Day 114 - 04 Apr 95 - Page 71
1 A. I have looked at them. I have been present when a vet,
2 for instance, has flicked the eyelid and I have been
3 present to that extent. But you have to remember that we
4 have another welfare problem that if we spend too much time
5 messing around doing experiments we are actually increasing
6 the anguish of the animals, or we may be, and so we are
7 constrained by those restrictions.
8
9 Q. It is not, Dr. Long, is it, an experiment for an
10 experienced slaughterman to cast an experienced eye over
11 the stunned animal to see whether or not it is showing
12 signs of an ineffective stun? That is not an experiment,
13 is it?
14 A. It is a test, and you were asking me if I had done it
15 myself.
16
17 Q. Yes, have you done it?
18 A. Well, I am saying that the nearest I have got is,
19 because I am not a regular slaughterman, I have not got a
20 licence, that I have been there when these things have been
21 done; but they have been in special circumstances and
22 I have no reassurance that they are done regularly.
23
24 Q. Over the length of your interest in animal welfare,
25 Dr. Long, how many animals -- cattle we will stick to for
26 the moment -- how many animals do you think you have seen
27 stunned?
28 A. I suppose it runs into hundreds. It would be over a
29 hundred.
30
31 Q. A slaughterman, or slaughtermen, in a busy slaughterhouse
32 will see maybe 500 in a week, will they not?
33 A. They certainly could. They would not be trained as
34 physiologists.
35
36 Q. You do realise, do you, that these people are trained?
37 A. Yes, their training varies. We are talking all the
38 time about what is happening perhaps now, and I have to try
39 to tell you, I think you are interested in the period going
40 back ----
41
42 Q. No, not exclusively. Do not make that assumption.
43 A. No, but what I am saying is that this very week we are
44 going through a changeover because a new system is being
45 instituted and which certainly training is one of the
46 reforms. The fact it needs to be increased in this new
47 service indicates to me, and to many people, that it was
48 not adequate before.
49
50 Q. I do not want to band new words with you, Dr. Long. Room
51 for improvement does not indicate a prior state of
52 calamity, does it?
53 A. I would think the room for improvement merely means
54 that, that it was not adequate before.
55
56 Q. It was not as good as it might have been?
57 A. It was inadequate, is the word I would use.
58
59 Q. You would say it was inadequate now, would you not?
60 A. It certainly is not as bad as it was before, but
