Quote:
Originally Posted by Searching  Lucky Singh ji
Thank you for your detailed post. I am not disputing what you have stated logically. Its just that I have never found my meat chewy or hard because it was jhatka.
I also think that jhatka is less painful compared to halal as the spinal cord is severed resulting in interruption of pathway of pain from the dosral horn in the spinal cord?
I will like to have your views on it. |
I know what you mean about the meat being chewy or not.
I think we don't experience this to a large degree as mass production of both meats is not far off, in the sense that most animals are raised with non genuine diets (protein pumpers,supplements) and in a non genuine environment. Also, stunning beforehand is commonly used in both cases,I believe.
Therefore the two genuine extremes of both meats are not readily available.
Good point about the jhatka being less painful. I have agreed that in the past, and still do based on actions of neurons,ganglia and post-synaptic activity.
However, we have to remember that to quantify or measure pain is very difficult.
One persons scale is not the other persons.
Even for the manufacturing of analgesics, it's actually the tolerance to pain that is commonly used in trials to measure the drug's effect.
With jhatka, the chances of the pathways being blocked, hence numbness and anaesthesia effect are much higher. Therfore the chances of the animal experiencing numbness is higher. This again, cannot be definite for all animals as different pathways can come into action to relay the responses to the brain.
But in general, we could definitely say that with jhatka the animal is
more likely to experience numbness and therefore less pain.
Here, we are talking about the instant of being killed, the first few moments before death. There has been mention that draining interupts the transmission of signals across pathways. Now, this can infact happen, as the conduction of impulses and signals across neuron synapses requires nutrients that are readily available from blood.But the actual drainage would have to be done for some time before there is enough depletion of most common Na, K, Ca,- the animal would most likely have been dead before this could take affect. So, the immediate drainage would not directly affect nerve transmission as such - the pain pathways would still be very much active.
I didn't mention this earlier, as in all honesty I didn't find it appropriate to try and justify jhatka over halal.
It is the misconceptions about halal that I wanted to scientifically clarify.
At the end of the day, both are acts of killing for consumption.
The animal doesn't have a choice and even if it did, what favour would we really be doing ??
Plenty of halal consumers actually believe that they have done the animal a favour,- this is a wrong, inhumane belief.
Sat sri akaal
Lucky Singh
Our Donation Goal
: Why Donate? : Donate Today! : Donate Anonymously (ਗੁਪਤ) : Our Family of Supporters 
.jpg)
Re: Is halal meat scientifically proven right? 
Linear Mode
