And given that this method provably results in less trauma byproducts than traditional methods, there is strong evidence that this is a more humane method.
As for the story of the postmortem experiment with Lagrange, no mention is made of it in any of the reputable biographies of Lavoisier. ...
The TL;DR is that the head can stay "alive" for some time after decapitation. The nominal example (see the URL) being Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who was guillotined during the French Revolution and committed to blinking for as long as he possibly could after being decapitated. There are also more modern examples "thanks" to ISIS.
The Russian experiment with the reanimated dogs heads... I'll let you google that one yourself.
draining the blood off rapidly and shorting out the spinal column really does improve matters, too.
It’s not all that different in intent from kosher and halal slaughter: minimize pain and suffering, respect the animal, get tastier food while you’re at it.
Except that this is not the intent for kosher and halal, nor do these methods minimize pain and suffering. In both kosher and halal the animal has to fully conscious when its jugulars are cut, the difference lies mainly in whether the name of god is to be proclaimed over every slaughtered animal (halal) or only on the first and last one (kosher), whether slaughter can be performed by any believer (halal) or only by a specific priest (kosher, only Sachets (a type of rabbi) can perform kosher slaughter), whether the whole animal is considered to be edible (halal) or only its forequarters (kosher) and which animals can be consumed (rabbit, wild hens, shellfish, duck and goose can be halal but they can never be kosher). Kosher and halal were and are ways to identify tribes as being part of a religious group - a form of shared ritual - and probably also contain some vestiges of lore (trichine-infected pork can kill, Red Tide-infected shellfish likewise, a rule which makes sure the animal is fully conscious when slaughtered also gives a reasonable guarantee it is not diseased, etc).
Whacking the animal over the head with a mallet or using a more modern equivalent like a bolt pistol (cattle, horses) or electric shock (pigs) before slitting its throat does tend to reduce suffering when done correctly so it can not be said that kosher and halal lead to 'minimize[d] pain and suffering'.
You have completely skipped the stringent rules about the knife in your summary, so perhaps you are just not aware of it.
The knife must be razor sharp - the slightest knick renders it unusable. The knife must be drawn in a single motion, any hesitation, or pressure, while cutting makes the animal not kosher. The location of the cut is precisely defined.
All of the above are there to minimize pain, because the knife is so sharp the animal doesn't feel the pain, any pressure on the wound would also trigger pain.
> or only on the first and last one (kosher)
This isn't correct. Only one blessing is said, and not saying the blessing does not render the animal not-kosher. The blessing is about the shochet, not the animal. This is different in Halal were the blessing is the primary thing that makes the animal halal.
> whether slaughter can be performed by any believer (halal) or only by a specific priest (kosher, only Sachets (a type of rabbi) can perform kosher slaughter)
The shochet is not a priest. Being a shochet is 100% about knowing what to do, and 0% about any kind of special status. Anyone can be a shochet, including women. And you do not need to be a Rabbi, you just need to be trained.
> bolt pistol
A captive bolt pistol has an unacceptable high failure rate. You can NOT consider them more humane than Kosher slaughter.
On the minimising of pain I'm not wrong. Captive bolt pistols and electric shocks can be misapplied and that certainly happens in some cases. In the majority of cases these devices fulfil their purpose in that they knock out the animal before the knife is applied. This knocking out is instantaneous, contrast that to the slow death by oxygen deprivation which is what happens in halal and kosher slaughter. A sharp knife only makes the cut itself less painful, it does nothing for the minute-long death process which follows.
There is not.
> On the minimising of pain I'm not wrong
You are. You are simply misinformed on the topic, yet writing with authority you do not posses.
> for the minute-long death process which follows.
There is no minute-long death process. Insensibility happens within 10 seconds according to Temple Grandin. Additionally when done properly the animal appears not to feel it. (https://www.grandin.com/ritual/rec.ritual.slaughter.html)
I also know this personally because I visited a shechita plant and watched them. The animal collapsed often the moment the shochet removed his knife. To me the worst part of the process was the cattle prods used to move the animal in line (the cattle really hated that). The actual killing was very painless.
> and that certainly happens in some cases
No, it happens in 13.6% of cases (https://faunalytics.org/effective-captive-bolt-stunning/) And when it happens the animal is left in severe pain, and is processed without any further regard to its pain.
Captive bolt stunning is LESS humane then Shechita. Every piece of evidence shows this, but people think "if it's new it must be better".
The only benefit is in cost - Shechita is very expensive because of the necessary training. Captive bolts need little training. But they are not better for the animals.
Now, back when it was introduced, thousands of years ago, sure, it was humane for the time. But times have changed.
In short: Stunning is not humane, because it fails far too often, and when it fails the animal is left in severe pain.
Obviously pistols and electric shocks aren't recommended by the Bible. The incompatibility between technological progress and ancient gospel is a different problem, which is why there is a rift between modern "progressive" sects of a religion and fundamentalist sects. For example, see magentzedek.org/animal for a modern kosher.
Fundamentalism (with a capital-F), which is the inspiring example from which the more general concept of “fundemantalism” is derived, is actually one of the younger branches of Christianity. It's even one of the younger branches of Protestant Christianity.
This is actually true fairly generally; fundamentalist sects tend to be products of reactions against modernism being perceived to influence the core religion rather than being the oldest branches of religion.