Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent feasibility study consultant for applicants to the USDA Value-Added Producer Grant programme, administered by USDA Rural Development under 7 CFR Part 4284, Subpart J. Our studies address what the programme actually asks an applicant to demonstrate: that a genuine value-added activity creates a premium over the commodity form, that the emerging market is real and evidenced, and that the benefit flows back to the independent producers involved. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value.
A VAPG feasibility study answers a narrower question than a general lending study. The programme exists to help agricultural producers capture value beyond the farm gate, so the analysis must establish three things: that the proposed activity meets the programme’s definition of value-added, that a market exists for the resulting product at a price that reflects the added value, and that the producers themselves benefit. A study that demonstrates a profitable business but not producer benefit has not answered the question the programme asks.
Methodology is built around the programme’s own criteria at 7 CFR Part 4284, Subpart J and the requirements set out in the current fiscal-year Notice of Funding Opportunity, which is the controlling statement of application content, eligibility, matching-funds and deadline requirements for each competition. Analysis draws on USDA Agricultural Marketing Service and NASS price series for the commodity and its value-added forms, USDA ERS food market data, published trade and category data where available, direct buyer and channel evidence obtained from the applicant, and the applicant’s own production and financial records.
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 a multi-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, and an explicit statement of the conditions and assumptions on which the finding rests. Determinations may be positive or negative; the study reports what the evidence supports.
A VAPG award is a grant rather than a loan, so the analysis is not primarily a debt-coverage exercise. Where the wider project also involves borrowing — a processing facility, equipment, or working capital financed alongside the grant — the study models that debt to the standard of the lender involved, whether a Farm Credit System institution, a Farm Service Agency programme, a USDA Rural Development guaranteed loan under 7 CFR Part 5001, an SBA facility, or conventional credit. Matching funds are a programme requirement, and the study identifies the source and availability of the applicant’s match as a factual matter rather than assuming it. Eligibility is determined by USDA 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 Development practice. We hold no published completed engagement under the Value-Added Producer Grant programme specifically, and we will not present work under a different USDA programme as though it were a VAPG engagement. Our published USDA agricultural work includes a $17,350,000 controlled-environment greenhouse study in Radium Springs, New Mexico completed under USDA Business & Industry, together with agricultural processing engagements including a $38,110,000 sugar refinery restoration in Santa Rosa, Texas. Those demonstrate USDA documentation practice and value-added processing analysis under other programmes. Independence is non-negotiable: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure, and we do not represent any outcome as assured.
A VAPG feasibility study is an independent analysis prepared to support an application to the USDA Value-Added Producer Grant programme, testing whether a proposed value-added venture is economically viable and whether it delivers the producer benefit the programme is designed to create. It is prepared to the criteria the programme applies rather than to a generic lending template.
The study is one input to a competitive application. It does not make the application, and it cannot make an outcome certain.
The Value-Added Producer Grant programme is administered by USDA Rural Development and governed by 7 CFR Part 4284, Subpart J. Applicants should work from that regulation together with the Notice of Funding Opportunity published for the current fiscal-year competition, which sets out application content, eligibility detail, matching-funds requirements, scoring criteria, and deadlines for that round. Programme parameters — including maximum award amounts, priority categories, and submission dates — are set in the NOFO and change between competitions, so we work from the notice in force rather than from a remembered figure, and we encourage applicants to confirm current terms with their USDA Rural Development state office.
Note that 7 CFR Part 5001, which governs USDA Rural Development’s OneRD guaranteed loan programmes including Business & Industry, is not the authority for VAPG. The two are separate programmes with separate regulations, separate eligibility rules, and separate feasibility study expectations, and material prepared to one standard does not automatically satisfy the other.
The programme distinguishes planning grants, which fund feasibility studies, business plans, and marketing plans, from working capital grants, which fund the operating costs of implementing a venture already planned. The programme also recognises priority categories — including beginning farmers and ranchers, socially disadvantaged producers, veteran producers, small and medium-sized family farms marketing locally, and farmer or rancher cooperatives — whose treatment in scoring is set out in the regulation and the NOFO. Whether an applicant falls within a priority category is a factual question we can help document, but it is USDA that determines eligibility and applies scoring.
A planning grant funds the analytical work required to determine whether a value-added venture should proceed. Where an applicant has an idea but not yet the evidence — no validated market, no tested pricing, no costed processing plan — a feasibility study is the appropriate use of planning funds, and its conclusion is genuinely open.
This point matters and is frequently misunderstood. A feasibility study conducted under a planning grant is expected to reach whatever conclusion the evidence supports, including that the venture is not viable as proposed. A study commissioned on the understanding that it will conclude favourably is not a feasibility study, and we do not accept engagements on that basis. Determining that a venture does not work, before capital is committed, is a legitimate and valuable outcome of planning funds.
Where the applicant already holds the evidence a feasibility study would produce — established sales, proven pricing, an operating processing arrangement — a business plan or marketing plan may be the more appropriate planning deliverable, and a working capital application may be the appropriate path. We will say so rather than sell a study that adds nothing.
The programme expects a feasibility study to be prepared by a qualified independent third party. In practice that means two things: demonstrated competence in feasibility analysis for the type of venture proposed, and independence from the applicant and from the outcome.
Independence is the more important of the two and the more frequently compromised. A consultant who will also build, supply, or operate the venture, who holds equity in it, or whose fee depends on the study reaching a favourable conclusion is not independent, and a reviewer is entitled to weigh the analysis accordingly. Our fee is fixed at engagement, is never contingent on the finding or on any award, and we take no interest in the ventures we analyse.
Competence is demonstrated by the work rather than by assertion. A credible study shows its sources, distinguishes evidence from assumption, presents a model a reviewer can inspect and stress, and states plainly what would change the conclusion. We identify the analyst responsible for the work and state their role, and we describe the firm’s relevant experience accurately — including, as set out above, where we have not previously worked under this specific programme. USDA determines whether a consultant is acceptable for a given application; that determination is not ours to make and we do not represent ourselves as approved, certified, endorsed, or preferred by USDA.
The value-added premium is the difference between what the producer receives for the commodity and what the value-added product realises, net of the cost of creating it. Demonstrating it requires both halves of that comparison to be evidenced.
The commodity baseline is established from USDA Agricultural Marketing Service or NASS price series for the commodity, grade, and region, over a period long enough to show its range rather than a single favourable point. The value-added price is established from actual market evidence — quoted wholesale or retail prices for comparable products in the intended channel, buyer correspondence specifying price, or the applicant’s own realised sales where a pilot exists. A price the applicant hopes to achieve is not evidence of a premium.
The costs of capturing that premium are then deducted in full: processing, packaging, labelling, food-safety compliance, storage, distribution, brokerage or slotting where the channel requires it, marketing, and the working capital cost of holding inventory that a commodity sale would have converted immediately. A premium that survives full costing is real; one that exists only before costs are counted is not, and the study says which it has found. Where the premium is thin, we test how much of it survives a modest adverse move in either input cost or realised price.
Producer benefit is the programme’s central purpose and the element most often treated superficially. The question is not whether the venture is profitable but whether increased value returns to the independent producers of the agricultural commodity, and the analysis must trace that flow specifically.
Where the applicant is the producer processing their own commodity, the benefit is the improvement in net return per unit of production compared with selling in commodity form — calculated after all the added costs, and after any additional labour the producer contributes. Where the venture is a cooperative or producer-owned entity, the analysis traces how margin is distributed among members, whether through a higher price paid for delivered commodity, patronage distribution, or equity accretion, and identifies which producers receive it.
Where the structure involves parties who are not producers, the flow of benefit is examined carefully, because a venture in which most of the added margin accrues to a processor, a marketer, or an investor may be a sound business while still not delivering the producer benefit the programme seeks. The study quantifies the benefit per producer where the structure permits, states the assumptions it rests on, and reports honestly where the benefit is small or uncertain.
Market evidence is graded rather than accepted uniformly, and the grading is stated in the report so a reviewer can weigh it. A binding purchase agreement specifying product, volume, price or a pricing mechanism, and term is strong evidence. A letter of intent from a named buyer is moderate evidence. A general expression of interest is weak. An assertion that demand exists, unsupported by any buyer, is not evidence at all.
The analysis establishes the specific channel the product will move through — direct to consumer, farmers market, independent retail, regional grocery, foodservice distribution, national retail, or e-commerce — because each carries different price realisation, different volume, different packaging and certification requirements, and a different cost to serve. A projection blending a direct-to-consumer price with wholesale volume describes a business that does not exist.
Competitive context is assessed directly: what comparable products already occupy the shelf or the channel, at what price, and what would cause a buyer to take on the applicant’s product instead. Where the venture depends on a differentiating claim — organic, regenerative, local, breed- or origin-specific, or another certification — the study considers whether that claim is substantiated and certified, since an uncertified claim generally cannot be made on a label and therefore cannot support a premium. Capacity to supply is examined alongside demand, because a buyer requiring consistent year-round volume from an operation with a seasonal harvest and no storage cannot be served, and that mismatch is a feasibility issue rather than a detail.
These are three different deliverables answering three different questions, and applicants sometimes commission the wrong one.
A feasibility study asks whether the venture should proceed. Its conclusion is open, it is prepared by an independent third party, and it may find the venture unviable. It tests the market, the premium, the cost structure, the producer benefit, and the financial result, and states a determination.
A business plan asks how the venture will be executed, and it assumes the decision to proceed has been made. It sets out structure, management, operations, staffing, capital requirements, and financial projections as a plan of action. It is a document of intent rather than a test of viability, and it is typically prepared by or with the applicant rather than independently.
A marketing plan is narrower still, addressing how the product will be positioned, priced, promoted, and distributed to reach identified customers. It presupposes both that the venture is viable and that it will proceed.
The programme can fund each of these as a planning activity, but they are not interchangeable and one does not substitute for another. Where an applicant needs a viability determination, a business plan will not provide it; where the venture is already proven and the applicant needs an execution roadmap, a feasibility study is the wrong instrument. We advise on which is appropriate before quoting, and we will decline work that would not serve the application.
The financial analysis builds a multi-year pro forma for the value-added enterprise, separate from the underlying farming operation, so that the venture’s own economics are visible rather than absorbed into whole-farm results. Revenue is built from evidenced volume and evidenced price by channel. Costs are built line by line: raw commodity at its opportunity cost rather than at zero, processing whether in-house or co-packed, packaging and labelling, food-safety compliance and certification, storage and cold chain where required, freight, channel allowances, marketing, and administration.
Capital requirements and working capital are stated explicitly, including the cash needed to fund inventory and receivables through the operating cycle — frequently the constraint that stops a viable venture, since value-added products convert to cash far more slowly than a commodity sale at harvest. Where the venture will also carry debt, coverage is calculated to the standard of the lender involved.
Sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent is applied to realised price, volume, and processing cost independently and in combination, and the study states the break-even volume and the price at which the venture ceases to deliver producer benefit. The conclusion is stated plainly, with the conditions and assumptions it rests on identified. Where the evidence does not support viability, the study says so.
This is an independent economic and financial feasibility analysis prepared for the applicant’s use in a competitive grant application. We are not affiliated with USDA. We are not approved, certified, endorsed, designated, or preferred by USDA or by any of its agencies, and we do not describe ourselves in those terms. We do not prepare or submit applications on an applicant’s behalf, and we do not represent applicants before the agency.
No feasibility study guarantees an award. VAPG is a competitive programme in which applications are scored against published criteria and funded subject to available appropriations; a well-supported feasibility study strengthens the analytical basis of an application, but the outcome rests with USDA. Any consultant who suggests otherwise should be treated with caution.
The study does not replace food-science, process-engineering, regulatory, or legal advice. Where a venture requires product formulation, process authority validation, food-safety plan development, labelling review, or counsel on entity structure, those are professional inputs to the economic analysis and the study identifies where it has relied on them.
Related engagements: for the production side of a value-added venture see our crop farming, dairy, livestock, and vineyard and orchard practices. For the processing facility itself see food and beverage manufacturing, meat and poultry processing, and dairy processing feasibility studies. Background reading is available in our article on the USDA Value-Added Producer Grant feasibility study.
A VAPG feasibility study is an independent analysis prepared to support an application to the USDA Value-Added Producer Grant programme, administered by USDA Rural Development under 7 CFR Part 4284, Subpart J. It tests whether a proposed value-added venture is economically viable and whether it delivers the producer benefit the programme is designed to create.
It covers value-added qualification, market evidence, the price premium over the commodity form, producer benefit, operational viability, and a multi-year financial projection with a stated conclusion. It is one input to a competitive application; it is not the application, and it cannot make an outcome certain.
A planning grant funds the analytical work required to determine whether a value-added venture should proceed. Where an applicant has an idea but not yet the evidence — no validated market, no tested pricing, no costed processing plan — a feasibility study is an appropriate use of planning funds and its conclusion is genuinely open.
Where the applicant already holds that evidence through established sales, proven pricing, and an operating processing arrangement, a business plan or marketing plan may be the more appropriate planning deliverable. We will say so rather than sell a study that adds nothing. Current eligibility and application requirements are set in the regulation and the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the fiscal-year competition.
The programme expects a feasibility study to be prepared by a qualified independent third party, which in practice means demonstrated competence in feasibility analysis for the type of venture proposed, plus independence from the applicant and from the outcome.
Independence is the more important and the more frequently compromised. A consultant who will also build, supply, or operate the venture, who holds equity in it, or whose fee depends on a favourable conclusion is not independent. Our fee is fixed at engagement and never contingent on the finding or on any award. USDA determines whether a consultant is acceptable for a given application; we do not represent ourselves as approved, certified, or endorsed by USDA.
The commodity baseline and the value-added price, both evidenced; the full cost of capturing the premium including processing, packaging, labelling, food-safety compliance, storage, distribution, channel allowances, and working capital; the specific market channel and the strength of the evidence behind it; the applicant’s capacity to supply the volume a buyer requires; and the flow of benefit back to producers.
It then builds a multi-year pro forma for the value-added enterprise separate from the underlying farm, applies sensitivity at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, states break-even volume, and reaches a determination with its conditions identified.
Both halves of the comparison must be evidenced. The commodity baseline comes from USDA Agricultural Marketing Service or NASS price series for the commodity, grade, and region over a period long enough to show its range rather than a single favourable point.
The value-added price comes from actual market evidence — quoted wholesale or retail prices for comparable products in the intended channel, buyer correspondence specifying price, or the applicant’s realised pilot sales. A price the applicant hopes to achieve is not evidence. The full cost of capturing the premium is then deducted; a premium that survives full costing is real, and one that exists only before costs are counted is not.
By tracing the flow of value specifically rather than inferring it from profitability. Where the applicant is the producer processing their own commodity, benefit is the improvement in net return per unit compared with selling in commodity form, after all added costs and after any additional labour the producer contributes.
Where the venture is a cooperative or producer-owned entity, the analysis traces how margin is distributed among members — a higher price for delivered commodity, patronage distribution, or equity accretion — and identifies which producers receive it. Where non-producer parties capture most of the added margin, the study says so, because a sound business is not automatically a venture that delivers producer benefit.
Evidence is graded and the grading is stated in the report so a reviewer can weigh it. A binding purchase agreement specifying product, volume, price or a pricing mechanism, and term is strong. A letter of intent from a named buyer is moderate. A general expression of interest is weak. An unsupported assertion that demand exists is not evidence at all.
The analysis also fixes the specific channel — direct to consumer, farmers market, independent retail, regional grocery, foodservice, national retail, or e-commerce — because each carries different price realisation, volume, packaging and certification requirements, and cost to serve. Capacity to supply is examined alongside demand, since a buyer needing consistent year-round volume cannot be served by a seasonal harvest without storage.
A feasibility study asks whether the venture should proceed. Its conclusion is open, it is prepared by an independent third party, and it may find the venture unviable. It tests the market, the premium, the cost structure, the producer benefit, and the financial result, and states a determination.
A business plan asks how the venture will be executed and assumes the decision to proceed has been made. It sets out structure, management, operations, staffing, capital requirements, and projections as a plan of action, and it is typically prepared by or with the applicant rather than independently. Where an applicant needs a viability determination, a business plan will not provide it.
A marketing plan is narrower than either a feasibility study or a business plan. It addresses how the product will be positioned, priced, promoted, and distributed to reach identified customers, and it presupposes both that the venture is viable and that it will proceed.
A feasibility study tests those presuppositions rather than accepting them. The programme can fund each as a planning activity, but they are not interchangeable and one does not substitute for another. We advise on which is appropriate before quoting.
No. No feasibility study guarantees an award, and any consultant who suggests otherwise should be treated with caution.
VAPG is a competitive programme in which applications are scored against published criteria and funded subject to available appropriations. A well-supported, genuinely independent feasibility study strengthens the analytical basis of an application, but the outcome rests with USDA. We are not affiliated with USDA, we are not approved, certified, or endorsed by USDA or any of its agencies, and we do not prepare or submit applications or represent applicants before the agency.
The Value-Added Producer Grant programme is governed by 7 CFR Part 4284, Subpart J, and administered by USDA Rural Development. Applicants should read that regulation together with the Notice of Funding Opportunity published for the current fiscal-year competition, which sets application content, eligibility detail, matching-funds requirements, scoring criteria, and deadlines for that round.
Programme parameters including maximum award amounts and priority categories are set in the NOFO and change between competitions, so we work from the notice in force rather than a remembered figure. Note that 7 CFR Part 5001, which governs the OneRD guaranteed loan programmes including Business & Industry, is not the authority for VAPG; the two are separate programmes with separate rules and separate feasibility study expectations.
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 an award — the condition that makes an independent determination possible. Because scope varies with the commodity, the complexity of the value-added activity, the number of channels examined, and whether processing is in-house or co-packed, we quote after a brief intake conversation.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room, with rush delivery available where a competition deadline requires it. An engagement typically requires a description of the value-added activity and the intended product, production volumes and current commodity marketing arrangements, any buyer correspondence or purchase agreements, processing quotes or co-packer proposals, packaging and labelling costs, any certification held or sought, three years of farm financial statements, the ownership and governance structure of the venture, and the source of matching funds.
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.