It always seems to be a topic for debate amongst farmers whether concrete slats or rubber mats laid over these concrete slats are the best option to aid animal performance at housing.
The cost is another factor that plays a role in this decision. Essentially, farmers want to know what method of mat is going to provide them with the best value for money.
This has been supported by the EU and international health and welfare advisory bodies proposing a potential phasing out in the use of concrete slats alone.
Instead they are suggesting installing a solid lying area with bedding or the laying down of rubber mats on these slats, alongside increasing the space allowance for finishing animals at housing. However, no regulation has been imposed as of yet.
This questioning of decreased animal welfare standards for cattle housed on solely concreted slats sparked an interest amongst advisers.
Teagasc researchers conducted a study this year to determine the effect of floor type on the performance and welfare of finishing beef steers – with concrete slats and rubber mats overlaid on concrete slats being the comparative floor types in the study.
This study was presented by Dr. Bernadette Earley from Teagasc Grange at Teagasc’s “Virtual Beef Conference 2020”, held last week.
Study of floor type
The study was conducted over a 120-day period in Teagasc Grange – where the housing and slaughter performance of 144 late-maturing, continental-bred beef steers was assessed.
The finishing steers were grouped by their weight (averaging 590kg) and age and assigned to a pen for the duration of their feeding period. Their diet consisted of both grass silage and rolled barley as part of a total mixed ration – on a 60:40 dry matter basis.
The study set a 3m space allowance for each animal, with four steers grouped into each pen. The animals were weighed every 14 days up to day 84, where their weights were then recorded on a weekly basis.
Results
The performance data revealed that there was no significant difference in the dry matter intake (DMI) kg/day between the steers penned on CSF and RM.
However, there was a slight difference of 0.17/kg/day in the average daily liveweight gain (ADG) in favour of steers housed on RM.
Data source: Teagasc
In terms of feed conversion ratio (FCR), animals penned on the CSF were performing less efficiently than the steers housed on RM, as they required an additional 1.8/kg of DMI in order to achieve a similar ADG.
The slaughter performance data was also reviewed as part of the study.
Data source: Teagasc
The trial illustrated for the slaughter weight, and there was a significant difference of an additional 18kg in the animals that were housed on RM. These steers on RM also had achieved an additional 11kg of carcass weight.
There was no significant difference highlighted between the two housing conditions when reviewing kill-out percentage, carcass confirmation score and carcass fat score.
Reviewing similar international studies comparing animal’s performance to concrete slats to rubber mats there was no significant difference in the two methods of housing animals.
These studies even went further to assess the lying time (hr/day) and also the dirt scores of the animals under study, yet this element of study was not found to be in favour of either housing method.