--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:
Which brings up a couple of points:
The prevention of disease would be of much greater concern to someone shipping spring calves to the Midwest for "finishing" than to someone shipping stock to slaughter, where the stock likely had less than a week to live.
This makes the argument for reloading stock into the same cars after a rest. Much less likely to contract any disease from their own dirty bedding than from bedding that came in under a load of somebody else's animals. If the shipper had the right to refuse a dirty car, but also had to pay for bedding, don't you think that if cars were changed, the shipper's representative would want clean bedding, but at the railroad's expense, since the switch was for the railroad's convenience?