IMPACTS OF EPA DAIRY WASTE REGULATIONS ON FARM PROFITABILITY



determining a before∕after context in the costs of meeting the EPA
regulations. The findings are presented in Table 2. Part of the farm-
to-farm variation in costs is reflected in the extent to which the farms
had already dealt with the waste management issue. The $528,000
investment required of the large Florida dairy (FLLD) was the result
of the unique conditions and requirements to curb the contamination
of fragile waters related to the Everglades.

Using the FLIPSIM policy simulation model developed by James
Richardson at Texas A&M, the authors simulated the impacts of the
new, more stringent EPA policies on the profitability of Texas and
Florida representative farms (Table 3). In this table,
Base represents
the baseline net costs income prior to retrofitting for the EPA pol-
icies while
Enviro indicates the results after
retrofitting. These results indicate that dairy farms having cash flow
problems are simply put out of business sooner as a result of the new
EPA requirements. On the other hand, the larger profitable East
Texas dairy (TXEL) and the Central Texas dairy (TXCL) were suffi-
ciently profitable to pay off the amortized debt resulting from the
new investments.

While the moderate-size Florida dairy (FLMD) reflects the same
pattern of results as the Texas dairies of comparable size, the large
Florida dairy (FLLD) represents a case in which the EPA invest-
ment requirements were so large that its ability to cash flow is
placed in jeopardy. This was the only case in which a large and
otherwise profitable dairy is projected to encounter cash flow prob-
lems due solely to the EPA regulations. This result, in part, is a con-
sequence of the large investments required ($528,000) to build the
unique waste containment structures.

Table 2, Incremental Environmental Costs Obtained from Texas and Florida Dairy Producers.

Number of cows

TXCM

300

TXCL

720

TXEM

200

TXELO

812

FLMD

350

FLLD

1500

Dirt and concrete
work ($)a

40,600

60,000

7,000e

35,000

0

528,000

Machinery and
equipment ($)b

6,000

46,000

0e

50,000

10,000

72,000

Annual
maintenance ($)c

0d

0d

5,OOQd

0d

1,200

25,000

aDirt and concrete work includes the cost of constructing or renovating a drainage pit, retention
lagoon and storage lagoon.

bMachinery and equipment includes the cost of any additional pumps and irrigation equipment re-
quired and was not previously in the equipment complement of the dairy.

eAnnual maintenance costs include lot cleanup, pumping, and additional repair and maintenance
costs.

dFor these dairies, the annual maintenance was included in the cost of hired labor and could not
be easily separated, except for the moderate-size East Texas dairy which contracted annual
lagoon cleaning and maintenance.

eThe moderate East Texas (TXEM) dairy was only required to update existing equipment and fa-
cilities.

201



More intriguing information

1. Urban Green Space Policies: Performance and Success Conditions in European Cities
2. Evolution of cognitive function via redeployment of brain areas
3. Studies on association of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus and its effect on improvement of sorghum bicolor (L.)
4. Nietzsche, immortality, singularity and eternal recurrence1
5. Housing Market in Malaga: An Application of the Hedonic Methodology
6. The name is absent
7. The Environmental Kuznets Curve Under a New framework: Role of Social Capital in Water Pollution
8. Foreign Direct Investment and the Single Market
9. Income Mobility of Owners of Small Businesses when Boundaries between Occupations are Vague
10. Anti Microbial Resistance Profile of E. coli isolates From Tropical Free Range Chickens