Poultry Processing

Poultry production first boomed in the DelMarVa (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) region in the early 1930s (Constance et al., 2023). It found its way south as agricultural small farmers discovered chicken as a cash crop. Poultry production grew into a southern-led industry as the south offered a milder climate suitable for year-round growth as well as the scientific developments in poultry science (Gray 2013, 213). The growth of the poultry industry derived from the integration of white males at the top. As poultry production transformed from a women-led small-scale farm to white male domination of large plants, the poultry process shifted from urban to rural and moved to less-skilled workers (Martin, 2009; Guerrero, 2017). Black and white laborers, although poor, still had the power to unionize and claim a right to decent work conditions and pay. When the South continuously declined their right to unionize, the workers voted with their feet. Their strikes and walkouts were often unsuccessful and led to a new type of workforce (Stuesse and Helton, 2013). This phenomenon explains the shifts from white women on the lines to black women, to Latinx workers – both male and female, and finally to rest on a general migrant and minority workforce.

The poultry industry was the first agricultural sector to industrialize (Constance et al., 2023). Originally considered a salvation of poor white southerners, as the demographics labor force transitioned, it incorporated a split labor market with a core of local white workers holding managerial jobs and the migrant and minority workforce on the line (Gray, 2013 and Constance et al., 2023). Under the “Southern Model” – conceived by Constance et al. (2023) – poultry processing illuminates a pattern within the southern industry which built upon the vestiges of the plantation system. The success of the poultry industry built itself upon pillars of racism, sexism, anti-unionism, and a climate of fear (Constance et al., 2023). Poultry farms held a high turnover rate due to the nature of the work on the line and anti-union sentiment (Martin, 2009; Constance et al., 2023; Stuesse and Helton, 2013). The poultry industry came to rely on migrant workers given their “desire to work”, lack of communal power, and the numbers of interested peoples. The owners of poultry production did not have to engage with calls for better workplace conditions as the old workers could simply be replaced.

Migrant workers offered their own source of continuous labor through both chain migration and network recruitment (Martin, 2009). Most migrants entered the United States through California, Texas, and Florida. The states along the chicken belt were generally second or third stops. During the transition of migrant agricultural workers to poultry processing, nomadic workers were attracted by the possibility of “steady employment and a weekly paycheck regardless of legal status” (Guerrero, 2017, 135). There were two waves of Latinx migration: the individual workers – mainly men – situated themselves at the plant for a period of a week to two years and then sent for their families (McAnarney, 2014 and Constance et al., 2023). The movement of households demonstrated the change from migrant labor el norte to year-round work.

The poultry industry was the first agricultural sector to industrialize (Constance et al., 2023). Originally considered a salvation of poor white southerners, as the demographics labor force transitioned, it incorporated a split labor market with a core of local white workers holding managerial jobs and the migrant and minority workforce on the line (Gray, 2013; Constance et al., 2023). Under the “Southern Model” – conceived by Constance et al. (2023) – poultry processing illuminates a pattern within the southern industry which built upon the vestiges of the sharecropping system. The success of the poultry industry built itself upon pillars of racism, sexism, anti-unionism, and a climate of fear (Constance et al., 2023). Poultry farms held a high turnover rate due to the nature of the work on the line and anti-union sentiment (Martin, 2009; Constance et al., 2023; Stuesse and Helton, 2013). The poultry industry came to rely on migrant workers given their “desire to work”, lack of communal power, and the numbers of interested peoples. The owners of poultry production did not have to engage with calls for better workplace conditions as the old workers could simply be replaced.

Migrant workers offered their own source of continuous labor through both chain migration and network recruitment (Martin, 2009). Most migrants entered the United States through California, Texas, and Florida. The states along the chicken belt were generally second or third stops. During the transition of migrant agricultural workers to poultry processing, nomadic workers were attracted by the possibility of steady employment and a weekly paycheck regardless of legal status (Guerrero, 2017, 135). There were two waves of Latinx migration: the individual workers – mainly men – situated themselves at the plant for a period of a week to two years and then sent for their families (McAnarney, 2014; Constance e al., 2023). The movement of households demonstrated the change from migrant labor el norte to year-round work.

Click arrows to explore the timeline of poultry production and snapshot stories.

Sources

Constance, Douglas H., Jin Young Choi, and Mary K. Hendrickson. “The Southern Model Revisited: The Intersection of Race, Ethnicity, Immigration, and Health and Safety in Poultry Processing.” Sustainability, 13945, 15, no. 18 (2023): 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813945.

Gray, LaGuana. “‘Arkansas’s First Boomtown’: El Dorado and the Emergence of the Poultry Processing Industry.” The Arkansas Historical Quarterly 72, no. 3 (Autumn 2013): 197–221. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24477513.

Guerrero, Perla M. “Chapter 4: Latinas/Os and Polleras: Social Networks, Multisite Migration, Raids, and Upward Mobility.” Essay. In Nuevo South: Latinas/Os, Asians, and the Remaking of Place, 112–51. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2017.

Martin, Philip L. “Meat and Poultry.” Chapter. In Importing Poverty?: Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural America, 85–102. Yale University Press, 2009. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npjgp.11.

McAnarney, Alexandra. “In Southeastern U.S., Poultry and Migration Booms Change the Face of Rural America.” MIRA: Feminism & Democracies, March 18, 2014. https://www.americas.org/in-southeastern-u-s-poultry-and-migration-booms-change-the-face-of-rural-america/.

Schwartzman, Kathleen C. “Why Follow Chickens.” Chapter. In The Chicken Trail: Following Workers, Migrants, and Corporations across the Americas, 1–14. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013.

Stuesse, Angela, and Laura Helton. “Low-Wage Legacies, Race, and the Golden Chicken in Mississippi: Where Contemporary Immigration Meets African American Labor History.” Southern Spaces, December 2013. https://southernspaces.org/2013/low-wage-legacies-race-and-golden-chicken-mississippi-where-contemporary-immigration-meets-african-american-labor-history/.

“U.S. Chicken Industry History.” National Chicken Council. Accessed November 19, 2023. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/history/.