> Umm.. There was never single point of failure. Just single point of delay. It's not as if there are perishable goods on those ships.

What do you think they use reefer containers for? Container vessels often have loads of perishable goods on them. Though it's often biased one-way. E.g. Latin America to Europe? Loads and loads of bananas. Norway to anywhere? Salmon!

The bananas are green when plucked; they ripen during the voyage.

There are lots of livestock on ships in the queue, something on the order of 100,000 animals will literally perish.

If this is so, my guess is that there will be a lot of well fed fish on both sides of the Suez Canal.

Would they not just be able to transport more feed? (At least for most)

"The nearby ports of Said and Suez could be used to reload fodder if supplies run low, though the process may not be straightforward with so many ships in the queue."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/26/at-least...

Lots of goods shipped are effectively perishable, in that you may as well write them off and dump them somewhere if the shipment misses a particular sales season.

If that was true for the Evergreen ship, wouldn't they have dismantled the ship by now then? Not saying you're wrong overall, maybe it just doesn't apply to this particular shipment. As far as I know, we don't know exactly what is on the Ever Given.

> If that was true for the Evergreen ship, wouldn't they have dismantled the ship by now then?

The vessel is completely filled with containers. To discharge a container you need a crane. Further, some perishable things, that's why shippers have insurance.

Not sure what you mean with 'dismantle' though. It's rather obvious you never seen such a vessel up close. It's nor like a pc. If you want a specific container, it can often be a complete hassle to get to it. This as loads of other containers are stacked on top.

Even if it was empty and in a suitable dock, dismantling a ship that size would take weeks at minimum.

Except the sheep