COMPARATIVE CCST$ OF SLAUGHTSRENG CATTLE
EN MICHIGAN PACKENG PLANTS

A Research Papa? for flu: Days-w ed M. S.
MiCHEGAN STAYE UNEVERSETY

Donakfi J5. Wisgman
1965

 

wiseman, Donald J
Comparative costs of slaughtering...J
M.S. Thesis .
1965

I

 

 

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIII III III IIIIIITIIIIIII' IIIII '-

1 ”‘13330064377%

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
‘3—

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
PIace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

“ W’s"
w I an

 

 

 

 

COMPARATIVE COSTS OF SLAUGHTERING
CATTLE IN MICHIGAN PACKING PLANTS

by

Donald J. Wissman

A RESEARCH PAPER

submitted to the College of Agriculture
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Agricultural Economics

1965

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude and appreciation
to all those who helped with the completion of this study and preparation
of the manuscript.

Thanks are extended to Dr. L. L. Boger and the Department of
Agricultural Economics in appreciation for their financial assistance,
academic guidance, and use of various departmental facilities.

Special appreciation is extended by the author to his major professor,
Dr. Harold M. Riley. His thoughtfulness, inspiration ,- and guidance
throughout the course of the study will not be forgotten.

Appreciation is expressed to the Michigan slaughtering concerns
that provided much valuable information in addition to providing access
to their plants for the time studies.

Thanks are extended to Mr. Don Hine, District Marketing Extension
Agent, for his assistance in arranging interviews and appointments~

Thanks are expressed to Kathryn West who devoted considerable time
and effort in typing the first draft of this paper.

Thanks are also expressed to Mrs. Nelda Wardell and others for

their efforts in preparing the final copy.

CHAPTER
I

II

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . .
General Considerations. .
Other Research. .
The Prdblem and Purpose .
Methodology and Procedure

Plant Selection . . . . . .
Methods of Comparing Costs.
Cost Accounting Records Method.
Supplementary Time Studies. . .

COST COMPARISONS BASED ON ACCOUNTING RECORDS. .
Classification of Costs . . . . . . . . . . .
Wages and Salaries. . 3 . . .

Supplies. . . . . . . .
Utilities . . . . . . .
Transportation. . . . .
Repair and Maintenance.
Professional Fees . . .
Public Relations. . . .
Insurance . . . . . . .
Taxes . . . . . . . . .
Depreciation Costs. . .
Interest. . . . . . . .
Other .

Cost Relationships Among Four
Total Cost and Average Cost

0
O
O
O
O
O

Wages and Salaries. . . . .
Plant Operation . . . . . .

Fixed and.Variable Cost

STAGES OF OPERATION . . . .
Description of Stages . .
Stage I - Procurement . .
Stage II - Holding. . . .

Michigan Packers

Stage III - Killing and Dressing.
Dressing Line Operations. . . .

Driving, Immobilizing, Dry Landing.

Bleeding, Skinning Head . . . . . .
Flooring. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rumping, Backing and Eviscerating .
Dropping Hide . . . . . . . . . . .

Splitting, Scribing and Bruise Trimming
Washing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shrouding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Weighing. . . . . .

ii

'0
can: 03030) 01030301030: thJth9h3k3h3h3h>k4hlblklblbnkahakak: hakakabapa
ggmqgmmmgmggmpp mmmwnnpooommmmmmmmm wwoooqupg

TABLE OF CONTENTS continued --

CHAPTER Page
Supporting Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Head Work Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Viscera Removal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Hide Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #0

Pluck Work Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no
Paunch Work Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”0
Stage IV - Cooler and Load—Out Dock Operation. . . . . . . ”0
Cooler Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”0
LoadrOut Dock Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”1

Quarter Stacking Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”1
Carcass Side-Rail Truck Method . . .'. . . . . . . . . ”1
General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “2
Stage V - Special Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”2
Stage VI - Selling and Delivery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”3

IV TIME REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ””
Stage III Time Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”4

Plant A: General Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Plant B: General Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . ”5

Plant C: General Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Plant D: General Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Summary of Stage III Time Requirements . . . . . . . . 53

Stage IV Time Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Cooler Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

LoadrOut Dock Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 6“

APPmDICBS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 66

iii

Table

10

LIST OF TABLES

Financial Ratios fer All Nondurable Goods Manufacturing
Corporations by Industry, 1963.

Costs of Operation of Four Beef Packinghouses in
Michigan, 1963-19614

Costs of Operation of Four Packinghouses on a Per Head
Basis , 19363-196“.

Costs of Operation of Four Packinghouses, Per Hundreds
weight of Dressed Beef, 1963-196u.

Summary
Killing

of Time Requirements Per Head for Stage III,
and Dressing, Plant A.

of Time Requirements Per Head for Stage III,
and Dressing, Plant 8.

of Time Requirements Per Head for Stage III,
and Dressing, Plant C.

of Time Requirements Per Head for Stage III,
and Dressing, Plant D.

of Time Requirements Per Head for Stage III,
and Dressing, All Plants.

Productive Labor Requirements for Stage IV Per 100

Cattle

iiii

26-27

28

28

47

#9

51

55

56

58-59

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
General Considerations
Many changes have occurred in the meat packing industry in
Michigan over the past decade. Changing economic conditions have
reduced profit opportunities of earlier years and plants that were
built many years ago may no longer provide the most economical size
of plant for slaughtering operations. The introduction of new
technology such as the more automated on-the-rail dressing operation
has raised questions as to the cost advantages of these new plants
over the conventional ones.-1-/
Profits as reported by the meat packers have generally been the
lowest of all nondurable goods manufacturing industries. Figures for
1963 show that packers reported earnings, as a percent of sales, was
by far the lowest of all nondurable goods industrial groups while the
packers sales to assets ratio was the highest (see Table 1). Perhaps a
more meaningful ratio is the return on net worth, Here again the
packers' earnings, as a percent of net worth, are 1.3... lowest of all

nondurable goods industries except the textile mill producx...

 

y There are two basic types of plants in general operation: 1)
the conventional bed-type system and 2) the "on-the—rail" dressing
system. In the conventional bed-type system, most commonly used in
Michigan today, cattle are moved manually on the ra1ls and removed
from the rails to beds on the floor for certain work. In the more
automated on—the-rail system either power or gravity is used to move
the cattle through the dressing process.

The unsatisfactory profit situation has existed fer some time.
Data from the American Meat Institute indicates that earnings in
the meat packing industry have been the lowest of all manufacturing
groups for the past ten-year period.3/

Table 1. Financial Ratios-for All Nondurable Goods Manur
facturing Corporations, by Industry, 1963

 

Sales to Net Worth

 

 

 

 

 

 

Industries Earnings As % of . Assets As % of
Sales Assets Net Worth Rate Total Assets

Dairy products 1.91 5.16 8.3% $2.70 61.9
Bakery products 2.22 5.96 9.1a 2.69 65.2
Alcdholic beverages 3.u8 5.22 7.83 1.50 66.7
Other fecd 6 kindred prod. 2.30 5.u3 9.27 2.36 58.6
Tobacco manufacturers 5.92 8.6a 13.01 1.u6 66.5
Textile mill products 2.35 3.80 6.05 1.61 62.7
Apparel 8 other products 1.38 3.70 7.47 2.68 u9.6
Paper 8 allied products n.52 5.35 8.0a 1.18 66.5
Printing 6 publishing 3.15 u.88 9.16 1.55 53.2
Chemicals 8 allied pro. 7.uu 8.u6 12.92 1.1a 65.5
Petrol. refining 6 related 10.28 8.0a 11.03 .79 73.14
Rubber 5 misc. plastic prod. 3.59 s.uu 9.07 1.52 60.0
Leather 8 leather‘products 1.78 3.85 6.79 2.16 56.7'
Tota1.nondurab1e goods u.ss 6.73 10.25 1.38 65.6
Total manufacturing H.7l 6.uu 10.13 1.37 63.6
Meat packing industry .su 4.21 6.67 5.00 63.2

‘— 44 4mA-.—— ,_.... - - “—0 - __

——v

Source: Meat packing industry figures estimateorhv American Meat
Institute. All other figures calculated fro» figurgq shown
in joint report of the Security and Exchange Commission
and the Federal Trade Commission. Data taken from American
Meat Institute, Financial Facts About the Meat Packing_

Industry, Chicago, 1963, p. 20.

 

ZlAmerican Meat Institute, Financial Facts About the Meat
Packing Industry, Chicago, 1954-1956.

The goal of profit improvement not only benefits the packing
industry but also has long-run social implications. If the meat
packing industry is to continue its traditional role as processor
and distributor of the nation's meat supply in a manner that is
satisfactory to both producers and consumers, its earnings must be
sufficient to provide for basic research, the modernization of
present day plants and the development of new products which are
demanded by our modern day shoppers.

Approximately three-fourths of all dollars paid out by a meat
packing company go for the purchase of livestock or processing meats.§/
It is understandable then that a relatively large portion of management
efforts has been directed toward the procurement and selling aspects of
the operation. As a result many of the small and medium sized plants
have neglected internal costs analysis for the purpose of cost reductions

in the processing operation. There is, however, recent widespread

infarestin operational costs in livestock slaughter‘plants.

Other Research
Little information is available concerning the actual costs of
slaughtering livestock. One such study is currently in progress by

the U.S.D.A.2/ This study is being accomplished by means of'mail-in

 

E/Cost of livestock and other raw materials as a percent of total
sales was: 1959, 73.u percent; 1960, 72.7 percent; 1961, 73.7 percent;
1952, 7n.1 percent; and 1963, 73.3 percent as reported.by American Meat
Institute, Financial Facts About the Meat Packing Industry, Chicago,
1963, p. l.

fljAgnew, Donald B., Meatpackers' Costs in Fresh Beef Operation-~A
Pilot Survey, Marketing Economics Division, Economic Research Service
U.S.D.A.,’Washington, D.C., 1963.

 

accounting data and is concerned.with the cost of fresh beef Operations.
Preliminary data releases indicate that meat packers were converting
cattle into beef at an average total cost of $26.70 per head. This
included buying costs, slaughter, grading, loading, selling and delivery.
The total cost reported.by packers varied from $21.04 to $33.90 per
head, equivalent to about 2.u to 3.3 cents per pound liveweight.

.A further breakdown of these costs indicate that in-plant costs
averaged $15.u5 per head, divided into $7.u2 for labor, $6.78 for plant
and administration, $1.25 for grading and packaging. Other costs
averaged $11.2" per head. This included $1.00 for procurement expense
and $10.29 for selling and delivery.

The American Meat Institute publishes 'Financigl Fggts About the

Meat Packing Industry. E! This report is prepared annually and the

 

costs fer the entire industry are estimated. Expense figures are
estimated from a survey conducted among 135 companies consisting of a
cross-section of the entire industry and the Census of Manufacturers
for Meat Packing.

A comprehensive study of the characteristics of the Indiana meat
packing plants was conducted.by Schneidau.§/ Emphasis was placed on
labor efficiency as it was related to such factors as size of operation,
degree of automation, labor specialization and plant schedules. Special

«emphasis was placed on the cattle killing and dressing operation.

S/American Meat Institute, op. cit.

6/Schneidau, Robert Emil, Operating Efficiency and Labor Productivity
in. Selected Indiana Meat Packing_Plants,(unpublished thesis) Department of
Agzéicultural Economics, Purdue University, January 1963

Results of the comparative analysis showed a wide range in output
{per man hour between plants. The analysis indicated that there was no
apparent relationship between size of plant and labor productivity
(excluding on-the-rail beef dressing processes) in the cattle killing
and dressing operation.

A study was conducted among Virginia meat packing firms in which
costs and production records were analyzed by departments to obtain
interfirm variations in man hours required and in costs of labor and
other selected resources.2/ The study showed that considerable variation
existed in all departments in costs and labor efficiency, and that con—
siderable variation also existed in costs and labor efficiency on a
total firm basis, but this was not as great as inter-departmental
variation. It was also interesting to note that there was no meaningful
relationship between volume and costs in any of the departmental
analysis, and no meaningful relationship between volume and labor
efficiency nor volume and costs in the total analysis.

The author reported that labor cost of dressed.beef‘ranged from a
low of $.39 to a high of $1.05 per hundredweight with an average of
$.80.§/ Total costs for all firms were reported at a low of $5.19 per
hmdredueight of dressed beef. This included: labor, supplies
maintenance, insurance, office, sales, depreciation, rent and utilities.2/

A study was conducted.by Logan and King to determine the long-run

and short-run average cost functions for specialized.beef slaughter

 

-Z/Crowder, Richard T. and Juillerat, Monte E., Variation§_in Labor
Efficiency and Selecteg_Costs Among Virginia Meat Packingfifiirms, Bul, No.
5H2, Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, 1962.

 

E/Ibid” p. 17.
g/Ibid., p. 31.

plants in CalifOrnia.l9/ They estimated the cost function by synthe-
sizing the construction of eight model plants of various size and using
two technologies (1) conventional orIbedrtype slaughtering and (2)
intermittent on-the-rail dressing. The bed-type slaughtering appeared
to offer a cost advantage over the intermittent on-the-rail system in
the range of output between 17 and 50 head per hour. Costs, in general,
tended to decrease over the range in output studied from $9.u8 per
head in a one-bed conventional plant operating at 17 head per hour to
$7.28 per head in a completely conveyorized on-the-rail system operating
at 120 head per hour. Figures included all plant costs including
buying, selling and delivery.

Hammons and Millerii/ cenducted a study on work methods and plant
layout of all basic types of materials-handling equipment currently
used in Texas. They found that costs for a typical plant slaughtering
100 cattle daily could.be reduced 50 cents a head or $13,000 annually
through improved work methods and plant layout. The total labor and
equipment cost per 100 cattle fer performing plant operation with typical
work methods was $235.22 as compared to $l8u.68 with improved work methods.
All of the recuction in the costs for slaughtering with improved
methods and layout occurred in the cost of labor. Labor costs were

reduced from $216.37 to $165.21 with improved work methods while the

costs of equipment are slightly higher.

 

AQ/Logan, Sanuel H., and King, Gorden A., Economics of Scale in
Beef Slaughter Plants, Giannini Foundation Research Report No. 260,
CalifOrnia Agricultural Experiment Station, Giannini Foundation of
Agricultural Economics, December 1962.

 

 

li/Hammons, Donald A., and Miller, Jarvis E., Improving Methods
andgFacilities forCattleéSlaughtering Plants in the Sputhwest,'Marketing

Research Report No. H36, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural
Marketing Service, Washington, D. C., February 1961.

 

A further study was conducted by Hamonsy.’ to compare the relative
efficiency of the conventional bed-type system with the on-the-rail
systems and to deve10p a layout for each system that provides for maximum
operating efficiency. Hams study showed that killing-floor operations
in plants with a rail system (either power or gravity) cost about $13,000
to $15,000 a year less than a conventional bed-type system in plants
with a volume of 50,000 head per year. Average costs for labor and
equipment per 100 head were $203.56 for the 3—bed system, $177.61; for the

powered system, and $173.33 for the gravity system.

The Problem and Purpose

There is a real need for more information concerning operational
problems and conparative costs in the Michigan beef packing industry.
Rural development planners and farmer cooperative groups are interested
in cost figures for economic feasibility studies and planning investment
in new plants. Meat packers presently operating in high—cost plants
must decide whether to re-design their old plants or to build new ones.
They want to know if they do expand their present Volume whether they
can expect a corresponding decrease in operating costs. New technology
such as on-the-rail dressing Operations raises questions as to the cost
advantages of the more automated system over the conventional bed-

type system comonly employed in Michigan packinghouse operations.

 

Ell-lama, Donald R. , Cattle Killigg - Floor System and Layouts,
Marketing Research Report No. 657, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D. C. , May 19611.

Also, in a study conducted by McLeod-4'3,

several of the packers inter-
viewed indicated that they would like to have some relative cost
figures so that they would have a basis for determining how their plant
compares with other plants of the same size slaughtering the same
species of livestock.

Infbrmation necessary to answer these questions is generally
limited and is especially lacking concerning the characteristics of
Michigan's beef packing industry. To tackle all the problems of the
operational efficiency and cost analysis would be an impossible task fer
this study. With the tremendous variation evident among various plants
and.within the plants themselves, one hardly knows where to concentrate

his efforts. Attention in this study was focused on labor cost in
selected.beef packing plants in Michigan. The American Meat Institute
reports that #6.3 percent of the total operating expenses went for
'wages and salaries and an additional 7.7 percent went fer employee
benefit programs comprising a total of su percent of the total operating
expenses.lfl!

Not only does direct labor comprise a very large segment of the
total cost of operation, but also according to some meat packing officials
and industrial engineers, much improvement is usually obtainable through
closer assignment and supervision of labor and scheduling of work. This
is generally possible without requiring changes in wage rates or added

equipment. Furthermore the use of labor as the variable input factor

provides the most useful "common denominator" for comparing the

 

.13! McLeod, Willard L., A Study of Wage Rates and Unionization In
The Meat Packing Industry in Michigan (unPUbliShed.re3ééPCh paper)
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, l963,p. 52.

 

lfl/American Meat Institute, op. cit., p. 3.

efficiency of production methods and techniques between various firms
in the same industry.$§/

The purpose Of this study was to provide some infOrmation
which packers can use as a benchnerk in comparing slaughtering costs.
It is also hoped that packers will benefit by increasing their aware-
ness of using cost analysis fer the purpose of cost reduction and
unmagerial decision making. Also, an increased.know1edge Of time
requirements fer slaughtering cattle under Michigan's conditions may
assist packers in decreasing labor costs through more efficient work
scheduling.

Before further and more comprehensive studies can be made, it is
useful and.necessary to identify some of the characteristics of the
industry in Michigan, the nature of costs, and something of the nature
of the operational problems faced by Michigan packers. Hopefully
then, this study will provide the beginning and some necessary back-
ground information fOr further research. The specific Objectives were
as follows:

1. To identify the nature Of costs involved in the meat packing

industry of Michigan.

2. To develop methods of cost comparison based upon accounting

records and supplementary direct observations of plant Operation.

3. To make a comparative cost analysis for four medium size beef

packing plants.

u. To identify some of the problems involved in a study of this

type, and to suggest appropriate methodologies for future studies.

 

3310.8. Department of Labor, Plant Operation Report for Meat
Processing, BLS, Report NO. 89, Washington, D.C., June 1955 (inside
front cover).

10
Methodology and Procedure
Plant Selection

Data used in this study was collected from five medium-sized
meat packing plants in Michigan. 0f the total list Of
packing plants, those which slaughtered only cattle and at the rate
Of 300-800 head per‘week were considered. Of this group a list of
potential cooperators was developed through consultation with M.S.U.
research and extension staff.

Initial contact was made with the owners or managers of the
plants either by telephone or by a personal contact from Mr. Don Hine,
District Marketing Agent, Michigan State University. Follow up visits
were then made and an explanation was given as to the nature of and
purpose Of the study. Subsequent visits were then made as necessary
to Obtain the accounting data and accomplish the necessary time studies.

All of the palnts that were finally selected, and asked, were
willing to allow the author to carry out a time study of the slaughter
operation. A great deal of reluctance was shown by some of the
managers; however, when asked for a summary Of the cost accounting
records of their slaughter operation. This reluctance was based on
two factors: 1) because Of poor or inadequate accounting systems
some managers did not have the infOrmation readily available and did
not have the time to Obtain it from the plant records, and 2) because
costs represent a sensitive portion of their Operation, they were
unwilling to release them.

Methods of Comparing_COsts

 

The prOblem Of measuring and comparing costs may be approached

in a number of different ways. It was felt that for the Objectives

ll

of this study an analysis of average costs based on accounting records
combined with an actual time study analysis would give a useful
approximation of variation in relative costs among plants .

Cost Accountigg:§ecords Method,--The cost accounting records
nethod uses as basic infOrmation the historical cost data from the
existing records of the plants. The main advantage of this method is
that it allows one to Obtain considerable information in a short
amount of time and at a relatively low cost. Where the objectives of
the study are broad and the resources limited, careful analysis of
average cost based on accounting records may give a rough but useful
approximation to economics of scale or variations in relative costs
among‘plants.

When considering the cost for utilities, supplies, and especially
repair and maintenance, which tend to fluctuate considerable, a more
accurate average can be Obtained if the data is Observed over a period
of a year. The accounting approach involves some other special prOblems
such as segregating operations, computing interest and depreciation
charges, assuring unifOrm accounting procedures and most basic of all
Obtaining the necessary detailed account data from the firm to make a
meaningful study.

Each firm was asked fOr a summary of their in-plant costs for
their beef cattle slaughterrand dressing operation. All costs were to
be included from the time the cattle arrived at the plant until the
carcass left the plant fOr delivery. External costs (for procurement,

selling and delivery) were omitted in this study. The costs were to

12

cover a 12-month period from July. 1, 1963 through June 30, 1964. The
data from Plant A covered the period from October 3, 1963 to September
30, 1961; because of their method of accounting. It was felt that if
the reporting period would cover a 12-month period, seasonal fluctuation
and other irregularities would tend to average out. Costs for special
processing, such as sausage manufacture, boning or hide processing

were not included.

One of the firms contacted was able to provide a detailed record
of their in—plant costs and had this data readily available to use for
managerial decisions. Limited data were obtained from three other
plants and is incorporated in this study to provide a basis for the
cost relationships among the various plants.

Plant managers generally utilized the following breakdown of costs
in some form or another.

a. Labor

b. Fringe benefits

c. General manufacturing cost or overhead (sometimes separated

into direct and general manufacturing costs)

d. Administrative costs

The problem encountered, however, was that summaries contained costs
from all functions of the plant operation including buying, selling and
delivery. The task was to properly classify the costs in order to
provide meaningful information for management. One of the first
essentials in establishing a good accounting system to best serve the

nee<h of management is to identify and establish cost centers in

13

accordance with the various stages of the operation.$§! The expense
records should.provide sufficient detail to enable the manager to
Obtain an accurate picture of the costs for each separate department.
These figures can then be summarized to provide records for the business
as a whole. To be of maximum value, the expense records should sum-
marize separately the total expenses for each major operation per-
formed in the different stageSr;Z/ This is necessary so that the
manager can separately evaluate each Operation. They should summarize
separately total expenses of each major input so the cost of the input
can be compared with its productivity. Fixed and variable costs should

be summarized separately to facilitate planning.

Supplementary Time Studies.--Actual time studies were conducted

 

on four slaughter operations. This consisted of stop watch measurement
of the unit time requirement of each operation in the killing and
dressing stage.l§/ Prior to the actual measurement, the stage was
analyzed and separated into operational work areas. These operational
work areas were further divided into various jObs and each job timed.
Individual measurement was made of the elapsed time between the beginning
and end of work on each production unit. The disadvantage of this type
of study is that only one worker can be effectively Observed at one

time and they are Observed over a short period of time.

 

llélPhillips, Richard, Managing For'Greater Returns in_§rain Feed

and Other'Retail Businessegu_8erving Agriculture, Manhattan, Kansas,
1962, p. 151.

7
l'lgp. cit., Phillips, p. 157.

Stages of operation in a slaughter plant include: 1) procurement,
2) holding, 3) killing and dressing, u) cooler operation, 5) special
processing, 6) selling and delivery. A complete discussion of the stages
<>f operation is included in Chapter III.

1'4

The actual time study conducted at each plant took place over six
to eight hour periods with observations both in the morning and in the
afternoon. In cases where the crew was kosher killing, working with
one or two men short of their regular crew, or exceedingly fatigued
due to a heavy kill, another series of observations was made on a
following day. It was felt that by conducting observations at different
times of the day and/or on different days any such irregularities
would tend to be averaged out.

From three to seven observations were made at each plant of each
specific job, and with the same job being performed by different workers
in those cases where the task was not performed by one specific worker.
This method was used to approximate a "normal" rate of activity.

The task of obtaining an accurate measurement was made more diffi-
cult when during certain major functions such as "flooring" or "rmnping,"
a job would be left undone while the worker would assist in a different
operation requiring two men such as lowering or hoisting a second
carcass. The job on the first animal would then be completed by a second
worker. In some cases the task of accurate measurement of that job was
further complicated by the introduction of a third worker who would
conplete the task. This type of switching was prevalent when a member
of the killing crew was absent and the job switching was performed to

replace the missing worker and to "keep the line moving".

CHAPTER II

COST COMPARISONS BASED ON ACCOUNTING RECORDS

Classification of Costs

For the purposes of this study costs were separated into 12

component parts which corresPond closely to those listed by the pack-

ing firms. There is, however, considerable variation in the classifica-

tion of costs among the various firms in the study. The cost

components are:

1.
2.
3.

H.

10.
11.

12.

Wages and salaries

Supplies

Repairs and maintenance
Transportation

Utilities

Professional fees (grading and inspection)
Advertisement and public relations
Insurance

Taxes

Depreciation

Interest

Other

Wages and Salaries

 

Plant payroll records were used to obtain data concerning the

wages paid to production workers. The disadvantage of payroll records

16

is that they usually reveal little of the specific details of the plant
job. For example, in all plants involved in the study the killing

crew were guaranteed a 36 hour work week under union contract and in
one case a 1+0 hour week was guaranteed}?! When the day's kill is
coupleted, the manager may have the men do yard work (cleaning and
repairing holding pens, etc.), work in the cooler, accomplish general
plant maintenance and clean up, spend the remainder of the work day
doing nothing or even send them home early. Plant records would generally
conceal the fact that a considerable portion of the man-hours involved
in the performance of a particular job may be spent doing other things
and would not reflect a true rate of performance.

Other problem encountered in using only plant payroll records
would be a lack of a uniform job description for the task performed.
Moreover, accounting procedures are far from standardized among the
different firms. .

Fringe benefits paid to the workers were included and varied from
approximately 20 to 30 percent of total wages paid. This is because
of 1) variation in labor contracts, 2) employers oftentimes gave fringe
benefits in excess of those stated in the labor contract, 3) different
accounting procedures were used to prorate the cost of fringes.-22-

Some plant managers included the cost of vacation and holiday pay into
the direct labor costs, others included it along with other fringes
such as pensions and retirement, workman compensation, Federal

Insurance Contribution Act, and Blue Cross. Implicit costs such as

 

219-, Employees unionized under the MCBW (amalgamated Meat Cutters)
and Butcher Workmen of North America APL-CIO) and the UPNA (United
.Packinghouse, Food and Allied Workers AFL-CIO) guaranteed a 36-hour
week and those unionized under the Teamsters are guaranteed a ”0-hour
week. McLeod, 92. cit., p. 20.

ZQ/McLeod, op. cit., pp. 50-51.

17

free meals, clothing allowance, laundry, Christmas bonus, rest periods,
personal clean-up time, etc. should be measured and converted into
dollars and charged against the per head labor cost of slaughter.
This was attempted whenever possible but such costs are numerous and
varied and are oftentimes very difficult to define and measure
accurately.

Salaries paid to managers and executives were also included in
the total labor costs. Accounting records were the chief source of
these data, but frequently the needed information is considered
"confidential" and not easily obtained. In cases where there is an

owner—manager arrangement, it is difficult to separate salaries and

profits. Another problem was encomitbnqd in attempting to allocate
the proper proportion of time spent in the var:.,us functions of the
total operation and thereby allocating the proper costs. 1,, ., I...
operations, and especially under an owner—manager arrangement, the
owner-manager would spend time buying, managing in-plant operations ,
selling and, in one case sausage manufacturing. These men usually
worked long hours and on an irregular basis making any sort of time
allocation difficult. In all cases when a problem such as this
occurred an estimate was made as to the allocation of time for the
in—plant operations on the basis of a study of the available plant
records.

Salaries of personnel working in the office were included in the
total labor costs. In the case where the same office staff performed
the necessary functions for both a slaughtering operation and sausage
manufacturing operation, an estimate was made as to the proportion of

time which should be allocated to the slaughtering operation.

18

Supplies

Whenever possible costs of supplies were separated into manufactur-
ing,administrative and corral. Manufacturing supplies consisted of
such things as containers, shrouds, pins, tags, cleaning supplies,
and all other supply costs used in manufacturing. Supplies needed fer
maintenance and repair were included under maintenance costs. Adminis-
trative supplies included all those items necessary for the operation
of the offices. Costs for livestock feed and other supplies necessary
for the corral operations were included and consisted of a rather sig-
nificant expense. No prOblems were encountered in Obtaining these
figures.

Utilities

Utilities included costs such as heat, lights, power, water,
sewage, refrigeration and telephone. Telephone charges generally amount
to a substantial cost, as a result of most buying and selling being
transacted over the phone. No attempt was made to separate the calls
pertaining to buying, selling and plant operation, so all were included
in in-plant costs.

“Transportation

This category included all transportation costs pertaining to the
plant activities excluding transportation expense incurred in the
procurement and selling and delivery stages, such as manager's car, etc.
Repgir and_Maintenance

Repair and maintenance is composed of both variable and fixed
cost components. A certain amount of maintenance is required to keep

machinery in working order even if the plant is not currently in

19

operation. Such a cost is a fixed cost. Maintenance and repair which
is a direct result of machine useage is a variable cost.g'y

All plants in the study operated on a year around basis so it
would be an impossible task to empirically attempt to separate the
expense result of wear and that of a. time factor. For this reason repair
and maintenance were combined.

Repair and maintenance were separated into costs used for equipment
such as replacement parts, drive belts etc. and those used for building
and ground. This would include re-roofing, yard maintenance, snow

removal , sanding , etc .

Professional Pegs

 

No problem was encountered in obtaining the data for profissional
fees which included costs for grading and inspection. This cost
accounted for approximately five percent of total operating expense.

Public_Re lations

 

None of the plants in question employed any direct advertising;
however one plant, a branch of a larger corporation, would indirectly
pay for advertising through the budget allotted to the central office.
Costs that were included were such things as gifts to charities,
community projects, and expenses incurred by the management in
attending professional conferences, entertainment, etc.

Insurance

Insurance costs covered all types of insurance carried by the

management in connection with the slaughter house operation. This

included fire and comprehensive on the building and its contents.

 

gi/Logan and King, 9. cit., p. 89.

 

 

 

'lf‘ll

20

Insurance costs pertaining directly to the labor ferce such as
workman's compensation, unemployment insurance, health and accident
insurance were not included.in this category but were considered
directly a part of the labor cost and were included under fringe
benefits.

Taxes

 

Taxes included property tax and any other tax.incurred resulting
from the plant operations. The only exception was social security tax
which was included in total labor cost under fringe benefits. This
categpry also included any license fees required by law to operate a
slaughter’operation.

Depreciation Costs

 

The depreciation of a durable asset can.be divided into 1) depreci-
ation from*wear and useage, 2) depreciation over time resulting from
age and 3) depreciation due to Obsolesence.22! For the purposes of
this study where accurate depreciation costs were not Obtained for more
than one plant, it was felt that even if depreciation cost could
empirically be separated into the above categories, little would be
gained. Methods used in depreciating facilities varied so greatly
between plants that any comparison of actual plant data would be
virtually impossible.

One possible solution to this situation in future studies is to
calculate 1) the total cost of the building and equipment including
installation charges, sales tax and freight charges; 2) subtract the

estimated salvage value of each item from the original cost to obtain

ZZ/Logan and King, op. cit., p. 73.

21

the balance for depreciation; 3) dividethe balance for depreciation
by the useful life of the item-291

An alternative method would be to use the replacement value instead
of actual costs-21’ This method, however, would give a bias in favor
of the plants with relatively new buildings and equipment which may be
more efficient in labor utilization. Managers may be aware that in
their old facilities labor costs would be relatively higher, but may be
willing to trade higher labor costs for lower fixed buildings and
equipment costs. If these older plants were depreciated on the basis
of replacement costs, they would be penalized both for high labor costs
and high plant costs.

Normally buildings are depreciated at the rate of 20 to 30 years,
the average used by most managers in this study was 25 years. Equipment
varied considerably depending on manufacturer’s recommendation, normally
within the range of 10 to 15 years.

Interest

Interest is a cost not normally found in the accounting records of
slaughtering plants, but interest foregone on money invested must be
considered. Generally an interest rate of 6 percent is used as the
base rate applicable to the nondepreciating land investment and salvage
value of the equipment, and a 3 percent figure is applied to the

depreciable balance of the equipment and buildings ,3?!

 

iii/mid. , 73

33., Gibb, Richard Dean, Bconpmicsgof Scale in Michigan Livestock
Auctions, (unpublished thesis), Department of Agricultural Economics,
Hi-chiganState University, 1959, p. 33

2-5-ILogan and King, pp. cit., p. 77.

22

are;

This category would include all other costs involved by the firm
not applicable to the foregoing. This would normally cover such things
as legal fees, auditor or accountant fees, bank charges, head office

budget .

Cost Relationships Among Four Michigan Packers

Total Cost and Avgrage Cost

Table 2 shows that total costs of operation, excluding buying,
selling and delivery costs, ranged from 5228,4436 at Plant A to $u35,759
at Plant B. Average cost per animal was $13.46 with a low of $12.19
per head at the largest plant to a high of $15.19 at the smallest
of the four plants. There are some general considerations concerning
the data obtained from the fourplants that should be considered at
this time.

Plant A was a small highly organized subsidiary of a larger company

which euployed'a centralized IBM accounting-system. Very accurate

data were kept on all in-plant costs and surmnaries were readily available
for managerial decision making. A large portion of "other" costs
consisted of IBM rental fees and the head office budget. Only cattle
were slaughtered at Plant A; however the plant included a sausage
manufacturing operation. Expenses such as the nanager's salary,
utilities, repair and maintenance of the building and grounds, insurance,
taxes, depreciation, and interest were prorated to the slaughter opera-
tion on the basis of the best judgement of the manager and available

plant records. To the extent that items of expense are allocated

23

to departments by some method of approximation the expenses of the
slaughter operation is affected.by the accuracy of the estimate.

Detailed cost figures for those in-plant costs other>than labor
were not available from Plant 3. The plant is owned and operated by
the present manager and all accounting records and receipts are kept
by him and one bookkeeper. As a result, accurate cost accounting
data and monthly statements are not available. The manager explained
"We don't have time to develop a good accounting system and are not
big enough and can't afferd to have the accounting work done."
TherefOre, the total cost figure is based on the manager's personal
knowledge and judgment. Here again one must keep in mind.the element
of guesswork in this method of approximation.

A workable accounting system was again lacking in Plant C.
Monthly summaries were not prepared and it was necessary fer the
manager to "dig" through the records to Obtain the information which
was received fer the study. Accurate labor cost data were obtained
along with the costs of utilities, repair and maintenance. Complete
information was not available on cost of manufacturing supplies,
inspection fees, taxes, depreciation and interest. As a reSult,
total cost figures were not computed and only those figures pertaining
to labor costs are meaningful.

No cost infermation was available from Plant D, but a time study
of Stage III, killing and dressing was completed.

Only summary infermation was obtained from Plant B.

Wages and Salaries

 

Total labor costs composed the largest segment of in-plant costs
representing an percent of the total operating costs with a range of

36 percent of Plant A to “9.1 percent at Plant E. Although labor costs

2n

per hundredweight of dressed beef were relatively uniform throughout
all plant studies (see Table 1+), the low production cost of plant E
could account for a larger percentage of total cost being shown in
labor.

Lowest labor costs were experienced in Plant A with an average
labor cost of $5.54 per head (see Table 3) and $.96 per hundredweight
of dressed beef (see Table u). Even though Plant A was the lowest
volume plant with 13,232 head slaughtered over the 12-month period
covered by the study they experienced the most efficient labor use.
This can partially be explained by the group incentive system which
they employ for their killing gang. It is based on an engineered time
study from which a standard time per unit was computed. Their standard
hour per unit is based on the average number of man hours it takes to
slaughter and dress one unit. If the killing gang exceeds their
Standard Hour Per Unit, a bonus is given which represents their increase
in productivity. The resulting effect is that all workers must work
together to receive the bonus, and a greater amount of teamwork is
encountered on the kill floor. Both management and workers indicated
that they were well satisfied with the system.

Plant A has a substantial manufacturing operation, and salaries
to management and office personnel are allocated to the sausage
operation on a proportionate basis. The resulting effect that costs
for management and office personnel for the slaughtering operation
would tend to be lowered.

Another reason for the difference in costs would arise

from the possible difference in wage rates. A detailed analysis

25

of wage rates is very complex and beyond the scope of this study because
of the difference in 1) fringebenefits and 2) the method of payment
(the Detroit plants paid their skilled butchers on a per head basis
while the outstate plant paid on an hourly rate). Furthermore wage
rates can be considered an exogenous variable for the purpose of this
study in cost efficiency.

Plant C showed the highest labor cost per head at $6.57. Further
analysis shows that the average dressed weight per animal is 689.”
pounds which is considerably higher than the average of 583.5. Cost per
hundredweight is $.95 which is the lowest of the four plants. The
reason for this is a large nunber of bulls are slaughtered, increasing
the average weight per animal and also increasing the slaughtering cost
per animal because of the increased difficulty in handling, etc.

When cost per hundredweight is compared with volume in total
pounds of dressed beef, there appears to be certain diseconomies of
scale; however when considered in the light of the above analysis, it
would appear that there is no significant cost-volume relationship.

Plant Operation

 

Because of the lack of detail in the available data, only a general
analysis of plant operation costs can be made. An average of 56.3
percent of the total costs involved were attributed to plant operation
which include supplies, utilities, transportation, repairs and
maintenance, professional fees, public relations, insurance, taxes,
depreciation, and interest and other. There appears to be an inverse
relationship between volume and plant operating costs. Highest
operating costs were incurred in the lowest volume Plant A at $9.86
per head. Lowest operating costs were incurred in Plant E at $6.21

per head which had the highest volume of ammo over the period covered.

26

.pmoo Hence one cw nevuwao new 0 unmam Eonm monswwm\m

. ma nuances poo mgwwmmm.

 

 

 

 

am.mms.e s.m dwum:Mwm .ucwms w swamps HmuOH
mo.Hbm.H :m.mm>.m wowemwsm
Hm.mmm.m sm.ams.H newscasem
oocchcho: w handout
an: H. mm.o:a coaHMpnoamcmpa
m.s em.mmm.sa weepwawps Hopes
sa.aas.a em.omm.a «condense
om.mmm.s os.moo.me cospmnomenmms
u mmeOm .nopms
heron .ucwwa .umoz
manpeanns.
\m w.: oa.:me.w mmwammsm Howey
Hm.omm.m mm.smm.s Hanson a camp
om.omm m:.m:m o>flvmnpnwcmap<
\m. mo.aam.m meesspommaemz
mowamdsm.
a.ms mm.maa.mms H.ms mm.mmo.m as.mam.ooa m.os mm.mmm.oma o.mm sm.oeu.me scams Hence
om.s:m.ss s.m ~m.mmm.ma m.» am.msa.ma emcee»
sm.mos.ma m s oo.ooo.ma o.m. os.mem.s scheme
mm.ess.ma o.m oo.ooo.ma a.m oo.ooo.m hummus:
sm.mms.mm m.sm oo.mma.am o.am Hm.o~m.m= some:
momma w moaned me.
#80 m0 \MUmOO HflflOhmm PGDOE< “Goonwm #50:; #Gmgwm Panacea Hamofimm P§06< Sunk 1| 1
scooped Hence m human 0 names m sumac e names

it!

 

 

 

smms-moms .cmmsnoeelew

nwumoswalwxomm moom prom mo cowvmsoauo MO mumoo

 

‘I 'l

a flame

 

 

 

 

a: was $5 8...“ and came daemon gamma .2
ms.me ma.~a se.sa o.ooa os.ma vows nod pmoo Hero» .><
«Hm.ss omm.:m www.ma omo.ma www.ma massage no serene Hence
o.ooa mm.som.moo.a o.ooa oo.mmo.mms \m o.ooa mm.msa.smm ms.omm.mo~ nmoo Hence
m.om sm.amm.mom m.om oo.oom.mea \m «.mm mm.mss.ema o.so Hm.msm.oma acesmnoao names Hence
\m m.am ~m.mma.sm porno
\m H. mm.amu pmesouea
7. \m m.m mo.smm.sa compenomname sauce
2
I. sm.oss.m mceeawsm
\m :m.sou.ma pamsawsum
cowwmwogaonx
\m. m.m sm.mms.m waxes,
\m. m. sm.msm.a oceansmaa
\m s. mm.mms mcoapmamm usages
\m s.m se.mmo.sa meme ameosmmmeona Hence
\m cm . a co. m c030 manna
mm.maa.fl. ma.~mo.u massage
woman Hmaflmmomam
pmoo mo \mvmoo accused $5395. escaped «85:2 accused p.595 pcoonom ugoam so:
Wcoonogml Hover «Lin page 0 page m usmam .1 1 M‘quiaw1 I:

E. screams—o3 a canon.

28

.onowwm wooo onshore new scam eowwwso mm o woman aw cowwmnoao womaa.mo wnoom

 

 

 

 

hm.mm

as.aw

am. m

m.mbm

N@N.NH

maxfiog 4

 

mm.«m se.am « Ho.mm
mm.am Ha.am « em.am
no.am mo.em mm.» so.am
m.mmm a.amm H:.mmm m.:mm
.msm.aa omm.sm www.ma coo.ma
sso.ees.ws sso.ama.ma oso.osm.oa umo.scm.~a
u o m
.Iwmmmnm>< wcmHm wcmam woman

4

wGMHm

1111'

.w301MOO wnoonwowmm

cowwmnOQO wcmam
news: new newsmamm
answer pom wnwwos ommno><
naoswcm mo eonasz

mimosa anemone season Hmwmm

 

soumomaxwmoom oommona mo wcwmwsowmocsm nom1.momoommmwxomm noon mo cowwmhomo Hm mwmooauym‘manmh

..H .m .mmmfl ..<.n.m.a .oowpnom nonmemom owaocoom .cowww>wn afiaocoom wcwwoxemz
£2.95 SHE ciaofimnoao mama :83 as 38 .83338: . .m Bacon {same 3 serum scam 33360

.cowwnnoao woman mo wmoo owmno>s mo cowwmwsdsoo mew cm compass“ won one o woman seam «snowman

. 0..” endangers: madman

 

 

 

manqam omm.sm www.ma oso.nm‘ «manna .1 41" massage «alwoaasz
ms.mH mm.ma mH.~H m 53.:H os.ma museum has umou Hence
mo.o mo.s Ha.o m sm.m mm.m eonumnaao wanna
~:.s oo.o om.m sm.o om.m :m.m umwm3.eau smegmamm
mamaaon anmaaoa ‘mmmwmbc manabmt, ‘11mnmdaom mamadomy d.
owdmo>< . m o m <
sédds sausage new: new: p58 use: i

 

:menmwwd .mwmdm omox new n so

momsmmmeXOMmflwommumo cowwmuomo_mo

Emancialfifiew.

29

Fixed and Variaplgpost

 

Cost can generally be separated into two major categories: fixed
costs and variable costs. Fixed costs can be defined as the costs
which are not a function of (or do not vary with) output. They are
costs that require a fixed outlay of funds for each time period.
Variable costs are those costs that are a function of output in the
production periodug-g-l The sum of fixed and variable costs, at any
given output yields the total cost at that output. When total cost
is derived from various levels of output , a functional relationship
between total cost and output is obtained.

By definition all costs are variable in the long run and a shorter
run situation is recognized in which one or more factors are fixed.
The nunber of factors which are fixed would depend upon the length of
the time period considered. The short run-21, then, is a period in
which fixed costs remain unchanged but variable costs can fluctuate
with output. With a given plant the problem became one of finding the
optimum combination of variable factors to employ at variom levels of
output.

In the study by Rust and Harston, fixed costs of Montana meat packing
plants were regarded as 1) interest on real estate and building loans,
2) insurance on buildings and equipment, 3) real estate taxes and lb)

28/

depreciation.-- In addition there are other fixed costs such as

 

29-, Rust, Charles M. , and Harston,Cli!e R. , The Surviyal and Growth
Potential of SmallAMeatpgcking Business in Montana, Tech. Bul.
530, Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Montana State College ,
1963, p. 62.

 

 

ZZ/Ibid., p. 62.

lq/Ibide’ P. 76.76.

30

management salaries, office worker salaries and accountant fees which
must be covered if the plant is to remain in operation and seldom vary
with output in a given plant.32/

Variable costs can be considered as: production worker's salaries,
supplies, utilities, tranSportation expense, repair and maintenance,
public relations.

No attempt was made to analyze the relationships of fixed and

variable costs of the plants in the study because of the lack of

detailed cost information.

 

ZilLogan and King, op. cit., p. 10.

CHAPTER III

STAGES OF OPERATION
Description of Stages

A meat-packing plant consists of a given set of buildings, equipment
and layout. Operations within a given plant are composed of a number of
stages in each of which specific transfbrmations take place. Frenchzg!
defines a stage as, "all productive services - durable or nondurable -
that cooperate in performing a single Operation or a group of minor but
closely related operations." The basic function of a packing plant is
the transformation of the live animal into a final product or products
or into a good that in itself is an intermediate product in further pro-
ductive processes.

For the purposes of this study it is convenient to consider the
product moving through various stages of production each of which perfbrm
some distinct phase of the production process. These stages may be inde-
pendent of each other with each stage having its own separate cost
function or they may be interdependent.§2/ For example, in some of the

plants workers who are primarily assigned to Stage III (killing and

dressing) perform tasks in other stages of operation.

 

EE/French, op. cit., p. sus.

EQ/Logan and King, 32. cit., p. 9.

32

For a comparative analysis of various packinghouses it is convenient
to separate each plant's operation into stages. The fact that at one
plant the average cost per head of livestock slaughtered is lower than
at a second plant is of little value in management decision making. A
more meaningful analysis can be accomplished if each plant's operation
is divided into stages and each stage analyzed to discover the differ-
ence in productivity or in the costs involved. If each stage of the
operation is regarded as a separate cost center, then an analysis by
stages can pinpoint that area of excess costs. Total plant cost is
the sum of the costs of the various stages. .

Similarly, a manager can analyze his own operation by stages to
determine where production bottlenecks occur. A low production capacity
or "bottleneck" in one phase of the productive process can become a
limit on the total production of the plant and the other stages may
then exhibit excess capacity.§$/ One such production bottleneck in the
slaughter operation could be hide removal. Only a limited number of
men can work on one animal and each man can accomplish only a limited
amount of work.

The activities of the packing plant can be divided into six separate
stages. They are:

1. Procurement

II. Holding

III. Killing and dressing
IV. Cooler operation
V. Special processing

VI. Selling and delivery

 

-§£/Logan and King, op. cit., p. 9.

33
Although a detailed analysis of each of the above stages is not
within the scope of this study, a general description will be given.
This provides an insight into the general nature of slaughter house
operations and some of the problems encountered in estimating the
costs of the various stages. The technology in each of the plants
studied was basically the same; although there were small differences

in some of the procedures utilized.

Stage I - Procurement

Although not an in—plant function, the procurement stage is the
beginning of the production process. This stage includes all
activities involved in purchasing the cattle and hauling them to the
plant. Costs involved in this stage are such that they can be readily
identified thus enabling Stage I to be considered as a separate cost
function. Specific costs would include buyers salary or commission,
transportation, per diam, and entertainment expense. All charges
fbr transporting the livestock from point of purchase to the plant
would.be included. Procurement costs would vary greatly with the
distance from which animals are purchased and the area covered by
the buyers. For example, one firm purchased cattle from Chicago,
Detroit, local markets, and directly from local producers. The majority
of purchases by all plants were made from the Detroit terminal stockyards.
In-transit shrinkage and hauling losses are also a cost. In cases
where the manager is involved in purdhasing animals (in one case the manager
purchased all animals) an estimate of the percentage of time spent
in procurement should be made and that cost allocated to the procurement

stage.

3n
Stage II - Holding

The holding function begins when the cattle are unloaded from the
carrier and extends until the cattle are chased from the holding pens
into the chute leading to the kill floor. Normally the bunk of the
cattle arrive at the plant during the beginning of the week when
the livestock market is the most active and are held until slaughtered.
The slaughtering operation generally extends for a normal five-day
work week. The largest single expense in Stage II is the feed
supplies necessary to maintain the cattle the duration of the holding
period. Feed and grain supplies vary depending on the feeding program
of each individual plant, but average approximately 35 cents per head.

Other costs involved include repair and maintenance of the holding
pens, cleaning expense and general yard‘work. Frequently a portion
of the kill crew is used to accomplish the bulk of the necessary yard
work and cleaning on days when there is a low kill. Care must be taken
to separate this labor cost from the labor cost which would normally
be charged to the killing and dressing stage. Expenses incurred in
this stage are readily identified and can be considered as a separate
cost center, with the exception of some labor utilization as indicated

above.

Stage III - Killing and Dressing
Stage III begins when the animal to be slaughtered is removed from
the holding pen and ends when the dressed carcass is placed in the chill
room. Stage III is a separate cost center in the total plant operation;
however, for the time study analysis Stage III was divided into 10

dressing line functions and 5 supporting functions.

35

Dressing Line Opgratigns

 

The dressing line operations are the majorvwork to be performed to
prepare the finished carcasses. They include: immobilizing the animal;
bleeding it; removing the head, legs, hide and viscera; splitting the
carcass into sides; washing; shrouding; and weighing the sides. Each
operation is completed in sequence and can begin only when the preceding
operation is completed. Thus the operation requiring the longest elapsed
time sets the pace for all operations.§2/

All four plants in this study were using the conventional two or
three bedptype slaughtering system, and killing crew varied from 7 to
13 men. With the exception of crew size and volume of cattle slaughtered,
all systems were very similar in operation although there were some
minor variations from plant to plant.

Driving, Immgbilizipg, Dry_Landing,-—One workertbegins this function
by driving 3 or u cattle from the holding pens into the chute leading
to the stunning pen. Another'worker'known as a "knocker" drives one
animal at a time into the stunning pen and stuns or kills it with the
use of a captive bolt stunner. Other methods used are a 22 calibre
rifle or a u to 5 pound hammer. A large side-opening door in the
stunning pen allows the animal to slide'into a "dry-loading area."

Next the knocker lowers the landing hoist, places the shackle chain
around one hind leg and hoists the carcass mechanically to the bleeding
rail. During this cycle the worker reloads the captive bolt stunner

or rifle, and periodically throughout the day washes the dry landing area.

 

EZ/Hammons, op. cit., p. u.

36

Bleecli_ngL Skinngglieadw-A "sticker" severs the cartroid artery in
the neck and allows the blood to drain from the carcass. Once the initial
flow of blood subsides, the head is severed. He allows the head to
remain on the carcass attached by the trechea and esophogus. The head
is then removed by a support worker and taken to. the head washing and
work-up area. Throughout the operation the sticker performs other
operations such as moving the carcass along the line and attaching
identification tags on the head and carcass.

Plooring.--Flooring involves moving the carcass from the bleeding
rail to the skinning beds where the carcass is lowered on to cradles
and positioned on its back by the use of metal rods or pritch bars. In
this position the hooves are removed, the hide removed from the belly
and sides of the animal, the brisket bones are split or sawed and the
aitch bone (pelvic bone) Opened. After the sides of the carcass have
been skinned, trolley hooks are inserted in the gems (area between the
large tendon and the bone of the hind leg) of both hind legs.

No to four workers perform this function depending upon the number
of beds. Workers in this area are trained in all tasks involved and work
alternately , on the various jobs as needed. This system allows delay
time to be kept at a minimum and is more efficient than is aach worker
was assigned a Specific task.

Rgpgingz Backing and Evicerati_pg.--Following completion of the legging

 

and siding, one worker lowers a hoist from the rumping, backing and
eviscerating area while another carries a spreader that is attached to
the hoist across to the flooring area. Hooks on a round trolley are
inserted through the game, the trolleys are placed on the spreader and

the carcass raised to the "half-hoist" position. Tito workers then rump,

37

tie bung, and pull the hide from the tail. The animal is then hoisted
off the ground, a paunch or "gut" truck is pushed under it by a "trucker"
and a "gutter” eviscerates the animal. The viscera is taken in a paunch
truck to a tripe table where it is separated. The pluck (lungs, heart
and liver) are taken to the pluck workoup area.

Befbre the spreader is removed, a worker uses an electric beef carcass
saw to halve the carcass up to the point where the hide is attached to
the neck. The saw is suspended at the carcass work area and is counter-
balanced for easy manueverability. The carcass is then hoisted to the
dressing rail and the spreader removed. Upon completion of this job, a
worker pushes the carcass, suspended by the trolleys, on the dressing
rail to the hide drOpping area.

The rumping, backing and eviscerating operation required the longest
elaSped time in all plants observed, with the exception of Plant A,
thereby, making it the controlling operation. A reduction in the elapsed
time fer the Operation would decrease the amount of delay time all along
the line.

Dropping Hide.-~A worker removes the hide from the neck of the carcass

 

and allows the hide to drop to the floor. The hide is then removed and
placed in barrels or dropped through a hide chute to a hide cellar for
<3uring- or to a shipping dock for direct pick-up.

Splittipg;;Scribipg¥and Bruigngrimming,--The splitting Of the carcass
is completed either manually or with the use of a small suspended

33/

electric carcass saw.-- Following the splitting a worker uses a

 

gé/In some plants the splitting operation is done by a worker standing
on a.hydraulic lift platformwwhich decends slowly as the worker saws through
the animal's spine with a power saw. The plathrm is at floor level when
the carcass is split completely.

38

hand scribe to scribe each side. A heavy hand-type saw (the scribe)

is pulled down each of the exposed inside portions of the backbone

auui separates the top side the backbone from the lower portion. The
scribe is then used to pound the chine bone flat to give the back a
thicker appearance. A worker trims any bruises with a hand knife and
removes the spinal cord. The carcass is then moved to the washing area.
Splitting, scribing and.bruise trimming does not require all of the
‘womker's time and'he is assigned part-time to supporting operations.

Washing.--A worker standing on a stationary plathrm‘waShes each
side of the carcass with a high pressure water spray. The carcass is
thoroughly washed to remove blood, bone scraps and any foreign material
which may have accumulated. The washer moves the carcass to his work
area and when the washing is completed, moves it down the line to the
shrouder.

Shrouding.--A heavy muslin cloth soaked in a brine solution is
pinned on each carcass side by one worker. The worker places the heavy
cloth first around the hind shank, then stretches and pins it at various
places so that the entire outside portion of each half is covered.

This gives the carcass a smoother appearance after cooling and prevents
drying. Intermittently the worker replenishes his stock of shrouds, neck
pins and shroud pins. -When the shrouding is completed the animal is
moved to the weighing area.

Weighing.--The last operation befOre the carcass is pushed into the
chill room is weighing. Both halves are pushed onto an overhead track
scale to determine the total weight of the carcass. The worker then

records the weight on the tally sheet, stamps and tags each half and

pushes them into the chill room. The carcasses generally remain in

 

39
the chill cooler over night, then are moved to the sales cooler the
following day.

Suppgrting Operations

 

Supporting operations consist of work performed on those parts of
the carcass such as heads and offal that are removed in preparing the
sides. All the supporting operations in this four—plant study were
performed on the kill floor, although in larger plants some of the
operation may be perfOrmed in separate work-up areas. They include:

1) head work up, 2) viscera removal, 3) hide removal, u) pluck work up
and u) paunch work up. Supporting operations are not carried out in
a sequence as are the line operations, but it is necessary that they
be carried out at the same rate to prevent delays in the dressing line.

Head Work_Up.--One worker is usually assigned to this area which

 

includes removing_ the head from the carcass, transporting it to the
work-up area, flushing and dehorning, dropping tongue and removing the
head and cheek meat. The jaws are separated and.head bones are thrown
into barrels for removal.

Viscera Removal.--Viscera is removed in a paunch truck from the

 

rumping, backing and eviscerating area to the pluck table where the
pluck (heart, liver, lungs and trachea) is removed. The paunch truck
is then moved to the paunch table lift where the paunch is dumped on
the lift, the remaining viscera is dumped into a barrel for removal.
The cycle is completed when the worker rinses the truck and pushes it
back to the eviscerating area. He also washes the floor of the
supporting operation work area and transports drums of offal (udder,

pizzles, tripe, trimmings) on a drum truck off the kill floor.

140

Hide Rgmoval.--Removing the hide simply consists of transpOrting

 

the hide from the dropping area and putting it in the hide chute where
it falls through to the hide celler or to the loadeout dock for
immediate pick up. In some operations the hide is placed in barrels
and transported off the floor on a drum truck.

Piggk Work Qp.--The pluck includes the heart, lungs, and trachea.

 

These items, plus the tails and livers which are processed with the
pluck, are separated and'washedt They are then placed in storage con-
tainers located at the work up station.

Pagpch Work Up.-—The paunch is dumped from the paunch truck onto

 

the paunch lift and hoisted onto a stainless steel table. Here the
paunch is opened.with a hand knife and the contents washed into a
hopper. The tripe is scraped and placed on an umbrella type washer
for further cleaning. When the tripe is thoroughly cleaned a worker

hangs the tripe on a hook rack.

Stage IV Cooler and Load-Out Dock Operation
Only casual observations were made of the cooler operations and
dock loading procedures. Labor requirements include shroud removal,
transporting carcass from chilling cooler to the sales cooler, order
assembly, transporting the carcass to the loading dock, weighing,
separating the fOre and hind quarters and transporting the quarters
onto the delivery truck.

Coolerégpgration

 

Carcasses are generally held in the chilling cooler overnight
at temperatures of 30° to 32° to remove the initial body heat. The
shrouds are then removed from the sides of the carcass after the carcass

has been chilled. Normally a worker removes the pins holding the shrouds

ill

to the sides of the carcass and allows the shrouds to drop to the floor.
He then either carries the shrouds to the load-out dock or transports

them in a tub truck.
Carcasses are moved by the use of an overhead rail from the chilling

cooler to the holding cooler where they are held until sold. Order
assenhly involves 1.110 or three workers . Normally, one worker locates the
carcasses necessary to fill a sales order and calls the information to the

others who transport the carcass to the working rail.
Load-Out Dock Operations

 

Carcass sides are transported from the sales cooler working rail to
the dock area where they are weighed and the appropriate recordings made.
The carcasses are then loaded in trucks for shipment. Two methods
are used to load the carcasses for shipment, the quarter-stacking and
the side-rail carcass truck“?!

Quarter—Stacking)!ethod.--Carcasses are transported on the over-
head rail to the truck scale on the load-out dock and weighed. While
one worker weighs the carcass and records the weight data, a second
partially severs the carcass. When the two transportation workers are
ready to move the carcass to the truck, the worker finishes quartering
the carcass, removes the trolleys with a pike pole and throws the
trolley into a storage barrel. The transportation workers then carry
the carcass to the truck and stack the carcasses in layers separated
by paper sheets.

Carcass Side-Rail Truck Methodw-The carcass side-rail truck method
uses essentially the same procedure as the quarter-stacking method

except in loading. Here carcasses are loaded into trucks equipped with

 

EE/Hamons and Miller, op. cit. , pp. 23-29.

1|]III’II
|{‘I|l

ll 1" il 1 ii III .I‘II All. I'll ill: I11) I i II III I I III In . III 1| I III JI‘ .||I

uz

overhead rails. Carcasses are moved on-the-rail to the load-out dock
where they are weighed and the weights recorded. A rail is extended
to the truck and bolted into position to allow the carcasses to be
tran8ported into the truck on the rail. The system is designed to
handle both halves and quarters. In the case where the halves are
quartered prior to the loading, the front quarter is stacked on the
floor while the hind quarters are suspended by rail.

Genegal Copsiderations

 

Labor comprises the largest single variable expense in the cooler
and dock load—out Operation. During slack loading periods workers
are also required to perfOrm other additional jobs required in normal
packinghouse operations. These include working and oiling the
trolleys and transporting them back to the kill floor; and transporting
and loading edible offal (liver, tongue, tails, etc.).

The second major variable expense in the cooler and dock load-out
operations is refrigeration costs. Other costs involved are the normal
fixed plant costs such a depreciation, taxes, interest, etc. and should
be calculated out and prorated to Stage IV on an equitable basis real-

tive to the other plant operations.

Stage V Special Processing
Although not considered a direct part of this study, some general
comments will.be made concerning the slaughter plants special
processing operations. Stage V includes operations such as sausage
manufacturing, boning, hide curing and rendering. Of all the plants
studied only one had a sausage manufacturing Operation and three of
the fbur managers indicated at one time their plants had.boning opera-

tions but have discontinued them.

‘43

Two of the four studied plants stored and cured hides. Again the
managers indicated this practice is declining among the smaller packers.
This process consists of spreading the hides (hair down) in vats, spreading
a layer of salt over each hide and allowing them to cure for a (50-day
period. At the end of the curing period, the hides are normally taken
out and sold.

Each special processing operation included in Stage V should be
established having its own separate cost function. This will enable
the manager to determine the profitability of each operation so that
if the process should become unprofitable, it can immediately be
corrected or discontinued. It is possible that these special processes
could be used during slack periods to utilize some of the labor result-

ing from the guaranteed work week.

Stage VI Selling and Delivery

The final stage of the manufacturing process is selling and delivery.
The major expenses incurred in Stage VI usually include wages paid to
salesmen and deliverymen and the cost Of Operating and maintaining the
delivery vehicles. Again the nature of costs involved in Stage VI are
such that a separate cost function should be set up. Expenses will
show a great deal of variability depending on how many different products
are sold, the extent to which the products are contracted for by large
retail or wholesale outlets and the extent of delivery service given.

Other costs included in this category include shipping supplies
such as twine ,butcher paper for lining truck floors and placing
between carcasses, tags, ink, telephone and laundering of driver coats.
Host of the selling in a cattle slaughter plant is done via the telephone.
Depending on the widespreading nature of the marketing area, the

telephone may be a major selling expense.

CHAPTER IV
TIME REQUIREMENTS
Stage III Time Studies

Time studies were conducted in four slaughter plants to determine
the total man-minutesi'i/ required in Stage III, killing and dressing.
To perform the time study Stage III was divided into 10 dressing line
operations and five support operations. Bach operation was divided
into specific jobs. Three to seven observations were made of each job
and these Observations were used to "build" time requirements for each
operation. The times required for each operation were averaged and
the total base timegy was couputed for one animal by sunning the
average time required for each of the in different operations.

Consideration was given to fatigue and personal time allowances.
Five percent of the base time was included for personal needs and from
5 to 15 percent of the base time was included to compensate for weari-
ness induced by the work-32, Fatigue and personal allowances were added

to the base time to arrive at productive times-y

 

33! One man working for one minute constitutes one man-minute. The
term man-minute was used instead of man-hour because of the many small
elements of work required in the slaughter operation.

Ei/ Base time is the time required for an Operation to be performed
at a normal pace by an operator skilled in the work.

ie—lFatigue and personal allowances were taken from Hamons and
“111.81., E. Cite, PP. “2‘51.

31/ Productive time is base time adjusted for fatigue and personal
allowances. Ibid., p. iii.

1+5

Daily allowances which include: "start" time in the morning,
rest periods, plant clean up, and personal clean up were added to the
total productive time. A uniform rate of 5 minutes per man was
allowed for "start" time in the morning. This would cover the period
from "punch in" to the time the worker is on the floor and engaged in
his assigned task. One worker at each plant normally arrived 15
minutes early to bring up the cattle, immobilize and hoist them before
the other workers arrived on the floor. A rest period of 15 minutes
was included in calculation of the total time requirements in those
plants where it was required by the union contract. A lO-minute
period was allowed for each worker in each plant for general plant
clean up at the end of the working day. This figure was arrived at
through observation of the general clean-up operation. The union
contract in all plants required that workers be allowed 15 minutes for
personal clean-up time at the end of the working day. With the addi-
tion of these daily time requirements to the total productive time, the
total time required for the operation, on a per head basis, can be
determined. Normal rate of activity, or 100 percent productivity, is
considered to be the total time required to perform the operation
under normal conditions.

Delay time represented the difference in total time required to
kill and dress one animal and the total elapsed tinera—e'l This delay
time could be the result of a production line "bottleneck" which
causes some workers to have excess time, the time required to perform

additional odd jobs, breakdowns or excess personal time.

 

EE/Blapsed time is the amount of time consumed from the beginning
to the end of the operation. Taken from Harmons and Miller, op. cit.,
p. iii.

'46

Plant A_: GenergLConsigerationw-A crew of seven workers killed
and dressed 62 head with a total elapsed time of 52 man hours or 51.29
man-minutes per head. Total time required at a normal rate of activity
is 52.05 man-minutes indicating that the workers performed at a rate
of 101.5 percent of normal productivity (see Table 5). The normal
rate of kill, as considered by the manager, is 8 to 10 head per hour.

The workers in Plant A are paid on the basis of a group incentive
plan as described in Chapter II. One of the resulting effects of this
payment system is an increase in the productivity of the killing crew.
Table 12 shows that Plant A is the only plant at which actual produc-
tivity rate is over 100 percent with the other plants ranging from a
low of 78 to a high of 9a. Because the entire crew is paid on‘their
actual productivity, they are provided with a monetary incentive to
keep their delay time at a minimum.

Table 9 indicates, however, that total productive time was the
longest of all plants studied. This can be attributed to the general
plant layout. Two of the functions which require the most difficult
movement of the carcass, that is the flooring and scribing operations,
exceed the average time requirement of the four plants. The bottleneck
occurs in the flooring operation where the carcass is lowered onto
cradles and positioned on its back. The difficulty of this job is
compounded because the carcass must be maneuvered around a right angle
corner in the process. The scribing operation requires maneuvering
the carcass around another difficult corner in the movement from the

area where it is split and scribed to the washing area.

 

Plant 8; _Gen_e_331 _Q_ogsideration.--Plant B euployed a crew of ll

workers consisting of 5 butchers, paid on a per head basis, and 6

'47

 

 

 

Table 5. Summary of Time Requirements Per Head for
Stage III, Killing and Dressing, Plant A
Fatigue
Observations and Total
Average personal productive
1 2 3 4 5 man allowance man
A 4 _ Man-minutes __ minutes percent minutes
Bring up .37 .‘33 .62 .38 .113 10 .97
Inmabilizing 1.58 2.00 1.92 2.02 1.93 1.79 10 1.92
Bleeding, skinning
head and forelegs 2.07 2.33 2.132 2.27 15 2.61
Flooring 9.68 0.18 11.117 9.55 10.22 20 12.26
Runping 7.90 8.17 7.07 9.09 7.80 15 9.97
Dropping hide 2.09 2.12 2.18 2.05 2.11 15 2.93
Scribing 2.88 2.85 2.85 2.89 2.87 15 3.30
Washing .93 1.37 1.37 1.22 10 1.3a
Shrouding 1.143 1.82 1.75 1.68 15 1.93
Weighing, tagging 6
placing in cooler 1.93 1.13 2.70 1.63 - 1.61 10 1.71
Total line time 32.00 36.911
Head work-up 2.90 2.57 2.70 2.72 10 2.99
Hide removal .57 .65 .68 .63 15 .72
Bviscera removal 2.28 3.02 3.12 2.80 10 3.08
Pluck work-up .98 .98 .97 .98 10- 1.08
Pamch work-up 2.03 1.70 2.13 1.95 10 2.18
Total support time 9.08 10.05
Total prod. time
Start time; 7 men 5 min. each .56
Rest period; 7 men 15 min. each 1.68
Plant clean-up; 7 men 10 min. each 1.12
Personal clean—up; 7 men 15 min each 1.68
Total daily allcwances 5.011
Total time required 52.05
Total time elapsed 51.29
Delay time -.56
Percent productivity 101.5
Normal rate of kill (head per hour) 8‘10

Crew size 7.0
No. head killed 62.0
Total man:hours required 52.0

48

workers of semi-skilled and laborer classification, paid on an hourly rate
basis.-3—9-/ The butchers were guaranteed a minimum of $75.00 per week
and the workers on hourly rate were guaranteed a 36 hour work week.

Total elapsed time was 82.5 man hours for a kill of 101 head or 1+9
man-minutes per head, the lowest of the four plants studied. Total time
required for the operation was computed to be 1$6.16 man-minutes per head
indicating that the workers performed at a rate of 94.2 percent of pro-
ductivity (Table 6). The time required for line Operations was 33.08
man—minutes per head which is slightly above the average. This can be
attributed to the Kosher killing process which requires a longer time
requirement in the immobilizing and head skinning operations.E-o-/

"Other" time allowances were considerably less than the, average.
This could be attributed to the higher volume and smaller kill crew
in relation to Plant A and also because a 15 minute crew rest period
was not given. The owner-wager of Plant B was a very aggressive
individual who managed the entire plant by himself including the buying
of cattle. He worked extremely long hours and on occasion would work on
the kill floor operation. Frequently he would check on the killing
operation and make an on-the-spot correction of any discrepency. The

overall effect was a well-run killing operation with the lowest total

elapsed time of the four plants studied (see Table 9).

 

9.9.] Workers in Michigan packing plants are classified almost entirely

upon performance and ability. The most common classifications are, in
descending order from most to least skilled: skilled butcher, boner,
butcher, semi-skilled and laborer. A skilled butcher is considered "any
euployee who is able to skillfully perform any job on cut, kill or boning
operation. Taken from McLeod, op. cit. , pp. 32-33.

39/1,, the Kosher killing process the animal is not stunned before
bleeding and generally requires an additional time requirement of 1-2
man-minutes per head because of the increased difficulty in handling
the animal. '

 

 

Table 6. Summary of Time Requirements Per Head for
- Stage III, Killing and Dressing, Plant B
w—Tatigue
Observations and Total
Average personal productive
1 2 3 9 5 man allowance man
! A A Man-minutes minutes percent minutes
Bring up .72 .92 .53 .92 .95 .99 10 .98
Immobilizing 1.90 2.00 2.18 2.63 9.00 2.60 10 2.86
6 7 8
3.65 2.97 3.90
Bleeding, skinning
head 8 forelegs 3.20 3.33 3.10 2.97 3.07 3.03 15 3.98
Flooring 5.65 6.83 7.00 6.15 6.92 20 7.70
Rumping 7.27 7.92 8.25 6.90 8.20 7.70 15 8.85
Dropping hide 1.75 1.83 1.53 1.33 1.61 15 1.85
Scribing 1.92 1.50 1.93 1.93 1.57 15 1.80
Washing 1.75 1.92 2.00 1.83 1.90 1.88 10 2.06
Shrouding 2.35 2.92 2.50 2.65 2.90 2.96 15 2.86
Weighing, tagging,
place in cooler 1.13 .78 1.95 .78 1.09 10 1.19
Total line time 28.75 33.08
Head work-up 2.97 2.22 2.52 2.65 2.59 10 2.85
Removing viscera 2.57 3.07 2.87 2.83 10 3.11
Removing hide .38 .75 .53 .65 .57 15 .66
Pluck work-up 1.25 1.33 .87 1.03 1.12 10 1.23
Paunch work—up 1.20 1.93 1.78 1.80 10 1.98
Total support time 8.91 9.83
Total productive time 92.91
Start time; 11 men, 5 min. each .54
Plant clean-up; 11 men, 10 min. each 1.08
Personal clean-up, 11 men, 15 min. each 1.63
Total daily allowances 3-25
Total time required 95-15
Total time elapsed 99-00
Delay time 2-9'4
Percent productivity 99-2
Normal rate of kill (head per hour) 12‘1”
Crew size 11
No. head killed 101
TOLaLman-hours required 32-5

 

 

 

 

50

Plant C: General Ensiderationsn-Tlant C employed a 9-man killing
crew with 9 butchers and 5 with semi-skilled or laborer classification.
As in Plant 8, the butchers were paid on a per head basis and the
remaining 5 workers received an hourly wage. The union contract
guarantees the workers a 90-hour week. On this basis the manager said
their normal rate of operation is 70 head per day with a total elapsed
time of 72 hours or 62 man-minutes per head. Total time required as
indicated by the study was 98.21 man-minutes per head which was very
close to the average of 98.39 for all four plants (see Table 9). Delay
time was the highest of all plants studied at the rate of 13.79 man-
minutes per head which indicates that the crew operates at 78 percent
of productivity (Table 7). This low rate of productivity is due in
part to the union contract which requires a 90-hour guarantee. The men
are employed for the full eight-hour period even though they may have
coupleted the killing operation in less time. They would then spend
the balance of their time doing additional jobs around the plant such

; cleaning chill cooler, yards, etc. or just waiting till the
required length of time was completed. It was not determined in the
study what percent of the delay time was actually spent on other.
assigned duties.

giant D: General Considerationv-The largeot killing anew was
employed by Plant D with S butchers and 8 semi-skilled laborers. The
butchers are paid on a per head basis and the 8 laborers are paid on an
hourly rate with a 90-hour weekly guarantee. The normal capacity of
Plant A is considered to be 13—15 head per hour but on the day the
study was conducted only 59 head were killed. The total elapsed

time was 98.75 hours (this was the time the men were actually observed

51

 

 

Table 7. Summary of Time Requirements Per Head for
Stage III, Killing and Dressing, Plant C
:fgtigue
Observations and Total
Average personal productive
1 2 3 9 5 man allowance man
Man-minutes minutes _percent minutes
Bring up 337—737—737 .53 .91 10 .99
Immobilizing 2.50 1.85 2.03 2.20 2.19 10 2.35
Bleeding, skinning
head 8 forelegs 2.10 2.17 2.65 2.30 15 2.65
Flooring 6.33 5.25 6.92 9.67 6.27 5.79 20 6.95
Rumping 6.38 7.32 7.07 7.58 7.09 15 8.15
Dropping hide 1.98 1.58 1.70 1.88 1.66 15 1.95
Scribing 1.38 1.52 1.38 1.53 1.95 15 1.67
Washington 2.33 2.93 2.15 1.88 2.20 10 2.92
Shrouding 2.30 2.90 2.65 2.90 2.56 15 2.95
Weighing, tagging,
place in cooler 1.20 1.35 1.65 1.90 10 1.59
Total line time 27.00 31.07
Head work-up 3.08 2.78 3.21 3.02 10 3.32
Hide removal .80 1.00 1.07 .96 15 1.10
Eviscera removal 2.65 2.30 2.97 2.97 10 2.72
Pluck work-up 1.75 1.98 1.88 1.87 10 2.06
Paunch work-up 2.12 1.87 1.97 1.99 10 2.19
Total support time 10.31 11.39
Total productive time 92.96
Start time; 9 men, 5 nun. each .60
Rest period; 9 men, 15 nun. each .93
Plant clean-up; 9 men 10 min. each 1.29
Personal clean-up; 9 men 15 min. each 1.93
Total daily allowances 5.75
Total time required 98.21
Total time elapsed 62.00
Delay time 13.79
Percent productivity 77.7
Normal rate of kill (head per hour) 8-10
Crew size 9
No. head killed 70
Total man-hours required 72

 

 

 

52

on the kill floor). Total time required (Table 8) is 96.10 man-minutes
which indicates a productivity rate of 99 percent.

If the productivity index was calculated ming the guaranteed 90-
bour week, for 59 head it would be only 99 percent. The manager indi-
cated that the normal dayls kill is 100-120 head. Assuming that 120
head are killed in an 8-hour day, a productivity index of 90 percent
would result. On the basis of the productivity indexes of the other
plants studied, it would seem that at least a kill of 120 head per day
is needed to justify a l3-man killing crew. A kill of 190 head per
day is necessary to indicate a productivity rate of 100 percent.

Once the killing operation is finished and the required 8 hours
per man has not elapsed the workers are assigned other duties such as
cooler clean up, yard work, and other additional duties that are
required around a slaughter plant or they are frequently allowed to
leave early. Gain in increased labor productivity on the kill floor
would be lost or reduced considerably if this occurs frequently. With
a fixed wage at 90 hours per week the most effective method to increase
productivity would be to increase the kill and attempt to keep the
workers fully emloyed for the full 8-hour period or to reduce the
size of the killing crew.

Plant D had the newest plant of the four observed and also the
most efficient layout. This is indicated by the total productive time
requirement being the lowest of all plants studied. At 90.00 man-
minutesper. head, productive time requirements is 3.32 man-minutes lower
than the average of the four plants and 7.01 man-minutes less than

Plant A, the highest observed.

53

ng 31:35:11: [inejequirenents

The average time required to kill and dress one animal was found
to be 98.39 man-minutes with a low of 96.16 at Plant 8 to a high of
51.29 at Plant A (see Table 9). Total average time elapsed was 53.96
man-minutes with a range of 99.00 to 62.00 man-minutes indicating an
average productivity of 91.3 percent. There appears to be no definite
relationship between volume and time required to kill and dress one
animal, but the variation can be attributed to other reasons as
discussed below.

Plant A has one of the lowest rates of kill at 8-10 head per
hour and also the longest line operation time requirement of 36.99
man-minutes per head. Plant D, with the highest rate of 13-15 head
per hour, has the lowest time requirement of 29.56 man-minutes per
head. This would seem to indicate an inverse relationship between
volume and time required for line operations. But further analysis
shows that Plant A is an older plant with some design problem while
Plant D is the newest and most efficiently designed. Plant C with a
kill rate of 8—10 head per hour requires 31.07 man-minutes per head
while Plant 8 required 33.08 man-minutes per head with a kill rate of
12-19. This would indicate that no definite relationship between
volume and time required for “line operations could be derived from
this study. 1

A further comparison of the individual line operations shows that
the immobilizing and bleeding operations required some additional time
in Plant 8. This is due to the Kosher killing process which generally
requires an additional time requirement of 1-2 man-minutes per head.

Flooring and scribing took an additional five man-minutes to complete

59

in Plant A; this can be attributed to the general plant layout. Plant D
was able to reduce the time required for line operations by 3.9 man-
minutes less than the average. This can be attributed to the efficient
plant layout and increased crew specialization (Plant D had the largest
crew with 13).

Supporting operations averaged 10.91 man-minutes per head with a
low of 9.83 at PlantB andahigh of 11.39 at Plant C. There appeared
to be no relationship between volune and time requirements in the
supporting functions. No significant variations existed with the
exception of hide removal. The shortest time existed in Plant D where
the hide was moved only a few feet and dropped into a chute. The
longest time required for hide removal was in Plant C where the hide
was moved from the kill floor to an ajoining mom.

Considerable variation existed in daily allowances on a per head
basis. The lowest allowance was in Plant B with 3.25 minutes and
highest in Plant D with 6.60 minutes. The average daily allowance was
5.02 minutes per head. With the exception of the 15-minute rest period.
all other allowances were identical on a per man basis. The variations
are a result of the nunber of men on the killing crew and the nuuber
of head killed per day Plant 8, with the lowest allowance, did not
give a 15-minute rest period and employed a crew of 11 for a kill of
(101. Plant D, with the highest allowance enployed 13 men for a kill of
59 and also provided a 15-minute rest period.

The shortest time required was experienced in Plant B with 96.16
man-minutes per head. A two man-minute time advantage was obtained in
the daily allowances which directly contributed to the time'advanta'ge..

of Plant B. Plant A, with the longest required time in the line

Table 8.

Summary of Time ReqUiI‘ements' Per Head for
Stage III, Killing and Dressing, Plant D

A

 

 

 

Patigue
Observations and Total
Average personal Productive
1 2 3 9 man allowance man
A # 4 A; g # Han-minutes Aminutes percen: minutes
Bring up .70 .58 .52 .60 10 .66
Immobilizing 2.67 2.35 2.90 2.97 10 2.71
Bleeding, skinning
head and forelegs 2.12 2.07 2.98 2.20 15 2.53
Flooring 9.93 9.98 5.68 5.27 5.21 20 6.25
Running 7.07 6.83 6.95 6.95 15 7.99
Dropping hide 1.87 1.73 1.17 1.59 15 1.83
Scribing 1.03 1.08 1.12 1.08 15 1.29
Washing 2.93 2.67 2.50 2.53 10 2.78
Shrouding 2.12 1.98 2.18 2.09 15 2.90
Weighing, tagging 5
placing in cooler .87 1.12 1.20 1.06 10 1.17
Total line time 25.78 29.56
Head work-up 3.08 3.10 2.80 2.99 10 3.29
Bviscera removal 2.53 2.35 2.97 2.95 10 2.70
Hide removal .32 .90 '.30 .39 15 .39
Pluck work-up 1.70' 1.90 1.60 1.57 10 1.73
Paunch work—up 2.15 2.03 2.18 2.12 10 2.33
Total support time 9.97 10.99
Total productive time 90.00
Start time; 13 men, 5 min. each 1.10
Plant clean-up; 13 men, 10 min. each 2.20
Personal clean-up; 13 men, 15 min. each 3.30
Total daily allowances 6.60
Total time required 96.60
Total time elapsed 99.57
Delay time 2.97
Percent productivity 99.0
Normal rate of kill (head per hour) 13-15
Crew size 13
No. head killed 59
Total man-hours rquired ‘ 98.75

 

 

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9. Summary of Time Requirements for Stage III,
Killing and Dressing, A11 Plants
A A A Plant Plant Plant “ P1331 ;Average
‘_ A B_, 4“, #8 D‘, <_
T _ -- Man-minutes --

Normal rate of kill
(head per hour) 9-10 12—19 9-10 13-15 --
Bring up .97 .98 .99 .66 .51
Immebilizing 1.92 2.86 2.35 2.71 2.96
Bleeding, skinning
head and forelegs 2.61 3.98 2.65 2.53 2.81
Flooring 12.26 7.70 6.95 6.25 8.29
Rumping 8.97 8.85 8.15 7.99 8.99
Dropping hide 2.93 1.85 1.95 1.83 2.02
Scribing 3.30 1.80 1.67 1.29 2.00
Washing 1. 39 2 .06 2.92 2. 78 2 .15
Shrouding 1.93 2.86 3.95 2.90 2.79
Weighing, tagging,
place in cc'oler 1.71 1.19 1.59 1.17 1.39

Total line 36.99 33.08 31.07 29.56 32.91
Head work up 2.99 2.85 3.32 3.29 3.11
Remove viscera 3.05 3.11 2.72 2.70 2.90
Remove hide .72 .66 1.10 .39 .71
Pluck work up 1.08 1.23 2.06 1.73 1.52
Paunch work up 2.18 1.98 2.19 2.33 2.17

Total support 10.05 9.83 11.39 10.99 10.91

Total prod. time 97.01 92.91 92.96 90.00 93.32
Daily allowances 5.09 3.25 5.75 6.60 5.02
Total time required 52.05 96.16 98.21 95.60 98.39
Total time elapsed 51.29 99.00 62.00 99.57 52.96
Delay time -.56 2.89 12.79 2.97 9.62
Percent productivity _101;5 99.2 77_._7 A 99_._0 91. 3

 

57

operations required the longest total time for Stage III. Delay time
was the lowest in Plant A which employed an incentive payment plan

for their kill crew and highest in Plant C with a guaranteed 90-hour
work week. Plant B and D had approximately the same amount of delay
time with 2.89 man-minutes and 2.97 man-minutes per head, respectively.
Percent productivity is inversely related to delay time and exhibits
no apparent relationship to volume but can be attributed mainly to

management practices .

Stage IV Time Requirements

Productive labor requirements outlined by Hamons and Miller-19:]
indicate cooler and dock operations, for a plant operating in a range
of 10~l7 head per hour, require a threer-man crew}?! If the average
weight of the carcasses was increased from 350 to 599 pounds to 600
to 900 pounds , a four-man crew would be required.
Cooler Operation

One man can remove and pick up shrouds (using a hand truck) at
the rate of 80 per hour and move carcasses from the chilling cooler to
the sales cooler at the rate of 200 per hour (see Table 10). An order
for a hundred carcasses can be assenbled by three workers in one hour.
One worker locates the carcasses and calls out the nutber while the
other two men move the carcasses to the working rail. The same job
can be acconplished with the heavier carcasses in 1.82 hours using

a four-man crew .

 

iii/Ramona anc Miller, gp. cit., pp. 20-25 and 98-51.

2.21m calculating crew requirements an eight-hour shift was
assumed with 30 minutes allocated for rest periods.

58

 

 

11 11“

11111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as d in. 1N3 8.3 H30...

m:.m ow mm.m ooa mm.s mu HH.: 00H Ascwmcw asap xomun
can xosnp op Heme scam snow
unuso sumac mflamscma_mnoeooq

.aonnmn cw sumac one neon exec

new: shuddonu speech .xmn can
835. fir. 88.33 can. as...

once masses soxnosv axons» noon

5:. ma as. om mm. oH «m. cm Axons»

cu Hume gov nonnmonno successes

mm. ca :0. ooa mm. ca :m. cod Assam manhood haanwpnoc can
macaw ammonmo so ocean Haonv
canon mmo mommmonmo tongues

ms. ca as. ooa ms. oa as. ooa encore can amen:

on. ma 0:. on mm. oa mm. om finance xoov ow noaooo
wcgaoe cw Heme wcwxsos eonm
Hans emognm>o co mommmonmo
unocmcmepv monsoonno unocmcmne
9598.3 s8 wflaflmflm
mu.b mm.m em.m m:.m deuce
an.” oa ow.H ooa mm.H ca om.a ooa Anonmmonmo
oumooa mean: can nacho poo
maamo hormone scene pro demo
em.m ma ma.m ooH mm.a ca mm.: ooa gamma wcwxnox.soaooo
on Hans emonnm>o so «announce
vacancmnpv mommmonmo unocmcmse
awnEcmmc porno
oo.a ma em. on Am. ca mm. om noaooo momma op HHan eonmnn
mommmonmw.unmmmcmms
mu.H aa.a mm.d :H.H annoy

mm. 3 mm. a mu. 3 mm. a 80:32 3:93 mesons... as warm

oo.H ca am. ooa oo.a ca Hm. ooa mesonnm o>oEum

8:85me88
Panama ’30: MOO-32‘ { 111111 111
on: no: sex, swamp .1
cocmzoaan consensooo cosmzoado cocosnsooo
new» announce seep mo camp ancOmnom sewn mo
e>muos onm w sowmpmnw ommm homeomofinlmrmmos ohm,mnnrmwum one massacre

 

Av; «33 commoncynmecoomimom on com Av we: commohev mezzo mom 09 omm
manure ooa mum

>H amaum com mpnofioewouom gonna m>wuooeonm .oa canny

59

.amum: RE . .30 .mo .933: EB 3935.:

"consom

 

 

 

mm. ma

 

. A .kuo— _.-..'—

mm . ma Nb . m

2. . ma mm . 3

3:0: #533 950: .3952
5% an:

11 3533a 008.8300 _
gap amcomfica «Say no

2599.65 » gmwumm 03m .aonoavmnm

*1

 

 

on .ma

 

 

mm. ma

mm. ma Nb. m

2. . ma mm . 3

«36: 1.3%:

an:

#5093 8:0:
an:
, ouawzoaam 1 00:08:30

81.5 amaomnmm 959 m.

Illa!

Avmmams @0336 350a mmm o. omm

 

 

can“? c0383 mason 8m 3 com

1

Haggasug 3a.“. amuoe

amuoa

Avon ow 93:09» panama».
.mofim won mnaanaxm ou
tangy» £35 can: acme.
-w 8 #30: 32m 30:85
cow kahuna“: moan v3 wcac
éaxm ow mhmaaofl tonnage
Aaao 5a: um> 3.3

25 33$ 9:32 fir. u?
095 mhmaaogp 36 .95“. 3
~30: on 3095 cam: amonzam‘
scam whoaaofi. oom mammary»:
mhmaaonu aao 98 03a," £33
Aaoonnmwz ou

ӣ0953 can x025 can:
aoosznu 0». xooc goovmoa
no agmn scam mhmaaonu

com panama: 5892mm:

3. mmwaaonu Puommcmnu.

1 {.fllill‘mhwWalfiklwcafiwao

 

gave—68m w mamaumm ommm >05..me

1"“! l‘

2. 835.383 3 03m...

6O

gogglgut Dock Qperations

Once the orders are assembled on the working rail in the sales
cooler, they can be weighed and loaded at the rate of #5 per hour
(see Table 10). Three men are required for the smaller carcasses and
a four—man crew is needed for the heavier ones. If the load-out
truck is equipped with an overhead rail, the productive work requirements
would be reduced by approximately #0 percent-5y During slack loading
periods workers are required to wash and oil the trolleys and transport

them back to the kill floor for re-use. One worker can perform this

job.in approximately two and one-half hours.

 

fl/Hauunons and Miller, op. cit., p. 51.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The meat packing industry has been faced with an unsatzhfactory
profit situation for the past several years. Information is needed
that will enable them to adapt to the changing economic conditions.
Presently only limited information is available concerning costs and
operational characteristics of the Michigan meat packing industry.

This study was undertaken to obtain additional information that
packers can use as a bench mark in comparing slaughter costs and labor
requirements of their own operation with other plants slaughtering the
same species of livestock. It was also to provide necessary background
information for further research. The study includes a comparative
analysis of medium-size beef packing plants based on accounting records
and supplementary direct observation of plant operations.

Ina-plant costs were separated into 12 component parts for this
analysis with major euphasis placed on wages and salaries. 0f the
plants studied total in—plant costs (excluding procurement, selling
and delivery costs) ranged from a low of $203,830.00 at Plant A to a
high of $429 ,093.00 at Plant B. The average cost of slaughtering one
animal was $13.06 with a low of $12.19 at the largest plant to a high of
$15.u2 at the smallest.

Wages and salaries composed the largest segment of in-plant
costs averaging nu percent of the total. An average of $6.00 per
head was spent for labor with a range of $5.5u to $6.57. When compared

on a hundredweight of dressed beef basis, labor costs averaged $1.03.

62

Individual plants ranged from a low of $.95 to a high of $1.07 per
hundredweight. Average carcass weight was 561 pounds. No definite
relationship between size and labor costs could be derived from this
study, and variation which existed.between the plants were largely
the result of management practices.

Only a general analysis of plant operation costs was made. An
average of 56 percent of the in-plant costs were attributed to plant
operation which includes supplies, utilities, transportation, repairs
and.maintenanoe, professional fees, public relations, insurance, taxes,
depreciation and interest. Lowest operating costs were incurred in
the highest volume plant at$.21 per head or $1.11 per hundrecheight.
Highest costs were experienced in the lowest volume plant at $9.86
per head or $1.71 per hundredweight. Average cost was $7.58 per head
or $1.35 per hundredweight. There is a definite inverse relationship
between volume and plant operating costs.

A more meaningful analysis can be accomplished if each plant's
operation is divided into stages and each stage analyzed to discover
the difference in productivity or in the costs involved. The stages
of a.beef packing plant are: I - Procurement; II - Holding; III - Killing
and Dressing: IV - Cooler Operation; V - Special Processing; and
VI - Selling and Delivery.

Time studies were conducted in four slaughter plants to determine
the total man-minutes required in Stage III - Killing and Dressing.

To perform the time study, Stage III was divided into 10 dressing line

63

operations and five supporting operations. Consideration was given to
fatigue, personal and daily allowances in figuring total time require-
ments. The average time required to kill and dress one animal was
found to be 148.39 man-minutes with a range of ”6.16 to .51-29. The
average time elapsed per head was 53.96 man-minutes with a range

of 149.00 to 62.00 indicating an average productivity of 91.3 percent.
There were no definite relationships between volume and time required
to kill and dress one animal or between volume and productivity.
Variation that existed were found to be the result of plant layout

and management practices.

Possible Future Studies

The information presented in this study has established some
relative cost figures for slaughtering beef cattle and helped point out
some of the operational problems facing Michigan beef packers. Hope-
fully, it has helped lay the fomdation for future research programs in
the Michigan meat packing industry.

One such program for which a very definite need exists is providing
assistance to packers in establishing and maintaining an accounting
system which will provide useful information by stages of operation.
This type of program would make packers more aware of, and provide the
necessary information to use cost analysis for the purpose of cost
reduction and managerial decision making. This information could also
be used by the university (in a form that no individual operation could
be recognized) to provide information in sufficient detail and on a
continuing basis for more comprehensive comparative analyses and economies

of scale studies .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agnew, Donald B. , Labor; Costs of Killing Mggsgfrogg Packer's Accounting
Records, Marketing Economic Division, Economic Research Service,
USDA, Washington 25,’D.Cl,"1962.

, Meatpackers' Cgstngnd Income With Chan in Beef Volung-n-Break-Bven
Analgis‘; Marketing Economics Division, Econgiic Research Service,
USDA, Washington 25, D.C., 1953.

,Meatpackers' Cogts in Fresh Beef_Opera;ions--A Pilot Survey,

Marketing Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA,
Washington 25, D.C., 1963.

, Meat ckers' Costs: Recent Interest Method gf Analysis, and

Igfications, Marketing Economics DiHsion, Economic Research Service,

USDA, Washington 25, D.C., 1963.

, Meafpackers' Costs and Spreads fgr Beef, BRS-lBS, Marketing Economics

Di 8 on, conomic Research Service, USDA, Washington 25, D.C., 1963.
American Meat Institute, {ganged Pact; Abopt the Meat Packing Industry,

Chicago, 1963.

 

 

Barnes, Ralph M. , Motion and_Time 832%, New York 8 London: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1963. '—

Crowder, Richard T. and Juillerat, Monte E. , Variation in Labor Bfficien
and Selected Costs Amon Vi inia Meat Packin Firm, Bul. 592,
Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, 1962.

French, B. C., L. L. Sammet, and R. G. Bressler, Jr., "Economic Efficiency
in Plant Operations With Special Reference to the Marketing of
California Pears," Hilgardia, Vol. 2n, Mo. 19, Berkeley: University
of California, July 1956.

Gibb, Richard Dean, Eggngmigg ofAScale in Michi an Livestock Auction,
(unpublished thesis), Department of Agricultural Economics,

Michigan State University, 1959.

Ramona, Donald A., Cattle Killin - gloor Systems; and Layouts, Marketing
Research Report No. 657 , Agriculturalfirketing Service, USDA,
Washington, D.C., May 1961:.

, and Miller, Jarvis B. , Igmving Methods and Facilities for Cattle
Slatherin Plants in the Southwest, Marketing Research Report No.
I: , Agr cultural Marketing Service, USDA, Washington, D.C. ,
February 1961.

Lesperance, J. P., Eggnomics and ngnpiques of Motion and Time Stupy,
Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Coupany, 1953.

65

BIBLIOGRAPHY continued --

Logan, Samuel H., and King, Gorden A., Economies of Scale in Beef
Slaughter Plants, Giannini Foundation Research Report No. 260,
Caiifornia Agricultural Experiment Station, Giannini Foundation of
Agricultural Economics, December 1962.

 

McLeod, Willard L., Ag§tgdy of flage_3ates and Unionization In The Meat
Packing Industry In Michigan, (unpublished research paper), Department
of AgriCultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1963.

Phillips, Richard, Managing ForggreagergReturns in Grain Fged and Other
Retail_Businegse§:Serying Agriculture, Manhattan, Kansas, 1962.

Rust, Charles H., and Harston, Clive R., The Survival and Growth Potential
of_§mallfi§g§tpacking Busigesses in Montana, Montana Agricultural
Experiment Station, Montana State College, Bozeman, July 1963.

Schneidau, Rdbert Emil, Operating Bffigigncy andgLabor Productivity in
Selected Indiana Meat Packin Plantsfi:"(unPUblished thesis),
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, January 1963.
0.8. Department of Labor, Plant gpepatign_geport4§9r Meat ngcessing, BLS, V
Report No. 89, Washington, D.C., June 1955.

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE FORM USED IN CONDUCTING TIME STUDIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mam ,4 Crew Size '1
Kill _ J' 7 Steels
g Q o w i w
7 Total Total
Operation Job Specie ' Men Minutes Man-Minutes Man-Minutes
~ - Per Head for Operat i311
3r)” S'fiteafi 3. .‘5’5‘ 1&2. .' 13......
Eteedimfsud, asses/v / I {/0 ;/c
.5, £24}; 1“" g 11:12 Stan/II; 44¢ / / ; V5“ 3 V5-
F’oeechs / t / .’3o {30
fell: «2 {'45
a be 1 A / £1 0 .’ .2. p
M o v e.
per a A? s s / I .' I 9 .‘ I ‘i m
o 1.19 F129 £1. A/Jc / 2 g ,‘o o «'00
' m / / l.’ ‘1’! AV?
.. I .2, /,'I 3339
' ' l / :30 [JL
5,04 Hal/«J? I / 2.79 {We /0.' /0
MW / / {2 7 1.? 7
l- ;[t‘ / / ! Jo {go .
MM? / I ‘ 3:/o 5.70
6' 025 2 2(1) {-1.09
4 4/ d J
gdwwj I / 3.322 3,333.
Mow/419 / l :15. :45" 9.7!
J
5 Mama 5 wth
J avg v
779/1140qu / I [48 .‘ ‘/Y
J
swish/f / I .13 r 5’;
Mary IN} " I I 1:5. :35; 07¢
______1_

 

 

 

MICH. STATE UNIV.
AGR. ECON. EFT.
REFERENCE ROOE‘.«1

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

31293006437838