Public perceptions of potential adaptations for mitigating heat stress on Australian dairy farms

Temperature variability resulting from climate change poses challenges around the world for livestock production and the welfare of the animals in these systems. As animal industries attempt to combat these challenges, it is vital to understand how potential changes implemented by farmers resonate with societal values. The aims of this study were to determine how different proposed changes to mitigate heat stress in dairy cattle influence public perceptions toward Australian dairy farm systems, including perceptions of (1) cow welfare, (2) confidence in the industry, and (3) trust in farmers. Participants were presented with 1 of 4 treatments representing a potential solution to mitigate heat stress in dairy cattle: (1) indoor system (a fully indoor barn), (2) choice system (cows have agency to choose to be indoors or outdoors), (3) gene edition + pasture (cows are genetically modified to become more resilient to heat stress), and (4) pasture (outdoor system that is currently used in Australia, but the farmer plants more trees). Participants were then asked to respond to questions on a 7-point Likert scale. Questions were about cow welfare (3 questions), confidence in dairy industry (4 questions), and trust in farmers (9 questions), with each section followed by an open-ended question for participants to explain their answers. Participants perceived cow welfare to be the lowest in the indoor system (2.80 ± 0.10), followed by gene edition + pasture (4.48 ± 0.11), with choice and pasture systems being the highest but not different from each other (5.41 ± 0.11 and 5.32 ± 0.11, respectively). Confidence in the dairy industry was lower among participants in the indoor (4.78 ± 0.08) compared with participants assigned to the choice (5.28 ± 0.08) or pasture (5.25 ± 0.08) systems. Confidence was also lower among participants in the gene edition (4.95 ± 0.08) compared with the choice system. Trust in farmers was similar across all treatments. Our results provide the first evidence that the Australian public may be reluctant to accept heat stress mitigation strategies that either do not allow cows to have access to pasture or those that include gene-editing technologies.     

Veterinarian perceptions on the care of surplus dairy calves

Both male and female calves that are not required in the dairy herd sometimes receive inadequate care on dairy farms. Veterinarians work with farmers to improve animal care, and farmers often view veterinarians as trusted advisors; however, little is known about the attitudes of veterinarians on surplus calves. This study investigated the perspectives of Canadian cattle veterinarians on the care and management of surplus calves, as well as how they view their role in improving care. We conducted 10 focus groups with a total of 45 veterinarians from 8 provinces across Canada. Recorded audio files were transcribed, anonymized, and coded using thematic analysis. We found that veterinarians approached surplus calf management issues from a wide lens, with 2 major themes emerging: (1) problematic aspects of surplus calf management, including colostrum management, transportation, and euthanasia, and suggested management and structural solutions, including ways to improve the economic value of these calves, and (2) the veterinarian's role in advising dairy farmers on the care of surplus calves, including on technical issues, and more broadly working with farmers to better address public concerns. We conclude that veterinarians are concerned about the care of surplus calves on dairy farms and believe that they have an important role in developing solutions together with their farmer clientele.     

A 100-Year Review: Lactating dairy cattle housing management

Since the mid-1800s, farmers have been housing livestock. What began as a part-time solution for cold winters, stormy days, or injured animals has evolved into the main or only area in which cows spend their adult lives. With this change, farmers, academic researchers, and industry innovators have shaped the farm landscape, literally. Over the last 100 years, changes have been made for productivity, health, milk quality, reproduction, animal well-being, and farm profitability. We review a snapshot of those changes and look ahead to the future of lactating dairy cattle housing. All housing systems are moving toward improved cow comfort. Stalls in tiestall and freestall systems are now designed to accommodate cows based on body size and, in some cases, stage of lactation. Farmers may choose to build a compost bedded or traditional bedded-pack barn to maximize cattle rest or accommodate various breeds or sizes of cows. Looking to the future, external pressure and public perception may push farmers to consider other alternatives to total confinement. Future housing plans may include access to pasture or exercise lots, allowing cows to express their preferences for being outside or inside. Housing that allows natural expression of behavior while maintaining cow cleanliness and health may improve the lives of cows and farmers.     

Understanding public preferences for different dairy farming systems using a mixed-methods approach

Global production of milk has doubled over the past 50 yr, yet dairy farming in high-income countries faces scrutiny over practices perceived to affect animal welfare. One such practice is housing dairy cows year-round without access to pasture, which is the norm across North America and increasing within Europe, despite evidence of significant public support for grazing. Diverging opinion between the farming community and the public about what animal welfare means could be a key factor; however, lack of insight into the understanding and motivations underpinning public preferences for grazing could also hamper resolution. On the basis that more information could increase engagement between parties, 60 members of the public across the United Kingdom were interviewed to understand their perspectives of 3 dairy farming scenarios incorporating different amounts of grazing or housing. Their responses were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach combining reflexive thematic analysis with linguistic analysis. The integrated results indicated participants had a dual vision of the cow, seeing her as both domestic and wild. A scenario with housing in winter and grazing in summer therefore suited her, providing both protection and naturalness, and was most associated with analytic thinking. Interviewees also confessed ignorance about the cow's needs, either deferring to others' judgment—including the cow herself—or using familiarity and anthropomorphism to assess the scenarios. This again resulted in most optimism, confidence, and positivity for housing in winter and grazing in summer, and most negativity for housing cows year-round. Grazing was aspirational, but keeping cows outside in winter was confusing and concerning. These findings offer opportunities for the dairy industry to adapt communication or systems to better meet societal views; for example, incorporating access to pasture or increasing cow choice.     

Relationship between herd size and measures of animal welfare on dairy cattle farms with freestall housing in Germany

The objective of this study was to examine the association of herd size with animal welfare in dairy cattle herds. Therefore, 80 conventional dairy cattle farms were classified by the number of cows into 4 herd size classes, C1 (<100 cows), C2 (100–299 cows), C3 (300–499 cows), and C4 (≥500 cows), and assessed using multiple animal-based measures of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for dairy cattle. Data were recorded from April 2014 to September 2016 by an experienced single assessor in northern Germany. Each farm was visited 2 times at an interval of 6 mo (summer period and winter period) to avoid seasonal effects on the outcome. The average herd size was 383 ± 356 Holstein-Friesian cows (range 45 to 1,629). Only farms with freestall (cubicle) housing and a maximum of 6 h access to pasture per day were included in the study. Data were statistically analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model. None of the farms reached the highest overall rating of “excellent.” The majority of the farms were classified as “enhanced” (30%) or “acceptable” (66%), and at 6 assessments the farms were rated as “not classified” (4%). Regarding single indicators, mean trough length per cow, percentage of cows with nasal discharge, and vulvar discharge increased with increasing herd size, whereas it was vice versa for displacements of cows. Percentage of lean cows, percentage of dirty lower legs, and duration of the process of lying down showed a curvilinear relationship with the number of cows per farm. Herd size was not associated with any other measures of the Welfare Quality protocol. In conclusion, herd size effects were small, and consequently herd size cannot be considered as a feasible indicator of the on-farm animal welfare level. Housing conditions and management practices seem to have a greater effect on animal welfare than the number of dairy cows per farm.     

Public perceptions of antibiotic use on dairy farms in the United States

There has been a global push for improved antimicrobial stewardship, including in animal agriculture, due to growing concerns about antimicrobial resistance. However, little is known about the general public's perceptions of antimicrobial use in animal agriculture. The aim of this study was to explore the US public's perceptions of antibiotic use in dairy farming and how these perceptions influence purchasing decisions. Data from the 2017 Cornell National Social Survey developed in collaboration with the Cornell Survey Research Institute were used to assess the public's perceptions. The Survey Research Institute of Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) administered the survey by telephone to a random sample of 1,000 adults in the continental United States. The survey collected information about perceptions of threat to human health posed by antibiotic use in cows on dairy farms and willingness to pay more for milk from cows raised without antibiotics, as well as several presumed explanatory variables, including respondents' knowledge of antibiotics, beliefs regarding cattle treatment in dairy farming, and 18 sociodemographic characteristics. Data were analyzed using logistic regression. Among respondents, 90.7% (n = 892/983) reported that antibiotic use on dairy farms posed some level of threat to human health and 71.5% (n = 580/811) indicated they would be willing to pay more for milk produced from cows raised without antibiotics. Respondents who believed that antibiotic use in dairy farming posed a moderate to high threat to human health were more likely to be female and report willingness to pay more for milk or not purchase milk. Additionally, consumers' willingness to pay more for milk from cattle raised without antibiotics was associated with the belief that antibiotic use posed some threat to human health, the belief that cows are treated better on organic dairy farms, an annual household income of $50,000 or greater, being born outside the United States, having a liberal social ideology, and being currently or formerly married. These results suggest that the general public's decisions as consumers of dairy products are associated with demographic factors in addition to perceptions of antibiotic use and cattle treatment in dairy farming. The rationale behind such perceptions should be further explored to facilitate consumers' informed decision making about antibiotic use in agriculture, links to cattle treatment, and associated willingness-to-pay attitudes.     

Nighttime pasture access: Comparing the effect of production pasture and exercise paddock on milk production and cow behavior in an automatic milking system

With increasing intensification of the dairy sector in many countries and with the introduction of automatic milking, exercise paddocks combined with full indoor feeding, as an alternative to production pasture, are being used as a compromise between farm economics and cow welfare. This study examined whether there are production benefits for high-producing dairy cows in an alternative system that uses pasture at a level of approximately 50% of the total roughage intake in the diet. In an automatic milking system with 12-h night access to the outdoor environment, we compared milk production and behavior of cows in 2 systems: an exercise paddock combined with ad libitum grass silage indoor feeding and a production pasture combined with a restricted daytime grass silage ration. There were 20 cows in the former and 21 cows in the latter system, with the treatments running in parallel. The experiment started in late June with no complete darkness during the night, and lasted for 12 wk, with 5.6 h of darkness at the end. We therefore also explored the effect of night length on milk production and behavior parameters. All cows showed strong motivation for going outdoors and grazing when pasture access was given in early evening, but after a few hours both groups went to the barn and did not return to the pasture area during the remaining night. As the season progressed and nights became longer, cows on the exercise paddock treatment reduced time spent outdoors and grazing time, whereas they increased time spent resting outdoors. The group on exercise paddock had a greater milk yield (kg of milk) over the experimental period than the production pasture group. The latter group also showed a greater drop in milk yield over the duration of the trial. Thus, for cows milked in an automatic milking system and offered nighttime outdoor access, no milk production benefits were observed in offering production pasture with restricted indoor silage allowance instead of an exercise paddock with ad libitum silage. We therefore suggest that automatic milking farmers with similar production levels and automatic milking-management systems as in the present experiment, who wish to include grazed grass as part of the dairy cow diet, should ensure that cows have pasture access in the afternoon and evening.     

The effects of herd size on the welfare of dairy cows in a pasture-based system using animal- and resource-based indicators

Animal welfare assessments were conducted on 50 Australian pasture-based dairy farms of varying herd sizes: 16 small (<300 cows), 15 medium-sized (300–500 cows), 11 large (501–750 cows), and 10 very large (751+ cows). A protocol based on elements of Welfare Quality adapted for Australian conditions was developed to assess the broad categories of good feeding, housing, health, and appropriate behavior. Farm records, body condition scores, integument injuries, fecal plaques, avoidance distance of humans, and fecal pat scoring for acidosis assessment were undertaken. The mean maximum kilograms of grain fed per day significantly increased with herd size, from 5.2 ± 0.38 (small), 7.7 ± 0.29 (medium-sized), 8.8 ± 0.45 (large), to 10.1 ± 0.80 kg (very large). Acidosis was not related to herd size based on either farm records or fecal pat scoring. All cows had access to water for more than 12 h in a 24-h period. More larger farms had water points on the farm tracks or at the dairy. Very large farms (90%) were more likely than others (36–39%) to provide water suitable for human consumption. Integument lesions were not related to herd size and were uncommon; 56 and 84% of farms had no cows with lesions or hairless areas, respectively, and no farm had >6% integument lesions. Heat stress is an important welfare risk in Australia. All farms had some form of cooling strategy; shade in all paddocks was more common on smaller farms (>90%) than others (<75%). Sprinklers were more common on large or very large farms (>80%) than others (<65%). Mastitis and lameness were the most common health conditions, followed by dystocia, downer cows, and gastrointestinal diseases. Prevalence of lameness, mastitis, downer cows, dystocia, and gastrointestinal disease were not related to farm size. Larger farms were more likely to have electronic infrastructure to monitor or electronically draft cows for inspection. We found wide variation in the avoidance distance of humans, but this was not related to farm size. Larger farms had longer walking distances to pasture and longer time away from pasture, which could affect the time available for behaviors such as lying down. Animal welfare risks differ on Australian farms compared with housed cattle. As animal welfare is multidimensional, both animal- and resource-based indicators can be useful. Animal-based indicators have strengths in that, when measured accurately, they genuinely reflect the outcome being measured, but they also have weaknesses in that the point-estimate of a disease prevalence on a given day may not be representative of other times of year or differences in case definition may exist when farm records are used. Similarly, resource-based indicators have strengths in that they may be applicable to longer periods, but weaknesses because the fact a resource is present does not guarantee it is being used. Identifying the major risks to animal welfare on individual farms and ensuring a plan is in place to effectively manage them should be an important element of any on-farm animal welfare assessment protocol.     

Associations between biosecurity practices and bovine digital dermatitis in Danish dairy herds

The relationship between biosecurity and digital dermatitis (DD) was evaluated in 8,269 cows from a convenience sample of 39 freestall dairy herds. The hypothesis was that poor implementation of biosecurity was associated with higher within-herd prevalence of DD. All lactating cows were scored as negative or positive for DD at the hind legs during milking in the milking parlor. Information about biosecurity was obtained through questionnaires addressed to farmers, on-farm observations, and information from the Danish Cattle Database (www.seges.dk). These assessment tools covered potential infection sources of DD pathogens to susceptible cows (e.g., via animals, humans, manure, vehicles, equipment, and facilities). External and internal biosecurity measures were explanatory variables in 2 separate logistic regression models, whereas within-herd DD prevalence was the outcome. Overall DD prevalence among cows and herds were 24 and 97%, respectively; the within-herd DD prevalence ranged from 0 to 56%. Poor external biosecurity measures associated with higher prevalence of DD were recent animal purchase, access to pasture, lack of boots available for visitors, farm staff working at other dairy farms as well, hoof trimming without a professional attending, and animal transporters having access to cattle area. For internal biosecurity, higher DD prevalence were associated with infrequent hoof bathing, manure scraping less than 8 times a day, manure removal direction from cows to heifers, animal pens' exit without water hoses, manure-handling vehicle used in other activities, and water troughs contaminated with manure. These findings showed that improvements on biosecurity may be beneficial for controlling DD in dairy herds. The study is relevant for farmers facing problems with DD, as well as hoof trimmers, advisors, and veterinarians, who can use the results for optimized recommendations regarding biosecurity in relation to DD. Furthermore, our results might be considered by future studies investigating DD pathogen reservoirs and transmission routes.     

A longitudinal study of gastrointestinal parasites in English dairy farms. Practices and factors associated with first lactation heifer exposure to Ostertagia ostertagi on pasture

The gastrointestinal nematode Ostertagia ostertagi is an important cause of lost production, health, and welfare in cattle. Detailed records were obtained over a 5-yr period (2010–2015) by questionnaires and qualitative interviews to investigate the practices adopted by dairy farmers to control cattle helminth infections and the factors associated with heifer exposure to O. ostertagi on pasture. In total, 1,454 heifers' individual milk samples were collected over a 1-yr period (2014–2015) in 43 dairy farms in England and tested for O. ostertagi antibody by ELISA. Multilevel linear regression models were used to investigate the association between individual milk optical density ratio (ODR) against O. ostertagi and heifer management from birth to time of sampling. Farm and heifer median ODR against O. ostertagi were 0.98 (interquartile range = 0.76–1.02) and 0.64 (interquartile range = 0.42–0.84), respectively. The majority of heifers (88%) received an anthelmintic treatment before sampling in this study. After controlling for the effect of anthelmintic treatments, heifer individual milk ODR against O. ostertagi significantly increased with high stocking rate at first grazing and co-grazing with adult cows before calving. Conversely, heifer individual milk ODR against O. ostertagi significantly decreased when heifers had co-grazed with sheep and pasture grass had frequently been mowed. Overall, these results provide evidence to support targeting grazing management toward limiting the use of anthelmintics in dairy young stock to enable sustainable control of cattle helminth infections in England. However, to be accepted and adopted by farmers, these best practices would need to take into account farmers' perspectives and contextual challenges.     

Contextualized understandings of dairy farmers' perspectives on antimicrobial use and regulation in Alberta,Canada

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been largely attributed to antimicrobial use (AMU). To achieve judicious AMU, much research and many policies focus on knowledge translation and behavioral change mechanisms. To address knowledge gaps in contextual drivers of decisions made by dairy farmers concerning AMU, we conducted ethnographic fieldwork to investigate one community's understanding of AMU, AMR, and associated regulations in the dairy industry in Alberta, Canada. This included participation in on-farm activities and observations of relevant interactions on dairy farms in central Alberta for 4 mo. Interviews were conducted with 25 dairy farmers. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and yielded several key findings. Many dairy farmers in this sample: (1) value their autonomy and hope to maintain agency regarding AMU; (2) have shared cultural and immigrant identities which may inform their perspectives of future AMU regulation as it relates to their farming autonomy; (3) feel that certain AMU policies implemented in other contexts would be impractical in Alberta and would constrain their freedom to make what they perceive to be the best animal welfare decisions; (4) believe that their knowledge and experience are undervalued by consumers and policy makers; (5) are concerned that the public does not have a complex understanding of dairy farming and, consequently, worry that AMU policy will be based on misguided consumer concerns; and (6) are variably skeptical of a link between AMU in dairy cattle and AMR in humans due to their strict adherence to milk safety protocols that is driven by their genuine care for the integrity of the product. A better understanding of the sociocultural and political-economic infrastructure that supports such perceptions is warranted and should inform efforts to improve AMU stewardship and future policies regarding AMU.     

Invited review: Learning from the future—A vision for dairy farms and cows in 2067

The world's population will reach 10.4 billion in 2067, with 81% residing in Africa or Asia. Arable land available for food production will decrease to 0.15 ha per person. Temperature will increase in tropical and temperate zones, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, and this will push growing seasons and dairy farming away from arid areas and into more northern latitudes. Dairy consumption will increase because it provides essential nutrients more efficiently than many other agricultural systems. Dairy farming will become modernized in developing countries and milk production per cow will increase, doubling in countries with advanced dairying systems. Profitability of dairy farms will be the key to their sustainability. Genetic improvements will include emphasis on the coding genome and associated noncoding epigenome of cattle, and on microbiomes of dairy cattle and farmsteads. Farm sizes will increase and there will be greater lateral integration of housing and management of dairy cattle of different ages and production stages. Integrated sensors, robotics, and automation will replace much of the manual labor on farms. Managing the epigenome and microbiome will become part of routine herd management. Innovations in dairy facilities will improve the health of cows and permit expression of natural behaviors. Herds will be viewed as superorganisms, and studies of herds as observational units will lead to improvements in productivity, health, and well-being of dairy cattle, and improve the agroecology and sustainability of dairy farms. Dairy farmers in 2067 will meet the world's needs for essential nutrients by adopting technologies and practices that provide improved cow health and longevity, profitable dairy farms, and sustainable agriculture.     

The dehorning of dairy calves: practices and opinions of 639 farmers

Calf dehorning is a routine husbandry practice on dairy farms that is justified by safety reasons for stockpersons and by a reduced risk of injures among herdmates. In Europe, the practice is regulated by law but little is known about the methods applied or about farmers’ attitude to the practice. This study aimed to broaden the existing information on dehorning in dairy holdings by processing results of 639 farm questionnaires gathered in a traditional dairy area of northeastern Italy. Farm questionnaires were stratified according to herd size, type of housing, and productive purpose of the predominant reared breed(s). Chi-squared tests were performed to verify the significant association between a given practice or opinion and the 3 classification factors, and odd ratios were calculated. The outcomes of the study showed that dehorning was carried out on 80% of the surveyed farms, and disbudding was the method reported by all the interviewed farmers. Hot-iron cauterization was the preferred method for disbudding (91%). On average, disbudding was performed at 32 d of age and it was more likely in farms with ≥60 cows than in smaller dairy holdings (OR = 7.3). The practice was carried out mainly by farm personnel, but the intervention of a veterinarian was far more likely (OR = 5.98) on farms with ≤30 cows than on larger dairies. Most farmers (70%) stated that they had not received any specific training on how to perform disbudding. Fifty-two percent of the respondents reported that disbudding causes prolonged postoperative pain (≥6 h) but pain management was rare. Only 10% of the farmers used local anesthesia before cauterization, and 5% of the farmers provided calves with postoperative analgesia. Consistent with these results, farmers indicated limited willingness to pay the cost of analgesia or to call a veterinarian to perform the procedure. This low motivation of the respondents toward the adoption of practices able to reduce pain related to disbudding might arise from their insufficient knowledge on long-term negative effects of early painful experiences on behavior and handling of dairy heifers. Farmers in favor of keeping horned cows were asked about the reasons for not carrying out dehorning. Aesthetic motivations (54% of respondents) and lack of time (24%) were the main reasons cited. Moreover, a large majority of these respondents (74%) reported no difficulty in handling horned cattle.     

Views of American animal and dairy science students on the future of dairy farms and public expectations for dairy cattle care: A focus group study

Students completing advanced degrees in dairy or animal science may go on to have a major impact on the food animal agriculture industries. The aim of this study was to better understand student views of the future of dairying, including changes in practices affecting animal care on farms as well as perceived public perceptions. We conducted 6 focus group sessions with undergraduate students enrolled in the 2019 US Dairy Education and Training Consortium held in Clovis, New Mexico, and used explorative key word analysis of written notes and thematic analysis of the semi-structured discussions. Some “must-haves” of future animal care on dairy farms included increased use of technology, group housing of calves, and adequate facilities, including enrichment. Students also discussed their views of public expectations regarding animal care on dairy farms, and measures that they felt must be put into place to address these expectations in the coming years. Although the influence of the public was highlighted by the students, they were not always certain what specific values the public holds and doubted the feasibility and practicality of some expectations, such as providing pasture access or keeping the calf and cow together. They further demonstrated uncertainty about how best to align the directions of the industry with public expectations. Although they felt that public education could be used to demonstrate the legitimacy of dairy practices, they also believed that the industry should strive to find compromises and work toward meeting public expectations. Deciding what animal welfare considerations (e.g., naturalness, affective states, or animal health) were most relevant was a challenge for the students, perhaps reflecting diverging messages received during their own education.     

Determinants of antimicrobial treatment for udder health in Danish dairy cattle herds

Societal pressure to limit the use of antibiotics in livestock production systems, including dairy cattle systems, is consistently increasing. To motivate farmers to reduce antibiotic usage, it is important to understand the factors that determine whether a cow will be treated with antibiotics or not. If farmers' usual practices regarding antibiotic treatments are taken into account, they may be motivated to adopt control measures that can facilitate prudent use of antibiotics and are at the same time cost-effective. In this study, we analyzed database recordings of milk yield and somatic cell count from the routine milk recording scheme, clinical registrations of mastitis and PCR results, and cow factors such as days in milk and parity in relation to antibiotic treatments for 518 dairy herds in Denmark. Farm-wise logistic regressions were used to predict antimicrobial treatment based on these factors. The resulting regression coefficients of 422 herds were further analyzed by principal component analysis and clustering to determine the driving predictors for treatment in different groups of farms. The results showed that determinants that were most important for predicting antibiotic treatments vary from one farm to another. Health indicators such as PCR or somatic cell count were most indicative for treatment on some farms, whereas other groups seemed to depend more on production factors (milk yield) or later culling of the cows. This shows that farmers behave differently and differences can be identified in register data. This information can be considered when developing cost-effective herd-specific control measures of mastitis to promote prudent use of antibiotics in Danish dairy cattle farms.     

Effects of free-choice pasture access on lameness recovery and behavior of lame dairy cattle

Lameness is a common condition in dairy cows. Free-choice access to pasture may benefit lame cows by providing a softer and more comfortable lying and standing surface; however, the effects of this system on lameness have not yet been explored. We evaluated whether a 7-wk period of free-choice pasture access would improve lameness recovery and affect the lying behavior of lame dairy cows. Lactating Holstein cows, all clinically lame upon enrollment and housed inside a freestall barn, were pseudo-randomly allocated to 1 of 2 treatments (balancing for gait score, parity, and previous lameness history): free-choice access to pasture (n = 27; pasture) or indoor housing only (n = 27; indoor). Cows were gait scored weekly by an observer blind to treatment, using a 5-point numerical rating system (NRS 1 = sound, NRS 5 = severely lame), and hoof inspections were performed by professional trimmers at the start and end of the 7-wk period. Lying behavior was assessed using accelerometers. Cows were categorized as either having a sound period (NRS <2 over 2 consecutive weeks) or remaining lame. Cows spent, on average, 14.8 ± 10.0% (mean ± SD) of their total time on pasture, with much of this time spent outside at night. Over the 7-wk period, 42% of cows had at least one sound period (pasture: 55.6%, indoor: 26.9%), but this was more likely for cows with pasture access (odds ratio = 4.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.1–14.6%). Pasture cows also spent more total weeks sound compared with indoor cows (2.0 ± 0.34 vs. 0.81 ± 0.35 wk). Cows with pasture access lay down for less overall time than indoor cows (13.9 ± 0.29 vs. 12.7 ± 0.28 h/d) and spent more time standing on pasture (74%) than when indoors (47%). These results suggest that lame dairy cows will use pasture when provided with free-choice access, primarily at night, and that access to pasture aids in lameness recovery. We encourage future research to investigate longer-term effects on the recovery of hoof lesions and reoccurrence of lameness cases.