Report relative to the question of humane slaughtering of animals / Sanitary Committee.

  • City of London (England). Corporation. Public Health Department. Sanitary Committee.
Date:
1925
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report relative to the question of humane slaughtering of animals / Sanitary Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    12/20 (page 10)
    3. Preliminary stunning by (a) the hammer, mallet or maul, or (b) the pole-axe. 4. The production of unconsciousness by some form of mechanically operated instrument. As ancillary aids to the more efficient execution of one or other of the above processes, devices are used for tethering, casting, restraining, or even hoisting animals prior to stunning or sticking. It is desirable that the above processes should be briefly considered separately :— 1. THE JEWISH METHOD, WITHOUT PRELIMINARY STUNNING. The slaying of an animal for food is a religious rite of the Jews. The officer appointed is specially trained, examined and certified, and he works with the permission and under the supervision of the Board of Shechita. ‘The official performing the rite is termed the Shochet. He uses a knife of exquisite perfection. As such it must have a perfect edge, without the least perceptible unevenness, indentation or roughness. The knife must be more than twice as long as the breadth of the neck of the animals, that is, 14 finger breadths for large cattle. Smaller ‘knives are used for birds and small cattle. The method of killing cuts through the trachea; the cesophagus, the carotid arteries and the jugular veins with one continuous movement. Five points require to be observed in correct ritual slaughter : (a) Shechiya—there must be no pause, the object being to obviate protracted pain; (b) Derasa—there must be no pressing upward or downward or any hacking ; (c) Shalada—there must be no burrowing, therefore the knife must not be introduced under the skin; (d) Hagrama—the incision must be in a prescribed region of the neck, and that appears to be where there would be least resistance to the knife to the greatest probability of early section of the vital arteries; (e) Ikkur—there must be no laceration, but a clean-cut incision. The above five points are referred to in detail, because they are useful as a basis of comparison with the method of throat-cutting by non-Jewish slaughtermen. The details are taken from an Address on the Jewish methods of slaughtering animals for food, by the tev. Dr. M. Hyamson. The flesh of animals which does not comply with the requirements is termed Terefah. To perform an incision under the conditions set out above it is obviously necessary that the animal should be fixed, and in this country animals for Jewish slaughter are cast by non-Jewish slaughtermen. In a pamphlet published by the Board of Deputies of British Jews it is stated that casting is not an essential of the Jewish method. The casting and the fixing of the head, however, are the parts of the process which have been submitted to the most severe criticism by non-Jewish observers, and it is difficult to appreciate how the ritual could be followed out without some sort of fixation. It has been suggested that bruising and pain must follow this method of casting, but observations on 88 cases by two selected observers resulted in their reporting that ‘‘ in no single case was such a bruise found.”’ We rather imagine that some recognition of the soundness of the criticism exists, for the Board of Shechita is still interested in any method which will enable fixation to be obtained in a less objectionable manner. Apart from the casting, it has been suggested also that the subsequent struggles of the animal which are observed after the Shochet has cut the throat are evidence of pain. Professor Leonard Hill and Mr. Openshaw, C.M.G., F.R.C.S., of the London Hospital, and others assert that unconsciousness results very quickly on the section of the carotid arteries, owing to the deprivation of the brain of blood. Others, and of these Mr. Linton, M.R.C.V.8., throw doubts on this contention, and Mr. Linton points out that the brain continues to receive blood by way of the cerebro-spinal arteries, which though not large in amount must still be an appreciable amount. He further states that ‘‘ having witnessed the throat-cutting of a large number of sheep, I have no hesitation in stating that the animal felt the cut and struggled at the time.’’ In any event, whatever may be the effect, there is very little doubt that the Jewish method of throat-cutting is very well done, and unconsciousness does rapidly supervene. Whatever difference of opinion there may be in respect of the above matters, there is none to the opinion that the carcase of an animal killed by the Jewish method will compare favourably, and generally to the advantage of the animal so slaughtered, with that of an animal killed by any other method. It ensures the most complete clearance of the blood possible, since the vital centres in the brain are left intact, the heart continues to beat, and the muscles to contract, all of which assist in the clearing out of the small blood vessels. Even if we were to accept it as a fact that the Jewish method of slaughter does invariably result in the removal of more blood from the carcase than results from any other method, if is necessary to consider whether, if the other method has an advantage from other points of view, particularly that of cruelty, this advantage is not sufficient to justify its adoption in a country with only moderate temperatures, \