3 bay slatted shed costs 2017/18

kerb · 29-11-2017 2:22pm

Dunedin wrote: »

Would be very interested to see if anyone has actually done the full costing comparison between grant spec and doing shed yourself. I appreciate it might not be exactly like for like but within reason.

From my research on it its cheaper to go grant spec and you will have a better quality shed unless. You can do most the labour yourself, the problem with grant is waiting on payment and to make sure you don't get penalised,

Dunedin · 29-11-2017 3:41pm

kerb wrote: »

From my research on it its cheaper to go grant spec and you will have a better quality shed unless. You can do most the labour yourself, the problem with grant is waiting on payment and to make sure you don't get penalised,

sorry, just to clarify, is that cheaper on the 40 or 60%???

larthehar · 29-11-2017 5:58pm

Dunedin wrote: »

Would be very interested to see if anyone has actually done the full costing comparison between grant spec and doing shed yourself. I appreciate it might not be exactly like for like but within reason.

Fully out sourced job, grant vs no grant was 15% delta.. so for 40% grant still saving 25% of costs and you have the top job..
labour is the killer, if you are doing it yourself cheaper not to go grant..

Mooooo · 29-11-2017 6:35pm

I think another issue with grant is that existing parts of yard may have to be improved or changed to avail of grant? Open to correction on that but heard of a lad that was putting a shed over an existing tank and the reason he went without the grant was the extra work required outside of the shed

Dunedin · 29-11-2017 7:15pm

larthehar wrote: »

Fully out sourced job, grant vs no grant was 15% delta.. so for 40% grant still saving 25% of costs and you have the top job..
labour is the killer, if you are doing it yourself cheaper not to go grant..

If I read your post correct, you are saying that it is only 15% dearer to go with Grant spec as opposed to no grant.

Not meaning to doubt your post but I couldn't see how it would be that close as the steel alone would be more than 15%, never mind anything else. The only way I could see this being practicable would be if exact same materials were being used and that is where this becomes difficult to compare one against the other. e.g. grant spec requires galvanized H iron but in the norm, without the grant, most farmers will not go this route. They won't put in the same extent of steel in walls and floor.

so essentially, what we would be looking to determine is taking a grant spec shed at for example 50k all in and then looking at the same shed and seeing what you could put up allowing that you will be skimming down on the grant shed but still end up with a shed that is usable and therein lies the debate. A neighbor of mine put up a 5 bay shed last year for 25k. It really is the basic of basics though. No lie back, limited overhang, low roof, no doors either end but with one hanging barrier to get all cattle in and out. But he's happy with it.

You can still do the labour yourself in either cases also as your own labour can count towards the overall cost in grant specs.

Bass Reeves · 29-11-2017 11:04pm

kerb wrote: »

for you info folks i got departments cost to do a 3 bay open shed with creep departments costs = 43700 + vat also got costs for the same shed closed = 47800 + vat all included as far as i know

i have sent plans to contractor to price at grant spec so see what he comes back with

I would imagine that you should be able to contract the shed for that kind of Money. If you price the different sections you should be able to get compeditive quotes for digging, tank, slats, shed and fitout.

Mooooo wrote: »

I think another issue with grant is that existing parts of yard may have to be improved or changed to avail of grant? Open to correction on that but heard of a lad that was putting a shed over an existing tank and the reason he went without the grant was the extra work required outside of the shed

I really think that lads that use this excuse are eliminating themselves from future grants as well. it is often better to bit the bullet and get the rest sorted so that you can keep availing of grant aid down the line

Dunedin wrote: »

If I read your post correct, you are saying that it is only 15% dearer to go with Grant spec as opposed to no grant.

Not meaning to doubt your post but I couldn't see how it would be that close as the steel alone would be more than 15%, never mind anything else. The only way I could see this being practicable would be if exact same materials were being used and that is where this becomes difficult to compare one against the other. e.g. grant spec requires galvanized H iron but in the norm, without the grant, most farmers will not go this route. They won't put in the same extent of steel in walls and floor.

so essentially, what we would be looking to determine is taking a grant spec shed at for example 50k all in and then looking at the same shed and seeing what you could put up allowing that you will be skimming down on the grant shed but still end up with a shed that is usable and therein lies the debate. A neighbor of mine put up a 5 bay shed last year for 25k. It really is the basic of basics though. No lie back, limited overhang, low roof, no doors either end but with one hanging barrier to get all cattle in and out. But he's happy with it.

You can still do the labour yourself in either cases also as your own labour can count towards the overall cost in grant specs.

First off galvanizing of H irons is not a requirement of grant. Shot blasting and painting is the requirement. Mind you I would galvanize. Bigger sheds are much more efficient to grant aid as economies of scale com into play. Kerb says that 43,700 is grant aided cost of a 3 bay it would be about 26K net. At a guess a 5 bay with creeps doors proper barriers, doors a proper height roof, a creep area and lighting would be sub 35K, at a good guess in or around 33K would be the net cost. As well often lads that do these jobs put in an awful lot of labour to keep costs down If they did that for a grant job shed they have it for 20% cheaper or around the price of the botch job.

Tyson Lannister · 30-11-2017 12:39am

Mooooo wrote: »

I think another issue with grant is that existing parts of yard may have to be improved or changed to avail of grant? Open to correction on that but heard of a lad that was putting a shed over an existing tank and the reason he went without the grant was the extra work required outside of the shed

Over an existing tank is a bit of a pain - you have to get an engineer in to certify the existing tank etc..

maidhc · 30-11-2017 1:31am

Dunedin wrote: »

Would be very interested to see if anyone has actually done the full costing comparison between grant spec and doing shed yourself. I appreciate it might not be exactly like for like but within reason.

I just completed the shed below and am waiting for the grant atm. Shed cost was about 100k plus VAT. I am working full time so was tight on labour, but did the backfilling myself and welded up the barriers (excl front diagonal ones). I’m not including this cost or the cost of the cctv which I also did while I was at it.

There is only a small saving in not getting the grant from my research. Most of the grant requirements are sensible. Obviously you could build a cheaper shed, but then you are not comparing like with like. I cut back on the galvanized pillars and put in a fiber cement roof as I thought it was money better spent.

Bass Reeves · 30-11-2017 4:38am

maidhc wrote: »

I just completed the shed below and am waiting for the grant atm. Shed cost was about 100k plus VAT. I am working full time so was tight on labour, but did the backfilling myself and welded up the barriers (excl front diagonal ones). I’m not including this cost or the cost of the cctv which I also did while I was at it.

There is only a small saving in not getting the grant from my research. Most of the grant requirements are sensible. Obviously you could build a cheaper shed, but then you are not comparing like with like. I cut back on the galvanized pillars and put in a fiber cement roof as I thought it was money better spent.

I would have spend the money on the pillars. Replacing sheeting 30 years down the road is not a big job replacing or fixing a pillar is messy. It is a fine shed but personally I think it is too enclosed. I would have considered letting the Northern/Eastern side open and maybe over hung the roof there. FIL has a shed build in the early 90's pillars that are shotblasted and painted are corroded and 2-3 will need a job done on them in the next 3-5 years. He went for an abestos roof:eek: at the time.

I totally agree about the grant I think there is little or no saving in real cost terms before grant is claimed

larthehar · 30-11-2017 10:09am

Dunedin wrote: »

If I read your post correct, you are saying that it is only 15% dearer to go with Grant spec as opposed to no grant.

Not meaning to doubt your post but I couldn't see how it would be that close as the steel alone would be more than 15%, never mind anything else. The only way I could see this being practicable would be if exact same materials were being used and that is where this becomes difficult to compare one against the other. e.g. grant spec requires galvanized H iron but in the norm, without the grant, most farmers will not go this route. They won't put in the same extent of steel in walls and floor.

so essentially, what we would be looking to determine is taking a grant spec shed at for example 50k all in and then looking at the same shed and seeing what you could put up allowing that you will be skimming down on the grant shed but still end up with a shed that is usable and therein lies the debate. A neighbor of mine put up a 5 bay shed last year for 25k. It really is the basic of basics though. No lie back, limited overhang, low roof, no doors either end but with one hanging barrier to get all cattle in and out. But he's happy with it.

You can still do the labour yourself in either cases also as your own labour can count towards the overall cost in grant specs.

As i said.. if you were doing it yourself.. you could save a lot more.. i put up a shed a few years ago myself, took down a shed off DD, shot blasted it and sprayed my self.. got seconds sheeting.. made all doors and that myself. Cost me 12k finished to a high standard..
I priced two different lads for a fully completed solution grant and no grant without half arsing it and the delta was 15%..

maidhc · 30-11-2017 10:45am

larthehar wrote: »

As i said.. if you were doing it yourself.. you could save a lot more.. i put up a shed a few years ago myself, took down a shed off DD, shot blasted it and sprayed my self.. got seconds sheeting.. made all doors and that myself. Cost me 12k finished to a high standard..
I priced two different lads for a fully completed solution grant and no grant without half arsing it and the delta was 15%..

But you ended up with a shed made from seconds and old stuff using a whole pile of your time!

Also, you must put a value on your time. If you can get 17 hr on a site, it makes no sense to make the equivalent of 5 hr building a shed.

annubis · 30-11-2017 11:25am

maidhc wrote: »

I just completed the shed below and am waiting for the grant atm. Shed cost was about 100k plus VAT. I am working full time so was tight on labour, but did the backfilling myself and welded up the barriers (excl front diagonal ones). I’m not including this cost or the cost of the cctv which I also did while I was at it.

There is only a small saving in not getting the grant from my research. Most of the grant requirements are sensible. Obviously you could build a cheaper shed, but then you are not comparing like with like. I cut back on the galvanized pillars and put in a fiber cement roof as I thought it was money better spent.

fine looking shed, is that a crush at the back of the pens both sides?
or is it just for feeding?

kerb · 01-12-2017 4:39pm

Dunedin wrote: »

sorry, just to clarify, is that cheaper on the 40 or 60%???

40%

Bass Reeves · 01-12-2017 8:07pm

annubis wrote: »

fine looking shed, is that a crush at the back of the pens both sides?
or is it just for feeding?

I presume it is for feeding how functional it will be is the question. As the wall is taken up to a metre above it you will have to catty the feed along the trough to feed it. IMO he should have left access to the trough from outside ir left a walkway between the wall and the feed trough. When you feed one pen you will have to lug you couple of buckets or bag of ration along the trough to feed at the rear of the pen. It will nearly be as bad as entering the pen with a few buckets of ration

maidhc · 01-12-2017 9:12pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I presume it is for feeding how functional it will be is the question. As the wall is taken up to a metre above it you will have to catty the feed along the trough to feed it. IMO he should have left access to the trough from outside ir left a walkway between the wall and the feed trough. When you feed one pen you will have to lug you couple of buckets or bag of ration along the trough to feed at the rear of the pen. It will nearly be as bad as entering the pen with a few buckets of ration

Correct, it is just for feeding. There is a walkway between the trough and wall?

Bass Reeves · 01-12-2017 9:24pm

maidhc wrote: »

Correct, it is just for feeding. There is a walkway between the trough and wall?

I can see it now the bar is hiding half the trough the walk way is at the rear of it. soor taught the walkway was the trough

Limestone Cowboy · 02-12-2017 5:50pm

Is 15ft a kind of standard width for a bay and how many sucklers can eat at once in a 15ft bay? I'd imagine it would be tight enough for 7.

White Clover · 02-12-2017 6:17pm

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

Is 15ft a kind of standard width for a bay and how many sucklers can eat at once in a 15ft bay? I'd imagine it would be tight enough for 7.

15'9" (4.8m) would be a standard bay. 7 good cows would be the most that could feed at a time. You also have the option of going with 6m bays. Purlins on the roof would need to be heavier and probably closer together.

charolais0153 · 02-12-2017 7:16pm

White Clover wrote: »

15'9" (4.8m) would be a standard bay. 7 good cows would be the most that could feed at a time. You also have the option of going with 6m bays. Purlins on the roof would need to be heavier and probably closer together.

Barriers would need some support in the middle if any more than 15 or so feet

Limestone Cowboy · 02-12-2017 8:10pm

White Clover wrote: »

15'9" (4.8m) would be a standard bay. 7 good cows would be the most that could feed at a time. You also have the option of going with 6m bays. Purlins on the roof would need to be heavier and probably closer together.

Thanks, met with local planner/engineer today about getting planning for a 4 bay with creep, wouldn't be fully sure of dimensions.

White Clover · 02-12-2017 8:56pm

charolais0153 wrote: »

Barriers would need some support in the middle if any more than 15 or so feet

Indeed, for cows and big cattle.

Cavanjack · 02-12-2017 11:27pm

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

Is 15ft a kind of standard width for a bay and how many sucklers can eat at once in a 15ft bay? I'd imagine it would be tight enough for 7.

I would say comfortably 6 cows per bay. I know fattening cattle coming close to finish can't handle 7.

Good loser · 03-12-2017 1:00am

charolais0153 wrote: »

Barriers would need some support in the middle if any more than 15 or so feet

For 6m bays - steel purlins?

charolais0153 · 03-12-2017 10:56am

Good loser wrote: »

For 6m bays - steel purlins?

Ya have 18 feet bays at home with steel purlins

Limestone Cowboy · 03-12-2017 12:14pm

Would it be adding a lot of expense to go to 18ft bays? I had said I wanted a 14'6" slat but it's probably not needed if there will only be headspace for six cows.

FeelTheBern · 03-12-2017 12:22pm

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

Would it be adding a lot of expense to go to 18ft bays? I had said I wanted a 14'6" slat but it's probably not needed if there will only be headspace for six cows.

Think you're still better off going for the bigger slat. As per previous threads, costs not much higher and you'll have increased storage capacity. We have few pens that are 20 feet deep and often keep 10/11 dry sucklers per pen. They can't all eat at the one time which isn't ideal but as long as you have silage in front of them all the time they work out fine - would often go out in evening and none of them eating.

Squatman · 03-12-2017 1:11pm

is there any benefit in building a 2 or 3 bay shed. if at all possible, i would be upszing, to ensure economies of scale, and ensuring enough room for expansion. save you adding onto it after a few years. neighbour of mine built a 3 bay onto the back of a hayshed, and converted the hayshed too, has the equivalent of 7 bays in total. then build a 4 bay single, and then built another 4 bay single, and nothing is right. makes feeding and handling much harder. If it was done right, there would be 1 shed and it would be paid for years ago.

Who2 · 03-12-2017 1:20pm

Squatman wrote: »

is there any benefit in building a 2 or 3 bay shed. if at all possible, i would be upszing, to ensure economies of scale, and ensuring enough room for expansion. save you adding onto it after a few years. neighbour of mine built a 3 bay onto the back of a hayshed, and converted the hayshed too, has the equivalent of 7 bays in total. then build a 4 bay single, and then built another 4 bay single, and nothing is right. makes feeding and handling much harder. If it was done right, there would be 1 shed and it would be paid for years ago.

Maybe he's cutting his cloth to his measure.did he do a lot of the work himself and maybe he didn't need 15 bays back when he started. It would be a brave move putting up a 15 bay shed in one go. Another factor would be if he was expanding one massive investment would tie up everything for years to come, leaving nothing so as to grow the farm. I put up a 4 bay single a few years back. I've plans in to extend a different shed on another 2 bays this coming year and hopefully another 2 bay the following year which will be used as both holding pens at the end of a crush and winter accommodation. It will bring in my yard to an extremely easily managed yard.

Limestone Cowboy · 03-12-2017 1:28pm

FeelTheBern wrote: »

Think you're still better off going for the bigger slat. As per previous threads, costs not much higher and you'll have increased storage capacity. We have few pens that are 20 feet deep and often keep 10/11 dry sucklers per pen. They can't all eat at the one time which isn't ideal but as long as you have silage in front of them all the time they work out fine - would often go out in evening and none of them eating.

Cheers, how many cows would comfortably fit in a 15'9"x16' pen so?

Who2 · 03-12-2017 1:34pm

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

Cheers, how many cows would comfortably fit in a 15'9"x16' pen so?

Seven, allow an 18" toe area and they'll be more than comfy. Seven sucklers will eat comfortably at a 15'9" feed face. I don't like anymore just because of bullying. If your worried about how many to fit I'd go an extra bay or two. I usually put eight first calving heifers to a pen if I'm tight on space but I don't like it. Storage is what your gaining in my opinion and that's all. This year especially im going to be tight having them in earlier than usual.

3 bay slatted shed costs 2017/18

Comments