A Policy Evaluation of Transport Subsidies for Poultry Litter in West Virginia
Abstract
In 2000 and 2001, the West Virginia Department of Agriculture administered a pilot transport subsidy program to demonstrate the feasibility of moving surplus poultry litter nutrients to areas with nutrient-deficient soils. Three subsidy program goals were evaluated ex post: (1) attracting first time buyers; (2) subsidizing economically feasible litter use; and (3) encouraging environmentally appropriate litter use. The first two goals were met with 62% of participants being first time users and 89% of the subsidized litter being an economically feasible replacement for commercial fertilizer. Under the third goal, environmental protections provided by program participants were found to be comparable to those practiced by poultry growers. While the program met these goals over the short term, most participants did not become committed users of litter without continued transport subsidies.
Poultry production reflects a national trend toward increasingly concentrated animal production. Poultry houses are geographically concentrated around processing facilities and generally depend upon imports of feed to support the industry. This nutrient inflow has led to numerous concerns about manure handling and disposal methods during land application (Ribaudo et al.). At the county level, poultry production is responsible for most of the excess nutrients generated from animal manures in the United States (Gollehon et al.).
State-level policy responses to poultry litter disposal have included transportation subsidies in Maryland and construction of centralized facilities in Delaware and Virginia to process litter into organic fertilizer products. Ribaudo et al. suggest that industrial processing of poultry litter presents a feasible alternative when available land is scarce and transportation costs are high. Encouraging the transport of litter from high to low-density poultry production areas, however, has been shown to be a least-cost policy option for reducing nutrient overloads from land application (Parker). Pelletier, Pease, and Kenyon estimated that annual transport subsidies of about $4 per ton (totaling $559,000) would be required to remove excess litter from the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia.
In West Virginia, much of the poultry industry is concentrated in the Potomac Headwaters region of Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Mineral, and Pendleton counties (see figure 1). In 2002, 89.7 million broiler chickens and 3.6 million turkeys were grown in more than 900 poultry houses located in this five-county region (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service). This concentrated production is supported almost exclusively by imported feed, resulting in a large surplus of nutrients contained in poultry waste products. An estimated 160,000 tons of poultry litter are generated each year accounting for approximately 7 million pounds of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P).
To stimulate the movement of litter outside the entire Potomac watershed (including the Headwaters region), the West Virginia Department of Agriculture administered a transport subsidy program to farmers during 2001 and 2002. These subsidies were intended as a pilot program to demonstrate the feasibility of moving surplus poultry litter nutrients out of the five-county region to areas (primarily in the central and northern parts of West Virginia) where the soils are nutrient deficient, particularly in terms of phosphorus. The West Virginia Department of Agriculture and Pilgrim's Pride (a poultry integrator) provided $75,000 for the program.
Poultry litter distribution by county under the litter transport subsidy program
The program's primary feature was to provide transportation cost subsidies to the farmers outside the Potomac watershed who purchased poultry litter. Farmers were responsible for paying the first fifty miles of transport costs and the program paid $2 per loaded mile of transport cost thereafter. No maximum distance was established, although only in-state farmers were eligible. Minimum and maximum tonnages were established at fifteen and 100 per enrollment, respectively. To emphasize the importance of nutrient planning in litter management, the program required an on-site assessment to determine farmer eligibility and development of an N-based nutrient management plan by a certified nutrient management consultant.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the West Virginia litter transport subsidy program. The overall purpose of this program was to improve marketing of litter outside of the Potomac Headwaters region. From this purpose, three main policy goals were identified for evaluation: (1) expanding the market for litter by reducing the monetary risk of trying this source of nutrients, particularly by attracting first-time litter buyers; (2) creating a temporary subsidy program to farmers who would likely continue litter application without the transport subsidy; and (3) encouraging program participants to handle and apply litter in an environmentally appropriate manner.
This policy evaluation was conducted on an ex post basis. Program goals were evaluated using surveys of program participants and economic feasibility computations for land application of litter with and without transport subsidies. Surveys were used to evaluate goals (1) and (3) with data on participant opinions, their experiences concerning litter use, and environmental protection practices. Present value cost comparisons of commercial fertilizer versus litter application were done to evaluate goal (2) by assessing whether litter application was economical within thirty-four counties in West Virginia.
Overview of Poultry Litter Management and Impacts on Water Quality
When spread on crop or pastureland, poultry litter has the potential to adversely impact water quality, both in the short-term and long-term. Short-term impacts can result from the runoff of poultry litter into nearby waters, adding unwanted nitrogen and phosphorus to surface waters (Kleinman et al., Vervoort et al., Edwards and Daniel). The repeated application of poultry litter can have a long-term, adverse impact on water quality through the build up of soil test phosphorus1 and its subsequent transport into surface waters (Sharpley et al. 1996, Sharpley et al. 1998, Sims, Simard, and Joern; Pote et al.). Based upon both short- and long-term considerations, Sharpley et al. (1994) argue that poultry litter applications should be based upon phosphorus content.
Nutrient inflows from the poultry industry into the Potomac Headwaters region have resulted in imbalances between plant nutrient needs on agricultural land versus manure-generated nutrients. Because litter contains more phosphorous relative to plant needs than nitrogen (Ribaudo et al.), this imbalance is more pronounced for phosphorus. Two of the five counties in the Potomac Headwaters region have in excess of 100% capacity of phosphorus being generated from manure, primarily poultry litter (Gollehon et al.). There is an excess of about 170,000 pounds of manure phosphorus over all five counties in the region when compared to potential agricultural land application (Gollehon et al.).
Lipton and Ward provide summaries of water quality concerns arising from land disposal of litter in West Virginia, particularly in regard to nitrogen and phosphorus flowing into the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. Kellogg identified the Potomac River as the sixth-ranked U.S. watershed in terms of vulnerability2 to contamination from animal manure nutrients (N and P). Kellogg also rated watersheds in Pendleton, Hardy, and Mineral counties as priority resource areas for protection of water quality from contamination by nutrients.
To address phosphorus levels in the Potomac Headwaters region, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has used a phosphorus index developed by Bhumbla to determine if litter application rates within nutrient management plans should be based upon phosphorus or nitrogen (Heaslip). Since only about 7% of cropland in the region is tilled (nonhay crops), most land-applied litter is not incorporated into the soil, thus exacerbating the potential problem of phosphorus loss into waterways.
Uses for poultry litter other than land application also have been explored in the region. The economics of composting litter or deriving energy from litter through biogas production have been found to be generally unfavorable (Collins, Bainbridge, and Murphy; Fritsch and Collins). In the many parts of the southeastern U.S., livestock feeding of litter is a valuable use of nutrients (Rankins). However, given recent instances of “Mad Cow” disease in the United States, feeding can no longer be counted on to absorb excess litter in the Potomac Headwaters region.3 Marketing of litter off-farm has increased dramatically among West Virginian poultry growers in recent years, but the location and land-spreading behavior of nonpoultry growers using this litter is not well-known (Basden, Ritz, and Collins).
Methods
Survey Description
The West Virginia Department of Agriculture provided a list of transport subsidy program participants in January 2002. Both mail and telephone surveys were utilized to contact participants. A short mail survey was sent out initially that included questions regarding how many tons were purchased under the program, usage of litter prior to the program, location of the receiving farm, participant attitudes about how the program influenced litter purchase decisions, and whether or not the participant was a first-time user of litter. A longer telephone survey was conducted with those farmers that agreed to participate. This survey included questions about litter storage, use, and application methods. Respondent observations were obtained on the benefits of litter use, their opinions about litter use in general, and the transport subsidy program.
Surveys were sent out to all sixty program participants during March 2002. Forty-seven responses were received with only one mailing for a 78% response rate. Thirty-seven of the mail survey respondents indicated that they would be willing to provide more information about their use of litter via a telephone interview. A total of thirty-one farmers, accounting for 43% of the litter purchased under the program, were contacted by telephone during April and May 2002. Finally, a brief, follow-up telephone survey was conducted in October 2003 to determine if participants had purchased litter after conclusion of the program. A total of twenty-six farmers were contacted in this survey.
Computation of Economic Feasibility of Litter Use
Numerous studies have examined nutrient values, break-even transport distances, and potential movements for poultry litter (Pelletier, Pease, and Kenyon; Cochran and Govindasamy, Bosch and Napit). Pelletier, Pease and Kenyon estimated that litter application in Virginia could save farmers as much as $17 million annually compared to commercial fertilizer, with the bulk of the savings occurring on hay and pasture land. The economic impacts of nitrogen and phosphorus application standards have been examined through the use of linear programming transportation models (Feinerman, Bosch, and Pease; Paudel et al.). In West Virginia, litter is commonly applied to a combination hay and/or pasture land.4 The purpose of the economic feasibility computations in this study was to determine if litter use on tall grass hay land in West Virginia would be economically viable when compared with commercial fertilizer application.
Feasibility computations were based upon three assumptions of management goals for tall grass hay land: (1) applying litter to increase soil test phosphorus to a high soil fertility index5; (2) meeting the annual maintenance needs of phosphorus with a recommended 40 pounds of P2O5 per acre (Rayburn), once soil test phosphorus has been built up; and (3) applying at least 50 pounds of available nitrogen annually (West Virginia University Soil Testing Lab). Initial applications of phosphorus were done during years zero through two to raise the soil test phosphorus index level to sixty-five and to meet annual phosphorus maintenance needs. Conversion efficiencies of P2O5 to soil test P were assumed to be 27% for litter and 15% for commercial fertilizer (Basden and Rayburn, Mullins, Rasnake). Applications of nutrients were assumed to occur annually for commercial fertilizer and once every two years for litter, with additional nitrogen from commercial fertilizer applied between litter applications to supplement the carryover of nitrogen to meet a 50-pound minimum annually.
Using these three management goals, present value costs (base year, 2002) were computed for both litter and commercial fertilizer. These present value costs of nutrient application were computed over a lifetime of management (into infinity) using perpetual period series formulas commonly utilized in forestry (Klemperer) and computed using Microsoft Excel™. Litter costs included purchase price, transportation, and application.6 The present value cost of commercial fertilizer application was based on the nutrient levels in poultry litter and derived by nitrogen from urea, P2O5 from diammonia phosphate, and K2O from potash. The nitrogen requirements of urea were reduced by the amount of nitrogen contributed by diammonia phosphate.
Economic feasibility was based on the net savings per acre by litter application.7 Net savings were computed by the present value cost for commercial fertilizer minus the present value cost for litter. Litter application under positive net savings was regarded as feasible while negative savings meant that commercial fertilizer was the less expensive nutrient source. Net saving computations were made both with and without the transport subsidy program during the initial year of litter application.
Appendix A lists the basic assumptions utilized for costs, prices, and physical relationships in computing economic feasibility. The present value calculations for litter and commercial fertilizer costs were made using current fertilizer and fuel prices (August 2002) as projections of future prices. Nitrogen efficiency8 estimates were assumed to vary between commercial and organic fertilizers. For commercial fertilizer, efficiency varies from 50% to 75% (Stevenson). An estimate of 60% (Long, Kennedy, and Gracey) was assumed during a single growth season on hay and pasture lands. Organic nitrogen efficiency from poultry litter has been estimated to be spread over three growing seasons (Maryland Department of Agriculture). The organic N efficiency was assumed to be 73% spread over three years (see appendix A).
Economic feasibility computations were made at the county level. Two factors varied for each county: (1) the hauling distance for litter; and (2) the county-wide average soil test phosphorus level for tall grass hay lands as the initial soil fertility. A total of thirty-four counties9 were analyzed for economic feasibility. Counties where litter was purchased under the transport program were included in the analysis, along with some adjacent counties presumed to be economically feasible for litter use. Counties within the Potomac Headwaters region and Potomac watershed were not considered in this study. The break-even transport distance (net savings = $0) was computed for litter application under the basic assumptions of appendix A, along with a sensitivity analysis examining the impact of changing assumptions on break-even distance.
Results
Litter Use
A total of 5,935 tons of broiler and turkey litter were purchased by participating farmers. This total represents roughly 60% of the total litter overload in the Potomac Headwaters region based upon the amount of manure phosphorus generated versus land application potentials.10Figure 1 shows the litter distribution by county among all program participants. Counties with divided highways and active support systems for litter use (e.g., extension agents or soil conservation districts promoting litter) had the most active participants. Examples include Harrison and Nicholas counties. No litter went to the adjacent counties of Tucker, Randolph, and Pocahontas because much of their pasture and hay land is within 50 miles of poultry farms and would not receive a transport subsidy.
Survey respondents accounted for about 70% (4,122 tons) of the litter purchased during 2001 and into the winter of 2002. Almost all litter purchased (98%) was covered under the transport program. Purchased amounts averaged 87 (41.2)11 tons per farmer with a range of 22–225 tons (some farmers enrolled in the program more than once). A total of 62% of program participants were first-time buyers of litter and they purchased 62% of the 4,122 tons. Farmers who had purchased litter prior to the program averaged a 90% increase in their purchases under the transport program.
The program also resulted in litter being transported further away from the Potomac Headwaters region than before the program (table 1). Prior to the program, about three-fourths of the litter was transported under 150 miles and the remainder was moved between 150 and 250 miles. Under the program, only about half of the litter purchased (55%) was transported under 150 miles, with the remainder being transported as far as 260 miles. Based upon a goodness-of-fit test using prior-to-the-program percentages as expected values, the changes in percentages were statistically significant (χ2d.f.=2 = 16.455). In addition, first-time buyers tended to transport litter further away than previous buyers of litter (table 1).
| Litter Transport Distance (Miles) | Litter Purchases under the Transport Program, All Buyers (4,122 Tons) (% of Litter) | Litter Purchases under the Transport Program, First-time Buyers (2,571 Tons) (% of Litter) | Litter Purchases Prior to Transport Program (961 Tons) (% of Litter) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≤150 | 55 | 45 | 73 |
| 151–200 | 22 | 26 | 13 |
| 201–250 | 18 | 19 | 14 |
| >250 | 5 | 9 | 0 |
The cost of litter purchase and transport averaged $2,028 (1,292.3) per farmer or $22.34 (4.8) per ton. Among all survey participants, the transport subsidy reduced the estimated purchase, transport, and application costs of litter by an average of 35% (from $30.15 to $19.24 per ton). Most farmers used litter on hay land (80%) with fewer respondents applying litter on pasture (39%) or crop land (13%). Almost all farmers (91%) applied litter themselves, the rest utilized custom applicators. Most farmers (77%) typically applied commercial fertilizer on their agricultural land and 52% indicated that litter application was used to replace fertilizer.
When survey respondents were asked if they would purchase litter again without the litter transport program, 57% said “no” or “probably no.” Among first-time litter users, the percentage of no responses was even higher (63%). Only 6% of respondents said that they would definitely purchase litter again. Transport mileage was not a determining factor in the responses. The average distance for “no” responses was 156 miles, while for “yes” or “may be” responses, the average was 163 miles.
When surveyed again in 2003, only 8% of the respondents indicated they had purchased litter again after transport subsidies were no longer available, a very similar percentage to the behavioral intentions stated in the 2002 survey. Only eighty-eight tons of litter were purchased post-program by the twenty-six program participants contacted, a 96% reduction. Transport cost was the primary reason cited when asked why they did not purchase litter again.
Environmental Impacts of Poultry Application
Most farmers (75%) reported following their nutrient management plans very closely when land-applying litter. Only one farmer reported not having a nutrient management plan even though it was required to participate in the transport program. About three-fourths of the respondents (73%) reported doing a soil test prior to litter application and 60% reported that they had their spreader calibrated prior to application. Respondents also were asked about their recommended litter application rates from the nutrient management plans versus actual application rates computed from litter purchased divided by acres of land application. On average, actual application rates were within 10% of recommended rates reported by respondents.
Most farmers applied litter in the spring (61%) or fall (26%) and the majority applied litter within a week of receiving it, i.e., 56% did not store litter on their farm. Of those that stored litter, 70% did so under a tarp and the remaining 30% stored litter uncovered. About 70% of the farmers indicated that they had received comments from their neighbors after litter application. Most comments were about the smell associated with litter, although farmers reported that it lasted only a few days.
Less than half of the farmers reported applying litter near critical areas of surface water (42%), property boundaries (45%), or a domestic water source (9%). About 80% of the respondents who applied litter next to a critical area reported that they established a setback between their litter application and the critical area. The median setback distance was 50 feet with a range from 5 to 250 feet and 82% of the setbacks exceeded the 35 foot12 recommendation from the National Resource Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Economic Feasibility of Litter Use
A total of thirty out of the thirty-four counties in the study area were economically feasible to transport and apply litter on tall grass hay land (figure 2). The four counties with negative net savings were at the furthest distance from the Potomac Headwaters region at the southwest border of the study area. Three counties at the western border of the study area (Jackson, Ohio, and Wood) were approximately at the economic break-even distance with net savings less than $1 per acre (see appendix B). Within the economically feasible counties, applying 1.9 tons of litter per acre once every two years to all hay land (meeting the annual maintenance needs of phosphorus) creates a potential litter use of 307,000 tons. This provides enough annual potential to utilize all litter generated in the Potomac Headwaters region.
The break-even distance for litter transport was 209 miles when soil test phosphorus is at the statewide average of 51 lb per acre. This break-even transport distance was larger than the 170 miles computed by Pelletier, Pease, and Kenyon. This difference can be attributed to this study's two-year rotation assumption for litter utilized compared to annual litter applications assumed by Pelletier, Pease, and Kenyon. When cost, price, discount rate, and nitrogen efficiency assumptions were varied, break-even transport distances ranged from 120 to 260 miles.13
Economic feasibility of broiler litter application on tall grass hay land transported from Hardy County, WV without a transport subsidy
Of the two factors that varied by county, transport distance had the most influence on economic feasibility. Average soil test phosphorus levels were not that important. For example, the net savings from poultry litter use changed by only about $2 per acre when soil test phosphorus was varied from the lowest (36 lb) to the highest (66 lb) county-wide average at a fixed transport distance of 150 miles. Thus, the use of litter to build up soil test phosphorus levels was not less expensive than commercial fertilizer and did not greatly influence the outcome of economic feasibility computations when compared to transport distance.
On average over the thirty-four counties, the present value cost of litter application was $570 with a range of $423–$720 per acre. The present value of commercial fertilizer application averaged $73 per acre higher. Net savings from litter application by county had a range from −$85 to +$234 per acre (appendix B). Within only economically feasible counties, average present value cost reductions from using litter versus commercial fertilizer was 15.3% based upon county percentages, weight averaged by hay land acres per county.
When transport subsidies for the initial litter application were included in the economic feasibility computations, only one additional county (Kanawha) had positive net savings (appendix B). Transport subsidies increased the average net savings over all counties analyzed by about $28 per acre with a range from $5 to $52. Average present value cost reduction for litter use in economically efficient counties with the transport subsidy was 22%.
Transport Subsidy Program Evaluation
For the first policy goal, about two-thirds of farmer participants (62%) in the litter transport program were first-time users of poultry litter. This percentage is lower than the 90% of first-time litter users attracted by Maryland's manure transport program (Astel). In addition, litter was moved further under the transport program compared to prior to the program. Farmer responsibility for paying the first 50 miles discouraged farmers in counties adjacent to the Potomac Headwaters region from participating in the program.
The second policy goal concerned the likelihood that farmer participants would continue to use litter without the transport subsidy. Economic feasibility calculations showed that 89% of litter transported under the program was within counties with positive net savings from litter application. In comparison, 94% of the litter purchased prior to the program by participants was within economically feasible counties. Thus, most litter transported under the subsidy program continued to be utilized by the farmers in counties where nutrients from litter were less costly than commercial fertilizer.
Transport program subsidies, however, did not convince the majority of the farmer participants to become committed, long-term users of litter. The survey results showed that most respondents indicated they would not purchase litter again without transport cost subsidies and over 90% of the respondents did not purchase litter within two years after the subsidy program ended.
This lack of commitment may be associated with either a “hassle” factor of litter application or the negative profits associated with many West Virginia livestock operations. Litter application not only requires special spreading equipment, but also takes much longer to apply than commercial fertilizers. These management constraints are perhaps not adequately captured by the cost of labor. Pelletier, Pease, and Kenyon observed from farmer focus groups a greater willingness to use litter if the contract land application was available similar to commercial fertilizer.
The typical cow-calf operation in West Virginia generates negative profits (Evans). Some livestock producers may not be able to afford nutrient applications (from either litter or commercial fertilizer) to grass production without a subsidy program. Based upon the survey results, however, this profitability limitation applies to only a small number of farmers given that the majority surveyed typically applied commercial fertilizer to pasture or hay land.
The final policy goal concerned environmental protection practices by farmer participants. The subsidy program required farmers to follow best management practices (BMPs) under their nutrient management plans for litter storage and application. Compliance with BMPs is largely voluntary with federal and state agency personnel providing minimal enforcement. When compared to West Virginia poultry growers, the percentages of program participants who did not comply with BMPs for litter management were slightly lower for two of three practices and equal to for the third (table 2). Thus, the environmental protections provided by program participants were comparable to those of poultry growers in the Potomac Headwaters region who have received numerous educational and cost-share programs on litter management under state and federal programs.
| Litter Management Practice | Transport Program Participants (% of Respondents) | Poultry Growers (% of Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Uncovered storage of litter | 13 | 18 |
| No soil tests conducted prior to litter application | 27 | 29 |
| No calibration of litter spreader | 40 | 40 |
- Source: Basden, Ritz, and Collins.
Conclusions and Implications
The transport subsidy litter program conducted in West Virginia moved about 60% of the nutrient overload for phosphorus out of the Potomac Headwaters region. This program expanded the area where West Virginia farmers utilized litter and lowered the monetary risk from litter use. Viewed over three policy goals, the program would have to be regarded as effective in achieving each goal over the short term: (1) attracting first time users of litter; (2) encouraging farmers within economically feasible counties to utilize litter; and (3) providing for environmental protection from litter storage and application that is comparable to poultry growers. The long-term impact of the program in dealing with surpluses of litter in the Potomac Headwaters region is less clear as the vast majority of participants have been reluctant to continue their use of litter without transport subsidies.
What should the future of litter transport subsidies be in West Virginia? Prior to the subsidy program, there were not many West Virginian farmers who had purchased litter outside the Potomac Headwaters region. Thus, the initial program attracted many new buyers. Like many other states, budget problems in West Virginia prevented this program from continuing into 2003. However, a new litter subsidy program was implemented in fall of 2004 using federal funding under the Agricultural Management Assistance Program as a strategy to meet West Virginia' s nutrient load allocation under the Chesapeake Bay Program (Piper). Recommendations that were implemented for this new subsidy program based upon this research included: (1) giving funding priority to first time buyers; (2) establishing a 200 mile transport mileage cap; (3) giving priority to buyers located closer to the Potomac Headwaters region; and (4) eliminating farmer responsibility for the first 50 miles of transport costs.
Based upon the West Virginia experience, what are some implications of this research for transport subsidy policies in other states? First, the continuation of litter use by program participants without subsidies is difficult to achieve. Few West Virginia farmers, even within economically feasible counties, continued to buy litter after the subsidy program ended. Subsidy programs should continue over time, but be structured to avoid creating dependence upon these subsidies. Second, subsidy programs need to encourage litter transport distances to be as short as possible outside the impacted area and for litter to remain within economically feasible areas. The West Virginia program moved litter out further but to the detriment of economic feasibility. Policies should lessen transport distance by subsidizing a declining portion of the transport costs with distance (the West Virginia program did the opposite) and establishing transport mileage caps based upon economic feasibility analyses. Third, environmental protection practices by program participants, while not 100% compliant, should be comparable to poultry growers when nutrient management plans are required in the program.
The results of this study point to a need for additional research on the willingness of farmers to accept land applications of surplus manure from outside their farm. Both computations of nutrient overloads in the Potomac Headwaters and the tall grass hay land application potentials in economically feasible counties utilized assumptions of all land being available for litter application. The actual willingness of nonpoultry growers to accept litter for land application is unknown in both areas. Ribaudo et al. report that survey data show that less than 20% of cropland in major crops currently receives animal manure for fertilization. Survey data are not indicative of cropland owners' willingness to accept manure and that this willingness has not been studied directly. Such research would enable more accurate estimates of manure nutrient application potentials as well as identify education and/or technical limitations that discourage manure use by potential recipient farmers.
Acknowledgments
The West Virginia Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station provided funding for this research under Hatch Project 394 and approved this research under scientific article 2874. This manuscript was improved by the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers.
Endnotes
Appendix A
Data and assumptions used to determine the economic feasibility of poultry litter transport by county
| Data Description | Assumption | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Price of broiler litter fob ($/ton) | $7.76 | Average broiler litter price from survey sample (weighted by tons purchased) |
| Nutrient content of litter (lb/ton) | 53.3 (N) | Average nutrient content of dry broiler litter processed during 2002 at the West Virginia Department of Agriculture lab |
| 41.95 (P2O5) | ||
| N-P2O5-K2O | 53.2 (K2O) | |
| Nitrogen availability for organic N mineralization of broiler litter (%) | 50% (year 1) 15% (year 2) 8% (year 3) |
Available N due to mineralization. Source: Maryland Department of Agriculture |
| Application cost of litter ($/ton) | $7.17 | Survey sample average weighted by tons spread. Cost assumptions for litter spreading were based upon labor at $7.50 per hour; spreader at $30 per day; and tractor costs from computed at the University of Illinois ($14.49 per hour plus respondents' fuel cost or $16.92 per hour including fuel cost). |
| Hauling distance for litter (miles) | Varies by county | Mileage for each county was based upon average distance of transport from the survey sample. For counties not represented in the sample, distance was from Moorefield, WV to the county seat |
| Hauling cost ($/mile) | $2.00 | Average transport cost from survey sample |
| Litter per load (tons) | 20 | Typical transport load |
| Fertilizer prices fob ($/ton) | Fertilizer prices were from Southern States in Weston, WV during August 2002 | |
| Diammonia phosphate | $230.00 | |
| Urea | $204.00 | |
| Potash | $180.00 | |
| Efficiency of fertilizer N for plant use | 60% | Source: Long, Kennedy, and Gracey |
| Fertilizer application cost ($/acre) | $6.00 | Spreading charge by Southern States in Weston, WV during 2002 |
| Fertilizer delivery cost | $0.00 | Zero was used because the average pasture acreage spread with litter was 33 acres in the survey sample. This acreage is larger than the minimum charge from Southern States for fertilizer application |
| Initial level of soil P (lb/acre) | Range from 36 to 66 | County-wide averages for tall grass hay land based on data from the West Virginia University Soil Testing Lab |
| Soil P fertility index | 65 | Median index for a high level of soil test P on tall grass hay or pasture in West Virginia |
| Efficiency of soil P additions | 27% for litter | Changes in soil test P in response to P2O5 applications from litter or fertilizer. Sources: Basden and Rayburn plus Rasnake for litter and Mullins for fertilizer. |
| 15% for fertilizer | ||
| Interest rate (%) | 7% | Agricultural land value discount rate from Lamb and Henderson |
Appendix B
Net savings resulting from broiler litter transport to meet P based needs on tall grass hay land
| County | No Subsidy ($/acre) | Subsidy ($/acre) |
|---|---|---|
| Barbour | +190 | +203 |
| Braxton | +82 | +113 |
| Cabell | (85) | (33) |
| Calhoun | +73 | +104 |
| Clay | +82 | +112 |
| Doddridge | +110 | +129 |
| Fayette | +13 | +53 |
| Gilmer | +106 | +134 |
| Greenbrier | +59 | +82 |
| Harrison | +122 | +143 |
| Jackson | 0 | +39 |
| Kanawha | (37) | +9 |
| Lewis | +143 | +162 |
| Marion | +117 | +139 |
| Marshall | +30 | +58 |
| Mason | (68) | (26) |
| Monongalia | +139 | +157 |
| Nicholas | +78 | +107 |
| Ohio | +1 | +41 |
| Pleasants | 13 | +42 |
| Pocahontas | +127 | +146 |
| Preston | +175 | +187 |
| Putnam | (55) | (9) |
| Randolph | +234 | +239 |
| Ritchie | +51 | +89 |
| Roane | +25 | +61 |
| Taylor | +147 | +164 |
| Tucker | +222 | +229 |
| Tyler | +42 | +78 |
| Upshur | +168 | +183 |
| Webster | +132 | +158 |
| Wetzel | +27 | +62 |
| Wirt | +5 | +41 |
| Wood | 0 | +39 |
- Note: Plus and () indicate the amount that litter is less costly and more costly than commercial fertilizer, respectively. Cost comparisons were made for the present value of lifetime nutrient application cost per acre.
