Summary and Conc|usions This bulletin reports some of the methods used to assemble and process Texas ers and the equipment and labor used in the ten plants studied. Some 0f the factors p sponsible for variations in productivity are analyzed. The method of purchasing broilers f.o.b. the processing plant with a 1 cent a pou price differential over the farm price eliminates many of the problems that exist w birds are purchased on the basis of farm weights. Such a system places the respo v bility for delivery of the birds on the hauler and producer. * Although loading broilers during the day on trucks with built-on cages may be productive than catching birds at night and and hauling them in wooden cages, proc ing practices and other factors rule out such a practice. No great differences in labor requirements exist in the three methods used to ' ceive live broilers that are to be slaughtered immediately. However, when birds A held and fed for short periods less labor is required to haul and hold them in wood crates than to transfer and hold them in batteries. ’ The speed of the dressing and eviscerating line generally sets the pace for the tire processing operation. Removing pinfeathers from the carcasses accounts for t greatest portion of labor used in the dressing operation. ' Some of the reasons for variation in labor efficiency are: more pinners than necf sary, manual operation of supposedly automatic pickers, reversing the carcass moret g necessary, not running the line as fast as the workers could handle thebirds, variati in quality of different lots of birds, too low a scalding temperature or too short an i mersion period in the scalder, poor agitation of the water, improper adjustment of pi ers, birds varying in size or too few pickers. Some factors which processors repor might influence feather removal were the breeds and crosses of chickens processed, t. moisture content of the body tissues and whether the birds were tired at the time slaughter. I The following operating methods offer possibilities for increasing output rates: I (1) More carcasses can be eviscerated by pulling the crop and giblets loose than cutting them. (2) More giblets can be wrapped in parchment paper than in paper b i; (3) Opening the bags by an air blowing machine increased productivity. (4) More g lets can be inserted in the body cavity, per man-hour, when carcasses are suspended - shackles rather than being on tables. The fastest method of cutting up broiler carcasses is to cut off the wings while t‘ carcass is suspended on the line and then cut up the remainder of the carcasses with ‘A band saw. i ‘ Cover Picture A modern poultry processing plant can process 24,000 chickens in an 8-hour da’ Five chickens can now be processed with the same amount of labor it formerly took p process one. a PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES I ed more than 212 percent during Production in Texas increased 475 per- gf; this period. The sale of broilers add- _ 000 to the Texas farm income in 1955. changes in poultry processing methods .>second World War have created many for processors and caused wide varia- tput, methods, equipment and labor re- “i. among the plants. henomenal growth of the broiler indus- p; aged processors to increase plant facil- e development of new equipment has , achinery and buildings obsolete. While inery reduced labor requirements, hour- rates increased. Consumers demanded keting services and better poultry. Some w to be remodeled to meet the sanitation A, of the United States Department of f re and Texas state and local ordinances. me time high building and equipment de it impractical for processors to dis- hinery and remodel buildings every few ‘keep operating costs at a minimum and ay remodeling or building new plants, pro- have had to insure a steady volume of " for their plants. This steady supply has Hievedby integration with one or more llowing: feed companies, financing agen- i lers and producers. Some operators even eir own broilers to augment the supply processing plants. Also, modern as- ‘ methods have made it possible to haul l. long distances without any loss in qual- veral broiler assembly patterns have de- Object of the Study A ye objectives of this study were (1) to de- ~- the methods used to procure Texas broil- ; to determine the efficiency of labor utili- ‘ in ten Texas broiler processing plants, as d by the number of broilers processed n-hour and (3) to determine the factors the operations of these plants responsi- the differences in productivity per man- Method of Procedure en broiler-processing plants located in the broiler-producing areas of Texas were se- ‘for this study on the basis of location, type A ively, assistant professor, Departments of Poul- ience and Agricultural Economics and Sociology, ormer research assistant, Department of Poultry Processing Texas Broilers G. J. MOUNTNEY AND F. A. GARDNER* of operation and the number of broilers process- ed per hour. The duties of each worker, his po- sition in the plant and the speed of the line were recorded and were rechecked on each subsequent visit. " The overall processing operation was classi- fied into four main sections: Receiving included the period from the time the poultry was unloaded at the receiving plat- form until the birds were hung in the shackles. Feeding ‘operations were included in this section. Dressing included catching, hanging, killing, picking, pinning and other similar jobs but it did not include the point where the body cavity was opened or the shanks cut off. Eviscerating included removing the viscera, head, neck and shanks and cleaning of the gib- lets. All jobs through insertion of the carcass in the chill vat for cooling were included in this sec- tion. Packing included packaging and packing for shipment up to the time the carcasses weréfready for storage or loaded for delivery. This section was subdivided into the following three opera- tions: icepack; whole, cut-up; and parts, cut-up. Each operation was subdivided into indivi- dual jobs. The duties of each worker determined his job classification. If a worker was assigned more than one job the percent of his time spent in each job was recorded. The number of work- ers used in each job are listed as man equivalents. Productivity or the number of broilers pro- cessed per man-hour has been used as the unit of labor efficiency. This unit combines the speed of the line and the number of workers, which per- mits a comparison of two or more operations, even though they differ in size. Six of the ten plants were under the super- vision of the U. S. Department of Agriculture in- spection services. Government inspectors were not included. in the labor required for processing, but graders were included. It should be empha- Contents Summary and Conclusions .................... -_ 2 Introduction ............................................. .- 3 Object of the Study ................................ .. 3 Method of Procedure .............................. .- 3 Purchasing ............................................... .. 4 Plant Receiving Operations .................. ._ 7 Dressing Procedure ................................ .. 8 Eviscerating Procedure .......................... .. 9 Packing and Packaging .......................... .- 10 Acknowledgment ..................................... -_ 10 sized that although some 0f the practices describ- ed in this bulletin may be desirable, the quality 0f workmanship may have been below that re- quired by the USDA inspection service. It was not possible in this phase of the study to evalu- ate the quality of the finished product from each of the plants. This basically is a descriptive study which indicates possible variations in efficiency for dif- ferent handling methods. It was not possible at this time to conduct a detailed time and motion study which could be analyzed statistically. Purchasing There are three general methods of procur- ing broilers in Texas. Of the ten plants studied, two plants were supplied from flocks owned by the processing plant, another had a working agreement with the local feed dealer in which the processor controlled and purchased the deal- er’s entire supply, and the remaining plants, al- though they bid on the open market, usually pur- chased most of their broilers from a selected _ group of 10 to 15 haulers or feed dealers. Four plants did some of their hauling, but usually processors depended on independent haul- ers or the feed company that financed the birds to deliver the broilers to the plant. Feed dealers usually acted as the clearing house for arrange- ments for selling and delivering the birds to the processor. The dealer’s service man usually was present when the birds were loaded; he arranged for a catching crew; saw that the birds were handled properly and prevented the catchers from damaging equipment in the house. Few proces- sors dealt directly with broiler growers. Truckers received 1/2 to 2 cents a pound for hauling broilers. The price depended on the area and the distance hauled. Processors who did their hauling estimated their hauling costs at one- fourth to one-half cent per pound. Birds were purchased as far away as 175 miles from the plant, although 50 miles was the average dis- Figure 1. Bulk weighing of broilers is used almost ex- clusively in Texas. Here trucks are being weighed aiter loading at the farm. 4 _, tance. Buyers generally agreed to pay 0‘ percent for any loss in weight of the loadiof ers; the hauler was expected" to pay for an i over that figure. Some processors paid for broilers on livered-to-the-plant basis. The paying pric‘ determined by the weight of the birds when were received at the plant. This eliminate problems of who should Zitake the shrink, much the hauler should be paid and the '_ sibility for the birds during assembly. T0 pensate for hauling charges and loss in w during transit, the paying price on such tr tions was generally 1 cent a pound over ~ the-farm market price. Bulk Weighing of broilers is used almo clusively in Texas, Figure 1. The truck l‘ with empty crates is weighed at the public _ nearest the farm. After the birds are loade truck is reweighed. With bulk weighing,‘ one or two cross rows of crates must be re I from the truck to load broilers. Bulk weighing practices varied conside a When loads were sold on the basis of a 4 pe maximum shrinkage during hauling, the p trucks were Weighed at both the public j nearest to the farm and at the public scales ; est the plant or at the plant. When the V were owned by the processing plant or the was purchased on a delivered-to-the-plant q tion, the load was weighed at the plant onl Birds usually Were-caught at night be they were easier to catch, struggled less, se down in the coops faster and the WGZIlIlIGI” cooler. The loading schedule was arrang that the birds arrived at the plant just befor morning work began. t Birds to be loaded were caught by a catc crew of four or five men who were paid a of 8 to 10 dollars to catch 3,000 chickens. s a house of birds was caught, all feeders, w ers and other equipment were moved to one ner of the house and the lights turned ou. dimmed so the birds did not become excited. ’ men caught broilers, four in each hand, Figu Then the birds were handed to two other me the catching crew who carried them to the t outside the house; there the truck driver a helper placed them in the coops and arra them on the truck, Figure 5. The truck d was responsible for seeing that the birds ~- properly crated and. loaded and that they a ' at the plants on schedule and in good conditi The labor required to catch and load a t of broilers is shown in Table 1. The birds y ed by hauler A came from several small br houses on the same farm. To obtain a full tr load of broilers it was necessary for the t and catching crew to move from one house another. The moving reduced the overall ciency of the catching and loading. Haule was able to handle 576 birds per hour beca cages were built on the truck. All haulers ex E loaded broilers at night. . .- CATCHING BLEEDING AND SCALDER HANGING TROUGH 79 SEC. AT I26'F CATCHING sussome AND SCALDER HANGING TROUGH 78 35a A1- 50¢; SUPERVISE 4 ,9» ae BLEEDING SCALDER TR°UGH uza SEO.ATl25'F CATCH IN G AND KILLING HANGING SUPiRVlSE BLEEDING SCALDER TR°UG" nos SEO.ATl25°F CATCHIN G AND KILLING HANGING REMOVE GARTER FEATHERS ' ~I~~I~I I REVERSE NECK AND W‘?! ROUGHER I; , PICKER PICKER §fi REMOVE FEATHERS ' ON THIGHS REMOVE WING FEATHERS BODY AND MECHANICAL ROUGHER LEG PICKER PICKER GUIDE GARCASS INTO PICKER NECK REVERSE ROUGHER SCALDER IEC HAN PICKER PICKER DIRECT INTO PICKER NECK NECK ANDWING NECK AND ROUGHER 7 wme PICKER RE\ SCALDER PICKER Figure 2. Poultry dressing time study and job description. selected plants. bl 5-K’. 4y‘ nguovgg WASHES OODY INSPEOTS BODY WEIOHS O gEYS VIINDPIPE CAVITY CAVITY ’ LETS WATER OUT OF CROP R E MOVES OAROASS ‘ FROM SHAOKLE 5"’ cwnv I MIG" INSIDE CIII WASHER T" ' OUTS HOOK PULLS NECK IE5 GIBLETS S OFF FROM BODY mg; gm“ 311s PACKING aoxzs “u” VIASHES aoov <=AVITY curs LEGS on SURE’ VISE OLEVN UP I6' INSIDE EVISCERATING TROUGH OUTSIDE LEG WASHER WASHER CUTTER T 'UGH §NNER rune: 9 RV I cmcnsmzu ma“ w n puLL Qgflgmmg REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE WASNES SODY REMOVE OHEOK LUNOS OROP BURSA FASRIOUS VITY SHANKS OAROASSES REMOVE OARIOASS F ROM LINE IN ID WASHER WASHER BELT EVISCERATING TROUGH OIZZARDS SERVICE OI-IILL TANKS OUTS SNANK OFF PLAOE OAROASS ON SRADINS TARLE REMOVES HANK CLEAN I rnou an out SUPvVISE -E wnsusn oursws EVISCERATING qvnus wasncn TROUGH ROUGH m: emu. nun QIHMN GRADING emu. 2; TABLES TANKS i 4i mm“; a elk 3. 51F" TOTA IKERS 25"O" L LINEAR FEET OF PC CLEAIN up §ai§~§§$iw§§§ ééviw? SINGER WNSHER SIDELlNE PINNiNG FINISH PICKER FINISHER ¢4¢¢¢§§}¢r~‘~ REMOVE CARCASS TOTAL LIFNEAR FEET OF PICKERS 3850" i5 i‘ liiiiiii5§iil NECK AND BODY SIDELINE PINNING PICKERS FINISHER FROM LINE "g1 '9' TOTAL L|NEAR FEET CF P|CKERS 40"Q" é ‘iii iéiiiééi E1 Miiilifiéiééi SINGER i“ ifiboov mo" Lee s10: um; ;:i;§[§ PICKER FINIS HER guy" PINNING 1;‘ TOTAL LINEAR FEET or PICKERS sa'-o" m-ilmi” ; fi m fi awn a jwwa awhqé‘ ROUGHER PICKER SCALDER PICKER PICKER PINNING REVERSING isuue REMQVE 3L|~r "Egg ‘up PULL REMOVE CUTS PULLS REM OIL SAC OPEN BODY CAVITY VISCERA GIBLETS GIZZARO OPEN ‘ CROPS LUNOSI c‘ I I I I I I ' I PF ' ' Y IWW IIIIM Iwwém L IL I I I -i—> 1 a ll r6‘-<>' 1 I ‘I wgsp-Igs i °PE"'"° “W” EVISCERATING TABLE O Remove on. SAC a cuts our PULL SEPARATE eoIaLe Removes OPENS 5M1» “g; VENT OHEAD VISOERA VISOERA GIBLETS GIZZARDS GIZZARD GIBLET "W" P*"$ “mo” LUNGS SKINNER WASHER a momevs I I I I I I I I ‘é I J5] 7 i’ fi vfi fl fi fi fi fl v6] a v6’ 4 fi I, - - ~ — — — — — — — — — ~e Laugh! Remove wmomre, CROP a CLEAN mecx sum OPENING THOUGH EVISCERATING TABLE SLIT mecx a OPEN PULL VISOERA Remove awAsR Remove mzzARo our" oov AVITY HEART auveR FRO aIRo v m I REMOVE ' OIL SAC IIXMLIII ‘I §5i§§§li4l£§£§§ ggigwk A I 22' l "1 I I I l3' ] [- 2o‘ IIIHIIIK] OPENING TROUOH EVISOERATINO TABLE x ‘ EVISCERATINO Remove VENT Remove Remove OIL SAG Remove POSITION roR. oven PULL Remove, CLEAN a OPENOOLEAN a Remove REMAINING or" a SPLIT uecx CROP evnscenmou aoov CAVITY VISOERA TRIM GIBLETS GIZZARO BURSA FABRIOUS Lumos VISOERA \ cunmse ‘ ’ ‘ ’ POSITION ‘7 OFOAROAS “" In» I; In» 4)., WW4» II I I H mum Miigin M 5 I segeeeigseew eeeeee ‘ éfieieee M P» fiéliwfi, l l5‘ ] l J Z“ 2|‘ IN OPENING TROUGH EVISCERATING TABLE fi i \ TABLE <15" °'l1*"°$ eIzzARo SKINNER Figure 3. Poultry eviscerating time study and job description. selected plants. Receiving Operations ' 0 general methods used for receiving I Texas processing plants are: (1) to i» slaughter the birds immediately, com- led “tail gating” and (2) to hold them p g as 2 days in batteries. Most plants 2... ethods. With either method, live broil- be handled quickly to prevent shrink- ully to prevent bruises and in large units p labor requirements. The time at which slaughtered usually depends on the in- f birds on hand at the plant, plant con- ders for dressed birds and the physical of the birds on arrival at the plant. birds are tail gated, loaded crates of moved off the trucks onto roller con- d pushed to the processing line. Sever- vremove the birds from the crates and them for slaughter. As the crates are Y they are pushed back to the truck on j veyors and reloaded. Table 2 shows the i efficiencies of the several methods used broilers from the time they are unload- the trucks until they are shackled. s. methods of removing broilers from the J shackling them were observed. At one men were used. The first worker re- irds from the crate and handed them to ind Worker who shackled the birds. By hod two men handled 333 birds per man- ghen one person worked alone on this job, ivity increased to 424 birds per man-hour. feral other variations fwere observed in in which birds were tail gated. In one i, e birds were hauled from farm to plant ks with built-in cages. The loaded truck ongside the dock where the broilers were t and shackled. The labor required to i; unload the crates was eliminated. In ure 4. Two men carrying four broilers in each hand house to the truck. All catching is done at night. TABLE 1. LABOR REQUIRED TO CATCH AND LOAD ONE TRUCK OF BROILERS Hauler A B C D E Number of broilers handled 2720 4100 3086 2918 1200 Item Number of men catching 5 5 5 4 5 Number of men crating 2 2 2 2 2 Catching time (minutes) 7O 97 77 57 18 Birds caught per man-hour 333 363 343 512 576 manner 365 birds per man-hour were han- e . Several plants were laid out so that the dis- tances between the unloading docks and the dress- ing lines were too great for the use of roller con- veyors. These plants hauled the crated birds from the truck to the dressing line on dollies. Most plants have facilities for holding and feeding broilers in batteries even though they are not always used, Figure 6. In some plants bat- teries were used only to hold birds several hours or to weigh them, while in other plants birds were held in batteries as long as 3 days so they could gain the weight lost during hauling and to improve the quality of the carcasses. Birds to be held more than a few hours be- fore slaughter were transferred from crates to‘, batteries immediately after being unloaded from the truck. They were weighed and moved to the battery-holding area to wait for slaughter later in the day or for further feeding. Generally the birds were reweighed just before being killed. Another method of battery feeding was to attach feed: troughs to the wooden coops immedi- ately after the birds were brought into the plant. By using wooden crates the broilers could be bulk weighed on the truck immediately after they were loaded at the farm. When the birds arrived at the plant, the crates were unloaded, eight at a time, on a special hand truck with no additional Figure 5. The broilers are carried from the house and then handed to two men on the truck who put them in crates. 7 weighing, and moved from the truck to the hold- ing area, Figure 7. Feed troughs were fastened 0n the crates within a few minutes after the chickens arrived at the plant. Because individual birds were not handled, there was less chance of the birds becoming injured or fatigued. Both tail gating and battery holding have advantages and limitations. With tail gating, immediate slaughter reduces handling of the birds and crates and eliminates crate storage. Shrinkage is reduced because the chickens are handled rapidly. Birds are weighed only at the time of purchase. With the battery system, they must be weighed a second time just before slaugh- ter to determine the weight gained or lost dur- ing the feeding period. Some processors are of the opinion that hold- ing and feeding birds in batteries for short per- iods before slaughter reduces shrinkage and im- proves the quality of the carcass by putting mois- ture back into the tissues. An inventory of live birds in batteries at the plant insures a large enough supply of birds for continual and uniform operation of the plant in case a scheduled truck- load of birds is late or fails to arrive. With the battery method, broilers can be unloaded at night with less disturbance than during the day and the weather is cooler. When birds are tail gated they often must be held on the truck or loading dock without feed or water until they can be shackled, which may cause considerable shrink. More labor and handling are necessary when batteries are used. Extra handling increases the chances of birds becoming bruised and, because they are held for several days, of the bruises darkening before the birds can be slaughtered. Operating capital is encumbered for several days while the birds are fed and there is always the danger of the birds going “off feed” and losing weight. Figure 6. Most plants have facilities for holding and feeding broilers in batteries even though they are not always used. Here birds are being fed before slaughter. 8 TABLE 2. LABOR“ ussn AT THE PLANT TO - BROILERS BY VARIOUS METHODS‘ . . Man Birds - Method of receiving. . _ handling and delivering eizelfiét“ baggie‘! to the dressing line required hour m. Crated birds moved on a roller conveyor to the dressing line Birds removed from cages built 7.0-9.0 2331-2968 a on the truck and shackled 6.0 2190 a Crated birds moved on dollies to the dressing line 4.2 1500 Birds held and fed in batteries before being moved to the ' dressing line 16.0 2640 Birds held and fed in wooden crates before being moved to the dressing line 6.7 1562 Birds held but not fed in batteries before being moved to the dressing line 11.3 2633 ‘Includes unloading. reloading crates and shackling b’ j does not include weighing. cleaning or supervision. . Dressing Procedure Broiler processing plants in Texas operate within two ranges, 1,200 to 1,800 or j to 3,000 birds per hour. The speed at Whic line operates sets the pace for the entire pr ing operation. Labor requirements for the ious plant operations are shown in Table general, plants processing more than 2,100 y, per hour are more efficient in labor utili r than plants operating at slower speeds. The f and equipment used in typical Texas dressi i erations are illustrated in Figure 2. » ; Processors have the problem as to the method to use in killing birds. Four plants‘ electric stunners before bleeding the bird‘ remaining plants only severed the jugular Grease on the rollers of the overhead conv and failure of the birds to remain in contact the electric plate often prevented all birds being stunned. Instead, they were still gling when they reached the killer. All plants which operated at speeds of birds per hour or faster used a neck scalde two plants also used a hock scalder, Fig Variations in labor efficiency were cause TABLE 3. LINE SPEED. MAN-HOURS REQUIRED TO i EVISCERATE AND ICEPA-CK 1.000 BR’ AND BROILERS PROCESSED PER MAN-H 10 TEXAS PLANTS Man-ho.urs Line speed Dress- Eviscer- Ice- T t 1 per hour ing ating packing o a 1.260 11.9 12.6 4.1 28.6 1,500 12.3 14.8 9.5 36.6 1.560 11.0 20.0 9.1 40.0 1.800 7.4 16.5 6.6 30.4 2,190 12.6 18.1 ._ 9.8 40.5 2.640 10.1 18.4 a . 6.9 35.3 2.640 8.1 18.4 8.5 35.0 2.880 9.8 l 1.7.1 8.1 35.0 2.970 8.8 20.3 9.6 38.7 3.000 10.1 16.5 7.8 34.5 using more pinners than necessary, yperation of supposedly automatic pick- rsing the carcass too many times and ‘running the line too slow. oving pinfeathers from carcasses ac- efor 30 t0 37 percent of the labor used in sing operation; Poorly feathered birds l. essed by using extra labor and pinning asses by hand or by letting the birds go wer grade. Too low a scalding temper- p» short an immersiontime in the scald- 0r poor agitation of the water also made cult for pickers to remove the feathers. the plants operated efficiently without y operated pickers which indicates that j king machinery might be eliminated in e ants. Improper adjustment of pickers, ying in size or too few picking machines eased the work required to remove pin- p; from the carcasses. Processors reported e breeds and crosses of broiler chickens the moisture content of the body tis- p d Whether the birds were tired at the ” slaughter also might influence feather st plants had guide bars on the machines 1 labor, but in several plants Workers had e carcasses into scalders or pickers. Re- p" the carcass too many times and running at slow speeds also caused unnecessary sts. fplants operating at speeds above 2,100 hour, one man supervised the dressing on; in plants operating below this speed irvisors divided their time between the » y; and eviscerating operations. ur. plants had separate dressing and evis- lines; the other plants used the same or for both operations. Plants with sep- lines required one to three workers to carcasses from one line to the other. Ewsceratmg Procedure g rcasses to be eviscerated came from the g line hanging by the feet. Usually they viscerated as follows: the oil sac was re- , the neck slit, the crop removed, the body l“ opened, the viscera removed, the giblets the carcass washed, graded and thrown l. chill tank. The labor and equipment used ical evisceration operations are shown in s 3. nerally viscera were removed through a the abdomen. In one plant, Plant E, the es were slit down the back and giblets re- l through this opening. The latter method 1 it easier to remove the viscera and inspect a y cavity, but had other disadvantages such earanceifamnd ease of packaging. Although smethods may be more efficient than others, ality of the product also must be consider- veral methods of removing viscera were . ed. In plants where the crop was pulled Figure 7. One way to reduce labor in handling live birds is to use wooden coops for batteries. Birds are being unloaded for feeding prior to slaughter. Wooden feed troughs will be attached to the crates. loose from the carcass, 520 to 750 crops were re- moved per man-hour; in plants where crops were cut loose, 480 to 730 were removed per man-hour. It was possible to tear the heart and liver from 700 to 900 broilers per man-hour, but only 440 to 780 could be cut loose. One worker could remove the lungs from 660 to 1,200 birds per hour with a Lynn lung remover or from 1,260 birds with a vacuum lung remover, Figure 9. Automatic head pullers were used to remove the head in five plants, the heads were cut or pulled off by hand in four plants and in the plant where carcasses were slit down the back the heads were pulled off by picking machines. With the latter method of evisceration, it was not neces- sary to leave the heads on during the .eviscera- . JU ‘ Figure ,8. All plants in this study which operated at speeds of 2.100 birds per hour or taster used a neck scalder. Figure 9. Lungs can be removed from 660 to 1,200 birds per hour with a Lynn lung remover. tion process because the carcasses were not held in the shackles by the head at any time. Shanks were removed from the carcass at any convenient point on the line. Generally, the individual removing the shanks also performed some other task. In two plants the shanks were removed when the carcass was transferred from the dressing to the eviscerating line. Figure l0. Three plants inserted the wrapped giblets into the body cavity of the carcass while it was still sus- pended on the shackle. 10 In five plants the shanks were cut off " power saw, and in the remaining plants l. pruning shears. When the shanks were cut pruning shears, 1,320 to 3,120 broilers pert hour could be handled, when cut with a q saw 1,500 to 4,400. ~ Packmg and Packagmg Processed Texas broilers are delivered 1 consumer whole and icepacked, cut-up Wit whole carcass placed in a container, or as i,‘ dual parts such as breasts, thighs or wings: plants sold broilers whole and icepacked, I plants sold whole-cut-up broilers and four ~ produced a parts-cut-up package. Whole broilers, surrounded by crushe were delivered in wooden paper-lined boxes. 5 plant used re-usable aluminum boxes which inated the job of box assembly and simplifi closing and sealing of the boxes. By using ' inum boxes one worker was able to icepac broilers per man-hour as compared with 1 152 when the wooden boxes were used. Three variations were observed in the .1 ods used to wrap giblets. In four plants 1 f were wrapped in paper bags which were y by an air-blowing machine. By this meth to 628 giblets were wrapped per man-hour. ‘I the bags were opened by hand, only 288 w. giblets could be handled. When giblets . ~ wrapped in parchment paper,;449 to 701 se . man-hour could be handled. Three plants inserted the wrapped g. into the body cavity of the carcass while still suspended on the shackle, Figure 10. a this method 1,220 to 2,880 sets of giblets packed. When the packing was done on a 4 after the carcasses were removed from the; vat, 764 to 1,440 sets of giblets were packe man-hour. In one plant, where broilers p packed in aluminum boxes, 40 sets of giblets p wrapped in one package and packed with broilers. 3 Labor required to cut up carcasses was! 260 and 33 birds per man-hour, respectively the first plant the drumsticks, thighs and '5 were cut off with a knife while the carcass, still on the drain line. In the third plant onli wings were removed with a knife; the rest 0 carcass was removed with a band saw. Acknowledgment The authors wish to acknowledge the o‘. ation of the processing plants in which a studies were made. a