A case against the export of live animals

The sinking of a live cattle export ship has brought the live export debate to the fore and transformed one farmer from exporter to critic.

A first-time exporter of live animals said it will never sell its animals offshore again after the Gulf Livestock 1 sinks.

Taranaki farmer Brett Sanger said he does not know if his animals were some of the nearly 6,000 on the ship, or if they are still in detention facilities in New Zealand.

“Once they leave the farm records, they are no longer yours … you don’t know anything about them from that moment on.”

READ MORE:
* MPI launches independent review of livestock shipments after Gulf Livestock 1 tragedy
* Gulf Livestock tragedy heightens export scrutiny live
* Why were there 6,000 head of cattle in the sea?
* Live Cattle Exports Increase Despite Continued Calls to Stop Trade
* Vessel with poor animal welfare record due to Napier for livestock export

Sanger normally has a few surplus stocks each year and this year his stock broker suggested exporting as an option.

“I had always found buyers from New Zealand up to that point. I never felt 100% comfortable with it [live export]. But it was what it was, the money was absolutely excellent, I can’t deny it. “

He said the difference in what he got per cow is probably double. It only exported a few cattle, but overall, the live animal export industry generates more than $ 250 million a year, with racehorses responsible for most of it.

Since 2015, nearly 200,000 head of cattle have been shipped to countries such as Mexico, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. The majority, 94 percent, go to China. In 2020, 39,725 cattle have been exported so far, all to China. All of these are for dairy or breeding. The export of livestock for slaughter is not allowed.

When he heard the news that the ship had probably sunk, he felt terrible.

“I have feelings for my cattle and all the animals. I wouldn’t be cultivating otherwise. Absolutely terrible, of all things to sink, a cattle ship. “

The news led him to watch exports live in general.

“You start to see some pretty gruesome footage of what happened on other ships and on reflection you think, do I really want to do this?”

There are rules about the conditions on board live export ships. These include space per animal, water, and medications if necessary. Veterinarians travel with livestock and travel reports on the number of livestock that die on each trip are published by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI). Not counting the Gulf of cattle 1, 70 head of cattle died aboard ships in 2019 and 2020.

Since April 2019, a post-arrival report has also been requested 30 days after arrival and 39 deaths have been recorded.

Sanger has two main concerns.

“We have welfare standards in New Zealand that are probably the highest in the world, or probably the highest in the world, and we are sending them to another country that has practically none.”

Once an animal reaches its destination, New Zealand no longer has jurisdiction over it.

China has lower animal welfare standards than New Zealand. There are no laws at the national level that prohibit abuse. Once the cows are no longer used for breeding, Chinese law encourages, but does not require, stunning before slaughter.

His other concern is business.

“China is not buying these animals to make us rich. They’re doing it to become more self-reliant … it could be a short-term gain for long-term pain. “

He is surprised by the amount of cattle exported, which is higher than he thought.

“I think some 40-odd thousand have already left and another 26,000 are left in the system. You think, damn it, where did they all come from?”

The value of New Zealand’s livestock exports in 2018 was $ 49.9 million. In the same time period, dairy exports were $ 16.7 billion. New Zealand cattle can only be purchased for dairy and breeding, not for slaughter.

Apart from New Zealand, there are other countries that export livestock. The European Union and Brazil export livestock to the Middle East, and Canada and Mexico export to the United States. Australia is China’s top supplier and also exports to Indonesia and Vietnam, with an export revenue of around $ 1.6 billion.

The industry has told MPI that around 5,000 farmers have sold livestock for export in the last 10 years, and those farms average more than 40 animals each, representing a “Small but useful income generator for rural communities”.

The comments

The export of live cattle has been temporarily suspended until an independent review is completed. Around 26,000 head of cattle are estimated to be in quarantine, currently pending shipment.

“At the heart of our decision to temporarily suspend livestock exports is a commitment to help ensure that people and animals on livestock export vessels are safe,” said MPI CEO Ray Smith.

The review, led by Mike Heron, is expected to take about a month to complete. You will review the guarantees that MPI receives when considering whether to approve or reject export certificates. Their focus appears to be a verification of MPI processes.

SAFE Campaigns Manager Marianne Macdonald says this review won’t make a difference for animals heading to countries with lower animal welfare standards. The animal welfare advocacy group wants exports of live animals to be banned.

“This seems to be MPI’s answer to everything,” Macdonald said. “We are still awaiting the review that was announced last year.”

The review of livestock exports that Macdonald is referring to was launched in June 2019 and is not finished. SAFE calls for it to be published before the election.

It looks at several different options around exporting live, including a conditional ban according to Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor, who spoke about New Zealand’s international reputation when he announced it.

“The continued export of cattle can be a risk for the New Zealand brand. The time has come to rethink this area and consider whether it is something that fits with our values ​​as a country.

“When the animals leave New Zealand, we establish conditions that veterinarians consider world class. But there have been incidents in recent years that highlight the fact that once animals leave New Zealand, we have a very limited ability to ensure their well-being when they reach their destination.

“That is something that is not acceptable to me and I know it is not acceptable to a large number of New Zealanders.”

Options discussed include:

• Total ban on live meat exports

• A conditional prohibition when the approval of the Director General is required

• New regulations that may include independent monitoring or an exporter registration scheme

• Continuous improvements to current rules

More than 3,500 submissions were received.

The delay in the next steps has been attributed to the timing of the decisions in the Covid-19 recovery, according to the MPI website:

“Final decisions will consider the impact of Covid-19 on primary industries and its potential to help lead New Zealand’s economic recovery, along with the objective of the review.”

Federated Farmers National President Andrew Hoggard expects Mike Heron’s review to go through quickly.

“We have said if there are lessons to be learned from a maritime safety point of view from this latest tragedy for all ships at sea, for example in regards to maintaining the ship’s engine or sailing into a typhoon, yes in fact this is what sustains the Gulf Livestock 1 going down, so let’s pay attention to them. “

He said live export farmers need certainty about when the suspension on live exports is likely to be lifted.

The organization views live export as a useful and viable business option that it said has been worth more than $ 69 million to New Zealand so far this year.

“New Zealand can respond to help countries restock after an adverse event and Federated Farmers supports the continued ability of our agricultural sector to assist with the provision of broodstock in a global context. Any ban on the export of livestock would not address or it would contribute to no improvement in the welfare of animals exported globally. It is likely that this trade will simply be replaced by exports from other countries, where we would have no control or interest in the future. “

He said the members had contacted.

“We have received a wide range of comments from our members, but most of them feel it is worth keeping the exchange as an option.”

The posture of a farmer

Sanger does not describe himself as an activist and said that it is not like him to speak to the media. You are considering informing your broker that you will not be selling for export live again and have expressed your concern to Federated Farmers.

He thinks that part of his acceptance, and possibly that of other farmers, of live export may have stemmed from when Fonterra had dairy operations in China.

“I guess a lot of people thought that if Fonterra was involved they would do things right and they wouldn’t want to have a bad image.”

You have been busy working on ideas on how to deal with surplus stocks in the future.

“It could possibly cost me a bit, but there are other options; you can spend them longer and different markets open at different times.

“I saw someone the other day saying, ‘We are sending our cows, but would you send your pets? Would you send your horse? Your dog? What’s the difference?’