Mr. ALBERT. He said he wasn't sure that was humane, if I understood him right.

Mr. HOEVEN. Someone must determine the definition. If it isn't the Congress or the Department, who is going to determine it?

Mr. HILL. Now, there are things we know are not humane. I can think of one and that is the picking of turkeys as a small boy. Now, you know why they picked them the way they did. They said the shock of sticking a knife through the upper brain of the turkey and picking it as it is kicking, you shock all of the feathers loose. Once in a while the turkey fell down, and the turkey went around threequarters or half picked alive. I don't suppose they do that any more, but that was ordinary custom years gone by, and that is a typical example of what we are trying to cure, I think, here.

Mr. POAGE. I am told that they use in a great many poultry plants now some kind of process whereby they drive a pin in at a certain portion of the brain and it causes the feathers to come off.

Mr. HILL. It doesn't cause them to come off. It unsets them.
Mr. POAGE. It unsets them, I should say, rather than come off.
Do they use any of that?

Dr. CLARKSON. I think what you have reference to is a so-called electrical knife.

Mr. POAGE. But they don't sever the head, as I understand it?
Dr. CLARKSON. No, sir.

Mr. POAGE. Is that supposed to help them pick the feathers?

Dr. CLARKSON. It is supposed to be a rapid and effective method of either killing or rendering the bird insensible.

Mr. POAGE. Does that loosen the feathers?

Dr. CLARKSON. And to ease or unset the feathers, as you suggest. What the bird's reactions are, I don't know.

Mr. BURNS. Isn't it a fact that in preserving the meat, the fact that meat has to go in the cooler and be cooled in water afterwards, you don't want the head severed because of the effect of the water getting into the inner part of the animal spoils the meat? Its preserving qualities are destroyed, isn't that right?

Dr. CLARKSON. I can't directly answer that Mr. Burns. There are practices of that kind. Just what the purposes are, I don't know. Mr. ALBERT. We don't.

Mr. POAGE. It is against the law in the State of Texas to put birds in water. We think it is about the most filthy method of sending fowl to the market that has ever been devised. It is against the law to put them in water as a cooling agent from the State standpoint.

Are there any further questions of Dr. Clarkson?

If not, we are very much obligated to you, Dr. Clarkson, and I believe that that concludes all of those that we have promised to hear on this bill. We haven't overlooked anybody, have we?

If there is anyone that does care to file an additional statement at the present time, we will be glad to receive them.

If there is anybody who cares to file a statement even as late as this morning, we will be glad to receive them. If there are, please leave them with the clerk before we leave. If there is not, the committee is going to go into executive session.

Mr. FRED MYERS. We would only like you to remember that the European countries who are using the humane way could be copied so easily. That in itself is proof that it works very well.

Mrs. MARY MCCORD THRASHER. Of course, you are familiar with the fact that many other countries have methods of humane slaughter of varying types.

Mr. POAGE. We can't open up and go into another hearing, because we simply don't have the time, but we will be glad to receive any statements that anybody wants to file this morning. We want to get this record in and completed and try to take some action as quickly as possible.

The committee will now go into executive session. We appreciate the attendance of all of our advisers.

(Whereupon, at 11:20 a. m., the subcommittee went into executive session.)

(The following statement of Mr. Aaberg and additional data have been submitted to the subcommittee:)

STATEMENT OF HERMAN C. AABERG, PRESIDENT OF LIVESTOCK CONSERVATION, INC., CHICAGO, ILL.

Livestock Conservation, Inc., is a national nonprofit educational and research organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois. Its principal office is located in Chicago with regional offices at Kansas City, Omaha, Sioux City, and South St. Paul.

The purpose of Livestock Conservation, Inc., is to promote practical and proper methods of livestock management pertaining to losses which reduce the economic value of livestock, meat, milk, and related items. To achieve this goal Livestock Conservation, Inc., through its national and regional staff and through its active committees develops and carries out effective national programs for improved livestock handling and the control and prevention of those diseases and parasites which cause economic losses to the livestock industry.

The overall committee setup includes:

1. Strong national committees of each segment of the entire livestock industry from producer to processor, coordinated by having each committee chairman make up the program committee of the organization.

2. Regional committees directing the local area program of each regional office. 3. Action committees in States, at markets, in processing plants to direct State, market, and processing plant livestock loss prevention programs.

This work is participated in and supported by every segment of the livestock industry including service and allied organizations. The list of members supporting Livestock Conservation, Inc., embraces several hundred individuals, corporations, and associations of livestock producers and feeders, both rail and motor carriers of livestock, livestock marketing agencies, livestock order buyers, livestock markets, livestock processors, livestock insurance companies, banks, veterinarians, feed manufacturers and dealers, milk companies, equipment companies, merchants, farm and livestock publications, pharmaceutical companies, humane and animal protective associations, and others.

The organizations and individuals which comprise the membership of Livestock Conservation, Inc., represent close to 90 percent of the production of meat animals in the United States; a majority of the milk production of the United States; and approximately 80 percent of the federally inspected slaughter of meat animals.

In addition Livestock Conservation, Inc., has the active support of and participation in its program of numerous public and quasi-public educational and research organizations including several branches of the United States Department of Agriculture; that part of the United States Department of Health, Welfare, and Education supervising vocational agriculture instruction and the United States Public Health Service; the Future Farmers of America; the National Committee on Boys' and Girls' Clubs Work; the Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities; the United States Livestock Sanitary Association; the American Veterinary Medical Association; the American Medical Association; virtually all State experiment stations, agricultural colleges, and extension services; many State departments of agriculture, and others.

An affiliated and integral part of Livestock Conservation, Inc., is the National Brucellosis Committee, which has spearheaded the current accelerated program for eradication of this dread disease.

The scope of the program of Livestock Conservation, Inc., is well outlined in the attached program leaflet, More Meat and Milk (submitted as exhibit H), adopted shortly after the organization of Livestock Conservation, Inc., in 1951 as a merger of the National Livestock Sanitary Committee and the National Livestock Loss Prevention Board, both of which organizations dated back to the early twenties. This program was prepared by a committee headed by Dean H. H. Kildee, of Iowa State College, now retired. Although changing times have shifted the emphasis somewhat from quantity to quality and efficiency the general objectives of the organization remain unchanged.

The methods of organizing and carrying out this program are outlined in five task force leaflets (exhibits B, C, D, E, and F). These are essentially being followed today in the work of carrying out the objectives of the organization, both in the active programs now underway and those being currently developed. Some idea of the scope of the work and how it reaches into all segments of the livestock industry can be gleaned from the summary of the proceedings of the 1957 annual meeting of Livestock Conservation, Inc., as reported in the National Provisioner for February 1957 (submitted as exhibit G). Here you will see evidence of the concern of all branches of the livestock industry and related interests in livestock safety, health, and welfare.

Livestock Conservation's interest is both humane and economic: Humane because safe handling of livestock is simply good animal husbandry; economic because mishandling of livestock, whether due to rough handling or through failure to use methods of preventing and controlling livestock diseases and parasites is costly to every segment of the industry from producer to consumer. Handling losses, although important, are but a relatively small part of the huge livestock loss total from all causes. This is partly because livestock producers, carriers, and handlers have an innate sense of appreciation of the fact that they are handling live animals and that living things should not be abused; and partly because the economic loss is more readily seen and appreciated in cases of mishandling than are the insidious attacks of parasites and disease. This is borne out by the livestock loss estimate contained in the Livestock Conservation Handbook published last year for the 4-H and FFA members carrying livestock projects.

Certainly more work is being carried on under the general sponsorship of Livestock Conservation, Inc., and its cooperating agencies in the field of handling livestock than in the field of parasite and disease control and prevention. The chief reason for this, as mentioned above, is that livestock people above all are human beings and are motivated by humanitarian instincts as well as by economic considerations.

There is but one conclusion that can be drawn from this recital of the work in livestock loss prevention, which is sponsored nationally by Livestock Conservation, Inc., and that is that the good old American tradition of self-help is here manifesting itself in its finest form. Through this nonprofit, public service, educational and research organization the entire livestock industry has mobilized and financed itself to tackle a common problem-the reduction of livestock losses. Government help is only sought and requested to further research programs and to carry the ways and means of preventing losses to all the industry through its educational areas the extension service and the schools.

Losses that may occur during slaughter are being tackled in the same way as other livestock losses-through the active development of educational and research programs of those interests directly concerned with these problems. All of them are actively participating in the overall program of Livestock Conservation, Inc., on all livestock losses, including the losses that may occur immediately before, during and after slaughter.

We in Livestock Conservation, Inc., believe that humane slaughter, like other phases of our program, is just good animal husbandry. We do not feel that this problem has been thoroughly explored and that we have all the answers as to humane methods. Our experience makes it very clear that not enough information is available on what is really humane in slaughtering processes.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF JOHN C. MACFARLANE, DIRECTOR OF THE LIVESTOCK CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

I, John C. Macfarlane, director of the Livestock Conservation Department of the Massachusetts SPCA, 180 Longwood Avenue, Boston, and as a citizen of the United States, respect the privileges guaranteed to all religious beliefs under our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't believe any attempt should ever be made to abridge these rights and privileges. However, as a Christian, the cutting of the throat of a living conscious animal at best is abhorrent and such procedures should not be termed a humane method of slaughter.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENTS BY THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES The Humane Society of the United States submits supplementary comment on pending humane slaughter legislation, dealing with these points:

1. Religious ritual slaughter;

2. Provisions for a committee to advise the Secretary of Agriculture.

1. RELIGIOUS RITUAL SLAUGHTER

This society specifically recognizes the right of followers of any religion to practice the rites of their faith. We oppose any formulation that could possibly be construed as an invidious reflection on any religion. We do not believe the author of any of the pending bills intended any such reflection but, to prevent any chance of an undesirable inference, we recommend the language with which protection for religious rites has been provided in H. R. 3029, H. R. 5671, H. R. 6509, and H. R. 6422.

It should be carefully noted that no act in the handling of an animal prior to actual slaughter is a part of the ritual of slaughter in any religion. It is possible, therefore, to protect animals against cruelty in shackling, hoisting, or casting without impairing the freedom of any religion.

Section 2 (b) of H. R. 3029, and similar provisions of some other bills, would provide that much needed elimination of some of the worst cruelties of the packinghouse killing floors. In this respect, H. R. 176 and similar bills are deficient. If any humane slaughter law is enacted, it should include the full protection for animals that is offered by sec. 2 (b) of H. R. 3029 and the other bills enumerated in the third paragraph of this memorandum.

2. COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

We do not recommend legislative creation of a committee or commission to advise the Secretary of Agriculture, as proposed in various forms by H. R. 176, H. R. 6422, and some other bills. We prefer the form of legislation envisioned in H. R. 3029.

An advisory committee may, we think, be a cumbersome instrument in the administration of the proposed act. It is not suggested in any pending bill that an advisory committee have actual power to determine what methods of slaughter are humane; the proposed function is merely advisory. We suggest that the Secretary of Agriculture is free to seek advice without empowering legislation and that the Secretary might feel more uninhibited in seeking advice from a variety of sources if the law does not, at least by implication, limit him to seeking advice from a select list of groups or persons.

If an advisory committee is to be created by law, however, we favor the language and substance of section 4 of H. R. 6509.

In a hearing held by the Livestock and Feed Grains Subcommittee on April 12, Dr. M. R. Clarkson, speaking for the Department of Agriculture, opposed enactment of legislation that would make adoption of humane slaughter methods compulsory.

As several Congressmen remarked during the hearing, Dr. Clarkson's objection to such legislation seemed to stem chiefly from a doubt about whether carbon dioxide and electrical currents, used as anaesthetizing or stunning agents, are genuinely humane. Dr. Clarkson argued that the Secretary of Agriculture

might find it difficult to certify these methods as "rapid, effective, and humane" without further study.

We wish to call these three points to the attention of the Congress:

1. There is conclusive scientific evidence that both carbon dioxide and electric currents are humane when appropriately used for the intended purpose;

2. In any event, other methods of making animals insensible to pain are available and neither Dr. Clarkson nor any other witness has questioned the fact that they are humane;

3. Further, every pending bill on this subject provides a waiting period of at least 2 years before any packer must comply with the law and in this period the Department of Agriculture surely could determine what methods of stunning or anaesthetizing animals could be certified as humane by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Representative Poage commented, during the hearing of April 12, that not many men or animals “come back" from any such experience as is undergone by animals put through a packinghouse carbon dioxide tunnel or subjected to electrical stunning before being shackled and bled. Congressman Poage was making a pertinent point and making it tellingly, but it is important to note that tens of thousands of human beings have undergone carbon dioxide anaesthetization and have experienced anaesthetic electric shock in treatment for mental illness. They have "come back" to tell about it. And the universal testimony is that both carbon dioxide and electricity, so used, are painless.

The Congress may wish to know that humane societies, both here and abroad, financed scientific studies of these problems before legislation of this kind ever was proposed.

For example, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, a British organization whose membership is restricted to members of the faculties and undergraduate bodies of British universities, sponsored a comprehensive investigation of electric stunning of animals. The study made use of electrocardiograph and electroencephalograph techniques to determine precisely when an animal ceased all response to pain stimuli. The findings, widely publicized, supported all earlier evidence that electric stunning is humane.

In this country, both the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Welfare Institute have financed other studies, conducted by the Veterinary College of Michigan State University. It is significant that Michigan State University, following these studies, has itself adopted electricity as the method of humanely stunning animals that are slaughtered by the Veterinary College for university dining halls.

We suggest that the Congress may safely rely, in this matter, upon studies that have satisfied the responsible and reputable humane societies of the whole world.

CHAIRMAN,

CHICAGO, ILL., May 1, 1957.

Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives,
New House Office Building, Washington, D. C.
(Attention: Mrs. Mabel Downey (Clerk)):

In view of testimony presented during hearings humane slaughter legislation attempting to discredit professional competency of veterinarians employed by USDA, the board of governors of the American Veterinary Medical Association considers any method of slaughter unacceptable when it creates tissue changes resulting in uncertainties in the proper disposition of meat food products. Electrical stunning of swine cannot be recommended for these reasons. Our association emphatically favors humane slaughter by any improved method that is found to be practical and does not jeopardize the determination of wholesomeness of products intended for human consumption. We urge the enactment of H. R. 5820 as an important step in reaching this objective.

H. E. KINGMAN, D. V. M., American Veterinary Medical Association.