Partial shelter in feedlots: Is it worth the cost?

In a previously published article − Partial pen coverage a solid solution for feedlots − benefits identified in a project evaluating pen coverage in a commercial feedlot initial findings were shared. Since then, a deeper dive into the cost benefits have been completed on the Bovine Dynamics-led project, which took place at Rangers Valley Feedlot in Glen Innes, NSW.

What was analysed? 

An ex-ante cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was completed by Integrity Ag on the three shelter treatments, which included:

1. Unshaded with woodchip bedding (control) (OUT-BED)
2. Partial shelter cover with woodchip bedding (SHED-NO BED)
3. Partial shelter cover without woodchip bedding (BED-SHED).  

Using project data and supplemented data (collected from key stakeholders) when required, costs associated with capital, operations and inputs were taken into consideration. Some costs were not considered, including:

• finance or insurance costs
• cattle purchase cost
• day-to-day operations of feedlot not related to treatments (assumed to be the same across the three treatments).

The costs were all reported as Australian Dollars in 2024.

A sensitivity analysis was also conducted for different carcase weight values. The average was assumed to be a value of 750¢/kg hot standard carcase weight (HSCW), the minimum was 600¢/kg HSCW and maximum was 900¢/kg HSCW.

A full breakdown of key inventory data used in the CBA can be viewed in the final project report.

The main purpose of the CBA was to help determine whether benefits of partial shelter offset cost and which treatment would return more based on the life of the treatment (calculated at 25 years).

Which treatment presented the highest return? 

The treatment found to drive the highest liveweight gain was SHED-BED and the lowest benefits were found in the SHED-NO BED treatment.

A breakdown of each treatment, total cost and total benefits over the life of the treatments (25 years) are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Total cost and benefits over the life of the treatments

A significant discovery around the musculoskeletal morbidity was also identified during the project. It was found that removals due to musculoskeletal morbidity doubled in cattle with no bedding when compared to those with bedding. This clearly demonstrates the benefit of bedding to the musculoskeletal health of long-fed Angus cattle and resulted in a 2% higher feedlot exit rate.

Overall, it was suggested the greatest financial benefit would be gained by high value production systems such as Wagyu. There may still be benefits for other feedlots if higher performance can be achieved in partial coverage; however, returns would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

For consideration

Although the CBA was completed, there were uncertainties to consider.

Shed maintenance costs were estimated and could be higher depending on the circumstances. For example, a higher associated maintenance costs for a shed located in a corrosion-prone area, compared to one in an area not prone to corrosion.

It was also assumed there was no benefit to pad maintenance costs of pens with partial coverage. There was no reduction in stocking density between the pens, regardless of whether it had shelter or not, and therefore it was determined there would be minimal to no benefit to maintenance and repair of the pad.

Feed wastage was assumed to be included as part of the feed consumption data.