Day 291 - 31 Oct 96 - Page 04

     
     1        stunned effectively.
     2
     3        Mr. Bowes claimed that Dr. Gregory's figure was wrong,
     4        because he had not taken into account the fact that Bowes
     5        sprayed the piglets with water before stunning, which he
     6        said improved the conductivity.  But the evidence in the
     7        case on day 96, page 48, this was with reference to the
     8        Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food guidelines, it
     9        says to take care to ensure that an animal does not receive
    10        an electric shock before the electrodes are applied.
    11        Animals with wet skins may receive an electric shock by
    12        contact with the animal being stunned or with those sides
    13        of the tongs which are live.
    14
    15        There was also reference to the fact that if the pigs were
    16        wet, then the electricity could track around the body of
    17        the pig rather than going through the head and causing an
    18        effective stun.  That was on day 114, Mr. Long made
    19        reference to the point about the electric current tracking
    20        around the pig rather than going through it if the pig was
         wet.  And also he referred to it on day 115, page 7, line
    22        43.
    23
    24        Can I just say something else about the calculations which
    25        Dr. Gregory made about the current being used to stun the
    26        pigs being 0.45 amps.  On day 20, page 69, he referred to
    27        his report, which we had in court, and he said:  "With a
    28        neck application there is a risk that the current will
    29        immobilise the pig through its effect on the spinal cord
    30        without rendering it instantaneously insensible.  Under the
    31        circumstances, it was not possible to determine whether
    32        this was more than a risk.  To test this, one would have to
    33        ask the slaughter man to stun the pig briefly ----
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is the bit I read to you yesterday
    36        afternoon.
    37
    38   MS. STEEL:   Well, anyway, underneath that, I asked:  "Based on
    39        the knowledge that had been undertaken, based on your
    40        scientific knowledge, would you expect that practice to
         have caused some amount of pain?"  He said:  "I would have
    42        expected, based on our experience, that a proportion of
    43        pigs would not be instantaneously stunned.  They would get
    44        the current through the neck instead and it would cause
    45        them pain, it could certainly cause them distress."
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is the bit I read out yesterday.
    48
    49   MS. STEEL:   Right.  Mr. Bowes, when he was giving evidence,
    50        asserted that Dr. Gregory had got it wrong because his 
    51        calculation, or the assumption about the impedance or 
    52        resistance in a pig's head was the wrong figure, and he 
    53        referred to figures from the Meat and Livestock Commission,
    54        what he asserted were some figures from the Meat and
    55        Livestock Commission, and we say that you should completely
    56        disregard those figures which were supposed to be from the
    57        Meat and Livestock Commission.
    58
    59        The documents were handed to us and Mr. Bowes stated:  "On
    60        behalf of the Meat and Livestock Commission I would like to