The recent rejection of around 2,900 dairy cattle on the Spiridon II raises animal welfare and pollution concerns when, after a long sea voyage, the laden vessel has again had to return to sea.
The 52-year-old livestock carrier has left Turkey after its cargo was rejected by local authorities. Court transcripts translated by Animal Welfare Foundation indicate that 58 cows died in transit to Turkey, 140 cows had miscarriages in transit, 50 newborn calves were present on board, but another 90 are unaccounted for.
Having departed from Montevideo, Uruguay, bound for Turkey on September 19, the court’s rejection of an appeal means the Spiridon II crew was unable to disembark the animals.
An immediate problem, exacerbated by the rejection, is how to handle the feces. Cows typically produce between 30 and 60 kilograms (66 to 132 pounds) of effluent (urine and feces) per head per day.
MARPOL forbids the discharge of effluent in special areas such as the Med. So, according to MARPOL the ship should not have discharged any into the water upon entering the strait of Gibraltar in mid October until it returns back to the Atlantic Ocean.
Dr Lynn Simpson, a former live export veterinarian from Australia who has made 57 live export voyages ranging from around two to six weeks’ duration, says with the Spiridon II’s delay off Turkey, the cattle could be standing in at least a month’s worth of excrement.
“There is no requirement under MARPOL to wash the decks down. It is up to the captain, vet, or stockman to determine when it is done,” says Simpson. However, in her experience, the pens are generally washed down every three to five days. On big ships, this operation can take three days to complete, and on some ships, the feces can fall from upper decks to the decks below, either landing on the animals or in their feed or water troughs.
Retaining large amounts of excrement onboard can increase the risk of conditions such as dermatitis and conjunctivitis, and also other conditions such as Q fever, scabby mouth, ring worm, and septicemia. Both cattle and crew can be affected.
The excrement on Spiridon II would likely include miscarried calves, as the carcasses are also not allowed to be disposed of overboard in the Med.
“Carcasses of any type, minced, slit etc are not legally allowed to be thrown in MARPOL Special Areas such as the Med,” says Simpson. “This is one of the key complications with the current Spiridon II disaster. Keeping the carcasses onboard is actually exacerbating the disaster, but again, MARPOL has these rules for a reason. Special areas are generally like the cul-de-sac of the sea, areas that do not naturally flush themselves clean such as the Med, Red, and Black Seas and also the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Aden.”
(Image below: cattle on a voyage from Australia in approximately seven days of excrement - courtesy of Dr Lynn Simpson)
As more calves are born onboard the Spiridon II on its journey to Uruguay, there will be a need for more space for nurseries to house them, says Simpson. This could likely require reducing space available for the other cattle exacerbating health and injury risks for the animals.
“Fortunately it is not summer,” says Simpson. “The heat already given off by the cattle in the enclosed decks will be warm enough to be uncomfortable. Summer induced heat stress on top of this very stressful and fatiguing voyage would certainly threaten to kill many animals,” she says.
“It is extremely unlikely that a ship of that size, with nearly 3,000 cattle onboard would have carried much more feed than was required to get the Bandirma port. Therefore, the small amount of what looks like basic hay that was loaded on November 9 is insufficient to feed those cattle remaining onboard for very long. The Spiridon II would need to resupply fully to have enough food for the cattle to return to Uruguay - otherwise the risk of starvation on board is very real.”
The IMO should develop protocols for the rejection of consignments of live animals, says Simpson. Most countries would be unlikely to even keep official records of rejections, but Australia does, and figures suggest that that between 340-550,000 Australian animals were rejected between 1989 and 2012, says Simpson, highlighting that the number globally is likely to be far higher.
If the animals are rejected, it can be more humane to euthanize them onboard as soon as possible rather than make them endure another long journey and further welfare risks followed by potentially inhumane slaughter.
The 2003 Cormo Express disaster illustrates what can go wrong. It was one of the most infamous in Australia’s history. 58,000 sheep were rejected because Saudi Arabia alleged there were scabby mouth cases onboard. The Australian government had to buy the sheep (with taxpayer money) and then approach over 30 nations to take the animals. Meanwhile, 6,000 sheep died, with the survivors eventually unloaded in Eritrea 80 days later. The Australian government had paid Eritrea A$1 million in taxpayer money to take the survivors.
After the Cormo Express, the Australian government set up MoUs with some importing countries to ensure animals would be unloaded regardless of disputes, with little success. In 2012, Bahrain rejected 22,000 sheep on board the Ocean Drover, refusing to unload the animals despite the MoU. After another scramble to find a country to accept them, the sheep were shipped to Pakistan and brutally slaughtered.
Cases continue. In 2020, around 3,000 sheep died of hunger and thirst after a shipment from Sudan was rejected by Saudi Arabia due to compromised quarantine procedures.
Simpson says collective action by the IMO is needed and that Australian experiences and decades of reports could form the basis for initial discussion on the subject. Guidelines could include topics such as how to handle rejection cases and the handling of excrement and carcasses when following MARPOL guidelines endangers the welfare of crew and animals.
“The global live export trade has many unique and inherent risks due to the live, sentient nature of the animals. These risks can best be managed by strict regulations and enforcement. This trade desperately needs an international code for the carriage of livestock: a standard that is proactive and protective, and holds parties to responsibility.
“Every live export voyage has effluent and is expected to experience deaths of animals. How can this trade be allowed to continue trading with impunity when many of these ships operate almost entirely in Special Areas?
“Currently this ship has broken no rules, easy when there isn’t any worth mentioning. Yet we are watching in slow motion as an animal and seafarer welfare disaster unfolds at just over 10 knots an hour.”
