Table H.2.

Effects of access to pasture (or outdoor loafing) on metabolic disorders prevalence

Country	System (a)	n (b)	Group comparisons	Indicator group	Variable	Effect	Reference
CH	Cubicles	1	Pasture vs. same fresh grass indoor (with outdoor yard)	KETO‐sc	Acetone	ns	Dohme‐Meier et al. (2014)
					BHB	↑, but below threshold
					NEFA	ns
CH	Cubicles	1	Pasture vs. same fresh grass indoor	KETO‐sc	BHB	↑, but below threshold	Kaufmann et al. (2012)
					NEFA	ns in summer and autumn, ↓ in spring
CH	Cubicles	1	Full‐pasture access during vegetation period vs. indoor + PMR + 3 h pasture access	KETO‐sc	BHB	ns	Frey et al. (2018)
					NEFA	ns (p.p); ↑ (a.p.), but below threshold
DE	Loose housing	51	Pasture vs. confined	KETO‐sc	NEFA	ns (cows), ↓ (heifers)	Oetting‐Neumann et al. (2018)
					BHB	(↑) (cows), ns (heifers)
DE, FR, IT, NL, UK	Various	131	Pasture and outdoor yard vs. confined	KETO‐sc	BHB	ns	Berge and Vertenten (2014)
IT	na	18	Pasture (7 months) vs. zero‐grazing	DISABO‐c	Cases	ns	Pugliese et al. (2021)
				HYPOCAL‐c	Cases	ns
				KETO‐c or ACID‐c	Cases in 90DIM	ns
IRL	Cubicles	1	Pasture vs. confined; (peripartum)	KETO‐sc	BHB	↑ BHB p.p. (15 DIM); (↓) a.p. (−15 d); ns at calving; all below threshold	Olmos et al. (2009a)
					NEFA	↑ NEFA p.p. (15 DIM); ns a.p. (−15 d) and at calving
PT	na	105	≥ 8 h/days grazing with mobile milking vs. confined		DISA estimated score (1–5)	ns	Medeiros et al. (2021)
USA	Tie‐stall	314	Outdoor access (yard or pasture) vs. confined	ACID‐sc	FPR < 1.0	ns (with TMR), ↓ (tie‐stall with component feed)	Dechow et al. (2011)
	Cubicles	314		KETO‐sc	fat Δ 1st to nadir	ns
USA	Various	177	Grazing vs. non‐grazing	KETO‐c	cases	Ns (organic grazing vs. conventional non‐grazing); (↓) (within conventional)	Richert et al. (2013)

↓ = significantly less metabolic disorders during (increased) grazing (p < 0.05), ns = not significant (p ≥ 0.05) or () significant (p ≤ 0.1) effect.

^(a)Housing systems or husbandry practices used on the investigated farms.

^(b)Number of farms.