Q&A with Holly Maher, VP of Sales, Tosca
Reusable packaging is used in many industries, and poultry processors operate in one of the more demanding environments. Heavy loads, cold temperatures, moisture, high throughput, and increasingly automated operations can put secondary packaging under considerable stress.
At the same time, processors are under pressure to control costs throughout their operations. Packaging may represent only one line item, but its performance can influence labor, product damage, waste handling, sanitation, automation and throughput.
Reusable Packaging News spoke with Holly Maher, vice president of sales at Tosca, about the pressures facing poultry processors, the less visible costs associated with packaging performance, and how automation may influence the trend toward reusable transport packaging and RPCs in the years ahead.
RPN: What are you hearing from poultry processors right now about pressure on margins, and how is that changing the way they look at packaging and logistics?
Holly Maher: Poultry processors are operating in a market where demand is strong, but overcompensation from Avian Influenza concerns in late 2025 has caused excess supply, leading to softer prices. That puts pressure on processors to protect margins by controlling costs across the operation.
Fuel, labor, handling, packaging and product loss are all under heavy scrutiny. It is also speeding up automation initiatives and helping companies realize ROI from those investments sooner.
RPN: When processors begin looking for savings beyond the obvious areas such as feed, labor and transportation, where does secondary packaging enter the conversation?
Maher: Secondary packaging comes into the conversation when processors start looking beyond individual expense categories and examine the full system cost of moving product through the operation.
That is often where they begin to see packaging connected to several points in the supply chain as a common source of costly inefficiencies: labor to erect and handle cases, product damage, line interruptions, waste handling and the consistency needed for automation.
Because those costs sit across different functions, packaging’s full system impact can be easy to overlook. But once a processor starts asking where small inefficiencies are accumulating across the operation, secondary packaging becomes much more visible.
RPN: What packaging-related costs do poultry processors most commonly underestimate or overlook?
Maher: The ones that do not show up on a procurement invoice.
There is the labor involved in forming, handling and breaking down cases, product loss from box crush, and line interruptions or diminished throughput when moisture warps the footprint programmed into automation machinery. There can also be downstream costs from rejected loads, as well as contamination risks and reputational damage if products are inadequately protected in transit.
Individually, those costs can look small. But for a poultry operation moving very high volumes every day, they compound quickly. That is why I encourage processors to look at packaging costs in the context of the entire operation, not simply the price per case.
RPN: Product damage is an obvious cost, but what are some of the less visible operational consequences when corrugated packaging fails in a poultry supply chain?
Maher: Product damage is the visible loss, but what often gets missed is everything that happens around that failure.
In poultry, a weakened or collapsing case can force teams to stop and rehandle or restack product. Leaks and debris may need to be cleaned up, pulling people away from their normal work.
There are also safety concerns. Unstable loads and wet floors increase risk for employees. If leaking product or damaged packaging affects the cleanliness of the handling environment, it can also create sanitation and compliance exposure.
If that case reaches automated equipment, damaged or misshapen corrugated can create jams or interruptions that affect throughput. Those costs are harder to see because they show up as labor, downtime, safety incidents or compliance risk across several departments rather than as the collective impact of a packaging failure.
RPN: Are you seeing automation change the packaging requirements of poultry processors? What problems can inconsistent or damaged packaging create in increasingly automated facilities?
Maher: Absolutely. As poultry facilities become more automated, packaging has to perform more consistently.
A person can manually compensate for a case that is slightly bowed, softened or out of shape. Automated equipment is much less forgiving. It expects predictable dimensions and rigidity.
That becomes especially important in poultry, where corrugated can be exposed to cold and moisture. If a case loses strength or changes shape, you can see misfeeds, failed picks, jams or the need for manual intervention. Each interruption chips away at the throughput and labor savings the automation was supposed to deliver.
Many processors are starting to look at packaging as an input to automation. You can invest heavily in sophisticated equipment, but if the package entering that system is inconsistent, you are introducing variability right back into the operation.
RPN: When a poultry company considers moving from corrugated to reusable containers, how should it evaluate the total cost rather than simply comparing the price of one box with one reusable container?
Maher: I encourage processors to look at the full system, because the corrugated purchase price only tells you a small part of the story. What really matters is what it costs to move a pound of chicken reliably from the plant to the customer.
You have to add up the cost of the box and other packaging materials, but also the additional labor needed to form and handle cases, cleanup and waste disposal, product loss, rework and the disruption that occurs when packaging fails. In an automated facility, I would also look at throughput.
Those costs may show up in different places, but they all affect the operation.
Then assess the reusable model the same way. When you account for all of it, you get a much clearer picture of what each system is actually costing you.
RPN: What tends to be the biggest obstacle to making that transition? Is it capital cost, changing established processes, retailer requirements, return logistics, sanitation or something else?
Maher: In my experience, the biggest hurdle is usually changing an established system.
Corrugated has been used in supply chains for more than 100 years. Challenges with product damage from box failures have long been an issue, but tighter margins and the standardization required for automation have amplified the impact of those failures.
Add the rising cost of corrugated and new EPR-related fees, and the case for conversion becomes even more compelling.
RPN: Looking ahead three to five years, what do you think will have the greatest influence on poultry transport packaging: margin pressure, automation, food safety, traceability, sustainability, retailer requirements, or something we are not talking about yet?
Maher: If I had to pick one, I would say automation, although margin pressures are speeding up the pace of those investments.
Poultry processors are continually looking for ways to increase throughput, reduce manual handling and get more out of their equipment. As more of the operation becomes automated, secondary packaging has to become more predictable. It has to hold its shape, stack consistently, move reliably through equipment and perform the same way from the plant through distribution.
Variability becomes much more noticeable when a machine is doing the handling. Over the next several years, I think we are going to talk a lot more about standardization. As poultry supply chains become more automated and more accountable for the packaging they use, secondary packaging will have to do much more than simply get the product from one location to the next. RPN.
See Tosca’s article: The hidden costs of corrugated boxes for the poultry industry
Rick LeBlanc, EMBA, is the founder and editor of Reusable Packaging News (subscribe to the free newsletter) and editor of Western Pallet Magazine. A supply chain journalist with more than 30 years of experience, he specializes in pallets, reusable packaging, material handling and related operations. Rick is co-author of Pallets: A North American Perspective and Pallets & Progress: A Collected History of Pallets and Palletized Handling 1922–1945. He is also an advisory board member of the Virginia Tech Center for Packaging and Unit Load Design. Read Rick’s full bio.
