control and a steady flow of 70 volts with 600 milliamps for 15 seconds or longer on all hogs.

He used 185 volts on sheep and calves for instantaneous shock and 300 volts on cattle for instantaneous shock.

These and many other devices have been available to the United States meat slaughterers for many years, but for one reason or another these new devices did not seem to meet with the acceptance or approval of most of our packers.

Some of the expressed reasons for not adopting these European developments were based upon sound thinking. We know, for instance, that the techniques used by a slaughterhouse killing 10 or 20 animals a day could not be applied to the slaughterhouse killing 50 to 200 or more per hour.

Other expressed reasons were, in my opinion, predicated upon a strong and very often arbitrary, determination not to make any changes whatsoever in killing techniques, on the premise that to make any change would be to increase the cost of operation.

This argument has held sway since the turn of the century in entirely too many cases.

We know that, should it become mandatory under Federal law to kill food animals in a manner that is rapid, effective, and humane, less than 500 slaughterhouses will be effected throughout the United States.

In all fairness to those packers who have given cooperation and have shown a sincere desire to search out better killing methods, Swift and Armour lead all the other major packers in my opinion.

Some of our major packers have shown no interest whatsoever in any new ideas concerning humane slaughter as such, to the point where some of them have not once indicated a desire to even see the new Remington Humane Stunner, notwithstanding the fact that Swift and Armour are equipping their beef killing plants with these new tools as rapidly as plant changes and tool production will permit.

The Remington Arms Humane Stunner has proven itself to be rapid, effective, and humane. While it is still being improved upon through Remington Arms' research and development and with packer cooperation, many thousands of tests already indicate that its immediate use is not only rapid, effective, and humane, but that it is also safe and economical.

In spite of all the available evidence to prove that this particular tool is humane and acceptable by the Meat Inspection Branch of the United States Department of Agriculture, I certainly do not believe that beef slaughterers in general will adopt its use unless they are compelled to do so either by pressure from the public or by law.

The Temple-Cox and the Cash-X penetrating captive bolt pistols have been used successfully for many years in Europe and by a few plants in our own country.

We know that they can be used effectively by all packers who do not save animal brain as a salable byproduct and by those who do not face economic loss from holes being punched through the pate leather. Packing plant history forces us to believe that even these penetrating bolt-type tools will never be accepted unless the law indicates that they constitute some of several acceptable methods for packers to choose from.

We know that the Meat Inspection Branch of the United States Department of Agriculture will not accept electric shocking or electronarcosis because of the so-called indistinguishable lesions or extravasations found in the animal brain, lung, and/or other organs.

I believe, however, that electronarcosis can be practical where it is used on hogs, sheep, and calves by a small packer whose daily "kill" numbers only a few animals, like the very small butcher in Cedarsburg, Wis., where I visited recently, whose weekly kill is less than 60 animals.

This man can afford the time to apply electrodes to the heads of hogs for 15 seconds or longer or until the real legs of the animal stiffen out, using an electrical charge of not more than 70 volts.

I am in agreement with the large packers who say that they cannot use electricity because of the long periods of time necessary to induce unconsciousness.

I am also in agreement with those authorities who maintain that a "shock" type of electric stunning is not acceptable because I know from personal experience that where 185 volts are used, blood spots, splashing, and petechial hemorrhages appear in the organs and in the meat of the hog so stunned.

I would like now to present the policy of my organization for the record:

The society I represent, and its thousands of members, condemns wholeheartedly all cruel slaughter practices, especially the suspension by one leg of a living, conscious animal and the frequent application of electric shock to the flesh adjacent to the rectum in order to immobilize the animal while a hind leg is being shackled.

These practices are often witnessed in all types of slaughterhouses. The present bills now being considered would preclude such practices, excepting only slaughter under Kosher and Mohammedan laws. These methods, however, are not a part of the ritualistic slaughtering techniques.

We recommend an amendment to Mr. Dawson's bill, No. 3029, which would provide for use of the Dyne casting pen or some similar device which would eliminate the necessity of suspending living conscious animals. (The casting pen is a method which is acceptable to those of Jewish faith in England and in Scandinavian countries.)

And further, that the amendment require that the cutting of the throat of a living conscious animal shall be used only for the adherents of a religion which does not permit prior stunning.

In the bill submitted by the Honorable Martha W. Griffiths, I suggest that the word "officer" on line 17, page 3, be replaced by the word "representative."

With this one correction, I would favor bill No. 176.

In the bill submitted by Mr. Miller of California, I submit the same constructive criticism, that the word "officer" on line 17, page 3, be replaced by the word "representative."

I do also favor this bill, No. 2880.

In the bill submitted by Mr. Dawson, I offer the following constructive criticisms, line 16, page 2, reads as follows: "The term

'approved methods' of slaughtering, which means any of the following," and then on line 3, page 3, the bill further states "slaughtering in accordance with the requirements of any religious faith."

suggest that Mr. Dawson reword these two paragraphs and that his bill and all similar bills emphasize that

nothing in this bill shall apply to any qualified slaughterer slaughtering food animals in accordance with the requirements of any established religious faith.

I further suggest that this paragraph be inserted either between E and F on page 2, or that it be inserted between sections 4 and 5 on page 3. With these suggested changes, I would then approve of Mr. Dawson's bill, No. 3029.

In the bill submitted by Mr. Hiestand, I offer the following remarks:

The Honorable Mr. Hiestand has submitted a bill which meets the desires and wishes of all humanitarians more closely perhaps than any of the other bills being heard by this committee.

It is my humble opinion that twenty-odd million Americans who are in one way or another affiliated with the animal protective movement throughout these United States will agree with me.

I know that the many thousands of people who hold membership in my own organization think as I do.

The Massachusetts SPCA has always tried to be liberal and fair in all its deliberations. It has on many occasions gone out of its way to cooperate rather than condemn, and as the livestock representative of this, the largest humane organization of its kind in our country, I wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Hiestand's bill, No. 3049. Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Macfarlane.

Mr. MACFARLANE. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hands a picture of the Dyne casting pen and a picture of the Remington stunner. May I please offer this?

Mr. POAGE. We will be delighted to have it filed with the committee.

(The photograph will be found in the files of the committee.) Mr. POAGE. If there are no questions, we are very much obliged to

We would like to discuss these matters at length but we realize that we have some 23 more witnesses to be heard in the 45 minutes remaining.

I have a list that has been handed me and I suppose there are many other people who have asked to be heard.

Apparently, there is no coordination here but I think we will go down to No. 7 to Dr. Barner.

Dr. R. D. Barner, professor of veterinary pathology. I am going to call Dr. Barner as the next witness, and then I am going to call the next witness who I will ask to be ready in order to save as much time as we can, because, frankly, I know that you cannot realize the pressure of time that is on the committee.

So, following Dr. Barner will be Mr. Leo Pfeffer. Is Mr. Pfeffer present?

Mr. PFEFFER. Present.

Mr. POAGE. All right now, Mr. Pfeffer, you will follow Dr. Barner.

91249-57——3

STATEMENT OF DR. RALPH D. BARNER, PROFESSOR OF VETERINARY PATHOLOGY, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST LANSING, MICH.

Dr. BARNER. I am Ralph D. Barner, teacher of veterinary pathology at the Michigan State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, East Lansing, Mich.

In the course of our routine work it is necessary that we destroy living animals rather frequently, using the dead cadaver as a means of arriving at a diagnosis, and using a word that Judge Griffiths made reference to here a year ago, I might say that in our post mortem laboratory we have the glass window and the farmers, pet owners. accompany their animals and, therefore, it is necessary that we destroy these animals to aid us in our diagnosis by the most humane means possible.

And commonsense and public opinion has compelled us to use humane methods.

We have been conducting for the past several years research work wherein we have been using electricity and carbon dioxide, as a means of bringing about the humane slaughter of animals.

I made a report here last year, I believe Judge Griffiths has that report, pertaining to this matter of hemorrhages as an aftermath of the use of electricity.

I might say that during the death struggle of healthy animals wherein they are killed in a routine manner by sticking, we have also observed hemorrhages, not unlike those that are observed following the means of electricity.

And in our midst we have a Colonel Anthony with whom I visited this past year at Marshman Baxter in Briar Hills, England, and, perhaps, he will have more to say on that matter. He has been using electricity there, I think, for a number of years, and he will have more on that.

More recently, we have been conducting research work using carbon dioxide as a means to euthanize cattle and calves, and we have extended that to hogs and also goats.

I might say that we have observed hemorrhages in those animals following the use of carbon dioxide. It seems that this matter of hemorrhage is related to the death struggle.

I might at this time present, I have been asked by the ladies of the Animal Welfare Institute, several instruments that are being used at the present time in various parts of the world, some of them in Michigan and other States, of course.

I have the cost of these.

The Cash-X bolt pistol which costs $100, this is being used. I had hoped to show some slides. In this game we find that slides, visual aids, are worth-I think some Chinaman said, a picture is worth 10,000 words-and I had hoped to show some pictures here but in the interest of time we should dispense with those.

But we have quite a collection. And I might add that Mr. Lingle gave me permission to show some slides wherein he makes use of lights and the bolt pistol in destroying some of these fractious wild animals.

Here we have a Schermer stunner, which sells for $150. I also have pictures of the use of this particular instrument in Denmark. It is

used quite extensively there for humanely stunning of horses and Red Danes, cattle.

Then we also have another instrument here that the Remington people have developed in conjunction with Mr. Macfarlane known as the Remington stunner.

I might say that the price on this is $220. Perhaps Mr. Macfarlane he has been developing this-could relate more information on this particular instrument to you.

I do not think I have anything more to add at this time.

Mr. POAGE. Unless you care to demonstrate how that is going to work.

(Off the record.)

Mr. MACFARLANE. This is quite versatile. This was developedMr. KRUEGER. It isn't loaded; is it?

Mr. MACFARLANE. This was developed by Remington Arms in Bridgeport, Conn., as a result of a suggestion I made to them some 212 years ago, if they could develop by concussion an instrument that would not penetrate through the frontal bone, that would knock it out, that I felt that the packers would buy it. I felt there would be a market for it. It is still in research.

However, as I indicated in my paper, Swift and Armour are equipping their beef-killing plants as rapidly as their plants are changing and production will permit. It has been proven to be effective, humane, safe.

However, no instrument is any better than the human counterpart associated with it.

One has been developed with safety features which makes it fairly foolproof. This is a safety switch or safety latch at the bottom. When it is compressed the firing mechanism lever is in line with this firing pin. It cannot be fired in this position.

So if the animal moves its head at the last minute and he wants to save that cartridge it will not fire. He merely touches to the point below the pole of the animal's head where by touching this it is fired. I can fire it so that you will see what I mean. By touching it first, there is no swing necessary. Those packers who have given them to their knockers have all with few exceptions proclaimed it as a much easier instrument to use.

It gives the same foot-muscle energy pressure every time it is fired. It uses a blank cartridge with 3.8 grains of powder. They cost approximately 2.75 cents each.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not selling this for Remington. I am merely explaining it to you.

I think that some of the packers may object to the fact that the cost of the cartridge is that high. For small packers who do not have a high volume of kill, those people would probably have to pay 5 cents apiece for them. But what price humanity?

It is a very good instrument. And I think today, so far as my records indicate, it has been used in the United States on approximately one-half million steers. That is, effectively.

We have not yet reached a point where the packers are completely satisfied with the brain because by concussion we cause surface hemorrhages of the lobes of the brain which in many cases make it impossible, for the packers who have a market, to sell brain for human food.