It’s also been documented that lactic acid is a key factor in better tasting meat. It’s necessary to produce meat, that’s tasteful and tender and of good color. The acidic environment also deters growth of bacteria during the post kill butchering. “If the animal is stressed before and during slaughter, the glycogen is used up, and the lactic acid level that develops in the meat after slaughter is reduced. This will have serious adverse effects on meat quality.” (source: Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations).
5) Pain is something the brain creates in reaction to some stimulus to get the organism’s attention: “Hey, we’re some place or you’re doing something that can potentially cause cellular damage. Please make changes accordingly or else I’m going to continue to make you hurt.” The very basic response is controlled by the hind brain. Science and technology has added a greater understanding of physiology, biochemistry, neurobiology, and neurology to the human sphere of knowledge. We know that the physiology of the hind and brain and the basic responses to pressure and heat are similar in structure and function across vertebrates. The great difference in brain structure from humans to apes to chickens is the development of the cortex. This is where the emotional/psychological experience of pain is processed. In this area, the difference between human and chicken is great. A wounded animal can be objectively observed to display depressed behaviors like lethargy, loss of appetite, seclusion, etc., same as a human. With our greatly development cortex and our brains natural inclination, imperative even, to categorize, compare and label, it’s not unnatural for some people to wonder if animals might experience psychological pain in a manner similar to humans given the physiological structures that can be correlated between species. Is the psychological experience of pain in humans absolutely unique to us and only us?
6) By “slow” I meant gradual. The CO2 gassing would not take an hour. It would minutes or even seconds but this needs to be tested and verified and reproduced. That’s the point of exploring this methodology and posting of it here in this thread. The key is to GRADUALLY displace the air with CO2 rather than immediately exposing the bird to high concentrations of the CO2, ie, going from 1% to 100% immediately. This will cause irritation to the soft tissues in the nose, mouth and eyes. This is probably due to the fact that these tissues aren’t adapted to these concentrations of CO2 with regard to gas diffusion and moisture evaporation (I’m speculating.) Thus the brain creates pain to get the animal to move away from what is causing the disruption. It’s the same principle behind not decompression sickness or altitude sickness. If it’s done gradually, it’s not a huge problem or discomfort. The goal is to anesthetize the bird so that it is not aware or conscious for the incision to the carotid. The bird would die from the loss of blood. The idea is that the bird goes from unconsciousness to death without an awareness of the death itself. (The method I propose does not include pithing or decapitation.)
The way humans slaughtered livestock a thousand years ago compared to a hundred years ago wouldn’t show great differences. Why should it? There wasn’t much new and revolutionary information and knowledge on the matter to be reconciled against the tried and true practices and people’s ethical beliefs. In the last hundred years, the human species has made astounding gains in areas of biochemistry, neurology, psychology etc. We now have the information and knowledge available to us. Some of us are amending and reforming our beliefs and values to incorporate these advances in science and technology. As a result we are searching for a method to slaughter animals that will be comfortable for them and YES also comfortable for us.
Back to Helios. Remember him? How is he relevant? I’m going to postulate that not many if anyone still believes that Helios is making the sun travel across the sky or that the “glowing orb” in the sky that give us light and warmth is a fiery chariot. As a species our sphere of knowledge holds answers to this phenomena, answers derived from empirical experimentation and observation. So we amend what we believe is factual and ethical. With our growing base of “brain science” and animal behavior knowledge, maybe it’s time to consider an amendment to what is a “humane,” “respectful,” “ethical” method of slaughtering animals and a redefinition of whatever these words mean to us as individuals and as a society.
Let’s not forget that the backyard chicken movement is borne of our desire to eat healthful foods free of pesticides, hormones and so on and so forth. Why? Because our knowledge of the adverse effects of such things has expanded and we thus reconciled this new information with our core set of beliefs and values and we made a change to those beliefs and values and now strive for “organic” food.
But hey, even with all the evidence available some people just won’t believe in certain psychological experiences in animals or that the sun is a big burning ball of gases.
