Table I.19.

Associations between herd size and metabolic disorders

Country	System	n (a)	Herd size, ø (range)	Variable	Analysis (b)	Association	Effect	Reference
NO	Cubicle, tie‐stall	812	27	HYPOCAL‐c	MA	ns		Simensen et al. (2010)
USA	Cubicle, straw yard, pasture or dry lot, tie‐stall	177	Only give in categories	KETO‐c	MA	ns		Richert et al. (2013)
NO	Cubicle, tie‐stall	812	27	KETO‐c	MA	–	Estim. −0.019	Simensen et al. (2010)
DE	Tie‐stalls, cubicles	60	77	KETO‐c or DISABO‐c, high‐incidence	MA	(+)	OR 9.8	Stengärde et al. (2012)
DE, FR, IT, NL, UK	Cubicles, straw yard, tie‐st	131	294	KETO‐sc: BHB	MA	–	Estim. −0.001	Berge and Vertenten (2014)

+ = positive association: significantly more metabolic disorders in larger herds (p < 0.05), − = negative association: significantly more metabolic disorders in smaller herds (p < 0.05), ns = not significant.

^(a)Number of farms.

^(b)Statistical analysis: MA = multivariable analysis, UA = univariable analysis.