Back in 2022, we debuted the new suckler shed on Tullamore Farm, a four-bay slatted shed with a canopy extending out over the feed barrier. While there was much admiration for the shed, there was also a small bit of criticism regarding what was seen as an unnecessary luxury: rubber matting on the slats.

The four bays of slats (14ft 6in slats) with beams and agitation points at each end totalled €6,000 + VAT, while the slat rubber cost the exact same price.

Farmers on the day argued that rubber mats were unnecessary for spring-calving cows and it was a less-than-wise spend.

Weanling shed

There had been no discussion at the time of whether to put rubber mats in or not, it was what stock were used to, with all bar the weanling shed being rubber matted.

The plan at the time was also to use the shed post turnout for finishing the under-16-month bulls, utilising the large straw lieback with it, with the rubber matting hoped to reduce injury.

Even though we have moved away from bull beef, the shed is still well utilised. Even still, it is probably not the norm for conventional suckler farms and would be seen as a luxury rather than a necessity.

When to install slat rubber

There is merit in this claim. Trials completed by Teagasc have shown that overoa 120-day winter housing period, there was no significant difference in growth, feed efficiency, cleanliness scores and hoof health of weanling cattle.

The same could be said for dry, spring-calving suckler cows that only need to maintain or slightly improve their body condition score (BCS) over the winter period.

However, the results from the Teagasc Grange trials for finishing cattle showed different results.

Finishing steers accommodated on rubber mats had enhanced growth and feed efficiency, exhibited lying behaviour indicative of improved comfort, and body cleanliness was reduced at slaughter, compared to steers on concrete slats. Durapak Slat mats were overlaid on concrete slats, with similar rubber matting also laid at the toe space between the slats and the feed barrier.

In the trial, steers housed on rubber mats had increased daily liveweight gain (DLWG) compared to steer housed on concrete slat floors (CSF).

This led to an increased liveweight at slaughter of +18kg for steers housed on rubber mats, with an increased carcase weight of +11kg. This increased slaughter weight likely led to the slightly higher carcase conformation score across the trial groups.

Are rubber mats worth it?

Let’s take the Tullamore Farm shed for an example. Each pen is 24.48m², equivalent lying space for nine finishing animals, with a total shed capacity (not including the straw lie back area) of 36 animals. At an increased carcase weight of 11kg per head, the overall carcase increase across the group would be 396kg; basically an additional well-finished animal.

At today’s current base prices of €7.50/kg, this is the equivalent of an additional €2,970.

While costs of rubber mats have likely increased since 2022, the mats should still pay for themselves within two to three years.

Not all mats are equal

However, different rubber mats have shown significant differences in the liveweight gain and carcase weight of animals housed on them.

Further trials by Teagasc analysed three difference rubber slat mats in comparison to bare concrete slats. See Table 2.

Mat 1 had the largest daily liveweight gain, and consequently had the highest carcase weight at the end of the trial.

Mat 2 had the lowest liveweight gain across the three mat types, which was actually 1.1kg less than steers housed on bare concrete slats.

Mat 3 had a carcase weight of 4.7kg less than mat 1, although this was 6.4kg heavier than steers housed on mat 2.

In all cases, the carcase weight was heavier on cattle housed on slats with rubber matting than those housed on bare concrete slats.

One of the main differences noted between the three mat types was the Shore A hardness.

The Shore A hardness scale ranges from 0-100°, with 0° being very soft rubber up to a high of 100°. The rating for mats 1, 2 and 3 was 64, 70 and 61 respectively, showing a link between the Shore A hardness value and the liveweight gain and carcase weight.

Reasons for performance

When comparing cattle in the first trial (concrete slats v Durapak rubber mats), animal behaviour and intake levels were monitored 24 hours/day via camera.

Steers on rubber matting lay down for longer, had more frequent getting up and lying down movements and lying and standing bouts.

There was no effect of floor type on eating behaviour or drinking behaviour. In terms of dirt scores, there was no difference between treatments from day 0 to day 56 but from day 56 until ‘finished’ steers housed on rubber matting were dirtier than those on concrete slats.

Overall, there was no difference in toe length or toe net growth between treatments.

However, the steers housed on rubber matting had an increase in sharpness in the toe angle of the right front medial claw and left hind lateral claw. No hoof lesions were reported on either floor type.

One thing that the trial does not mention is thermal loss from cattle lying on bare concrete slats.

Common sense would point to greater heat loss in these cattle compared to those on rubber matting, which has insulating properties.

Loss of energy?

With intake levels comparable on both trial types but a difference in finished liveweight and carcase weight, is there a loss of energy from cattle keeping themselves warm on bare concrete slats?

Manufacturers would argue that there has to be, and not only do the rubber mats insulate cattle from a thermal point of view, they also act as a cushion when it comes to falls, as well as giving additional grip to cattle when lying down and standing up.

If the animal is more sure of themselves standing up that they will not fall and hurt themselves, they will likely stand and feed more frequently (which is what happened in the concrete slatted floor v rubber matting trial).

While not confirmed by the trial above, the manufacturers do make a convincing argument for it.