Day 115 - 06 Apr 95 - Page 29
1 course. The European Union has now made recommendations
2 and insisted on certain things. I could only say that it
3 is sounded to me as if they are par for the course.
4
5 I have to say, you want me to talk about animal welfare,
6 I have actually got an analysis that was done on
7 slaughterhouses. This was actually, I must say, with pigs
8 -- it is unfortunate we have got off pigs -- but the more
9 the line speed increases, the more animals that go through,
10 these animals show greater signs of stress assessed
11 biochemically.
12
13 So, I am worried about the comparison between what goes on
14 at what you could call a factory slaughterhouse compared
15 with the smaller slaughterhouse where conditions are much
16 less stressful to the animals. I am concerned, because if
17 you look at animal welfare, one has to think that the
18 Midland Meat marts might be miles away from where the
19 animals originate. The fact that these big factory
20 slaughterhouses are gaining preference means that the
21 animals have to pay the price because they have to travel
22 further, and they go through more stressful methods of
23 factory slaughtering.
24
25 Q. Finally this, Dr. Long -- something I raised with you
26 yesterday -- in relation to the efficacy or the effect,
27 rather, of an efficient stun of a cow or a heifer, or
28 whatever it may be, a member of the cattle tribe,
29 Dr. Gregory told us (and I want you to say whether you
30 still hold that against him) when he gave evidence that,
31 really, if the stun is a proper stun, then the time between
32 stun and stick was irrelevant.
33 A. No, I gave some thought to this. I think, you know, we
34 may be playing at words. There is stunning, concussing.
35 To my mind, and I am thinking now about the human
36 condition, someone is stunned, a boxer is stunned, he is
37 quite senseless and, according to the rules that we would
38 operate for slaughtering, he would be stunned according to
39 the law but he would recover. Now, that is my definition
40 of stunning. I am not quite sure where I would put the
41 definition of concussion. Now, Neville Gregory is really
42 interpreting stunning, in my view, and I think, you know,
43 well, he wants to do that, he is talking about irreversible
44 stunning.
45
46 Q. He calls it grade 4 concussion in medical terms.
47 A. He does. I would say that, perhaps, I would be a
48 little bit more careful with my definitions, to say that
49 the stunning which is reversible, irreversible stunning and
50 somewhere in there comes concussion. So, although you
51 might have reversible stunning it would still come within
52 the regulations.
53
54 Q. His view was that if the stun is effectively carried out,
55 the animal will not recover consciousness but will die, do
56 you agree with that or not?
57 A. Well, I am just saying that if the animal is rendered
58 senseless it will not necessarily die. It will die if you
59 stick its throat straightaway. It may be so -- its brain
60 may be so damaged that, yes, it cannot recover. It will
