Building for Productivity: Assessing Agricultural Infrastructure When Margins Are Tight

There are plenty of reasons to put off a major infrastructure project.

When operating costs are high and margins are being watched closely, spending money on a new agricultural building needs a good reason behind it.

Sometimes that reason is obvious. You’ve outgrown what you have, existing infrastructure is slowing the operation down, or you need more capacity.

Other times, the need is less clear.

That’s when it’s worth getting away from the question of “What building do we need?” and looking instead at “What are we trying to improve?”

Because if the project doesn’t solve a real problem, it’s hard to justify the investment.

Where is the operation working harder than it needs to?

Most agricultural businesses adapt to the infrastructure they have.

A machinery movement takes longer than it should. Cattle have to be moved a certain way because that’s how the yards evolved. Equipment is stored in several locations. A loading area works, but only just.

You find a way around it and get on with the job.

Over time, those workarounds can become normal.

Before planning new infrastructure, it is worth looking at where time, labour or capacity is being lost because of the physical layout of the operation.

For a feedlot, that could be cattle movement, feed delivery, machinery access, pen cleaning, drainage or the way existing infrastructure limits expansion.

For a dairy operation, the conversation might be around cow movement, feed management, machinery access, labour or future herd capacity.

For machinery and storage buildings, it could be as straightforward as getting equipment under one roof with enough clearance to move it properly.

These are operational problems first. The building comes second.

Put a value on the problem

This is where infrastructure decisions get more useful.

If something is inefficient, what is it costing you?

It doesn’t always need to be a complicated ROI calculation. Start with what you can see.

How much time is being lost?

How often does the problem occur?

Is it limiting capacity?

Does it require additional labour?

Are you spending money maintaining infrastructure that no longer suits the operation?

Could it prevent the business from expanding?

The answers won’t always fit neatly into a spreadsheet, but they give you a much better way to assess the project than comparing construction prices alone.

They also help identify where spending more might be justified and where it isn’t.

Don’t confuse a cheaper building with a better investment

Price matters. Particularly when margins are tight.

But there is a difference between reducing the cost of a project and removing something the operation really needs.

Reducing a span might lower the structural cost, for example, but not if it introduces columns where machinery needs to move.

Reducing height might save steel, but not if the building no longer accommodates the equipment it was intended for.

Equally, there’s no point paying for additional height, span or capacity that serves no operational purpose.

The aim isn’t to specify the biggest or most expensive building.

It’s to understand where the money matters.

That is why we spend time defining projects before locking in a structural solution through our 3C Advantage.

Look at the whole operation, not just the footprint

A building doesn’t operate in isolation.

It sits within an existing site with access roads, drainage, machinery movements, livestock, services and other infrastructure around it.

This becomes particularly important with larger agricultural projects.

Our guide to planning a covered feedlot looks at this in more detail. Site selection, pen layout, cattle movement, feed access, drainage, ventilation and future expansion can all influence the structural solution.

MLA takes a similarly broad approach in its guidance around excessive heat load in feedlots. Its recommendations include reviewing site characteristics, infrastructure, shade and water as part of a wider management plan, rather than relying on one measure in isolation.

That’s an important distinction.

A new structure can solve one problem while creating another if the wider operation hasn’t been considered.

Think about what you’ll need next

One of the harder decisions is how much to build for today and how much to allow for tomorrow.

There’s no point spending heavily on capacity you may never use.

But designing a building so tightly around today’s operation that it can’t adapt can be equally expensive.

Think about the changes that are reasonably foreseeable.

Could cattle numbers increase? Is machinery likely to get larger? Could another bay be required? Might the site layout change? Is there a logical direction for future expansion?

You don’t need to predict the next 20 years.

You just don’t want today’s building sitting in the way of them.

Our article on feedlot layout design goes further into how layout decisions can affect day-to-day operation and future expansion.

Sometimes the right answer is not to build

This is probably the most important part of assessing any infrastructure investment.

What happens if you don’t do it?

If the existing infrastructure is working, capacity is adequate and the project doesn’t solve a meaningful operational problem, putting the investment elsewhere may be the better decision.

But doing nothing can have a cost too.

It could mean continuing to work around poor access, carrying higher maintenance costs, accepting limited capacity or spending labour on a problem that better infrastructure could remove.

So, compare both sides.

What will the project cost?

And:

What will the current problem cost if we leave it alone?

That is a much more useful conversation.

For livestock infrastructure, productivity isn’t just about throughput

For feedlot projects in particular, there is another part of the equation.

Infrastructure can influence the environment cattle are being managed in.

MLA identifies environmental factors including temperature, humidity, solar radiation and air movement as contributors to excessive heat load in lot fed cattle. Its guidance recommends assessing feedlot infrastructure and site characteristics before summer and taking a proactive rather than reactive approach.

There is also Australian research behind the value of shade and shelter. An MLA-funded study at a southern Australian feedlot found differences in cattle performance between unshaded, shade-cloth and waterproof shelter treatments.

That doesn’t mean putting a roof over a pen automatically delivers a particular productivity outcome.

It means the way infrastructure is planned matters.

Our articles on feedlot roof design, feedlot orientation and feedlot ventilation look at the structural considerations individually.

The important part is getting them to work together.

Define what success looks like before you price the solution

Before asking for a price on a new agricultural building, write down what would make the project worthwhile.

It might be:

• increasing usable capacity
• improving cattle or machinery movement
• reducing unnecessary handling
• improving weather protection
• consolidating storage
• removing an operational bottleneck
• accommodating larger equipment
• allowing for future expansion.

Then use that list when you’re making design decisions.

If an option costs more, ask what it gives you.

If an option costs less, ask what you’re giving up.

That sounds obvious, but it’s a useful way of keeping the project focused when you’re making dozens of decisions about size, configuration and specification.

Build what the operation needs

This is the thinking behind TechSpan’s 3C Advantage.

We start with the problem and the operation before settling on the structure.

From there, span, height, layout, access, site constraints, ventilation, future expansion and structural requirements can be worked through around what the building actually needs to achieve.

Not every agricultural project needs more building.

Not every project needs more steel.

It needs the right infrastructure in the right place, doing a useful job for the operation.

When margins are tight, that’s what makes an infrastructure investment easier to justify.

Considering your next agricultural project?

If you’re looking at new infrastructure, start with the problem you’re trying to solve.

You can explore TechSpan’s agricultural building solutions or talk to our team about what you’re planning.

Build Smarter.