Animal sacrifice: out of fashion

[Subduction Zone]

I think it's less error prone than a bolt-stun-method.

So what? I have my doubts about that, but let's say that there is a 2% failure rate in stunning and a 1% chance of botching a kosher slaughter. Even in the 99% of the time when there is no error the animal is still alive and suffering badly every single time that a kosher slaughter is done. 98% of the time there is no pain with stunning.

 

[dybmh]

So what? I have my doubts about that, but let's say that there is a 2% failure rate in stunning and a 1% chance of botching a kosher slaughter. Even in the 99% of the time when there is no error the animal is still alive and suffering badly every single time that a kosher slaughter is done. 98% of the time there is no pain with stunning.

I have my doubts about what you're saying, too. That's what happens when the person you're speaking with avoids and rejects anything that doesn't agree with them. They curate their souces, employ confirmation bias, and lack credibility.

 

[dybmh]

This is from 2021.

"The results of studies by some authors suggest that animals killed according to the rules of kosher slaughter, compared to conventional slaughter, are subjected to conditions of greater stress in the bleeding phase (greater amount of stress hormones in the blood). In other studies, on the other hand, during the first three seconds of halal slaughter without stunning, EEG (electroencephalograph) showed no changes in brain activity, indicating that the animal felt no pain during and immediately after cutting. During the next 3 s, the EEG registered a state of profound unconsciousness which was probably due to the loss of a large amount of blood. After 6 s, the EGG (electrocardiogram) showed no brain activity"

So, there are studies that measure cortisol and other indicators of stress during the ritual slaughter, and these *suggest* there is more stress to the animal compared to the animals that are stunned first. But it's not that the animal that is stunned isn't stressed. And precisely when that stress occurs is not 100% clear.

Here's the raw numbers: It's important to look at the +/- on each of these. In the best case scenario of ritual slaughter compared to the worst case scenario of conventional slaughter, ritual slaughter is better. And the converse is true as well.

In animals subjected to kosher ritual slaughter, cortisol, dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine were at the following levels: 68.70 ± 30.61 nmol/L, 868.43 ± 508.52 ng /L; 3776.20 ± 1918.44 ng /L and 4352.20 ± 3730.15 ng/L, respectively.

For animals from conventional slaughter, the values were: 45.08 ± 14.15 nmol/L; 513.87 ± 286.32 ng/L; 3425.57 1777.39 ng/L; and 3279.97 ± 1954.53 ng/L, respectively.

Cortisol: Ritual Slaughter 68.70 ± 30.61 nmol/L Conventional Slaughter 45.08 ± 14.15 nmol/L
Dopamine: Ritual Slaughter 868.43 ± 508.52 ng /L Conventional Slaughter 513.87 ± 286.32 ng/L
Norepinephrine: Ritual Slaughter 3776.20 ± 1918.44 ng /L Conventional Slaughter 3425.57 ± 1777.39 ng/L
Epinephrine: Ritual Slaughter 4352.20 ± 3730.15 ng/L Conventional Slaughter 3279.97 ± 1954.53 ng/L

Cortisol: Ritual Slaughter worst case 40% more | best case 35% less
Dopamine: Ritual Slaughter worst case 83% more | best case 55% less
Norepinephrine: Ritual Slaughter worst case 71% more | best case 64% less
Epinephrine: Ritual Slaughter worst case 83% more | best case 88% less

So, it's really a toss-up when looking at the stress indicators. When it goes well, ritual slaughter is much better. When it doesn't, it's much worse.

But, when looking at EEGs during the slaughter, there's good strong evidence that during the actual slaughter the animal is not suffering.

Conventional versus Ritual Slaughter–Ethical Aspects and Meat Quality

Social pressure on increased protection and welfare of animals results mainly from the initiative of people living in the urbanized parts of the world. The respect for the right to freedom of religion, which is indisputably one of the fundamental liberal rights, must be taken into account. The...

www.mdpi.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have my doubts about what you're saying, too. That's what happens when the person you're speaking with avoids and rejects anything that doesn't agree with them. They curate their souces, employ confirmation bias, and lack credibility.

I do try to use reliable sources. The one source that I have used so far demonstrated something that I did not know. Many Muslims are adding stunning because they realize that it works. I could show videos of halal and kosher butchery without stunning. There is no doubt that the creatures do not immediately lose consciousness. It sound as if you are doing some first class projection here. I doubt if you could find a video of a cow being butchered with stunning where the animal is not in some sort of pain. And I could also find stunning videos that were successful.

How can you show that kosher butchery is humane? I seriously doubt if you can do so.

 

[danieldemol]

The priests were butchers with exceptionally high standards. But they didn't get paid and had no choice of profession.

A butcher and farmer can remove the entrails and dispose of them. The priest must wash them out. The butcher and farmer can ignore their contents, the priest must deal with them.

Sometimes a farmer slaughters their animals, but they don't have to. A butcher chooses to be a butcher.

*shrugs* the scribes who in my view invented these rules were a type of priest anyway, so I see it as their own fault if they set rules that were hard to follow. If the clergy are unhappy with their own rules they only need get together and come to consensus on better rules.

In my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

*shrugs* the scribes who in my view invented these rules were a type of priest anyway, so I see it as their own fault if they set rules that were hard to follow. If the clergy are unhappy with their own rules they only need get together and come to consensus on better rules.

In my opinion.

I was surprised to find that many Muslim priests have done that. They followed the spirit of their faith. That their sort of approved butchery was done to minimize animal pain and fear. They may be now more humane than modern slaughterhouse methods.

 

[dybmh]

*shrugs* the scribes who in my view invented these rules were a type of priest anyway, so I see it as their own fault if they set rules that were hard to follow. If the clergy are unhappy with their own rules they only need get together and come to consensus on better rules.

In my opinion.

irrelevant. your assumptions were wrong. it doesn't matter where the rules came from.

 

[dybmh]

I do try to use reliable sources.

so you say

The one source that I have used so far demonstrated something that I did not know. Many Muslims are adding stunning because they realize that it works. I could show videos of halal and kosher butchery without stunning. There is no doubt that the creatures do not immediately lose consciousness.

a video is poor evidence

It sound as if you are doing some first class projection here. I doubt if you could find a video of a cow being butchered with stunning where the animal is not in some sort of pain. And I could also find stunning videos that were successful.

How can you show that kosher butchery is humane? I seriously doubt if you can do so.

the post immediately above your reply shows ritual slaughter can be much more humane. what you're seeing in a video is not real evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you say



a video is poor evidence



the post immediately above your reply shows ritual slaughter can be much more humane. what you're seeing in a video is not real evidence.

Why is a video not "real evidence"? You can see the animal reacting. One can often find one source that supports them. So I could say that your article is not "real evidence". The wording of your article is rather vague. I read parts of it and was not impressed. It needs to be clearer in its claims.

 

[dybmh]

Why is a video not "real evidence"? You can see the animal reacting. One can often find one source that supports them. So I could say that your article is not "real evidence". The wording of your article is rather vague. I read parts of it and was not impressed. It needs to be clearer in its claims.

Because a video is misleading. It does not measure hormones it does not measure brain activity. The animals body reacting does not mean it is suffering. You don't know anything about it. Its just your eyes and your imagination.

I brought actual numbers, something was measured, and published. And as usual, you reject it cause "I don't like it."

Your bias is well known here. Your opinions are meaningless.

Bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because a video is misleading. It does not measure hormones it does not measure brain activity. The animals body reacting does not mean it is suffering. You don't know anything about it. Its just your eyes and your imagination.

I brought actual numbers, something was measured, and published. And as usual, you reject it cause "I don't like it."

Your bias is well known here. Your opinions are meaningless.

Bye.

You did not even bother to quote from your article. Just linking is only a start. And worse yet your source has a rather spotty history. At one point it was listed as a predatory journal and there is quite a bit of criticism of the quality of articles that it accepts.

MDPI - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can link other sources as well that are critical of it.

Animals are recorded as still being aware for a full ten seconds after their throats are cut:

TABLE 1- Number of seconds after the throat is cut to the onset of unconsciousness and cortical death as determined by the EEG Unconsciousness Sheep1 3.3-6.2 . 20.8-35.4 Calves1 4.4-6.9 18.8-139.2 Cattle2 10 120-150

Cortical Death


1) Nangeroni & Kennett (1963) 2) Levinger (1979b) Sheep1 3.3-6.2 . 20.8-35.4 Calves1 4.4-6.9 18.8-139.2 Cattle2 10 120-150


(Well that did not copy and paste very nicely The first numbers are length of consciousness by EEG and the second numbers are the time to death.

https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=acwp_faafp

 

[dybmh]

You did not even bother to quote from your article. Just linking is only a start.

LOL! of course I did. *SMH* You poor thing. Scroll up and read my post. You didn't read the link. You didn't read my post. Do you see why I don't take you seriously?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! of course I did. *SMH* You poor thing. Scroll up and read my post. You didn't read the link. You didn't read my post. Do you see why I don't take you seriously?

View attachment 77381

I edited my previous post. I added quite a bit to it.

That only deals with hormones dumped into the blood due to pain. It does not deal with sensate pain. For example epinephrine is a compound that is released by the adrenal gland (not the brain) due to stress and that stress can come directly from the body parts affected. So though it is often associated with sensate pain, it does not necessarily indicate it. An unconscious body will still produce it when the body is harmed and adrenergic receptors are activated:

Epinephrine - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Adrenergic receptor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[danieldemol]

irrelevant. your assumptions were wrong. it doesn't matter where the rules came from.

Which assumptions were wrong and why is it irrelevant if any additional hardship between a butcher and a priest is self imposed?

It looks to me like the priests have simply created an arbitrary difference between themselves and butchers to justify taking the best portions.

In my opinion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

dybmh and others. What use are the statistics of? After all, whether kosher or not, they will be killed and their flesh eaten. Why shed crocodile tears on how they died?

 

[dybmh]

I edited my previous post. I added quite a bit to it.

You editted it and added to it, 30 minutes after I posted that you made some BS comment, didn't read my post, or read the article. Let's deal with that extra info you slipped in, after the fact, to cover up for your bone-head blunder.

You did not even bother to quote from your article. Just linking is only a start.

So, you added info to your post, making it look like you actually read my post, but didn't remove this false nonsense. Integrity? Nope.

And worse yet your source has a rather spotty history. At one point it was listed as a predatory journal and there is quite a bit of criticism of the quality of articles that it accepts.

No..... MDPI has almost 400 journals. Each peer reviewed, each with its own editors and review board. A few of those journals had problems. I think only 3. The journals I am sourcing are the journals called "Processes" and "Animals". Neither has had any complaints or criticism.

The criticism of MDPI as a group comes from Jeffery Beall, a librarian, not a scientist. And those criticisms have been debunked.

The EEG study comes from "Europe PMC". It appears to be a widely accepted journal. Good luck criticizing it. The data fromthis study is consistent with other published research **all coming from universities**.

Europe PubMed Central - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Europe PMC

Europe PMC is an archive of life sciences journal literature.

europepmc.org

MDPI - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of MDPI academic journals - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The information I have brought comes from an academic institution. The article footnotes everything. The data is current and can be reviewed. The author's credentials can be verified. Everything about this article is legit. If you *actually* read it, I doubt you will be able to find one flaw in its methods or reporting accuracy.

dr Jagoda Żurek - Uniwersytet Rzeszowski

www.ur.edu.pl

I can link other sources as well that are critical of it.

You need to find a source that criticizes the MDPI Journal "Processes" and "Animals", and the journal "Europe PMC".

The article I liked to is from "Processes". I cannot find any critisisms of it.

Processes (journal) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Your objection is like critisizing all of wikipedia for a few inaccurate articles.

Animals are recorded as still being aware for a full ten seconds after their throats are cut:

TABLE 1- Number of seconds after the throat is cut to the onset of unconsciousness and cortical death as determined by the EEG Unconsciousness Sheep1 3.3-6.2 . 20.8-35.4 Calves1 4.4-6.9 18.8-139.2 Cattle2 10 120-150

Cortical Death

1) Nangeroni & Kennett (1963) 2) Levinger (1979b) Sheep1 3.3-6.2 . 20.8-35.4 Calves1 4.4-6.9 18.8-139.2 Cattle2 10 120-150

Uh-huh. *eye-rolls*

"Nangeroni & Kennett (1963)" is from an "unpublished report". That's the weakest of weak evidence.
"Levinger (1979b)" cannot be verified, there's no way to read their method.

I doubt that any strictly kosher slaughter house would permit EEGs on the animal. My source used Halal slaughter to do the EEG study. So that's my #1 objection, are these actually Glatt Kosher slaughter houses? If not, then it's irrelevant. My 2nd objection is, this is old information. 1963? really? 60 year old information? Surely EEG tech has improved since then. The EEG information I'm citing comes from 2005.

(Well that did not copy and paste very nicely The first numbers are length of consciousness by EEG and the second numbers are the time to death.

https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=acwp_faafp

Well... since the data comes from an unpublished report, it's rejected. And who is the "well being institute"? Are they an academic institution? Who is the author, what are their credentials? When was this written? 1980? And who published it? They self-published it? And you're objecting to my source?

At best, at the very best, you have old, unreliable data, and I have new unreliable data. That's if I ignore all the reasons why my data is reliable and pretend that it's not. So what? You have nothing, and I have nothing. That's if I ignore all the faults in your source, and I ignore all the merit in mine.

 

[dybmh]

That only deals with hormones dumped into the blood due to pain. It does not deal with sensate pain. For example epinephrine is a compound that is released by the adrenal gland (not the brain) due to stress and that stress can come directly from the body parts affected. So though it is often associated with sensate pain, it does not necessarily indicate it. An unconscious body will still produce it when the body is harmed and adrenergic receptors are activated:

Um. So what? The animal suffers as a result of both ritual slaughter and conventional slaughter. Sometimes ritual slaughter is less suffering, sometimes ritual slaughter is more suffering.

If you want to claim anything about sensate pain, you need to bring a *reliable* source, preferrably something current, that measures it.

These hormones are indicators of stress and suffering. It is a good method for judging humane treatment of an animal.

 

[viole]

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.

Both Kosher and Halal are banned where I live. And rightly so.
And with a bit of luck, even imports of such meat will soon be banned.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Which assumptions were wrong and why is it irrelevant if any additional hardship between a butcher and a priest is self imposed?

That the priests only worked on the holidays, that they do not deserve the compensation that is prescribed, and that the work they perform is no different than a regular farmer and butcher.

It looks to me like the priests have simply created an arbitrary difference between themselves and butchers to justify taking the best portions.

BUZZZZZZZ. That's a false assumption. Again. Your lack of attention to detail is again evident. The priests did not make the rules.

In my opinion.

In your amateur opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You editted it and added to it, 30 minutes after I posted that you made some BS comment, didn't read my post, or read the article. Let's deal with that extra info you slipped in, after the fact, to cover up for your bone-head blunder.




So, you added info to your post, making it look like you actually read my post, but didn't remove this false nonsense. Integrity? Nope.



No..... MDPI has almost 400 journals. Each peer reviewed, each with its own editors and review board. A few of those journals had problems. I think only 3. The journals I am sourcing are the journals called "Processes" and "Animals". Neither has had any complaints or criticism.

The criticism of MDPI as a group comes from Jeffery Beall, a librarian, not a scientist. And those criticisms have been debunked.

The EEG study comes from "Europe PMC". It appears to be a widely accepted journal. Good luck criticizing it. The data fromthis study is consistent with other published research **all coming from universities**.

Europe PubMed Central - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Europe PMC

Europe PMC is an archive of life sciences journal literature.

europepmc.org

List of MDPI academic journals - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The information I have brought comes from an academic institution. The article footnotes everything. The data is current and can be reviewed. The author's credentials can be verified. Everything about this article is legit. If you *actually* read it, I doubt you will be able to find one flaw in its methods or reporting accuracy.

dr Jagoda Żurek - Uniwersytet Rzeszowski

www.ur.edu.pl

You need to find a source that criticizes the MDPI Journal "Processes" and "Animals", and the journal "Europe PMC".

The article I liked to is from "Processes". I cannot find any critisisms of it.

Processes (journal) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Your objection is like critisizing all of wikipedia for a few inaccurate articles.



Uh-huh. *eye-rolls*

"Nangeroni & Kennett (1963)" is from an "unpublished report". That's the weakest of weak evidence.
"Levinger (1979b)" cannot be verified, there's no way to read their method.

I doubt that any strictly kosher slaughter house would permit EEGs on the animal. My source used Halal slaughter to do the EEG study. So that's my #1 objection, are these actually Glatt Kosher slaughter houses? If not, then it's irrelevant. My 2nd objection is, this is old information. 1963? really? 60 year old information? Surely EEG tech has improved since then. The EEG information I'm citing comes from 2005.



Well... since the data comes from an unpublished report, it's rejected. And who is the "well being institute"? Are they an academic institution? Who is the author, what are their credentials? When was this written? 1980? And who published it? They self-published it? And you're objecting to my source?

At best, at the very best, you have old, unreliable data, and I have new unreliable data. That's if I ignore all the reasons why my data is reliable and pretend that it's not. So what? You have nothing, and I have nothing. That's if I ignore all the faults in your source, and I ignore all the merit in mine.

Drop the false claims of "BS" if you want a serious discussion. I stopped there because you lost the argument at that point. I do not wish to win such a cheap victory.