Finishing cattle housing: space allowance and floor type

Bernadette Earley Mark McGee Edward G. O’Riordan

A series of experiments were conducted at Teagasc, Grange to examine the effects of space allowance and floor type on cattle performance and welfare. The research primarily involved finishing steers, with additional studies using heifers, bulls, and weanlings. Across experiments, treatments included concrete slatted floors (CS), different rubber mat types overlaid on concrete slats (RM), and straw‑bedded flooring. Indoor space allowances ranged from 1.2 to 10.4 m² per animal; however, the lower space allowances were mainly applied to CS, while straw‑bedded systems were evaluated at either 4.0 m² or 6.0 m² space allowances. This paper summarises scientific evidence on the effects of space allowance and underfoot comfort for beef cattle housed indoors, with particular emphasis on animal growth performance, behaviour, cleanliness, health and welfare.

Effect of space allowance on feed intake, growth and carcass weight

Restricting space allowance to 1.5–2.0 m² per head consistently reduced cattle performance, with live weight gain typically 200–600 g/day lower and carcass weights 20–30 kg lighter compared with higher space allowances (Table 1). The negative impact was most pronounced below 2.0 m² per head. Increasing space allowance from 2.0 to 3.0 m² per head produced a large improvement in animal performance, increasing live weight gain by up to 380 g/day. Further increases in space allowance, beyond 3.0 m² per head, generally resulted in diminishing and/ or inconsistent responses in growth. Compared to the fixed 2.5 m² and 3.0 m² space allowances, dynamic space allowances (adjusting pen space as animals grow, using allometric equations, E1 and E2, Table 1) did not result in a significant improvement in live weight gain or carcass weight.  Feed intake generally differed little between treatments (Table 1).

Effect of floor type on feed intake, growth and carcass weight

Studies comparing bare concrete slats with rubber mats placed on concrete slats showed that, depending on the product, rubber mats can result in small improvements in daily live weight gain (170 g/day), equivalent to approximately 11 kg of additional carcass over a typical finishing period, with no increase in feed intake (Table 2).  Interestingly, a recent study with weanling cattle found no difference in performance between rubber mats or concrete slats. When space allowance was 4.0 m² per head, steers housed on straw or on concrete slats had similar growth and carcass weight, with no difference in feed intake (Table 2). At a higher space allowance (6.0 m² per head), heifers housed on straw achieved a modest, albeit statistically significant, increase in live weight gain compared to those on concrete slats There was no statistically significant difference in carcass weight and no difference in feed intake.

Effect of space allowance and floor type on behaviour, cleanliness and hoof health

Behaviour: Studies comparing rubber mats to bare concrete slats show increased lying comfort: steers accommodated on rubber mats spent approximately one-hour more per day lying (14.6 vs 13.6 hours) compared to concrete slats. They also showed more frequent lying and standing bouts, suggesting easier postural transitions and reduced discomfort. Equally, at similar space allowances cattle accommodated on straw lay for just over an hour longer (13.8 vs 12.6 hours/day) than those on concrete slats, indicating enhanced resting comfort on straw. In a preference study, when cattle were given free choice, they allocated 70–80 % of their time to softer surfaces (rubber mats or straw), with lying location identified as the primary driver of preference. Space allowance on concrete slats shows a threshold response in relation to animal behaviour. At ≤ 2.0 m² per head, cattle displayed reduced lying time and shorter lying bouts, whereas at ≥ 2.5–3.0 m² per head, behavioural measures reached a plateau with no further improvements in lying behaviour observed.

Cleanliness: Cattle accommodated on concrete slats were consistently the cleanest, particularly at the end of the finishing period; cattle on rubber mats had similar cleanliness early post-housing but were dirtier later in finishing; cattle on straw, despite being well-managed (regular fresh straw replenishment and pen cleaning), had poorest cleanliness overall.

Increasing space allowance from 3.0 to 4.5 m² per head resulted in little consistent improvement in cattle cleanliness. Increasing space allowance further to 6.0 m² per head reduced dirt scores relative to 3.0 m² but offered only marginal and inconsistent advantages over 4.5 m².

Hoof health and toe growth: Concrete slats were consistently associated with lower hoof lesion prevalence than rubber mats, likely due to greater abrasive hoof wear. Rubber mats reduced abrasion, resulting in sharper toe angles and altered the horn growth–wear balance. Although some studies reported higher hoof total lesion counts on rubber mats, these were generally sub‑clinical, with no evidence of clinical lameness or laminitis.

Space allowance on concrete slats had little effect on hoof lesions, indicating that hoof health was primarily influenced by floor surface rather than stocking density within the ranges studied.

Table 1. Effects of space allowance on concrete slats on performance of finishing cattle

Superscripts (a,b,c) indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within study. *Dynamic space allowance uses allometric scaling to adjust space requirements according to animal size, applying the formula y = k × w^0.667, where y is the area in m², w is live weight in kg, and k is a scaling coefficient; for E1: k = 0.033. for E2: k = 0.048. Using these dynamic allocations, the space allowance per animal increased over the course of the experiment. In E1, it increased from 2.3 m² at the start to 2.6 m² at the end, while in E2, it increased from 3.4 m² at the start to 3.9 m² at the end.

Table 2. Effects of floor type – concrete slats, rubber mat on slats (RM) and straw-bedded – on performance of finishing cattle

Superscripts (a,b) indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within study.

Implications of proposed European Food Safety Association (EFSA) space allowance recommendations for beef cattle housing

The EFSA Scientific Opinion (2025) identified insufficient space allowance as a key risk factor for adverse welfare outcomes in housed beef cattle, and highlighted large variation in space allowance across commercial beef farms in the EU (from 2.4 to 5.5 m² per animal in bedded pens and 1.8 to 3.2 m² per animal in slatted pens). While EFSA’s conclusion that low space allowance compromises welfare aligns with experimental evidence, the Opinion proposes substantially higher space requirements that extend beyond the available empirical data.

Although EFSA acknowledges a lack of experimental studies above 6 m² per animal, it estimates that cattle weighing over 400 kg may require ~11 m² for lying, increasing to ~13 m² when standing and feeding space are included, alongside an inter-individual distance of ~5 m when lying. In practice, the application of these higher space allowances would have a very substantial negative impact on the financial viability of beef cattle production systems. The higher space allowance estimates are derived primarily from Expert Knowledge Elicitation and modelling, rather than from controlled experimental studies. In contrast, most animal behavioural and performance responses reported in the literature plateau at substantially lower space allowances, typically around 3.0 m² per animal. To date, no peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate step‑change improvements in animal welfare or growth performance consistent with EFSA’s proposed space requirements of 11–13 m² per animal, and particularly those justified on large inter‑individual distance (~5 m) or lying dispersion criteria.

Compiled and edited by Mark McGee and Paul Crosson, Teagasc, Grange Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, and first published in BEEF2026 – Driving Sustainable Performance, additional reading from BEEF2026 is available here.