I don’t think that anyone claimed the animal loses consciousness immediately upon shechita. Nevertheless, a properly rendered throat-cutting leaves the animal halachically dead, as far as I know, even if it may have be conscious. Just as a beheaded person’s head must retain consciousness for some period of time, yet the person is halachically dead. It may serve the industry’s purpose to do things according to methods endorsed by Temple Grandin or for that matter, Dr. Doolittle, but it’s still just generating meat for me to sink my teeth into.

The Torah tells us to slaughter the animals in the manner G-d prescribes, without ever telling us what that manner is, leading to the conclusion that there was an oral tradition brought down at the same time as the written Torah. Not all fats are prohibited, and the marbling and white fats are permitted. Finally, you’re correct that not all blood is removed by “bleeding out” from the shechita, which is why there’s also nikur, which is removal of the forbidden parts, which includes large blood vessels which may contain pooled blood. Blood left in the meat after the soaking and salting is defined as “juice”, not “blood”, and the soaking and salting is done after vessels are removed.

To my knowledge, that’s not a Torah concept, or a Jewish concept in general. That doesn’t mean it’s not admirable to consider things such as that, or that it’s inconsistent with the Torah. That just means that the Torah gives us guidelines for holiness, and we keep kopsher to be holy for our G-d, not to be spiritual. But if spirituality can help you in solidifying the concept of holiness, by all means be spiritual. In general, we become holy by performing mitzvos and refraining from aveiros, as they’re understood, and if we require sprituality, we get it through prayer. But I suppose anything one does to connect with G-d is OK as long as it isn’t inconsistent with Torah. So to answer your questions, 1) Being spiritually aware is not what we’re trying to do- we’re trying to be holy, 2) I don’t think the halachos of kashrus say anything about this,but kashrus is of course subjective, reflecting only the Torah perspective 3) the primary concern has nothing to do with either animals’ or peoples’ lives, but rather with sanctifying G-d. In that, we’re given the guidelines. As long as we follow these guidelines, anything else we do is ok. From a tzar baalei chayim standpoint, we’re worried about the life of the animal in the context of using the animal. From a kashrus standpoint, we’re worried about the death of the animal, that it was done properly according to Jewish law, that the animal be neither treif nor neveilah, and that the animal have a minimal standard of health so that their are few lesions or adhesions which would make the meat unfit for our food.

So I would like to ask a couple of questions, for the opinionated and knowledgeable to comment on:

1-Is this not the essence of being spiritually aware and using common sense in looking to consume healthy meat?
2-Does kashrus say anything about this, or is it subjective?
3-Is the primarly concern about an animal’s life, or an animal’s death?

Debeaking is designed to eliminate cannibalism from flocks of egg-layers, due to the fact that egg laying varieties often exhibit extreme cannibalism, while it has largely been eliminated from meat varieties of chickens. See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking . Just as with the specialization of cattle varieties for milk or meat production, chicken varieties are specialized as well into laying varieties and meat varieties. So when one makes arguments about slaughter varieties based upon practice in egg production, the argument is ludicrous. And when one makes arguments about beef production based upon practices in veal production, the arguments become ludicrous. And when one makes film productions about production of one product using images specific to another product, the arguments promoted in the films become invalid. These people are playing to emotion rather than intellect. It’s their right, but I don’t need to buy into their positions.

Howard, beef cattle are not raised in cages. In feedlot farming, they’re raised in large pens, with plenty of room to get around, becaue after all, all of the cattle need to get to the feeding station. There’s plenty of food and water, and extra water when the weather is hot. There are salt licks to keep up electolyte concentration. There is regular veterinary inspection and if necessary, intervention. There is range living during a portion of their lives. Remember, we’re talking beef cattle here, not veal. Of course, how many cattle die terrible deaths on the free range, either from starvation or thirst or other exposure? Which is more kind- to give the animals plenty to eat on the feedlot or to leave them to their own devices on the range? Survival is easier and better assured on the feedlot. Cattle may not get much exercise, though. Then again, even on the range, all they do is stand in one spot and eat and poop, and occasionally lie down. In a cow’s life, there really ain’t much difference between the 2.