Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 25, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General We are a party to many routine contracts in which we provide general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, we have not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities as based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Purchase Obligations The Company will sometimes enter into noncancelable contracts to purchase capital equipment and certain commodities such as corn, soybean meal, cooking oil and natural gas. At December 25, 2011, the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $143.6 million. Payments for purchases made under these contracts are due in less than one year. Operating Leases The Consolidated Statements of Operations include rental expense for operating leases of approximately $26.2 million, $58.3 million, $12.4 million and $68.4 million in 2011, 2010, the Transition Period and 2009, respectively. The Company’s future minimum lease commitments under noncancelable operating leases are as follows: 2012—$16.1 million; 2013—$7.0 million; 2014—$2.1 million; 2015—$1.5 million; and 2016—$47,331. Certain of the Company’s operating leases include rent escalations. The Company includes the rent escalation in its minimum lease payments obligations and recognizes them as a component of rental expense on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease term. The Company also maintains operating leases for various types of equipment, some of which contain residual value guarantees for the market value of assets at the end of the term of the lease. The terms of the lease maturities range from one to ten years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is estimated to be approximately $20.2 million; however, the actual amount would be offset by any recoverable amount based on the fair market value of the underlying leased assets. No liability has been recorded related to this contingency as the likelihood of payments under these guarantees is not considered to be probable and the fair value of such guarantees is immaterial. The Company historically has not experienced significant payments under similar residual guarantees. Financial Instruments At December 25, 2011, the Company was party to outstanding standby letters of credit totaling $40.1 million that affected the amount of funds available for borrowing under the Exit Credit Facility. Pursuant to the terms of the Subordinated Loan Agreement, we have agreed to reimburse JBS USA up to $56.5 million for draws upon any letters of credit issued for JBS USA's account that support certain obligations of Mayflower Insurance Company, Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. The Company’s loan agreements generally obligate the Company to reimburse the applicable lender for incremental increased costs due to a change in law that imposes (i) any reserve or special deposit requirement against assets of, deposits with or credit extended by such lender related to the loan, (ii) any tax, duty or other charge with respect to the loan (except standard income tax) or (iii) capital adequacy requirements. In addition, some of the Company’s loan agreements contain a withholding tax provision that requires the Company to pay additional amounts to the applicable lender or other financing party, generally if withholding taxes are imposed on such lender or other financing party as a result of a change in the applicable tax law. These increased cost and withholding tax provisions continue for the entire term of the applicable transaction, and there is no limitation on the maximum additional amounts the Company could be obligated to pay under such provisions. Any failure to pay amounts due under such provisions generally would trigger an event of default, and, in a secured financing transaction, would entitle the lender to foreclose upon the collateral to realize the amount due. Litigation The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In the Company’s opinion, it has made appropriate and adequate accruals for claims where necessary; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if significantly different than the amounts accrued, the ultimate outcome could have a material effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. For a discussion of the material legal proceedings and claims, see "Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings.” Below is a summary of some of these material proceedings and claims. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made and intends to vigorously defend these cases. On December 1, 2008, the Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court. The cases were jointly administered under Case No. 08-45664. Until the Effective Date, the Debtors operated their business as “debtors-in-possession” under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court. The Debtors emerged from Chapter 11 on the Effective Date. The Company continues to work through the claims allowance process with respect to claims arising before the Effective Date. The Company will be responsible to the extent those claims become allowed claims. Among the claims presently pending are claims brought against certain current and former directors, executive officers and employees of the Company, the Pilgrim’s Pride Administrative Committee and the Pilgrim’s Pride Pension Committee seeking unspecified damages under section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. These claims were brought by individual participants in the Pilgrim’s Pride Retirement Savings Plan, individually and on behalf of a putative class, alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to plan participants and beneficiaries or otherwise violated ERISA. Although the Company is not a named defendant in these claims, our bylaws require us to indemnify our current and former directors and officers from any liabilities and expenses incurred by them in connection with actions they took in good faith while serving as an officer or director. In these actions the plaintiffs assert claims in excess of $35.0 million. The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to the Company cannot be determined at this time. Also, among the claims presently pending against the Company are two identical claims seeking unspecified damages, each brought by a stockholder, individually and on behalf of a putative class, alleging violations of certain antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court consolidated these cases into one matter. The parties have reached an agreement to settle this matter for $1.5 million, subject to court approval. A Stipulation of Settlement was filed on November 14, 2011. On January 23, 2012, the court issued an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, in which the court set a hearing date for the final approval of the settlement for May 1, 2012. If the case does not settle as expected, the defendants intend to defend vigorously against the merits of the action and any attempts by the lead plaintiff to certify a class action. Other claims presently pending against the Company are claims seeking unspecified damages brought by current or former contract chicken growers who allege, along with other assertions, that the Company breached grower contracts and made false representations to induce the plaintiffs into building chicken farms and entering into chicken growing agreements with the Company. In the case styled Sheila Adams, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, on September 30, 2011, the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law stating that the Company violated section 192(e) of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by purportedly attempting to manipulate the price of chicken by idling the El Dorado, Arkansas complex and awarded damages in the amount of $25.8 million. Afterward, the Company filed post-judgment motions attacking the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which, on December 28, 2011, were granted in part and resulted in a reduction of the damages award from $25.8 million to $25.6 million. On January 19, 2012, the Company appealed the findings of fact and conclusions of law and decision concerning the post-judgment motions to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its appellate rights and defend against the underlying judgment. While the outstanding judgment is reasonably possible, the Company has recorded an estimated probable loss that is less than the outstanding judgment. No date has been scheduled for trying the remaining growers' claims, but the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Although the likelihood of financial loss related to the remaining growers' claims is reasonably possible, an estimate of potential loss cannot be determined at this time because of now conflicting legal authority, the factual nature of the various growers' individual claims, and a new judge who will preside over the remaining bench trials. There can be no assurances that other similar claims may not be brought against the Company. The United States Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has filed an amended proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to which the IRS asserts claims that total $74.7 million. We have filed in the Bankruptcy Court (i) an objection to the IRS' amended proof of claim, and (ii) a motion requesting the Bankruptcy Court to determine our US federal tax liability pursuant to Sections 105 and 505 of the Bankruptcy Code. The objection and motion assert that the Company has no liability for the additional US federal taxes that have been asserted for pre-petition periods by the IRS. The IRS has responded in opposition to our objection and motion. On July 8, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted our unopposed motion requesting that the Bankruptcy Court abstain from determining our federal tax liability. As a result, we intend to work with the IRS through the normal processes and procedures that are available to all taxpayers outside of bankruptcy (including the United States Tax Court (“Tax Court”) proceedings discussed below) to resolve the IRS' amended proof of claim. In connection with the amended proof of claim, on May 26, 2010, we filed a petition in Tax Court in response to a Notice of Deficiency that was issued to the Company as the successor in interest to Gold Kist. The Notice of Deficiency and the Tax Court proceeding relate to a loss that Gold Kist claimed for its tax year ended June 30, 2004. The matter is currently in litigation before the Tax Court. On August 10, 2010, we filed two petitions in Tax Court. The first petition relates to three Notices of Deficiency that were issued to us with respect to our 2003, 2005 and 2007 tax years. The second petition relates to a Notice of Deficiency that was issued to us with respect to Gold Kist's tax year ended June 30, 2005, and its short tax year ended September 30, 2005. Both cases are currently in litigation before the Tax Court. We express no opinion as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to us related to the above Tax Court cases. If adversely determined, the outcome could have a material effect on the Company's operating results and financial position. The Notices of Deficiency and the Tax Court proceedings discussed above cover the same tax years and the same amounts that were asserted by the IRS in its $74.7 million amended proof of claim that was filed in the Bankruptcy Court. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) investigated allegations of identity theft within our workforce. With our cooperation, ICE arrested approximately 350 of our employees in 2008 believed to have engaged in identity theft at five of our facilities. On December 30, 2009, PPC, the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas, and the Dallas Office of ICE entered into a non-prosecution agreement and civil resolution of the government’s investigation. Under this agreement: (i) the government agreed not to proceed either criminally or civilly against PPC, and to end its investigation of the immigration-related matters, relating to both the company and its current and former officers, employees and directors; (ii) PPC agreed to an immigration compliance program that would remain in effect for at least the 5-year term of the agreement; and (iii) PPC will pay an aggregate of $4.5 million, which approximates the amount the Company had previously accrued for this matter, to the government in four annual installments. We paid the first two installments of $1.1 million in February 2010 and February 2011. The parties acknowledged that PPC was admitting to no civil liability or criminal culpability as a result of the settlement. However, no assurances can be given that further enforcement efforts by governmental authorities against our employees or the Company (i) will not disrupt a portion of our workforce or our operations at one or more of our facilities, thereby negatively impacting our business or (ii) result in the assessment of fines against us that could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

General

We are a party to many routine contracts in which we provide general indemnities in the normal course of business to third parties for various risks. Among other considerations, we have not recorded a liability for any of these indemnities as based upon the likelihood of payment, the fair value of such indemnities would not have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Purchase Obligations

The Company will sometimes enter into noncancelable contracts to purchase capital equipment and certain commodities such as corn, soybean meal, cooking oil and natural gas. At December 25, 2011, the Company was party to outstanding purchase contracts totaling $143.6 million. Payments for purchases made under these contracts are due in less than one year.

Operating Leases

The Consolidated Statements of Operations include rental expense for operating leases of approximately $26.2 million, $58.3 million, $12.4 million and $68.4 million in 2011, 2010, the Transition Period and 2009, respectively. The Company’s future minimum lease commitments under noncancelable operating leases are as follows: 2012—$16.1 million; 2013—$7.0 million; 2014—$2.1 million; 2015—$1.5 million; and 2016—$47,331.

Certain of the Company’s operating leases include rent escalations. The Company includes the rent escalation in its minimum lease payments obligations and recognizes them as a component of rental expense on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease term.

The Company also maintains operating leases for various types of equipment, some of which contain residual value guarantees for the market value of assets at the end of the term of the lease. The terms of the lease maturities range from one to ten years. The maximum potential amount of the residual value guarantees is estimated to be approximately $20.2 million; however, the actual amount would be offset by any recoverable amount based on the fair market value of the underlying leased assets. No liability has been recorded related to this contingency as the likelihood of payments under these guarantees is not considered to be probable and the fair value of such guarantees is immaterial. The Company historically has not experienced significant payments under similar residual guarantees.

Financial Instruments

At December 25, 2011, the Company was party to outstanding standby letters of credit totaling $40.1 million that affected the amount of funds available for borrowing under the Exit Credit Facility.

Pursuant to the terms of the Subordinated Loan Agreement, we have agreed to reimburse JBS USA up to $56.5 million for draws upon any letters of credit issued for JBS USA's account that support certain obligations of Mayflower Insurance Company, Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

The Company’s loan agreements generally obligate the Company to reimburse the applicable lender for incremental increased costs due to a change in law that imposes (i) any reserve or special deposit requirement against assets of, deposits with or credit extended by such lender related to the loan, (ii) any tax, duty or other charge with respect to the loan (except standard income tax) or (iii) capital adequacy requirements. In addition, some of the Company’s loan agreements contain a withholding tax provision that requires the Company to pay additional amounts to the applicable lender or other financing party, generally if withholding taxes are imposed on such lender or other financing party as a result of a change in the applicable tax law. These increased cost and withholding tax provisions continue for the entire term of the applicable transaction, and there is no limitation on the maximum additional amounts the Company could be obligated to pay under such provisions. Any failure to pay amounts due under such provisions generally would trigger an event of default, and, in a secured financing transaction, would entitle the lender to foreclose upon the collateral to realize the amount due.

Litigation

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In the Company’s opinion, it has made appropriate and adequate accruals for claims where necessary; however, the ultimate liability for these matters is uncertain, and if significantly different than the amounts accrued, the ultimate outcome could have a material effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. For a discussion of the material legal proceedings and claims, see "Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings.” Below is a summary of some of these material proceedings and claims. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the claims made and intends to vigorously defend these cases.

On December 1, 2008, the Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court. The cases were jointly administered under Case No. 08-45664. Until the Effective Date, the Debtors operated their business as “debtors-in-possession” under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court. The Debtors emerged from Chapter 11 on the Effective Date. The Company continues to work through the claims allowance process with respect to claims arising before the Effective Date. The Company will be responsible to the extent those claims become allowed claims.

Among the claims presently pending are claims brought against certain current and former directors, executive officers and employees of the Company, the Pilgrim’s Pride Administrative Committee and the Pilgrim’s Pride Pension Committee seeking unspecified damages under section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. These claims were brought by individual participants in the Pilgrim’s Pride Retirement Savings Plan, individually and on behalf of a putative class, alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to plan participants and beneficiaries or otherwise violated ERISA. Although the Company is not a named defendant in these claims, our bylaws require us to indemnify our current and former directors and officers from any liabilities and expenses incurred by them in connection with actions they took in good faith while serving as an officer or director. In these actions the plaintiffs assert claims in excess of $35.0 million. The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to the Company cannot be determined at this time.

Also, among the claims presently pending against the Company are two identical claims seeking unspecified damages, each brought by a stockholder, individually and on behalf of a putative class, alleging violations of certain antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court consolidated these cases into one matter. The parties have reached an agreement to settle this matter for $1.5 million, subject to court approval. A Stipulation of Settlement was filed on November 14, 2011. On January 23, 2012, the court issued an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, in which the court set a hearing date for the final approval of the settlement for May 1, 2012. If the case does not settle as expected, the defendants intend to defend vigorously against the merits of the action and any attempts by the lead plaintiff to certify a class action.

Other claims presently pending against the Company are claims seeking unspecified damages brought by current or former contract chicken growers who allege, along with other assertions, that the Company breached grower contracts and made false representations to induce the plaintiffs into building chicken farms and entering into chicken growing agreements with the Company. In the case styled Sheila Adams, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, on September 30, 2011, the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law stating that the Company violated section 192(e) of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by purportedly attempting to manipulate the price of chicken by idling the El Dorado, Arkansas complex and awarded damages in the amount of $25.8 million. Afterward, the Company filed post-judgment motions attacking the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which, on December 28, 2011, were granted in part and resulted in a reduction of the damages award from $25.8 million to $25.6 million. On January 19, 2012, the Company appealed the findings of fact and conclusions of law and decision concerning the post-judgment motions to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its appellate rights and defend against the underlying judgment. While the outstanding judgment is reasonably possible, the Company has recorded an estimated probable loss that is less than the outstanding judgment. No date has been scheduled for trying the remaining growers' claims, but the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Although the likelihood of financial loss related to the remaining growers' claims is reasonably possible, an estimate of potential loss cannot be determined at this time because of now conflicting legal authority, the factual nature of the various growers' individual claims, and a new judge who will preside over the remaining bench trials. There can be no assurances that other similar claims may not be brought against the Company.

The United States Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has filed an amended proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to which the IRS asserts claims that total $74.7 million. We have filed in the Bankruptcy Court (i) an objection to the IRS' amended proof of claim, and (ii) a motion requesting the Bankruptcy Court to determine our US federal tax liability pursuant to Sections 105 and 505 of the Bankruptcy Code. The objection and motion assert that the Company has no liability for the additional US federal taxes that have been asserted for pre-petition periods by the IRS. The IRS has responded in opposition to our objection and motion. On July 8, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted our unopposed motion requesting that the Bankruptcy Court abstain from determining our federal tax liability. As a result, we intend to work with the IRS through the normal processes and procedures that are available to all taxpayers outside of bankruptcy (including the United States Tax Court (“Tax Court”) proceedings discussed below) to resolve the IRS' amended proof of claim.

In connection with the amended proof of claim, on May 26, 2010, we filed a petition in Tax Court in response to a Notice of Deficiency that was issued to the Company as the successor in interest to Gold Kist. The Notice of Deficiency and the Tax Court proceeding relate to a loss that Gold Kist claimed for its tax year ended June 30, 2004. The matter is currently in litigation before the Tax Court.

On August 10, 2010, we filed two petitions in Tax Court. The first petition relates to three Notices of Deficiency that were issued to us with respect to our 2003, 2005 and 2007 tax years. The second petition relates to a Notice of Deficiency that was issued to us with respect to Gold Kist's tax year ended June 30, 2005, and its short tax year ended September 30, 2005. Both cases are currently in litigation before the Tax Court.

We express no opinion as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to us related to the above Tax Court cases. If adversely determined, the outcome could have a material effect on the Company's operating results and financial position.

The Notices of Deficiency and the Tax Court proceedings discussed above cover the same tax years and the same amounts that were asserted by the IRS in its $74.7 million amended proof of claim that was filed in the Bankruptcy Court.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) investigated allegations of identity theft within our workforce. With our cooperation, ICE arrested approximately 350 of our employees in 2008 believed to have engaged in identity theft at five of our facilities. On December 30, 2009, PPC, the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Texas, and the Dallas Office of ICE entered into a non-prosecution agreement and civil resolution of the government’s investigation. Under this agreement: (i) the government agreed not to proceed either criminally or civilly against PPC, and to end its investigation of the immigration-related matters, relating to both the company and its current and former officers, employees and directors; (ii) PPC agreed to an immigration compliance program that would remain in effect for at least the 5-year term of the agreement; and (iii) PPC will pay an aggregate of $4.5 million, which approximates the amount the Company had previously accrued for this matter, to the government in four annual installments. We paid the first two installments of $1.1 million in February 2010 and February 2011. The parties acknowledged that PPC was admitting to no civil liability or criminal culpability as a result of the settlement. However, no assurances can be given that further enforcement efforts by governmental authorities against our employees or the Company (i) will not disrupt a portion of our workforce or our operations at one or more of our facilities, thereby negatively impacting our business or (ii) result in the assessment of fines against us that could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.