Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent poultry and swine feasibility study consultant preparing lender-grade analyses for broiler, layer, turkey, hog, contract-grower, and independent production projects. Our studies evaluate the integrator agreement and its counterparty risk, barn capacity and production turns, contract payment structure or open-market pricing, feed and utility costs, mortality and downtime, litter and manure handling, special-purpose facility capital, debt-service coverage, and downside sensitivity. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value.
Confined poultry and swine production poses a question most agricultural credits do not: the borrower builds a highly specialised, largely single-use building, and in the contract model the revenue that repays it comes from one counterparty under an agreement that is typically far shorter than the loan. Feasibility therefore turns on two things at once — whether the barn produces enough at the contracted rate to cover debt service, and what happens to a purpose-built asset if the integrator relationship ends before the note does.
Methodology uses the integrator agreement itself as the primary revenue document, together with the grower’s settlement history where an operating record exists, USDA NASS poultry and hog inventory and price series, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service market reports for independent production, university Cooperative Extension poultry and swine enterprise budgets, and the utility tariffs actually applicable to the site. Where a grower has settlement sheets they govern, because they record realised performance and pay rather than projected performance.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against USDA ERS farm financial data and regional extension budgets.
Contract grower credits and independent production credits are underwritten differently and the study is written to whichever applies. Farm Credit System institutions and Farm Service Agency farm loan programmes are principal sources of credit for both, and contract-grower lending in particular weighs the integrator agreement, the grower’s settlement history, and the residual value of a single-purpose building alongside projected coverage. Conventional agricultural lenders set their own coverage standard, commonly but not universally 1.20x. Where the project includes processing, further-processing, or branded marketing rather than live production, different programmes come into play than those governing the growing operation. We do not assume a programme applies; eligibility is determined by the lender and the agency on the applicant’s facts.
Wert-Berater has completed 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value, with a substantial USDA rural practice. We hold no published completed engagement for a broiler, layer, turkey, or hog production facility, and we will not present an unrelated engagement as though it were one. Our published agricultural engagements are in horticultural production, agricultural processing, and agricultural input manufacturing — including a $38,110,000 sugar refinery restoration in Santa Rosa, Texas and a $32,240,000 fertilizer manufacturing study in Jacksonville, Florida. Those demonstrate USDA documentation practice and agricultural commodity analysis rather than live-production experience. Independence is non-negotiable: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure.
A poultry or swine feasibility study determines whether a specific set of barns, operated by a specific grower, under a specific contract or marketing arrangement, services proposed debt over the life of the note. The distinguishing analytical problem is that revenue structure differs fundamentally between contract growing and independent production, and the two cannot share a revenue model.
In contract production the integrator agreement is the revenue document, and the study reads it rather than summarising it. The analysis establishes the payment basis — per head, per pound, per square foot, or per turn — and whether pay is fixed, adjusted by a performance ranking against other growers, or a combination. Where a tournament or comparative-ranking system applies, the grower’s realised position within it is modeled from settlement history rather than assumed to be average, because settlement sheets record what was actually paid.
Term is the central credit issue. Contracts in this sector commonly run for a period substantially shorter than the amortisation of the barns they support, and some run flock to flock. A twenty-year building financed against a contract terminable on short notice is a structural mismatch, and the study states it plainly rather than treating renewal as automatic. Renewal history, the integrator’s presence in the region, and the practical availability of an alternative integrator within economic hauling distance are all examined, because a grower with only one processor in reach has no alternative if the relationship ends.
Counterparty standing is assessed to the extent public information permits. A contract is worth the credit of the party behind it, and revenue concentrated entirely in one integrator is a concentration exposure that the study identifies explicitly rather than netting into a coverage ratio. Provisions requiring grower-funded upgrades during the contract term are flagged as contingent capital obligations, since they can arrive at the integrator’s election and are not optional if the grower wishes to keep placements.
Annual throughput, not barn size, drives revenue. The model builds it from placement capacity per house, the length of the production cycle for the species and target weight, and the downtime required between groups for cleanout, disinfection, and any imposed rest period. Turns per year is the resulting figure, and it is derived rather than assumed: a projection of an additional turn per year that the cycle length and downtime cannot physically support inflates revenue across every year of the pro forma.
Placement capacity is taken from the actual dimensions and equipment of the houses and from the density the integrator specifies or the applicable welfare or programme standard permits, whichever governs. Where the integrator controls placement volume, the study recognises that the grower does not control revenue: houses may be placed below capacity when the integrator’s processing demand falls, and the model tests that reduced-placement case rather than assuming full utilisation every cycle.
These are two different businesses and they are modeled separately. Under a contract, the integrator typically supplies the animals, the feed, the medication, and the transport, and the grower supplies the building, the utilities, the labor, the bedding, and the manure handling. The grower’s revenue is a service fee and the volatility of feed and livestock markets sits with the integrator. The credit question is throughput, performance pay, controllable cost, and contract security.
Independent production is a fundamentally different risk profile. The producer owns the animals, buys the feed, and sells into the open market, which means margin is the spread between market price and feed cost — both volatile, imperfectly correlated, and capable of compressing simultaneously. Coverage must then be tested across market cycles in the way a commodity enterprise requires, and working capital must be sized for the cost of animals on feed. A study that applies contract-grower stability to an independent operation, or that applies open-market volatility to a contract grower, misstates the credit in opposite directions. The model reflects the arrangement actually proposed, and where an operation runs both, each is modeled on its own terms.
Cost modeling begins by establishing which costs the operator actually bears, since this differs entirely between the two models. Where the grower buys feed, it is the dominant cost and is priced from current delivered quotes with its own sensitivity treatment. Where the integrator supplies feed, it does not appear in the grower’s cost structure at all, and including it overstates expense as badly as omitting it would understate it in the independent case.
Utilities are a major and frequently underestimated grower cost. Confined production requires continuous ventilation, and heating in brooding and cold-weather periods is substantial. Energy is modeled at the site’s actual tariff, including demand charges where applicable and propane or natural gas at delivered cost, with the seasonal pattern reflected rather than an annual average applied. Where houses are older and less well insulated, the higher energy demand is modeled rather than benchmarked away.
Bedding and litter cost, cleanout, and manure handling are modeled on the operation’s actual practice and local market. Litter has value in some regions and disposal cost in others, and the difference is material to annual cash flow. Where manure application requires a land base or a nutrient-management plan, the associated cost and any permit obligation is identified.
Mortality is modeled at the operation’s demonstrated rate from settlement history where available, and from documented performance of comparable facilities where the project is new. We do not apply a universal mortality benchmark, because rates vary by species, target weight, season, house quality, and management. What the study does insist on is that the rate used be evidenced rather than aspirational, and that the sensitivity range reflect the variability actually observed rather than a narrow band around a favourable figure.
Catastrophic disease is treated as a discrete risk rather than folded into an average. A regional disease event can halt placements entirely for an extended period, and during that interruption the barn generates no revenue while debt service continues. The study models an extended-downtime scenario, establishes how many weeks without placement the operation can absorb before coverage fails, and examines what insurance or contractual indemnity, if any, responds. Where biosecurity obligations impose capital or operating cost, that cost appears in the model.
A modern poultry or swine building is close to single-use. It is purpose-built for one species and often for one integrator’s specifications, it sits on a rural site chosen for proximity to that integrator, and it has limited alternative use. That combination means collateral value is closely tied to the continuation of the production relationship — the asset is worth substantially more as an operating facility with placements than as a building without them.
The study addresses this directly rather than leaving it to the appraisal. It identifies the reinvestment cycle the integrator’s specifications impose, since equipment upgrades required to retain placements recur over the life of a long note and must be funded from the same cash flow servicing the debt. It examines whether the amortisation period is consistent with the realistic economic life of the equipment rather than the shell. And it states the residual exposure plainly: if placements cease, the building’s value depends on another integrator being within economic distance and willing to place, which in many locations is not the case.
The financial conclusion is a coverage determination under stress, with the stress cases chosen to match the revenue model actually in place. For a contract grower the decisive tests are reduced placements, a performance-pay outcome below the grower’s historic settlement average, an extended downtime event, and a required capital upgrade during the contract term. For an independent producer the decisive test is compressed margin between market price and feed cost sustained across consecutive periods.
The model produces a ten-year pro forma with sensitivity at ±5, 10, and 15 percent applied to the relevant revenue and cost drivers independently and in combination, plus interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent in half-point increments. It reports the number of weeks of lost placement the operation absorbs before coverage fails, and states the combination at which coverage falls below the applicable minimum — which is set by the lender and programme rather than by any universal figure. An explicit statement of conditions identifies the information relied upon and the assumptions that would change the finding.
This is an economic and financial feasibility analysis. It does not replace veterinary opinion, animal-nutrition formulation, barn or ventilation engineering, or environmental permitting work. Where a project requires herd or flock health assessment, ventilation and equipment design, a nutrient-management plan, or permitting, those are professional inputs to the economic analysis and the study identifies where it has relied on them. We do not render legal opinions on the integrator agreement; we analyse its economic and credit consequences.
Related engagements: for feed procurement and custom ration manufacture see our grain elevator and feed mill practice; for slaughter, further processing, or packing see meat and poultry processing feasibility studies; and where a producer proposes to capture margin beyond the farm gate through processing or branded marketing, a USDA Value-Added Producer Grant feasibility study addresses that programme directly.
The consultant determines whether a specific set of barns, operated by a specific grower, under a specific contract or marketing arrangement, services proposed debt over the life of the note. The analysis reads the integrator agreement as the controlling revenue document, then works through barn capacity and turns, grower settlement performance, feed and utility costs, mortality and downtime, litter and manure handling, and the residual risk of a single-purpose building.
Contract growing and independent production are modeled separately, because their revenue structures and risk profiles are fundamentally different.
We read the agreement rather than summarise it. The analysis establishes the payment basis — per head, per pound, per square foot, or per turn — and whether pay is fixed or adjusted by a comparative ranking against other growers. Where a ranking system applies, the grower’s realised position is taken from settlement history rather than assumed to be average.
Term is the central credit issue: contracts commonly run far shorter than the amortisation of the barns they support. We examine renewal history, the integrator’s regional presence, the availability of an alternative integrator within economic hauling distance, and any provision requiring grower-funded upgrades during the term. We analyse economic and credit consequences; we do not render legal opinions on the contract.
Turns are derived, not assumed. The model builds annual throughput from placement capacity per house, the production cycle length for the species and target weight, and the downtime required between groups for cleanout, disinfection, and any imposed rest period.
This matters because a projection of one additional turn per year that the cycle length and downtime cannot physically support inflates revenue in every year of the pro forma. Where the integrator controls placement volume, the model also tests a reduced-placement case rather than assuming full utilisation every cycle.
From the actual dimensions and equipment of the houses and the stocking density the integrator specifies or the applicable welfare or programme standard permits, whichever governs. Equipment condition, ventilation capability, and house age are examined because they affect both achievable density and operating cost.
Capacity is then translated into throughput through cycle length and downtime rather than being treated as an annual revenue figure in itself.
At the site’s actual tariff rather than a benchmark. Confined production requires continuous ventilation, and brooding and cold-weather heating is substantial, so energy is a major grower cost that is frequently underestimated.
The model applies demand charges where applicable, prices propane or natural gas at delivered cost, and reflects the seasonal pattern rather than applying an annual average. Where houses are older or less well insulated, the higher demand is modeled rather than benchmarked away.
As a structural credit issue rather than an assumption of automatic renewal. Where the note amortises over a period substantially longer than the contract term, the study says so plainly and examines what would happen at expiry.
That examination covers renewal history, whether another integrator operates within economic hauling distance and is placing, and what the building is worth without placements. Because a modern poultry or swine barn is close to single-use and sited for proximity to one processor, collateral value is closely tied to continuation of the production relationship, and the study states that exposure explicitly.
Under a contract the integrator typically supplies the animals, feed, medication, and transport while the grower supplies the building, utilities, labor, bedding, and manure handling. The grower earns a service fee, and feed and livestock market volatility sits with the integrator. The credit question is throughput, performance pay, controllable cost, and contract security.
An independent producer owns the animals, buys the feed, and sells into the open market, so margin is the spread between market price and feed cost — both volatile and capable of compressing together. Coverage must be tested across market cycles and working capital sized for animals on feed. Applying contract stability to an independent operation, or open-market volatility to a contract grower, misstates the credit in opposite directions.
By solving the model for the throughput at which cash flow after operating costs exactly meets debt service, then expressing that as the placements, turns, or pounds required per year. For a contract grower it is also expressed as the settlement pay per unit required, and as the number of weeks without placement the operation can absorb before coverage fails.
For an independent producer, break-even is expressed as the market price required at a given feed cost, and as the margin at which coverage falls below the applicable minimum. Those figures tell a lender how much operating margin of safety the credit carries rather than simply reporting a base-case ratio.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of the initial inquiry. It does not vary with the finding and is never contingent on loan approval. Because scope varies with house count, species, whether production is contract or independent, and the lending programme involved, we quote after a brief intake conversation rather than publishing a schedule.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room, with rush delivery available. An engagement typically requires the integrator agreement and any addenda, settlement sheets covering recent groups, house dimensions and equipment schedules, twelve months of utility bills, three years of tax returns and a current balance sheet, any nutrient-management plan, construction bids where the project is a new build, and the proposed loan term sheet.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.