Day 289 - 29 Oct 96 - Page 26


     
     1        Dr. Gregory stated that only one official veterinary
     2        surgeon would be observing the slaughter line, and the OVS
     3        would have a lot to keep his eye on.  This is really
     4        relevant to the point that the Plaintiffs keep raising that
     5        this is all done under, sort of, checks from the relevant
     6        authorities and therefore there cannot be anything wrong
     7        with it.  Dr. Gregory accepted that with a line speed of 87
     8        birds a minute it would be physically impossible to keep an
     9        eye on the welfare of each bird.  That was on day 19, page
    10        67, lines 5 to 27.
    11
    12        Oh yes, the other points with relevance to that is that
    13        obviously when two weeks previously, the two weeks prior to
    14        Dr. Gregory's visit, the line was operating at twice the
    15        speed it would be even more impossible for an OVS to keep
    16        any kind of check on the welfare of the birds.  Yes, the
    17        references to pre-stun shocks causing pain are on day 20,
    18        page 3, line 29.  Dr. Gregory accepted that the pre-stun
    19        shocks cause pain, and that was in relation to an earlier
    20        visit when it was not possible to get access to the stun
    21        bar to observe properly whether or not birds were receiving
    22        pre-stun shocks, which is something that was contrary to
    23        the Codes of Practice.
    24
    25        Dr. Gregory, after his first visit in February, recommended
    26        that new water bath stunners were fitted so that when the
    27        new water bath stunners were fitted the entry to each
    28        stunner should be fitted with an adjustable, electrically
    29        isolated ramp up which the birds would be dragged in order
    30        to prevent pre-stun shocks.  He thought that would be
    31        particularly important, given that the new lines would be
    32        operating at a slower speed and therefore pre-stun shocks
    33        would be more likely.  But when he went back in April the
    34        birds were still receiving pre-stun shocks.  That was on
    35        page 4 of the same day's transcript, line 9.
    36
    37        So, effectively, Sun Valley had a blatant disregard for the
    38        welfare of the birds.
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   So, in February he could not get close
    41        enough access to judge whether there were pre-stun shocks
    42        or a number of them?
    43
    44   MS. STEEL:   I think he actually said at one point, when he went
    45        in February he did estimate that -- his phrase in his
    46        original report was that "a modest number were receiving
    47        pre-stun electric shocks."  When I asked him about whether
    48        or not he could give the figure for that, he said, "It
    49        might be in the order of ten percent but that was a
    50        guess."  So if that is the case it actually got worse 
    51        between his first and second visit. 
    52 
    53   MR JUSTICE BELL:  That may be in aid of the point you have made,
    54        that this is one instance where the line going slower
    55        increases the risk of an adverse consequence rather than
    56        the reverse, which is what one might expect?
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:   Yes, for one stage of the process, yes.
    59
    60   MR JUSTICE BELL:  This point of pre-stun shocks.

Prev Next Index