Western Railroad Discussion > Cattle by Rail

Hi all,

In Australia we still have cattle moved by rail as all our plants are located near the cities rather than in the cattle country. Any shortlines in the USA interested in looking at the work? Or any shortlines that may have done livestock in the past?

Thanks,
Corree

If I'm not mistaken, no cattle have been transported by rail since the 1980s, only hogs after that. On the other hand, I have seen an 89' flat loaded high with hay.

No money in it nowadays.
JC

Posted from Android

And, to much trouble handling the rest and watering of livestock. No facilities.

up until the mid 80s Cross Bros a meat processor here in Norht Philly would get hogs and steers in 89ft stock cars ... after Conrail stopped running TV trains on the NEC CB started bringing in already butchered meat carcasses ... the indirect route for the livestock would've added to the already high transportation costs and would be pushing the limits on the lifespan of the hogs and steers

bro-in-laws best friend is a butcher here in the Philly regional area ... he owns his own meat store ... back in the 70s and 80s he worked for a meat processsor down in South Philly and they got their meats in refer cars hanging on rails inside the refer cars and they would connect a rail from the rails inside the refer to rails inside the plant and just slide the carcasses right off the refer car into the meat plant

With advancements in refrigeration, meat processing moved closer to where the cattle was raised, and the carcasses moved to market in reefer railcars and trailers. No need to transport live cattle long distances anymore, and too much hassle over a short distance.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

While on topic, wundrin' if anybody knows when Cudahy last moved livestock in or out of L.A. Basin?

Steve Donaldson
Pacific Grove, CA

SteveD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While on topic, wundrin' if anybody knows when
> Cudahy last moved livestock in or out of L.A.
> Basin?

I seem to recall Cadahy (the name, at least) winding down in around 1969.

Posted from Android

loopy7764 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SteveD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > While on topic, wundrin' if anybody knows when
> > Cudahy last moved livestock in or out of L.A.
> > Basin?
>
> I seem to recall Cadahy (the name, at least)
> winding down in around 1969.
>
> Posted from Android

Farmer John (?) might have been the last to move significant amounts of live cattle by rail into the LA area. Just a guess, though.

The Farmer John brand, now owned by Hormel, is pork not beef. The used to bring live hogs in over the UP from Nebraska. Now, they source their live hogs closer to California and truck them in.

Their packing house, in Vernon, CA, is the only pork facility of any size on the west coast. And it's about half (or less) the size of a typical Midwestern hog slaughter facility.

Most pork consumed on the west coast is slaughtered in the Midwest and trucked cross country as killed meat. I could be a real opportunity for the railroads because of its long haul nature and the availability of return eastbound loads of produce from the coast areas.

Rabbiteer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Farmer John brand, now owned by Hormel, is
> pork not beef. The used to bring live hogs in
> over the UP from Nebraska. Now, they source their
> live hogs closer to California and truck them in.
> (snip)

Thanks for that info. For some reason, I thought they did hogs and beef in CA.

There's still a decent amount of reefer business in the beef industry, Tyson
ships mechanicals out of most of their facilities.

It's certainly not a coincidence that, as unionized slaughter houses were shut down in cities such as Sioux City, Kansas City and Chicago they were replaced by non-unionized regional slaughter houses in the rural areas, closer to where the stock is raised. Among other things, this (1.) eliminated many good paying union jobs and contributed toward the decimation of the middle class and (2.) brought occasional bad publicity and a general shrug of the shoulders from John Q. Public when the newer, non-unionized regional slaughter houses were / are occasionally raided by Homeland Security / ICE when they're caught employing cheap, exploitable illegal alien labor.

This isn't exactly one of the finest hours in American corporate business practices.

To the original poster, let's hope that your home country of Australia can choose a more responsible, constructive path.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/us/tyson-foods-indicted-in-plan-to-smuggle-illegal-workers.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2006-12-12-immigration-swift_x.htm

The "non-union" slaughter houses such as Tyson pay pretty damn good money for the services
provided by the workers. There's excellent job stability and benefits and I'd hardly classify
things as you've suggested.

Out



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/14 17:33 by callum_out.

As to the plants located in the rural areas being non-union, I think the UFCW, which represents the workers in the majority of the beef and pork plants of Tyson, JBS, Cargill, Smithfield, and National Beef, would take exception to your generalizations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/14 21:15 by ATSF90East.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's certainly not a coincidence that, as
> unionized slaughter houses were shut down in
> cities such as Sioux City, Kansas City and Chicago
> they were replaced by non-unionized regional
> slaughter houses in the rural areas, closer to
> where the stock is raised. Among other things,
> this (1.) eliminated many good paying union jobs
> and contributed toward the decimation of the
> middle class and (2.) brought occasional bad
> publicity and a general shrug of the shoulders
> from John Q. Public when the newer, non-unionized
> regional slaughter houses were / are occasionally
> raided by Homeland Security / ICE when they're
> caught employing cheap, exploitable illegal alien
> labor.
>
> This isn't exactly one of the finest hours in
> American corporate business practices.


You have some cites for this or is this all "your humble opinion"?

I think you have to keep in mind that although hauling anything by rail is usually much cheaper, it is not nearly as fast. A truck can outpace even the hottest trains on the rail. Since cattle require being watered and rested every 24 hrs, this sector naturally went to trucks. A team of two drivers can do 1000 miles or more in a day. 700 miles is truly remarkable for a train on today's best routes. So, the truck can reach more markets without resting the livestock. No railroad in the US wants to rest and water livestock these days, period. No way, no how.

In the 1970s' and 1980's trains generally went slower than today on most routes because the track was in worse shape, and truckers could go even farther in a day because the roads were a little less congested and their work hours were longer. So it is no wonder that RR's got out of the cattle business.

Getting back in is probably not on the radar, either.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have some cites for this or is this all "your
> humble opinion"?

Regarding the calculated destruction of unionized operations and the decimation of the middle class:

The new era, pioneered mainly by the Iowa Beef Processors company (IBP), is marked by the shipping of “boxed beef” instead of carcasses, dramatic changes in the geography of production and the labor force. IBP, which was founded in 1961 and purchased by Tyson Foods in 2001, is the largest red meat provider globally and has been particularly powerful in reshaping the industry and undermining the labor unions. This relocation from the industrial urban contexts that had given rise to the unions and industry-wide wage and benefit scales to 'right-to-work' states, where unionism is much weaker, also provided secure sources of cheaper, nonunionized labor. This geographic shift . . . had negative consequences for organized labor.

SOURCE: http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her171/Fitzgerald.pdf

Regarding the employment of cheap, exploitable illegal alien labor at these "new and improved" rural meat processing facilities, please see the links in my earlier post. There's also this:

<> The high turnover rate is said to actually benefit the industry, in spite of the fact that it results in less experienced workers and more accidents, because it keeps the costs of wages and benefits down.

<> In Finney County, Kansas there was a 130% increase in violent crimes within five years after two slaughterhouses opened, which can only be partly accounted for by the 33% increase in population.

<> Counties with growth in meat packing also experienced faster growth in violent crime rates over the decade relative to counties without packing plants.

SOURCE: http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her171/Fitzgerald.pdf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/14 21:40 by CA_Sou_MA_Agent.

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "non-union" slaughter houses such as Tyson pay
> pretty damn good money for the services
> provided by the workers. There's excellent job
> stability and benefits and I'd hardly classify
> things as you've suggested.

If they pay so well, why have they been caught and cited on numerous occasions employing illegal alien labor?

Taking into account the buying power of a dollar in years past, do these operations pay as well as the unionized operations that used to exist in places like Sioux City, Council Bluffs, Kansas City and Chicago?

I think we ALL know the answer to THAT one.

NYC6001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you have to keep in mind that although
> hauling anything by rail is usually much cheaper,
> it is not nearly as fast.

That especially holds true when the railroad has to re-route and run everything through a certain classification yard solely to justify the existence of that classification yard. Don't laugh. It's been done. Many times.

> A truck can outpace even the hottest trains on the rail.
> Since cattle require being watered and rested every 24 hrs,
> this sector naturally went to trucks. A team of
> two drivers can do 1000 miles or more in a day.
> 700 miles is truly remarkable for a train on
> today's best routes. So, the truck can reach more
> markets without resting the livestock.

So how do you explain how the railroads were in the livestock business into the 1970s? Could it be that, at that time, they WANTED the business and made an effort to see that it was a success?

> No railroad in the US wants to rest and water livestock
> these days, period. No way, no how.

And their indifference and disinterest is spreading like a cancer to other areas. Railroads have either a "no way" or mediocre attitude toward the following:

<> LCL
<> Freight Forwarding
<> perishables
<> branch lines
<> boxcars
<> "loose car" railroading
<> piggyback --- if the distance involved isn't "enough"


> In the 1970s' and 1980's trains generally went
> slower than today on most routes because the track
> was in worse shape . . .

But the track is in better shape now.

> and truckers could go even farther in a day because
> the roads were a little less congested and their work
> hours were longer.

But that's all changing now. Some shippers are talking to the railroads once again because the trucking industry is now so problem plagued, particularly with a shortage of drivers.

> So it is no wonder that RR's got out of the cattle
> business.

Maybe they should look at it again. The railroads walked away from the perishable business a few years ago but now there's been a renaissance with unit train operations like Railex.

> Getting back in is probably not on the radar,
> either.

It would be difficult since the slaughter houses have been decentralized. But maybe you could see the Nebraska - California Farmer John operation re-born or that one where Conrail was shipping livestock to New Jersey.