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,

Prev Next Index