Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Dennis S. wrote:
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?As several writers on livestock traffic have mentioned, and as the AAR Livestock Waybill identifies, either the shipper or the carrier could provide the bedding (shippers were charged if the railroad supplied it), and either the carrier or the shipper could arrange to place the bedding in the car. Remember, the shipper had the right to refuse any unsuitable car. Of course if they were faced with a delay in getting stock to market, they might well wish to compromise, but even stock with "a week to live" could contract disease and be unsalable at destination. Writers on traffic mention this situation, and state that sick animals were often refused at slaughter houses. Whether old bedding infested with maggots and flies would be preferable for disease control to clean bedding, I don't know. Because the animal isn't sick yet, doesn't mean it's not going to be.
Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history