Day 020 - 28 Jul 94 - Page 22
1 recall of doing the experiment, that high frequencies were
providing a satisfactory stun. They were stunning well,
2 if you see what I mean, as a generalisation.
3 Q. But you do not know about the time span, how long that
lasted?
4 A. No. We must have the data in front of us to draw any
conclusions.
5
Q. Going back to your statement on page 233, you might have
6 different page numbers -- internal page 7.
A. Yes.
7
Q. The third full paragraph down: "0.7 per cent of the birds
8 showed a reflex response". How many birds did you test
for that?
9 A. It would have been 100 or more, I believe. Yes, it
would have been 100. I think that is very likely.
10
Q. More than 100?
11 A. It would have been 100, I think it is likely it would
have been 100.
12
Q. If it is 100, you would not get 0.7?
13 A. Yes. That is true. It would have been 100 or more
then. Yes, I take your point, but that sort of test can
14 be done very rapidly, and so I would have used that sort
of number.
15
Q. In the codes of practice for the Welfare of Poultry at
16 Slaughter in tab H?
A. Yes.
17
Q. The last sentence in recommendation 33 is: "Birds passing
18 through the stunner without being stunned may indicate
that the stunner is not functioning properly or is
19 incorrectly set up for the kind of bird being
slaughtered. In these circumstances, the problem must be
20 rectified immediately." So, this was something that
ought to be seen to very rapidly. It is a matter of
21 concern?
A. It is a matter of concern.
22
Q. Right. Because 0.7 birds would represent about 942 birds
23 a day?
A. OK.
24
Q. That is based on 35 million being killed a year?
25 A. It might be relevant to ask why it happens. It is up
to you.
26
Q. I am not sure.
27
MR. JUSTICE BELL: What is the ---?
28 A. The reason I say that is, can anything be done about
it? So, it is relevant to ask why it happens, then the
29 follow on question would be: Can anything be done about
it? Shall I pursue that?
30
MS. STEEL: Do you know why it happens?
