This EnviroAtlas dataset summarizes by county the number of farm operations with cattle and the number of heads they manage. The data come from the Census of Agriculture, which is administered every five years by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and include the years 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017. The Census classifies cattle managed on operations as beef cows, dairy cows, or other cattle (which encompasses heifers, steers, bulls, and calves). Data regarding all three categories are displayed in this layer. Operations are categorized into small, medium, or large, based on how many heads they manage. For each county and Census year, the dataset reports the number of farm operations that manage cattle, the number of heads on their property at the end of the Census year, and a breakdown of the operations into small, medium, and large. This dataset was produced by the US EPA to support research and online mapping activities related to EnviroAtlas. EnviroAtlas (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas) allows the user to interact with a web-based, easy-to-use, mapping application to view and analyze multiple ecosystem services for the contiguous United States. The dataset is available as downloadable data (https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/EnviroAtlas) or as an EnviroAtlas map service. Additional descriptive information about each attribute in this dataset can be found in its associated EnviroAtlas Fact Sheet (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-fact-sheets).

In the U.S., there have been approximately three times more beef cows than dairy cows each year since 2001. As of 2024, it was estimated that there were about 28 million beef cows and only about 9.3 million dairy cows. Beef vs. dairy cows Both beef and dairy cows are bred for their respective purposes and farmers often look for different qualities in each. Dairy cows are often bigger, as they can produce a larger volume of milk. Beef cows on the other hand are generally shorter and there is more emphasis on their muscle growth, among other qualities. In 2022, over 28 billion pounds of beef were produced in the United States. U.S. milk production and consumption The United States was among the top consumers of milk worldwide in 2022, surpassed only by India and the European Union. The annual consumption of milk in the U.S. that year was just under 21 million metric tons. To keep up with this level of consumption, milk production in the U.S. has increased by over 60 billion pounds since 1999 and is expected to exceed 228 billion pounds by 2023. California and Wisconsin were the top producing states as of 2022, producing about 41.8 and 31.9 billion pounds of milk, respectively.

The Census of Agriculture, produced by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), provides a complete count of America's farms, ranches and the people who grow our food. The census is conducted every five years, most recently in 2022, and provides an in-depth look at the agricultural industry. This layer was produced from data obtained from the USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) Large Datasets download page. The data were transformed and prepared for publishing using the Pivot Table geoprocessing tool in ArcGIS Pro and joined to county boundaries. The county boundaries are 2022 vintage and come from Living Atlas ACS 2022 feature layers.Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: Cattle productionGeographic Extent: 48 contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto RicoProjection: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereSource: USDA National Agricultural Statistics ServiceUpdate Frequency: 5 yearsData Vintage: 2022Publication Date: April 2024AttributesNote that some values are suppressed as "Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations", "Not applicable", or "Less than half the rounding unit". These have been coded in the data as -999, -888, and -777 respectively. You should account for these values when symbolizing or doing any calculations.Many cattle production commodity fields are broken out into 6 or 7 ranges based on the number of head of cattle. For space reasons, a general sample of the fields is listed here.Commodities included in this layer: Cattle, (Excl Cows) - Inventory - Inventory of Cattle, (Excl Cows): (By number of head)Cattle, (Excl Cows) - InventoryCattle, (Excl Cows) - Operations with Inventory - Inventory of Cattle, (Excl Cows): (By number of head)Cattle, (Excl Cows) - Operations with InventoryCattle, Calves - Operations with Sales - Sales of Calves: (By number of head)Cattle, Calves - Operations with SalesCattle, Calves - Sales, Measured in Head - Sales of Calves: (By number of head)Cattle, Calves - Sales, Measured in HeadCattle, Calves, Veal, Raised or Sold - Number of OperationsCattle, Cows - Inventory; Cattle, Cows - Operations with InventoryCattle, Cows, Beef - Inventory - Inventory of Beef Cows: (By number of head)Cattle, Cows, Beef - InventoryCattle, Cows, Beef - Operations with Inventory - Inventory of Beef Cows: (By number of head)Cattle, Cows, Beef - Operations with InventoryCattle, Cows, Milk - Inventory - Inventory of Milk Cows: (By number of head)Cattle, Cows, Milk - InventoryCattle, Cows, Milk - Operations with Inventory - Inventory of Milk Cows: (By number of head)Cattle, Cows, Milk - Operations with InventoryCattle, >= 500 lbs - Operations with Sales - Sales of Cattle >= 500 lbs: (By number of head)Cattle, >= 500 lbs - Operations with SalesCattle, >= 500 lbs - Sales, Measured in Head - Sales of Cattle >= 500 lbs: (By number of head)Cattle, >= 500 lbs - Sales, Measured in HeadCattle, Heifers, >= 500 lbs, Milk Replacement, Production Contract - Operations with ProductionCattle, Heifers, >= 500 lbs, Milk Replacement, Production Contract - Production, Measured in HeadCattle, Incl Calves - Inventory - Inventory of Cattle, Incl Calves: (By number of head)Cattle, Incl Calves - InventoryCattle, Incl Calves - Operations with Inventory - Inventory of Cattle, Incl Calves: (By number of head)Cattle, Incl Calves - Operations with InventoryCattle, Incl Calves - Operations with Sales - Sales of Cattle, Incl Calves: (By number of head)Cattle, Incl Calves - Operations with SalesCattle, Incl Calves - Sales, Measured in US Dollars ($)Cattle, Incl Calves - Sales, Measured in Head - Sales of Cattle, Incl Calves: (By number of head)Cattle, Incl Calves - Sales, Measured in HeadCattle, On Feed - Inventory - Inventory of Cattle On Feed: (By number of head)Cattle, On Feed - InventoryCattle, On Feed - Operations with Inventory - Inventory of Cattle On Feed: (By number of head)Cattle, On Feed - Operations with InventoryCattle, On Feed - Operations with Sales For Slaughter - Sales of Cattle On Feed: (By number of head)Cattle, On Feed - Operations with Sales For SlaughterCattle, On Feed - Sales For Slaughter, Measured in Head - Sales of Cattle On Feed: (By number of head)Cattle, On Feed - Sales For Slaughter, Measured in HeadCattle, Production Contract, On Feed - Operations with ProductionCattle, Production Contract, On Feed - Production, Measured in HeadGeography NoteIn Alaska, one or more county-equivalent entities (borough, census area, city, municipality) are included in an agriculture census area.What can you do with this layer?This layer is designed for data visualization. Identify features by clicking on the map to reveal the pre-configured pop-up. You may change the field(s) being symbolized. When symbolizing other fields, you will need to update the popup accordingly. Simple summary statistics are supported by this data.Questions?Please leave a comment below if you have a question about this layer, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

United States Cattle Inventory: Cattle & Calves: Cows & Heifers That Have Calved: At the Beginning of the Yr: Milk Cows data was reported at 9,349.300 Head th in 2025. This records an increase from the previous number of 9,346.800 Head th for 2024. United States Cattle Inventory: Cattle & Calves: Cows & Heifers That Have Calved: At the Beginning of the Yr: Milk Cows data is updated yearly, averaging 9,349.300 Head th from Dec 1926 (Median) to 2025, with 17 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 9,450.400 Head th in 2021 and a record low of 9,208.600 Head th in 2014. United States Cattle Inventory: Cattle & Calves: Cows & Heifers That Have Calved: At the Beginning of the Yr: Milk Cows data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Economic Research Service. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.RI018: Cattle Inventory.

How many cattle are in the world? The global live cattle population amounted to about 1.57 billion heads in 2023, up from approximately 1.51 million in 2021. Cows as livestock The domestication of cattle began as early as 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. From ancient times up to the present, cattle are bred to provide meat and dairy. Cattle are also employed as draft animals to plow the fields or transport heavy objects. Cattle hide is used for the production of leather, and dung for fuel and agricultural fertilizer. In 2022, India was home to the highest number of milk cows in the world. Cattle farming in the United States Cattle meat such as beef and veal is one of the most widely consumed types of meat across the globe, and is particularly popular in the United States. The United States is the top producer of beef and veal of any country worldwide. In 2021, beef production in the United States reached 12.6 million metric tons. Beef production appears to be following a positive trend in the United States. More than 33.07 million cattle were slaughtered both commercially and in farms annually in the United States in 2019, up from 33 million in the previous year.

The Census of Agriculture provides a detailed picture every five years of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them. Conducted by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 2012 Census of Agriculture collected more than six million data items directly from farmers. The Ag Census Web Maps application makes this information available at the county level through a few clicks. The maps and accompanying data help users visualize, download, and analyze Census of Agriculture data in a geospatial context. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Ag Census Web Maps. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Ag_Census_Web_Maps/Overview/index.php/ The interactive map application assembles maps and statistics from the 2012 Census of Agriculture in five broad categories:

Crops and Plants – Data on harvested acreage for major field crops, hay, and other forage crops, as well as acreage data for vegetables, fruits, tree nuts, and berries. Economics – Data on agriculture sales, farm income, government payments from conservation and farm programs, amounts received from loans, a broad range of production expenses, and value of buildings and equipment. Farms – Information on farm size, ownership, and Internet access, as well as data on total land in farms, land use, irrigation, fertilized cropland, and enrollment in crop insurance programs. Livestock and Animals – Statistics on cattle and calves, cows and heifers, milk cows, and other cattle, as well as hogs, sheep, goats, horses, and broilers. Operators – Statistics on hired farm labor, tenure, land rented or leased, primary occupation of farm operator, and demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and residence location.

The Ag Census Web Maps application allows you to:

Select a map to display from a the above five general categories and associated subcategories. Zoom and pan to a specific area; use the inset buttons to center the map on the continental United States; zoom to a specific state; and show the state mask to fade areas surrounding the state. Create and print maps showing the variation in a single data item across the United States (for example, average value of agricultural products sold per farm). Select a county and view and download the county’s data for a general category. Download the U.S. county-level dataset of mapped values for all categories in Microsoft ® Excel format.

This dataset provides information on the number of milk cows, production of milk per cow and total milk production by state and region in the United States from the year 1970 to 2021.

This dataset displays the annual import and export figures of cattle to and from the United States. Data is primarily available for Canada and Mexico. These statistics represent the head count of cattle traded.

Live Cattle rose to 242.18 USd/Lbs on October 15, 2025, up 0.14% from the previous day. Over the past month, Live Cattle's price has risen 3.74%, and is up 29.51% compared to the same time last year, according to trading on a contract for difference (CFD) that tracks the benchmark market for this commodity. Live Cattle - values, historical data, forecasts and news - updated on October of 2025.

The environmental impacts of beef cattle production and their effects on the overall sustainability of beef have become a national and international concern. Our objective was to quantify important environmental impacts of beef cattle production in the United States. Surveys and visits of farms, ranches and feedlots were conducted throughout seven regions (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Northern Plains, Southern Plains, Northwest and Southwest) to determine common practices and characteristics of cattle production. These data along with other information sources were used to create about 150 representative production systems throughout the country, which were simulated with the Integrated Farm System Model using local soil and climate data. The simulations quantified the performance and environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems for each region. A farm-gate life cycle assessment was used to quantify resource use and emissions for all production systems including traditional beef breeds and cull animals from the dairy industry. Regional and national totals were determined as the sum of the production system outputs multiplied by the number of cattle represented by each simulated system. The average annual greenhouse gas and reactive N emissions associated with beef cattle production over the past five years were determined to be 243 ± 26 Tg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) and 1760 ± 136 Gg N, respectively. Total fossil energy use was found to be 569 ± 53 PJ and blue water consumption was 23.2 ± 3.5 TL. Environmental intensities expressed per kg of carcass weight produced were 21.3 ± 2.3 kg CO2e, 155 ± 12 g N, 50.0 ± 4.7 MJ, and 2034 ± 309 L, respectively. These farm-gate values are being combined with post farm-gate sources of packing, processing, distribution, retail, consumption and waste handling to produce a full life cycle assessment of U.S. beef. This study is the most detailed, yet comprehensive, study conducted to date to provide baseline measures for the sustainability of U.S. beef. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Appendix A. Supplementary Data - Tables S1 to S8 (docx). File Name: Web Page, url: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0308521X18305675-mmc1.docx Direct download, docx.

Table S1. Important characteristics of farms and ranches simulated throughout seven regions of the U.S.

Table S2. Important characteristics of representative finishing facilities simulated in seven regions of the U.S.

Table S3. Important characteristics of dairy farms simulated throughout seven regions of the U.S.

Table S4. Summary of 25 years of weather data (daily solar radiation, daily mean temperature, annual precipitation and daily wind speed)1 used to simulate beef cattle operations in each area of the eastern regions.

Table S5. Soil characteristics used for locations simulated across the U.S.

Table S6. Cattle numbers by state and region as obtained or estimated from NASS (2017).

Table S7. Cattle numbers by state and region divided between traditional beef and dairy breeds as obtained or estimated from NASS (2017).

Table S8. Important resource inputs and emissions from representative cow-calf, stocker / background and feedlot operations expressed per unit of final carcass weight (CW) produced.

MmCows: A Multimodal Dataset for Dairy Cattle Monitoring

Details of the dataset and benchmarks are available here. For a quick overview of the dataset, please check this video.

  Instruction for downloading





  1. Install requirements

pip install huggingface_hub

See the file structure here for the next step.

  2. Download a file individually

To download visual_data.zip to your local-dir, use command line: huggingface-cli download
neis-lab/mmcows \… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/neis-lab/mmcows.

Feeder Cattle fell to 379.63 USd/Lbs on October 16, 2025, down 0.02% from the previous day. Over the past month, Feeder Cattle's price has risen 6.93%, and is up 53.93% compared to the same time last year, according to trading on a contract for difference (CFD) that tracks the benchmark market for this commodity. Feeder Cattle - values, historical data, forecasts and news - updated on October of 2025.

This statistic shows the number of bovine tuberculosis infected cattle detected at slaughter in the U.S. from 2003 to 2017. According to the data, there were 38 infected cattle detected at slaughter in 2003 and just 13 cattle detected in 2017. Bovine tuberculosis is an infectious disease that is transmittable to both humans and cattle. TB is spread between cattle through the inhalation of infectious particles in the air or through infected feed.

This data set illustrates the number of cattle, by thousand heads, per country from 1961-2004. A value of -1 means that no data was available. Cattle stock can be further defined as including "all cattle in the country, regardless of place or purpose of their breeding. Cattle figures include the common ox (Bos taurus), zebu, humped ox (Bos indicus), Asiatic ox (subgenus Bibos) and Tibetan yak (Poephagus grunniens)" (Earth Trends). Date Accessed: October 5th, 2007 Source URL: http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?step=countries&ccID%5B%5D=0&allcountries=checkbox&theme=8&variable_ID=338&action=select_years

Cow Health Monitoring System Market Outlook

The global cow health monitoring system market size was valued at USD 1.2 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 4.5 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.8% during the forecast period. The growth of this market is significantly driven by the increasing adoption of advanced technologies in the agriculture sector, growing awareness regarding animal health and productivity, and rising demand for dairy and meat products.

One of the primary growth factors for the cow health monitoring system market is the increasing demand for efficient livestock management practices. Farmers and livestock managers are continually seeking ways to enhance the productivity and health of their herds. Advanced cow health monitoring systems provide real-time data on various health parameters, enabling timely and informed decisions to improve animal welfare and farm productivity. The integration of IoT and AI-based solutions is further augmenting the accuracy and reliability of these systems, making them indispensable tools for modern farming.

Another significant factor propelling the market's growth is the rising incidence of livestock diseases and the subsequent need for early disease detection and prevention. As diseases like mastitis, lameness, and metabolic disorders can have devastating effects on herd health and farm profitability, the implementation of health monitoring systems becomes crucial. These systems help in early detection of health issues, allowing for prompt intervention and reducing the risk of widespread outbreaks. This not only improves the overall health of the herd but also enhances the economic viability of farming operations.

The growing emphasis on sustainable farming practices is also contributing to the market's expansion. There is an increasing awareness about the environmental impact of livestock farming, and farmers are under pressure to adopt practices that minimize their carbon footprint. Cow health monitoring systems aid in optimizing resource use, reducing waste, and improving feed efficiency, all of which are crucial for sustainable farming. By ensuring that cows are healthy and productive, these systems help in achieving higher yields with lower environmental impact.

Regionally, the market exhibits diverse growth patterns. North America and Europe are leading the market due to the early adoption of advanced farming technologies and strong emphasis on animal welfare. However, the Asia Pacific region is anticipated to witness the highest growth rate during the forecast period, driven by increasing livestock farming activities, government initiatives to boost agricultural productivity, and rising disposable incomes that fuel demand for dairy and meat products. In contrast, regions like Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are also showing promising growth prospects due to the gradual adoption of modern farming practices and technology.

Component Analysis

The cow health monitoring system market is segmented by component into hardware, software, and services. Hardware components include sensors, RFID tags, and wearable devices that are crucial for collecting health data from the cows. These devices are designed to withstand harsh farm environments and provide accurate data over long periods. The demand for robust and reliable hardware is increasing as farmers seek to implement comprehensive monitoring systems that offer real-time insights into animal health and behavior.

Software solutions play a pivotal role in analyzing the data collected by hardware devices. Advanced software platforms utilize algorithms and machine learning models to interpret health indicators and predict potential health issues. These platforms often come with user-friendly interfaces that allow farmers to monitor their herds from any location. The integration of cloud-based solutions is gaining popularity as it facilitates seamless data access and management. Such software solutions are not only enhancing the efficiency of monitoring systems but also providing valuable analytics that can drive better decision-making processes.

Services constitute another critical component of the market, encompassing installation, maintenance, and training services. Effective installation and regular maintenance are essential for the optimal functioning of cow health monitoring systems. Training services ensure that farmers and farm workers are well-versed in using these advanced systems to their full potential. The demand for comprehensive service packages

The dataset is one of the biggest dataset of cows having 459 classes in total. It can be utilized for various purposes related to cow identification. Our work and dataset is limited to Muzzle Detection. The recognition part will be exploring in future using the noise removal and deep learning techniques in the next versions utilizing the same dataset. A limited number of data sets are accessible for analyzing cow muzzle, with only two publicly available datasets from Australia and United States. Additionally, there is no existing method for identifying cows using AI and computer vision, which means that there are no real-time photos available for training a model. The majority of the dataset used in our research has been collected by our team. We have collected the world’s largest dataset in number of subjects in Pakistan.

Purpose: The need to assess the sustainability attributes of the United States beef industry is underscored by its importance to food security locally and globally. A life cycle assessment (LCA) of the US beef value chain was conducted to develop baseline information on the environmental impacts of the industry including metrics of the cradle-to-farm gate (feed production, cow-calf, and feedlot operations) and post-farm gate (packing, case-ready, retail, restaurant, and consumer) segments. Methods: Cattle production (cradle-to-farm gate) data were obtained using the integrated farm system model (IFSM) supported with production data from the Roman L. Hruska US Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC). Primary data for the packing and case-ready phases were obtained from packers that jointly processed nearly 60% of US beef while retail and restaurant primary data represented 8 and 6%, respectively, of each sector. Consumer data were obtained from public databases and literature. The functional unit or consumer benefit (CB) was 1 kg of consumed, boneless, edible beef. The relative environmental impacts of processes along the full beef value chain were assessed using a third party validated BASF Corporation Eco-Efficiency Analysis methodology. Results and discussion: Value chain LCA results indicated that the feed and cattle production phases were the largest contributors to most environmental impact categories. Impact metrics included water emissions (7005 L diluted water eq/CB), cumulative energy demand (1110 MJ/CB), and land use (47.4 m2a eq/CB). Air emissions were acidification potential (726 g SO2 eq/CB), photochemical ozone creation potential (146.5 g C2H4 eq/CB), global warming potential (48.4 kg CO2 eq/CB), and ozone depletion potential (1686 μg CFC11 eq/CB). The remaining metrics calculated were abiotic depletion potential (10.3 mg Ag eq/CB), consumptive water use (2558 L eq/CB), and solid waste (369 g municipal waste eq/CB). Of the relative points adding up to 1 for each impact category, the feed phase contributed 0.93 to the human toxicity potential. Conclusions: This LCA is the first of its kind for beef and has been third party verified in accordance with ISO 14040:2006a and 14044:2006b and 14045:2012 standards. An expanded nationwide study of beef cattle production is now being performed with region-specific cattle production data aimed at identifying region-level benchmarks and opportunities for further improvement in US beef sustainability. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Electronic Supplementary Material ESM 1 - Tables S1 to S11 (docx). File Name: Web Page, url: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art:10.1007/s11367-018-1464-6/MediaObjects/11367_2018_1464_MOESM1_ESM.docx Direct download, docx. Table S1: Feed phase input data (resource use and emissions) from USMARC and IFSM simulations used in the U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and sources of their life-cycle inventories (LCI). Table S2: Cattle phase input data (resource use and emissions) from USMARC and IFSM simulations in the U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and the sources of their respective life-cycle inventories (LCI). Table S3: Packing and case-ready phases input data (resource use and emissions) used in the U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and the sources of their respective life-cycle inventories (LCI). Allocation factor of case-ready (i.e. % packaged at case ready) = 0.63. Table S4: Retail and consumer phases input data (resource use and emissions) used in U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and their respective life-cycle inventory (LCI) sources. Allocation factor for retail and consumer (i.e. at-home consumption portion of total consumption sold through retail) = 0.47. Table S5: Restaurant phase input data (resource use and emissions) used in U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and their respective life-cycle inventory (LCI) sources. Allocation factor (i.e. restaurant fraction of total beef consumption) = 0.53. Table S6: Essential raw materials considered in the U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment and respective weighting factors used for the determination of their Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP). Table S7: Scoring system for toxic properties described by H-phrases for U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment (Landsiedel and Saling (2002) before our modification). Table S8: Land occupation and transformation weighting factors for U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment based on Ecosystem Damage Potentials (EDPs) from the Ecoinvent 2.2 life cycle inventory database (Frischknecht et al. 2005). Table S9: Air emissions and their respective weighting (equivalence) factors used in U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment. Table S10: Solid waste relative disposal costs used in U.S. beef life cycle impact assessment (Klein 2011). Table S11: Water emissions categories and their respective weighting factors based on regional regulatory limits used in the U.S. beef life cycle assessment.

Beef rose to 308.70 BRL/15KG on October 14, 2025, up 0.13% from the previous day. Over the past month, Beef's price has risen 0.26%, and is up 3.16% compared to the same time last year, according to trading on a contract for difference (CFD) that tracks the benchmark market for this commodity. Beef - values, historical data, forecasts and news - updated on October of 2025.

The United States produced about ***** billion pounds of milk for human consumption in 2024. In 2000, this figure amounted to around ***** billion pounds. The volume of cow milk produced worldwide has risen steadily over the last several years. U.S. milk market While milk production has seen an increase over the last several years, milk retail sales have been dropping. The retail price of milk has been fluctuating for the past several years and peaked in 2022 at **** U.S. dollars per gallon. Leading U.S. milk brands Among the dairy brands in the U.S., private label milk has a higher level of sales than any name brand whole milk. Among name brands of whole milk, Hood generated the most dollar sales, at over *** million U.S. dollars in 2022. In the flavored milk category, the leading name brand was TruMoo, which sold nearly ** million units in 2018. However, private label flavored milk sold many more units than even the leading name brand.

A number of studies have shown widespread public concern over housing animals in ways that restrict their ability to move freely. Dairy cows housed in tie stall barns are tethered continuously or for part of the day, but no study has assessed public support for this type of housing system. We report two experiments assessing public perceptions of tie stall housing for dairy cattle using a hypothetical referenda format. In Experiment 1, 65% of participants (n = 430) said they would support a ban on tie stalls. The probability of supporting a ban increased as the duration of time that cows were tethered increased. In Experiment 2, information about possible economic consequences was included. Relatively fewer (55%) participants (n = 372) indicated they would support a ban. Supporters of a ban were willing to pay an average dairy product price premium of 68% to see the ban enacted. Indirect measures of support indicated socially desirable responding was greater in Experiment 2 where the economic impacts of voting behavior were made explicit. In both studies, women and liberals were more likely to support a ban. The majority of participants in Experiment 1 (51%) and Experiment 2 (57%) said they had never heard or read anything about tie stalls before participating in our survey. We conclude that current knowledge of the use of tie stalls is low, but if this situation were to change there may be considerable public concern about the use of this housing method.