Day 020 - 28 Jul 94 - Page 52
1 glossing over the differences between plant A and plant B
because up to this point it does not seem to be greatly
2 -----
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You do not have to highlight things which
you have already got in the evidence which you want to
4 rely on, because you can underline those to me at the end.
5 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I am just trying to go through your third
paragraph on page 11. It starts off: "The slaughterman"?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. On the sentence says: "The outcome of the stunning
procedure was examined in 27 cows", is this after or
8 before pithing?
A. Both.
9
Q. In plant B?
10 A. Both.
11 Q. You examined all 27 cows before pithing and then
afterwards?
12 A. Yes, I was positioned in one spot alongside the exit
of the stunning pen and I could see the animal, the
13 carcasses, in both situations.
14 Q. So, if you had examined them just after pithing only,
would that have influenced the analysis of the stunning
15 procedure?
A. Do you mean the outcome?
16
Q. The outcome?
17 A. After pithing, well, during pithing, as I explained
the other day, the brain and the spinal chord are
18 macerated by the pithing cane which in itself is going to
change the behaviour of the carcass. During pithing there
19 is kicking activity, but thereafter that activity will
have stopped altogether. So it would influence the
20 outcome in terms of the interpretation I think you are
interested in.
21
Q. Right. So, for example, when you said "in the remaining
22 case", this was the one out of 27 which may have been the
inperfect stun?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. It was shot twice. You only examined that after the
pithing, yes, or you did not see that?
25 A. I examined the animal after the second shot before
pithing.
26
Q. The prevalence of imperfect stunning, in your opinion, was
27 3.7 per cent?
A. Yes.
28
Q. You compared this with a survey, your survey of 27 beef
29 abattoirs in 1987, which we have looked at before, which
said the average was 6.6 per cent?
30 A. Yes.
