2004 Poultry Science Association, Inc.

A Survey of Water Use and Common

Industry Practices in Commercial
Broiler Processing Facilities
J. K. Northcutt1 and D. R. Jones

USDA-ARS, Russell Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30604-5677

Primary Audience: Poultry Processors, USDA Personnel, Researchers

SUMMARY
A survey of commercial broiler processing facilities across the US was conducted to determine
overall water use. Seventy-two percent of the respondents reported using city water to process
broilers, and 66% reported discharging to city sewers. Over 41% of the responses were from
facilities located in the Southeast; however, there was no relationship between location (region of
US) of facility and water use or location of facility and water recycling/reuse. Overall, the average
water use prior to implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
was 20.6 L/bird, while the current post-HACCP water usage was reported as 26.0 L/bird. Analysis
of data also showed a significant relationship between the amount of water used to process each
broiler and the size of the broiler being processed. In addition, over 38% of the respondents
reported that they recycle water, and a significant relationship was observed between the amount
of water recycled and the size of facility. Data from this survey may be used to assist companies
interested in establishing water conservation programs or conducting water audits.

Key words: broiler, processing, water, Hazard Analysis, Critical Control Point
2004 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 13:48–54

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM System Final Rule (HACCP) was imple-

Adequate water supply is critical for the
processing of poultry as water may be used
during electrical stunning, defeathering, car-
cass washing, carcass chilling, product and
nonproduct movement, and facility sanitation
[1, 2, 3, 4]. In the early 1970s, the amount of
water used to process one broiler was reported
to range from 49 to 57 L [1, 5, 6]. In the
20 yr that followed, water conservation efforts
gradually reduced this number to as low as 15 L
per bird at some facilities [1, 5, 7, 8]. However,
conservation efforts were practically nonexis-
tent after 1998 when the Pathogen Reduction,
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
mented. Immediately after the implementation
of the HACCP regulation, poultry processing
facilities reported doubling, and in some cases
even tripling, the amount of water used to pro-
cess each broiler [1, 3, 8, 9]. Although increas-
ing the amount of water used for processing
seems to have made it easier for facilities to
meet the HACCP regulation, it has also re-
sulted in other logistical problems such as ex-
cess wastewater treatment and disposal and
pressure on other areas of the operation to con-
serve water [2, 5, 10].
Several reports have indicated that rigid
water restrictions by municipalities have

1
To whom correspondence should be addressed: jnorthcutt@saa.ars.usda.gov.
NORTHCUTT AND JONES: BROILER PROCESSING WATER SURVEY 49

forced some of broiler processing establish- TABLE 1. Categories of data and the percentage of
respondents based on region in USA
ments to limit processing capacity because wa-
ter is either not available or wastewater treat- Region StateB RespondentsC (%)
ment and disposal are at maximum load [2, 10].
West CA 8.8
Woodruff [10] reported that poultry processing HI
establishments may be further limited in opera- WA
tional capacity because of continuing drought TX
conditions, concerns over water quality, and Central AR 32.4
extra water going to residential areas to service IN
the growing population. Gersema [11] has sug- LA
MO
gested that as the concern for the availability MS
of high quality fresh water continues, there may WI
be a decline in food production and an increase Southeast AL 41.2
in food prices. Furthermore, agencies such as FL
the Pan American Health Organization and the GA
World Health Organization have reported that NC
SC
by the year 2025, the earth’s water supply will TN
just be enough to sustain life for the projected
Northeast DE 17.6
8.9 billion people with no water left over for MD
other operations [12]. Realizing that water can OH
be a limiting factor, the poultry industry is PA
actively pursuing new technologies to improve VA
processing efficiency, optimize water use, and A
Only those states with a facility that responded to the survey
find alternatives to water without compromis- are listed.
B
Two-letter state code.
ing product safety [2, 5, 10]. One alternative C
P < 0.001.
is water reuse or recycling. The USDA has
begun to allow water reuse under certain condi-
tions and in certain areas of poultry establish- • Number of days and shifts the establish-
ments provided the reused water meets specific ment runs each week.
standards. These standards and water reuse • Average water usage (L/bird) before and
guidelines are listed in the Federal Register after HACCP implementation.
and Federal Directives [13, 14]. • Whether or not the establishment recycles
Because of the emphasis on food safety and water and how much water is recycled.
the reduced availability of water, a survey was • Whether or not the establishment uses a
conducted of broiler processing establishments truck or transport coop washing station.
across the US to identify common operational • The type of broiler reprocessing.
• The type of evisceration equipment.
practices and the effects of these practices on
• The types of carcass antimicrobial agents.
water use.
Completed surveys were returned by fax or
MATERIALS AND METHODS regular mail. Information regarding water us-
age was used to calculate the difference due to
A survey was conducted of all broiler HACCP implementation by using the follow-
slaughtering establishments in the continental ing formula:
US [15]. Each establishment was asked to pro-
vide the following information: ∆ H2O (L/bird) = H2O after HACCP
• Whether or not they are on city water and − H2O before HACCP.
city sewer.
• The average number of birds processed Data were analyzed using the frequency
each day (size of facility). procedure of SAS software [16]. Significance
• The average size (kg of live weight) of was determined by the chi-squared operation
birds processed. or goodness-of-fit test. Responses to surveys
50 JAPR: Research Report

TABLE 2. Categories of data and percentages of respondents for size of facility, average bird weight, amount of
water used to process before and after Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), difference in processing
water due to HACCP, and amount of water recycled

Processing
parameter Small Medium Large PA

Number birds ≤125,000 125,001–250,000 >250,000 NS

processed/d (20.9%) (38.8%) (40.3%)
Average bird ≤1.81 1.82–2.72 >2.72 0.0001
weight (kg) (25.4%) (58.2%) (16.4%)
Amount of ≤21.0 21.1–30.0 >30.0 0.0001
water used (70.3%) (26.6%) (3.1%)
before HACCP
(L/bird)
Amount of ≤21.0 21.1–30.0 >30.0 0.0102
water used (23.9%) (50.7%) (25.4%)
after HACCP
(L/bird)
∆H2O <3.8 3.8–7.6 >7.6 NS
(L/bird)B (37.5%) (29.7%) (32.8%)
Amount of ≤75,708 75.709–757,080 >757,080 NS
water recycled (44%) (16%) (40%)
A
Probability values correspond with the percentages of respondents within the category (shown in parentheses). Nonsignificant
(NS) probability values indicate P > 0.05.
B
Increase in processing water after HACCP implementation was calculated as follows: reported water use after HACCP −
reported water use before HACCP = ∆H2O.

were categorized before the chi-squared opera-
tion could be performed (Tables 1 and 2). Chi-
squared determined, at the 0.05 significance
level, whether or not a relationship existed be-
tween the categories.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
One hundred forty surveys were faxed or
sent via regular mail to broiler processing es-
tablishments across the US [15]. Of these 140
surveys, 68 surveys were completed and re-
turned (48.6%). As the responses to the broiler
surveys were received, information was cate-
gorized according to region or location in the
US (Table 1). Table 1 also shows the percent-
age of the responses within a given region of
the US (P < 0.001). The majority of the facili-
ties responding to the survey were located in
the Southeast (41.2%), which represents the
area responsible for over 42% (approximately
3.4 billion broilers) of the annual US broiler
production [17]. Over 32% of the responses
were from the central region of the US, which
represents approximately 30% (2.5 billion
broilers) of the annual US broiler production
[17]. The remaining responses (8.8% for West;
17.6% for Northeast) were from areas where
broiler production is not as plentiful (<20% of

TABLE 3. Percentage of respondents based on size of facilityA and region in the USB

Small facilities Medium facilities Large facilities

Region (%) (%) (%)

West 4.5 1.5 3.0

Central 1.5 17.9 13.4
SoutheastC 6.0 14.9 19.4
Northeast 9.0 4.5 4.5
A
Small facilities (≤125,000 birds/d), medium facilities (125,001 to 250,000 birds/d), and large facilities (>250,000 birds/d)
as designated in Table 2.
B
P < 0.05.
C
One facility in the Southeast did not report size.
NORTHCUTT AND JONES: BROILER PROCESSING WATER SURVEY 51

TABLE 4. Relationship between truck and coop washing stations and size of facilityA,B

Truck or coop Small Medium Large Total

washing facilities (%) facilities (%) facilities (%) (%)

Yes 11.9 7.5 9.0 28.4

No 9.0 31.3 31.3 71.6
A
Small facilities (≤125,000 birds/d), medium facilities (125,001 to 250,000 birds/d), and large facilities (>250,000 birds/d)
as designated in Table 2.
B
P < 0.05.

the annual US broiler production or less than
1.5 billion broilers each year) [17].
Data were also categorized according to
size of facility (number birds processed/d), av-
erage bird weight at processing, amount of wa-
ter used to process each broiler before and after
HACCP implementation (L/bird), difference in
water (∆ H2O) due to HACCP implementation
and amount of water recycled (Table 2). Cate-
gories for average bird weight at processing
were based on the product specialty and repre-
sented the fast food, traditional ice pack, and
large bird deboning markets [18]. Also in-
cluded in Table 2 are the percentages of respon-
dents within the category and the correspond-
ing probability values. Size of facility, differ-
ence in water due to HACCP (∆ H2O), and
amount of water recycled were not significantly
different among the respondents (P > 0.05).
However, average bird weight at processing (P
< 0.0001) and amount of water used to process
broilers before (P < 0.0001) and after HACCP
(P < 0.0102) were significantly different among
respondents (Table 2). Most of the respondents
(58.2%) reported that they process medium-
sized broilers (1.82 to 2.72 kg) with 21 to 30
L of water per bird (50.7%). Before the imple-
mentation of HACCP, over 70% of the facili-
ties surveyed reported using <21 L/bird. In ad-
dition, 3.1% of the facilities reported using
more than 30 L/bird before HACCP, whereas
this number has increased to 25.4% after
HACCP (>30 L/bird after HACCP). The aver-
age water use for all of the respondents was
26 L/bird with an average increase of 5.4 L/
bird after implementation of HACCP. These
values are comparable to those reported by
Thornton and O’Keefe [2] in their recent sur-
vey of 43 broiler processing plant managers,
but they are lower than the values (>34 L/bird)
reported immediately after HACCP implemen-
tation [3].
Table 3 shows the relationship between size
of facility (small, medium, or large) and region
of US (Central, West, Southeast, and Northeast).
Most of the responses from the Southeast came
from facilities that were categorized as large
(19.4%) or medium (14.9%). A majority of the
responses from the West and Northeast US (4.5
and 9.0%, respectively) were from small facili-
ties (≤125,000 birds/d), whereas those from the

TABLE 5. Relationship between water use at the processing facilities and size of the facilityA,B

Small Medium Large

∆H2OC,D,E facilities (%) facilities (%) facilities (%)

Small increase 7.8 10.9 18.7

Medium increase 10.9 14.1 4.7
Large increase 1.6 14.1 17.2
Total with an
increase (%) 20.3 39.1 40.6
A
Small facilities (≤125,000 birds/d), medium facilities (125,001 to 250,000 birds/d), and large facilities (>250,000 birds/d)
as designated in Table 2.
B
P < 0.05.
C
Increase in processing water after Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) implementation was calculated as
follows: reported water use after HACCP − reported water use before HACCP = ∆H2O.
D
One small, one medium, and one large facility did not report water usage prior to HACCP implementation.
E
Seven facilities reported no increase in water usage after HACCP implementation.
52 JAPR: Research Report

TABLE 6. Relationship between the amount of water recycledA and the size of the facilityB,C

Small facilities Medium facilities Large facilities

Recycled water (%) (%) (%)

Low recycling 12.0 32.0 0.0

Medium recycling 8.0 0.0 8.0
High recycling 0.0 4.0 36.0
A
Low recycling (≤75,708 L/d), medium recycling (75,709 to 757,080 L/d), and high recycling (>757,080 L/d).
B
Small facilities (≤125,000 birds/d), medium facilities (125,001 to 250,000 birds/d), and large facilities (>250,000 birds/d)
as designated in Table 2.
C
P < 0.001.

Central US were generally considered to be me-
dium (17.9%) or large (13.4%) facilities.
Approximately 72% of the respondents re-
ported that they use city water (P < 0.001) to
process broilers, and 66% reported discharging
wastewater to city sewers (P < 0.01). Addition-
ally, a majority of the respondents (97%) re-
ported that they operate 5 d each week (P <
0.0001), and 85% of the respondents operate 10
shifts each week (P < 0.0001). Twenty-eight
percent of surveyed facilities indicated that they
use a truck or coop washing station (P < 0.001),
and there was a significant relationship (P <
0.05) between use of these stations and size of
the facility (Table 4). A majority of those facili-
ties that wash trucks and coops (11.9%) were
classified as small facilities, whereas another 9
and 7.5% were classified as large- and medium-
sized facilities. Similarly, Thornton and O’Keefe
[2] reported that 23% of their respondents indi-
cated that they clean their trucks and coops.
Table 5 shows the relationship (P < 0.05)
between the size of the facility (small, medium,
or large) and ∆ H2O. Most of the small facilities
experienced a small (7.8%) or medium (10.9%)
difference in their water use with HACCP,
whereas the medium facilities experienced me-
dium (14.1%) and large (14.1%) differences in
water use due to HACCP. Conversely, large
facilities had a small (18.7%) or large (17.2%)
difference in water use due to HACCP.
Of the facilities that responded to the survey,
38.5% indicated that they recycle water; how-
ever, this was not significant. The amount of
water that the facilities recycle was also not
significant. Twenty percent of the respondents
categorized as a small facility recycle water
compared with 36% of medium and 44% of
large facilities (P < 0.001; Table 6). No relation-
ship was observed between location of facility
(region) and water recycling. In addition, no
relationship was observed between the number
of days or shifts the facility operates and the
amount of water recycled.
Nearly 44% of the respondents to the survey
use Streamline Inspection System (SIS) for evis-
ceration, whereas 24.2 and 11.2% of the respon-
dents use New Evisceration Line System
(NELS) and NuTech, respectively (P < 0.0001;
Table 7) [19]. Another 12.9% of the respondents
reported using a combination of NELS and Nu-
Tech, and only 8.1% of the facilities reported
use of other systems. No relationship was found
between type of evisceration system and average
water use by facilities. In addition, no relation-
ship was observed between the type of eviscera-
tion and ∆ H2O (L/bird). Furthermore, there was
no relationship between the type of evisceration
and the type of reprocessing (online, offline,
or both).
The majority of the facilities responding to
the survey used chlorine (45.5%) or a combina-
tion of chlorine and acidified sodium chlorite
(ASC; 27.3%) as an antimicrobial agent (P <
0.0001). However, only 7.6% of the respondents
reported using ASC alone. Approximately 12%
of the facilities surveyed reported using triso-
dium phosphate (TSP) as an antimicrobial agent,
TABLE 7. Type of evisceration lineA used by
respondentsB
Type of evisceration Percent respondents
SIS 43.6
NELS 24.2
NuTech 11.2
NELS and NuTech 12.9
Other 8.1
A
SIS = Streamlined Inspection System; NELS = New
Evisceration Line System.
B
P < 0.0001.
NORTHCUTT AND JONES: BROILER PROCESSING WATER SURVEY 53

TABLE 8. Percentage of the respondents based on bird sizeA and water usageB,C

Water usage (%)

Bird size Low Medium High

Small birds 7.5 16.4 1.5

Medium birds 16.4 22.4 19.4
Large birds 0.0 11.9 4.5
A
Small refers to broilers ≤1.81 kg; medium refers to broilers 1.82 to 2.72 kg; large refers to broilers >2.72 kg.
B
Low water usage refers to ≤21.0 L/bird; medium water usage refers to 21.1 to 30.0 L/bird; large refers to >30.0 L/bird.
C
P < 0.05.

and all other types of antimicrobial agents (chlo-
rine dioxide and other) accounted for only 7.6%
of those reported. There was no relationship be-
tween the type of antimicrobial agent and the
amount of water used to process each broiler.
Table 8 shows the percentage of the respon-
dents based on size of bird processed and amount
of water used to process each broiler (P < 0.05).
The majority of the respondents that process
small birds use 21.1 to 30.0 L of water/bird
(16.4%) or ≤ 21.0 L/bird (7.5%), and 1.5% re-
ported that they use over 30 L/bird. Approxi-
mately 12% of the surveyed facilities that pro-
cess large broilers use 21.1 to 30.0 L of water
per bird, and another 4.5% use more than 30.0
L/bird. None of the facilities that process large
birds reported using 21.0 L or less per broiler.
The majority of respondents (22.4%) that pro-
cess medium-sized broilers reported using 21.1
to 30 L/bird, and another 16.4% (< 21.0 L/bird)
and 19.4% (>30.0 L/bird) reported that they use
low and high amounts of water during pro-
cessing.
Data from this survey provide important
background information for identifying the rela-
tionship between operational practices and water
use in broiler processing facilities. It may prove
to be useful to those facilities seeking to imple-
ment water conservation and reuse programs or
to those facilities conducting water and waste-
water audits.

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS

1. A survey of broiler processing facilities across the US indicated that the majority of the facilities
process birds with city water (72%), discharge wastewater to city sewers (66%), and operate
5 d each week (97%) with 10 shifts each week (85%).
2. Facilities reported an average water use of 26.0 L/bird, which included an increase of approxi-
mately 5.4 L/bird since the implementation of HACCP.
3. No relationship was observed between water usage and size of facility (birds processed/d),
location of facility (region), type of reprocessing, type of antimicrobial agent, or coop- or truck-
washing stations.
4. A significant relationship was observed for the amount of water recycled and the size of
the facility, with large (44%) and medium (36%) facilities recycling more water than small
facilities (20.0%).
5. A significant relationship was observed between the size of bird processed and the average
amount of water used to process each broiler with more water being used to process medium-
sized broilers.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Carawan, R., M. Taylor, P. Curtis, and K. Keener. 1999. 2. Thornton, G., and T. O’Keefe. 2002. Poultry processing:
Liquid assets for your poultry plant. North Carolina State University Washing troubles away. Poult. USA 3(8):40, 42, 44.
Cooperative Extension Publication CD-20. www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ 3. Jackson, W. C., and P. A. Curtis. 1998. Effect of HACCP
foodsci/ext/pubs/. Accessed June 2002. regulation on water usage in poultry processing plants. Pages 434–
54
439 in Proc. Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp. J. P. Blake and P.
H. Patterson, ed. Auburn University Printing Service, Auburn, AL.
4. Keener, L. 2001. Water: Ensuring its safety for use in food
processing operations. Food Saf. 7(5):22–26.
5. Richardson, S. 1999. And then along came HACCP. A.K.A.
water conservation and waste water management. Pages 1–10 in Proc.
US Poult. & Egg Assoc. Poult. Processors Workshop, Atlanta, GA.
6. Carawan, R. E., W. M. Crosswhite, J. A. Macon, and B. K.
Hawkins. 1974. Water and waste management in poultry processing.
Environ. Prot. Technol. Ser. EPA-660/2-74-031.
7. Merka, W. 1993. Water conservation in poultry processing.
Pages 156–161 in Proc. Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp., Colum-
bus, OH. Auburn Univeristy Printing Service, Auburn, AL.
8. Perkins, M. 1999. Water recovery and reuse: Solutions for
poultry processors. Proc. Poult. Health Processing. 34th Natl. Meet-
ing, Ocean City, MD.
9. Northcutt, J. K. 1999. Personal communications with broiler
processing facilities in Georgia.
10. Woodruff, S. R. 2002. Water treatment strategies—Water
reuse. Pages 127–134 in Proc. Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp.
Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL.
JAPR: Research Report
11. Gersema, E. 2002. Researchers warn water crisis looms as
countries mismanage water. Environ. News Network. October 17,
2002. http://www.enn.com/news. Accessed April 2003.
12. White, G. C. 1999. Water: Earth’s most important natural
resource. Page xi in Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disin-
fectants. G. C. White, ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
13. USDA. 1999. Sanitation Performance Standard Compliance
Guide. Fed. Regist. 64(202):56400–56418.
14. USDA. 2000. Sanitation performance standards, F. Water
supply and water, ice and solution reuse. Directive 11,000.1.
15. Who’s Who in the Egg & Poultry Industry in the U.S. and
Canada. 2002/2003. Pages 192–228. Watt Publishing Co., Mt. Mor-
ris, IL.
16. SAS, 1999. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Release 8.0 ed. SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
17. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2003. Poul-
try Slaughter 2002 Annual Summary. http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/
reports/nassr/poultry/ppy-bban. Accessed May 2003.
18. Martin, G. Thomas, Jr. 1995. Yield standards for today’s
product mix. Broiler Ind. 58(7):26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 42.
19. NuTech evisceration system, Stork Gamco, Gainesville, GA.