USDA Rural Development’s Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program is back with about $60 million for eligible cattle primary processors under a round titled “Fortifying the American Beef Industry.” This guide covers the two application tracks and their award ranges, the eligibility test, allowable and unallowable costs, the 50% / 25% match rules — and the single most important planning issue: USDA requires a business plan but treats business-plan and feasibility-study costs as unallowable, so they must be funded outside the grant. Applications are due August 7, 2026.
USDA Rural Development has opened Phase 4 of the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program (MPPEP-4), making approximately $60 million available for eligible processors under a round titled “Fortifying the American Beef Industry.” The program is designed to expand processing capacity, strengthen local and regional supply chains, and support smaller and mid-sized processors. Applications are due August 7, 2026.
Although it is called a meat and poultry processing expansion program, the key eligibility requirement is narrower than the name suggests: the applicant’s facility must currently primary process cattle for commercial markets or toll processing. USDA notes that funded equipment may also be used for meat or poultry processing performed at the same facility, but the facility must be a cattle primary processor to qualify. USDA expects to make roughly 75 grants in FY 2026, split equally between two competitions — one for Very Small and Small Processors, and one for Intermediate Processors — but it does not guarantee a specific number of awards or a minimum funding level.
This is general information, not legal or grant-writing advice. Program rules, eligibility, and cost definitions can change by funding cycle, so confirm every decision against the current MPPEP-4 Notice of Funding Opportunity before you commit.
MPPEP-4 offers two tracks. Choosing the right one is the first strategic decision, because the award range, the match requirement, and what the grant can pay for all differ.
| Track | Award range | Match | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processing Expansion Projects | $50,000 – $2 million | 50% of project cost | Larger equipment purchases, renovations tied to equipment installation, capacity expansion, food-safety upgrades, traceability, automation, targeted marketing, training, and compliance costs |
| Simplified Equipment-Only Projects | $10,000 – $250,000 | 25% of project cost | Straight equipment purchases only — no renovation, labor, installation, or certification costs included |
USDA states that the $60 million will be split equally between the two competitions: one for Very Small and Small Processors and one for Intermediate Processors. The processor-size definitions therefore matter twice — once for eligibility and once for which pool your application competes in.
This is the single most important planning issue for MPPEP-4 applicants, and the reason this guide leads with it.
For Processing Expansion Projects, USDA requires a business plan that includes the rationale for the proposed project. The NOFO defines a business plan as a formal statement of the applicant’s business goals, why they are attainable, and the plan for achieving them — including pro forma financial statements sufficient to demonstrate project viability.
However, USDA also lists project planning — such as business plans and feasibility studies — as an unallowable use of MPPEP-4 funds. Grant application preparation costs are unallowable as well. That means applicants should not place business-plan, feasibility-study, grant-writing, or pre-application planning costs inside the MPPEP project budget. Those costs must be paid outside the grant budget and outside the requested federal funds.
In plain English: you may need the business plan and its financial analysis to win the grant, but you cannot use the grant to pay for preparing them. The safest response is to budget the planning work as an applicant-funded expense from the start — not to discover the rule after selection, when unallowable costs can disqualify or delay the award.
Eligible applicants include for-profit organizations, nonprofit organizations, producer-owned cooperatives, Tribes, and Tribal Entities. Applicants must meet the definition of a Very Small Processor, Small Processor, or Intermediate Processor; be domestically owned; be independently owned and operated; operate in a state; and have been engaged in the primary processing of cattle for at least one year as of the application date.
The facility must also operate under one of the following inspection systems:
Processors that are custom-exempt, uninspected, exclusively non-commercial, nationally dominant, delinquent on federal debt, debarred or suspended, or already holding an active award under certain USDA meat-processing programs are not eligible. USDA also bars affiliated entities from submitting multiple applications in certain common-ownership situations, so confirm that related entities are not each applying.
For Processing Expansion Projects, eligible costs may include purchasing or upgrading processing equipment, refrigeration and cold-storage expansion, packaging and labeling equipment, grinders, slicers, smokers, mixers, and vacuum tumblers, traceability software, virtual grading equipment, x-rays, waste-treatment and byproduct-utilization equipment, worker-safety automation, mobile or modular processing units, and equipment that improves water efficiency or reduces greenhouse-gas emissions.
Funds may also support internal or minimal external improvements needed to install new equipment — such as necessary electrical upgrades, HVAC-related improvements, and room reconfigurations — as long as those costs are directly allocable and necessary to the equipment installation. USDA also allows certain targeted marketing costs, training on grant-funded equipment, and specified certification and compliance costs (for example, HACCP revisions and eligible USDA certification work).
For Simplified Equipment-Only Projects, the rule is much narrower: grant funds can be used only for equipment purchases. They cannot be used for associated renovation, labor, installation, or certification costs.
USDA’s unallowable-cost list is where many applications get into trouble. MPPEP-4 funds generally cannot be used for research and development, real-property purchase or lease, most vehicle costs (except mobile processing units), new-facility construction, footprint-expanding construction that requires breaking ground, construction not directly tied to equipment installation, equipment disconnected from the facility, routine maintenance, raw materials, processing labor, and — as covered above — project planning such as business plans and feasibility studies, plus grant application preparation.
MPPEP-4 requires cost sharing. Processing Expansion Projects require a 50% match, while Simplified Equipment-Only Projects require a 25% match. USDA will verify evidence of cost sharing at the time of award, and if the applicant cannot verify the match within the required timeframe, USDA may offer funding to the next highest-ranked project.
Pay close attention to what cannot count toward the match:
In practice, that pushes applicants toward documented cash and committed non-federal financing for the match — and makes it essential to size the match early against a clean, allowable project budget.
The MPPEP-4 application package includes federal forms, a project narrative, supporting documents, financial information, customer-demand evidence, key-personnel information, and — for Processing Expansion Projects — a business plan. On the financial side, USDA requires:
Customer-demand letters are also important. USDA says letters should identify specific products, services, or estimated volumes; general letters that do not identify products, services, or volumes will not be considered evidence of customer demand.
The strongest MPPEP-4 applications do more than list equipment. They connect the project to measurable outcomes — increased slaughter or processing throughput, reduced bottlenecks, improved food safety, better cold-storage capacity, stronger producer access, healthier local supply chains, improved labor conditions, or higher-value use of carcasses and byproducts. To keep the budget clean, build two separate workstreams:
That separation avoids one of the most common MPPEP-4 mistakes: putting required planning work into the grant budget even though USDA specifically says those costs are not allowable.
MPPEP-4 does not, by itself, mandate a formal feasibility study the way some USDA loan and grant programs do. But the documents it does require — a business plan with pro forma statements sufficient to demonstrate viability, three years of projected financials, and credible customer-demand evidence — are exactly the analysis a feasibility study produces. A defensible business plan and a competitive application rest on the same foundation: a realistic market and demand study, throughput and capacity assumptions grounded in the actual equipment, and pro forma projections that a reviewer can trust.
That is where Wert-Berater fits. As independent feasibility consultants, we prepare the market and demand analysis, the throughput and financial-viability modeling, and the three-year pro forma projections that support the required business plan and the application’s financial section — delivered as an applicant-funded planning cost, correctly outside the MPPEP grant budget. Because the work is independent, it strengthens the credibility USDA reviewers are weighing, rather than reading as advocacy.
MPPEP Phase 4 is one of the most important 2026 USDA Rural Development opportunities for cattle primary processors seeking to expand capacity, modernize equipment, improve safety, and strengthen regional processing infrastructure. To compete well, applicants need to choose the right track, verify their match early against a clean and allowable budget, document customer demand with specifics, prepare current and projected financials — and keep business-planning and feasibility-study costs outside the grant budget. Next steps:
President, Wert-Berater, Inc. — independent feasibility study consultants since 1998. More than 4,000 feasibility studies completed across all 50 states and internationally, evaluating $40.2 billion in project value for SBA, USDA, EB-5, conventional, and institutional financing decisions. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and agency in every engagement.
+1 310-857-2443 ext. 800 · email · 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 · 111 Town Square Pl Ste 1238 PMB 657834, Jersey City, NJ 07310 · 539 W. Commerce St #8486, Dallas, TX 75208 · 66 W Flagler Street, Suite 900, PMB 12704, Miami, FL 33130
Schedule a ConversationIndependent feasibility studies since 1998 — 4,000+ engagements, $40.2 billion in evaluated project value. We prepare the market study, financial-viability modeling, and three-year pro forma projections your MPPEP business plan and application need — funded outside the grant budget, where USDA requires those costs to sit.