Day 020 - 28 Jul 94 - Page 21


     
     1        A.  Yes.  This is the study which helped to give rise to
              the 105 milliamps minimum recommendation in the MAFF code
     2        of practice, yes.
 
     3   Q.   On the following page, you give some times relating to the
              time of resumption to breathing and the times are given in
     4        respect of a stunning current of 60 milliamps.
              A.  Right.
     5
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The 120 at the bottom of that page refers
     6        back to what you told us a little while ago?
              A.  This is page 218?
     7
         Q.   Yes.
     8        A.  That is correct.
 
     9   MS. STEEL:  I will not read all of it out because I am really
              conscious of the fact we do not have much time left.
    10
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Put the bits which you think particularly
    11        help you if, in fact, they have not already been spoken to
              by Dr. Gregory.
    12
         MS. STEEL:   Right.  On page 219 you are giving the time to
    13        recovery following stunning at various levels of
              milliamps.  For 75 milliamps you say that time to recovery
    14        was 19 seconds and that "with currents less than this some
              birds were not stunned."
    15        A.  Yes.
 
    16   Q.   You go on to recommend that as a result of what you found
              currents of less than 75 milliamps should never be used?
    17        A.  Yes, for a 50 herz sinosoidal AC, yes, definitely.
 
    18   Q.   Do you know why Sun Valley use the particular equipment
              they do use?
    19        A.  The particular waveform and frequency is because they
              believe it is associated with less carcass damage.
    20
         Q.   It is unusual to be used in this country; it is American?
    21        A.  It is an American equipment, yes.  There are not many
              of that make in use in this country.  I think they are the
    22        only company that have that make in this country, yes.
 
    23   Q.   In the United States there are less regulations concerning
              the welfare of poultry at slaughter, are there not?
    24        A.  I believe so, but I am not an expert on United States
              regulations.
    25
         Q.   Have you any reason to suppose that the type of frequency 
    26        they are using would mean that the birds would remain 
              stunned for much longer than that? 
    27        A.  I said previously that we are doing an experiment on
              this at the moment which is trying to answer your
    28        question, because it is a very important question,
              I appreciate that.  It would be a little bit foolish of me
    29        to anticipate the results without having the full results
              in front of me when the experiment is completed.
    30
              I am aware that high frequencies, just from my subjective

Prev Next Index