Animal sacrifice: out of fashion

[Subduction Zone]

The pattern of changes in EEG activity following captive bolt stunning, between and within captive bolt gun treatments groups, was not uniform (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). For all animals, there were periods of movement artefact in the EEG immediately after shooting. The duration of the initial period of movement artefact varied between the treatments, with cattle shot with the PCB having a mean initial duration of 2.3 ± 0.2 (range 1–5) seconds and NPCB 1.6 ± 0.4 (range 1–4) seconds, however the difference was not significant (p = .117). For both treatment groups, in most animals movement artefact was followed by transitional EEG, with further bursts of movement artefact and transitional EEG before changing into isoelectric waveforms.​

​

The EEG waveforms of successfully stunned bulls generally followed a pattern of transitional or HALF activity before becoming isoelectric.​

​

Electroencephalographic assessment of pneumatically powered penetrating and non-penetrating captive-bolt stunning of bulls

The electroencephalographic (EEG) responses of 31 bulls (zebu crossbred cattle) stunned with either pneumatically powered Jarvis penetrating (PCB) or …

www.sciencedirect.com

*shakes my head* Dude. They are suffering during the stunning. Details, details are important. Saying they're stunned ignores how they got that way. And if you *actually* read the research I just posted you'll see, this is not an error-free process. Yes, sometimes it takes 2 bolts. Sometimes, it simply doesn't work and they do for it.

It's better to leave this kind of work to a pro with a long sharp knife.

​

That is not what that article says or implies. I think that you may have a reading comprehension problem due to your prejudice. It compares two different means of stunning. One of them had unconsciousness in all examples. That was the bulls that were stunned with a penetrating bolt. For the ones stunned with a nonpenetrating bolt there was a record of 82% being completely unconscious:

"s. After stunning two NPCB bulls had periods of normal EEG activity and maintenance (Ptot, delta, theta, beta) or increased (alpha) spectral power compared to pre-treatment values, indicating incomplete concussion. The study showed that pneumatic PCB stunning was effective in rendering all bulls unconscious, while NPCB was less effective. This highlights the potential animal welfare risks associated with NPCB compared to PCB stunning of mature bulls in commercial abattoirs."

They are obviously recommending that NPCB not be used and instead just a penetrating bolt concussion device should be used. And when it comes to a "pro with a long knife" that is never instantaneous. Even with an incomplete stun an animal may be in less pain than when its throat is cut. We have not even tried to compare those two at all.

In other words, your source only showed what sort of stunning that should not be used. It did not make a case for your system at all.

 

[dybmh]

LOL! Oh my the rude ignorance and projection continues. Name calling and worse.

How about some poetry?

Your arguments suck,
Your claims are weak,
If you don't know much,
It's stupid to speak.

It is no my opinion that it is painless. It is also the claim of the sources that I linked.

The source about hyper-tension? What's your venmo? I'll send you a few bucks to by a clue.

All you can do is to make false claims and use personal attacks. My claims were supported. When iI ask for the particular data that would validate your claim all that you can do is to claim "I posted it". The fact is that you haven't.

Oh yeah I did. Everyone reading this tread can see it. I just posted more a few minutes ago proving you wrong. The stunning takes time to take effect and during that time, they are suffering.

Scroll up, and try reading.

Now you are taking an analogy too far with surgery. Yes, anesthesia can lower the responses to stress. That was not the point. The point was that the body still reacts.

All you need to do, is reeeeeeeeeeesearch. Then post it. Unless there is none, and then all you need to do is:

"Hey Dyb, I can't find anything to back up my weak loser ideas. You've been correct this whole time. It's amazing because for the longest time, my racism, and bigotry prevented me from listening to anything a religious person had to say. But, I need to thank you for opening my own eyes, and prying my stupid brain out of the fog."

And then, I'd say:

"Ya know what, SubD, it's OK. I'm glad you're on the mend."

You are the most desperate person that I have seen in a long long time. Purposefully misunderstanding the arguments of others and then calling them a dunce only reflects poorly on you.

Ummm, that argument you made was pure D-U-N-C-E. You said:

It is too quick of an action to even register as pain consciously.

And then you said:

Your system puts the animal through conscious pain.

That is one of the dumbest set of flip-flops I've ever seen.

Here, you need to up your game. Avacahdo.



What other stupid things do you have to say? I'm predicting something extra-dumb coming up.... let's see if I'm right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about some poetry?

Your arguments suck,
Your claims are weak,
If you don't know much,
It's stupid to speak.



The source about hyper-tension? What's your venmo? I'll send you a few bucks to by a clue.



Oh yeah I did. Everyone reading this tread can see it. I just posted more a few minutes ago proving you wrong. The stunning takes time to take effect and during that time, they are suffering.

Scroll up, and try reading.



All you need to do, is reeeeeeeeeeesearch. Then post it. Unless there is none, and then all you need to do is:

"Hey Dyb, I can't find anything to back up my weak loser ideas. You've been correct this whole time. It's amazing because for the longest time, my racism, and bigotry prevented me from listening to anything a religious person had to say. But, I need to thank you for opening my own eyes, and prying my stupid brain out of the fog."

And then, I'd say:

"Ya know what, SubD, it's OK. I'm glad you're on the mend."



Ummm, that argument you made was pure D-U-N-C-E. You said:



And then you said:



That is one of the dumbest set of flip-flops I've ever seen.

Here, you need to up your game. Avacahdo.

View attachment 77535

What other stupid things do you have to say? I'm predicting something extra-dumb coming up.... let's see if I'm right.

I am sorry that you can neither pay attention to the arguments that are being made or respond properly to them. You have quite the collection of strawmen in this thread. Too bad that there was no flip flop. Too bad that your sources support me far more than they support you.

So why do you get so agitated over this immoral practice that it robs you of the ability to reason rationally? As I pointed out, and I can do so again, the Muslims are adapting. There slaughter was almost identical to yours. It originated from concern about animal cruelty, as did yours. But now there is something better. Is it one hundred percent effective? No. Is it better than its predecessor, without a doubt. And the Muslims still have animal welfare as a main consideration which is why they are trying to decide what method of stunning is the best to use. I never said that it has to be by mechanical means. It is only the most prevalent and it is still better than no stunning. But there are other methods too. Some better some worse. Here is the article that goes over which method is best from a Muslim perrspective:

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

Abstract. There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades,

academic.oup.com

 

[dybmh]

That is not what that article says or implies. I think that you may have a reading comprehension problem due to your prejudice. It compares two different means of stunning. One of them had unconsciousness in all examples.

But not immediately. Read it again. Or, read it for the first time since you probably didn't *actually* read it.

That was the bulls that were stunned with a penetrating bolt. For the ones stunned with a nonpenetrating bolt there was a record of 82% being completely unconscious:

But not immediately. First there is a period of half-stun.

"s. After stunning two NPCB bulls had periods of normal EEG activity and maintenance (Ptot, delta, theta, beta) or increased (alpha) spectral power compared to pre-treatment values, indicating incomplete concussion. The study showed that pneumatic PCB stunning was effective in rendering all bulls unconscious, while NPCB was less effective. This highlights the potential animal welfare risks associated with NPCB compared to PCB stunning of mature bulls in commercial abattoirs."

They are obviously recommending that NPCB not be used and instead just a penetrating bolt concussion device should be used.

That's one conclusion. Way-to-go ignoring the fact that the animals do not immediately become unconscious.

And when it comes to a "pro with a long knife" that is never instantaneous.

Never? That's not what the actual data shows.

Even with an incomplete stun an animal may be in less pain than when its throat is cut. We have not even tried to compare those two at all.

Maybe, maybe not. See how that works?

In other words, your source only showed what sort of stunning that should not be used.

It showed there's problems with conventional slaughter. It shows there is a period of brain activity before they become unconscious.

It did not make a case for your system at all.

Well duh. That article shows that measuring hormone levels is a viable method for assessing suffering. And it was in response to:

the stress occurs AFTER THE ANIMAL IS STUNNED

Since you keep blabbering without doing any actual research, and I'm the sort of person who likes to know what I'm talking about, I went ahead and researched YOUR claim, and posted research showing it's false.

I wasn't making my case, I was defeating yours.

I knew you'd say something stupid. I mean, it's right there in front of you. You're so reliable predictable.

See the top blue box? That's called a "quote". Say it with me. "Qwwwwwohhhhhtttttte" Good. "Quote". That's the part of the post that communicates the context. The reply, that's below, is responding to the quote. Get it? It's really good system for having an online conversation, or a debate. It allows a person to respond to a false claim, like the one you made, specifically with scientific research, like what I linked to below it in the lower blue box.

You've been here a long time. It's amazing that you don't know how to read a post, and understand context.

 

[dybmh]

I am sorry that you can neither pay attention to the arguments that are being made or respond properly to them. You have quite the collection of strawmen in this thread. Too bad that there was no flip flop. Too bad that your sources support me far more than they support you.

So why do you get so agitated over this immoral practice that it robs you of the ability to reason rationally? As I pointed out, and I can do so again, the Muslims are adapting. There slaughter was almost identical to yours. It originated from concern about animal cruelty, as did yours. But now there is something better. Is it one hundred percent effective? No. Is it better than its predecessor, without a doubt. And the Muslims still have animal welfare as a main consideration which is why they are trying to decide what method of stunning is the best to use. I never said that it has to be by mechanical means. It is only the most prevalent and it is still better than no stunning. But there are other methods too. Some better some worse. Here is the article that goes over which method is best from a Muslim perrspective:

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

Abstract. There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades,

academic.oup.com

Ignoring all the other BS, let's look at the link you brought.

Grandin and Regenstein (1994) on some studies of observed more than 3,000 veal calves and cattle in 3 different slaughter plants in the United States that were using the upright restraint system where animal feel little or no response while their being throat cut. A slight shudder was noticed when the blade first touched the throat, but this was significantly less vigorous when compared with response of an animal when an ear tag was put on. No further response was observed as the cut proceeded. It seems like the animals were not aware that their throat was being cut.​

​

According to Grandin and Regenstein (1994), if the details mentioned about the kosher slaughter knife design (twice the length as the width of the neck and the absence of any nicks), then cutting of the neck when done properly seemed to prevent animal from reacting to the shechita cut.​

Less than an ear tag being put in. We Jews know what to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The pattern of changes in EEG activity following captive bolt stunning, between and within captive bolt gun treatments groups, was not uniform (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). For all animals, there were periods of movement artefact in the EEG immediately after shooting. The duration of the initial period of movement artefact varied between the treatments, with cattle shot with the PCB having a mean initial duration of 2.3 ± 0.2 (range 1–5) seconds and NPCB 1.6 ± 0.4 (range 1–4) seconds, however the difference was not significant (p = .117). For both treatment groups, in most animals movement artefact was followed by transitional EEG, with further bursts of movement artefact and transitional EEG before changing into isoelectric waveforms.​

​

The EEG waveforms of successfully stunned bulls generally followed a pattern of transitional or HALF activity before becoming isoelectric.​

​

Electroencephalographic assessment of pneumatically powered penetrating and non-penetrating captive-bolt stunning of bulls

The electroencephalographic (EEG) responses of 31 bulls (zebu crossbred cattle) stunned with either pneumatically powered Jarvis penetrating (PCB) or …

www.sciencedirect.com

*shakes my head* Dude. They are suffering during the stunning. Details, details are important. Saying they're stunned ignores how they got that way. And if you *actually* read the research I just posted you'll see, this is not an error-free process. Yes, sometimes it takes 2 bolts. Sometimes, it simply doesn't work and they do for it.

It's better to leave this kind of work to a pro with a long sharp knife.

​

The "transitional EEG" appears to still be an unconscious state. You stopped your quote a bit too early. A little more context is needed:

"The EEG waveforms of successfully stunned bulls generally followed a pattern of transitional or HALF activity before becoming isoelectric. Transitional EEG had a different morphology from both pre-treatment active and isoelectric EEG, and has been characterised as being incompatible with consciousness/sensibility in mammalian (Blackmore & Delany, 1988; Gibson et al., 2009a, Gibson et al., 2009b) and avian species (Gibson, Rebelo, Gowers, & Chancellor, 2018). The reported HALF EEG activity seen in 10 bulls, has been previously reported in PCB shot mature cattle (Daly et al., 1988), and is similar to the low-frequency delta and theta waveforms seen following successful PCB and NPCB stunning of calves (Groß, 1979; Lambooy & Spanjaard, 1981; Lambooy, Spanjaard, & Eikelenboom, 1981) and heifers/steers/cow (Fricker & Riek, 1981; Zulkifli et al., 2014). This activity has been reported in both humans (Bauer, 2005) and animals (Dennis Jr., Dong, Weisbrod, & Elchlepp, 1988) after clinical or experimental traumatic brain injury, and is seen during unconsciousness caused by concussive impacts (Shaw, 2002).

Yes, suffering is still suffering and there is no doubt of suffering during the kosher slaughtering process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ignoring all the other BS, let's look at the link you brought.

Grandin and Regenstein (1994) on some studies of observed more than 3,000 veal calves and cattle in 3 different slaughter plants in the United States that were using the upright restraint system where animal feel little or no response while their being throat cut. A slight shudder was noticed when the blade first touched the throat, but this was significantly less vigorous when compared with response of an animal when an ear tag was put on. No further response was observed as the cut proceeded. It seems like the animals were not aware that their throat was being cut.​

​

According to Grandin and Regenstein (1994), if the details mentioned about the kosher slaughter knife design (twice the length as the width of the neck and the absence of any nicks), then cutting of the neck when done properly seemed to prevent animal from reacting to the shechita cut.​

Less than an ear tag being put in. We Jews know what to do.

And yet that is refuted by the videos of kosher slaughtering. Sorry, if anything the racism is yours here.

 

[dybmh]

I am sorry that you can neither pay attention to the arguments that are being made or respond properly to them. You have quite the collection of strawmen in this thread. Too bad that there was no flip flop. Too bad that your sources support me far more than they support you.

So why do you get so agitated over this immoral practice that it robs you of the ability to reason rationally? As I pointed out, and I can do so again, the Muslims are adapting. There slaughter was almost identical to yours. It originated from concern about animal cruelty, as did yours. But now there is something better. Is it one hundred percent effective? No. Is it better than its predecessor, without a doubt. And the Muslims still have animal welfare as a main consideration which is why they are trying to decide what method of stunning is the best to use. I never said that it has to be by mechanical means. It is only the most prevalent and it is still better than no stunning. But there are other methods too. Some better some worse. Here is the article that goes over which method is best from a Muslim perrspective:

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

Abstract. There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades,

academic.oup.com

OK. Now, this is important SubD. I know, you've had trouble with the details. But I'm going to lay this out very clearly. OK? There's no reason for you to misunderstand this. This is called *actually* researching something.

Here's what your source says:

Other concern about the nonstunned animals is the pain they experience depending upon the rate of loss of consciousness following the slaughter. According to different studies, false aneurisms were found in the carotid arteries at the cardiac and cephalic ends that were the cause of prolonged (≥60 s) consciousness of slaughtered animal. However, when done correctly, kosher and Halal slaughtered cattle will take an average of 33 s to become unconscious and an animal that is not unconscious at 40 to 60 s ought to be stunned. False aneurisms cause sustained consciousness and can form as early as between 7 and 21 s following Halal animal slaughtering, hence causing improper bleeding out of the animal (Gregory et al., 2010; Gregory et al., 2012).​

​

See that? They said kosher and Halal, like they're the same thing. Then they give two links that are supposed to support this. You see those blue things? Gregory et al... Good. Yes. Those are the studies that are the source for this information. You know what's smart? Smart people click on those links. That's what I did. Here's what we find.

​

Time to collapse following slaughter without stunning in cattle

Time to physical collapse was examined in 174 cattle which were restrained in the upright position and then released immediately from the restraint fo…

www.sciencedirect.com

Ummm. What???? That's not kosher slaughter!

What about the other source? Same author, probably the same problem?

Yup. Same problem. They are assuming kosher and Halal are the same. This is why anytime some so-called academic makes a claim about anything that's "kosher", it needs to be verified. And that includes so-called academic theologians talking about the Hebrew bible. They are just as suspect as anyone else.

Now, let's look at the source that was listed IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED. This researcher actually visits both Halal and Jewish ritual slaughter houses. Both. And compares.

OK.

So, the article FAILS at accuracy. Going to the original sources, the long time for unconcsousness was *actually* only Halal! 95% of the cattle slaughtered by Jewish pros collapse IMMEDIATELY.

 

[dybmh]

And yet that is refuted by the videos of kosher slaughtering. Sorry, if anything the racism is yours here.

Nope. Your source proves I'm right. Post#228.

You're the one who assumed that the Chinese cannot be trusted. You've got issues

And you still trust the Chinese when it comes to claims of being "non-profit".

It's right there ^^ in all of its racist glory.

Well, that pretty much wraps it up. Multiple sources, even your own show that Jewish ritual slaughter is effective and humane. If you want to whine like a litte baby, I'll just keep posting screenshots from your own source.

Bye-bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. Now, this is important SubD. I know, you've had trouble with the details. But I'm going to lay this out very clearly. OK? There's no reason for you to misunderstand this. This is called *actually* researching something.

Here's what your source says:

Other concern about the nonstunned animals is the pain they experience depending upon the rate of loss of consciousness following the slaughter. According to different studies, false aneurisms were found in the carotid arteries at the cardiac and cephalic ends that were the cause of prolonged (≥60 s) consciousness of slaughtered animal. However, when done correctly, kosher and Halal slaughtered cattle will take an average of 33 s to become unconscious and an animal that is not unconscious at 40 to 60 s ought to be stunned. False aneurisms cause sustained consciousness and can form as early as between 7 and 21 s following Halal animal slaughtering, hence causing improper bleeding out of the animal (Gregory et al., 2010; Gregory et al., 2012).​

​

See that? They said kosher and Halal, like they're the same thing. Then they give two links that are supposed to support this. You see those blue things? Gregory et al... Good. Yes. Those are the studies that are the source for this information. You know what's smart? Smart people click on those links. That's what I did. Here's what we find.

​

Time to collapse following slaughter without stunning in cattle

Time to physical collapse was examined in 174 cattle which were restrained in the upright position and then released immediately from the restraint fo…

www.sciencedirect.com

View attachment 77543​

Ummm. What???? That's not kosher slaughter!

What about the other source? Same author, probably the same problem?

View attachment 77544

Yup. Same problem. They are assuming kosher and Halal are the same. This is why anytime some so-called academic makes a claim about anything that's "kosher", it needs to be verified. And that includes so-called academic theologians talking about the Hebrew bible. They are just as suspect as anyone else.

Now, let's look at the source that was listed IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED. This researcher actually visits both Halal and Jewish ritual slaughter houses. Both. And compares.



View attachment 77545


View attachment 77546

OK.

So, the article FAILS at accuracy. Going to the original sources, the long time for unconcsousness was *actually* only Halal! 95% of the cattle slaughtered by Jewish pros collapse IMMEDIATELY.

You should know that there is a difference between what is observed in research and what is observed in the field. That is why actual videos refute your claims. And calves are not steers. Calves are taken for veal at a very early age.

And you still cannot follow the arguments. I never said that all Muslims had changed. I said that more and more were changing as they reformed their systems. I should have a counter going for all of the logical fallacies that you use, but I am trying to have a rational discussion. So far you have been mostly reasoning emotionally.

Here is a question that I may have to ask several times:

Where do you get your beef from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. Your source proves I'm right. Post#228.

You're the one who assumed that the Chinese cannot be trusted. You've got issues



It's right there ^^ in all of its racist glory.

Well, that pretty much wraps it up. Multiple sources, even your own show that Jewish ritual slaughter is effective and humane. If you want to whine like a litte baby, I'll just keep posting screenshots from your own source.

Bye-bye.

LOL! That is not racist. That is a commentary about the Chinese government. You really have no clue, do you. But when you try to claim that Jews do it better, just because they are Jewish as you did in your previous post, that is racist. Halal butchers are supposed to have the same standards. They often fail. Guess what? So do kosher butchers.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Are there no muslims where you live?
The end of Ramadan is traditionally celebrated with the ritual slaughter / sacrifice of goats or sheep.

It's actually a big social/political talking point every year over here in Belgium... because the practice lives in very shady grey area's of the law in terms of animal rights etc.

The holiday after Ramadan is Eid al-Fitr. The holiday where Muslims sacrifice sheep or goats is Eid al-Adha, and it occurs during the Hajj season more than two lunar months after Eid al-Fitr. It is inspired by the story of Abraham in the Qur'an where he was willing to sacrifice Ishmael (Ismail in Arabic) before Allah redeemed Ishmael with a sheep.

 

[dybmh]

You should know that there is a difference between what is observed in research and what is observed in the field. That is why actual videos refute your claims. And calves are not steers. Calves are taken for veal at a very early age.

It was observed in the field. Did you read your own source? Both calf and cattle. Both. In the field. Jews are pros. 95% success rate. No stunning, none of the problems with stunning.

3000 observations. Calves and Cattle. Did you read your own source? Did you do anything at all?

 

[dybmh]

And you still cannot follow the arguments. I never said that all Muslims had changed. I said that more and more were changing as they reformed their systems. I should have a counter going for all of the logical fallacies that you use, but I am trying to have a rational discussion. So far you have been mostly reasoning emotionally.

I have been bringing data. RESEARCH. NUMBERS. MEASUREMENTS. Ya know, reliable metrics. That's the opposite of emotions.

I am ignoring your, lets call it, SubD sub-standard garbage. Focusing on facts only.

You lost. Your own source. Everyone can see it. Those European countries that banned Jewish ritual slaughter? Uninformed. Muslims who adopted stunning? Who cares, they're not doing it the Jewish way. Curved blade? Hacking at the neck? Multiple cuts? Maybe one artery, maybe two? Nope. That won't work.

 

[dybmh]

Halal butchers are supposed to have the same standards.

They don't have the same standards. Earth to SubD, Earth to SubD, set aside the substances.

Where in the world did you get that idea. What total ignorant rubbish.

They often fail. Guess what? So do kosher butchers.

They often fail? 3000+ observations. 95% success rate. No stunning needed. Often fail? Nope. You're just making stuff up.

Just keep dream'n. dream'n like you got something. keep posting nonsense and making stuff up. you've lost, you're losing, you're embarrasing yourself, no one should take you seriously, you can't/won't read

They often fail. Hah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but you still lose. Even with the study where the workman using NPCB's you still lose with your best case scenario. The time to unconsciousness was far shorter with bot PCB's and NPCB's. You have to move the goal posts to include calves, and you are only looking at what appears to be very rare. Fully equipped modern Jewish slaughterhouses. But those do hot even appear to be the norm. You are fairly bright, at times, see if you can figure out who wrote this:

"
Welfare aspects of slaughter

Many welfare concerns are centered on restraint. In Europe and the U.S. highly stressful restraint devices are still being used. Many of these systems apply excessive pressure or hold the animal in a position that causes distress. The recent l992 decision by the Swedish Board of Agriculture to uphold its ban on slaughter without stunning was largely driven by their concerns about forceful immobilisation and clamping of cattle (Andersson et al., 1992). Proper design and operation of restraint devices can alleviate most of these concerns with cattle and sheep.

Restraint devices will perform poorly from an animal welfare standpoint if the animals balk and refuse to enter due to distractions such as shadows, air hissing or poor illumination. These easily correctable problems will ruin the performance of the best restraint system. Abusive workers will cause suffering in a well designed system. For more information about properly operating pens, see Grandin, 1993.

Restraint devices are used for holding animals both for ritual slaughter and for conventional slaughter where animals are stunned. The use of a head restraint will improve the accuracy of captive bolt stunning. In large beef slaughter plants without head restraint captive bolt stunning has a failure rate of 3 to 5, i.e., a second shot is required.

Captive bolt and electric stunning will induce instantaneous insensibility when they are properly applied. However, improper application can result in significant stress. All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter ."

There are things to be said for kosher slaughter, but it could still be made better. Your knives are far from painless. And the reason that I asked you where you get your beef from is that one of the biggest exporters of "kosher beef" and perhaps the worst offender is Uruguay. Good quality meat, but you do not want to watch their kosher slaughter.

 

[dybmh]

Sorry, but you still lose. Even with the study where the workman using NPCB's you still lose with your best case scenario. The time to unconsciousness was far shorter with bot PCB's and NPCB's.

Near instantaneuous. 95% of the time. 3000 observed. There is no shorter time than that.

You have to move the goal posts to include calves,

This was YOUR source. I didn't move anything.

and you are only looking at what appears to be very rare.

First, you can't be trusted to make that judgement.

Fully equipped modern Jewish slaughterhouses. But those do hot even appear to be the norm.

How in the world do you justify that claim?

You are fairly bright, at times, see if you can figure out who wrote this:

"
Welfare aspects of slaughter

Many welfare concerns are centered on restraint. In Europe and the U.S. highly stressful restraint devices are still being used. Many of these systems apply excessive pressure or hold the animal in a position that causes distress. The recent l992 decision by the Swedish Board of Agriculture to uphold its ban on slaughter without stunning was largely driven by their concerns about forceful immobilisation and clamping of cattle (Andersson et al., 1992). Proper design and operation of restraint devices can alleviate most of these concerns with cattle and sheep.

1992....

Restraint devices will perform poorly from an animal welfare standpoint if the animals balk and refuse to enter due to distractions such as shadows, air hissing or poor illumination. These easily correctable problems will ruin the performance of the best restraint system. Abusive workers will cause suffering in a well designed system. For more information about properly operating pens, see Grandin, 1993.

1993...

Restraint devices are used for holding animals both for ritual slaughter and for conventional slaughter where animals are stunned. The use of a head restraint will improve the accuracy of captive bolt stunning. In large beef slaughter plants without head restraint captive bolt stunning has a failure rate of 3 to 5, i.e., a second shot is required.

Captive bolt and electric stunning will induce instantaneous insensibility when they are properly applied. However, improper application can result in significant stress. All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter ."

1974...
1978...

Why do I care? This is old news. And this is about restraints. Of course that's important, but that doesn't have to do with stunning or not.

There are things to be said for kosher slaughter, but it could still be made better.

Sure. But stunning isn't one of them.

Your knives are far from painless.

BUZZZZZZZ! You're going against your own source. If the knife is kosher ( long, straight, very sharp, no nicks )

And the reason that I asked you where you get your beef from is that one of the biggest exporters of "kosher beef" and perhaps the worst offender is Uruguay. Good quality meat, but you do not want to watch their kosher slaughter.

I'm not sure Uruguay is the slaughterhouse you're thinking of. I can't remember the name, starts with a P. I think. Anyway, that place should be shut down. Or upgraded. It was supposed to lose its kosher certification like a decade or more ago. I have no idea what its status is. I'd like to find out. And, yeah, I want to know where my meat comes from now. I started researching it, but I need to ask more questions. I can't find the answer online easily. But that has nothing to do with stunning.

There's plenty of data showing Jewish ritual slaughter is simply better. Conventional is cheaper, but it's trading on suffering for what appears more humane and what seems easier. Appearances don't matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Near instantaneuous. 95% of the time. 3000 observed. There is no shorter time than that.

View attachment 77614

View attachment 77615



This was YOUR source. I didn't move anything.



First, you can't be trusted to make that judgement.



How in the world do you justify that claim?



1992....



1993...



1974...
1978...

Why do I care? This is old news. And this is about restraints. Of course that's important, but that doesn't have to do with stunning or not.



Sure. But stunning isn't one of them.



BUZZZZZZZ! You're going against your own source. If the knife is kosher ( long, straight, very sharp, no nicks )

View attachment 77615



That place should be shut down. Or upgraded. It was supposed to lose its kosher certification like a decade or more ago. I have no idea what its status is. I'd like to find out. And, yeah, I want to know where my meat comes from now. I started researching it, but I need to ask more questions. I can't find the answer online easily. But that has nothing to do with stunning.

There's plenty of data showing Jewish ritual slaughter is simply better. Conventional is cheaper, but it's trading on suffering for what appears more humane and what seems easier. Appearances don't matter.

No, there is some evidence that Jewish slaughter is not as bad as other Jewish slaughter. You need to stop breaking up posts excessively. It shows that you are are not listening and you are only looking for excuses. You really have no clue as to who that source was? You have sited him more than once. And yes, that was in the past. Why do you think that it is any better today. The terrible videos that you can see are very modern. You could not sneak small but very accurate cameras into slaughterhouses in the past. Now anyone that has a cell phone can make videos.

And remember when you say that someone is "going against their own source" you have probably just misunderstood what was being claimed.

Here is a link to the paper that you did not appreciate:

>Religious slaughter and animal welfare:a discussion for meat scientists.

 

[dybmh]

No, there is some evidence that Jewish slaughter is not as bad as other Jewish slaughter. You need to stop breaking up posts excessively. It shows that you are are not listening and you are only looking for excuses. You really have no clue as to who that source was? You have sited him more than once. And yes, that was in the past. Why do you think that it is any better today. The terrible videos that you can see are very modern. You could not sneak small but very accurate cameras into slaughterhouses in the past. Now anyone that has a cell phone can make videos.

And remember when you say that someone is "going against their own source" you have probably just misunderstood what was being claimed.

Here is a link to the paper that you did not appreciate:

>Religious slaughter and animal welfare:a discussion for meat scientists.

LOL, or you didn't read it. And you didn't understand. Everything, literally everything is showing that Jewish ritual slaughter does a good job, at least as good, if not better than traditional slaughter. The cut is painless. The animal loses concsiousness immediatley.

Bad slaughter houses, do not mean that there's something wrong with the method.

Stunning causes just as much suffering or more. Seems to be more error prone.

I went looking at videos today. They're old. "Shackle and Hoist" lost it's kosher certification 2018. You're probably not looking at current actually kosher slaughter houses. I can't trust you for quality. You've brought nothing, absolutely nothing showing the contrary. And much of what you've said is either personal opinion or irrelevant.

And that ignores the MDPI chicken-little performance.

We have 3000 observed slaughters, with 95% success. Unless you are watching thousands of videos, you've got nothing.

If you want to post a video, put it in a spoiler. Above the spoiler, put the date it was recorded, the location, and the name of the slaughterhouse. If you can't do that, it's bogus propaganda.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, or you didn't read it. And you didn't understand. Everything, literally everything is showing that Jewish ritual slaughter does a good job, at least as good, if not better than traditional slaughter. The cut is painless. The animal loses concsiousness immediatley.

Bad slaughter houses, do not mean that there's something wrong with the method.

Stunning causes just as much suffering or more. Seems to be more error prone.

I went looking at videos today. They're old. "Shackle and Hoist" lost it's kosher certification 2018. You're probably not looking at current actually kosher slaughter houses. I can't trust you for quality. You've brought nothing, absolutely nothing showing the contrary. And much of what you've said is either personal opinion or irrelevant.

And that ignores the MDPI chicken-little performance.

We have 3000 observed slaughters, with 95% success. Unless you are watching thousands of videos, you've got nothing.

If you want to post a video, put it in a spoiler. Above the spoiler, put the date it was recorded, the location, and the name of the slaughterhouse. If you can't do that, it's bogus propaganda.

No, the claim is that the cut is painless. That is all. Videos are hard evidence. They say that in modern factories with high demands that it is not l like that.

Why do you think that it is so hard to get video of kosher slaughter if it is so "painless"?