# data[].attributes.body
It is amazing to see a section dedicated to tail damage and to making vet students aware of the damages we (humans) can cause to the cows.

The story is well said and feels like an actual case (maybe it was!).

The photos used are great, especially the photo on page 5/15 and radiographs on page 9/15. I think more photos of broken and damaged tails could be presented, and students could learn about different types of tail damage (e.g., swelling or trauma) and their differences.

There are quotes and materials with which I do not fully agree. These are explained below:

Page 6/15

There are two videos on this page. One explains the proper way to jack a tail and the other one explains how to "properly" twist a tail. My personal opinion is that if a cow refuses to move forward or enter a chute, we need to investigate the cause of the problem and fix the issue rather than using force to move the cow. Especially if our target audience is vet students and not farmers or farm staffs. The instructor says tail twisting is "a form of negative reinforcement" just like using "reins in horses". He then suggest that we should use the tail as "the ignition switch" in a car. Here is my personal opinion: Firstly, comparing the cow with a car is absurd! Secondly, using force and causing pain to stop the horses does not make this a right thing to do on other species. My personal experience is that if we do not fix the reason why the cow is reluctant to move, she might resist to move forward even if her tail is being twisted. That is why the "ignition switch" theory does not work all the times. I have personally heard the sound of breakage of the tail when people were twisting it to force the cow to move, and yet the cow did not move an inch.

And on the same page there is an expert's testimonial. Though highly respected, I disagree with the part where it says if done properly, twisting "can be used to move and control the cow without pain". Additionally, using "little force or strength" is a very qualitative and vague measure.

My personal recommendation is that tail twisting should not be used under any circumstances as it incurs significant pain on the cow and the chances of breaking the tail or damaging the fascia are very high. Especially as people usually use this when the cow is stressed and the person using it is frustrated or angry.

Tail jacking might be used in rare circumstances and only after we have taken appropriate measures to keep the the cow calm (e.g., avoiding improper handling or a sudden approach/ touch which will make the cow stressed) or tried other measures to calm her down (e.g., giving her some time before trying a second time to approach her). And even when using it we should be aware that it is causing her pain and we are impairing her welfare.

Page 7/15

Very good photos and information on the amount of force required to break a tail. My only worry is that students misinterpret the amount of force they can use as it is stated that "the force required ... is considerable".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Maritime Union joins opposition to live export shipments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Union says in addition to animal welfare and cruelty concerns, live export is not a good look for New Zealand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exporters could face much quieter demand from China if live exports resume.

A new Rabobank report shows demand for dairy in China is down and the country has grown it's own dairy herd - so its need to import live dairy cattle has dropped significantly.

Our cattle exports to China peaked at nearly 135,000 head in 2021.

Labour banned the trade last year but the government is working to reinstate it.

Rabobank senior analyst Michael Harvey said the market in China has changed considerably and Australian exporters have seen a huge drop in demand.

"Oceania live dairy cattle trade volumes peaked at 233,000 head in 2022, with a combined total of 815,000 dairy cows exported from Australia and New Zealand between 2018-2023."

"However, by mid-2024, the flow of dairy heifers from Australia and New Zealand to China has slowed to barely a trickle due to a combination of New Zealand's ban on exports along with a slowdown in Chinese demand, resulting in an annual decline of 83 per cent."

Should New Zealands trade of live animal exports be reinstated at some stage in the future Kiwi exporters would likely encounter a markedly slower market, Harvey said.

He said live exports used to be lucrative for New Zealand and Australian exporters but the drop in demand has impacted prices.

Australian farmers were getting $3,000 US per dairy cow in 2022 but that halved last year.

Harvey said prices and demand could always recover - but he doesn't expect to see that anytime soon.

"Moving forward, a recovery in Chinese heifer demand is possible, however, it will require a combination of improved milk prices, increased farm profitability, and further government policy to support farm expansion and herd rebuilding.

"Bearish farm sector fundamentals in China, a market that is irreplaceable, point to slower live export trade for the foreseeable future."

The Rabobank report said there other markets in South East Asia which could take cattle exports should demand in China remain soft - but nothing to the same scale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exporters could face much quieter demand from China if live exports resume - report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rabobank senior analyst Michael Harvey said the market in China has changed considerably and Australian exporters have seen a huge drop in demand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government accused of betraying Kiwis’ trust over lack of consultation on live exports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The government has always vowed to reinstate live exports by sea, which was banned by the previous Labour government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The union for port workers is joining opposition to the government's plans for resuming live animal exports.

The trade was banned last year over welfare concerns and the 2020 sinking near Japan, of Gulf Livestock 1 that had sailed from Napier on its way to China. Forty-one men and nearly 6000 live cattle died.

The government has delayed the release of a public discussion document on the issue until next year but remains committed to reinstating the trade that was worth $374 million in 2022.

This time around, it is promising the highest standards of animal welfare and gold standard transport ships - but has not provided specifics.

The Maritime Union, which represents watersiders and stevedores who have in the past loaded freighters including the ill-fated Gulf Livestock 1, has voted to oppose their return.

Victor Billott from the Maritime Union, said in addition to animal welfare and cruelty concerns, live exports were not a good look for New Zealand.

"We just think New Zealand would benefit from being seen as a kind of modern and progressive exporter that doesn't carry out such bad practices that have grown to be unpopular."

In the past the live animals trade was not a huge amount of work for waterfront workers.

"The jobs aren't really there, the money's going to a relatively small number of people and the downside really outweighs the upside."

The investigation of the capsize of the Gulf Livestock 1 had revealed the vessel's "poor conditions", Billot said.

The government was now promising the trade would resume to a gold standard for the ships being used, however, it had little credibility because in the past several vessels had been poor quality, he said.

They used flags of convenience which meant vessels could be registered to a country with low standards and no enforcement of any laws.

"We're kind of hamstrung in dealing with the conditions on those ships in terms of their seaworthiness and also the conditions crews have to put up with and sometimes the livestock."

Billot said he had no confidence in the government's assurances of top quality vessels being used for the live exports once it resumed.

If a disaster happened, it would emerge once again that New Zealand did not have adequate laws that governed shipping in this country "that really guarantee any kind of standards, let alone a gold standard on these vessels".

Health and safety concerns would be grounds for not working on a ship in New Zealand, however, employment law meant union members would usually have to abide by what the companies wanted.

That was partly why the union was speaking out against a law change.

"We just think it should stay like that and it solves a problem."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Maritime Union joins opposition to live export shipments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Maritime Union also has zero faith in government assurances of a gold standard for ships used for the trade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Gold Standard | Livestock Exporters New Zealand LENZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Gold Standard is a world leading welfare assurance program that ensures livestock are unequivocally cared for throughout the export process from NZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Live animal exports look set to get back on the table under proposed new, world-leading, animal welfare regulations.

Subject to the government delivering on the coalition agreement and the implementation of new industry-agreed gold standard regulations, the industry is confident the ban will be repealed, says lobby group Live Export New Zealand (LENZ).

National, ACT and NZ First all committed during election campaigning to reversing the ban on live exports and putting enhanced animal welfare standards in place.

"We are confident government has good mandate from the election, and with new highest world-standard regulation, to reinstate live export as soon as next year," the newly appointed chair of LENZ, Glen Neal, told Farmers Weekly.

"We are working with [the Ministry for Primary Industries] to ensure the rules governing the export of live animals overseas reflect the high expectation New Zealanders have around animal welfare.

"The key job ahead is for industry and MPI to draft regulations that clearly ensure we are world-best-practice with the highest possible standards aligning with world animal health standards.

Neal acknowledged there has been concern in the past around animal welfare standards.

He said LENZ exporters work hard to ensure the world's best practices when they select, prepare and transport animals internationally and in doing so work with the MPI to support continuous improvement to assure the welfare of all exported animals.

"Government laid out a clear signal around that [public concern] and new regulations address that concern with the job ahead of us clearly focused on world-best standards.

"The job ahead for LENZ is to pull the sector together to make sure regulation is grounded in the realities of farming and trade and in line with world standards for the confidence of the wider community.

"NZ farmers already have high standards for animal welfare on farm, and we expect the same with exported animals."

New gold standard world-aligned regulations are not just about protecting NZ's international reputation, but also about maintaining a reputation in local communities.

LENZ has been undertaking consumer research "with full results to be revealed shortly".

"At this stage there's clear indication that the majority of the public favour the restoration of [live export] trade with suitable rules and regulations in place."

Neal said live exports are a significant earner not just for farmers and the primary industry sector but for all of NZ.

Live exports have earned NZ up to $400 million a year.

"That's up to $400m we are leaving on the table not having this trade in place and that's across the entire primary industries sector from farmers to transporters, stock agents, graziers, vets, the lot."

In addition to fetching premium prices, if export cattle are sold as yearlings, Neal said, it generates income earlier giving younger farmers an earlier than normal return on investment, meaning they can reduce interest and pay off debt.

In the 10 years to 2021, about 5000 farmers across all regions of NZ had supplied breeding cattle for export.

"We are not going to turn the light on overnight but we are going to keep working hard as all this helps NZ as a whole to earn its way in the world.

"It's about helping countries to feed themselves; have less people in poverty and that means more demand for protein and that will be a problem on the planet in 25 years' time.

"The forward-looking countries are looking at addressing this now. NZ needs to be focused there."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Live exports back in play, lobby group says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Live Export New Zealand expects New Zealand's live export ban to be lifted soon, backed by new, stringent animal welfare regulations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federated Farmers’ position on animal exports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prior to the previous Government’s ban, live exports were a significant earner for farmers so a return to trade would be welcomed, but animal welfare should a priority.

# data[].attributes.headline
Support for ban in Timaru - Safe video of non dairy cows?

# data[].attributes.subject
Support for ban in Timaru - Safe video of non dairy cows?

# data[].attributes.headline
Federated Farmers arguments miss the boat - Animal Justice Party Aotearoa NZ

# data[].attributes.subject
Federated Farmers arguments miss the boat - Animal Justice Party Aotearoa NZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
entry.title}} - {{entry.publicationDate | date:'d MMMM \'at\' h:mma'}}

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Farmers back ‘gold standard’ regulations for livestock exports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Federated Farmers want to see the return of cattle exports but insists that animal welfare and New Zealand’s international reputation must be protected first. In a Federated Farmers Podcast, alongside guest Brian Pearson, general manager at livestock export business BeefGen, Feds animal welfare spok…

# data[].attributes.headline
Independent Heron Review in to safety requirements for the export of livestock by sea. Oct 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
Independent Heron Review in to safety requirements for the export of livestock by sea. Oct 2020

# data[].attributes.headline
Andrew Hoggard Parliamentary discussions May 21st 2024 Part 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Andrew Hoggard Parliamentary discussions May 21st 2024 Part 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll just respond to a couple of those questions. Firstly, on livestock exports: in terms of the updated standards, at the moment the advice is still coming. The work is still being done within the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) team on developing what that may be, before going to Cabinet and then consultation. The member asked whether this trade is worth it. It was worth $305 million-so it's $305 million, or nothing. That's an extra $305 million that New Zealand needs right now, so I think that is important.

In terms of reputation, if you can do something better than everyone else in the world, that is lifting the reputation. That is showing the rest of the world how we can do this job much better. Also, there is a reputational risk in terms of "We'll just sell you our milk and nothing else." We have a role in terms of getting these free-trade agreements, often, in terms of helping these other countries develop their dairy industries. So I think there is a win-win there.

In terms of the photos, now, I didn't see what you saw in front of the select committee, but I have seen lots of photos recently, and I'd point out that-man, my eyesight is not the best at the moment, so there's not much chance I can see that photo from here. But do they have a New Zealand National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) tag in their ears? That would be my question, if you know what one looks like, because there's good chance that most of the photos I've seen do not have New Zealand tags in their ear and they are from offshore. They are not from the standards we're used to doing in New Zealand, and we will be updating those standards.

In terms of the ships the member asked about, we will be putting standards in place. Now, whether or not people build a new ship to meet those standards or renovate a ship to meet those standards, they will need to meet the standards. The standards are the standards.

In terms of biosecurity, the focus will be on delivering outcomes. I've seen a lot of what the teams are doing. There is a lot of preparation going on right now for making sure we are ready for disease outbreaks if they ever do come, and, hopefully, they never do. The focus for the team is on being ready and achieving those outcomes, so I have full faith in the MPI team in terms of delivering that.

There was a question around what we're doing in terms of biodiversity. So this is putting my other hat on, as the Associate Minister for the Environment-if I'm allowed to do that-we are looking at biodiversity credits. I'm seeking advice on that, and it will be a way to help farmers improve their biodiversity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hoggard, Andrew - New Zealand Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hansard editors report what politicians say in the House of Representatives. Here you can read our near-verbatim reports on all debates, including oral questions and proposed laws (bills).

# data[].attributes.headline
Andrew Hoggard Parliamentary discussion May 21st 2024

# data[].attributes.subject
Andrew Hoggard Parliamentary discussion May 21st 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hoggard, Andrew; Tuiono, Teanau - New Zealand Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hansard editors report what politicians say in the House of Representatives. Here you can read our near-verbatim reports on all debates, including oral questions and proposed laws (bills).

# data[].attributes.headline
Scott Willis - Parliamentary discussion May 21st 2024

# data[].attributes.subject
Scott Willis - Parliamentary discussion May 21st 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for speaking on the live exports. I have a few more questions in that regard, please. Those images that we showed at the select committee to Minister McClay were from a vessel called the A l Kuwait, which has operated under a different name from our shores before we banned live animal exports here. Those are images of animals in Cape Town existing in the miserable conditions of their own filth. Will you rule out that ship, the A l Kuwait, which is a purpose-built live export ship, a relatively new ship, I think, built in 2016, and yet it still has these miserable conditions on it? The South African SPCA investigators who went on to the ship described the unimaginable stench, the gruesome conditions of animals forced to live in their own faeces and exposed to dangerous levels of ammonia, rough seas, extreme heat stress, contaminated drinking water, and exhaustion.

Further, in light of recent decisions in both Australia, to phase out live sheep exports, and the United Kingdom, which has just passed legislation to prohibit live animal exports, have you taken into account the opinions of those other nations who have also recognised the inherent cruelty of live animal exports? I want to draw your attention to a couple of quotes from the British Parliament, from conservative members there. "The long journeys caused intolerable stress, injury and exhaustion, and the case studies we heard were harrowing. Once animals leave [these] shores, there is no control over how they are kept or slaughtered. Thus, it is important that we stop this practice once and for all." Another Minister said, "The figures I have seen on live exports are absolutely horrendous. I cannot believe that people actually thought it was okay to treat animals like this-subjected to journeys of"-wait for it-"over 2,000 miles, lasting 70 hours." The British parliamentarians were distressed at journeys of 60 hours from the UK to Spain, or journeys of 18 hours from the UK to Europe, and here we are talking about journeys of weeks at sea, the inhumane, crowded, exhaustion, dehydration, long, stressful journeys.

Is it not correct, Minister, that we have reached a time in our history where it's no longer acceptable for us to treat animals so poorly? It is fundamentally miserable for those animals. Reputation aside, income aside, it's about the cruelty to those animals, and the world is moving away from live animal exports. Will you consider changing this Government's position and committing to keeping the ban on live animal exports in place?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hansard editors report what politicians say in the House of Representatives. Here you can read our near-verbatim reports on all debates, including oral questions and proposed laws (bills).

# data[].attributes.headline
Chris Luxton - The Country 15/5/24 on Live Exports

# data[].attributes.subject
Chris Luxton - The Country 15/5/24 on Live Exports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Country 15/05/24: Christopher Luxon talks to Jamie Mackay

The PM ponders the reintroduction of live animal exports (after the Aussies plan to ban sheep by sea by 2028), balancing the books, charter schools, the Christchurch Call and that oh-so-tight Highlanders jersey.

The Country

Jamie Mackay delivers your daily fix of everything going on in NZ's biggest industry, along with a g...

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips
Browse 3,895 clip(s)

Omny Studio is the complete audio management solution for podcasters and radio stations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Country 15/05/24: Christopher Luxon talks to Jamie Mackay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The PM ponders the reintroduction of live animal exports (after the Aussies plan to ban sheep by sea by 2028), balancing the books, charter schools, the Christchurch Call and that oh-so-tight Highlanders jersey.

# data[].attributes.headline
Andrew Hoggard RNZ interview May 1st 2024

# data[].attributes.subject
Andrew Hoggard RNZ interview May 1st 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Polishing a turd is how one farmer's described the government's plan to resume live animal exports under a "gold standard" regime. Associate Agriculture Minister, Andrew Hoggard speaks to Lisa Owen

See terms of use.

Recent stories from Checkpoint

Podcast (MP3) Oggcast (Vorbis)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hoggard defends 'gold standard' live exports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Polishing a turd is how one farmer's described the government's plan to resume live animal exports under a "gold standard" regime. Associate Agriculture Minister, Andrew Hoggard speaks to Lisa Owen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FVE Comments on EU Proposed Ragulation on Transport of Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FVE welcomes the proposed regulation for the welfare of animals during transport, aiming to update outdated rules and address modern needs. Key highlights include expanding EU rules for transporting dogs and cats and updating journey length and space allowances based on scientific research.

# data[].attributes.body
Before departure:

MPI is regularly in touch with exporters to determine the health status of the animals and assess an application for the issue of an Animal Welfare Export Certificate.

MPI vets inspect all animals to ensure they are in good condition. The animals are only cleared to travel when the vet is satisfied they are fit to travel.

Prior and during transport, animals should remain in similar groups to avoid the stress from mixing with unfamiliar animals.

During the journey

The animals are loaded into specifically designed crates that ensure the animals are secure and well-ventilated.

Animals are given the right amounts of water, food, and space. They are able to fully stand in their natural posture, turn and lie down in the container.

During the journey the temperature, ventilation and humidity are controlled, and this is monitored by the crew.

People involved in the transport of animals are adequately trained and monitor the welfare of the animals throughout the journey.

On arrival

It is in the importer’s best interests that the prime breeding stock remain in excellent condition so they can make a return on their investment.

The exporter is required to provide reports to MPI on how the animals travelled within 5 working days and 40 days after arrival of the animals in the destination country.

If MPI becomes aware of any information that contradicts information provided by the exporter – either in a report or the stated purpose of the animals – this would be taken into account when applications for future exports are considered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Live sheep and cattle exports | NZ Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Strict rules govern the export of live animals overseas. MPI’s role is to ensure the welfare of the animals on their journey.

# data[].attributes.body
Immediate changes being introduced through conditional prohibition period include focused maritime inspection of livestock carrier ships entering New Zealand to transport livestock by Maritime New Zealand as an additional safeguard, restricting stocking density on vessels to 90 per cent of current limits to match new Australian standards, increased requirements for voyage reporting, including daily veterinary reports during voyages and increased minimum fodder requirements that ensure at least 20 per cent of feed is available for unplanned delays during the voyage.

Smith said MPI was considering longer-term changes suggested by the reviewers, such as requiring more information in Animal Welfare Export Certificate applications and reviewing current rules, guidance and regulations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New rules for live exports revealed by Ministry for Primary Industries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ban on cattle exports by sea ends Friday.

# data[].attributes.body
"Once a cow leaves New Zealand shores, we have no idea what happens to her. The European Union is ahead of New Zealand on this. They voted in February to end the live export of animals to countries that fall below their animal welfare standards. We need to follow their lead. Our reputation is at risk if the Government allows animals to be exported into such appalling conditions."

We do not track the final destination of animals. Our relationship is with the exporter who must state the purpose of the export, and meet high standards to receive an Animal Welfare Exports Certificate.

"An MPI veterinarian will only issue the certificate if all requirements for the welfare of the animals have been met. These requirements include the health status of animals before departure, adequate supply of water, food, space, and facilities during the voyage and having suitably experienced stockmen and/or veterinarians on board."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kiwi cattle in animal welfare ‘disaster’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WARNING: GRAPHIC MATERIAL: Cattle exported to Sri Lanka from New Zealand have allegedly died miserable deaths.

# data[].attributes.body
New Zealand Agriculture Minister Damien O'Connor said the Gulf Livestock 1 case, as well as other incidents such as the sinking of the Al Badri 1 off Sudan in June this year, in which 15,000 sheep drowned, had highlighted the risks of exporting livestock by sea.

"The regular occurrence of such tragedies has the potential to inflict lasting damage to New Zealand's reputation in trade, no matter how high we set animal welfare standards for the voyages and everyone's best efforts," O'Connor said.

Before its victory in the federal election in May, the Australian Labor Party pledged to phase out live sheep exports by sea, but Agriculture Minister Murray Watt declined to nominate a date on which it would implement the reform.

"The government remains committed to live cattle exports and ensuring strong animal welfare standards are in place," he told the ABC.

"Australia has world-leading standards for the carriage of livestock by sea," Watt said.

"No export consignment via sea is permitted to depart Australia unless the department is satisfied that all legislative requirements have been met and AMSA has assessed the vessel as seaworthy and appropriate to transport livestock."

A report commissioned by the New Zealand government said it appeared likely that the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1 had a combination of causes, "including at least mechanical, meteorological and human factors".

But because the ship was registered in Panama, responsibility for an authoritative investigation into the sinking rests with the Panama Maritime Authority.

Many commercial ships are registered in countries like Panama, Liberia, the Marshall Islands and Antigua and Barbuda, where regulations are lax.

It is a practice known by merchant sailors and their unions as a flag of convenience.

"Flag of convenience ships operate globally without regulatory oversight and are essentially lawless workplaces where abuses of crew, mismanagement of safety and neglect of essential equipment is rife," said Ian Bray, coordinator for the International Transport Workers' Federation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An ABC investigation can reveal the owner of a ship that sank in a typhoon two years ago, killing 41 people, had repeated safety concerns flagged by maritime authorities and may have been operating while insolvent, according to auditors.

It is August 28, 2020, four days before the storm will hit. In the Philippine Sea, stockman William Mainprize, 27, is on an old container ship that has been converted into a livestock vessel.

Measuring 133 metres in length, the Gulf Livestock 1 is on its way to China to deliver almost 6000 heifers.

William, who grew up on Sydney's northern beaches, is one of two Australians on board.

The other is Lukas Orda, 25, a Queensland veterinarian who has recently become a father to a boy, Theo.

William sends a WhatsApp message to a group of friends and family.

It includes maps showing the ship's intended course plotted through the centre of the storm followed by a grimacing emoji.

"Uh oh! About to hit some nasty weather," he writes.

The message reaches William's sister, Sarah, on the Gold Coast - and she is worried.

"Hey Bro can you let me know when you're through it - it's scaring me," she replies.

"Will do Sar!" William responds.

"Should be fine. We're a big boat."

Cargo ships, tankers and fishing boats are among the vessels swarming this patch of the Pacific.

Shipping data, supplied to the ABC by Spire Global, a space-based data and analytics provider, is captured from the vessel's Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponder.

It tracks vessel identification, speed, location and course and allows boats and coastal authorities to prevent collisions.

Using this data, ABC was able to track the final days of the Gulf Livestock 1 as it made its way from Napier on New Zealand's north island towards the Chinese port of Jingtang.

On board were 43 men - 39 Filipinos and two New Zealanders as well as the two Australians - and 5867 heifers.

But rising from the ocean was something that would prevent them from reaching their intended destination.

East of the Philippines, a tropical depression had strengthened to form a typhoon.

In the Philippines, the destructive phenomenon is given the name Julian. Elsewhere, it is called Typhoon Maysak.

As the weather worsened, other commercial vessels cleared the area in search of safer waters.

The Gulf Livestock 1 did not deviate from its course.

The shipping data showed it cutting a relatively lonely figure as it passed between the Japanese islands of Yoronjima and Okinoerabujima.

By now, weather data showed the nearby typhoon generating wind speeds in excess of 175km/h.

As the Gulf Livestock 1 entered the East China Sea, it sailed into the storm. Huge waves crashed over the ship.

Lukas Orda sent a message to his brothers, Jens and Tobi: "Don't tell mum but our engine control room has just filled with water and the motor has now failed."

William Mainprize messaged a friend: "We are floating sideways in huge sea ... Oh man, it's very hairy."

At 1.10am local time on 2 September, the vessel sent its final signal.

The crew frantically pumped water out from below deck to try to save the ship, which was listing at 30 degrees.

The vessel's lights go out, then its emergency lights come on, and Captain Dante Addug instructed all crew to put their life jackets on.

When the ship is hit by a huge wave, Chief Officer Eduardo Sareno decides to jump in the water.

He will be rescued 22 hours later by Japan's coast guard.

Two days later, another crew member is plucked from a lifeboat.

Another crew member found unconscious floating face down in the ocean is pronounced dead.

None of the other 40 men nor the ship itself have been found.

The messages William and Lukas sent in the ship's final chaotic hours would be the last their loved ones would hear from them.

History of 'high risk' vessels

The Gulf Livestock 1 had barely departed on what would be its final voyage when trouble first appeared.

"We're not even a day out of port and the engine is f---ed," William Mainprize messaged a friend on 15 August.

In fact, the ship's problems dated back much further.

An ABC investigation has discovered that in the 18 months prior to the Gulf Livestock 1 sinking, Indonesian and Australian authorities recorded dozens of safety breaches aboard the ship, including critical failures of its propulsion and navigations systems, as well as concerns about the stability of the vessel.

The ABC can also reveal the Dubai-based shipping company operating the ship, Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC, had a long history of operating "high risk" vessels around the world.

In the period leading up to the sinking, it posted combined losses of more than a quarter of a billion dollars and, according to a Deloitte financial report in late September 2020, may have been insolvent at the time of the tragedy.

The auditors issued an official warning to Gulf Navigation that it could not pay its loans and outstanding debts.

Deloitte found that the company's accumulated losses would have exceeded 50 percent of Gulf Navigation and its subsidiaries' share capital, forcing the company to either dissolve or restructure.

But Gulf Navigation Holding reported to Deloitte that it was expecting to receive an insurance claim of 197.5 million Emirati dirhams (NZ$83.9m) for the loss of Gulf Livestock 1.

The Deloitte report said the insurance claim was "not virtually certain to be recoverable" and to conform with international financial reporting standards, should not be recognised.

Two years later, after negotiating new terms with its banks, Gulf Navigation's financial position remains precarious.

For the first six months of this year, the company reported a loss of more than NZ$5.3m and its liabilities still exceed its assets.

Days after Gulf Livestock 1 capsized in the East China Sea, shareholders and investors voted in a new board for Gulf Navigation.

Sheikh Theyab Bin Tahnoon Bin Mohammed Al Nahyan, a member of the United Arab Emirates royal family, became chairman.

He told shareholders: "We are very optimistic about the promising opportunities the future holds for Gulf Navigation."

The losses Gulf Navigation continued to face coincided with 195 safety breaches identified on board the company's ships - which include a fleet of five chemical tankers and two livestock vessels - in the past five years prior to the Gulf Livestock 1 sinking.

Some of these deficiencies were found by Tokyo MOU, one of eight Port State Control organisations around the globe, which monitors shipping standards for the Asia Pacific region.

The breaches for Gulf Navigation's chemical tankers ranged from hull corrosion, failures of life and rescue boats, critical problems in the operation of navigation equipment, as well as wider safety concerns and pollution. The ships have been tagged by authorities as "high risk" on 18 occasions.

The company's two livestock vessels, Gulf Livestock 1 and Gulf Livestock 2, also had dozens of breaches.

Gulf Livestock 2 has been inspected by authorities in Africa, Israel, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Brazil.

Equasis, an online shipping database launched by the European Commission and the UK government in 1997, recorded 44 deficiencies for Gulf Livestock 2 over the past five years.

It was detained for four days in Cartagena in southern Spain for its doors not being weather tight, engine problems, and failures of fire safety equipment.

Gulf Livestock 1 itself also had dozens of safety and mechanical issues recorded in the years leading up to its sinking.

Tokyo MOU recorded 34 breaches or deficiencies on Gulf Livestock 1 ranging from navigation safety, engine failures, functionality of safety systems, working conditions on board the vessel, to faulty gauges and thermometers.

William Mainprize shot this video of conditions on board the Gulf Livestock 1.

The most serious deficiencies were found by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), which detained the vessel in Broome in May 2019.

"AMSA found deficiencies in navigation equipment and the crew operating the navigation equipment were not properly trained," a spokesperson said.

AMSA also raised concerns about the stability of the vessel. It directed the exporter to reduce the number of cattle on board.

In the same month, an AMSA surveyor investigated a confidential complaint regarding alleged delays in paying crew and insufficient provisions.

AMSA issued a deficiency regarding insufficient provisions, and the ship's owners provided adequate provisions the next day, the spokesperson said.

"The surveyor also investigated the complaint regarding the wages, but could not find any evidence to support the complaint," the AMSA spokesperson said.

Seven months later, in December, six deficiencies were detected when the vessel docked in Panjang, Indonesia. This time, the main issue was a failure of the vessel's main engine propulsion system.

In July 2020 - just two months before the tragedy - the ship drifted for a day while undergoing emergency repairs.

Gulf Navigation Holding did not respond to ABC's calls and emails requesting comment.

Maritime New Zealand oversaw the loading of the Gulf Livestock 1 in Napier at the start of its final voyage, but the agency carried out no maintenance inspections of the ship.

"An inspection was not required at that time," a spokesperson from Maritime New Zealand said.

" Gulf Livestock 1 was not categorised as a "high risk" vessel or a "priority one" vessel in the PSC [Port State Control] system. It was inspected under the PSC arrangement in Australia earlier in 2020, so was not due for another inspection until at least October 2020."

In New Zealand, the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 helped galvanise the movement to ban the live sheep and cattle exports.

In September this year, the New Zealand Government legislated a permanent ban on the export of livestock by sea, starting April 2023.

New Zealand Agriculture Minister Damien O'Connor said the Gulf Livestock 1 case, as well as other incidents such as the sinking of the Al Badri 1 off Sudan in June this year, in which 15,000 sheep drowned, had highlighted the risks of exporting livestock by sea.

"The regular occurrence of such tragedies has the potential to inflict lasting damage to New Zealand's reputation in trade, no matter how high we set animal welfare standards for the voyages and everyone's best efforts," O'Connor said.

Before its victory in the federal election in May, the Australian Labor Party pledged to phase out live sheep exports by sea, but Agriculture Minister Murray Watt declined to nominate a date on which it would implement the reform.

"The government remains committed to live cattle exports and ensuring strong animal welfare standards are in place," he told the ABC.

"Australia has world-leading standards for the carriage of livestock by sea," Watt said.

"No export consignment via sea is permitted to depart Australia unless the department is satisfied that all legislative requirements have been met and AMSA has assessed the vessel as seaworthy and appropriate to transport livestock."

A report commissioned by the New Zealand government said it appeared likely that the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1 had a combination of causes, "including at least mechanical, meteorological and human factors".

But because the ship was registered in Panama, responsibility for an authoritative investigation into the sinking rests with the Panama Maritime Authority.

Many commercial ships are registered in countries like Panama, Liberia, the Marshall Islands and Antigua and Barbuda, where regulations are lax.

It is a practice known by merchant sailors and their unions as a flag of convenience.

"Flag of convenience ships operate globally without regulatory oversight and are essentially lawless workplaces where abuses of crew, mismanagement of safety and neglect of essential equipment is rife," said Ian Bray, coordinator for the International Transport Workers' Federation.

'A state of frozen grief'

Two years on, the families of Lukas Orda and William Mainprize are still waiting for the release of the Panama Maritime Authority's report.

The authority has not responded to the ABC's telephone calls and emails.

"We need to find out what happened to our son," Lukas's mother, Sabine, said.

"Lukas was the warmest, kindest, best person you can think of.

"He loved his family and his little son Theo. We just miss him," she said.

"We are looking for answers," Lukas's father, Ulrich, said.

We are looking for answers

He said the only way of understanding what happened to the Gulf Livestock 1 would be to retrieve the ship's data recorder - its equivalent of an aircraft's "black box" - but no government was interested in doing that.

"They spent millions trying to find [Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which disappeared in 2014] but a ship at sea - no-one is interested. No-one is interested in finding the remains of my son or the other human beings on that ship so that we would have some kind of closure."

He told the ABC he had no faith in the Panamanian authority's investigation.

"I'm sure it won't tell us why the captain decided to sail straight into a typhoon instead of diverting to a safer area," he said.

Why the ship's captain, 34-year-old Dante Addug, chose to proceed into Typhoon Maysak remains a mystery.

Peter Van Duijn, a maritime expert from Deakin University, said normally a captain would use information from local weather bureaus to plot a course to try to avoid a typhoon.

"It's really up to the expertise of the captain," he said.

"Also Gulf Livestock 1 was an old vessel and a cargo-converted vessel. These type of vessels always have issues, so you would definitely try and avoid a typhoon at all costs."

William Mainprize's brother, Tom, said his family felt "helpless".

"We are still hoping he's alive, which makes it horrendous," he said.

I feel hopeless, a mixture of sadness and I just feel sick

"If there was some form of definitive fact that we knew what happened, we could move on. But because we have no idea what happened, there have been no answers.

"We might have lost our little brother because someone has done the wrong thing, and no-one is helping us. I feel hopeless, a mixture of sadness and I just feel sick."

The Department of Foreign Affairs told both families that they must wait for the release of the Panamanian report before they can be issued with death certificates for Lukas and William.

The Orda family was able to obtain a death certificate for Lukas through the Queensland government in November 2021 while the Mainprize family is still waiting.

Both the Orda and Mainprize families are investigating what legal options are available to them.

"We don't feel like we're going to see justice," said William's sister Sarah.

"Of course, we hope for that. But it does feel like the sea is very lawless."

The families are seeking compensation against the registered owner of the vessel - a shell company, also based in Panama, called Gulf Navigation Livestock Carrier 1 Ltd, Inc - which is a subsidiary of the Dubai-based Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC.

Even if the families were to win the case, there is no provision for the enforcement of Australian judgments in Panama.

Both families are also seeking compensation from Australasian Global Exports, the company they allege was responsible for the export of the heifers as well as employing qualified crew like William and Lukas.

Australasian Global Exports has not responded to the ABC's questions.

The Gulf Livestock 1 was one of 876 vessels lost at sea in the decade to 2021, according to Data company Statista.

Sarah Mainprize said it was difficult to put into words how difficult the lack of closure was to bear.

"We haven't had any conclusion around what actually happened or why," she said.

"It's almost been like a state of frozen grief. And honestly, it feels like our hearts have been ripped out of our chests."
-ABC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gulf Livestock 1: ABC investigation reveals history of concerns over ship before fatal sinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An ABC investigation has revealed the owner of a ship that sank in a typhoon two years ago, killing 41 people, had repeated safety concerns flagged and may have been operating while insolvent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than 100 Australian cattle have died on a live export ship to Indonesia - likely one of the highest mortality rates ever reported on an Australian cattle shipment.

The Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has confirmed a number of cattle deaths were reported to the regulator over the weekend.

A department spokesperson would not confirm the exact number but said there was "no suggestion that exotic animal disease is involved" such as foot and mouth disease or lumpy skin disease.

The department said it was investigating the deathsfrom the vessel Brahman Express.

Under Australian regulations, an exporter must notify the government if a consignment's mortality rate is greater than 0.5 per cent or three head of cattle, within 12 hours.

"We have been notified by a commercial exporter of an incident involving cattle deaths on a live export vessel exporting to Indonesia," the spokesperson said.

"Australia remains free of exotic animal diseases such as Lumpy Skin Disease and Foot and Mouth Disease."

The cattle were likely shipped from Darwin and had been declared fit to travel by a government vet when loaded on the vessel.

Industry suspects botulism caused deaths

Industry group the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council suggested botulism, a rare disease spread via bacteria, could be the cause for the cattle deaths.

"Initial assumptions are that this is a case of botulism, with the affected animals coming from a single property," ALEC chief executive Mark Harvey-Sutton said.

Mr Harvey-Sutton confirmed the livestock shipment was discharged in Indonesia on March 24.

"It does seem that there were some extraordinary circumstances that have seen this event take place. And obviously, we need to get to the bottom of why that has all occurred," he said.

"It was the exporter that self-reported this. They've been very clear and transparent about this issue all the way through, and they are working very closely with the Department of Agriculture."

He said he believed the cattle had come from a property in the Northern Territory.

"Australia is confident that there is no evidence of an exotic disease and that our Animal Health Status remains unchanged ... Indonesia is Australia's most important trading partner for live cattle and it is important that we work closely and transparently with them as we work through this issue," he said.

RSPCA says vets needed on all cattle ships

The RSPCA opposes the live export of animals for slaughter and has lobbied for vets to be mandated on all cattle shipments from Australia.

"It's tragic to hear of the deaths of hundreds of cattle from a live export ship to Indonesia, suspected to be due to complications of a bacterial infection, possibly from the bacteria Clostridium botulinum," RSPCA spokesperson Suzie Fowler said on Tuesday.

"We are urgently seeking further information from the Federal Government about what has occurred in this situation with the Brahman Express."

"Whilst this particular event might be declared as 'unusual', what isn't unusual is the fact that animals are exposed to additional stress and suboptimal conditions in live export that increase the risk of any disease or infection like these animals appear to have been exposed to, leading to horrific welfare outcomes as we have unfortunately seen on the Brahman Express."

Foot and mouth disease and lumpy skin disease, two livestock conditions potentially jeopardising billions of dollars of meat and dairy exports from Australia if detected here, were reported in Indonesia in 2022.

In 2011, the Gillard government announced a snap ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia by sea, a decision later found unlawful by the Federal Court.

The Albanese government has promised to ban live sheep exports by sea from Australia but is yet to set a date to end the trade.

Last year the value of cattle live exported from Australia was $1.2 billion, according to ABS data provided by LiveCorp.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More than 100 cattle die at sea in export from Australia to Indonesia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 100 Australian cattle have died on a live export ship to Indonesia - likely one of the highest mortality rates ever reported on an Australian livestock shipment.

# data[].attributes.headline
SPCA Why a gold standard for livestock export is a shameful deception

# data[].attributes.subject
SPCA Why a gold standard for livestock export is a shameful deception

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the ban on livestock export by sea finally came into effect in April 2023 after decades of campaigning, people in New Zealand and around the world celebrated this significant milestone for animals. However, the Government and animal export industry representatives have been discussing bringing this cruelty back - this time under so-called 'gold standard' conditions. What does this mean, and why won't it work?

What is this 'gold standard'?

There has been a growing discussion in New Zealand, led by export companies, about implementing a 'gold standard' for livestock exports by sea in order to allow the banned trade to start up again.

A 'gold standard' refers to minimum standards to attempt to ensure animal welfare both onboard ships and at their destination. It's not clear how these standards could possibly protect animal welfare, or how these new standards would be different from the past. It's not even clear which Act these standards would be released under, or how, or if they would be enforced. We don't know if there would be public consultation, or if the industry is drafting their own standards.

What we do know is that the companies who profit from the trade are using misleading language evoking a standard of excellence or perfection to try and excuse the inexcusable.

We already know that long-distance and complex transport compromises animal welfare significantly. There is no practical and achievable standard, let alone a 'gold' standard, for the export of large numbers of livestock by sea. If it were possible to appropriately regulate this industry, we question why it has not been achieved already, anywhere in the world.

Additional standards cannot address inherent cruelty

The transportation of livestock animals by sea is inherently linked with major animal welfare compromise. Scientific evidence shows that these compromises occur in regard to changes in feed, poor environmental conditions, stocking densities, lameness and leg issues, damaging ammonia concentrations due to a build-up of urine and excrement, disease, noise, motion sickness, changes in lighting pattern and heat stress. These environmental factors lead to animals feeling fearful, anxious, ill, tired, hungry and in pain.

It takes on average 19 days for a ship to complete the most common journey, from New Zealand to China for example, and each ship houses thousands of cattle packed into pens on hard surfaces. This journey involves crossing the equator and exposing the animals to rapidly changing heat and humidity.

One anonymous submitter on the live export ban, a veterinarian who worked on board a live export ship, noted that, despite the standards in place before the ban, they saw unacceptable compromises to animal welfare - especially around heat stress and lameness. They submitted the following haunting quote:

"Despite our best efforts to get all the cattle across the equator alive, two cattle died of heat stress on the journey. Although the two cattle written down on our trip report represent a low mortality rate attributable to heat stress, the pain and distress they and the surviving cattle experienced still haunts me [...] In my opinion heat stress is an inevitable and unacceptable aspect of transporting cattle by sea across the equator."

Standards cannot prevent welfare compromise overseas

New Zealand cannot apply our animal welfare standards to another country.

Our own National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, an expert committee who advise the Minister responsible for animal welfare, has already given advice on the topic of whether our cattle can even thrive in very different environments. They advised that "even where those in charge of the animals have the best intentions and receive ongoing support from New Zealand, fundamental differences in animal genetics, climate, farming systems, disease, parasite risk, and feed, will predispose towards significant animal welfare risks when sending our livestock overseas." In their view, the only way to protect welfare is a total ban.

Standards will not save New Zealand's reputation

When the ban was announced in 2021, the responsible Minister stated that "We must stay ahead of the curve in a world where animal welfare is under increasing scrutiny." New Zealand relies on our primary sector exports, which is built on a hard-won reputation for ethical and sustainable production.

Banning the export of livestock by sea meant taking the opportunity to give support to our food and fibres sector to meet increasing consumer demand for products that are produced ethically and sustainably.

The Ministry for Primary Industries advised in a Regulatory Impact Statement that "the reputational risks of livestock export by sea are real, likely to result in ongoing negative reputational impacts, and cannot be eliminated completely." They also noted that the direct value of New Zealand's livestock exports was $261 million for the year ending December 2020, which is a fraction of the more than $56.2 billion of trade in animals and animal products which would be put at risk by restarting the trade.

Other countries are poised to end live export by sea, with Australia's government implementing an election pledge to end the export of sheep at the moment, and the European Commission currently progressing a wide-ranging review of the long-distance transport of animals.

Our most recent Free Trade Agreement, with the European Union, was negotiated on the understanding that New Zealand producers are some of the most sustainable in the world and these credentials resonate well with EU consumers. As we boasted at the time, New Zealand and the EU share similar values and a commitment to high animal welfare standards.

Banning livestock export by sea was world-leading. Reinstating it is not. It would only result in gold standard embarrassment for New Zealand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why a "gold standard" for livestock export by sea is a shameful deception * SPCA New Zealand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the ban on livestock export by sea finally came into effect in April 2023 after decades of campaigning, people in New Zealand and around the world celebrated this significant milestone for animals. However, the Government and animal export industry representatives have been discussing bringing this cruelty back - this time under so-called 'gold standard' conditions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Livestock export is the commercial transport of livestock across international borders. The expansion of the trade has been supported by the introduction of ships which are built to carry large numbers of animals.

Sheep and cattle were brought to New Zealand on sailing ships from Britain and Australia in the 19th century.

The ships had pens erected on the deck and in the hold for the stock while onboard, food for the stock was also carried and animal waste was dumped in the sea.

The seas were often rough, and the voyages sometimes took more than 100 days.

Steamships that were faster were introduced in the 1880s and had larger carrying capacities.

Since the 1860s, live animals have been exported by ship and more recently air.

Larger shipments of cattle began in the 1970s and sheep began in 1985. Trade was mainly to the Middle East, where sheep were killed for local consumption because they didn't have the infrastructure and relied on the supply of fresh meat. Sheep were also supplied for slaughter on religious occasions such as the annual Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).

Numbers exported increased from 416,000 in 1986 to more than a million in 1988-89. After a 1990 shipment in which 12% of the sheep died, a welfare code was introduced to ensure that mortality was no higher than 1%. Powerful ventilation systems, veterinary checks and animal welfare standards were all part of the shipping process.

New Zealand has effectively phased out live exports for slaughter purposes since 2007 due to concerns about animal welfare and subsequent reputational risk.

In 2020, Kiwi exporters sent 113,000 cattle overseas, all to China.

In September 2020, the Ministry for Primary Industries suspended live animal exports after the Gulf Livestock 1 ship travelling from Napier to China sank in a typhoon with 43 crew members and almost 6000 cattle on board. The ship was carrying cattle for breeding from New Zealand to China.

On 14 April 2021, the Government of New Zealand announced that, in order to raise animal welfare standards, it had decided to phase out the export of livestock by sea by April 2023 after a transition period of up to two years. It is the first country in history to do so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Livestock export is the commercial transport of livestock across international borders. The expansion of the trade has been supported by the introduction of ships which are built to carry large numbers of animals. Sheep and cattle were brought to New Zealand on sailing ships from Britain and Australia in the 19th century.

# data[].attributes.body
--> Discusses about quality (or lack thereof) in the vet reports.

--> Findings from the Heron report after the sinking of Gulf Livestock I.

--> Comparisons to Australian standards in n 2021, Hing et al. published “Animal Welfare Risks in Live Cattle Export from Australia to China by

Sea.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Transport of live animals in the EU: challenges and opportunities

# data[].attributes.subject
Transport of live animals in the EU: challenges and opportunities

# data[].attributes.body
Great use of infographics in this review!

# data[].attributes.body
**Studies based on sheep not cattle.**

The probability of animal mortality is described statistically as a function of wet bulb temperature (WBT) by a distribution which is a function of the animal's characteristics.

# data[].attributes.body
Societal Expectations

The committee also notes that, while best practice is to focus on the outcomes desired, there still needs to be a minimum set of standards that clearly articulate what society expects all exporters to meet. The committee’s recommendations have been made with this risk/debate in mind. Notwithstanding that, the committee believes there should be scope for the regulator to reward superior performance based on demonstrated outcomes, and that over time, the standards could evolve to a more outcomes driven approach.

Thermal Stress

Cattle with BCS of 4.5+/5 or 5.5+/6 are prevented from export. Also increases chances of lameness, deck injury and pressure sores.

That the standards be revised over time to require the application of an agreed HSRA to all livestock voyages that cross the equator, at all times of the year, from all Australian ports. This requirement will require significant model development and a staged implementation approach.

Weight/Size

Cattle over 500kg should be exported with accordance to the heavy weight plan due to increased chance of injury and lameness. What about animals who may reach that weight during the journey?

Spot weight checks on loading to ensure accurate loading plans/applications.

Food Transition

Animals should be fed provisions, for a further 3 days, that are the same as what was fed on the ship (sheep & goats ad lib).

Pregnancy

Maximum days pregnant should be from date of unloading not loading.

Reporting

That the notifiable mortality level for cattle and buffalo should be set at 0.5 per cent, or three animals, whichever is the greater; and that an average daily mortality rate of equal to, or greater than, 0.025 per cent, calculated at the end of voyage, be added to the list of events that would qualify as a ‘notifiable incident’.

Inclusion of more detailed welfare monitoring in daily reports based on an assessment of at least two pens of sheep, cattle, buffalo and goats representative of each class or line, per deck, as well as a welfare assessment for any ‘at high risk pens’ or ‘pens of concern’.

Appendix A and B include more precise exemplars of animal/veterinary reports.

Onboard Resources

What bedding is deemed 'appropriate'? Most seem to have differing types and quantities.

That the standard require the consistency and depth of bedding material to be routinely monitored.

Require that for cattle and buffalo on all voyages of ten days or more be provided with sawdust, rice hulls or similar material to be used exclusively for bedding at a rate of at least 7 tonnes or 25m3 for every 1000m2 of cattle/buffalo pen space (no exception).

Ammonia levels in livestock spaces not exceed 25ppm and that reduction measures be implemented if that level is exceeded in any given area of the vessel. Has this ever been a requirement to measure?

Fodder

That the standards require vessels to hold sufficient fodder to meet the needs of livestock throughout the voyage, including days of loading and discharge. It appears from reports that there is no fodder left on day of discharge for most exports.

Standards require that vessels carry adequate fodder reserves to ensure livestock can continue to be fed in accordance with specified allowances even if voyage delays occur. At a minimum, this must include 3 days of fodder and water.

Crewing

That the standards require one competent stock handler (as defined in the working draft standards) per 3,000 (or part thereof) cattle and buffalo.

# data[].attributes.body
AMSA Report Requirements

Use page 1 to report ship, voyage, loading and discharge details.

Use page 2 to report daily mortality and environmental conditions.

You must report:

breakdowns affecting livestock services, electrical supplies or propulsion

environmental conditions (these observations are important for investigations into high mortality)

livestock mortality each day the shop is at sea (even if no deaths occurred)

livestock mortality at each loading and/or discharge

livestock mortality while the ship is in port.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transporting livestock from Australia

Vessels & operators

Cargoes and dangerous goods

Transporting livestock

Transporting livestock from Australia

Operators of Regulated Australian Vessels (RAV) and Foreign Vessels, as well as the shippers of livestock, have obligations when loading and transporting livestock from Australia.

We have responsibility for the application of Marine Order 43 (Cargo and cargo handling-livestock) which outlines the requirements to carry livestock from Australia by ship. These requirements cover the structure and operation of the ship.

All vessels permanently equipped for the carriage of livestock are required to carry an Australian Certificate for the Carriage of Livestock (ACCL) issued by AMSA. View the template of the ACCL (WORD 60.5 KB).

The ACCL is accompanied by the Record of Equipment and Arrangements which is an attachment to the ACCL. This is to be prepared by the ship owner or operator and submitted to AMSA for consideration.

Marine order 43 imparts a number of obligations on all regulated Australian vessels and foreign vessels carrying livestock that are required before, during, and after a livestock voyage, including:

The requirement to notify AMSA in writing of the intention to load livestock.

On completion of a livestock voyage-other than a short voyage which is less than 24 hours-the master is obligated to make a report to AMSA in writing.

The master must inform AMSA by the most expedient means when the mortality level for a species of livestock carried is exceeded, or expected to be exceeded.

An expired or invalid ACCL

Your ACCL will become invalid if you do not complete the required surveys and get your certificate endorsed. If your ACCL expires or becomes invalid for other reasons such as non-compliance, you will need to reapply.

In this case we consider the vessel as a "new livestock vessel". The vessel must then comply with the Marine Order in force when you reapply. This requires a design assessment and can take significant time to complete.

The window for surveys opens 3 months before the anniversary date. We recommend you book a survey at a suitable location as early as possible.

We can undertake surveys in most ports subject to Australian Government travel advice, provided we have enough notice to arrange travel.

Apply for an Australian certificate for the carriage of livestock

To apply for an ACCL, the below steps need to be followed

An application in writing to the Manager Ship Inspection and Registration by email to livestock@amsa.gov.au.

The assessment of applications are charged within the guidelines of marine services fees and charges. The cost is A$272 as per the Fees determination.

The application must provide all information required in order for a certificate to be issued.

Three copies of each of the following documents must be submitted to AMSA:

Scale drawings providing details of:

the design, materials, methods of construction and arrangement of fittings for the containment and movement of the livestock

ventilation arrangements, including current test measurements, together with the gross volume of enclosed spaces

lighting

the provisions for storage and distribution of fodder and water

drainage arrangements

arrangements of main and secondary supplies of power

the provision of fire-fighting appliances

the general arrangement of the vessel, both before and after modification to carry livestock, if a converted vessel, and

the structural fire protection plan of the vessel, both before and after modification to carry livestock, if a converted vessel.

Stability data for the vessel with livestock on board.

A documented maintenance program related to:

the livestock containment structure-including accessways, ramps between decks and vessel/shore livestock accesses

ventilation, lighting and drainage arrangements for the livestock areas of the vessel, including main and secondary sources of power

the arrangements for storage and distribution of fodder and water

the making of potable water on board (if this is required to provide for the necessary quantity of water to supply the livestock), and

the fire-fighting appliances in the livestock areas of the vessel.

Notice for livestock operators

The practice of long penning is not permitted.

Pen rail and floor strength is calculated on the pen area, with the volume of livestock for the specific pen area. The structure is assessed on the assumption that the entire mass of the animals will be applied over two-thirds of the pen area catering for bunching up. The mass of the animals allowed in a pen is also designed to ensure that animals are not 'crushed' against a rail or trapped due to the mass of the livestock acting against those animals against a rail. These figures were drawn from livestock trials carried out in Victoria.

The practice of 'long penning' exposes a greater mass of livestock to a specific area of the pen structure for which the structure has not been designed for increasing the risk of structural failure. It also increases the risk of animals being trapped or crushed (particularly weaker animals). Given that feed and water arrangements are specifically designed for the specific pen area, long penning can compromise the effectiveness of this arrangement as livestock may crowd specific areas to the exclusion of others.

Livestock ship stability is another issues as this is calculated transversely and longitudinally with the load of livestock per pen, through a deck by deck load plan, addressing livestock type, weight and the number per pen. Livestock apply a static and dynamic impact on vessel stability. The movement of animals within a pen is one factor in this dynamic effect. This is demonstrated by the rolling of the livestock carrier Jawan Portland due to poor stability and the dynamic effect of the livestock resulting in an increasing roll. Long penning in transverse direction can have a detrimental effect on the ship stability noting the stability data cannot cater for this as it assume the animals are penned in accordance with the approved arrangement.

Long penning presents a significant risk to the proper carriage of livestock and contravenes Marine order 43.

Where vessels are found to be 'long penning', steps will be taken to ensure that the ship is brought into compliance with Marine order 43 requirements with stipulated pen dimensions to limit the above mentioned adverse effects.

Related information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Operators of Regulated Australian Vessels (RAV) and Foreign Vessels, as well as the shippers of livestock, have obligations when loading and transporting livestock from Australia.

# data[].attributes.body
https://aselhandbook.com.au/contents.aspx?divisionid=4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock > Cattle sourcing and export criteria

# data[].attributes.headline
AVA - Fewer vets are involved with Live Exports: Call to support rural vets

# data[].attributes.subject
AVA - Fewer vets are involved with Live Exports: Call to support rural vets

# data[].attributes.headline
NEED TO READ!!! UK looking a 5 jurisdictions, including NZ on live animal transport and welfare. 

# data[].attributes.subject
NEED TO READ!!! UK looking a 5 jurisdictions, including NZ on live animal transport and welfare. 

# data[].attributes.body
Climatic Conditions

Potential pathways moving forward for all jurisdictions would be to provide clear species/age/condition-specific thresholds for the temperature–humidity index inside vehicles (and not the outside or bulb temperature).

According to EFSA, animals should be transported at temperatures within their thermal comfort zone and the temperature inside vehicles should not exceed their upper critical temperature(UCT) (i.e. the UCT is 25°C, for cattle, pigs and horses [35,36,38].

Equipping vehicles with monitoring and recording systems for temperature and humidity (as is now the case for some journeys in Canada) could also allow the authorities to check the temperatures and humidity inside vehicles at any time, including after the end of the journey.

In particular, the absence of specific thresholds in most jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA) makes it difficult to implement the requirement that animals must be protected from severe environmental conditions [48].

Live Export

The country of origin loses its capacity to ensure animal welfare beyond its borders. As noted by the European Parliament, ‘there is no control system currently in place for transport to third countries, leading to situations where animal exports to third countries often do not respect Regulation.

Transport Duration

The EU proposes, that regarding long journeys for a purpose other than slaughter, transportation would be allowed for a maximum of 21 h repeatable once. This would also include rest periods of 1 h after 10 h and a 24 h rest after 21 h during which animals would need to be unloaded.

Space Allowance

Absolute space allowances may also fail to efficiently protect animals during transport. Although cattle prefer to stand during transport [131,132], lying down may be necessary during a long journey[132].

Space allowance should be based on weight not animal species.

# data[].attributes.body
5.1.4 Submissions from veterinarians

Of the submissions where the submitter identified themselves as a veterinarian, views on livestock

exports were split. Views ranged from considering the process as adequate to ensure animal welfare

outcomes, to opposing the trade and preferring a total ban. This disparity in veterinarian views was

confirmed by NZVA saying that their members views were split. Most of the veterinarians who supported

the trade had some involvement in the export industry (eg laboratory testing, pre-export isolation and

on-board monitoring). Some considered that the standards of animal care were high and the

stockpeople on board highly skilled.

“Animals are well cared for on the ships and the stockpeople take pride in getting them safely to their

destination.”

NZVA recommended that a Chief Veterinary Officer should be appointed by the government who would be responsible for issuing Animal Welfare Export Certificate (export certificate). They submitted that export of animals to countries with welfare standards lower than New Zealand should not be allowed and that welfare standards for all exported species need to be developed.

NZVA considered that a full assessment of welfare needs to be undertaken by animal welfare experts across the entire export process, taking into account sentience, to measure current performance. They consider that it is not possible to discuss what changes are required without full transparency of the existing process.

A report written by a veterinarian who worked in the livestock export industry outside of New Zealand

was submitted and raised a number of animal health and welfare concerns, using examples including disease, unhygienic conditions, thermal stress, injuries due to heavy seas and insufficient flooring and bedding, high stocking densities and mechanical/structural failure of ships.

5.1.5 Submission from NAWAC

NAWAC considered that due to the significant risk to animals during and after export, it is extremely

unlikely that these risks can be mitigated to a level consistent with New Zealand’s animal welfare

strategy and they therefore support a total ban. They noted that it may be able to support a conditional

prohibition or further regulations in certain circumstances. However, they considered that the current

controls on the export of livestock cannot adequately protect the welfare of animals and that reporting

of mortality rates is an insufficient indicator of welfare.

NAWAC had concerns over the limited scope of the review in terms of species covered and said that

the same animal welfare considerations must be considered for all animals exported from New

Zealand. They had concerns around the welfare of animals after they arrive at their destination,

including difficulties for the animals in adapting to different environments, management practices and

climates. They supported the export of germplasm as an alternative to live animal exports as long as

the genetics are

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A $1 million lobbying campaign to persuade the government to restart live animal exports has been launched by key players in the agriculture industry.

The previous Labour government announced a ban on live animal exports by sea in 2021, which came into effect in April 2023.

The new government intends to change course, with the coalition agreements saying it will, "reverse the recent ban on live animal exports while ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare".

But Livestock Export New Zealand (LENZ) says without a major lobbying campaign, and a PR pitch to allay public concern about animal welfare standards, the government's pledge could stall or even fail.

A LENZ strategy document says it needs $1 million to ensure the ban is reversed.

The document says LENZ will spend $366,000 on a "trust and understanding" campaign, $100,000 on media training advocates and nearly $200,000 creating a "gold standard" for animal welfare.

LENZ says it will also spend $160,000 on "political lobbying and legal fees".

The document shows LENZ is on a fundraising drive and says financial contributions ranging between $2000 and $50,000 have already been received from vets, trucking companies and farmers.

"It is vital that the industry help to fund a sustained communications programme to influence public opinion ahead of the ban being included with a reinstatement bill," it says.

'Counter-offensive' against criticism of live animal exports

The LENZ document says the group Save Animals From Exploitation (SAFE) will be a formidable opponent.

"SAFE are a well-funded organisation who led the campaign to have live exports banned and they have openly stated their intention to do everything possible to ensure the ban remains."

LENZ plans to parry the group with a "social media counter-offensive" and advocacy workshops "to train supply chain champions to be media ready".

The strategy document says the lobbying effort is essential as the issue cannot be left to MPs alone.

"The process of reversing legislation and writing the regulation that supports this and provides a framework for a high quality, new industry is a lengthy, resource heavy process that if left to politicians alone could take several years."

The strategy document sets a timeline of passing legislation to reverse the ban in April and live exports restarting in August.

In the initial phase of the lobbying effort, LENZ says it will spend $555,000 including on political lobbying, website creation, "PR assets" and a "social media counter offensive team".

SAFE CEO Debra Ashton said if LENZ felt it needed to spend $1 million making the case for live animal exports, it showed its argument was weak.

"We were really shocked at the lengths that they were prepared to go to overturn the ban," Ashton said.

"I think that if an industry or a trade needs to work that hard to try and convince people that what they're doing is okay I think they need to take a really hard look at themselves."

Animal welfare standards

LENZ chairman Mark Willis told RNZ that research the group commissioned showed the ban would cost $475m in lost GDP over the first couple of years and about $320m each year after that.

Some farmers would lose between $50,000 and $120,000 a year.

"It's a market which provides an enormous premium over the domestic market," Willis said. "Farmers were receiving something in the vicinity of close to double what those animals were valued for on the local market - so that's a really important income stream for them."

Willis said a new 'gold standard' of welfare would include minimum weight rules for livestock, reduced stocking densities and specialist stockmen and vets on vessels.

"An animal in that highly controlled environment on those boats is probably more likely to have a positive outcome than it even would in a normal, standard farming situation," he said.

"We can give New Zealanders the assurance that a new regime would be a big lift and the standards that we would be achieving would be the highest in the world."

What led to a ban

Livestock exports have been part of the primary sector since the 1860s but took off in the mid-1980s.

In 2007, New Zealand banned live export for slaughter and since 2008 livestock exports by sea have been either for breeding or milking purposes, with China the major market.

More than 5000 farmers have provided breeding cattle for export over the last decade.

The Ministry for Primary Industries initiated an independent review of live exports in 2020, after the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1, which resulted in the deaths of 41 crew and nearly 6000 cattle.

The vessel, registered to Panama and owned by a UAE shipping company, left Napier in August 2020 bound for China, but sank off the coast of Japan in a typhoon.

19 days at sea

SPCA Chief Scientific Officer Dr Arnja Dale said she was horrified at the prospect of live exports being reintroduced.

"It's very clear from the research that there is absolutely no way to achieve good animal welfare on long and complicated journeys."

She said the animals would be at sea for 19 days on a trip to China.

During that journey the animals were often fearful, anxious and in pain, facing disease, noise, motion sickness, heat stress and a buildup of urine and excrement, Dale said.

"There is actually no way to achieve any good welfare outcomes for animals that are exported by ship."

Dale said there was a global move away from live animals exports, with the UK recently passing laws to ban them and Australia committing to phasing them out.

"The shame of turning back the tide when all these other countries are going ahead with the ban - it's a national embarrassment."

Willis said the UK and Australian moves were about banning animal exports for slaughter which New Zealand had stopped years ago.

The lobbying effort here would focus on ensuring the public and MPs better understood the industry.

"We've probably been quite ineffective at telling our story and maybe the story that the public have been receiving hasn't always had balance and so we would just like the opportunity for New Zealanders to see both sides of the equation and to understand it more fully."

Progress 'with some haste'

ACT MP Andrew Hoggard, former president of Federated Farmers and now Associate Minister of Agriculture, has the responsibility of reintroducing the trade.

Hoggard told RNZ it was one of his top priorities in the portfolio and he wanted "progress with some haste".

He would seek advice from officials on how to raise welfare standards, which MPI was already working on before the ban came into effect.

New Zealand had a strong reputation on animal welfare and it was important it was not harmed by resuming the trade, he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The $1m PR and lobbying campaign to overturn livestock export ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lobbyists, PR experts and lawyers are being paid to counter criticism of animal welfare standards in live exports.