. 2023 May 16;21(5):e07993. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7993

Table I.6.

Associations between milk yield and hock alterations

Country	System	n ^(a)	ø Milk yield	Variable	Analysis ^(b)	Effect	Reference
UK	Cubicle	63	26.9 ^(c)	Hock mild ^(d)	MA	↑	Potterton et al. (2011)
				Hock lesion	MA	↑
				Hock swelling	MA	↑
SI	Cubicle	99	9,914 ^(e)	Hock mild ^(d)	MA	ns	Ekman et al. (2018)
SI	Cubicle	99	9,914 ^(e)	Hock severe	MA	↑	Ekman et al. (2018)
USA	Cubicle, compost‐bedded pack	18	34.7–37.5 ^(f)	Hock alterations ^(g)	MA	ns	Lobeck et al. (2011)

↑ = significantly more alterations at higher milk yield (p < 0.05), ns = not significant (p > 0.05).

^(a)

Number of farms.

^(b)

Statistical analysis: MA = multivariable analysis (in the case of univariable pre‐selection of factors only effects of final models were considered), UA = univariable analysis.

^(c)

Mean per cow at last milk recording.

^(d)

Hair loss.

^(e)

ECM/cow*year.

^(f)

FCM/cow*day.

^(g)

Hair loss, lesion and/or swelling.