Day 115 - 06 Apr 95 - Page 10

     
     1   Q.   I will leave it there and approach the question in another
     2        way:  Did you read the evidence of Dr. Gregory that all the
     3        pigs that he had examined at G.D. Bowes were perfectly
     4        stunned?
     5        A.  I read the fact that they were stunned but what did
     6        concern me was that subsequently, and this apparently had
     7        been a recurrent problem, these pigs, pigs at that
     8        particular place, struggled or convulsed with exceptional
     9        vigour, more vigour than is usually the case.  In fact,
    10        when he was there I think two actually fell off the line
    11        before they were stuck.
    12
    13        Again, all I had to look at in my own library was the
    14        instructions in the codes of practice which date to
    15        1st January 1993 which were, obviously, in operation when
    16        this was done, and unequivocally they state that the
    17        minimum recommended current for pigs is 1.3 and that should
    18        be applied for at least three seconds.  Therefore, I cannot
    19        understand what this figure of .65 amps is, particularly as
    20        it seemed to accord more with what Dr. Gregory was
         estimating.
    22
    23   Q.   You noticed, did you, that Dr. Gregory having observed, as
    24        you rightly say, there was an exceptional degree of
    25        activity after stunning in the form of kicking and that two
    26        of the pigs had fallen off the shackling line, that he had
    27        included those in his report which I know you must have
    28        read?
    29        A.  Yes.
    30
    31   Q.   He made, I think, six points or comments about the
    32        operation at Bowes.  You will remember that I asked him
    33        whether he saw those as criticisms of the procedures
    34        employed at G.D. Bowes.  Do you remember that he gave this
    35        answer, I would like you to comment on it, those six
    36        points:  "They did not compromise the pig in terms of its
    37        regaining consciousness following stunning.  So, in terms
    38        of what the objective of stunning and slaughter is from the
    39        welfare point of view, it was not compromised".  Are you
    40        prepared to accept Dr. Gregory's assessment or not and if
         not why not?
    42        A.  I have my reservations because we do not understand, as
    43        I explained before, we do not understand and this book here
    44        indicates that we still do not understand the full aspects
    45        of electrical stunning, although we have had this process
    46        since 1930.
    47
    48        I would emphasise to you that we see at the moment in
    49        America a very good example of this where we cannot even
    50        find ways of doing it properly with a human being who 
    51        weighs just about the same as a pig, so I have my 
    52        reservations on this act. 
    53
    54        What I would say (and I would have liked to discuss it with
    55        Dr. Gregory) is that my theory that I put forward, my fear,
    56        that some of the current goes round, takes the easier path,
    57        might mean that although the instruments recorded at 1.30
    58        amps went altogether, I wonder whether point .65 went
    59        through the brain and the rest went round the other way, so
    60        that that would have burnt the pig, perhaps, or given it an