The Forum

I understand it to be true that an animal killed quickly tastes better. Something about acid in the blood as it runs or panics makes the meat less tender, yes? This is a universally accepted truth among hunters?

So, why isn't it true for pigs and cattle? My father described the (fairly awful) death of a pig he witnessed when a farmer cut its throat and then he and his son chased it round the farmyard, bleeding all the time. This removed the blood from the meat, so making it more tender apparently. Halal killed animals also rely on a long death to allow the blood time to pump out - which must involve pain and panic, so why isn't the meat tough as old boots?

Just a thought.

The majority of commercial meat comes from the larger factory farms now, and if I'm not mistaken, a good number of those places use captive bolt pistols to stun the animals before slaughter. The cerebrum is destroyed, but the body still functions to let out the blood, but the animal certaily isn't panicking at that point.

On a smaller farm, you'd probably not have that option, and in the case of Kosher or Halal, the emphasis is on relgious cleanliness, not the taste.

But yeah, I do believe it tastes better. Same with fish. I was on Martha's Vineyard last weekend, and the cost of harpooned swordfish was almost $20 a pound as opposed the much cheaper prices for fish brought in on hook and reel.

isnt it also that a panicked animal bunches it muscles and so the meat is tough.

where as an animal shot before flight its meat is softer without those bunched tendons


im sure i read that somewhere

An old bucher friend of mine say's it has nothing to do with any of that, it is the hanging period that tenderises the meat.

So the muscle doesn't bunch up, but that might not be related to flavor.

This is greatly based on personal opinion of course.

ugh this is making me sick, really.
I'm strongly against killing animals in a cruel manner to make them "taste better" or more tender. How perverse is that?! I hate it that even though we have rather strong animal rights in the EU ( at least compared to the rest of the world), strongly prohibiting cruel treatment of animals and unnecessary pain, religious killings are still allowed.

We're not, a quick death is the argument, the soon it is done, the better



Not very.



Because your morals are better than theirs?

Why so many people think hunting is cruel compared to any other form of killing animals is beyond me. My best guess is that it's an easy opinion with which to sanctimoniously declare how nice you are as a person. It's certainly not informed.

Lawrence

I don't say hunting is worse than any other form of killing, no. I actually think that a wild animal that had its natural life before being hunted and killed is certainly better than being locked up in a cage for all its life before being slaughtered. That doesn't mean I understand how you can consider hunting a sport.
Even so, I have friends who hunt and I respect that they have a different opinion - I don't go about wagging my finger at them or anything, as it's not my business.

And yes, I think that my morales are better than those of someone who kills for religious reasons. Why should "religion" allow things that any common law wouldn't? And what if your religion demands to stone a woman to death for committing adultery - you wouldn't think of justifying that. So why religious slaughter? Doesn't make any sense to me. I don't mind people going after their respective religions, really I don't as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else- but that includes animals.
Sorry, but that's my opinion.
And I do think that it is perverse to make another creature suffer just to make it taste better or its meat more tender.

Hopefully the meat i eat is from an animal that has been killed humanely.
Where as say foxhunting, where a fox has been chased and cornered then ripped apart by dogs is rather barbaric imo. yes i do know thar foxes cause alot of damage in the countryside, but this method of culling isn't humane at all. So i'm glad fox hunting was banned and hope it remains so

But we on the forum will see what you truly think?




You made a comparision between stoning a human woman and an Islamic sacrifice for a holiday involving a sheep. The woman is my equal, not a farm animal. A sheep is considered livestock, property.




We have stated that a quick death makes it better, to make them not suffer. A sudden and quick death.

The true question is, would you stop eating it if it came to light that it was not so humane?

I don't understand. My friends know what I truely think. Doesn't mean I have to tell them every single time we meet or they tell me about their hunting trips.

Of course a woman is something else than a lamb. However I think that torture for religious reasons ia wrong, in every single case. It's just not right and should not be allowed. I don't say that eating animals is wrong per se, I think that it is a personal decision. I do think that treating animals with disrespect and cruelty iswrong, as is killing for a sport

i'm going to make myself sound like a total ogre here, but...

What ever is involved in making my food taste better is completely acceptable in my opinion, i'm not out for full on cruelity for the sake of it, but methods of slaughter that increase my dining pleasure; well yes. Fois Gras is beautiful, veal is beautiful and i appreciate the taste of both of these meats immensely.

If there is a more humane way of producing the same results, then do it, but if not the way that works is fine with me. We are top of the food chain... End off.

As for Conns question, i've always believed that quick slaughter increases meat tenderness & hanging of the meat improves flavour.

That's the curse of a forum. It's only words with no ability to tell the person's tone of voice.

What I meant is that you said you don't go wagging your finger at them, but then that's what it seemed like you were doing with us.


However, in many cases the animal is killed in the same way as it would be for food. And in most situations, it is eaten afterwards. Though I might need to look that up, as there is rules about eating offerings, but I think that is an offering given to a false idol.

Masters of all we survey.

Oh Christ, not the fox hunting debate again...I can't be bothered to trawl through the forum to find out how many times it's taken place on here but I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that I got bored of it at least three debates ago. Sigh.

Not exactly the fox-hunting debate, Lawrence! Anyway, foxes love it, it keeps them fit.



That was funny in the context of the serious posts I was reading above it. I was actually thinking of foie gras and the fact that I can eat it (ok, only twice, it's damned expensive) without too much guilt. I'm closer to Pete's end of the argument spectrum - I understand that meat involves killing things and as long as reasonable efforts are made to make it quick, I'm competely ok with that.

Would I still eat it if it wasn't so humanely done? I might not. I imagine my experience of seeing a film about a slaughterhouse and not eating meat for a few days is pretty common. It didn't stick, but the reality is one we all prefer not to think about. I am fairly unbothered about cows, for some reason. Pigs bother me, because they scream and appear to be quite intelligent. Unfortunately, I like bacon more than beef, so someone has to pay. I spent a whole day making sausages once, beginning with half a pig and ending up with enormous strings of sausages like you used to see dogs running off with in comics. It is still one of my happiest memories.

In the DBfB, I wanted to put in killing and eating a rabbit, because I think every meat-eater should have the fairly unpleasant experience of killing something, gutting and jointing it and then eating it. It was messy. For what it's worth, my rabbit stew was like chewing rope. As a wild animal, it was extremely muscly. I did consider using a pet rabbit for comparison purposes, but I thought that would be going too far.

Conn

Now, this I have done. I killed a rabbit, skinned it, and then cut it up for rabbit stew. It was a rabbit bred for this purpose, so a quick knock of the ole hammer upon his skull did the trick.

If muscly is the same as gamy tasting, then I suspect that a domestic rabbit would not have been an improvement for you.
That was years ago, and I mostly agreed to do it on a dare. Some friends had moved deep into the mountains and wanted to see if I could handle their lifestyle. I have to say I was surprised not only by my boldness, but also surprised by the fact it actually felt ...satisfying? I got a rush of some form of primal hormone. I didn't find it messy or unpleasant, just not very tasty.

I have also killed and cooked rabbit but using the clay baked method

Cooking meat by covering it with clay and baking it in the coals has the effect of a clay oven and steams the meat until tender and juicy in its own juices. To use this method acquire some good sticky clay or mud, and smear it over the entire item you are cooking. Punch a hole with a small stick through the clay to the meat to allow a place for steam to escape. Place it near the fire to allow the clay to harden, then checking to make sure your steam hole is still clear, place it in the hot coals and cover it with more coals, being careful not to cover the steam hole, otherwise it can explode, then, cook until done. Fresh fish or fowl, cooks up particularly well using this method and you need not remove feathers or scales as these will pull off as you remove the clay. The entrails cook into a small ball in the body cavity that is easily raked out after cooking and does not taint the flavor of the meat. In the case of any other animal, it should eviscerated and skinned and covered with yucca or grape leaves, even brown paper, to prevent any grit from staying with the meat. You may also wish to place herbs and spices in the body cavity before covering it with leaves and clay.