United States Office of Water (4303) EPA-821-R-01-018

Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 January 2001

Agency

Cost Methodology Report for

Swine and Poultry Sectors
Final

Cost Methodology Report

for Swine and Poultry Sectors

Engineering and Analysis Division

Office of Science and Technology

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 20460

January 2001
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Engineering and Analysis

Division, Office of Science and Technology. This report was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., under

the direction and review of Paul Shriner at the Office of Science and Technology.

Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or

other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or

responsibility for any third party’s use of, or the results of such use of, any information,

apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such a third

party would not infringe on privately owned rights.
iii

Contents

1.0 Overview of Cost Methodology

2.0 Data Sources

3.0 Estimated Counts of Impacted Facilities and Corresponding Animal Counts

4.0 Summary of Development of Model Farms/Cost Model

4.1 Development of Model Farms

4.2 Land Availability Methodology

4.2.1 Computation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Generation

4.2.2 Plant Nutrient Requirements

4.2.3 Sum of Nutrients Generated and Application Rates in a County

4.2.4 Categorization of Land Availability Options

4.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) Options

4.3.1 Existing Sources

4.3.2 New Source Performance Standards

4.3.2.1 Assumptions on Behavior of New Sources

4.3.2.2 Options Considered for NSPS

5.0 On-Farm Costs

5.1 Cost Categories

5.2 Frequency Factors

5.3 Regional Factors

5.4 Key Regions

5.5 Nutrient Management Planning

5.5.1 Fixed, One-Time Costs

5.5.1.1 Training and Certification for Manure Application

5.5.1.2 Owner/Operator Permit Nutrient Management Planning (PNMP)

Training

5.5.1.3 Ground Water Well Installation and Initial Sampling

5.5.1.4 Surface Water Monitoring

5.5.1.5 Soil Augers, Manure Samplers, and Scales for Calibrating Manure

Spreaders

5.5.2 Nonannual, Reoccurring Costs

5.5.2.1 On-Farm Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) Development

5.5.2.2 On-Farm Soil Testing

5.5.2.3 Assessment of Feedlot/Ground Water Link to Surface Water

5.5.3 Annual Costs

5.5.3.1 Manure Testing

5.5.3.2 Record Keeping and Reporting

5.5.3.3 Calibration of Manure Spreader

5.5.3.4 Operation and Maintenance for Ground Water Monitoring

5.5.3.5 Operation and Maintenance for Surface Water Monitoring

5.6 Facility Upgrades

5.6.1 Fixed Costs
iv

5.6.1.1 Mortality Composting Facility

5.6.1.2 Manure Storage (for Poultry Litter)

5.6.1.3 Lagoon Liners

5.6.1.4 Lagoon Covers

5.6.1.5 Lagoon Depth Marker

5.6.1.6 Anaerobic Digesters

5.6.1.7 High Rise Hog Facility Upgrades

5.6.1.8 Storm Water Diversions

5.6.1.9 Field Runoff Control

5.6.2 Annual and Reoccurring Costs

5.6.2.1 Visual Inspection

5.6.2.2 Mortality Composting Facility

5.6.2.3 Lagoon Liners

5.6.2.4 Lagoon Covers

5.6.2.5 Anaerobic Digesters

5.6.2.6 High Rise Hog Facility Upgrade

5.6.2.7 Field Runoff Control

5.7 Land Application

5.7.1 Surface Application with Incorporation

5.7.2 Injection of Semisolid or Liquid Manure

5.7.3 Irrigation of Liquid Manure

5.8 Feeding Strategies that Reduce Excess Nutrients on the Farm

5.8.1 Poultry

5.8.2 Swine

5.9 Manure Hauling and Strategies to Make Manure More Transportable

5.9.1 Composting and Solid-Liquid Separation

5.9.2 Retrofit and Water Recycle

5.9.2.1 Use of Dilution Factors in the Cost Model

5.9.2.2 Reduced Costs by Recycling Flush Water

5.9.2.3 Retrofit to Scraper System

5.9.2.4 High Rise Houses

5.9.2.5 Digester and Recycle Flush Treatment for Option 5

5.9.3 Transportation of Excess Manure

5.9.3.1 Quantity of Manure to be Hauled

5.9.3.2 Manure Hauling Distances

5.9.3.3 Manure Hauling Costs

6.0 Energy Costs

7.0 Cost Model Structure

7.1 Program Code

7.1.1 “Main” Program

7.1.2 Subroutines

7.1.3 Data Files

7.2 Applications

7.3 Outputs
v

8.0 References

Appendix A - Differentiating Breeding, Slaughter, and Integrated Operations

Appendix B - Crop Nutrient Requirements

Appendix C - Draft Methodology for Estimating Storage Requirements for Option 7

Appendix D - Frequency Factors of Compliance for Cost Items

Appendix E - Revised Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations

Appendix F - Transportation Distance for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations

Appendix G - Equations Used in Model Feedlot Costs Program

Appendix H - Variable Names Used in Model Feedlot Costs Program

Appendix I - Regulatory Compliance Costs
vi

Figures

4-1 Animal Unit Calculations and Subsector Classification for Swine 

4-2 Animal Unit Calculations and Subsector Classification for Chickens

4-3 Animal Unit Calculations and Subsector Classification for Turkeys

7-1 Flow Chart for Swine and Poultry Cost Model
vii

Tables

3-1 Economics Model Matrix: Summary of Swine and Poultry Farms by Size Class 

3-2 Comparison of EPA and USDA Animal Unit Definitions

4-1 Selected Census of Agriculture Variables for Swine

4-2 Selected Census of Agriculture Variables for Chickens

4-3 Selected Census of Agriculture Variables for Turkeys

4-4 Economics Model Matrix: Definition of Size Groups and Key Regions

4-5 Manure Characteristics Used to Calculate Nutrient Production

4-6 Regional Recovery Factors for Manure

4-7 Example of Weighted Averaging Method for Manure Recovery Factor

4-8 Percentages of Operations Classified as Category 1, 2, and 3

4-9 Retail Cost of Nitrogen Fertilizer

4-10 AFO Nutrient Management Planning Basis by Animal Sector and Region Based on

Percentage of Agricultural Soils Analyzed by Soil Test Laboratories in 1997 That Tested

High or Above for Phosphorus

4-11 Summary of Practices and Technologies for ELG Options

4-12 Summary of Practices and Technologies Costed under Baseline (B) and each NSPS

Option

5-1 Illustration of Method to Calculate Frequency Factors from Weighted Averages

5-2 Detailed Estimate of Initial Costs for Surface Water Sampling

5-3 Detailed Estimate of Annual Costs for Surface Water Sampling

5-4 Mortality Rate, Mortality Weight and Time to Maturity for Various Swine and Poultry

Operations

5-5 Acreage with Potential for Ground Water Contamination

5-6 Manufacturer-Suggested Costs of Lagoon Liners and Covers for 1⁄2-Acre Lagoons

5-7 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Vegetated Buffers

5-8 Crop Yields, Nutrient Removal and Application Rates (lbs/ac) from the Ag Waste

Management Field Handbook (AWMFH) for Typical Crops used on Swine and Poultry

Operations in the Various Regions

5-9 Comparison of Nutrient Removal and Application Rates (lbs/ac) from the 1997 Census of

Agriculture with County Extension Values or using 24 Crops and Pastureland

Information in the Census

5-10 Number of Production Cycles per Year for Each Animal Operation

5-11 Animal and Manure Mass and Manure Quantity Values Used to Calculate the Total

Amount of Manure and Litter Produced by Each Operation

5-12 Recoverable Manure Correction Factors for Different Operation Types in Different

Regions

5-13 In-County Transport Distances and Out-of-County Transport Distances for the Various

Regions in the United States

5-14 Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Operations for the Various Regions in the

United States

5-15 Costs for Hauling Manure Off-Site for Solid and Liquid Manure

6-1 Data Read by Subroutine Constants.f90
viii

6-2 Data Read by Subroutine Facupg.f90

6-3 Data Read by Subroutine Nutred.f90

6-4 Number of Model Facilities by Animal Type
1

1.0 OVERVIEW OF COST METHODOLOGY

The Clean Water Act authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

develop technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the control of

pollutant discharges from point source categories. Certain animal feeding operations (AFOs) are

defined as point sources. The existing ELG for the Feedlots Point Source Category (40 CFR Part

412) covers these point sources. Section 301(d) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to

periodically review existing ELGs and revise them when necessary. As part of the EPA-U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) national unified strategy to minimize the water quality and

public health impacts of AFOs, EPA is reviewing the Feedlots ELG and expects to revise the

existing effluent guidelines covering AFOs. This overview addresses the methodology for

estimating potential compliance costs for the swine and poultry (turkey, laying hen, and broiler)

sectors of AFOs.

The initial steps in the process of estimating potential compliance costs for the swine and poultry

sectors include gathering and analyzing data on swine and poultry AFOs to establish a baseline

picture. The baseline includes the amount of manure and wastewater produced, the pollution

control and management practices in place, current land application practices, and current state

requirements. Based on these data, EPA identifies possible new regulatory requirements that

may be imposed through revision of the ELGs. These new requirements are typically grouped

into several possible regulatory options. These regulatory options sometimes specify a limit on

process wastewater discharges (e.g., zero discharge) and might also require specific best

management practices, or BMPs (e.g., development of a nutrient management plan).

For each regulatory option considered, EPA analyzes the technical and economic feasibility for

the industry. To complete the economic analysis, EPA estimates the costs to install, operate, and

maintain specific techniques and practices that serve as the basis for the effluent limitations and

standards in each regulatory option. EPA traditionally develops either facility-specific or model

facility costs. It must be noted that the Clean Water Act and the proposed regulations require only

that effluent limitations and standards be achieved. These proposed regulations do not require

that facilities install any specific technologies. 

EPA first collects detailed process information and data about many, if not all, facilities in the

industry in order to estimate facility-specific costs if appropriate. EPA has authority to collect

information necessary to develop regulations. EPA then may use this site-specific information to

determine how the potential regulatory options will affect facilities in an industrial category and

to estimate the costs of compliance.

When facility-specific data are not available for all facilities, EPA develops model facilities

based on available data to provide a reasonable representation of the industry. Model facilities

reflect the different characteristics found in the industry, such as the size or capacity of an

operation, type of operation, geographic location, mode of operation, and type of waste

management options. Data from engineering site visits, information provided by the industry,

and other available information forms the basis of these models. EPA estimates the number of
2

facilities represented by each model, assesses cost and financial impacts for each model facility,

and calculates industry-level costs by multiplying model facility costs by the number of facilities

represented by each particular model.

Given the type of information that is available for the swine and poultry industries, as well as the

large number of facilities in the industries, EPA has chosen a model facility approach to estimate

compliance costs. Such an approach is consistent with the USDA representative farm approach. 

EPA’s cost methodology is summarized in Chapter 11 of the Development Document.

2.0 DATA SOURCES

EPA collected data from a number of sources, including more than 50 site visits to swine and

poultry facilities [Docket W-00-27, section 5], industry trade associations (e.g., the National Pork

Producers Council, United Egg Producers and United Egg Association, National Turkey

Federation, and National Chicken Council), environmental groups (Clean Water Network and

Natural Resources Defense Council), USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS),

Economic Research Service (ERS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Animal and

Plant Inspection Service ( APHIS), universities, state cooperatives and Extension Services, and

the literature. These various sources have been used to compile information that presents a

detailed profile of the industry and can be used to estimate the costs associated with potential

new pollution control requirements for swine and poultry AFOs. Several data sources that were

particularly useful include National Animal Health Monitoring Systems (NAHMS) surveys, the 

1997 Census of Agriculture, and USDA’s analysis of the Census. These data sources are briefly

described below. EPA’s range of data collection activities are described in detail in Chapter 3 of

the Development Document. 

One of the main responsibilities of USDA’s APHIS is to enhance the care of animals. APHIS

initiated the NAHMS as a program to collect, analyze, and disseminate information on animal

health, management, and productivity. NAHMS conducts national studies to gather data and

generate descriptive statistics and information from data collected by other industry sources. 

EPA gathered information from several NAHMS reports such as the Swine ‘95 and Layer ‘99

reports. EPA also requested additional analysis of the data presented in these reports that would

help EPA better characterize swine and poultry operations by region and farm size. 

USDA’s Census of Agriculture is a complete accounting of United States agricultural production

and is the only source of uniform, comprehensive agricultural data for every county in the nation. 

The most recent Census reflects calendar year 1997 conditions. USDA periodically publishes

aggregated data from these databases and also compiles customized analyses of the data to

members of the public and other government agencies. In providing such analyses, USDA

maintains a sufficient level of aggregation to ensure the confidentiality of any individual

operation’s activities or holdings. These data were used to identify the total number of animal

feeding operations (AFO) and their general geographical distributions. USDA also compiles and

performs analysis on Census data that EPA used for its analyses. These analyses indicate the

amount of cropland available to land apply animal manure, the potential for nitrogen and
3

phosphorus excesses relative to crop needs, and the potential for geographical areas to have

nutrient excesses relative to all cropland in the area.

3.0 ESTIMATED COUNTS OF IMPACTED FACILITIES AND CORRESPONDING ANIMAL

COUNTS

National estimates of the number of swine and poultry AFOs in 1997 are shown in Table 3-1. 

Animal sectors were determined based upon the methodology described in Appendix A. To

generate these farm count estimates, summary statistics were computed and forwarded to EPA by

NASS. Due to NASS non-disclosure practices for analysis of the 1997 Census of Agriculture

data, it was necessary for EPA to adjust the desired size classes and regions to develop tables that

could be published by NASS and used in future analysis. In some cases only national results

could be developed. The results of this iterative process are presented in Table 3-1. Not every

facility presented in Table 3-1 is an AFO, and even fewer are subject to the revised regulations. 

However the cost models were developed assuming all swine and poultry farms greater than 300

AU are potentially impacted by the proposed revisions. One alternative in the proposed

regulation would consider middle tier AFOs (300-1,000 AU) to be CAFOs if more than 12 tons

of manure is transported off-site to a single recipient annually, unless the recipient certifies that

the manure will be properly managed. This condition is not explicitly addressed in the cost

model since it is assumed that middle tier AFOs will take such appropriate action as needed to

avoid CAFO designation.

Farm counts in Table 3-1 are summarized by the number of animal units (AU) in inventory at

the farm. Table 3-2 compares the number of animals that would constitute 1,000 AU for five

different animal types, based on two frequently used agency definitions. Note that most animal

unit definitions use a 1,000 lb beef cow as the standard reference, but for other animal sectors the

definition is not consistent, and it is important to distinguish between the different AU

definitions in common use. EPA defines animal units in 40 CFR Part 122 Appendix B. This is

the animal unit definition used by EPA when developing costs. USDA defines animal units on a

liveweight basis, which is cited in most NRCS publications referenced in this document. 

Additional information may be found in Chapter 4 of the Development Document and in the

Record.
4

Table 3-1. Summary of Swine and Poultry Farms by Size Class 

Sector

Modeled

Size Class (AU = EPA Animal Units)

 <300AU 300-1000 AU >1000 AU All Model

Farms

Swine: Mature 103,512 10,191 4,092 117,795

Swine: Nursery 0 83 0 83

Layer: Wet 1,950 800 360 3,110

Layer: Dry 70,368 1,334 360 72,062

Broiler 20,716 10,203 3,940 34,859

Turkey 11,617 1,732 369 13,718

Source: Swine and poultry counts from analysis of 1997 Census of Agriculture tabulated by NASS.

Table 3-2. Comparison of EPA and USDA Definitions of Number of Animals in 1,000

Animal Units

Animal Type Animal Unit

 (EPA definition)

Animal Unit 

(USDA definition)

Beef cow 1,000 1,000

Dairy cow 750 740

Swine 2,500 9,090

Layer (wet) 30,000 250,000

Layer (dry) 100,000 250,000

Broiler 100,000 455,000

Turkey 55,000 67,000

4.0 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL FARMS/COST MODEL

EPA developed model farms to describe the types of swine and poultry operations that will incur

compliance cost for various regulatory options under consideration. Chapter 11 of the Technical

Development Document provides a summary of this process. This section provides additional

details.

4.1 Development of Model Farms

EPA developed base models that capture those characteristics that usually vary from farm to

farm. The base model is described by the following:

Animal type - Swine, layers, broilers, and turkeys.
5

Subsector - The subsectors considered for swine are slaughter (grow-finish and wean-finish

operations), breeding, farrow to wean (farrowing), and farrow-to-finish (both swine for slaughter

and sows). The subsectors considered for chickens are layers only, pullets only, both layers and

pullets, hatcheries, breeders, and broilers. The subsectors considered for turkeys are slaughter

(grow-out), breeders, and both breeders and grow-out. 

Breeding operations are generally smaller than both EPA thresholds of 300 and 1,000 animal

units, thus they are not subject to effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELG). Further

discussion with industry indicated many breeding farms, especially turkey and swine breeders,

are sited away from other facilities. This helps these facilities to minimize losses that might

occur due to a breach in biosecurity. On the basis of smaller farm size and typically separate

siting, the breeders and hatcheries subsectors were not analyzed further.

In addition to breeding operations, sometimes immature swine (termed feeder pigs or weaners)

are also housed at separate locations. Analysis of 1997 census data indicated no pig nurseries

larger than 2500 head were independently sited. Subsequent conversations with industry and

EPA regions indicated increases in current and planned construction of new pig nurseries. In the

absence of information necessary to develop a separate nursery model to represent newly

constructed nurseries, nurseries were included in the facility counts of swine: farrow-to-finish. 

Pullets are housed in cages similar to layers, or on bedded floors such as broilers and turkeys. 

Therefore no separate model was developed for pullets. Though there are many pullet farms

located apart from the laying farms or broiler breeder farms, the production and manure

management at these operations is very similar to broiler and caged layer operations. Therefore

no separate model was developed for pullet farms.

Industry communications and site visits indicated turkey breeders and turkeys for grow-out are

not located on the same farm. As with chickens and swine, breeding farms are generally smaller

farms (Mauplin; Frankelton, 1999). Therefore EPA decided to conservatively model all turkey

farms as grow-out farms.

The subsectors for which cost models were ultimately developed are swine finishing, swine

farrow-to-finish, layers, broilers, and turkeys. The farrow-to-finish model accounts for costs to

nursery and farrowing operations, and the layer model accounts for costs to pullet only

operations.

Manure Handling Method

All broiler and turkey operations were assumed to use litter based houses. Layer facilities were

modeled as employing either high-rise houses (“dry”) or flush to lagoon systems (“wet”). The

use of wet systems was assumed to be predominantly in the south, and usually for older and

smaller laying hen operations (United Egg Producers, 1999, and USDA APHIS, 1999). 

A 1995 survey of swine operations shows that both lagoons and deep pits are commonly used

for waste storage in the Midwest region (USDA APHIS, 1996). However, other than a general 
6

increase in the use of deep pits in the northern areas, the extent of the use for each system could

not determined. EPA intended to model the Mid Atlantic region as having lagoons, and the

Midwest region as having under house pits. However, the retrofits required for lagoon systems

are more expensive than those for deep pit systems. Therefore, EPA decided to assume that all

facilities use lagoon systems to avoid undercosting retrofit requirements. This is also consistent

with the concept that the Midwest region model represents the Midwest region plus a portion of

all other regions except the Mid Atlantic region. In other words, the Midwest region model

reflects parts of the South, Central, and Pacific regions, because census data could not be

obtained for all desired regions and size groups (USDA NASS, 1999). A discussion of other

housing and manure management systems and their frequency of use is described in the

Development Document.

Region - The regions include the South, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, West, and Central, as defined in

the profiles. Originally, ten regions were developed by the Economic Research Service of USDA

(ERS) for use in grouping economic information. These regions were condensed into the

following five AFO regions because of similarities in animal production and manure handling

techniques. States included in each of the five AFO regions include: Pacific (CA, WA, OR, AK,

HI); Central (MT, WY, ID, CO, UT, NV, AZ, NM, TX, OK); Midwest (IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN,

MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI); South (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC); and Mid-Atlantic (CT, DE,

KY, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, TN, VA, VT, WV).

Because the various animal sectors tend to be concentrated in particular geographical regions,

data are lacking for those regions where a particular sector has a lesser presence. EPA developed

“key” regions to focus cost modeling efforts on those areas in which the various animal sectors

are concentrated. The key regions chosen for swine operations are the Mid-Atlantic and

Midwest; 78 percent of U.S. hog operations are located in those two regions. To account for all

potentially regulated operations in the cost model, those operations in regions other than the key

regions were distributed evenly among the two key regions that were modeled. For example, the

Midwest region is actually a combination of operations from the Midwest with a portion of the

operations from the “non-key” Pacific, Central, and South regions that are assumed to have

similar production and manure management practices. Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic region

includes operations from the Mid-Atlantic, as well as a portion of the operations from the Pacific,

Central, and South regions.

The key regions for broilers are the Mid-Atlantic and South ( 86% of larger farms), while the

Mid-Atlantic and Midwest are the key regions for turkeys (67 % of larger farms). Layer farms

with wet manure systems are located primarily in the South and Texas, where approximately half

of all layer farms use wet manure handling systems. Industry reports and NAHMS data were

used to estimate the number of layer farms with wet manure systems in the rest of the U.S.

(USDA APHIS, 1999). The South and Midwest are the key regions for all other layer farms,

capturing 53% of larger layer farms in addition to the 12% layers with wet manure systems. 

Operations from “non-key” regions were folded into the key regions for these animal types in the

same manner as described above for swine operations.
7

The key region determines the amount of precipitation that will need to be managed and the

typical evaporation rate. The region also defines typical crop yields, soil types, housing types,

and manure management practices that vary across the nation. In practice, a given state may

have many soil types and climatic variations; this approach was adopted to account for typical 

geographical variations without producing an impractical number of model farms. 

Size class - Size class refers to the capacity or maximum inventory of the facility. Only swine

weighing more than 55 pounds (including sows and finishing pigs) are counted for purposes of

size classification of the farm, but all manure generated by animals on the farm is considered and

included in the costs estimated for proper utilization or disposal rationale of manure. All turkeys

and chickens regardless of age are counted as part of the respective facility. 

The size class is a combination of (1) animals in inventory and (2) total sales divided by the

number of turnovers/life cycles/herds/flocks produced per year. This is because the Census of

Agriculture animal counts do not represent an average inventory of livestock, but instead reflect

the inventory on December 31st of the census year. For this analysis, the average livestock

numbers were derived from a combination of sales over the year and end-of-year inventory (if

both numbers were available), or from either sales or inventory if only one value was available. 

This allowed for estimates on farms that raise livestock sporadically during the year but have no

inventory on December 31st, or farms that ceased production during the census year. Sales data

were divided by the average number of turnovers typical operations are expected to have over an

entire year, thus operations that ceased production may be counted as having a smaller capacity

than they actually had.

The swine sector models include slaughter (finishing operations) and farrow-to-finish (including

all farms with breeding or farrowing) operations. The variables identified in Table 4-1 are used

together with the algorithms in Figure 4-1 to compute the number of animal units (liveweight

basis) at a swine facility. The classification of swine operations is based on the percent (i.e.

ratio) of animal units on the operation that are of a given type (swine for slaughter, hogs for

breeding, or feeder pigs). Figure 4-1 also presents the equations used to classify swine operations

as finishing, farrowing, or farrow-to-finish operations. 
8

Animal Unit Calculations

Hogs for Breeding (assume 2.67 sows per animal unit, 365 days on feed)

K816/2.67 

Hogs on Feeda (assume 9.09 hogs per animal unit, 180 days on feed, 2.8 cycles per year)

K817/9.09 for K817 > 0 and (K820 - K822) = 0 

(K820 - K822)/(2.8 * 9.09) for K817 = 0 and (K820 - K822) > 0 

(K817 + (K820 - K822)/2.8)/(2 * 9.09) for K817 > 0 and (K820 - K822) > 0 

Subsector Classification (based on animal units)

Hog Inventory = Hogs for Breeding + Hogs on Feed

Swine/Finishing Operations: If Hogs for Breeding is less than 5 percent of Hog Inventory and Hogs for

Breeding is less than 25.

Swine/Farrowing Operations: If Hogs on Feed is less than 5 percent of Hog Inventory and Hogs on Feed

is less than 25.

Swine/Farrow-to-Finish Operations: Operations not classified as Swine/Finishing Operations or as

Swine/Farrowing Operations.

a

The number of cycles per year for Hogs on Feed represents the field frm the Ag Census database developed by EPA for this

analysis.

Figure 4-1. Animal Unit Calculations and Subsector Classification for Swine

Table 4-1. Selected Census of Agriculture Variables for Swine

Questionnaire Brief Description

Census Variable Symbol

Inventory (Number

on this place

12/31/1997)

Number Sold 

(in 1997)

Section 14: Hogs or Pigs

1 Hogs and pigs K815

1.a Hogs and pigs for breeding K816

1.b Other hogs and pigs K817

3 Hogs and pigs sold K820

3.a Feeder pigs K822

The chicken sector includes broilers and layers (broilers, layers, pullets, and layer/pullets). The

variables identified in Table 4-2 are used together with the algorithms in Figure 4-2 to compute

the number of animal units (liveweight basis). Figure 4-2 also presents the equations and logic

used to classify operations where more than 75 percent of the animal units (liveweight basis) on

the operation are layers or pullets into layer, pullet, or layer/pullet operations. Operations where
9

more than 75 percent of the animal units on the operation are broilers are classified as broiler

operations.

The turkey sector includes subsectors for slaughter (grow out), breeder, and integrated

(breeders/grow out) operations. The variables identified in Table 4-3 are used together with the

algorithms in Figure 4-3 to compute the number of animal units. Figure 4-3 also presents the

equations and logic used to classify operations where more than 75 percent of the animal units on

the operation are turkeys into grow out, breeder, or integrated operations.

In addition to operation size, EPA needed to determine which AFOs meet the confinement

component of the CAFO definition. Though some smaller chicken and turkey operations may

use range or pasture, EPA conservatively assumed all poultry operations represented by the costs

models were confinement operations. EPA used NAHMS Swine ‘95 data to estimate the percent

of swine operations that were pasture operations, and to distinguish which swine confinement

operations maintained open lots or outside animal access. Generally, the larger swine operations

represented by EPA’s cost models may be considered to use total confinement housing; EPA

believes there are very few swine open lots and pastured operations in the size range of the cost

models. For more information refer to Chapter 4: Profiles in the Development Document.

Turnovers

EPA needed to determine which animal feeding operations could potentially be defined as

CAFOs based on operation size. EPA generally estimated the size of an animal feeding

operation by counting the average number of animals in inventory. In many cases where animals

are sold intermittently throughout the year, the number of animals sold in a year were converted

to the number of animals likely to be in inventory at any given time by dividing sales by the

number of turnovers, groups, or flocks of animals or birds produced in a year. USDA identified

turnover values that were likely to represent the average operation turnover. EPA supplemented

this information with data obtained from NAHMS and industry trade organizations to obtain the

turnovers used in the cost models. EPA determined these turnovers were more likely to depict

production at the larger operations represented by the cost models. 

EPA realized the use of different turnover values could alter the size classification of feeding

operations. EPA choose to evaluate the effects of fluctuating turnovers for the turkey sector

because the turkey industry experiences a wider range of turnovers than in other animal sectors. 

For example, a facility may produce just two groups of toms each year, or up to 5 flocks of hens

in a partitioned poultry house. EPA found most animal feeding operations maintained enough

animals such that changes in turnovers resulted in very small changes in the number of

operations classified as AFOs or CAFOs. Data supporting EPA’s calculation of turnovers may

be found in Chapter 4: Profiles in the Development Document.

Manure, litter, and waste generation - Oftentimes manure is not handled or stored as a

concentrated manure solid. EPA defined a “dilution factor” to account for the concentration of

manure nutrients in manure as stored. This factor includes the volume of manure generated,
10

Animal Unit Calculations

Layers/Hens (assume 250 layers per animal unit, 365 days on feed)

K892/250 for K892 > 0 and K893 = 0

K893/250 for K892 = 0 and K893 > 0

(K892 + K893)/(2 * 250) for K892 > 0 and K893 > 0

Layers/Pullets (assume 455 pullets under 3 months old per animal unit/250 pullets over 3 months old per

animal unit [or 404 pullets per animal unit], 120 days on feed, 2 cycles per year)

(K894/250 + K896/455 + K895/(2 * 404))/2 for K894 > 0 and K896 > 0 and K895 > 0

K894/250 + K896/455 for (K894 > 0 or K896 > 0) and K895 = 0

(K896/455 + K895/(2 * 404))/2 for K894 = 0 and K896 > 0 and K895 > 0

(K894/250 + K895/(2 * 404))/2 for K894 > 0 and K896 = 0 and K895 > 0

K895/(2 * 404) for K894 = 0 and K896 = 0 and K895 > 0

Broilersa

 (assume 455 broilers per animal unit, 60 days on feed, 5.5 cycles per year)

K898/455 for K898 > 0 and K899 = 0

K899/(5.5 * 455) for K898 = 0 and K899 > 0

(K898 + K899/5.5)/(2 * 455) for K898 > 0 and K899 > 0

Subsector Classification (based on animal units)

Layer Inventory = Layers/Hens + Layers/Pullets

Chicken/Layer Operations: If Layers/Hens is greater than 95 percent of Layer Inventory and

Layers/Pullets is less than 25.

Chicken/Pullet Operations: If Layers/Hens is less than 5 percent of Layer Inventory and Layers/Hens is

less than 25.

Chicken/Layer/Pullet Operations: Operations not classified as Chicken/Layer Operations and not

classified as Chicken/Pullet Operations.

a

The number of cycles per year for Broilers was developed by EPA for this analysis.

Figure 4-2. Animal Unit Calculations and Subsector Classification for Chickens

water use (flush water, process water, wash water, and precipitation), bedding use, and nutrient

generation by all confined animals at the facility. See Section 5.9 for more information on how

dilution factors are used in the cost models. Section 4.2 describes EPA’s approach to

determining manure excesses that ultimately need to be hauled or disposed of. Section 4.2.1

describes the method for determination of manure generation and nutrient content of manure and

litter. Other waste generation may include wasted feed, spilled drinking water, and animal

mortalities. 

Acres - Total acres available on the farm to receive manure. The model reduces total available

acres to account for stream bank buffers and setbacks.

Table 4-4 shows the key regions and size class definitions for swine and poultry operations. 
11

Animal Unit Calculations

Turkeys/Breeding (assume 50 hens per animal unit, continuous replacement, 1 cycle per year)

K902/50 for K902 > 0 and K903 = 0

K903/50 for K902 = 0 and K903 > 0

(K902 + K903)/(2 * 50) for K902 > 0 and K903 > 0

Turkeys/Slaughter (assume 67 turkeys per animal unit, 180 days on feed, 3 cycles per year)

K900/67 for K900 > 0 and K901 = 0

K901/(3 * 67) for K900 = 0 and K901 > 0

(K900 + K901/3)/(2 * 67) for K900 > 0 and K901 > 0

Subsector Classification (based on animal units)

Turkey Inventory = Turkeys/Breeding + Turkeys/Slaughter

Turkey/Grow Out Operations: If Turkeys/Slaughter is greater than 95 percent of Turkey Inventory and

Turkey/Breeding is less than 25.

Turkey/Breeder Operations: If Turkeys/Slaughter is less than 5 percent of Turkey Inventory and

Turkey/Slaughter is less than 25.

Turkey/Integrated Operations: Operations not classified as Turkey/Grow Out Operations or as

Turkey/Breeding Operations.

a

The number of cycles per year for Turkeys/Slaughter was developed by EPA for this analysis.

Figure 4-3. Animal Unit Calculations and Subsector Classification for Turkeys

Table 4-2. Selected Census of Agriculture Variables for Chickens

Questionnaire Brief Description

Census Variable Symbol

Inventory (Number

on this place

12/31/1997)

Number Sold 

(in 1997)

Section 16: Poultry

1 Layers K892 K893

2 Pullets K895

2.a Pullets (13-19 weeks) K894

2.b Pullets (<13 weeks) K896

3 Broilers K898 K899
12

Table 4-3. Selected Census of Agriculture Variables for Turkeys

Questionnaire Brief Description

Census Variable Symbol

Inventory (Number

on this place

12/31/1997)

Number Sold 

(in 1997)

Section 16: Poultry

4.a Turkeys/Slaughter K900 K901

4.b Turkeys/Hens K902 K903

Table 4-4. Economics Model Matrix: Definition of Size Groups and Key Regions

Sector

Modeled

Key

Regions a

Small 

(# head)

Medium1

 (# head)

Medium2 

(# head)

Large1

 (# head)

Large2 

(# head)

Swine: FF MA, MW <750 750-1875 1875-2500 2500-5000 >5,000

Swine: GF MA, MW <750 750-1875 1875-2500 2500-5000 >5,000

Layer: Wet SO <9,000 XXX 9,000-30,000 > 30,000 XXX

Layer: Dry MW, SO <30,000 30,000-62,500 62,500-180,000 180,000-

600,000

>600,000

Broiler MA, SO <30,000 30,000-60,000 60,000-90,000 90,000-180,000 >180,000

Turkey MA, MW <16,500 16,500-38,500 38,500-55,000 >55,000 XXX

a Region descriptions: 

1) Midwest (MW) - production as typical in the primary producing region of Midwest; actually is a combination

of Midwest and a portion of Central, Pacific, and South for turkeys and swine. For dry layers, MW is a

combination of Midwest with a portion of Central, Mid-Atlantic, and Pacific.

2) Mid-Atlantic (MA) - production as typical in the primary producing region of Mid-Atlantic; farm counts are

actually a combination of MA with a portion of Central, Pacific, and South for turkeys and swine. For broilers,

MA is a combination of MA with a portion of Central, Midwest, and Pacific.

3) South (SO) - production as typical in the primary producing region of South; farm counts are actually a

combination of SO with a portion of Central, Mid-Atlantic, and Pacific for dry layers; a combination of SO with

a portion of Central, Midwest, and Pacific for broilers; and SO with all other regions for wet layers.

4.2 Land Availability Methodology

The purpose of the methodology is to classify animal operations within each subsector, region,

and operation class by one of three land availability categories. For purposes of the cost model,

each operation was categorized by whether the operation had sufficient land to apply the

generated animal waste using agronomic rates. The agronomic rates are based on census year

crop yields for all farms in the same county. Farms are then labeled as either: 

Category 1 - farms with sufficient crop or pasture land 

Category 2 - farms with some land, but not enough land to assimilate all manure nutrients
13

Category 3 - farms with none of the 24 major crop types identified by NRCS

Since the category 3 farms may have crop types other than the 24 major crop types identified by

NRCS, and since the analysis does not account for manure that may be used or sold for

alternative uses, the approach is expected to provide an upper bound estimate of farms with

insufficient crop land to assimilate all manure nutrients. The number of category 1 and category 2

farms will also vary when changing from a nitrogen based application rate to a phosphorus based

application rate. Nitrogen-based and phosphorus-based nutrient management have different

costs, some of which may be significantly different, such as hauling costs for off-farm (or out-ofcounty) manure use or disposal.

The base methodology for determining land availability is generally derived from Nutrients

Available from Livestock Manure Relative to Crop Growth Requirements (USDA NRCS, 1998). 

The method and analysis were revised in Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland

and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients (Kellogg et al., 2000). The latter was used to estimate

the number of farms in each of the three categories described above, the results of which are

presented in Table 4-8. 

4.2.1 Computation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Generation

The amount of nitrogen and phosphorus generated for each operation is estimated based on the

number and types of animals on the operation. Because different animal sectors might compete

for the same land to apply animal waste off-farm, it is necessary to include all major animal

operations (swine, beef, poultry, dairy) in the analysis.

A procedure for the calculation of on-farm nutrient production was outlined in a report by USDA

NRCS (1998). Total nutrient availability was estimated for each livestock type by first

multiplying the average confined livestock population (in animal units) by the number of tons of

manure produced (i.e. manure as-excreted) by each type of livestock, and then multiplying by the

recovery factor. The recovery factor reflects that portion of manure that can be collected from

the confinement areas and land applied. The recovery factor considers not all nutrients may be

recovered and reflects typical nutrient losses due to volatilization, nutrients taken up by plants in

grazing areas, accumulation in confinement area soils, feedlot runoff, or leaching into

groundwater. This result, tons of recoverable manure, was multiplied by the number of pounds

of nitrogen or phosphorus contained in one ton of manure to compute the total pounds of

recoverable nutrients. The resulting value was further adjusted for typical nutrient losses that

occur during storage and handling to generate an estimate of total available nitrogen and

phosphorus from confined livestock manure. Details of manure and animal characteristics are

given in Table 4-5 for swine and poultry.

Regional Recovery Factors

EPA used regional recovery factors proposed by USDA. USDA obtained recovery factors for

each state to develop the regional recovery factors shown in Table 4-6. The regional factor was

calculated by weighting the state recovery factor with the number of animals of each type in a
14

given state. Table 4-7 gives an example for the calculation of weighting factors. In Table 4-7,

the number of broilers (NB) is multiplied by the state recovery factor (RF) to produce the

weighting factor. The weighting factor (RF x NB) is summed and divided by the total number of

broilers in a region to obtain the regional recovery factor.

Nutrient Losses

The values for nitrogen and phosphorus content after losses were estimated to provide the

amount of nutrients that would be present in land applied manure and effluent. There is no

"national" or even regional perspective on what these values should be. These estimates are

based on a three part

assumption:

& Nitrogen losses will exceed (greatly exceed) those of phosphorus primarily due to

volatilization of nitrogen compounds

& As the quality (from an automation view) and numbers of manure management systems

improve, the losses of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, may increase. In other words, as

the manure management system becomes more automated, nitrogen losses through

volatilization also increase.

& Phosphorus amounts are present within the bottom sludge of lagoons and ponds, and even

though the sludge is not removed on a regular basis, the phosphorus content must be

considered in an application strategy. In other words, effluent composition may not

reflect actual nitrogen and phosphorus contents in the lagoon or holding pond.

Numerous individuals from USDA, universities, and industry groups were consulted to arrive at

the "national" values for nutrient content after losses. The discussions focused on the types of

manure systems typically used by the industry in different parts of the country, the losses

typically associated with these systems (see Chapter 11, Agricultural Waste Management Field

Handbook, USDA, 1992), and the portion of the nation's livestock raised in different parts of the

country.

4.2.2 Plant Nutrient Requirements

Extension personnel from counties with the most dense populations of animals were consulted to

determine the common cropping practices for the all regions and sectors (refer to Appendix B for

details). County Extension personnel identified the typical crop rotation for each sector, and crop

yields were determined by dividing the harvested quantity by the acreage obtained in the 1997

Census of Agriculture (USDA NASS, 1999a). Occasionally, yields were far below expected

yields and were changed to reflect expected yields found in the Agricultural Waste Management

Field Handbook (USDA, 1992). Crop nutrient removal was based on the nutrient content values

for major crops in Appendix I, Table A-1 from USDA NRCS (1998). Nitrogen application rates

were increased to reflect the 30 percent loss of nitrogen due to volatilization of ammonia after

land application of manure (Sutton et al., 1985). The average annual nitrogen and phosphorus

crop removal and application rates were calculated by dividing the sum of crop requirements for

a complete crop rotation by the number of years per rotation.
15

Table 4-5. Manure Characteristics Used to Calculate Nutrient Production

Animal Operation

Animal

Turnover

Average

Animal

Weight

Animal Unit

Conversion

Manure

Production

Nutrient Content

N P

# lb #animals/AU

(USDA AU)

tons/AU/yr

(USDA AU) lb/ton of manure

Swine Integrated 2.1 110.0 9.09 14.69 2.82 2.80

Swine Slaughter 2.5 135.0 7.41 11.97 2.82 2.80

Chicken Broiler 5.5 2.5 400 14.97 16.10 6.61

Chicken Layer 1.0 3.7 270 11.45 18.46 8.50

Chicken Pullet 2.0 2.0 500 8.32 13.60 8.95

Chicken Integrated

Layer

1.0 3.7 270 11.45 16.10 6.61

Turkey 3 11.3 88.5 8.96 12.40 10.60

Source: USDA NRCS, 1998. 

Table 4-6. Regional Recovery Factors for Manure

Region

Recoverable Manure Correction Factor

Swine Chicken Turkey

percent

Central 0.75 0.95 0.75

Mid Atlantic 0.87 0.97 0.97

Midwest 0.76 0.94 0.62

Pacific 0.76 0.90 0.94

Southern 0.54 0.96 0.72

Table 4-7. Example of Weighted Averaging Method for Manure Recovery Factor

State Number of Broilers (NB)a Recovery Factor (RF)b RF x NB

Alabama 134,027,304 0.98 131,346,758

Arkansas 172,617,806 0.95 163,986,916

Florida 19,973,361 0.95 18,974,693

Georgia 149,740,420 0.95 142,253,399

Louisiana 20,538,744 1.00 20,538,744

Mississippi 26,313,171 0.95 24,997,512

South Carolina 617,762,696 1.00 617,762,696

Sum of NB Sum of (Nb x RF)/sum of NB Sum of (NB x RF)

523,210,806 Weighted mean = 0.960 502,098,022 a

 U.S. Department of Commerce, 1999.

b

 USDA NRCS, 1998.

Example

Box 1 illustrates the procedure used by USDA NRCS (1998) and the costing model for

calculation of nutrient loading and land application for a typical 1,000-hog operation in the

Midwest region. The animal unit (AU) conversion factor in Box 1 and Table 4-5 represents the

number of animals having a combined weight of 1,000 pounds. For this example, for integrated

swine operations, the average weight of a hog is 110 lb and the concomitant AU factor is 9.09

(1000 lb of animals/110 lb average hog weight). Each hog AU produces 14.69 tons of manure

per year with a concentration after losses of 2.8 lb P/ton manure and 2.82 lb N/ton manure. For
16

( )

To calculate annual nutrient production:

Substituting AW M FH values:

To calculate land required:

Substituting values from average of M PS - 18, USDA, and N CSU data:

Nutrient produced

lb

yr

no head animal units conversion

no head

A U

tons manure

yr AU

nutrient concentation

lb

ton

P produced

lb

yr

lb P

yr

Land required a c

yr

P produced

lb

yr

nutrient uptake

lb

a c

Land required acres acres

() . / ( . )* *

( ) /. * . *. ,

( ) ( )* % / ( )

( ) , *. /

= •

= =

=

= =

1000 9 09 14 69 2 8 4 525

4 525 0 80 25 145

regional recovery factor

Box 1. USDA’s Method for Calculation of Nutrient Production and Land

Application.

this example, a regional recovery factor of 0.8 and nutrient uptake of 25 lb P/acre are used. The

result is an acreage of 145 acres for application of all of the waste at agronomic phosphorus rates

for a 1,000-swine farrow-to-finish operation.

4.2.3 Sum of Nutrients Generated and Application Rates in a County

One of the key aspects of this methodology is characterizing whether an operation has enough

land to apply at agronomic rates all of the animal waste generated on the operation, or whether

there is enough nearby land (within the county) to apply the waste at agronomic rates. The

nutrients generated from all swine, chicken, turkey, beef, and dairy operations were summed and

compared to the nutrient application rate for all farms with cropland (including those without

animals). This accounts for the potential competition for available cropland by all animal

feeding operations in the area. For greater detail regarding the procedures applied, see USDA

NRCS (1998).

4.2.4 Categorization of Land Availability Options

One of the key factors in determining the costs of compliance with the permitting alternatives is

whether a model facility has enough land available to apply the manure generated at the facility

at agronomic application rates. Three categories of model facilities were developed to

characterize distinct situations based on the land available to apply manure. The manure

handling methods and costs associated with these three categories of facilities vary considerably

and are presented below. 
1

Note that fully vegetated buffers were costed, including annual maintenance and rental

value of the land, but the proposed requirements are for 100 foot manure application setbacks.

Cost share and subsidized practices were not included. EPA expects the higher costs of buffers

would be used as a dollar allowance for field management practices to reduce field runoff. See

Section 5.6 for more details. 

17

Category 1

Category 1 model facilities have the acreage needed to apply agronomically the nutrients in the

manure generated at the facility using regional estimates of crop uptake and yield goals. This

acreage does not include the area of the buffer strip. Costs for nutrient management planning,

establishment of buffer strips1

, and soil sampling are based on the acreage needed to apply

agronomically the manure generated. 

Category 2

Category 2 model facilities do not have the acreage needed to apply agronomically the nutrients

in the manure generated at the facility using regional estimates of crop uptake and yield goals.

Costs for nutrient management planning, establishment of buffer strips, and soil sampling are

based on the average acreage of the particular model facility. These facilities incur additional

costs to reduce the quantity of excess nutrient at the facility. Technologies and practices used to

reduce excess nutrients at the model facility include feeding practices and manure hauling offsite. 

In addition, several technologies were evaluated to determine if their use would reduce the costs

of hauling excess manure. In general, these technologies reduce the liquid content of the waste

and result in a more concentrated waste being hauled. The distance each model facility would

have to haul manure was determined by the facility’s geographic region and whether it is located

in a county that has an excess of the nutrient of concern. The national percentage of operations

by size that are located in counties with excess nutrients was based on the 1997 Census of

Agriculture obtained from USDA (Kellog et al., 2000). See Section 5.9.3.2 for manure hauling

distances. 

Category 3

Category 3 facilities do not have land used to grow any of the 24 major crops identified in the

1997 Census of Agriculture. No costs are assumed for nutrient management planning,

establishment of buffer strips, and soil sampling. Some costs are assumed for manure testing,

facility upgrades, and record keeping It is assumed that the facilities already haul their manure

and that there are no additional costs for hauling their manure on a nitrogen basis.

Distribution of Category 1, 2, and 3

The distribution of category 1, 2, and 3 facilities by animal sector and nutrient basis (N or P) is

presented in Table 4-8. To generate the percentages, EPA divided the number of farms meeting

each of the category definitions by the total number of confinement operations. EPA obtained

farm counts from the USDA analysis of the land availability method summarized in Section 4.2

as applied to facility-level data collected for the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA NASS,
18

1999b). Animal feeding operations were uniquely assigned to animal sectors based upon the

methodology described in Appendix A. 

Table 4-8. Percentages of Operations Nationally Classified as Category 1, 2, and 3

Animal

Sector

Sizea Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3

N P N P Both N & P

Swine-GF Medium 74.40 58.60 9.92 25.72 15.71

Large 52.46 23.59 28.20 57.07 19.40

Swine-FF Medium 83.82 66.49 6.26 23.59 9.93

Large 63.64 32.41 16.72 47.65 19.94

Layer-wet Medium 10.43 6.55 52.58 56.47 36.98

Large 0.83 0.00 46.67 47.5 52.5

Layer-dry Medium 6.60 0.60 56.97 62.97 36.43

Large 0.83 0.00 46.67 47.5 52.5

Broiler Medium 5.77 2.59 54.97 58.16 39.24

Large 4.39 0.94 64.39 67.84 31.22

Turkey Medium 6.24 0.23 65.36 71.36 28.41

Large 3.25 0.00 57.99 61.25 38.75

a

 Medium is 300-1,000 Animal Units. Large is greater than 1,000 Animal Units.

Source: USDA NASS, 1999b

4.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines Options

4.3.1 Existing Sources

Many options were analyzed as part of the effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) development

process. For existing sources this analysis was done to identify the best available technology

(BAT) that is economically achievable. The options were organized in a manner to incrementally

add practices that would result in reduced pollutant effluent concentrations. The final options

considered for BAT are presented below and summarized in Table 4-9.

Frequency factors were assigned to each practice to account for facilities that already

implemented the practice (see Section 5.2 for a discussion of frequency factors).
19

Table 4-9. Summary of Practices and Technologies for ELG Options

Practice or Technology

Option

1 2 3 4 5 5b 6 7

 Feedlot BMPs XXXXXXXX

Mortality handling XXXXXXXX

Nutrient management planning XXXXXXXX

Record keeping XXXXXXXX

Sample soils once every 3 years XXXXXXX

Sample manure twice per year XXXXXXXX

Covered storage for dry poultry litter XXXXXXXX

Land application N-based X

Land application P-based where necessary XXXXXXX

100-foot stream buffer/no manure application within 100 feet

of surface water, tile drain inlets, and sinkholes

XXXXXXXX

Assess hydrologic link X X

Ground water monitoring wells X X

Ground water sampling X X

Impermeable pads under manure storage areas X X

Construct new lagoon and add impermeable lagoon/pond

liners

X X

Upstream/downstream monitoring X

Drier technologies (scrape system, solid/liquid separation) X

Retrofit to high-rise houses for swine and layers X X

Anaerobic digester X X

Increased storage for swine X

Option 1 - Nitrogen-Based Application of Manure

Practices factored into the analysis of this option were:
20

& Feedlot BMPs (storm water diversions, lagoon/pond depth markers, periodic inspections,

record keeping)

& Mortality handling (e.g., rendering, composting)

& Nutrient management planning

& Record keeping

& Sample soils once every 3 years

& Sample manure twice per year

& Covered storage for dry poultry litter

& Land application limited to N-based agronomic application rates

& 100-foot setback required (costed as a stream buffer), and do not allow manure

application within 100 feet of surface water, tile drain inlets, and sinkholes

Option 2 - Phosphorus-Based Application of Manure

Practices factored into the analysis of this option were:

& Feedlot BMPs (storm water diversions, lagoon/pond depth markers, periodic inspections,

record keeping)

& Mortality handling (e.g., rendering, composting)

& Nutrient management planning

& Record keeping

& Sample soils once every 3 years

& Sample manure twice per year

& 100-foot setback required, and do not allow manure application within 100 feet of surface

water, tile drain inlets, and sinkholes

& Land application limited to P-based agronomic application rates where dictated by sitespecific conditions, N-based applications elsewhere

Nitrogen- Versus Phosphorus-Based Application Rates

The nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratio in manure is typically much lower (approximately 2:1) than

harvested crop nutrient removal ratios (approximately 6:1). Therefore, facilities that must landapply their manure on a phosphorus basis rather than a nitrogen basis incur additional costs in

two areas. First, a commercial source of nitrogen must be applied to their fields (termed

sidedressing) to compensate for the nitrogen not supplied through manure application. A cost of

12.3¢ per pound of additional nitrogen required was used in the cost model. This was based

upon the cost data shown in Table 4-10. Second, facilities that do not have enough land to apply

all their manure at a phosphorus-based rate have to remove manure phosphorus produced at the

facility through implementation of feeding strategies, hauling of excess manure, or both. The

costs model performs a cost test to determine which of the three methods is the least expensive. 

The cost test compares the annual costs of each method where the annual costs are approximated

by the sum of: the fixed costs, the annual costs, 14% of the capital costs (based on 10-year 

amortization), and one-third of the three-year recurring costs. 
21

Table 4-10. Retail Cost of Nitrogen Fertilizer

Fertilizer Retail Cost Per Pound of Nitrogen

Anhydrous Ammonia 14¢

Urea 12¢

Ammonium Nitrate 11¢

US Average 12.3¢

Source: The Fertilizer Institute, 1999

EPA estimated the number of facilities that will have to land-apply their manure on a phosphorus

basis by using state soil test data (Sharpley et al., 1999). Consistent with EPA acknowledgment

of site-specific differences, these data clearly show that high soil phosphorus levels are a regional

problem. Distinct areas of general phosphorus deficit and surplus exist within states and regions

and can be correlated to areas of intensive animal production. To develop the percentage of

agricultural soils testing high in phosphorus on a regional basis, the percentage of soils testing

high or above in phosphorus was weighted with the number of facilities in each state. The

procedure used was similar to that used to develop the example in Table 4-7. Table 4-11 shows

the results of the facility-weighted soil test values by region and animal type. The label “P”

indicates that more than half of the facility-weighted soils tested high or above for phosphorus. 

An “N” indicates that less than half of the facility-weighted soil tests in the region were high in

phosphorus. If the facility weighted soil test values indicated that more than half of the soils in

the region tested high for phosphorus, it was assumed that 60 percent of the facilities will require

a phosphorus-based manure application rate and 40 percent can use a nitrogen-based rate. If the

facility-weighted soil test values indicated that less than half of the soils in the region tested high

for phosphorus, it was assumed that 40 percent of the facilities will require a phosphorus-based

manure application rate and 60 percent can use a nitrogen-based rate. This approach reflects the

potential fluctuations in phosphorus soil tests in a given state. 

Option 3 - Ground Water Protection

Practices factored into the analysis of this option were:

& All technologies and practices in Option 2

& Ground water requirements

 Assess hydrologic link - Under this option, all facilities would have to assess the

hydrologic link between surface water and ground water for their

feedlot/production areas but not the land where manure is applied. See Section

5.5.2.3 for a description of the assessment process and costing features. 

 Additional practices - Only a portion of the facilities would need to implement

additional practices. The portion of facilities required to implement additional

practices was based on an assessment of ground water risk produced using USGS

data (Sobecki and Clipper, 1999), and it is estimated as follows:
22

- Mid-Atlantic = 23.9 percent

- South = 22.4 percent

- Midwest = 27.5 percent

- Central = 12.6 percent

- Pacific = 12.3 percent

The additional practices costed where a hydrologic link is identified are:

- Install monitoring wells (4 costed per facility: one up gradient and three down gradient)

(See Section 5.5.1.3)

- Perform ground water sampling twice per year (See Section 5.5.3.4.)

- Install impermeable pads under manure storage areas

- Old lagoon cleanout, construct new lagoon and add impermeable lagoon/pond liners. 

Retrofit of a lagoon with liners is not typical of the industry (Tetra Tech, 1999). Note that

cleanout was costed, but closure according to NRCS specifications was not specifically costed. 

Additional information obtained on the costs of lagoon closure indicates lagoon cleanout

constitutes the greatest portion of closure costs (NCDENR, 1999).
23

Table 4-11. AFO Nutrient Management Planning Basis by Animal Sector and Region

Based on Percentage of Agricultural Soils Analyzed by Soil Test Laboratories in 1997 That

Tested High or Above for Phosphorus

Sector

Industry Farm Size

Regions

Central MidAtlanticMidwest Pacific South

Broilers Medium P P P P N

Cattle (beef) Medium N P N P N

Dairy Medium P P P P N

Layers (dry) Medium P P P P N

Layer (wet) Medium N P P P N

Swine Medium N P P P P

Turkey Medium N P P P P

Broilers Large P P P P N

Cattle (beef) Large N P N P P

Dairy Large P P P P N

Layers (dry) Large P P P P N

Layers (wet) Large P P P P N

Swine Large N P P P P

Turkey Large N P P P P

Key: N = less than half of the facility-weighted soil tests in the region were high in phosphorus. 

 P = more than half of the facility-weighted soils tested high or above for phosphorus.

Option 4 - Surface Water Monitoring

Practices factored into the analysis of this option were:

& All technologies and practices in Option 3

& Surface water monitoring requirements See Sections 5.5.1.4 and 5.5.3.5 for a description

of the surface water monitoring costing. 

 Analyze samples upstream and downstream of both feedlot and land

application areas (4 grab samples)

 One annual sampling event in the absence of precipitation events to

provide background conditions.

 Sampling 12 times per year (triggered by > 1⁄2-inch precipitation within 24

hours of manure application; limited to no more than 12 times per year.
24

 Parameters to be monitored: total N, total P, total suspended solids (TSS).

Other parameters considered for monitoring included metals, biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD), and fecal coliform bacteria (FC), but these

parameters were dropped due to cost (e.g., metals) and sampling holding

and preservation concerns (eg., BOD and FC).

Option 5 - Drier Manure

Practices factored into the analysis of this option were:

& All technologies and practices in Option 2

& The lowest cost option from the following technologies to handle manure on a drier basis:

 Retrofit scraper with above ground tank for manure storage (replacing flush

systems with scraper systems to use less water)

 Solid/liquid separation, covers over open impoundments, above ground tank for

solids

 High-rise housing 

Storage was assumed to be constructed or modified in such a way as to prevent any discharge

from the production areas (generally the animal confinement and manure storage areas). For

most facilities this means covers for liquids impoundments or storage sheds for solid materials.

Complete mix (heated) anaerobic digesters were also costed as a technology to meet Option 5 for

swine operations, but the technology could not be implemented for all sizes of farms and is not

considered appropriate for all existing manure management trains. The complete mix (heated)

anaerobic digester is only likely to be the lowest cost technology for the largest model facilities

(i.e. farm size “large 2"). For further information on digester technologies see the Rulemaking

Record. High rise housing is described in section 5.6.

Option 5b - Dry Manure

Practices factored into the analysis of this option were:

& All technologies and practices in Option 2

& High-rise housing for all operations

Option 6 - Anaerobic Digester

Practices factored into the analysis of this option were:

& All technologies and practices in Option 2

& Anaerobic digesters

Anaerobic digesters may take the form of covered lagoons, methane recovery lagoons, or

complete mix heated (mesophilic) digesters. 

Option 7 - Increased Storage - No Application to Frozen Soil

Practices factored into the analysis of this option were:
25

& All technologies and practices in Option 2

& Additional storage for swine due to a restriction from applying manure and manure

effluent to ground that is frozen or covered with snow. The duration of the "freeze-free"

period is determined using data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC). See Appendix C for

details regarding the methodology used. The need for extra days of storage for swine

operations is based on the following information (NPPC, 1998):

 49% of medium-sized operations (300-1,000 AU) do not have adequate storage.

 32% of large operations (>1,000 AU) do not have adequate storage.

4.3.2 New Source Performance Standards

Options for new source performance standards (NSPS) were evaluated to determine if the costs

of implementing the standards would be a barrier to entry for new operations. A new source is

defined as “any source, the construction of which is commenced after the publication of proposed

regulations prescribing a standard of performance.” Technology to be utilized for new sources is

evaluated by considering the best in-process and end-of-process control technology identified as

BAT and considering the utilization of alternative production processes and operating methods.

The baseline assumption for new facilities is that there are no federal or state/local regulations

requiring controls based on protecting water quality. It is assumed that new facilities will use the

most advanced technology and operating methods currently in use. It is also assumed that

operators of new facilities will be knowledgeable of environmentally sound practices. The NSPS

model facilities match the ELG model facilities (i.e., the existing model farms) in terms of

location, size, and land area. 

4.3.2.1 Assumptions on Behavior of New Sources

It is assumed that the behavior of new facilities will be different than existing facilities. This is

based on EPA site visits to newer facilities where new technology was demonstrated, the belief

that new facilities will be more aware of innovations and new methods, and the believe that new

facilities will have plans in place to address certain emerging issues before they begin

construction. In areas where no assumption is presented, it is assumed that new facilities will

operate under the same conditions as existing facilities.

General Assumptions Applied to New Sources

All new facilities will perform proper facility management such as installation of storm water

diversion and performing periodic visual inspections and record keeping.

All new facilities will have handle their manure in a dry manner (see discussion on swine highrise facilities and layer facilities below). New facilities will have advanced drinking water

systems that detect and minimize leaks. These two factors will minimize the need for ground

water well installation and testing.
26

All new facilities will handle mortality in an acceptable manner.

All new facilities will have plans in place to properly dispose of the waste (manure or litter)

produced using nitrogen-based land application and hauling. The costs of land application and

hauling are thus not attributable to the new standards except for the options that require

phosphorus-based land application rates.

All new facilities will have nutrient management plans for their cropland. The facilities will

follow these plans including manure spreader calibration and soil and manure testing to ensure

crop requirements are met.

All new facilities will use feeding strategies to reduce the amount of excess nutrients in the

waste.

Sector-Specific Assumptions

The available information indicates that the NSPS for new hog facilities should be high-rise

buildings based on the total lower cost of this technology. The cost of the facility is estimated to

be 10% more per pig space, with a modest increase in ventilation requirements. However, this

cost is offset by increased production, the fact that no lagoon or equipment is required to handle

liquid wastes, and the ease in handling the dry manure produced. Thus it was assumed that there

are no additional costs associated with the use and management of swine high-rise facilities as

the NSPS. See the Rulemaking Record for additional information on swine high-rise facilities.

New poultry facilities will have covered storage.

Wet layer facilities were not included in the analysis because most of the industry is already dry

or converting to dry manure systems; the advantages of handling manure dry should result in 

new facilities being constructed as dry systems.

4.3.2.2 Options Considered for NSPS

All of the options considered for BAT were also evaluated for NSPS. See previous section for a

list of practices included under each option. Two additional options were also considered. The

first combined options 3 and 5 and the second required additional treatment to reduce BOD,

pathogens, and volatile solids. The NSPS options analyzed and any difference with the

corresponding BAT option are presented below. Table 4-12 provides a summary of the practices

and technologies specified for each of the options.

The same frequency factors were used for NSPS options as were used for the ELG BAT options

for record keeping and reporting, manure applicator training, groundwater assessment (options 3

and 4), surface water monitoring (option 4), and field buffers. All other options considered under

NSPS were assumed to have no frequency factor of compliance (e.g., frequency equals zero).
27

Table 4-12. Summary of Practices and Technologies Costed 

Under Baseline (B) Conditions and Each NSPS Options

Practice or Technology

Option

B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89

Feedlot BMPs X

Training and certification of manure applicator every 3

years

X X X X X X X XX

Mortality handling X

Nutrient management planning X

Training for owner/operators in permit nutrient planning

(PNP)

X X X X X X X XX

Record keeping and reporting X X X X X X X X X

Sample soils once every 3 years X

Sample manure twice per year X

Covered storage for dry poultry litter X

Land application N-based X

Land application P-based - partial X X X X X X X X

100-foot stream buffer/no manure application within 100

feet of surface water, tile drain inlets, and sinkholes

X X X X X X X XX

Assess hydrologic link between cropland and groundwater X X X

Impermeable pads under manure storage areas X

Upstream/downstream surface water monitoring X

Drier technologies (scrape system, solid/liquid separation,

or high-rise houses)

X

Anaerobic digester for swine X

Adequate storage X

Additional treatment X

NSPS Option 1 - Nitrogen-Based Application of Manure

As discussed previously, EPA assume that new facilities will use the most advanced technology

and operating methods currently in use. It is also assumed that operators of new facilities will be

knowledgeable of environmentally sound practices. Thus, additional costs were not included

under any NSPS option for feedlot BMPs, mortality handling, nutrient management planning,
28

soil and manure sampling, covered storage for poultry, nitrogen-based manure application,

impermeable pads under manure storage areas, drier technologies, and additional storage. Cost

were included under NSPS option 1 for training and certification of manure applicators every 3

years, training for owner/operators in permit nutrient planning, record keeping and reporting, and

the establishment and maintenance of a 100 foot stream buffer.

NSPS Option 2 - Phosphorus-Based Application of Manure

Costs were included for all the practices in NSPS option 1 and for phosphorus-based application

of manure as described in sections 4.2 and 4.3.1.

NSPS Option 3 - Ground Water Protection

All costs for NSPS option 2 were included. Most of the costs for BAT option 3 were not

included because the NSPS baseline results in waste being handled in a dry manner, and retrofit

costs for existing liquid impoundments would not be necessary. If manure is handled in a dry

manner only minimal ground water protection practices would be needed to meet requirements. 

NSPS Option 4 - Surface Water Monitoring

All costs for NSPS option 3 were included as was the surface monitoring costs described in

sections 5.5.1.5 and 5.5.3.5.

NSPS Option 5 - Drier Manure

The costs for NSPS option 5 was considered to be equal to those for NSPS option 2 because the

NSPS baseline for both swine and poultry results in manure being handled in a dry manner.

NSPS Option 6 - Anaerobic Digester

The costs for NSPS option 6 was considered to be equal to NSPS option 2 with the addition of

the construction and operation of an anaerobic digester as described in sections 5.6.1.6 and

5.6.2.5.

NSPS Option 7 - Increased Storage - No Application to Frozen Soil

The costs for NSPS option 6 was considered to be equal to NSPS option 2. No costs were

associated with the additional storage requirement. This is based on the assumption that all new

poultry facilities will have covered storage, full house cleanout generally occurs annually, and

that all new layer and swine high-rise facilities will have one year of storage in the bottom level.

NSPS Option 8 - Additional Treatment to Reduce BOD, Pathogens, and Volatile Solids

Practices factored into the analysis of this option were:
29

& All technologies and practices in NSPS option 2.

& Additional treatments include the addition of lime to reduce pollutants and composting.

As stated previously, it is assumed that all new facilities handle their manure in a dry manner

including practices to prevent contact with rain and to eliminate production area runoff. 

Therefore the costs for additional treatment are assumed to be associated with composting the

wastes.

Capital costs for composting animal waste were based on estimates from the Minnesota

Department of Agriculture (1995). Composting equipment costs for starting an on-farm

composting operation can range from $20,000 to $125,000 and higher, depending on the size of

the operation and the level of technology selected. For the purpose of this analysis, it was

assumed that a structure was available to house the compost material. Thus, only a blower and

pipe for air distribution were required to compost material in a static pile. The costs for piping

and a blower was estimated at $10,000. Larger facilities require a dual pipe/blower set-up with

an estimated cost of $20,000. It was assumed that swine operations are high rise facilities that

already have pipe/blower systems in place.

Aerated static piles for composting were selected as the desired method for composting poultry

wastes. Annual costs for aerated static pile systems were estimated by the Minnesota

Department of Agriculture (1995) to range from $20 to $50 per ton of incoming material. The

less expensive cost of $20 per ton was selected because much of the material needed for

composting was assumed to already be at the new facilities. The incoming mass of wastes was

estimated using USDA NRCS (1992) values for characterizing poultry waste litter. Additional

bedding costs for layers was added because layer operations typically do not use bedding

materials. The average size of a layer facility was estimated at 5,623 cubic feet per 100,000 bird

spaces. Assuming a cost of $3 per straw bale, a volume of 12 cubic feet per bale, and a bedding

thickness of 3 inches, the net cost of bedding is $0.014 per bird space per year. The capitol and

annual costs for NSPS option 8 were applied to all facility types and all animal sectors.

NSPS Option 9 - Ground Water Protection and No Overflow

The costs for NSPS option 9 was considered to be equal to those for NSPS option 3 because the

NSPS baseline for both swine and poultry results in manure being handled in a dry manner with

no possibility of an overflow.
30

5.0 ON-FARM COSTS

A cost model was developed to determine the average facility costs and total industry costs of the

proposed regulation revisions to the swine and poultry animal feeding industries. The cost model

is used to assess different regulatory options and the costs to the regulated community. Costs are

developed for multiple model operations based on their size, region, operation type (e.g., type of

animal raised), and nutrient used in nutrient planning. The total national cost of the proposed

regulation is then estimated by multiplying model facility costs by the number of facilities

represented by each particular model. The rest of this section describes the approach to

developing facility level costs.

5.1 Cost Categories

The costs are divided into four broad categories of costs:

• Nutrient Management Planning

• Facility Upgrades

• Land Application

• Practices That Reduce Excess Nutrients on the Farm

Costs include capital costs; fixed, one-time costs; non-annual but reoccurring costs; and annual

costs. All costs are expressed in terms of 1997 dollars.

5.2 Frequency Factors

EPA recognizes that most individual farms have already implemented certain waste management

techniques or practices that are called for in the regulatory options considered. Only costs that

are the direct result of the proposed regulation are included in the cost model. Costs already

routinely incurred by operations are not attributed to the proposed regulation. For example, costs

incurred by facilities to meet current state requirements are not included.

To reflect baseline industry conditions, EPA has developed frequency factors to describe the

percentage of the industry that already implements particular operations, techniques, or practices

required by the proposed rule. Thus, frequency factors address those who need to implement an

operation, technique, or practice in order to meet proposed requirements (e.g., ground water

monitoring), and excludes those who already have the technology in place (e.g., storage). 

Frequency factors are based on geographic location, type and size of operation, existing

regulatory requirements, and overall status of the industry. For example, all broiler feeding

operations are assumed to own or have access to tractors with front-end loaders for use in

cleaning out the broiler houses (frequency factor is 100 percent), and thus no costs are assumed

for cleaning out the houses. Many operations, on the other hand, do not have storage sheds for

their litter, and building the storage is costed in the model (frequency factor is less than 100

percent).
31

5.2.1 Development of Frequency Factors to Estimate Industry Level Costs

Data used to determine frequency factors varied depends upon the sector and component or

practice. Industry and USDA data were used as the basis for most of the frequency factors for

layers and swine, whereas analysis of state and federal regulations was used primarily for broilers

and turkeys. EPA’s States Compendium was also referred to for all animal sectors. Costs were

not attributed to model facilities when state regulations specified standards equal to or more

stringent than the proposed technology options. The source for each frequency factor is

identified in Sections 5.5 through 5.8. Frequency factors are summarized in Appendix D.

EPA then applied these frequency factors to model farms to develop a weighted-average cost for

each model farm. For example, if a practice costs $100 and 60 percent (the frequency factor) of

the operations in the model category already implement the practice, the average cost to facilities

represented by that model farm is $40. Each of these weighted-average costs is then multiplied

by the number of facilities represented by the particular model farm to estimate industry-level

costs. 

Literature and industry data for the broiler and turkey sectors was generally not detailed enough

to generate frequency factors. Instead, EPA reviewed the specific regulatory language and

summaries of regulations for 12 major poultry-producing states regarding requirements for

nutrient management plans (NMPs) at broiler and turkey facilities (Tetra Tech, 2000a). 

Requirements were considered for facilities in two size groups: 300-1,000 animal units and

greater than 1,000 animal units. All broiler and turkey facilities were assumed to use dry waste

management systems. 

From the analysis of state and federal regulations, EPA determined that a few states already

require broiler and turkey facilities to implement some of the components of a NMP. Except as

specified for ground water and surface water requirements, and in cases where select frequency

factors could be based on available industry data, the analysis from these 12 states were used to

calculate regional frequency factors. These state regulation based frequency factors approximate

the number of facilities that are currently required to implement NMP components and,

therefore, must already incur costs for these components. Weighted averages were used to

estimate frequency factors for each NMP component (for 300-1,000 AU and >1,000 AU), as

illustrated in the example in Table 5-1. 
32

Table 5-1. Illustration of Method to Calculate Frequency Factors from Weighted Averages

State Number of Facilities

in the State a

NMP Component

Required by State?b

Weight

A 10 Yes 10

B 40 No 0

C 20 Yes 20

D 20 No 0

Regional Total 100 (30/100) = 0.30

a The number of facilities for broilers and turkeys differs within each state, so the overall regional frequency

factors may be different for broilers versus turkeys. 1997 Census of Agriculture data (USDA-NASS, 1999) were

used to determine the number of facilities in each state within the two size ranges, 300-1,000 AU and >1,000

AU.

b Components were assumed to not be required for states other than the 12 reviewed.

In the above example, the frequency factor for the region that includes the four states “A”, “B”,

“C”, and “D” is 0.30. 

5.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis of Weighted Farm Costs

The model-farm approach which was used in the cost model provides the average cost a facility

is projected to incur under the proposed regulatory options. EPA recognizes that this approach

may underestimate or overestimate the projected costs for facilities that are on the extreme ends

of applicability. For example, some facilities may already meet the proposed regulatory

requirements; therefore, those facility costs will be zero. Alternatively, some facilities may

currently meet very few of the proposed regulatory requirements; therefore, these operations will

incur costs that are much higher than the average model facility cost. Technologies and practices

with large capital costs or annual costs and low frequency factors are those most likely to result

in weighted costs that are substantially different from the true costs to a facility. 

To evaluate the significance of these modeling limitations, EPA performed sensitivity analyses

on the cost model to evaluate the major drivers for the model farm costs and to compare the

average model farm cost to the maximum cost a farm may incur for the proposed regulatory

options. EPA performed two sensitivity runs: the first to compare the effects of nitrogen-based

nutrient management verses phosphorus-based nutrient management on the costs; the second to

compare the effects of groundwater monitoring requirements on the costs. This was done by

running the model both with and without frequency factors. This allowed EPA to identify the

costs of those technologies and practices that are most sensitive to EPA’s modeling assumptions. 

EPA was then able to identify the model elements and cost components that were cost drivers

and thus merit further analysis: the availability of cropland for manure utilization, the

incremental costs of phosphorus based application over nitrogen based application, the costs of

groundwater controls, and the costs of incremental storage for timing constraints. 
33

EPA has already developed separate cost models to reflect nitrogen and phosphorus based

requirements, and developed three categories of land availability to capture the wide range of

land application and hauling costs. EPA’s sensitivity analysis concluded the costs generated by

the refined cost models were stable over a wide range of modeling assumptions (See

Development Document). To further examine the cost impacts under different financial

assumptions such as varying revenue, farm performance, and net returns, EPA conducted

sensitivity analyses (See Economic Analysis, Appendix D).

Nutrient Application Basis Analysis: 

Under the proposed regulatory options, a facility will be required to follow either nitrogen-based

nutrient management or phosphorus-based nutrient management. More cropland is required to

land apply manure waste at agronomic phosphorus-based rates than nitrogen-based rates;

therefore, phosphorus-based nutrient management incurs more costs for land application,

irrigation, nutrient management planning, supplemental nitrogen fertilizer, and off-site

transportation of manure and wastes. 

To evaluate the significance of the nutrient application basis on the costs, a sensitivity analysis

was performed on Option 2. Option 2 costs are based on a combination of nitrogen-based and

phosphorus-based nutrient management, and are also the basis for the costs in Options 3 through

8. To perform this analysis, the frequency of facilities that would be located in a phosphorusbased nutrient management area was set to 100 percent (no facilities were costed under the

nitrogen-based management scenario.) 

Because more cropland is required for phosphorus-based application, operations that are

Category 1 operations under nitrogen-based nutrient management may be reclassified as a

Category 2 operation under phosphorus-based nutrient management. That is, a facility with

enough land to apply all of the manure waste on site under nitrogen-based application may not

have enough land to apply all of their manure waste on site under phosphorus-based nutrient

management. Because of this, the most dramatic comparison of the effects of changing the

agronomic basis from nitrogen to phosphorus is seen by comparing the results of Option 1 (NBased Application), Category 1 facilities to the sensitivity run Option 2A (P-based Application),

Category 2 facilities. 

Comparing these results shows a general 70% increase in the industry level costs. This increase

is due to the following factors:

& Shift of facilities from Category 1 to Category 2 (thereby incurring transportation costs);

& A portion of Category 2 facilities under N-based application are assumed to not incur

transportation costs, while they do incur these costs under P-based application; and

& Larger acreage for phosphorus-based facilities, requiring more irrigation costs, soil

sampling; and nutrient management planning.
34

Groundwater Protection Option Analysis

Under the proposed regulatory Options 3 and 4, facilities will be required to assess if they are 

located in hydro-geologically sensitive areas and to implement groundwater protection if manure

waste is stored or land applied on soil that has a hydrologic link to groundwater. If the facility has

such a link, then the facility must take measures to ensure groundwater protection, including

synthetically lining surface impoundments (e.g., lagoons and ponds), providing an impervious

surface upon which to store dry manure, installing groundwater wells, and performing annual

monitoring of these wells. If the facility is not located in a hydro-geologically sensitive area, then

the facility does not incur any of these groundwater protection costs other than the hydrogeologic evaluation. 

To evaluate the significance of the groundwater protection requirement on the costs for Options 3

and 4, a sensitivity analysis was performed on Option 3. Option 3 was selected to perform this

evaluation because the basis for the costs in Option 3 is identical to the Option 2 costs

(phosphorus-based application), with the addition of the groundwater protection costs; therefore,

a direct comparison can be made between the costs for a facility with no groundwater protection

requirements and a facility with these requirements by setting the groundwater frequency factors

to 100%. 

Facilities costed for Option 3A are those facilities where the groundwater assessment was found

to be positive (all groundwater protection costs are included), and facilities costed for Option 3B

are those where the groundwater assessment was found to be negative (no groundwater

protection costs are included). The results show that a facility that incurs 100% of the

groundwater protection costs incurs capital and annual O&M costs 67% higher than those

facilities that do not incur groundwater protection costs. This increase is due to the following

factors:

& installation and monitoring of four groundwater wells

& installation and maintenance of impermeable pad for dry manure storage

& installation and maintenance of composting facilities for poultry operations

& installation and maintenance of synthetic and clay lining for lagoons and ponds.

5.3 Regional Factors

The cost model addresses variations between operations in different regions of the country. For

example, the crop nutrient removal rates, which are used to set manure application rates, vary

among regions of the country based on average crop yields in each region. Many of the costs in

the model rely on the manure and associated nutrient production of the animals at an operation,

and is affected by regional differences such as climate and rainfall. Some frequency factors may

also vary by region when data was available to differentiate the “key regions” (see Section 5.4). 

5.4 Key Regions
2

 EPA is using the term Permit Nutrient Plan (PNP) to describe those elements of a

Nutrient Management Plan that would be required under the proposed regulations. 

3

 Non-capital costs are grouped as either: fixed first year (one time only) costs, annual

(recurring) costs, or 3 year recurring costs. Costs that are not annual or 3 year recurring were

adjusted to reflect the costs as if the costs were 3 year recurring costs. For example, a six year

recurring cost was attributed to the model facility as a three year recurring cost paid half in year

three and half in year six. 

35

As described in Section 4.1, model farms were developed based upon animal and operation type,

size of operation, and location. The five regions identified by EPA are the Central, Mid-Atlantic,

Midwest, Pacific, and South regions, but EPA developed key regions to focus cost modeling

efforts on areas where the various animal industries are concentrated. The key regions chosen for

swine operations are the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest because 78 percent of the hog operations are

located in those two regions. To provide coverage of all relevant operations in the cost model,

however, those operations in regions other than the key regions were divided evenly among the

two key regions. For example, the Midwest region is actually a combination of operations from

the Midwest with a portion of the operations from the Pacific, Central, and South regions. 

Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic region includes operations from the Mid-Atlantic, as well as a

portion of the operations from the Pacific, Central, and South regions. In this manner all facilities

are counted and costed. This approach assumes operations in areas outside of the key regions

produce animals and handle manure similarly to those operations in the key regions.

The key regions for poultry are those regions with the largest number of AFOs. Thus the key

regions for broilers are the Mid-Atlantic and South, while the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest are the

key regions for turkeys. Wet layers are predominantly located in the South, while the South and

Midwest are the key regions for dry layers. Operations from the other regions were folded into

the key regions for these animal types in the same manner as described above for swine

operations.

5.5 Nutrient Management Planning

The Nutrient Management Plan2 costs are divided into three sections—fixed, one-time costs;

non-annual, reoccurring costs; and annual costs. The following subsections focus on the

following generally recognized components of a NMP: 

& Training and certification for manure application

& Development of NMP

& On-farm NMP development every 3 years3

& Assessment of crop field/ground water link to surface water

& Ground water monitoring well installation, and operation and maintenance

& Surface water monitoring

& Soil auger
4 Training costs based on state pesticide certification testing costs determined from various state extension

services.

36

& Soil testing every 3 years

& Manure sampler

& Manure testing

& Scales for manure spreader calibration

& Calibration of manure spreader

& Record keeping (e.g., recording animal inventories, manure generation, field application

of manure dates and rates, manure and soil analysis compilation, crop yields, etc.)

& Hauling of excess manure or litter

& Storage (usually storage sheds for poultry litter)

& Mortality composting facility, and operation and maintenance

& Storm water diversion, and operation and maintenance

& Lagoon depth marker for liquid impoundments

& Lagoon liner, and operation and maintenance for liquid impoundments 

& Buffer (or application setbacks) establishment

& Visual inspections

& Feeding strategies

5.5.1 Fixed, One-Time Costs

5.5.1.1 Training and Certification for Manure Application

The cost of training and certifying personnel who apply manure is assumed to be $117 and

includes a course fee of $25,4

 labor lost for missed work (1 day at $10/hr), and other direct costs

such as travel to attend the course, which is assumed to be 15 percent of labor costs. It is

assumed this 3-year recurring cost due to applicator turnover.

The frequency factors for training and certification at layer (United Egg Producers /United Egg

Association, 1999) and swine (USDA APHIS, 1995) facilities were based upon industry data,

while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state

regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a).
37

Frequency Factors: Certification of Manure Applicators

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

Midwest/medium 0.0

5

0

Midwest/large 27.5 0

Mid-Atlantic/medium 0.0 16.6

5

0.4

Mid-Atlantic/large 27.1 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

5

South/large 0

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.1.2 Owner/Operator Permit Nutrient Management Planning (PNMP) Training

It was assumed that the owner/operator would incur costs to be properly trained on the permit

requirements related to nutrient management planning. It was also assumed that owner/operators

are knowledgeable of nutrient management planning in general and thus the PNMP training

would not be extensive. The costs were estimated based on 16 hours of training, eight hours of

home study, and a $100 course fee. The labor rate of the owner operator was estimated at

$20/hour. The fixed non-amortizable total costs of $580 is attributable to all category 1 and 2

facilities for all animal sectors.

5.5.1.3 Ground Water Well Installation and Initial Sampling

The cost for monitoring well installation ($5,735) is based on installing four 50-foot-deep wells,

one up-gradient and three down-gradient from the manure storage facility. The cost includes

well drilling at $21/ft, well casing at $2/ft for the upper 30 feet, well screening of the lower 20

feet at $3/ft, and gravel for the entire 50 feet at $1/ft. A protective casing for each well head is

valued at $120. A bailer, which samples water from the well, costs $35 and can be used to test

all the wells on the farm. Ground water well installation data were compiled from two sources

(A.C. Schultes, Inc., 1999, and USEPA, 1998). An initial ground water sample is required for

each well in the first year after installation to determine baseline concentrations ($85 per well,

including 1 hour of labor at $10/hr and $75 for laboratory analysis of the water sample). 
38

Analysis of samples includes total coliform (TC), fecal coliform (FC), nitrate-nitrogen,

ammonia-nitrogen, chloride, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Subsequent ground water

monitoring costs are incurred as annual costs (two samples per year, with two samples taken in

the first year in addition to the initial samples). 

It was assumed that no broiler and turkey facilities are currently required to install ground water

monitoring wells, and only those facilities on agricultural land with a potential for ground water

contamination would actually be subject to this requirement if imposed by EPA. EPA assumed

the lack of water to serve as the transport mechanism for discharge to groundwater makes it

highly unlikely for a facility with dry manure systems to discharge to groundwater. This is

reflected by the absence of liner costs for poultry facilities as described in section 5.6.1.3.

As described in Section 5.2, the frequency factors for well installation and initial sampling for all

sectors were calculated as 100 minus the percentage of acreage with potential for ground water

contamination (see Section 5.6.1.3) since this percentage would not be subject to ground water

monitoring requirements if imposed. The percentage of acreage in each region with the potential

for ground water contamination was provided by Sobecki and Clipper (1999). 

Frequency Factors: Ground Water Well Installation and Initial Sampling

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 72.54

72.54

72.54

MidWest/large 72.54 72.54

MidAtlantic/medium 76.09 76.09

76.09

76.09

MidAtlantic/large 76.09 76.09 76.09

South/medium 77.55

77.55

South/large 77.55

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.1.4 Surface Water Monitoring
39

Table 5-2 provides a detailed estimate of initial costs for surface water sampling. Initial costs

include a training course (4-hour course, 4-hour preparation, course fee, and miscellaneous other

costs); two coolers for sample storage and shipping; and sampling supplies, including a pipette

and waders. The initial one-time cost is $392. Analytical costs and parameters monitored are

described in Section 5.5.3.5.

Table 5-2. Detailed Estimate of Initial Costs for Surface Water Sampling 

Description Unit Cost

($)

Initial Cost

($)

Training (8 hr) 10.00 80.00

Course fee 40.00 40.00

Misc. other costs (15% of labor) -- 12.00

Coolers (2) 30.00 60.00

Sampling equipment (pipette, etc.) 200.00 200.00

TOTAL INITIAL COST 392.00

The frequency factors for surface water monitoring at layer facilities were assumed to be zero

based on site visits, those for swine were based upon industry data (USDA APHIS, 1995), and

those for broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra

Tech, 2000a).
40

Frequency Factors: Surface Water Monitoring

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 4.60

0

0

MidWest/large 27.90 0

MidAtlantic/medium 5.70 0

0

0

MidAtlantic/large 17.90 0 0

South/medium 0

0

South/large 0

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.1.5 Soil and Manure Sampling and Calibration of Equipment

The manure sampler ($30) consists of a hollow conduit long enough to extend to the bottom of

the lagoon, pit, or other storage structure. In the case of solid manure, a shovel or similar device

is sufficient to obtain a representative sample and no cost is assumed. Additional fixed, one-time

costs include the purchase of a soil auger at $25 (ASC Scientific, 1999), and two scales for

calibration of the manure spreader (one under each wheel at $250 each). 

The frequency factors for soil augers at layer (UEP/UEA) and swine (NPPC, 1998) facilities

were based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey facilities were

derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a). In cases where states require

soil testing at broiler and turkey facilities, it was assumed that soil augers (or an equivalent

technology) are also required or otherwise available to the facility, and thus not costed. 
41

Frequency Factors: Soil Auger

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 0.0

34.3

0

MidWest/large 94.0 10.1

MidAtlantic/medium 0.0 16.6

63.2

0.4

MidAtlantic/large 94.0 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

50

South/large 23.1

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

The frequency factors for manure samplers at layer (UEP/UEA) and swine (NPPC, 1998)

facilities were based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey

facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a). In cases where

states require manure testing at broiler and turkey facilities, it was assumed that manure samplers

(or an equivalent technology) are also required or otherwise available to the facility, and thus not

costed. 
42

Frequency Factors: Manure Sampler and Calibration of Equipment

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 0.0

70.6

0

MidWest/large 71.9 10.1

MidAtlantic/medium 0.0 16.6

56.2

0.4

MidAtlantic/large 71.9 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

75

South/large 0

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

The frequency factors for calibration scales at layer (UEP/UEA, 1999) and swine (NPPC, 1998)

facilities were based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey

facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a). In cases where

states require calibration of manure spreaders at broiler and turkey facilities, it was assumed that

calibration scales (or an equivalent calibration technology or method) are also required or

otherwise available to the facility, and thus not costed. Calibration of solid manure spreaders can

be performed in a number of ways, some of which are based on volume instead of weight, and

liquid-based systems can also be calibrated in terms of volume. Methods for calibration of

manure spreaders are described in greater detail in Chapter 8 of the Technical Development

Document. 

Weighing the spreader before and after application provides accurate results. It is the ideal

methodology for wet or dry manure calibration because it is relatively quick and produces

accurate results. This approach is unsuitable for manure application devices such as umbilical

applicators. Instead, the volume of manure injected must be first be determined. The procedure

includes collection of pumped material into a bucket to determine the flow rate, which decreases

initial calibration costs. Some operations that handle their manure in a drier form may elect a

less expensive calibration method. By spreading manure on a tarp and weighing it on a less

expensive hanging balance, initial calibration costs would be reduced. Refer to section 5.5.3.3

for details on assumptions of annual calibration costs.
43

Frequency Factors: Scales for Calibration of Manure Spreader

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 0.0

61.8

0

MidWest/large 71.9 0

MidAtlantic/medium 0.0 16.6

29.6

0.4

MidAtlantic/large 71.9 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

50

South/large 0

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.2 Non-annual, Reoccurring Costs

Nonannual, reoccurring costs are the costs for activities done repeatedly but not annually. These

costs are divided by the number of years between their occurrence to obtain an annualized cost. 

5.5.2.1 On-Farm Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) Development

The cost for development of an on-farm NMP is the product of the farm size (number of tillable

acres) and a NMP rate in dollars per acre. NMP rates vary depending on the level of services

(e.g., soil sampling, manure sampling, and analysis). The NMP rate selected was $5 per tillable

acre. This value was selected because soil and manure testing were costed separately from NMP

and the higher costs for NMP development are usually attributed to testing costs. Revision and a

complete rewrite of an on-farm NMP is costed to occur every 3 years. Annual review of the

NMP is costed under recordkeeping. While the proposed regulation would require that PNPs are

rewritten at a minimum of once every 5 years, a revision frequency of once every 3 years was

assumed in cost modeling to cover additional costs for PNP modifications (and notification of

modifications) that could be necessary any year due to changes in crops, animal production, or

soil measurements.

The frequency factors for development of an on-farm NMP at layer (UEP/UEA, 1999) and swine

(USDA APHIS, 1995) facilities were based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for
44

broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech,

2000a). Revision of plans at broiler and turkey facilities was considered to occur only if

explicitly mentioned in the state regulations.

Frequency Factors: Initial Nutrient Management Plan Development

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 10.7

69.4

0

MidWest/large 46.9 0

MidAtlantic/medium 24.9 16.6

56.7

0.4

MidAtlantic/large 69.4 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

75

South/large 23.1

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.
45

Frequency Factors: Nutrient Management Plan On-Farm Recurring (Revisions to Plans)

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 10.7

69.4

0

MidWest/large 46.9 0

MidAtlantic/medium 24.9 16.6

56.7

0.4

MidAtlantic/large 69.4 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

75

South/large 0

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.2.2 On-Farm Soil Testing

On-farm soil testing should be carried out at least once every 3 years. A soil sampling rate of one

composite sample per 10 tillable acres was selected for use in this model, based upon a review of

federal and state soil sampling recommendations. A composite soil sample was estimated to take

1 hour because of the distance between samples, and labor costs for soil sampling were assumed

to be $10/hr. Costs for soil analysis for major nutrients and important soil characteristics were

estimated at $10 per sample based on a review of costs by state NRCS labs. 

The frequency factors for soil testing at layer (UEP/UEA, 1999) and swine (NPPC, 1998)

facilities were based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey

facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a).
5

Professional pay rate for hydrologist based upon contractor experience with similar work.

46

Frequency Factors: Soil Testing

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 90.0

34.3

0

MidWest/large 94.0 10.1

MidAtlantic/medium 90.0 16.6

63.2

0.4

MidAtlantic/large 94.0 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

50

South/large 23.1

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.2.3 Assessment of Feedlot/Ground Water Link to Surface Water

An assessment of the ground water link to surface water at the production areas every 5 years

requires technical expertise; therefore, a professional pay rate5 ($55/hr) was used. Activities

include a limited review of local geohydrology, topography, proximity to surface waters, and

current animal waste management practices. It was assumed that the professional assessor

requires 16 hours of on-farm time, 16 hours of in-office time, and 16 hours for compiling

existing data into a final report (48 hours total). Four hours were allotted for the farm operator at

$10/hr to collect and present relevant information to the assessor. Miscellaneous expenses

(assumed to be 15 percent of labor costs) included travel time, photocopying, purchasing maps,

report generation, and other direct costs, yielding a total estimated cost of $3,082 to assess

groundwater links to surface water. 

The frequency factors for these assessments at layer and swine facilities were based upon

industry (UEP/UEA, 1999) or USDA (USDA,1995) data, while the frequency factors for broiler

and turkey facilities were conservatively assumed to be zero. 
47

Frequency Factors: Already Assess Ground Water Links to Surface Water

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 1.1

10.9

0

MidWest/large 23.1 0

MidAtlantic/medium 7.4 0

12.7

0

MidAtlantic/large 12.3 0 0

South/medium 0

40

South/large 0

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.3 Annual Costs

5.5.3.1 Manure Testing

Manure testing costs are based on sampling twice per year to reflect the requirement in the

proposed rule that manure be sampled at least once per year. The cost of manure sampling

includes the labor required and the manure nutrient analysis. For all poultry and swine facilities,

one hour is required to sample the main storage area. For dry poultry, an additional 0.25 hours

per house is required to acquire a composite sample from each house. Labor rates are $10/hr. 

Manure analysis was estimated at $40 per sample based on a review of costs by state soil

conservation service labs.

The frequency factors for manure testing at layer (UEP/UEA, 1999) and swine (USDA APHIS,

1995) facilities were based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey

facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a).
48

Frequency Factors: Manure Testing

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 2.1

70.6

0

MidWest/large 38.3 10.1

MidAtlantic/medium 6.1 16.6

56.2

0.4

MidAtlantic/large 29.9 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

75

South/large 0

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.3.2 Record Keeping and Reporting

Record keeping costs ($880) include the cost of recording animal inventories, manure generation,

field application of manure and other nutrients (amount, rate, method, incorporation, dates),

manure and soil analysis compilation, crop yield goals and harvested yields, crop rotations,

tillage practices, rainfall and irrigation, lime applications, findings from visual inspections of

feedlot areas and fields, lagoon emptying, and other activities on a monthly basis. Records may

include manure spreader calibration worksheets, manure application worksheets, maintenance

logs, soil and manure test results, and documentation of corrective actions taken in response to

findings from visual inspections. Eight hours were assumed to be needed to prepare an annual

report on animal inventories, manure generation, and overall manure application. Three hours

each (72 hours annually) are assumed necessary for monthly write-ups and monthly field

observations. Thus, a total of 80 hours annually was estimated for record keeping at $10/hour. 

Other costs associated with record keeping, including obtainment of signed certifications of

proper manure application from off-site manure recipients, were estimated at 10 percent of labor

costs. It was assumed that off-site recipients of manure incurred no cost to certify proper manure

application due to economic benefits derived from the manure.

The frequency factors for record keeping at layer (UEP/UEA) and swine (USDA APHIS, 1995)

facilities were based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey
49

facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a). Note the high

occurrence of recordkeeping at swine and layer operations does not mean these operations

already record all pertinent information, but rather the time and effort necessary to maintain the 

records is already expended by the operator.

Frequency Factors: Record Keeping

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 71.0

99

0

MidWest/large 98.9 10.1

MidAtlantic/medium 93.1 16.6

99

0.4

MidAtlantic/large 99.9 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

99

South/large 23.1

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.3.3 Calibration of Manure Spreader

The cost for manure spreader calibration was estimated at $100 based on 4 hours of labor, at $10

per hour, for both wet and dry applicators and 2 hours of tractor time at $30 per hour. It was

assumed that the time required for calibration included gathering required equipment, loading

manure, weighing the spreader before and after land application, and applying manure to a

known area of cropland. Additional time was required to perform calculations on manure

application rates.

The frequency factors for spreader calibration at layer facilities were based upon industry data

(UEP/UEA), those for swine facilities were based upon data from the AFO Strategy (USEPA,

1999b), and those for broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state

regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a).
50

Frequency Factors: Calibration of Manure Spreader

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 0.0

61.8

0

MidWest/large 99.0 0

MidAtlantic/medium 0.0 16.6

64

0.4

MidAtlantic/large 99.0 12.1 1.3

South/medium 0

50

South/large 0

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.3.4 Operation and Maintenance for Ground Water Monitoring

Ground water monitoring operation and maintenance costs were estimated at 2 percent of initial

costs ($57.70). Additional costs include two samples per year for each well, with 1 hour of labor

required for each sample (at $10/hr) and $75 per sample for laboratory analysis of total coliform

(TC), fecal coliform (FC), nitrate-nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen, chloride, and total dissolved

solids (TDS). Therefore, the total annual cost for ground water monitoring is $231. 

As described in Section 5.2, the frequency factors for the operation and maintenance of ground

water monitoring for all sectors were calculated as 100 minus the percentage of acreage with

potential for ground water contamination (see Section 5.6.1.3) since this percentage would not be

subject to ground water monitoring requirements if imposed. The percentage of acreage in each

region with the potential for ground water contamination was provided by Sobecki and Clipper

(1999). 
51

Frequency Factors: Ground Water Monitoring Operation and Maintenance

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 72.54

72.54

72.54

MidWest/large 72.54 72.54

MidAtlantic/medium 76.09 76.09

76.09

76.09

MidAtlantic/large 76.09 76.09 76.09

South/medium 77.55

77.55

South/large 77.55

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.5.3.5 Operation and Maintenance for Surface Water Monitoring

The initial assumptions used in developing cost estimates for surface water monitoring include 4

grab samples per sampling event, 12 sampling events per year, and analysis of each sample for

nutrients, BOD5, total suspended solids (TSS), and fecal coliform (FC). It is assumed that

nutrient analyses would include nitrite+nitrate (NO2 and NO3), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN),

and total phosphorus (TP) and that each sampling event would include one additional quality

assurance (QA) sample. The typical holding time for FC is 6 hours and the holding time for

BOD5 is 48 hours. Because it was assumed that sampling events would coincide with rain events

rather than scheduling the sampling in advance, it was deemed unlikely that the results from FC

and BOD5 analysis would meet QA requirements unless provisions are made for rapid (and

expensive) delivery of samples to a lab. Therefore, analysis for FC and BOD5 was dropped from

the monitoring requirements.

The estimated cost assumes that the operation would (1) purchase new containers for each

sampling event, (2) take the samples, and (3) ship the samples to a laboratory for processing. 

Purchasing new (sterile) containers reduces the potential for sample contamination. Operator

sampling is necessary because of the difficulty that a state agency or contractor would have in

mobilizing for rain-based sampling events. Given the low annual laboratory through-put and the

costs associated with certification and quality assurance, sending the samples to a laboratory
52

(rather than performing analysis on-site) for analysis appeared to be the most logistically viable

alternative. 

Sampling and analysis would follow typical surface water monitoring Standard Operating

Procedures (SOPs), including appropriate chain of custody. Below are references and key

highlights extracted from typical SOPs that affect applicability, logistics, and costs. The use of

these SOPs provides the basis for cost calculations. 

TSS http://www.epa.gov/reg5ocrl/sop/sopdoc/gc18.htm (STANDARD OPERATING

PROCEDURE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF RESIDUE, NON-FILTERABLE

(SUSPENDED SOLIDS) IN WATER METHOD 160.2 NS (GRAVIMETRIC, 103 - 105

°C)

& The method is approved for NPDES requirements for a range of 2 to 2000 mg/L (when a

100-mL sample is used).

& Samples are stored at 4°C. 

& Samples are collected in glass or high-density polyethylene containers.

& The holding time is 7 days.

TKN & TP http://www.epa.gov/reg5ocrl/sop/sopdoc/gc032.htm (STANDARD OPERATING

PROCEDURE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN

AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IN WATER METHOD 351.2 *NS AND

METHOD 365.4 *NS (COLORIMETRIC, SEMI AUTOMATED, BLOCK

DIGESTOR, AA II)

& Analysis for these chemicals is normally run simultaneously. It is an approved alternate test

procedure for NPDES. However, the approval applies only to analyses performed at the

Central Regional Laboratory.

& The working range for TKN is approximately 0.1 to 10 mg N/L and for TP is approximately

0.05 to 5.0 mg P/L.

& Samples are collected in new 500-mL high-density polyethylene containers. Flexidome and

phenolic resin (black) caps or caps with glued plastic liners might contaminate the samples

and are not acceptable.

& Samples are preserved by acidification to pH < 2 with the addition of approximately 1 mL of

concentrated H2SO4 per liter of sample. 

& Samples are stored at 4°C.

& Samples are stable for at least 28 days.

Based on these SOPs, each grab sample would require one 500 mL sample for nitrate-nitrogen,

total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total phosphorus (TP) acidified with 1 mL concentrated

sulfuric acid (H2SO4); and one 250 mL sample for TSS (unacidified). Analytical costs were

obtained from New Mexico State University’s Soil, Water, and Air Testing Laboratory

(http://swatlab.nmsu.edu/wtrlist.htm and http://swatlab.nmsu.edu/bactlist.htm). The costs for

NO23, TKN, TP, and TSS were $16.50, $33.50, $5.00, and $16.00 per analysis, respectively. 
53

(The sample for nutrients could also be used for NH4 for an additional $20 per analysis, which is

not included in this exercise.) This yields a total of $71.00 per sample.

In addition to analytical costs, annual costs include sample bottles, shipping, supplies and

transportation, and labor for sample collection and data review. Sample bottle costs were

obtained from the 1998 HACH Products for Analysis; overnight shipping was based on a typical

Federal Express standard overnight delivery of a 30-lb package; miscellaneous supplies include

sterile pipet tips and H2SO4 for acidifying a portion of the samples; and transportation includes

travel to readily accessible stream locations. It is assumed that the 4 grab samples and 1 QA

sample can be collected within a 2-hour time period per sampling event and that all appropriate

chain-of-custody, data review, and data recording can be completed within 1 hour per sampling

event. 

Table 5-3 provides a detailed estimate of annual costs for surface water sampling without BOD5

and FC. The total annual cost for surface water sampling is $6,252 per year without BOD5 and

FC. 

Table 5-3. Detailed Estimate of Annual Costs for Surface Water Sampling 

Description Unit Cost

($)

Annual Cost

($)

250-mL - bottles (2 bottles per sample) 2.00 240.00

500-mL - bottles (1 bottle per sample) 2.70 162.00

Overnight shipping (30 lb cooler) 60.00 720.00

Misc. supplies and transportation 30.00 30.00

Laboratory costs 79.00 4,740.00

Sample collection (2 hrs/sampling event) 10.00 240.00

QA & record keeping (1 hr/sampling event) 10.00 120.00

TOTAL ANNUAL COST 6,252.00

Note: Assumes 12 sampling events per year, 4 grab plus 1 QA samples per event, for a total of 60 samples per year.

The frequency factors for surface water monitoring at layer facilities were assumed to be zero,

those for swine were based upon industry data (USDA APHIS, 1995), and those for broiler and

turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a). Refer to

Section 5.5.1.4. for the table of frequency factors.

5.6 Facility Upgrades

Existing animal feeding operations might require special structures to be built or plans to be

developed to reduce the potential for the introduction of nutrients or other harmful compounds

into surface and ground water. This section describes the facility upgrades associated with swine

and poultry operations and the estimates of their initial capital costs and any operation and
54

maintenance costs that were used to develop the costing model. Major facility upgrades consist

of developing suitable storage for manure and disposal of animal mortalities and clean water

diversions around storage structures, particularly as the upgrades are needed to control land

application. 

5.6.1 Fixed Costs

5.6.1.1 Mortality Composting Facility

Costs of constructing animal mortality facilities are related to the mortality rate of the various

animals. Table 5-4 gives a summary of the mortality rate, average mortality weight, and the

average length of animal confinement for different types of swine and poultry. 

Table 5-4. Mortality Rate, Mortality Weight and Time to Maturity for Various Swine and

Poultry Operations

Animal Operation Mortality Rate

(percent)

Average Mortality

Weight (pounds)

Time to Maturity

(days)

Swine Farrow to Finish 5 123 160

Swine Finisher 5 110 123

Chicken Layer 14 4 440

Chicken Pullet 5 4.3 140

Chicken Broiler 5 4.5 45

Chicken Integrated Layer 13 4 395.5

Turkey Hen 6 16 98

Turkey Tom 9 25 133

Adapted from Carter et al., 1993, and USDA NRCS, 1998. 

Note: Average mortality weight for broilers, hens, and toms do not reflect chick mortality.

The peak daily mortality was calculated by the equation:

'DLO\ PRUWDOLW\ ZHLJKW QXPEHU RI DQLPDOV [ PRUWDOLW\ UDWH [ PRUWDOLW\ ZHLJKWWLPH WR PDWXULW\

For example, a 25,000-bird tom turkey operation with a 9 percent mortality that markets 25-

pound toms in 133 days (25,000 x 0.09 x 25/133) produces 423 pounds per day peak mortality. 

Carter et al. (1993) assumed that 2.0 ft3

 of composting space is required for each pound of dead

animal. Thus the area required to compost the peak mortality of the flock (423 lb x 2.0 ft3

/lb) is

846 ft3. 

A safety factor (50 percent extra composting bin space) was included to account for additional

mortalities. The safety factor effectively increases the composting space for each pound of dead

animal to 3.0 ft3 which compares favorably with the 2.5 ft3 recommended by the Poultry Water

Quality Consortium (1998a). In addition, the Poultry Water Quality Consortium recommends

that composting of catastrophic event mortalities can be accomplished in the bedding or litter

where the poultry were housed if the whole population is involved and adequate space and time

are available. Using the example above (i.e., 846 ft3 required at a peak mortality rate), the total

volume for composting bins required (846 ft3 x 1.50 safety factor) is 1,296 ft3. Bins of
55

approximately 200 ft3 in capacity (5 feet by 8 feet by 5 feet high) are suitable for animals

weighing less than 300 pounds and allow entrance with a front-end loader (Brodie and Carr,

1997). Therefore, the number of bins required (1,296 ft3 total/200 ft3 bin size) is 6.48 (rounded

to 6) bins.

According to Carter et al. (1993), the cost of a 25,000-bird tom turkey mortality composting

facility is $3,500. Farm equipment is usually needed to carry dead animals and compost

ingredients to the compost facility and to remove finished compost (Poultry Water Quality

Consortium, 1998a). For this reason, a 20-foot concrete apron at the front end and bin side of the

shed were added to accommodate mechanical turning and loading/unloading of the compost and

litter. This increased the cost from $4.14/square foot to $7.50/square foot (NCSU, 1998). This

$7.50/square foot cost was used for swine and poultry composting facilities assuming a 5-foot

bin height. The cost of the composting facility can thus be summarized as follows: 

Cost of compost facility = daily mortality weight x 2 x 1.5 x unit storage cost

EPA assumed all operations have adequate mortality handling practices to prevent mortality from

being discharged directly into surface water. However, some handling methods may cause

pollutants to discharge to groundwater, such as burial in areas with a high water table. These

handling methods would need to be prevented if the operation has a direct hydrologic connection

between the groundwater and surface water. For purposes of costing, EPA assumed mortality

composting in covered and lined composting bins would be adopted as the mortality handling

practice at those operations with the hydrologic connection. The frequency factors for mortality

composting facilities were assumed to be the same as those calculated for facilities incurring the

operation and maintenance of ground water monitoring (see Section 5.5).Thus, for all sectors the

frequency factors are based on the percentage of acreage with potential for ground water

contamination (see Table 5-5). 
56

Frequency Factors: Mortality Composting and Operation and Maintenance

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 72.54

72.54

72.54

MidWest/large 72.54 72.54

MidAtlantic/medium 76.09 76.09

76.09

76.09

MidAtlantic/large 76.09 76.09 76.09

South/medium 77.55

77.55

South/large 77.55

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.6.1.2 Manure Storage (for Poultry Litter)

Requirements for poultry litter storage structures are similar to those for mortality composting

facilities in that they require a roof, foundation and floor, and suitable building materials for side

walls. The construction of poultry litter storage facilities includes a roof with a 0.75 pitch, a

concrete floor 16 feet wide, and a 12-foot height from floor to roof (NCSU, 1998). The width

and height were designed for piling manure to its angle of repose to minimize space. The length

of the structure is variable.

The birds are reared on a floor that is covered with a bedding source, one to four inches deep,

which can be wood shavings, rice hulls, chopped straw, peanut hulls, or other product depending

upon geographical availability (NCSU, 1998). The bedding absorbs moisture and dilutes the

manure produced by birds when it mixes.

The litter mixture is either removed after each flock or is used for a second flock with the

exception that a small amount of litter as cake (compacted and concentrated manure/litter mix) is

removed and the remaining litter is top dressed with an inch or so of new bedding material. 

When the house is totally cleaned out the litter is pushed to the center of the house and a front

loader will place in it a litter spreader to be used as a nutrient source for crops. Complete

cleaning of the house is one of the procedures followed to minimize transmission of diseases.
57

The size of a poultry manure storage facility was calculated based on the volume of both manure

and litter produced from the various poultry operations. Manure production for all poultry types,

when designing manure storage facilities, was assigned a value of 0.00169 ft3 per bird per day (or

0.6169 ft3

 per bird per year) (NCSU, 1998). 

Litter production was calculated as the number of houses (25,000 chickens or 6,250 turkeys per

house) multiplied by the shaving material application depth (3.0 inches), multiplied by the area of

the house (16,000 ft2), adjusted for the amount of house floor area to receive shavings (zero

percent for layers, 33 percent for pullets, and 100 percent for the remaining poultry types), and

multiplied by the frequency of litter storage emptying (no more than two times per year). 

The volumes of manure and litter production were summed to arrive at the total volume required

for the manure storage facility. The square footage of the storage facility was calculated based on

a 4-foot waste depth and multiplied by $7.50 per square foot (the NCSU rate for construction of a

litter storage shed) to develop a capital cost estimate for a poultry litter storage shed. The 4-foot

waste depth is consistent with recommendations that stacks should not exceed 5 to 8 feet in

height to prevent excessive heating and spontaneous combustion of wastes (Poultry Water

Quality Consortium, 1998b). The following is an example demonstrating these calculations:

A 25,000-bird tom turkey operation would produce 8,000 ft3

 of litter every 6

months (25,000 birds x 0.25 ft of litter depth x 16,000 ft2

 per house ÷ 6,250 birds

per house x 100 percent of the housing floor covered ÷ 2 storage periods per year). 

It would also produce 7,711 ft3

 of manure every 6 months (25,000 birds x 0.00169

ft3 of manure per bird per day x 365 days per year ÷ 2 storage periods per year). 

Therefore, the storage facility would require a total of 15,711 ft3 of waste storage

capacity, or 3,928 ft2 of storage structure (at an average storage depth of 4 ft). The

total cost of the storage structure for this facility is $29,457 per 6-month storage

facility (3,928 ft2 x $7.50 per ft2). 

The frequency factors for spreader calibration at layer facilities were based upon industry data

(UEP/UEA, 1999) and those for broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of

state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a). 
58

Frequency Factors: Manure Storage

Region/Size Sector

Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium

30

25

MidWest/large 25

MidAtlantic/medium 30

30

75

MidAtlantic/large 30 75

South/medium 30

30

South/large 30

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.6.1.3 Lagoon Liners

Only those operations with a positive assessment of the feedlot/groundwater link to surface

water, as described in 5.5.1.3, will need lagoon liners. First it is necessary to estimate the

percentage of operations likely to have a positive determination of this hydrologic link to

groundwater. Positive hydrologic links were assumed to exist at all operations sited on land with

a high potential for groundwater discharges to surface water. The acreage in each region with

potential limitations regarding ground water contamination was provided by Sobecki and Clipper

(1999). This percentage was calculated in the following manner:

1. The acreage with potential for siting animal waste treatment, storage, or handling

facilities in each region (Central, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Pacific, and South) was

determined for each region using 1992 National Resources Inventory (NRI) data.

2. The potential siting acreage was further characterized by the existence of physical soil

and landscape factors that impart a potential for ground water contamination. These

factors are sandy soils, high ground water table (within 6 feet of surface), and karst

topography. The acreage characterized by any combination of these factors was summed

for each region.

3. The total acreage for each region from step 2 was divided by the acreage in step 1 and

then multiplied by 100 to calculate the percentage of acreage with potential for ground

water contamination in each region.
59

The frequency factor for ground water monitoring wells and their operation and maintenance was

calculated as 100 minus the percentage of acreage with potential for ground water contamination

(Table 5-5) because this percentage would not be subject to ground water monitoring

requirements if imposed. Frequency factors for lagoon liners and for mortality composting

facilities and their operation and maintenance were set equal to the ground water monitoring

frequencies because they apply only to the ground water costing option. Assessment of the

ground water link to surface water would have to be performed by all facilities, however, so that

frequency was set at zero.

Table 5-5. Acreage with Potential for Ground Water Contamination

CAFO Region Percentage 100-Percentage

Mid-Atlantic 23.91 76.09

South 22.45 77.55

Midwest 27.46 72.54

Central 12.60 87.40

Pacific 12.28 87.72

Total (U.S.) 22.86 77.14

Source: Sobecki and Clipper, 1999

According to the American Society of Agricultural Engineers standards (ASAE, 1998), a

minimum lagoon depth of 5 feet is necessary for construction of anaerobic lagoons. Midwest

Plan Service (MWPS , 1993) used a range of lagoon depths from 8 to 25 feet. With the large

variability in lagoon depths, a value of 12 feet was selected for this analysis to represent all

lagoons. The side slopes for lagoons were assumed to be 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) (MWPS, 1993,

and ASAE, 1998), and the lagoon shape was assumed to be square. The interior square footage,

including the side slopes, was used to calculate the required liner area for the earthen lagoon. 

Several lagoon liner manufacturers were contacted to identify costs of purchasing and installing

lagoon liners. The results of the survey are shown in Table 5-6. The top two costs in Table 5-10

reflect differences in materials and do not include installation. Installed lagoon liners range from

$1.28 to $4.00 per square foot, with lower costs per square foot expected at larger installations. 

Thus, to develop costs for installation of lagoon liners, a cost of $1.50 per square foot was

assumed. The clay used to develop the original lagoon would be used to line the walls and

bottom in addition to the synthetic liner. This is expected to help protect the synthetic liner from

accidental tearing by heavy equipment during lagoon cleanouts.

Industry communications indicate old lagoons are typically not retrofit with liners (Tetra Tech,

1999). Instead, the old lagoon is cleaned out and closed at a cost of $0.31 per gallon (NCDENR,

1999), a new lagoon is constructed, and is fit with a liner. EPA chose to cost for the construction

of a new lagoon to comply with the requirements of Option 3. EPA believes the cost of a new
60

and properly constructed lagoon with a liner is not likely to cost more than emptying an existing

lagoon to retrofit the liner.

Table 5-6. Manufacturer-Suggested Costs of Lagoon Liners and 

Covers for 1⁄2-Acre Lagoons

Dealer Description Cost

Environmental

Protection, Inc.

30-mil PVC liner $0.25/ft2

Environmental

Fabrics, Inc

1⁄2 acre lagoon, 40-mil HDPE liner $0.55/ft2

Lange Containment

Systems, Inc.

30 mil PVC liner, 36 mil reinforced Hypalon cover system $1.28/ft2

installation $34,665

CW Neal 1⁄2-acre lagoon, 32-mil polypropylene, installed $3-4/ft2

Environmental

Fabrics, Inc.

1⁄2-acre lagoon, 40 mil HDPE uninsulated cover, gas, and rain

collection

$0.85/ft2

1⁄2-acre lagoon, 40 mil HPDE R-6 insulated cover, gas, and

rain collection

$2.25/ft2

Reef Industries Permalon®, ply X-210 reinforced floating cover system (not

including foam float logs)

$0.40/ft2

Geomembrane

Technologies, Inc.

1⁄2-acre cover system installed, 30 mil reinforced modified

PVC layer (XR-5) and 1⁄2-inch sublayer

$105,000

Environmental

Protection Inc.

36 mil reinforced cover $0.45 - $0.50/ft2

The frequency factors for lagoon liners for all sectors were assumed to be the same as those

calculated for the operation and maintenance of ground water monitoring (see Section 5.5), and

were calculated as 100 minus the percentage of acreage with potential for ground water

contamination (see Table 5-5). The percentage of acreage in each region with the potential for

ground water contamination was provided by Sobecki and Clipper (1999). 
61

Frequency Factors: Lagoon Liners and Operation and Maintenance (Wet Systems)

Region/Size Sector

Swine Layers

MidWest/medium 72.54

72.54

MidWest/large 72.54

MidAtlantic/medium 76.09

76.09

MidAtlantic/large 76.09

South/medium

77.55

South/large

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

5.6.1.4 Lagoon Covers

According to the American Society of Agricultural Engineers standards (ASAE, 1998), a

minimum lagoon depth of 5 feet is necessary for construction of anaerobic lagoons. 

Approximately 20 feet is considered the maximum depth to ensure proper biological activity. 

For this analysis 12 feet was selected as the maximum depth of all lagoons. The side slopes for

lagoons were assumed to be 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) (MWPS, 1993, and ASAE, 1998), and

the lagoon shape was assumed to be square. The surface square footage was then calculated to

determine the costs of a lagoon cover. 

Several lagoon cover manufacturers were contacted to identify costs of purchasing and installing

lagoon covers. The results of the survey are shown in Table 5-6. Installed lagoon covers range

from $1.20 to $4.81 per square foot, with lower costs per square foot expected at larger

installations and depending whether insulation is required. Thus, to develop costs for installation

of insulated lagoon covers, a cost of $4.00 per square foot was assumed.

Frequency Factors: According to USDA NAHMS (1999) few swine lagoon have covers. 

Frequency factors for covering lagoons was thus conservatively set at zero.

5.6.1.5 Lagoon Depth Marker

All facilities require some sort of gauge to measure the depth of the liquid impoundments. A

lagoon depth marker can be manufactured by purchasing PVC pipe, fittings, and cement to

construct a length of incrementally marked pipe long enough to reach the bottom of the lagoon
62

and extend above the freeboard. A cost of $30 was used as the estimated cost of building and

installing a lagoon depth marker. 

The frequency factors for lagoon depth markers at swine facilities were based upon the AFO

Strategy (USEPA, 1999b). It was assumed that no layer facilities had lagoon depth markers, and

dry manure facilities do not need depth markers.

Frequency Factors: Lagoon Depth Marker

Region/Size Sector

Swine Layers

MidWest/medium 0

0

MidWest/large 99

MidAtlantic/medium 0

0

MidAtlantic/large 99

South/medium

0

South/large

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

5.6.1.6 Anaerobic Digesters

Many livestock facilities handle manure as liquids and slurries. Anaerobic decomposition of the

stored manure produces large volumes of biogas, which contains 60-80% methane. The digesters

capital costs are usually high, but the overall costs of digesters should consider the potential for

biogas generation to offset on-farm costs. The digester reduces offensive odors (volatile organic

acids), BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), surface and groundwater contamination, greenhouse

gases, and produces a stabilized biomass. Changes to the form of nutrients may occur, but the

mass of nitrogen and phosphorus is assumed to be conserved. Additionally, total coliform

reductions of up to 90% occur in the selective environment of an anaerobic digester (AgSTAR). 

Though odor complaints from neighbors are likely to be reduced, EPA did not cost the value of

reduced odors and subsequent reduced complaints to the facility. 

The covered lagoon / methane recovery system has reduced effectiveness in the colder/northern

climates. Experience shows it is unlikely a covered lagoon digester will pay for itself in the

northern part of the country. However, there are other effective forms of digestion more

appropriate for the north such as complete mix and plug flow type designs, especially when heat

recovery is used to maintain digester temperatures. These alternate designs are also more
63

appropriate for facilities with higher total solids manure contents such as pull plug pits and

certain under house pit facilities. In addition to covered anaerobic lagoons, which are the costs

presented in the cost model outputs, EPA evaluated costs for a newly constructed methane

recovery lagoon, both with and without covers on the second lagoon (for effluent storage), and

both with and without liners. EPA also evaluated complete mix heated (mesophilic) digesters,

with and without pasteurization after digestion. EPA did

Farmware and the AgSTAR program was designed as a decision making tool to encourage

biogas recovery system development at livestock facilities. Feasability assessment is performed

by inputting site specific parameters in the Farmware program. The costs were obtained from

Farmware (AgSTAR), site visits (see record), the literature, and through personal

communications (K. Roos; M. Moser). Biogas production, equipment design and sizing, and

respective costs were obtained using the Farmware program (Agstar) using the following

parameters to represent the model farm:

- use Sampson County, North Carolina as the representative MidAtlantic farm, and Blue

Earth, Minnesota as the Midwest farm. Boone, Iowa parameters were also used as the Midwest

farm, but the higher costs obtained using Minnesota as the representative farm was kept as the

more conservative cost estimate

- assume “flush everything” as the existing manure management system

- reduce flush water to twice per day where appropriate to reduce digester size and costs

(33% reduction in flush water use)

- additional fresh process water results from cleaning and spilled drinking water only;

precipitation is diverted away from the digester, but not the effluent storage lagoon

- use model default of $.06 per kWh (1999 U.S. average of 4.5 cents industrial use, 7.43

cents commercial, and 8.27 cents residential)

- assume engine overhaul every 5 years at $5000

- assume 0.005 ft3/lb VS sludge buildup every 5 years is removed from the treatment cell

- EPA used the more current lagoon construction and cover costs data described in 

section 5.6.1.4.

- assume 15% of capital in contingency for site specific factors related to engineering and

design

The Farmware program estimates electrical and propane uses that may be offset by biogas

recovery and use. No sales of excess power produced during peak times was considered in this

analysis. The generator was oversized by ~10 kW to reduce equipment corrosion occurring due

to sulfide production. Modern heat boilers can replace the generator / engine costs specified by

the program, and cost $7000 less. Engine overhaul was assumed to occur every 5 years as a

preventative maintenance. Engineering costs of $25 thousand (Farmware model default) was

used for grow-finish facilities. Engineering costs for farrow-to-finish operations were increased

to $40 thousand to account for the increased complexity of the site that could affect digester

construction and design.
64

Based on 20% P concentration in the digester, fewer truck trips will be needed to haul excess

phosphorus. The biomass has 37% TS, thus hauling costs were assumed to be reduced by 63% to

account for fewer truck trips. All sludge hauling was costed as a every five year expense, though

in practice hauling may occur anywhere from every seven years to more than 20 years between

lagoon cleanouts. This provided a quick estimate of the offset hauling costs, and is reflected by

reduced hauling costs in the cost model. Lagoon water is assumed to be used for flush water,

though some facilities may elect to irrigate cropland with the water.

Where appropriate, the existing lagoon at a facility was assumed to be used as the storage cell for

recycled flush water. Deep pit housing systems do not use a storage lagoon, so additional capital

costs will be on the order of $30-50 thousand, for an additional estimated $4500 annual expense. 

Such facilities may benefit from biogas collection, but biogas collection will not be economically

viable at these sites in the form of a covered lagoon digester. 

The costs developed for the representative farm were compared to progress reports developed for

the AgStar program. EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation has additional data concerning

performance and costs for liners, covers, and lagoon construction. These costs are comparable to

the default costs in Farmware, but may not address all costs needed at a given farm. For

purposes of determining economic viability, the parameters driving annualized costs are the

operational costs and cost offsets; it is therefore unlikely the capital cost estimates will have any

noticeable affect on annual costs calculated by the cost model. 

As an alternative to covered lagoon digesters, costs were developed for a complete mix digester

for all “large” swine model farms. A complete mix digester is a heated, constant volume,

mechanically-mixed tank with a gas-tight collection cover. Manure waste is preheated in a small

mix tank, and added daily to feed the digester, where it is intermittently mixed to prevent

formation of a crust and to keep solids in suspension. Average manure retention times range

from 15 to 20 days. The gas-tight cover maintains anaerobic conditions inside the tank and

collects the biogas through attached pipes. The heat generated by burning the collected biogas is

used to heat the digester. EPA analysis indicates this form of digesters is likely to result in

overall negative annualized costs (i.e. the facility earns profits) for the largest facilities, but

success of the digester depends heavily on proper engineering design, digester management, and

management of process water to maintain at least 2% total solids in the digester feedstream. 

Reduction of HRT to 15 days and water management reduce the capital costs of the digester

considerably.

Frequency Factors:

In 1998 there were about 94 digesters that were installed or were planned for working dairy,

swine, and caged-layer poultry operations in the United States (Lusk, 1998). Of these 94

digesters, more than 60% of plug flow and complete mix digesters and 12% of the covered

lagoon digesters have failed (Lusk, 1998). Many of these failures were of systems constructed

prior to 1984; since that time, more simplified digester designs have been implemented which

have greatly improved reliability. For purposes of costing Option 6, it is assumed that no large

swine facilities currently operate a digester with energy recovery. For Option 6, the largest swine
65

farms were assessed the incremental costs of designing, installing, and operating a covered

lagoon type digester as described above. Digesters are also costed for medium sized swine

operations for use in Option 5.

5.6.1.7 High Rise Hog Facility Upgrades

Menke et al. (2000) evaluated the construction costs for a two-story confinement housing design. 

The animals are kept on slatted floors in the upper level, similar to a traditional flush house. The

lower level is a concrete floored pit where the manure falls onto drying material such as

shavings, peanut hulls, or corn stalks. Air is blown up through the bottom floor to assist drying

the manure, and ventilation is pulled down over the animals. Higher building costs, operation

costs, and ventilation costs are reportedly offset by improved animal health, increased animal

performance, decreased hauling costs, and the savings of not needing a lagoon or other liquid

impoundment. 

A highrise house for 1,000 head of finishing pigs is approximately 44 ft x 190 ft. On a per pig

basis, a traditional deep pit house in Indiana/Ohio costs $155-160 per animal; a lagoon style flush

house costs $145 per animal (plus lagoon costs); the highrise building costs $185 per animal. 

The highrise building costs include professional engineering design that meets NRCS design

standards. Building a deep pit house to these standard was estimated to increase the construction

cost of a deep pit house by $15,000 ($15 per animal).

Frequency Factors: Only a few highrise hog facilities are in the testing, evaluation, and

demonstration status phases. Thus, the frequency of compliance for highrise facilities is zero.

5.6.1.8 Storm Water Diversions

Runoff can enter lagoons and poultry storage facilities if it is not diverted. To prevent runoff

from entering manure storage facilities, storm water can be diverted by constructing berms on

two sides up-gradient of the storage facility or lagoon. ASAE (1998) specifies a berm with a 1-

foot top width that is 3 feet high and has a 2:1 slope. Costs of land moving to establish a berm

around two sides of the manure storage structure were derived from North Carolina agricultural

cost share information as $2.60 per cubic foot. The cross-sectional area was calculated based on

the berm characteristics and then multiplied by the length of the storage structure (plus on

additional 10 feet on each side as a margin of safety) to obtain the cubic yardage for construction. 

The frequency factors for storm water diversions at layer facilities (UEP/UEA) were based upon

industry data, those for swine facilities were based upon site visits, and those for broiler and

turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a).
66

Frequency Factors: Storm Water Diversions and Operation and Maintenance

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 72.54

80.9

0

MidWest/large 72.54 0

MidAtlantic/medium 76.09 0

69.3

0

MidAtlantic/large 76.09 0 0

South/medium 0

70

South/large 23.1

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.6.1.9 Field Runoff Control

Runoff control for fields used for manure application can be achieved by creating buffer strips

along the fields adjacent to streams. The ratio of stream length to land area was calculated based

on national estimates of land area (3 million square miles of land in the contiguous United States

[ESRI,1998]) and stream miles (3.5 million miles of streams [USEPA, 2000]). This ratio was

converted to miles per acre (0.00144 mile of stream per acre of land). The amount of land

needed for buffer construction was then calculated by multiplying the average acres of cropland

for each model farm by the ratio of stream miles per acre of land. This produced the length of

stream on each farm. It was further assumed that the farm was square and the stream ran down

the middle of the farm. The width of the buffer (on both sides of the stream) was assumed to be

100 feet. The costs of 100 feet buffers was based on information collected from a total of 914

filter strip projects in 28 states with an average cost of $106.62/ac (1999 dollars; USEPA, 1993).

The net loss of tillable land for establishment of a buffer was estimated at 3.5 percent of the

cropland (0.00144 mile of stream per acre x 5,280 feet per mile, x 200 ft2

 of buffer per foot of

stream length ÷ 43,560 ft2

/ac). Thus, the cost for field erosion control was estimated at

approximately $3.72/ac of total cropland. 

In lieu of the buffer, EPA also considered: 1) establishing a 100 foot setback instead of the

buffer, and 2) using the costs of the buffer as an allowance for the CAFO to implement site
67

specific field control practices such as conservation management. In other words, controls other

than buffer strips may be more effective in certain situations (Sims, 2000), and the $3.72/ac cost

basis is considered an allowance that can be used to implement other runoff control practices. A

sensitivity analysis of the assumptions used to estimate stream length to land area ratios and the

amount of land costed to be taken out of production is in the record (Tetra Tech, 2000b). 

Pollutant removal efficiencies are presented in Table 5-7.

The frequency factors for stream buffers at layer facilities were based upon industry data

(UEP/UEA, 1999), those for swine facilities were based upon site visits and state regulations,

and those for broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations

(Tetra Tech, 2000a). 

Table 5-7. Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Vegetated Buffers

Buffer Width Sediment Removal (%) Phosphorus Removal (%)† Nitrogen Removal (%)†

35-Foot Buffer 80 80 75

65-Foot Buffer 85 85 80

100-Foot Buffer 88 88 85

†Decrease by 10 percent for slopes greater than 3.5%

Frequency Factors: Stream Buffer and Operation and Maintenance

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 0

80.9

0

MidWest/large 99 0

MidAtlantic/medium 0 0

69.3

0

MidAtlantic/large 99 0 0

South/medium 0

70

South/large 0

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.
68

5.6.2 Annual and Reoccurring Costs

All of the fixed costs mentioned previously are associated with annual costs for operation and

maintenance. Standard operation and maintenance is about 2 percent of the capital cost of each

facility (NCSU, 1998). 

5.6.2.1 Visual Inspection

Weekly visual inspections ensure that the facility components likely to contribute to surface or

ground water quality impairments are all functioning properly. This includes routine inspections

around the production area to ensure that automated watering lines are functioning properly and

inspection of manure level for liquid systems to ensure that there is no threat of potential

discharge. Visual inspection requires only a short time to walk around the building and storage

facilities. It was assumed that there would be no cost for daily inspection of automated systems

providing water to the animals since it is part of routine facility management and operations.

Fifteen minutes weekly was assumed sufficient to accomplish this task. At a labor rate of $10/hr,

the cost of annual visual inspections was estimated at $130/yr.

The frequency factors for visual inspection at layer and swine facilities were based upon the AFO

Strategy (USEPA, 1999b), while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey facilities were

derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000a).

Frequency Factors: Visual Inspection

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 0

25

0

MidWest/large 25 0

MidAtlantic/medium 0 0

25

0

MidAtlantic/large 25 0 0

South/medium 0

25

South/large 23.1

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.
69

5.6.2.2 Mortality Composting Facility

Mortality composting facilities have annual charges for standard operation and maintenance,

including a cost for carbon sources for layer and hog operations. It was assumed that litter

provide sufficient quantities of carbon, so no cost was added for carbon sources at broiler and

turkey facilities. Mortality composting facilities also require other activities such as mortality

transportation, loading into compost bins, and turning the partially composted materials. The

annual labor requirement is estimated at 90 hours (1.75 hr/wk) for a single worker with a tractor

($10/hr for labor and $30/hr for the tractor) (NCSU, 1998). The rental value for land taken out of

production to construct the mortality facility was not assessed. Facilities were assumed to be

constructed adjacent to storage areas.

Frequency Factors: 

The frequency factors for operation and maintenance of mortality composting facilities were

assumed to be equal to those for construction of the facilities. See Section 5.6.1.2 for details.

5.6.2.3 Lagoon Liners

Lagoon liners may require higher operation and maintenance than the standard 2 percent of initial

cost used for other practices. One problem includes tearing of the plastic liner during sludge

cleanout. Thus, the operation and maintenance of a lagoon liner was set at 5 percent of initial

costs.

Frequency Factors: 

The frequency factors for operation and maintenance of lagoon liners were assumed to be equal

to those for initial implementation of the controls. See Section 5.6.1.3 for details.

5.6.2.4 Lagoon Covers

Operation and maintenance costs for lagoon liners were estimated at 2 percent of initial costs.

Frequency Factors:

According to USDA NAHMS (1999), few swine lagoon have covers. The frequency factors for

covered lagoons was thus conservatively set to zero.

5.6.2.5 Anaerobic Digesters

Operation and maintenance costs are calculated by the Farmware program as a function of the

generator size (i.e. dollars per kW). These costs may be partially offset by savings of electricity

and propane. Costs are also incurred for periodic engine overhaul, and for sludge cleanout.

Frequency Factors:

As described in 5.6.1.6, few digesters were assumed to exist, and the frequency factor is zero.
70

5.6.2.6 High Rise Hog Facility 

Operation and maintenance costs for a highrise hog facility were estimated at 2 percent of initial

costs. Additional costs include energy costs and drying agents. Energy costs for a traditional

confinement building are estimated at $2,500 to $2,800 per year. The highrise building has

average monthly costs of approximately $400 or $4,800 annually. Drying agents evaluated

include wheat straw, corn stalks, and wood shavings. Around 50 to 60 tons of wood shavings are

needed to start the house with two feet depth of material at an annual cost of $4,000 to $5,000

per year. In contrast, five feet of straw or corn stalk material are needed to absorb similar

amounts of moisture. Even at a lower costs of $9 to $10 per 1,200 pound bale of corn stalks, the

higher volumes to be handled offset the cost savings. Straw and corn materials also tend to

degrade and compost more rapidly than wood requiring more frequent addition of drying material

to the house.

Frequency Factors:

Only one highrise hog facility exists and is in the testing and evaluation state. Thus, the

frequency of compliance for highrise facilities is zero.

5.6.2.7 Field Runoff Control

For field runoff control, the land taken out of production for installation of buffer strips was

assumed to have been previously farmed. The rental value for land taken out of production was

added to standard operation and maintenance charges. The rental value for cropland was

estimated at $64.00/ac/yr based on analysis by North Carolina State University (NCSU, 1998). 

Frequency Factors: 

The frequency factors for operation and maintenance of field runoff controls were assumed to be

equal to those for initial implementation of the controls. See Section 5.6.1.8 for details.

5.7 Land Application

This section describes the basis for costs of the land application component of nutrient

management. The costs described in this section only address the costs for irrigation of liquids,

and the incremental costs of incorporation or injection. Note these costs were not included in the

final model facility costs as there are no standards in the proposed regulatory options that would

require injection or incorporation. Hauling costs are addressed in Section 5.8. 

Crop nitrogen and phosphorus requirements were calculated to depict conditions of each model

farm. Extension personnel from counties with the densest populations of animals were consulted

to determine the common cropping practices for all regions and sectors. Although the cost model

is only run on two principle regions for each sector, all regions are presented in the analysis of

crop nutrient requirements.
71

County Extension personnel identified the typical crop rotation for each sector (Table 5-8). Crop

yields were determined by dividing the harvested quantity by the acreage obtained in the 1997

Census of Agriculture (USDA NASS, 1999). Occasionally, yields were far below expected

yields and were changed to reflect expected yields found in the Ag Waste Management Field

Handbook (AWMFH, USDA, 1992). Crop nutrient removal was based on Appendix I, Table A1, Nutrient Content Values, for the major crops (USDA NRCS, 1998). The nitrogen application

rates was increased to reflect a 30 percent loss of nitrogen after land application of manure

(Sutton et al., 1985) primarily due to volatilization of ammonia.

Table 5-8. Crop Yields, Nutrient Removal and Application Rates (lbs/ac) from the Ag Waste Management

Field Handbook (AWMFH) for Typical Crops used on Swine and Poultry Operations in the various

Regions.

Sector Region Crop Yield† Census

Yield

Yield Unit Nitrogen

Removal

Phosphorus

Removal

Nitrogen

Application

Phosphorus

Application

Swine CE Corn 162 162 Bushels/acre 129 24 185 24

MA Corn 83 83 Bushels/acre 67 12 95 12

Soybean 28 28 Bushels/acre 100 10 143 10

Rye 25 25 Bushels/acre 26 4 38 4

MW Corn 135 135 Bushels/acre 108 20 154 20

Soybean 48 48 Bushels/acre 170 17 242 17

PA Corn chop 23 23 Tons/acre 160 24 228 24

Oats 90 90 Bushels/acre 53 10 76 10

Alfalfa 7 7 Tons/acre 356 33 509 33

SO Bermuda 8 3 Tons/acre 150 15 215 15

Poultry CE Bermuda 8 4 Tons/acre 150 15 215 15

MA Corn 123 123 Bushels/acre 98 18 140 18

Soybean 27 27 Bushels/acre 94 10 135 10

Wheat 63 63 Bushels/acre 64 13 91 13

MW Fescue 5 3 Tons/acre 99 10 141 10

PA Corn chop 23 23 Tons/acre 165 24 236 24

Oats 102 102 Bushels/acre 60 11 86 11

Alfalfa 7 7 Tons/acre 352 33 503 33

SO Fescue 5 4 Tons/acre 99 10 141 10

† Yields were taken from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. The census combined information for the specific grass

varieties (e.g. fescue and bermudagrass) occasionally resulting in lower yields when compared to AWMFH. Where

sizeable discrepancies were identified (Swine, SO; Poultry, CE, MW, SO) AWMFH yields were used instead of

census yields. 
72

The average annual nitrogen and phosphorus crop removal and application rates were calculated

by dividing the total crop requirements over the time to complete a full crop rotation (Table 5.9). 

Table 5-9. Comparison of Nutrient Removal and Application Rates (lbs/ac) from the 1997 Census of

Agriculture with County Extension Values or using 24 Crops and Pastureland Information in the Census.

Sector Crops† Region Nitrogen

Removal

Phosphorus

Removal

Nitrogen

Application

Phosphorus

Application

Swine corn CE 129 24 185 24

Swine c/sb/rye MA 97 14 138 14

Swine c/sb MW 139 19 198 19

Swine c/o/al PA 178 18 407 34

Swine bermuda SO 150 15 215 15

Poultry bermuda CE 150 15 215 15

Poultry c/sb/wt MA 128 20 183 20

Poultry fescue MW 99 10 141 10

Poultry c/o/al PA 141 14 412 34

Poultry fescue SO 99 10 141 10

† Cropping system abbreviations: c, corn; sb, soybean; wt, wheat; o, oats; al, alfalfa. Bermuda

and fescue refer to the typical hay crop.

It was assumed that the costs of transportation for land application of manure on the farm’s crop

land were already incurred by the operation. Thus, no costs were added for transporting manure

from storage to the field for land application. It was also assumed category 3 farms (i.e. farms

with no major cropland or pastureland, see Section 4.2.4) already haul manure to offsite

recipients. Hauling distances and costs are derived in Section 5.9.3 and Appendix E. 

5.7.1 Surface Application with Incorporation

Because it was assumed that animal feeding operations already have a mechanism to surfaceapply manure, the only additional costs they would incur would be for incorporation. Disk

harrows used for incorporation range in price from $5,600 to $34,000 (Lazarus, 1999) depending

on their size and functionality. The average capital cost for disk harrows was assumed to be

$20,000 (rounded up from $19,800) for the purpose of this model. Operating costs were

calculated by Lazarus (1999) and assume that operations already have a tractor to pull the disk

harrow. Annual operation and maintenance costs were estimated to be 2 percent of the capital

cost ($400 annually) plus an additional $30/hr for tractor operation and $10/hr for labor. It is

estimated that disking requires an additional 15 minutes/ac (0.25 hour more than surface

application), yielding an operating cost of $10/ac of tillable land. 

Incorporation by disking is the only option for land application of dry poultry manure.

Incorporating semisolid or liquid manure with a disk was costed in the model, but it was always

found to be more expensive than injection.
73

5.7.2 Injection of Semisolid or Liquid Manure

The assumptions used in preparation for developing costs of injection of nonsolid manure

include the availability of a tank or suitable spreader and a tractor with sufficient power to pull it. 

USEPA (1998) reported that the cost of a 4,200-gallon tank with injectors had a capital cost of

about $20,000. Wright (1997) reported that tanker spreaders without injectors cost between

$9,000 and $18,500, depending on the size; a 4,500-gallon tanker costs $14,000. Using the

difference between Wright ($14,000) and USEPA ($20,000), equipping a tanker with suitable

connections for manure injection would cost approximately $6,000. Additionally, 2 percent of

the capital cost is estimated for annual operation and maintenance costs ($120). No additional

labor is required for manure injection because it is similar in level of effort to manure spraying. 

5.7.3 Irrigation of Liquid Manure

Irrigation of liquid manure is the most costly application method in terms of initial capital costs. 

USEPA (1998) reported that the cost of a center pivot irrigation device capable of manure

application on 150 acres was nearly $65,000. Two percent of this capital cost is estimated for

annual operation and maintenance ($1,300). However, many operations already have the

capability to apply manure through a center pivot or other irrigation device. For these operations

there would be no additional cost. 

Large operations producing liquid manure might require more than one center pivot irrigation

device. For these operations, the amount of land available for land application (tillable acreage)

was divided by 150 acres per center pivot to calculate the required number of center pivots. 

5.8 Feeding Strategies to Reduce Excess Nutrients

Reducing the nutrients that are produced at the facility allows more manure to be applied to the

land. This results in a decrease in the amount of nutrients and money required to transport excess

manure off-farm. Reducing phosphorus in manure makes it a more balanced fertilizer in terms of

plant requirements, which reduces excess application rates and their associated runoff into

surface waters.

One way to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus is to reduce the quantity of nutrients in the excreta. 

Dietary strategies designed to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus include enhancing the digestibility

of feed ingredients, genetic enhancement of cereal grains and other ingredients that results in

increased feed digestibility, more precise diet formulation, and improved quality control. 

Although nitrogen and phosphorus are currently the focus of attention, these strategies also have

the potential to decrease other nutrients.

The cost for feeding strategy implementation is based on the nutrient management basis

(phosphorus- or nitrogen-based), which determines the implementation cost per animal. These

costs are derived below. To obtain an annual cost for feeding strategy implementation, the cost
74

per animal was multiplied by the number of animals on the farm and the number of production

cycles per year (Table 5-10). 

Table 5-10. Number of Production Cycles per Year for Each Animal Operation 

Type of Animal Production Cycles per Year

Grower-Finisher 2.8

Farrow-to-Finish 2.1

Breeder 2.1

Layer 1.0

Broiler 5.5

Integrated Layer 1.0

Turkey Hen 3.1

Turkey for Slaughter 2.5

Integrated Turkey 3.0

The frequency factors for feeding strategies at swine facilities were based upon USDA data

(USDA APHIS, 1995), while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey facilities were provided

by site visits and conversations with industry. Most broiler facilities have phase diets, and an

increasing number of broiler operations utilize feed additives such as phytase. All broiler

operations were all assumed to have phytase additions to their diet, thus no benefit is observed. 

Phytase use is less common in turkey production where debates exist that the skeletal structure of

poults is affected by phytase interactions with calcium. EPA assumed few if any layer facilities

incorporated phased diets or feeding strategies beyond nutritional requirements of the birds and

molting (if any), and assumed the frequency factor was zero. 
75

Frequency Factors: Feeding Strategies

Region/Size Sector

Swine Broiler Layers Turkeys

MidWest/medium 14.9

0

5

MidWest/large 67.7 5

MidAtlantic/medium 17.8 100

0

5

MidAtlantic/large 72.7 100 5

South/medium 100

0

South/large 100

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium <2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500

head.

For broilers, MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000 AU; SO/medium = 300-1,000 AU and SO/large > 1,000

AU.

For layers, no distinction is made between medium and large. 

For turkeys, MW/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MW/large > 1,000 AU; MA/medium = 300-1,000 AU and MA/large > 1,000

AU.

5.8.1 Poultry

Phosphorus

The cost of adding phytase enzyme to feed ranges from $0.75 to $1 per ton of feed. For example,

given that it costs $1 per ton of feed for phytase addition and that 11 pounds of feed are required

to raise a broiler to market weight (5.5 pounds), the extra cost for phytase addition is $0.0055 per

bird ($1/ton of feed divided by 2,000 lb/ton multiplied by 11 lb of feed per broiler). This is

expected to achieve a reduction in phosphorus excretion of 20 to 60 percent depending on

phosphorus form and concentration in the diet (NCSU, 1999). Protein content, calcium other

mineral content, vitamin B, as well as other factors identified in the literature influence the

effectiveness of phytase use in feed, but a 40 percent reduction was selected as a reasonable level

of reduction when both phytase and precision feeding are utilized. 

Nutrient content of the manure can also be reduced by precision feeding and phased feeding. 

One way to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus is to reduce the quantity of nutrients in the excreta of

the animal. Dietary concepts designed to accomplish nitrogen and phosphorus reduction include

enhancing the digestibility of fee ingredients; genetic enhancement of cereal grains and other

ingredients that result in nutrients in feed ingredients being more digestible; more precise diet

formulation; and improved quality control. While nitrogen and phosphorus are the focus of

attention, these strategies also have the potential to decrease other nutrient excesses.
76

Nitrogen

The cost of reducing nitrogen in feed was estimated by assuming that a 20 percent reduction in

nitrogen can be achieved with a 5 percent increase in feed cost. For example, reducing nitrogen

in a $200/ton broiler feed would cost $10 per ton or $0.005 per pound of feed. If a broiler

requires 11 pounds of feed to reach market weight, the additional cost would be $0.055 per bird. 

For a nitrogen management-based, 100,000-bird broiler operation with 5.5 production cycles per

year, the implementation cost for feeding strategies is $30,250 per year (100,000 birds per

production cycle x 5.5 cycles per year x $0.055 per bird). The implementation costs for turkeys

are assumed to be the same as those for chickens. 

5.8.2 Swine

Phosphorus

Adding phytase to a swine diet costs approximately $2.20/ton of feed. However, phytase

replaces inorganic phosphorus as well as a small portion of protein. Similar to poultry in section

5.8.1.1, the increase in feed cost required to reduce phosphorus excretion by 40 percent is

expected to be less than 1 percent. The nutrient content of the manure can also be reduced by

precision feeding, split-sex feeding, and phased feeding. In practical terms, phosphorus excretion

may be reduced by 0.6 kg per pig finished (a 40 percent reduction) with an investment of $0.36

in extra feed cost per pig finished. For example, a phosphorus management-based, 2,500-head

farrow-to-finish operation with 2.1 production cycles per year would incur $1,890/yr to

implement feeding strategies. 

Nitrogen

The increase in feed costs attributed to reducing nitrogen excretion through precision nutrition or

use of synthetic amino acids is expected to be less than 5 percent for a 20 percent reduction in

nitrogen excretion. A larger decrease in nitrogen excretion is achievable, but only at a very high

cost. In practical terms, nitrogen excretion may be reduced by 1.34 kg per pig finished (or 20

percent) with an investment of $2.70 in extra feed cost per pig finished (for a farrow-to-finish

operation). The same 2,500-head farrow-to-finish operation would incur $14,175/yr for feeding

strategy implementation. As the costs of synthetic amino acids comes down, the Amino Acid

Council foresees an increased use of synthetic amino acids as a method of reducing nitrogen

excretion as well as improving animal performance and decreasing feeding costs.

If the model farm is under an N-based regimen, costs with and without feeding strategies were

compared. Nutrient reduction was calculated by subtracting 20 percent of the nitrogen produced

after losses as calculated by USDA (1998). If the costs with feeding strategies led to an overall

cost reduction, it was selected as one of the cost effective practices. However, because of the

high cost of reducing nitrogen (a limiting nutrient in manure), it was often not the cost effective

alternative. Feeding strategies under a P-based manure application system, on the other hand,

were often cost effective.

Example of Excess Nutrient Calculations after Feeding Strategies Implementation
77

The cost model includes a calculation of the amount of land required for application of the

nutrient of concern after feeding strategies implementation. In the 100,000-head broiler example,

it was estimated that feeding strategies reduced phosphorus in manure by 40 percent, thereby

reducing the land required for phosphorus application by 40 percent (from 1,054 acres to 633

acres). A new percentage can be calculated from the ratio between the area available for land

application on-site (119 acres) and the land required for phosphorus application (633 acres),

yielding a percentage of available land of 19 percent. This means that only 81 percent of the

manure needs to be hauled off-site instead of 89 percent, which reduces the cost for manure

transport. 

5.9 Manure Hauling and Strategies to Make Manure More Transportable

The costs for transportation are dependent on the volume and mass of manure generated on farm. 

Reducing either the volume or the mass of the manure will decrease the cost of transportation. 

Little can be done with dry manure (e.g. broiler manure) because it is difficult and expensive to

decrease its volume or mass. For liquid systems, the key factor in limiting transportation costs

revolve around decreasing the water content of the wastes. This section provides details of how

costs were developed for strategies that make manure more transportable.

5.9.1 Composting and Solid-Liquid Separation

Composting and solid-liquid separation are also used to manage waste. However only solidliquid separation for swine was costed in this model. The frequency factors for solid-liquid

separation by swine facilities were based upon industry data (USDA APHIS, 1995).

Frequency Factors: Solid-Liquid Separator - Swine Only

Region/Size Swine

MidWest/medium 7.7

MidWest/large 0

MidAtlantic/medium 2.3

MidAtlantic/large 1.5

For swine, Midwest/medium <2,500 head, and MW/large 2,500 head; MA/medium

<2,500 head, and MA/large 2,500 head.

5.9.2 Dilution factors, Retrofit and Water Recycle

The dilution factor is a value multiplied by the as-excreted manure to provide the volume of

manure as stored. The dilution factor has a value of one to three. A value of one means the

stored manure has roughly the same volume as the excreted manure, such as with layer manure. 

Even though broiler and turkey manure is usually handled as litter, fresh manure is 75-80 %
78

moisture. The loss of moisture during storage is approximately replaced by the bedding material. 

 A value of three means the manure is flushed and treated as a liquid. This was obtained by

adding typical slatted floor flush volumes (MWPS) to typical precipitation plus the volume of a

25 year 24 hour storm event, with a 15% safety margin and freeboard. A value of slightly less

than three reflects reductions in waste water volumes due to recycling of flush water and a

reduction in fresh water consumption. Reductions in dilution factors are also obtained by

reducing or eliminating precipitation from the liquid impoundments. The reduction of the

dilution factor results in large reductions in volumes of liquid manures that must be hauled, with

a corresponding reduction in hauling costs.

For example, a broiler house 40 ft x 400 ft with 25,000 birds has 4 inches of bedding to start,

with an additional inch of bedding added after every flock:

(40 ft) x (400 ft) x (4 inches + 1 inch x 5.5 flocks) = 12, 670 cubic feet of litter

Fresh manure production from the single house is:

25,000 broilers x .14 lb manure/day x 49 days/flock x 5.5 flocks per year = 

943,250 lbs manure

The density of broiler manure is 63 lbs per cubic foot, thus the house produces 14,972 cubic feet

manure. Roughly 80 percent of the manure (or 12,000 cubic feet) is moisture, which is replaced

the bedding.

5.9.2.1 Use of Dilution Factors in the Cost Model

Liquid manure is flushed from swine and poultry houses with varying amounts of water. To

ensure that manure and water volumes not be underestimated a dilution factor of 3 was selected

as baseline (see above). This value is multiplied by the manure production in an approach

similar to USDA NRCS (1998). Thus, an operation that produces 1,000 gallons of manure “as

excreted” actually produces 3,000 gallons of material after flushing. The resulting volume is thus

the estimated annual pumpdown volume.

As a comparison, the University of Missouri estimates annual pumpdown volumes based on

contributions from manure, daily fresh water inputs, net rainfall, and runoff. Though pumpdown

will vary by rainfall and climate, the Missouri model predicts the dilution factor used by EPA

may overestimate the volume of effluent associated with lagoon operations. EPA decided to

maintain the value of 3 as a conservative dilution factor.

Lagoon Construction: Characteristics of a successfully operating animal waste lagoon vary

throughout the U.S. Anaerobic lagoons for treatment of animal waste are designed on the basis

of waste load added per unit volume of lagoon capacity. Total design volume equals the

minimum design volume plus annual volume of livestock wastes produced plus the volume

runoff plus the washdown water volume between pump out periods. Total design volume was

calculated from the volume of manure as excreted times a dilution factor. The dilution factor for

swine lagoons was set to three to account for flush water. An additional 15 percent was added as

a safety factor for freeboard. For anaerobic lagoons, the design depth should be as deep as

practical depending on site conditions. Where soil and groundwater conditions permit, depths of
79

20 feet may be used (ASAE, 1998). To account for unsuitable soil or groundwater conditions, a

depth of 12 feet was selected for lagoon construction.

Lagoons were assumed to be square. Side slopes were set to a ratio of 2:1 based on MWPS

(1993). The cost of constructing a lagoon was calculated by multiplying the total volume of soil

to be excavated by the cost to excavate. NCSU determined that the all-inclusive cost for

excavation was $2.60 per cubic yard.

5.9.2.2 Reduced Costs by Recycling Flush Water

Settling Basin Construction and Recirculating Pump: For operations with inadequate land to

apply manure (Category 2 type operations), costs for a settling basin and a recirculating pump

were estimated to reduce overall water use. Once the solids settle in the settling basin, the water

is directed to the original lagoon where it is further cleaned. It is assumed that this cleaner water

will suffice for recycling to flush the swine house. This resulted in a decrease in the dilution

factor from 3 to 2 for Category 2 type operations. The excavation costs for the settling basin is

the same as for lagoon construction (see previous section). The settling basin was sized to hold

20 days of the waste material. This amount of time allows for solids to settle (ICF, 1999) and

some anaerobic digestion to occur. Additional costs include 250 feet of 6-inch pipe that cost

$2.13 per foot (Tetra Tech, 1999 memo “Costs of Storage, Transportation, and Land Application

of Manure”) plus four hours of labor ($10 per hour) to install the pipe. A pump to recycle water

from the original lagoon was assumed suitable to recycle the cleaner water for flushing. 

Cleanout and hauling of the sludge from the settling basin was assumed to be cost neutral even

though the frequency would have to increase compared to cleanout and hauling of sludge from

the original lagoon. Operation and maintenance of the settling basin was 2 percent of the total

initial cost.

5.9.2.3 Retrofit to Scraper System

When facilities are retrofit to a scraper system, the dilution factor is 1. No additional water is

added and scraped material is moved to a covered steel tank to limit dilution by rain. Scraper

systems were applied to both swine and wet-layer facilities. One retrofit unit was required for

each 1,250 hogs or 25,000 layers. Initial costs include the retrofit setup including motor, blade,

steel tank, and closure of the old lagoon. Annual operation and maintenance include labor,

electricity, replacement blades and the standard 2 percent of initial costs.

The initial retrofit setup costs are $36,000 for the installation and $200 for the motor for each

retrofit device. Annual costs include motor usage (897 kWh @ $0.095 per kWh), replacement

blades ($30), labor (52 hours @ $10 per hour), and 2 percent of initial costs ($724). A steel tank

for storage of scraped materials was sized based on manure production by USDA NRCS (1998)

at a cost of $0.18 per gallon. 

Lagoon Cleanout: USDA NRCS developed an interim standard for closure of lagoons used in

North Carolina. NCDENR (1999) prepared a list of all the lagoon closures that have been cost-
80

shared by the North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program. In a collection 65 dairy, beef,

poultry, and primarily swine lagoons, the average cost to clean out the lagoon was $0.031 per

gallon. This value was used to estimate the cost of lagoon cleanout nationally.

5.9.2.4 High Rise Houses

Menke et al. (2000) evaluated the construction costs for a two-story confinement housing design. 

Material falls through open slots onto the first floor where it is composted with carbon-rich

material. A highrise house for 1,000 head of finishing pigs is 44 ft x 190 ft. On a per pig basis,

a traditional deep pit house in Indiana/Ohio costs $155-160 per animal; a lagoon style flush

house costs $145 per animal; the highrise building costs $185 per animal. The highrise building

costs include professional engineering design that meets NRCS design standards. Building a

deep pit house to these standard was estimated to increase a the construction cost of a deep pit

house by $15,000 ($15 per animal).

Operation and maintenance costs for a highrise hog facility were estimated at 2 percent of initial

costs. Additional costs include energy costs and drying agents. Energy costs for a traditional

confinement building are estimated at $2,500 to $2,800 per year. The highrise building has

average monthly costs of approximately $400 or $4,800 annually. Drying agents evaluated

include wheat straw, corn stalks, and wood shavings. Around 50 to 60 tons of wood shavings are

needed to start the house with two feet depth of material at an annual cost of $4,000 to $5,000

per year. In contrast, five feet of straw or corn stalk material are needed to absorb similar

amounts of moisture. Even at a lower costs of $9 to $10 per 1,200 pound bale of corn stalks, the

higher volumes to be handled offset the cost savings. Straw and corn materials also tend to

degrade and compost more rapidly than wood requiring more frequent addition of drying material

to the house.

5.9.2.5 Digesters and Recycle Flush Treatment for Option 5

Digesters or recycle flush treatments both reduce the amount of water added to manure. For

digesters, a covered lagoon eliminates rain from entering the lagoon. Lagoon cover costs are

described below. Recycle or recirculating flush treatments limit additional water additions from

rain. Both digesters and recycle flush practices allow cleaner, treated water to be re-used for

flushing manure.

Lagoon Covers: According to the American Society of Agricultural Engineers standards (ASAE,

1998), a minimum lagoon depth of 5 feet is necessary for construction of anaerobic lagoons. 

Approximately 20 feet is considered the maximum depth to ensure proper biological activity. 

For this analysis 12 feet was selected as the maximum depth of all lagoons. The side slopes for

lagoons were assumed to be 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) (MWPS, 1993, and ASAE, 1998), and

the lagoon shape was assumed to be square. The surface square footage was then calculated to

determine the costs of a lagoon cover. 
81

Several lagoon cover manufacturers were contacted to identify costs of purchasing and installing

lagoon liners. The results of the survey are shown in Table 5-10. Installed lagoon covers range

from $1.20 to $4.81 per square foot, with lower costs per square foot expected at larger

installations and depending whether insulation is required. Thus, to develop costs for installation

of insulated lagoon covers, a cost of $4.00 per square foot was assumed.

Operation and maintenance costs for lagoon liners were estimated at 2 percent of initial costs.

5.9.3 Transportation of Excess Manure

Category 2 type facilities do not have enough land to apply all their manure and must transport

some off-farm. Category 1 type operations have enough land to apply manure and Category 3

type operations already pay to transport their manure. The number of Category 1, 2, and 3 type

operations was identified in an analysis conducted by USDA’s Kellog et al. (2000). In their

analysis, Kellog et al. used the 1997 Census of Agriculture on a county by county basis to

determine how many operations have enough land, do not have enough land, or have no land to

apply manure on land. Facilities with “no land” did not raise any of the 24 major crops identified

in the 1997 Census. Results were presented nationally and were applied to the various model

farms. Dilution factors for Category 2 type wet manure operations were reduced to 2 due to

addition of a settling basin and a recirculating pump (see section 5.9.2.2).

5.9.3.1 Quantity of Manure to Be Hauled

To calculate the costs of hauling solid manure off-site, the mass of manure (including bedding)

was calculated using the tons of waste produced per animal per year (Table 5-11) and the number

of animals in the facility. For example, a 100,000-head broiler operation produces 1,597 tons of

manure per year (100,000 birds x 31.93 lb/animal/yr ÷ 2,000 lb/ton). 

Table 5-11. Animal and Manure Mass and Manure Quantity Values Used to Calculate the

Total Amount of Manure and Litter Produced by Each Operation

Manure Consistency Type of Animal Animal Mass (lb) Quantity of Manure

Liquid (gal/animal/yr) Grower-Finisher 110.0 300.36

Farrow-to-Finish 123.0 335.86

Breeder 374.5 1,022.60

Layer 3.7 9.40

Solid (lb/animal/yr) Broiler 2.5 31.93 (includes litter)

Integrated Layer 3.7 31.60 (includes litter)

Turkey Hen 8.8 78.05 (includes litter)

Turkey for Slaughter 13.8 122.40 (includes litter)

Integrated Turkey 11.3 100.23 (includes litter)

To determine the quantity of manure to be hauled off-site, a percentage can be calculated from

the ratio of available acres for land application versus the amount of land needed to apply all of

the nutrient of concern. For example, in the 100,000-head broiler operation mentioned above

with phosphorus-based nutrient management, 119 acres are available for land application on-site,
82

but 1,054 acres are needed to apply all of the phosphorus in the manure. Therefore, only 11

percent of the land required for manure application is available on-site, and 89 percent of the

manure needs to be transported off-site. To determine the mass of manure to be hauled, the total

mass of manure produced per year was multiplied by this percentage. For the 100,000-head

broiler operation, 1,416 tons of manure required transport (1,596 tons of manure produced x 89

percent).

For liquid manure, the quantity of manure to be disposed of (in gallons) was calculated from the

amount of manure excreted (see Table 5-11) multiplied by a weighted recoverable manure

correction factor (shown in Table 5-12) and a dilution factor of 2 or 3 (see discussion above). 

The ratio of land available for application vs. land needed for application can be used to derive

the number of gallons of manure that need to be hauled. 

Table 5-12. Recoverable Manure Correction Factors for Different Operation Types in

Different Regions 

Operation Type Region Recoverable Manure Correction Factor

Swine Central 0.95

Mid-Atlantic 0.97

Midwest 0.94

Pacific 0.90

Southern 0.96

Chicken Central 0.99

Mid-Atlantic 0.94

Midwest 0.98

Pacific 0.88

Southern 0.90

Turkey Central 0.75

Mid-Atlantic 0.97

Midwest 0.62

Pacific 0.94

Southern 0.72

5.9.3.2 Manure Hauling Distances

Due to lack of information on specific county manure excesses and deficits from the 1997

Census of Agriculture data, the following approach was used by EPA to develop transportation

distances for one-way hauling of excess manure from category 2 and 3 operations (Appendix E). 

Category 2 operations (see Section 4.2.4 for a discussion of categories), determined by manure

generation and nutrient application (based on 1997 Census of Agriculture Queries), have

different transportation distances depending on whether manure is applied on a nitrogen-based or

phosphorus-based application scenario. In the event that an operation has insufficient land to

apply manure on a nitrogen basis, Equation 1 was used to estimate transportation distance:
83

Ndistance
ICD (1)

Pdistance
ICD (OCD	ICD)

3 (2)

P3distance
 (OCD	ICD)

3 (3)

where Ndistance is the transportation distance (miles) for category 2 operations with manure applied

at agronomic N rates and ICD is the in-county transportation distance (miles) from Table 5-13. 

The procedure used to calculate values in Table 5-13 is described in Appendix F and G, but the

values in Table 5-13 resulted from the combination of regions (e.g., Southern and Delta) for

which distances are given in Appendix F.

Transportation distance for category 2 operations with manure applied on an agronomic

phosphorus basis is determined by Equation 2:

where Pdistance is the transportation distance (miles) for category 2 operations with manure applied

at agronomic P rates (miles), OCD is the out-of-county transportation distance (miles) from

Table 5-13, and D is a factor that takes into account that some operations may have to transport

out of county while others may not. 

Category 3 operations have no land, and it is assumed that all are already incurring costs for

transportation on an agronomic nitrogen basis. Offsite recipients are most commonly crop

farmers that will accept and apply manure based on the nitrogen requirements of the crops. The

incremental transportation distance for switching to an agronomic phosphorus basis is depicted in

Equation 3:

where P3distance is the transportation distance (miles). This distance is used to determine

incremental hauling costs for Category 3 operations under technology options 2 through 8 (i.e.

where manure application rates may be limited to phosphorus based applications). 
84

Table 5-13 In-County Transport Distances and Out-of-County Transport Distances for the

Various Regions in the United States

Region In-County Transport (mi) Out-of-County Transport (mi)

Northeast, Appalachian 5.5 81

Southern, Delta 6.0 32

Northern Plains, Lake States, Corn

Belt

6.5 17

Pacific 12.5 39

Mountain, Southern Plains 11.0 27

These equations have been used to calculate regional transportation distances. The results of the

equations are shown in Table 5-14.

Table 5-14. Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Operations 

for the Various Regions in the United States

Region Category 2 Category 3

N Basis P Basis N Basis P Basis

Northeast, Appalachian 5.5 30.5 0.0 25.0

Southern, Delta 6.0 14.5 0.0 8.5

Northern Plains, Lake States, Corn

Belt

6.5 10.0 0.0 3.5

Pacific 12.5 21.5 0.0 9.0

Mountain, Southern Plains 11.0 16.5 0.0 5.5

Note: All values rounded to the nearest 1⁄2 mile.

5.8.3.3 Manure Hauling Costs

For solid manure, hauling costs were based on the amount of manure to be hauled multiplied by a

dollar per ton rate that varied depending on the transport distance (which is an operation-specific

input parameter). For liquid manure, a baseline per gallon rate was assigned, with an additional

per mile charge for transport. Table 5-15 shows the rates that were used to estimate the costs of

hauling and applying solid and liquid manure over different distances. 
85

Table 5-15. Costs for Hauling Manure Off-Site for Solid and Liquid Manure 

Manure Consistency Distance Cost ($/ton)

Solid 1-90 miles $0.10 per ton

90-180 miles $0.23 per ton

More than 180 miles $0.18 per ton

Liquid Less than 1 mile $0.10 per gallon

Additional cost per mile $0.001 per mile

6.0 ENERGY COSTS

Technologies with high energy input tend toward high investment costs and high operating costs. 

With the exception of some runoff control situations, every nonpolluting waste management

technology uses energy from electric power or consumption of a common fuel. For technologies

such as land utilization of manure, the energy is used mainly for transferring or transporting the

waste material. For others, energy provides the mixing or aeration needed for efficient biological

treatment of the waste. For still other technologies, such as dehydration and pyrolysis, energy

input forces rapid physical or chemical changes in the waste material.

Energy costs are addressed indirectly in the cost model by adding 2 percent to all capital costs for

operation and maintenance. Operation and maintenance includes, but is not limited to, energy

costs.

7.0 COST MODEL STRUCTURE

The core of the cost model is the “Main” program that draws upon several subroutines and data

files to calculate costs associated with nearly one-thousand model feedlots. The Main program

and its subroutines input data files with model feedlot information, constants associated with

manure characteristics and cropping systems, frequency factors, numbers of farms represented by

each model, technology costs, and various other variables essential to the cost modeling effort. 

Outputs include fixed, fixed amortized, and annual non-amortized costs for facility upgrades,

land application, and nutrient management.

The basic organization of the cost model for swine and poultry operations is depicted in Figure 6-

1.
86

%DVLF&DOFXODWLRQV

0DQXUH3URGXFWLRQ

1XWULHQW3URGXFWLRQ

1XWULHQWV5HTXLUHGRQ)DUP

([FHVV1XWULHQW3URGXFWLRQ

3UHSURFHVVRU6XE5RXWLQHV

 JHWQXPEHURIPRGHOIDUPV

 PDQXUHDQGQXWULHQWFKDUDFWHULVWLFV

 QXWULHQWDSSOLFDWLRQUDWHV

&RVW6XE5RXWLQHVIRU3UDFWLFHV

5HJLRQ6HFWRU6SHFLILF&RVWV

 )UHTXHQF\RI&RPSOLDQFH

 1XWULHQW0DQDJHPHQW3ODQQLQJ

 )DFLOLW\8SJUDGHV

 1XWULHQW5HGXFWLRQ6WUDWHJLHV

5HJLRQ6HFWRU1RQVSHFLILF

 &RQVWDQWVJURXQGZDWHU

PRQLWRULQJODERUUDWHVHWF

&RVW6XE5RXWLQHVIRU3UDFWLFHV

5HJLRQ6HFWRU6SHFLILF&RVWV

 )UHTXHQF\RI&RPSOLDQFH

 1XWULHQW0DQDJHPHQW3ODQQLQJ

 )DFLOLW\8SJUDGHV

 1XWULHQW5HGXFWLRQ6WUDWHJLHV

5HJLRQ6HFWRU1RQVSHFLILF

 &RQVWDQWVJURXQGZDWHU

PRQLWRULQJODERUUDWHVHWF

0RGHO2XWSXWV

 RQHSDJHSHUPRGHO

 RQHOLQHSHUPRGHO

 IRUWKHUHJXODWRU\RSWLRQV

0RGHO)DUPV

EDVHGRQSUHVHWFKDUDFWHULVWLFV

 VHFWRUVL]HUHJLRQODQG

 UHJXODWRU\RSWLRQ

2WKHUGDWDILOHVWKDW

SURYLGHFRQVWDQWVDQG

FRVWVIRUWKHYDULRXV

UHJLRQVVL]HVDQG

VHFWRUV
87

7.1 Program Code

The cost model for swine and poultry is written using DIGITAL FORTRAN 90, Version 6. The

Main program, subroutines, and data files are described below.

7.1.1 “Main” Program

Purpose: The Main program (file name = Main category option (000117).f90) calculates

practice-specific and total costs for each model facility. 

Data Called: This program draws on data files with model facility information, frequency

factors, constants associated with manure characteristics and cropping systems, labor rates,

numbers of farms represented by each model, technology costs, the effectiveness of technologies

and management strategies, and other cost and technical data. Subroutines are used by the

program to read data files and perform some calculations, as illustrated in Figure 6-1.

Sample Code: Code using compliance subroutine to read in frequency factors:

call compliance(animal,nohead,opertype,region,pswmon,ptrain,passess,pgwinst,&

pauger,pmansamp,pcalib,pbuff,pcnmp,pmantest,psoiltest,&

preckeep,pcaleqp,pgwmon,peros,pmortfac,pstor,pdep,pswdiv,pliner,&

pinsp,pmort,pswmom,plinerom,pdisk,pincorp,pinject,pinjom,pcp,pcpom,&

pfs,pfsep,psell,pgive,compliancefac)

Code to calculate volume of manure, and phosphorus and nitrogen in the manure:

manvol=nohead*animwt*mcvolume/1000*365*7.481 !value in gallons

manwt=nohead*animwt/1000*mcweight*2000*RMCF !2000 is conv. tons to lbs.

dilmanwt=mcwtdil*nohead*animwt/1000*365 !not converted into tons

mann=nohead*animwt/1000*mcweight*mcn*RMCF

manp=nohead*animwt/1000*mcweight*mcp*RMCF

Key Calculations: The basic equations used in the cost model are provided in Appendix G, and

variable names are defined in Appendix H.

Outputs: Outputs include fixed, fixed amortized, and annual non-amortized costs for facility

upgrades, land application, and nutrient management for each of the nearly one-thousand model

facilities for swine and poultry. See Section 6.3 for a sample output.

7.1.2 Subroutines

7.1.2.1 constants.f90

Purpose: Subroutine will input into memory constants to be used in various calculations

throughout the cost model program.
88

Data Called: Reads from the file, NutManDat.dat, the data shown in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1. Data Read by Subroutine Constants.f90

Data [variable name] (units) Value

Installing Groundwater Monitoring Well [gwinst] ($ initial cost) 2885

Time to Sample Groundwater Monitoring Well [gwtime] (hours per year) 1

Cost of water sample analysis [wateranal ] ($) 75

Assessment of crop field/groundwater link to surface water [assess] ($ per sample) 3082

Record Keeping and Reporting [reckeep] ($ per year) 880

Training and certification to land apply manure [train] ($ per 3 years) 117

Purchase a manure sampler [mansamp] ($, initial cost) 30

Manure nutrient analysis [mananal] ($ per sample) 40

Setup and time required to take first manure sample [manfirstsamp] (hours per sample) 1

Time required for additional samples [manaddsamp] (hours per sample) 0.25

Soil sampling frequency--low end [soilsampfreqlow] (acres/sample) 10

Soil sampling frequency--site specific approach [soilsampfreqhi] (acres/sample) 2.5

Purchase a soil auger [soilauger] ($, initial cost) 25

Time required to take sample--low end [soilsamptimelow] (hours per sample) 1

Time required to take sample--site specific approach [soilsampfreqhi] (hours per sample) 0.1

Cost of soil analysis ($ per sample) 10.0

Rate for obtaining a certified NMP [nmprate] ($/acre) 5

Purchase scale to calibrate manure spreader [calibinit] ($, initial cost) 250

Time required to calibrate manure spreader [calibann] (hours/year) 4

Tarp to calibrate manure spreader [tarp] ($/year) 15

Tractor cost ($/hour) 30

General labor rate [labor] ($/hour) 10

Professional labor rate [plabor] ($/hour) 55

Amortization rate [amort] (percent) 0.08

Property tax [ptax] (percent) 0.01

Standard maintenance [maint] 0.02
89

7.1.2.2 facupg.f90

Purpose: Reads into memory various constants used for facility upgrades.

Data Called: Reads from the file, FacUpg.dat, the data shown in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2. Data Read by Subroutine Facupg.f90

Data [variable name] (units) Value

Shaving material application depth [shavdep] (inches per year) 3.0

Rate of litter storage cleaning [litfreq] (per year) 1.0

Length of Litter Storage (months) 6.0

Time allowance for litter transfer to storage [stortrans] (hours) 30.0

Time allowance for litter storage cleaning [litclean] (hours) 30.0

Area of house [housarea] (square feet) 16000

Bulk price for wood shavings [shavcost] ($/cf) 0.10

Squarefoot cost of 4'high litter storage facility [storfaccost] ($ per square foot) 7.50

Lagoon Depth Marker [lagdepmark] ($, initial cost) 30.00

Diverstion berm top width [divtop] (feet) 1.0

Diversion berm height [divhei] (feet) 3.0

Diversion berm side slope [divslp] 2.0

Cost to move earth [earthmov] ($/cu.yd) 2.60

Time required for weekly visual inspection [visinsptime] (hours) 0.25

Cost of liner material [linercost] ($ per sq.ft) 1.60

Cost of insulated lagoon cover [covercost] ($ per sq. ft) 4.00

7.1.2.3 getnumber.f90

Purpose: To read the number of model facilities to determine the number of iterations to run in

the Main program.

Data Called: Reads the number of records from the file, ModelFac.csv.

Outputs: The number of iterations that the cost model must run.

7.1.2.4 readmodel cost.f90

Purpose: To read in model feedlot information

Data Called: Reads from the file ModelFac.CSV, the following data for each model facility: 
90

Animal type [animal]

Operation type [opertype]

Region [region]

Nutrient management basis (N or P) [nmbase]

Land application category [icat]

Transport distance [transport]

Number of facilities [nofac]

Average farm size [farmszorig]

Number of head [nohead]

Manure type [mantype]

Operation size ID [sizeid]

7.1.2.5 Readregion Cost.f90

Purpose: Reads Regional data for use in Main program.

Data Called: Reads from the file, Region.dat, the following data:

Animal type [animal]

Operation type [OperType]

Region [Region]

Recoverable manure correction factor [RMCF]

Nitrogen uptake [nuptake]

Phosphorus uptake [puptake]

7.1.2.6 nutdatacost.f90

Purpose: To read in the manure characteristic data and cropping system data.

Data Called: Reads from the file, ManChar.dat, the following data:

Type of operation [Opertype]

Animal turnover rate [turns]

Average weight of animal [animwt]

Manure characteristics, weight of manure produced (lbs/day/1000lbs) [mcweight]

Manure characteristics, [mcwtdil]

Manure characteristics, volume of manure produced (cubic feet/day/1000#) [mcvolume]

Manure characteristics, moisture content of fresh manure [mcmoist]

Manure characteristics, nitrogen in manure (lbs/day/1000#) [mcn]

Manure characteristics, efficiency of nitrogen application to field [mcneff]

Manure characteristics, phosphorus in manure (lbs/day/1000#) [mcp]

Manure characteristics, efficiency of phosphorus application to field [mcpeff]

Manure characteristics, potassium in manure (lbs/day/1000#) [mck]

Manure characteristics, efficiency of potassium application to field [mckeff]

Dilution factor [dilfac]

Percent of birds that die in one turnover of animals [pctdead]
91

Average weight of animals at death [deadwt]

Length of animal life [deadlen]

7.1.2.7 compliance.f90

Purpose: To read data on frequencies at which practices are currently implemented on model

facilities..

Data Called: Reads from the file, Compliance.csv, the following:

Animal type [animal]

Number of head [nohead]

Operation type [opertype]

Region [region]

Surface water monitoring, including operation & maintenance [pswmon]

Training and certification of manure applicators [ptrain]

Assessment of ground water linkage to surface water [passess]

Ground water monitoring well installation [pgwinst]

Soil sampling auger [pauger]

Manure sampler [pmansamp]

Scales (two) for manure spreader calibration [pcalib]

Stream buffer and O&M [peros]

Initial development of comprehensive nutrient management plan [pcnmp]

Manure testing [pmantest] or [pmtest]

Soil testing [psoiltest] or [pstest]

Record keeping [preckeep] or [preckp]

Calibration of manure spreader [pcaleqp] or [pcal2]

Ground water sampling [pgwmon]

Mortality composting/rendering facility [pmortfac]

Adequate storage [pstor]

Lagoon depth marker [pdep]

Storm water diversion & operation and maintenance [pswdiv]

Lagoon liner [pliner]

Visual inspection [pinsp]

Mortality compost facility operation and maintenance [pmort] 

Lagoon liner operation & maintenance [plinerom] and [plinOM]

Feeding strategies [pfs]

Solid-liquid separator [pfsep]

7.1.2.8 nutred.f90

Purpose: To read in constant data regarding feeding strategies, solid/liquid separator costs, etc.,

to reduce excess nutrients.

Data Called: Reads from the file, NutRed.dat, the data shown in Table 7-3.
92

Table 7-3. Data Read by Subroutine Nutred.f90

Data [variable name] (units) Value

N reduction in manure from feeding strategies 0.20 

P reduction in manure from feeding strategies 0.40 

Feeding strategy for P costs per pig 0.36 

Feeding strategy for P costs per chicken 0.0055

Feeding strategy for N costs per pig 2.70 

Feeding strategy for N costs per chicken 0.055 

Costs of hauling and applying liquid manure <1 mi($/gal) 0.10 

Additional costs for liquid ($/mile) 0.001 

Costs of hauling and applying solid manure 1-90mi ($/ton) 0.10 

Costs of hauling and applying solid manure 90-180mi ($/ton) 0.23 

Costs of hauling and applying solid manure >180mi ($/ton) 0.18 

Cost of separation device 5000.00 

Separation safety factor (additional storage) 0.15 

Separator efficiency 0.30 

Solids content of separated manure 0.23 

Pipe length to connect lagoon to separator (feet) 250.00 

Cost of pipe ($/foot) 2.13 

Cost of installing a steel storage tank ($/gallon) 0.18 

Time required to install pipe and set up separator (hours) 4.00 

Amount of P transferred after separation (X1000) 58.00 

Amount of N transferred after separation (X1000) 58.19 

Retrofit initial investment per 1,250 swine 36000.00 

Retrofit 1/4 HP Motor per 1,250 swine 200.00 

Retrofit motor usage per day kWh 897.00 

Electricity Cost per kWh ($) 0.095 

Retrofit labor required per year (hours) 52.00 

Retrofit blades required per year 30.00 

HighRise Construction ($/pig space) [confconst] 185.00 
93

HighRise Fuel, Repairs, and Utilities ($/pig space) [confmisc] 3.22 

Hoop Structure Construction ($/pig space) [hoopconst] 55.00 

Hoop Feed and Manure Equip ($/pig space) [hoopfm] 36.00 

Hoop Bedding ($/pig space) [hoopbed] 4.20 

Hoop Fuel, Repairs, and Utilities ($/pig space) [hoopmisc] 1.40 

Hoop labor (hours/pig space) [hooplab] 1.12 

7.1.2.9 sort.f90

Purpose: To select the least-cost alternative for each option.

Outputs: Least-cost alternative for each option for each model farm.

7.1.3 Data Files

Two types of data file structures are used: fixed-format files (*.dat) and variable-format files

(*.csv) where data elements are separated by commas.

7.1.3.1 ModelFac.csv

This file contains the following data elements regarding the model feedlots:

Animal type (e.g., swine, chickens)[AnimalType]

Operation type (e.g., farrow-to-feeder, broiler) [OperType]

Region (e.g., Mid-Atlantic, Midwest) [Region]

Nutrient management basis (P-based or N-based) [NMBase]

Land application category (1, 2, or 3) [Category]

Option [option]

Number of facilities in this category [facility]

Farm size: average acres of cropland available for nutrient management planning [farmsz]

Number of head [head]

Manure management system (liquid or solid)[mantype]

Facility size (large1, large2, medium1, medium2) [sizeid]

Sample Records

Swin,GF,MA,N,1,1,291,0,1242,liq,medium1,1,,#REF!,,

Swin,GF,MA,N,1,1,122,0,2184,liq,medium2,1,,#REF!,,

Swin,GF,MA,P,3,2,36,1,1242,liq,medium1,0.6

Swin,GF,MA,P,3,2,17,1,2184,liq,medium2,0.6

7.1.3.2 Region.csv

This file contains region-specific constants regarding manure and crop uptake of nutrients.
94

Animal type [animal] 

Operation type [Opertype]

Region [Region]

Recoverable manure correction factor [RMCF]

Nitrogen uptake [Nuptake]

Phosphorus uptake [Puptake]

Sample Records

BR,CE,0.95,215,15

BR,MA,0.97,183,20

7.1.3.3 Compliance.csv 

This file contains data elements regarding the extent to which practices are currently

implemented on model facilities. See Section 6.1.2.7 for a list of data elements contained in this

file. Section 5.1 contains the frequency factor values found in this file.

Sample Records

BR,CE,100000,0,0,0,87.4,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,87.4,0,87.4,30,0,0,87.4,0,87.4,0,87.4,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,,

BR,MA,100000,0,12.1,0,76.09,0,12.1,12.1,0,12.1,12.1,12.1,12.1,12.1,76.09,0,76.09,30,12.1,0,76

.09,0,76.09,0,76.09,0,0,0,0,0,0,85,0,,

7.1.3.4 ManChar.dat 

This file contains data regarding manure characteristics and cropping systems. See Section

7.1.2.6 for a list of data elements contained in this file.

Sample Records:

GF 2.8 110.0 14.69 14.69 1.00 0.90 2.82 1.00 2.80 1.00 7.16 1.00 3.00 0.05 110.0

123.0

FF 2.1 110.0 14.69 14.69 1.00 0.90 2.82 1.00 2.80 1.00 7.16 1.00 3.00 0.05 110.0

123.0

FX 1.72 110.0 14.69 14.69 1.00 0.90 2.82 1.00 2.80 1.00 7.16 1.00 3.00 0.05 110.0

123.0

7.1.3.5 NutManDat.dat 

This file contains constant data regarding nutrient management. See Section 6.1.2.1 for a listing

of all data elements and values contained in this file.

7.1.3.6 FacUpg.dat

This file contains constant data regarding facility upgrades. See Section 6.1.2.2 for a listing of all

data elements and values contained in this file.

7.1.3.7 NutRed.dat
95

This file contains constant data regarding feeding strategies, solid/liquid separator costs, etc., to

reduce excess nutrients. See Section 6.1.2.8 for a listing of all data elements and values

contained in this file.

7.2 Applications

Separate costs were developed for 960 model facilities for swine and poultry, as shown in Table

7-4. The total cost of each option for a specific animal type is then determined by multiplying

the costs of each model facility for that animal type by the number of facilities the model

represents, and then summing the costs.

Table 7-4. Number of Model Facilities by Animal Type

Animal

Type

Required

for ELGa

Options

Categories Regions Size Classes Total

Broilers 8 3 2 4 192

Layers - Wet 8 3 1 2 48

Layers - Dry 8 3 2 4 192

Turkeys 8 3 2 3 144

Swine - GF 8 3 2 4 192

Swine - FF 8 3 2 4 192

Total 960

a

 See Section 4.3 for a discussion of options

7.3 Outputs

Both formatted and unformatted outputs are created by the cost model. The following is a sample

formatted output for one model facility.
96

MODEL FACILITY Wed Mar 22 05:48:38 2000

 Chicken Broilers, litter on floor Mid-Atlantic Region

 Size of Operation 44193 head

 Nutrient Management Basis Nitrogen 

 Cattegory/Option 1/ 1

 Number of miles excess manure must be transported 0 miles

 Number of facilities in this category 158 facilities

 Acres of cropland only available on farm 0 acres

 CALCULATIONS

 Mass of fresh manure 1604.305 tons

 Mass of waste litter 705 tons

 Nitrogen produced 25829 lbs.

 Phosphorus produced 4241 lbs.

 Number of acres needed to apply Nitrogen 141 acres

 Amount of N required on farm 26087 lbs.

 Amount of P required on farm 2851 lbs.

 Tillable acres (less buffer) 142 acres

 Manure Given Away (%) 0

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FIXED FIXED ANNUAL 3 Years FREQUENCY TOTAL

 AMORT NON-AMORT

1)Fixed one-time costs

Training and certification for manure appl. $ 117. 16.60 98.

Assessment of crop field/GW link to SW GW $ 0. 0.00 0.

Ground water monitoring well installation GW $ 0. 76.09 0.

Surface water monitoring $ 0. 0.00 0.

Cost of soil auger $ 25. 0.00 25.

Cost of manure sampler $ 30. 16.60 25.

Cost of 2 scales for manure spreader calibration $500. 16.60 417.

Cost to develop initial NMP $ 739. 16.60 616.

2)Nonannual reoccuring costs

On-farm NMP development (every 3 years) $ 739. 16.60 616.

On-farm soil testing (every 3 years) $ 19. 16.60 16.

3)Annual Costs

Record keeping $ 880. 16.60 734.

Calibrate manure spreader $ 40. 16.60 33.

Manure testing (twice per year) $ 185. 16.60 154.

O&M for ground water monitoring GW $ 0. 76.09 0.

O&M for surface water monitoring $ 0. 0.00 0.

 Total (after including frequency) $467. 714. 922. 632. 2734.

FACILITY UPGRADES

1)Fixed one-time costs

Mortality composting facility GW $ 0. 76.09 0.

Storage (for poultry litter) $32186. 30.00 22530.

Lagoon depth marker $ 0. 16.60 0.

Divert storm water around structures $ 1443. 0.00 1443.

Field runoff control -- Establish buffer $ 531. 5.00 504.

2)Annual Reoccurring Costs
97

Visual inspection $ 130. 0.00 130.

Mortality composting operation and maint. GW $ 0. 76.09 0.

Storm water diversion operation and maint. $ 29. 0.00 29.

Field runoff control (O&M & land rental value) $ 329. 0.00 329.

 Total (after including frequency) $24477. 0. 488. 0. 24965.

LAND APPLICATION

1)Solid Manure Application

a) Solid manure application already practiced

b)Incorporation

Initial cost of disk harrow $0. 0.00 0.

Annual O&M for incorporation $ 0. 0.00 0.

 Total $0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

 Total (NMP, facility, land app) $24944. 714. 1410. 632. 5002.

 CONTINGENCY (1% CAPITAL COSTS) 245.

REDUCING EXCESS NUTRIENTS

No nutrient reduction scenarios required. Category 1 farm.
98

8.0 REFERENCES

A.C. Schultes, Inc., Woodbury, New Jersey. Personal communication, February 1999. 

ASAE. 1998. ASAE Standards 1998, 45th edition. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,

St. Joseph, MI.

ASC Scientific. 1999. ASC Scientific: Soil Augers and Sampling Tools.

<www.ascscientific.com>. Accessed September 30, 1999.

Brodie, H.L., and L.E. Carr. 1997. "Composting Animal Mortalities on the Farm." Fact Sheet

717. Maryland Cooperative Extension Service, University of Maryland. 

Carter, T.A., K.E. Anderson, J. Arends, J.C. Barker, S.S. Bunton, B. Hawkins, J. Parsons, D.V.

Rives, S.E. Scheideler, S.M. Stringham, and M.J. Wineland. 1993. Composting Poultry

Mortality: Poultry Science and Technology Guide. North Carolina Cooperative

Extension Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. December

1993. 

EPA (Tables 5-3 and 5-4) - Need to know how to cite this.

ESRI. 1998. ESRI Data & Maps CD No. 2: United States (Detailed). Environmental Systems

Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA. 

Lander, C.H., D. Moffitt, and K. Alt. 1998. Nutrients available from livestock manure relative to

crop growth requirements, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington,

DC.

Lazarus, W.F. 1999. Farm Machinery Economic Costs for 1999: Minnesota Estimates with

Adjustments for Use in Canada. Staff Paper P99-5. University of Minnesota,

Department of Applied Economics, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Menke, T, H. Keener, and G. Lefevre. 2000. Highrise Hog Housing Cost Information. Emailed

on to Tetra Tech on April 25, 2000.

MWPS. 1993. Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook, 3rd edition. Midwest Plan Service, Iowa

State University, Ames, IA.

NCDENR. 1999. Lagoon Closure Information. Memorandum to Mike Clipper, March 29, 1999. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Soil and

Water Conservation.
99

NCSU. 1998. Draft of Swine and Poultry Industry Characterization, Waste Management

Practices and Modeled Detailed Analysis of Predominantly Used Systems. North

Carolina State University, September 30.

NPPC. 1998. Environmental Assurance Program Survey. National Pork Producer Council.

Poultry Water Quality Consortium. 1998a. Composting - A Disposal Method for Dead Birds,

PMM/4 - 9/98, IN: Poultry Water Quality Handbook - Second Edition Expanded, Poultry

Water Quality Consortium, Chattanooga, TN. 

Poultry Water Quality Consortium. 1998b. Dry Waste Management, PWM/3 - 9/98, IN: Poultry

Water Quality Handbook - Second Edition Expanded, Poultry Water Quality Consortium,

Chattanooga, TN. 

Sharpley, A.N., T. Daniel, T. Sims, J. Lemunyon, R. Stevens, and R. Perry. 1999. Agricultural

Phosphorus and Eutrophication. USDA-Agricultural Research Service, ARS-149.

Sims, J., A. Leytem, F. Coale. 2000. Implementing a Phosphorus Site Index: The Delmarva

Experience. In Proceedings of 2000 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium. 

Sobecki, T.M., and M. Clipper. 1999. Identification of Acreage of U.S. Agricultural Land with a

Significant Potential for Siting of Animal Waste Facilities and Associated Limitations

from Potential of Groundwater Contamination-draft 12/15/99, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Sutton, A.L., D.W. Nelson, D.D. Jones. 1985. Utilization of animal manure as fertilizer. 

University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service. AG-FO-2613.

Tetra Tech. 1999. Phone Conversations on Lagoon Liners with J. Barker, NCSU and P. Wright,

Cornell University.

Tetra Tech. 2000a. Frequency Factors for Broiler and Turkey Facilities, Memorandum from

Tetra Tech, Inc., to Paul Shriner, Work Assignment Manager, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, March 3, 2000. EPA Contract 68-C-99-263, Work Assignment B-04.

Tetra Tech. 2000b. Memorandum to the record on Stream Density.

United Egg Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink. 1999. Data submission to EPA.

USDA. 1992. National Engineering Handbook: Agricultural Waste Management Field

Handbook. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA.
100

USDA APHIS. 1995. Swine ‘95. Part 1. Reference of 1995 Swine Management Practices. 

USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Animal Health Monitoring

System.

USDA APHIS. 1999. Part 1: Reference of 1999 Table Egg Layer Management in the U.S. 

USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Animal Health Monitoring

System. Fort Collins, Colorado.

USDA NAHMS. 1999. Data summaries of NAHMS Swine ‘95, prepared at request of EPA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, National

Animal Health Monitoring System. Washington, DC.

USDA NAHMS. 2000. Data summaries of NAHMS Layer ‘99, prepared at request of EPA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, National

Animal Health Monitoring System. Washington, DC.

USDA NASS. 1999a. 1997 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National

Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.

USDA NASS. 1999b. Queries run for EPA on the 1997 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.

USDA NRCS. 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to

Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the U.S. by Kellogg, Lander,

Moffitt, and Gollehon. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution

in Coastal Waters. EPA840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC. January 1993. 

USEPA. 1998. Site Visit Report to Iowa and Minnesota. Prepared by P. Shriner. May 1998. 

USEPA. 1999b. Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations,

http://www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm. Accessed on September 23, 1999.

USEPA. 2000. Water Quality Conditions in the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water. EPA841-F-00-006.

Wright, P. 1997. Survey of Manure Spreading Costs Around York, New York. ASAE Paper No.

972040. Presented at the ASAE Annual International Meeting, American Society of

Agricultural Engineers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 10-14, 1997.
Appendices-1

Appendices
Appendix A

Differentiating Breeding, Slaughter, and Integrated Operations

To: Jan Goodwin

From: Jon Harcum

Subject: Differentiating breeding, slaughter, and integrated operations

Date: December 14, 1998

This memo documents the approach used to distinguish between categories of animal sectors. Several

animal sectors (swine, chickens, turkeys, beef) have tended to specialize into operations that primarily (a)

grow out animals for slaughter (or egg production), (b) provide breeding or replacement stock, or (c) a

combination of breeding and grow out. In reality, animal operations do not easily fit into one of these

three categories, but are more likely to stretch across a spectrum. Nevertheless, EPA has determined to

model these specializations and it is now necessary to characterize the number of operations in each

specialization using data from the Census of Agriculture. Below are the specializations that EPA has

selected. Note, that broilers will be modeled but no specialization was selected, and that decisions about

modeling beef and dairy have not been made at this time.

Swine

< Slaughter (finishing)

< Breeding (farrowing)

< Integrated (farrow-to-finish)

Chickens (excluding broilers)

< Layers (egg production)

< Pullets (replacement)

< Integrated (layers and pullets)

Turkeys

< Slaughter 

< Breeding 

< Integrated 

Beef

< Cow-calf

< Slaughter

Using professional judgement it was determined for a given animal sector that if 95 percent of the

animals (in animal units) on an operation were breeding stock and less than 25 animal units were for

slaughter, then that operation is classified as an operation growing animals for breeding. Similarly if for

a given animal sector that if 95 percent of the animals (in animal units) on an operation were grown out

for slaughter and less than 25 animal units were breeding stock, then that operation is classified as an

operation for growing animals for slaughter. The remaining operations would be classified as integrated. 

Ultimately, the values of 95 percent and 25 animal units were heuristically chosen; however, the

following issues were considered:

< If 95 percent of the operation is dedicated to a specialty (e.g., breeding or grow out) then most of the

manure can be attributed to the specialty. It is also likely that this specialty accounts for a large

portion of the revenues associated for that animal sector.

< It is not uncommon for animal operations to have a few animals for show (at county or state fairs),

for personal slaughter, for 4-H or FFA projects, or out of tradition. (Granted 25 animal units of

layers is quite a lot of animals for showing at a county fair.)

< In a farrow-to-finish operation about 15 percent of the head are breeding stock.
Appendices-3

Appendix B

Crop Nutrient Requirements

To: Paul Shriner

From: Jed Waddell, George Townsend & Steve Dressing

Subject: Updated Crop Nutrient Requirements

Date: February 16, 2000

Contract: EPA Contract 68-C-99-263, Work Assignment B-04

Updated crop nitrogen and phosphorus requirements were refined to more adequately depict

conditions of the Model Farm. Extension personnel from counties with the densest populations

of animals were consulted to determine the common cropping practices for the all regions and

sectors. Although the Cost Model is only run on two principle regions for each sector, all regions

are presented in this analysis for their use in the Nutrient Loading Analysis.

County Extension personnel identified the typical crop rotation for each sector (Table 1). Crop

yields were determined by dividing the harvested quantity by the acreage obtained in the 1997

Census of Agriculture (USDA:NASS, 1999). Occasionally, yields were far below expected

yields and were changed to reflect expected yields found in the Ag Waste Management Field

Handbook (AWMFH, USDA, 1992). Crop nutrient removal was based on Appendix I, Table

A-1, Nutrient Content Values, for the major crops (Lander et al., 1998). The nitrogen application

rates was increased to reflect the 30 percent loss of nitrogen after land application of manure

(Sutton et al., 1985) due to volatilization of ammonia.
Appendices-4

Table 1. Crop Yields, Nutrient Removal and Application Rates from the Ag Waste

Management Field Handbook (AWMFH) for Typical Crops used on Swine and Poultry

Operations in the various Regions.

Sector Region Crop Yield† Census

Yield

Yield Unit Nitrogen

Removal

Phosphorus

Removal

Nitrogen

Application

Phosphorus

Application

Swine CE Corn 162 162 Bushels/acre 129 24 185 24

MA Corn 83 83 Bushels/acre 67 12 95 12

Soybean 28 28 Bushels/acre 100 10 143 10

Rye 25 25 Bushels/acre 26 4 38 4

MW Corn 135 135 Bushels/acre 108 20 154 20

Soybean 48 48 Bushels/acre 170 17 242 17

PA Corn chop 23 23 Tons/acre 160 24 228 24

Oats 90 90 Bushels/acre 53 10 76 10

Alfalfa 7 7 Tons/acre 356 33 509 33

SO Bermuda 8 3 Tons/acre 150 15 215 15

Poultry CE Bermuda 8 4 Tons/acre 150 15 215 15

MA Corn 123 123 Bushels/acre 98 18 140 18

Soybean 27 27 Bushels/acre 94 10 135 10

Wheat 63 63 Bushels/acre 64 13 91 13

MW Fescue 5 3 Tons/acre 99 10 141 10

PA Corn chop 23 23 Tons/acre 165 24 236 24

Oats 102 102 Bushels/acre 60 11 86 11

Alfalfa 7 7 Tons/acre 352 33 503 33

SO Fescue 5 4 Tons/acre 99 10 141 10

† Yields were taken from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. The census combined information for the specific grass

varieties (e.g. fescue and bermudagrass) occasionally resulting in lower yields when compared to AWMFH. Where

sizeable discrepancies were identified (Swine, SO; Poultry, CE, MW, SO) AWMFH yields were used instead of

census yields. 

The average annual nitrogen and phosphorus crop removal and application rates were calculated

by dividing the total crop requirements over the time to complete a full crop rotation (Table 2). 

Also given in Table 2 are other estimates of regional nitrogen requirements by Clipper and

Shriner for comparison. Clipper’s estimates were derived after conversation with county

extension agents. Shriner’s estimates were based on averaging all 24 crops and pastureland

presented in the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA:NASS, 1999). There is no clear pattern in

the estimates (one estimation method is neither consistently higher or lower than the others). 
Appendices-5

Table 2. Comparison of Nutrient Removal and Application Rates from the 

1997 Census of Agriculture with County Extension Values or 

Using 24 Crops and Pastureland Information in the Census.

Sector Crops† Region Nitrogen

Removal

Phosphorus

Removal

Nitrogen

Applicatio

n

Phosphorus

Application

Extension

Values for

Nitrogen‡

24 Crops and

Pasture for

Nitrogen¶

Swine corn CE 129 24 185 24 185 110

Swine c/sb/rye MA 97 14 138 14 130 137

Swine c/sb MW 139 19 198 19 155 159

Swine c/o/al PA 178 18 407 34 300 129

Swine bermuda SO 150 15 215 15 300 141

Poultry bermuda CE 150 15 215 15 250 110

Poultry c/sb/wt MA 128 20 183 20 130 137

Poultry fescue MW 99 10 141 10 130 159

Poultry c/o/al PA 141 14 412 34 300 129

Poultry fescue SO 99 10 141 10 175 141

† Cropping system abbreviations: c, corn; sb, soybean; wt, wheat; o, oats; al, alfalfa. Bermuda and fescue refer to

the typical hay crop.

‡ Values developed from Mike Clipper’s contact with county extension agents.

¶ Values developed by Paul Shriner using 1997 Census of Agriculture and AWMFH.

Bibliography

Lander, C.H., D. Moffitt, and K. Alt. 1988. Nutrients available from livestock manure relative to

crop growth requirements. USDA, NRCS, Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning

Working Paper 98-1.

Sutton, A.L., D.W. Nelson, D.D. Jones. 1985. Utilization of animal manure as

fertilizer.University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service. AG-FO-2613.

USDA:NASS. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture. 
Appendices-6

Appendix C

Draft Methodology for Estimating Storage Requirements for Option 7

MEMORANDUM

TO: Ron Jordan, EPA

FROM: Deb Bartram, ERG

DATE: 23 January 2001

SUBJECT: Draft Methodology for Estimating Storage Requirements for Option 7

This memorandum presents a draft methodology for the estimation of storage requirements for

concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) under Option 7. Option 7 includes all requirements of

Option 2 (phosphorus-based application), plus additional restrictions on when manure and manure

effluent may be applied.

I Background

Under Option 7, CAFOs would be restricted from applying manure and manure effluent to ground that is

frozen or covered with snow. Therefore, these operations would need sufficient capacity in their storage

systems to retain the manure and manure effluent that is generated during periods of the year when it

cannot be applied.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC)

has published freeze/frost data for over 3,100 observation sites in the United States (1). Freezing

temperatures are classified based on their effect on plants:

Light Freeze (29 - 32(F) - tender plants killed, with little destructive effect on other

vegetation.

Moderate Freeze (25 - 28(F) - widely destructive effect on most vegetation with heavy

damage to fruit blossoms, tender, and semi-hardy plants.

Severe Freeze (24(F and less) - heavy damage to most plants. At these temperatures,

the ground freezes solid, with the depth of the frozen ground dependent on the duration

and severity of the freeze, soil moisture, and soil type.

The NOAA/NCDC publication contains probability tables for the probable first and last occurrence of

freeze-related temperatures for three different freeze temperatures (36(F, 32(F, and 28(F), as well as

the probable duration of the freeze-free period occurring between the last spring freeze and the first fall

freeze. The temperature data used in their analysis covers 1951 through 1980.

II Determination of Storage Requirements for Option 7

The NOAA/NCDC data can be used to determine the amount of storage capacity that CAFOs would

need under Option 7. For this analysis, it was assumed that CAFOs would only be able to apply manure

and manure effluent between the time of the last spring frost and the first fall frost (referred to as the

“freeze free period”). The freeze free period for the 28(F temperature threshold with a 90% probability
6

The 90% probability level for the freeze free period means there is a 90% chance that the freeze free

period may actually extend longer (thereby reducing storage requirements). 

Appendices-7

level can be used to estimate the duration of this freeze free period.6 This assumption is somewhat

conservative, since it is possible for temperatures to thaw the ground sufficiently prior to the last frost of

the season. 

Table 1 presents the duration of the freeze free period for each model farm. The freeze free period was

determined for an observation site located within or closest to each model farm county. In addition, the

average duration of the freeze free period was calculated for the state in which each model farm is

located. The more conservative (i.e., shorter) freeze free period between these two values is bolded in

the table and was used to determine storage requirements for that model farm.

Table 2 presents the recommended storage required for each model farm under Option 7. These

storage requirements equal 365 days minus the bolded freeze free period from Table 1, and are

rounded up to the nearest 45-day increment.

III References

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Climatic Data Center, Freeze/Frost Data. Climatography of the U.S. No. 20,

Supplement No. 1, January 1988. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/documentlibrary/

freezefrost/freezefrost.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2000.
Appendices-8

Table 1. Summary of Freeze Free Period for Model Farm Locations1

Animal Type Region

Model Farm

County (State)

Weather

Station

Freeze Free

Period

Avg. Freeze Free

Period for State

Beef Pacific Imperial (CA) Imperial 351 257

Central Deaf Smith (TX) Amarillo 191 243

Midwest Scott (KS) Scott 171 180

Mid-Atlantic Lancaster (PA) York 167 161

South Okeechobee (FL) Avon Park 340 320

Dairy Pacific Tulare (CA) Hanford 256 257

Central Erath (TX) Hico 226 243

Midwest Marathon (WI) Wausau 144 141

Mid-Atlantic Wyoming (NY) Batavia 164 153

South Okeechobee (FL) Avon Park 340 320

Swine Pacific Tulare (CA) Hanford 256 257

Central Yuma (CO) Wray 147 118

Midwest Sioux (IA) Hawarden 148 161

Mid-Atlantic Duplin (NC) Goldsboro 218 196

South Oglethorpe (GA) Athens WSO 226 229

Poultry Pacific Fresno (CA) Fresno WSO 289 257

Central Shelby (TX) Henderson 241 243

Midwest Barry (MO) Seligman 187 184

Mid-Atlantic Wicomico (MD) Salisbury 201 190

South Benton (AR) Benton 204 212

1

 The freeze free period used in the analysis is defined as the period of time when temperatures will stay above 28(F

with a 90% probability that the warm temperature period will actually be longer than what is stated.

Table 2. Required Storage Days by Animal Type and Region1

Animal

Type

Region

Pacific Central Midwest Mid-Atlantic South

Beef 135 180 225 225 45

Dairy 135 180 225 225 45

Swine 135 270 225 180 180

Poultry 135 135 180 180 180 1

Required storage days are calculated as 365 days minus the freeze free period shown in Table 1, rounded up to the

nearest 45-day increment.
Appendices-9

Appendix D: Frequency Factors of Compliance for Cost Items

Broilers: Percent of Facilities That Already Incur Costs

Component

Mid-Atlantic South

Source 300-1,000

AU

>1,000 AU 300-1,000 AU >1,000 AU

Certification of manure

applicators

16.6 12.1 0 0 State Regs

Already assess GW link to SW 0 0 0 0 EPA

GW well installation 76.09* 76.09* 77.55* 77.55* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

SW monitoring; O&M 0 0 0 0 State Regs

Soil auger 16.6 12.1 0 23.1 State Regs

Manure sampler 16.6 12.1 0 0 State Regs

Scales (2) for spreader

calibration

16.6 12.1 0 0 State Regs

Initial NMP development 16.6 12.1 0 23.1 State Regs

NMP on-farm recurring 16.6 12.1 0 0 State Regs

Soil testing 16.6 12.1 0 23.1 State Regs

Record keeping 16.6 12.1 0 23.1 State Regs

Calibration of manure spreader 16.6 12.1 0 0 State Regs

Manure testing 16.6 12.1 0 0 State Regs

GW sampling 76.09* 76.09* 77.55* 77.55* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

Mortality - composting and

O&M

76.09* 76.09* 77.55* 77.55* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

Adequate storage 30 30 30 30 EPA

Storm water diversions and

O&M

0 0 0 23.1 State Regs

Stream buffer and O&M 0 0 0 0 State Regs

Visual inspection 0 0 0 23.1 State Regs

Feeding strategies 100 100 100 100 EPA

Note: GW = ground water, SW = surface water, NMP = nutrient management planning, O&M = operation and

maintenance.

* Represents the percentage of facilities that will not incur this cost due to their location.
Appendices-10

Turkeys: Percent of Facilities That Already Incur Costs

Component

Mid-Atlantic Midwest

Source 300-1,000

AU

>1,000 AU 300-1,000 AU >1,000 AU

Certification of manure applicators 0.4 1.3 0 0 State Regs

Already assess GW link to SW 0 0 0 0 EPA

GW well installation 76.09* 76.09* 72.54* 72.54* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

SW monitoring; O&M 0 0 0 0 State Regs

Soil auger 0.4 1.3 0 10.1 State Regs

Manure sampler 0.4 1.3 0 10.1 State Regs

Scales (2) for spreader calibration 0.4 1.3 0 0 State Regs

Initial NMP development 0.4 1.3 0 0 State Regs

NMP on-farm recurring 0.4 1.3 0 0 State Regs

Soil testing 0.4 1.3 0 10.1 State Regs

Record keeping 0.4 1.3 0 10.1 State Regs

Calibration of manure spreader 0.4 1.3 0 0 State Regs

Manure testing 0.4 1.3 0 10.1 State Regs

GW sampling 76.09* 76.09* 72.54* 72.54* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

Mortality - composting and O&M 76.09* 76.09* 72.54* 72.54* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

Adequate storage 75 75 25 25 EPA

Storm water diversions and O&M 0 0 0 0 State Regs

Stream buffer and O&M 0 0 0 0 State Regs

Visual inspection 0 0 0 0 State Regs

Feeding Strategies 5 5 5 5 EPA

Note: GW = ground water, SW = surface water, NMP = nutrient management planning, O&M = operation and

maintenance.

* Represents the percentage of facilities that will not incur this cost due to their location.
Appendices-11

Layers (Wet and Dry-All Sizes): Percent of Facilities That Already Incur Costs 

Component Midwest Mid-Atlantic South Source

Certification of manure

applicators

5 5 5 UEP/UEA

Already assess GW link to SW 10.9 12.7 40 UEP/UEA

GW well installation 72.54* 76.09* 77.55* Sobecki and Clipper, 1999

SW monitoring; O&M 0 0 0

Soil auger 34.3 63.2 50 UEP/UEA

Manure sampler 70.6 56.2 75 UEP/UEA

Scales (2) for spreader calibration 61.8 29.6 50 UEP/UEA

Initial NMP development 69.4 56.7 75 UEP/UEA

NMP on-farm recurring 69.4 56.7 75 UEP/UEA

Soil testing 34.3 63.2 50 UEP/UEA

Record keeping 99 99 99 UEP/UEA

Calibration of manure spreader 61.8 64 50 UEP/UEA

Manure testing 70.6 56.2 75 UEP/UEA

GW sampling 72.54* 76.09* 77.55* Sobecki and Clipper, 1999

Mortality composting and O&M 72.54* 76.09* 77.55* Sobecki and Clipper, 1999

Adequate storage 72.54* 76.09* 77.5*5 Sobecki and Clipper, 1999

Storm water diversions and O&M 80.9 69.3 70 UEP/UEA

Stream buffer and O&M 80.9 69.3 70 UEP/UEA

Visual inspection 25 25 25 AFO strategy

Lagoon liner and O&M/wet layers 72.54* 76.09* 77.55* Sobecki and Clipper, 1999

Lagoon depth marker/wet layers 0 0 0

Feeding strategies 0 0 0

Note: GW = ground water, SW = surface water, NMP = nutrient management planning, O&M = operation and

maintenance.

* Represents the percentage of facilities that will not incur this cost due to their location.
Appendices-12

Swine: Percent of Facilities That Already Incur Costs 

Component

Midwest Mid-Atlantic

Source

< 2500 head >2500 head < 2500 head >2500 head

Certification of manure applicators 0 27.5 0 27.1 NAHMS

Already assess GW link to SW 1.1 23.1 7.4 12.3 NAHMS

GW well installation 72.54* 72.54* 76.09* 76.09* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

SW monitoring 4.6 27.9 5.7 17.9 NAHMS

Soil auger 0 94.0 0 94.0 NPPC, 1998

Manure sampler 0 71.9 0 71.9 NPPC, 1998

Scales (2) for spreader calibration 0 71.9 0 71.9 NPPC, 1998

Initial NMP development 10.7 46.9 24.9 69.4 NAHMS

NMP on-farm recurring 10.7 46.9 24.9 69.4 NAHMS

Soil testing 90 94.0 90 94.0 NPPC, 1998

Record keeping 71.0 98.9 93.1 99.9 NAHMS

Calibration of manure spreader 0 99.0 0 99.0 AFO strategy

Manure testing 2.1 38.3 6.1 29.9 NAHMS

GW sampling 72.54* 72.54* 76.09* 76.09* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

Mortality - composting and O&M 72.54* 72.54* 76.09* 76.09* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

Adequate storage 72.54* 72.54* 76.09* 76.09* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

Storm water diversions and O&M 0 50.0 0 50.0

Stream buffer and O&M 0 99.0 0 99.0

Visual inspection 0 25.0 0 25.0 AFO strategy

Lagoon liner and O&M 72.54* 72.54* 76.09* 76.09* Sobecki and

Clipper, 1999

Lagoon depth marker 0 99.0 0 99.0 AFO strategy

Feeding strategies (4 diets) 14.9 67.7 17.8 72.7 NAHMS

Solid - liquid separator 7.7 0 2.3 1.5 NAHMS

Note: GW = ground water, SW = surface water, NMP = nutrient management planning, O&M = operation and

maintenance.

* Represents the percentage of facilities that will not incur this cost due to their location.
Appendices-13

N ICD dis ce tan = [ ] 1

P ICD OCD ICD

dis ce tan

( ) = + [ ] −

3

2

P

OCD ICD 3 dis ce

3

tan 3 ( ) = [ ] −

Appendix E

Revised Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations

To: Paul Shriner, EPA

From: Jed Waddell, Jon Harcum, & George Townsend, Tetra Tech, Inc.

Subject: Revised--Revised Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations

Date: January 7, 2000

This memo revises the memo from July 8, 1999 for transportation distances for category 2 and 3 type operations. 

Due to lack of information from the manure program on county manure excesses and deficits from the 1997 Census

of Agriculture data, a new approach was identified during the January 7, 2000 meeting with EPA OST and OWM,

Tetra Tech, and ERG. 

Category 2 type operations, determined by manure generation and nutrient application (based on 1997 Census of

Agriculture Queries), have different transportation distances depending on whether manure is applied on a nitrogen

or phosphorus based application scenario. In the event that an operation has insufficient land to apply manure on an

agronomic nitrogen basis, equation 1 was used to estimate transportation distance:

where Ndistance is the transportation distance for category 2 type operation with manure applied at agronomic N rates

(miles) and ICD is the in-county transportation distance (miles) from table 2.

Transportation distances for category 2 type operations with manure applied on an agronomic phosphorus basis is

shown in equation 2:

where Pdistance is the transportation distance for category 2 type operations with manure applied at agronomic P rates

(miles), OCD is the out-of county transportation distance (miles) from table 2, and D is a factor that takes into

account that some operations may have to transport out of county while others may not. 

Category 3 type operations have no land and it is assumed that all are already incurring costs for transportation on

an agronomic nitrogen basis. The incremental transportation distance for switching to an agronomic phosphorus

basis is depicted in equation 3:

where P3distance is the transportation distance (miles).

These equations have been used to calculate regional transportation distances. The results of the equations are

shown in table 1. The variables OCD and ICD were obtained from the previous memo and are shown in Table 2.
Appendices-14

Table 1. Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 type Operations 

for the Various Regions in the United States.

Region Category 2 Category 3

N Basis P Basis N Basis P Basis

Northeast, Appalachian 5.5 30.5 0.0 25.0

Southern, Delta 6.0 14.5 0.0 8.5

Northern Plains, Lake States, Corn

Belt

6.5 10.0 0.0 3.5

Pacific 12.5 21.5 0.0 9.0

Mountain, Southern Plains 11.0 16.5 0.0 5.5

All values rounded to the nearest 1⁄2 mile.

Previous Memo “Revised Transportation for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations” June 1, 1999

This memo revises the information for Category 2 and Category 3 type farms regarding the distance needed to

transport manure by grouping various regions. Category 2 type operations require transportation of excess manure

inside the current county boundaries while Category 3 operations require transportation outside of the county. The

procedure was identical to that provided in a Tetra Tech memo (April 21, 1999, revised June 1, 1999). Note that incounty and out-of-county distances are rounded to the nearest 0.5 and 1.0 mile, respectively.

Table 2. In-County Transport Distances and 

Out-of-County Transport Distances for the Various Regions in the United States.

Region In-County Transport (mi) Out of County Transport (mi)

Northeast, Appalachian 5.5 81

Southern, Delta 6.0 32

Northern Plains, Lake States, Corn

Belt

6.5 17*

Pacific 12.5* 39*

Mountain, Southern Plains 11.0 27 **

* no changes

** not previously estimated since poultry and swine were not modeled in Mountain or Southern Plains states.
Appendices-15

Figure 1. Example calculation of In-County Transport Distances.

Appendix F

Transportation Distance for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations

To: Paul Shriner. EPA

From: George Townsend, Jon Harcum, and Jed Waddell, Tetra Tech, Inc.

Subject: Transportation Distance for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations

Date: April 21, 1999, revised June 1, 1999

Contract: EPA Contract 68-C7-0014, Work Assignment 27

This memo summarizes information for Category 2 and Category 3 type farms about the distance

needed to transport manure. Category 2 type operations require transportation of excess manure

inside the current county boundaries while Category 3 operations require transportation outside

of the county. Distances for in-county and out-county transport were calculated based on an

average county size for each region (see table 1). To further simplify transportation distance, a

square county was assumed. For in-county (off-farm) transport, it was assumed that transport

distance was 25 percent of the square root of the average area of the county (see figure). The

range of in-county transportation distances are shown in the table. 

Out of county transportation distances were calculated using a two-thirds centroid-to-centroid

distance. The two-thirds centroid was arbitrarily chosen since several surrounding counties may

be able to accept manure; transportation is not limited to the nearest county (for which a unit

centroid-to-centroid distance would be applied). 

The distance for out-of-county export assumed a phosphorus based application using Lander’s

results for manure production. In review of Lander’s nitrogen based analysis, the only region

with manure excesses was in the Southern region. Thus, to simplify calculation of transportation

distances, the phosphorus based transport distance was applied only to the Southern region for
Appendices-16

nitrogen based manure application. Lander’s phosphorus excess map was used to calculate

distances for the key areas of manure production. For example, in the Northeast, the key areas

are Delmarva and Southeastern Pennsylvania. In Delmarva, the distance from the centroid of

manure generation to the centroid of the furthest county is 114 miles and the manure excess is

9.6 million lbs of phosphorus. In Southeastern Pennsylvania, Lancaster county is the worst case

with an estimated distance of 56 miles and manure excess of 5.1 million pounds of phosphorus. 

In other counties the distance is between 12 and 30 miles with a manure excess of 0.6 million lbs

of P. Using a weighted average, the worst case transport distance for the three regions in

Delmarva and Southeastern Pennsylvania was 91 miles. Using two-thirds of this value, the

transportation distance for the Northeast became 61 miles. Thus, in regions with several smaller

adjacent counties with out-of-county transportation requirements, the distance is actually greater

than regions with larger counties (those without adjacent counties with excess manure). 

Table 1. Average County Size, In-County Transport Distances, and 

Out-of-County Transport Distances for the Various Regions in the United States

Region Average County

Size

In-County

Transport

Out of County

Transport

mi2 [A] mi mi

Northeast 689 6.5 61

Appalachian 410 5.0 88

Southern 567 6.0 37

Delta 662 6.5 17

Northern Plains 970 8.0 17

Lake States 820 7.0 17

Corn Belt 524 5.5 17

Pacific 2422 12.5 39

Mountain 3073 14.0 —*

Southern Plains 1010 8.0 —*

* No out-of-county transport required in these regions.
Appendices-17

Appendix G

Equations Used in Model Feedlot Costs Program

 MODEL FACILITY

 Swine Farrow-to-Finish Appachalian

 Size of Operation Constant read from input file

 Nutrient Management Basis Constant read from input file

 Number of miles excess manure must be transported Constant read from input file

 Number of facilities in this category Constant read from input file

 Average acres of cropland available on farm Constant read from input file

 Average number of head per facility Constant read from input file

 CALCULATIONS

 Volume of fresh Manure manvol=nohead*animwt*mcvolume/1000*365

 Mass of fresh Manure manwt=nohead*animwt*mcweight/1000*365

 Nitrogen produced mann=nohead*animwt*mcn/1000*365

 Phosphorus produced manp=nohead*animwt*mcp/1000*365.

 Number of acres needed to apply Phosphorus if (NMBase.eq.' P ') then

 totac=manp/(cornyld*cornpup)*mcpeff

 else

 totac=mann/(cornyld*cornnup)*mcneff

 Amount of N required on farm farmn=cornyld*cornnup*farmsz

 Amount of P required on farm farmp=cornyld*cornpup*farmsz

 NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FIXED ANNUAL

 1)Fixed one time costs

 Training and certification for manure appl. Constant read from input file

 Assessment of crop field/GW link to SW Constant read from input file

 Groundwater monitoring well installation Constant read from input file

 Soil Auger Constant read from input file

 Manure Sampler Constant read from input file

 Scale to calibrate manure spreader Constant read from input file

 2)Non-annual reoccuring costs

 CNMP development (every 5 years) cnmp=totac*nmprate

 Manure testing (every 3 years) 

 if (animal.eq.'Swin ') then

 numhouse=0

 else if (animal.eq.'Chic ')then

 if (nohead.le.25000) then

 numhouse=1

 else 

 numhouse=aint(nohead/25000.)

 endif

 else

 numhouse=aint(0.00016*nohead)

 endif

 mantest=(1+0.25*numhouse)*labor+(1+numhouse)*mananal
Appendices-18

 Soil testing (every 3 years) Soiltest=(totac/soilsampfreqlow*soilsamptimelow*la

bor)+&

 (totac*soilsampfreqlow*soilanal)

 3)Annual Costs

 Record keeping Constant read from input file

 Calibrate manure spreader calibrate=calibann*labor+tarp

 O&M for groundwater monitoring gwmon=2*(gwtime*labor +

wateranal)+gwinst*maint

 FACILITY UPGRADES

 1)Fixed one-time costs

 Mortality composting facility mortfac=nohead/deadlen*deadwt*pctdead*2.*storfaccost*1.5

 Storage (for poultry litter) if (animal.ne.'Swin ') then

 shavvol=(shavdep/12*housarea*litfreq*numhouse)

 dilman=shavvol+manvol

 storage=dilman/4*storfaccost

 else

 storage=0

 endif

 Lagoon depth marker if (animal.ne. 'Swin ') then

lagdep=0

 else

lagdep=lagdepmark

 endif

 Divert storm water around structures if (animal.eq. 'Swin ') then

 dilman=manvol*3.

 endif

swdivert=lagoon(animal,dilman,divslop,divtop,earthmov,& nohead,animwt)

Function

lagoon(animal,dilman,divslop,divtop,earthmov,nohead,animwt)

real dilman,divslop,divtop,earthmov,a,b,c,&

topwidth,depth,volume,sides,animwt

integer nohead

character*5 animal

sides=2. 2 sides for berming

if (animal.eq.'Swin ') then

volume=2.5*nohead*animwt

else

volume=dilman

endif

a=1. a is the ratio of top length to top width

depth=11. lagoon depth of 11 feet

b= -1*(divslop*depth+a*divslop*depth)

c= divslop**2. * depth**2. - volume/depth

topwidth=(-b+(b**2-4*a*c)**.5)/(2.*a)

lagoon=21./27. *(sides*(topwidth+20.))*earthmov

End Function lagoon

 2)Annual Reoccurring Costs

 Visual inspection visinsp=visinsptime*52*labor

 Mortality operation and maintenance mortann=90.*(tractor+labor)+maint*mortfac

 Moving manure out of house to storage moveman=((stortrans*labor+stortrans*tractor)*numhouse)

+maint*storage
Appendices-19

 LAND APPLICATION

 Erosion Control

 Calculate the miles of stream (0.976 miles of stream/square mile of land in US)

 Cost to take land out of production

 Note that the value "2" assumes river running through middle of farm

erosinit=farmsz*landriver/1000*vegcover*2

erosann=farmsz*landriver/1000*(landrent+maint*erosinit)*2

 1)Incorporation

 Initial costs to purchase disk harrow Constant read from input file

 Annual O&M for manure incorporation LandApp= disktime*(labor+tractor)*totac.+diskharrow*maint

 REDUCING EXCESS NUTRIENTS

 S1)Feeding Strategies

 N produced after feeding strategy implementation (mann*(1-fsnred))

 N remaining FSNremain= (mann)-farmn -(mann*FSNred)

 P produced after feeding strategy implementation (manp*(1-fspred))

 P remaining FSPremain= (manp)-farmp -(manp*FSPred)

 Acreage required for Phosphorus disposal if (nmbase.eq.' P ')then

FSacre=(manp*(1-fspred))/(cornyld*cornpup)*mcpeff

else

 FSacre=(mann*(1-fsnred))/(cornyld*cornnup)*mcne

ff

 endif

 Cost of implementing feeding strategies if (animal.eq.'Swin ') then

FScost=nohead*FScostpig

else

FScost=nohead*FScostchi

endif

 S2)Hauling with Feeding Strategies 

 Amount of manure to haul 1241405. gallons

 Cost of hauling $ 16596.

if (FSacre.le.farmsz) then

 Haul=0

 haulamount=0

else

 if (animal.eq.'Swin ') then

haulpct=1-real(farmsz)/real(fsacre)

haulamount=dilman*haulpct

Haul=(haulamOUNT/7.48)*HAULLIQ+haulliqadd*(transport-1)

 else

haulpct=1-real(farmsz)/real(fsacre)

haulamount=manwt*haulpct

if (transport.lt.90) then

haul= HAULAMOUNT/2000*haulS1*transport

elseif (transport.gt.180) then

haul=haulamount/2000*haulS3*transport

else

haul=haulamount/2000*haulS2*transport

endif

 endif

endif
Appendices-20

 S3)Hauling without Feeding Strategies 

 Amount of manure to haul 1336111. gallons

 Cost of hauling $17863.

if (totac.le.farmsz) then

Haulnofs=0

haulamountnofs=0

else

if (animal.eq.'Swin ') then

haulpct=1-real(farmsz)/real(totac)

haulamountnofs=dilman*haulpct

Haulnofs=(haulamountnofs/7.48)*HAULLIQ+haulliqadd*(transport-1)

else

haulpct=1-real(farmsz)/real(totac)

haulamountnofs=manwt*HAULPCT

if (transport.lt.90) then

haulnofs= HAULAMOUNTnofs/2000*haulS1*transport

elseif (transport.gt.180) then

haulnofs=haulamountnofs/2000*haulS3*transport

else

haulnofs=haulamountnofs/2000*haulS2*transport

endif

endif

endif

 S4)Separation and Hauling with Feeding Strategies

 Initial cost to install and set-up separator sepinit=shfsamttot*(1+sepsaffac)*tankcost+separator &

+pipelen*pipecost+seplabor*labor

 Amount of N in separated material shfsN=mann*sepn*(1-fsnred)

 Amount of P in separated material shfsP=manp*sepp*(1-fspred)

 Amount of manure to haul if (nmbase.eq.' P ')then

SHFSacre=shfsP/(cornyld*cornPup)*mcpeff

else

SHFSacre=shfsN/(cornyld*cornNup)*mcneff

endif

 shfsamttot=manvol*(1-mcmoist)*sepeff/sepsolid

 sephaulfsamt=shfsamttot*(1-farmsz/shfsacre)

 Cost to haul separated manure sephaulfs=(sephaulfsamt)/7.48*HAULLIQ+haulliqadd*(transport-1)

 S5)Separation and Hauling without Feeding Strategies

 Initial cost to install and set-up separator sepinit=shfsamttot*(1+sepsaffac)*tankcost+separator &

+pipelen*pipecost+seplabor*labor

 Amount of N in separated material shn=mann*sepn

 Amount of P in separated material shP=manp*sepp

 Amount of manure to haul if (nmbase.eq.' P ')then

SHacre=shP/(cornyld*cornPup)*mcpeff

else

SHacre=shN/(cornyld*cornNup)*mcneff

endif

if (SHacre.le.farmsz) then

sephaul=0

else

sephaulamt=shfsamttot*(1-farmsz/shacre)

 Cost to haul separated manure sephaul=(sephaulamt)/7.48*HAULLIQ+haulliqadd*(transport-1)
Appendices-21

Appendix H

Variable Names Used in Model Feedlot Costs Program

Variable Name Variable Represents

amort Amortization rate, percent

Animal Type of animal (e.g., swine, chicken, or turkey)

animwt Average weight of animal

assess Assessment of crop field/ground water link to surface water ($)

calibann Time required annually to calibrate a manure applicator

calibinit Initial costs for manure calibration (i.e., scale)

calibrate Calibrating manure spreader ($)

centerpivot Cost to set up a center pivot irrigation device

cnmp Obtaining a certified CNMP every 5 years ($)

cornyld Corn yield (bushels/acre)

cornnup Corn nitrogen uptake (lb/bushel)

cornpup Corn phosphorus uptake (lb/bushel)

cpann Annual costs to operate center pivot irrigation device

cpinit Initial costs to set up center pivot irrigation device

deadlen Length of animal life

deadwt Average weight of animals at mortality

dilman Volume of manure diluted with water (swine) or wood shavings (poultry)

diskharrow Cost to purchase a new disk harrow

disktime Time required to disk one acre

divtop Storm water diversion berm top width

divhei Storm water diversion berm height

divslp Storm water diversion berm side slope

earthmov Cost to move one cubic yard of earth

farmac Farm size minus buildings and non-arable land (acres)

farnesc Arable acres on farm (farm size minus buildings and erosion and sediment

controls)

farmp Amount of P required on farm

farmn Amount of N required on farm
Appendices-22

farmsz average acres of cropland available for nutrient management planning

fsacre Off-farm acreage required for land application of remaining nutrients

fscost Cost of feeding strategies

fscostpig Cost per animal required to implement feeding strategy

fsnremain N remaining after feeding strategy implementation

fsnred Feeding strategy N reduction efficiency

fspremain P remaining after feeding strategy implementation

fspred Feeding strategy P reduction efficiency

fstotac Total acres required to land apply manure after imposing feeding strategies

gwinst Installation of ground water monitoring wells ($)

gwmon O&M for ground water monitoring

gwtime Time required for ground water monitoring well sampling (hours)

haul Cost to haul manure influenced by feeding strategies

haulamount Amount of manure to apply off-farm in gallons (swine) or tons (poultry)

haulliq Cost to haul and apply liquid manure less than 1 mile

haulliqadd Additional cost to haul liquid manure

haulnosep Cost to haul manure without imposing feeding strategies

haulamountnosep Amount of manure to apply off-farm without feeding strategies

hauls1 Cost to haul solid manure less than 90 miles

hauls2 Cost to haul manure 90 to 180 miles

hauls3 Cost to haul manure more than 180 miles

housearea Area of house

incorp Incorporation of manure

labor General labor rate ($/hour)

lagdepmark Cost of lagoon depth marker

lagdepth Construction and installation of lagoon depth marker

landapp Cost to disk land required for land application of manure

landrent Cost for taking land for erosion and sediment control out of production

landriver Ration of stream length to land area (/1000)

litclean Time allowance for litter storage cleaning

litfreq Rate of litter storage cleaning
Appendices-23

maint Standard maintenance and repairs, percent

manaddsamp Time required for additional manure samples

mananal Cost of manure nutrient analysis

manappcap Capacity of manure application tank (gallons)

manappinj Cost of injectors for manure application tank

manapptank Cost of tank for manure application

maninjann Annual cost for injection of manure

maninjinit Initial cost for injection of manure

manfirstsamp Time required to set up and sample manure

manp Phosphorus produced in manure annually (lb P)

mann Nitrogen produced in manure annually (lb N)

mansamp Cost required to purchase and fabricate a manure sampler

mansurfinit Initial cost for surface application of manure

mansurfann Annual costs for surface application of manure

mantankapp Time required to apply manure (hours)

mantankhaul Time required to haul liquid manure (hours/mile)

mantankload Time required to load manure application tank (hours)

mantest Manure testing every 3 years

manvol Volume of manure produced annually (ft3

)

manwt Annual weight of manure

mck Manure characteristics, potassium in manure (lb/day/1000#)

mckeff Manure characteristics, efficiency of potassium application to field

mcmoist Manure characteristics, moisture content of fresh manure

mcn Manure characteristics, nitrogen in manure (lb/day/1000#)

mcneff Manure characteristics, efficiency of nitrogen application to field

mcp Manure characteristics, phosphorus in manure (lb/day/1000#)

mcpeff Manure characteristics, efficiency of phosphorus application to field

mcvolume Manure characteristics, volume of manure produced (ft3

/day/1000#)

mcweight Manure characteristics, weight of manure produced (lb/day/1000#)

mortann Annual operating and maintenance costs for mortality composting facility

mortfac Cost of building a mortality composting facility
Appendices-24

moveman Cost of moving manure to storage (for poultry litter)

NMBase Basis for nutrient management (i.e., nitrogen or phosphorus)

nmprate Rate charged by certified CNMP provider ($/acre)

nofac Number of facilities in a given region

nohead Number of head

numhouse Number of houses

Opertype Type of operation (e.g. farrow-to-finish, turkeys with fresh litter)

pctdead Percentage of birds that die in one turnover of animals

pipcost Cost of pipe

pipelen Length of pipe to connect lagoon to separator

plabor Professional labor rate ($/hour)

ptax Property tax, percent

reckeep Record keeping and reporting ($)

Region Region containing the model feedlot (e.g., Southeast, Corn Belt)

RMCF Recoverable manure correction factor

separator Cost of solids separation unit (e.g., static inclined screen)

sepeff Solid-liquid separation removal efficiency

sepinit Initial costs to construct and set up liquid-solid separator

sephaul Cost to separate and haul manure without imposing feeding strategies

sephaulamt Amount of manure to haul without imposing feeding strategies

sephaulfs Cost to separate and haul manure after imposing feeding strategies

sephaulfsamt Amount of manure to haul off-farm after separation and feeding strategies

seplabor Time required to set up separation facility

sepn Amount of N transferred to storage after separation

sepp Amount of P transferred to storage after separation

sepsaffac Safety factor to increase size for solids storage facility

sepsol Solids content of separated manure

shavcost Cost of bulk wood shavings

shavdep Depth of shavings applied to poultry houses

shavvol Volume of shavings

shfsacre Acreage required to apply separate manure after imposing feeding strategies
Appendices-25

soilauger Cost to purchase a soil auger

soilsampfreqlow Frequency of soil sampling - low end (acres/sample)

soilsampfreqhi Frequency of soil sampling - site-specific farming (acres/sample)

soilsamptimelow Time required to take soil sample - low end 

soilsamptimehi Time required to take soil sample - site-specific farming

soiltest Soil testing every 3 years ($)

storage Construction of extra storage (for poultry manure) ($)

storfaccost Square foot cost of 4 foot high litter storage facility for poultry waste

stortrans Time allowance for litter transfer to storage

swdivert Clean water diversion from storage facilities

tankcost Cost to build a steel storage tank for separated manure

tarp Tarp to calibrate manure applicator

totac Acreage required for disposal of “as is” manure

train Training/certification for land application of manure ($)

transport number of miles excess manure will need to be transported

turns Animal turnover rate

vegcover Cost to establish permanent vegetative cover ($/acre)

visinsp Visual inspection of facilities

visinsptime Time required to visually inspect waste storage, storm water diversion, etc..

wateranal Cost of water sample testing
Appendices-26

Appendix I

Regulatory Compliance Costs
Appendices - 27

Regulatory Compliance Costs for Swine (FF, farrow-to-finish; GF, grower-finisher) Indu

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 187 Large1 640 736 1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 868 Large1 635 742 1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 31 Large1 11,597 668 1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 145 Large1 11,495 739 1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 35 Large1 118,315 580 22,1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 163 Large1 116,232 580 22,1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 144 Large2 1,139 1,340 1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 306 Large2 1,040 1,228 1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 69 Large2 394,727 808 8,1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 147 Large2 24,943 976 1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 86 Large2 554,131 580 108,1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 182 Large2 448,511 580 87,1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 304 Medium1a 1,242 672 1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 2731 Medium1a 1,196 644 1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 22 Medium1a 7,500 689 1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 194 Medium1a 7,419 709 1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 34 Medium1a 33,260 580 5,1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 310 Medium1a 32,228 580 5,1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 203 Medium1b 1,449 745 1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1821 Medium1b 1,370 695 1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 14 Medium1b 8,999 685 1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 129 Medium1b 8,883 709 1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 23 Medium1b 54,889 580 9,1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 207 Medium1b 53,024 580 9,1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 135 Medium2 1,621 816 1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 696 Medium2 1,526 750 1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Medium2 10,285 720 1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 68 Medium2 10,266 752 
Appendices - 28

Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 20 Medium2 75,688 580 14,1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 104 Medium2 75,270 580 14,1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 288 Large1 643 738 1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 356 Large1 634 740 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 89 Large1 11,666 648 1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 110 Large1 11,452 699 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 81 Large1 119,757 580 29,1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 101 Large1 115,367 580 28,1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 154 Large2 883 975 1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 78 Large2 920 1,050 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 180 Large2 19,006 760 1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 92 Large2 20,421 892 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 94 Large2 290,778 580 73,1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 48 Large2 327,157 580 82,1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 247 Medium1a 1,281 685 1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 1432 Medium1a 1,222 651 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 30 Medium1a 7,735 639 1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 171 Medium1a 7,586 653 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 51 Medium1a 37,029 580 8,1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 294 Medium1a 34,999 580 7,1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 44 Medium1b 1,449 746 1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 256 Medium1b 1,360 692 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 5 Medium1b 41,311 639 1,1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 30 Medium1b 8,755 651 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Medium1b 54,985 580 12,1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 53 Medium1b 51,801 580 12,1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 122 Medium2 1,626 818 1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 314 Medium2 1,520 748 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 24 Medium2 10,311 709 
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 29

1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 62 Medium2 10,199 734 1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 29 Medium2 76,299 580 18,1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 74 Medium2 74,370 580 18,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 112 Large1 674 2,105 2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 521 Large1 657 2,251 2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 19 Large1 85,724 1,134 14,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 87 Large1 11,507 1,541 10,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 21 Large1 118,315 580 5,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 98 Large1 116,232 580 5,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 86 Large2 1,303 8,018 2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 184 Large2 1,126 7,286 2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Large2 394,750 1,724 71,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 88 Large2 319,864 2,566 51,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 52 Large2 554,131 580 24,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 109 Large2 448,511 580 19,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 182 Medium1a 2,053 1,482 2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1639 Medium1a 1,701 1,244 2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Medium1a 7,939 1,127 1,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 116 Medium1a 7,858 1,231 2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 20 Medium1a 33,260 580 1,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 186 Medium1a 32,228 580 1,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 122 Medium1b 2,904 2,199 1,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1093 Medium1b 2,276 1,771 1,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 8 Medium1b 41,731 1,127 7,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 77 Medium1b 9,322 1,231 9,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Medium1b 54,889 580 2,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 124 Medium1b 53,024 580 2,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 81 Medium2 3,696 2,889 1,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 418 Medium2 2,862 2,336 1,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 30

2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 8 Medium2 56,904 1,544 10,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 41 Medium2 11,086 1,726 2,2 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium2 75,688 580 3,2 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 62 Medium2 75,270 580 3,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 173 Large1 677 2,124 2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 214 Large1 655 2,238 2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 53 Large1 86,744 1,041 16,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 66 Large1 83,631 1,379 13,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Large1 119,757 580 6,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 61 Large1 115,367 580 5,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 92 Large2 968 4,444 2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 47 Large2 982 5,447 2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 108 Large2 208,015 1,219 39,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 55 Large2 233,808 1,689 39,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 56 Large2 290,778 580 14,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 29 Large2 327,157 580 16,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 148 Medium1a 2,204 1,607 2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 859 Medium1a 1,780 1,314 2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 18 Medium1a 28,955 1,026 5,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 103 Medium1a 7,971 1,110 1,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 31 Medium1a 37,029 580 1,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 176 Medium1a 34,999 580 2,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 26 Medium1b 2,907 2,202 1,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 154 Medium1b 2,243 1,740 1,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium1b 41,698 1,026 7,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 18 Medium1b 39,438 1,110 6,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Medium1b 54,985 580 2,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 32 Medium1b 51,801 580 2,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 73 Medium2 3,719 2,909 1,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 31

2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 188 Medium2 2,839 2,313 1,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 14 Medium2 57,112 1,319 10,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 37 Medium2 55,744 1,459 9,2 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 17 Medium2 76,299 580 4,2 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 44 Medium2 74,370 580 4,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Large1 24,532 736 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 95 Large1 27,640 742 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Large1 28,915 668 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 16 Large1 31,082 739 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Large1 142,206 580 24,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 18 Large1 143,237 580 24,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 27 Large1 24,565 2,105 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 143 Large1 27,661 2,251 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 4 Large1 103,041 1,134 16,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 24 Large1 31,094 1,541 12,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Large1 142,206 580 7,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 27 Large1 143,237 580 7,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 14 Large2 101,273 1,340 5,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 34 Large2 95,118 1,228 5,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 7 Large2 464,669 808 12,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 16 Large2 90,865 976 4,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Large2 654,265 580 114,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 20 Large2 542,589 580 93,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 21 Large2 101,437 8,018 6,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 50 Large2 95,203 7,286 5,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 10 Large2 464,692 1,724 75,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 24 Large2 385,787 2,566 55,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Large2 654,265 580 29,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 30 Large2 542,589 580 25,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 32

3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 29 Medium1a 9,170 672 1,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 300 Medium1a 10,066 644 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1a 13,667 689 1,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 21 Medium1a 14,336 709 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium1a 41,187 580 7,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 34 Medium1a 41,098 580 7,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 44 Medium1a 9,981 1,482 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 450 Medium1a 10,572 1,244 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium1a 14,106 1,127 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 32 Medium1a 14,775 1,231 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Medium1a 41,187 580 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 51 Medium1a 41,098 580 3,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 19 Medium1b 13,551 745 1,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 200 Medium1b 14,864 695 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 1 Medium1b 18,100 685 1,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 14 Medium1b 19,050 709 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 2 Medium1b 66,992 580 11,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 23 Medium1b 66,517 580 11,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 29 Medium1b 15,006 2,199 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 300 Medium1b 15,770 1,771 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1b 50,832 1,127 8,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 21 Medium1b 19,489 1,231 11,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium1b 66,992 580 4,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 34 Medium1b 66,517 580 4,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 13 Medium2 17,618 816 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 76 Medium2 19,809 750 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 1 Medium2 22,108 720 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 7 Medium2 23,782 752 2,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 2 Medium2 91,685 580 15,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 33

3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 11 Medium2 93,553 580 16,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 19 Medium2 19,693 2,889 3,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 115 Medium2 21,145 2,336 3,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium2 68,727 1,544 11,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 11 Medium2 24,602 1,726 4,3 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium2 91,685 580 5,3 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 17 Medium2 93,553 580 5,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 28 Large1 24,796 738 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 39 Large1 27,458 740 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Large1 29,165 648 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 12 Large1 30,914 699 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Large1 143,910 580 31,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 11 Large1 142,191 580 30,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 41 Large1 24,830 2,124 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 59 Large1 27,479 2,238 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Large1 104,243 1,041 17,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 18 Large1 103,093 1,379 15,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Large1 143,910 580 8,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 17 Large1 142,191 580 8,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 15 Large2 55,373 975 3,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 9 Large2 70,800 1,050 4,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 17 Large2 57,498 760 3,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 10 Large2 69,666 892 3,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Large2 345,269 580 76,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 5 Large2 397,037 580 86,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 22 Large2 55,459 4,444 3,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 13 Large2 70,862 5,447 4,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 26 Large2 246,507 1,219 42,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 15 Large2 283,053 1,689 43,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 34

3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 13 Large2 345,269 580 18,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 8 Large2 397,037 580 21,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 24 Medium1a 9,951 685 1,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 157 Medium1a 10,721 651 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium1a 14,425 639 1,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 19 Medium1a 14,947 653 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Medium1a 45,698 580 9,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 32 Medium1a 44,498 580 9,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 35 Medium1a 10,874 1,607 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 236 Medium1a 11,279 1,314 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 4 Medium1a 35,645 1,026 6,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 28 Medium1a 15,332 1,110 3,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 7 Medium1a 45,698 580 3,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 48 Medium1a 44,498 580 3,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Medium1b 13,570 746 1,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 28 Medium1b 14,587 692 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 0 Medium1b 50,425 639 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 3 Medium1b 18,735 651 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 1 Medium1b 67,106 580 14,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 6 Medium1b 65,028 580 13,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 6 Medium1b 15,028 2,202 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 42 Medium1b 15,470 1,740 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 1 Medium1b 50,812 1,026 8,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 5 Medium1b 49,418 1,110 8,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 1 Medium1b 67,106 580 4,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 9 Medium1b 65,028 580 4,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 12 Medium2 17,737 818 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 34 Medium2 19,612 748 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium2 22,212 709 2,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 35

3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 7 Medium2 23,581 734 2,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium2 92,409 580 20,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 8 Medium2 92,462 580 19,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Medium2 19,830 2,909 3,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 52 Medium2 20,930 2,313 3,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium2 69,013 1,319 12,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 10 Medium2 69,126 1,459 11,3 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 4 Medium2 92,409 580 5,3 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 12 Medium2 92,462 580 6,

3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 57 Large1 640 736 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 252 Large1 635 742 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Large1 11,597 668 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 42 Large1 11,495 739 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 11 Large1 118,315 580 22,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 47 Large1 116,232 580 22,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 85 Large1 674 2,105 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 378 Large1 657 2,251 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 14 Large1 85,724 1,134 14,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 63 Large1 11,507 1,541 10,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 16 Large1 118,315 580 5,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 71 Large1 116,232 580 5,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 44 Large2 1,139 1,340 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 89 Large2 1,040 1,228 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 21 Large2 394,727 808 8,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 43 Large2 24,943 976 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 26 Large2 554,131 580 108,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 53 Large2 448,511 580 87,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 66 Large2 1,303 8,018 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 133 Large2 1,126 7,286 
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 36

3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 32 Large2 394,750 1,724 71,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 64 Large2 319,864 2,566 51,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 39 Large2 554,131 580 24,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 79 Large2 448,511 580 19,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 93 Medium1a 1,242 672 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 792 Medium1a 1,196 644 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 7 Medium1a 7,500 689 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 56 Medium1a 7,419 709 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 10 Medium1a 33,260 580 5,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 90 Medium1a 32,228 580 5,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 139 Medium1a 2,053 1,482 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1189 Medium1a 1,701 1,244 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 10 Medium1a 7,939 1,127 1,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 84 Medium1a 7,858 1,231 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 16 Medium1a 33,260 580 1,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 135 Medium1a 32,228 580 1,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 62 Medium1b 1,449 745 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 528 Medium1b 1,370 695 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 4 Medium1b 8,999 685 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 37 Medium1b 8,883 709 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 7 Medium1b 54,889 580 9,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 60 Medium1b 53,024 580 9,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 93 Medium1b 2,904 2,199 1,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 793 Medium1b 2,276 1,771 1,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 6 Medium1b 41,731 1,127 7,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 56 Medium1b 9,322 1,231 9,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 11 Medium1b 54,889 580 2,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 90 Medium1b 53,024 580 2,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 41 Medium2 1,621 816 
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 37

3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 202 Medium2 1,526 750 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 4 Medium2 10,285 720 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 20 Medium2 10,266 752 3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 6 Medium2 75,688 580 14,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 30 Medium2 75,270 580 14,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 62 Medium2 3,696 2,889 1,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 303 Medium2 2,862 2,336 1,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 6 Medium2 56,904 1,544 10,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 30 Medium2 11,086 1,726 2,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Medium2 75,688 580 3,3.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 45 Medium2 75,270 580 3,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 88 Large1 643 738 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 103 Large1 634 740 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 27 Large1 11,666 648 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 32 Large1 11,452 699 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 25 Large1 119,757 580 29,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 29 Large1 115,367 580 28,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 131 Large1 677 2,124 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 155 Large1 655 2,238 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Large1 86,744 1,041 16,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 48 Large1 83,631 1,379 13,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 37 Large1 119,757 580 6,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 44 Large1 115,367 580 5,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 47 Large2 883 975 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 23 Large2 920 1,050 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 55 Large2 19,006 760 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 27 Large2 20,421 892 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 29 Large2 290,778 580 73,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 14 Large2 327,157 580 82,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 38

3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 70 Large2 968 4,444 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 34 Large2 982 5,447 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 82 Large2 208,015 1,219 39,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 40 Large2 233,808 1,689 39,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 43 Large2 290,778 580 14,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 21 Large2 327,157 580 16,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 75 Medium1a 1,281 685 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 416 Medium1a 1,222 651 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Medium1a 7,735 639 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 50 Medium1a 7,586 653 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 16 Medium1a 37,029 580 8,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 85 Medium1a 34,999 580 7,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 113 Medium1a 2,204 1,607 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 623 Medium1a 1,780 1,314 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 14 Medium1a 28,955 1,026 5,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 74 Medium1a 7,971 1,110 1,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 23 Medium1a 37,029 580 1,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 128 Medium1a 34,999 580 2,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 13 Medium1b 1,449 746 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 74 Medium1b 1,360 692 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1b 41,311 639 1,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 9 Medium1b 8,755 651 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium1b 54,985 580 12,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 15 Medium1b 51,801 580 12,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 20 Medium1b 2,907 2,202 1,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 111 Medium1b 2,243 1,740 1,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1b 41,698 1,026 7,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 13 Medium1b 39,438 1,110 6,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 4 Medium1b 54,985 580 2,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 39

3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 23 Medium1b 51,801 580 2,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 37 Medium2 1,626 818 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 91 Medium2 1,520 748 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 7 Medium2 10,311 709 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 18 Medium2 10,199 734 3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Medium2 76,299 580 18,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 21 Medium2 74,370 580 18,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 56 Medium2 3,719 2,909 1,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 137 Medium2 2,839 2,313 1,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 11 Medium2 57,112 1,319 10,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 27 Medium2 55,744 1,459 9,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 13 Medium2 76,299 580 4,3.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 32 Medium2 74,370 580 4,

4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Large1 24,532 1,128 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 95 Large1 27,640 1,134 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Large1 28,915 1,060 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 16 Large1 31,082 1,131 6,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Large1 142,206 972 29,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 18 Large1 143,237 972 28,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 27 Large1 24,565 2,497 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 143 Large1 27,661 2,643 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 4 Large1 103,041 1,526 21,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 24 Large1 31,094 1,933 16,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Large1 142,206 972 12,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 27 Large1 143,237 972 11,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 14 Large2 101,273 1,732 11,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 34 Large2 95,118 1,620 10,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 7 Large2 464,669 1,200 17,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 16 Large2 90,865 1,368 9,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 40

4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Large2 654,265 972 119,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 20 Large2 542,589 972 97,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 21 Large2 101,437 8,410 11,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 50 Large2 95,203 7,678 10,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 10 Large2 464,692 2,116 80,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 24 Large2 385,787 2,958 60,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Large2 654,265 972 35,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 30 Large2 542,589 972 29,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 29 Medium1a 9,170 1,064 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 300 Medium1a 10,066 1,036 5,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1a 13,667 1,081 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 21 Medium1a 14,336 1,101 5,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium1a 41,187 972 12,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 34 Medium1a 41,098 972 10,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 44 Medium1a 9,981 1,874 8,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 450 Medium1a 10,572 1,636 5,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium1a 14,106 1,519 8,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 32 Medium1a 14,775 1,623 5,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Medium1a 41,187 972 8,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 51 Medium1a 41,098 972 6,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 19 Medium1b 13,551 1,137 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 200 Medium1b 14,864 1,087 5,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 1 Medium1b 18,100 1,077 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 14 Medium1b 19,050 1,101 5,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 2 Medium1b 66,992 972 17,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 23 Medium1b 66,517 972 14,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 29 Medium1b 15,006 2,591 8,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 300 Medium1b 15,770 2,163 6,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1b 50,832 1,519 14,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 41

4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 21 Medium1b 19,489 1,623 14,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium1b 66,992 972 9,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 34 Medium1b 66,517 972 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 13 Medium2 17,618 1,208 8,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 76 Medium2 19,809 1,142 5,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 1 Medium2 22,108 1,112 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 7 Medium2 23,782 1,144 5,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 2 Medium2 91,685 972 21,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 11 Medium2 93,553 972 19,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 19 Medium2 19,693 3,281 9,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 115 Medium2 21,145 2,728 6,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium2 68,727 1,936 17,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 11 Medium2 24,602 2,118 7,4 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium2 91,685 972 11,4 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 17 Medium2 93,553 972 8,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 28 Large1 24,796 1,130 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 39 Large1 27,458 1,132 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Large1 29,165 1,040 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 12 Large1 30,914 1,091 6,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Large1 143,910 972 36,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 11 Large1 142,191 972 35,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 41 Large1 24,830 2,516 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 59 Large1 27,479 2,630 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Large1 104,243 1,433 22,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 18 Large1 103,093 1,771 20,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Large1 143,910 972 13,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 17 Large1 142,191 972 12,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 15 Large2 55,373 1,367 8,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 9 Large2 70,800 1,442 9,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 42

4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 17 Large2 57,498 1,152 8,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 10 Large2 69,666 1,284 8,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Large2 345,269 972 81,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 5 Large2 397,037 972 91,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 22 Large2 55,459 4,836 8,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 13 Large2 70,862 5,839 9,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 26 Large2 246,507 1,611 47,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 15 Large2 283,053 2,081 47,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 13 Large2 345,269 972 23,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 8 Large2 397,037 972 25,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 24 Medium1a 9,951 1,077 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 157 Medium1a 10,721 1,043 5,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium1a 14,425 1,031 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 19 Medium1a 14,947 1,045 5,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Medium1a 45,698 972 15,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 32 Medium1a 44,498 972 12,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 35 Medium1a 10,874 1,999 8,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 236 Medium1a 11,279 1,706 5,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 4 Medium1a 35,645 1,418 12,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 28 Medium1a 15,332 1,502 6,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 7 Medium1a 45,698 972 9,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 48 Medium1a 44,498 972 6,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Medium1b 13,570 1,138 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 28 Medium1b 14,587 1,084 5,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 0 Medium1b 50,425 1,031 8,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 3 Medium1b 18,735 1,043 5,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 1 Medium1b 67,106 972 20,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 6 Medium1b 65,028 972 17,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 6 Medium1b 15,028 2,594 8,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 43

4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 42 Medium1b 15,470 2,132 6,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 1 Medium1b 50,812 1,418 14,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 5 Medium1b 49,418 1,502 11,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 1 Medium1b 67,106 972 10,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 9 Medium1b 65,028 972 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 12 Medium2 17,737 1,210 8,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 34 Medium2 19,612 1,140 5,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium2 22,212 1,101 7,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 7 Medium2 23,581 1,126 5,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium2 92,409 972 25,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 8 Medium2 92,462 972 23,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Medium2 19,830 3,301 9,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 52 Medium2 20,930 2,705 6,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium2 69,013 1,711 17,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 10 Medium2 69,126 1,851 14,4 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 4 Medium2 92,409 972 11,4 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 12 Medium2 92,462 972 9,

4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 57 Large1 640 1,128 5,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 252 Large1 635 1,134 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Large1 11,597 1,060 5,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 42 Large1 11,495 1,131 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 11 Large1 118,315 972 27,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 47 Large1 116,232 972 26,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 85 Large1 674 2,497 5,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 378 Large1 657 2,643 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 14 Large1 85,724 1,526 20,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 63 Large1 11,507 1,933 14,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 16 Large1 118,315 972 10,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 71 Large1 116,232 972 9,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 44

4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 44 Large2 1,139 1,732 5,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 89 Large2 1,040 1,620 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 21 Large2 394,727 1,200 13,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 43 Large2 24,943 1,368 5,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 26 Large2 554,131 972 113,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 53 Large2 448,511 972 92,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 66 Large2 1,303 8,410 5,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 133 Large2 1,126 7,678 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 32 Large2 394,750 2,116 76,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 64 Large2 319,864 2,958 55,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 39 Large2 554,131 972 29,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 79 Large2 448,511 972 24,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 93 Medium1a 1,242 1,064 6,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 792 Medium1a 1,196 1,036 3,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 7 Medium1a 7,500 1,081 6,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 56 Medium1a 7,419 1,101 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 10 Medium1a 33,260 972 11,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 90 Medium1a 32,228 972 9,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 139 Medium1a 2,053 1,874 6,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1189 Medium1a 1,701 1,636 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 10 Medium1a 7,939 1,519 7,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 84 Medium1a 7,858 1,623 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 16 Medium1a 33,260 972 7,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 135 Medium1a 32,228 972 5,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 62 Medium1b 1,449 1,137 6,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 528 Medium1b 1,370 1,087 3,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 4 Medium1b 8,999 1,077 6,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 37 Medium1b 8,883 1,101 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 7 Medium1b 54,889 972 15,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 45

4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 60 Medium1b 53,024 972 13,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 93 Medium1b 2,904 2,591 7,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 793 Medium1b 2,276 2,163 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 6 Medium1b 41,731 1,519 13,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 56 Medium1b 9,322 1,623 13,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 11 Medium1b 54,889 972 8,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 90 Medium1b 53,024 972 5,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 41 Medium2 1,621 1,208 6,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 202 Medium2 1,526 1,142 3,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 4 Medium2 10,285 1,112 6,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 20 Medium2 10,266 1,144 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 6 Medium2 75,688 972 19,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 30 Medium2 75,270 972 17,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 62 Medium2 3,696 3,281 7,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 303 Medium2 2,862 2,728 4,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 6 Medium2 56,904 1,936 16,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 30 Medium2 11,086 2,118 6,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Medium2 75,688 972 9,4.1 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 45 Medium2 75,270 972 6,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 88 Large1 643 1,130 5,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 103 Large1 634 1,132 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 27 Large1 11,666 1,040 5,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 32 Large1 11,452 1,091 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 25 Large1 119,757 972 34,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 29 Large1 115,367 972 32,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 131 Large1 677 2,516 5,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 155 Large1 655 2,630 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Large1 86,744 1,433 21,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 48 Large1 83,631 1,771 18,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 46

4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 37 Large1 119,757 972 11,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 44 Large1 115,367 972 10,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 47 Large2 883 1,367 5,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 23 Large2 920 1,442 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 55 Large2 19,006 1,152 5,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 27 Large2 20,421 1,284 5,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 29 Large2 290,778 972 78,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 14 Large2 327,157 972 87,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 70 Large2 968 4,836 5,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 34 Large2 982 5,839 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 82 Large2 208,015 1,611 44,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 40 Large2 233,808 2,081 44,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 43 Large2 290,778 972 20,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 21 Large2 327,157 972 21,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 75 Medium1a 1,281 1,077 6,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 416 Medium1a 1,222 1,043 3,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Medium1a 7,735 1,031 6,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 50 Medium1a 7,586 1,045 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 16 Medium1a 37,029 972 14,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 85 Medium1a 34,999 972 11,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 113 Medium1a 2,204 1,999 6,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 623 Medium1a 1,780 1,706 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 14 Medium1a 28,955 1,418 10,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 74 Medium1a 7,971 1,502 5,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 23 Medium1a 37,029 972 7,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 128 Medium1a 34,999 972 5,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 13 Medium1b 1,449 1,138 6,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 74 Medium1b 1,360 1,084 3,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1b 41,311 1,031 7,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 47

4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 9 Medium1b 8,755 1,043 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 3 Medium1b 54,985 972 18,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 15 Medium1b 51,801 972 15,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 20 Medium1b 2,907 2,594 7,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 111 Medium1b 2,243 2,132 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1b 41,698 1,418 13,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 13 Medium1b 39,438 1,502 9,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 4 Medium1b 54,985 972 8,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 23 Medium1b 51,801 972 6,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 37 Medium2 1,626 1,210 6,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 91 Medium2 1,520 1,140 3,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 7 Medium2 10,311 1,101 6,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 18 Medium2 10,199 1,126 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Medium2 76,299 972 24,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 21 Medium2 74,370 972 21,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 56 Medium2 3,719 3,301 7,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 137 Medium2 2,839 2,705 4,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 11 Medium2 57,112 1,711 16,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 27 Medium2 55,744 1,851 12,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 13 Medium2 76,299 972 9,4.1 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 32 Medium2 74,370 972 7,

5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 75 Large1 118,461 736 2,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 347 Large1 116,376 742 2,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 12 Large1 85,713 668 29,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 58 Large1 84,236 739 21,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Large1 118,315 580 22,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 65 Large1 116,232 580 22,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 112 Large1 118,494 2,105 2,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 521 Large1 116,398 2,251 2,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 48

5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 19 Large1 85,724 1,134 14,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 87 Large1 84,247 1,541 9,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 21 Large1 118,315 580 5,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 98 Large1 116,232 580 5,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 58 Large2 554,292 1,340 11,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 122 Large2 448,663 1,228 9,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 28 Large2 394,727 808 8,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 59 Large2 319,841 976 117,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 34 Large2 554,131 580 108,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 73 Large2 448,511 580 87,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 86 Large2 554,456 8,018 11,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 184 Large2 448,748 7,286 9,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Large2 394,750 1,724 70,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 88 Large2 319,864 2,566 50,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 52 Large2 554,131 580 24,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 109 Large2 448,511 580 19,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 122 Medium1a 33,877 672 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1092 Medium1a 32,807 644 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Medium1a 25,944 689 5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 78 Medium1a 25,212 709 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Medium1a 33,260 580 5,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 124 Medium1a 32,228 580 5,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 182 Medium1a 34,688 1,482 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1639 Medium1a 33,312 1,244 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Medium1a 26,383 1,127 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 116 Medium1a 25,651 1,231 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 20 Medium1a 33,260 580 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 186 Medium1a 32,228 580 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 81 Medium1b 55,580 745 1,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 49

5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 728 Medium1b 53,646 695 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 6 Medium1b 41,288 685 13,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 52 Medium1b 39,968 709 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Medium1b 54,889 580 9,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 83 Medium1b 53,024 580 9,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 122 Medium1b 57,035 2,199 2,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1093 Medium1b 54,552 1,771 2,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 8 Medium1b 41,731 1,127 7,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 77 Medium1b 40,407 1,231 6,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Medium1b 54,889 580 2,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 124 Medium1b 53,024 580 2,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 54 Medium2 76,449 816 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 278 Medium2 75,938 750 2,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 5 Medium2 56,079 720 18,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 27 Medium2 55,787 752 1,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Medium2 75,688 580 14,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 42 Medium2 75,270 580 14,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 81 Medium2 78,524 2,889 3,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 418 Medium2 77,274 2,336 2,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 8 Medium2 56,904 1,544 9,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 41 Medium2 56,607 1,726 3,5 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium2 75,688 580 3,5 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 62 Medium2 75,270 580 3,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 115 Large1 119,903 738 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 142 Large1 115,511 740 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 36 Large1 86,735 648 37,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 44 Large1 83,621 699 6,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 32 Large1 119,757 580 29,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 40 Large1 115,367 580 28,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 50

5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 173 Large1 119,937 2,124 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 214 Large1 115,532 2,238 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 53 Large1 86,744 1,041 15,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 66 Large1 83,631 1,379 13,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Large1 119,757 580 6,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 61 Large1 115,367 580 5,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 62 Large2 290,930 975 5,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 31 Large2 327,306 1,050 6,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 72 Large2 208,003 760 37,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 37 Large2 233,797 892 24,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 38 Large2 290,778 580 73,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 19 Large2 327,157 580 82,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 92 Large2 291,015 4,444 6,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 47 Large2 327,368 5,447 6,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 108 Large2 208,015 1,219 39,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 55 Large2 233,808 1,689 39,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 56 Large2 290,778 580 14,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 29 Large2 327,157 580 16,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 99 Medium1a 37,659 685 1,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 573 Medium1a 35,584 651 1,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 12 Medium1a 28,569 639 10,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 68 Medium1a 27,131 653 1,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 20 Medium1a 37,029 580 8,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 118 Medium1a 34,999 580 7,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 148 Medium1a 38,581 1,607 1,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 859 Medium1a 36,142 1,314 1,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 18 Medium1a 28,955 1,026 4,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 103 Medium1a 27,516 1,110 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 31 Medium1a 37,029 580 1,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 51

5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 176 Medium1a 34,999 580 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Medium1b 55,676 746 1,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 102 Medium1b 52,421 692 1,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1b 41,311 639 1,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 12 Medium1b 39,051 651 15,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 4 Medium1b 54,985 580 12,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 21 Medium1b 51,801 580 12,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 26 Medium1b 57,134 2,202 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 154 Medium1b 53,303 1,740 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium1b 41,698 1,026 7,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 18 Medium1b 39,438 1,110 6,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Medium1b 54,985 580 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 32 Medium1b 51,801 580 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 49 Medium2 77,062 818 1,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 126 Medium2 75,036 748 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 10 Medium2 56,501 709 23,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 25 Medium2 55,134 734 17,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium2 76,299 580 18,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 30 Medium2 74,370 580 18,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 73 Medium2 79,155 2,909 3,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 188 Medium2 76,355 2,313 2,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 14 Medium2 57,112 1,319 10,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 37 Medium2 55,744 1,459 9,5 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 17 Medium2 76,299 580 4,5 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 44 Medium2 74,370 580 4,

5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 75 Large1 747,825 736 24,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 347 Large1 733,979 742 24,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 12 Large1 649,731 668 25,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 58 Large1 637,703 739 24,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 52

5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Large1 649,660 580 24,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 65 Large1 637,631 580 24,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 112 Large1 747,858 2,105 24,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 521 Large1 734,000 2,251 24,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 19 Large1 649,742 1,134 32,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 87 Large1 637,714 1,541 25,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 21 Large1 649,660 580 24,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 98 Large1 637,631 580 24,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 58 Large2 3,646,138 1,340 118,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 122 Large2 2,943,571 1,228 95,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 28 Large2 3,167,794 808 126,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 59 Large2 2,557,406 976 99,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 34 Large2 3,167,808 580 118,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 73 Large2 2,557,404 580 95,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 86 Large2 3,646,302 8,018 118,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 184 Large2 2,943,657 7,286 95,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Large2 3,167,816 1,724 171,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 88 Large2 2,557,428 2,566 106,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 52 Large2 3,167,808 580 118,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 109 Large2 2,557,404 580 95,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 122 Medium1a 181,384 672 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1092 Medium1a 174,524 644 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Medium1a 173,451 689 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 78 Medium1a 166,929 709 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Medium1a 157,135 580 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 124 Medium1a 151,207 580 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 182 Medium1a 182,195 1,482 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1639 Medium1a 175,029 1,244 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Medium1a 158,135 1,127 7,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 53

5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 116 Medium1a 152,209 1,231 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 20 Medium1a 157,135 580 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 186 Medium1a 151,207 580 6,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 81 Medium1b 324,682 745 10,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 728 Medium1b 312,253 695 10,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 6 Medium1b 282,121 685 11,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 52 Medium1b 298,576 709 10,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Medium1b 281,588 580 10,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 83 Medium1b 270,848 580 10,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 122 Medium1b 326,137 2,199 11,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1093 Medium1b 313,159 1,771 11,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 8 Medium1b 282,564 1,127 14,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 77 Medium1b 271,826 1,231 11,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Medium1b 281,588 580 10,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 124 Medium1b 270,848 580 10,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 54 Medium2 462,623 816 15,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 278 Medium2 459,759 750 15,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 5 Medium2 401,935 720 16,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 27 Medium2 439,609 752 15,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Medium2 401,385 580 15,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 42 Medium2 398,978 580 15,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 81 Medium2 464,698 2,889 16,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 418 Medium2 461,095 2,336 16,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 8 Medium2 402,760 1,544 20,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 41 Medium2 400,353 1,726 16,5a Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium2 401,385 580 15,5a Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 62 Medium2 398,978 580 15,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 115 Large1 757,409 738 24,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 142 Large1 728,228 740 23,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 54

5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 36 Large1 658,057 648 26,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 44 Large1 632,705 699 24,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 32 Large1 657,987 580 24,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 40 Large1 632,635 580 23,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 173 Large1 757,443 2,124 24,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 214 Large1 728,249 2,238 23,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 53 Large1 658,067 1,041 33,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 66 Large1 632,715 1,379 25,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Large1 657,987 580 24,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 61 Large1 632,635 580 23,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 62 Large2 1,894,502 975 61,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 31 Large2 2,136,432 1,050 69,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 72 Large2 1,645,966 760 64,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 37 Large2 1,856,159 892 72,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 38 Large2 1,645,936 580 61,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 19 Large2 1,856,136 580 69,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 92 Large2 1,894,588 4,444 61,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 47 Large2 2,136,494 5,447 69,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 108 Large2 1,645,978 1,219 88,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 55 Large2 1,856,170 1,689 78,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 56 Large2 1,645,936 580 61,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 29 Large2 1,856,136 580 69,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 99 Medium1a 206,336 685 7,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 573 Medium1a 192,862 651 6,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 12 Medium1a 179,313 639 7,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 68 Medium1a 184,409 653 6,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 20 Medium1a 178,806 580 6,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 118 Medium1a 167,137 580 6,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 148 Medium1a 207,259 1,607 7,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 55

5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 859 Medium1a 193,421 1,314 7,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 18 Medium1a 179,700 1,026 9,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 103 Medium1a 168,034 1,110 7,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 31 Medium1a 178,806 580 6,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 176 Medium1a 167,137 580 6,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Medium1b 325,321 746 10,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 102 Medium1b 304,152 692 10,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1b 282,632 639 11,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 12 Medium1b 264,302 651 10,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 4 Medium1b 282,143 580 10,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 21 Medium1b 263,811 580 10,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 26 Medium1b 326,779 2,202 11,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 154 Medium1b 305,035 1,740 10,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium1b 283,019 1,026 15,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 18 Medium1b 264,688 1,110 11,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Medium1b 282,143 580 10,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 32 Medium1b 263,811 580 10,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 49 Medium2 466,674 818 15,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 126 Medium2 453,791 748 15,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 10 Medium2 405,442 709 16,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 25 Medium2 394,335 734 15,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium2 404,903 580 15,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 30 Medium2 393,794 580 15,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 73 Medium2 468,767 2,909 16,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 188 Medium2 455,110 2,313 16,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 14 Medium2 406,052 1,319 21,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 37 Medium2 394,945 1,459 16,5a Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 17 Medium2 404,903 580 15,5a Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 44 Medium2 393,794 580 15,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 56

6 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 112 Large1 98,256 42,105 -8,6 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 521 Large1 155,263 42,251 6 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 19 Large1 183,306 41,134 -3,6 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 87 Large1 168,426 41,541 -5,6 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 21 Large1 215,897 40,580 -3,6 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 98 Large1 273,151 40,580 -3,6 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 86 Large2 286,501 48,018 -32,6 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 184 Large2 362,915 47,286 -43,6 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Large2 679,948 41,724 -9,6 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 88 Large2 795,452 42,566 -12,6 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 52 Large2 839,329 40,580 -8,6 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 109 Large2 924,099 40,580 -9,6 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 173 Large1 98,039 27,124 -17,6 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 214 Large1 155,261 27,238 -15,6 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 53 Large1 184,106 26,041 -12,6 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 66 Large1 238,237 26,379 -10,6 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Large1 217,119 25,580 -11,6 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 61 Large1 269,973 25,580 -9,6 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 92 Large2 173,966 29,444 -42,6 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 47 Large2 362,771 30,447 -43,6 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 108 Large2 381,013 26,219 -29,6 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 55 Large2 595,597 26,689 -30,6 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 56 Large2 463,776 25,580 -28,6 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 29 Large2 688,946 25,580 -26,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 75 Large1 640 736 7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 347 Large1 635 742 7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 12 Large1 15,128 668 11,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 58 Large1 14,994 739 11,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 57

7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Large1 118,315 580 22,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 65 Large1 116,232 580 22,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 112 Large1 674 2,105 7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 521 Large1 657 2,251 7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 19 Large1 89,254 1,134 25,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 87 Large1 15,005 1,541 21,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 21 Large1 118,315 580 5,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 98 Large1 116,232 580 5,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 58 Large2 1,139 1,340 7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 122 Large2 1,040 1,228 7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 28 Large2 403,602 808 36,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 59 Large2 32,639 976 24,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 34 Large2 554,131 580 108,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 73 Large2 448,511 580 87,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 86 Large2 1,303 8,018 7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 184 Large2 1,126 7,286 7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Large2 403,625 1,724 98,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 88 Large2 327,560 2,566 75,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 52 Large2 554,131 580 24,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 109 Large2 448,511 580 19,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 122 Medium1a 1,242 672 7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1092 Medium1a 1,196 644 7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Medium1a 10,594 689 6,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 78 Medium1a 10,476 709 6,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Medium1a 33,260 580 5,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 124 Medium1a 32,228 580 5,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 182 Medium1a 2,053 1,482 7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1639 Medium1a 1,701 1,244 7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Medium1a 11,033 1,127 7,
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 58

7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 116 Medium1a 10,915 1,231 7,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 20 Medium1a 33,260 580 1,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 186 Medium1a 32,228 580 1,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 81 Medium1b 1,449 745 7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 728 Medium1b 1,370 695 7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 6 Medium1b 12,776 685 8,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 52 Medium1b 12,605 709 8,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Medium1b 54,889 580 9,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 83 Medium1b 53,024 580 9,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 122 Medium1b 2,904 2,199 1,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 1093 Medium1b 2,276 1,771 1,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 8 Medium1b 45,508 1,127 14,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 77 Medium1b 13,044 1,231 17,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 14 Medium1b 54,889 580 2,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 124 Medium1b 53,024 580 2,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 54 Medium2 1,621 816 7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 278 Medium2 1,526 750 7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 5 Medium2 14,634 720 9,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 27 Medium2 14,604 752 9,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Medium2 75,688 580 14,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 42 Medium2 75,270 580 14,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 1 81 Medium2 3,696 2,889 1,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 1 418 Medium2 2,862 2,336 1,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 2 8 Medium2 61,253 1,544 18,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 2 41 Medium2 15,424 1,726 11,7 Swine Liquid FF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium2 75,688 580 3,7 Swine Liquid FF Midwest 3 62 Medium2 75,270 580 3,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 115 Large1 643 738 7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 142 Large1 634 740 
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 59

7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 36 Large1 15,218 648 11,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 44 Large1 14,937 699 11,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 32 Large1 119,757 580 29,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 40 Large1 115,367 580 28,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 173 Large1 677 2,124 7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 214 Large1 655 2,238 7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 53 Large1 90,296 1,041 27,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 66 Large1 87,116 1,379 24,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Large1 119,757 580 6,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 61 Large1 115,367 580 5,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 62 Large2 883 975 7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 31 Large2 920 1,050 7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 72 Large2 24,844 760 18,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 37 Large2 26,702 892 20,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 38 Large2 290,778 580 73,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 19 Large2 327,157 580 82,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 92 Large2 968 4,444 7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 47 Large2 982 5,447 7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 108 Large2 213,853 1,219 57,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 55 Large2 240,089 1,689 59,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 56 Large2 290,778 580 14,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 29 Large2 327,157 580 16,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 99 Medium1a 1,281 685 7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 573 Medium1a 1,222 651 7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 12 Medium1a 10,958 639 7,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 68 Medium1a 10,740 653 7,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 20 Medium1a 37,029 580 8,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 118 Medium1a 34,999 580 7,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 148 Medium1a 2,204 1,607 
Cost for Swine Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 60

7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 859 Medium1a 1,780 1,314 7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 18 Medium1a 32,178 1,026 11,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 103 Medium1a 11,125 1,110 8,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 31 Medium1a 37,029 580 1,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 176 Medium1a 34,999 580 2,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Medium1b 1,449 746 7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 102 Medium1b 1,360 692 7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 2 Medium1b 45,091 639 8,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 12 Medium1b 12,441 651 8,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 4 Medium1b 54,985 580 12,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 21 Medium1b 51,801 580 12,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 26 Medium1b 2,907 2,202 1,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 154 Medium1b 2,243 1,740 1,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 3 Medium1b 45,478 1,026 15,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 18 Medium1b 43,124 1,110 14,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Medium1b 54,985 580 2,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 32 Medium1b 51,801 580 2,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 49 Medium2 1,626 818 7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 126 Medium2 1,520 748 7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 10 Medium2 14,676 709 9,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 25 Medium2 14,513 734 9,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium2 76,299 580 18,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 30 Medium2 74,370 580 18,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 1 73 Medium2 3,719 2,909 1,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 1 188 Medium2 2,839 2,313 1,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 2 14 Medium2 61,477 1,319 19,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 2 37 Medium2 60,058 1,459 18,7 Swine Liquid GF Mid-Atlantic 3 17 Medium2 76,299 580 4,7 Swine Liquid GF Midwest 3 44 Medium2 74,370 580 4,
Appendices - 61
Appendices - 62

Regulatory Compliance Costs for the Poultry (BR, broiler; LA, dry layers; LW, wet layers) Op

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 47 Large1 64,538 2,214 2,249 1 Chic Solid BR South 1 98 Large1 65,498 2,453 2,432 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 687 Large1 63,405 890 2,289 1 Chic Solid BR South 2 1,417 Large1 63,932 851 2,158 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 336 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 1 Chic Solid BR South 3 694 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 7 Large2 168,396 4,878 4,342 1 Chic Solid BR South 1 21 Large2 155,678 5,064 4,659 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 132 Large2 165,119 1,047 3,439 1 Chic Solid BR South 2 301 Large2 151,693 988 3,248 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 53 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 1 Chic Solid BR South 3 147 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 108 Medium1a 21,127 1,075 1,351 1 Chic Solid BR South 1 170 Medium1a 20,967 1,172 1,383 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 904 Medium1a 20,831 747 1,362 1 Chic Solid BR South 2 1,430 Medium1a 20,547 736 1,382 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 677 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 1 Chic Solid BR South 3 1,072 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 50 Medium1b 29,305 1,274 1,539 1 Chic Solid BR South 1 78 Medium1b 29,076 1,410 1,614 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 415 Medium1b 28,830 747 1,559 1 Chic Solid BR South 2 656 Medium1b 28,427 736 1,614 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 311 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 1 Chic Solid BR South 3 491 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 61 Medium2 41,467 1,570 1,714 1 Chic Solid BR South 1 122 Medium2 41,417 1,772 1,838 1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 737 Medium2 40,767 794 1,744 1 Chic Solid BR South 2 1,467 Medium2 40,467 787 1,772 
Appendices - 63

Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 486 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 1 Chic Solid BR South 3 967 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Large1 59,137 2,901 1,123 1 Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Large1 52,774 2,430 1,457 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 102 Large1 58,186 875 1,235 1 Chic Solid LA South 2 127 Large1 51,323 821 1,315 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 115 Large1 57,840 580 439 1 Chic Solid LA South 3 144 Large1 50,843 580 412 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 259,389 10,799 4,442 1 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 158,261 6,153 4,120 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 23 Large2 254,878 1,187 3,101 1 Chic Solid LA South 2 40 Large2 153,681 1,076 2,848 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 26 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 1 Chic Solid LA South 3 45 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 10 Medium1a 8,268 895 272 1 Chic Solid LA South 1 9 Medium1a 6,146 784 292 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 84 Medium1a 8,187 722 317 1 Chic Solid LA South 2 78 Medium1a 6,067 696 307 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 46 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 1 Chic Solid LA South 3 43 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 6 Medium1b 11,362 1,017 333 1 Chic Solid LA South 1 6 Medium1b 8,384 863 338 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 55 Medium1b 11,224 722 412 1 Chic Solid LA South 2 52 Medium1b 8,234 696 368 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 30 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 1 Chic Solid LA South 3 29 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 18 Medium2 20,828 1,390 470 1 Chic Solid LA South 1 20 Medium2 17,759 1,194 572 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 146 Medium2 20,582 865 610 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 64

1 Chic Solid LA South 2 176 Medium2 17,415 813 640 1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 117 Medium2 20,240 580 221 1 Chic Solid LA South 3 142 Medium2 16,943 580 212 1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 24 Large1 1,053 1,128 460 1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 217 Large1 107,287 799 23,262 1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 119 Large1 106,827 580 7,046 1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 97 Medium2 415 603 166 1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 393 Medium2 10,221 590 1,232 1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 310 Medium2 9,949 580 530 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 28 Large1 65,240 3,036 2,680 2 Chic Solid BR South 1 39 Large1 67,908 4,917 3,912 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 412 Large1 63,427 916 6,327 2 Chic Solid BR South 2 567 Large1 63,964 884 3,538 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 202 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 2 Chic Solid BR South 3 278 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Large2 170,244 7,038 5,476 2 Chic Solid BR South 1 8 Large2 161,445 10,963 8,201 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 79 Large2 165,162 1,097 10,330 2 Chic Solid BR South 2 120 Large2 151,736 1,033 5,286 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 32 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 2 Chic Solid BR South 3 59 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 65 Medium1a 21,351 1,324 1,488 2 Chic Solid BR South 1 68 Medium1a 21,717 1,950 1,844 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 542 Medium1a 20,856 774 2,481 2 Chic Solid BR South 2 572 Medium1a 20,571 761 1,849 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 406 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 2 Chic Solid BR South 3 429 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 30 Medium1b 29,619 1,623 1,732 2 Chic Solid BR South 1 31 Medium1b 30,128 2,501 2,261 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 65

2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 249 Medium1b 28,854 774 3,268 2 Chic Solid BR South 2 262 Medium1b 28,451 761 2,269 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 187 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 2 Chic Solid BR South 3 196 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 37 Medium2 41,915 2,067 1,990 2 Chic Solid BR South 1 49 Medium2 42,929 3,340 2,766 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 442 Medium2 40,791 821 4,249 2 Chic Solid BR South 2 587 Medium2 40,485 805 2,779 2 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 292 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 2 Chic Solid BR South 3 387 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 65,120 15,651 4,798 2 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Large1 61,940 12,589 7,086 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 61 Large1 58,227 962 2,370 2 Chic Solid LA South 2 51 Large1 51,387 892 3,330 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 69 Large1 57,840 580 439 2 Chic Solid LA South 3 58 Large1 50,843 580 412 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 285,727 66,923 20,617 2 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 185,877 36,762 21,080 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 14 Large2 254,898 1,230 4,751 2 Chic Solid LA South 2 16 Large2 153,712 1,111 5,955 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 16 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 2 Chic Solid LA South 3 18 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 6 Medium1a 9,081 2,626 771 2 Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Medium1a 7,157 1,905 913 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 50 Medium1a 8,203 757 499 2 Chic Solid LA South 2 31 Medium1a 6,092 724 571 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 28 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 2 Chic Solid LA South 3 17 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 4 Medium1b 12,489 3,418 1,025 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 66

2 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Medium1b 9,787 2,417 1,199 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 33 Medium1b 11,240 757 639 2 Chic Solid LA South 2 21 Medium1b 8,259 724 709 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 18 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 2 Chic Solid LA South 3 12 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 11 Medium2 22,917 5,842 1,753 2 Chic Solid LA South 1 8 Medium2 20,801 4,566 2,440 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 88 Medium2 20,621 949 1,043 2 Chic Solid LA South 2 70 Medium2 17,477 881 1,373 2 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 70 Medium2 20,240 580 221 2 Chic Solid LA South 3 57 Medium2 16,943 580 212 2 Chic Liquid LW South 1 10 Large1 3,767 4,135 2,126 2 Chic Liquid LW South 2 87 Large1 107,325 841 20,209 2 Chic Liquid LW South 3 48 Large1 106,827 580 2,745 2 Chic Liquid LW South 1 39 Medium2 529 729 236 2 Chic Liquid LW South 2 157 Medium2 10,259 632 1,126 2 Chic Liquid LW South 3 124 Medium2 9,949 580 350 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Large1 69,049 2,214 3,281 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 13 Large1 69,793 2,453 3,402 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 66 Large1 67,916 890 3,321 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 191 Large1 68,226 851 3,128 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 32 Large1 67,187 580 2,387 3 Chic Solid BR South 3 93 Large1 67,437 580 2,238 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 7 Large1 69,752 3,036 3,712 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 9 Large1 72,202 4,917 4,882 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 99 Large1 67,938 916 7,359 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 127 Large1 68,259 884 4,508 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 48 Large1 67,187 580 2,387 3 Chic Solid BR South 3 62 Large1 67,437 580 2,238 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 67

3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Large2 178,012 4,878 5,475 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 3 Large2 164,153 5,064 5,712 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Large2 174,735 1,047 4,572 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 41 Large2 160,168 988 4,301 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Large2 173,871 580 3,182 3 Chic Solid BR South 3 20 Large2 159,244 580 2,980 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Large2 179,859 7,038 6,609 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 2 Large2 169,920 10,963 9,254 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 19 Large2 174,778 1,097 11,463 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 27 Large2 160,211 1,033 6,338 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Large2 173,871 580 3,182 3 Chic Solid BR South 3 13 Large2 159,244 580 2,980 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 10 Medium1a 23,506 1,075 2,340 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 23 Medium1a 23,197 1,172 2,312 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 86 Medium1a 23,210 747 2,352 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 193 Medium1a 22,777 736 2,311 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 65 Medium1a 22,618 580 2,033 3 Chic Solid BR South 3 144 Medium1a 22,101 580 1,921 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 15 Medium1a 23,730 1,324 2,478 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 15 Medium1a 23,947 1,950 2,772 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 130 Medium1a 23,235 774 3,470 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 128 Medium1a 22,801 761 2,778 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 97 Medium1a 22,618 580 2,033 3 Chic Solid BR South 3 96 Medium1a 22,101 580 1,921 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 5 Medium1b 32,086 1,274 2,537 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 11 Medium1b 31,682 1,410 2,551 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 40 Medium1b 31,611 747 2,556 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 88 Medium1b 31,032 736 2,550 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 30 Medium1b 31,019 580 2,119 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 68

3 Chic Solid BR South 3 66 Medium1b 30,357 580 2,020 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 7 Medium1b 32,400 1,623 2,730 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 7 Medium1b 32,734 2,501 3,197 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 60 Medium1b 31,636 774 4,266 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 59 Medium1b 31,057 761 3,206 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 45 Medium1b 31,019 580 2,119 3 Chic Solid BR South 3 44 Medium1b 30,357 580 2,020 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 6 Medium2 44,846 1,570 2,724 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 16 Medium2 44,594 1,772 2,786 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 70 Medium2 44,146 794 2,753 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 198 Medium2 43,645 787 2,720 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 46 Medium2 43,511 580 2,142 3 Chic Solid BR South 3 130 Medium2 42,920 580 2,040 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 9 Medium2 45,294 2,067 2,999 3 Chic Solid BR South 1 11 Medium2 46,106 3,340 3,714 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 106 Medium2 44,170 821 5,258 3 Chic Solid BR South 2 132 Medium2 43,662 805 3,726 3 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 70 Medium2 43,511 580 2,142 3 Chic Solid BR South 3 87 Medium2 42,920 580 2,040 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large1 62,939 2,901 2,281 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Large1 55,975 2,430 2,405 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 11 Large1 61,988 875 2,393 3 Chic Solid LA South 2 17 Large1 54,524 821 2,263 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 13 Large1 61,642 580 1,597 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 19 Large1 54,044 580 1,360 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large1 68,922 15,651 5,955 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large1 65,141 12,589 8,034 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 17 Large1 62,029 962 3,528 3 Chic Solid LA South 2 11 Large1 54,588 892 4,278 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 69

3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 19 Large1 61,642 580 1,597 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 13 Large1 54,044 580 1,360 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 270,735 10,799 5,748 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 165,299 6,153 5,144 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 3 Large2 266,224 1,187 4,408 3 Chic Solid LA South 2 5 Large2 160,718 1,076 3,872 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 3 Large2 265,732 580 2,788 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 6 Large2 160,008 580 2,036 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 297,074 66,923 21,924 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 192,914 36,762 22,104 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 4 Large2 266,244 1,230 6,058 3 Chic Solid LA South 2 4 Large2 160,749 1,111 6,979 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 4 Large2 265,732 580 2,788 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 4 Large2 160,008 580 2,036 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Medium1a 10,154 895 1,391 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Medium1a 7,652 784 1,207 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 9 Medium1a 10,073 722 1,437 3 Chic Solid LA South 2 11 Medium1a 7,573 696 1,222 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 5 Medium1a 9,798 580 1,285 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 6 Medium1a 7,205 580 1,074 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Medium1a 10,966 2,626 1,890 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Medium1a 8,663 1,905 1,828 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 14 Medium1a 10,089 757 1,619 3 Chic Solid LA South 2 7 Medium1a 7,598 724 1,486 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 8 Medium1a 9,798 580 1,285 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 4 Medium1a 7,205 580 1,074 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Medium1b 13,364 1,017 1,455 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Medium1b 9,971 863 1,254 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 6 Medium1b 13,226 722 1,534 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 70

3 Chic Solid LA South 2 7 Medium1b 9,821 696 1,284 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 3 Medium1b 12,952 580 1,314 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 4 Medium1b 9,453 580 1,078 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Medium1b 14,491 3,418 2,147 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Medium1b 11,374 2,417 2,116 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 9 Medium1b 13,242 757 1,761 3 Chic Solid LA South 2 5 Medium1b 9,846 724 1,625 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 5 Medium1b 12,952 580 1,314 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 3 Medium1b 9,453 580 1,078 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Medium2 23,187 1,390 1,599 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 3 Medium2 19,687 1,194 1,495 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 16 Medium2 22,940 865 1,739 3 Chic Solid LA South 2 24 Medium2 19,343 813 1,563 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 13 Medium2 22,599 580 1,350 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 19 Medium2 18,871 580 1,135 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 3 Medium2 25,276 5,842 2,882 3 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Medium2 22,729 4,566 3,363 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 24 Medium2 22,980 949 2,172 3 Chic Solid LA South 2 16 Medium2 19,405 881 2,296 3 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 19 Medium2 22,599 580 1,350 3 Chic Solid LA South 3 13 Medium2 18,871 580 1,135 3 Chic Liquid LW South 1 3 Large1 18,612 1,128 2,159 3 Chic Liquid LW South 2 29 Large1 124,846 799 24,961 3 Chic Liquid LW South 3 16 Large1 124,386 580 8,745 3 Chic Liquid LW South 1 2 Large1 21,326 4,135 3,825 3 Chic Liquid LW South 2 19 Large1 124,884 841 21,907 3 Chic Liquid LW South 3 11 Large1 124,386 580 4,444 3 Chic Liquid LW South 1 13 Medium2 3,095 603 1,144 3 Chic Liquid LW South 2 53 Medium2 12,901 590 2,210 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 71

3 Chic Liquid LW South 3 42 Medium2 12,629 580 1,509 3 Chic Liquid LW South 1 9 Medium2 3,209 729 1,214 3 Chic Liquid LW South 2 35 Medium2 12,939 632 2,104 3 Chic Liquid LW South 3 28 Medium2 12,629 580 1,328 

3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 14 Large1 64,538 2,214 2,249 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 46 Large1 65,498 2,453 2,432 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 209 Large1 63,405 890 2,289 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 659 Large1 63,932 851 2,158 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 102 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 323 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 21 Large1 65,240 3,036 2,680 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 30 Large1 67,908 4,917 3,912 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 314 Large1 63,427 916 6,327 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 440 Large1 63,964 884 3,538 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 153 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 215 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Large2 168,396 4,878 4,342 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 10 Large2 155,678 5,064 4,659 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 40 Large2 165,119 1,047 3,439 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 140 Large2 151,693 988 3,248 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 16 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 68 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Large2 170,244 7,038 5,476 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 7 Large2 161,445 10,963 8,201 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 60 Large2 165,162 1,097 10,330 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 93 Large2 151,736 1,033 5,286 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 24 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 46 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 33 Medium1a 21,127 1,075 1,351 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 72

3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 79 Medium1a 20,967 1,172 1,383 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 275 Medium1a 20,831 747 1,362 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 665 Medium1a 20,547 736 1,382 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 206 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 499 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 49 Medium1a 21,351 1,324 1,488 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 53 Medium1a 21,717 1,950 1,844 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 413 Medium1a 20,856 774 2,481 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 444 Medium1a 20,571 761 1,849 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 309 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 333 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 15 Medium1b 29,305 1,274 1,539 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 36 Medium1b 29,076 1,410 1,614 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 126 Medium1b 28,830 747 1,559 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 305 Medium1b 28,427 736 1,614 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 95 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 228 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 23 Medium1b 29,619 1,623 1,732 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 24 Medium1b 30,128 2,501 2,261 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 189 Medium1b 28,854 774 3,268 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 203 Medium1b 28,451 761 2,269 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 142 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 152 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 19 Medium2 41,467 1,570 1,714 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 57 Medium2 41,417 1,772 1,838 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 224 Medium2 40,767 794 1,744 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 683 Medium2 40,467 787 1,772 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 148 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 450 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 73

3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 28 Medium2 41,915 2,067 1,990 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 38 Medium2 42,929 3,340 2,766 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 336 Medium2 40,791 821 4,249 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 455 Medium2 40,485 805 2,779 3.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 222 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 3.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 300 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 59,137 2,901 1,123 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Large1 52,774 2,430 1,457 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 30 Large1 58,186 875 1,235 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 59 Large1 51,323 821 1,315 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 33 Large1 57,840 580 439 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 67 Large1 50,843 580 412 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 65,120 15,651 4,798 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Large1 61,940 12,589 7,086 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 44 Large1 58,227 962 2,370 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 39 Large1 51,387 892 3,330 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 50 Large1 57,840 580 439 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 45 Large1 50,843 580 412 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 259,389 10,799 4,442 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 158,261 6,153 4,120 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 7 Large2 254,878 1,187 3,101 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 19 Large2 153,681 1,076 2,848 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 8 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 21 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 285,727 66,923 20,617 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 185,877 36,762 21,080 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 10 Large2 254,898 1,230 4,751 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 12 Large2 153,712 1,111 5,955 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 11 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 74

3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 14 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 3 Medium1a 8,268 895 272 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Medium1a 6,146 784 292 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 24 Medium1a 8,187 722 317 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 36 Medium1a 6,067 696 307 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 13 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 20 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 4 Medium1a 9,081 2,626 771 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 3 Medium1a 7,157 1,905 913 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 37 Medium1a 8,203 757 499 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 24 Medium1a 6,092 724 571 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 20 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 13 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Medium1b 11,362 1,017 333 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 3 Medium1b 8,384 863 338 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 16 Medium1b 11,224 722 412 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 24 Medium1b 8,234 696 368 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 9 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 13 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 3 Medium1b 12,489 3,418 1,025 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Medium1b 9,787 2,417 1,199 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 24 Medium1b 11,240 757 639 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 16 Medium1b 8,259 724 709 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 13 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 9 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 5 Medium2 20,828 1,390 470 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 9 Medium2 17,759 1,194 572 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 42 Medium2 20,582 865 610 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 82 Medium2 17,415 813 640 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 75

3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 34 Medium2 20,240 580 221 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 66 Medium2 16,943 580 212 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 8 Medium2 22,917 5,842 1,753 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 6 Medium2 20,801 4,566 2,440 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 64 Medium2 20,621 949 1,043 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 55 Medium2 17,477 881 1,373 3.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 51 Medium2 20,240 580 221 3.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 44 Medium2 16,943 580 212 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 11 Large1 1,053 1,128 460 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 101 Large1 107,287 799 23,262 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 55 Large1 106,827 580 7,046 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 7 Large1 3,767 4,135 2,126 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 67 Large1 107,325 841 20,209 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 37 Large1 106,827 580 2,745 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 45 Medium2 415 603 166 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 183 Medium2 10,221 590 1,232 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 144 Medium2 9,949 580 530 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 30 Medium2 529 729 236 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 122 Medium2 10,259 632 1,126 3.1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 96 Medium2 9,949 580 350 

4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Large1 69,049 2,606 9,533 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 13 Large1 69,793 2,845 9,654 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 66 Large1 67,916 1,282 9,573 4 Chic Solid BR South 2 191 Large1 68,226 1,243 9,380 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 32 Large1 67,187 972 8,639 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 93 Large1 67,437 972 8,490 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 7 Large1 69,752 3,428 9,964 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 9 Large1 72,202 5,309 11,134 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 99 Large1 67,938 1,308 13,611 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 76

4 Chic Solid BR South 2 127 Large1 68,259 1,276 10,760 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 48 Large1 67,187 972 8,639 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 62 Large1 67,437 972 8,490 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Large2 178,012 5,270 11,727 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 3 Large2 164,153 5,456 11,964 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Large2 174,735 1,439 10,824 4 Chic Solid BR South 2 41 Large2 160,168 1,380 10,553 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 5 Large2 173,871 972 9,434 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 20 Large2 159,244 972 9,232 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Large2 179,859 7,430 12,861 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 2 Large2 169,920 11,355 15,506 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 19 Large2 174,778 1,489 17,715 4 Chic Solid BR South 2 27 Large2 160,211 1,425 12,590 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Large2 173,871 972 9,434 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 13 Large2 159,244 972 9,232 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 10 Medium1a 23,506 1,467 8,592 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 23 Medium1a 23,197 1,564 8,564 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 86 Medium1a 23,210 1,139 8,604 4 Chic Solid BR South 2 193 Medium1a 22,777 1,128 8,563 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 65 Medium1a 22,618 972 8,285 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 144 Medium1a 22,101 972 8,173 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 15 Medium1a 23,730 1,716 8,730 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 15 Medium1a 23,947 2,342 9,024 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 130 Medium1a 23,235 1,166 9,722 4 Chic Solid BR South 2 128 Medium1a 22,801 1,153 9,030 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 97 Medium1a 22,618 972 8,285 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 96 Medium1a 22,101 972 8,173 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 5 Medium1b 32,086 1,666 8,789 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 11 Medium1b 31,682 1,802 8,803 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 77

4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 40 Medium1b 31,611 1,139 8,808 4 Chic Solid BR South 2 88 Medium1b 31,032 1,128 8,802 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 30 Medium1b 31,019 972 8,371 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 66 Medium1b 30,357 972 8,272 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 7 Medium1b 32,400 2,015 8,982 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 7 Medium1b 32,734 2,893 9,449 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 60 Medium1b 31,636 1,166 10,518 4 Chic Solid BR South 2 59 Medium1b 31,057 1,153 9,458 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 45 Medium1b 31,019 972 8,371 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 44 Medium1b 30,357 972 8,272 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 6 Medium2 44,846 1,962 8,976 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 16 Medium2 44,594 2,164 9,038 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 70 Medium2 44,146 1,186 9,005 4 Chic Solid BR South 2 198 Medium2 43,645 1,179 8,972 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 46 Medium2 43,511 972 8,394 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 130 Medium2 42,920 972 8,292 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 9 Medium2 45,294 2,459 9,251 4 Chic Solid BR South 1 11 Medium2 46,106 3,732 9,966 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 106 Medium2 44,170 1,213 11,510 4 Chic Solid BR South 2 132 Medium2 43,662 1,197 9,978 4 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 70 Medium2 43,511 972 8,394 4 Chic Solid BR South 3 87 Medium2 42,920 972 8,292 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large1 62,939 3,293 8,533 4 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Large1 55,975 2,822 8,657 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 11 Large1 61,988 1,267 8,645 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 17 Large1 54,524 1,213 8,515 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 13 Large1 61,642 972 7,849 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 19 Large1 54,044 972 7,612 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large1 68,922 16,043 12,207 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 78

4 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large1 65,141 12,981 14,286 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 17 Large1 62,029 1,354 9,780 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 11 Large1 54,588 1,284 10,530 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 19 Large1 61,642 972 7,849 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 13 Large1 54,044 972 7,612 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 270,735 11,191 12,000 4 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 165,299 6,545 11,396 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 3 Large2 266,224 1,579 10,660 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 5 Large2 160,718 1,468 10,124 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 3 Large2 265,732 972 9,040 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 6 Large2 160,008 972 8,288 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 297,074 67,315 28,176 4 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 192,914 37,154 28,356 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 4 Large2 266,244 1,622 12,310 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 4 Large2 160,749 1,503 13,231 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 4 Large2 265,732 972 9,040 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 4 Large2 160,008 972 8,288 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Medium1a 10,154 1,287 7,643 4 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Medium1a 7,652 1,176 7,459 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 9 Medium1a 10,073 1,114 7,689 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 11 Medium1a 7,573 1,088 7,474 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 5 Medium1a 9,798 972 7,537 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 6 Medium1a 7,205 972 7,326 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Medium1a 10,966 3,018 8,142 4 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Medium1a 8,663 2,297 8,080 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 14 Medium1a 10,089 1,149 7,871 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 7 Medium1a 7,598 1,116 7,738 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 8 Medium1a 9,798 972 7,537 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 4 Medium1a 7,205 972 7,326 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 79

4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Medium1b 13,364 1,409 7,707 4 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Medium1b 9,971 1,255 7,506 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 6 Medium1b 13,226 1,114 7,786 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 7 Medium1b 9,821 1,088 7,536 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 3 Medium1b 12,952 972 7,566 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 4 Medium1b 9,453 972 7,330 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Medium1b 14,491 3,810 8,399 4 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Medium1b 11,374 2,809 8,368 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 9 Medium1b 13,242 1,149 8,013 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 5 Medium1b 9,846 1,116 7,877 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 5 Medium1b 12,952 972 7,566 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 3 Medium1b 9,453 972 7,330 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Medium2 23,187 1,782 7,851 4 Chic Solid LA South 1 3 Medium2 19,687 1,586 7,747 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 16 Medium2 22,940 1,257 7,991 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 24 Medium2 19,343 1,205 7,815 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 13 Medium2 22,599 972 7,602 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 19 Medium2 18,871 972 7,387 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 3 Medium2 25,276 6,234 9,134 4 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Medium2 22,729 4,958 9,615 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 24 Medium2 22,980 1,341 8,424 4 Chic Solid LA South 2 16 Medium2 19,405 1,273 8,548 4 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 19 Medium2 22,599 972 7,602 4 Chic Solid LA South 3 13 Medium2 18,871 972 7,387 4 Chic Liquid LW South 1 3 Large1 18,612 1,520 8,411 4 Chic Liquid LW South 2 29 Large1 124,846 1,191 31,213 4 Chic Liquid LW South 3 16 Large1 124,386 972 14,997 4 Chic Liquid LW South 1 2 Large1 21,326 4,527 10,077 4 Chic Liquid LW South 2 19 Large1 124,884 1,233 28,159 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 80

4 Chic Liquid LW South 3 11 Large1 124,386 972 10,696 4 Chic Liquid LW South 1 13 Medium2 3,095 995 7,396 4 Chic Liquid LW South 2 53 Medium2 12,901 982 8,462 4 Chic Liquid LW South 3 42 Medium2 12,629 972 7,761 4 Chic Liquid LW South 1 9 Medium2 3,209 1,121 7,466 4 Chic Liquid LW South 2 35 Medium2 12,939 1,024 8,356 4 Chic Liquid LW South 3 28 Medium2 12,629 972 7,580 

4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 14 Large1 64,538 2,606 8,501 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 46 Large1 65,498 2,845 8,684 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 209 Large1 63,405 1,282 8,541 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 659 Large1 63,932 1,243 8,410 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 102 Large1 62,675 972 7,607 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 323 Large1 63,142 972 7,520 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 21 Large1 65,240 3,428 8,932 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 30 Large1 67,908 5,309 10,164 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 314 Large1 63,427 1,308 12,579 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 440 Large1 63,964 1,276 9,790 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 153 Large1 62,675 972 7,607 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 215 Large1 63,142 972 7,520 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Large2 168,396 5,270 10,594 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 10 Large2 155,678 5,456 10,911 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 40 Large2 165,119 1,439 9,691 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 140 Large2 151,693 1,380 9,500 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 16 Large2 164,255 972 8,301 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 68 Large2 150,769 972 8,179 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Large2 170,244 7,430 11,728 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 7 Large2 161,445 11,355 14,453 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 60 Large2 165,162 1,489 16,582 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 93 Large2 151,736 1,425 11,538 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 81

4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 24 Large2 164,255 972 8,301 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 46 Large2 150,769 972 8,179 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 33 Medium1a 21,127 1,467 7,603 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 79 Medium1a 20,967 1,564 7,635 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 275 Medium1a 20,831 1,139 7,614 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 665 Medium1a 20,547 1,128 7,634 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 206 Medium1a 20,239 972 7,295 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 499 Medium1a 19,872 972 7,244 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 49 Medium1a 21,351 1,716 7,740 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 53 Medium1a 21,717 2,342 8,096 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 413 Medium1a 20,856 1,166 8,733 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 444 Medium1a 20,571 1,153 8,101 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 309 Medium1a 20,239 972 7,295 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 333 Medium1a 19,872 972 7,244 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 15 Medium1b 29,305 1,666 7,791 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 36 Medium1b 29,076 1,802 7,866 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 126 Medium1b 28,830 1,139 7,811 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 305 Medium1b 28,427 1,128 7,866 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 95 Medium1b 28,237 972 7,374 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 228 Medium1b 27,751 972 7,335 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 23 Medium1b 29,619 2,015 7,984 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 24 Medium1b 30,128 2,893 8,513 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 189 Medium1b 28,854 1,166 9,520 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 203 Medium1b 28,451 1,153 8,521 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 142 Medium1b 28,237 972 7,374 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 152 Medium1b 27,751 972 7,335 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 19 Medium2 41,467 1,962 7,966 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 57 Medium2 41,417 2,164 8,090 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 224 Medium2 40,767 1,186 7,996 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 82

4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 683 Medium2 40,467 1,179 8,024 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 148 Medium2 40,132 972 7,385 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 450 Medium2 39,743 972 7,344 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 28 Medium2 41,915 2,459 8,242 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 1 38 Medium2 42,929 3,732 9,018 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 336 Medium2 40,791 1,213 10,501 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 2 455 Medium2 40,485 1,197 9,031 4.1 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 222 Medium2 40,132 972 7,385 4.1 Chic Solid BR South 3 300 Medium2 39,743 972 7,344 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 59,137 3,293 7,375 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Large1 52,774 2,822 7,709 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 30 Large1 58,186 1,267 7,487 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 59 Large1 51,323 1,213 7,567 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 33 Large1 57,840 972 6,691 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 67 Large1 50,843 972 6,664 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 65,120 16,043 11,050 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 1 Large1 61,940 12,981 13,338 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 44 Large1 58,227 1,354 8,622 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 39 Large1 51,387 1,284 9,582 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 50 Large1 57,840 972 6,691 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 45 Large1 50,843 972 6,664 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 259,389 11,191 10,694 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 158,261 6,545 10,372 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 7 Large2 254,878 1,579 9,353 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 19 Large2 153,681 1,468 9,100 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 8 Large2 254,386 972 7,733 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 21 Large2 152,971 972 7,264 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 285,727 67,315 26,869 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 185,877 37,154 27,332 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 83

4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 10 Large2 254,898 1,622 11,003 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 12 Large2 153,712 1,503 12,207 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 11 Large2 254,386 972 7,733 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 14 Large2 152,971 972 7,264 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 3 Medium1a 8,268 1,287 6,524 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Medium1a 6,146 1,176 6,544 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 24 Medium1a 8,187 1,114 6,569 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 36 Medium1a 6,067 1,088 6,559 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 13 Medium1a 7,913 972 6,418 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 20 Medium1a 5,700 972 6,411 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 4 Medium1a 9,081 3,018 7,023 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 3 Medium1a 7,157 2,297 7,165 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 37 Medium1a 8,203 1,149 6,751 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 24 Medium1a 6,092 1,116 6,823 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 20 Medium1a 7,913 972 6,418 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 13 Medium1a 5,700 972 6,411 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Medium1b 11,362 1,409 6,585 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 3 Medium1b 8,384 1,255 6,590 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 16 Medium1b 11,224 1,114 6,664 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 24 Medium1b 8,234 1,088 6,620 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 9 Medium1b 10,950 972 6,444 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 13 Medium1b 7,867 972 6,413 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 3 Medium1b 12,489 3,810 7,277 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Medium1b 9,787 2,809 7,451 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 24 Medium1b 11,240 1,149 6,891 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 16 Medium1b 8,259 1,116 6,961 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 13 Medium1b 10,950 972 6,444 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 9 Medium1b 7,867 972 6,413 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 5 Medium2 20,828 1,782 6,722 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 84

4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 9 Medium2 17,759 1,586 6,824 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 42 Medium2 20,582 1,257 6,862 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 82 Medium2 17,415 1,205 6,892 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 34 Medium2 20,240 972 6,473 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 66 Medium2 16,943 972 6,464 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 8 Medium2 22,917 6,234 8,005 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 1 6 Medium2 20,801 4,958 8,692 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 64 Medium2 20,621 1,341 7,295 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 2 55 Medium2 17,477 1,273 7,625 4.1 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 51 Medium2 20,240 972 6,473 4.1 Chic Solid LA South 3 44 Medium2 16,943 972 6,464 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 11 Large1 1,053 1,520 6,712 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 101 Large1 107,287 1,191 29,514 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 55 Large1 106,827 972 13,298 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 7 Large1 3,767 4,527 8,378 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 67 Large1 107,325 1,233 26,461 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 37 Large1 106,827 972 8,997 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 45 Medium2 415 995 6,418 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 183 Medium2 10,221 982 7,484 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 144 Medium2 9,949 972 6,782 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 1 30 Medium2 529 1,121 6,488 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 2 122 Medium2 10,259 1,024 7,378 4.1 Chic Liquid LW South 3 96 Medium2 9,949 972 6,602 

5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 19 Large1 64,538 2,214 2,249 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 59 Large1 65,498 2,453 2,432 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 275 Large1 63,405 890 2,289 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 850 Large1 63,932 851 2,158 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 134 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 5 Chic Solid BR South 3 416 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 85

5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 28 Large1 65,240 3,036 2,680 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 39 Large1 67,908 4,917 3,912 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 412 Large1 63,427 916 6,327 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 567 Large1 63,964 884 3,538 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 202 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 5 Chic Solid BR South 3 278 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Large2 168,396 4,878 4,342 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 13 Large2 155,678 5,064 4,659 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 53 Large2 165,119 1,047 3,439 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 181 Large2 151,693 988 3,248 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 21 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 5 Chic Solid BR South 3 88 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Large2 170,244 7,038 5,476 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 8 Large2 161,445 10,963 8,201 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 79 Large2 165,162 1,097 10,330 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 120 Large2 151,736 1,033 5,286 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 32 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 5 Chic Solid BR South 3 59 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 43 Medium1a 21,127 1,075 1,351 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 102 Medium1a 20,967 1,172 1,383 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 362 Medium1a 20,831 747 1,362 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 858 Medium1a 20,547 736 1,382 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 271 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 5 Chic Solid BR South 3 643 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 65 Medium1a 21,351 1,324 1,488 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 68 Medium1a 21,717 1,950 1,844 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 542 Medium1a 20,856 774 2,481 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 572 Medium1a 20,571 761 1,849 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 406 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 86

5 Chic Solid BR South 3 429 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 20 Medium1b 29,305 1,274 1,539 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 47 Medium1b 29,076 1,410 1,614 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 166 Medium1b 28,830 747 1,559 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 394 Medium1b 28,427 736 1,614 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 124 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 5 Chic Solid BR South 3 295 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 30 Medium1b 29,619 1,623 1,732 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 31 Medium1b 30,128 2,501 2,261 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 249 Medium1b 28,854 774 3,268 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 262 Medium1b 28,451 761 2,269 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 187 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 5 Chic Solid BR South 3 196 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 24 Medium2 41,467 1,570 1,714 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 73 Medium2 41,417 1,772 1,838 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 295 Medium2 40,767 794 1,744 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 880 Medium2 40,467 787 1,772 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 194 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 5 Chic Solid BR South 3 580 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 37 Medium2 41,915 2,067 1,990 5 Chic Solid BR South 1 49 Medium2 42,929 3,340 2,766 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 442 Medium2 40,791 821 4,249 5 Chic Solid BR South 2 587 Medium2 40,485 805 2,779 5 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 292 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 5 Chic Solid BR South 3 387 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 59,137 2,901 1,123 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Large1 52,774 2,430 1,457 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 41 Large1 58,186 875 1,235 5 Chic Solid LA South 2 76 Large1 51,323 821 1,315 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 87

5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 46 Large1 57,840 580 439 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 86 Large1 50,843 580 412 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 65,120 15,651 4,798 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Large1 61,940 12,589 7,086 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 61 Large1 58,227 962 2,370 5 Chic Solid LA South 2 51 Large1 51,387 892 3,330 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 69 Large1 57,840 580 439 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 58 Large1 50,843 580 412 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 259,389 10,799 4,442 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 158,261 6,153 4,120 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 9 Large2 254,878 1,187 3,101 5 Chic Solid LA South 2 24 Large2 153,681 1,076 2,848 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 10 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 27 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 285,727 66,923 20,617 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 185,877 36,762 21,080 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 14 Large2 254,898 1,230 4,751 5 Chic Solid LA South 2 16 Large2 153,712 1,111 5,955 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 16 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 18 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 4 Medium1a 8,268 895 272 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 5 Medium1a 6,146 784 292 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 34 Medium1a 8,187 722 317 5 Chic Solid LA South 2 47 Medium1a 6,067 696 307 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 18 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 26 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 6 Medium1a 9,081 2,626 771 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Medium1a 7,157 1,905 913 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 50 Medium1a 8,203 757 499 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 88

5 Chic Solid LA South 2 31 Medium1a 6,092 724 571 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 28 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 17 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Medium1b 11,362 1,017 333 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Medium1b 8,384 863 338 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 22 Medium1b 11,224 722 412 5 Chic Solid LA South 2 31 Medium1b 8,234 696 368 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 12 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 17 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 4 Medium1b 12,489 3,418 1,025 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Medium1b 9,787 2,417 1,199 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 33 Medium1b 11,240 757 639 5 Chic Solid LA South 2 21 Medium1b 8,259 724 709 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 18 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 12 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 7 Medium2 20,828 1,390 470 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 12 Medium2 17,759 1,194 572 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 58 Medium2 20,582 865 610 5 Chic Solid LA South 2 106 Medium2 17,415 813 640 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 47 Medium2 20,240 580 221 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 85 Medium2 16,943 580 212 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 11 Medium2 22,917 5,842 1,753 5 Chic Solid LA South 1 8 Medium2 20,801 4,566 2,440 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 88 Medium2 20,621 949 1,043 5 Chic Solid LA South 2 70 Medium2 17,477 881 1,373 5 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 70 Medium2 20,240 580 221 5 Chic Solid LA South 3 57 Medium2 16,943 580 212 5 Chic Liquid LW South 1 14 Large1 107,584 1,128 2,590 5 Chic Liquid LW South 2 130 Large1 107,287 799 23,262 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 89

5 Chic Liquid LW South 3 71 Large1 106,827 580 7,046 5 Chic Liquid LW South 1 10 Large1 110,298 4,135 4,257 5 Chic Liquid LW South 2 87 Large1 107,325 841 20,209 5 Chic Liquid LW South 3 48 Large1 106,827 580 2,745 5 Chic Liquid LW South 1 58 Medium2 10,233 603 362 5 Chic Liquid LW South 2 236 Medium2 10,221 590 1,232 5 Chic Liquid LW South 3 186 Medium2 9,949 580 530 5 Chic Liquid LW South 1 39 Medium2 10,347 729 432 5 Chic Liquid LW South 2 157 Medium2 10,259 632 1,126 5 Chic Liquid LW South 3 124 Medium2 9,949 580 350 

5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 19 Large1 64,538 2,214 2,249 5a Chic Solid BR South 1 59 Large1 65,498 2,453 2,432 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 275 Large1 63,405 890 2,289 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 850 Large1 63,932 851 2,158 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 134 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 416 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 28 Large1 65,240 3,036 2,680 5a Chic Solid BR South 1 39 Large1 67,908 4,917 3,912 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 412 Large1 63,427 916 6,327 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 567 Large1 63,964 884 3,538 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 202 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 278 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Large2 168,396 4,878 4,342 5a Chic Solid BR South 1 13 Large2 155,678 5,064 4,659 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 53 Large2 165,119 1,047 3,439 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 181 Large2 151,693 988 3,248 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 21 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 88 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Large2 170,244 7,038 5,476 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 90

5a Chic Solid BR South 1 8 Large2 161,445 10,963 8,201 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 79 Large2 165,162 1,097 10,330 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 120 Large2 151,736 1,033 5,286 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 32 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 59 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 43 Medium1a 21,127 1,075 1,351 5a Chic Solid BR South 1 102 Medium1a 20,967 1,172 1,383 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 362 Medium1a 20,831 747 1,362 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 858 Medium1a 20,547 736 1,382 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 271 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 643 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 65 Medium1a 21,351 1,324 1,488 5a Chic Solid BR South 1 68 Medium1a 21,717 1,950 1,844 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 542 Medium1a 20,856 774 2,481 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 572 Medium1a 20,571 761 1,849 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 406 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 429 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 20 Medium1b 29,305 1,274 1,539 5a Chic Solid BR South 1 47 Medium1b 29,076 1,410 1,614 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 166 Medium1b 28,830 747 1,559 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 394 Medium1b 28,427 736 1,614 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 124 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 295 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 30 Medium1b 29,619 1,623 1,732 5a Chic Solid BR South 1 31 Medium1b 30,128 2,501 2,261 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 249 Medium1b 28,854 774 3,268 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 262 Medium1b 28,451 761 2,269 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 187 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 196 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 91

5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 24 Medium2 41,467 1,570 1,714 5a Chic Solid BR South 1 73 Medium2 41,417 1,772 1,838 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 295 Medium2 40,767 794 1,744 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 880 Medium2 40,467 787 1,772 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 194 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 580 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 37 Medium2 41,915 2,067 1,990 5a Chic Solid BR South 1 49 Medium2 42,929 3,340 2,766 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 442 Medium2 40,791 821 4,249 5a Chic Solid BR South 2 587 Medium2 40,485 805 2,779 5a Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 292 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 5a Chic Solid BR South 3 387 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 59,137 2,901 1,123 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Large1 52,774 2,430 1,457 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 41 Large1 58,186 875 1,235 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 76 Large1 51,323 821 1,315 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 46 Large1 57,840 580 439 5a Chic Solid LA South 3 86 Large1 50,843 580 412 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 65,120 15,651 4,798 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Large1 61,940 12,589 7,086 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 61 Large1 58,227 962 2,370 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 51 Large1 51,387 892 3,330 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 69 Large1 57,840 580 439 5a Chic Solid LA South 3 58 Large1 50,843 580 412 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 259,389 10,799 4,442 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 158,261 6,153 4,120 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 9 Large2 254,878 1,187 3,101 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 24 Large2 153,681 1,076 2,848 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 10 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 92

5a Chic Solid LA South 3 27 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 285,727 66,923 20,617 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 185,877 36,762 21,080 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 14 Large2 254,898 1,230 4,751 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 16 Large2 153,712 1,111 5,955 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 16 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 5a Chic Solid LA South 3 18 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 4 Medium1a 8,268 895 272 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 5 Medium1a 6,146 784 292 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 34 Medium1a 8,187 722 317 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 47 Medium1a 6,067 696 307 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 18 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 5a Chic Solid LA South 3 26 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 6 Medium1a 9,081 2,626 771 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Medium1a 7,157 1,905 913 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 50 Medium1a 8,203 757 499 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 31 Medium1a 6,092 724 571 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 28 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 5a Chic Solid LA South 3 17 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Medium1b 11,362 1,017 333 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Medium1b 8,384 863 338 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 22 Medium1b 11,224 722 412 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 31 Medium1b 8,234 696 368 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 12 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 5a Chic Solid LA South 3 17 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 4 Medium1b 12,489 3,418 1,025 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Medium1b 9,787 2,417 1,199 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 33 Medium1b 11,240 757 639 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 21 Medium1b 8,259 724 709 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 93

5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 18 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 5a Chic Solid LA South 3 12 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 7 Medium2 20,828 1,390 470 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 12 Medium2 17,759 1,194 572 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 58 Medium2 20,582 865 610 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 106 Medium2 17,415 813 640 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 47 Medium2 20,240 580 221 5a Chic Solid LA South 3 85 Medium2 16,943 580 212 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 11 Medium2 22,917 5,842 1,753 5a Chic Solid LA South 1 8 Medium2 20,801 4,566 2,440 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 88 Medium2 20,621 949 1,043 5a Chic Solid LA South 2 70 Medium2 17,477 881 1,373 5a Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 70 Medium2 20,240 580 221 5a Chic Solid LA South 3 57 Medium2 16,943 580 212 5a Chic Liquid LW South 1 14 Large1 1,053 1,128 460 5a Chic Liquid LW South 2 130 Large1 107,287 799 23,262 5a Chic Liquid LW South 3 71 Large1 106,827 580 136 5a Chic Liquid LW South 1 10 Large1 3,767 4,135 2,126 5a Chic Liquid LW South 2 87 Large1 107,325 841 20,209 5a Chic Liquid LW South 3 48 Large1 106,827 580 136 5a Chic Liquid LW South 1 58 Medium2 415 603 166 5a Chic Liquid LW South 2 236 Medium2 10,221 590 1,232 5a Chic Liquid LW South 3 186 Medium2 9,949 580 133 5a Chic Liquid LW South 1 39 Medium2 529 729 236 5a Chic Liquid LW South 2 157 Medium2 10,259 632 1,126 5a Chic Liquid LW South 3 124 Medium2 9,949 580 133 

7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 19 Large1 64,538 2,214 2,249 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 59 Large1 65,498 2,453 2,432 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 275 Large1 63,405 890 2,289 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 94

7 Chic Solid BR South 2 850 Large1 63,932 851 2,158 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 134 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 416 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 28 Large1 65,240 3,036 2,680 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 39 Large1 67,908 4,917 3,912 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 412 Large1 63,427 916 6,327 7 Chic Solid BR South 2 567 Large1 63,964 884 3,538 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 202 Large1 62,675 580 1,355 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 278 Large1 63,142 580 1,268 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Large2 168,396 4,878 4,342 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 13 Large2 155,678 5,064 4,659 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 53 Large2 165,119 1,047 3,439 7 Chic Solid BR South 2 181 Large2 151,693 988 3,248 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 21 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 88 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Large2 170,244 7,038 5,476 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 8 Large2 161,445 10,963 8,201 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 79 Large2 165,162 1,097 10,330 7 Chic Solid BR South 2 120 Large2 151,736 1,033 5,286 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 32 Large2 164,255 580 2,049 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 59 Large2 150,769 580 1,927 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 43 Medium1a 21,127 1,075 1,351 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 102 Medium1a 20,967 1,172 1,383 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 362 Medium1a 20,831 747 1,362 7 Chic Solid BR South 2 858 Medium1a 20,547 736 1,382 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 271 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 643 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 65 Medium1a 21,351 1,324 1,488 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 68 Medium1a 21,717 1,950 1,844 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 95

7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 542 Medium1a 20,856 774 2,481 7 Chic Solid BR South 2 572 Medium1a 20,571 761 1,849 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 406 Medium1a 20,239 580 1,043 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 429 Medium1a 19,872 580 992 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 20 Medium1b 29,305 1,274 1,539 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 47 Medium1b 29,076 1,410 1,614 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 166 Medium1b 28,830 747 1,559 7 Chic Solid BR South 2 394 Medium1b 28,427 736 1,614 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 124 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 295 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 30 Medium1b 29,619 1,623 1,732 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 31 Medium1b 30,128 2,501 2,261 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 249 Medium1b 28,854 774 3,268 7 Chic Solid BR South 2 262 Medium1b 28,451 761 2,269 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 187 Medium1b 28,237 580 1,122 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 196 Medium1b 27,751 580 1,083 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 24 Medium2 41,467 1,570 1,714 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 73 Medium2 41,417 1,772 1,838 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 295 Medium2 40,767 794 1,744 7 Chic Solid BR South 2 880 Medium2 40,467 787 1,772 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 194 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 580 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 1 37 Medium2 41,915 2,067 1,990 7 Chic Solid BR South 1 49 Medium2 42,929 3,340 2,766 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 2 442 Medium2 40,791 821 4,249 7 Chic Solid BR South 2 587 Medium2 40,485 805 2,779 7 Chic Solid BR Mid-Atlantic 3 292 Medium2 40,132 580 1,133 7 Chic Solid BR South 3 387 Medium2 39,743 580 1,092 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 59,137 2,901 1,123 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 96

7 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Large1 52,774 2,430 1,457 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 41 Large1 58,186 875 1,235 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 76 Large1 51,323 821 1,315 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 46 Large1 57,840 580 439 7 Chic Solid LA South 3 86 Large1 50,843 580 412 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 1 Large1 65,120 15,651 4,798 7 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Large1 61,940 12,589 7,086 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 61 Large1 58,227 962 2,370 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 51 Large1 51,387 892 3,330 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 69 Large1 57,840 580 439 7 Chic Solid LA South 3 58 Large1 50,843 580 412 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 259,389 10,799 4,442 7 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 158,261 6,153 4,120 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 9 Large2 254,878 1,187 3,101 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 24 Large2 153,681 1,076 2,848 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 10 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 7 Chic Solid LA South 3 27 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 0 Large2 285,727 66,923 20,617 7 Chic Solid LA South 1 0 Large2 185,877 36,762 21,080 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 14 Large2 254,898 1,230 4,751 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 16 Large2 153,712 1,111 5,955 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 16 Large2 254,386 580 1,481 7 Chic Solid LA South 3 18 Large2 152,971 580 1,012 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 4 Medium1a 8,268 895 272 7 Chic Solid LA South 1 5 Medium1a 6,146 784 292 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 34 Medium1a 8,187 722 317 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 47 Medium1a 6,067 696 307 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 18 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 7 Chic Solid LA South 3 26 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 97

7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 6 Medium1a 9,081 2,626 771 7 Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Medium1a 7,157 1,905 913 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 50 Medium1a 8,203 757 499 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 31 Medium1a 6,092 724 571 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 28 Medium1a 7,913 580 166 7 Chic Solid LA South 3 17 Medium1a 5,700 580 159 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 2 Medium1b 11,362 1,017 333 7 Chic Solid LA South 1 4 Medium1b 8,384 863 338 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 22 Medium1b 11,224 722 412 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 31 Medium1b 8,234 696 368 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 12 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 7 Chic Solid LA South 3 17 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 4 Medium1b 12,489 3,418 1,025 7 Chic Solid LA South 1 2 Medium1b 9,787 2,417 1,199 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 33 Medium1b 11,240 757 639 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 21 Medium1b 8,259 724 709 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 18 Medium1b 10,950 580 192 7 Chic Solid LA South 3 12 Medium1b 7,867 580 161 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 7 Medium2 20,828 1,390 470 7 Chic Solid LA South 1 12 Medium2 17,759 1,194 572 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 58 Medium2 20,582 865 610 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 106 Medium2 17,415 813 640 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 47 Medium2 20,240 580 221 7 Chic Solid LA South 3 85 Medium2 16,943 580 212 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 1 11 Medium2 22,917 5,842 1,753 7 Chic Solid LA South 1 8 Medium2 20,801 4,566 2,440 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 2 88 Medium2 20,621 949 1,043 7 Chic Solid LA South 2 70 Medium2 17,477 881 1,373 7 Chic Solid LA Midwest 3 70 Medium2 20,240 580 221 
Cost for Poultry Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 3

Appendices - 98

7 Chic Solid LA South 3 57 Medium2 16,943 580 212 7 Chic Liquid LW South 1 14 Large1 1,053 1,128 460 7 Chic Liquid LW South 2 130 Large1 107,287 799 23,262 7 Chic Liquid LW South 3 71 Large1 106,827 580 7,046 7 Chic Liquid LW South 1 10 Large1 3,767 4,135 2,126 7 Chic Liquid LW South 2 87 Large1 107,325 841 20,209 7 Chic Liquid LW South 3 48 Large1 106,827 580 2,745 7 Chic Liquid LW South 1 58 Medium2 415 603 166 7 Chic Liquid LW South 2 236 Medium2 10,221 590 1,232 7 Chic Liquid LW South 3 186 Medium2 9,949 580 530 7 Chic Liquid LW South 1 39 Medium2 529 729 236 7 Chic Liquid LW South 2 157 Medium2 10,259 632 1,126 7 Chic Liquid LW South 3 124 Medium2 9,949 580 350 
Appendices - 99

Regulatory Compliance Costs for the Turkey (SL, slaughter) Operations

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 30 Medium1a 7,842 1,483 11 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 20 Medium1b 12,627 2,103 21 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 8 Medium2 17,863 2,781 21 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 5 Large1 37,378 5,266 41 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 26 Medium1a 18,125 1,314 11 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 17 Medium1b 30,109 1,818 11 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 7 Medium2 44,537 2,424 21 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 7 Large1 153,603 7,003 61 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 288 Medium1a 7,780 1,401 11 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 192 Medium1b 12,098 1,401 21 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 127 Medium2 16,986 1,619 21 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 90 Large1 35,073 2,239 51 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 247 Medium1a 18,215 1,434 11 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 165 Medium1b 29,798 1,404 11 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 113 Medium2 43,935 1,623 21 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 124 Large1 150,038 2,261 81 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 123 Medium1a 6,637 580 11 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 82 Medium1b 10,955 580 11 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 59 Medium2 15,679 580 11 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 60 Large1 33,290 580 21 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 106 Medium1a 17,240 580 1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 70 Medium1b 28,845 580 1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 52 Medium2 42,817 580 11 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 83 Large1 148,300 580 32 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Medium1a 11,037 5,716 32 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 12 Medium1b 18,016 9,242 52 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 5 Medium2 25,653 13,100 72 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Large1 54,117 27,239 14
Appendices - 100

Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

2 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 16 Medium1a 22,410 7,013 32 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 10 Medium1b 37,336 11,429 62 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Medium2 55,305 16,747 82 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Large1 191,109 56,888 292 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 173 Medium1a 7,929 1,599 42 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 115 Medium1b 12,220 1,563 72 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 76 Medium2 17,116 1,790 92 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 54 Large1 35,423 2,699 192 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 148 Medium1a 18,342 1,603 22 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 99 Medium1b 29,921 1,567 32 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 68 Medium2 44,064 1,795 42 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 74 Large1 150,389 2,727 132 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 74 Medium1a 6,637 580 12 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Medium1b 10,955 580 12 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 35 Medium2 15,679 580 12 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 36 Large1 33,290 580 22 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 64 Medium1a 17,240 580 2 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 42 Medium1b 28,845 580 2 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 31 Medium2 42,817 580 12 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 50 Large1 148,300 580 33 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Medium1a 10,925 1,483 23 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Medium1b 16,881 2,103 33 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Medium2 23,397 2,781 33 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 0 Large1 47,685 5,266 53 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Medium1a 21,619 1,314 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 2 Medium1b 34,915 1,818 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 1 Medium2 50,922 2,424 33 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 1 Large1 171,906 7,003 73 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 28 Medium1a 10,864 1,401 2
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 101

3 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 18 Medium1b 16,351 1,401 33 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 12 Medium2 22,520 1,619 43 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Large1 45,379 2,239 63 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 27 Medium1a 21,710 1,434 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 18 Medium1b 34,604 1,404 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 12 Medium2 50,319 1,623 33 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 14 Large1 168,341 2,261 93 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium1a 9,721 580 23 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Medium1b 15,209 580 23 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 6 Medium2 21,213 580 23 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 6 Large1 43,597 580 33 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 12 Medium1a 20,734 580 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 8 Medium1b 33,651 580 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 6 Medium2 49,202 580 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 9 Large1 166,603 580 43 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Medium1a 14,121 5,716 43 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Medium1b 22,270 9,242 63 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Medium2 31,186 13,100 83 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Large1 64,423 27,239 163 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Medium1a 25,904 7,013 53 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Medium1b 42,142 11,429 73 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 1 Medium2 61,690 16,747 93 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 1 Large1 209,412 56,888 303 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Medium1a 11,013 1,599 53 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 28 Medium1b 16,474 1,563 83 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 18 Medium2 22,649 1,790 103 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Large1 45,729 2,699 213 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 41 Medium1a 21,837 1,603 33 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 27 Medium1b 34,726 1,567 4
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 102

3 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 19 Medium2 50,449 1,795 53 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 20 Large1 168,691 2,727 143 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 18 Medium1a 9,721 580 23 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium1b 15,209 580 23 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Medium2 21,213 580 23 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Large1 43,597 580 33 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 17 Medium1a 20,734 580 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 12 Medium1b 33,651 580 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 9 Medium2 49,202 580 23 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 14 Large1 166,603 580 4

3.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 9 Medium1a 7,842 1,483 13.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 6 Medium1b 12,627 2,103 23.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Medium2 17,863 2,781 23.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Large1 37,378 5,266 43.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 8 Medium1a 18,125 1,314 13.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 5 Medium1b 30,109 1,818 13.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 2 Medium2 44,537 2,424 23.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 2 Large1 153,603 7,003 63.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 88 Medium1a 7,780 1,401 13.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 58 Medium1b 12,098 1,401 23.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 39 Medium2 16,986 1,619 23.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 27 Large1 35,073 2,239 53.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 72 Medium1a 18,215 1,434 13.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 48 Medium1b 29,798 1,404 13.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 33 Medium2 43,935 1,623 23.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 36 Large1 150,038 2,261 83.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 37 Medium1a 6,637 580 13.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 25 Medium1b 10,955 580 13.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 18 Medium2 15,679 580 1
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 103

3.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 18 Large1 33,290 580 23.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 31 Medium1a 17,240 580 3.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 20 Medium1b 28,845 580 3.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 15 Medium2 42,817 580 13.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 24 Large1 148,300 580 33.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 14 Medium1a 11,037 5,716 33.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 9 Medium1b 18,016 9,242 53.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Medium2 25,653 13,100 73.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Large1 54,117 27,239 143.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 11 Medium1a 22,410 7,013 33.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 7 Medium1b 37,336 11,429 63.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Medium2 55,305 16,747 83.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Large1 191,109 56,888 293.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 131 Medium1a 7,929 1,599 43.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 88 Medium1b 12,220 1,563 73.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 58 Medium2 17,116 1,790 93.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Large1 35,423 2,699 193.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 108 Medium1a 18,342 1,603 23.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 72 Medium1b 29,921 1,567 33.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 49 Medium2 44,064 1,795 43.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 54 Large1 150,389 2,727 133.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 56 Medium1a 6,637 580 13.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 37 Medium1b 10,955 580 13.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 27 Medium2 15,679 580 13.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 27 Large1 33,290 580 23.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 46 Medium1a 17,240 580 3.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 30 Medium1b 28,845 580 3.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 23 Medium2 42,817 580 13.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 36 Large1 148,300 580 3
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 104

4 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Medium1a 10,925 1,875 94 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Medium1b 16,881 2,495 94 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Medium2 23,397 3,173 104 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 0 Large1 47,685 5,658 124 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Medium1a 21,619 1,706 84 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 2 Medium1b 34,915 2,210 94 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 1 Medium2 50,922 2,816 94 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 1 Large1 171,906 7,395 134 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 28 Medium1a 10,864 1,793 94 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 18 Medium1b 16,351 1,793 94 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 12 Medium2 22,520 2,011 104 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 9 Large1 45,379 2,631 124 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 27 Medium1a 21,710 1,826 84 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 18 Medium1b 34,604 1,796 94 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 12 Medium2 50,319 2,015 94 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 14 Large1 168,341 2,653 154 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium1a 9,721 972 84 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Medium1b 15,209 972 84 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 6 Medium2 21,213 972 94 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 6 Large1 43,597 972 94 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 12 Medium1a 20,734 972 84 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 8 Medium1b 33,651 972 84 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 6 Medium2 49,202 972 84 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 9 Large1 166,603 972 104 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Medium1a 14,121 6,108 104 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Medium1b 22,270 9,634 124 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Medium2 31,186 13,492 144 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 1 Large1 64,423 27,631 224 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Medium1a 25,904 7,405 11
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 105

4 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Medium1b 42,142 11,821 134 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 1 Medium2 61,690 17,139 164 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 1 Large1 209,412 57,280 364 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Medium1a 11,013 1,991 114 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 28 Medium1b 16,474 1,955 144 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 18 Medium2 22,649 2,182 174 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 13 Large1 45,729 3,091 274 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 41 Medium1a 21,837 1,995 94 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 27 Medium1b 34,726 1,959 104 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 19 Medium2 50,449 2,187 114 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 20 Large1 168,691 3,119 214 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 18 Medium1a 9,721 972 84 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 12 Medium1b 15,209 972 84 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 8 Medium2 21,213 972 94 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 9 Large1 43,597 972 94 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 17 Medium1a 20,734 972 84 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 12 Medium1b 33,651 972 84 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 9 Medium2 49,202 972 84 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 14 Large1 166,603 972 10

4.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 9 Medium1a 7,842 1,875 84.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 6 Medium1b 12,627 2,495 84.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Medium2 17,863 3,173 94.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Large1 37,378 5,658 104.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 8 Medium1a 18,125 1,706 74.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 5 Medium1b 30,109 2,210 74.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 2 Medium2 44,537 2,816 84.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 2 Large1 153,603 7,395 124.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 88 Medium1a 7,780 1,793 84.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 58 Medium1b 12,098 1,793 8
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 106

4.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 39 Medium2 16,986 2,011 94.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 27 Large1 35,073 2,631 114.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 72 Medium1a 18,215 1,826 74.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 48 Medium1b 29,798 1,796 84.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 33 Medium2 43,935 2,015 84.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 36 Large1 150,038 2,653 144.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 37 Medium1a 6,637 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 25 Medium1b 10,955 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 18 Medium2 15,679 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 18 Large1 33,290 972 84.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 31 Medium1a 17,240 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 20 Medium1b 28,845 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 15 Medium2 42,817 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 24 Large1 148,300 972 94.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 14 Medium1a 11,037 6,108 94.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 9 Medium1b 18,016 9,634 114.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 4 Medium2 25,653 13,492 134.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Large1 54,117 27,631 214.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 11 Medium1a 22,410 7,405 104.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 7 Medium1b 37,336 11,821 124.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Medium2 55,305 17,139 144.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Large1 191,109 57,280 354.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 131 Medium1a 7,929 1,991 104.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 88 Medium1b 12,220 1,955 134.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 58 Medium2 17,116 2,182 164.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 41 Large1 35,423 3,091 264.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 108 Medium1a 18,342 1,995 84.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 72 Medium1b 29,921 1,959 94.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 49 Medium2 44,064 2,187 10
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 107

4.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 54 Large1 150,389 3,119 194.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 56 Medium1a 6,637 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 37 Medium1b 10,955 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 27 Medium2 15,679 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 27 Large1 33,290 972 84.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 46 Medium1a 17,240 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 30 Medium1b 28,845 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 23 Medium2 42,817 972 74.1 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 36 Large1 148,300 972 9

5 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 12 Medium1a 7,842 1,483 15 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 8 Medium1b 12,627 2,103 25 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Medium2 17,863 2,781 25 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Large1 37,378 5,266 45 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 10 Medium1a 18,125 1,314 15 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 7 Medium1b 30,109 1,818 15 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Medium2 44,537 2,424 25 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Large1 153,603 7,003 65 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 115 Medium1a 7,780 1,401 15 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 77 Medium1b 12,098 1,401 25 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 51 Medium2 16,986 1,619 25 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 36 Large1 35,073 2,239 55 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 99 Medium1a 18,215 1,434 15 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 66 Medium1b 29,798 1,404 15 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 45 Medium2 43,935 1,623 25 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 50 Large1 150,038 2,261 85 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Medium1a 6,637 580 15 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 33 Medium1b 10,955 580 15 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 24 Medium2 15,679 580 15 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 24 Large1 33,290 580 2
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 108

5 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 42 Medium1a 17,240 580 5 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 28 Medium1b 28,845 580 5 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 21 Medium2 42,817 580 15 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 33 Large1 148,300 580 35 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Medium1a 11,037 5,716 35 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 12 Medium1b 18,016 9,242 55 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 5 Medium2 25,653 13,100 75 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Large1 54,117 27,239 145 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 16 Medium1a 22,410 7,013 35 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 10 Medium1b 37,336 11,429 65 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Medium2 55,305 16,747 85 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Large1 191,109 56,888 295 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 173 Medium1a 7,929 1,599 45 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 115 Medium1b 12,220 1,563 75 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 76 Medium2 17,116 1,790 95 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 54 Large1 35,423 2,699 195 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 148 Medium1a 18,342 1,603 25 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 99 Medium1b 29,921 1,567 35 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 68 Medium2 44,064 1,795 45 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 74 Large1 150,389 2,727 135 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 74 Medium1a 6,637 580 15 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Medium1b 10,955 580 15 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 35 Medium2 15,679 580 15 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 36 Large1 33,290 580 25 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 64 Medium1a 17,240 580 5 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 42 Medium1b 28,845 580 5 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 31 Medium2 42,817 580 15 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 50 Large1 148,300 580 3

5a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 12 Medium1a 7,842 1,483 1
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 109

5a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 8 Medium1b 12,627 2,103 25a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Medium2 17,863 2,781 25a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Large1 37,378 5,266 45a Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 10 Medium1a 18,125 1,314 15a Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 7 Medium1b 30,109 1,818 15a Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Medium2 44,537 2,424 25a Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Large1 153,603 7,003 65a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 115 Medium1a 7,780 1,401 15a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 77 Medium1b 12,098 1,401 25a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 51 Medium2 16,986 1,619 25a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 36 Large1 35,073 2,239 55a Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 99 Medium1a 18,215 1,434 15a Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 66 Medium1b 29,798 1,404 15a Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 45 Medium2 43,935 1,623 25a Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 50 Large1 150,038 2,261 85a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Medium1a 6,637 580 15a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 33 Medium1b 10,955 580 15a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 24 Medium2 15,679 580 15a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 24 Large1 33,290 580 25a Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 42 Medium1a 17,240 580 5a Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 28 Medium1b 28,845 580 5a Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 21 Medium2 42,817 580 15a Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 33 Large1 148,300 580 35a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Medium1a 11,037 5,716 35a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 12 Medium1b 18,016 9,242 55a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 5 Medium2 25,653 13,100 75a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Large1 54,117 27,239 145a Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 16 Medium1a 22,410 7,013 35a Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 10 Medium1b 37,336 11,429 6
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 110

5a Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Medium2 55,305 16,747 85a Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Large1 191,109 56,888 295a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 173 Medium1a 7,929 1,599 45a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 115 Medium1b 12,220 1,563 75a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 76 Medium2 17,116 1,790 95a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 54 Large1 35,423 2,699 195a Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 148 Medium1a 18,342 1,603 25a Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 99 Medium1b 29,921 1,567 35a Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 68 Medium2 44,064 1,795 45a Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 74 Large1 150,389 2,727 135a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 74 Medium1a 6,637 580 15a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Medium1b 10,955 580 15a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 35 Medium2 15,679 580 15a Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 36 Large1 33,290 580 25a Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 64 Medium1a 17,240 580 5a Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 42 Medium1b 28,845 580 5a Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 31 Medium2 42,817 580 15a Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 50 Large1 148,300 580 3

7 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 12 Medium1a 7,842 1,483 17 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 8 Medium1b 12,627 2,103 27 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Medium2 17,863 2,781 27 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 2 Large1 37,378 5,266 47 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 10 Medium1a 18,125 1,314 17 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 7 Medium1b 30,109 1,818 17 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Medium2 44,537 2,424 27 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 3 Large1 153,603 7,003 67 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 115 Medium1a 7,780 1,401 17 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 77 Medium1b 12,098 1,401 27 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 51 Medium2 16,986 1,619 2
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 111

7 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 36 Large1 35,073 2,239 57 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 99 Medium1a 18,215 1,434 17 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 66 Medium1b 29,798 1,404 17 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 45 Medium2 43,935 1,623 27 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 50 Large1 150,038 2,261 87 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Medium1a 6,637 580 17 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 33 Medium1b 10,955 580 17 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 24 Medium2 15,679 580 17 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 24 Large1 33,290 580 27 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 42 Medium1a 17,240 580 7 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 28 Medium1b 28,845 580 7 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 21 Medium2 42,817 580 17 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 33 Large1 148,300 580 37 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 18 Medium1a 11,037 5,716 37 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 12 Medium1b 18,016 9,242 57 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 5 Medium2 25,653 13,100 77 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 1 3 Large1 54,117 27,239 147 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 16 Medium1a 22,410 7,013 37 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 10 Medium1b 37,336 11,429 67 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Medium2 55,305 16,747 87 Turk Solid SL Midwest 1 4 Large1 191,109 56,888 297 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 173 Medium1a 7,929 1,599 47 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 115 Medium1b 12,220 1,563 77 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 76 Medium2 17,116 1,790 97 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 2 54 Large1 35,423 2,699 197 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 148 Medium1a 18,342 1,603 27 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 99 Medium1b 29,921 1,567 37 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 68 Medium2 44,064 1,795 47 Turk Solid SL Midwest 2 74 Large1 150,389 2,727 13
Cost for Turkey Operations (Continued)

Option Animal Type Operation Region Category # Facilities Size ID Capital Fixed O&M 

Appendices - 112

7 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 74 Medium1a 6,637 580 17 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 49 Medium1b 10,955 580 17 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 35 Medium2 15,679 580 17 Turk Solid SL Mid-Atlantic 3 36 Large1 33,290 580 27 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 64 Medium1a 17,240 580 7 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 42 Medium1b 28,845 580 7 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 31 Medium2 42,817 580 17 Turk Solid SL Midwest 3 50 Large1 148,300 580 3