‘fi ‘7‘? v “\v w.— -‘ va.p 3’3 ' ‘ ,yv; d" 'xdfi/‘n’fifir :0”! ’v‘v 9,11%) 41: mi. 1%.}??? £11; ‘ ‘2- 11.4.? (‘31; ‘3‘." ’5} \‘3: 1% 92.331551 "Mt‘gfifi .354?“ ‘3‘...~ ,3 ~53. M "WQM-gfck - . Q ( “1': 1” I 1.1, - '1 I _ I]. 7 ‘ f.i{" "(’9' ‘ . Y1 , [If .1 ’3’}, [I’M-’1’ 12%;.3'7/1.‘ I11“. ..r ”Ian”? ”vi/1"...“ 't”'4(r./ ”'6’,” k'rji’f (iv-M“ " ’/;., 9/ ‘2‘,fo IV, "f1 "‘3”? .u') v x I . fut - . f'l”'y.' . ',11, 2M 1 . . l,’ ’..-““' 71.0"? 'i‘ -W'lh-_;4'; ’II' 1,1,1. '9 I‘m: Egg: ’ '-‘2, vs? 3.16": W? 'E‘ ‘ 9.1"}. gill #3 A \.; V €1Il€$;<’\" ‘ .ttf V‘J‘S’fx‘ mi" ”37‘: C7,} ‘12) {22" g 1‘ iii; 1 "2; ‘I’fi‘iifjfd "K?" . {3;th fag???) “ vi? 1 . 51222;}??? .- r. J};II-'..../ “2"" v "’9, '7‘." .‘V ‘ ‘s a 3‘: 2:57. . '- I. ‘17.; 2 '2‘» {f'é‘hJ'V ' .UF‘,‘~M I. .. . 03:33 ‘2 2‘“ .V': " :3; ' "-.}\§‘T'h‘,:2:-$ "‘2‘ 1- z»:- ’> M: ." A; i”; 2“ (7331;, Vail? ~‘,V 2%» s" 6-43.: .. £43,19g‘ 5' 3:; “1&1“- fff’2‘3- vaggfiz g1“ . ~> '51‘2‘311‘1‘1 ' J'bfygz’ 54°31; 329””; ”(-3 {High A; 5:13}?! I 'Iiwtw“ 1") v - 2'22. .' f} K _ 4.1:... “1‘“,{1 /1-/f{«z;, (II/[fl . r/ x 1”” 1.41.9.“ 41. 7/12/11,," I ,’ IA, -- ‘ l’ 1 . a “I. at)”: J, 'gi‘f’, .r 1% 1"] ’5: fig; {1’175'519 [”6" .{1 M1" -. , ? / 'fr’ -". a .J’ .1?)~’C;1.: -‘7,. ”3.1.3: 22:} ,‘ly'vl’ M-\Vv 11%“ «V V v.1 {EVE .‘t; “2% Rama} '55 if. \n‘. ti“; 3', i;;g,1§,:fl\_ '. ‘-‘._. . o DI‘L;W. 2; 73k”; 3 i; 4 Ali 4.0-.4 12.- .1 K',">‘“‘v h~'.\.. ""4- ‘..-_..‘.‘; If. “J‘J llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 93 10791 0295 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled ORGANIZATIONAL AND ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS OF "SMALL SCALE" BROILER PROCESSING ACTIVITIES presented by VUSUMUZ I DHLADHLA has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MS degree in Animal Science WWW, Major professor MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRAjJES remove this checkout from .—c_. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. at; ,:,1 o 2002 4 0 A ORGANIZATIONAL AND ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS OF "SMALL SCALE” BROILER PROCESSING ACTIVITIES by Vusumuzi Dhladhla AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submiteted to Michigan State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Animal Science 1988 ABSTNACT ORGANIZATIONAL AND ECONOMIC FUEDAHLSTALS 0E "SJALL SCALE" bRUILLK PROCESSING ACTIVITIES by Vusumuzi Dhladhla The investment requirement for todays typical large scale broiler processing plants are sizable, and alternatives need to be explored and economically evaluated. A combination of personal interviews, field visits and a review of relevant literature was used to gain perspectives and collect data for this study. Budgeting techniques were then used to estimate per bird processing costs. The equipment investment for the three economically plausible processing plants synthesized in this study were $17,401, $42,986 and $52,501 for the 350, 500 and 1200 bird per hour scale plants, respectively. With a $5.00 per hour total labor compensation rate, eight percent per annum interest rate and $65 per square foot building cost, the average per bird processing cost for the plants Operating at full capacity (i.e. 7.5 hours per day, 5 days a week and 50 weeks per year) was $0.270, 50.229 and $0.180 per bird for the 350, 500 and 1200 bird per hour plants, respectively. Sensitivity analyses to infer how changes in labor compensation rates, capacity utilization rates, building costs, and interest rates would impact on per bird processing costs were also conducted. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I take this opportunity to acknowledge the debts I have acquired through doing this study. First, I am grateful to my Academic Advisor, Dr Allan Rahn. He has been a major source of guidance. I am also indebted to Dr Donald Meaders and Dr Denise Smith, who served on my commitee and gave me valuable comments. I owe a lot to the United Nations Educational and Training Program for Southern Africa (UNETPSA) for funding me in my graduate studies. If through this study anything has been achieved, a substantial portion of credit should go to my wife , Monica and our son Shaka. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . v List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . vii I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the study . . . . . . . . . 9 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 11 II. REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEACH . . . . . . . 13 General Information . . . . . 13 Processing Activities . . . . . 16 Receiving Area . . . . . 16 Slaughtering and Picking Area . . . . . 18 Eviscerating and Chilling Area . . . . 21 Definition of Terms . . . . 25 III. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . 26 Field Visits . . . . . . . . . . 27 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . 28 Analysis . . . . . . . . . 28 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS . . . . . . . 29 Labor Requirement . . . . . . . . . . 35 Labor Cost . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Building Cost . . . . . . . . . 38 Intensity of Processing . . . Interest Rate . . . . . . V. SUMMARY . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . Limitation of the Study . . . . Suggestions for further Research . VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . VII. APPENDICES 39 39 47 49 49 50 51 Appendix A Annual Operating Cost of Equipment of 350, 500, and 1200 birds/hr Processing Plants. . . Appendix B Comparison of Broiler Processing Equipment for Different Sized Plants. . . Appendix C Comparison of Equipment Investment for Different Sized Plants. . . . . Appendix D Sanitation Procedures . . Appendix E Slaughter-Dressing and Exemption of Poultry. . . . . . . . . Appendix F Blueprint Checklist. . . . . Appendix G Plant Lay-out of 350, 500, and 1200 birds/hr Processing Plant. . . . iv 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Degree of Concentration of Slaughter Plants Per Capita Consumption of Poultry in the US Market Form Percent Changes Summarized Information of Typical Modern Plant Evisceration Operations Multiplication of Bacteria Calorimetry of Continuous Immersion Chilling Summary of Equipment Investment in a 350 birds/hr Processing Plant. . . . Summary of Equipment Investment in a 500 birds/hr Processing Plant. . . . . Summary of Equipment Investment in a 1200 bidrs/hr Processing Plant. . . . Labor Requirement for Processing Plants Production of Trained Laborers Summary of Labor Costs at Different Wage Rates Summary of Building Costs at Unit Costs Per Square Foot of @$45 and $65/sqft . . . Summary of Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. (Interest Rate @ 8% & 12%) Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. (Labor @ $5.00/hr.) . V PAGE \OUO‘F 20 21 22 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 17. 18. 19. 20 21. Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. (Labor @ $6.00/hr.) . . . . 41 Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. (Labor @ $4.00/hr.) . . . . . 42 Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. (Labor @ $5.00/hr. and Building @ $45.00/sq.ft.) . . . . . . . 43 Semi—Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. (Labor @ $5/hr) . . . . . . 44 Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. (Labor @ $5/hr and Interest Rate @ 12%) . . . . . . . . . . 45 22. Sensitivity Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . 47 Table A.1 Annual Operating Costs of Equipment for a 350 birds/hr Processing Plant. . . . . 52 Table A.2 Annual Operating Costs of Equipment for a 500 birds/hr Processing Plant. . . . 53 Table A.3 Annual Operating Costs of Equipment for a 1200 birds/hr Processing Plant. . . . 54 vi FIGURE l 10 ll 12 LIST OF FIGURES Top View Lay—out of a 350 birds/hr Processing Plant Plant Lay—out for a 350 birds/hr Processing Plant Plant Lay-out for a 500 birds/hr Processing Plant Plant Lay-out for a 1200 birds/hr Processing Plant Typical Pickwick Batch Poultry Plant . . . . Illustration of Ashley's Scalder and Picker Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Illustration of a Bar-Cut Procedure . . . . An Illustration on how to block Feces Escape . . An Illustration of Removal of the Cloaca . . . An Illustration of a Transverse Cut to Allow Proper Drawing . . . . . . . . . . An Illustration of the Suspension of the Large Intestine to Prevent Cloaca Refill During Drawal . . . . . . . . . . . An Illustration of Gizzard Removal . . . . . vii 97 77 76 INTRODUCTION The broiler industry in the US has experienced extensive vertical and horizontal integration. A typical unit-—usually referred to as complex-—consists of a hatchery, feed mill, processing plant, field service and management staff, and contractees that provide hatching egg production and broiler growout services. Vertical integration started to emerge as an important organizational feature of the broiler industry during the 1950's, and now is the predominate firm structure. Not all firms are fully integrated, but most have combined two or more of the major functions or production stages (Rogers,1980). In this study attention will be focused solely on the broiler processing plant stage. Important evolutionary developments have taken place in broiler processing. Broiler processing has gradually changed from a large number of small plants scattered across the country to a highly integrated industry. The number of small processing plants is declining while that of larger plants is increasing (Table 1). Processing plants have become more specialized and the number of plants has declined, but increased in size. A company (firm) may have more than one plant. In 1985, there were 232 plants under Federal Inspection and these plants were owned by 169 companies (USDA, 1986). Companies resort to having many plants for a number of reasons, such as:- processing as many birds as possible, and still be within the limits of USDA regulations, specializing in further processing, etc. Table 1. Degree of concentration of slaughter plants. No. of firms 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985* 4 largest 24.8% 27.4% 32.8% 33.7% 32.8% (No. of plants) (33) (31) (37) (41) (39) 8 largest 41.4% 43.5% 48.0% 51.4% 50.0% (No. of plants) (67) (64) (68) (68) (63) 20 largest 66.3% 69.2% 72.4% 72.8% 71.8% (No of plants) (107) (107) (107) (105) (105) *Preliminary USDA estimates for fiscal year 1985. Source: USDA The number of chickens processed by each plant has been rapidly increasing in the last two decades. The average liveweight of federally inspected birds increased from 3.35 lbs in 1960 to 4.19 lbs in 1985 (USDA, 1986). This does not include the chickens slaughtered in small Processing plants that are exempted from federal inspection. Plants Processing less than 20,000 birds per year are exempted (MPI Manual, USDA). The aggregate amount of broilers slaughtered in these small Plants is estimated to account for less than one percent of total industry volume . Annual per capita consumption of poultry meat has risen steadily from 26.3 lbs in 1955 to a current consumption level of well over 70 lbs per person (Table 2). The forms in which broilers are marketed has changed to suit consumer demands (Table 3). In 1987 the following product mix was estimated by survey methods: cut-up/parts, 57%; whole carcass broilers, 23%; and further processed products, 20% (Roenigk, 1987). Table 3. Market form percentage changes. Market form % Further Year Whole Cut-up processed 1963 81.0% 16.0% 3.0% 1973 62.0% 31.0% 7.0% 1985 30.0% 50.0% 20.0% 1990* 23.4% 45.9% 30.7% 1995* 18.0% 42.9% 39.1% * Projected 3% Source: National Broiler Council, 1986 Changes have also occurred inside processing plants. Many have been mechanized, some have been automated, and this has lead to an increase in the size and volume of these plants. These changes became necessary because of substantial increases in labor costs and gradually decreasing profits per bird (Gerrits, 1975). Also the need for improved sanitation gave rise to several new developments in poultry processing. Broilers are still generally caught by hand, inverted and carried by one leg in groups of 5 or 6 and placed into coops. The wooden c00ps have been replaced with plastic coops, which are light weight, Table:2. Per Capita Consumption of Poultry Meat in the United States, 1955-86. Total Year Young Mature Total Turkey Poultry Lbs.,r—t-cEIBasis 1955 13.8 7.5 21.3 5.0 26.3 1956 17.3 7.1 .24.4 5.2 29.6 1957 19.1 6.4 25.5 5.9 31.4 1958 22.0 6.1 28.1 5.9 34.0 1959 22.8 5.9 28.7 6.3 35.0 1960 23.4 4.4 27.8 6.1 33.9 1961 25.9 4.0 29.9 7.4 37.3 1962 25.8 4.0 29.8 7.0 36.8 1963 27.1 3.6 30.7 6.8 37.5 1964 27.7 3.5 31.2 7.3 38.5 1965 29.6 3.7 33.3 7.4 40.7 1966 32.0 3.6 35.6 7.8 43.4 1967 32.4 4.1 36.5 8.5 45.0 1968 32.8 3.9 36.7 7.9 44.6 1969 34.8 3.6 38.4 8.2 46.6 1970 36.8 3.6 40.4 8.0 48.4 1971 36.5 3.8 40.3 8.3 48.6 1972 38.2 3.6 41.8 8.9 50.7 1973 37.2 3.3 40.5 8.5 49.0 1974 37.2 3.5 40.7 8.8 49.5 1975 36.7 3.4 40.1 8.5 48.6 1976 39.9 2.9 42.8 9.1 51.9 1977 41.1 3.1 44.2 9.1 53.3 1978 43.8 2.9 46.7 9.1 55.8 1979 47.7 2.9 50.6 9.9 60.5 1980 47.0 3.1 50.1 10.5 60.6 1981 48.6 3.1 51.7 10.7 62.4 1982 49.9 3.1 53.0 10.8 63.8 1983 50.8 3.0 53.8 11.3 65.1 1984 53.0 2.7 55.7 11.4 67.1 1985 55.5 2.5 58.0 12.1 70.1 1986* 56.7 2.6 60.3 13.4 72.5 1987* 60.3 2.6 62.9 15.3 78.2 _3Ready to cook (*) Preliminary Source: Iowa Farm Outlook Charts. Per capita consumption of meat, poultry, and fish -US averages. Economics Information 127. Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. easy to clean and disinfect. The catching and transporting of birds, if not properly done, results in downgrading and condemnation of birds. In order to alleviate this problem some machines have been designed, but are not yet in common use. Hanging of birds on shackles for slaughter is done by people under modified environmental conditions with proper ventilation, dim lights, etc. In stunning, the "water bath" stunner has replaced those in which the birds were contacted by electric wire strips. The "water bath" stunner gives a more uniform stunning effect and is better suited for high speed lines because the birds are stunned while on the conveyor line. In small processing plants, the stunning knive is predominantly used. Killing of birds, originally done by hand, is automated for most high speed lines. One worker stands behind the mechanical killer to inspect whether the job is done well (as a back-up to the machine). In scalding, little change has occurred though spray scalding; steam scalding; and scalding with hot moist air; instead of immersion scalding has been suggested. Some developments have occured in the defeathering process of birds. In smaller plants, drum-type pickers with all rubber fingers rotating in one direction are being replaced by drum pickers with counter rotating fingers. On the other hand, in larger plants, a combination of pickers is used with each performing a more specialized and specific task. In these plants, the first picker is a disk type picker which performs the rough picking or defeathering of the bird. The second picker has counter-rotating fingered drums which gives thorough feather removal. The third picker combines hock, wing, and neck picking by vertical shaft driven drums and horizontally positioned counter rotating drums, resulting in a highly efficient process. Hock cutting by hand has been replaced with mechanical hock cutters in bigger processing plants. Rehanging of birds from killing to eviscerating lines is currently performed mostly by hand, but automatic equipment has been developed and is awaiting USDA approval. Evisceration by hand has been replaced with machines that have a metal spoon that is inserted into the body cavity to draw out the viscera. Usually one killing line provides enough birds for utilizing two eviscerating lines. Mechanical vent cutters are used for opening the birds instead of knives. A mechanical gizzard peeler has replaced the use of hands for separating the gizzards from the intestine, then splitting and peeling them. Heart and liver harvesting is still done by hand. Research is being done to invent equipment properly designed for this process. Carcass chilling is accomplished by many alternative methods. These include: "common bath" immersion; spray chilling; air chilling; liquid carbon dioxide (i.e. snow chilling); etc. The most commonly used method of chilling is the immersion of carcasses into long flow-through tanks that contain agitated slush ice. There are mixed feeling about the use of this chilling method since some people think that it permits carcass cross- contamination. There are contradictory research finding on this issue (Veerkamp and de Vries, 1982). Inspection procedures have also changed substantially over the years. This is due to the rapid improvement in processing equipment which facilitates high speed processing, and so inspection must keep pace with these improvements to ensure product wholesomeness. The inspection method progression in primary processing can be delineated as: (1) Traditional inspection, where inspectors carried on an extremely labor intensive function of physically examining every bird; (2) The Medified Traditional Inspection (MTI) method was implemented in 1979. Under this method additional labor specilization was achieved as every bird was examined by three inspectors, but each inspector focused on specific things (one checking the outside and the other two checking the inside and viscera on an every other bird basis); (3) The New Evisceration Line Speed (NELS) inspection method was implemented in 1984. This system was used voluntarily and relied on the processors commitment to develop their own quality control system which could be monitored and supervised by USDA; (4) A Streamline Inspection System (SIS) was implemented in 1986. This system eliminated one of the three inspectors, and the remaining two share the complete examination of each bird. The birds presentation to the inspectors makes it easy to inspect the birds without sacrificing the product quality; (5) The Second Generation Inspection system where trimmers trim the carcass without direct USDA supervision; and (6) A Third Generation Inspection method is still under experimentation. This system would reduce the number of inspectors and Inspection procedures have also changed substantially over the years. This is due to the rapid improvement in processing equipment which facilitates high speed processing, and so inspection must keep pace with these improvements to ensure product wholesomeness. The inspection method progression in primary processing can be delineated as: (1) Traditional inspection, where inspectors carried on an extremely labor intensive function of physically examining every bird; (2) The Modified Traditional Inspection (MTI) method was implemented in 1979. Under this method additional labor specilization was achieved as every bird was examined by three inspectors, but each inspector focused on specific things (one checking the outside and the other two checking the inside and viscera on an every other bird basis); (3) The New Evisceration Line Speed (NELS) inspection method was implemented in 1984. This system was used voluntarily and relied on the processors commitment to develop their own quality control system which could be monitored and supervised by USDA; (4) A Streamline Inspection System (SIS) was implemented in 1986. This system eliminated one of the three inspectors, and the remaining two share the complete examination of each bird. The birds presentation to the inspectors makes it easy to inspect the birds without sacrificing the product quality; (5) The Second Generation Inspection system where trimmers trim the carcass without direct USDA supervision; and (6) A Third Generation Inspection method is still under experimentation. This system would reduce the number of inspectors and use USDA trained plant employees to sort normal from condemned carcass. This system extensively uses computers and enables a kill line speed of up to 140 birds/min. Purpose of the study This study will provide the preliminary steps in determining the economics of small scale broiler processing plants. The focus of this study will be threefold. First, the study will provide information on the capital investment requirements for a small1 scale processing plant. An earlier study by Rahn gthgl, (1982) indicated that $2,985,000 is needed to establish a modern processing plant with a processing capacity of 8,400 birds per hour. The investment requirement for todays typical large scale processing plant are sizable. Barton (1987) estimates the investment requirements at $25,000,000 (Table 4). Table 4. Summarized information of a typical modern plant Three 70 bird/min. lines @ 98% efficiency 210 birds/min= 12,600 birds/min x 2 shifts= 1,008,000 birds/week 1,008,000 birds/week x 98% efficiency: 987,840 kill/week. Two shift processing 10 p.111. - 7 acme 7 8.111. "' 4 pom. First processing - 200 employees Further processing- 500 employees (cut-up, frozen & some deboning) 700 Total Deboning — additional 900 employees. Barton,l987. 1/ A small processing plant in this study will refer to a plant processing at most 1200 birds per hour. 10 Many potential investors cannot easily raise this amount of capital and so alternatives must be explored: a small processing plant. Secondly, this study will provide potential processors with the particulars of an "efficient processing system". Thirdly, this study will provide processors or potential investors with information on how to produce a wholesome product, by observing the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) regulations. This study can only provide current information on regulation since alterations or modifications are sometimes made. (Appendices) 11 Objectives To identify commercially available capital equipment sources and 1 synthesize a commercially plausible set of broiler processing plant designs that encompass relatively low output rates and estimate their business costs under alternative factor market price assumption scenarios. Approach tg_achieve objectives: 1. Enumerate, by mandatory sequence, the physical activities that need to be performed to process a broiler [i.e. convert from live to ready to cook (r—t-c)2]. 2. Identify the mechanical equipment (i.e. physical capital) available (in the U.S.) to perform these functions and increase output rates per unit of time and labor. 3 3. Identify economically plausible sets of processing plant equipment designs that encompass the "small scale" output rate range. 1/ Broiler: a young chicken (usually 6 - 8 weeks of age), of either sex, that is tender meated with soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin and flexible breast bone cartilage. 2/ r-t-c: any slaughtered broiler free from protruding pin feathers, vestigial feathers (hair or down) and from which head, feet, crop, oil gland, trachea, esophagus, entrails, mature reproductive organs, and lungs have been removed. (USDA) 3/ Economically plausible design: will be interpreted to mean a plant design where any capital asset item, if it is anticipated to account for more than 10% of the initial equipment investment amount, must be expected to be utilized at more than 80% of it's engineered design capacity. 12 4. Define the labor input requirements associated with the plant designs that fall within the economically plausible set. 5. Estimate the business costs that would be incurred in operating each of the economically plausible plant designs. REVIEW QE_RELEVANT RESEARCH AND THEORY. General Information: situation of broiler processing. A report from the Economic Research Service (1976) based on records from 33 broiler processing plants located in three major US regions during the 1973-1975 period showed that the total costs averaging almost 9.7 cents/lb. r-t-c weight. About 1.0 cent was for loading and hauling live broilers from farms to plants, 7.36 cents was for inplant costs, and 1.3 cents for assembly and distribution costs. Almost 58% of the inplant costs were for wages and salaries, over 17% for packaging materials, and over 15% for overhead items. Benson and Witzig (1977) reported that extensive changes in production, processing, and marketing during the last few decades have changed the chicken broiler industry from one of small, widely scattered farms to one that is large, concentrated, and efficient. More than 99% of all broilers produced are grown under contract by integrated firms which vary widely in size of operation and complexity. About 84% of all production is concentrated in ten States. Some of the other factors 13 14 that contributed to these changes are costs, energy use, prices, processing, marketing, and demand. Greig (1971) reported that the processing costs may vary depending on: (a) costs of the raw product (and elasticity or supply of raw products), (b) quality factors, (c) labor wage rates, (d) fuel and electricity costs, (e) size or scale of operations, (f) state and local taxes, (g) costs and availability of water, (h) by-product utilization, and (i) waste disposal costs. Brown (1980) stated that the measure of any broiler sales program is the revenue generated over in—plant processing and marketing costs. This revenue is the sum obtained to cover meat costs, overhead, interest, and return a profit. He states that the best unit to evaluate is the margin over processing per head slaughtered. However, Agrimetrics has used margin over processing per eviscerated pound in designating the processing plants. Brant g£_§l;_(1982) reported that research has shown that the color and its intensity of bruises on the carcass can be directly related to the lapse of time between when a bruise was inflicted and when it was observed. For example yellow, green or purple bruises probably were inflicted during the grow-out and before plant handling even begins (24 hours or more before pick-up); deep red or purple bruises probably occur during catching, cooping and hauling (4 to 6 hours before slaughter); and pink and red bruises are probably inflicted during unloading and hanging (2 to 15 minutes before slaughter). 15 Shupe 2E“21;,(1982) in their study to test the cleaning efficiency of flat stainless steel with special spray nozzles, quantified: (a) water impact force, (b) microbiological reductions, and (c) amount fat removal. They found that bacterial counts on washed surfaces were not significantly different when either 690, 2068, or 4137kPa (a metric term corresponding to pressure per square inch [psi]) were used. Washing with either 50 or 70°C (122 or 158°F) water removed significantly more bacteria than washing with 20°C (68°F). Fat removal was not significantly lower with 690kPa than either 2068 or 4137kPa, but lower with 20°C (68°F) water than either 50 or 70°C (122 or 158°F) water. Childs (1986) reported that in a "state of art" plant the labor requirement amounts to 38 people for slaughtering; defeathering and eviscerating; to the chiller assuming one pick line running at 160 birds/min with two eviscerating lines running at 80 birds/min each. The requirements are: one man to unload cages from truck; five to hang birds (4 have been used where people are rotated); and one back-up killer. For two evisceration lines; four people are needed to rehang; two for oil sac/vent-open follow-up; six for eviscerator back-up; six trim personnel at inspection station; six for heart and liver; two for viscera harvest follow-up; two for gizzard inspection; and two for final trim. That is a total of 38 basic "on-line" people, and does not include floor workers, etc. 16 Processing Activities A). Receivinngrea The live handling dock should be separated from the rest of the plant by full height impervious walls, self closing impervious doors, and openings limited to those necessary for poultry conveyors. So is slaughtering, scalding and picking, eviscerating areas (MPI Manual, USDA). Duncan gt 2;; (1986) in their investigation of stress imposed by both manual and mechanical pick-up methods report that:- i. the procedures of manual and machine catching acted as short term stressors, and induced a state of fear on birds. ii. the heart rate of birds caught up by both methods rose to similar high values but that of birds caught by machine returned near normal rates more quickly, suggesting that they were less stressed. iii. the duration of tonic immobility, a response which increases with fearfulness, was much longer in manually caught birds. iv. the results suggest that stress could be reduced and welfare improved by catching and picking up broiler chickens by a carefully designed machine, rather than by hand. Walden (1986) reported that excessive live shrink will occur on all trucks held in the yard for more than 3 to 4 hours. And that the 17 relationship between dead on arrival (DOA) and temperature as a general rule of thumb (for temperature range between 82 - 92°F) live shrink increases 0.1% to 0.15% for every additional hour held in the yard. Chen gt El (1983) conducted a study in which the holding times and temperatures varied. Broilers were fed different dietary energy levels to produce broilers (males and females) weighing 2100g (4.631lbs). Results indicated that as holding time was increased, shrink or weight loss increased. Loss was more pronounced with heavier broilers (males and/or birds on higher energy level feed). Reduced yields (based on pre-holding weights) was associated with high temperatures, increased body size and increased holding time. Janky §t_§l;_(1983) reported that shrink during the holding period was higher for heavier birds during summer months, but was offset by increased water consumption by smaller broilers in the flock. Moisture content was significantly higher (P<.05) in smaller broilers than in larger birds; and fat content was significantly lower (P<.05). They observed that feeding Potasium chloride (KCl) in the diet significantly increased (P<.05) percent yield of larger birds by depressing shrink during the holding period. In the winter, KCl had no effect on yields, but larger broilers (on high energy level feed) had higher percent yields and significantly lower shrink than smaller birds. They concluded that seasonal temperature interacted with broiler size to cause variations in yields. The variations were attributed to the ratio of mass to surface area. 18 Wesley and Hughes (1983) reported that by installing a chamber at the live bird hanging area, the condition for workers can be improved. In their study the dust level in that area prior to installation averaged 55.6mg/cu.m. (0.000055 oz/cu.ft). After installation, the dust level was 4.7mg/cu.m (0.0000047 oz/cu.ft). This translates to a reduction in dust level of 91.5%. The chamber temperature in the winter (20°C or 68°F) and summer (23°C or 75°F) contributes significantly to employee comfort. B). Slaughtering and Picking Area The Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual (MPI) states that rate of slaughter is dependent upon:- the number of inspectors, the line arrangement, the spacing of birds, the incidence of diseases, and the ability of the plant to present the carcasses for inspection which are properly dressed and drawn, permitting complete and efficient inspection. Hewell (1986) reported that a stunner serves three primary purposes: (1) It makes slaughter more humane, (2) It immobilizes birds and provides for automatic feeding of heads into a mechanical killer, and (3) It stimulates and increases the heart beat which helps bleed out. One other important factor is the basic formula for electrical flow. E - IxR, where E is voltage, I is amperage, and R is resistance. If the voltage is increased and the resistance remains constant, then the amperage will increase proportionately to voltage change. This means that the larger the bird, the less the resistance. Therefore, when 19 larger birds are run, the resistance drops, thus increasing the amperage. Many plant personnel turn the voltage up for larger birds, thus with higher voltage and lower resistance, the amperage increases even more. This can cause serious stunner damage. Heath (1983) reported that some research results on poultry slaughter methods developed were wrong. And because of this, only about one third of chickens are stunned in the stunners as they are used today; the others are either killed outright or not stunned sufficiently. Although dead birds bleed slightly more slowly than stunned birds during the first 90 seconds after venesection, there is no difference between blood losses of the two groups after 180 seconds. Different amounts of blood left in the carcass make no detectable difference to the carcasses, and the amount left in the carcass does not affect the keeping quality. He suggest that the stunner should be set to a height which ensures that at least 120mA pass through each bird. This can be achieved by 200v but stunner dial often grossly overstate the voltage which actually passes through the stunner; the actual voltage and amperage in a working stunner (which may be less than half in the idling stunner) should be measured by an electrician. Heath referenced Schutt-Abraham, Wormuth and Fessel (1982) who reported that a current of more than 45mA for more than 4 seconds produced adequate stunning in 62% of the birds, at lower amperages only 19% were properly stunned. Birds stunned at less than 20mA squawked and flapped as they left the stunner and tried to escape immediately after removal from the shackles. 20 In a water-bath stunner set at 70v (average 46mA), four to six seconds exposure killed 10% of the birds; at 80v (64mA), 20% were killed; 100v (77mA) killed 51%; and 120v (102mA) killed 75%. No broiler survived 120mA and single deaths occurred at as little as 30mA. Stunning was improved when the birds were plunged into the bath "at least up to the base of their wings". Dickens (1987) reported that stunning birds (50v/ac) for 10 seconds significantly reduced the force required for defeathering after both 20 and 120 seconds compared to non- stunned birds. Using a scald temperature of 56°C (132.8°F), forces of 68gr.(0.151b.) and 146gr. (0.321b.) respectively were required when immersion time was 2.5 and 1.0 minutes. At lower temperature of 52°C (125.6°F) the respective forces at 2.5 and 1.0 minutes were 133gr. (0.2961b.) and 168gr. (O.371b.). These data demonstrate that both time and temperature are determinants of the force required to remove feathers. Previously, temperature was regarded as the most significant factor. Veerkamp and de Vries (1975) in their experiment designed to measure blood loss in relation to voltage of water bath stunner and the bleeding time, and to measure color differences between broiler stunned at low ((100) and high (>150) voltages. They reported that the results indicated a reduction of blood-out with increasing voltages, and a color difference between surface areas of carcasses when stunning was performed at 75 and 200v. 21 C). Eviscerating, and Chilling Area. Childs (1968) compiled a list from time studies of the rates per worker for manually performing eviscerating operations:- Table 5. Evisceration Operations. Bird per Operation worker - minute* Transfer birds from defeathering to eviscerating line. 34.4 Remove oil gland 36.8 Open body cavity 38.8 Remove vent 15.6 Draw viscera 13.7 Federal inspection** - Remove heart and liver 14.2 Remove and clean gizzard*** 11.7 Snip neck vertebrae 37.0 Remove lungs 24.9 Remove crop and windpipe 21.1 Plant inspection 20.0 Peel gizzard 38.2 Childs,1968. *Experienced workers can exceed these rates by 15-20% **Data not included because of modification of inspection procedure. ***With mechanical splitter washer, the rate is more than doubled. Barnes (1972) reported that the most important reason for the ,prompt and efficient chilling of a slaughtered carcass unless it is to be consumed immediately is to delay the prompt multiplication of bacteria, in particular those responsible for spoilage. The surface of a INDUltry carcass after evisceration may be expected to carry 22 about 10,000 organisms /sq.cm. (1539 organisms/sq.in), including up to 1,000 psychrOphiles/sq.cm (154 psychrophiles/sq.in), and the first signs of spoilage occur when the count of psychrophiles reach up to 100,000,000/sq.cm (15,384,615/sq.in). The time required for such a multiplication to take place depends on the prevailing temperature. For instance, if a poultry carcass is held for 1 hour at 25°C (77°F) after evisceration the number of psychrophiles could be doubled (Table 6). Even if the carcass could be cooled rapidly to 0°C (32°F), one "doubling time" or "mean generation time" will have been lost from the ultimate shelf life. The shelf life will therefore be half a day shorter than if the initial 1 hour delay had not occurred. Table 6. Multiplication of bacteria Mean Generation Temp. 0 C o F Time (Hrs) - 2 28.4 36.5 0 32.0 13.8 2 35.6 12.3 5 41.0 7.5 10 50.0 4.8 15 59.0 2.3 20 68.0 1.5 25 77.0 0.7 30 86.0 0.8 Barnes,1972. Ranken (1975) reported that the quantities of water and ice necessary to cool the carcass to any required final temperature may be calculated using the principles of simple calorimetry. An example, using the conditions recommended by the Gordon Johnson Co. is set out in Table 7. 23 Table 7. Calorimetry of continuous Immersion Chilling First Stage: water Used 4 liters/kg 1/2 gal/lb. Water temp. Inlet 10°C 50°F Outlet 12°C 53°F Bird temp. Inlet 32°C 90°F Outlet 24°C 75°F Second Stage: Ice Used 0.5 kg/kg 1/2 lb./lb. Fall in bird temp. at 20°C 36°F 50% thermal efficiency Therefore, final bird 4°C 39°F temp. In the first stage of chilling, if one uses l/2gal water/lb. of poultry, and this water is permitted to rise in temperature by 3°F, the exit temperature of the birds must be 15°F. In the second stage the cooling effect should be exclusively from the melting of ice. The heat required to melt 1/2gal of ice is equivalent to a temperature fall of 72°F at 50% efficiency: if the birds left the first stage at 75°F their final temperature should therefore be 39°F. The factor of 50% for thermal efficiency is based on practical experience but may vary according to the conditions. Insulation of the chiller, if it were possible to do it effectively could be beneficial. Morrison and Fleet (1985) studied different immersion treatments on Salmonella decontamination of fresh processed chicken carcasses. The immersion of chicken carcasses in 140°F (60°C) water for 10 minutes 24 reduced Salmonella counts 100-fold. When 200 ppm of chlorine or 2.5% potassium sorbate was added, reduction increased 1000-fold, with elimination of Salmonella from most carcasses. Carcass appearance and flavor remained acceptable, according to sensory determination. Shackelford and Lillard (1987) reported that bagged and vacuum - sealed carcasses, immersed in an ice bath chiller, required approximately 120 minutes to be reduced from 90 to 40°F. This contrasted with 45 minutes for unbagged carcasses to reach the same temperature. Although the potential for cross - contamination was reduced by pre- chill packing, total bacteria counts on bagged and unbagged were similar. The insulating properties of the bag mitigate against packing prior to immersion chilling and there is no specific reduction in bacterial unload. 25 Definitions of Terms Lay-out by product: in this line production, the product is processed or produced in one area, but the material being worked on is moved. In—plant operations: the following sequence of stages are performed:- Hanging, Stunning, Killing, Scalding, Picking, Pinning, Singeing, Inspecting, Opening, Drawing, Splitting the neck, Pulling crop, Removing vent, Removing head, Removing neck, Removing feet, Separating giblets, Grading, and Packaging. End product: Ready to cook (r-t—c), no further processing. Dressing capacity: 7.5 hours per day, for 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year. Small processing plant: processing at most 1200 birds/hr. Assumptions 3). that the plant has a constant supply of live chickens. b). that the plant works at fulll dressing capacity per day. PROCEDURES A combination of personal interviews, field visits and a review of relevant literature was used to gain perspectives and collect data for this study. Contact of as many people (manufacturers, equipment dealers, and processors) as possible who are involved in poultry processing was aimed at. Interviews. Personal contact with equipment manufacturers and dealers was made at the Southeastern International Trade Show in Atlanta (1987), and at The Poultry Industry Conference and Exhibition in Canada (1987). This was one way of obtaining information on the types of equipment currently available in the market, their installation and usage recommendations and their price or cost. Information on small scale primary processing was not readily available since the industry is focusing more on larger processing plants. The telephone was also used as a means of achieving the following: 1). to contact manufacturers and dealers where personal contact was not 26 27 possible. 2). to make follow-ups and remind some manufacturers and dealers to send the requested information. 3). to request clarification and/or more detail on the materials they had forwarded. Building and construction companies were contacted to get information on constructing a processing plant. Progress was minimal because most of the agencies were not familiar with building processing plants. Field Visits Visits to R & R Processing Plant (Shannon, Illinois), Bil Mar Foods, Inc. (Zeeland, Michigan), and Maple Lodge Poultry (Toronto,Canada) were made. The importance of these visits was that they provided information based on actual processing conditions. This was used for supplementing and/or comparing with information obtained from the manufacturers or dealers. The observation "tool" was used while conducting the visits to see how processing was actually done and to learn how sanitation and quality control measures were, in practice, implemented. A short questionnaire that had been originally designed for processors was modified slightly and used to conduct an informal interview. This was done because not many processors could be reached. 28 Literature Review Additional information on broiler processing was obtained by reviewing relevant literature. Especially Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) publications on the regulations and procedures for establishing and operating a broiler processing plant. ANALYSIS Desktop computer spreadsheet software was used to make a budgetary analysis. Cost information on buildings, equipment, labor, utilities, and management was collected and used in this study. A sensitivity analysis was done on: 1. Processing costs when the labor cost $4.00, $5.00, and $6.00/hr. 2. Building cost on $45.00 and $65.00/sq. ft. 3. Intensity of plant usage throughout the year versus 50% capacity. 4. Interest rate at 8% and 12% Inplant processing cost per bird for the different plant capacities (350, 500, and 1200 birds/hr.) were determined based on budgetary analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Three sources of small scale processing equipment were identified. These were: Pickwick Company (Cedar Rapids, Iowa), Kuhl Corporation (Flemington, New Jersey) and Ashly Company (Greensburg, Indiana). The Pickwick company has manufactured poultry processing equipment since 1939, and its speciality is the small operator. From Pickwick, information on the cost of equipment, number of laborers needed, and suggested plant lay-outs was obtained (Appendix B and G). Kuhl corporation operates as a distributor of processing systems. They manufacture and buy some equipment from other manufacturers. For example, they buy scalders and pickers from Ashly company. Information on the cost of equipment, number of laborers and plant lay-out recommendations (Appendix B and C) were obtained. Ashly company has been supplying poultry processors with equipment since 1940. It is both a manufacturer and an equipment dealer. The company specializes in manufacturing scalders and pickers. The cost of equipment and plant lay-out suggestions were obtained. The plant lay- outs were very similar to those obtained, as previously noted, from the Kuhl corporation. 29 30 Some information was obtained from equipment manufacturers that focused on large scale primary and further processing activities. This includes Stork Gamco (Gainsville, Georgia), Myen (Oostzaan, Holland), and Lindholst (Trige, Denmark), etc. In the U.S. Meyn has established close c00peration with Cantrell Machine Company Inc. (Gainsville, Georgia) which markets, services and assembles Meyn equipment under the Cantrell/Meyn Inc. label. Most of this information was not relevant for the purpose of this study. Equipment for vent and hock cutting, and lung removal was obtained from the Jarvis Company (Middletown, Connecticut). Jarvis is the manufacturer of this equipment and is able to sell them for less than distributors. Three processing systems of 350, 500 and 1200 birds/hr were synthesized by using equipment from Pickwick, Kuhl, Ashly and Jarvis companies (Appendix B and C). The decision making process in in choosing equipment for inclusion was based on: the economic plausibility constraint. The economic plausibility design, being a plant design where any capital item, if anticipated to account for more than 10% of the initial equipment investment amount, must be expected to be utilized at more than 80% of its engineered design capacity. In the preliminary evaluation it was also observed how important the combination of the scalder and the picker were in the processing operation. It is of prime importance to select a proper combination of the scalder and the picker in order to obtain an efficient system. The scalder must be able to scald sufficient number of birds, at a certain 31 temperature, to supply the picker. The speed at which the picker defeathers the birds cannot be varied. These two pieces of equipment seemed to be the most limiting factor in the speed of processing. The equipment selected for a processing system should be synchronized with the scalder and the picker. The scalder and the picker are the critical points in the processing system. In this study the operational analysis was not performed because these was beyond the scope of this study. The objective was to synthesize processing systems based on the information obtained. The economic analysis was performed, using some assumptions based on the information from the industry people and literature. The capital investment on equipment is $17,400.65, $42,986.35 and $52,500.70 for a 350, 500 and 1200 birds/hr. processing systems, respectively. (Table 8, 9 and 10). 32 Table 8. Summary of Equipment Investment for a 350 birds/hr Processing Plant QTY. Description Price Source STUNNING 1 SKG Stunning knife 998.00 Pickwick 6 SH—S Shackles 300.00 Pickwick KILLING 1 Killing Cabinet 795.00 Pickwick SCALDING 1 SS—30—SS Scalder 2012.00 Ashly PICKING l SPJ2 Batch picker 2235.00 Pickwick 1 SPJRT Receiving Table 495.00 Pickwick 1 PS1 Poultry singer 41.95 Pickwick W EVISCERATION OPERATIONS 1 EVO—16 Evisc. line with: shackles,conveyor,troughs 5595.00 Pickwick 1 OCB2 Offal cart 373.00 Pickwick 4 Giblet pans 116.70 Pickwick Loose Tools* 214.00 6298.70 CHILLING AND PACKAGING OPERATIONS 1 Drain and Packaging table 995.00 Pickwick 6 KT-2T Chill tank 1080.00 Kuhl 1 CTAP—60 Tank agitator 370.00 Kuhl 1 BVS—40 Bagging unit 1780.00 Kuhl m TOTAL: 17,400.65 Dhladhla,l987 *Loose tools include killing knives, boning knives, shears, etc. 33 Table 9. Summary of Equipment Investment for a 500 birds/hr Processing Plant QTY. Description Price Source STUNNING 1 SKG Stunning knife 998.00 Pickwick 1 Dunkmaster conveyor 760.00 Pickwick 7 SHCl6 Shackles 966.00 Pickwick KILLING 1 Killing tunnel 2795.00 Pickwick SCALDING 1 88-36-83 Super scalder 4080.00 Ashly PICKING l JSZA Batch picker 7425.00 Picking 1 P-60 Inspection Table 740.00 Pickwick 1 PS1 Poultry singer 41.95 Pickwick 1 CPE Neck and Hock cutter 525.00 Jarvis 18,330.95 EVISCERATION OPERATIONS 1 EVO—25 Evisc. line with: shackles,conveyor, troughs 7670.00 Pickwick 1 EVS-25 Floor Stand Kit 2392.00 Pickwick 2 OCB2 Offal cart 746.00 Pickwick 1 Vent Cutter 1750.00 Jarvis 1 Jarvis lung remover 350.00 Jarvis 1 Gizzard peeler and stand 1105.00 Pickwick 8 Giblet pans 233.40 Pickwick 1 BWI Inside washing station 1460.00 Pickwick 2 BWO Outside " " 3630.00 Pickwick Loose Tools* 214.00 19,550.40 CHILLING AND PACKAGING OPERATIONS 1 Drain and Packaging table 995.00 Pickwick 4 K3694 Chill tank 1960.00 Kuhl 1 CTAP-60 Tank agitator pump 370.00 Kuhl 1 BVS Bagging unit 1780.00 Kuhl 5105.00 TOTAL: 42,986.35 Dhladhla,l987 *Loose tools include killing knives, boning knives, shears, etc. 34 Table 10. Summary of Equipment Investment for a 1200 birds/hr Processing Plant QTY. Description Price Source STUNNING l SKG Stunning knife 998.00 Pickwick l Dunkmaster conveyor 760.00 Pickwick 7 SHC20 Shackles 1085.00 Pickwick KILLING 1 Killing tunnel 2795.00 Pickwick SCALDING 1 88-48—88 Super scalder 5370.00 Ashly PICKING 1 JS3A Batch picker 9695.00 Pickwick 1 P-60 Inspection Table 740.00 Pickwick 2 PSI Poultry singer 83.90 Pickwick 1 CPE Neck and Hock cutter 525.00 Jarvis 22052.35 EVISCERATION OPERATIONS l EVO-37 Evisc. line with: shackles,conveyor, troughs 9950.00 Pickwick 1 EVS-37 Floor Stand kit 3536.25 Pickwick 1 OCB4 Offal cart 998.00 Pickwick 1 Vent Cutter 1750.00 Jarvis 1 Jarvis lung gun 350.00 Jarvis 1 Gizzard peeler and stand 1105.00 Pickwick 12 Giblet pans 350.10 Pickwick l BWI Inside washing station 1460.00 Pickwick 2 BWO Outside " " 3630.00 Pickwick Loose Tools* 239.00 23368.35 CHILLING AND PACKAGING OPERATIONS 2 Drain and packaging table 1990.00 Pickwick 6 K3694 Chilling tanks 2940.00 Kuhl 1 CTAP-60 Tank agitator pump 370.00 Kuhl 1 BVS-40 Bagging unit 1780.00 Kuhl 7080.00 TOTAL: 52,500.70 Dhladhla,l987 *Loose tools include killing knives, boning knives, shears, etc. 35 Labor Requirement The labor requirement in the three processing systems were determined. The total number of 12, 12, and 24 people for 350, 500 and 1200 bird/hr processing plants, respectively (Table 11) were needed. The number of laborers needed for both the 350 and 500 birds/hr plants is the same, and this is because there are some working stations that will require laborers to be there almost at all times, especially during the initial stages of processing (Table 11). Table 11. Labor requirement for processing plants. OPERATION 350 500 1200 birds/hr birds/hr birds/hr Hanging Stunning 1 1 2 Killing Scalding 1 Picking 1 Cut feet 1 .Rehang 1 1 1 Cut oil sac 1 1 1 Open tail and remove vent 1 1 1 Draw entrails l 1 2 Trim heart and liver 1 1 1 Trim and wash gizzards 1 1 2 Peel gizzards 1 1 1 Remove lungs 1 1 1 Remove crop 2 Take off line & stuff 1 1 2 neck and giblets Fill chill tanks with ice 1 and move tanks Make boxes and pack birds 2 2 2 in boxes Put ice in boxes and stack 1 boxes TOTAL 23 12 12 Source: Kuhl Corporation, 1987: title to *3. 3399 my ‘I‘V. 1 36 It is important to note that a worker can do more than one job and there are some tasks that will always need a worker at that station. Management plays an important role in determining job descriptions of laborers, and ensuring some training. The production of laborers could be expected to differ according to their experience and training. From Kuhl information (Table 12), the speed at which workers perform certain tasks is still the same as that reported by Childs (Table 5) from motion studies performed in the 1960's. This seems to either suggest that no recent work has been done in this area, and Kuhl is still using Childs numbers, or the technology in small scale processing has not changed much. Table 12. Production of trained laborers. OPERATION Bird per work minute Cut feet 26.9 per minute Transfer 34.4 per minute Oil sacks 36.8 per minute Three point 36.2 per minute suspension Open tail 45.0 per minute Remove vent 21.6 per minute Draw 13.7 per minute Trim heart 25.6 per minute Trim liver 22.7 per minute Trim, open and 11.7 per minute wash gizzard Peel gizzard 38.2 per minute on machine Remove lung 17.8 per minute by hand 21.5 per minute with vacuum 1 Crop 4.4 per minute Source: Kuhl corporation, 1987. 37 Labor Cost Labor is one of the major costs in a processing plant. The number of employees and the breakdown of their jobs for each plant were determined (Tables 16, 17, and 18), and the summary of the results is shown in Table 13. Table 13. Summary of Labor Costs at Different Compensation Rates $4.00/hr $5.00/hr $6.00/hr Capacity 350 500 1200 350 500 1200 350 500 1200 Laborers 12 12 23 12 12 23 12 12 23 Cost/hr. 48 48 92 6O 60 115 72 72 138 Labor .137 .096 .077 .171 .120 .096 .206 .144 .115 cost/bird Labor per1 29.2 41.7 52.2 man-hour The labor cost per bird in the smallest plant is the highest and decreases as the plant becomes larger. In this study the compensation rate of $5.00/hr is representative of the actual situation in the Processing plants. The labor cost per bird is 17 cents, 12 cents, and 9 cents for 350, 500 and 1200 bird/hr plants respectively. 1 Bird per man hour is the same irrespective of the wage rate. 38 Building Costs Building cost per square foot is an important factor to consider. The building costs were determined (Tables 16 and 19), and their summary is shown Table 14. Table 14. Summary of Total Building Investment Cost per square foot. Building Costs $45/sq.ft $65/sq.ft Initial Amortized Initial Amortized Cost Cost Cost Cost 350 37125.00 4337.30 53625.00 6264.98 birds/hr 500 87435.00 10214.99 126295.00 14754.99 birds/hr 1200 110475.00 12906.74 159575.00 18643.07 birds/hr The building cost per square foot will vary depending on whether it is design to satisfy the F818 regulations or not. A plant designed according to FSIS regulations will cost more per square foot than that Which will be exempted from inspection. Exemption is tied up with some other factors, for example the intensity of plant usage, purpose of slaughter, etc. (Appendices) 39 Intensity of Processing The cost per bird in a plant operating throughout the year is less than when the plant operates at 50% capacity 0.270, 0.229, and 0.186 as opposed to 0.306, 0.207, and 0.217 in a 350, 500, and 1200 birds/hr plants, respectively (Tables 16, and 17). The consideration of intensity of processing is of some importance in a small processing plant because some plants do not have a constant supply of birds to be processed daily right through the year. Also some small plants are established as a side-line cash generating source. Interest Rate The change in interest rate from 8% to 12% does not have much effect on inplant processing costs (Table 15), since interest rate changes only affect buildings and equipment costs. Table 15. Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants at Different Interest Rate 8% 12% birds/hr Cost/bird Cost/bird 350 0.270 0.274 500 0.229 0.234 1200 0.186 0.188 40 Table 16. Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. Labor 0 $5/hr 350 500 1200 birds/hr birds/hr birds/hr Ownership Plant Annuala cost 6264.98 14754.99 18643.07 Equipment Annualb cost 5416.73 11588.54 13781.51 Operating Labor 120000.00 120000.00 230000.00 Electricityd 1050.00 1500.00 3600.00 watere 8400.00 12000.00 28800.00 Plant Mainte- nance & repairsf 402.19 947.21 1196.81 Equipment Mainte- nance & repairsg 217.51 537.33 656.25 Insuranceh 1775.64 4100.41 5301.88 Taxesi 1065.38 2460.25 3181.13 Packaging supplyj 32812.50 46875.73 112500.00 TOTAL 177404.93 214763.73 417660.65 Cost/bird 0.270 0.229 0.186 NOTES: Most of the following Tables are calculated with assumptions similar to those made in Table 16. a. Amortized plant cost @ $65/sq.ft, Life . 15 years, Interest Rate = 8% b. Amortized equipment cost 0 8% Interest rate, Life: 1 to 7 years C. basic + benefits- $5.00/hr d. electricity 0 .16/100 birds e. water @ $1.50/1000 gal f- Inaintenance and repairs for a plant 0 .0075 of initial cost. " equipment 0 .0125 of h- insurance @ .025 Of initial cost 8 . n n 1- taxes 0 .015 of j- packaging supply @ $.05/bird processed. " 41 Table 17. Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. Labor @ $6/hr 350 500 1200 birds/hr birds/hr birds/hr Ownership Plant Annual cost 6264.98 14754.99 18643.07 Equipment Annual cost 5416.73 11588.54 13781.51 Operating Labor 135000.00 135000.00 258750.00 Electricity 1050.00 1500.00 3600.00 water 7875.00 11250.00 27000.00 Plant Mainte- nance & repairs 402.19 907.73 1196.81 Equipment 217.51 537.33 656.25 Insurance 1775.64 4100.41 5301.88 Taxes 1065.38 2460.25 3181.13 Packaging supply 32812.50 468974.00 112500.00 TOTAL 192404.00 228974.25 444610.65 Cost/bird 0.293 0.244 0.198 42 Table 18. Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. Labor @ $4/hr 350 500 1200 birds/hr birds/hr birds/hr Ownership Plant Annual cost 6264.98 14754.99 18643.07 Equipment Annual cost 5416.73 11588.54 13781.51 Operating Labor 96000.00 96000.00 184000.00 Electricity 1050.00 1500.00 3600.00 Water 7875.00 11250.00 27000.00 Plant Mainte- nance & repairs 402.19 907.73 1196.81 Equipment Mainte— nance & repairs 217.51 537.33 656.25 Insurance 1775.64 4100.41 5301.88 Taxes 1065.38 2460.25 3181.13 Packaging supply 32812.50 46875.00 112500.00 TOTAL 153404.93 190763.73 371660.65 Cost/bird 0.234 0.203 0.165 43 Table 19. Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Labor @ $5/hr Costs in Processing Plants. $45/sq.ft 350 500 1200 birds/hr birds/hr birds/hr Ownership Plant Annual cost 4337.30 10214.99 12906.74 Equipment Annual cost 5416.73 11588.54 13781.51 Operating Labor 120000.00 120000.00 230000.00 Electricity 1050.00 1500.00 3600.00 Water 8400.00 12000.00 28800.00 Plant Mainte- nance & repairs 278.44 655.76 828.56 Equipment Mainte- nance & repairs 217.51 537.33 656.25 Insurance 1363.14 3260.53 4074.38 Taxes 817.88 1956.32 2444.63 Packaging supply 32812.50 46875.00 112500.00 TOTAL 174693.50 208588.47 409592.07 Cost/bird 0.267 0.224 0.183 44 Table 20. Semi-Annual Ownership and Operating Costs in Processing Plants. Labor 0 $5/hr 350 500 1200 birds/hr birds/hr birds/hr Ownership: Plant Annual cost 6264.98 14754.99 18643.07 Equipment Annual cost 5416.73 11588.54 13781.51 Operating: Labor 60000.00 60000.00 115000.00 Electricity 525.00 750.00 1800.00 water 4200.00 6000.00 14400.00 Plant Maintenance and repairs 402.19 947.21 1196.81 Equipment Maint— nance & Repairsa 108.75 268.66 328.13 Insurance 1775.64 4100.41 5301.88 Taxes 1065.38 2460.25 3181.13 Packaging supply 16406.25 23437.50 56250.00 TOTAL 1000364.29 130307.56 244282.53 Cost/bird 0.306 0.278 0.217 b; a. It is assumes that maintenance and repair costs will be cut in half if the equipment is used half of the year. Table 21. Summary of Annual Ownership and Operating Costs 45 in Processing Plant. (Labor 0 $5/hr) Interest Rate @ 12% 350 500 1200 birds/hr birds/hr birds/hr Ownership: Plant Annual cost 7873.45 18543.17 23429.48 Equipment Annual cost 5904.86 12772.04 15222.10 Operating: Labor 120000.00 120000.00 230000.00 Electricity 1050.00 1500.00 3600.00 Water 8400.00 12000.00 28800.00 Plant maintenace and repairs 402.19 947.21 1196.81 Equipment mainte- nance & repairs 217.51 537.33 656.25 Insurance 1775.64 4100.41 5301.88 Taxes 1065.38 2460.25 3181.13 Packaging supply 32812.53 46875.00 112500.00 TOTAL 179501.53 219735.41 423887.65 Cost/bird 0.274 0.234 0.188 sense Initially in this study, the physical activities that need to be performed in a broiler processing plant were described. Then three sets 0f equipment complements that could be utilized in performing these activities at an alternative output rates were identified based on defined economic plausibility criteria. Next, the physical building and labor input requirements associated with each plant design was defined. Finally, the business costs that would be incurred in operating each Plant at selected factor price levels were estimated. In synthesizing a processing system, the scalder and the picker are The other equipment in the system must be of primary importance . This is unlike larger Syrlczhronized with these two pieces of equipment. prOcessing plants where the scalder length and the length and configuration of pickers can be modified as the speed of the conveyor line is increased. In the small scale equipment complements, the scalder and the picker must handle a certain number of birds per unit of time. The capital investment for buildings ($53625.00, $126295.00, and $159575.00) and equipment ($17400.65, $42986.35, and 352500.70) lncl‘eases with the increase in plant size from 350, 500, and 1200 46 u J5 up l gov dbl 47 bimnis/hr, respectively. There is a big increase in capital requirements when "moving " from 350 to 500 birds/hr, and a comparatively small increase in capital requirements from 500 to 1200 birds/hr plants. This ixuticates a significant jump in entry level capital needs when moving finanl the 350 to 500 birds/hr plant. In terms of output, there is a big increase when moving from a 500 to 1200 birds/hr plant. 'The inplant cost of processing a bird was estimated to be $0.270, $0.229, and $0.186 for the 350, 500, and 1200 birds/hr plants (Table 22). This result is based on a 7.5 hour working day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. Table 22. Sensitivity Analysis Summary. Scenario 350 500 1200 birds/hr birds/hr birds/hr Base1 $0.270 $0.229 $0.186 Modification2 $1/hr wage increase $0.293 $0.244 $0.198 $1/hr wage decrease $0.234 $0.203 $0.165 50% Reduction in $0.306 $0.278 $0.217 capacity utilization $20/ft Lower $0.267 $0.224 $0.188 building cost 4% per annum higher $0.274 $0.234 $0.188 interest rate Dhladhla, 1987 1Assumes total compensation rate of $5.00/hr; an 8% per annum interest rate; $65/sq.ft building costs and full capacity utilization for 7.5 hours per day, 5 days per week for 50 weeks per year. 2Specific and single assumption altered from base scenario. v1 Jo. ‘v‘h ‘4'. a», l“ a “a. .J\ u 48 Labor inputs and costs are very important in a processing plant. The labor requirement was identified to be 12, 12, and 23 laborers, respectively. The labor cost per bird was estimated to be $0.171, $0.120, and $0.096 when the total compensation rate was $5.00/hr. The bird output per man-hour is 29.2, 41.7, and 52.2 for the 350, 500, and 1200 birds/hr plant, respectively. There is an increase labor output per man-hour and a decrease in labor cost/bird as the size of the Operation increases. The total labor requirement in the 350 and 500 birds/hr plant is the same. This is because some work stations need laborers at all times, especially during the initial stages of Processing. The intensity of plant use is critical in small scale processing, for plants operating at 100% capacity utilization, the cost per bird is 80.270, $0.229, and $0.186 as opposed to $0.306, $0.278, and $0.217 for Plants operating at 50% capacity, for 350, 500, and 1200 birds/hr Plants, respectively (Table 22). Processors need to have a constant $11Pply of birds to process on a daily basis throughout the year. The impact of the interest rate change on processing costs per bird was minimal since interest rate changes effect only building and equipment costs (Table 22). 49 Recommendations The literature obtained from the dealers needs to be thoroughly estudied by potential investors. They should carefully scrutinize: (1) Manufacturers/dealers specifications on the capacities of equipment. An investor can overlook the unit on which the capacity is based, and (2) Manufacturers and/or dealers investment cost estimates of processing systems in most cases understate the actual total investment requirements. Usually the manufacturer or dealers investment estimates do not include other equipment or machines that a plant cannot operate without. This, for example, includes boilers, vacuum pumps, etc. Limitation of the Study Lack of readily available information on similar scale processing Plants was the main problem encountered in completing this study. Assumptions were made in conducting the budgetary analysis, and it is jLnn1>cutant to note these assumptions, and interpret them according to a given situation. Though the study focused on inplant costs, there are some costs ‘VllfiiCfln were not included in the budgetary analysis. These include the (1(35312 of management and waste disposal. The level of management exPertise needed would be expected to be the highest in the 1200 bi“Eds/hr plant where there are 23 laborers, compared to the 350 and 500 bjLI‘dt‘s/hr plants. In this study, focus was on inplant costs and the I? eturns were not considered. 50 Suggestions for further Research Studies to gather information on costs of inputs, especially on lltilities can be of much benefit. Further research is recommended to address the issue of economies To assess the cost of production as a of scale in poultry processing. In this study, only 100% function of the processing capacity utilized. arui 50% capacity utilization levels were considered, more insight can be geriJled by looking at more capacity utilization rates (100%, 90%, 80,etc.). The "small scale enterprises" which are less capital intensive, are A study on c:c>nnnnon in developing countries, unlike in developed ones. Small scale broiler processing activities focusing on Sub-Saharan C1<>llrltries, for example, where labor is abundant and therefore relatively Zilleeztpensive, would be relevant. This information could contribute and be jLustrumental in the development process of these countries. Bibliography Barnes, E.M.,1975. "The Microbiological Problems of Sampling 3 Poultry (harcass". Paper Presented at the 4th European Poultry Conference. London . Barton T.L.,1987. The Intergrated Poultry Industry. Cooperative lixtension Service. University of Arkansas, USDA and County Government Cooperating . The Chicken Broiler Industry. Benson V.W., and Witzig T.J., 1977. No. 381. USDA. .Agricultural Economic Report. Brant A.W., J.W. Goble, J.A. Hamann, C.J. Wabeck, and Walters R.E., Guidlines for Establishing and Operating Broiler Processing 1982. IPlants. Agricultural Research Service Handbook 581. USDA. I3I13vn1 S., 1980. "Spotting Cost Leaks: What the Records Shows." Broiler IIndustry. April. pp. 14-24. The Effect Chen T., C. Schultz, F. Reece, B. Lott, J.McNaughton, 1983. <>f Extended Holding Time, Temperature, and Dietary Energy on Yields <>f Broilers. Poultry Science 62: 1566-15571. (3}1j41113 R.E., 1968. Efficiency in Poultry Evisceration and Inspection ()perations. Marketing Research Report 813. USDA. Dickens J .A., 1987. "Investigating the Force Required to Remove IPeathers and the Effect of Different Temperatures and the Duration (3f Immersion Scalding." Paper Presented at 8th Annual Meeting of 1:he Poultry Science Society, Atlanta. I)11111<ssible product contamination. Spices, condiments, and curing agents asilhliall be kept on racks in closed containers. 67 Dry storage areas shall be kept clean and dry materials so arranged that the area can be cleaned. Most supplies can be stored on 12-inch high racks. Movable pallets are acceptable if they are routinely moved and the floors are kept clean. Dry materials may be stored without racks or pallets, provided they are closely piled and frequently moved—through rapid usage or <3t:11erwise—-to keep the area clean and orderly. Product ingredients must be handled and stored as "edible I317c>ducts." Accumulation or storage of unnecessary or unused equipment in storage or working areas should be avoided. To prevent product contamination, storage of soaps, detergents, or denaturing agents in Preduct handling or holding areas shall not be allowed. 8 - 1 1 WASTE DISPOSAL Adequate waste disposal eliminates potential contamination sources. It may be categorized into sewage, grease recovery, organic wastes and :- ubbish removal. Liquid wastes must be promptly removed and must a*C—tvumulate in work areas, around premises, or over floors and cause sannitation hazards. . . ( 3) Refuse Burning Incinerator Burning plant refuse outside is not permitted, unless :1‘1t: is approved by local authorities and is done in properly constructed Lhd sanitarily maintained incinerators with concrete base and screens :EQI: flying ash. Unless these facilities are present, plant refuse shall ‘3 Q removed daily or more often, if necessary, to prevent a nuisance. 68 (b). Feathers; Viscera To minimize possibilities of edible product contamination, to control insects and prevent Offensive Odors, feathers and poultry viscera should be promptly removed. (c). Blood Blood not processed within the plant must be removed daily in water tight covered containers. Container filling shall be done in a well— drained paved area with water outlets. Such area shall be washed daily and more often if necessary. (d). Rubbish Use paper towels, cartons, office waste, labeling materials, etc., may frequently be a sanitation problem. Suitable containers must be conveniently located throughout the plant and must be emptied frequently to control vermin and odors. Rubbish must not cause a nuisance. 8.13 WELFARE FACILITIES (3). Sanitary Maintenance Eating areas, locker rooms, showers, toilets, handwashing facilities, etc., shall be clean. They shall be constructed, equipped, and maintained to prevent entrance, hiding, and breeding of insects and rodents. An adequate janitorial service shall be regularly scheduled. (b). Clothing Storage Adequate and appropriately located receptacles must be provided for clothing. 69 Clothing footwear, personal equipment, etc., shall be clean and dry to prevent odors and vermin attraction. Overcrowding (more than one person to a locker) should be prohibited since it is difficult to keep overcrowded lockers clean and cockroach free. (c). Locker inspection Welfare rooms and lockers must be examined by plant management and an inspector at least monthly. Since many lockers are locked, a schedule must be established so all are left open for inspection. Locker inspection should determine whether lockers are adequate, clean, and in good repair. Lockers needing repair or replacement should be identified to plant representative and corrective action should be established. All information should then be recorded on Form MP 455. (d). Restrooms Sanitation must be maintained in these rooms. Toilets and urinals must be clean and functional. Floors contaminated with human wastes require immediate rejection of entire room. (e). Eating Areas Food and beverages must not be consumed or carried into product handling and storage areas. Disposable food and beverage containers must be discarded in waste containers. APPENDIX E Slaughter and Dressing of Poultry, and Exemption from Inspection. (Excerpts from MIP Manual, USDA) (II .I A. V'- ’C ‘4 70 APPENDIX E Saughter and Dressing (a). Bleeding Contamination prevention. Blood must be prevented from contaminating food products. To avoid product contamination from blood, scald water or feathers, slaughter and roughing should be done in rooms or areas adequately separated (by distance or otherwise) from pinning and finishing Operations. (b). Scalding; Overflow Poultry shall not enter scalding tanks while still breathing. Scalders should have a minimum overflow of one quart of water for each bird entering them. It should be increased, if necessary, to keep scald water reasonably clean. Hock or neck scalders require sufficient overflow for sanitary processing. (c). Defeathering All carcasses shall be properly defeathered before inspection. Incompletely defeathered carcasses should not be hung on eviscerating line. (d). Singeing Vestigial feathers (hair, down), left by picking machines, may be removed by Singeing, wax dipping, or other acceptable means. 71 When proper facilities are available, carcasses with hair may be singed on drip line after chilling. (e). Delayed Evisceration Uneviscerated carcasses may be temporarily held in tanks at transfer stations between picking and eviscerating lines provided: 1. They are vented before being placed in tanks, crop feed is removed, and they are thoroughly washed (especially feet, mouth, and slaughter cut). 2. Tank water is kept reasonably clean, has continuous overflow and temperature below 65°F. 3. Chilling time, as required by regulations begins when poultry enters the tank. (f). Washing All carcasses must be thoroughly washed after picking and before evisceration. (3). Feet Removal Feet shall be removed before inspection to examine hock joint and tendon sheath areas. 1 before final wash, if They may be removed on a New York line facilities have baffles to protect hock joints from being washed. Any variation shall be approved by area supervisor. 1These are chickens that are slaughtered, dressed but uneviscerated. 72 (h). Feet and Shanks for Edible Use Poultry feet and shanks may be saved for edible purposes, provided: 1. Toenails and cuticle are removed just before carcass hanging on eviscerating line. 2. They are identified with the carcass until after inspection. Hock joint may be cut, leaving shank attached by a tendon or skin part, and feet dropped without interfering with inspection. 3. They are washed before chilling. This may be done by leaving them on the carcass until after final wash. 4. They are chilled to 40°F. or lower within 2 hours after removal from the carcass. If chilled with the carcass, regulation requirement shall apply. Any acceptable method of chilling poultry carcasses may be used. However, bulk-packed feet and shanks must always be chilled to 40°F. or less before packing, even when packing is followed by immediate freezing. 5. Unwholesome feet and shanks, and those of condemned carcasses, are condemned at inspection station. 6. They are properly labeled and labels are approved by STS—LP. 7. Procedures are approved by RD. Note! Above instructions do not change requirements for feet exported to Japan or Hong Kong. (i). Head Removal Young chicken and waterfowl heads may be removed at any point between scalding and final washing of eviscerated carcass. Heads of other poultry should be removed after inspection and before final washing. 73 (J). Evisceration Adequate supervision by plant management is essential to sanitary eviscerating operations. (1). Opening cuts,0pening cuts must be made without cutting intestinal tract and without carcass contamination. Unnecessary cuts are prohibited since they result in carcass contamination during eviscerating procedures, and in excessive moisture absorption during chilling. Separating thighs from rib cage results in pockets where tissue debris and/or water gather during carcass washing and chilling. A long cut between vent and tail (to remove vent) causes water to collect between back and skin. (2). Bar cut procedure. A circular cut is made around the vent. Initial "half-moon" cut between tail and cloaca (Figure 7) may be made on either 2- or 3—point suspension. Figure 7. An illustration of a Bar Cut Procedure 74 After carcass is rehung to a 3—point suspension (if the 2-point is used), with forefinger hooked under closes and thumb placed over natural opening to prevent feces escape (Figure 8), remaining attachments -—inc1uding the two ureters (cords) extending from kidneys to cloaca- are cut in a circular motion with ball point scissors or short knife. Figure 8. Illustration on how to block faeces escape. With inte out Sud at: 5% 75 With light pull, cloaca is removed and about 4-6 inches of large intestines (Figure 9) is drawn down from vent opening and milked out under cold water sprays. Such sprays shall be installed and operated so that water or foreign material will not enter the carcass. Water sprays are not allowed between this point and inside the carcass washer. Figure 9. Illustration of the removal of cloaca 76 A transverse cut is made (Figure 10) without cutting the intestine. Such cut shall be no longer than necessary to allow proper drawing and inspection. 0 0 b ': s .B .l a. 1'. ( ‘ A U :‘i'fiiu ' s’ z I‘ Figure 10. Illustration of a transverse cut to allow proper drawing. 77 Before drawing, the cloaca is carefully lifted into the abdominal cavity and out over the bar strap (Figure 11). Cloaca and about 4-6 inches of large intestine should be suspended outside body cavity to prevent cloaca refill during drawing. Figure 11. An illustration showing the suspension of the large intestine to prevent cloaca refill during drawing 78 Remaining viscera-heart, liver, spleen, gizzard, etc. are drawn and adequately presented for inspection either hung by their attachments or placed on inspection conveyor below the carcass. (3). Drawing. Drawing should be adequate. Careless drawing may result in torn thigh areas. (k) Viscera Removal (1). Giblets. Removal and trimming of giblets (heart, liver, gizzard) should be done without carcass or viscera contamination. (2). Gizzard; intestine. Gizzard may be removed by cutting the esophagus at a 1/2 to 1 inch anterior to the proventriculus (Figure 12) and by trimming away and allowing the intestine to drop into the waterflushed disposal trough. ...... BIOphogus Sphincter Figure 12. An illustration of gizzard removal 79 Gizzard opening and content removal should be done without contaminating outer surface and attached fat. All mucosa and contaminated tissues must be removed. (3). Ovaries. Only diseased ovaries or those in "cluster" or "maturity" stage (visible ova) need be removed from young poultry. (1). Final washing. To enable the final washer to effectively flush blood and tissue debris from the carcass, water must drain freely from body cavity. Water trapped in body cavity, before or after chilling, affects moisture absorption and product weight. (m). Unacceptable Carcass; Rework Carcasses not meeting rtc requirements, except for hair when Singeing is done on drip line, shall be removed by plant employees at end of line and shall be promptly reworked. Chilling of Poultry To prevent bacterial growth and product spoilage, all poultry carcasses should be promptly chilled after eviscerating and washing. Chilling procedures should be as required by regulations. 10.11 WATER AND ICE (a). Chiller Filling; Overflow Poultry chillers must be filled to the point of overflowing before birds are allowed entry. Required fresh water intake (1/2 gallon per bird for young chickens, etc.) must begin as soon as chilling system is filled with poultry. A continuous overflow from each chilling unit must be maintained, except when units are being emptied of poultry. 80 (b). Ice Ice may be used to supplement part of water requirement in continuous chill systems at a rate of 8.5 pounds of ice for 1 gallon of water, provided compliance with section 381.66 (c)(2)(ii) of the regulations is attained. (c). Equipment Pumps, pipes, troughs, etc., may be used for returning overflow water to the chill system, provided they are of a sanitary type and are dismantled and cleaned daily. (d). Heated water While chilling is in progress, artificially heated water shall not be used in chilling system ... 81 Subpart C— Exemptions 381.10 Exemptions for specified operations. (a). The requirements of the Act and the regulations for inspection of the processing of poultry and poultry products shall not apply to: (1). Any retail dealer with respect to poultry products sold in commerce directly to consumers in an individual retail store, if the only processing operation performed by such retail dealer is the cutting up of poultry products on the premises where such sales to consumers are made: Provided, that such operation is conducted under such sanitary standards, practices, and procedures as result in the preparation of poultry products that are not adulterated: And provided, further, That the poultry products sold in commerce are derived from poultry inspected and passed under the Act and such poultry products are not adulterated or misbranded at the time of sale (except that the official inspection legend shall not be used). (For the purposes of this subparagraph, a retail dealer is any person who sells poultry products directly to consumers as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(vi) of this section and whose sales of poultry products to household consumers constitute, in terms of dollar value, at least 75 percent of his total sales of poultry products.); (2). The slaughter of poultry, and processing of poultry products, by any person in any territory not organized with a legislative body, solely for distribution within such territory: Provided, That such poultry is sound and healthy and is slaughtered under such sanitary standards, practices, and procedures as result in the preparation of I 82 poultry products that are not adulterated: And provided, further, That the poultry products are not adulterated or misbranded when so distributed (except that the official inspection legend shall not be used). (3). The slaughtering by any person of poultry of his own raising, and the processing by him and transportation in commerce of the poultry products exclusively for use by him and members of his household and his nonpaying guests and employees: Provided, That in lieu of complying with all the adulteration and misbranding provisions of the Act, such ! l V. ‘03 poultry is healthy and is slaughtered and processed under such sanitary standards, practices, and procedures as result in the preparation of poultry products that are sound, clean, and fit for human food, and the shipping containers of such poultry products bear the producer's name and address and the statement "Exempted-P.L. 90-492." (4). The custom slaughter by any person of poultry delivered by the owner thereof for such slaughter, and the processing by such slaughterer and transportation in commerce of the poultry products exclusively for use, in the household of such owner, by him and members of his household and his nonpaying guests and the employees: Provided, That such custom slaughterer does not engage in the business of buying or selling any poultry products capable of use as human food: And provided, further, That in lieu of complying with all the adulteration and misbranding provisions of the Act, such poultry is healthy and is slaughtered and processed under such sanitary standards, practices, and procedures as result in the preparation of poultry products that are sound, clean and fit for human food, and the shipping containers of such poultry 83 products bear the owner's name and address and the statement "Exempted- P.L. 90-492." (5). The slaughtering of sound and healthy poultry and processing of poultry products therefrom in any State or territory or the District of Columbia by any poultry producer on his own premises with respect to poultry raised on his premises, and the distribution by any person solely within such jurisdiction of the poultry products derived from such operations: Provided, That (i). in lieu of complying with all the adulteration provisions of the Act, such poultry is slaughtered and otherwise and handled under such sanitary standards, practices, and procedures as result in the preparation of poultry products that are sound, clean, and fit for human food when so distributed; (ii). such poultry products when so distributed, bear (in lieu of labeling that would otherwise be required) the producer's name and address and the statement "Exempted-P.L. 90-492" and such poultry products are not otherwise misbranded; (iii). such producer and distributor do not engage in the current calendar year in the business of buying or selling any poultry or poultry products other than as specified in this subparagraph (5). or in subparagraph (6) of this paragraph; and (vi) neither such producer or distributor slaughters or processes the products of more poultry than allowed by paragraph (b) of this section. (6). The slaughtering of sound and healthy poultry or the processing of poultry products of such poultry in any State or territory or the District of Columbia by any poultry producer or other person for distribution by him solely within such jurisdiction directly to household consumers, restaurants, hotels, and boardinghouses, for use in 84 their own dining rooms, or in the preparation of meals for sales direct to consumers: Provided, That (i). in lieu of complying with all the adulteration provisions of the Act, such poultry is slaughtered and otherwise processed and handled under such sanitary standards, practices, and procedures as result in the preparation of poultry products that are sound, clean, and fit for human food when distributed i by such processor; (ii). such poultry products when so distributed bear (in lieu of labeling that would otherwise be required) the processor's name and address and the statement "Exempted—P.L. 90-492" and such poultry products are not otherwise misbranded; (iii). such processor — does not engage in the current calendar year in the business of buying or selling any poultry or poultry products other than as specified in this subparagraph (6) or in subparagraph (5) of this paragraph; and (iv). such processor does not exceed the volume limitation prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section. (7). The operations and products of small enterprises (including poultry producers) not exempted under subparagraphs (1) through (6) of this paragraph that are engaged in any State of territory or the District of Columbia in slaughtering and/or cutting up poultry for distribution as carcasses or parts thereof solely for distribution within such jurisdiction; Provided, That: (i). such poultry is sound and healthy when slaughtered and is slaughtered and/or cut up and handled under such sanitary standards, practices and procedures as result in the preparation of poultry products that are not adulterated when distrib- uted; and (ii). when so distributed, such poultry products are not mis- branded (except that the official inspection legend shall not be used). 85 (b). No person qualifies for any exemption specified in paragraph (a) (5), (6), or (7) of this section if, in the current calendar year, such person: (1). Slaughters or processes the products of more than 20,000 poultry, or (2). Slaughters or processes poultry products at a facility used for slaughtering or processing poultry products by any other person, except when the Administrator grants such exemption after determining, upon review of a person's application, that such an exemption will not impair effectuating the purposes of the Act. (c). The provisions of the Act and the regulations do not apply to any poultry producer with respect to poultry, of his own raising on his own farm, which he slaughters if:... APPENDIX F Blueprint Checklist. (Extracted from A Guide to Construction and Lay-out FSIS). 86 APPENDIX F Blueprint Checklist I. Description of Plans A. B. MP Fbrm 432 completed? Name and address on all specifications and prints? Prints 34" x 44" or smaller? Two complete copies of drawings? Plot plan of entire premises included in drawings? Official premises indicated? Plot plans not more than 1/32-inch per foot? Drawings done to l/8-inch per foot scale? Specifications sheet included and do they reflect the type of operation (Slaughter, processing, poultry, etc.)? Four copies of specifications? Floor plan of each floor submitted? Floor plan illustrates facilities as they will exist in operation. Work positions indicated and the number of employees for each position shown? Drawings legible with clear, sharp lines, good contrast in all areas. Symbols used understandable? Legends provided. II. 87 Location of Establishment. Establishment separate from unofficial establishment or building. Retail meat business indicated on print. Inedible products, catch basins for grease indicated. Dustproof accessways to connect shipping receiving areas to the street. Rail spur for establishment shipping by rail. Loading area hard-surfaced and drained? North point of compass shown on each print. III. Water Supply, Plant Drainage, Sewage Disposal System E‘1 H O Potable hot and cold water provided? Nonpotable water kept separate from potable supply? Approved cross-connection between potable and nonpotable supply? All floors where wet operations conducted well-drained? Drainage lines from toilets not connected with other drainage lines within plant? Drainage lines of proper diameter? Floors properly sloped to drainage inlets? Acceptable method of disposing of plant wastes shown? Catch basins for grease recovery separate from edible areas? Origin of water supply? Back-flow effectively prevented? Floor drains properly trapped? IV. M. 88 Plant Construction Building materials impervious, easily cleanable, resistant to wear and corrosion, (must be USDA—MPI accepted)? Floors of durable water-resistant materials? Ceilings of acceptable height? Coves installed at juncture of floors and walls in all rooms? Window ledges sloped 450 or more? Doors, doorways wide enough? Doors of rust-resistant metal, other approved materials? Adequate insect, rodent control? Stairs impervious, with solid treads, closed risers, and side curbs? Exposed wood surfaces properly treated? Retaining compartments provided? Doors of toilet rooms and dressing room solid and self- closing? Room finish schedule for each area (walls, floors, ceilings)? V. Plant Lighting, Ventilation, and Refrigeration A. B. C. Adequate artificial lighting provided? Light fixtures equipped with shatterproof devices? Adequate ventilation in workrooms, welfare rooms, scalding areas, equipment wash rooms, and picking rooms? Sufficient space refrigerated and maximum cooler temperature shown? Type of refrigeration indicated? Ice supply indicated on poultry drawings? VI. A. I. VII. 89 Equipment Equipment listed in MPI-2 or approved in letter from Equipment Branch of MPITS? Stationary or not readily movable equipment installed away from walls and ceilings? Permanently mounted equipment far enough above floor for cleaning/inspection or sealed watertight to floor? Water-wasting equipment discharges into drainage system without overflowing on floor? Separate wash area for cleaning curing vats, hooks, handracks, utensils, containers, etc.? Chutes for transfer of product easily cleanable? All equipment shown with identifying codes or properly labeled and drawn to scale? Mechanical boning room temperature indicated on drawings? All containers and portable equipment shown? Handwashing facilities, Drinking fountains, Sanitizers and Connections for Cleanup hoses. A. Each processing area equipped with adequate handwashing facilities? Sanitizers adjoin lavatories in slaughtering departments? Sanitary drinking fountains provided in large workrooms and dressing rooms? Device for hanging or storing hose when not in use? Location off all lavatories, sanitizers, drinking fountains, similar features shown? CD631! 90 Each lavatory supplied with hot and cold water? Lavatories pedal-operated? Liquid soap and sanitary towels provided in lavatories? Meat-washing equipment shown? VIII. Facilities for processing Edible product A. IX. and Meat preparation and processing department of sufficient size? Processing department arranged so that product flows without congestion or back tracking? Sufficient and suitable dry storage space for supplies? Truckways adequate and designated on drawings? Design, equipment, and operation of slaughtering departments related areas. Antemortem inspection area under watertight roof with adequate light? Holding and shackling area adequately separated from slaughtering area? Proposed maximum slaughter rate and species (class of poultry) indicated? Drawings indicate if more than one species slaughtered simultaneously? Specifications indicate if ritual slaughtering will be done? Adequate space and facilities for separating and handling viscera? Suitable facilities for holding edible organs and parts under refrigeration? 91 H. Adequate facilities for handling inedible and condemned material? I. Inedible products areas separate and distinct from edible product facilities? J. Kill sequence and inspection station shown? K. Adequate inspection space?.... X. Plant employee facilities A. Dressing rooms for each sex, separate from toilet rooms? B. Number of employees using toilet rooms shown? C. Each employee provided with locker? D. Suitable shower/bath facilities provided in locker room? . Toilet rooms separated from adjoining dressing rooms? . Proper number of urinals, toilet bowls? . Sufficient number of handwashing basins? SEQ'TJM . Adequate lunch facilities? XII. Inspector's office . At least 70 square feet? . Not entered through company office or employee welfare rooms? . Suitable furniture? . Lavatory facilities? . Shower facilities in slaughtering operations? "Tlt'dUOWD' . Separate toilet room and adequate dressing room facilities if several inspectors are required? G. Adequate heat, light, cooling? APPENDIX G Plant Lay—out of 350, 500, and 1200 birds/hr Processing Plants. 92 é» a 3?» 2 N iagédéw 33%;st 9 3 coat" 'Illlll O O :43 52! 0 33. t... ...-09} .504 .410- bde ozfimwuocn E430“. «no: «we maxi on» @ bud—.6 sci ' .330) mu A'AAA L l use: ‘Neuua‘u Neg-C 94 '“I'J. 04""..- lol od..£-.o III Ir [1 .‘o'I-IIIOII'I‘o .JIII-I "III-II as 5--...." -5 II. J .OU H593 "ouufiom a 38.8-33. 00:00: O' ‘8‘ O -«-_-----.' _.-~ .... -.- O... 0.0.. ......o‘ D. ’ ..v- 0‘... O ‘60... 00.4. — ® b=J$ ulauuuoct at»? (:6.- Cut a... o: 0!. .00. O I”... «II ..---.-“--- LL-.. .. .. . .. l 1 I ’h 1 h—fi.“ 95 .oo “sax "oousom In his 1 T e. 4‘). {T‘.. is T 5 ...-a '1 1 >559 an; 0.50 O has [8‘50 :3 bu! gig ICU-phat.“ —|| hi. r. T11 96 Typical Pickwick EVISC-O-VEYOR Batch Poultry Plant Pickwick Company Source: 97 .oo soazm< "mousom "‘Nmmm