As in agriculture or farm industry we do need water as one resources to feed our cattle. The need of clean water causing you to spend extra money to have it, so my advice is open cattle nearby the water source, it help you safe some money for water consumption. What are lupus symptoms? There are lupus symptoms in women and men.

Having clean or sterilize water will increase the percentage quality of your product. You might be interested what are the criteria of clean water, find it below:

1. Physical Conditions
Physical requirements for clean water is clear (colorless), no taste, temperature below the outside air temperature so that in everyday life. Recognizing water that meets the physical requirements is not difficult as explained above.

2. Bacteriological Terms
For drinking purposes, water must be free from all bacteria, especially pathogenic bacteria. How to know whether drinking water contaminated by pathogenic bacteria is to examine a sample (example) water. And if the examination 100 cc of water contained less than 4 bacteria E. coli then water has met health requirements. With less bacteria on the water, will avoid disease on your cattle.

3. Chemical Terms
Contain certain substances in certain quantities, too. One deficiency or excess chemicals in water will cause physiological disorders in humans (although we couldn’t found related articles on the impact in animal, but if its good for human, it was assumed perfect for animals). In accordance with the principles of appropriate technology in rural areas, the drinking water comes from springs and wells in water is acceptable as a healthy and meet the three requirements mentioned above provided that is not polluted by the dirt, especially human and animal feces. Hence springs or wells in rural areas should receive supervision and protection so as not polluted by people who use the water.

In order to safe some costs, having cattle nearby water resources is consider wise. Find well water from spring or fountain water is recommended, instead of its cheaper, most of it, the quality of the water are outstanding, free from bacteria and other harm chemical.

Climate are now hard to be predicted, because of global warming, the most obvious example is storms. We know that storms attacks are reported increased every year. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), each increase in air temperature of 2 degrees Celsius will reduce agricultural production of China and Bangladesh is 30 percent in 2050. With those data an average temperature rise from 0.10 to 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. Best girls in Dubai, find our Dubai Escort

The increase in world temperatures will bring tremendous impact follow-up, which none of the joints of human life and living beings be free from it. Food production declines, fluctuations and distribution of water availability is interrupted, pests and plant diseases and man crazy. Climate change ultimately threatens the sustainability of life.

The most worrisome aspect is the fragility of the food, the impact is we become dependent on food imports. Farmers must be convinced that farming practices need to be changed. With the varieties, how to plant, and certain irrigation system, farmers can reduce emissions of one GHG, methane (CH4), from farm fields.

The best varieties could be get if you got knowledge in water controlling. We do know that water consumption ruling the result of your farm varieties products. Using proper technologies on controlling the irrigation system on your farm is the key on it. For those purposes getting the correct pumps for irrigation process is necessary. Pumps and dispensing system such as graco pumps and efd dispenser with the best water syringe will help you on reducing the production cost.

Lets used technology to push forward your income / production, the investment on buying certain machine might be expensive, but rather then being sitting duck and struck by global warming effect that might cause more lost, then the investment are nothing compare then your production in the future.

BGH: Turning Cows Into Biotech Milk Machines
Milk and dairy products produced in the United States – unless otherwise labeled – may come from cows routinely injected with a genetically engineered hormone called recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH).
This is the story of BGH – its effect on cows, consumers, and farmers, as well as the efforts of agribusiness drug companies to get genetically engineered hormones into our nation’s dairy cows.
Logic Pro 9 + Updates Till 9.1.3 MacOSX

What is BGH?Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), also known as Bovine Somatotropin (BST), works by interfering with a cow’s natural physiology. Lactation is artificially manipulated through hormone injections. Monsanto, the hormone’s manufacturer, claims that BGH use results in an increase of up to 30 percent in milk production. BGH is produced by extracting growth hormones from cows, using sophisticated gene-splicing techniques to create synthetic hormones. These hormones are then injected into dairy cows on a regular basis. Monsanto claims that BGH merely “enhances” a natural process. Cows do, of course, produce hormones as part of their natural bio-chemical systems. But those natural hormones are produced in the proportion needed to meet the cow’s complex physiological needs. BGH manipulates these natural systems and artificially induces the cow to produce more milk than is appropriate for her body.

Pharmaceutical companies have spent millions of dollars developing genetically engineered hormones. Now that BGH has become an integral part of dairy farming, these drug companies are reaping even greater profits. BGH also stimulates drug company profits by increasing the sale of other pharmaceuticals. As BGH forces cows to produce more milk than is healthy for their bodies, the cows become more susceptible to infection and disease. This, in turn, creates additional needs for antibiotics and other drugs, which these companies are all too happy to provide.

FDA Suppresses Information
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Monsanto’s BGH – commercial name “Posilac” – in November 1993, supposedly after an extensive review of the product’s safety and efficacy. However, dozens of scientific studies conducted before and after the drug’s approval suggest the existence of several serious animal and human health concerns.
The controversy surrounding BGH has renewed public concern about the integrity of the FDA. The very agency that should be protecting the nation’s food supply has actively worked with drug companies to suppress information about BGH that would put the hormone in a negative light. The FDA violated its own internal policies in helping the pharmaceutical industry reap the profits of genetic engineering.
Dr. Richard Burroughs was a staff veterinarian and senior scientist at the FDA overseeing the analysis of industry-sponsored tests on BGH. He raised a number of questions about the safety of BGH and about the approval process his agency was using. Dr. Burroughs reported that:
· Cows treated with BGH have higher than normal levels of reproductive problems.
· Their udders show an increased tendency to become infected.
· The FDA did not assign reviewers with the expertise needed to evaluate the data.
· Adequate human health studies of the effects of BGH had not been conducted.
Ultimately, Dr. Burroughs was fired. “I was told that I was slowing down the approval process. It used to be that we had a review process at the FDA. Now we have an approval process. I don’t think the FDA is doing good, honest reviews. They’ve become an extension of the drug industry.”
The firing of Dr. Burroughs sent a powerful message to others working within the FDA who might have raised similar concerns.
Criticism of BGH has not abated since approval of the drug. Consumer and animal protection advocates filed legal petitions with the FDA in 1998 and 1999 seeking removal of genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone from the market. The agency denied both requests.
In March 2000, the Center for Food Safety led a coalition of over 50 scientific, consumer, environmental, and farm organizations in filing a legal petition with the FDA demanding the development of a thorough pre-market testing regime for genetically engineered foods, as well as mandatory labeling of all genetically engineered food products.
BGH-Milk: It Does No Body Good
BGH-milk contains higher levels of a human growth promotant knows as Insulin-like Growth Factor One, or IGF-1. This hormone, which is identical in cows and people, is a suspected carcinogen. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, internationally renowned toxicologist, warns, “all women from conception to death will now be exposed to an additional breast cancer risk due to milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone.”
Cancer is but one potential risk of consuming BGH-induced milk. Other risks result from the health problems that artificial BGH causes in cows.

The FDA admits that BGH injections increase sickness and drug use in dairy cows. Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, reports that “because of increased udder infections, it is more likely that milk from treated cows will be of lower quality – containing more pus and bacteria – than milk from untreated cows.”
Because hormone-treated cows are pushed to the limits of endurance, their immune systems are weakened. Producers respond by administering more antibiotics and other drugs to keep the over-stressed animals alive.
Milk from BGH-injected cows is more likely to contain dangerous residues of the more than 80 different drugs, many of them antibiotics, used to treat sick cows. From infancy to adulthood, people are dosed with antibiotic residues that contaminate baby formula, milk, cheese, and other dairy products.
The FDA and the dairy industry claim that they test raw milk for drug contamination. But this testing is wholly inadequate. They only look for a few of the scores of drugs actually administered to dairy cows.
Furthermore, the FDA allows drug-contaminated milk to be sold as long as the residues are at a “safe” level. These so-called “safe” levels have been shown to cause increases in drug resistant strains of virulent diseases.
This alarms medical experts, such as Dr. Stuart Levy of Tufts University. Dr. Levy warns of the growing human health crisis posed by “antibiotic resistance.” As disease organisms are exposed to the antibiotics used on dairy cows and other farm animals, they become increasingly resistant to drug treatment. Although exact numbers are not known, over ten thousand people probably die in the U.S. each year due to antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. And the number of deaths is rising annually.

The FDA has been notoriously lax in dealing with the misuse of antibiotics and other drugs in the dairy industry. It is estimated that there are more than 80 different drugs currently used by milk producers. Several of these drugs are passed on to people through milk, as well as through meat from slaughtered dairy cows and calves.
Many people have had debilitating allergic reactions to these antibiotics. In addition, one of the drugs routinely found in milk is sulfamethazine. Promoted by the drug industry as “safe and effective,” sulfamethazine is now known to be carcinogenic.
Animal Suffering
Though little has been done to measure BGH’s effects upon human health, pharmaceutical companies have sponsored tests to measure the impact of hormone injections on cows. Even these tests – clearly biased in favor of BGH – indicate the dangers of its use.
Routine injection of BGH into a cow increases her level of stress. A cow may not metabolize food quickly enough to compensate for the extra milk the hormone forces her to produce. This can throw her into what can be termed low-level shock. The cow remains in this condition for as long as the hormone is administered.
Cows injected with BGH may not be allowed to graze in pastures. Instead, they are confined in small areas where their diet and movement can be tightly controlled. Rather than grazing on grass, BGH-treated cows must consume a highly-concentrated diet to keep up with increased production. This, in turn, can lead to higher rates of metabolic disease. Industry tests also indicate that BGH may cause enlargement of internal organs, declines in the rate of pregnancy, increased intolerance to heat, and a dramatic increase in the amount of blood pumped through the animal’s heart.

Through reproductive technologies, the quantities of milk produced by cows have already increased dramatically. In extreme cases, cows must wear bra-like harnesses to support their engorged udders.
As a cow is made to produce greater quantities of milk, she is increasingly prone to mastitis – a painful infection of the udder. Tests have shown a 25 percent increase in the incidence of mastitis in cows receiving BGH injections. And mastitis has been associated with lameness, which research shows may increase as much as 50 percent with BGH use.
In 1930 the average cow produced 12 pounds of milk a day. By 1988 the average had risen to 39 pounds. If BGH increases production by 30 percent, that volume rises to 51 pounds a day per cow. This leads to a corresponding increase in veterinary problems associated with intensive milk production.
Bad Medicine
HFA has warned for years that the use of synthetic BGH would harm cows. This, of course, was vehemently denied by BGH manufacturers. Now, HFA has been proved correct.
Below are excerpts from the official government warning that by law must accompany Monsanto’s BGH: “Use of [BGH] is associated with increased frequency of use of medication in cows… Use of [BGH] in cows in which injection site swellings repeatedly open and drain should be discontinued. The number of cows affected with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase…Use of [BGH] has been associated with increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus…Cows may have…increased twinning rates. Also, the incidence of retained placenta may be higher…Cows injected with [BGH] had increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (e.g. lacerations, enlargements, calluses) of the knee (carpal region), and…disorders of the foot region.”

The government’s product warning for BGH has proven valid. In the first 4 years after its introduction, the FDA received nearly 2,000 reports from dairy farmers of adverse experiences with Posilac. (Each report may represent multiple problems and multiple animals affected.) The clinical manifestations cited in the reports include reproductive problems, mastitis, injection site reactions, udder abnormalities, digestive disorders, foot or leg problems, cardiovascular disorders, and death.
Canada and Europe Just Say No
Since approval of the drug in 1994, the U.S. has exerted pressure on Canada, Mexico, and other trading partners to sanction use of BGH in order to increase pressure on Europe through the World Trade Organization to accept BGH products.
Following approval of the drug in the U.S., Canada’s Health Protection Branch reviewed the data upon which the FDA’s decision was based and came to a starkly different conclusion. Concerned that the FDA had ignored or overlooked evidence showing adverse reactions in animal studies to BGH, Canada in 1999 rejected approval of the hormone.
Shiv Chopra, one of the Canadian scientists studying the drug, criticized the FDA for not calling for more studies, “instead of subjecting the public to unknown risks without their knowledge and consent.” He says, “The FDA may think this is an insignificant risk for the public, but they don’t know because they haven’t tested it fully.”
The European Union (EU) also commissioned two independent committees of internationally recognized experts to review the scientific literature related to the animal and human public health effects of BGH use. The committees reached the same conclusion as the Canadian health service and recommended a moratorium on use of the hormone, which was adopted by the EU.
Dairy Politics
The most persistent economic problem faced by the dairy industry today is overproduction. Every year farmers are driven out of business because milk production far outreaches demand. The increase in milk production attributed to BGH is having devastating consequences.
Studies at the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment and Cornell University predicted widespread use of BGH would drive as many as 30 percent of American dairy farmers out of business. And, in fact, between 1991 and 2001, the number of dairy operations in the U.S. declined by more than 40 percent. Those on the losing end are primarily small-scale family dairy farms. These are farms which are much more inclined than corporate agribusiness to use humane, sustainable, and environmentally-sound farming practices.
The problem of overproduction is so great that in 1985 the government paid over 14,000 dairy farmers to kill their cows and get out of the dairy business. Under this misguided program, 1.6 million cows were either slaughtered or exported for the purpose of reducing milk surpluses.
Overproduction results in economic loss for both farmers and taxpayers. This is because milk prices are artificially propped up by the government. The government sets a minimum price and then agrees to buy all of the milk products that cannot be sold.
BGH benefits only large-scale dairy factories that, with BGH increasing their yields, can gain an advantage over other farms. But that advantage is usually only temporary. In order to compete, other dairies in the area are forced to adopt the same technology. In short, BGH triggers a pharmaceutical arms race, requiring milk producers to use more and more hormones, antibiotics, and other drugs.
Many dairy farmers know that administering BGH will actually harm cows and make their work harder. However, some feel virtually forced to use it. According to Vermont dairy farmer Robert Baird, “None of us are excited about pushing our cows any harder. But if we’re forced to, we will use BGH to stay in business.”
Despite opposition from many farmers, some dairy industry organizations are promoting BGH. As of 2000, BGH was being injected into about 30 percent of U.S. dairy cows.
Boycott Hormone-Milk
Prior to its approval, the National Dairy Board, which is closely aligned with corporate agribusiness, conducted a survey regarding consumer reaction to the introduction of BGH in milk. Not surprisingly, consumers expressed alarm at the idea of genetically engineered hormones ending up in their children’s milk.
The Dairy Board set out to counteract this negative response. In 1990 it paid more than $1 million to a public relations firm to boost BGH’s image – even though most dairy farmers opposed BGH and would be harmed by its use.
Although the uproar over BGH quieted some after its introduction, the public remains opposed to its use. A 1996 University of Wisconsin study found that 74 percent of Americans considered the recombinant hormone a hazard, and 94 percent supported mandatory labeling.
The FDA, however, refuses to require that milk and dairy products from BGH-injected cows be labeled, instead leaving it to the states to decide whether to regulate labeling. The FDA’s refusal to label BGH-induced milk undermines the public’s right to know how food is produced and how farm animals are treated.
The economic and political forces behind BGH have even worked to prevent the labeling of milk that is free of synthetic hormones. Monsanto has gone so far as to sue dairies that label their milk as being free of the artificial hormone. In addition, 4 states – Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, and Oklahoma – banned BGH-free labeling.
A group of dairy companies, led by Ben & Jerry’s ice cream sued Illinois and the city of Chicago in May 1996 over the ban on labeling. In August 1997 Illinois agreed to settle the lawsuit and allow labeling after Ben & Jerry’s agreed to modify the “BGH-free” wording on its labels. The compromise language reads: “We oppose recombinant bovine growth hormone. The family farmers who supply our milk pledge not to treat their cows” with the hormone.
Cows Can’t Say No – But We Can
Four multi-national drug companies have invested more than half a billion dollars in the development and promotion of BGH. The battle over the use and labeling of this hormone has significance for all areas of animal agriculture.
As BGH gains acceptance, it paves the way for the use of genetically engineered growth stimulants for pigs, sheep, and other farm animals. BGH itself has already been used in experiments to produce larger, faster growing chickens.

Approximately half of the country’s dairy cows suffer from mastitis, a bacterial infection of their udders. This is such a common and costly ailment that a dairy industry group, the National Mastitis Council, was formed specifically to combat the disease. Other diseases, such as Bovine Leukemia Virus, Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus, and Johne’s disease (whose human counterpart is Crohn’s disease) are also rampant on modern dairies, but they commonly go unnoticed because they are either difficult to detect or have a long incubation period. A cow eating a normal grass diet could not produce milk at the abnormal levels expected on modern dairies, and so today’s dairy cows must be given high energy feeds. The unnaturally rich diet causes metabolic disorders including ketosis, which can be fatal, and laminitis, which causes lameness.
Another dairy industry disease caused by intensive milk production is “Milk Fever.” This ailment is caused by calcium deficiency, and it occurs when milk secretion depletes calcium faster than it can be replenished in the blood.
In a healthy environment, cows would live in excess of twenty-five years, but on modern dairies, they are slaughtered and made into ground beef after just three or four years. The abuse wreaked upon the bodies of dairy cows is so intense that the dairy industry also is a huge source of “downed animals” — animals who are so sick or injured that they are unable to walk even stand. Investigators have documented downed animals routinely being beaten, dragged, or pushed with bulldozers in attempts to move them to slaughter.
Although the dairy industry is familiar with the cows’ health problems and suffering associated with intensive milk production, it continues to subject cows to even worse abuses in the name of increased profit. Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), a synthetic hormone, is now being injected into cows to get them to produce even more milk. Besides adversely affecting the cows’ health, BGH also increases birth defects in their calves.
Calves born to dairy cows are separated from their mothers immediately after birth. The half that are born female are raised to replace older dairy cows in the milking herd. The other half of the calves are male, and because they will never produce milk, they are raised and slaughtered for meat. Most are killed for beef, with close to one million being used for veal.
The veal industry was created as a by-product of the dairy industry to take advantage of an abundant supply of unwanted male calves. Veal calves commonly live for eighteen to twenty weeks in wooden crates that are so small that they cannot turn around, stretch their legs, or even lie down comfortably. The calves are fed a liquid milk substitute, deficient in iron and fiber, which is designed to make the animals anemic, resulting in the light-colored flesh that is prized as veal. In addition to this high-priced veal, some calves are killed at just a few days old to be sold as low-grade ‘bob’ veal for products like frozen TV dinners.

Dairy Production in Florida

Dairy farming is one of Florida’s biggest animal industries, second only to the beef cattle industry in dollar value. For decades, the number of dairy farms in Florida has been in decline, while the size of herds on individual farms has increased dramatically. Today, most dairy farms in Florida have between 500 and 1000 cows, and several huge mega-dairies have over 3000 cows!
The lives of dairy cows are a bleak cycle of pregnancy, birth and milking to provide one thing—milk for human consumption.
The heat and humidity of Florida’s climate makes life difficult for dairy cows. Florida’s hot and wet conditions also increase health problems such as mastitis, a common but serious bacterial infection of the mammary gland.
In an attempt to fight the heat, and to better control waste, farms confine cows in warehouse-sized buildings that have giant fans running 24 hours a day. But confining cows creates other problems. As a result of standing on concrete, and from lack of exercise, dairy cows commonly suffer from painful feet or leg injuries. Lameness is one of the most frequent reasons that dairy farmers kill cows.
The Short, Sad Life of a Dairy Cow
Like other mammals, cows have to give birth in order to produce milk. Immediately after giving birth, the dairy cow’s calf is forcibly taken from her and fed artificially.
Male calves are of little value to the dairy industry, so dairy farmers sell them to the notoriously cruel veal industry (there would be no veal without the dairy industry!), or just abandon them at the farm. In 2000, workers at a dairy farm in Okeechobee were caught on film dumping day-old calves in a pit, and shooting them with a pistol.

Young female calves are moved into tiny, individual pens where they spend the first weeks of their lives, cut off almost completely from contact with other cows. A strip of fabric serves as shade. Farmers claim that they must isolate calves to protect them from infectious disease, noxious ammonia and other threats to young animals that are common in modern dairy farms.
Before a calf leaves the pen, she will be dehorned, a painful and stressful mutilation, usually conducted without anesthesia (farmers explain that dehorning reduces injuries in the crowded dairy). Before the calf turns two, she will be artificially inseminated and begin her “productive life.” Cows are milked twice, even three times per day, and are pushed to produce as much as 20,000 lbs of milk per year!
After a few short years, a cow’s milk production declines and she is sold for slaughter. Cows are also killed if they have difficulty getting pregnant, or due to chronic mastitis or lameness, anything that makes her no longer profitable. A cow’s natural lifespan is 25 years or more.
The Environment

The amount of wastewater and manure produced on dairy farms is astounding, and inevitably pollutes rivers, lakes and groundwater.
On dairy farms, enormous quantities of water are used to clean the animals and milking equipment, in operating sprinklers to cool animals, and in flushing manure out of barns—in addition to the water cow’s drink. A study by the University of Florida estimated that 100 cows can produce over 100,000 gallons of wastewater each week!
(photo: at a farm visited by ARFF, wastewater is pumped into a huge lagoon.)
It is not surprising that dairies are one of Florida’s most significant sources of water pollution. (The ammonia and other gases from manure can also contribute to air pollution.)
Strong Bones?
Our bodies need the mineral calcium to build and maintain bones and teeth. But cow’s milk is not the best or a necessary source. Plant foods can provide all the calcium and other nutrients we need. The most healthful calcium sources are fortified orange juice or non-dairy milks, beans, instant oatmeal, broccoli, and green leafy vegetables such as collards or kale.
Cow’s milk is high in calories, fat and cholesterol, and frequently contains antibiotics, hormones and other drug residues. Millions of Americans are dairy (lactose) intolerant.
Beyond Dairy.
The only beings suited to consume cow’s milk are infant cows.
ARFF recommends that people wishing to reduce animal suffering minimize or, better yet, eliminate animal products from their diet. Contact ARFF for ideas on how to make the change to a healthier, animal-free lifestyle.
ARFF investigation reveals animal neglect, unsafe conditions at UF dairy farm
In November 2006, ARFF was contacted by a former employee of the University of Florida’s Dairy Research Unit near Gainesville who reported serious problems at the facility. An ARFF volunteer visited the facility to investigate and confirmed several of the allegations of mismanagement and neglect.

The allegations included: (1) cows becoming sick after eating screws and wire left behind by maintenance crews, plastic gloves used in breeding and other improperly disposed garbage; (2) cows suffering broken bones or other life-ending injuries after slipping on poorly maintained surfaces; (3) an injured or sick cow improperly euthanized by several gunshots to the head; (4) cows not treated at first sign of illness or injury, especially when the illness did not immediately affect milk production; (5) animal cruelty. ARFF learned of an incident in which an employee at the facility whipped an uncooperative cow with his belt.
ARFF filed a complaint with the University of Florida urging them to investigate. The university responded and admitted that problems do exist. Hopefully, ARFF’s complaint and an article that followed in a local newspaper will lead to improvements at the dairy farm.
Although the allegations and the conditions ARFF documented at the farm were shocking, they are not uncommon in Florida dairy farms. Even the best dairy farm can’t avoid abuses that are inherent to the industry, such as female calves forcibly taken from their mothers shortly after birth, and males calves cruelly disposed of. After a few short years, when a cow’s milk production declines, all dairy cows are sold for slaughter.
The best way to help end the suffering of cows in the dairy industry is to eliminate dairy and all animal products from your diet.
The former university employee told ARFF that she had worked at the facility for two years, and in that time she watched cows that she had fallen in love with deteriorate before her eyes. Because of her experience, she has stopped drinking millk.
1431 N. Federal Highway • Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 • (954) 727-ARFF

A New Industry is Born
On his second voyage to the New World in 1493, Columbus introduced cattle to the Western Hemisphere. After a two-month, 3400-mile voyage, he set anchor at Hispaniola and unloaded his cattle. There the cattle thrived. In 1519, Hernando Cortez took offspring of these cattle to Mexico to set up ranches. Often the cattle roamed wild and later came to the United States by way of Texas and California.
Early American cattle originated in Europe but came to the Americas by many routes: Texas, Florida, California, Virginia and New England. By the time cattle reached Texas and California from Mexico in the 1500s, a cattle industry was emerging in Florida. Weighing 600 to 800 pounds these cattle known as woods cattle, Florida Crackers or Florida Scrubs, flourished and are still around today.
In 1607, cattle arrived at Jamestown, but none survived. More came in 1611, at which time Governor Thomas Dale issued a proclamation: “No man shall dare kill any bull, cow, calf… whether his own or appertaining to another man.” Thanks to this conservation and further imports, cattle became established in Virginia: an estimated 500 head by 1620 and 30,000 by 1639.
At the same time, animals from England northern Europe began arriving in New England and appeared in New York in 1625. On Manhattan Island, a wall was built between the Dutch commune and their outlying farms to protect against wild animals and Indians. This is the wall for which today’s Wall Street is named.
Expanding Horizons
By the 1890s there was a new range. Great herds of buffalo were gone; Indians were relegated to reservations; barbed wire had carved out farms; and a growing network of rails replaced trail drives. Cattle were now business owned by small as well as large producers. A new century was approaching and the world would change dramatically for the cattlemen.
The cattle industry of 1898 was not only regional, focused almost entirely in the West, but also differed substantially from today’s industry especially in how cattle were readied for and delivered to market.
The industry was organized to produce steers four or five years old which were shipped by train from local loading stations along the ever-growing network of rail lines to central markets as grass fat steers from July to November.
Stockyards provided the accumulation points for cattle coming in on the rail cars. Cattle were not fed as in today’s definitions, but rather sorted and distributed out to packers. There were no feeder or stocker cattle, and heifers were never slaughtered. What feeding there was in the Corn Belt was because midwestern farmers kept cattle to use up excess corn. But this was usually a sideline to their corn and hog economy.
Packers, too, had to be concentrated at the rail centers. They killed all kinds of livestock. Their customers were small butcher shops, which needed an assortment of product. The refrigerator cars were loaded with beef quarters hanging from the ceiling. The floor of the car had boxes of ham, bacon and lamb carcasses wrapped in cheese cloth and veal calf carcasses with the hide still on. Freight rates seemed high, but it was a one-way haul to the eastern markets. There was no back haul; stock cars had to go west empty.
Through out the history of the industry cattlemen have worried about the size and ethics of railroad, packers and eventually about buyers, feeders and any other group who seems to be operating outside of their control. At that time it was difficult for a rancher to realize that once the animal was slaughtered it became a very perishable product. It had to be moved into consumption no matter what the conditions, or lost entirely.