Live export is in deep shit

Live export is in deep shit

Dr Lynn Simpson, one of Australia’s most experienced and respected live export veterinarians, continues her exclusive series for Splash.

A stinky livestock ship crossing an ocean is a world away from the bright lights of Sydney and never the twain shall meet. I have a city slicker friend who struggled to understand my work as a seafarer. We all know the type; he could be convinced that a left handed screwdriver existed. He wouldn’t last ten minutes onboard.

Trying to explain my work as a shipboard veterinarian proved to be difficult.

Evenings of interrogation between voyages about my bizarre job. The lifestyle of a seafarer was beyond his comprehension. He asked, I answered, and answered and answered. Then poured more wine. You’ve all been there right? It’s painful.

Later in the evening he returned from a trip to the kitchen, he stopped in the doorway, clutching the entranceway with tears running down his face. He then slid to the floor laughing his butt off at me.

WTF? I said. What’s wrong?

With snot and tears running down his face he blurted out, “You have just spent seven years at university to get a dangerous job where your key purpose is to report to the government whether you’re literally in deep shit or not!”

Hmmm, yep. When put like that, my job did sound ridiculous.

From day one of loading livestock shit begins to build up on deck. At sea we generally feed a ‘maintenance’ ration to the animals not a weight gain ration. Hence, very little muscle conversion, most feed is passed through the animals and lands in their pens.

This buildup makes living quarters for the animals unsuitable. Part of my job was to manage the cleaning, wash-down and re-sawdust program for the duration of the voyage.

Livestock conditions 3

We generally would work it backwards. We needed to be as clean as possible upon arrival in the port of unloading, hence a wash down the day before arrival, then we had to mitigate heat stress/ high ‘off gassing’ of ammonia, risk areas such as the Gulf of Aden, Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. In between we would wash as often as was logistically practical. Thousands of tons of livestock urine and shit would go directly overboard.

Wash-down of a big ship can be a two- to three-day program. Ideally we wash every four to five days, so it’s a never ending loop of buildup, wash, re-sawdust, build up, wash, re-sawdust.

Every time we washed a deck we disrupted the feeding, watering and hygiene associated with normal livestock management.

Managing this schedule was a team effort involving engineers, navigational officers and of course deck crew.

Firstly we needed to consume provisions such as fuel, fodder, water and anything else possible from the forward section of the vessel so as to gain a positive trim, bow up. Without the bow being higher than the aft, very few of these ships can drain, as most drains are aft. We generally needed a ‘list’, again provision consumption to attain a suitable ‘list’ for side drainage was required.

Once a positive trim and ‘list’ is achieved we could turn the hoses on and start cleaning. No space on these ships is wasted; therefore decks are washed with the animals still in their pens, from the top decks down.

If it was hot I requested the animals get a hose down so their ability to dissipate heat is increased, they get cleaner and I can visually see things such as leg injuries requiring attention.

Sometimes if we were experiencing a potential heat stress mortality point we would wash cattle to cool them off.

Maritime pollution (MARPOL) regulations are a bit ambiguous to read and sometimes we were not sure where we could discharge so much slurry of livestock shit and urine, so we would wash at night to avoid detection by satellites as we left quite a distinct discoloration in our wake.

Live animal export slick from deck washing

Washing had its positives; cleaned the decks and cattle, reduced heat and gas buildup and I was told by a dive school operator that when we were in port there was always a much more interesting range of sea life, including whale sharks. He started phoning me in Australia to ask when we were coming back to Jordan so he could book in dive tours! Doing our bit for tourism.

Negatives included adding pollution to the sea, potentially driving contaminants into wounds on animals and into their eyes.

One negative I hadn’t expected came as a surprise when the bosun found me quizzically looking at used condoms on the deck immediately after a wash-down shift had ended. We exchanged looks. I gazed at the cattle nearest to us. He chuckled at me and said the guys on the hoses wear them during washing as they get so covered in shit and urine that they sometimes contract urinary tract infections. You learn something every day!

Live animal export trough sandals

I still have total respect for all those crews still working to improve conditions for the animals.

Ironically by exposing the true onboard conditions of the animals and the ships I sailed on I am now metaphorically still in deep shit regarding my live export career whilst on land.

To read Lynn’s first article for Splash entitled ‘Live animal export: Shipping’s modern slave trade’, click here. Her third article ‘Live animal export: Shipping’s high risk moving feast’ can be found here.

Splash is asking all seafarers who have worked on livestock carriers to share their experiences. Your views can be anonymous. Please contact the Splash editor at sam@asiashippingmedia.com.

Related Posts

7 Comments

  1. Prof. Andrew Knight
    July 7, 2016 at 8:52 am

    Absolutely disgusting. Disgraceful that animals should have to endure these conditions, let alone the crew. And do the end stage consumers have any idea of the bacterial contamination of these animals? Prior to Dr Simpson, probably not. Maybe now thanks to her and Splash things might start to change.

  2. Ed Enos
    July 7, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Based on what I’ve seen on other ships, clearly these ships are poorly designed to carry livestock…are these vids from ships that were purpose built to carry live animals? or older ships retro fitted? Then the number of cattle in each pen also indicates a poorly run operation. The vessel design helps dictate ho well and or easy it is to wash down the decks. Here in these videos, it appears a poor design.

    1. StopTAC
      July 12, 2016 at 8:19 am

      Almost all older ships retro fitted, Ed. Some are old oil tankers (now scrapped Al Kuwait, Al Shuwaikh), vehicle carriers (Ghena, Al Messilah), and container ships (Maysora and others). Container ships have the added horror for the animals in that they roll and pitch differently, and the animals get horribly seasick. AMSA should be dealing with this, and it isn’t.

  3. Mike Cunningham
    July 7, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    The question to be asked is to enquire as to the possibility of any of these ships have actually been inspected DURING their voyages?

    I am no ‘animal rights lover’ and simply ask that animals are treated so as to allow zero stress during any manner of transport.

    From the photographs, the last thing on a ship owner’s mind seems to be the relief of stress!

  4. Lynn Simpson
    July 7, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    Good question Ed,

    This ship is considered’ state of the art’, designed and built purely for livestock and not a conversion. I agree. The design is not good, and I have made multiple complaints and recommendations to both the owners and the Australian regulators. Many issues to be addressed, however, this vessel is still much better than others on the water…

    Lynn Simpson

  5. Zig Pope
    July 11, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    OMG!!!

    Satan is smiling on how human beings have turned into his disciples to commit such atrocities to our voiceless creations of God.

    Utterly appalling.

  6. Papotage
    July 11, 2016 at 9:17 pm

    There is nothing wrong in caring about the welfare of any living being…. be they “animal right activists”, “civil rights activists or anti-slavery activists”…. empathy, compassion and moral justice need no apology!!!!