VOLUME 54 (1), 1999

 TITLE: THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO RESOLVING CONFLICTS BETWEEN VETERINARY SCIENCE AND SHECHITA.  

AUTHOR:   L.S. Shore
                      Dept. of  Hormone Research, Kimron Veterinary Institute
                     P.O.B 12,  50250 Bet Dagan,  Israel      

Summary

    Scientific research in veterinary science and halacha in the last 100 years has centered on four areas: physiology of shechita, problems of food quality resulting from the laws of kashrut, identification of piscine species, and reducing traifot caused by veterinary intervention and modern animal husbandry

  Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization 

Introduction

Scientific and experimental approaches to halachic problems of veterinary interest  prior to the present century may be divided into four categories: (a) Direct observations: this includes performing animal dissections (Rabbanu Shimshon, 11th century; Rosh, 12th; Ravid, 12th ; R. (Rabbi). Y. Eybshutz, 17th; (for references see 1-4),  physiological experiments (R. Y. Lamperinti, 18th;  R. Y. Landau, 18th )  and  incidence surveys (R. Y. Iserlin, 15th); (b)  Use of general scientific literature (R. Y. Lipshutz, 19th; Malbim, 19th; R. Y. Epstein, 19th);  (c) Formal requests to scientific bodies (London Bet Din, 19th;  R. Eybshitz, 17th, [5]); and (d) Reliance on the minhag of Rabbi Shlomo Luria that diseased animals should be considered non-kosher even though there are no halachic problems. In its most developed form, this minhag was used to forbid any animal with a disease or abnormality, which was known to be fatal in sheep, cattle, or poultry and the ritual slaughterer was obligated to declare the meat non-kosher (even if the information was from a non-Jewish authority). The use of the minhag of Rabbi Shlomo Luria fell into disuse at the beginning of this century as it was considered that nowadays there are government veterinary regulations which forbid the slaughter of sick animals (4).

In 1894, the Orthodox Jewish Society in Frankfurt published an extraordinary document containing the opinions of over a hundred prominent European physiologists and veterinarians supporting the merits of shechita (6).  Among the most prominent were Rudolf Virchow (1821-1906), Ernst Hoppe-Seyler (1825-1895), and Emil Du Bois-Reymond (1818-1896). At about the same time, the earliest scientific publications dealing with shechita written by a physician, Isaac Dembo,   (1847?-1906) appeared (7,8) and the work was dedicated to Bois-Reymond. Two other papers, one dealing with the degree of exsanguination (Goltz, 1890) and the other on the measurement of ECG after slaughter appeared at this time (Kirilow, 1893), but the papers by Dembo had much more impact in giving the impression that kosher meat was of better quality (9).  Until the early 1950’s, there was little further interest in the scientific community in this kind of research. For example, one of the major technical developments, the

Weinberg slaughtering pen, was developed by a tailor, apparently solely on his own initiative (10,11). All these efforts were spurred by the campaign, which continues today, to outlaw shechita on humanitarian grounds. 

Modern scientific work (since 1960) on halachic problems of veterinary interest has been primarily concerned with (a) the physiology of shechita; (b) problems caused by halachic requirements in the preparation of food - defeathering and salting; (c) identification of species, and; (d) iatrogenic “treifa” - halachic problems caused by veterinary medicine and modern ways of raising animals - veterinary surgery, immunization, and factory farming.

Back To Top    Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization 

Physiology of Shechita

There are three basic issues with respect to the physiology of shechita: (a) the stress of the restraining methods; (b) pain perception during and after the incision, and (c) latency of the onset of complete insensibility.  These topics have been the subject of extensive reviews (12-14).  Most recently, Dr. Levinger (9) published a book, Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000, which gives a comprehensive review of the work done in this field.

As mentioned above, the pioneering author in the scientific defense of shechita was Isaac A. Dembo (7,8). His major contribution was to show that shechita does not cause more pain than any other technique. This work was continued by Levinger (9,15-17), who was and continues to be the leading authority on veterinary problems of Kashrut.  Levinger attempted to define the loss of sensibility and the time of death by measuring the corneal reflexes, the drop in blood carotid and vertebral arterial pressure, and the heart rate and respiratory rate using the best available instrumentation.  Subsequent investigations were centered on the determination of death as measured by loss of sensibility by electroencephalograms (EEG) (“brain death”) (18,19); electrocorticograms (ECoG) and evoked cortical potentials (20,21); metabolites and blood gases (22); and cortisol and beta endorphin levels (18,23). 

The problem in some cattle of a prolonged consciousness after the initial cutting has been a cause of great concern and has been a major argument against shechita, especially in Australia and New Zealand. The problem has been related to the unique artery,  “rete mirabile epiduris” , in cattle which allows blood to reach the brain from the vertebral column even when the carotid arteries are occluded or cut (12,24). However, this structure was found to have great anatomical variation and it is highly improbable that significant amounts of blood can reach the brain by this pathway (9,25). (The rete mirabile was considered by Galen to be the center of the soul and this belief persisted till the mid-14 th century when it was demonstrated this structure does not exist in man [26]).  Furthermore, several investigators were unable to demonstrate differences in time to loss of consciousness between cattle and sheep (which do not have a caudal rete) (19,20,27). The most recent research has shown that by using the proper slaughter apparatus (with the cow standing upright with a properly designed head restraint) and with proper handling,  the cow is apparently unaware of the throat being cut and collapses in 10 to 15 seconds (13). The rise in cortisol levels in head-restrained animals was minimal (23).  However, the lack of a basic understanding of what constitutes consciousness and pain in animals makes evaluation of this work difficult. Perhaps the techniques of positron emission topography combined with brain scanning and electromagnetic transducers for measuring blood flow will someday provide such an understanding.

A  related problem is occlusion of the carotid artery which would not allow rapid loss of blood from the brain.  It is not known what factors cause the spasmodic occlusion of the artery;  it is believed to be related to  stretching of the carotid and can be greatly reduced by correct slaughter procedures (13). 

It has generally been assumed by many consumers that kosher meat is of a better quality than non-kosher meat (9). (About 75% of purchasers of kosher deli products in the US are not Jewish [28]). Dembo (8) suggested that this is due to the greater degree of exsanguination, which is affected by a variety of factors such as breed and age. Attempts to demonstrate that shechita results in better quality of meat, as measured by hemoglobin concentration, pH,  water content or bacterial count,  have been  inconclusive  (9, 29-31). 

Recently it was demonstrated that the commonly used pneumatic bolt gun injects brain tissue into lung (32) and other organs (T. Garland, personal communication). Whether this injected brain material could actually result in the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is highly speculative.

 Back To Top    Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization

Defeathering

 Warm scalding (58÷C) or steam defeathering (62÷C without immersion) are prevalent industrial methods for defeathering. However, this presents the halachic problem of “cooking” the meat prior to the removal of blood so that cold scalding (maximal 7C÷) is used in the kosher meat industry. This presents two problems:  (1) poor defeathering and (2) employment of additional defeathering machinery with resultant mechanical damage to the skin.

In spite of research into the mechanism of feather attachment (33-36), the problem of poor defeathering remains. Methods to improve defeathering by cervical transection (35) or use of papain (34) have not been adopted by the industry.  Recently,  there has been shown some renewed interest in a modified cervical transection technique (M. Zaks, personal comm.). 

 Back To Top    Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization

Damage to the carcass

Extensive work on bacterial contamination and the method of defeathering  has recently been reported (37-41). The authors found striking differences in skin topography using scanning electron microscopy and immunoflorescent dyes when various methods were compared. Conventional defeathering (hot scalding) results in a smooth skin surface to which bacteria are only loosely attached. However rough surfaces, in which bacteria become entrapped or embedded, are produced by both steam spraying and kosher defeathering. These rough surfaces are very different from each other. The rough surface produced by kosher defeathering is a result of the partial delamination of the epidermis during the extended picking procedures. The surface produced by steam spray defeathering is due to the total removal of the epidermis and exposure of collagen in the dermis. However, in various reports (37,38), there were fewer salmonella positive birds following koshering  than following steam or hot scalding defeathering, depending the conditions of the experiment.  On the other hand,  Listeria (a bacterium which is salt and cold resistant) contamination was higher in one kosher plant, which was related to the salting process.

Two additional problems of carcass damage are skin tears (42) and skin discoloration due to hemorrhage.  Although the industry has conducted projects to reduce these defects, these studies have not been reported in the general scientific literature. These problems are of great economic importance in countries with special classifications for the appearance of the carcass. 

 Back To Top    Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization

Salting

The amount of salt in chicken meat varies greatly depending on the halachic stringency of the slaughterhouse and the site of sampling (43). In general, the salt content in kosher poultry is about 4 times above the level for non-salted poultry. The breast was found to have much less salt than the thigh and leg (44).  Soaking poultry meat in fresh water does not appreciably reduce the salt content (about 15%) (45). On the other hand, salting of red meat does not greatly increase the salt content as the salt penetrates less than 1 cm (J. Regenstein, personal comm.). Recently, the problem of pollution by high salt effluents from slaughterhouses has become a concern.

 Back To Top    Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization

Identification of species

Identification of species has primarily centered on fish. The main problem is whether the fish has “kosher” scales (ctenoid or

cycloid as opposed to ganoid or placoid) at some point in its life cycle and whether the scales can be removed with reasonable force without tearing the skin. Levinger (17) and Atz (46) have published extensive lists of kosher and non-kosher fish.  A related problem is the extent to which non-kosher fish are caught and kept on board with kosher fish and this was the subject of a recent industrial survey of tuna fishing.  Although it was demonstrated 200 years ago (47) that chemical methods can be used to determine the degree to which scales can be removed, this technique has not met with wide acceptance. (The debate about whether swordfish or eels are kosher has engendered some scientific discussion, but is primarily a halachic concern.)

 Back To Top    Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization

Iatrogenic “traifot”

Some of the various veterinary procedures which can result in traifot have been reviewed by Levinger (17,48). It is not known today what the effect of veterinary intervention is on the slaughterhouse incidence of traifot. Recently there was a great deal of discussion on traifot caused by veterinary surgery, primarily in cases of left displaced abomasum and bloat. The problem is related more to the production of “Chalav Yisrael” milk than to post-mortem traifot.  The syndrome of left displaced abomasum has increased in recent years both in the US and Europe, probably due to the higher nutritional level associated with high milk yielding cows (49,50) . In Israel it may be related to extensive use as feed of industrial surpluses, such as molasses. However, Israeli veterinarians are well aware of the problem and perform surgery using the “Dutch” method, which does not cause traifot. Interestingly, most (80%) cases of displace abomasum in Israel occur after the switch from wheat silage to corn silage and corn-based feeds which occurs before Passover (U. Bargai, personal communication). Whether wheat silage is really hamatz, has been the subject of a recent work by Zaks et al. [51].

 Back To Top    Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization

Immunization

The problem of immunization causing traifot has been a subject of heated debate between the Rabbinical and Veterinary communities in Israel for some time. Although generally the inoculations are harmless, inoculations in the thigh, neck, or wing have been reported to cause some local damage (52).  Fortunately, the invention of “in ovo” injection of vaccines (53) promises to overcome this problem.  This process, which has only recently become commercially available, is being adopted by Israeli hatcheries. 

The extent to which traifot in cattle are caused by modern husbandry is largely unknown.  In surveys performed in Israel in 1970-1971, the two principal types of traifot in cattle were found to be foreign objects causing perforation of the stomach wall and lung adhesions (16).  The problem of foreign object perforation can be greatly reduced by the placement of magnets in the reticulum (54). Although magnets are widely used in Israel, the extent that this has reduced traifot has not been documented.

Damage to the esophagus in force-fed geese was the subject of some studies by Levinger (55,56). He found that attention  to optimal pressure, the correct length of the tube and the nature of the material used for tubing can greatly reduce the damage to the esophagus.  In chickens, the problem of leg inflammation, which causes damage to tendons of the lower leg (Zomet Hagidim), has received major attention from the Israeli Rabbinical establishment. It is believed that this is a result of raising chickens on wire floors, since the syndrome is not seen in chickens raised on deep litter. Industrial surveys in Israel indicate that in some flocks the incidence of damaged tendons can reach 15-20% (57).

In summary, scientific studies dealing with veterinary problems in the kosher meat and poultry industry today can be characterized as sporadic, generally out-of-date, and grossly underreported. Attempts by Dr. Levinger in Israel in the early 1970’s  to develop a scientific basis for research into these problems was not continued due to lack of funding. Considering that the rapidly growing kosher food market is one of the great success stories of recent decades, this policy, or lack of it, on the part of funding agencies can at best be characterized as short sighted.  This is especially so as the kosher meat industry must meet the new environmental, hygienic, and food quality requirements which will seriously challenge its profitability in the near future (58).

Scientific research on problems of halacha of veterinary interest is just one area of halachic problems of concern to the veterinarian.  Other topics of interest include: cruelty to animals, treatment of animals on Shabbat and Holidays, halachic requirements in raising and slaughtering livestock (e.g. firstborn calf, milking on Shabbat) and problems of concern to the kosher consumer (e.g. parasites in fish, blood spots in eggs).

 Back To Top    Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Y. Klinger, Director of the Kimron Veterinary Institute, Dr. J. Regenstein, Cornell University and Dr. I. Levinger for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this document. 

References

1.  Shore, A.: The role of animal dissections in determining Jewish Law. BDD 4: 73-80, 1997. (In Hebrew).

2.  Shore, A.: Identification of the first born calf. Halichot Sadeh 104: 51-55, 1997. (In Hebrew).

3.  Shore, A.: Unusual animals and their description by the expounders of the Mishneh and Talmud in the modern period. Korot 12: 7-15, 1996-1997.  (In Hebrew).

4.  Shore, L.S.: Efforts by Jewish Communities to Prevent Zoonoses, Torah U-Madda. 1998.  (In press).

5.  Eybshutz, Y.: (1690-1767), Kartei U’Palti 40, Vienna. 1821.  (In Hebrew).

6.  Vorstהnde der Freien Vereinigung fr die Interessen des orthodoxen Judenthums. Gutachen: Gutachten der hervorragendsten Physiologen and Veterinהrהrzte ber das Schהcten. Buchbinderei von Louis Golde, Frankfurt am Main. 1894.

7.  Dembo, I.A.: Anatomisch-physiologische Grundlagen der verschiednene methoden des Viehschlachtens. Saint-Petersburg. 1892.

8.  Dembo, I. A.: The Jewish method of slaughter compared with other methods. Kegan Paul, Trench and Trubnen, London. 1894. 

9.  Levinger, I.M.: Shechita in the light of the year 2000. Critical review of the scientific aspects of methods of slaughter and shechita. Maskil L’David, Jerusalem. 1995.

10.   Hall, T.C.: Demonstration of a new Jewish method of casting and slaughtering animals for food. Vet. Rec. 7: 765-766, 1927.

11.  Hobday, F.: The Weinberg cattle-casting pen for Jewish slaughtering. Vet. J. 83: 460-462, 1927.

12.   Blackmore, D.K. and Delany M.W.: Slaughter of Stock  Pub. 118.  Cont. Education. Massey University, Palmerston North New Zealand. 1988.

13.   Grandin, T. and Regenstein, J.M.: Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists. Meat Focus International 3: 115-123, 1994.

14.  Munk, M.L. and Munk, E.: Shechita: Religious and Historical Research on the Jewish Method of Slaughter and Medical Aspects of Shechita.  Gur Aryeh, Jerusalem. 1976.

15.   Levinger, I.M.: Untersuchugen zum Schהchtproblem (Thesis), Zrich, 1961.

16.  Levinger, I.M.: Trephot in Animals - Theory and Practice. Torah Institute for Research in Agriculture, Jerusalem. 1973.  (In Hebrew).

17.  Levinger, I.M.: Kosher Food from Animals. Torah Institute for Research in Agriculture, Jerusalem, pp. 95-175, 1975.  (In Hebrew).

18. Dunn, C.S.: Stress reactions of cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two methods of restraint. Vet. Rec. 126: 522-525, 1990.

19.  Schulze, W., Schultze-Petzold, H., Hazem, A.S. and Gross, R.: Versuche zur Objektivierung von Schmerz und Bewutsein bei der konventionellen (Bolzenschubetהubung) sowie religionsgestzlichen (“Schהchtschnitt”) Sclachtung von Schaf und Kalb.  Dtsch. Tierהrztl. Wochenschr. 85:62-66, 1978.

20.  Gregory, G. and Wotton, S.D.: Time of loss of brain responsiveness following exsanguination in calves. Res. Vet. Sci. 37: 141-143, 1984.

21.  Daly, C.C., Kallweit, E. and Ellendorf, F.: Cortical function in cattle during slaughter: conventional captive bolt stunning followed by exsanguination compared with shechita slaughter. Vet. Rec. 122: 325-329, 1988.

22.  Bager, F., Braggins, T.J., Devine, C.E., Graafhus, A.E., Mellor, D.J., Taener, A. and Upsdell, M.P.: Onset of insensibility in calves: Effects of electropletic seizure and exsanguination on the spontaneous electrocortical activity and indices of cerebral metabolism. Res. Vet. Sci. 52: 162-173, 1992. 

23.   Tume, R.K. and Shaw, F.D.: Beta endorphin and cortisol concentration in plasma of blood samples collected during exsanguination of cattle. Meat Science 31: 211-217, 1992.

24.   Baldwin, B.A. and Bell, F.R.: Blood flow in the carotid and vertebral arteries of the sheep and calf. J. Physiol. 167: 448-462, 1963.

25.   Levinger, I.M. and Appel, N.: The anastomoses between the vertebral artery and the rete mirabile epidurale in cattle. Refuah Vet. 23: 241­244, 1966.

26.  Brazier, M.A.: The historical development of neurophysiology. In: Handbook of Physiology Section I: Neurophysiology Vol. 1, Amer. Physiol. Soc.: Washington DC. pp.1-58. 1959.

27.  Nangeroni, L.L and Kennett, P.D.: An electroencephalographic study of the effect of shechita slaughter on cortical function of ruminants. Report, Ithaca University, New York. 1963.

28.  Judy, J.A.: Kosher consumers: Not who you think they are. Deli Business Fall 1997: 51-54. 1997. 

29.   Kalweit E., Ellendorf F., Daly, C. and Smidt D.: Physiological reactions during slaughter of cattle and sheep with and without stunning. Dtsch. Tierהrztl. Wschr. 96: 89-92, 1989.

30.   Vimini, R.J., Field, R.A., Riley, M.A., Williams, J.C., Miller, G.J. and  Knigel, W.G.: Influence of delayed bleeding after stunning on beef muscle characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 56: 608-615, 1983.

31.    Warriss, P.D.: Exsanguination of animals at slaughter and the residual blood content of meat. Vet. Rec. 115: 292-295, 1984.

32.   Garland, T., Bauer, N. and Bailey M. Jr.: Brain emboli in the lungs of cattle after stunning. Lancet 348: 610, 1996.

33.   Angel, S., Hyams, M. and Levinger I.M.: Scanning electron microscope study of the feather follicle wall attachment in chickens.  Brit. Poultry Sci. 23: 247-249, 1982.

34.  Angel, S., Hyams, M. and Levinger, I.M.: Loosening of the feather follicle attachment by subcutaneous application of crude papain. Brit. Poultry Sci. 23: 251-255, 1982.

35.   Levinger, I.M. and Angel, S.: Effect of spinal cord transection on feather follicle release in the slaughtered broiler.  Brit. Poultry Sci. 18: 169-172, 1977.

36.   Levinger, I.M.,  Angel, S. and Hyams, M.: Possible control mechanisms of feather follicle movement in the pectoral tract of the chicken. Vet. Res. Comm. 9: 153-162, 1985.

37.  Clouser, C.S., Doores, S., Mast, M.G. and Knabel, S.J.: The role of defeathering in the contamination of turkey skin by Salmonella  species and Listeria monocytogenes. Poultry Sci. 74: 723-731, 1995.

38.   Clouser, C.S., Knabel, S.J., Mast, M.G. and Doores, S.: Effect of type of defeathering system on Salmonella cross-contamination during commercial processing.  Poultry Sci. 74: 732-741, 1995.

39.   Kim, J-W. and Doores, S.J.: Influence of three defeathering systems on microtopography of turkey skin and adhesion of Salmonella typhimurium. Food Prot. 56: 286-292, 1993.

40.  Kim, J-W. and Doores, S. J.: Attachment of Salmonella typhimurium to skins of turkey that had been defeathered: scanning electron microscopic examination. J. Food Protection 56: 395-400, 1993.

41.  Kim, J-W., Knabel, S.J. and Doores, S.J.: Penetration of Salmonella typhimurium into turkey skin. J. Food Protection 56: 292-296, 1993.

42.  Granot, I., Pines, M., Plavnick, I., Wax, E., Hurwitz, S. and Bartov, I.: Skin tearing in broilers in relation to skin collagen: effect of sex, strain and diet. Poultry Sci. 70: 1928-1935, 1991.

43.  Angel, S. and Weinberg, Z.G.: Variation in salt content in broiler parts from different kosher dressing plants in Israel. Poultry Sci. 65: 481-480, 1986.

44.  Angel, S., Weinberg, Z.G. and Jaffe R.: Salt content of kosher chicken parts studied under controlled conditions. J. Food Qual. 11: 365-373, 1989.

45.  Burns, E.R. and Neubort, S.: Sodium content of kosher meat. JAMA 252: 2960, 1984.

46.  Atz, J.W.: Appendix: Properly scaled fishes and non-kosher fishes. In: Lipshultz, Y.: Kashruth, A comprehensive background and reference guide to the principles of Kasruth.  Mesorah, Brooklyn, NY, pp. 139-160. 1988.

47.  Landau, Y.: (1713-1793), Nodeh B’yehudah, second section, #28, Vilna. 1904.  (In Hebrew).

48.  Levinger, I.M.: Milk from Trepha Cows. Tehudat Kashrut 4: 35-36, 1994.  (In Hebrew).

49.  Coppock, C.E.: Displaced abomasum in dairy cattle: etiological factors. J. Dairy Sci. 57: 926-933, 1973.

50.  Lotthammer, L.H.: Epidemiologische Untersuchungen ber das Vorkommen von Labmagenverlangerungun (dislocatio abomasi) in Milchrinderbestהnden. Tierהrztlich-Umschau. 47: 320-326, 1992,

51. Zaks, M., Klein, Y., Vanit, H., Cohen, A. and Leshem, Y.: Wheat silage is not necessarily Chametz.  Halichot Sadeh 101: 61-69, 1996.  (In Hebrew).

52.  Mutalib, A. and Boyle, C.R.: Influence of site of inoculation on inactivated vaccines on the immune response in chickens. Avian Dis. 38: 857-860, 1994.

53.  Ahmad, J. and  Sharma, J.M.: Protection against hemorrhagic enteritis and Newcastle disease in turkey by embryo vaccination with monovalent and bivalent vaccines. Avian Dis. 37: 485-491, 1993.

54.  Stצber, M., Fischer, W. and Taffe, B.: Neues aus der Buiatrik: berlegungen zur Weiterentwicklung des Kהfigmagneten (Modell Rinderklinik Hannover). Praktische Tierarzt 70: 65-66, 1988.

55.  Levinger, I.M.: Treifot in fowl: appearance, incidence and causes. Torah U’Madah 3: 23-28, 1973.   (In Hebrew).

56.  Leveinger, I.M.: Ability of the (goose) esophagus to withstand force feeding. Torah U’Madah 1: 35-38, 1975. 

57.  Ben Zvi, Y.: Tzomet hagidim in chickens. Tehudat Kashrut 11: 3-7, 1996.  (In Hebrew).

58.  Krizner, K. and Aylward, L.: Inspection under the microscope. Meat Marketing & Technology, Sept., 1995

    ISRAEL JOURNAL

Back To Top    Introduction      Physiology of Shechita     Defeathering     Damage to the carcass      Salting     Identification of species   Iatrogenic “traifot”     Immunization