United Kingdom — 40,000 t/year poultry and ruminant feed mill RFQ
A UK buyer scenario worked end to end with the published FeedMatch capacity calculator and RFQ planner: a mixed poultry and ruminant mill on a brownfield site in the English Midlands, sized from the annual plan, then issued as one written feed mill RFQ. Every figure below is reproducible in the tools on this site; it is a worked example, not a client disclosure.
- United Kingdom
- Country
- Broilers, layers and dairy cattle
- Category
- 40,000 t/year compound feed
- Scale
- 3
- Reference outcomes
Load requirements
Design loads used to size housing, utilities and equipment.
System design choices
Why each subsystem was specified the way it was.
| Area | Choice | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Product mix | Poultry starter, grower and finisher in pellet and crumble form, plus dairy coarse blend | Two customer groups on one line; changeover and flushing time is what pushed utilisation down to 78%. |
| Process route | Hammer milling, load-cell dosing, batch mixing with liquid addition, conditioning, pelleting, cooling, crumbling | No extruded products in the range, so extrusion was deliberately excluded from the RFQ scope. |
| Raw materials | UK wheat and barley, imported soya and rape meal, minerals, fats and micro-ingredients | Home-grown cereal moisture variability drove the grinding specification and the intake sampling requirement. |
| Storage and handling | Weighbridge intake, pre-cleaning, 18 days cover, finished bins, bulk blower loading plus bagging line | Most UK compound feed moves in bulk; despatch rate, not the pellet mill, defines the practical ceiling. |
| Automation and traceability | Automatic batching with recipe management, batch records and medicated-feed carry-over control | UFAS and statutory feed-hygiene record keeping were written into the specification instead of assumed. |
| Scope split | Process package from the manufacturer; UK civil works, steelwork and electrical connection contracted locally | Stated in the RFQ so every offer excluded the same items and comparison stayed like for like. |
Results
Representative KPIs achieved on projects of this scope.
Challenges and how they were resolved
What went wrong in the first definition of the requirement, and what changed before suppliers quoted.
Without a stated operating pattern, offers ranged from 9 t/h to 20 t/h for the same annual tonnage.
ResolutionThe capacity calculator fixed shifts, days and 78% utilisation in writing; the RFQ quoted 14.25 t/h nameplate.
Planning conditions on HGV movements, dust and noise limits, and the available electrical supply were missing.
ResolutionPlanning constraints, connected-load limit and dust-control standards became mandatory RFQ answer lines.
Flushing sequences and cleanability affect mixer, conveyor and bin design, but nothing in the brief mentioned them.
ResolutionCarry-over targets, flush batch handling and cleanable design were specified with an acceptance test method.
Boiler supply, DSEAR/ATEX compliance documentation and erection scope were each treated differently by suppliers.
ResolutionEach item became an explicit in-scope or out-of-scope priced line with UK compliance documentation named.
The numbers
Indicative capital and operating figures for a project of this scope. Ranges, not quotations.
| Process equipment | 35–50% of installed cost |
| Storage and material handling | 10–18% |
| UK civil works, steelwork and electrical | 20–30% |
| Contingency carried | 7–10% |
Representative outcomes
- 40,000 t/year converted to 12.82 t/h effective and 14.25 t/h nameplate capacity
- Single-shift pattern tested against two shifts before the line size was fixed
- UK-specific scope (planning, ATEX/DSEAR, electricity supply, HGV loading) priced inside the RFQ
Run these numbers yourself
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.