FinancingFeed working capital, export credit, trade finance & asset leasing — explore options
Reference Delivery

Capacity upgrade 12 → 25 t/h — Brazil

Anonymized reference project: a Paraná broiler integrator outgrew its own mill and had to decide between a second line and a bottleneck-led upgrade of the existing one. The requirement was defined before suppliers were approached, which changed the answer.

Brazil
Country
Feed milling (broiler grower + finisher)
Category
12 t/h existing → 25 t/h · brownfield
Scale
3
Reference outcomes

Load requirements

Design loads used to size housing, utilities and equipment.

Target capacity
25 t/h sustained on grower pellet
Shutdown window
2 phases × 7 days maximum
Existing press
200 kW ring die, retained
Added load
480 kW incremental
Steam
1.4 t/h additional
Finished storage
+4 × 150 t bins

Results

Representative KPIs achieved on projects of this scope.

Sustained capacity
25.4 t/h grower pellet
Downtime used
14 days of 16 allowed
Fines at load-out
2.9%, from 4.8%
Finished-feed moisture
held within 0.4 pts of target
Overtime shifts
−31% per month

Challenges and how they were resolved

What went wrong in the first definition of the requirement, and what changed before suppliers quoted.

The press was blamed for the ceiling

Production assumed the pellet press was the constraint. Amp logging showed the press ran at 71% of rated load while the hammer mill and cooler saturated first.

ResolutionThe requirement was rewritten around grinding capacity, conditioner retention time and cooler air volume — the press stayed. Suppliers quoted an upgrade, not a replacement.

Production could not stop

The mill supplied 2.1 million birds per week with only nine days of finished-feed cover.

ResolutionThe scope was split into two phased shutdowns with pre-assembly off-line, and the RFQ made the phased schedule a scored evaluation criterion rather than an afterthought.

Moisture loss after the upgrade

Higher throughput at the same cooler air volume risked over-drying and a measurable yield loss on finished feed.

ResolutionCooler air volume and discharge temperature were specified as guaranteed performance figures, tested at acceptance rather than assumed.

The numbers

Indicative capital and operating figures for a project of this scope. Ranges, not quotations.

Upgrade CAPEXUSD 2.6M–3.1M
Cost per added t/hUSD ~220,000
Conversion costUSD 15.10/t after upgrade, from USD 18.40/t
Energy36 kWh/t, from 43 kWh/t
Payback2.4 years on conversion-cost saving alone

Representative outcomes

  • Bottleneck analysis moved spend from a new line to grinding, conditioning and cooling
  • Upgrade delivered inside 14 shutdown days across two phases
  • Capacity gained at roughly one third of new-line CAPEX

Run these numbers yourself

Background reading

Note: This case study is an anonymized reference scenario. Specific client identities, contract values and commercial terms are withheld under NDA. Figures reflect typical outcomes for projects of this scope and are not a guarantee for your project.

Get a Free QuoteExplore Financing