United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

December 2010

Dairy 2007

Facility Characteristics and Cow Comfort on

U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mention of companies or commercial products does not

imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA

over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees

nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned.

Product names are mentioned solely to report factually

on available data and to provide specific information.

USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

(970) 494-7000

Email: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

#524.1210

Cover photograph of man with pail courtesy of Hibbard Studio Photo.

Photograph of cattle in tie-stall facility courtesy of Jeffrey Hoffelt.

Other photographs courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard.
USDA APHIS VS / i

Items of N ems of Note

More than four of five dairy cows in the United

States were raised on conventional dairy

operations in which the majority of forage was

harvested and delivered to the cows. About one

of three operations was a combination of

conventional and grazing operations types.

During the last 50 years, housing types on U.S.

dairies have changed from predominantly

stanchion facilities to tie stalls, freestalls, and

dry lots. In 2007, almost three of four lactating

cows were housed in freestall or dry lot/

multiple-animal areas, and these cows were

milked in parlor facilities. The more modern

housing types allow cows more freedom of

movement compared with the traditional tie-stall

and stanchion facilities. Data from the Dairy

2007 study indicate that freestall housing

provided an environment that promoted

improved hygiene and reduced hock injuries;

however, freestall facilities had the highest

percentage of cows with lameness compared

with other housing types. Unless allowed access

to dry lots or pasture, cows in freestall housing

were typically on concrete flooring, which may

have contributed to the increased lameness

reported.

On tie-stall and stanchion operations, cows have

their own stall where they eat, drink, and rest, so

space allotment in square footage per cow, cows

per stall, feedbunk space, and cows per

headlock is not applicable. In freestall housing,

all cows are not typically doing the same

activity, so it is not necessary to have the same

amount of stalls, bunk space, or headlocks, if

present, for all the cows in the pen.

Freestall features

The type of freestall barn impacts the ratio of

stalls to feed bunk space or, if present,

headlocks. Two- and four-row barns provide

more feed bunk space and square footage per

cow than three- or six-row barns. More than

6 of 10 freestall barns were two- or four-row

barns. Research indicates that having up to

10 percent more cows than stalls in a pen

(1.1 cows per stall) does not affect the cows’

behavior. At the time of the Dairy 2007

assessment, about 7 of 10 freestall operations

had less than 1.1 cows per stall. However, when

these operations were at maximum cow

numbers, only 5 of 10 had less than 1.1 cows

per stall. On freestall operations with headlocks,

about one-third of operations had less than one

cow per headlock at the time of the assessment,

and when at maximum cow numbers, about one

of six operations had less than one cow per

headlock.

Stall management

Stall management is important in providing a

clean, comfortable place for cows to lie down.

One of the most important aspects of stall

management involves the stall base (floor upon

which bedding is added) and bedding. Typical

stall bases are composed of concrete, dirt,

rubber mats, and mattresses. Straw, sawdust,

sand, or combinations of the three were the most

common bedding types for all housing types.

Stall base, bedding type, and management

differed by housing type. Tie-stall and stanchion

operations primarily used concrete, rubber mats,
ii / Dairy 2007

and mattresses as stall bases. In general, tie-stall

and stanchion operations used straw or sawdust

as bedding and changed or added bedding every

1 to 2 days. At the time of the Dairy 2007

assessment, the stall base was exposed—not

covered by bedding—on about three of four

operations with tie-stall and stanchion housing.

For operations with freestall and other multipleanimal area housing (including dry lots), the

most commonly used stall bases were concrete,

dirt, and mattresses. The most common bedding

used on these operations were straw, sawdust,

sand and, in the case of other multiple-animal

areas, none. Bedding on freestall and other

multiple-animal area housing was added or

changed less frequently than on tie-stall or

stanchion housing. However, even though these

operations added/changed bedding less

frequently than tie-stall or stanchion operations,

at the time of the Dairy 2007 assessment the

overall bedding quality/stall condition was

better in freestall housing because a higher

percentage did not have exposed stall bases.

Cow health

Housing type did appear to have an influence on

the health of dairy cows. Although freestall and

other multiple-animal area housing improve

production, hygiene, and reduce hock injuries,

health problems still exist in these housing

types. While more clinical mastitis, infertility,

and displaced abomasums were reported on tiestall and stanchion operations, a higher

percentage of lameness was reported for cows

on freestall operations. A lower percentage of

cows on stanchion operations were permanently

removed compared with cows on tie-stall or

freestall operations. Mastitis accounted for a

higher percentage of cow deaths on freestall

operations and operations with other multipleanimal areas compared with stanchion

operations.

Hygiene scoring

Hygiene is important in reducing cows’

exposure to pathogens, especially in regard to

mastitis and lameness. Features of cow housing

generally thought to improve cow hygiene

include bedding and bedding management, and

the presence of neck rails, brisket locators,

gutter grates, and cow trainers.

There were no differences by housing type in

the percentages of cows with hygiene scores of

1 (clean). A lower percentage of cows had a

hygiene score of 3 (dirty) on freestall operations

compared with cows on tie-stall, stanchion, and

dry lot operations. The higher percentage of

cows with hygiene scores of 3 on tie-stall,

stanchion, and dry lot operations might be due

to the fact that cows on these operations

typically have access to dirt or pasture. Hygiene

on freestall operations, in which cows are not

allowed on dirt or pasture, is dependent on

freestall and alleyway management.

The use of concrete or rubber mats as stall bases

was associated with poorer hygiene compared

with the use of dirt or mattresses as stall bases.

The use of coarse sand or dried or composted

manure was associated with better hygiene

compared with the use of other bedding types.

Deep, well-bedded stalls were also associated

with cleaner cows compared with stalls with less

bedding. Moveable neck rails were associated
USDA APHIS VS / iii

with a higher percentage of cows with hygiene

scores of 1, but the horizontal distance from the

curb or the vertical distance from the bed did

not influence cow hygiene. There were no

consistent trends in the effect of brisket locators

on hygiene scores; operations that used wood

locators had a higher percentage of dirty cows

compared with the operations that did not use

any brisket locators. The use of gutter grates and

cow trainers were both associated with

improved hygiene

Hock scoring

Hock injuries are generally assumed to be

related to the surfaces upon which cows lie.

Cows housed in dry lot facilities and other

multiple-animal areas where cows lie primarily

on dirt had the highest percentage of cows

without hair loss or lesions of the hocks (hock

score=1). Hock lesions were generally more

prevalent in tie-stall and stanchion housing

types. Stall bases constructed of concrete,

mattresses, and rubber mats were associated

with increased hock lesions compared with dirt

stall bases. Typical bedding types used in

freestalls and facilities that generally do not use

bedding (e.g., dry lots) were associated with

better hock scores than facilities that bedded

primarily with straw or sawdust (e.g., tie-stall

and stanchions). Hock scores of 1 increased

with the days since bedding was added, which

was highly associated with housing type and

bedding type. Fewer hock lesions were observed

when bedding quantity was good and the stall

base was not exposed than when bedding

quantity was poor and the stall base was

exposed.

Comfort parameters

Four comfort parameters were assessed during

the study: perching (standing with the front feet

inside the stall), standing (with all feet inside the

stall), lying, and the cow comfort index (CCI),

which is the proportion of cows in contact with a

stall that are lying down. These comfort

parameters were evaluated only on freestall

operations or operations with other multipleanimal areas that included a combination of

freestalls and other housing types, such as dry

lots. Since cows spend almost 12 hours a day

lying, it is important that they do not spend an

inordinate amount of time perching or standing

in the stall, although cows entering and leaving

stalls are included in these two categories.

Bedding type and management and specific stall

features such as neck rails, brisket locators, stall

length and width, and temperature have been

shown to influence these parameters.

Perching

The percentage of cows perching increased

when the stall base was completely covered with

bedding, regardless of the type of stall base or

bedding type. Although perching has been

associated with shorter stalls and stalls with

restrictive neck rails, neither impacted perching

in this assessment. Curb height was associated

with perching, as curb heights of 13.0 or more

inches resulted in less perching, possibly due to

increased proportion of weight being placed on

the rear legs. Perching was also increased in

summer months compared with spring months,

likely due to cows attempting to dissipate heat

during the summer.
iv / Dairy 2007

Standing

Contrary to findings associated with perching,

standing in stalls was not associated with

bedding quantity but was associated with certain

bedding types; a lower percentage of cows were

standing in stalls bedded with straw, coarse

sand, composted manure or no bedding

compared with most other bedding types.

Operations without neck rails had the lowest

percentage of cows standing compared with

operations with neck rails. Stall length did not

impact standing. These were unexpected

findings, since it was thought that less restrictive

stalls (i.e., longer stalls, no neck rail) would lead

to more cows standing in the stall.

Lying

A higher percentage of cows lying occurred on

operations that used coarse sand as bedding

compared with cows on operations that used

straw, composted or dried manure, or “other”

bedding types. In addition, a higher percentage

of cows were lying when bedding had been

changed/added within 1 to 2 days of the

assessment than when bedding had been

changed/added within 7 or more days of the

assessment . Other features of bedding and stall

management were not associated with the

percentage of cows lying. Stall widths of 50

inches or more were associated with increased

lying but stall length was not associated with

lying. The absence of a neck rail was associated

with a lower percentage of cows perching and

standing and was also associated with a lower

percentage of cows lying. Similarly, the absence

of a brisket locator was associated with a lower

percentage of cows lying. Curb height was also

associated with lying, as curb heights of 13

inches or more were associated with a lower

percentage of cows lying. The percentage of

cows lying also decreased in summer compared

with spring, which was likely due to improved

dissipation of heat.

Cow comfort index

The CCI was higher for cows housed in

facilities bedded with coarse sand compared

with most other bedding types. The CCI was

higher when bedding was level with the curb

than when bedding was slightly dished out or

more than 50 percent of the base was exposed.

Season, which was associated with perching and

lying, was also associated with the CCI, as a

higher CCI was observed during the spring

months.

Summary

Components of freestalls designed to keep cows

comfortable, clean, and free of injury—such as

neck rails and brisket locators—did not have

much of an impact on hygiene, hock health, and

comfort, which was unexpected. Stall base,

bedding type and frequency, and bedding

quality/stall condition were important for

improving hygiene, hock health, and cow

comfort. There also appears to be a trade off in

keeping cows clean and keeping hocks healthy,

as dry lots generally had dirtier cows but also

had cows with much healthier hocks compared

with cows housed in stalls. The findings in this

report should assist in determining areas for

improvement for each housing type, while also

providing relevant information that may

contribute to the development of new housing

systems that provide optimal welfare for dairy

cows.
USDA APHIS VS / v

Selected Highlights ed Highlights

The Dairy 2007 study marks the first time that

the National Animal Health Monitoring System

has studied parameters associated with cow

comfort on dairy operations. A few highlights

from this report follow.

Almost one-half of operations (49.2 percent)

housed lactating cows primarily in a tie-stall/

stanchion facility and nearly one of three

operations (32.6 percent) housed cows in

freestalls. However, almost 60 percent of cows

were housed on freestall operations due to the

fact that a high percentage of large operations

use freestalls.

Concrete was the predominant flooring type on

approximately one-half of operations and for

55.6 percent of cows. Pasture was the

predominant flooring type on 10.1 percent of

operations and for 5.1 percent of cows. Dirt was

the predominant flooring type on 5.4 percent of

operations and for 20.0 percent of cows, which

likely reflects the use of dry lots on large

operations.

Heat abatement methods, including shade, fans,

sprinklers, or misters, were provided during the

summer months by more than 9 of 10

operations.

The following highlights refer only to

operations that completed the facility, cow,

and/or comfort assessments (see Section II,

p 49).

About 8 of 10 operations used tie stalls or

freestalls to house cattle. On average, stanchion

barns were constructed in 1949 and were the

oldest housing type. Freestall barns and other

multiple-animal areas were constructed more

recently than tie-stall barns. For all operations,

1976 was the average year of construction for

all housing types.

A total of 69.6 percent of freestall operations

housed fewer than 1.10 cows per stall at the time

of the assessment. By design, tie-stall and

stanchion operations housed one cow per stall.

All tie-stall and stanchion operations provided

32 inches or more of bunk space per cow. In

contrast, 57.1 percent of freestall operations

provided less than the minimum recommended

24 inches of bunk space per cow at the time of

the assessment. At maximum cow numbers

(i.e., minimum feedbunk space), 67.9 percent of

freestall operations provided less than the

recommended minimum of 24 inches.

Hygiene scoring was performed on 477

operations. Freestall operations accounted for

282 of these operations and provided the

majority (68.3 percent) of all cows scored.

Approximately twice as many cows were scored

on freestall, dry lot, and other multiple-animal

area operations than operations with tie stalls or

stanchions. These differences in animals scored

among different housing types are directly

related to herd size.
vi / Dairy 2007

There were no differences by housing type in

the percentages of cows with hygiene scores of

1 (clean). A lower percentage of cows had a

hygiene score of 3 (dirty) on freestall operations

(10.0 percent) compared with tie-stall,

stanchion, and dry lot operations (16.2, 21.4,

and 22.3 percent, respectively).

Bedding type influenced hygiene scores. The

lowest percentage of cows with a hygiene score

of 3 were on operations that bedded stalls with

coarse sand, composted manure, or dried

manure (primarily freestall operations). As

bedding quantity/stall condition decreased until

the stall base was exposed, the percentage of

cows with a hygiene score of 3 increased.

Freestall operations with stall lengths of less

than 82.0 inches or 96.0 inches or more had a

higher percentage of cows with a hygiene score

of 1 (61.1 and 54.8 percent, respectively)

compared with freestall operations with stall

lengths of 86.0 to 91.9 inches (35.7 percent).

The width of stalls did not have an impact on

hygiene scores. The forward location of the neck

rail was not associated with the percentage of

cows by hygiene score.

Operations with any gutter grates had a higher

percentage of cows assigned a hygiene score

of 1 compared with operations without gutter

grates. The presence of cow trainers was also

associated with cleaner cows; 50.3 percent of

cows on operations with trainers had a hygiene

score of 1 compared with 37.6 percent of cows

on operations without trainers. Almost twice the

percentage of cows on operations that did not

use trainers had a hygiene score of 3 compared

with operations that used trainers (23.6 and 14.1

percent, respectively).

No differences were observed in spring (March–

May) and summer (June–September) in the

percentage of cows by hygiene score.

Hock scoring was performed on 477 operations;

freestall operations accounted for 282 of these

operations, providing the majority of all cows

scored (67.9 percent). Approximately twice as

many cows were scored on freestall, dry lot, and

other multiple-animal area operations compared

with operations that used tie stalls or stanchions.

These differences in animals scored among

different housing types are directly related to

herd size.

Operations with dry lots and other multipleanimal areas had the highest percentage of cows

assigned a hock score of 1 [no hair loss or

swelling] (91.1 and 90.8 percent, respectively).

Approximately three of four cows on freestall

operations (76.8 percent) were assigned a hock

score of 1, while tie-stall and stanchion

operations had the lowest percentage of cows

with a score of 1 (65.7 and 61.9 percent,

respectively). Dry-lot operations had a lower

percentage of cows with hock scores of 3

(swelling or skin lesion present) compared with

tie-stall, stanchion, and freestall operations.

Almost 9 of 10 cows (89.5 percent) on

operations that used dirt as a stall base were

assigned a hock score of 1. The lowest

percentage of cows assigned a hock score of 1

were on operations that used concrete, rubber

mats, or mattresses as a stall base (72.8, 65.9,
USDA APHIS VS / vii

and 60.6 percent, respectively). The lowest

percentage of cows assigned a hock score of 3

were on operations that used dirt as a stall base

(0.7 percent), while the highest percentage of

cows with a score of 3 were on operations that

used concrete, rubber mats, or mattresses as a

stall base (5.6, 7.2, and 5.0 percent,

respectively).

A higher percentage of cows bedded with fine or

coarse sand, composted or dried manure, or no

bedding (primarily operations with freestalls,

dry lots, or other multiple-animal areas) had

hock scores of 1 compared with cows bedded

with straw or sawdust (primarily tie-stall and

stanchion operations). Similarly, a lower

percentage of cows bedded in coarse sand and

composted manure had hock scores of 3

compared with cows on straw, sawdust, or

“other” bedding.

As the number of days since bedding was added

increased, the percentage of cows assigned a

hock score of 1 increased. The percentage of

cows by hock scores was associated with

bedding quantity. As bedding quantity decreased

until the stall base was mostly exposed, a lower

percentage of cows had hock scores of 1. In

addition, a higher percentage of cows had hock

scores of 1 when no bedding was present than

when the stall base was exposed.

The season in which assessments were made

(spring or summer) did not impact hock scores.

Comfort parameters were evaluated on 485

operations, and the pens and areas evaluated

housed 52,490 cows. The majority of operations

(290) and cows (39,014) assessed were on

freestall operations. Four comfort parameters

were assessed: perching (standing with the front

feet inside the stall), standing (with all feet

inside the stall), lying, and the cow comfort

index (the proportion of cows in contact with a

stall that are lying down) [CCI].

The percentages of cows perching were similar

across all bedding types. Standing in stalls was

observed for a lower percentage of cows when

straw, coarse sand, composted manure, or no

bedding was used compared with most other

bedding types. A higher percentage of cows

were lying in stalls bedded with coarse sand

(48.0 percent) compared with stalls bedded with

straw, composted or dried manure, or “other”

bedding types (33.6, 30.2, 28.5, and

30.8 percent, respectively). With the exception

of composted manure, the CCI was highest for

operations that bedded with coarse sand

compared with all other bedding types.

The percentage of cows perching in stalls was

higher on operations in which the stall base was

not exposed, bedding level with curb or slightly

dished out (8.2 and 10.2 percent, respectively)

compared with operations in which the stall base

was less than 50 percent exposed (6.0 percent).

Bedding quantity/stall condition was not

associated with standing or lying parameters.

The CCI was higher when bedding was level

with the curb (74.2 percent) compared with

bedding slightly dished out or more than

50 percent of the base exposed (63.7 and

66.2 percent, respectively).
viii / Dairy 2007

The type or presence of a neck rail did not

impact the percentage of cows perching or the

CCI. A lower percentage of cows were standing

in the stall when no neck rail was present

(4.0 percent) compared with either the presence

of a stationary or moveable neck rail (9.7 and

11.9 percent, respectively). Similarly, a lower

percentage of cows were lying when no neck rail

was present compared with operations with

stationary or moveable neck rails.

The presence of a brisket locator or the locator

material did not affect the percentage of cows

that were perching, standing, or the CCI.

However, operations that did not have a brisket

locator had a lower percentage of cows lying

(32.6 percent) compared with operations that

had brisket locators made of wood

(41.9 percent) or PVC or other plastic pipe

(46.4 percent).

Season had a significant impact on the

percentage of cows perching, lying, and on the

CCI. The percentage of cows perching was

lower in spring (March–May) than in summer

(June–September), while the percentage of cows

lying and the CCI were higher in spring than in

summer.
USDA APHIS VS / ix

Acknowledgments ledgments

This study was a cooperative effort between two U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies:

the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS).

Thank you to the NASS enumerators, State and Federal veterinary medical officers (VMOs), and

animal health technicians (AHTs) who visited the operations and collected the data for the Dairy

2007 study. Their hard work and dedication to USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System

(NAHMS) were invaluable. The roles of the producers, area veterinarians in charge (AVICs),

NAHMS coordinators, VMOs, AHTs, and NASS enumerators were critical in providing quality data

for Dairy 2007 reports. Recognition also goes to the personnel at the Centers for Epidemiology and

Animal Health for their efforts in generating and distributing valuable reports from Dairy 2007 data.

Additional biological sampling and testing were afforded by the generous contributions of

collaborators for the Dairy 2007 study, including

• USDA–APHIS, National Veterinary Services Laboratories;

• USDA–ARS, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center;

• USDA–ARS, Russell Research Center;

• Antel BioSystems, Inc.;

• Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostic Center;

• Quality Milk Production Services;

• Tetracore, Inc.;

• University of British Columbia, Canada, Animal Welfare Program;

• University of California, Davis;

• University of Pennsylvania, New Bolton Center;

• University of Wisconsin, Madison; and

• Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.

All participants are to be commended, particularly the producers whose voluntary efforts made the

Dairy 2007 study possible.

Larry M. Granger

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
x / Dairy 2007

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2010. Facility Characteristics and Cow Comfort on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007.

USDA–APHIS–VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO

#524.1210

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Jason Lombard (970) 494-7000

Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Abby Fienhold (970) 494-7000

Email: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

Feedback

Feedback, comments, and suggestions regarding the Dairy 2007 study reports are welcomed. Please

forward correspondence via email at: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov, or you may submit feedback via

online survey at: http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov (Click on “FEEDBACK on NAHMS reports.”)
USDA APHIS VS / xi

Table of Cont able of Contents

Introduction 1

Study Objectives and Related Outputs 3

Terms Used in This Report 5

Section I: Population Estimates 9

A. Operation and Facility Characteristics 9

1. Operation types 9

2. Housing facilities 14

3. Freestall barn configurations 23

4. Milking facilities 24

B. General Management 27

1. Primary outside access areas 27

2. Flooring type 31

3. Surface moisture 32

4. Heat abatement 33

5. Calving areas 38

6. Bedding types 40

7. Feedline and feeding practices 42

8. Water sources and chlorination 44

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments 49

A. Facility Assessments 49

1. Housing types 49

2. Housing age 54

3. Cow space allotment 56

4. Cows per stall 59

5. Feedbunk space 60

6. Headlocks 64

7. Stall base 67

8. Bedding 68

9. Platform and stall lengths 76

10. Stall widths 78

11. Neck rails 79

12. Brisket locators 81

13. Lunge space 83

14. Curb measures 84

15. Gutter grates 85

16. Cow trainers 86

17. Water sources 89
xii / Dairy 2007

B. Cow Health 90

1. Cow morbidity 90

2. Permanently removed cows 92

3. Cow mortality 93

C. Cow Assessments 94

1. Background/method 94

2. Hygiene results 97

3. Hock results 114

D. Comfort Assessments 132

1. Cows assessed 132

2. Season and temperature 134

3. Timing 137

4. Comfort parameters—perching, standing, lying, and cow comfort index 142

Section III: Methodology 156

A. Needs Assessment 156

B. Sampling and Estimation 157

1. State selection 157

2. Operation selection 158

3. Population inferences 158

C. Data Collection 159

1. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report 159

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit 159

3. Phase II: VS Second Visit 159

D. Data Analysis 159

1. Validation 159

E. Sample Evaluation 160

1. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report 160

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit 162

3. Phase II: VS Second Visit 163
USDA APHIS VS / xiii

Appendix I: Sample Profile 164

Responding Operations 164

Appendix II: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations 165

Appendix III: Typical Freestall Components and Dimensions 166

Appendix IV: References 167
USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

Introduction oduction

The National Animal Health Monitoring System

(NAHMS) is a nonregulatory program of the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), a branch of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA). Designed to help meet the

animal health information needs of a variety of

stakeholders, NAHMS has collected data on

dairy health and management practices through

four previous studies.

The NAHMS 1991–92 National Dairy Heifer

Evaluation Project (NDHEP) provided the dairy

industry’s first national information on the

health and management of dairy cattle in the

United States. Just months after the study’s first

results were released in 1993, cases of acute

bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) surfaced in the

United States following a 1993 outbreak in

Canada. NDHEP information on producer

vaccination and biosecurity practices helped

officials address the risk of disease spread and

target educational efforts on vaccination

protocols. When an outbreak of human illness

related to Escherichia coli O157:H7 was

reported in 1993 in the Pacific Northwest,

NDHEP data on the bacteria’s prevalence in

dairy cattle helped officials define public risks

as well as research needs. This baseline picture

of the industry also helped identify additional

research and educational needs in various

production areas, such as feed management and

weaning age.

Information from the NAHMS Dairy 1996 study

helped the U.S. dairy industry identify

educational needs and prioritize research efforts

on such timely topics as antibiotic use; Johne’s

disease; digital dermatitis; bovine leukosis virus

(BLV); and potential foodborne pathogens,

including E. coli, Salmonella, and

Campylobacter. A total of 26 States participated

in Dairy 1996.

Two major goals of the Dairy 2002 study were

to describe management strategies that prevent

and reduce Johne’s disease and to determine

management factors associated with

Mycoplasma and Listeria in bulk-tank milk. The

study was designed also to describe levels of

participation in quality assurance programs, the

incidence of digital dermatitis, animal-waste

handling systems used on U.S. dairy operations,

and industry changes since the NDHEP in 1991

and the Dairy 1996 study. A total of 21 States

participated in Dairy 2002.

The Dairy 2007 study was conducted in 17 of

the Nation’s major dairy States (see map next

page) and provides participants, stakeholders,

and the industry as a whole with valuable

information representing 79.5 percent of

U.S. dairy operations and 82.5 percent of

U.S. dairy cows. Phase I data were collected

from 2,194 dairy operations by National

Agricultural Statistics Service enumerators from

January 1–31, 2007. For phase II of the Dairy

2007 study, data were collected from a subset of

Phase I participants (582 operations with 30 or

more dairy cows). Phase II data were collected

by State and Federal veterinary medical officers

(VMOs) and animal health technicians (AHTs)

between February 26 and August 31, 2007.
2 / Dairy 2007

Introduction

One objective of the Dairy 2007 study was to

evaluate management factors related to cow

comfort and removal rates. This report provides

information collected during the Dairy 2007

study about facilities and cow comfort on

U.S. dairy operations.

Information on the methods used and number of

respondents in the study can be found at the end

of this report.

All Dairy 2007 study reports, as well as reports

from previous NAHMS dairy studies, are

available online at http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

For questions about this report or additional

copies, please contact:

USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000
USDA APHIS VS / 3

Introduction

Study Objectiv tudy Objectives and

Related Outputs ed Outputs

1. Describe trends in dairy cattle health and

management practices

• Part II: Changes in the U.S. Dairy Cattle

Industry, 1991–2007, March 2008

• Part V: Changes in Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States,

1996–2007, July 2009

2. Evaluate management factors related to cow

comfort and removal rates

• Facility Characteristics and Cow Comfort

on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007,

Interpretive Report, December 2010

3. Describe dairy calf health and nutrition from

birth to weaning and evaluate heifer disease

prevention practices

• Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States,

2007, October 2007

• Off-Site Heifer Raising on U.S. Dairy

Operations, 2007, info sheet, November 2007

• Colostrum Feeding and Management on

U.S. Dairy Operations, 1991–2007, info sheet,

March 2008

• Part IV: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States,

2007, February 2009

• Calving Intervention on U.S. Dairy

Operations, 2007, info sheet, February 2009

• Heifer Calf Health and Management Practices

on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, Interpretive

Report, February 2010

• Passive Transfer in Dairy Heifer Calves,

1991–2007, info sheet, March 2010

4. Estimate the prevalence of herds infected with

bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV)

• Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD) Management

Practices and Detection in Bulk Tank Milk in

the United States, 2007, info sheet, October

2008

5. Describe current milking procedures and

estimate the prevalence of contagious mastitis

pathogens

• Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States,

2007, September 2008

• Milking Procedures on U.S. Dairy Operations,

2007, info sheet, October 2008

• Prevalence of Contagious Mastitis Pathogens

on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, info sheet,

October 2008

6. Estimate the herd-level prevalence and

associated costs of Mycobacterium avium

subspecies paratuberculosis

• Johne’s Disease on U.S. Dairies, 1991–2007,

info sheet, April 2008

7. Describe current biosecurity practices and

determine producer motivation for

implementing or not implementing biosecurity

practices

• Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States,

2007, October 2007

• Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States,

2007, September 2008

• Biosecurity Practices on U.S. Dairy

operations, 1991–2007, Interpretive Report,

May 2010
4 / Dairy 2007

Introduction

8. Determine the prevalence of specific foodsafety pathogens and describe antimicrobial

resistance patterns

• Antibiotic Use on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002

and 2007, info sheet, October 2008

• Prevalence of Salmonella and Listeria in Bulk

Tank Milk and In-line Filters on U.S. Dairies,

2007, info sheet, July 2009

• Salmonella and Campylobacter on U.S. Dairy

Operations, 2002–07, info sheet, July 2009

• Salmonella, Listeria, and Campylobacter on

U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, Interpretive

Report, expected winter 2011

• Prevalence of Coxiella burnetii on U.S. Dairy

Operations, 2007, info sheet, expected winter

2011

• Prevalence of Clostridium difficile on U.S.

Dairy Operations, 2007, info sheet, expected

winter 2011

Additional information sheets

• Dairy Cattle Identification Practices in the

United States, 2007, info sheet, November

2007

• Bovine Leukosis Virus (BLV) on U.S. Dairy

Operations, 2007, info sheet, October 2008

• Reproduction Practices on U.S. Dairy

Operations, 2007, info sheet, February 2009

• Injection Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations,

2007, info sheet, February 2009

• Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

(MRSA) Isolation from Bulk Tank Milk in the

United States, 2007, info sheet, November

2010
USDA APHIS VS / 5

Introduction

Terms Used in This Report

Brisket locator: A feature of freestalls designed

to help prevent cows from lying too far forward

in the stall. Brisket locators are usually

constructed of wood and placed at the front of

the stall bed.

Cow: Female dairy bovine that has calved at

least once.

Cow average: The average value for all cows;

the reported value for each operation multiplied

by the number of cows on that operation is

summed over all operations and divided by the

number of cows on all operations. This way,

results are adjusted for the number of cows on

each operation. For instance, on p 13 the rolling

herd average milk production per cow is

multiplied by the number of cows for each

operation. This product is then summed over all

operations and divided by the sum of cows over

all operations. The result is the rolling herd

average milk production for all cows.

Cow comfort index (CCI): A measure of cow

comfort calculated as the percentage of cows in

contact with a stall and lying down. The

recommended CCI is 85 percent or more when

measured 1 hour after cows return from the

morning milking. Recent research suggests that

CCI is not associated with lying times and may

not be the best comfort parameter to measure.

Cow density: The number of cows per stall or

headlock.

Cow trainer: A tin or wire structure placed a

few inches above a cow to prevent her from

soiling the platform of her stall by administering

a gentle electric shock if she arches her back to

urinate or defecate while too far forward in the

stall.

Curb: A feature of freestalls that separates the

stall area from the alley. Curbs are generally

constructed of concrete.

Dry-lot housing: An open dirt lot that has no

vegetative cover and is used for housing cows in

more arid climates.

Freestall housing: Housing consisting of

resting cubicles or “beds” in which dairy cows

are free to enter and leave at will.

Gutter: A channel located behind cows in tiestall and stanchion barns to capture manure and

urine.

Gutter grates: Coverings for gutters that assist

in keeping the cow’s tail clean while allowing

manure and urine to pass through.

Heifer: Female dairy bovine that has not yet

calved.

Headlocks: Self-locking stanchions along a

feed alley in which multiple cows can be

restrained at once.
6 / Dairy 2007

Introduction

Herd size: Herd size is based on January 1,

2007, dairy cow inventory. Small herds are

those with fewer than 100 head; medium herds

are those with 100 to 499 head; and large herds

are those with 500 or more head.

Loose housing system: Facility that allows the

cows to move around and choose among eating,

drinking, standing, or lying. Freestall and dry-lot

housing are common types of loose housing. A

loose-housing system is in contrast to a tie-stall

or stanchion operation in which cows are

restrained to individual stalls.

Lunge space: The area in front or to the side of

the stall bed that allows cows to move their head

forward or sideways when rising.

Neck rail: A feature of freestalls usually made

of pipe or cable and mounted across the top of

the freestall loops. Neck rails were designed to

discourage cows from moving too far forward

when entering the stall and encourage cows to

move backward when rising.

Operation average: The average value for all

operations. A single value for each operation is

summed over all operations reporting divided by

the number of operations reporting. For

example, operation average rolling herd average

(RHA) milk production (shown on p 13) is

calculated by summing reported average RHA

milk production over all operations divided by

the number of operations.

Other multiple-animal area: Cow housing

areas such as pasture or a combination of

housing types such as freestall and dry-lot

housing. Refers to housing other than tie stall,

stanchion, freestall, or dry lot. In some instances

in this report, which will be noted, operations

with dry lots were included in this category due

to small sample size.

Perching: A term commonly used to describe

cows that have both front feet in the stall and

both back feet in the alleyway.

Population estimates: The estimates in this

report make inference to all operations or dairy

cattle in the target population (see Methodology

section, p 156). Data from the operations

responding to the survey are weighted to reflect

their probability of selection during sampling

and to account for any survey nonresponse.
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Introduction

Precision of population estimates: Estimates

in this report are provided with a measure of

precision called the standard error. A 95-percent

confidence interval can be created with bounds

equal to the estimate plus or minus two standard

errors. If the only error is sampling error, the

confidence intervals created in this manner will

contain the true population mean 95 out of 100

times. In the example to the right, an estimate of

7.5 with a standard error of 1.0 results in limits

of 5.5 to 9.5 (two times the standard error above

and below the estimate). The second estimate of

3.4 shows a standard error of 0.3 and results in

limits of 2.8 and 4.0. Alternatively, the

90-percent confidence interval would be created

by multiplying the standard error by 1.65 instead

of 2. Most estimates in this report are rounded

to the nearest tenth. If rounded to 0, the standard

error was reported (0.0). If there were no reports

of the event, no standard error was

reported (—). References to estimates being

“higher” or “lower” than other estimates are

based on the 95-percent confidence intervals not

overlapping. Where noted in this report, STATA

and SUDAAN were used to compare estimates

and determine significance. P values less than

0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Regions:

• West: California, Idaho, New Mexico, Texas,

and Washington

• East: Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and

Wisconsin

Sample profile: Information that describes

characteristics of the operations from which

Dairy 2007 data were collected. See Appendix I,

p 164.

Season: For this report, spring included the

months of March, April, and May. Summer

included the months of June, July, August, and

September.

Space allotment: A measure of space for cows.

Commonly used measures include square feet

for cows in pens and inches of bunk space per

cow.

Standard Errors

(1.0)

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

(0.3)

Examples of a 95% Confidence Interval

95% Confidence 

Intervals
8 / Dairy 2007

Introduction

Stall base: The floor of the stall usually

comprised of permanent or semipermanent

materials upon which bedding is usually added.

Common materials used for stall bases include

dirt, concrete, rubber mats, and mattresses.

Stall partition (loop): A wooden or steel

structure that separates adjacent resting spaces.

Used in tie-stall, stanchion, and freestall housing

systems.

Stanchion housing: Housing in which a cow is

restrained to a particular stall in a device with

two rails that close around the cow’s neck after

she enters a stall. Cows are not able to enter and

leave the stalls at will.

Tie-stall housing: Housing in which a cow is

restrained to a particular stall by a neck collar

attached to the stall by a chain. Cows are not

able to enter and leave the stalls at will.

Usual calving area: An area designated

specifically for calving separate from housing

for lactating cows. Tie stalls and stanchions

were not considered usual calving areas for the

purpose of this report.
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

Section I: P Section I: Population opulation

Estimates

Note: Unless otherwise specified, estimates in Section I represent operations with any dairy cows.

A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

1. Operation types Producers were asked to identify their

operations by type: conventional, grazing,

combination, or organic. On conventional

operations, the majority of forage was harvested

and “delivered” to cows; on grazing operations,

the majority of forage was “harvested” by cows;

combination operations used both conventional

and grazing practices; and organic operations

met USDA organic standards.

The majority of dairy operations (63.9 percent)

were conventional operations, and the majority

of dairy cows (82.2 percent) were on these

operations. Grazing and organic operations

accounted for only 3.1 and 1.7 percent of

operations, respectively, and together

represented less than 3.0 percent of dairy cows.

a. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on these operations), by 

operation type 

Operation Type

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows* 

Standard 

Error 

Conventional 63.9 (1.4) 82.2 (0.9) 

Grazing 3.1 (0.6) 1.7 (0.4) 

Combination of 

conventional and grazing 31.1 (1.3) 14.9 (0.8) 

Organic 1.7 (0.4) 1.2 (0.3) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory. 
10 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

The percentage of conventional dairy operations

increased as herd size increased, while the

percentage of combination operations decreased

as herd size increased.

b. Percentage of operations by operation type and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Dairy Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

Operation Type Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Conventional 57.1 (1.8) 79.9 (1.7) 91.5 (1.4) 

Grazing 3.5 (0.7) 2.0 (0.7) 1.0 (0.4) 

Combination of 

conventional and 

grazing 

37.2 (1.7) 17.0 (1.6) 7.3 (1.3) 

Organic 2.0 (0.6) 1.1 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics
12 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

The West region had a higher percentage of

conventional operations than the East region

(72.4 and 63.2 percent, respectively).

Conversely, the East region had a higher

percentage of combination operations than the

West region (32.4 and 15.8 percent,

respectively). The percentages of grazing and

organic operations were similar in the West and

East regions.

c. Percentage of operations by operation type and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Operation Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Conventional 72.4 (2.9) 63.2 (1.4) 

Grazing 8.0 (2.4) 2.7 (0.6) 

Combination 15.8 (2.0) 32.4 (1.4) 

Organic 3.8 (1.3) 1.5 (0.4) 

Other 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

Conventional operations and the dairy cows on

these operations had the highest rolling herd

average (RHA) milk production (20,253 and

22,182 lb/cow, respectively). RHA milk

production was similar for grazing, organic, and

other operations.

d. Operation average (and cow average) RHA* milk production (lb/cow), by 

operation type 

Operation Type

Operation 

Average 

(lb/cow)

Std. 

Error 

Cow Average 

(lb/cow)

Std. 

Error 

Conventional 20,253 (135) 22,182 (126) 

Grazing 15,146 (608) 15,903 (457) 

Combination 17,587 (213) 18,696 (217) 

Organic 15,266 (714) 16,369 (728) 

Other 15,760 (1,520) 14,757 (1,709) 

All 19,175 (112) 21,483 (115) 

*Average milk production per cow during a 12-month period. 

Photo courtesy Dr. Jason Lombard
14 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

2. Housing

facilities

The majority of operations across herd sizes

used primarily individual pens/hutches to house

preweaned heifers. The percentage of operations

that used tie stall/stanchions or multiple-animal

inside areas to house preweaned heifers

decreased as herd size increased. More than

one-third of large operations (35.4 percent) did

not raise preweaned heifers on the operation.

a. Percentage of operations by primary housing facility/outside area used for 

preweaned heifers during 2006, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Housing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/ 

stanchion 10.1 (1.1) 6.9 (1.3) 0.4 (0.2) 8.9 (0.8) 

Freestall 2.8 (0.6) 3.0 (0.7) 1.0 (0.5) 2.7 (0.5) 

Individual pen/ 

hutch 65.9 (1.7) 75.9 (2.0) 62.5 (2.9) 67.9 (1.3) 

Dry lot/multipleanimal outside area 0.6 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.6 (0.2) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 17.8 (1.4) 5.8 (1.0) 0.7 (0.4) 14.2 (1.1) 

Pasture 0.6 (0.2) 0.8 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.6 (0.2) 

Not housed 

on operation 1.7 (0.5) 7.1 (1.2) 35.4 (2.9) 4.7 (0.5) 

Other 0.5 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

Regional differences were observed in primary

housing for preweaned heifers. A lower

percentage of operations in the West region than

in the East region housed preweaned heifers in

tie stalls or stanchions (1.4 and 9.5 percent,

respectively). Multiple-animal inside areas were

used by more than twice the percentage of

operations in the East region than in the West

region (14.8 and 6.4 percent, respectively).

More than one of five operations in the West

region (21.9 percent) did not house preweaned

heifers compared with 3.3 percent in the East

region.

b. Percentage of operations by primary housing facility/outside area used for 

preweaned heifers during 2006, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Tie stall/stanchion 1.4 (0.6) 9.5 (0.9) 

Freestall 3.3 (1.1) 2.7 (0.5) 

Individual pen/hutch 64.0 (3.0) 68.3 (1.4) 

Dry lot/multiple-animal 

outside area 1.2 (0.6) 0.5 (0.2) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 6.4 (1.8) 14.8 (1.2) 

Pasture 1.8 (1.7) 0.5 (0.1) 

Not housed 

on operation 21.9 (2.4) 3.3 (0.5) 

Other 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
16 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

About one-third of operations housed weaned

heifers primarily in a multiple-animal inside area

(34.6 percent), while approximately one-fourth

housed weaned heifers in a dry lot/multipleanimal outside area (22.9 percent). Small

operations primarily housed weaned heifers in

dry lots/multiple-animal outside and inside areas

(22.3 and 37.8 percent, respectively). More than

4 of 10 large operations primarily housed

weaned heifers in a dry lot/multiple-animal

outside area (43.2 percent). The percentage of

operations that did not house weaned heifers

increased as herd size increased; nearly onefourth of large operations did not house weaned

heifers (24.8 percent).

c. Percentage of operations by primary housing facility/outside area used for 

weaned heifers, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Housing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/ 

stanchion 6.7 (1.0) 4.6 (1.1) 0.5 (0.2) 5.9 (0.7) 

Freestall 10.2 (1.1) 18.2 (1.8) 13.7 (2.2) 12.1 (0.9) 

Individual 

pen/hutch 6.3 (0.9) 3.0 (0.9) 1.9 (0.8) 5.3 (0.7) 

Dry lot/multipleanimal outside area 22.3 (1.4) 19.8 (1.8) 43.2 (2.7) 22.9 (1.1) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 37.8 (1.8) 29.8 (2.0) 10.1 (1.9) 34.6 (1.4) 

Pasture 11.7 (1.1) 9.4 (1.2) 4.6 (1.0) 10.8 (0.9) 

Not housed 

on operation 4.6 (0.7) 13.8 (1.6) 24.8 (2.4) 7.7 (0.7) 

Other 0.4 (0.2) 1.4 (0.7) 1.2 (0.7) 0.7 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

Almost one-half of operations in the West region

(46.2 percent) housed weaned heifers primarily

in a dry lot/multiple-animal outside area

compared with almost one-fifth of operations in

the East region (20.9 percent). Approximately

one of eight operations in the West region

(12.1 percent) housed weaned heifers in

multiple-animal inside areas compared with

approximately one of three operations in the

East region (36.4 percent).

d. Percentage of operations by primary housing facility/outside area used for 

weaned heifers, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Tie stall/stanchion 0.4 (0.2) 6.4 (0.8) 

Freestall 12.7 (2.0) 12.1 (0.9) 

Individual pen/hutch 3.3 (1.2) 5.5 (0.7) 

Dry lot/multiple-animal 

outside area 46.2 (2.9) 20.9 (1.2) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 12.1 (1.9) 36.4 (1.5) 

Pasture 12.7 (2.3) 10.7 (0.9) 

Not housed 

on operation 12.1 (1.9) 7.3 (0.7) 

Other 0.5 (0.3) 0.7 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
18 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

Almost one-half of operations (49.2 percent)

housed lactating cows primarily in a tie-stall/

stanchion facility. Nearly one of three operations

(32.6 percent) housed cows in freestalls. Use of

tie-stall/stanchion facilities decreased from

63.0 percent of small operations to 0.7 percent

of large operations. Alternatively, a higher

percentage of medium and large operations

housed lactating cows in freestalls (67.5 and

72.6 percent, respectively) compared with small

operations (19.0 percent). Almost one-fourth of

large operations (24.2 percent) housed lactating

cows primarily in dry lots/multiple-animal

outside areas.

e. Percentage of operations by primary housing facility/outside area used for 

lactating cows, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Housing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/ 

stanchion 63.0 (1.6) 15.7 (1.9) 0.7 (0.3) 49.2 (1.3) 

Freestall 19.0 (1.3) 67.5 (2.1) 72.6 (2.3) 32.6 (1.1) 

Individual pen 0.1 (0.0) 0.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 

Dry lot/multipleanimal outside 

area 

3.4 (0.6) 4.1 (0.7) 24.2 (2.3) 4.6 (0.5) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 3.5 (0.7) 3.3 (0.7) 0.8 (0.5) 3.4 (0.6) 

Pasture 10.8 (1.1) 8.8 (1.2) 1.0 (0.3) 9.9 (0.8) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.5 (0.4) 0.2 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

Almost one-half of operations in the West region

(49.7 percent) housed lactating cows primarily

in freestalls; 29.8 percent of operations housed

cows in dry lot/multiple-animal outside areas

and 15.0 percent housed cows on pasture. The

majority of operations in the East region

(53.1 percent) housed lactating cows primarily

in tie stalls/stanchions. A lower percentage of

operations in the East region housed cows in

freestalls compared with operations in the West

region (31.2 and 49.7 percent, respectively).

Pasture was the primary housing for lactating

cows on about 1 of 10 operations in the East

region (9.4 percent).

f. Percentage of operations by primary housing facility/outside area used for 

lactating cows, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Tie stall/stanchion 1.3 (0.5) 53.1 (1.4) 

Freestall 49.7 (2.9) 31.2 (1.1) 

Individual pen 0.8 (0.5) 0.1 (0.0) 

Dry lot/multiple-animal 

outside area 29.8 (2.6) 2.6 (0.5) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 2.6 (0.9) 3.4 (0.6) 

Pasture 15.0 (2.7) 9.4 (0.9) 

Other 0.8 (0.5) 0.2 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
20 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

The single highest percentage of small

operations kept dry cows in tie-stall/stanchion

housing (30.6 percent), followed by pasture,

freestall housing, and dry lot/multiple-animal

outside area. More than one-third of medium

operations (35.6 percent) housed dry cows in

freestall housing. More than 40 percent of large

operations used either freestalls or dry lot/

multiple-animal outside areas. Overall, about

20 percent of operations housed dry cows in tie

stall/stanchion, freestalls, dry lot/multipleanimal outside area, or pasture.

g. Percentage of operations by primary housing facility/outside area used for dry 

cows during 2006, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Housing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/ 

stanchion 30.6 (1.7) 5.0 (1.1) 0.4 (0.2) 23.3 (1.3) 

Freestall 17.5 (1.3) 35.6 (2.2) 40.9 (2.5) 22.8 (1.1) 

Individual pen/ 

hutch 0.9 (0.3) 0.9 (0.5) 1.3 (0.7) 1.0 (0.3) 

Dry lot/multipleanimal outside area 16.7 (1.3) 19.1 (1.7) 45.4 (2.6) 18.7 (1.0) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 12.6 (1.2) 16.4 (1.7) 3.6 (0.9) 12.9 (0.9) 

Pasture 21.1 (1.4) 21.6 (1.8) 7.2 (1.3) 20.5 (1.1) 

Not housed 

on operation 0.1 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 

Other 0.5 (0.2) 1.0 (0.5) 0.8 (0.5) 0.6 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

The most noticeable regional difference in

housing for dry cows was that a higher

percentage of operations in the West region than

in the East region used a dry lot/multiple-animal

outside area (48.1 and 16.3 percent,

respectively). Tie stalls/stanchions and multipleanimal inside areas were used by a higher

percentage of operations in the East region than

in the West region (25.2 and 0.5 percent,

respectively).

h. Percentage of operations by primary housing facility/outside area used for dry 

cows during 2006, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Tie stall/stanchion 0.5 (0.2) 25.2 (1.4) 

Freestall 23.3 (2.5) 22.7 (1.2) 

Individual pen/hutch 1.5 (0.6) 0.9 (0.3) 

Dry lot/multiple-animal 

outside area 48.1 (2.9) 16.3 (1.1) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 5.0 (1.4) 13.6 (1.0) 

Pasture 20.1 (2.7) 20.5 (1.2) 

Not housed 

on operation 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 

Other 1.5 (0.7) 0.6 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
22 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

About two-thirds of preweaned heifers

(68.2 percent) were housed in individual pens;

19.8 percent of preweaned heifers were not

housed on the operation. The majority of

weaned heifers were housed in dry lot/multipleanimal outside or inside areas (37.5 and

24.6 percent, respectively). Almost 6 of 10

lactating cows (56.4 percent) were in freestall

housing, while approximately 2 of 10 lactating

cows were housed in tie stall/stanchion or dry

lot/multiple-animal outside areas. About 3 of

10 dry cows were housed in a freestall or dry

lot/multiple-animal outside area.

i. Percentage of cattle by primary housing facility/outside area used during 2006, 

and by cattle class 

Percent Cattle 

Cattle Class

Preweaned 

Heifers1

Weaned 

Heifers2 Lactating Cows3 Dry Cows3

(Nonlactating)

Housing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/ 

stanchion 3.6 (0.4) 2.6 (0.3) 18.3 (0.6) 7.8 (0.5) 

Freestall 2.1 (0.5) 15.1 (1.2) 56.4 (1.4) 31.9 (1.3) 

Individual pen 68.2 (1.5) 3.1 (0.5) 0.3 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2) 

Dry lot/multipleanimal outside 

area 

0.3 (0.1) 37.5 (1.5) 18.3 (1.3) 36.9 (1.4) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 5.7 (0.5) 24.6 (1.2) 1.6 (0.3) 8.9 (0.7) 

Pasture 0.2 (0.1) 6.8 (0.6) 4.8 (0.4) 12.5 (0.7) 

Not housed 19.8 (1.5) 9.6 (1.0) NA 0.4 (0.2) 

Other 0.1 (0.0) 0.7 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 0.7 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1

As a percentage of heifer calves born during 2006. 

2

As a percentage of January 1, 2007, heifer inventory. 

3

As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory. 
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

3. Freestall barn

configurations

About 8 of 10 large and medium operations

housed lactating cows in freestall barns

(83.2 and 81.9 percent, respectively), compared

with about 3 of 10 small operations

(27.2 percent). Less than one-half of all

operations (44.3 percent) housed cows in

freestall barns.

a. Percentage of operations* that housed lactating cows in freestall barns 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Percent 

Std. 

 Error Percent 

Std. 

 Error Percent 

Std. 

 Error Percent 

Std. 

 Error 

27.2 (3.0) 81.9 (3.2) 83.2 (4.2) 44.3 (2.5) 

*Operations with 30 or more dairy cows. 

The type of freestall barn affects ventilation,

feedbunk space, and square footage per cow.

Freestall barns are usually described by the

number of stall rows along a feed line. Two- and

four-row barns require less air movement to

properly ventilate and provide more feedbunk

space and square footage per cow than three- or

six-row barns (Smith et al., 2001). For the

44.3 percent of operations that used freestall

barns to house lactating cows, two-row freestall

barns were the predominant setup on small and

large operations (48.1 and 49.5 percent,

respectively). Only 1.1 percent of small

operations used six-row barns to house lactating

cows, compared with 17.9 percent of medium

and 19.8 percent of large operations.
24 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

b. For operations that used freestall barns to house lactating cows, percentage of 

operations* by type of barn setup that housed the majority of cows, and by 

herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Freestall 

Barn Setup Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Two-row 48.1 (6.6) 19.5 (3.5) 49.5 (5.3) 35.2 (3.4) 

Three-row 20.7 (5.7) 22.2 (3.8) 8.3 (3.3) 19.9 (3.0) 

Four-row 22.7 (5.0) 31.7 (4.4) 22.2 (4.8) 26.7 (3.0) 

Six-row 1.1 (0.8) 17.9 (3.7) 19.8 (3.4) 11.0 (1.9) 

Other 7.4 (3.7) 8.7 (2.6) 0.2 (0.1) 7.2 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Operations with 30 or more dairy cows.

4. Milking facilities The majority of operations (60.3 percent) had a

tie-stall or stanchion milking facility. Although

only 39.5 percent of operations used parlors,

78.2 percent of cows were on operations that

milked in parlors.

a. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on these operations) by 

primary milking facility used 

Facility Type

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Cows* 

Std. 

Error 

Parlor 39.5 (1.0) 78.2 (0.6) 

Tie stall/stanchion 60.3 (1.0) 21.8 (0.6) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory. 
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics
26 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Operation and Facility Characteristics

Herringbone and parallel parlors were the two

most common parlor types. Over one-half of

operations that primarily used parlors

(54.4 percent) used a herringbone parlor, and

these operations accounted for 48.7 percent of

cows. Approximately one-fifth of operations

(19.7 percent) used a parallel parlor for milking,

and 30.6 percent of cows were on these

operations.

b. For operations that primarily used a parlor milking facility, percentage of 

operations (and percentage of cows on these operations) by parlor type 

Parlor Type

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Std. 

Error 

Side-opening (tandem) 6.6 (0.9) 3.7 (0.7) 

Herringbone (fishbone) 54.4 (1.8) 48.7 (1.9) 

Parallel (side-by-side) 19.7 (1.3) 30.6 (1.7) 

Parabone (herringboneparallel hybrid) 3.8 (0.6) 3.8 (0.6) 

Swing 2.2 (0.6) 0.8 (0.2) 

Rotary (carousel) 1.1 (0.3) 5.2 (1.3) 

Flat barn 9.9 (1.2) 6.2 (0.8) 

Other 2.3 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

B. General Management

Note: Unless otherwise specified, estimates in the following tables represent operations with 30 or more dairy cows.

1. Primary outside

access areas

On the majority of operations (50.9 percent)

lactating cows had routine access to pasture

during summer. No outside access was allowed

on 13.1 percent of operations in summer. In

winter, lactating cows had access to a concrete

alleyway or pen, dry lot, or allowed no outside

access on 35.0, 28.9, and 25.2 percent of

operations, respectively.

a. Percentage of operations by primary outside area that lactating cows had 

routine access to during summer and winter 

Percent Operations 

Summer Winter 

Primary Outside Area Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture 50.9 (2.7) 9.4 (1.5) 

Concrete alleyway or pen 12.8 (1.6) 35.0 (2.8) 

Dry lot 20.8 (2.2) 28.9 (2.7) 

Other 2.4 (0.8) 1.5 (0.6) 

None 13.1 (1.7) 25.2 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
28 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

During summer, 39.5 percent of lactating cows

were on operations in which the primary outside

area was a dry lot; 22.3 percent were on

operations in which the primary outside area

was pasture; and 19.0 percent were on

operations with no outside access. In winter,

similar percentages of lactating cows were on

operations in which primary outside access was

a concrete alleyway or pen, dry lot, or allowed

no outside access (32.3, 32.7, and 29.7 percent,

respectively).

b. Percentage of cows by primary outside area that lactating cows had routine 

access to during summer and winter* 

Percent Cows 

Summer Winter 

Primary Outside Area Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture 22.3 (1.6) 4.4 (0.7) 

Concrete alleyway or pen 16.5 (2.1) 32.3 (3.3) 

Dry lot 39.5 (3.0) 32.7 (3.5) 

Other 2.7 (1.4) 0.9 (0.3) 

None 19.0 (2.0) 29.7 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*It was presumed that all lactating cows had access to the operation’s primary outside area. 
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

Dry cows had access to pasture on 67.2 percent

of operations during summer and on

18.4 percent during winter. Dry cows had no

outside access on 6.5 percent of operations

during the summer and on 18.5 percent during

winter.

c. Percentage of operations by primary outside area that dry cows had routine 

access to during summer and winter 

Percent Operations 

Summer Winter 

Primary Outside Area Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture 67.2 (2.5) 18.4 (2.2) 

Concrete alleyway or pen 5.7 (1.1) 24.1 (2.4) 

Dry lot 18.5 (2.0) 34.2 (2.7) 

Other 2.1 (0.8) 4.8 (1.3) 

None 6.5 (1.2) 18.5 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
30 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

The majority of dry cows were on operations in

which pasture or dry lot were the primary

outside access areas during summer (38.5 and

41.9 percent of cows, respectively). Dry lot was

the most common outside access area for dry

cows in winter (43.5 percent of cows).

d. Percentage of cow inventory by primary outside area that dry cows had routine 

access to during summer and winter* 

Percent Cows 

Summer Winter 

Primary Outside Area Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture 38.5 (2.4) 11.9 (1.5) 

Concrete alleyway or pen 7.3 (1.3) 19.3 (2.3) 

Dry lot 41.9 (2.6) 43.5 (3.2) 

Other 1.7 (0.5) 3.4 (0.8) 

None 10.6 (1.7) 21.9 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*It was presumed that all dry cows had access to the operation’s primary outside area.
USDA APHIS VS / 31

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

2. Flooring type Flooring surfaces are important to cow health

and longevity. When given an option, cows

select flooring that compresses and provides

cushion, such as rubber mats, pasture, or dirt.

Concrete flooring is associated with increased

lameness, injuries, and decreased expression of

estrus. On approximately one-half of operations

(51.1 percent)—representing 55.6 percent of

cows—flooring for lactating cows was

predominantly concrete. Pasture was the

predominant flooring on 10.1 percent of

operations and for 5.1 percent of cows. Dirt was

the predominant flooring on 5.4 percent of

operations, representing 20.0 percent of cows,

which probably reflects the use of dry lots on

large operations.

a. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on these operations) by 

predominant flooring type lactating cows stood or walked on when not being 

milked 

Flooring Type

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Std. 

Error 

Concrete–grooved/textured 34.3 (2.4) 48.7 (3.5) 

Concrete–slatted 1.3 (0.5) 1.1 (0.5) 

Concrete–smooth 15.5 (2.3) 5.8 (0.8) 

Rubber mats over concrete 22.9 (2.5) 13.9 (2.2) 

Pasture 10.1 (1.7) 5.1 (0.9) 

Dirt 5.4 (1.1) 20.0 (3.5) 

Other 10.5 (1.8) 5.4 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
32 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

For operations with concrete flooring, the use of

rubber belting or a similar material in cow areas

reduces the amount of time cows spend on

concrete and may decrease lameness and

injuries and increase time spent at the feedbunk.

Rubber belting was present on 21.2 percent of

operations and was accessible to 44.4 percent of

cows.

3. Surface

moisture

Wet flooring can be detrimental to hoof health.

Cows on wet surfaces have increased hoof horn

moisture and are more prone to infectious hoof

diseases. The ground or flooring surface for

lactating cows was usually dry on 60.3 percent

of operations during summer and 49.5 percent in

winter. Lactating cows usually stood in water or

slurry on less than 1 percent of operations

(0.6 percent).

Percentage of operations by category that best characterizes the surface 

moisture of the ground or flooring that lactating cows stood on most of the time 

during summer and winter 

Percent Operations 

Summer Winter 

Flooring Surface Moisture Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Usually dry 60.3 (2.7) 49.5 (2.6) 

Wet about half the time 22.8 (2.4) 21.8 (2.2) 

Almost always wet, 

but no standing water 16.3 (1.7) 28.1 (2.1) 

Usually standing 

water or slurry 0.6 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

b. For operations that used parlors and on which concrete was the predominant 

flooring type, percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on these 

operations) that had rubber belting or similar flooring, by location of rubber 

belting 

Location of Belting

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Std. 

Error 

Immediately in 

front of feedbunk 11.9 (2.3) 29.2 (5.1) 

Walkway to parlor 6.2 (1.4) 18.9 (4.7) 

Holding pen 8.1 (1.9) 14.2 (3.1) 

Other 7.5 (1.7) 11.1 (1.8) 

Any 21.2 (2.8) 44.4 (4.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

4. Heat abatement Heat has many harmful effects on dairy cattle,

including decreased feed intake and milk

production, reduced estrous behavior, altered

formation and ovulation of follicles, and

increased susceptibility to mastitis. Providing

cows with shade, water sprinklers, or increased

air circulation is important during summer in

almost all areas of the United States. A

combination of sprinklers and fans is the most

common recommendation for keeping cows

cool. For medium and small operations, fans

were the most common method of heat

abatement (74.3 and 77.7 of operations,

respectively), while similar percentages of large

operations provided shade, sprinklers or misters,

or fans (55.6, 61.6, and 61.0 percent,

respectively). Overall, 94.0 percent of

operations provided some form of heat

abatement for lactating cows.

a. Percentage of operations by method used to provide heat abatement for

lactating cows during summer, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Shade (other than 

inside building) 49.2 (3.8) 28.7 (3.4) 55.6 (5.6) 44.5 (2.8) 

Sprinklers 

or misters 12.0 (2.4) 32.9 (3.7) 61.6 (5.8) 20.3 (1.9) 

Fans 74.3 (3.2) 77.7 (3.3) 61.0 (5.3) 74.3 (2.4) 

Tunnel ventilation 28.3 (3.6) 12.7 (3.0) 3.8 (2.2) 22.9 (2.6) 

Other 4.9 (1.8) 6.1 (2.3) 2.5 (1.6) 5.0 (1.3) 

Any 96.3 (1.2) 89.1 (2.7) 88.5 (3.7) 94.0 (1.1) 
34 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

Regional differences were observed in heat

abatement methods used for lactating cows. A

higher percentage of operations in the West

region used sprinklers or misters (42.1 percent)

compared with operations in the East region

(18.2 percent). Alternatively, a higher

percentage of operations in the East region used

fans, tunnel ventilation, or any heat abatement

method compared with operations in the West

region.

b. Percentage of operations by method used to provide heat abatement for 

lactating cows during summer, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Shade (other than 

inside building) 56.3 (5.3) 43.4 (3.1) 

Sprinklers or misters 42.1 (4.7) 18.2 (2.1) 

Fans 37.0 (4.5) 77.9 (2.6) 

Tunnel ventilation 1.2 (0.9) 25.0 (2.8) 

Other 5.3 (1.9) 5.0 (1.5) 

Any 68.2 (5.0) 96.5 (1.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

Shade and fans were the most common heat

abatement methods used for dry cows on

55.4 and 36.0 percent of operations,

respectively. More than three of four operations

(77.5 percent) provided some method of heat

abatement for dry cows.

c. Percentage of operations by method used to provide heat abatement for dry 

cows during summer, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Shade (other than 

inside building) 61.0 (3.6) 41.0 (3.9) 49.8 (5.4) 55.4 (2.7) 

Sprinklers or misters 3.8 (1.6) 3.8 (1.7) 16.2 (4.5) 4.6 (1.2) 

Fans 36.2 (3.8) 37.8 (4.0) 27.2 (4.3) 36.0 (2.8) 

Tunnel ventilation 11.8 (2.7) 1.7 (0.9) 2.0 (1.3) 8.7 (1.9) 

Other 6.3 (2.0) 4.7 (2.1) 1.8 (1.6) 5.6 (1.5) 

Any 81.4 (2.8) 68.9 (3.9) 69.2 (5.9) 77.5 (2.2) 
36 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

A higher percentage of operations in the East

region provided fans, tunnel ventilation, or any

heat abatement method for dry cows compared

with operations in the West region.

d. Percentage of operations by method used to provide heat abatement for dry 

cows during summer, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Shade (other than 

inside building) 50.2 (5.1) 55.9 (2.9) 

Sprinklers or misters 7.9 (3.2) 4.3 (1.3) 

Fans 6.3 (2.0) 38.9 (3.1) 

Tunnel ventilation 0.8 (0.8) 9.4 (2.1) 

Other 3.0 (1.6) 5.9 (1.6) 

Any 53.4 (5.1) 79.9 (2.4) 
38 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

a. Percentage of operations by area usually used for calving, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Calving Area Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Multiple-animal 

area/pen 65.6 (3.5) 79.8 (3.5) 78.5 (4.3) 70.0 (2.6) 

Individual animal 

area/pen cleaned 

between each 

calving 

30.6 (3.4) 14.6 (3.3) 13.5 (3.9) 25.5 (2.5) 

Individual animal 

area/pen cleaned 

after two or more 

calvings 

25.4 (3.3) 27.4 (3.7) 30.3 (5.6) 26.2 (2.5) 

Other 5.1 (1.7) 3.6 (1.4) 3.1 (1.7) 4.6 (1.2) 

5. Calving areas Ideally, calving areas are clean, dry, quiet, and

provide enough room for a cow to comfortably

lie down and deliver a calf. The majority of

operations (70.0 percent) used a multiple-animal

calving area/pen. A lower percentage of small

operations (65.6 percent) than medium

operations (79.8 percent) used a multiple-animal

calving area. Approximately one-fourth of

operations used an individual calving area that

was either cleaned between each calving or

cleaned after two or more calvings (25.5 and

26.2 percent, respectively). A higher percentage

of small operations (30.6 percent) used an

individual-animal pen that was cleaned between

each calving compared with medium and large

operations (14.6 and 13.5 percent, respectively).
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

The percentage of operations with a usual

calving area ranged from 62.5 percent of small

operations to 98.2 percent of large operations.

b. Percentage of operations that had a usual calving area

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100)

Medium 

(100–499)

Large 

(500 or More)

All 

Operations 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

62.5 (3.8) 83.7 (3.3) 98.2 (1.2) 70.1 (2.7) 

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard
40 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

6. Bedding types Note: Some of the bedding types listed in the

following tables are more commonly referred to

as stall bases (i.e., the materials are covered with

bedding) and are classified as such in Section II:

Facility and Cow Assessments.

The ideal bedding for cows is dry and clean,

provides cushion, and does not support bacterial

growth. Sand has these characteristics and is one

of the best bedding options for cows, although

sand can lead to excessive wear of manurehandling equipment. For lactating cows, straw

and/or hay was used on 54.1 percent of

operations, representing 33.4 percent of cows.

Sawdust/wood products and rubber mats were

used on similar percentages of operations

(35.0 and 30.2 percent, respectively), although

sawdust/wood products were used for a higher

percentage of cows (31.2 percent) than were

rubber mats (18.5 percent). Sand was used on

21.9 percent of operations and for 30.3 percent

of cows.

Straw and/or hay was used as bedding for dry

cows on 62.2 percent of operations, representing

47.2 percent of cows. Most operations

(92.5 percent) provided bedding to dry cows,

and most dry cows (92.7 percent) had access to

bedding.

a. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on these operations) by 

type of bedding used for lactating and dry cows during the last quarter of 2006 

Percent Operations Percent Cows 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry 

Cows 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry 

Cows 

Bedding Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Straw and/or hay 54.1 (2.7) 62.2 (2.7) 33.4 (2.8) 47.2 (3.2) 

Sand 21.9 (2.0) 14.4 (1.7) 30.3 (2.6) 19.0 (2.0) 

Sawdust/wood 

products 35.0 (2.6) 25.2 (2.3) 31.2 (2.8) 28.2 (2.6) 

Composted/ 

dried manure 3.9 (0.5) 4.8 (0.8) 24.2 (2.6) 23.5 (2.9) 

Rubber mats 30.2 (2.7) 15.2 (2.2) 18.5 (2.1) 11.8 (2.3) 

Rubber tires 1.6 (0.6) 1.0 (0.5) 1.1 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3) 

Shredded 

newspaper 5.2 (1.2) 3.6 (1.1) 3.1 (0.7) 2.5 (0.8) 

Mattresses 23.7 (2.4) 10.6 (1.8) 20.1 (1.9) 9.5 (1.4) 

Corn cobs 

and stalks 11.0 (1.9) 18.5 (2.2) 5.7 (1.0) 10.7 (1.3) 

Waterbeds 1.7 (0.8) 0.3 (0.3) 2.3 (1.0) 0.4 (0.3) 

Other 11.7 (1.9) 9.5 (1.7) 13.3 (2.5) 12.4 (2.5) 

Any 97.0 (0.8) 92.5 (1.4) 94.9 (1.9) 92.7 (1.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

The primary bedding types used for lactating

and dry cows in the last quarter of 2006 were

straw and/or hay, sand, sawdust/wood products,

or composted/dried manure. Composted/dried

manure was used on less than 5 percent of

operations, but these operations represented

almost 25 percent of cows, suggesting that

mostly large operations were using this bedding

type.

b. For operations that used bedding during the last quarter of 2006, percentage of 

operations (and percentage of cows on these operations) by primary bedding 

type used for lactating and dry cows 

Percent Operations Percent Cows 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry 

Cows 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry 

Cows 

Bedding Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Straw and/or hay 37.3 (2.9) 43.1 (3.0) 21.1 (2.6) 27.3 (2.6) 

Sand 18.0 (2.0) 13.2 (1.8) 25.8 (2.7) 17.5 (2.1) 

Sawdust/wood 

products 21.1 (2.2) 15.9 (2.1) 16.4 (1.7) 15.6 (2.3) 

Composted/ 

dried manure 3.8 (0.5) 4.0 (0.7) 24.9 (2.5) 23.7 (3.0) 

Rubber mats 1.7 (0.7) 2.3 (1.0) 0.8 (0.4) 1.8 (0.9) 

Rubber tires 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Shredded 

newspaper 1.0 (0.4) 1.0 (0.8) 0.5 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3) 

Mattresses 5.6 (1.6) 3.8 (1.5) 2.6 (0.7) 1.8 (0.6) 

Corn cobs 

and stalks 2.7 (1.1) 9.3 (1.6) 1.1 (0.4) 5.1 (0.9) 

Waterbeds 0.6 (0.4) 0.4 (0.3) 1.2 (0.8) 0.3 (0.3) 

Other 8.2 (1.6) 7.0 (1.6) 5.6 (1.3) 6.5 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
42 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

7. Feedline and

feeding practices

The configuration of the feedline can impact the

feeding behavior of dairy cattle. An increased

amount of feedbunk space per cow and some

form of physical separation between cows—

such as the use of headlocks—reduce

competition and have the greatest positive

impact on subordinate cows. The most common

feedline for small operations was a tie stall

(46.2 percent of operations) while post and rail

was the most common feedline on medium

operations (37.1 percent of operations). The

majority of large operations (79.6 percent) used

headlocks at the feedline.

a. Percentage of operations by feedline used for the majority of lactating cows 

and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Feedline Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall 46.2 (3.8) 9.2 (2.8) 0.0 (--) 34.1 (2.8) 

Stanchion 14.2 (2.8) 3.9 (1.5) 0.0 (--) 10.7 (1.9) 

Post and rail 11.3 (2.2) 37.1 (4.0) 15.7 (4.1) 18.0 (1.9) 

Headlocks 3.8 (1.2) 22.2 (3.2) 79.6 (4.7) 13.2 (1.3) 

Elevated feed 

bunk in pen 17.8 (2.7) 20.3 (3.2) 0.1 (0.1) 17.3 (2.0) 

Other 6.7 (1.8) 7.3 (2.0) 4.6 (2.5) 6.7 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

Separating close-up cows makes it possible to

change feeding strategies, such as increasing

energy levels or adding anionic salts to the diet.

The percentage of operations that separated

close-up cows increased as herd size increased.

Overall, 57.1 percent of all operations separated

close-up cows from other dry cows.

b. Percentage of operations that separated close-up cows from other dry cows, 

by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

47.1 (3.9) 74.9 (3.7) 96.0 (2.1) 57.1 (2.9) 

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard
44 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

8. Water sources

and chlorination

Water is the most important nutrient for cows

(NRC, 2001). Lactating cows consume, either

directly or in feed, between 20 and 35 gallons of

water per day. In addition to providing clean

water, cattle water sources should be easy to

clean, readily accessible, and always available.

A water tank or trough was the most common

water source across all herd sizes.

a. Percentage of operations by source of drinking water for any cows during the 

previous 12 months, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Water Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Single cup/bowl 

waterer used by 

one cow only 

13.3 (2.8) 8.6 (2.6) 2.4 (1.9) 11.4 (2.0) 

Single cup/bowl 

waterer used by 

multiple cows 

74.5 (3.1) 47.7 (4.2) 15.0 (4.4) 64.1 (2.4) 

Water tank or 

trough (covered or 

uncovered) 

91.8 (2.1) 97.4 (1.6) 92.9 (3.4) 93.2 (1.5) 

Lake, pond, 

stream, river, etc. 37.2 (3.7) 29.2 (3.7) 8.7 (2.9) 33.4 (2.7) 

Other source 4.4 (1.7) 3.5 (1.5) 0.6 (0.5) 3.9 (1.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

A higher percentage of operations in the East

region used single cup/bowl waterers used by

one or multiple cows compared with operations

in the West region.

b. Percentage of operations by source of drinking water for any cows during the 

previous 12 months, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Water Source Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Single cup/bowl waterer 

used by one cow only 2.2 (1.6) 12.3 (2.2) 

Single cup/bowl waterer 

used by multiple cows 12.9 (3.5) 69.0 (2.6) 

Water tank or trough 

(covered or uncovered) 94.8 (2.5) 93.1 (1.6) 

Lake, pond, stream, river, 

etc. 21.7 (4.7) 34.6 (2.9) 

Other source 2.1 (1.1) 4.1 (1.4) 
46 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

Cleaning water sources may reduce cattle

exposure to pathogens such as E. coli and

Salmonella. The average number of times per

year that dairy operations cleaned water

sources varied. About 1 of 3 operations cleaned

single cup/bowl waterers for 1 cow or water

tank/trough 13 or more times per year. No

cleaning was reported on 14.2 percent of

operations using a single cup/bowl waterer for

one cow, on 24.2 percent of operations using a

single cup/bowl waterer for multiple cows, and

on 4.6 percent of operations using a water tank/

trough.

c. Percentage of operations by average number of times per year water sources 

were drained and cleaned, and by water source 

Percent Operations 

Water Source 

Single Cup/Bowl, 

One Cow 

Single Cup/Bowl, 

Multiple Cows 

Water Tank/ 

Trough 

Number 

of Times Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

0 14.2 (7.3) 24.2 (3.9) 4.6 (1.4) 

1 to 4 27.0 (10.4) 37.0 (4.3) 37.1 (3.2) 

5 to 12 26.2 (10.4) 18.7 (3.4) 24.1 (2.8) 

13 or more 32.6 (10.2) 20.1 (3.1) 34.2 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

Chlorinating water sources may reduce bacterial

counts. Only 8.7 percent of operations used

chlorinated water for cows. A higher percentage

of medium operations (14.9 percent) than small

operations (6.0 percent) used chlorinated water.

These percentages may not reflect water sources

that are chlorinated prior to arriving at the

operations, such as municipal water supplies.

d. Percentage of operations by whether usual water source for cows was 

chlorinated, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Chlorinated Water Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Yes 6.0 (1.4) 14.9 (2.9) 13.8 (3.8) 8.7 (1.2) 

Do not know 0.9 (0.7) 1.8 (1.0) 0.6 (0.3) 1.1 (0.5) 

No 93.1 (1.5) 83.3 (3.0) 85.6 (3.8) 90.2 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
48 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

There were no regional differences in the

percentages of operations that used or did not

use chlorinated water for cows.

e. Percentage of operations by whether usual water source for cows was 

chlorinated, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Chlorinated Water Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Yes 16.7 (4.0) 7.9 (1.3) 

Do not know 0.4 (0.4) 1.2 (0.6) 

No 82.9 (4.0) 90.9 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard
USDA APHIS VS / 49

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Section II: F Section II: Facility and Co acility and Cow

Assessments Assessments

A. Facility Assessments1

Note: Data for all estimates in Section II A were

obtained from operations with 30 or more cows

that completed the cow comfort assessment

(n=485). Housing types in this section refer to

the buildings or areas that housed the majority

of fresh (recently calved) cows. For most

operations, these housing areas also housed the

majority of lactating cows.

1. Housing types Note: “other multiple-animal area” housing

includes pasture, loafing areas, or a combination

of freestalls and open housing, such as dry lot,

pasture, or other loose-housing systems.

Almost 8 of 10 operations housed lactating cows

in either tie-stall or freestall barns (39.3 and

37.7 percent, respectively). The majority of

small operations (53.4 percent) housed cows in

tie-stall barns, while more than 70 percent of

medium and large operations (76.8 and

73.7 percent, respectively) housed cows in

freestall barns. The use of tie-stall and stanchion

barns decreased as herd size increased; large

operations did not use either housing type. A

higher percentage of large operations

(16.3 percent) housed cows in dry lots compared

with medium operations (3.6 percent).

1

 Freestall components and measurements included in the

assessments are presented in Appendix III, p 166.

a. Percentage of operations by housing type and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Housing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall 53.4 (4.2) 10.2 (3.2) 0.0 (--) 39.3 (3.1) 

Stanchion 18.1 (3.4) 2.6 (1.8) 0.0 (--) 13.1 (2.4) 

Freestall 20.3 (3.0) 76.8 (3.9) 73.7 (5.6) 37.7 (2.5) 

Dry lot 4.0 (1.8) 3.6 (1.0) 16.3 (4.6) 4.7 (1.3) 

Other multipleanimal area 4.2 (1.2) 6.8 (1.8) 10.0 (4.1) 5.2 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
50 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

The diversity of housing types between regions

was evident. Operations in the West region

housed cows primarily in freestall barns and dry

lots (57.1 and 25.0 percent of operations,

respectively), while operations in the East

region used primarily tie-stall, freestall, and

stanchion barns (43.1, 35.8, and 14.4 percent of

operations, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by housing type and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Tie stall 0.0 (--) 43.1 (3.4) 

Stanchion 0.0 (--) 14.4 (2.7) 

Freestall 57.1 (5.6) 35.8 (2.7) 

Dry lot 25.0 (5.5) 2.7 (1.3) 

Other multiple-animal area 17.9 (5.4) 4.0 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Overall, the majority of cows (62.1 percent)

were housed in freestall barns. More than

one-half of cows on small operations

(52.5 percent) were housed in tie-stall barns,

while more than two of three cows on medium

and large operations were housed in freestall

barns (81.7 and 68.9 percent of operations,

respectively).

c. Percentage of lactating cows by housing type and by herd size 

Percent Cows* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100–499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Housing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall 52.5 (4.2) 6.4 (2.2) 0.0 (--) 14.2 (1.4) 

Stanchion 15.1 (3.0) 0.8 (0.6) 0.0 (--) 3.8 (0.7) 

Freestall 24.2 (3.3) 81.7 (3.0) 68.9 (7.5) 62.1 (3.7) 

Dry lot 3.2 (1.3) 4.4 (1.2) 21.5 (7.1) 12.2 (3.6) 

Other multipleanimal area 5.0 (1.6) 6.7 (1.8) 9.6 (4.5) 7.7 (2.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of cows present at the time of the interview. 
52 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

The majority of cows in both the West and the

East regions were housed in freestall barns

(58.6 and 64.5 percent, respectively).

d. Percentage of cows by housing type and by region 

Percent Cows* 

Region 

West East 

Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Tie-stall barn 0.0 (--) 24.1 (2.2) 

Stanchion barn 0.0 (--) 6.4 (1.2) 

Freestall barn 58.6 (8.4) 64.5 (2.2) 

Dry lot 28.1 (8.0) 1.3 (0.6) 

Other multiple-animal area 13.3 (5.3) 3.7 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of cows present at the time of the interview. 
54 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

2. Housing age Note: Due to small sample sizes, operations

with dry lot facilities are included with

operations that had other multiple-animal areas.

On average, stanchion barns were constructed in

1949 and were the oldest housing type. Freestall

barns and other multiple-animal areas were

constructed more recently than tie-stall barns.

For all operations, 1976 was the average year of

construction for all housing types.

a. Operation average year of construction, by housing type 

Operation Average Year of Construction 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall 

Other 

Multipleanimal Area All 

Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

1971 (3.4) 1949 (5.9) 1989 (1.0) 1983 (3.6) 1976 (1.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 55

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

The majority of tie-stall barns (71.6 percent)

were built between 1950 and 1999, while the

majority of stanchion barns (66.9 percent) were

built prior to 1975. The majority of other

housing types were built in 1975 or later.

b. Percentage of operations by year housing was constructed and by housing 

type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Year Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Before 1950 15.6 (4.3) 43.7 (10.0) 0.0 (--) 5.5 (4.1) 12.5 (2.3) 

1950 to 1974 32.2 (5.5) 23.2 (8.2) 13.6 (2.7) 24.7 (7.7) 23.3 (2.8) 

1975 to 1999 39.4 (5.7) 30.0 (9.3) 62.0 (4.1) 41.0 (7.8) 46.9 (3.2) 

2000 or later 12.8 (3.9) 3.1 (3.0) 24.4 (3.6) 28.8 (9.2) 17.3 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
56 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

3. Cow space

allotment

Note: Current space allotment refers to the

number of cows present in the building or area

at the time of the assessment. Minimum space

allotment refers to the maximum number of

cows ever housed in the area/pen. Average space

allotment refers to the usual number of cows

housed in the area assessed.

The amount of space per cow is usually

expressed as the number of square feet in the

pen divided by the number of cows in the pen.

Recommendations as to how many square feet

an individual cow needs depend on many

factors, e.g., total precipitation, presence of

shade, and other factors. Ideally, each cow

should have at least 110 square feet of pen

space; transition cows should have 120 square

feet each (Cook, 2008). Square feet per cow is

not usually calculated for areas in which cows

have their own stalls, i.e., tie-stall and stanchion

barns. When assessing freestall operations, other

measures, such as cows per stall or cows per

headlock, are more commonly used.

The majority of freestall operations

(62.0 percent) provided fewer than 100 square

feet per cow at the time of the assessment, which

was similar to the average space allotment. At

minimum space allotment (maximum cows in

pen), almost three-fourths of freestall operations

(74.4 percent) provided fewer than 100 square

feet per cow.

a. Percentage of freestall operations by current, minimum, and average space 

allotment (sq ft/cow) 

Percent Operations 

Space Allotment

Current Minimum Average 

Square Feet 

per Cow Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 100 62.0 (4.2) 74.4 (3.8) 67.1 (4.0) 

100 to 199 28.4 (3.9) 19.6 (3.3) 25.5 (3.6) 

200 to 399 9.0 (2.9) 5.4 (2.5) 6.8 (2.6) 

400 to 799 0.6 (0.6) 0.6 (0.6) 0.6 (0.6) 

800 to 1,599 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

1,600 or more 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 57

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

About 9 of 10 operations with other multipleanimal areas (92.3 percent) provided 100 or

more square feet per cow at the time of the

assessment. More than one of four operations

with other multiple-animal areas (28.3 percent)

provided 1,600 square feet per cow or more at

the time of the assessment. About 8 of 10

operations (80.1 percent) provided 100 or more

square feet per cow or more at minimum space

allotment (maximum cows in pen).

b. Percentage of other multiple-animal area operations by current, minimum, and 

average space allotment (sq ft/cow) 

Percent Operations 

Space Allotment

Current Minimum Average 

Square Feet 

per Cow Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 100 7.7 (3.5) 19.9 (6.2) 9.3 (3.8) 

100 to 199 27.8 (8.2) 17.4 (7.5) 27.9 (8.3) 

200 to 399 10.4 (5.6) 15.4 (6.1) 10.3 (5.7) 

400 to 799 14.4 (4.0) 15.2 (4.3) 15.6 (4.3) 

800 to 1,599 11.4 (4.8) 8.3 (4.3) 10.6 (4.7) 

1,600 or more 28.3 (9.1) 23.8 (9.3) 26.3 (9.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
58 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

The percentage of operations with freestalls and

other multiple-animal areas by average space

allotment per cow was similar to the current

space allotment determined at the time of the

assessment. At minimum space allotment

(maximum cows in pen), almost two of three

operations (63.6 percent) provided fewer than

100 square feet per cow.

c. Percentage of operations with freestalls and other multiple-animal areas by 

current, minimum, and average space allotment (sq ft/cow) 

Percent Operations 

Space Allotment

Current Minimum Average 

Square Feet 

per Cow Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 100 51.1 (3.7) 63.6 (3.7) 55.7 (3.7) 

100 to 199 28.3 (3.5) 19.2 (3.1) 26.0 (3.3) 

200 to 399 9.3 (2.6) 7.4 (2.3) 7.5 (2.4) 

400 to 799 3.3 (0.9) 3.5 (0.9) 3.5 (0.9) 

800 to 1,599 2.3 (0.9) 1.6 (0.8) 2.1 (0.9) 

1,600 or more 5.7 (2.2) 4.7 (2.1) 5.2 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 59

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Almost 3 of 10 freestall operations

(30.4 percent) had 1.10 or more cows per stall,

which equates to a stocking density of

110 percent or more at the time of the

assessment (current). The majority of operations

averaged less than 1.05 cows per stall. At

maximum density, almost one-half of operations

(48.5 percent) had 1.10 or more cows per stall.

The average density was similar to the current

density, with 28.8 percent of operations having

1.10 or more cows per stall.

4. Cows per stall On operations with freestall barns, the number

of cows per stall is one of the most commonly

used measures of density. Studies have shown

that when cows are not allowed to lie down or

eat for a period of time, they choose to rest

rather than eat when access to both is renewed.

Cows-per-stall stocking rates of 1.1 or higher

(fewer stalls than cows) increased idle standing

time (Krawczel et al., 2008), and when rates

were above 1.5, lying times were reduced as

well (Wierenga and Hopster, 1990; Fregonesi et

al., 2007). Most references suggest that having

1.1 to 1.15 cows per stall is not associated with

behavioral changes. It is important to note that

these assessments were in buildings or pens that

housed the majority of fresh cows, where

recommended stocking density is 0.8 cows per

stall (Nordlund et al., 2006).

Percentage of freestall operations by current , maximum, and average number of 

cows per stall 

Percent Operations 

Density

Current Maximum Average 

Cows per Stall Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 0.95 38.9 (4.2) 13.4 (3.5) 34.9 (4.1) 

0.95 to 0.99 7.4 (1.9) 3.1 (1.1) 8.1 (2.0) 

1.00 to 1.04 12.6 (2.7) 25.7 (3.7) 16.2 (3.1) 

1.05 to 1.09 10.7 (2.3) 9.3 (2.2) 12.0 (2.5) 

1.10 or more 30.4 (3.7) 48.5 (4.2) 28.8 (3.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
60 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

5. Feedbunk space Feedbunk space on tie-stall and stanchion

operations is usually not an issue, since the

feedbunk space is the same as the width of the

stall and there is no competition for feed. On

operations with loose-housing systems (freestall

barns, dry lots, or other multiple-animal areas),

adequate bunk space ensures that cows always

have access to feed. The recommended bunk

space in loose-housing facilities is 24 to

30 inches per cow. Providing adequate bunk

space is especially critical in minimizing the

normal decrease in feed intake observed around

calving; 30 inches of bunk space is

recommended for transition cows from 3 weeks

before to 3 weeks after calving. Decreased bunk

space has been associated with increased

competition and slug feeding (increased rate of

eating), which can lead to rumen acidosis

(Shaver, 2002).

All tie-stall and stanchion operations provided

32 inches or more of feedbunk space per cow

(data not shown in table below). In contrast,

more than one-half of freestall operations

(57.1 percent) provided fewer than 24 inches of

bunk space at the time of the assessment. At

maximum cow numbers (minimum feedbunk

space), 67.9 percent of freestall operations

provided less than the recommended minimum

of 24 inches. Feedbunk space was similar for

current and average cow numbers in the pen.

a. Percentage of freestall operations by current, minimum, and average feedbunk 

space per cow (inches) 

Percent Operations 

Feedbunk Space 

Current Minimum Average 

Inches per Cow Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 20.0 34.4 (3.8) 48.6 (4.2) 36.0 (3.9) 

20.0 to 23.9 22.7 (3.4) 19.3 (3.1) 22.2 (3.6) 

24.0 to 27.9 14.0 (3.0) 17.1 (3.2) 13.5 (2.5) 

28.0 to 31.9 8.6 (2.1) 3.7 (1.2) 13.9 (2.9) 

32.0 or more 20.3 (3.7) 11.3 (2.9) 14.4 (3.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

About two-thirds of operations with other

multiple-animal areas (65.9 percent) provided at

least the recommended minimum 24 inches of

bunk space at current cow numbers. At

maximum cow numbers, less than one-half of

operations (47.2 percent) provided the

recommended amount of space. As with freestall

operations, the current and average feedbunk

space estimates were similar.

b. Percentage of other multiple-animal operations by current, minimum, and 

average feedbunk space per cow (inches) 

Percent Operations 

Feedbunk Space 

Current Minimum Average 

Inches per Cow Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 20.0 26.2 (8.6) 40.9 (9.2) 28.8 (8.7) 

20.0 to 23.9 7.9 (3.4) 11.9 (4.3) 7.7 (3.5) 

24.0 to 27.9 24.7 (7.5) 36.9 (9.1) 27.0 (7.8) 

28.0 to 31.9 23.5 (8.6) 6.7 (4.7) 16.9 (8.3) 

32.0 or more 17.7 (5.8) 3.6 (1.8) 19.6 (6.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
62 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

In addition to adequate bunk space per cow, it is

important to distribute feed along the entire

feedbunk. If feed is not distributed along the

entire bunk, the percentage of the feedbunk

space that provides accessible feed is reduced.

More than 80 percent of operations had feed

accessible along more than 75 percent of the

feedbunk.

More than one-half of operations with freestalls

and other multiple-animal areas provided less

than the recommended minimum 24 inches of

bunk space at current, maximum (minimum

feedbunk space per cow), and average cow

numbers (52.5, 64.9, and 54.0 percent,

respectively).

d. Percentage of operations by percentage of the feedbunk that provided easily 

accessible feed, and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

All 

Operations 

Percent of 

Feedbunk Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 26 4.0 (2.7) 3.0 (2.9) 3.1 (1.4) 9.2 (4.7) 4.1 (1.3) 

26 to 75 14.5 (4.7) 9.0 (5.0) 9.8 (2.4) 7.6 (3.1) 11.2 (2.2) 

More 

than 75 81.5 (5.0) 88.0 (5.7) 87.1 (2.7) 83.2 (5.5) 84.7 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

c. Percentage of operations with freestalls and other multiple-animal areas by 

current, minimum, and average feedbunk space per cow (inches) 

Percent Operations 

Feedbunk Space 

Current Minimum Average 

Inches per Cow Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 20.0 32.8 (3.5) 47.1 (3.8) 34.6 (3.5) 

20.0 to 23.9 19.7 (2.9) 17.8 (2.6) 19.4 (3.1) 

24.0 to 27.9 16.1 (2.8) 21.0 (3.2) 16.1 (2.5) 

28.0 to 31.9 11.6 (2.5) 4.3 (1.4) 14.5 (2.9) 

32.0 or more 19.8 (3.2) 9.8 (2.4) 15.4 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 63

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard
64 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

6. Headlocks Headlocks are used to restrain cattle while

performing procedures such as vaccination,

treatment, and reproductive exams. Additionally,

headlocks are usually positioned between the

cow alley and feed alley, which allows cows

access to feed when they put their heads through

the headlocks. Headlocks reduce feeding time

compared with a post-and-rail feedline but

reduce the number of times cows are displaced

from the bunk by other cows (Huzzey et al.,

2006). Approximately 4 of 10 operations

(40.2 percent) with loose-housing systems had

headlocks at the feedline.

a. For operations with loose-housing systems, percentage of operations with 

headlocks, by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Freestall 

Other Multipleanimal Area All 

Operations 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

43.2 (3.9) 28.9 (5.9) 40.2 (3.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 65

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Ideally, the average number of cows per

headlock would be 1.00 or less so that each cow

has the opportunity to access feed at any time. If

the average number of cows per headlock is

more than 1.00, then problems similar to those

observed with decreased feed-bunk space are

observed: decreased feeding times, increased

competition, and increased idle standing in the

feed area (Huzzey et al., 2006).

The percentage of freestall operations was

similar for both current and average cows per

headlock. About one of three operations

averaged less than 1.00 cows per headlock at

current and average cows per headlock. At the

maximum cows per headlock, 42.7 percent of

operations averaged 1.20 or more cows per

headlock.

b. For freestall operations with headlocks, percentage of operations by current, 

maximum, and average number of cows per headlock 

Percent Operations 

Cows per Headlock

Current Maximum Average 

Cows per 

Headlock Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 1.00 32.8 (6.0) 15.6 (4.5) 35.4 (6.1) 

1.00 to 1.09 21.3 (4.6) 21.8 (5.3) 20.2 (4.5) 

1.10 to 1.19 15.5 (4.8) 19.9 (4.8) 16.6 (5.1) 

1.20 or more 30.4 (5.5) 42.7 (6.1) 27.8 (5.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
66 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

The majority of operations with other multipleanimal areas averaged less than 1.00 cow per

headlock at current stocking levels

(53.7 percent) and at average stocking levels

(50.1 percent). Almost two of three operations

with other multiple-animal areas (64.9 percent)

averaged 1.00 to 1.09 cows per headlock.

More than one-third of all operations

(36.8 percent) averaged 1.20 cows per headlock

or more when at maximum capacity, while

14.1 percent averaged less than 1.00 cow per

headlock.

c. For other multiple-animal area operations with headlocks, percentage of 

operations by current, maximum, and average number of cows per headlock 

Percent Operations 

Cows per Headlock

Current Maximum Average 

Cows per 

Headlock Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 1.00 53.7 (10.2) 7.1 (5.0) 50.1 (10.5) 

1.00 to 1.09 32.6 (10.0) 64.9 (10.0) 36.1 (10.5) 

1.10 to 1.19 11.7 (7.6) 20.0 (8.8) 11.7 (7.6) 

1.20 or more 2.0 (1.7) 8.0 (5.9) 2.1 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

d. For operations with headlocks, percentage of all operations by current, 

maximum, and average number of cows per headlock 

Percent Operations 

Cows per Headlock

Current Maximum Average 

Cows per 

Headlock Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 1.00 36.4 (5.2) 14.1 (3.8) 37.9 (5.3) 

1.00 to 1.09 23.3 (4.2) 29.2 (4.8) 23.0 (4.2) 

1.10 to 1.19 14.8 (4.2) 19.9 (4.3) 15.7 (4.4) 

1.20 or more 25.5 (4.6) 36.8 (5.2) 23.4 (4.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 67

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

7. Stall base Stall base refers to material immediately under

the bedding. Stall base and quantity of bedding

are important in keeping cows clean and in

preventing hock injuries. Abrasive stall bases,

such as rubber mats and mattresses, have been

associated with increased incidence of hock

lesions (Weary and Taszkum, 2000;

Fulwider et al., 2007).

Concrete was used as a stall base on

33.2 percent of operations. Concrete was used

on a higher percentage of stanchion operations

than freestall operations (59.4 and

20.8 percent, respectively). As expected, dirt

was not used on any tie-stall or stanchion

operations but was used on 43.7 percent of

operations with other multiple-animal areas,

which included dry lots. Rubber mats were used

by about one of three tie-stall and stanchion

operations. Mattresses were used by

approximately 25 percent of tie-stall and

freestall operations. “Other” stall bases were

generally a combination of the types listed.

Percentage of operations by type of stall base used and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Stall 

Base Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Concrete 35.8 (5.4) 59.4 (10.6) 20.8 (3.4) 35.0 (9.0) 33.2 (3.1) 

Dirt 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 29.2 (3.6) 43.7 (8.8) 15.2 (1.8) 

Rubber mat 31.2 (5.1) 35.5 (10.3) 9.2 (2.3) 4.1 (4.1) 20.8 (2.6) 

Mattress 29.5 (4.9) 0.0 (--) 22.1 (3.2) 0.1 (0.1) 20.0 (2.5) 

Waterbed 1.1 (0.8) 0.0 (--) 1.7 (1.1) 0.0 (--) 1.1 (0.5) 

Other 2.4 (1.5) 5.1 (4.9) 17.0 (3.3) 17.1 (5.4) 9.7 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
68 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

8. Bedding Bedding is an important aspect of cow comfort

since cows generally spend 8 to 16 hours per

day lying down (Cook, 2010). Bedding is used

to cover the stall base, and the ideal bedding for

cattle is dry, clean, easy to maintain, provides

cushion and insulation, absorbs moisture, and

discourages bacterial growth. Sand is considered

the best bedding because of the cushion and

traction it provides, especially to lame cows.

Sand also appears to have an effect on hygiene

since cows that bed on sand are cleaner than

cows that bed on mattresses. However, sand is

not necessarily easy to maintain and does

support bacterial growth once contaminated

(Cook, 2004). Organic bedding types should be

removed and replaced frequently since they

quickly become soiled and contaminated with

bacteria.

Straw was the single most common bedding type

used in tie stalls, stanchion housing, and all

operation types (45.4, 64.7, and 34.7 percent,

respectively). Sand—either fine or coarse—was

used in 45.0 percent of freestall housing. More

than one-third of other multiple-animal areas did

not have bedding, since this group included dry

lot housing in which cows lie primarily on dirt.

“Other” bedding types included hay or a

combination of the types listed.

a. Percentage of operations by bedding type and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Bedding Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Straw 45.4 (5.6) 64.7 (10.1) 14.4 (2.9) 29.7 (7.6) 34.7 (3.1) 

Sawdust 27.1 (4.8) 20.1 (8.6) 21.1 (3.1) 8.5 (3.1) 22.1 (2.5) 

Fine sand 0.8 (0.8) 0.0 (--) 26.4 (3.8) 0.0 (--) 10.3 (1.7) 

Coarse sand 1.0 (1.0) 0.0 (--) 18.6 (3.4) 0.0 (--) 7.4 (1.4) 

Composted 

manure 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 3.2 (1.0) 2.7 (1.9) 1.5 (0.4) 

Dried manure 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 4.1 (1.2) 8.8 (3.2) 2.4 (0.5) 

Shredded 

newspaper 1.3 (0.9) 0.0 (--) 0.6 (0.4) 1.5 (1.5) 0.9 (0.4) 

Other 18.9 (4.2) 13.6 (7.9) 10.2 (2.3) 10.4 (4.3) 14.1 (2.2) 

None 5.5 (3.2) 1.6 (1.5) 1.4 (1.3) 38.4 (8.5) 6.6 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Almost 9 of 10 tie-stall and stanchion operations

that provided bedding (87.7 and 88.3 percent,

respectively) changed bedding every 1 to

2 days. Freestall operations generally bedded

with sand (see previous table), which was not

added to or changed as frequently as organic

bedding types. Almost two of three freestall

operations (64.4 percent) and one-half of

operations with other multiple-animal areas

(45.1 percent) changed bedding every 7 or more

days. Dry lot facilities, which are included in

other multiple-animal areas, generally provided

bedding only during inclement weather to

provide a clean, dry surface for cows.

b. For operations that provided bedding, percentage of operations by number of 

days between bedding additions/changes, and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Days Between 

Bedding 

Additions/ 

Changes Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 2 87.7 (3.7) 88.3 (5.8) 21.7 (3.6) 33.7 (9.8) 58.3 (3.0) 

3 to 4 6.1 (2.4) 7.8 (4.7) 11.3 (2.4) 18.8 (10.9) 9.2 (1.7) 

5 to 6 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 2.6 (1.1) 2.4 (2.3) 1.2 (0.5) 

7 or more 6.2 (3.0) 3.9 (3.8) 64.4 (4.0) 45.1 (11.7) 31.3 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
70 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

At the time of the assessment, about three of

four tie-stall and stanchion operations had

changed bedding within the past 24 hours.

Nearly 70 percent of all operations

(69.1 percent) had changed bedding within the

past 2 days.

c. For operations that provided bedding, percentage of operations by days since 

bedding was added/changed, and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Days Since 

Bedding 

Added/ 

Changed Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 1 73.5 (4.9) 76.3 (8.2) 18.4 (3.5) 28.6 (9.6) 49.3 (3.1) 

1 to 2 18.9 (4.4) 13.8 (6.9) 23.4 (3.5) 17.2 (10.7) 19.8 (2.5) 

3 to 4 4.4 (2.0) 6.9 (4.7) 13.5 (2.6) 14.7 (7.4) 9.0 (1.5) 

5 to 6 1.8 (1.8) 0.0 (--) 11.1 (2.3) 7.4 (3.9) 5.6 (1.2) 

7 or more 1.4 (1.3) 3.0 (2.9) 33.6 (4.0) 32.1 (12.2) 16.3 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 71

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Cows in well-bedded stalls (defined as base not

exposed and enough bedding to provide

cushion) have increased lying times compared

with cows lying in scant bedding (Tucker et al.,

2009). Inadequate bedding over any stall base,

especially mattresses, is likely to increase the

incidence of hock lesions from the friction

associated with cow contact with stall bases and

concrete curbs (Weary and Taszkun, 2000).

At the time of the assessment, stall bases were

exposed on the majority of tie-stall and

stanchion operations (71.0 and 81.7 percent,

respectively). Stall bases were not exposed on

the majority of freestall operations

(65.7 percent). On operations with other

multiple-animal areas, bases (primarily dirt or

concrete) were generally exposed or no bedding

was present (24.5 and 44.4 percent,

respectively). On 60.9 percent of all operations,

stall bases were exposed or did not have

bedding present.

d. Percentage of operations by bedding quantity/stall condition in the majority of 

stalls, and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Bedding 

Quantity/Stall 

Condition Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Base not 

exposed, bedding 

level with curb 

4.5 (2.0) 3.3 (3.2) 28.2 (3.6) 9.0 (3.6) 13.8 (1.8) 

Base not 

exposed, bedding 

slightly dished out 

18.0 (4.5) 13.5 (6.4) 37.5 (4.1) 14.3 (5.5) 24.4 (2.7) 

Base exposed 

(less than 50 

percent) 

37.5 (5.2) 38.3 (9.5) 19.8 (3.3) 2.2 (1.7) 27.6 (2.8) 

Base mostly 

exposed (more 

than 50 percent) 

33.5 (5.5) 43.4 (10.0) 11.4 (2.7) 22.3 (8.0) 25.4 (2.9) 

No bedding 

present* 6.5 (3.4) 1.5 (1.5) 2.6 (1.5) 44.4 (8.8) 7.9 (1.8) 

Other 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.5) 7.8 (5.0) 0.9 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*80.9 percent of operations on which no bedding was present were dry lot operations or operations with other 

multiple-animal areas.
72 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

The number of days between bedding changes

differed based on bedding type. The majority of

operations that bedded with straw, sawdust,

shredded newspaper, or “other” (primarily tiestall and stanchion operations) added new

bedding every 1 to 4 days. More than 8 of 10

operations that bedded with fine or coarse sand

or composted or dried manure (primarily

freestall operations) bedded stalls weekly or less

often.

e. Percentage of operations by bedding type and by number of days between 

bedding additions/changes 

Percent Operations 

Days Between Bedding Additions/Changes

1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 or More 

Bedding Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Straw 81.1 (4.0) 9.9 (3.2) 0.3 (0.3) 8.7 (2.7) 100.0 

Sawdust 64.1 (6.1) 11.2 (3.5) 1.9 (1.0) 22.8 (5.4) 100.0 

Fine sand 0.2 (0.2) 6.3 (3.6) 3.5 (3.4) 90.0 (4.8) 100.0 

Coarse sand 11.5 (8.9) 5.9 (5.2) 1.0 (0.7) 81.6 (9.7) 100.0 

Composted manure 0.8 (0.8) 1.4 (1.3) 0.0 (--) 97.8 (1.6) 100.0 

Dried manure 7.5 (7.1) 0.4 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 92.1 (7.1) 100.0 

Shredded 

newspaper 100.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 100.0 

Other 73.1 (6.1) 11.5 (4.4) 0.8 (0.8) 14.6 (4.3) 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 73

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

The percentage of operations by days since

bedding was last changed was similar to days

between bedding changes. As expected, most

operations that bedded with straw, sawdust,

shredded newspaper, or “other” had added

bedding within 2 days. Operations that used

other bedding types were more variable in the

days since last bedded, but more than 50 percent

of operations using fine sand or composted or

dried manure had last added new bedding 7 or

more days prior to the interview.

f. Percentage of operations by bedding type and by days since bedding was 

added/changed 

Percent Operations 

Days Since Bedding Added/Changed

Less than 1 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 or More 

Bedding 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Straw 66.9 (5.3) 17.0 (4.4) 6.7 (2.5) 3.7 (2.3) 5.7 (2.0) 100.0 

Sawdust 53.0 (6.5) 25.1 (5.7) 8.3 (2.9) 4.5 (1.7) 9.1 (3.3) 100.0 

Fine sand 1.1 (1.1) 13.7 (5.0) 16.4 (6.1) 13.8 (5.0) 55.0 (8.2) 100.0 

Coarse sand 12.3 (8.9) 35.6 (10.6) 16.2 (6.0) 7.7 (3.7) 28.2 (9.6) 100.0 

Composted 

manure 0.8 (0.8) 35.0 (16.2) 1.4 (1.3) 2.7 (2.7) 60.1 (16.4) 100.0 

Dried manure 0.0 (--) 15.4 (9.5) 18.5 (11.7) 12.5 (8.4) 53.6 (13.4) 100.0 

Shredded 

newspaper 100.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 100.0 

Other 65.8 (7.0) 16.9 (5.4) 7.1 (3.3) 4.7 (2.5) 5.5 (2.3) 100.0 
74 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

g. Percentage of operations by bedding type and by bedding quantity/stall 

condition in majority of stalls 

Percent Operations 

Bedding Quantity/Stall Condition

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding Level 

with Curb 

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding 

Slightly 

Dished Out 

Base 

Exposed 

(Less than 

50 Percent)

Base Mostly 

Exposed 

(More than 

50 Percent)

Bedding Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Straw 3.0 (1.5) 16.3 (4.3) 48.6 (6.0) 32.1 (6.1) 100.0 

Sawdust 11.9 (3.5) 24.6 (5.9) 27.5 (5.5) 36.0 (6.7) 100.0 

Fine sand 43.0 (8.4) 56.7 (8.4) 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 100.0 

Coarse sand 40.6 (10.1) 45.1 (10.7) 2.8 (2.7) 11.5 (8.6) 100.0 

Composted 

manure 51.7 (15.3) 46.6 (15.4) 1.7 (1.3) 0.0 (--) 100.0 

Dried manure 16.0 (8.6) 37.0 (12.0) 29.7 (12.1) 17.3 (8.6) 100.0 

Shredded 

newspaper 49.9 (24.1) 0.0 (--) 7.3 (7.4) 42.8 (23.4) 100.0 

Other 8.4 (4.0) 21.1 (6.9) 32.4 (7.4) 38.1 (8.7) 100.0 

More than 85 percent of operations that bedded

with fine or coarse sand or composted manure

did not have the stall base exposed at the time of

the assessment. More than 3 of 10 operations

that bedded with straw, sawdust, shredded

newspaper, or “other” had more than 50 percent

of the stall base exposed.
USDA APHIS VS / 75

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Frequent bedding did not equate to improved

bedding quantity/stall conditions in the assessed

operations. As days since bedding was added or

changed increased, the percentage of operations

in which the stall base was not exposed, bedding

slightly dished out increased from 18.2 to

48.1 percent. Alternatively, as days since

bedding increased, a lower percentage of

operations had less than 50 percent of the stall

base exposed (44.1 to 7.4 percent).

h. Percentage of operations by days since bedding was added/changed, and by 

bedding quantity/stall condition in majority of stalls 

Percent Operations 

Bedding Quantity/Stall Condition 

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding Level 

with Curb 

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding 

Slightly Dished 

Out 

Base 

Exposed 

(Less than 50 

Percent)

Base Mostly 

Exposed 

(More than 50 

Percent) Total 

Days Since 

Bedding 

Added/ 

Changed Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Less than 1 7.8 (2.5) 18.2 (4.2) 44.1 (5.0) 29.9 (5.1) 100.0 

1 to 2 19.9 (4.6) 24.6 (6.1) 26.0 (6.3) 29.5 (7.0) 100.0 

3 to 4 19.1 (6.2) 32.1 (7.9) 13.9 (5.5) 34.9 (8.8) 100.0 

5 to 6 23.0 (8.6) 41.8 (10.7) 15.0 (7.4) 20.2 (12.0) 100.0 

7 or more 27.1 (6.1) 48.1 (7.3) 7.4 (3.5) 17.4 (6.0) 100.0 
76 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

9. Platform and

stall lengths

Note: The following estimates refer to

operations on which Holsteins were the primary

breed (n=454 for all housing types).

Stall-length measurements differed by housing

type. Measurements for tie-stall and stanchion

operations included only the actual surface

(platform or bed) in back of the stanchion or rail

where cows lie. Published recommendations

suggest a 70-inch bed for first lactation and a

72-inch bed for mature cows (Anderson, 2008a).

Platform lengths for stalls on tie-stall operations

were generally longer than on stanchion

operations. Approximately 40 percent of tie-stall

operations had platform lengths of 70.0 inches

or more, while all stanchion operations had

platform lengths of less than 70 inches. The

majority of stanchion operations (60.3 percent)

had platform lengths of 60.0 to 64.9 inches.

a. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of operations by average 

platform length and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion 

All 

Operations 

Average Platform 

Length (Inches) Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 60.0 1.4 (0.8) 20.0 (7.8) 6.1 (2.2) 

60.0 to 64.9 13.4 (4.1) 60.3 (9.4) 25.3 (4.5) 

65.0 to 69.9 43.7 (5.9) 19.7 (7.1) 37.6 (4.9) 

70.0 to 74.9 34.5 (5.3) 0.0 (--) 25.8 (4.1) 

75.0 or more 7.0 (3.2) 0.0 (--) 5.2 (2.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 77

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Holsteins need approximately 120 inches

(10 feet) of stall length to rise in freestalls

without interference (Anderson, 2008b); 96

inches (8 feet) is usually recommended for

freestalls that have an open front that does not

restrict lunge space; 108 inches (9 feet) is

recommended for closed front stalls that have a

barrier restricting the lunge space (Cook and

Nordlund, 2004). For this study, the distance

from the rear curb to the front post where the

loops are attached was measured (see Appendix

III, p166, for diagram).

More than 4 of 10 freestall operations

(44.1 percent) had a stall length of 86.0 to

91.9 inches. About one of five freestall

operations had stall lengths of 82.0 to

85.9 inches. Less than 20 percent of freestall

operations (15.3 percent) had stall lengths

greater than the recommended 96 inches.

b. Percentage of freestall operations by average stall length 

Average Stall Length 

(Inches) Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 82.0 12.3 (3.8) 

82.0 to 85.9 20.7 (3.9) 

86.0 to 91.9 44.1 (5.0) 

92.0 to 95.9 7.6 (2.3) 

96.0 or more 15.3 (3.6) 

Total 100.0 
78 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

10. Stall widths Note: The following estimates refer to

operations on which Holsteins were the primary

breed (n=454 for all housing types).

Stalls should be wide enough for cows to lie

down and get up easily but not so wide that

cows can turn around in the stall. Narrow stalls

increase perching time and decrease the amount

of time cows lie down. Recommended stall

widths for mature cows vary by weight but are

generally 50 to 54 inches (Cook and Nordlund,

2004).

Tie-stall operations generally had wider stalls

than operations with other housing types. Over

three-fourths of tie-stall operations

(76.4 percent) had stall widths of 46 inches or

more compared with about one-half of stanchion

operations (47.1 percent) and approximately

one-third of freestall operations (32.1 percent).

Percentage of operations by average stall width and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall 

All 

Operations 

Average Stall 

Width (Inches) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 42.0 1.6 (0.9) 33.4 (10.0) 4.9 (1.7) 7.8 (2.0) 

42.0 to 43.9 5.5 (2.3) 12.0 (7.0) 22.8 (3.6) 13.5 (2.1) 

44.0 to 45.9 16.5 (4.0) 7.5 (4.4) 40.2 (4.1) 24.7 (2.6) 

46.0 to 47.9 31.0 (5.5) 21.4 (7.6) 26.6 (4.0) 27.7 (3.1) 

48.0 to 49.9 30.1 (5.3) 23.0 (9.9) 4.9 (2.6) 18.8 (2.9) 

50.0 or more 15.3 (4.4) 2.7 (2.7) 0.6 (0.5) 7.5 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 79

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

11. Neck rails Neck rails connect the freestall loops and are

common features of freestalls. These rails,

which are commonly constructed of pipe or

cable, are used to provide cows a gauge of how

far they can enter the stall. If neck rails are

properly positioned, they allow cows to stand

with all four feet in the stall and help ensure that

manure and urine are deposited in the alleyway.

If neck rails are placed too close to the rear curb

or alleyway, cows may have difficulty rising

without contacting the rails and may be more

likely to stand with two feet in the stall

(perching). Neck rails too far from the alleyway

allow cows to stand fully in the stall, which can

lead to more manure and urine being deposited

in stalls rather than in the alleyway (Tucker et

al., 2005; Fregonessi et al., 2009). Although

restrictive neck rails help keep stalls clean, they

may also lead to higher lameness scores

(Bernardi et al., 2009).

The suggested height and distance from the rear

curb for neck rails depend on the size of the

cows housed. For adult cows weighing

approximately 1,200 to 1,400 pounds, neck rails

should be between 40 and 50 inches above the

bed (BCMAF, 1994; Cook and Nordlund, 2004;

Tucker et al., 2005). The recommended

horizontal distance from curb to neck rail is

generally 60 to 66 inches (BCMAF, 1994; Cook

and Nordlund, 2004). When cows rise,

incorrectly installed stationary neck rails can

lead to neck injuries (Anderson, 2008b).

Movable neck rails, which are usually supported

from above, allow cows more freedom when

using the stall and may decrease injuries.

Almost all freestall operations (98.2 percent)

used neck rails. About 9 of 10 operations

(90.5 percent) had stationary neck rails.

a. Percentage of freestall operations by type of neck rail 

Type of Neck Rail Percent Operations Standard Error 

Stationary 90.5 (1.8) 

Moveable 7.7 (1.7) 

None 1.8 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 
80 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Almost one-half of freestall operations that used

neck rails placed neck rails at the recommended

distance of 60.0 to 65.9 inches from the rear

curb. Two-fifths of operations (41.3 percent)

placed neck rails at 66.0 or more inches from

the rear curb.

More than three of four freestall operations that

used neck rails (77.0 percent) located neck rails

at the recommended height of 40.0 to

49.9 inches above the stall bed.

b. Percentage of freestall operations that used neck rails, by average distance 

from neck rail to curb 

Average Distance 

(Inches) Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 60.0 11.9 (2.5) 

60.0 to 65.9 46.8 (4.1) 

66.0 to 71.9 32.2 (4.0) 

72.0 or more 9.1 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 

c. Percentage of freestall operations that used neck rails, by average distance 

from neck rail to bedding surface 

Average Distance (Inches) Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 40.0 20.6 (3.2) 

40.0 to 45.9 47.6 (4.2) 

46.0 to 49.9 29.4 (3.9) 

50.0 or more 2.4 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 81

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

12. Brisket locators Brisket locators (or brisket boards) are placed at

the front of freestalls to keep cows from lying

too far forward in the stall, making it difficult

for cows to rise. Brisket locators properly

position cows in their stalls and also reduce

manure and urine contamination by keeping the

rear of the cows close to the curb and alleyway.

Brisket locators should be smooth, rounded, and

not rise higher than 4 inches above the bedding

(Cook and Nordlund, 2004). Research suggests

that large wooden brisket locators reduce the

time cows spend lying in stalls (Tucker et al.,

2006). Stall features that are used to keep cows

clean, such as brisket locators, may reduce cow

comfort. The recommended distance from the

rear curb to the brisket locator is 62 to

72 inches, depending on the weight of the cow

being housed (ASABE, 2006).

Brisket locators were present on 59.3 percent of

freestall operations. One-third of operations

(33.4 percent) used a locator made of wood.

a. Percentage of freestall operations by type of brisket locator 

Type of Brisket Locator Percent Operations Standard Error 

Concrete 4.8 (1.6) 

Wood 33.4 (3.9) 

PVC or other plastic pipe 12.2 (2.6) 

Other 8.9 (2.3) 

None 40.7 (3.9) 

Total 100.0 
82 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

Approximately one of four freestall operations

that used brisket locators (22.8 percent) placed

them less than 66.0 inches from the rear curb,

while about 15 percent of operations placed

them 72.0 inches or more from the rear curb.

b. Percentage of freestall operations that used brisket locators by average 

distance from curb to brisket locator 

Average Distance 

(Inches) Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 66.0 22.8 (4.3) 

66.0 to 67.9 25.5 (4.9) 

68.0 to 69.9 21.1 (4.6) 

70.0 to 71.9 15.7 (3.9) 

72.0 or more 14.9 (3.3) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 83

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

13. Lunge space Lunge space is the area in the front of a stall that

allows cows to lunge and bob their heads in

order to rise from the lying position. Although

this area can be completely open, there is

usually some barrier to keep cows from crawling

too far forward. Research suggests that barriers

should be 40 to 42 inches above the stall surface

(Cook and Nordlund, 2004).

More than two of three operations

(68.7 percent) had a barrier at the front of stalls.

Wood was the barrier material used on

33.9 percent of operations. Approximately

one-fourth of operations used “other” materials

for front barriers, and the majority of these

barriers were combinations of the listed

materials as well as metal pipe.

Percentage of freestall operations by lunge barrier material 

Lunge Barrier Material Percent Operations Standard Error 

Concrete 6.6 (2.0) 

Wood 33.9 (3.9) 

Cable 2.6 (0.9) 

Other 25.6 (3.4) 

None 31.3 (3.8) 

Total 100.0 
84 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

a. Percentage of freestall operations, by curb height 

Curb Height (Inches) Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 8.0 17.7 (3.3) 

8.0 to 12.9 75.7 (4.0) 

13.0 or more 6.6 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 

14. Curb measures The curb separates the stall bed from the

alleyway. The height of the curb is thought to be

more important than its width, since curbs

higher than 12.9 inches may lead to udder

injuries and cause the cow to be reluctant to step

up into the stall. The recommended height for

curbs is 8 to 12 inches (BCMAF, 1994). Curb

width is considered in the stall-length

calculation; if it is excessively wide cows may

get hock lesions from the abrasive action of the

concrete on the hocks. The recommended curb

width is 6 inches (BCMAF, 1994).

Curb height was at the recommended height of

8.0 to 12.9 inches on approximately three of

four freestall operations (75.7 percent).

Almost 70 percent of operations had curb widths

of 6.0 to 8.9 inches.

b. Percentage of freestall operations, by curb width 

Curb Width (Inches) Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 6.0 21.6 (3.9) 

6.0 to 8.9 68.0 (4.6) 

9.0 or more 10.4 (3.1) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 85

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

15. Gutter grates Gutter grates are found on tie-stall and stanchion

operations and have many functions. Grates

provide a bridge from the alley to the stall for

both cow and human movement. Additionally,

grates keep cows’ tails out of gutters. Grates are

especially important when calves are born in

stalls; without grates, calves might be born into

the gutter, which might contaminate the calves

with manure and urine.

Almost 6 of 10 operations with tie-stall or

stanchion housing (55.7 percent) had at least

some gutter grates. Approximately one of four

operations had gutter grates on less than

50.0 percent of stalls. A higher percentage of

tie-stall operations had gutter grates in

50.0 percent or more of stalls than stanchion

operations (36.5 and 11.8 percent, respectively).

Percentage operations by percentage of stalls with gutter grates, and by housing 

type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion 

All 

Operations 

Percent Stalls 

with Gutter Grates Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

0.0 40.6 (5.6) 55.6 (10.1) 44.3 (4.8) 

0.1 to 49.9 22.9 (4.9) 32.6 (9.5) 25.3 (4.3) 

50.0 or more 36.5 (5.4) 11.8 (6.5) 30.4 (4.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
86 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

16. Cow trainers Cow trainers should be located about 4 inches

above the withers and are used to help keep the

stall bed clean. When cows arch their backs to

urinate or defecate, cow trainers prompt the

cows to back up and deposit in the gutter instead

of the stall bed. To be most effective, trainers

must be adjusted for each cow. It appears that

trainers need to be activated only 1 to 2 days per

week to have the desired effect (Anderson,

2008a). Although trainers are supposed to assist

in keeping stalls and cows cleaner, one study

found that the presence of electric trainers was

associated with dirty hind limbs and more cows

with open wounds of the hock (Zurbrigg et al.,

2005).

A higher percentage of tie-stall operations had

electric cow trainers compared with stanchion

operations (72.6 and 42.8 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage operations with cow trainers, by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion All Operations 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

72.6 (4.8) 42.8 (9.7) 65.0 (4.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 87

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

The horizontal distance from the trainer to the

edge of the gutter should be approximately

48 inches (Anderson, 2008a). On approximately

45 percent of tie-stall operations, trainers were

located 50.0 inches or more from the gutter

edge, while on nearly the same percentage of

stanchion operations, the trainer was located less

than 46.0 inches from the gutter edge.

b. Percentage of operations by operation horizontal distance from trainer to 

gutter, and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion 

All 

Operations 

Average 

Horizontal 

Distance (Inches) Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 46.0 17.0 (4.9) 41.9 (15.6) 21.2 (5.1) 

46.0 to 49.9 37.5 (6.7) 30.8 (13.8) 36.3 (6.1) 

50.0 to 53.9 23.0 (5.7) 18.2 (10.1) 22.2 (5.1) 

54.0 or more 22.5 (5.5) 9.1 (8.7) 20.3 (4.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
88 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

The height of a cow trainer should be directly

related to the height of the cow, with the trainer

being 4 inches above the back/wither area

(Anderson, 2008a). Approximately one-fourth

of all operations located the trainers less than

58.0 inches from the stall bed and almost

two-fifths located trainers at 60.0 inches or more

above the stall bed.

c. Percentage of operations by average distance from trainer to bed, and by 

housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion 

All 

Operations 

Average 

Distance (Inches) Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 58.0 26.6 (5.8) 36.4 (15.1) 28.2 (5.5) 

58.0 to 59.9 35.4 (6.7) 26.6 (13.5) 33.9 (6.1) 

60.0 or more 38.0 (6.7) 37.0 (14.4) 37.9 (6.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 89

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—B. Cow Health

17. Water sources Approximately 9 of 10 operations provided

water troughs or tanks to cows in freestall or

other multiple-animal area housing types,

including dry lots.

Percentage of operations by water source and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Freestall 

Other Multipleanimal Area All 

Operations 

Water Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Individual cups or bowls 0.6 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.3) 

Troughs or tanks 91.2 (2.5) 91.6 (3.7) 91.3 (2.1) 

Other 1.0 (1.0) 3.9 (2.8) 1.6 (1.0) 

Combination of above 7.2 (2.3) 4.5 (2.4) 6.6 (1.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
90 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—A. Facility Assessments

B. Cow Health

Note: Differences in this section were analyzed

using STATA and the SUDAAN software.

P values less than 0.05 were considered

statistically significant (see Section III:

Methodology, p 156).

1. Cow morbidity During 2006, clinical mastitis, lameness, and

infertility were the most common problems

affecting cows on assessed operations (16.6,

16.0, and 14.9 percent of cows, respectively).

A higher percentage of cows on tie-stall and

freestall operations experienced clinical mastitis,

infertility, or a displaced abomasum compared

with cows in other housing types. Lameness

affected the highest percentage of cows on

freestall operations (18.4 percent) compared

with cows in other housing types. With the

exception of tie-stall operations, infertility was

highest on freestall operations compared with

other housing types.
USDA APHIS VS / 91

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—B. Cow Health

Percentage of cows by health problems in 2006 and by housing type 

Percent Cows* 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Assessed 

Operations 

All 

Dairy 2007 

Operations 

Problem Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Clinical mastitis 18.6 (1.4) 14.0 (1.5) 17.9 (1.1) 10.5 (2.2) 10.3 (1.8) 16.6 (0.8) 16.5 (0.5) 

Lameness 14.3 (1.4) 12.9 (2.5) 18.4 (1.2) 7.9 (1.9) 11.0 (3.1) 16.0 (0.8) 14.0 (0.4) 

Respiratory 

problems 4.8 (1.1) 3.5 (1.5) 3.9 (0.3) 2.0 (0.3) 2.1 (0.4) 3.7 (0.3) 3.3 (0.1) 

Retained 

placenta (more 

than 24 hours) 

10.3 (0.8) 8.5 (1.4) 9.2 (0.5) 3.9 (0.8) 5.8 (1.3) 8.7 (0.4) 7.8 (0.2) 

Infertility 

problems (not 

pregnant 150 

days after 

calving) 

14.1 (1.1) 8.6 (1.3) 16.4 (1.0) 11.0 (1.5) 11.5 (1.6) 14.9 (0.7) 12.9 (0.3) 

Other 

reproductive 

problems (e.g., 

dystocia, 

metritis) 

5.0 (0.7) 4.2 (1.3) 7.8 (1.0) 2.0 (0.5) 6.4 (1.2) 6.6 (0.7) 4.6 (0.3) 

Diarrhea for 

more than 48 

hours 

4.7 (1.8) 5.2 (2.2) 1.9 (0.2) 2.0 (1.0) 1.5 (0.2) 2.4 (0.3) 2.5 (0.2) 

Milk fever 8.0 (0.8) 7.8 (2.2) 5.1 (0.4) 3.1 (0.5) 2.7 (0.4) 5.3 (0.3) 4.9 (0.1) 

Displaced 

abomasum 5.0 (0.4) 3.7 (0.7) 4.3 (0.3) 1.4 (0.3) 3.0 (0.6) 4.0 (0.2) 3.5 (0.1) 

Neurological 

problems 0.6 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.0) 

Other healthrelated 

problems 

0.7 (0.4) 0.8 (0.7) 1.5 (0.6) 1.0 (0.9) 0.3 (0.2) 1.2 (0.4) 0.6 (0.1) 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory. 
92 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—B. Cow Health

2. Permanently

removed cows

During 2006, udder or mastitis problems,

lameness or injury, and reproductive problems

each accounted for more than 4 percent of the

cow inventory permanently removed on all

assessed operations. A higher percentage of

cows on tie-stall operations were sold as

replacements to other dairies compared with

cows in other housing types, except other

multiple-animal areas. A higher percentage of

cows were removed from tie-stall operations

(27.8 percent) compared with cows on stanchion

or freestall operations (18.5 and 24.0 percent,

respectively). Freestall operations removed a

higher percentage of cows than stanchion

operations.

For operations that permanently removed cows in 2006, percentage of cows permanently 

removed, by reason and by housing type 

Percent Cows* 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Assessed 

Operations 

All 

Dairy 2007 

Operations 

Reason Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Udder or mastitis 

problems 7.1 (0.6) 5.6 (0.9) 5.5 (0.4) 4.9 (1.1) 5.8 (1.3) 5.6 (0.3) 5.4 (0.1) 

Lameness 

or injury 5.0 (0.6) 3.3 (0.6) 4.3 (0.3) 3.0 (0.7) 4.5 (1.3) 4.2 (0.3) 3.8 (0.1) 

Reproductive 

problems 7.3 (0.7) 5.2 (0.7) 7.2 (0.5) 7.4 (1.8) 6.7 (1.3) 7.1 (0.4) 6.2 (0.2) 

Poor production 

not related 

to above 

2.7 (0.4) 2.3 (0.8) 3.2 (0.5) 3.5 (1.3) 5.5 (1.0) 3.3 (0.4) 3.8 (0.2) 

Aggressiveness 

or belligerence 0.2 (0.1) 0.7 (0.3) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.4) 0.2 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 

Other diseases 1.0 (0.2) 0.7 (0.4) 1.2 (0.2) 1.2 (0.6) 0.2 (0.2) 1.1 (0.1) 0.9 (0.1) 

Sold as 

replacements to 

another dairy 

3.7 (1.4) 0.1 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3) 2.8 (1.7) 1.4 (0.3) 1.4 (0.2) 

Other 0.8 (0.3) 0.6 (0.4) 1.6 (0.6) 0.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.4) 1.3 (0.4) 2.0 (0.3) 

Total 27.8 (1.6) 18.5 (1.6) 24.0 (0.9) 21.0 (4.0) 26.6 (3.1) 24.2 (0.8) 23.6 (0.4) 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory. 
USDA APHIS VS / 93

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

3. Cow mortality Deaths due to lameness or injury, mastitis, and

calving problems each accounted for 1 percent

or more of the cow inventory on all assessed

operations. A lower percentage of cow deaths

due to digestive problems

(0.2 percent) occurred on tie-stall operations

than on freestall or other multiple-animal areas

(0.7 and 1.1 percent, respectively). Mastitis

accounted for a higher percentage of cow deaths

on freestall operations and operations with other

multiple-animal area housing than on stanchion

operations. Cow deaths due to calving problems

were lowest for cows on stanchion operations

compared with all other operations, with the

exception of operations with other multipleanimal areas.

Percentage of cow deaths by cause and by housing type 

Percent Cows* 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Assessed 

Operations 

All Dairy 

2007 

Operations 

Cause Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Scours, 

diarrhea, or 

other 

digestive 

problems 

0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.3) 0.7 (0.1) 0.9 (0.4) 1.1 (0.4) 0.7 (0.1) 0.6 (0.0) 

Respiratory 

problems 0.4 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 0.7 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 0.6 (0.0) 

Poison 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 

Lameness 

or injury 1.2 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) 1.3 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 1.3 (0.2) 1.2 (0.1) 1.1 (0.0) 

Lack of 

coordination 

or severe 

depression 

0.1 (0.0) 0.3 (0.3) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 

Mastitis 0.7 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 1.2 (0.1) 0.7 (0.3) 1.4 (0.4) 1.1 (0.1) 0.9 (0.0) 

Calving 

problems 1.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 1.0 (0.1) 0.9 (0.3) 0.6 (0.2) 1.0 (0.1) 0.9 (0.0) 

Other known 

reasons 

0.7 (0.2) 0.7 (0.3) 0.7 (0.1) 1.7 (0.7) 0.4 (0.2) 0.7 (0.1) 0.6 (0.0) 

Unknown 

reasons 0.9 (0.2) 1.1 (0.5) 1.0 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.9 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) 

Total 5.6 (0.5) 4.3 (0.7) 6.7 (0.3) 6.0 (1.1) 5.7 (0.5) 6.3 (0.2) 5.7 (0.1) 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory. 
94 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—B. Cow Health

C. Cow Assessments

1. Background/

method

Operations participating in Phase II (VMO

component) of the Dairy 2007 study were given

the opportunity to have up to 100 cows

evaluated for hygiene of the udder, legs, and

flanks. Hygiene was scored on a scale from 1 to

3, with 1 being no or very little manure and 3

being manure present in large quantities on the

udder, legs, and flanks. Assessments were

completed between March 5 and September 5,

2007. A training video was produced to assist

evaluators in conducting the animal assessments.

The following photographs of hygiene and

hocks were provided to assist scorers in

evaluating cows.
USDA APHIS VS / 95

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Hygiene is a critical component of producing

quality milk. Multiple studies have shown a

relationship between udder hygiene and somatic

cell counts (Schriener and Ruegg, 2003; Reneau

et al., 2005). Increased bacterial counts in milk

have also been associated with poor udder

hygiene (Elmoslemany et al., 2009). Hygiene is

impacted by stall design and manure

management. Cows on operations with properly

designed and maintained freestalls and

alleyways are more likely to have better hygiene

than cows housed in improperly designed or

maintained facilities.

Operations were also given the opportunity to

have up to 100 cows scored for hock condition.

Hocks were scored on a scale from 1 to 3, with

1 indicating hocks with no swelling or hair loss

and 3 indicating hocks with evident swelling or

a lesion through the hide. Each cow received

two hock scores, one for each rear leg, and the

higher of the hock scores was applied to the cow

(i.e., if a cow had hair loss on one hock

[score=2] and not the other [score=1] the cow

received a score of 2). The following chart was

used to evaluate hocks.
96 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

The following chart outlines a hypothetical

sequence of events that might lead to the

development of hock lesions (Vokey, 2004).

Most hock lesions are secondary to contact with

abrasive surfaces. Continued exposure to

abrasive surfaces leads to hair loss, skin

abrasions, infection, and subsequent swelling

and lameness.

Healthy hock 

contacts stall bed 

while lying down

Abrasive stall 

surface

Incorrect stall 

dimensions —cow 

repositions often

Hair loss

Skin breakage

Infection

Swelling and 

discomfort

Lameness and 

more lying time
USDA APHIS VS / 97

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Facility and management features associated

with increased hock lesions include stall surface

materials and stall design. Multiple studies have

reported that rubber-filled mattresses are

associated with more hock lesions compared

with most other stall bases (Weary and Taszkun,

2000; Wechsler et al., 2000; Vokey et al., 2001;

Fulwider et al., 2007). Short stall length may

also contribute to more hock lesions (Weary and

Taszkun, 2000).

2. Hygiene results Note: Differences in this section were analyzed

using STATA and SUDAAN software. P values

less than 0.05 were considered statistically

significant (see Section III: Methodology,

p 156).

Hygiene scoring was performed on 477

operations. Freestall operations accounted for

282 of these operations and provided the

majority (68.3 percent) of all cows scored.

Approximately twice as many cows were scored

on freestall, dry lot, and other multiple-animal

area operations than on tie-stall or stanchion

operations. These differences in animals scored

among different housing types are directly

related to herd size.

a. Number of operations assessed and number of cows assigned hygiene scores, 

by housing type 

Housing Type 

Parameter Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Total number 

of operations 

assessed 

102 27 282 30 36 477 

Total number 

of cows 

scored 

5,576 1,236 26,782 2,551 3,051 39,196 

Average 

number of 

cows scored 

per operation 

54.7 45.8 95.0 85.0 84.7 82.2 
98 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Among all housing types, 39.5 percent of cows

had a hygiene score of 2 and 13.9 percent had a

score of 3. Overall, there were no differences

across housing types in the percentages of cows

with hygiene scores of 1. A lower percentage of

cows on freestall operations (10.0 percent) had a

hygiene score of 3 compared with cows on tiestall, stanchion, and dry lot operations (16.2,

21.4, and 22.3 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of cows by hygiene score and by housing type 

Percent Cows 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 48.6 (2.9) 37.3 (5.6) 47.9 (2.3) 43.7 (6.1) 42.3 (6.5) 46.6 (1.7) 

2 35.2 (1.7) 41.3 (4.5) 42.1 (1.9) 34.0 (3.3) 43.7 (6.8) 39.5 (1.3) 

3 16.2 (1.6) 21.4 (2.8) 10.0 (1.1) 22.3 (4.5) 14.0 (3.8) 13.9 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 99

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Operations that used stall bases made of

concrete or rubber mats had a higher percentage

of cows with hygiene scores of 3 (16.5 and

18.0 percent, respectively) than operations that

used dirt or mattresses (10.2 and 11.6 percent,

respectively).

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard

c. Percentage of cows by hygiene score and by type of stall base 

Percent Cows 

Type of Stall Base 

Concrete Dirt Rubber Mat Mattress Other* 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 45.2 (3.3) 51.4 (3.7) 41.4 (3.3) 47.1 (3.3) 48.6 (5.0) 

2 38.3 (2.2) 38.4 (3.3) 40.6 (2.4) 41.3 (2.8) 39.8 (4.1) 

3 16.5 (1.9) 10.2 (1.5) 18.0 (2.2) 11.6 (1.2) 11.6 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Includes waterbeds. 
100 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments
USDA APHIS VS / 101

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Bedding type influenced hygiene scores. The

lowest percentage of cows with a hygiene score

of 3 were on operations that bedded stalls with

coarse sand, composted manure, or dried

manure (primarily freestall operations).

d. Percentage of cows by hygiene score and by bedding type 

Percent Cows 

Bedding Type 

Straw Sawdust Fine Sand 

Coarse 

Sand 

Composted 

Manure 

Dried 

Manure Other* None 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 48.5 (2.8) 48.2 (3.4) 42.9 (4.7) 51.1 (6.0) 60.7 (8.2) 50.3 (10.3) 40.6 (4.4) 37.5 (6.7) 

2 37.0 (2.0) 36.7 (2.5) 43.5 (3.6) 41.5 (5.3) 34.8 (6.8) 43.3 (10.6) 43.1 (3.1) 41.8 (3.5) 

3 14.5 (1.6) 15.1 (1.8) 13.6 (2.8) 7.4 (1.6) 4.5 (2.3) 6.4 (2.2) 16.3 (2.2) 20.7 (4.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Includes shredded newspaper. 

Days since bedding was added/changed was not

significantly associated with the percentage of

cows by hygiene score.

e. Percentage of cows by hygiene score and by number of days since bedding 

was added/changed 

Percent Cows 

Number of Days 

Less than 1 1–2 3–4 5–6 7 or More 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 45.5 (7.1) 46.1 (3.5) 40.4 (5.6) 50.0 (5.4) 52.1 (4.1) 

2 41.6 (4.9) 40.2 (2.8) 46.1 (4.7) 38.9 (3.9) 37.7 (2.9) 

3 12.9 (3.0) 13.7 (2.0) 13.5 (3.1) 11.1 (3.2) 10.2 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
102 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

As bedding quantity/stall condition decreased,

the percentage of cows with a hygiene score of

3 increased.

f. Percentage of cows by hygiene score and by bedding quantity/stall condition in 

majority of stalls 

Percent Cows 

Bedding Quantity/Stall Condition 

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding 

Level with 

Curb 

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding 

Slightly 

Dished Out 

Base 

Exposed 

(Less than 

50 Percent)

Base 

Mostly 

Exposed 

(More than 

50 Percent)

No Bedding 

Present* 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 51.3 (4.6) 50.4 (3.1) 41.2 (2.9) 45.5 (3.4) 39.3 (6.1) 

2 40.4 (4.2) 37.6 (2.4) 43.2 (2.2) 37.6 (2.6) 40.5 (3.1) 

3 8.3 (2.2) 12.0 (1.5) 15.6 (1.7) 16.9 (1.7) 20.2 (4.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*80.9 percent of operations on which no bedding was present were dry lot operations or operations with other 

multiple-animal areas.
USDA APHIS VS / 103

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Platform lengths for stalls on tie-stall and

stanchion operations were not associated with

hygiene scores.

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard

g. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score 

and by average platform length 

Percent Cows 

Average Platform Length (Inches) 

Less than 

60.0 60.0–64.9 65.0–69.9 70.0–74.9 

75.0 

or More 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 41.1 (7.3) 40.8 (7.2) 46.9 (4.1) 51.5 (3.5) 41.4 (14.1) 

2 40.7 (5.4) 37.3 (5.3) 36.1 (2.1) 34.7 (2.2) 42.7 (10.1) 

3 18.2 (5.8) 21.9 (3.2) 17.0 (2.7) 13.8 (1.7) 15.9 (4.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
104 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Freestall operations with stall lengths of less

than 82.0 inches or 96.0 inches or more had a

higher percentage of cows with a hygiene score

of 1 (61.1 and 54.8 percent, respectively)

compared with freestall operations with stall

lengths of 86.0 to 91.9 inches (35.7 percent).

h. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score and by average 

stall length 

Percent Cows 

Average Stall Length (Inches) 

Less than 

82.0 82.0–85.9 86.0–91.9 92.0–95.9 

96.0 

or More 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 61.1 (7.6) 48.2 (6.0) 35.7 (3.7) 44.5 (6.9) 54.8 (7.6) 

2 30.3 (5.5) 43.3 (5.2) 50.1 (3.2) 43.3 (5.1) 37.6 (6.9) 

3 8.6 (4.6) 8.5 (2.3) 14.2 (2.6) 12.2 (2.3) 7.6 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 105

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments
106 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

The width of stalls did not have an impact on

hygiene scores.

A higher percentage of cows on operations with

moveable neck rails had a hygiene score of 1

(74.8 percent) compared with cows on

operations with stationary neck rails or no neck

rails (43.7 and 40.8 percent, respectively).

j. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score and by type of 

neck rail 

Percent Cows 

Type of Neck Rail

Stationary Moveable None 

Hygiene Score Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

1 43.7 (2.3) 74.8 (6.1) 40.8 (8.5) 

2 45.2 (2.0) 20.3 (4.5) 45.7 (9.6) 

3 11.1 (1.2) 4.9 (2.5) 13.5 (7.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

i. Percentage of cows by hygiene score and by average stall width 

Percent Cows 

Average Stall Width (Inches)

Less 

than 42.0 42.0–43.9 44.0–45.9 46.0–47.9 48.0–49.9 

50.0 

or More 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 45.6 (6.6) 38.2 (5.9) 48.1 (4.5) 46.4 (3.6) 43.2 (5.0) 52.9 (6.3) 

2 36.1 (3.6) 44.1 (4.8) 39.7 (3.4) 41.6 (2.8) 38.4 (3.7) 34.4 (3.0) 

3 18.3 (3.9) 17.7 (4.4) 12.2 (2.4) 12.0 (1.6) 18.4 (2.3) 12.7 (4.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 107

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

The forward location of the neck rail was not

associated with the percentage of cows by

hygiene score.

The distance of the neck rail above the bedding

surface was not associated with the percentage

of cows by hygiene score.

k. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score and by average 

distance from neck rail to curb 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less than 60.0 60.0–65.9 66.0–71.9 72.0 or More 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 47.1 (8.1) 49.1 (3.2) 44.2 (4.0) 50.3 (6.6) 

2 42.3 (6.5) 40.6 (2.6) 45.1 (3.4) 40.1 (6.1) 

3 10.6 (3.4) 10.3 (1.8) 10.7 (1.7) 9.6 (1.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

l. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score and by average 

distance from neck rail to bedding surface 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less than 40.0 40.0–45.9 46.0–49.9 50.0 or More 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 56.8 (5.0) 42.4 (3.1) 48.6 (4.6) 46.4 (10.0) 

2 32.5 (3.8) 47.2 (2.7) 41.4 (3.5) 42.5 (7.9) 

3 10.7 (3.3) 10.4 (1.2) 10.0 (2.0) 11.1 (4.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
108 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Operations with wood brisket locators had a

higher percentage of cows with scores of 3

 (12.3 percent) compared with operations that

used “other” materials for brisket locators or did

not use brisket locators.

The percentage of cows with hygiene scores of 3

was significantly lower when the distance from

the curb to the brisket locator was 66.0 to

67.9 inches than when the distance was less than

66.0 inches and 68.0 to 69.9 inches.

n. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score and by 

operation average distance form curb to brisket locator 

Percent Cows 

Operation Average Distance (Inches) 

Less than 

66.0 66.0–67.9 68.0–69.9 70.0–71.9 

72.0 

or More 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 38.2 (4.7) 48.2 (5.4) 39.6 (5.3) 48.8 (8.0) 48.4 (7.7) 

2 50.5 (4.5) 46.0 (4.5) 43.6 (4.0) 38.4 (6.5) 40.1 (6.1) 

3 11.3 (2.3) 5.8 (1.1) 16.8 (5.4) 12.8 (3.8) 11.5 (3.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

m. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score and by type of 

brisket locator 

Percent Cows 

Type of Brisket Locator 

Concrete Wood 

PVC or Other 

Plastic Pipe Other None 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 46.0 (11.1) 41.0 (3.4) 43.8 (6.3) 56.2 (6.7) 51.9 (3.9) 

2 29.2 (7.1) 46.7 (2.9) 45.7 (5.6) 39.0 (5.7) 39.7 (3.1) 

3 24.8 (11.5) 12.3 (1.8) 10.5 (2.8) 4.8 (1.1) 8.4 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 109

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments
110 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

The presence of a lunge barrier or type of

barrier was not associated with hygiene scores.

A lower percentage of cows were assigned a

hygiene score of 1 on operations with curb

heights of 13 inches or more (31.6 percent)

compared with cows on operations with curb

heights of 8.0 to 12.9 inches.

p. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score and by curb 

height 

Percent Cows 

Curb Height (Inches) 

Less than 8.0 8.0–12.9 13.0 or More 

Hygiene Score Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 47.3 (5.7) 48.8 (2.7) 31.6 (5.6) 

2 42.1 (5.0) 40.9 (2.1) 56.3 (5.0) 

3 10.6 (3.0) 10.3 (1.3) 12.1 (2.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

o. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score and by lunge 

barrier material 

Percent Cows 

Lunge Barrier Material 

Concrete Wood Cable Other None 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 47.8 (9.1) 49.9 (3.6) 40.9 (7.9) 45.1 (5.0) 47.7 (4.2) 

2 44.8 (7.5) 39.0 (2.8) 49.0 (7.0) 44.5 (4.4) 41.8 (3.2) 

3 7.4 (1.8) 11.1 (1.8) 10.1 (3.2) 10.4 (2.7) 10.5 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 111

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Curb width did not influence cow hygiene

scores.

Operations with any gutter grates had a higher

percentage of cows assigned a hygiene score of

1 compared with operations without gutter

grates. For operations on which 50.0 percent or

more of stalls had gutter grates, a lower

percentage of cows received a hygiene score of

3 compared with operations without gutter

grates (12.8 and 21.4 percent of cows,

respectively).

r. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score 

and by percentage of stalls with gutter grates 

Percent Cows 

Percent Stalls with Gutter Grates

0.0 0.1–49.9 50.0 or More 

Hygiene Score Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 38.2 (4.7) 50.9 (4.1) 54.0 (3.6) 

2 40.4 (3.2) 33.2 (2.2) 33.2 (2.2) 

3 21.4 (2.4) 15.9 (2.7) 12.8 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

q. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score and by curb 

width 

Percent Cows 

Curb Width (Inches) 

Less than 6.0 6.0–8.9 9.0 or More 

Hygiene Score Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 49.3 (5.8) 50.1 (3.4) 56.3 (7.5) 

2 42.8 (5.2) 39.7 (2.7) 31.3 (4.3) 

3 7.9 (1.8) 10. 2 (1.6) 12.4 (5.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
112 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

The use of cow trainers was associated with

cleaner cows. A higher percentage of cows on

operations with trainers had a hygiene score of 1

(50.3 percent) compared with cows on

operations without trainers (37.6 percent).

Almost twice the percentage of cows had a

hygiene score of 3 on operations that did not use

cow trainers compared with cows on operations

that did use cow trainers (23.6 and 14.1 percent,

respectively).

Trainer location was not associated with hygiene

scores. The distance from the trainer to the

gutter or from the trainer to the stall bed was not

associated with cleanliness.

s. Percentage of cows by hygiene score and by use of cow trainers 

Percent Cows 

Cow Trainers

Yes No 

Hygiene Score Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

1 50.3 (3.1) 37.6 (5.0) 

2 35.6 (1.9) 38.8 (3.6) 

3 14.1 (1.5) 23.6 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

t. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score 

and by average distance from trainer to gutter 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less than 46.0 46.0–49.9 50.0–53.9 54.0 or More 

Hygiene 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 52.6 (6.1) 55.0 (5.9) 47.9 (5.0) 42.5 (6.3) 

2 32.1 (3.6) 33.8 (3.7) 38.4 (2.4) 39.4 (4.1) 

3 15.3 (3.6) 11.2 (2.7) 13.7 (3.3) 18.1 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 113

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

No differences were observed in spring and

summer in the percentage of cows by hygiene

score.

v. Percentage of cows by hygiene score and by season 

Percent Cows 

Season

Spring Summer 

Hygiene Score Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

1 46.9 (2.2) 46.0 (2.5) 

2 39.0 (1.7) 40.2 (1.9) 

3 14.1 (1.1) 13.8 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

u. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of cows by hygiene score 

and by average distance from trainer to bed 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less than 58.0 58.0–59.9 60.0 or More 

Hygiene Score Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 54.0 (6.5) 45.5 (5.1) 51.3 (4.8) 

2 33.8 (4.2) 39.6 (3.5) 33.9 (2.4) 

3 12.2 (2.7) 14.9 (2.4) 14.8 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
114 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

3. Hock results Note: Differences in this section were analyzed

using STATA and SUDAAN software. P values

less than 0.05 were considered statistically

significant (see Section III: Methodology,

p 156).

Hock scoring was performed on 477 operations;

freestall operations accounted for 282 of these

operations, providing the majority of all cows

scored (67.9 percent). Approximately twice as

many cows were scored on freestall, dry lot, and

other multiple-animal area operations than on

tie-stall or stanchion operations. These

differences in animals scored among different

housing types are directly related to herd size.

a. Number of operations assessed and number of cows assigned hock scores, by 

housing type 

Number Scored 

Housing Type 

Parameter Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Total number of 

operations 

assessed 

102 27 282 30 38 477 

Total number of 

cows scored 5,558 1,266 26,264 2,547 3,064 38,699 

Average 

number of cows 

scored per 

operation 

54.5 46.9 93.1 84.9 80.6 81.1 
USDA APHIS VS / 115

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Operations with dry lots and other multipleanimal areas had the highest percentage of cows

assigned a hock score of 1 (91.1 and

90.8 percent of cows, respectively).

Approximately three of four cows on freestall

operations (76.8 percent) were assigned a hock

score of 1, while tie-stall and stanchion

operations had the lowest percentage of cows

with a score of 1 (65.7 and 61.9 percent,

respectively). Dry-lot operations had a lower

percentage of cows with hock scores of 3

compared with tie-stall, stanchion, and freestall

operations.

b. Percentage of cows by hock score and by housing type 

Percent Cows 

Housing Type 

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Hock Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 65.7 (2.6) 61.9 (5.2) 76.8 (1.9) 91.1 (3.4) 90.8 (3.1) 73.3 (1.4) 

2 27.0 (2.2) 32.9 (5.5) 20.0 (1.7) 8.8 (3.4) 7.0 (2.0) 22.2 (1.2) 

3 7.3 (1.0) 5.2 (1.1) 3.2 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 2.2 (1.4) 4.5 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
116 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments
USDA APHIS VS / 117

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Almost 9 of 10 cows (89.5 percent) on

operations that used dirt as a stall base were

assigned a hock score of 1. The lowest

percentage of cows assigned a hock score of 1

were on operations that used concrete, rubber

mats, or mattresses as a stall base (72.8, 65.9,

and 60.6 percent, respectively). The lowest

percentage of cows assigned a hock score of 3

(0.7 percent) were on operations that used dirt

as a stall base, while the highest percentage of

cows with a score of 3 were on operations that

used concrete, rubber mats, or mattresses as a

stall base (5.6, 7.2, and 5.0 percent,

respectively).

c. Percentage of cows by hock score and by type of stall base 

Percent Cows 

Type of Stall Base

Concrete Dirt Rubber Mat Mattress Other* 

Hock Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 72.8 (2.8) 89.5 (2.0) 65.9 (3.0) 60.6 (3.3) 82.5 (2.6) 

2 21.6 (2.5) 9.8 (1.9) 26.9 (2.3) 34.4 (3.2) 14.9 (2.2) 

3 5.6 (0.9) 0.7 (0.2) 7.2 (1.0) 5.0 (0.9) 2.6 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Includes waterbeds. 
118 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

A higher percentage of cows bedded with fine or

coarse sand, composted or dried manure, or no

bedding (used primarily by operations with

freestalls, dry lots, or other multiple-animal

areas) had hock scores of 1 compared with cows

bedded with straw or sawdust (used primarily by

tie-stall and stanchion operations). Similarly, a

lower percentage of cows bedded in coarse sand

and composted manure had hock scores of 3

compared with cows on straw, sawdust, or other

bedding.

d. Percentage of cows by hock score and by type of bedding 

Percent Cows 

Type of Bedding Type 

Straw Sawdust 

Fine 

Sand 

Coarse 

Sand 

Composted 

Manure 

Dried 

Manure Other* None 

Hock 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 68.1 (2.6) 63.5 (2.5) 83.6 (4.1) 90.7 (2.4) 86.7 (5.8) 86.7 (5.0) 71.6 (4.3) 80.5 (4.8) 

2 25.3 (2.3) 31.4 (2.4) 13.7 (3.3) 8.7 (2.3) 13.2 (5.8) 10.8 (4.1) 23.7 (4.1) 16.1 (3.8) 

3 6.6 (1.0) 5.1 (0.8) 2.7 (1.0) 0.6 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 2.5 (1.5) 4.7 (0.9) 3.4 (1.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Includes shredded newspaper. 
USDA APHIS VS / 119

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

As the number of days since bedding was added

increased, the percentage of cows assigned a

hock score of 1 increased. Housing type,

bedding type, and bedding quantity likely

influenced this relationship. The frequency and

type of bedding and bedding quantity/stall

condition were associated with housing type.

Since operations with freestall or other multipleanimal areas typically had more days since

bedding was added/changed, these results are in

agreement with hock scores presented by

housing type.

e. Percentage of cows by hock score and by number of days since bedding was 

added/changed 

Percent Cows 

Number of Days 

Less than 1 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 or More 

Hock Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 59.8 (6.9) 74.4 (3.2) 77.5 (4.4) 79.0 (4.5) 83.8 (2.4) 

2 34.3 (5.8) 21.6 (2.7) 19.8 (3.8) 17.9 (3.7) 14.6 (2.1) 

3 5.9 (1.8) 4.0 (0.9) 2.7 (0.8) 3.1 (0.9) 1.6 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
120 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments
USDA APHIS VS / 121

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

The percentage of cows by hock scores was

associated with bedding quantity. As bedding

quantity decreased until the stall base was

mostly exposed, a lower percentage of cows had

hock scores of 1. In addition, a higher

percentage of cows had hock scores of 1 when

no bedding was present than when the stall base

was exposed. Operations that did not use

bedding were typically dry lot facilities on

which cows lie on dirt.

f. Percentage of cows by hock score and by bedding quantity/stall condition in 

majority of stalls 

Percent Cows 

Bedding Quantity/Stall Condition 

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding 

Level with 

Curb 

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding 

Slightly 

Dished Out 

Base 

Exposed 

(Less than 50 

Percent) 

Base Mostly 

Exposed 

(More than 50 

Percent)

No Bedding 

Present* 

Hock 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 85.3 (2.8) 79.5 (2.4) 65.3 (2.6) 61.9 (3.5) 81.9 (4.2) 

2 13.1 (2.5) 16.8 (1.9) 28.6 (2.4) 32.0 (3.2) 14.9 (3.3) 

3 1.6 (0.6) 3.7 (0.8) 6.1 (0.8) 6.1 (1.1) 3.2 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*80.9 percent of operations on which no bedding was present were dry lot operations or operations with other 

multiple-animal areas.
122 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Platform lengths of 75.0 inches or more were

associated with the lowest percentage of cows

assigned a hock score of 1 (34.8 percent).

g. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of cows by hock score and 

by average platform length 

Percent Cows 

Average Platform Length (Inches) 

Less 

than 60.0 60.0–64.9 65.0–69.9 70.0–74.9 

75.0 

or More 

Hock Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 73.0 (6.9) 64.1 (5.4) 68.6 (3.1) 63.6 (4.3) 34.8 (8.3) 

2 22.2 (5.5) 29.3 (5.7) 25.4 (2.5) 26.8 (3.1) 63.5 (8.4) 

3 4.8 (2.2) 6.6 (1.7) 6.0 (1.1) 9.6 (2.0) 1.7 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 123

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments
124 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Stall length on freestall operations was not

associated with specific hock scores.

Stall width was not associated with hock scores.

h. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hock score and by average stall 

length 

Percent Cows 

Average Stall Length (Inches) 

Less 

than 82.0 82.0–85.9 86.0–91.9 92.0–95.9 

96.0 

or More 

Hock 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 81.0 (7.2) 72.3 (4.1) 78.7 (2.8) 79.9 (4.5) 64.3 (7.6)

2 15.7 (6.2) 24.1 (3.7) 18.0 (2.3) 17.7 (4.2) 32.0 (7.6) 

3 3.3 (1.3) 3.6 (0.9) 3.3 (0.8) 2.4 (0.7) 3.7 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

i. Percentage of cows by hock score and by average stall width 

Percent Cows 

Average Stall Width (Inches)

Less 

than 42.0 42.0–43.9 44.0–45.9 46.0–47.9 48.0–49.9 

50.0 

or More 

Hock Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 73.5 (4.9) 75.5 (5.4) 77.5 (3.4) 74.9 (2.9) 64.5 (4.4) 65.6 (6.8) 

2 22.4 (4.4) 21.4 (5.1) 18.7 (2.7) 21.0 (2.4) 27.7 (4.3) 27.0 (5.5) 

3 4.1 (1.4) 3.1 (0.9) 3.8 (0.9) 4.1 (0.8) 7.8 (1.6) 7.4 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 125

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Operations with stationary neck rails had a

lower percentage of cows with hock scores of 1

(75.8 percent) compared with operations that

had moveable neck rails or no neck rails

(87.1 and 93.4 percent, respectively).

Although there appeared to be a trend toward

more hock lesions as the distance from neck rail

to curb increased, no significant differences

were found.

j. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hock score and by type of neck 

rail 

Percent Cows 

Type of Neck Rail

Stationary Moveable None 

Hock Score Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 75.8 (2.0) 87.1 (3.9) 93.4 (3.5) 

2 20.7 (1.8) 12.0 (3.7) 6.6 (3.5) 

3 3.5 (0.4) 0.9 (0.6) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

k. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hock score and by average 

distance from neck rail to curb 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less 

than 60.0 60.0–65.9 66.0–71.9 

72.0 

or More 

Hock Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 81.1 (4.3) 79.0 (2.5) 74.8 (3.8) 68.7 (6.2) 

2 16.1 (3.6) 18.2 (2.4) 21.7 (3.1) 27.3 (5.5) 

3 2.8 (0.9) 2.8 (0.5) 3.5 (0.8) 4.0 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
126 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Neck rail height was not associated with hock

scores.

Operations that used PVC or other plastic pipe

for brisket locators had a lower percentage of

cows with hock scores of 1 and a higher

percentage of cows with hock scores of 3

compared with operations that used locators

made of wood, other materials, or did not have

brisket locators.

m. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hock score and by type of 

brisket locator 

Percent Cows 

Type of Brisket Locator

Concrete Wood 

PVC or Other 

Plastic Pipe Other None 

Hock 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 78.0 (10.4) 74.3 (3.3) 63.2 (4.6) 80.4 (3.7) 83.4 (2.9) 

2 16.1 (6.9) 22.6 (3.2) 30.9 (4.1) 16.7 (3.4) 14.6 (2.5) 

3 5.9 (3.8) 3.1 (0.6) 5.9 (1.1) 2.9 (0.7) 2.0 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

l. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hock score and by average 

distance from neck rail to bedding surface 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less 

than 40.0 40.0–45.9 46.0–49.9 

50.0 

or More 

Hock Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 80.8 (4.1) 74.6 (2.9) 77.7 (3.2) 83.4 (5.2) 

2 16.7 (3.6) 22.0 (2.6) 18.9 (2.7) 14.4 (4.2) 

3 2.5 (0.6) 3.4 (0.6) 3.4 (0.9) 2.2 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 127

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

The distance from the curb to brisket locator

was not associated with hock scores.

The type of lunge barrier material was not

associated with hock scores.

o. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hock score and by lunge 

barrier material 

Percent Cows 

Lunge Barrier Material

Concrete Wood Cable Other None 

Hock 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 68.7 (7.2) 78.4 (2.8) 69.5 (10.4) 77.0 (3.8) 80.3 (3.0) 

2 25.9 (5.7) 18.6 (2.5) 25.5 (8.6) 20.5 (3.7) 16.8 (2.5) 

3 5.4 (1.8) 3.0 (0.7) 5.0 (1.8) 2.5 (0.6) 2.9 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

n. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hock score and by average 

distance form curb to brisket locator 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less than 

66.0 66.0–67.9 68.0–69.9 70.0–71.9 

72.0 

or More 

Hock 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 79.9 (3.0) 74.2 (6.2) 71.6 (6.5) 63.1 (5.2) 71.7 (5.2) 

2 17.2 (2.8) 22.6 (6.1) 23.4 (5.1) 32.1 (4.8) 24.0 (4.3) 

3 2.9 (0.6) 3.2 (0.8) 5.0 (2.1) 4.8 (1.0) 4.3 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
128 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

Curb height was not associated with hock

scores.

Curb widths of less than 6.0 inches were

associated with a lower percentage of cows

assigned a hock score of 1 (70.4 percent), while

widths of 9.0 inches or more were associated

with the lowest percentage of cows assigned a

score of 3 (0.7 percent).

p. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hock score and by curb height 

Percent Cows 

Curb Height (Inches) 

Less than 8.0 8.0–12.9 13.0 or More 

Hock Score Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 84.1 (3.4) 77.9 (2.0) 77.8 (5.5) 

2 14.2 (3.0) 18.8 (1.7) 19.8 (4.8) 

3 1.7 (0.6) 3.3 (0.5) 2.4 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

q. For freestall operations, percentage of cows by hock score and by curb width 

Percent Cows 

Curb Width (Inches) 

Less than 6.0 6.0–8.9 9.0 or More 

Hock Score Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 70.4 (5.1) 84.7 (2.5) 86.3 (5.6) 

2 25.3 (4.2) 13.0 (2.1) 13.0 (5.4) 

3 4.3 (1.3) 2.3 (0.6) 0.7 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 129

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

The percentage of stalls with gutter grates was

not associated with hock scores.

The presence of cow trainers was not associated

with hock scores.

r. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of cows by hock score and 

by percentage of stalls with gutter grates 

Percent Cows 

Percent Stalls with Gutter Grates

0.0 0.1–49.9 50.0 or More 

Hock Score Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 61.9 (3.9) 72.0 (3.8) 63.6 (4.1) 

2 30.9 (3.8) 21.2 (2.6) 30.0 (3.6) 

3 7.2 (1.4) 6.8 (1.6) 6.4 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

s. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of cows by hock score and 

by use of cow trainers 

Percent Cows 

Cow Trainers

Yes No 

Hock Score Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

1 63.3 (2.8) 66.6 (4.3) 

2 29.1 (2.4) 27.8 (4.3) 

3 7.6 (1.1) 5.6 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
130 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

The distance from the trainer to the gutter was

not associated with hock scores.

The distance from the trainer to the stall bed

was not associated with hock scores.

t. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of cows by hock score and 

by average distance from trainer to gutter 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less than 46.0 46.0–49.9 50.0–53.9 54.0 or More 

Hock 

Score Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 66.9 (6.4) 67.6 (3.7) 58.2 (5.8) 57.3 (6.8) 

2 25.2 (4.6) 27.1 (3.1) 32.8 (4.6) 32.6 (7.2) 

3 7.9 (2.6) 5.3 (1.3) 9.0 (2.9) 10.1 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

u. For tie-stall and stanchion operations, percentage of cows by hock score and 

by average distance from trainer to bed 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less than 58.0 58.0–59.9 60.0 or More 

Hock Score Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

1 66.6 (5.7) 60.9 (5.2) 64.6 (3.5) 

2 28.6 (5.6) 29.8 (4.0) 27.4 (2.9) 

3 4.8 (1.5) 9.3 (2.4) 8.0 (1.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 131

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

The season in which assessments were made did

not impact hock scores.

v. Percentage of cows by hock score and by season 

Percent Cows 

Season

Spring Summer 

Hock Score Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

1 71.2 (1.9) 76.0 (2.0) 

2 24.6 (1.8) 19.2 (1.5) 

3 4.2 (0.5) 4.8 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
132 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—C. Cow Assessments

D. Comfort Assessments

Note: Data for all estimates in Section II were

obtained from operations with 30 or more cows

that completed the cow comfort assessment.

Housing types in this section refer to the

buildings or areas that housed the majority of

fresh (recently calved) cows. For most

operations, these housing areas also housed the

majority of lactating cows.

Note: Differences in this section were analyzed

using STATA and SUDAAN software. P values

less than 0.05 were considered statistically

significant (see Section III: Methodology,

p 156).

Four comfort parameters were assessed:

perching (standing with the front feet inside the

stall), standing (with all feet inside the stall),

lying, and the cow comfort index (the proportion

of cows in contact with a stall that are lying

down). Assessments were completed at a single

point in time and conducted no earlier than

2 hours after milking and no later than 2 hours

prior to the next milking, which removed the

impact of major cattle movements from the

assessments.

1. Cows assessed Comfort parameters were evaluated on 485

operations, and the pens and areas evaluated

housed 52,490 cows. The majority of operations

(290) and cows (39,014) assessed were on

freestall operations.

a. Number of operations and cows assessed for comfort, by housing type 

Housing Type 

Parameter Tie Stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Total number of 

operations 

assessed 

101 27 290 30 37 485 

Total number of 

cows assessed 5,783 1,234 39,014 2,828 3,631 52,490 

Average 

number of cows 

assessed per 

operation/pen 

57.3 45.7 134.5 94.3 98.1 108.2 
USDA APHIS VS / 133

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

For the majority of operations (72.2 percent) the

pen being assessed housed cows of all lactation

stages.

b. Percentage of operations by type of cow being assessed and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal Area All 

Operations 

Cows 

Assessed Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Early lactation 

(1 to 90 days in 

milk) 

12.6 (2.3) 23.5 (8.4) 9.8 (4.6) 13.4 (2.0) 

Midlactation 

(91 to 180 days 

in milk) 

7.3 (1.7) 4.6 (3.0) 13.3 (5.3) 7.7 (1.5) 

Late lactation 

(more than 180 

days in milk) 

4.5 (1.6) 0.9 (0.9) 5.1 (3.5) 4.1 (1.4) 

All lactation 

stages 72.4 (3.1) 71.0 (9.5) 71.6 (7.5) 72.2 (2.7) 

Other 3.2 (1.2) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 2.6 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
134 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

Although assessments of most housing types

were split about equally between spring and

summer, the majority of stanchion operations

(74.7 percent) were assessed during spring.

About 4 of 10 freestall operations (42.6 percent)

and all operations (40.4 percent) were at

95.0 percent or more of the maximum number of

cows ever housed in the pen or area.

Approximately 50 to 60 percent of operations

with dry lot and other multiple-animal areas

were at less than 85 percent of the maximum

number of cows ever housed in the pen or area.

c. Percentage of operations by percentage of maximum number of cows ever 

housed in the pen or area, and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal Area All 

Operations 

Percent 

Maximum 

Number of 

Cows Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 85.0 27.6 (3.9) 59.0 (13.6) 48.8 (9.8) 32.9 (3.6) 

85.0 to 94.9 29.8 (3.7) 10.2 (4.6) 18.6 (8.3) 26.7 (3.1) 

95.0 or more 42.6 (4.0) 30.8 (13.4) 32.6 (8.8) 40.4 (3.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

2. Season and

temperature

Increases in temperature (i.e., heat stress) have

been associated with decreases in duration of

lying in dairy cows (Zähner et al., 2004). The

implementation of heat abatement methods,

such as shade, fans, and misters, can decrease

heat stress in cattle, which can occur in any

region of the United States during summer.
USDA APHIS VS / 135

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

The operation average temperature at the time

of assessment was higher for dry lot operations

than stanchion operations, possibly because the

the two types of operations might have been

assessed in different seasons.

a. Percentage of operations by season of assessment and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Season Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Spring 51.7 (5.5) 74.7 (8.1) 54.4 (4.0) 42.6 (12.7) 39.0 (9.2) 54.6 (2.9) 

Summer 48.3 (5.5) 25.3 (8.1) 45.6 (4.0) 57.4 (12.7) 61.0 (9.2) 45.4 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

b. Operation average temperature at time of assessment, by housing type 

Operation Average Temperature (°F) 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

65.3 (1.3) 60.6 (2.8) 65.1 (1.2) 70.5 (2.9) 64.9 (2.4) 64.8 (0.8) 
136 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

The majority of all operations were assessed

when the temperature was between 60 and

80 degrees; however, the majority of stanchion

operations were assessed between 50 and

70 degrees, and more than 4 of 10 dry lot

operations (44.0 percent) were assessed when

the temperature was 80 degrees or higher.

c. Percentage of operations by temperature at the time of assessment and by 

housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Temperature

(°F) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 50 11.1 (3.8) 17.4 (8.5) 16.6 (3.3) 11.0 (5.3) 11.8 (5.1) 14.0 (2.2) 

50 to 59 15.6 (3.8) 23.4 (8.6) 10.2 (2.1) 9.7 (5.8) 18.7 (8.1) 14.6 (2.1) 

60 to 69 25.6 (5.0) 29.3 (10.1) 25.4 (3.7) 16.3 (7.3) 19.9 (8.4) 25.4 (2.8) 

70 to 79 39.9 (5.4) 13.2 (5.9) 28.0 (3.7) 19.0 (9.0) 31.9 (9.1) 30.6 (2.8) 

80 or above 7.8 (2.8) 16.7 (7.1) 19.8 (3.3) 44.0 (14.2) 17.7 (6.1) 15.4 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 137

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

3. Timing Since movement of cows around the time of

milking can impact cow comfort assessments

(Cook et al., 2005), assessors were advised to

perform assessments no earlier than 2 hours

after milking and no later than 2 hours prior to

the next milking.

The operation average time since the last

milking was more than 2 hours for all housing

types. The operation average time until the next

milking was well above 2 hours for all housing

types, ranging from 5.1 hours for freestall

operations to 6.2 hours for multiple-animal area

and tie-stall operations. The time until next

feeding ranged from 4.0 hours on stanchion

operations to 8.3 hours on freestall operations.

a. Operation average time of assessment in relation to feeding and milking, by 

housing type 

Operation Average Time (Hours)

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Hours... Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Since last 

milking 5.0 (0.3) 5.6 (0.7) 5.1 (0.2) 4.9 (0.6) 4.6 (0.6) 5.1 (0.2) 

Until next 

milking 6.2 (0.3) 5.6 (0.6) 5.1 (0.2) 5.8 (0.5) 6.2 (0.6) 5.7 (0.2) 

Since last 

feeding 4.2 (0.4) 3.2 (0.6) 4.3 (0.3) 5.1 (1.8) 6.8 (1.6) 4.3 (0.2) 

Until next 

feeding 5.2 (0.6) 4.0 (0.7) 8.3 (0.6) 7.3 (0.7) 7.3 (1.1) 6.4 (0.3) 
138 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

Approximately 90 percent of operations were

assessed 2.0 hours or more after the last milking.

b. Percentage of operations by number of hours since last milking that 

assessment was conducted and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Number 

of Hours Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer 

than 2.0 11.6 (3.7) 10.6 (7.8) 5.3 (1.5) 1.5 (1.6) 2.2 (2.2) 8.2 (1.9) 

2.0 to 3.9 21.9 (4.9) 19.5 (7.8) 29.7 (4.1) 47.2 (14.4) 38.5 (9.3) 26.6 (2.8) 

4.0 to 5.9 29.5 (5.1) 27.1 (8.4) 29.9 (3.8) 25.5 (11.8) 35.6 (9.0) 29.4 (2.8) 

6.0 or more 37.0 (5.4) 42.8 (10.7) 35.1 (3.9) 25.8 (9.0) 23.7 (8.7) 35.8 (3.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 139

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

Only 6.0 percent of all operations were assessed

fewer than 2.0 hours before the next milking.

c. Percentage of operations by number of hours until next milking that 

assessment was conducted and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Number 

of Hours Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer 

than 2.0 4.4 (2.0) 6.8 (4.7) 7.0 (1.6) 7.2 (4.5) 8.5 (7.9) 6.0 (1.2) 

2.0 to 3.9 16.9 (4.3) 13.5 (8.1) 21.0 (3.2) 16.1 (6.5) 9.2 (6.1) 17.6 (2.3) 

4.0 to 5.9 17.6 (3.9) 37.3 (10.4) 32.9 (3.8) 14.4 (7.9) 26.6 (8.1) 26.2 (2.6) 

6.0 or more 61.1 (5.4) 42.4 (10.6) 39.1 (4.3) 62.3 (11.8) 55.7 (10.1) 50.2 (3.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
140 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

The delivery of feed also influences cow

movement and can impact cow assessments.

Although there were guidelines for doing the

assessment relative to milking, no restrictions

were placed relative to feeding.

Approximately 25 percent of assessments were

conducted in each of the time periods listed in

the following table.

d. Percentage of operations by number of hours since last feeding that 

assessment was conducted and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Number 

of Hours Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer 

than 2.0 24.3 (4.6) 37.0 (9.8) 21.7 (3.9) 22.9 (11.0) 15.5 (6.7) 24.5 (2.9) 

2.0 to 3.9 27.0 (5.1) 27.2 (8.9) 27.6 (4.0) 30.2 (13.0) 34.9 (9.0) 27.8 (2.8) 

4.0 to 5.9 27.7 (5.2) 25.8 (8.7) 29.3 (3.6) 18.7 (8.6) 17.8 (7.2) 27.1 (2.8) 

6.0 or more 21.0 (4.7) 10.0 (5.6) 21.4 (3.0) 28.2 (14.5) 31.8 (10.7) 20.6 (2.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 141

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

More than 4 of 10 operations (44.0 percent)

were assessed 6.0 or more hours until the next

feeding.

e. Percentage of operations by number of hours until next feeding that 

assessment was conducted and by housing type 

Percent Operations 

Housing Type

Tie stall Stanchion Freestall Dry lot 

Other 

Multipleanimal 

Area 

All 

Operations 

Number 

of Hours Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer 

than 2.0 25.7 (5.1) 30.7 (10.2) 15.7 (3.4) 5.4 (3.5) 20.9 (10.6) 21.4 (2.8) 

2.0 to 3.9 22.0 (4.5) 16.2 (7.1) 12.5 (2.3) 6.2 (2.9) 0.4 (0.3) 15.9 (2.2) 

4.0 to 5.9 14.1 (4.0) 33.0 (10.5) 18.7 (3.1) 13.5 (6.4) 22.3 (8.0) 18.7 (2.5) 

6.0 or more 38.2 (5.5) 20.1 (9.1) 53.1 (4.2) 74.9 (8.7) 56.4 (10.4) 44.0 (3.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
142 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

4. Comfort

parameters—

perching, standing,

lying, and cow

comfort index

Note: All estimates in this section were derived

from operations with freestalls, which included

some operations that reported having freestalls

in other multiple-animal areas.

Cows have multiple activities during the day

including eating, milking, socializing, and lying.

A video of 208 cows in 17 freestall operations

was analyzed to determine time budgets for

cows. The single largest amount of time was

spent lying in a stall (11.3 hours; range 2.8 to

17.6 hours). On average, cows ate for an

average of 4.4 hours per day (range 1.4 to 8.1

hours). Cows spent an average of almost 3 hours

a day standing in a stall (range 0.3 to 13.0

hours) [Cook, 2010].
USDA APHIS VS / 143

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

Multiple measures have been evaluated to

determine how well facilities are designed based

on cow use. The goal of research regarding

these measures is to be able to make an

assessment at a single point in time that reflects

activity throughout the day. In this report, the

following four measures are considered:

1. Percentage of cows in the pen that are

perching.

2. Percentage of cows standing with all four

feet in the stall.

3. Percentage of cows lying in the stall.

4. Cow comfort index (CCI).

Perching is the term used to describe cows

standing with both front feet in a stall. Perching

occurs when cows enter and exit a stall, but

prolonged perching suggests problems with

management. Associations found in the analysis

of these data showed that increased perching

was associated with decreased bedding quantity,

increased temperature, shorter stall lengths,

decreased time since feeding, and more cows

per stall (Lombard et al., 2010). Although the

distance of the neck rail to the rear curb has

been associated with perching (Tucker et al.,

2005; Bernardi et al., 2009; Fregonesi et al.,

2009), no such association was found in this

study.

The CCI is the number of cows lying in a stall

divided by the number of cows in contact

(i.e., perching, standing, or lying) with a stall.

Overton et al. (2003) suggested that a target CCI

should be around 85 percent of cows lying in a

stall when measured 1 hour after milking, which

coincides with peak lying activity.

Increased perching has been associated with

shorter stalls (Tucker et al., 2004; Lombard et

al., 2010), narrow stalls (Tucker et al., 2004),

more restrictive neck rail placement (Tucker et

al., 2005; Fregonesi et al., 2009), decreased

stocking density (Hill et al., 2009), and higher

ambient temperatures (Overton et al., 2002;

Zähner et al., 2004). Shorter distances from the

rear curb to the neck rail are associated with

increased perching, while longer distances may

lead to more standing fully in the stall (Tucker et

al., 2005; Fregonesi et al., 2009; Lombard et al.,

2010). When the neck rail is removed and cows

are allowed to stand fully in the stall, gait scores

are improved (Bernardi et al., 2009). Increased

standing in stalls has been associated with stall

base and bedding types, with cows spending

more time standing on rubber mats or mattresses

(Tucker et al., 2003; Cook et al., 2004).

Increased lying behavior has been associated

with sand bedding compared with organic

bedding types and during cooler months

(Lombard et al., 2010), although cows without

prior experience lying on sand spend less time

lying (Manninen et al., 2002; Tucker et al.,

2003; Norring et al., 2010)..

The CCI has been the most popular index used

to evaluate the comfort of dairy cows. However,

no studies have found an association between

CCI and lying times. The reciprocal of CCI

(1-CCI), or stall standing index, was

significantly associated with stall standing times

when conducted 2 hours prior to milking and

may be an indicator of increased lameness

(Cook et al., 2005).
144 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

A higher percentage of cows were observed

perching and standing with all four feet in stalls

on freestall operations (8.5 and 10.0 percent,

respectively) than on operations using other

multiple-animal areas (3.7 and 0.8 percent,

respectively). Although on operations with other

multiple-animal areas the percentage of cows

lying was much lower than in freestall

operations (8.1 and 39.6 percent, respectively),

the CCI was not different. This finding suggests

that the numbers of cows lying in stalls as a

percentage of those touching a stall were not

different in the two housing types. Cows in other

multiple-animal area housing had additional

bedding choices.

a. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by housing type 

Percent Cows 

Housing Type

Freestall 

Other Multipleanimal Area All 

Operations 

Parameter Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error 

Perching 8.5 (0.7) 3.7 (1.3) 8.3 (0.7) 

Standing 10.0 (1.1) 0.8 (0.8) 9.6 (1.1) 

Lying 39.6 (1.7) 8.1 (3.5) 38.3 (1.7) 

CCI 68.2 (2.0) 64.2 (9.8) 68.1 (2.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 145

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

Stall-base type did not have a significant impact

on any comfort parameter.

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard

b. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by type of stall base 

Percent Cows 

Type of Stall Base 

Concrete Dirt Rubber Mat Mattress Other 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 8.5 (1.1) 9.4 (1.6) 6.9 (1.5) 5.9 (0.6) 9.6 (1.6) 

Standing 7.9 (1.9) 6.6 (1.3) 18.7 (5.5) 10.8 (1.4) 10.3 (3.3) 

Lying 35.2 (3.3) 39.8 (3.2) 27.2 (5.5) 42.9 (3.2) 40.9 (3.6) 

CCI 68.2 (3.6) 71.3 (3.8) 51.6 (7.7) 72.0 (2.4) 67.3 (4.4) 
146 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

The percentages of cows perching were similar

across all bedding types. Standing in stalls was

observed for a lower percentage of cows when

straw, coarse sand, composted manure, or no

bedding was used compared with most other

bedding types. A higher percentage of cows

were lying when in stalls bedded with coarse

sand (48.0 percent) compared with cows in

stalls bedded with straw, composted or dried

manure, or “other” bedding types (33.6, 30.2,

28.5, and 30.8 percent, respectively). With the

exception of composted manure, the CCI was

highest for operations that bedded with coarse

sand compared with all other bedding types.

c. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by bedding type

Percent Cows 

Bedding Type 

Straw Sawdust 

Fine 

Sand Coarse Sand 

Composted 

Manure 

Dried 

Manure Other* 

Parameter Pct. Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 8.4 (1.5) 7.2 (0.7) 9.0 (1.2) 7.5 (0.8) 9.4 (2.8) 15.6 (7.6) 5.9 (0.9) 

Standing 6.6 (1.4) 14.9 (2.6) 10.7 (2.8) 5.1 (1.4) 2.9 (1.1) 14.1 (4.4) 10.4 (2.4) 

Lying 33.6 (4.6) 42.1 (2.8) 39.3 (3.6) 48.0 (3.6) 30.2 (6.8) 28.5 (6.7) 30.8 (4.1) 

CCI 69.0 (3.6) 65.6 (3.4) 66.6 (4.4) 79.2 (2.0) 71.1 (3.6) 49.0 (12.4) 65.4 (4.7) 

*Includes shredded newspaper. 

Days since bedding was changed was not

associated with perching, standing, or CCI. A

higher percentage of cows on operations that

had changed bedding 1 to 2 days before the

assessment were lying (46.8 percent) compared

with cows on operations on which bedding was

changed 7 or more days before the assessment

(34.5 percent). Increased frequency of bedding

changes was not always associated with an

increased percentage of cows lying or increased

CCI.
USDA APHIS VS / 147

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

The percentage of cows perching in stalls was

higher when the stall base was not exposed,

bedding level with curb or base not exposed,

bedding slightly dished out (8.2 and 10.2

percent, of cows, respectively) than when the

stall base was less than 50 percent exposed (6.0

percent). Bedding quantity/stall condition was

not associated with standing or lying parameters.

The CCI was higher when bedding was level

with the curb (74.2 percent) than when bedding

was slightly dished out or more than

50 percent of the base was exposed (63.7 and

66.2 percent, respectively).

e. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by bedding quantity/stall 

condition in the majority of stalls 

Percent Cows 

Bedding Quantity/Stall Condition 

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding Level 

with Curb 

Base not 

Exposed, 

Bedding Slightly 

Dished Out 

Base Exposed 

(Less than 50 

Percent)

Base Mostly 

Exposed (More 

than 50 Percent)

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 8.2 (0.6) 10.2 (1.6) 6.0 (0.7) 6.6 (1.0) 

Standing 7.3 (1.4) 10.3 (2.0) 11.0 (2.8) 11.8 (2.5) 

Lying 44.7 (2.7) 35.9 (2.8) 36.0 (3.4) 36.0 (5.7) 

CCI 74.2 (2.1) 63.7 (3.9) 67.9 (4.5) 66.2 (3.5) 

d. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by number of days since 

bedding was added/changed 

Percent Cows 

Number of Days 

Less than 1 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 or More 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 5.9 (3.1) 8.8 (0.8) 7.6 (1.8) 7.3 (1.1) 9.4 (1.7) 

Standing 10.3 (3.0) 10.0 (1.8) 6.5 (1.3) 9.6 (4.2) 10.7 (2.4) 

Lying 28.0 (11.9) 46.8 (2.8) 38.3 (3.6) 38.4 (4.8) 34.5 (2.9) 

CCI 63.5 (10.6) 71.3 (2.2) 73.1 (3.9) 69.5 (6.6) 63.2 (4.9) 
148 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

Stall length was not associated with any comfort

parameter.

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard

f. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by average stall length 

Percent Cows 

Average Stall Length (Inches) 

Less 

than 82.0 82.0–85.9 86.0–91.9 92.0–95.9 

96.0 

or More 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 7.8 (1.5) 9.6 (1.2) 7.7 (1.0) 7.8 (1.0) 6.3 (1.4)

Standing 6.8 (1.8) 7.4 (1.5) 11.6 (2.6) 14.4 (6.4) 12.1 (2.8) 

Lying 29.6 (5.8) 45.5 (3.7) 38.4 (2.5) 40.3 (7.0) 47.3 (3.8) 

CCI 66.9 (4.4) 72.8 (3.3) 66.5 (3.5) 64.5 (10.7) 72.0 (3.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 149

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

There were no differences in the percentage of

cows perching or standing in stalls based on stall

width. The percentage of cows lying was higher

on operations with stall widths of 50.0 inches or

more (58.6 percent) compared with the

percentage of cows on operations in which stall

widths were less than 50.0 inches. Although a

linear trend was not observed, the CCI was

higher for stall widths of 50.0 inches or more

compared with stall widths of 44.0 to 45.9

inches and 48.0 to 49.9 inches.

g. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by average stall width 

Percent Cows 

Average Stall Width (Inches)

Less 

than 42.0 42.0–43.9 44.0–45.9 46.0–47.9 48.0–49.9 

50.0 

or More 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 7.8 (1.1) 7.8 (0.8) 9.4 (1.5) 7.1 (1.0) 7.2 (1.4) 11.2 (1.5) 

Standing 7.4 (2.0) 7.7 (1.7) 12.3 (1.9) 9.6 (2.6) 6.7 (2.2) 9.0 (1.6) 

Lying 35.9 (7.0) 39.1 (3.2) 40.2 (2.4) 35.7 (4.0) 25.9 (4.8) 58.6 (7.2) 

CCI 70.2 (2.3) 71.7 (2.7) 65.0 (3.8) 68.1 (4.3) 65.1 (4.5) 74.4 (1.0) 
150 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

The type or presence of a neck rail did not

impact the percentage of cows perching or the

CCI. A lower percentage of cows were standing

in the stall when no neck rail was present

(4.0 percent) compared with either the presence

of a stationary or moveable neck rail (9.7 and

11.9 percent, respectively). Similarly, a lower

percentage of cows were lying when no neck rail

was present compared with operations with

stationary or moveable neck rails.

h. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by neck rail type 

Percent Cows 

Neck Rail Type

Stationary Moveable None 

Parameter Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 7.8 (0.5) 13.7 (4.3) 5.5 (1.3) 

Standing 9.7 (1.2) 11.9 (2.9) 4.0 (1.2) 

Lying 38.3 (1.8) 36.2 (7.1) 19.6 (4.1) 

CCI 68.7 (2.0) 58.6 (8.1) 67.4 (5.1) 

There were no differences in comfort parameters

based on neck rail distance from the curb.

i. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by average distance from neck 

rail to curb 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches)

Less 

Than 60.0 60–65.9 66.0–71.9 

72.0 

or More 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 6.5 (0.8) 8.7 (0.7) 9.1 (1.8) 6.2 (1.1) 

Standing 11.6 (4.1) 9.0 (1.7) 9.8 (1.4) 11.1 (2.9) 

Lying 40.4 (6.0) 35.5 (2.3) 42.6 (3.2) 38.4 (5.9) 

CCI 69.1 (5.6) 66.8 (2.8) 69.3 (3.7) 68.8 (4.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 151

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

Neck rail height was not associated with any of

the reported comfort parameters.

The presence of a brisket locator or the locator

material did not affect the percentage of cows

that were perching, standing, or the CCI.

However, operations that did not have a brisket

locator had a lower percentage of cows lying

(32.6 percent) compared with operations that

had brisket locators made of wood

(41.9 percent) or PVC or other plastic pipe

(46.4 percent).

k. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by type of brisket locator 

Percent Cows 

Type of Brisket Locator 

Concrete Wood 

PVC or Other 

Plastic Pipe Other None 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 7.2 (1.8) 8.2 (0.7) 6.3 (1.2) 7.6 (1.0) 9.2 (1.4) 

Standing 12.3 (5.8) 9.9 (1.7) 13.8 (4.4) 8.5 (2.5) 8.4 (1.6) 

Lying 38.7 (6.3) 41.9 (2.6) 46.4 (3.5) 42.8 (5.5) 32.6 (2.9) 

CCI 66.5 (7.9) 69.9 (2.8) 69.7 (5.6) 72.7 (4.9) 64.9 (3.6) 

j. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by average distance from neck 

rail to bedding surface 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches)

Less 

than 40 40.0–45.9 46.0–49.9 

50.0 

or More 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 7.4 (0.8) 8.2 (0.6) 9.8 (2.2) 6.0 (1.5) 

Standing 9.2 (1.9) 8.9 (1.5) 11.9 (2.5) 10.6 (5.1) 

Lying 34.9 (4.4) 39.7 (2.3) 41.3 (3.3) 27.5 (9.1) 

CCI 67.8 (3.6) 70.0 (2.5) 65.6 (4.7) 62.4 (8.6) 
152 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

The percentage of cows perching, standing, or

lying was not different based on the distance of

the brisket locator from the rear curb.

Operations with a distance of 66.0 to

67.9 inches from curb to brisket locator had the

highest CCI (79.2 percent)

The presence of a lunge barrier or its material

did not affect the percentage of cows standing or

the CCI. Operations with a cable lunge barrier

had the lowest percentage of cows perching

(3.5 percent). Operations with a wood lunge

barrier had a lower percentage of cows lying

(30.8 percent) compared with “other” lunge

barriers or no lunge barriers (43.4 and

41.8 percent, respectively).

l. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by average distance from curb to 

brisket locator 

Percent Cows 

Average Distance (Inches) 

Less than 

66.0 66.0–67.9 68.0–69.9 70.0–71.9 

72.0 

or More 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 8.3 (1.1) 6.3 (0.7) 8.8 (1.4) 8.0 (1.4) 7.2 (1.2) 

Standing 10.2 (3.6) 6.8 (1.4) 10.0 (2.5) 10.4 (2.3) 16.3 (5.0) 

Lying 36.4 (4.8) 50.2 (3.5) 44.5 (3.8) 39.8 (3.4) 40.0 (4.6) 

CCI 66.3 (6.0) 79.2 (2.5) 70.3 (3.0) 68.4 (2.7) 62.9 (7.1) 

m. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by lunge barrier material 

Percent Cows 

Lunge Barrier Material

Concrete Wood Cable Other None 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 9.8 (2.4) 8.2 (0.8) 3.5 (1.0) 8.6 (1.9) 8.5 (0.9) 

Standing 6.0 (2.8) 7.6 (1.2) 8.9 (2.6) 11.8 (2.5) 10.5 (2.1) 

Lying 32.2 (5.2) 30.8 (2.9) 37.6 (11.6) 43.4 (3.5) 41.8 (2.3) 

CCI 67.1 (4.6) 66.1 (2.7) 75.2 (8.5) 68.1 (4.7) 68.7 (3.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 153

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

Curb heights of 13.0 inches or more were

associated with a lower percentage of cows

perching (4.8 percent) and lying (25.5 percent)

compared with curb heights of 8.0 to

12.9 inches. Curb height was not associated with

the percentage of cows standing in stalls or with

the CCI.

n. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by curb height 

Percent Cows 

Curb Height (Inches) 

Less than 8.0 8.0–12.9 13.0 or More 

Parameter Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Perching 6.7 (0.9) 8.8 (0.8) 4.8 (1.2) 

Standing 7.8 (2.0) 10.1 (1.3) 10.1 (3.7) 

Lying 33.7 (4.3) 39.3 (2.0) 25.5 (5.6) 

CCI 69.9 (4.1) 67.5 (2.3) 63.1 (7.3) 

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard
154 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments

Curb width was not associated with any of the

measured comfort parameters.

o. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by curb width 

Percent Cows 

Curb Width (Inches) 

Less than 6.0 6.0–8.9 9.0 or More 

Parameter Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error 

Perching 8.1 (1.1) 7.9 (0.8) 14.0 (5.2) 

Standing 7.8 (1.7) 10.1 (1.7) 9.0 (3.4) 

Lying 43.3 (4.3) 36.4 (2.5) 39.0 (5.4) 

CCI 73.1 (3.1) 66.9 (2.7) 63.0 (10.6) 

Season had a significant impact on the

percentage of cows perching, lying, and on the

CCI. The percentage of cows perching was

lower in spring than in summer, while the

percentage of cows lying and the CCI were

higher in spring than in summer.

p. Percentage of cows by comfort parameter and by season 

Percent Cows 

Season

Spring Summer 

Parameter Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Perching 7.0 (0.6) 9.8 (1.2) 

Standing 7.9 (0.9) 11.7 (2.1) 

Lying 43.6 (2.2) 32.3 (2.4) 

CCI 74.6 (1.5) 60.0 (3.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 155

Section II: Facility and Cow Assessments—D. Comfort Assessments
156 / Dairy 2007

Section III: Methodology

A. Needs Assessment

NAHMS develops study objectives by exploring

existing literature and by contacting

stakeholders about their informational needs and

priorities during a needs-assessment phase. The

objective of the needs assessment for the

NAHMS Dairy 2007 study was to conduct a

national survey to collect information from

U.S. dairy producers and other dairy specialists

about what they perceived to be the most

important dairy health and productivity issues. A

driving force of the needs assessment was the

desire of NAHMS researchers to receive as

much input as possible from a variety of

producers, industry experts and representatives,

veterinarians, extension specialists, universities,

and dairy organizations.

Focus group teleconferences and meetings were

held to help determine the focus of the study.

Teleconference, March 30, 2006

National Johne’s Working Group

Louisville, KY, April 2, 2006

National Johne’s Working Group

National Institute for Animal Agriculture

Louisville, KY, April 3, 2006

National Milk Producers Federation

Animal Health Committee

Teleconference, December 15, 2006

Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition

In addition, a needs-assessment survey was

designed to ascertain the top-three management

issues, diseases/disorders, and producer

incentives from producers, veterinarians,

extension personnel, university researchers, and

allied industry groups. The survey, created in

SurveyMonkey, was available online from early

February through late April 2006.The survey

was promoted via electronic newsletters,

magazines, and Web sites. Organizations/

magazines promoting the study included “Dairy

Herd Management–Dairy Alert,” “Dairy Today,”

“Hoard’s Dairyman,” NMC, “Journal of the

American Veterinary Medical Association,” and

the American Association of Bovine

Practitioners. Email messages were also sent to

cooperative members of the National Milk

Producers Federation as well as State and

Federal personnel. A total of 313 people

completed the survey. Universities/extensions

accounted for 23 percent of respondents,

producers accounted for 22 percent, and

veterinarians/consultants accounted for another

20 percent.

Fort Collins, CO, May 18, 2006

CEAH Focus Group meeting

Draft objectives for the Dairy 2007 study, using

input from teleconferences, face-to-face

meetings, and the online survey, were drafted

prior to the focus group meeting. Attendees

included producers, veterinarians, and

university/extension and government personnel.

The day-long meeting culminated in the

formulation of eight objectives for the study:

1. Describe trends in dairy cattle health and

management practices,

Section III: Me Section III: Methodology hodology
USDA APHIS VS / 157

Section III: Methodology

2. Evaluate management factors related to

cow comfort and removal rates,

3. Describe dairy calf health and nutrition

from birth to weaning and evaluate heifer

disease prevention practices,

4. Estimate the prevalence of herds infected

with bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVD),

5. Describe current milking procedures and

estimate the prevalence of contagious

mastitis pathogens,

6. Estimate the herd-level prevalence and

associated costs of Mycobacterium avium

subspecies paratuberculosis (Johne’s

disease),

7. Describe current biosecurity practices and

determine producer motivation for

implementing or not implementing

biosecurity practices, and

8. Determine the prevalence of specific food

safety pathogens and describe

antimicrobial resistance patterns.

B. Sampling and Estimation

1. State selection The preliminary selection of States to be

included in the study was done in February

2006, using the National Agricultural Statistics

Service (NASS) January 27, 2006, Cattle

Report. A goal for NAHMS national studies is

to include States that account for at least

70 percent of the animals and producer

population in the United States. The initial

review of States identified 16 major States

representing 82.0 percent of the milk cow

inventory and 79.3 percent of the operations

with milk cows (dairy herds). The States were:

California, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico,

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont,

Washington, and Wisconsin.

A memo identifying these 16 States was

provided in March 2006 to the USDA-APHISVS-CEAH Director and, in turn, the VS

Regional Directors. Each Regional Director

sought input from the respective States about

being included or excluded from the study.

Virginia expressed interest in participating and

was included, bringing the total number of

States to 17.
158 / Dairy 2007

Section III: Methodology

2. Operation

selection

The list sampling frame was provided by NASS.

Within each State a stratified random sample

was selected. The size indicator was the number

of milk cows for each operation. NASS selected

a sample of dairy producers in each State for

making the January 1 cattle estimates. The listbased sample from the January 2006 survey was

used as the screening sample. Among those

producers reporting 1 or more milk cows on

January 1, 2006, a total of 3,554 operations

were selected in the sample for contact in

January 2007 during Phase I. Operations with

30 or more dairy cows that had participated in

Phase I were invited to participate in data

collection for Phase II. A total of 1,077

operations agreed to be contacted by Veterinary

Medical Officers (VMOs) to determine whether

to complete Phase II.

3. Population

inferences

a. Phase I: General Dairy Management

Report

Inferences cover the population of dairy

producers with at least 1 milk cow in the

17 participating States. As of January 1, 2007,

these States accounted for 82.5 percent

(7,536,000 head) of milk cows and 79.5 percent

(59,640) of operations with milk cows in the

United States. (See Appendix II for respective

data on individual States.) All respondent data

were statistically weighted to reflect the

population from which they were selected. The

inverse of the probability of selection for each

operation was the initial selection weight. This

selection weight was adjusted for nonresponse

b. Phase II: VS Initial and Second Visits

For operations eligible for Phase II data

collection (those with 30 or more dairy cows),

weights were adjusted to account for operations

that did not want to continue to Phase II. In

addition, weights were adjusted for nonresponse

to the questionnaire in each visit. The 17-State

target population of operations with 30 or more

dairy cows represented 82.5 percent of dairy

cows and 84.7 percent of dairy operations

(Appendix II).

within each State and size group to allow for

inferences back to the original population from

which the sample was selected.
USDA APHIS VS / 159

Section III: Methodology

C. Data Collection

1. Phase I: General

Dairy

Management

Report

2. Phase II: VS

Initial Visit

3. Phase II: VS

Second Visit

From January 1 to 31, 2007, NASS enumerators

administered the General Dairy Management

Report questionnaire. The interview took

slightly more than 1 hour.

From February 26 to April 30, 2007, Federal

and State Veterinary Medical Officers (VMOs)

and/or Animal Health Technicians (AHTs)

collected data from producers during an

interview that lasted approximately 2 hours.

From May 1 to August 31, 2007, Federal and

State VMOs and/or AHTs collected data from

producers during an interview that lasted

approximately 2 hours.

D. Data Analysis

1. Validation a. Phase I: Validation—General Dairy

Management Report

Initial data entry and validation for the General

Dairy Management Report were performed in

individual NASS State offices. Data were

entered into a SAS data set. NAHMS national

staff performed additional data validation on the

entire data set after data from all States were

combined.

b. Phase II: Validation—VS Initial and

Second Visit Questionnaires

After completing the VS Initial and Second Visit

questionnaires, data collectors sent them to their

respective State NAHMS Coordinators, who

reviewed the questionnaire responses for

accuracy and sent them to NAHMS. Data entry

and validation were completed by NAHMS staff

using SAS.
160 / Dairy 2007

Section III: Methodology

E. Sample Evaluation

The purpose of this section is to provide various

performance measurement parameters.

Historically, the term “response rate” has been

used as a catchall parameter, but there are many

ways to define and calculate response rates.

Therefore, the following tables present an

evaluation based upon a number of

measurement parameters, which are defined

with an “x” in categories that contribute to the

measurement.

1. Phase I: General

Dairy

Management

Report

A total of 3,554 operations were selected for the

survey. Of these operations, 3,304 (93.0

percent) were contacted. There were 2,519

operations that provided usable inventory

information (70.9 percent of the total selected

and 76.2 percent of those contacted). In

addition, there were 2,194 operations

(61.7 percent) that provided “complete”

information for the questionnaire. Of operations

that provided complete information and were

eligible to participate in Phase II of the study

(2,067 operations), 1,077 (52.1 percent)

consented to be contacted for consideration/

discussion about further participation.
USDA APHIS VS / 161

Section III: Methodology

Responses for Phase I: General Dairy Management Report 

Measurement Parameter

Response 

Category 

Number 

Operations 

Percent 

Operations Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Survey complete 

and VMO consent 1,077 30.3 x x x 

Survey complete, 

refused VMO 

consent 

990 27.9 x x x 

Survey complete, 

ineligible3

 for VMO 127 3.6 x x x 

No dairy cows on 

January 1, 2007 214 6.0 x x 

Out of business 111 3.1 x x 

Out of scope 6 0.2 

Refusal of GDMR 785 22.1 x 

Office hold (NASS 

elected not to 

contact) 

126 3.5 

Inaccessible 118 3.3 

Total 3,554 100.0 3,304 2,519 2,194 

Percent of total 

operations 93.0 70.9 61.7 

Percent of total 

operations 

weighted4

94.0 74.1 59.6 

1

Usable operation—respondent provided answers to inventory questions for the operation (either zero or 

positive number on hand). 

2

Survey complete operation—respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions. 

3

Ineligible—fewer than 30 head of milk cows on January 1, 2007. 

4

Weighted response—the rate was calculated using the initial selection weights. 
162 / Dairy 2007

Section III: Methodology

2. Phase II: VS

Initial Visit

There were 1,077 operations that agreed to be

contacted by a VMO during Phase I. Of these

1,077 operations, 582 (54.0 percent) agreed to

continue in Phase II of the study and completed

the VS Initial Visit questionnaire; 380

(35.3 percent) refused to participate.

Approximately 10 percent of the 1,077

operations were not contacted, and 0.4 percent

were ineligible because they had no dairy cows

at the time they were contacted.

Responses for Phase II: VS Initial Visit 

Measurement Parameter

Response Category 

Number 

Operations 

Percent 

Operations Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Survey complete 582 54.0 x x x 

Survey refused 380 35.3 x 

Not contacted 111 10.3 

Ineligible3 4 0.4 x x 

Total 1,077 100.0 966 586 582 

Percent of total 

operations 89.7 54.4 54.0 

Percent of total 

operations weighted4 87.5 50.8 50.4 

1

Usable operation—respondent provided answers to inventory questions for the operation (either zero or 

positive number on hand). 

2

Survey complete operation—respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions. 

3

Ineligible—no dairy cows at time of interview, which occurred from February 26 through April 30, 2007 

4

Weighted response—the rate was calculated using the turnover weights. 
USDA APHIS VS / 163

Section III: Methodology

3. Phase II: VS

Second Visit

Of the 582 operations that completed the VS

Initial Visit Questionnaire, 519 (including one

operation that did not complete the VS Initial

Visit on time) completed the VS Second Visit

questionnaire; 47 (8.1 percent) refused to

participate. Approximately 3 percent of the 583

operations were not contacted, and 0.3 percent

were ineligible because they had no dairy cows

at the time of the VS Second Visit.

Responses for Phase II: VS Second Visit 

Measurement Parameter

Response Category 

Number 

Operations 

Percent 

Operations Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Survey complete 519 89.0 x x x 

Survey refused 47 8.1 x 

Not contacted 15 2.6 

Ineligible3 2 0.3 x x 

Total 583 100.0 568 521 519 

Percent of total 

operations 97.4 89.4 89.0 

Percent of total 

operations weighted4 98.1 90.6 90.3 

1

Usable operation—respondent provided answers to inventory questions for the operation (either zero or 

positive number on hand). 

2

Survey complete operation—respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions. 

3

Ineligible—no dairy cows at time of interview, which occurred from May 1 through August 31, 2007. 

4

Weighted response—the rate was calculated using the turnover weights. 
164 / Dairy 2007

Appendix I: Sample Profile

Appendix I: Sam Appendix I: Sample Profile

Responding Operations

a. Number of responding operations by herd size

Herd Size 

(Number of 

Cows)

Phase I: 

General Dairy 

Management 

Report 

Phase II: VS 

Initial Visit 

Phase II: VS 

Second Visit 

Cow Comfort 

Assessment 

Fewer than 100 1,028 233 211 187 

100 to 499 691 215 188 179 

500 or more 475 134 120 119 

Total 2,194 582 519 485 

b. Number of responding operations by region

Region 

Phase I: 

General Dairy 

Management 

Report 

Phase II: VS 

Initial Visit 

Phase II: VS 

Second Visit 

Cow Comfort 

Assessment 

West 426 108 93 81 

East 1,768 474 426 404 

Total 2,194 582 519 485 
USDA APHIS VS / 165

Appendix II: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations

Appendix II: U Appendix II: U.S. Milk Co .S. Milk Cow

Population and Oper opulation and Operations

Number of milk cows on January 1, 2007* 

Number of Milk Cows, 

January 1, 2007 

(Thousand Head)

Number of Operations 

2006 Average Herd Size 

Region State 

Milk Cows 

on 

Operations 

with 1 or 

More Head 

Milk Cows 

on 

Operations 

with 30 or 

More Head 

Operations 

with 1 or 

More Head 

Operations 

with 30 or 

More Head 

Operations 

with 1 or 

More head 

Operations 

with 30 or 

More Head 

West 

California 1,790 1,788.2 2,200 1,920 813.6 931.4 

Idaho 502 501.0 800 620 627.5 808.1 

New Mexico 360 358.9 450 180 800.0 1,993.9 

Texas 347 344.2 1,300 660 266.9 521.5 

Washington 235 234.3 790 540 297.5 433.9 

Total 3,234 3,226.6 5,540 3,920 583.8 823.1 

East 

Indiana 166 154.4 2,100 1,150 79.0 134.3 

Iowa 210 203.7 2,400 1,870 87.5 108.9 

Kentucky 93 86.5 2,000 1,180 46.5 73.3 

Michigan 327 320.5 2,700 1,910 121.1 167.8 

Minnesota 455 441.3 5,400 4,800 84.3 91.9 

Missouri 114 108.3 2,600 1,400 43.8 77.4 

New York 628 612.3 6,400 5,100 98.1 120.1 

Ohio 274 252.1 4,300 2,400 63.7 105.0 

Pennsylvania 550 536.3 8,700 7,000 63.2 76.6 

Vermont 140 137.2 1,300 1,100 107.7 124.7 

Virginia 100 97.0 1,300 820 76.9 118.3 

Wisconsin 1,245 1,213.9 14,900 12,800 83.6 94.8 

Total 4,302 4,163.5 54,100 41,530 79.5 100.3 

Total (17 States) 7,536 7,390.1 59,640 45,450 126.4 162.6 

Percent of U.S. 82.5 82.5 79.5 84.7 

Total U.S. (50 States) 9,132.0 8,958.5 74,980 53,680 121.8 166.9 

*Source: NASS Cattle report, February 1, 2008, and NASS Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations 2007 Summary report, 

February 1, 2008. An operation is any place having one or more head of milk cows, excluding cows used to nurse calves, on hand at 

any time during the year. 
166 / Dairy 2007

Appendix III: Typical Freestall Components and Dimensions

Appendix III: T Appendix III: Typical

Freestall Com all Components and ponents and

Dimensions Dimensions
USDA APHIS VS / 167

Appendix IV: References

Appendix IV Appendix IV: References

American Society of Agricultural and Biological

Engineers. 2006. Terminology and

recommendation for freestall dairy housing,

freestalls, feedbunks, and feeding fences.

Accessed January 2010 at: http://

asae.frymulti.com/

azdez.asp?JID=2&AID=19143&CID=s2000&T=2

Anderson N. 2008a. Tie stall dimensions.

Accessed January 2010 at: http://

www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/

facts/info_tsdimen.pdf

Anderson N. 2008b. Dairy cow comfort: Freestall dimensions. Accessed January 2010 at:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/

dairy/facts/info_fsdimen.pdf

Bernardi F, Fregonesi J, Winckler C, Veira DM,

von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. 2009. The

stall-design paradox: neck rails increase

lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene.

J Dairy Sci 92:3074–3080.

British Columbia, Ministry of Agriculture and

Food. 1994. Farm structures factsheet: Free stall

design. Accessed January 2010 at: http://

www.al.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/publist/300Series/

326200-3.pdf

Cook NB, Nordlund KV. 2004. Behavioral

needs of the transition cow and considerations

for special needs facility design. Vet Clin North

Am Food Anim Prac 20:495–520.

Cook NB. 2010. Time budgets for dairy cows:

How does cow comfort influence health,

reproduction and productivity? Accessed

January 2010 at: http://

svmweb.vetmed.wisc.edu/dms/fapm/publicats/

proceeds/

TimeBudgetsandDairyCowsOmaha.pdf

Cook NB, Bennett TB, Nordlund KV. 2004.

Effect of free stall surface on daily activity

patterns in dairy cows with relevance to

lameness prevalence. J. Dairy Sci 87:2919–

2922.

Cook NB, Bennett TB, Nordlund KV. 2005.

Monitoring indices of cow comfort in free-stallhoused dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3876–3885.

Cook NB. 2008. Makin’ me dizzy—pen moves

and facility designs to maximize transition cow

health and productivity. Vermont Large Farm

Dairy Conference Proc, Colchester, VT.

February 26, 2008.

Cook NB. 2004. The cow comfort link to milk

quality. NMC Regional Meeting Proc,

Bloomington, MN, July 29–30.

Elmoslemany AM, Keefe GP, Dohoo IR,

Jayarao BM. 2009. Risk factors for

bacteriological quality of bulk tank milk in

Prince Edward Island dairy herds. Part 2:

bacteria count-specific risk factors. J Dairy Sci

92:2644–2652.

Fregonesi JA, Tucker CB, Weary DM. 2007.

Overstocking reduces lying time in dairy cows.

J Dairy Sci 90:3349–3354.
168 / Dairy 2007

Appendix IV: References

Fregonesi JA, von Keyserlingk MAG, Tucker

CB, Veira DM, Weary DM. 2009. Neck-rail

position in the free stall affects standing

behavior and udder and stall cleanliness. J Dairy

Sci 92:1979–1985.

Fulwider WK, Grandin T, Garrick DJ, Engle

TE, Lamm WD, Dalsted NL, Rollin BE. 2007.

Influence of free-stall base on tarsal joint lesions

and hygiene in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci

90:3559–3566.

Hill CT, Krawczel PD, Dann HM, Ballard CS,

Hovey RC, Falls WA, Grant RJ. 2009. Effect of

stocking density on the short-term behavioural

responses of dairy cows. App. Anim Behav Sci.

117:144–149.

Huzzey JM, DeVries TJ, Valois P, von

Keyserlingk MA. 2006. Stocking density and

feed barrier design affect the feeding and social

behavior of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 89:126–

133.

Krawczel PD, Hill CT, Dann HM, Grant RJ.

2008. Short communication: effect of stocking

density on indices of cow comfort. J Dairy Sci.

91:1903–1907.

Lombard JE, Tucker CB, von Keyserlingk

MAG, Kopral CA, Weary DM. 2010.

Associations between cow cleanliness, hock

scores, and stall usage on U.S. dairy farms.

J Dairy Sci 93:4668–4676.

Manninen E, de Passille AM, Rushen J, Norring

M, Saloniemi H. 2002. Preferences of dairy

cows kept in unheated buildings for different

kind of cubical flooring. Appl Anim Behav Sci

75:281–292.

National Research Council. 2001. Water

requirements. In Nutrient Requirements of Dairy

Cattle. 7th rev, ed. National Academy Press,

Washington, DC, 178–183.

Norring M, Manninen E, de Passille AM,

Rushen J, Saloniemi H. 2010. Preferences of

dairy cows for three stall surface materials with

small amounts of bedding. J. Dairy Sci. 93:70-

74.

Nordlund KV, Cook NB, Oetzel G. 2006.

Commingling dairy cows: pen moves, stocking

density, and health. 39th Annual Conference of

the American Association of Bovine

Practitioners Proc, St. Paul, MN, p 36–42.

Overton MW, Sischo WM, Temple GD, Moore

DA. 2002. Using time-lapse video photography

to assess dairy cattle lying behavior in a freestall barn. J Dairy Sci 85:2407–2413.

Overton MW, Moore DA, Sischo WM. 2003.

Comparison of commonly used indices to

evaluate dairy cattle lying behavior. 5th Intl

Dairy Housing Conf Proc, Fort Worth, TX.

ASAE, St Joseph, MI, 125–130. Accessed

January 2010 at: http://asae.frymulti.com/

azdez.asp?JID=1&AID=11612&CID=dhc2003&T=2

Prodoufoot KL, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk

MAG. 2010.Behavior during transition differs

for cows diagnosed with claw horn lesions in

mid lactation. J Dairy Sci 93:3970–3978.

Reneau JK, Seykora AJ, Heins BJ, Endres MI,

Farnsworth RJ, Bey RF. 2005. Association

between cow hygiene scores and somatic cell

scores. J Am Vet Med Assoc 227:1297–1301.
USDA APHIS VS / 169

Appendix IV: References

Schreiner DA, Ruegg PL. 2003. Relationship

between udder and leg hygiene scores and

subclinical mastitis. J Dairy Sci 86:3460–3465.

Shaver RD. 2002. Rumen acidosis in dairy

cattle: bunk management considerations.

Accessed January 2010 at: http://

www.uwex.edu/ces/ag/teams/dairy/

FLlameness02.pdf

Smith JF, Brouk MJ, Harner JP. 2001. Freestall

barn design and cooling systems. Kansas State

University, February 2001.

Tucker CB, Weary DM, Fraser D. 2003. Effects

of three types of free-stall surfaces on

preferences and stall usage by dairy cows.

J Dairy Sci 86:521–529.

Tucker CB, Weary DM, Fraser D. 2004. Freestall dimensions: effects on preference and stall

usage. J Dairy Sci 87:1208-1216.

 .

Tucker CB, Weary DM, Fraser D. 2005.

Influence of neck-rail placement on free-stall

preference, use, and cleanliness. J Dairy Sci

88:2730–2737.

Tucker CB, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MA,

Beauchemin KA. 2009. Cow comfort in tiestalls: increased depth of shavings or straw

bedding increases lying time. J Dairy Sci

92:2684–2690.

Tucker CB, Zdanowicz G, Weary DM. 2006.

Brisket boards reduce freestall use. J Dairy Sci

89:2603–2607.

Vokey FJ. 2004. Don’t forget about the hocks.

Cornell Coop Ext Lewis County Ag Dig 10(9).

Vokey FJ, Guard CL, Erb HN, Galton DM.

2001. Effects of alley and stall surfaces on

indices of claw and leg health in dairy cattle

housed in a free-stall barn. J Dairy Sci.

84:2686–2699.

Weary DM, Taszkun I. 2000. Hock lesions and

free-stall design. J Dairy Sci 83:697–702.

Wechsler B, Schaub J, Friedli K, Hauser R.

2000. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows

kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding or

soft lying mats. Appl Anim Behav Sci 69:189–

197.

Wierenga HK, Hopster H. 1990. The

significance of cubicles for the behaviour of

dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 26:309–337.

Zähner M, Schrader L, Hauser R, Keck M,

Langhans W, Wechsler B. 2004. The influence

of climatic conditions on physiological and

behavioural parameters in dairy cows kept in

open stables. Anim Sci 78:139–147.

Zurbrigg K, Kelton D, Anderson N, Millman S.

2005. Tie-stall design and its relationship to

lameness, injury, and cleanliness on 317 Ontario

dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 88:3201–3210.