Day 291 - 31 Oct 96 - Page 19
1 So obviously around the time, he could not remember when
2 since he had become the quality assurance manager that
3 changeover had taken place, but obviously around the time
4 of the alleged libel they would have been using a lower
5 grain cartridge, and if they had the same standards of
6 accuracy, then it meant that there were going to be far
7 more cases of imperfect stunning.
8
9 At plant B, Jarrets plant, he said the prevalence of
10 imperfect stunning was 3.7 percent and Mr. Morris made the
11 point that it had been compared with a survey of 27 beef
12 abattoirs in 1987 which said the average prevalence of
13 imperfect stunning was 6.6 percent. And so Dr. Gregory had
14 said that it was better than average at Jarrets. Not that
15 we think that averages really matter. I mean, in terms of
16 the animals, it is irrelevant whether or not the place is
17 better or worse than somewhere else for the animals that
18 are suffering.
19
20 But he agreed on page 53 of day 20, that in terms of the
21 incidents of poor stunning for cull cows, in the 1987
22 survey it had been 1.7 percent, so therefore the Jarrets
23 animals that had been surveyed in his recent report, it was
24 actually worse than average. That was day 20, page 53.
25 Obviously, the levels of imperfect stunning are likely to
26 be at their best when there is an inspection going on.
27
28 Dr. Gregory made the point that at plant B there was no
29 back-up gun at the stunning pen and so that it would not
30 have been readily available, and he agreed on page 55 of
31 day 20 that that was something that was contrary to the
32 Codes of Practice, basically because if they did not have a
33 back-up gun, then if the stunning was faulty in any way,
34 they could not immediately render another stun. So it was
35 important to have the gun there, a back-up gun there.
36
37 Just another point on the captive bolt pistol, on day 20,
38 page 76, when he was actually being asked about the
39 introduction of an electrical stunning for cattle, he said
40 that it had implications for animal welfare, and he
41 said: "I consider that it decreases the errors which are
42 intrinsic with the captive bolt gun, and that is, accuracy
43 of aiming and inefficient shooting; so it is likely to
44 produce an effective stun in a high proportion of animals."
45 Basically that is acceptance that errors are intrinsic in
46 the use of the captive bolt gun, so as a consequence cattle
47 are not always going to be properly stunned.
48
49 Can I just say that in the conclusion of Dr. Gregory's
50 report, he does say at the end of it: Captive bolt
51 stunning was carried out efficiently, and, with the
52 possible exception of one cow, humanely. I just make the
53 point that that was one cow out of 27 that he had watched.
54 So that is actually quite -- in terms of if that was spread
55 out for the number of cattle that are going through the
56 plants, that actually means that quite a large number of
57 cattle are being stunned in a manner which may well not be
58 humane. And that is by Dr. Gregory's standards.
59
60 I just make the point in relation to that particular cow,
