Meat Science 96 (2014) 278287

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Religious slaughter: Evaluation of current practices in selected countries

A. Velarde a, P. Rodriguez a, A. Dalmau a, C. Fuentes a, P. Llonch a, K.V. von Holleben b,
M.H. Anil c, J.B. Lambooij e, H. Pleiter f, T. Yesildere g, B.T. Cenci-Goga d,
a

IRTA, Spain
BSI Schwarzenbek, Germany
University of Cardiff, UK
d
University of Perugia, Italy
e
ASG Veehourderij, Netherlands
f
Meat and Livestock, Australia
g
Istanbul Veteriner Hekimler Odasi, Turkey
b
c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 2 December 2012
Received in revised form 11 July 2013
Accepted 12 July 2013
Keywords:
Slaughter
Halal
Kosher
Shechita
Animal
Welfare

a b s t r a c t
As part of the project Religious slaughter (DIALREL): improving knowledge and expertise through dialogue and
debate on issues of welfare, legislation and socio-economic aspects, this paper discusses an evaluation of current
practices during Halal and Shechita slaughter in cattle, sheep, goats and poultry. During religious slaughter, animals are killed with and without stunning by a transverse incision across the neck that is cutting the skin, muscles
(brachiocephalic, sternocephalic, sternohyoid, and sternothyroid), trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular
veins and the major, supercial and deep nerves of the cervical plexus. In this report, the restraint methods, stunning, neck cutting, exsanguination, slaughter techniques and postcut handling in the abattoir were assessed for
religious slaughter. Information about the procedures used during religious slaughter in Belgium, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Turkey and Australia was collected by means of spot visits to abattoirs. To
standardize the information gathered during the spot visits three guidelines were designed, one for each species,
and translated into the national languages of the countries involved. The document included questions on the
handling and restraint methods (stunning, neck cutting/exsanguination/slaughter techniques and postcut
handling performed under religious practices) and for pain and distress of the animal during the restraint,
neck cutting and induction to death in each abattoir. Results showed differences in the time from restraining
to stun and to cut in the neck cutting procedures and in the time from cut to death.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Religious slaughter is carried out legally in the European Union in
licensed slaughterhouses by authorized slaughter-men of the Jewish
and Islamic faiths. Other animals to be slaughtered must be stunned to
cause immediate loss of consciousness until death is caused by bleeding.
For reasons of depopulation, animals can be killed outright, using the
specied methods set out in the EU legislation (Anonymous, 1993,
2009). However, there are special provisions made for slaughter for
religious purposes. The legal requirement for stunning does not apply
to the slaughter of animals by the Jewish method, by a Jew, licensed
by the authority and duly licensed by a Rabbinical Commission, or by
the Muslim method, by a Muslim licensed by an appropriate, recognized,
religious authority. Nevertheless, the law does require religious

Corresponding author at: Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Laboratorio di Ispezione

degli Alimenti, Universit degli Studi di Perugia, via San Costanzo, 06126 Perugia, Italy. Tel.:
+39 075 585 7929; fax: +39 075 585 7976.
E-mail address: beniamino.cencigoga@unipg.it (B.T. Cenci-Goga).
0309-1740/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.013

slaughter to be carried out without the iniction of unnecessary suffering

(Anonymous, 1993, 2009).
The Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22nd December 1993 on the
protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing applies to the
movement, lairaging, restraint, stunning, slaughter and killing of
animals bred and kept for the production of meat, skin, fur or other
products and to methods of killing animals for the purpose of disease
control (Anonymous, 1993, 2009). The new EU Regulation 1099/2009
introduces new arrangements for slaughter licenses from 1st January
2013 (Anonymous, 2009). The new regulation includes the following
denitions: slaughterhouse: any establishment used for slaughtering
terrestrial animals which falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No.
853/2004; restraint: the application to an animal of any procedure
designed to restrict its movements sparing any avoidable pain, fear or
agitation in order to facilitate effective stunning and killing; stunning:
any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness
and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instantaneous death; killing: any intentionally induced process which causes the
death of an animal, slaughtering: the killing of animals intended for
human consumption, competent authority: the central authority of a

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

2. Materials and methods

Table 1
Number of questionnaires received per country, slaughter practice and species.
Country

BE
DE
IT
NL
ES
UK
AU
TR

Total

56
30
29b
2
42
15
2
141

279

Slaughter practice

Species for Halal (and Kosher)

Halal

Kosher

Cattle

Small ruminants

Poultry

56
30
25
2
39
14
1
141

0
0
3
0
3
1
1
0

42
15
9 (1)
0
17 (2)
3 (1)
1 (1)
90

14
9
12 (1)
2
18
7
1 (1)
45

0
6a
4 (1)
0
4 (1)
4
0
6

a
The 6 questionnaires represent 12 plants, as some of the questionnaires covered companies with more than one plant.
b
One questionnaire was sent back with no data for reasons of privacy.

Member State competent to ensure compliance with the requirements

of this Regulation or any other authority to which that central authority
has delegated that competence (Anonymous, 2009). Regarding this
delegation of authority, the religious authority in the EU Member States,
on whose behalf slaughter is carried out, shall be competent for the
application and monitoring of the special provisions, which apply to
slaughter according to certain religious requirements. As regards said
provisions, the religious authority shall operate under the responsibility
of the ofcial EU member state veterinarian, as dened in the Regulations 1099/2009 (Anonymous, 2009). According to Annex 1 of the
cited Regulation 1099/2009, the stunning of farm animals prior to
slaughtering can be performed using the following methods: mechanical methods (penetrative captive bolt device, non-penetrative captive
bolt device, rearm with free projectile, cervical dislocation, percussive
blow to the head), electrical methods (head-only electrical stunning,
head-to-body electrical stunning, electrical water bath) and gas
methods (carbon dioxide at high concentration, carbon dioxide in two
phases, carbon dioxide associated with inert gases, inert gases). Stunning must not be carried out unless it is possible to bleed the animals
immediately afterwards. Stunning before slaughter is therefore a statutory requirement in Europe and is done to induce unconsciousness in
animals, so that slaughter causes no anxiety, pain, suffering or distress.
In the majority of the countries of the European Union, religious
slaughter is exempt from stunning (Cenci-Goga et al., 2010). For the
Jewish and Muslim communities, the animals are required to be alive,
healthy and have suffered no injury at the time of slaughter. To meet
these requirements, slaughter without stunning is done in licensed
slaughterhouses or, occasionally, during religious festivals on communal grounds. It should be noted that some local Islamic authorities accept a stunning method, provided it does not kill the animals based on
their interpretations of the religious requirements.
In an attempt to study the incidence and to assess the different practices of religious slaughter of cattle, small ruminants (sheep and goats)
and poultry, data was collected by means of a survey based on spot
check visits to abattoirs in the EU, Turkey and Australia.

Information about the procedures used during religious slaughter in

Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Turkey and
Australia was collected by means of spot visits to abattoirs. The data
was collected by the DIALREL partner from each country. A questionnaire was completed before the spot visit to gather data on the number
of animals slaughtered, restraining methods and stunning method,
when applicable (Cenci-Goga et al., 2013).
In each country, the abattoirs were selected using simple random
sampling from a list of premise-identication numbers to ensure a representative sample of plants from the completed questionnaires. Within
each selected plant, slaughtered animals were sampled by systematic,
random selection. Between 10 and 114 animals were selected per abattoir, approximately proportional to the total number of slaughtered animals (Tables 1 and 2).
To standardize the information gathered during the spot visits, three
guidelines were designed, one for each species, and translated into the national languages of the countries involved. The document was divided into
two parts. The rst part of the document gathered information about the
handling and restraint methods, stunning, neck cutting/exsanguination/
slaughter techniques and postcut handling, carried out during religious
slaughter in each abattoir. One important point was the quality of bleeding: an animal was considered to be bleeding well when, after neck cutting, both carotid arteries and both jugular veins were completely
sectioned, a strong blood ow could be seen and there was no obstruction
due to a retraction of the vessels' walls. The second part of the document
was designed to assess the signs of pain and distress of the animal during
restraint, neck cutting and induction to death. In this second part, a minimum of 10 animals per abattoir were assessed. If the abattoir slaughtered
during both Halal and Shechita, two different questionnaires were lled in
for each slaughter practice. The questionnaire can be found under Annex
1. All auditors, at least two per unit, were trained according to a specic
work package of the project. In short, data collection in each country for
the assessment of animal welfare was based on the same methodology
and protocol. The training sessions included: i) a discussion on the
results from the questionnaires and the denition of the sample of slaughterhouses visited; ii) a discussion of the protocol used for spot-visits and a
training session including a visit to the abattoir to ensure reliability and repeatability between experts; and iii) an explanation of the protocol for the
meetings with religious authorities. A visit was organized to a slaughterhouse during religious slaughter without stunning to assess the protocol
on the eld, followed by a discussion to nalize the standardization of
the different protocols and data collection.
2.1. Data collection in the different countries during Halal and Shechita
slaughter
Table 2 shows the choice of slaughterhouses, selected using simple random sampling from a list of premise-identication numbers to ensure a
representative sample of plants from the completed questionnaires.

Table 2
Slaughterhouses selected for the spot visits. In brackets, the number of observed animals per plant.
Country

Cattle

Sheep

Halal
No stun
BE
DE
IT
NL
ES
UK
AU
TR

Electr

Pre cut penetr

Pre cut nonpenetr

Halal

No stun

No stun

Electr

1 (18)
1 (90)
1 (79)

3 (30, 26, 28)

2 (37, 67)
1 (82)
2 (30, 14)
1 (10)
2 (30, 30)
1 (16)

Pre cut nonpenetr

Kosher

Halal

No stun

Electr

Gas

2 (60, 30)

1 (50)

1 (114)

1 (30)

2 (30, 30)
1 (31)
1 (40)

1 (30)

1 (31)
2 (30, 30)

Kosher
No stun

1 (70)

1 (18)

1 (30)
2 (30, 30)

Poultry

Kosher

2 (30, 30)

280

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

Slaughtered animals were sampled by systematic random selection. Between 10 and 114 animals were selected per abattoir, approximately proportional to the total number of slaughtered animals per day, using the
formula x = Z(c/100)2r(100 r), where r is the fraction of responses,
and Z(c/100) is the critical value for the condence level c, with a 20% margin of error and a 95% condence level (Bruce, Pope, & Stanistreet, 2008).
The following subchapters describe some peculiarities, when present.
2.1.1. Belgium
Cattle: two abattoirs with Halal slaughter without stunning were
visited. The numbers of animals evaluated in each abattoir during the
spot visits were 37 and 67. Sheep: one abattoir with Halal slaughter
without stunning was evaluated. The number of animals evaluated
was 18.
2.1.2. Germany
Cattle: one abattoir that performed Halal slaughter with electrical
stunning was visited. The spot visit was conducted during a religious
festival (Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrice). The number of animals
evaluated during the visit was 82. Sheep: four abattoirs that performed
Halal slaughter were visited. Three of them stunned the animals electrically, head-only before neck cutting. The other one did not stun and was
visited during a religious festival. The numbers of animals evaluated
were 30, 26 and 28 in the abattoirs with electrical stunning and 90 in
the abattoir without stunning. Poultry: three abattoirs that performed
Halal slaughter with stunning were visited. Two abattoirs used an electrical water bath and the third used a mixture of 40% CO2 and 30% O2 in
the rst phase and 80% CO2 in the second phase to stun the animals. In
the abattoirs using the electrical water bath, the numbers of animals
evaluated were 60 and 30, whereas 50 animals were evaluated in the
abattoir using gas stunning.
2.1.3. Italy
Cattle: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter without stunning were visited. The numbers of animals evaluated during the visit
were 30 and 14. Sheep: two abattoirs that performed Halal and Shechita
slaughter without stunning were visited. The number of animals evaluated during the visit was 79 for Halal and 114 for Shechita slaughter.
Poultry: one abattoir that performed Shechita slaughter was visited.
The number of animals evaluated during the visit was 70.

Table 3
Number of abattoirs visited and animals inspected according to the restraining method
and the use of pre-slaughter stunning in cattle.
Cattle

Without stunning

With stunning

Restraining method

Abattoirs

Animals

Abattoirs

Animals

Total

Turned 45
Turned on their sides (90)
Turned on their backs (180)
Upright
Total

1
3
2
4
10

30
54
60
150
294

0
1
1
4
6

0
30
82
119
231

1
4
4
9
16

2.1.7. Australia
Cattle: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter with stunning
prior to neck cutting were evaluated. The rst abattoir used a nonpenetrating captive bolt for stunning, and the second used electrical
head-only stunning. The numbers of animals evaluated were 40 and
30, respectively. Sheep: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter
with stunning prior to neck cutting, using electrical head-only system,
were visited. The number of animals evaluated in both abattoirs was 30.
2.1.8. Turkey
Cattle: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter without stunning were visited. The number of animals evaluated in each abattoir
was 30.
3. Results
The data obtained during the spot visits was classied according
to restraint methods, stunning system and slaughter method. The
process was divided into three sections: 1) Time from restraint to stun
or restraint to cut, depending on whether the animals were stunned
or not; 2) neck cutting procedure; and 3) time from cut to death. Information on the procedures of current Halal and Shechita practices was
collected by means of spot visits in 17 cattle (Halal = 16 and
Shechita = 1), 12 sheep (Halal = 11 and Shechita = 1), and 6 poultry
(Halal = 5 and Shechita = 1) abattoirs.
3.1. Halal slaughter

2.1.4. The Netherlands

Cattle: two abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter were visited. In
one of the abattoirs the animals were stunned using non-penetrating
captive bolt. The numbers of animals evaluated were 18 (with stunning)
and 10 (without stunning).
2.1.5. Spain
Cattle: three abattoirs that performed Halal slaughter were visited.
Two of them did not stun animals and the other one stunned animals
prior to neck cutting using a penetrating captive bolt. The number of animals evaluated by abattoir was n = 30. Sheep: three abattoirs that
performed Halal slaughter were visited. Two of them did not stun the
animals and the other one stunned animals prior to neck cutting using
a non-penetrating captive bolt. The number of animals evaluated per
abattoir was n = 30. Poultry: two abattoirs that performed Halal
slaughter with stunning prior to neck cutting using an electrical water
bath were visited. The number of animals evaluated per abattoir was
n = 30.
2.1.6. United Kingdom
Cattle: three abattoirs that performed Halal (two abattoirs) and
Shechita (one abattoir) slaughter were visited. During Halal slaughter,
one abattoir did not stun the animals, whereas the other abattoir
stunned the animals using a non-penetrating captive bolt. The numbers
of animals evaluated were 16, 31 and 31, respectively.

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

inspected, according to the restraining method and the use of preslaughter stunning during Halal slaughter for the different groups of
species.
3.1.1. Cattle slaughtered without stunning
Ten abattoirs for Halal slaughter without stunning were evaluated.
One of them turned the animals 45, three turned them on their side
(i.e. 90), two turned them on their back (a 180 turn) and four
restrained the animals in an upright position (with modied ASPCA
[American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] pens). The
length of the blade of the knives used for neck cutting in Halal slaughter

Table 4
Number of abattoirs visited and animals inspected according to the restraining method
and the use of pre-slaughter stunning in sheep and goats.
Sheep

Without stunning

With stunning

Restraining method

Abattoirs

Animals

Abattoirs

Animals

Total

Hoisted before neck cutting

Manually on their sides
Upright
Total

3
2
0
5

139
108
0
252

0
1
5
6

0
30
144
174

3
3
5
11

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

281

Table 5
Number of abattoirs visited and animals inspected according to the restraining method in
poultry.
Poultry

Without stunning

With stunning

Restraining method

Abattoirs

Animals

Abattoirs

Hoisted before neck cutting

No restraint, sitting on a belt
for gas stunning
Shackling for electrical water
bath stunning
Total

70

70

Animals

Total

50

150

200

was 29.6 1.79 cm with a wide variety of shapes, whereas size and
shape were more consistent for Shechita (the typical, 40 cm Chalev
knife). In all abattoirs, the operator performing the cut had received religious training. In all cases, the religious practices were always supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian), as required by regulation
(Anonymous, 1993, 2009).

3.1.1.1. From restraint to cut. Differences in the time interval from restraint to cut were observed among the different restraint systems
assessed. The time was longer in cattle turned 45 and turned on their
side than in those turned on their back or remaining in an upright position (Fig. 1). During restraint, the animals struggled (Annex 1 and
Fig. 2). Differences were also found among the different restraint systems assessed. All cattle turned on their side (90) struggled (Annex
1), which was more frequent than in the other systems assessed. Furthermore, the percentage of animals that struggled was also higher in
cattle restrained in the upright position than in those turned on their
backs (180). Animals also vocalized (Fig. 3) during the restraint. The
percentage of animals that vocalized was higher in cattle turned on
their back (38%) than in those restrained in the upright position (10%)
or turned on their side (0%).

3.1.1.2. Cutting procedure. Three of the 10 abattoirs assessed a hyperextension of the neck (i.e., the neck assumed an unnatural position due
to the use of ropes for a better access by the slaughter man to the subhyoid region) to the cattle to facilitate neck cutting. Two of these abattoirs used an upright restraining system and in the third, animals
were turned on their backs. Fig. 4 shows the number of cuts (each cut
is considered as being in one direction) in relation to the orientation
of animals. The mean number of cuts made with the knife was higher
in cattle restrained in an upright position or turned on their back than
in those turned on their side or turned through 45, respectively. After
neck cutting, differences in animals that bled well were observed between the different restraint methods assessed (Fig. 5). The percentage
of animals that bled well was lower in animals restrained in the upright
position compared with other methods.

Fig. 1. Cattle without stunning. Time interval from the beginning of restraint to neck
cutting in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed.

Fig. 2. Cattle without stunning. Percentage of animals struggling during restraint in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 3. Cattle without stunning. Percentage of animals vocalizing during restraint in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 4. Cattle without stunning. Number of knife cuts during neck cutting in relation to the
different positions of the animals assessed.

Fig. 5. Cattle without stunning (including Shechita). Percentage of animals that bled well
after neck cutting in relation to the position of the animals assessed.

282

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

Fig. 6. Cattle without stunning. Percentage of cattle struggling after neck cutting in relation
to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 8. Cattle without stunning. Time to loss of posture (recumbence or hypotonic animal)
after neck cutting in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed.

3.1.1.3. From cut to death. After neck cutting, the percentage of struggling
cattle (Fig. 6) and vocalizing cattle (Fig. 7) was evaluated. Differences
between examples of different restraint methods were found in the percentage of cattle that struggled after neck cutting. The percentage of
struggling cattle was higher in the animals turned on their sides in comparison to those restrained in the upright position and turned on their
backs. In addition, struggling was also higher in animals restrained in
the upright position than in those turned on their backs. Vocalization
only occurred in animals that were turned on their sides or turned on
their backs. A higher number of animals that were turned on their
sides vocalized, compared with animals turned on their backs. After
neck cutting, loss of consciousness was assessed through the loss of posture (animal recumbent and hypotonic), according to the modied veterinary Glasgow coma scale (Macintire, Drobatz, Haskins, & Saxon,
2012). Differences were found in the time within which the animals
lost posture among the restraint systems assessed. The posture was
lost earliest when cattle were turned on their sides. This was followed
by animals that were turned 45 or that were slaughtered in the upright
position and nally, the time to loss of posture took longest when animals were turned on their backs (Fig. 8). In the latter case, only hypotonic posture was recorded with animals turned on their backs.

such as struggling and vocalization, were assessed. Differences between

the three restraint systems evaluated were found in the time taken for
cattle to enter the box until they were stunned. This time was higher
for cattle turned on their backs than in cattle turned on their sides or animals restrained in the upright position. It was also higher in cattle
turned on their sides than in animals in the upright position (Fig. 9).
As regards the stunning system, 18 and 38% of the animals stunned
with electrical head-only showed rhythmic breathing at 30 and 60 s, respectively, after application of the current. When a penetrating captive
bolt was used, 13% of the animals showed rhythmic breathing at 30 s
after stunning, which had disappeared in all animals 30 s later. In the
case of animals stunned with a non-penetrating captive bolt, the rhythmic breathing was not assessed because it is considered inconsistent by
several authors. With the introduction of the new Directive (EC) No.
1099/2009 (Anonymous, 2009), non-penetrating captive bolt guns are
no longer permitted to be used for adult animals from January 2013,
and they are only permissible in animals under 10 kg. This is the result
of scientic debate which concluded that the current design of nonpenetrating guns is not effective enough (Anil, 2012). Differences
were found in the time from stun to cut among the different restraint
systems assessed (Fig. 10). The time from stun to cut was longer in animals turned on their sides than in animals restrained in the upright position or turned on their back. In addition, the stun to cut interval was
also longer when animals were restrained in the upright position than
when they were turned on their backs. The percentage of animals struggling (Fig. 11) was higher in those animals turned on their backs than in
those in the upright positions or turned on their sides. In addition, it was
also higher when they were in the upright position than when turned
on their sides. Vocalization was not observed in any animal during
restraint.

3.1.2. Cattle slaughtered with stunning

Six abattoirs, where cattle were stunned before slaughter, were evaluated. The stunning methods used were penetrating captive bolt in one
abattoir, non-penetrating captive bolt in three abattoirs and electrical
head-only stunning in two abattoirs. In one abattoir, cattle were turned
on their sides, in another they were turned on their backs, and the remainder (4 abattoirs) restrained the animals in the upright position.
The blade length of the knives used for neck cutting was 23.1
4.00 cm. In ve of the six abattoirs evaluated, the operator performing
the cut had received religious training. In all cases the religious practices
were always supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).
3.1.2.1. From restraint to cut. The time from restraint to stun, the stun to
cut interval and the animal behavior occurring during these intervals,

3.1.2.2. Cutting procedure. The number of cuts with the knife during the
neck cutting was evaluated and differences were found between the different restraint systems used in the abattoirs that were assessed
(Fig. 12). The number of cuts was higher in animals turned on their
sides than those in an upright position or turned on their backs, and

Fig. 7. Cattle without stunning. Percentage of cattle vocalizing after neck cutting in relation
to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45 and
upright.

Fig. 9. Cattle with stunning. Time interval from the beginning of restraint to stun in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

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

283

Fig. 13. Cattle with stunning. Percentage of animals that bled well after neck cutting in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.
Fig. 10. Cattle with stunning. Time interval from stun to neck cutting in relation to the
different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 14. Sheep without stunning. Percentage of animals struggling during restraint in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals upright.
Fig. 11. Cattle with stunning. Percentage of animals struggling during restraint in relation
to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

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

on their backs. At the same time, bleeding after neck cutting was
assessed, and it was observed that the percentage of animals bleeding
well differed between the different restraint systems used. Cattle that
were turned on their sides bled well in a higher percentage of animals
than animals restrained in the upright position or turned on their
backs. At the same time, the percentage of animals bleeding well was
higher when animals were restrained in the upright position than
when they were turned on their backs (Fig. 13).
3.1.2.3. From cut to death. Measured 30 s after neck cutting, the percentage of animals with a loss of rhythmic breathing was 13% when animals
were turned on their sides (penetrating captive bolt) and 18% when
turned on their backs (electrical head-only). Thirty seconds later, the
percentage of cattle with loss of rhythmic breathing had increased to
51% in the animals turned on their backs.

used was 22.2 1.82 cm. In all abattoirs, the operator performing the
cut had received religious training. In all cases, the religious practices
were always supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).
3.1.3.1. From restraint to cut. Struggling was assessed while animals were
restrained until neck cutting was performed. During the spot visits,
struggling was only evaluated in animals hoisted before neck cutting
(n = 139) and in animals slaughtered manually on their sides (n =
108), and no differences were found between methods (60 and 67%,
respectively, Fig. 14). Differences were found in the time from the beginning of restraint to neck cutting between the different restraint
methods used in the abattoirs assessed. The restraint to cut interval
was longer when sheep were hoisted before neck cutting (45.0
2.07 s) compared to when animals were turned mechanically (7.2
0.32 s), or manually (3.2 0.56 s) on their sides. In addition, the
restraint to cut interval was longer in sheep mechanically turned on
their sides than in those restrained manually (Fig. 15).

3.1.3. Sheep slaughtered without stunning

Five abattoirs for Halal slaughter without stunning were assessed.
Three of them hoisted the animals before neck cutting, and two turned
the animals manually on their sides (90). The blade length of the knives

Fig. 12. Cattle with stunning. Number of knife cuts during neck cutting in relation to the
different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals turned 45.

Fig. 15. Sheep without stunning. Time interval from the beginning of restraint to neck cutting in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals
upright.

284

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

Fig. 18. Sheep with stunning. Time interval from the beginning of restraint to stun in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed.
Fig. 16. Sheep without stunning. Number of knife cuts during neck cutting in relation to
the different positions of the animals assessed. No data for animals upright.

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

knife cuts differed according to the restraint method (Fig. 16). One cut
was made on all sheep restrained manually on their sides, whereas an
average of two cuts was observed in animals hoisted during the neck
cutting process. All the animals assessed in the different abattoirs
were evaluated as having a good blood loss.
3.1.3.3. From cut to death. After neck cutting, loss of consciousness was
assessed through the loss of posture (animal recumbent and hypotonic), according to the modied, veterinary, Glasgow coma scale
(Macintire et al., 2012). Only hypotonic posture was recorded for
hoisted animals (Fig. 17). Differences were found in relation to the restraint method used. Loss of posture (animal recumbent and hypotonic)
appeared earlier when sheep were restrained manually on their sides
(23.0 2.20 s) than in animals hoisted before neck cutting (76.0
3.44 s).
3.1.4. Sheep slaughtered with stunning
Six abattoirs that stunned sheep and goats pre-slaughter were evaluated. In one abattoir the animals were turned manually on their sides
and in the other ve, the animals were slaughtered in the upright position. The stunning methods used in the abattoirs assessed were: nonpenetrating captive bolt (1 abattoir) and electrical head-only stunning
(5 abattoirs). The blade length of the knives used was 20.0 1.00 cm.
In all the abattoirs, the operator performing the cut had received religious training. In all cases, the religious practices were always supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).
3.1.4.1. From restraint to cut. No differences were found in the restraint to
stun interval (Fig. 18) between animals restrained manually on their
sides and animals restrained in the upright position. During restraint,
7% of the sheep slaughtered in the upright position struggled but this
did not occur in any of the animals restrained manually on their sides.

Fig. 17. Sheep without stunning. Time to loss of posture (recumbence or hypotonic animal) after neck cutting in relation to the different positions of the animals assessed. No
data for animals upright.

3.1.4.2. Cutting procedure. Differences were found between both restraint systems in relation to the number of knife cuts made during
neck cutting (Fig. 19). The number of cuts performed during neck cutting was higher in sheep slaughtered in the upright position than in animals restrained manually on their sides. All the animals assessed bled
well.
3.1.4.3. From cut to death. After stunning and neck cutting, the percentage of animals that lost their rhythmic breathing was assessed to compare the effect of the restraint. However, no animals showed this
reex in either restraint method.
3.1.5. Poultry slaughtered with stunning
Five poultry abattoirs that were performing Halal slaughter with
previous stunning were assessed during the spot visits. In four abattoirs,
the stunning method used was either an electrical water bath stunning
or exposure of the birds to mixtures of oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide
(CO2) in nitrogen (N2). In all the abattoirs surveyed, poultry was shackled before stunning with the animals sitting on a belt, with the exception of those that were stunned with gas. In animals stunned
electrically, the average magnitude of the current was 2.4 0.62 A to
20 birds. The RMS voltage (volts) and frequency (Hertz) of the applied
current were 118.5 11.35 V and 248.3 50.61 Hz, respectively.
The average time of application of the current ow to the birds was
7.6 2.41 s. In the case of the poultry stunned with gas, a mixture of
40% CO2, 30% O2 and 30% N2 for the rst phase and 80% CO2 in atmospheric air for the second phase was used. The exposure time was 60
and 120 s, respectively. In three abattoirs (2 electrical stunning and 1
with gas) the neck cutting procedure was performed automatically
using a horizontal rotary knife. In the two remaining abattoirs, the
neck cutting was manual. The blade length of the knives used was
10 cm in one abattoir and 20 cm in the other. In three of the ve abattoirs assessed, the operator performing the cut had received religious
training, whereas in the other two situations no training at all had
been offered. In all cases, the religious practices were always supervised
by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).

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

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

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

3.1.5.1. From restraint to stun. The average time between shackling and
stunning was 57.0 16.99 s in those birds that were electrically
stunned. During this time the animals remained inverted and suspended by their legs. The stun to cut interval (measured from shackling
after gas exposure to cut, Fig. 20) was longer in gas than electricallystunned poultry (32.0 0.00 vs. 15.0 0.95 s).
3.1.5.2. Cutting procedure. No differences in the percentage of animals
that bled well were observed between either of the stunning systems
assessed (Fig. 21). In addition, the type of neck cutting used (manual
or mechanical) had no effect on bleeding efciency.
3.1.5.3. From cut to death. None of the animals stunned with gas showed
rhythmic breathing. Immediately after stunning, 11% of the animals
stunned electrically showed rhythmic breathing. During neck cutting
this incidence rose to 15% and 30 s later fell to 5%. Then 60 s after
neck cutting all the animals stunned electrically showed an absence of
rhythmic breathing (Fig. 22).
3.2. Shechita slaughter
During the spot visits, 3 abattoirs (one slaughtering cattle, one sheep
and one poultry) were visited and 215 animals (31 cattle, 114 sheep and
70 broilers) were assessed. In the cattle abattoir, the animals were
slaughtered in the upright position. Sheep abattoirs hoisted the animals
and in poultry abattoirs, the animals were shackled before neck cutting.
None of the abattoirs stunned animals pre-slaughter.
3.2.1. Cattle slaughtered without stunning
In the abattoir assessed, animals were slaughtered in an upright
position in a modied Cincinnati (ASPCA) pen. The blade length of the
knife used was 40 cm. The operator performing the cut had received
religious training. Religious practices were supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).

285

Fig. 22. Poultry with stunning. Percentage of animals with rhythmic breathing after stunning and after neck cutting in relation to the stunning method used.

3.2.1.1. From restraint to cut. When the animals entered the restraining
box, the time between restraint (calculated from the closing of the
box) and neck cutting was assessed along with any struggling of the
animal during the whole procedure. The time from restraint to cut
was 34.0 5.21 s and during restraint, 40% of cattle struggled.
3.2.1.2. Cutting procedure. During the neck cutting procedure, an average
of 3 cuts was performed on each animal. Other parameters, such as
vocalizations and bleeding, were not assessed during this spot visit.
3.2.1.3. From cut to death. It was found that 30 s from the start of bleeding, all the animals assessed had lost posture.
3.2.2. Sheep slaughtered without stunning
In the abattoir assessed, the animals were hoisted before neck cutting. The blade length of the knife used was 25 cm. The operator
performing the cut had received religious training. Religious practices
were supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).
3.2.2.1. From restraint to cut. Individual assessment was made for each of
the 114 animals not only of the time interval between shackling and
neck cutting, but also of the percentage of the animals which struggled.
The time from when the animals were shackled until neck cutting was
performed was 229.0 5.52 s. The percentage of animals that struggled was 100%, and this lasted 24.0 0.11 s after the animals were
shackled and hoisted.
3.2.2.2. Cutting procedure. The number of knife cuts performed during
neck cutting and the percentage of animals that struggled during this
phase were measured and it was found that all animals received a single
cut.
3.2.2.3. From cut to death. It was found that 30 s after bleeding, all the animals assessed were hypotonic.
3.2.3. Poultry slaughtered without stunning
In the abattoir assessed, animals were manually hoisted before neck
cutting. The blade length of the knife used was 13 cm. The operator
performing the cut had received religious training. Religious practices
were supervised by a meat inspector (or veterinarian).
3.2.3.1. From restraint to cut. Individual assessment was made for each of
the 70 animals not only of the time interval between shackling and neck
cutting, but also of the percentage of the animals which apped their
wings and the duration of this behavior. The time from restraint to
neck cut was 26.2 1.39 s. 83% of birds apped their wings at some
stage between shackling and neck cutting and the duration was
6.1 0.57 s.

Fig. 21. Poultry with stunning. Percentage of animals that bled well after neck cutting in
relation to the stunning method used.

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

cutting was 1.0 0.00. The percentage of poultry struggling during
the bleeding was 7%.

286

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

3.2.3.3. From cut to death. After neck cutting, 100% of the animals
assessed apped their wings. The apping lasted 21.0 1.12 s after
cutting.
4. Discussion
The results of this survey only provide a selective snapshot of current
practice and do not constitute a complete representation of the Halal
and Shechita slaughter practice, as performed in the countries studied.
Although monitoring involved only some aspects of the slaughter practices at each site and the number of animals assessed at each slaughter
plant was not representative of the situation in each given country,
this is the rst attempt to describe the practices for religious slaughter
in Europe. Taking into account the cited limitations, some important aspects of the slaughter were documented and possible interpretations
are presented.
4.1. Cattle slaughtered without stunning
The restraint to cut interval was very variable among the restraint
systems assessed. These differences among restraint systems could be
due to differences in animal handling, head restraint, design of the
restraining system, weight of the animal and the degree of applied restraint (Grandin, 1998). In all the restraint systems assessed, the animals struggled and vocalized. However, the highest levels of both
struggling and vocalization were observed when animals were turned
on their sides, compared to when they were restrained in the upright
position or turned on their backs. The restraint to cut interval was also
the highest in the rst case, so a correlation between both factors
could be expected. When the upright position and turned on their
backs are compared, it is found that in the case of the upright position,
the animals struggled more and in the case of being turned on their
backs, more animals vocalized. Struggling and vocalization are related
to pre-slaughter handling and the restraint system used in the slaughterhouse (Grandin, 1998). Both behavior parameters indicate fear,
pain or stress during restraint (Gregory, 2004; von Holleben et al.,
2010). During neck cutting, the number of cuts was higher in animals
slaughtered in an upright position. This could be due to the variability
among the operators' capabilities for cutting with their hand rotated.
In contrast, animals turned 45 required the lowest number of cuts.
The percentage of animals assessed that bled well was the highest
when animals were turned on the sides or when they were turned
45, and it was the lowest when animals were slaughtered in the upright position. This is in line with the result showing that the time to
loss of posture or recumbent and hypotonic animal is shortest for animals restrained lying on their sides.
After neck cutting, animals with a higher number of cuts (turned on
their back and upright position) took more time to loss of posture or for
the animal to be recumbent and hypotonic. The quality of the cut is essential for bleeding and quick loss of consciousness and signs of life
(Grandin, 1998).
4.2. Cattle slaughtered with stunning
The restraint to stun and the stun to cut intervals were variable
among restraint systems. These variations depended not only on the restraint system and the stunning systems used, but also on the operator
involved in the process. However, according to the spot visits carried
out in the present study, the lowest restraint to stun interval observed
was when animals were restrained in an upright position and the
highest when they were turned on their backs. The percentage of struggling animals was higher with the turned on the back system compared
with the upright position or turned on their sides, which agrees with
Dunn (1990). In addition, struggling could also be related to the highest
restraint to stun interval registered in the case of animals turned on
their backs. The bleeding of the animals after neck cutting was different

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

higher percentage of animals that bled well was recorded, when compared to animals restrained in the upright position or turned on their
backs, the latter showing the lowest percentage. Animals that received
a higher number of cuts during the neck cutting procedure had a better
bleeding, contrary to what was observed in cattle slaughtered without
stunning.
4.3. Sheep slaughtered without stunning
The restraint to neck cut interval was very different between the different restraint systems and was the highest recorded in those animals
that were hoisted before neck cutting and the lowest in those animals
manually restrained on their side. These intervals are related not only
to the restraint method used, but also to the operator performing the
cut. Poorly trained or incompetent operators involved in the neck cutting process can increase the restraint to cut interval, thus negatively
inuencing animal welfare. Higher incidences of struggling were present in the animals manually restrained on their sides than in those
hoisted before sticking. Struggling indicates fear, pain or stress during
restraint. The number of cuts performed during neck cutting ranged
from 1 to 2. The animals hoisted before neck cutting took longer to become hypotonic after neck cutting, than the animals manually turned
on their sides.
4.4. Sheep slaughtered with stunning
The restraint to stun interval was not inuenced by the restraint
methods and the stunning system used in the abattoirs visited. The animals slaughtered in the upright position struggled, whereas those manually restrained on their sides did not. This could be due to the different
skill levels of the operators restraining the animals by hand or manually
restraining the animal and handling them by holding their legs. The restraint method had a direct effect on the number of knife cuts. The number of cuts was higher in animals restrained in the upright position than
in animals restrained manually on their sides. This could be related to
the fact that it is easier to cut the animal when it is on its side, rather
than when it is in an upright position. In all cases, the animals bled
well. All the animals showed an absence of rhythmic breathing after
stunning with both restraint methods assessed.
4.5. Poultry slaughtered without stunning
The time from restraint to cut was high, when compared to regular
slaughter, but poultry only apped their wings for a very short time at
some time between shackling and neck cutting, much shorter than in
the commercial plant where animals are stunned by a water bath.
Only one cut was performed during neck cutting and the percentage
of poultry showing excitation during bleeding was very low.
4.6. Poultry slaughtered with stunning
The stun to neck cut interval was inuenced by the stunning system.
This interval was longer in poultry stunned with gas than in poultry
stunned in an electrical water bath. In both stunning systems, animals
bled well. However, the loss of consciousness was affected by the stunning system. None of the animals stunned with gas showed rhythmic
breathing after stunning. However, 15% of the electrically stunned animals showed this reex at the moment of neck cutting and 5% of
them showed it 30 s later. Although the absence of rhythmic breathing
movements is not as acceptable a method of identifying loss of consciousness in birds as in mammals (Anastasov & Wotton, 2012), the
high percentage of rhythmic breathing after electrical stunning indicates that the settings of the stunning system or the interval between
the end of current ow and cut might have been suboptimal in the
assessed plants.

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

5. Conclusions. Ritual slaughter and animal welfare:

a possible conciliation?
The results and discussion from our research can be taken further. In
fact, everyone should manifest their own religion in ways that have the
minimum, negative impact possible on every other living being and,
more generally, on the human habitat. This duty persists even when,
by comparing the different principles involved, a specic manifestation
of religious faith is legally permitted.
In ritual slaughtering, at a supercial level the key issue seems to be
the lack of animal stunning and the restraint techniques employed. The
legislation in all European Union member states assumes that an animal
will suffer less if made unconscious prior to slaughtering. The bioethical
principles of precaution and responsibility impose consideration of this
possibility.
There are three main points to take into account:
a) observations and research will strike a balance between religious
practices and the scientic minimization of animal suffering. In particular, it is appropriate to specify the notion of animal integrity in
every religion and to distinguish it from mere animal vigilance. In
fact, based on previous experiences in other European regions, it
may be possible to identify techniques that limit the state of animal
vigilance without causing any injury that may impair its integrity;
b) more research is developed on possible, religiously acceptable stunning, as, in fact, appears to be happening already;
c) the legitimate, economic needs of abattoirs do not prejudice their
observance of the time and techniques required for a correct execution of slaughtering, and of ritual slaughtering in particular.
The need to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals, the need to observe basic health and hygiene rules and the need not to offend people's
feelings have led to a general rejection of spontaneous and uncontrolled
ritual slaughtering, performed in unauthorized abattoirs, without adequate veterinary inspection.
The problems arising in countries where Muslim immigration is
more substantial call for an urgent setup of specic, ritual slaughtering
facilities to accommodate the numerous slaughtering at the time of
certain religious festivities, e.g., slaughter houses could, as an exception,
remain open on those occasions. However, we must not forget that the
spontaneous, uncontrolled slaughtering of animals is not practiced
exclusively by the Muslim community. It is, in fact, performed on multiple occasions on both religious and secular grounds. This is why any
observation on ritual slaughtering should be the starting point for a
broader debate on a more responsible relationship between humans
and animals. The issue of the higher economic costs for consumers

287

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

be addressed. It is the entire legislation and especially its enforcement
on animal farming for slaughter purposes which raise doubts, requiring
structural interventions to actually respect the aforementioned ethics of
care. In fact, the conditions which are an increasing part of the industrial
production process and under which these animals are forced to live as
they mature, the way they are taken to the slaughter house and the way
slaughtering is performed are often less than ideal in terms of respect
shown to animals.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the EU: EC funded project No.: FP6-2005-FOOD-4-C Religious slaughter, improving knowledge and expertise through dialogue and debate on issues of welfare,
legislation and socio-economic aspects (acronym: DIALREL). The
authors express their sincere appreciation to members of Polyglot,
Perugia, Italy, for carefully reading and commenting on the manuscript.
References
Anastasov, M. I., & Wotton, S. B. (2012). Survey of the incidence of post stun behavioural
reexes in electrically stunned broilers in commercial conditions and the relationship
of their incidence with the applied water bath electrical parameters. Animal Welfare,
22(2), 247256.
Anil, M. H. (2012). Effects of slaughter method on carcass and meat characteristics in the
meat of cattle and sheep. (In (Vol. 2013)).
Anonymous (1993). Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of
slaughter or killing. European Community Ofcial Journal, 340, 2134.
Anonymous (2009). Regolamento (CE) N. 1099/2009 del Consiglio del 24 settembre 2009
relativo alla protezione degli animali durante l'abbattimento. Gazzetta ufciale dell'unione
europea L 303 del 18 novembre 2009 (Vol. 1099/2009).
Bruce, N., Pope, D., & Stanistreet, D. (2008). Quantitative methods for health research: a
practical interactive guide to epidemiology and statistics. Wiley.
Cenci-Goga, B. T., Mattiacci, C., De Angelis, G., Marini, P., Cuccurese, A., Rossi, R., & Catanese,
B. (2010). Religious slaughter in Italy. Veterinary research communications, 34(Suppl. 1),
S139S143.
Cenci-Goga, B. T., Sechi, P., Cuccurese, A., Poeta, A., De Angelis, G., Marini, P., Mattiacci, C.,
Rossi, R., Pezzato, R., Salamano, G., & Santori, P. (2013). Religious slaughter: data from
surveys and spot-check visits in Italy and animal welfare issues. Society and Animals,
21(5) (000-000).
Dunn, C. S. (1990). Stress reactions of cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two
methods of restraint. Veterinary Record, 126, 522525.
Grandin, T. (1998). Solving livestock handling problems in slaughter plants. In N. G.
Gregory (Ed.), Animal welfare and meat science (pp. 4263). Wallingford, Oxon (UK):
CAB Int.
Gregory, N. G. (2004). Physiology and behaviour of animal suffering. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Macintire, D. K., Drobatz, K. J., Haskins, S.C., & Saxon, W. D. (2012). Manual of small animal
emergency and critical care medicine. UK: Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
von Holleben, K. V., Wenzlawowicz, M. V., Gregory, N., Anil, M. H., Velarde, A., Rodriguez, P.,
Cenci-Goga, B. T., Catanese, B., & Lambooi, J. B. (2010). Report on good and adverse
practices. Animal welfare concerns in relation to slaughter practices from the viewpoint
of veterinary sciences. Dialrel Deliverable n. 1.3. Cardiff University.