-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 4:57 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Foreign Road Stock Cars





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@...
<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com>
Publishers of books on railroad history