New slaughter plant application makes mockery of unwanted horse theory?

[Ghazzu]

I believe that horses have about 70% more blood/pound than, say, a cow or pig..

Perhaps you should read an actual physiology text rather than some ill informed anti-slaughter screed then, because that is one of the more ridiculous statements I've seen in this debate yet.

[englishcowgirl]

What's that noise? A train?


Lemme toss some coal in the engine:

I've said it before and I'll say it again; you better be a vegetarian if you're whining about slaughtering horses or raising them for meat. I care for several pet cows, and most days I actually prefer them to most horses. All three of them have their own personalities, quirks, and likes and dislikes. There is NO difference between one animal and another, which is why I choose to eat none of 'em.

Or you know Jewish, Muslim or any of the religions that oppose the eating of horses in their scripture. Or people who consider horses as pets, those who dislike cruelty, those who do not support commercial slaughter but buy from local farmers ect.

[jetsmom]

"There are plenty of animal rights extremists, some posting right here, that think horses should not ever be trained and used in any way, not for carriage horses, not to show, not to trail ride, not even as pasture ornaments.

]

REALLY????? Name one.

[Bluey]

REALLY????? Name one.

[Alagirl]

Or you know Jewish, Muslim or any of the religions that oppose the eating of horses in their scripture. Or people who consider horses as pets, those who dislike cruelty, those who do not support commercial slaughter but buy from local farmers ect.

Yes and people oppose eating cow for religious reason. or pigs.

They can feel free to not eat it, but should stay out of others kitchens.

The 'cruelty' aspect is usually hinged on the 'omg, the poor horsies', when the other species are brought up, the answer is 'this is a horse forum' cop out.
Having bad people work in a plant is bad business.
It does not matter if it's a cow a horse or a chicken.
"it's inhumane' as argument is bogus.
it can be made humane.
And what happens after the horse is down does not matter one lick.

[jetsmom]

I'm serious...name one ARA person on here that believes "horses shouldn't be used for anything". I know you think anyone against commercial horse slaughter is an ARA, but that isn't what you are claiming. You say there are ARA people here on COTH that believe horses shouldn't be used for anything (training, riding, showing). So post something to back up that assertion.

[Bluey]

I'm serious...name one ARA person on here that believes "horses shouldn't be used for anything". I know you think anyone against commercial horse slaughter is an ARA, but that isn't what you are claiming. You say there are ARA people here on COTH that believe horses shouldn't be used for anything (training, riding, showing). So post something to back up that assertion.

Why would I need to do that, to make you happy?

You have been reading here long enough to figure such by yourself.

There is a member, that is involved with the HSUS, that posted that the world would be better without humans, so no animal had to suffer.
Lofty thought, but a bit out there, I think.
That is the kind of posters I was referring to.

[Ghazzu]

Or you know Jewish, Muslim or any of the religions that oppose the eating of horses in their scripture. Or people who consider horses as pets, those who dislike cruelty, those who do not support commercial slaughter but buy from local farmers ect.

There is no Islamic prohibition regarding horsemeat other than the standard halal slaughter.
Domestic donkeys are forbidden, however.

People with religious or esthetic objections to the consumption of horsemeat should not be forced to consume it. Likewise, they should not attempt to force their idiosyncratic objections onto others who believe differently.

Humane slaughter regulations should be across the board, irrespective of species.

[Ghazzu]

I'm serious...name one ARA person on here that believes "horses shouldn't be used for anything". I know you think anyone against commercial horse slaughter is an ARA, but that isn't what you are claiming. You say there are ARA people here on COTH that believe horses shouldn't be used for anything (training, riding, showing). So post something to back up that assertion.

Are you clear on the difference between animal "rights" and animal "welfare"?

[Angela Freda]

I think you've seriously misread this. The quoted item clearly indicates "European and Asian consumer" as well as others.

G.

“ 'The horses would have been kept on feed for a period of time to ensure quality,' she said. 'This produces the quality of meat that is sought after by the European and Asian consumer,...' "
This is what Ms. Wallis states they intend to produce.

She goes on to say
'...and which we anticipate will be well received by specialty, gourmet, ethnic, and health conscious consumers in the United States,” Wallis said.

It also clearly states 'specialty, gourmet, ethnic, and health conscious consumers in the United States' is their intended market of the quality of meat that they intend to produce, similar to what is sought after by the European and Asian consumer.

[LauraKY]

Thanks for your opinion, will think about your advice.

You know, long ago, when I started posting, some told me I was hard to understand, some took me too seriously and to please use icons to give a bit more feel to my words, that sound right out of a book.
Ok, I learned my written English from magazines and books and I think it reflects that, is stilted even to my ears.

Soo, there you have, I use icons to try to lighten up the sound of my thoughts.

Well, that sure makes a lot of sense. And honestly, your English is better than a lot of other posters on COTH.

[betonbill]

A study comparing blood volumes of large animals.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/1...9D527FC3547BDC

"The mean results for total blood volume expressed as percentage of liveweight from a series of analyses for each species were: Horse 8.63, cattle 6.25, sheep 7.37, goat 6.86.-W. Godden."

Now I don't know that it is 70% more or not, but definitely more.

[Bluey]

Well, that sure makes a lot of sense. And honestly, your English is better than a lot of other posters on COTH.

Thank you, I will try to curb my enthusiasm for those smilies.
I agree with you that they may have become too much fun and a bit overused.






(See, I can post without them.)

[jetsmom]

Are you clear on the difference between animal "rights" and animal "welfare"?

Absolutely. I believe that you can be against commercial horse slaughter without being an ARA. Bluey does not. She often accuses anyone against commercial horse slaughter as an ARA. As she posted earlier. Yet can't back it up.

[Doodlebug1]

You can't compare European horse slaughter to American horse slaughter. Theirs is REGULATED.

Ours is NOT. And here - for the benefit of those who never get off the OC slaughter threads into an actual discipline - (just for starters) is what you all propose to put in our food chain...

Sadly not really true. At all. http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/hel...ansport_action

World Horse Welfare is not some crackpot rescue. It's well researched and campaigns at government level.

The European equine slaughter methods are not at all humane. The travel is one thing but these animals are sometimes fattened in inhumane ways, never leaving their stalls - making them far too weak to endure a journey to slaughter.

The actual moment of slaughter? Yes, that's a little more regulated.

I have no problem with ethically grown and slaughtered meat, of any kind. As someone else said, there's minimal difference between cattle and horses.

[Bluey]

Absolutely. I believe that you can be against commercial horse slaughter without being an ARA. Bluey does not. She often accuses anyone against commercial horse slaughter as an ARA. As she posted earlier. Yet can't back it up.

Really?

Here is one definition of both and who is behind some of the muddled waters about the differences:

http://www.ncraoa.com/AR_AW_WhatYouShouldKnow.html

Really, yes, really, slaughter is not good or bad in itself.
Slaughter is a process we humans have to use the natural, renewable resource animals are for us.
The same process is called hunting when a lion is bringing down a gazelle and, if you ask the one killed in either process, I would say that generally, slaughter is a definite improvement on the process of killing.

I live in a wildlife preserve and have lost count how many times I come unto some kill and many times the prey is still alive and half eaten.
Thankfully, we humans don't generally do that, at least not thru slaughter.

Now, those that don't like this or that in slaughter are talking about something in the process of slaughter they don't like.
Unless they are animal rights extremists, those don't think we should raise domestic animals for any use, especially not to use thru slaughter.

There is a great difference between animal rights, where animals are placed off limits to humans, against the natural order this world evolved with AND animal welfare, that is to insure that what we do with our animals is not abusive.

[Ghazzu]

A study comparing blood volumes of large animals.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/1...9D527FC3547BDC

"The mean results for total blood volume expressed as percentage of liveweight from a series of analyses for each species were: Horse 8.63, cattle 6.25, sheep 7.37, goat 6.86.-W. Godden."

Now I don't know that it is 70% more or not, but definitely more.

The values being expressed there are *percentages*.
So the above reference says horses have about 2% more blood volume per unit bodyweight than goats.
That's significantly less than 70%, isn't it?

And Smth's "Goat Medicine" :

" approximately 7%, with range of 5.7-9%" which would give an overlapping of horse and goat values.

[Bluey]

Sadly not really true. At all. http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/hel...ansport_action

World Horse Welfare is not some crackpot rescue. It's well researched and campaigns at government level.

The European equine slaughter methods are not at all humane. The travel is one thing but these animals are sometimes fattened in inhumane ways, never leaving their stalls - making them far too weak to endure a journey to slaughter.

The actual moment of slaughter? Yes, that's a little more regulated.

I have no problem with ethically grown and slaughtered meat, of any kind. As someone else said, there's minimal difference between cattle and horses.

Sorry, that is a, well, I don't know if a "crackpot group" or not, but is tied in with extremists animal rights groups, if you believe it or not.

[Nojacketrequired]

the guys that work with the horses, hands on, are the dumbest of the dumb. They worked with the horses and were so inured to the pain and suffering of any sick or debilitated horse, it was hard to watch.

In a well-run slaughter plant, the kill operators are rotated into other jobs frequently, so the worker doesn't begin to get jaded to what they are doing.

There is a ton of science behind the way that slaughter is done and the importance of being as humane a death as possible is always forefront in the companies mind. Not only because it's the law, or because it makes for higher yields, but because it's the right thing to do and the great majority want to do the right thing by the animals.

NJR

[EqTrainer]

Does anyone else remember when this BB wasn't an emotional trainwreck? When discussions could get heated and there was disagreement but at least the information was intelligent, well thought out and from experienced folks.


I miss that.

I do, too.