(The letter is as follows:) AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Hon. W. R. POAGE, Chairman, Livestock and Feed Grain Subcommittee, House Agriculture Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN POAGE: On behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation we would like to express our views with regard to bills requiring the compulsory application of so-called humane methods in the slaughter of livestock and poultry. Naturally, as a representative of livestock producers, we have a tremendous interest in this matter. With the membership in Farm Bureau at about 1,600,000, I would judge that a very large majority of this membership is actively engaged in producing, feeding, and marketing livestock, dairy, and poultry. From a completely practical point of view we believe the humane handling of livestock and poultry at all levels is perhaps of greater interest and concern to us than to any other group. Farmers and ranchers usually give the utmost care to their livestock. In considering this legislation it is necessary for us to view compulsory legislation in this field in light of its possible economic impact on livestock producers. It seems to us that the meatpackers, the humanitarians, the scientists, and others cannot yet agree on the most practical or even the most humane method for slaughtering livestock. In light of the controversy around this issue it seems to us that compulsory legislation at this time would be very premature and not in the best interest of either the producers of livestock or the consumer. We would recommend that an advisory group under the direction of the Secre tary of Agriculture be established to give concerted study to this problem. It is our belief that a great deal more could be achieved toward a solution to this problem on a voluntary basis than if compulsory legislation is passed. The success of any program of this kind is largely dependent on the willingness of those dealing with the matter to cooperate. In other words, we strongly believe that the greatest progress toward the solution of this problem will come about through the development of voluntary programs, based on factual information made possible through cooperative efforts of all segments of the livestock, poultry, and meat industry and those interested in the humane handling of livestock and poultry at all levels of production and processing. We respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the record of hearings. Sincerely yours, JOHN C. LYNN, Legislative Director. Mr. POAGE. That brings us to Mrs. Draper, who has a short film to show, and I think that this would be an opportune time to see that picture, and then we will proceed with those who are in opposition to this. Would you let the audience come up to these chairs so they will be close to the screening. (Presentation of film was made at this time.) Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much for that picture. We will now hear the opponents of the legislation. I believe Mr. Regensburger is going to represent the American Meat Institute. STATEMENT OF R. W. REGENSBURGER, OF SWIFT & CO., APPEARING FOR THE AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE; ACCOMPANIED BY ALEC P. DAVIES Mr. REGENSBURGER. My name is R. W. Regensburger. I am vice president of Swift & Co., but I appear here representing the American Meat Institute, the trade, research and educational association of the meatpacking industry. The American Meat Institute, now 50 years old, represents several hundred members, both large and small companies, in every State of the Union, which process somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 percent of the commercial meat consumed in the United States. I have been a member of the special committee on improved methods of slaughter of the American Meat Institute for a number of years, and for a period served as chairman. The American Meat Institute has constantly favored and sponsored efforts which would secure humane treatment of all livestock under all conditions from farm to packing plants. Over the years the American Meat Institute has been active in efforts to improve the handling of food animals. Many years ago, the institute joined the farm and livestock organizations, humane associations, railroads, truckers, stockyards interests, agricultural colleges and the United States Department of Agriculture in the formation of the National Livestock Loss Prevention Board, the name of which was changed to Livestock Conservation, Inc., a few years ago. This organization, national in scope, financed by all segements of the industry from farm to packinghouse, is dedicated to educational and promotional efforts to reduce losses through better and more humane handling of animals. We mention this merely to indicate the voluntary activity and interest of the American Meat Institute in all phases of humane treatment of livestock. The American meatpacking industry is the world's greatest food manufacturing group. From 52 million farms and ranches in every State in the Nation come live animals to the packing plants. In 1956, the livestock processed at all meatpacking plants or establishments or on farms in the United States numbered about 27 million cattle; 12 million calves; 16 million sheep and 79 million hogsmaking a total for all livestock processed of 134 million head. Thus, we are not discussing here a subject of small import but rather legislation that will affect directly or indirectly millions of people, producers, processors and consumers. Our basic function in this industry is to process, distribute, and offer for sale edible meat that is clean, wholesome and appetizing. To do this we dispatch millions of animals each year, and in this task we bear responsibility to handle these animals humanely and efficiently. The number of livestock dispatched annually in this country is, therefore, very large-far greater than in European countries with which comparisons are drawn with respect to humane methods of slaughter. Under the conditions of corporations in the United States, the development and application of new methods of slaughter present more difficult problems than under European practice for two reasons: 1. High speed of operations in this country; 2. The more excited and fractious characteristics of livestock in our country. As the number of animals dispatched in United States plants is very large, livestock must be processed at high hourly rates of speed. For example, in the larger plants in this country 91249-57———7 (a) Hogs are handled at a rate of 600 head an hour (and a few plants operate at 1,000 to 1,200 hogs an hour). (b) Cattle are dispatched at rates of 150 to 200 head an hour. In the largest European plants to our knowledge, however— (a) The highest rate on hogs is around 300 head an hour, or about one-third the rate in this country; (b) While on cattle, the highest rate in Europe is 40 to 50 head an hour, or about one-fourth the rate in this country. The higher hourly rates of dispatching livestock in this country presents more serious problems and difficulties in applying new methods than would obtain in European practice. Further, the livestock reaching packing plants in the United States are not docile, and are not accustomed to people in close proximity. Our livestock are more accustomed to the open spaces, and, as a consequence, are not tame and tractable as a whole when brought to the packing plants. In Europe, on the other hand, the livestock generally are more mild mannered and quiet as they are more accustomed to people. In developing and applying new methods, therefore, the control of fractious and excited livestock in this country is a serious and difficult problem when coupled with the requirement of operation at high hourly rates. The meatpacking industry is not opposed to improvements in methods of dispatching livestock which may be judged more humane. While the meatpacking industry is highly competitive and while costs are a serious consideration, the members of the American Meat Institute recognize an obligation to improve the operating technique in handling livestock which will meet rational criteria for more humane slaughter. In the presentation which follows, I should like to discuss two points: 1. The development of new and improved methods of dispatching livestock under the conditions of operation in this country is not as easy and simple as would appear from superficial observation and study, and investigations are required for important facets of the development which may not even be foreseen or anticipated. 2. The position of the members of the American Meat Institute with respect to legislation under the category of more humane methods of slaughter. With respect to the first point mentioned, I should like to review two experiences of the American Meat Institute Committee which demonstrate that endeavors to improve methods of dispatching livestock have unavoidably entailed study, investigation, and research far beyond that which would have been expected at the outset of the project. First, our efforts to apply electrical stunning to livestock in this country. Second, the current problems in the progress of the improved stunning instrument developed by the Remington Arms Co. While we are not familiar with the details, we are certain that the development of the immobilizer for hogs by CO, entailed appreciable research and investigation by Horman & Co. ELECTRICAL STUNNING In 1929 word was received of the successful application of electric current for stunning hogs in Germany. From the reports received, the adaptation of this method in this country should have been relatively easy-seemingly, merely devising mechanical means for meeting operating conditions in the United States. However, before we completed this project, extensive research, study, and investigation were carried out in several subjects and facets which no one could have foreseen or anticipated. I should like to review briefly some of the more important studies and investigations to illustrate the complexities of this problem which appeared relatively simple when we started. 1. The reports from Germany indicated that the current should be applied by placing one pole on the head and the other on the rump. Our experiments with this method of current application soon revealed a serious shattering of the backbone and a breaking of the thigh bones in a high percentage of the hogs stunned. Investigation was necessary, therefore, to determine an application of current which would obviate the damage to the backbone. Research demonstrated that application of the current by placing the poles on either side of the head would avoid the damage to the bones. The answer to the problem was found, but research and study were necessary for a condition which was not foreseen. 2. During the course of our early activity in the application of electric current for stunning livestock we invited several scientists to view our tests. To our surprise, several of the scientists who observed our experiments expressed serious concern as to whether the effect on the hogs was that of true unconsciousness or a paralysis simulating unconsciousness in which the senses registering pain were still active. Obviously, there would have been no point in proceeding with the project if true unconsciousness was not produced by the current. To clarify this point, Dr. Ivy was retained by the industry to investigate this subject. Dr. Ivy at that time was professor of physiology in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology of the Northwestern Medical School. After extensive research, Dr. Ivy expressed the conclusion that true unconsciousness was effected by the application of electric current. The conclusion of Dr. Ivy was concurred in by several other scientists of national and international reputation. Here again is an example of study and investigation of a phase of the subject which was not anticipated. 3. As we proceeded with the development of the project we then encountered other serious unfavorable effects caused by the current. On cattle, the electric current caused a disfiguration of the most desirable and expensive cuts of beef, that is, the beef roast and steak. In appearance the meat revealed a myriad of small red dots indicating a bursting of minor blood vessels. This appearance resulted in a depreciation of sales appeal and value which would entail a serious economic loss to the entire cattle industry. On hogs, the stunning with electric current produced tiny hemorrhages or blood markings on the lungs. These lesions introduced confusion for the Federal Meat Inspection Service in the postmortem inspection, as the markings caused by electrical stunning were indistinguishable from those present in the early stages of certain hog diseases. As a consequence, if hogs were stunned with electric current, a certain percentage of carcasses would, of necessity, be condemned on suspicion which would otherwise yield sound and wholesome product. Supplementing the endeavors of the committee, the industry retained Dr. J. P. Simonds, professor of pathology at Northwestern University, to study the entire problem. After several years in this effort, Dr. Simonds was forced to the conclusion that no current was found that would not produce the hemorrhages or markings on the lungs. Further, the studies of Dr. Simonds did not reveal any distinguishable characteristic between the markings caused by electric current and those due to incipient stages of disease which would meet the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Service. The need for the research project assigned to Dr. Simonds was not anticipated or foreseen when we embarked on the seemingly simple task of adopting electrical stunning of livestock to operations in this country. As will be observed from the foregoing review, the project required extensive research and investigation before the conclusion was reached. NEW STUNNING INSTRUMENT The progress of the new stunning instrument proposed by Mr. John MacFarlane of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and developed by the Remington Arms Co. in cooperation with the joint committee comprised of representatives of the American Meat Institute and of the American Humane Association illustrates again the complexities and difficulties inherent in a problem which seemingly should have been easy and relatively simple considering the talent, ability and long experience of the concern in firearms. The instrument has been in development over a period of almost 2 years and, while we believe we see the prospect of a successful conclusion, we would not be surprised if unexpected difficulties should still arise. While the basic design and subsequent improvements in the firearm proper have been the result of the application of the talent and experience of the Remington organization, there have been some elements in the instrument which have been altered as a result of extensive test and usage in the field. I should like to point out a few of these features to illustrate the need for research and investigation in the development of this instrument. 1. In some of the earlier models the mushroom-shaped head failed after a short period of use. To overcome this defect, study and research of the design best suited to withstand this service was necessary. 2. Within recent months the bracket fastening the stunning element to the handle has broken frequently. Study and investigation of metal characteristics and design of the bracket have been necessary, but the final solution has not been found to date. |