What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
H. A. McCULLOUGH and H. F. McCullough, a partnership doing business as McCullough’s Dairy Queen; and Burton F. Myers, Robert J. Rydeen, M. E. Montgomery and Lorraine Dale, Executrix of the Estate of Howard S. Dale, deceased, individuals v. DAIRY QUEEN, INC., Appellant.
No. 13522.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued May 5, 1961.
Decided May 16, 1961.
Michael H. Egnal, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Mark D. Alspach, Philadelphia, Pa. (Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., Ooms, Welsh & Bradway, Owen J. Ooms and Malcolm S. Bradway, Chicago, 111., on the brief), for appellees.
Before GOODRICH, STALEY and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant complains of a preliminary injunction issued against it by the judge of the district court. The basis of his complaint is that the judge, in issuing the injunction, found facts against him which he says are not in . accord with the reality of the case. There are two answers to the appellant’s contention. The first is that he had an opportunity to present testimony had he desired to do so in the district court hearing. The second, and completely conclusive, is the fact that what the trial court issued was a preliminary injunction. Upon the trial of the case on the merits each party will have opportunity to present such testimony as that party deems fit to support his case. The issue of the issuance of a preliminary injunction was a matter of discretion for the trial judge. That discretion was not abused in this instance.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
auto
chemical
drug
food processing
oil refining
textile
electronic
alcohol or tobacco
other
unclear

Answer: 5