Covered Feedlot Costs
How much does a fully covered feedlot cost?” is one of the first questions producers ask when considering covered housing.
This guide focuses specifically on full covered housing systems, rather than shade structures. It looks at the cost of the covered building itself, as well as the civil works, infrastructure and other project costs that can sit around it.
There isn’t a single cost-per-head figure that can accurately price every project. A retrofit over existing pens can have very different requirements to a new covered feedlot development, and factors such as site conditions, building configuration, civil works, drainage and existing infrastructure can materially change the total investment.
What Does a Covered Feedlot Cost?
Meat & Livestock Australia’s Feedlot Covered Housing Systems: Best Practice Design and Management Manual includes a cost comparison for example 5,000 SCU uncovered and covered feedlot developments.
In the example, the estimated capital cost was approximately:
| Example system | Approximate capital cost |
|---|---|
| Uncovered feedlot | $1,230/SCU |
| Covered housing system | $2,060/SCU |
| Difference | $830/SCU |
For a 5,000 SCU development, that represents an example total investment of approximately $6.15 million for the uncovered feedlot and $10.3 million for the covered system, based on the MLA figures.
These figures should not be treated as current construction rates or a TechSpan price estimate. MLA developed the comparison to demonstrate the relative cost difference between the two example systems and specifically notes that construction costs are highly site and design-specific and change between regions and over time.
You can review the methodology and complete comparison in MLA’s Feedlot Covered Housing Systems: Best Practice Design and Management Manual.
Where Does the Additional Cost Go?
The difference between an uncovered and covered feedlot is not simply the cost of putting a roof over the same facility.
In MLA’s 5,000 SCU comparison, covered housing required substantially greater investment in the building structure, while reducing expenditure in some other areas of the development.
The example included approximately $6.3 million in building structures for the covered system. This was partly offset by around $1.2 million less in civil works and approximately $460,000 less in feed bunks and aprons, along with differences in fencing, water supply and other infrastructure.
That is an important distinction when comparing options. The relevant question is not simply:
“How much does the roof cost?”
It is:
“What does the whole feedlot development cost under each option?”
Covered housing can change the requirements for civil works, drainage and effluent management, pen configuration, water management and other supporting infrastructure.
New Feedlot or Retrofit?
This is one of the first distinctions to make when developing a realistic budget.
Covering Existing Pens
For an existing feedlot, much of the infrastructure may already be in place. The project may primarily involve the covered structure and the works needed to integrate it with the existing operation.
However, existing infrastructure needs to be assessed before assuming a retrofit will be straightforward.
Questions can include:
- Can the existing pen layout accommodate the proposed structure?
- Where can columns be positioned without compromising operations?
- Will existing drainage still work with rainfall removed from the covered area?
- Where will clean roof water go?
- Are existing roads and machinery access suitable?
- Will existing services need to be relocated?
- Are additional approvals required?
- How will the structure allow for future expansion?
These interfaces can have a significant influence on the final project cost.
Developing a New Covered Feedlot
A greenfield project involves a much broader capital budget.
In addition to the covered structure, the project may need to account for earthworks, roads, feed bunks, water infrastructure, drainage and effluent systems, manure management, livestock handling infrastructure, services, planning approvals and other operational requirements.
The advantage is that these systems can be planned together from the beginning rather than adapting a building to existing infrastructure.
Our Feedlot Approvals guide explains the planning and consultant pathway in more detail.
What Drives the Cost of the Covered Structure?
Once the broader project scope is understood, several decisions influence the cost of the building itself.
Building Size
The overall length, width and covered area are obvious cost drivers, but square metres alone do not tell the whole story.
The amount of covered area required per head depends on the type of system, stocking density, pen configuration and operational objectives. Our Covered Feedlot Design Parameters Guide explores these considerations in more detail.
Clear Span
Increasing the distance the structure needs to span without internal columns generally requires more structural steel.
The right span therefore needs to balance structural efficiency with how the feedlot needs to operate underneath it, including cattle movement, machinery access, feed alleys and pen configuration.
Roof Form and Ventilation
Roof pitch, ridge openings, building height and overall geometry affect both structural requirements and natural ventilation.
A lower-cost structure that does not provide the required airflow or operational clearance is unlikely to represent good value over the life of the facility.
Read more about these decisions in our Feedlot Roof Design guide.
Site and Wind Conditions
Structural requirements also vary with location.
Wind region, terrain, topography, building height and other site conditions influence structural engineering and member sizes. These requirements need to be established for the actual site rather than applying a generic building rate.
Foundations and Ground Conditions
Geotechnical conditions can influence footing design and foundation costs.
Poor ground conditions, significant level changes or extensive earthworks can increase the cost of preparing the site and supporting the structure. This is why survey and geotechnical information can be valuable before the project reaches detailed engineering.
Don’t Budget for the Building Alone
For producers developing an early feasibility budget, it helps to separate the project into major cost areas.
Depending on the project, these may include:
Covered structure
Structural steel, roofing, engineering, detailing, manufacture and erection.
Civil works
Earthworks, site preparation, roads, drainage, levels and foundations.
Feedlot infrastructure
Feed bunks, aprons, fencing, water infrastructure, cattle handling and operational areas.
Water and effluent management
Drainage, sedimentation and holding systems, clean roof-water collection and other environmental infrastructure.
Professional and approval costs
Planning, environmental assessments, survey, geotechnical investigations, civil engineering and approval fees.
Services and supporting infrastructure
Power, water, lighting and other site services where required.
Contingency
An allowance for items that cannot be accurately defined during early concept planning.
Breaking the budget into these components makes it easier to identify where more information is needed and avoids treating the structural building price as the total project cost.
What Could Covered Housing Return?
Cost is only one side of the investment decision.
Australian research has shown measurable performance outcomes from covered and partially covered systems under particular trial conditions.
An MLA-supported study at Tullimba in NSW found cattle provided with partial waterproof shelter achieved approximately 0.10 kg/head/day greater average daily gain, 4% better feed efficiency and approximately 7 kg greater hot standard carcase weight during the summer trial.
A later commercial study at Rangers Valley involving long-fed Angus cattle found partial covered housing with bedding increased average daily gain by 0.09 kg/day, exit weight by 11.1 kg and hot standard carcase weight by 6.3 kg compared with the control treatment.
These results should not be treated as guaranteed returns from installing covered housing. Performance will vary with climate, cattle, ration, management, housing design and other operating conditions.
They do, however, demonstrate why feasibility should consider more than the initial capital cost.
MLA’s research on partial covered housing and bedding provides further detail on these findings.
Work Back to a Cost Per Head
For an early feasibility assessment, it can be useful to convert the estimated project cost into a cost per head or SCU.
For example:
Total project investment ÷ design capacity = indicative capital cost per head
That figure can then be considered alongside:
- Expected utilisation
- Feeding programme
- Infrastructure life
- Finance costs
- Maintenance requirements
- Potential productivity changes
- Labour and operational impacts
- Manure and bedding management
- Drainage and effluent implications
The purpose is not to produce a universal ROI figure. It is to establish what the investment needs to deliver for your operation.
How Do I Get a More Accurate Covered Feedlot Cost?
The closer the project gets to a defined concept, the more meaningful the budget becomes.
You do not need complete construction drawings to start the process, but providing some basic information can help TechSpan understand the likely structural scope.
Useful information includes:
- Feedlot location
- Existing or proposed cattle capacity
- Number and dimensions of pens being considered for cover
- Existing site or feedlot plans
- Approximate area to be covered
- Proposed full-cover area and configuration
- Survey information, where available
- Existing drainage and civil plans
- Machinery and operational clearance requirements
- Proposed future expansion
- Intended project timeframe
If some of this information is not yet available, that’s fine. Early concept planning can help identify what still needs to be resolved.
Where TechSpan Fits
TechSpan’s role is to help turn the operational requirements into an engineered, buildable covered feedlot solution.
During Concept, we work with the producer and broader project team to understand the site, proposed layout, operational requirements and what the covered housing needs to achieve.
During Configure, we develop the structural solution around factors such as building dimensions, clear spans, column positions, roof configuration, ventilation, engineering requirements and future expansion.
During Construct, the structural package progresses through detailing, manufacture and construction.
This is our 3C Advantage: Concept. Configure. Construct.
Getting TechSpan involved during concept planning also allows the structural solution to develop alongside the feedlot, civil, environmental and approval requirements, rather than pricing a building after the major project decisions have already been made.
Planning a Covered Feedlot?
If you’re trying to establish whether covered housing is financially viable for your operation, start with the site, capacity and what you’re trying to achieve.
We can help develop an initial building concept and identify the structural information needed to move towards a more meaningful project budget.