Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Viking]

wikipedia on wilhelm schulze

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Schulze_%28professor_of_veterinary_medicine%29

Wilhelm Schulze (born 10 December 1920 in Leipzig– 30 December 2002) was a German professor of veterinary medicine, director of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover (1966–68, 1978–80 and 1980-81[1]) and a specialist for pigs.

Schulze studied veterinary medicine at Leipzig University and at Hanover University and became a professor (1950–56) and dean (1952–55) in Leipzig. In 1957 he was appointed a professor in Hanover and established a reputable clinic specializing on pigs.[1] In 1968 he was a founder of the "International Pig Veterinary Society" (IPVS).[2] His dedication to this species earned him the respectful title "Pigs-Schulze" ("Schweine-Schulze") by students, colleagues and vets.[1] Schulze was awarded honorary degrees of the Free University of Berlin, the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, the University of Warsaw and Leipzig University. On August 24, 2006, the university decided to posthumously name a prize after him.[3]

Between 1974 and 1978 Schulze and his colleagues carried out a study at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover University in Germany. The study: 'Attempts to Objectify Pain and Consciousness in Conventional (captive bolt pistol stunning) and Ritual (knife) Methods of Slaughtering Sheep and Calves'[4] is reported on islamic websites[5][6] to have concluded that "the Islamic way of slaughtering is the most humane method of slaughter and that captive bolt stunning, practiced in the West, causes severe pain to the animal".

Indeed, according to the study "these experiments on sheep and calves carried out within a clinic show that during a ritual slaughter, carried out according to the state of the art using hydraulically operated tilting equipment and a ritual cut, pain and suffering to the extent as has since long been generally associated in public with this kind of slaughter cannot be registered." However, the study notes that the "objective results presented for the captive bolt application in sheep (..) rather (..) indicates that the captive bolt device used is suspect" and that these initial "scientific findings and the results presented are only a very first contribution" and that they "need to be followed as a high priority by further investigations in the continuation of the scientific clarification of the issues of loss of pain and consciousness during slaughter of this kind with and without stunning using the same experimental approach with a representative number of grown cows of various breeds."

[Razgovory]

Viking, how does the deficient use of a captive bolt explain the low pain response used in the Kosher slaughter?

[Viking]

The Farm Animal Welfare Council's report

REPORT ON THE
WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
WHEN SLAUGHTERED BY
RELIGIOUS METHODS

http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/old/livestock-report-1985.pdf

which summarizes up the knowledge as of 1985 and not only condemns the skill of the Ninja Rabbi's but also advocates the pre-stunning of all animals to be slaughtered.

[The Minsky Moment]

I know there hasn't been time to do such studies, but I think someone who wants to repudiate a scientific study needs to do more than say "it might have made a difference of they had done things differently, in a manner more consistent with the way Jews (but not, perhaps, Muslims) do them."  I think the NZ study puts the ball in the court of those desiring the exception, and speculating about what might have been done wrong in the NZ study doesn't answer the question.

Grandin - who is an expert in this field - did exactly that.  She pointed out specific ways in the methodology employed by the study would be likely to result in pain that would not occur if kosher-complaint methods were used. 

In fact, long before the NZ study was done, Grandin and others had specifically pointed out the importance of using the long, rectangular, sharp blade, of using correct restraint, and of holding back the skin to prevent the wound from going back in the knife.  Given the importance of these factors previously identified in the literature, it is clear that if the objective of the NZ study was to assess whether kosher slaughter in particular causes pain*, then the study was improperly designed.

*based on the summary, it was not; thus, this is not an attack on the NZ researchers, but on Viking's and others' improper attempt to use the results for a different purpose.

[Viking]

Viking, how does the deficient use of a captive bolt explain the low pain response used in the Kosher slaughter?

less than

more than

do you know what they mean? There is no absolute objective measure for pain, only relative

[Viking]

I know there hasn't been time to do such studies, but I think someone who wants to repudiate a scientific study needs to do more than say "it might have made a difference of they had done things differently, in a manner more consistent with the way Jews (but not, perhaps, Muslims) do them."  I think the NZ study puts the ball in the court of those desiring the exception, and speculating about what might have been done wrong in the NZ study doesn't answer the question.

Grandin - who is an expert in this field - did exactly that.  She pointed out specific ways in the methodology employed by the study would be likely to result in pain that would not occur if kosher-complaint methods were used. 

In fact, long before the NZ study was done, Grandin and others had specifically pointed out the importance of using the long, rectangular, sharp blade, of using correct restraint, and of holding back the skin to prevent the wound from going back in the knife.  Given the importance of these factors previously identified in the literature, it is clear that if the objective of the NZ study was to assess whether kosher slaughter in particular causes pain*, then the study was improperly designed.

*based on the summary, it was not; thus, this is not an attack on the NZ researchers, but on Viking's and others' improper attempt to use the results for a different purpose.

Grandin advocates stunning in general. Her kosher work is about reducing the pain as much as possible. Grandin's response to Johnsons study did not deal with the most significant result from Johnson, which is that the pain is there for up to two minutes regardless of method and is only prevented by stunning. Johnsons result is that pain continues even though the animal appears to be stunned when bleeding out. Every single organization concerned with animal welfare from the FAO to the Humane Slaughter Association advocates stunning.

You just continue to assert that despite rigorous peer review if they had only used a different knife or a ninja rabbi then the result would have been different and the animal would not have been lying immobile in pain for two minutes while it was bleeding out.

[Slargos]

Viking, how does the deficient use of a captive bolt explain the low pain response used in the Kosher slaughter?

less than

more than

do you know what they mean? There is no absolute objective measure for pain, only relative

Now you've done it.

Minsky will go ballistic now, for sure.

[The Minsky Moment]

. Grandin's response to Johnsons study did not deal with the most significant result from Johnson, which is that the pain is there for up to two minutes regardless of method and is only prevented by stunning. Johnsons result is that pain continues even though the animal appears to be stunned when bleeding out. . . .You just continue to assert that despite rigorous peer review if they had only used a different knife or a ninja rabbi then the result would have been different and the animal would not have been lying immobile in pain for two minutes while it was bleeding out.

The "most significant result from Johson" is not in fact a result from Johnson at all, as I already pointed out above.  Ninja jokes are not a substitute for correct analysis.

[Viking]

http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_02_104_slaughter_prior_stunning.pdf

A Position paper on the Slaughter without prior stunning from the FEDERATION OF VETERINARIANS OF EUROPE, note, they feel the need to place the text

FVE is of the opinion that the practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning is
unacceptable under any circumstances

Just in case any Jewish Lawyers might want to twist the content.


http://www.uspca.co.uk/Policies%20and%20Handbooks/Welfare_policies_booklet.pdf

The USPCA handbook of policies says about religious slaughter, they are against it, obviously.

3.9 Slaughter
3.9.1
The USPCA is opposed to the slaughter of any food animal without
rendering that animal insensible to pain and distress until death
supervenes.
The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations (N. Ireland)
1996, states that all animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse or knackers
yard must either be:-
* instantaneously slaughtered by means of a mechanically operated
instrument, or
* stunned by means of a mechanically operated instrument or an
instrument for stunning by electricity provided that
they are instantaneously rendered insensible to pain until death
supervenes, or
* they may be slaughtered by any other means specified in the
regulations, provided that the animals are again rendered insensible
to pain until death supervenes.
The 1996 Act exempts the Jewish method of slaughter, shechita, and
the Muslim method of slaughter, halal. While respecting individual
religious practices, the Society strongly opposes these exemptions on
welfare grounds The meat from animals killed in this way should be
clearly labelled.
Because of their temperament, farmed deer and other non-domesticated
species such as ostriches, are not amenable to transportation or
handling within normal licensed slaughterhouse systems.

[Viking]

The RSPCA on Religious slaughter

http://content.www.rspca.org.uk/cmsprd/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobnocache=false&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1232998853713&ssbinary=true

Their recommendations were that: "Council considers that slaughter without pre-stunning is unacceptable and that the government should repeal the current exemption".

[Viking]

Grandin is not an expert in neurology or the nature of pain. She in an expert in animal slaughter. I don't know if you really understand this, but Johnson shows that the animal continues to feel pain long after the advocates of halal and kosher slaughter have claimed the animal stops feeling pain. You are arguing the difference between cutting the throat with one clean cut and a less optimal cut. Johnson's work shows that the animal continues to feel pain long after the difference between one clean cut and a sloppy cutting job a ceased to matter.

Not all kosher and halal butchers are Ninja Rabbis. In fact the studies done on the issue have found out that the stereotype is not the incompetent idiot with the stunner that misses more often than he hits that you present, but rather the reality is that the skill and care shown by kosher and halal butchers leave much to be desired. The protection that these two groups have gained from their religious affiliation has, if anything, resulting in sloppy and inconsistent adherence with the animal welfare laws they are still bound by not to mention routine cruelty and abuse in the cutting and exsanguination of animals. The extra minute or two of suffering the animal has as a result of the ideal cut (which johnson identifies) is nothing compared to the routine 3, 4, 5 and 6 minute dying times that investigations into kosher and halal butchers have found. Despite this well documented problem (identified by the many reports and opinions I have posted above) the kosher and halal apologists keep claiming that they have some magical 2 second dying time in which the animals don't actually feel any pain. I have to ask you, are you really so deluded?

This is not a matter of religion. I'd be happy for these butchers to pre-stun their animals and let them have their exemptions for the rest. If they weren't torturing animals I would not care. Just as I wouldn't care if they government didn't give a big chunk of my tax money to the norwegian lutheran church. But torture animals they do and take my money they do.

[Razgovory]

I don't think you would care if they were doing it for non-religious reasons.

[Viking]

I don't think you would care if they were doing it for non-religious reasons.

Trust in my honesty or not. I would still care if it was done for non-religious reasons. The difference would be is that I would not have to stand up to people who shamelessly were willing to happily torture animals because they thought god wanted it and were happy to lie to justify their arguments as well as the Languishites here, who, in the words of Dan Dennet believe in religion and are willing to fight for the delusions of others.

[Viking]

As a result of this thread, I now cannot get the image of ninja rabbi out of my head.

[grumbler]

I know there hasn't been time to do such studies, but I think someone who wants to repudiate a scientific study needs to do more than say "it might have made a difference of they had done things differently, in a manner more consistent with the way Jews (but not, perhaps, Muslims) do them."  I think the NZ study puts the ball in the court of those desiring the exception, and speculating about what might have been done wrong in the NZ study doesn't answer the question.

Grandin - who is an expert in this field - did exactly that. 

Got a link to her scientific study?  The latest I see is an article from Feb 2010 that says, in part, "[t]here is a need to repeat this experiment with a Kosher knife and a skilled shochet who obeys all the Kosher rules for correct cutting." 

She notes some things that may have made the study invalid ("use of a shorter knife may possibly have had an effect on the painfulness of the cut," "it was impossible to observe behavioral reaction," "it was not possible to determine if the wound was held open during the cut") but that's not evidence, as she herself notes. 

A more recent scientific study would certainly justify your claim, but reference to her "Discussion of research..." comments does not, since she herself says it doesn't.