Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37835667›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Stunning Compliance in Halal Slaughter: A Review of Current Scientific Knowledge.

Awis Qurni Sazili, Pavan Kumar, Muhammad Nizam Hayat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Public perception of animal welfare in Iran.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025
    Article
  8. Assessment of DonkeyAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Awis Qurni SaziliHalal Products Research Institute, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Putra Infoport, Serdang 43400, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-7362-0855
Pavan KumarInstitute of Tropical Agriculture and Food Security, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Serdang 43400, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-0567-0359
Muhammad Nizam HayatDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Serdang 43400, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0001-7033-7643

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Muslim scholars are not unanimous on the issue of the application of stunning in the halal slaughtering of animals. Appropriate stunning makes animals unconscious instantaneously, thus avoiding unnecessary pain and stress during the slaughtering of animals. The present review comprehensively summarizes the available scientific literature on stunning methods in view of their halal compliance during the slaughter of animals. The issue of maximum blood loss, reversibility of consciousness, and animals remaining alive during the halal cut are the key determinants of approval of stunning in the halal slaughter. Further, missed stuns due to poor maintenance of equipment, improper applications, and poor restraining necessitates additional stunning attempts, which further aggravates pain and stress in animals. Scientific findings suggest that halal-compliant stunning technologies are reversible, do not kill animals prior to the halal cut, and do not obstruct blood loss. There is a need to carry out further research on the refinement of available stunning technologies and their application, proper restraints, proper identification of the death status of animals, and assurance of animal welfare in commercial halal meat production.

Indexed as

animal welfarehalalreligious slaughterstunningunconsciousness

Identifiers

PMID37835667
PMCPMC10571904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.