United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

January 2010

Dairy 2007

Heifer Calf Health and Management Practices

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

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

N550.0110
USDA APHIS VS i.

Selected Highlights of Selected Highlights of

Heifer Calf Health and Heifer Calf Health and

Management Pr ement Practices actices

The Dairy 2007 study marks the first time in 15 years that the National Animal Health Monitoring

System has taken an in-depth look at dairy heifer calf health and management. Here are a few

highlights from this report:

During 2006, almost 9 of 10 cows and heifers (86.0 percent) delivered a calf that was alive at 48

hours. Overall, 8.1 percent of calves were stillborn during 2006.

Approximately 6 of 10 operations (60.5 percent) had guidelines on when to intervene during calving

for both heifers and cows, and more than 9 of 10 operations (91.9 percent) provided training in

calving intervention for owners/employees of the operation.

The majority of operations (59.2 percent) hand-fed colostrum to calves from a bucket or bottle. On

average, calves received hand-fed colostrum 3.3 hours following birth. About one-third of

operations (36.3 percent) allowed calves to ingest colostrum during first nursing of the dam.

Almost one of five heifer calves (19.2 percent) had failure of passive transfer of immunity based on

serum IgG testing. Calves allowed to nurse the dam were more likely to have failure of passive

transfer than calves that did not nurse. Assessment of passive transfer level using serum total

protein agreed with IgG classification of passive transfer level in 75.4 percent of calves.

The operation average age of heifers at weaning was 8.2 weeks, with large operations weaning

calves at an older age (9.1 weeks) than medium and small operations (7.9 and 8.2 weeks,

respectively). The median weight at 2 months of age (56 to 62 days) for Holstein heifer calves was

177 pounds.

About 1 of 10 operations (9.3 percent) raised any dairy heifers off the operation. More than two of

three operations (69.5 percent)—housing 78.7 percent of heifer calves—did not allow preweaned

calves to have contact with older cattle.

During 2006, 7.8 percent of preweaned heifers and 1.8 percent of weaned heifers died. Scours,

diarrhea, or other digestive problems accounted for the majority of preweaned heifer deaths

(56.5 percent). Respiratory disease was the single largest cause of weaned heifer deaths (46.5

percent).
ii Dairy 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WLEDGEMENTS

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).

Recognition goes 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. Thanks 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 Laboratory;

• Quality Milk Production Services;

• Tetracore, Inc.;

• 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
 USDA APHIS VS iii

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2010. Dairy 2007, Heifer Calf Health and Management

Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007

USDA:APHIS:VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO

#550.0110

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Jason Lombard

(970) 494-7000

Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Kathy Snover

(970) 494-7000

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

Feedback

Feedback, comments, and suggestions regarding the Dairy 2007

study reports are welcomed. Please forward correspondence via

e-mail 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.”)
Table of Cont able of Contents

iv Dairy 2007

Introduction 1

Calf Management 1

Study Development 1

Terms Used In This Report 4

Section I: Population Estimates 7

A. Calving 7

1. Introduction 7

2. Maternity housing 7

3. Calving area 8

4. Calving personnel 16

5. Births 19

6. Stillbirths 20

B. Dystocia Management 22

1. Introduction 22

2. Guidelines for calving intervention 24

3. Training personnel 26

4. Calving difficulty scoring 26

5. Observation close to calving 28

6. Intervention 34

7. Veterinary assistance 42

8. Assistance for compromised calves 46

C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status 50

1. Colostrum management 50

2. Pasteurizing colostrum 58

3. Measuring passive transfer of immunity 59

4. Calf IgG passive transfer status 61

5. Calf serum total protein passive transfer status 69

6. Comparison of IgG and total protein status 73

D. Nutrition 74

1. Introduction 74

2. Liquid diets (milk/milk replacer) 74

3. Water and calf starter 80
USDA APHIS VS v

E. Growth from Birth to Weaning 82

1. Introduction 82

2. Holstein growth parameters 83

F. General Management 87

1. Housing 87

2. Off-site heifer raising 89

3. Weaning age 96

4. Preventive practices 97

5. Injection practices 100

6. Vaccination practices 101

7. Bovine viral diarrhea 103

G. Surgical Procedures 106

1. Dehorning 106

2. Extra teat removal 113

3. Tail docking 114

H. Biosecurity 118

1. Introduction 118

2. Source of heifer inventory 119

3. Animals brought onto the operation 119

4. Quarantine of herd additions 121

5. Calf contact with other cattle 121

I. Health 122

1. Morbidity and antibiotic use in preweaned heifers 122

2. Morbidity and antibiotic use in weaned heifers 125

J. Mortality and Carcass Disposal 129

1. Mortality 129

2. Necropsy 129

3. Cause of death 130

4. Carcass disposal 132

Section II: Methodology 133

A. Needs Assessment 133
vi Dairy 2007

B. Sampling and Estimation 134

1. State selection 134

2. Operation selection 135

3. Animal selection for IgG sampling 135

4. Population inferences 136

C. Data Collection 136

D. Data Analysis 137

Validation 137

E. Sample Evaluation 137

1. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report 137

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit 139

3. Phase II: VS Second Visit 140

Appendix I: Sample Profile 141

Responding Operations 141

Appendix II: Sample Profile for Passive Transfer Status and Growth 142

1. Number of calves sampled for IgG testing by age 142

2. Number of calves sampled for IgG testing by season 142

3. Number of preweaned heifer calves measured for growth, by age and breed 143

Appendix III: Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Class 144

Appendix IV: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations 147

Appendix V: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 148

Appendix VI: References 150
Introduction

 USDA APHIS VS  1

Introduction Introduction

Calf Management

Calf management is an important aspect of dairy

operations. Calf health is important to the longterm success of operations because heifer

calves typically have better genetics (e.g., they

are more productive) than adult cows and

represent the future dairy herd. Producers

should consider resources allocated to calf

management as investments in the future.

Maximizing calf health is not easy. Young calves

face numerous challenges: the birthing process,

acquiring an adequate amount of high-quality

colostrum, avoiding infectious diseases, and the

impact of other stressors such as weaning and

dehorning. Because of these challenges,

preweaned calves have the highest morbidity

and mortality rates of any age dairy cattle.

Studies have estimated the proportion of

stillbirths in dairy calves to be between 7 and 8

percent (7.1 percent–Meyer et al., 2000; 8.1

percent – USDA, 2007). Of calves born alive, an

additional 7.8 percent die prior to weaning

(USDA, 2007), bringing the overall preweaning

calf mortality on dairy operations to

approximately 15 percent. It is important to

realize that the costs of poor calf management

go beyond just calf mortality losses. For

example, failure of passive transfer of immunity

in calves not only results in increased mortality

early in life (Wells et al., 1996), but also has longterm effects on calves’ lives. Failure of passive

transfer in heifer calves is linked with decreased

rate and efficiency of growth and decreased first

and second lactation milk production

(Faber, 2005). Management practices including

calving management, colostrum administration,

nutrition, biosecurity, and vaccination can

impact the overall health and productivity of the

dairy herd.

For these reasons, excellent calf health and

management should be a high priority. The

purpose of this report is to examine dairy calf

health and calf management practices in the

United States.

Study Development

The National Animal Health Monitoring System

(NAHMS) is a nonregulatory division of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service. NAHMS is

designed to help meet the Nation’s animal-health

information needs and has collected data on

dairy health and management practices through

three 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. An outbreak of human illness was

reported in 1993 in the Pacific Northwest, this

time related to Escherichia coli 0157:H7. 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
2  Dairy 2007

Introduction

and educational efforts in various production

areas, such as feed management and weaning

age.

Information from the NAHMS Dairy ‘96 study

helped the U.S. dairy industry identify

educational needs and prioritize research efforts

on such timely topics as antibiotic usage and

Johne’s disease, as well as digital dermatitis,

bovine leukosis virus, and potential foodborne

pathogens, including E. coli, Salmonella, and

Campylobacter.

A major focus of the Dairy 2002 study was 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.

Additionally, levels of participation in quality

assurance programs, the incidence of digital

dermatitis, a profile of animal waste handling

systems used on U.S. dairy operations, and

industry changes since the NDHEP in 1991 and

Dairy ‘96 were examined.

The Dairy 2007 study was conducted in 17 of

the Nation’s major dairy States (see map on

following 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 the

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

from 2,194 dairy operations by National

Agricultural Statistics Service enumerators

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

2007 study, data were collected from a subset of

Phase 1 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.

One objective of the Dairy 2007 study was to

describe dairy calf health and nutrition from

birth to weaning and evaluate heifer disease

prevention practices. This report provides all

calf-related information collected during the

Dairy 2007 study.
USDA APHIS VS  3

Introduction

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
4  Dairy 2002

Introduction

Terms Used In This Report

Amniotic sac: The fluid-filled sac surrounding

the calf in the uterus, also referred to as the

water bag.

Antibiotics: Substances produced by

microorganisms that kill or inhibit the growth of

other microorganisms. For the purpose of this

report, antibiotics are synonymous with

antimicrobials.

Antimicrobial: Any substance that kills or

inhibits the growth of microorganisms.

Bovine viral diarrhea: an infectious disease of

cattle caused by a pestivirus. Infection can

result in embryonic death, abortion, stillbirths,

and congenital defects such as cerebellar

agenesis that results in ataxia or lack of

coordination.

Colostrum: The mammary secretion harvested

immediately after calving, which is rich in

immunoglobulins (maternal antibodies) and

other nutrients.

Cow: Female dairy bovine that has calved at

least once.

Dam: The maternal parent.

Dry period: The period from the end of one

lactation to the beginning of a new lactation.

Dystocia: Delayed, abnormal, or difficult calving

which usually requires intervention to deliver

the calf.

ELISA: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Estrous: Pertaining to estrus or in reference to

the entire reproductive cycle

(i.e., estrous cycle).

Estrus: The period during the reproductive

cycle when the female displays interest in

mating and will stand to be mounted.

Behavioral signs of estrus, in addition to

standing to be mounted, include passage of

clear mucus from the vulva and swelling of the

vulva.

Forestomach: A collective term for the rumen,

reticulum, and omasum of the ruminant stomach.

Heifer: Female dairy bovine that has not yet

calved.

Helminth: A parasitic worm.

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.

Hypocalcemia: Low calcium level in blood.

IgG: Immunoglobulin G, one of several proteins

that function as antibodies, a component of the

immune system which helps an animal to fight

disease.
USDA APHIS VS  5

Introduction

Immunoglobulins: Proteins that function as

antibodies, a component of the immune system

that helps an animal fight disease.

Ionophore: Feed additive that enhances feed

efficiency in cattle by altering ruminal

fermentation by facilitating the transport of ions

across cell membranes. Ionphores are also used

to control coccidiosis infections in calves. The

Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which

approves and regulates animal drugs, considers

ionophores a type of antibiotic.

Milk fever: Common name for hypocalcemia or

low blood calcium levels, common in cows

around the time of calving.

Multiparous: Female dairy bovine that has

given birth two or more times.

Nonsaleable milk: Milk that is not sold for

human consumption, typically includes waste

milk, transition milk, and colostrum.

Operation: The definition of operation for

Phase I of the Dairy 2007 study was: premises

with at least one dairy cow on January 1, 2007.

For Phase II it was: premises with at least 30

dairy cows on January 1, 2007. This report

contains data from both phases.

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,

the operation average number of calving

personnel (see table a, p 16) was calculated by

summing the number of hours following birth

that calves usually got their first colostrum

feeding over all operations divided by the

number of operations.

Parturition: The process of giving birth.

Passive transfer: The process by which the cow

passes immunoglobulins via colostrum

(for protection against disease) to the calf.

PCR: Polymerase chain reaction.

Placenta: A structure in the uterus that allows

transport of nutrients and waste products

between the dam and the fetus during

pregnancy. The placenta is expelled following

birth.

Population estimates: The estimates in this

report make inference to all operations or dairy

cattle in the target population

(see Methodology, p 133). 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.
6  Dairy 2007

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.

Primiparous: Female dairy bovine that has only

given birth once or is pregnant for the first time.

Regions:

• West: California, Idaho, New Mexico,

 Texas, and Washington

• East: Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,

 Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio,

 Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and

 Wisconsin

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

Sample profile: Information that describes

characteristics of the operations from which

Dairy 2007 data were collected.

Transition milk: The mammary secretion

harvested in the period between colostrum and

normal milk, often considered waste or

nonsaleable milk.

Usual calving area: An area separate from

housing for lactating cows designated

specifically for calving. Tie stalls or stanchions

were not considered usual calving areas for the

purpose of this report.
USDA APHIS VS  7

 Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

Section I: Section I: Section I:

Population Estimates Population Estimates

A. Calving

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

The goal of the calving event is to have a live,

healthy calf and cow. Preparation for successful

calving begins long before the date of

parturition. About 60 days before calving, the

dry period begins for lactating dairy cows. The

length of the dry period and the nutrition

provided during this time are important to the

health of the cow and the calf. Dry periods

shorter than 40 days can result in decreased

quantities of colostrum as well as decreased milk

production in the subsequent lactation. Dry

periods shorter than 21 days may result in

decreased quality of colostrum.

2. Maternity

housing

During the dry period, nonlactating (dry) cows

should be segregated from the lactating herd to

allow the producer to formulate different diets to

meet the specific needs of each group. Limiting

potassium intake and providing anionic salts to

dry cows help to prevent milk fever and can be

implemented when dry cows are housed

separately from lactating cows.

Dry cow or maternity housing was separate from

lactating cow housing on 60.0 percent of

operations, and the percentage of operations

that used separate housing increased as herd

size increased.

Percentage of operations in which maternity housing was separate from housing 

used for lactating cows, by herd size 

Percent Operations* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

51.5 (1.7) 80.8 (1.8) 90.4 (2.0) 60.0 (1.3) 

*Operations with any dairy cows. 

1. Introduction
8  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

3. Calving area Cows are generally moved from the far-off dry

cow area to a close-up dry cow area when they

are about 3 weeks from calving. Expected

calving dates are determined based on service

date and gestation length. The average

gestation period for a cow is approximately

282 days; the gestation period for Ayrshires,

Holsteins, and Jerseys is usually closer to

279 days, while Brown Swiss and Guernsey

gestations are about 288 and 283 days,

respectively (Brakel et al., 1952; Merck, 1998).

Ideally, cows should be moved from the

close-up dry cow area into the calving pen as

close to calving as possible. If the cows spend

too long in the calving pen, the cleanliness of

the area can be compromised. The calving area

should be clean, dry, quiet, and provide

100-125 square feet of resting space per cow,

enough to allow the cow to lie down

comfortably and deliver a calf. It should have

good lighting to facilitate observation and

should be isolated from other areas of the dairy

to prevent the cow from becoming distracted or

stressed by commotion from other farm tasks.

Individual calving pens that can be cleaned

between uses are ideal for the prevention of

disease. However, group calving pens, if

managed well, can also be effective. Group pens

require fewer workers for monitoring, which can

be desirable on larger dairies. In addition, sick

cattle or animals that have tested positive for

Johne’s disease should not be allowed in the

calving area, since they can transmit diseases to

calves (Davis and Drackley, 1998; Mee, 2008).

The majority of operations (70.0 percent) used a

multiple-animal calving area/pen. A lower

percentage of small operations (65.6 percent)

used a multiple-animal calving area compared

with medium operations (79.8 percent).

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 individualanimal pen that was cleaned between each

calving compared with medium and large

operations (14.6 and 13.5 percent, respectively).

Some operations listed more than one type of

calving area.
USDA APHIS VS  9

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

a. Percentage of operations by areas 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) 

The usual calving area was defined as an area

separate from housing for lactating cows

designated specifically for calving. Tie stalls or

stanchions were not considered usual calving

b. Percentage of operations that had a usual calving area, 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 

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

areas for the purpose of this report. The

percentage of operations with a usual calving

area ranged from 62.5 percent of small

operations to 98.2 percent of large operations.
10  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

A higher percentage of operations in the West

region than in the East region had a usual

calving area (88.7 and 68.3 percent,

respectively). This difference is likely due to the

different types of housing used for lactating

cows in the two regions. Operations in the West

region are generally larger and most often house

cows in loose housing systems such as

freestalls or drylots, which necessitate the use

of dedicated calving areas. Cows in the East

region are often housed in smaller tie stall/

stanchion barns and calve in their respective

stalls. These types of facilities were not

considered usual calving areas in this report.

c. Percentage of operations that had a usual calving area, by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

88.7 (3.8) 68.3 (3.0) 

Of operations with a usual calving area, 4 of 10

(39.9 percent) moved cows into the calving area

within a day prior to calving; there were no

differences by region. Cows were kept in the

calving area prior to calving for 3.1 to 14.0 days

on 26.6 percent of operations and for 14.1 or

more days on 18.9 percent of operations.

d. For the 70.1 percent of operations with a usual calving area, percentage of 

operations by number of days cows remained in the usual calving area/pen 

prior to calving, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East All Operations 

Number of Days Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 or less 28.6 (4.9) 41.4 (3.6) 39.9 (3.2) 

1.1 to 3.0 8.3 (2.9) 15.4 (2.6) 14.6 (2.3) 

3.1 to 14.0 36.4 (5.6) 25.3 (3.1) 26.6 (2.8) 

14.1 or more 26.7 (4.9) 17.9 (2.5) 18.9 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  11

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

Of operations with a usual calving area, only

12.9 percent removed cows from the calving area

in the first hour after calving. A lower percentage

of large operations (6.2 percent) allowed cows to

remain in the usual calving area for 14.1 or more

hours compared with small operations

(25.0 percent).

e. For the 70.1 percent of operations with a usual calving area, percentage of 

operations by number of hours cows remained in the usual calving area/pen 

after 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 

Number of Hours Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Removed 

immediately 4.4 (1.8) 2.7 (1.3) 7.2 (3.0) 4.2 (1.2) 

0.25 to 1.0 8.0 (2.3) 7.8 (2.1) 16.5 (3.8) 8.7 (1.6) 

1.1 to 3.0 22.5 (4.0) 26.1 (4.0) 28.0 (5.4) 24.1 (2.8) 

3.1 to 14.0 40.1 (4.6) 44.0 (4.4) 42.1 (5.5) 41.4 (3.2) 

14.1 or more 25.0 (4.2) 19.4 (3.9) 6.2 (3.2) 21.6 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
12  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

There were no regional differences by length of

time that cows remained in the usual calving

area after calving.

A higher percentage of small and medium

operations (37.3 and 33.0 percent, respectively)

allowed sick cows into calving areas than large

operations (16.5 percent). Approximately

one-half of operations (51.6 percent) allowed

lame cows into the calving area. A lower

percentage of large operations (28.6 percent)

allowed lame cows into the calving area than

medium and small operations (57.9 and 51.8

percent, respectively).

f. For the 70.1 percent of operations with a usual calving area, percentage of 

operations by number of hours cows remained in the usual calving area/pen 

after calving, by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Number of Hours Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Removed immediately 6.7 (2.7) 3.9 (1.3) 

0.25 to 1.0 7.3 (2.7) 8.9 (1.7) 

1.1 to 3.0 22.6 (4.9) 24.3 (3.1) 

3.1 to 14.0 44.6 (5.8) 41.0 (3.5) 

14.1 or more 18.8 (4.9) 21.9 (3.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  13

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

g. For the 70.1 percent of operations with a usual calving area, percentage of 

operations that allowed sick/lame cows in the usual calving area, by cattle class 

and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Cattle Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Sick cows 37.3 (4.6) 33.0 (4.5) 16.5 (4.4) 34.2 (3.2) 

Lame cows 51.8 (4.6) 57.9 (4.4) 28.6 (4.5) 51.6 (3.1) 

Other 5.4 (2.0) 5.8 (2.3) 4.1 (2.2) 5.4 (1.4) 

Any of the above 56.4 (4.6) 62.3 (4.2) 30.7 (4.6) 55.8 (3.1) 

Cows that test positive for Johne’s disease

present a risk of contaminating the usual calving

area and transmitting disease to newborn calves.

To prevent calving-area contamination and the

potential for infecting calves, test-positive cows

should not be allowed in the calving area or

other calf areas. Of all operations, 28.3 percent

had a usual calving area and tested for Johne’s

disease. A higher percentage of medium

operations had a usual calving area and tested

for Johne’s disease compared with small

operations.

h. Percentage of operations that had a usual calving area and tested for Johne’s 

disease, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

23.4 (3.2) 39.6 (4.0) 37.1 (5.6) 28.3 (2.4) 
14  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

There were no differences by herd size in the

percentage of operations that allowed Johne’s

disease test-positive animals into the calving

area; 15.5 percent of operations that had a usual

calving area and tested for Johne’s disease

allowed test-positive cows into the calving area.

The percentage of calves born in the usual

calving area increased as herd size increased.

Overall, 89.8 percent of calves were born in the

usual calving area.

i. For the 28.3 percent of operations with a usual calving area and that tested for 

Johne’s disease, percentage of operations that allowed Johne’s test-positive 

cows in the usual calving area, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

12.0 (4.5) 18.0 (5.0) 30.2 (8.3) 15.5 (3.2) 

j. For the 70.1 percent of operations with a usual calving area, percentage of 

calves born in the usual calving area, by herd size 

Percent Calves 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

79.9 (2.0) 89.0 (1.3) 93.6 (1.3) 89.8 (0.9) 
USDA APHIS VS  15

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez
16  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

A higher percentage of small operations than

large operations reported that less than threefourths of their calves were born in the usual

calving area. A higher percentage of large

operations (45.8 percent) reported that 91 to 99

percent of calves were born in the calving area

compared with 16.6 percent of small operations.

k. For the 70.1 percent of operations with a usual calving area, percentage of 

calves born in the usual calving area/pen, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Percent Calves Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 to 50 19.3 (3.8) 8.4 (2.5) 3.7 (2.0) 14.7 (2.5) 

51 to 75 18.3 (3.9) 6.5 (2.3) 3.6 (2.0) 13.5 (2.5) 

76 to 90 28.6 (4.3) 29.0 (4.2) 24.0 (4.5) 28.3 (3.0) 

91 to 99 16.6 (3.2) 38.4 (4.5) 45.8 (5.7) 25.6 (2.5) 

100 17.2 (3.3) 17.7 (3.3) 22.9 (5.5) 17.9 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

a. Operation average number of calving personnel by herd size 

Operation Average Number of Calving Personnel 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

2.0 (0.1) 3.0 (0.1) 4.1 (0.3) 2.4 (0.1) 

4. Calving

personnel

The operation average number of calving

personnel (people with any work duties in the

calving area, including employees and family

members) was 2.4. As expected, the average

number of calving personnel increased as herd

size increased.
USDA APHIS VS  17

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

Overall, there was an average of 70.2 cows on

the operation for every person with duties in the

calving area. On small operations, the ratio of

number of cows in the herd to the number of

calving personnel was 29.4. On large operations,

there was an average of 297.8 cows for each

person with calving area duties.

The majority of small operations (76.4 percent)

had one or two calving personnel compared with

two or three for medium operations

(64.6 percent) and three or more for large

operations (76.5 percent).

c. Percentage of operations by number of calving personnel, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Number of 

Personnel Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 34.5 (3.9) 8.2 (2.3) 7.3 (3.7) 26.3 (2.8) 

2 41.9 (4.0) 35.1 (4.3) 16.2 (4.7) 38.6 (3.0) 

3 16.9 (3.1) 29.5 (4.2) 34.9 (6.4) 21.1 (2.4) 

4 5.7 (1.6) 18.0 (3.5) 8.0 (3.3) 8.9 (1.5) 

5 or more 1.0 (0.7) 9.2 (2.4) 33.6 (5.5) 5.1 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

b. Operation average number of cows for each person with duties in the calving 

area, by herd size 

Operation Average Number of Cows per Person 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

29.4 (1.2) 64.0 (3.0) 297.8 (27.7) 70.2 (4.1) 
18  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving
USDA APHIS VS  19

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

The West region had a higher percentage of

operations with five or more calving personnel

(16.6 percent) than the East region (4.0 percent),

which is probably a reflection of larger herds in

the West region.

d. Percentage of operations by number of calving personnel, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Number of Personnel Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

1 15.7 (4.8) 27.3 (3.1) 

2 35.1 (5.9) 38.9 (3.2) 

3 27.4 (5.1) 20.6 (2.6) 

4 5.2 (2.5) 9.2 (1.6) 

5 or more 16.6 (3.9) 4.0 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

5. Births During 2006, almost 9 of 10 cows and heifers

(86.0 percent) delivered a calf that was alive at 48

hours.

a. Calves* born during 2006 and alive at 48 hours, as a percentage of January 1, 

2007, cow inventory, by region 

Region 

West East All Operations 

Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error 

81.0 (1.1) 89.7 (0.5) 86.0 (0.6) 

*Calves on operations with any cows 
20  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

One-half of calves born in 2006 and alive at 48

hours (50.8 percent) were heifer calves.

b. Heifer calves* as a percentage of all calves born during 2006 and alive at 

48 hours, by region 

Percent Calves* 

Region 

West East All Operations 

Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error 

52.0 (0.6) 49.9 (0.3) 50.8 (0.3) 

*Calves on operations with any cows 

6. Stillbirths

All medium and large operations had at least one

stillborn calf during the previous 12 months, and

almost all small operations (94.7 percent) had at

least one stillborn calf. Overall, 8.1 percent of

calves were stillborn during the previous 12

months.

a. Percentage of operations with stillborn calves and percentage of calves that 

were stillborn (including calves that were born dead or died within 48 hours of 

birth) during the previous 12 months, by herd size 

Percent 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Population Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Operations 94.7 (1.8) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 96.3 (1.3) 

Calves* 8.9 (0.4) 8.6 (0.4) 7.2 (0.5) 8.1 (0.3) 

*Number of calves stillborn x 100 / number of calves born during 2006. 

Note: Stillbirths were reported on p 61 of NAHMS’ “Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States, 2007–08” report. Stillbirth estimates in Part I

represent operations with any cows and are slightly lower than those reported below

(6.5 percent versus 8.1 percent of all calves), which represent operations with 30 or more cows.
USDA APHIS VS  21

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Calving

All operations in the West region and 96.0

percent in the East region had at least one

stillbirth. The West region had a lower

percentage of stillborn calves than the East

region.

b. Percentage of operations with stillborn calves and percentage of calves that 

were stillborn (including calves that were born dead or died within 48 hours of 

birth) during the previous 12 months, by region 

Percent 

Region 

West East 

Population Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Operations 100.0 (0.0) 96.0 (1.4) 

Calves* 6.6 (0.5) 8.9 (0.3) 

*Number of calves stillborn x 100 / number of calves born during 2006.

The majority of stillborn calves were born dead

(78.6 percent), while the remaining 21.4 percent

were born alive but died within 48 hours of birth.

c. For the 8.1 percent of calves that were stillborn during the previous 12 months, 

percentage of stillborn calves by time of death and by herd size 

Percent Stillborn Calves 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Time of Death Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Born dead 73.8 (2.2) 77.7 (2.0) 83.1 (2.5) 78.6 (1.4) 

Born alive, but 

died within 48 hr 26.2 (2.2) 22.3 (2.0) 16.9 (2.5) 21.4 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
22  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

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

B. Dystocia Management

1. Introduction Providing the proper assistance at calving,

especially during dystocia or calving difficulty,

can significantly reduce dairy calf morbidity and

mortality. Dairy producers and personnel should

be properly trained in correct calving practices,

including

• The normal calving process and signs of an

 abnormal calving,

• How frequently the dam should be

 observed during calving,

• How to intervene during calving, and

• When to call for professional help.

Current guidelines suggest that the dam should

be observed at least every 3 hours during

calving (Mortimer, 2009). It is important to

understand the stages of labor in order to know

when to intervene during calving. Labor is

classified into three stages.

Stage 1: Characterized by cervical dilation and

uterine contractions, which are usually not

evident as abdominal contractions. Cattle during

this stage may show signs of restlessness due

to the discomfort of the uterine contractions,

and they often seek isolation. Stage 1 usually

lasts for 2 to 6 hours but may be longer in

heifers. Intervention is needed if stage 1 labor

lasts longer than 8 hours. Common reasons that

cows do not to progress from stage 1 to stage 2

include uterine inertia (hypocalcemia) and some

types of abnormal deliveries (Mortimer, 2009).

Stage 2: Uterine contractions continue and

abdominal contractions become evident

(the dam is noticeably pushing). Stage 2 ends

in the delivery of the fetus or fetuses and

usually takes less than 2 hours for mature cows

but up to 4 hours for heifers. During this stage,

the posture, presentation, and position of the

fetus are important. Posture refers to the

orientation of the fetus’ legs and head compared

to the dam. Position refers to whether the fetus

is right side up (normal) or upside down

(abnormal). Presentation refers to which part of

the calf is exiting the birth canal first; examples

are breech (tail coming first), backward or

posterior (back feet coming first) and normal or

anterior (front feet coming first). Intervention is

recommended if any of the following situations

occur during stage 2 of labor:

• Delivery is abnormal (abnormal

 presentation, posture or position)

• Cow or calf experiences undue stress or

 weakness (for instance, the calf has a

 swollen tongue)

• Cow makes no progress despite 30 minutes

 of active labor

• Cow stops pushing for more than 15 to 20

 minutes (breaks are normal but they should

 not last more than 5 to 10 minutes unless

 the cow is moved during Stage 2 labor)

• Amniotic sac has been visible for 2 hours or

 more, and the cow is not pushing

 (Mortimer, 2009)
USDA APHIS VS  23

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management

Stage 3: Results in the expulsion of the fetal

membranes (placenta) due to continued uterine

contractions. The placenta is normally expelled

within 8 to 12 hours after calving; longer than

this constitutes a retained placenta, and

treatment may be needed.

Many factors contribute to dystocia. The most

common cause of dystocia in primiparous dams

is a calf too large relative to the size of the dam’s

pelvic canal. Dystocia in multiparous dams is

usually caused by abnormal presentation,

posture, or position of the calf, and maternal

causes such as uterine inertia (Arthur et al.,

1989). Studies have shown that a higher

percentage of heifers than cows experience

dystocia. Dystocia rates over a 12-year period

were reported based on 666,341 dairy calving

records from the Mid States Dairy Record

Processing Center. The estimated dystocia rate

for heifers (primiparous) was 28.6 percent and

for cows (multiparous) 10.7 percent

(Meyer et al., 2001). In a study conducted on

three Colorado dairies (Lombard et al., 2007),

dystocia rates were 51.2 percent for heifers and

29.4 percent for cows.

Dystocia is an important problem for dairy

operations because it has a negative impact on

calf health. Calves experiencing a dystocia have

a higher risk of being stillborn. In dairy cattle,

stillborn is usually defined as death at or within

24 to 48 hours of delivery (Philipsson et al.,

1979). The reported stillbirth rate for dairy calves

based on 666,341 calving records was 7 percent

(Meyer et al., 2000). A study of three Colorado

dairies reported a stillbirth rate of 8.2 percent

(Lombard et al., 2007). Slight dystocia increased

the likelihood of stillbirth by a factor of 2.9 for

heifers and 4.7 for cows. For severe dystocia,

the likelihood of stillbirth increased by a factor

of 6.8 for heifers and 11.4 for cows (Meyer et al.,

2001). Calves experiencing severe dystocia that

survive the immediate perinatal period have a

higher risk of death or illness in the first 120

days of life (Lombard et al., 2007).

When managing dystocia it is important to act in

a prompt and patient manner. Once it has been

determined that intervention is warranted,

several basic guidelines should be followed.

Producers and personnel should clean the cow’s

perineal area with soap or antiseptic, use

palpation sleeves and lubrication. Knowing

when to call for professional help will also

improve calving success. A professional is often

a veterinarian but can be anyone who knows

enough to better manage the dystocia.

Producers should call for help when they do not

know what the calving problem is or when they

know what the problem is but do not make any

progress after 30 minutes of trying to resolve it

(Mortimer, 2009).

Calves that experience a dystocia but are alive at

birth should be given special attention to

improve their odds of survival. Calves

experiencing a prolonged dystocia are likely to

have low levels of oxygen in their blood

(hypoxia), and their blood pH is frequently

acidic (acidosis) instead of neutral. These

impairments lead to a cascade of events, such as

decreased ability to nurse, decreased absorption

of IgG, and poor temperature regulation. The
24  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

administration of oxygen to calves after dystocia

may improve survival. In addition, careful

attention to adequate colostrum intake and

maintenance of body temperature are critical.

Selective breeding programs may be used to

reduce the incidence of dystocia on dairy

operations. However, dystocia is caused by

multiple factors; genetics alone will not eliminate

the problem. Despite this, a breeding program is

still a valuable tool for reducing the impact of

dystocia. To track the success of any dystocia

management plan, dairies should keep records of

calving-difficulty scores. Recording and

monitoring calving-difficulty scores can assist

in selecting sires and in the retention of

replacements. A common scoring system is a

5-point system where 1=no assistance,

2=slight problem, 3=needed assistance,

4=considerable force, and 5=extreme difficulty/

surgical procedure. A simplified system can also

be implemented that categorizes calvings as

“no assistance,” “mild dystocia,” or “severe

dystocia.” Tracking calvings that required

assistance and comparing them with those that

did not allows a dairy to monitor dystocia rates

and the impact on calf performance.

2. Guidelines

for calving

intervention

Approximately 6 of 10 operations had guidelines

on when to intervene during calving for heifers

(60.7 percent), cows (60.5 percent), or both

(60.5 percent). There were no differences in the

percentage of operations with calving

guidelines by herd size or by region.

a. Percentage of operations with general guidelines (e.g., standard operating 

procedures or established protocols) on when to intervene during calving for 

heifers, cows, or both, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Cattle Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Heifers 62.3 (3.8) 56.9 (4.6) 57.4 (6.5) 60.7 (2.9) 

Cows 62.3 (3.8) 56.3 (4.6) 57.5 (6.5) 60.5 (2.9) 

Both 62.3 (3.8) 56.3 (4.6) 57.4 (6.5) 60.5 (2.9) 
USDA APHIS VS  25

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management

b. Percentage of operations with general guidelines (e.g., standard operating 

procedures or established protocols) on when to intervene during calving for 

heifers, cows, or both, by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Cattle Class Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Heifers 54.9 (6.2) 61.2 (3.1) 

Cows 54.9 (6.2) 61.1 (3.1) 

Both 54.9 (6.2) 61.1 (3.1) 

For operations with guidelines for both heifers

and cows, about one-half (51.7 percent) used

different guidelines for heifers and cows.

c. For the 60.5 percent of operations with guidelines for intervening during calving 

for both heifers and cows, percentage of operations that used different 

guidelines for heifers and for cows, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

49.2 (5.3) 57.0 (5.9) 59.7 (7.7) 51.7 (3.9) 
26  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

3. Training

personnel

More than 9 of 10 operations (91.9 percent)

provided training in calving intervention for

owners/employees. Most operations

(90.4 percent) used on-the-job training.

Approximately one of four operations

(27.0 percent) provided training through

discussion/lecture. Some operations used more

than one method to train owners/employees in

calving intervention.

Percentage of operations by calvingintervention training methods used for 

owners/employees of the operation 

Training 

Method 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Video 2.4 (0.7) 

Discussion/ 

lecture 27.0 (2.7) 

On-the-job 90.4 (1.8) 

Other 6.1 (1.5) 

Any 91.9 (1.7) 

4. Calving

difficulty scoring

More than one-third of operations (38.5 percent)

had a system for scoring calving difficulty.

A higher percentage of large operations

(57.9 percent) than small operations

(35.2 percent) had a scoring system.

a. Percentage of operations that had a system for scoring calving difficulty, by 

herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

35.2 (3.8) 42.6 (4.3) 57.9 (6.1) 38.5 (2.9) 
USDA APHIS VS  27

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management

b. Percentage of operations that had a 

system for scoring calving difficulty, 

by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error 

35.4 (5.1) 38.8 (3.1) 

There was no regional difference in the

percentage of operations that had a system for

scoring calving difficulty.

Of operations with a system for scoring calving

difficulty, almost all (91.6 percent) recorded the

score for assisted births.

c. For the 38.5 percent of operations that had a system for scoring calving 

difficulty, percentage of operations that recorded the calving difficulty score for 

assisted births, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

88.5 (4.6) 97.8 (1.4) 93.7 (3.9) 91.6 (3.0) 
28  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

5. Observation

close to calving

As expected, females close to calving were

observed more frequently during the day than at

night. About one-half of operations

(47.2 percent) allowed fewer than 3 hours, on

average, to pass between observations during

the day, with 17.6 percent of operations allowing

5 hours or more between observation periods.

During the night, 18.7 percent of operations

allowed less than 3 hours to pass between

observations, and 53.9 percent let 5 hours or

more pass between observation periods.

a. Percentage of operations by average time between observation periods of cattle 

close to calving, and by time of day 

Percent Operations 

Day Night 

Time (Hours) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Less than 1.0 1.4 (0.6) 3.6 (1.3) 

1.0 to 2.9 45.8 (3.0) 15.1 (2.1) 

3.0 to 4.9 35.2 (2.9) 27.4 (2.8) 

5.0 to 6.9 8.7 (1.8) 27.7 (2.7) 

7.0 or more 8.9 (1.8) 26.2 (2.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  29

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management
30  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

The majority of operations (63.1 percent for

heifers and 61.9 percent for cows) would examine

or assist an animal before 5 hours elapsed if she

showed signs of stage 1 labor without

subsequent straining. More than one-fourth of

operations (27.0 percent for heifers and 27.7

percent for cows) would wait 7 hours or more to

examine or assist an animal that exhibits signs of

stage 1 labor without subsequent straining.

b. Percentage of operations by length of time producers would wait to examine or 

assist an animal when calving is imminent and the heifer or cow is restless/off 

feed but not observed to be straining 

Percent Operations 

Heifers Cows 

Time (Hours) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Less than 1.0 5.8 (1.2) 6.1 (1.3) 

1.0 to 2.9 41.8 (2.9) 41.0 (2.8) 

3.0 to 4.9 15.5 (2.0) 14.8 (1.9) 

5.0 to 6.9 9.9 (1.9) 10.4 (2.1) 

7.0 or more 27.0 (2.8) 27.7 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  31

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management
32  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

Almost 9 of 10 operations reported that they

would wait less than 3 hours to assist heifers or

cows that are observed to be straining but are

not progressing in delivery (87.6 and 88.1

percent, respectively). Less than 2 percent of

operations reported that they would wait 7

hours or more before attending to heifers or

cows that are straining but not progressing in

delivery.

c. Percentage of operations by length of time producers would wait to examine or 

assist a heifer or cow that has begun to strain but is not progressing in delivery 

of the calf 

Percent Operations 

Heifers Cows 

Time (Hours) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Less than 1.0 32.0 (2.9) 32.1 (2.9) 

1.0 to 2.9 55.6 (3.0) 56.0 (3.0) 

3.0 to 4.9 7.7 (1.5) 7.7 (1.5) 

5.0 to 6.9 3.0 (1.2) 2.9 (1.3) 

7.0 or more 1.7 (0.9) 1.3 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  33

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management
34  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

About 95 percent of operations reported that

they examine or assist heifers and cows within

3 hours of the water bag appearing at the vulva.

Almost one-half of operations would assist

heifers and cows within 1 hour of the water bag

appearing at the vulva.

d. Percentage of operations by length of time producers would wait before 

examining or assisting a heifer or cow once the water bag appears at the vulva 

Percent Operations 

Heifers Cows 

Time (Hours) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Less than 1.0 48.4 (2.8) 49.2 (2.8) 

1.0 to 2.9 46.2 (2.8) 46.4 (2.8) 

3.0 to 4.9 4.1 (1.1) 3.5 (1.0) 

5.0 to 6.9 0.6 (0.5) 0.0 (--) 

7.0 or more 0.7 (0.5) 0.9 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

6. Intervention The practices listed in the following table are

generally recommended when a dystocia or

difficult calving necessitates intervention. More

than 50 percent of operations generally

implemented recommended practices, with the

exceptions of calling a veterinarian to assist

(12.9 percent of operations) and tying or holding

the tail out of the way (32.4 percent of

operations). A higher percentage of small

operations (14.6 percent) than large operations

(3.6 percent) would generally call a veterinarian

to assist. A higher percentage of large

operations than small operations would restrain

the cow in a head catch or similar equipment,

which might reflect the loose housing systems

(such as freestall or drylot) that are more

common on large operations than on small

operations. Other differences between large and

small operations when assisting with delivery

included: typically washing the perineum area

with soap and water (74.8 and 48.8 percent,

respectively), the use of obstetrical gloves

(87.1 and 62.5 percent, respectively), and the

use of a lubricant (82.2 and 50.4 percent,

respectively).
USDA APHIS VS  35

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management

a. Percentage of operations by practice generally implemented once a decision is 

made to intervene in 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 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Call veterinarian to assist 14.6 (3.1) 10.6 (2.9) 3.6 (2.1) 12.9 (2.3) 

Move cow to an individual 

maternity pen 54.4 (4.0) 64.4 (4.1) 69.0 (5.5) 57.8 (2.9) 

Restrain cow in a head 

catch or similar 

equipment 55.1 (4.0) 58.4 (4.3) 91.7 (2.4) 58.3 (2.9) 

Tie back or hold cow’s 

tail out of the way 30.3 (3.7) 36.0 (4.3) 41.2 (6.3) 32.4 (2.8) 

Wash perineum area 

with soap and water 48.8 (4.1) 55.9 (4.5) 74.8 (5.4) 52.2 (3.0) 

Wear obstetrical gloves 62.5 (4.0) 76.2 (3.5) 87.1 (4.3) 67.5 (2.9) 

Clean and disinfect 

chains or other equipment 

prior to use in the vagina 

or uterus 70.4 (3.7) 75.2 (4.0) 85.7 (4.5) 72.6 (2.7) 

Use a lubricant 50.4 (4.1) 69.5 (4.1) 82.2 (5.1) 57.2 (3.0) 

Other 3.0 (1.4) 0.3 (0.3) 0.3 (0.3) 2.2 (0.9) 
36  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

The use of three recommended practices for

calving interventions differed by region:

a higher percentage of operations in the West

region than in the East region would generally

move the cow to an individual maternity pen

(73.9 and 56.3 percent, respectively), restrain the

cow in a head catch or similar equipment

(80.3 and 56.1 percent, respectively), or use a

lubricant (74.2 and 55.6 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by practice generally implemented once a decision is 

made to intervene in calving, by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Practice Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Call veterinarian to assist 6.3 (2.4) 13.5 (2.5) 

Move cow to an individual 

maternity pen 73.9 (5.1) 56.3 (3.2) 

Restrain cow in a head 

catch or similar equipment 80.3 (3.7) 56.1 (3.2) 

Tie back or hold cow’s 

tail out of the way 43.4 (5.6) 31.4 (3.0) 

Wash perineum area 

with soap and water 64.7 (5.8) 51.0 (3.3) 

Wear obstetrical gloves 78.5 (5.0) 66.5 (3.1) 

Clean and disinfect chains or 

other equipment prior to use 

in the vagina or uterus 84.1 (4.3) 71.4 (2.9) 

Use a lubricant 74.2 (5.2) 55.6 (3.2) 

Other 0.0 (--) 2.4 (1.0) 
USDA APHIS VS  37

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management
38  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

Although the dam provides the best lubricant,

additional lubricant during dystocia can be

helpful in delivering a healthy calf and in

protecting the dam from trauma. With the

exception of water used alone, all lubricants

listed below may be helpful. The best choice is a

commercial obstetrical lubricant mixed with water

and used generously.

More than 50 percent of operations that

generally used a lubricant during calving

intervention used a commercial lubricant

(57.5 percent), soap (56.2 percent), or water

with other lubricant (51.8 percent). Less than

10 percent of operations used mineral oil,

shortening, or water only as a lubricant.

c. For the 57.2 percent of operations that generally used a lubricant during calving 

intervention, percentage of operations by type of lubricant used 

Lubricant Percent Operations Standard Error 

Mineral oil 8.4 (1.8) 

Soap 56.2 (3.6) 

Water with other lubricant 51.8 (3.8) 

Water only 2.0 (1.1) 

Commercial obstetrical lubricant 

(e.g., J-Lube) 57.5 (3.8) 

Shortening (e.g., Crisco) 2.4 (1.1) 

Other 1.0 (0.5) 
USDA APHIS VS  39

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management

Instruments used to assist with a difficult

delivery should be easy to sanitize, especially

those used inside the vagina and uterus. Most

operations (71.1 percent) used stainless-steel

OB chains for pulling calves; these chains are

easy to sanitize and are recommended for use.

Stainless-steel OB chains were used on a higher

percentage of medium and large operations than

on small operations. Alternatively, twine was

used on a higher percentage of small operations

than medium or large operations. Almost

50 percent of operations (49.6 percent) used

twine to pull calves, while 22.1 percent used

rope.

d. Percentage of operations by type of equipment used for pulling calves (direct 

contact with calf), and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Equipment Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Stainless-steel 

OB chains 65.5 (3.8) 81.5 (3.7) 90.6 (3.5) 71.1 (2.8) 

Twine 56.5 (4.0) 37.7 (4.4) 21.5 (5.4) 49.6 (3.0) 

Rope 23.2 (3.5) 19.4 (3.5) 21.4 (5.3) 22.1 (2.6) 

Other 3.1 (1.3) 1.7 (0.7) 8.1 (3.5) 3.1 (0.9) 

Any 99.4 (0.6) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 99.6 (0.4) 
40  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

Pressure exerted on the calf during an assisted

delivery can cause injury or death to the cow

and calf. Studies have reported that two strong

people can exert a force of 400 to 600 pounds

while delivering a calf, whereas a calf jack can

exert 2,000 pounds of force. If two people cannot

deliver a calf manually, then an alternative

delivery methods, such as a C-section for live

calves or a fetotomy for dead calves, are usually

recommended.

More than one-half of operations (53.7 percent)

reported that one or two people pulling on the

chains, rope, or twine was the method most

commonly used to apply traction to deliver the

calf. About one of five operations (22.0 percent)

used a calf jack to apply traction. A block and

tackle was used by a higher percentage of small

operations than large operations (5.9 and 0.2

percent, respectively). A higher percentage of

medium and large operations used a calf jack

(34.3 and 37.0 percent, respectively) compared

with small operations (16.1 percent).

e. Percentage of operations by method most commonly used to apply traction to 

deliver the calf, 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 

One or two people pulling 

on the chains/rope/twine 56.2 (4.0) 48.6 (4.4) 45.7 (6.3) 53.7 (3.0) 

Ropes tied to posts, etc. 5.5 (2.1) 1.5 (0.8) 4.6 (2.4) 4.4 (1.4) 

Block and tackle 5.9 (1.8) 1.0 (0.9) 0.2 (0.2) 4.3 (1.3) 

Winch/come-along 10.5 (2.7) 9.9 (2.6) 8.3 (3.3) 10.2 (2.0) 

Calf jack 16.1 (2.8) 34.3 (4.1) 37.0 (5.9) 22.0 (2.2) 

Other 5.8 (1.8) 4.7 (1.7) 4.2 (3.7) 5.4 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  41

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management
42  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

To reduce the possibility of injury to the dam

during calving intervention, traction should be

applied when the dam is straining. More than

three of four operations (77.3 percent) generally

applied traction in conjunction with the dam

straining, while 22.7 percent generally applied

traction continuously.

f. Percentage of operations by best description of how traction is generally 

applied during calving intervention, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region

West East

All 

Operations 

Traction Application Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

In conjunction with 

dam straining 88.2 (3.5) 76.2 (2.7) 77.3 (2.5) 

Continuously 11.8 (3.5) 23.8 (2.7) 22.7 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

7. Veterinary

assistance

a. Percentage of operations that seek veterinary assistance for difficult deliveries, 

and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

95.5 (1.5) 95.0 (1.5) 86.8 (4.4) 94.8 (1.1) 

Although only 12.9 percent of operations would

generally seek veterinary assistance immediately

after making the decision to intervene during

calving, (see table a., p 35), almost all operations

had sought veterinary assistance for difficult

deliveries, regardless of herd size or region.
USDA APHIS VS  43

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management

b. Percentage of operations that seek veterinary assistance for difficult deliveries, 

by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

86.6 (3.9) 95.6 (1.2) 

For the 94.8 percent of operations that seek

veterinary assistance for difficult deliveries, 93.5

percent would seek assistance to help correct

the calf’s position for delivery, and 85.6 percent

would seek veterinary assistance after applying

traction for a specific amount of time with no

evidence of progress.

c. For the 94.8 percent of operations that seek veterinary assistance for difficult 

deliveries, percentage of operations that would seek assistance for the 

following situations, by region 

Percent Operations 

Region

West East

All 

Operations 

Situation Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Unable to correctly 

position calf for delivery 87.5 (4.5) 94.0 (1.5) 93.5 (1.4) 

Applied traction for a 

specific amount of time 

without progress 81.3 (4.7) 86.0 (2.4) 85.6 (2.2) 
44  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

The percentages of operations by length of time

elapsed before calling for assistance were about

the same for heifers and cows. About 30 percent

of operations would call for veterinary

assistance within 30 minutes of intervening in a

calving. The highest single percentages of

operations would seek assistance within

30 to 59 minutes of intervening for both heifers

and cows. About one-fourth of operations

(24.8 percent for heifers and 25.0 percent for

cows) would work to relieve the dystocia for 1

hour or more before calling for veterinary

assistance.

d. For the 94.8 percent of operations that seek veterinary assistance for difficult 

deliveries, percentage of operations by length of time from beginning 

intervention during calving until calling for veterinary assistance, for heifers 

and for cows 

Percent Operations 

Heifers Cows 

Time (Minutes) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Less than 10 6.5 (1.5) 6.6 (1.5) 

10 to 29 22.8 (2.7) 23.3 (2.7) 

30 to 59 45.9 (3.2) 45.1 (3.2) 

60 to 89 20.6 (2.5) 20.7 (2.5) 

90 or more 4.2 (1.1) 4.3 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  45

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management
46  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement

A higher percentage of cows (79.4 percent) than

heifers (69.0 percent) calved unassisted during

the previous 12 months. A higher percentage of

heifers than cows experienced severe dystocia

(6.8 percent of heifers and 3.5 percent of cows)

or mild dystocia (11.8 percent of heifers and 7.3

percent of cows).

e. Percentage of heifers and cows that calved during the previous 12 months, by 

calving difficulty 

Calving Difficulty 

Percent 

Heifers1

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Cows2

Std. 

Error 

Severe dystocia (surgical or 

mechanical extraction) 6.8 (0.7) 3.5 (0.3) 

Mild dystocia 11.8 (0.8) 7.3 (0.5) 

No dystocia, but assistance 

provided anyway 12.4 (1.0) 9.8 (0.9) 

No assistance 69.0 (1.4) 79.4 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

1

As a percentage of dairy cow replacements entering the milking herd in 2006. 

2

As a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS Initial Visit interview. 

8. Assistance for

compromised

calves

Calves that experience a dystocia are more likely

to be stillborn. Calves that experience a dystocia

but are born alive can be given assistance, such

as supplemental oxygen, which increases their

chances of survival. Depending on the

environmental conditions, all the procedures

listed in the following table—with the exception

of hanging calves upside down—are considered

beneficial to the health of the calves when

administered correctly. Hanging calves upside

down, which was once promoted to assist in

removing fluid from the calves’ lungs, might

actually be harmful for two reasons: most of the

liquid comes from the abomasum and not the

lungs, making the calves more susceptible to

dehydration; and hanging the calves upside

down increases pressure on the chest, making it

more difficult for the calves to breathe. Calves

that experience dystocia are likely to have low

levels of oxygen in their blood (hypoxia), and

their blood pH is frequently acidic (acidosis)

instead of neutral. These impairments lead to

other problems, such as decreased ability to

nurse and decreased absorption of IgG, and can

negatively impact temperature regulation. In

many cases, the administration of oxygen to

calves after dystocia may have the single

largest impact on calf survival.

On 80.7 percent of operations, calves that

experienced a difficult birth would receive

nostril stimulation to initiate breathing. Hanging

calves upside down would be performed on

66.3 percent of operations. Three practices

which are simple to perform and do not require

special equipment or materials were performed

by at least one-half of operations: positioning

the calf on its sternum, drying the calf manually

with towels or a hair dryer, and trying to elicit a

suckle response. Few operations (1.4 percent)

would provide supplemental oxygen. “Other”

practices included allowing the dam to lick/

stimulate the calf and feeding colostrum

(14.2 percent of operations).
USDA APHIS VS  47

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management

The use of some practices varied by size of

operation. Almost two-thirds of large operations

(62.5 percent) resuscitated calves via assisted

breathing, compared with slightly more than

one-third of small and medium operations

(35.0 and 36.6 percent, respectively). A higher

percentage of small and medium operations

(61.5 and 55.6 percent, respectively) than large

operations (27.4 percent) dried calves manually

with towels, hair dryer, etc. Additionally, a higher

percentage of small and medium operations

(45.8 and 58.5 percent, respectively) provided

calf coats or calf jackets compared with large

operations (26.6 percent).

a. Percentage of operations by practice generally done within 1 hour after delivery 

for a calf that experienced a difficult birth, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Resuscitate calf with 

assisted breathing 35.0 (3.9) 36.6 (4.3) 62.5 (5.9) 37.1 (2.9) 

Stimulate breathing 

with nostril stimulus 77.3 (3.4) 88.3 (2.7) 87.7 (4.2) 80.7 (2.5) 

Stimulate breathing 

with drugs (Dopram, 

etc.) 0.6 (0.5) 6.7 (2.4) 7.9 (3.4) 2.6 (0.7) 

Provide supplemental 

oxygen 0.0 (--) 5.2 (2.2) 2.3 (2.1) 1.4 (0.6) 

Hang the calf 

upside down 66.3 (3.8) 66.2 (4.3) 67.0 (6.0) 66.3 (2.8) 

Position the calf 

on its sternum 54.3 (4.0) 63.4 (4.4) 61.2 (6.2) 57.0 (3.0) 

Place the calf in 

separate area away 

from the dam 32.6 (3.8) 39.1 (4.5) 41.5 (6.0) 34.8 (2.9) 

Use a warming box, 

heat lamp, or other 

source of heat during 

cold weather 45.7 (4.1) 59.3 (4.4) 36.6 (5.0) 48.5 (3.0) 

Dry calf manually with 

towels, hair dryer, etc. 61.5 (3.8) 55.6 (4.5) 27.4 (5.3) 57.8 (2.8) 

Try to elicit a 

suckle response 53.9 (4.0) 48.6 (4.4) 39.2 (6.4) 51.6 (3.0) 

Provide calf coats 

or calf jackets after 

calf is dry 45.8 (4.1) 58.5 (4.3) 26.6 (4.9) 47.7 (3.0) 

Other 16.9 (3.2) 7.7 (2.8) 10.7 (4.1) 14.2 (2.4) 
48  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Manaagement
USDA APHIS VS  49

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Dystocia Management

A higher percentage of operations in the West

region (54.3 percent) generally resuscitated

calves that experienced a difficult birth with

assisted breathing compared with operations in

the East region (35.5 percent). Alternatively, a

higher percentage of operations in the East

region dried calves manually with towels, hair

dryer, etc. (60.1 percent) or provided calf coats

or jackets after the calves were dry

(50.5 percent), compared with 34.5 and 18.7

percent of operations in the West region,

respectively.

b. Percentage of operations by practice generally done within 1 hour after delivery 

for a calf that experienced a difficult birth, by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Practice Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Resuscitate calf with 

assisted breathing 54.3 (5.4) 35.5 (3.1) 

Stimulate breathing with 

nostril stimulus 84.1 (4.1) 80.4 (2.7) 

Stimulate breathing with 

drugs (Dopram, etc.) 2.5 (1.4) 2.6 (0.8) 

Provide supplemental oxygen 3.3 (2.0) 1.3 (0.6) 

Hang the calf upside down 67.0 (5.9) 66.3 (3.1) 

Position the calf on its sternum 60.2 (6.0) 56.7 (3.2) 

Place the calf in separate 

area away from the dam 34.6 (5.9) 34.8 (3.1) 

Use a warming box, heat lamp, 

or other source of heat during 

cold weather 38.7 (5.5) 49.4 (3.3) 

Dry calf manually with 

towels, hair dryer, etc. 34.5 (5.5) 60.1 (3.0) 

Try to elicit a suckle response 37.6 (5.7) 53.0 (3.2) 

Provide calf coats or calf 

jackets after calf is dry 18.7 (4.4) 50.5 (3.3) 

Other 6.5 (2.7) 15.0 (2.6) 
50  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

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

1. Colostrum

management

Providing high quality colostrum as soon as

possible after birth maximizes dairy calf health.

Colostrum is produced in the 5 weeks prior to

calving and differs from milk in that it contains

higher levels of protein (especially

immunoglobulins), fat, and fat soluble vitamins

like vitamin A (Davis and Drackley, 1998).

Colostrum is harvested during the first milking

after calving. Milk produced in the interim

(e.g., second and third milking) between the

harvest of colostrum and normal (saleable) milk

is commonly referred to as transition milk.

a. Comparison of colostrum, transition milk, and saleable milk by content 

parameter 

Transition Milk 

Parameter Colostrum 

Second 

Milking 

Third 

Milking 

Saleable 

Milk 

Specific gravity 1.056 1.040 1.035 1.032 

IgG (g/100 mL) 4.1 2.5 1.5 0.06 

Fat (percent) 6.7 5.4 3.9 3.6 

Total protein (percent) 14.9 8.4 5.1 3.2 

Lactose (percent) 2.5 3.9 4.4 4.9 

Vitamin A (μg/g) 4.9 1.8 1.1 0.3 

Source: adapted from Foley and Otterby (1978), Davis and Drackley (1998), and Kehoe et al. (2007). 

Colostrum is critically important to calves

because calves are born with little or no

previous exposure to infectious pathogens. All

mammals need maternal immunoglobulins to be

protected from disease following birth, and most

animals receive the immunoglobulins in utero

across the placenta. In contrast, calves are born

with no immunoglobulins, so they rely on the

ingestion of colostrum. The process by which

the cow passes immunoglobulins to the calf via

colostrum is called passive transfer of immunity.

Successful passive transfer in calves is

important to dairy producers for a number of

reasons. Studies have shown that failure of

passive transfer in heifers increases calf

morbidity and mortality, reduces calf growth rate

and efficiency, and decreases first and second

lactation milk production (Fahey and McKelvey,

1965; Faber et al., 2005; Wells et al., 1996).

There are four key principals to colostrum

management on the dairy farm: quality, quantity,

quickness, and cleanliness (Stewart et al.,

2005).

Colostrum quality refers to the concentration of

immunoglobulins in the colostrum, and the goal

is to have greater than 50 g IgG/L. Colostrum
USDA APHIS VS  51

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

quality is highly variable; values for Holstein

cattle have been reported between 9.4 and

185.7 g IgG/L (Burton et al., 1989; Levieux and

Oliver, 1999; Tyler et al., 1999; Morin et al., 2001;

Swan et al., 2007). Colostrum quality can be

affected by cattle breed, parity (primiparous

versus multiparous), length of the dry period,

vaccination history of the dam, and timing of

colostrum collection after calving. To obtain

high quality colostrum, the cow should be

milked as soon as possible after calving,

preferably within 1 to 2 hours, and no later than

6 hours (Godden, 2008).The amount of IgG in

colostrum decreases when first milking is

delayed. By 6 hours after calving, the

immunoglobulin concentration in colostrum can

drop by 17 percent when compared with the

levels 2 hours after calving (Moore et al., 2005).

Producers can also improve the quality of

colostrum by ensuring good dry cow nutrition

and comfort, avoiding long or short dry periods,

and by having a regular vaccination program for

dry cows and heifers.

Common methods for assessing colostrum

quality on the farm include visual inspection and

the use of a colostrometer. The colostrometer

(hydrometer) provides an estimate of IgG levels

based on the specific gravity of the colostrum.

Although the colostrometer has poor sensitivity

for predicting colostrum quality (Pritchett et al.,

1994), it is still the most common method used

on dairies because it is economical and simple.

Colostrum should be at room temperature when

using a colostrometer, and only high quality

(green) colostrum should be fed to newborn

calves. Fair and poor quality colostrum can be

fed to calves 24 hours of age and older for

nutritional purposes rather than for acquiring

immunity. Another method for determining

colostrum quality is to directly measure the IgG

concentration, either with an available field test

kit (Chigerwe et al., 2005) or by sending a sample

to a laboratory. Visual inspection is not an

accurate method for ascertaining the IgG

content of colostrum, but it is important in

determining whether colostrum contains blood

or is mastitic and, therefore, should not be fed to

calves.

It is important to feed an adequate quantity of

colosturm to calves, once it is determined that

the colostrum is of high quality. The Bovine

Alliance on Management and Nutrition’s “Guide

to Colostrum and Colostrum Management for

Dairy Calves” suggests that 4 quarts of high

quality colostrum should be fed by esophageal

feeder within 1 hour of birth (BAMN, 2001). This

recommendation applies for the average

90-pound Holstein calf. A larger calf will need a

larger volume of colostrum, and a small calf,

such as a Jersey or Guernsey, may only need 3

quarts. Colostrum can be hand-fed with either a

bottle or an esophageal tube. Passive transfer

can be achieved with either method, as long as

an adequate volume (4 quarts) of colostrum is

fed (Molla, 1978; Adams et al., 1985; Besser et

al., 1991). Leaving the calf with the cow for

nursing is not recommended because 61 percent

(Besser et al., 1991) or 42 percent (Brignole and

Stott, 1980) of these calves may not receive

adequate passive transfer of immunity. Also,

calves allowed to nurse have an increased risk

of exposure to pathogens because they may

ingest manure from the environment while

searching for and suckling teats.
52  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

Quickness is another important factor in

colostrum management. At birth, a calf’s

gastrointestinal system is designed to

temporarily allow the absorption of large

molecules, allowing the IgG in colostrum to be

absorbed into the bloodstream. The ability of

the calf to absorb the immunoglobulins

decreases with time and is typically gone within

24 hours after birth (Stott et al., 1979). A study

showed that in a small group of calves allowed

to nurse the dam, calf serum IgG levels

decreased by 2 mg/mL for every 30-minute delay

in the ingestion of colostrum (Rajala and

Castren, 1995). Therefore, it is recommended that

the calf receive colostrum as soon as possible

following birth, preferably within 1 hour and no

later than 6 hours.

Cleanliness is also important to a successful

colostrum management program. Bacteria in

colostrum such as E coli, Salmonella,

Mycoplasma, and Mycobacterium avium

subspecies paratuberculosis, can cause

diseases in calves. The cleanliness of colostrum

can be assessed by submitting a sample for

bacteriological culture. The results of the culture

are reported as total plate count (TPC), which

reflects the total number of aerobic bacteria in

the sample, and total coliform count, which

indicates the level of contamination of the

sample by gram-negative aerobic bacteria

typically found in the intestinal tract of animals,

such as E. coli. Each live bacterium in the

colostrum sample represents a colony forming

unit (cfu). The goal for colostrum cleanliness is

to have a TPC less than 100,000 cfu/mL, and

total coliform count less than 10,000 cfu/mL

(McGuirk and Collins, 2004). Bacterial

contamination of colostrum may be a common

problem on dairies; TPC and total coliform

counts exceeded 100,000 cfu/mL and

10,000 cfu/mL, respectively, in 85 percent of

colostrum samples from 40 different farms

(McGuirk and Collins, 2004).

Proper collection, handling, and storage will

reduce the number of bacteria in colostrum.

Prior to colostrum collection, the udder should

be cleaned and prepared in the same manner

used for collecting saleable milk. In addition,

equipment used for milking, storing colostrum,

and feeding calves should be sanitized

regularly. Studies have shown that storing

colostrum at warm ambient temperatures results

in a rapid increase of bacterial growth (Stewart

et al., 2005). To minimize bacterial growth,

colostrum should be fed within 1 hour of

collection; if it is not to be fed within 1 hour of

collection, it can be refrigerated in 2-quart

plastic containers for up to 24 hours. For

storage longer than 24 hours, colostrum can be

frozen in plastic freezer bags for up to 1 year, as

long as it is not repeatedly thawed and refrozen.

Freezing will not reduce the IgG levels or

nutrient content in colostrum (Foley and

Otterby, 1978; Klobasa et al., 1998). However,

one study reported that calves fed previously

frozen colostrum were at a slightly higher risk

for failure of passive transfer than calves fed

refrigerated colostrum (Besser et al., 1991).

Unpasteurized colostrum should not be pooled,

as this practice can increase calves’ exposure to

pathogens. For example, if a single cow in the

herd has Johne’s disease, pooling colostrum

could potentially expose multiple calves to the
USDA APHIS VS  53

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

disease. It has also been suggested that pooling

colostrum decreases the rate of successful

passive transfer of immunity (Weaver et al.,

2000), probably because the immunoglobulins in

the pooled colostrum are diluted by samples

with high volume but low immunoglobulin

levels.

More than one-half of operations (55.9 percent)

removed newborn heifer calves immediately after

calving, prior to nursing. These operations

accounted for 65.6 percent of all heifer calves.

One of five operations (22.2 percent)

—accounting for 21.3 percent of newborn

calves—removed calves after they nursed their

dams but prior to 12 hours of age. Fewer than

1 of 10 operations (7.3 percent)—representing

2.6 percent of calves—allowed calves to stay

with their dams for more than 24 hours.

b. Percentage of operations (and percentage of heifers born on these operations 

during 2006 and alive at 48 hours) by time following birth that calves were 

normally separated from their dams 

Time

Percent 

Operations1

Standard 

Error 

Percent Heifer 

Calves2

Standard 

Error 

Immediately 

(no nursing) 55.9 (1.4) 65.6 (1.5) 

After nursing but 

less than 12 hours 22.2 (1.2) 21.3 (1.3) 

12 to 24 hours 14.6 (1.0) 10.5 (0.9) 

More than 24 hours 7.3 (0.8) 2.6 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

1

Operations with any dairy cows. 

2

Born during 2006 and alive at 48 hours. 

On average, calves received hand-fed colostrum

3.3 hours following birth.

c. For the 55.9 percent of operations that immediately removed calves from their 

dams and hand-fed colostrum, operation average number of hours after birth 

that calves got their first colostrum feeding, and by herd size 

Operation Average Hours* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Hours 

Std. 

Error Hours 

Std. 

Error Hours 

Std. 

Error Hours 

Std. 

Error 

3.4 (0.1) 3.3 (0.1) 2.8 (0.2) 3.3 (0.1) 

*Operations with any dairy cows. 
54  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

The majority of operations (59.2 percent)

hand-fed colostrum to calves from a bucket or

bottle. These operations accounted for

59.6 percent of heifer calves. About one-third of

operations (36.3 percent) allowed calves to

ingest colostrum during first nursing of the dam.

A total of 4.3 percent of operations accounting

for 13.7 percent of calves used an esophageal

feeder to administer colostrum.

d. Percentage of operations (and percentage of heifers born on these operations 

during 2006 and alive at 48 hours) by method normally used for calves’ first 

feeding of colostrum 

Colostrum 

Delivery Method 

Percent 

Operations1

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Heifer Calves2

Std. 

Error 

During first 

nursing of dam 36.3 (1.4) 26.5 (1.3) 

Hand-fed from 

bucket or bottle 59.2 (1.4) 59.6 (1.6) 

Hand-fed using 

esophageal feeder 4.3 (0.5) 13.7 (1.2) 

Did not get colostrum 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

1

Operations with any dairy cows. 

2

Born during 2006 and alive at 48 hours. 

Of operations that normally hand-fed colostrum,

45.8 percent—representing 43.1 percent of heifer

calves—fed calves more than 2 but less than 4

quarts of colostrum during the first 24 hours of

life. About 4 of 10 calves (40.1 percent) received

4 quarts or more, while 16.8 percent received

2 quarts or less during the first 24 hours.

e. For the 63.5 percent of operations that normally hand-fed colostrum, percentage 

of operations (and percentage of heifers born on these operations during 2006 

and alive at 48 hours) by amount of colostrum normally fed during the first 24 

hours 

Amount (Quarts) 

Percent 

Operations1

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Heifer Calves2

Std. 

Error 

2 or less 23.3 (1.6) 16.8 (1.4) 

More than 2 but 

less than 4 45.8 (1.9) 43.1 (2.1) 

4 or more 30.9 (1.7) 40.1 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

1

Operations with any dairy cows. 

2

Born during 2006 and alive at 48 hours. 
USDA APHIS VS  55

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

About one of eight operations that hand-fed

colostrum (13.0 percent) estimated the

immunoglobulin levels of the colostrum or

evaluated its quality before feeding. The

percentage of operations that evaluated

colostrum more than doubled as herd size

increased, ranging from 7.6 percent of small

operations to 45.2 percent of large operations.

f. For the 63.5 percent of operations that normally hand-fed colostrum, percentage 

of operations that estimated the immunoglobulin levels of the colostrum or 

evaluated its quality, by herd size 

Percent Operations* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

7.6 (1.3) 19.8 (2.3) 45.2 (3.2) 13.0 (1.1) 

*Operations with any dairy cows. 
56  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

The most commonly used methods of evaluating

colostrum were a colostrometer and visual

appearance (43.7 and 41.6 percent of operations,

respectively).

g. For the 13.0 percent of operations 

that estimated immunoglobulin 

levels in colostrum or evaluated its 

quality, percentage of operations by 

primary method used for measuring 

immunoglobulin 

Primary 

Method 

Percent 

Operations* 

Standard 

Error 

Colostrometer 43.7 (4.2) 

Visual 

appearance 

41.6 (4.3) 

Volume of 

first milking 

colostrum (lb) 9.7 (2.8) 

Other 5.0 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 

*Operations with any dairy cows. 

The majority of small operations (64.8 percent)

did not store colostrum. In comparison, only

11.8 percent of large operations did not store

colostrum. For large operations that stored

colostrum, 50.5 percent used a refrigerator as

the primary method of storage and 34.7 percent

used a freezer.

h. For the 63.5 percent of operations that normally hand-fed colostrum, percentage 

of operations by primary method of storing colostrum, and by herd size 

Percent Operations1

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Primary Method2 Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Stored without 

refrigeration 4.4 (1.0) 2.8 (0.9) 3.0 (0.9) 3.9 (0.7) 

Stored in 

refrigerator 6.0 (1.1) 15.2 (1.9) 50.5 (3.5) 11.1 (0.9) 

Stored in freezer 24.8 (2.1) 36.2 (2.8) 34.7 (3.0) 28.2 (1.6) 

Not stored 64.8 (2.3) 45.8 (3.0) 11.8 (2.8) 56.8 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1

Operations with any dairy cows. 

2

No operations reported “other” as a primary method for storing colostrum. 
USDA APHIS VS  57

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

About one of five operations (21.0 percent)

pooled colostrum. As herd size increased so did

the percentage of operations that pooled

colostrum, ranging from 16.0 percent of small

operations to 56.9 percent of large operations.

i. For the 63.5 percent of operations that normally hand-fed colostrum, percentage 

of operations that pooled colostrum from more than one cow, by herd size 

Percent Operations* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

16.0 (1.7) 26.0 (2.4) 56.9 (3.1) 21.0 (1.3) 

*Operations with any dairy cows. 

A Johne’s disease control program may include

testing individual animals in order to identify

those shedding Mycobacterium avium

subspecies paratuberculosis and, therefore,

presenting a risk to noninfected animals on the

operation. More than one-third of operations

(35.3 percent) tested for Johne’s disease. A

higher percentage of medium operations than

small operations tested for Johne’s disease

(47.6 and 30.7 percent, respectively).

j. Percentage of operations that tested for Johne’s disease, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

30.7 (3.4) 47.6 (4.1) 37.5 (5.7) 35.3 (2.6) 
58  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

k. For the 35.3 percent of operations that tested for Johne’s disease, percentage 

of operations in which calves were fed colostrum from cows that tested 

positive for Johne’s disease, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

6.0 (2.9) 3.8 (2.8) 0.6 (0.4) 4.9 (2.0) 

2. Pasteurizing

colostrum

Colostrum from Johne’s test-positive cows

could transmit the disease to calves. Studies

suggest that colostrum is approximately three

times as likely as milk to contain Mycobacterium

avium subspecies paratuberculosis (Streeter,

1995). Operations should use colostrum from

test-negative cows, pasteurize colostrum prior to

feeding, or feed a commercial colostrum replacer.

About 1 of 20 operations that tested for Johne’s

disease (4.9 percent) fed colostrum from

test-positive cows to calves. There were no

differences by herd size.

Pasteurizing colostrum significantly reduces or

eliminates pathogens and reduces the potential

for transmitting disease to calves. Colostrum

should not be pasteurized at the same times and

temperatures used to pasteurize milk (high

temperature short time—161 oF (71 oC) for 15

seconds, or Holder Method—145 oF (63 oC) for

30 minutes). At these times and temperatures

colostrum will thicken and its immunoglobulin

levels will decrease significantly (Meylan et al.,

1996; Godden et al., 2003; Stabel et al., 2004). For

colostrum, batch pasteurization at 140 oF (60 oC)

for 60 minutes decreased bacterial counts

without decreasing immunoglobulin levels

(Godden et al., 2006). Calves fed colostrum

pasteurized in this manner had improved

immunoglobulin absorption, possibly due to

decreased bacterial interference with passive

transfer (Johnson et al., 2007).

It is important to note that pasteurization will

not increase the amount of maternal antibodies

in the colostrum. Although pasteurization is

commonly used for milk and works well for

colostrum, there are several technical issues

inherent in pasteurizing colostrum.

If colostrum is pasteurized, the following

management practices are recommended:

1. Use a batch pasteurizer

2. Treat small batches (15-gallon maxium)

3. Ensure precise temperature control (do not

 allow temperature to rise above 1400F)

4. Agitate constantly during heat-up,

 pasteurization, and cool-down phases

5. Rapidly heat and cool colostrum

6. Maintain and clean equipment regularly
USDA APHIS VS  59

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

For the 63.5 percent of operations that normally hand-fed colostrum, percentage 

of operations that pasteurized colostrum, by herd size 

Percent Operations* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0.2 (0.2) 0.9 (0.4) 6.4 (1.6) 0.8 (0.2) 

*Operations with any dairy cows. 

3. Measuring

passive transfer of

immunity

7. Monitor serum IgG or protein levels and

 culture colostrum samples to verify that the

 system is working (Godden et al., 2007).

These intensive managing and monitoring

requirements might be one reason that relatively

few dairies pasteurize colostrum.

Less than 1 percent of operations that hand-fed

colostrum (0.8 percent) pasteurized the

colostrum before feeding it to calves. A higher

percentage of large operations (6.4 percent)

pasteurized colostrum compared with medium

and small operations (0.9 and 0.2 percent,

respectively).

Measuring serum IgG levels or serum total

protein in calves within the first week of life is a

relatively simple method for evaluating passive

transfer of immunity and the effectiveness of the

colostrum management program. Although there

are several types of immunoglobulins (IgG, IgA,

IgM), IgG is the predominant immunoglobulin

passed to calves via colostrum (Butler, 1983).

Passive transfer of immunity is considered

successful if calves’ serum IgG levels are

10 mg/mL (1,000 mg/dL) or greater at 24 to 48

hours of age. Serum IgG can be measured at a

laboratory using radial immunodiffusion assay

(RID) (Fahey and McKelvey, 1965), and test

results are generally available in 24 hours.

Serum total protein in calves can be measured as

an estimate of the serum IgG level. Total protein

is relatively simple and inexpensive to measure.

A serum total protein greater than or equal to

5.0 to 5.2 g/dL is correlated with successful

passive transfer of immunity in healthy calves

that are not dehydrated (Tyler et al., 1996).

In sick calves, which are often dehydrated, a

serum total protein greater than or equal to

5.5 g/dL should be used to assess passive

transfer of immunity (Tyler et al., 1999). However,

measuring serum total protein may not always

be an accurate predictor of passive transfer on

an individual-calf basis; its best application is to

monitor the overall success of passive transfer

in a group of calves. The goal is to have at least

90 percent of calves with serum total protein

values greater than 5.2 g/dL and 50 percent

above 5.5 g/dL.
60  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

Morbidity and mortality in calves is sometimes

used as a measure of passive transfer success.

The goal is to have morbidity affecting less than

25 percent of calves and a death rate less than

5 percent (Godden, 2007). If morbidity and

mortality levels exceed these guidelines,

colostrum management as well as general

preweaned calf management practices should be

reviewed.

Overall, 2.1 percent of operations routinely

measured passive transfer via serum proteins.

A higher percentage of large operations

(14.5 percent) routinely evaluated passive

transfer compared with medium and small

operations (2.4 and 1.1 percent, respectively).

Percentage of operations that routinely monitored serum proteins (as a measure 

of passive transfer) in heifers within the first 3 days of life, by herd size 

Percent Operations* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1.1 (0.4) 2.4 (0.6) 14.5 (1.7) 2.1 (0.3) 

*Operations with any dairy cows. 
USDA APHIS VS  61

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

4. Calf IgG

passive transfer

status

As part of the Dairy 2007 study, blood samples

were collected to evaluate the passive transfer

status of heifer calves on U.S. dairy operations.

Healthy heifer calves that received colostrum

and were 1 to 7 days old were tested for serum

IgG by RID assay and total protein. For each calf

tested, information was recorded about the

calf’s age, the quantity of colostrum the calf

received at first feeding, and the method by

a. Percentage of tested heifer calves by method used for first feeding of colostrum 

Colostrum 

Delivery Method Percent Calves Standard Error 

Hand-fed from bottle 61.5 (3.1) 

Hand-fed using esophageal 

tube feeder 10.3 (1.7) 

Nursed dam 10.7 (1.8) 

Multiple/other* 17.5 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 

*Includes calves fed by buckt/pail and calves fed by more than one method, e.g., nursed dam and bottle-fed. 

The following tables on colostrum management, IgG, and total protein reflect a particular

population of calves: healthy heifer calves that had received colostrum, were tested for passive

transfer status, and resided on dairies with 30 or more dairy cows. As a result, the following

estimates in these tables differ from the previous tables in this report that estimated colostrum

management practices for all heifer calves on dairy operations with at least any dairy cows.

which colostrum had been administered. A total

of 1,816 samples from 394 operations in 17 States

were used in the analysis.

The majority of tested calves (61.5 percent)

received colostrum from a bottle. One of 10

calves received colostrum from an esophageal

tube feeder or via nursing the dam. The multiple/

other category includes calves fed by a bucket

or pail, and calves that received colostrum in

more than one way.
62  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

About one-fourth of calves (25.2 percent) were

allowed to nurse from their dams. Some of these

calves also received colostrum by another

method. No differences were observed between

About one-half of hand-fed calves (48.5 percent)

received between 2.0 and 2.9 quarts of colostrum

at the first feeding, and 31.3 percent received

4.0 quarts or more.

b. Percentage of tested heifer calves 

that nursed colostrum from their 

dams, by region 

Percent Calves 

Region 

West East All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

41.7 (9.4) 22.0 (2.8) 25.2 (2.9) 

the West and East regions in the percentage of

heifer calves that nursed colostrum from their

dams.

c. For the 74.8 percent of calves not 

allowed to nurse their dams, 

percentage of tested heifer calves by 

amount of colostrum fed at the first 

feeding 

Amount 

(Quarts) 

Percent 

Calves 

Standard 

Error 

Less than 2.0 6.8 (1.5) 

2.0 to 2.9 48.5 (3.6) 

3.0 to 3.9 13.4 (2.2) 

4.0 or more 31.3 (3.4) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  63

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

Passive transfer status was considered excellent

if serum IgG level measured by RID was

15.0 mg/mL or greater. Passive transfer was

considered adequate if IgG was 10.0 to 14.9 mg/

mL, and IgG less than 10.0 mg/mL was

considered failure of passive transfer. The

conventional phrase “failure of passive transfer”

might more accurately be termed poor passive

transfer, since these calves likely had some

transfer of IgG. However, the conventional

terminology is used in this report.

Two-thirds of calves (66.7 percent) had excellent

passive transfer based on IgG levels, and about

one-fifth (19.2 percent) had failure of passive

transfer.

d. Percentage of tested heifer calves by IgG level and passive transfer status 

IgG Level (mg/mL) 

Passive Transfer 

Status Percent Calves Standard Error 

More than 20.0 52.4 (2.4) 

15.0 to 20.0 

Excellent 

14.3 (1.2) 

10.0 to 14.9 Adequate 14.1 (1.4) 

6.2 to 9.9 8.0 (0.9) 

Less than 6.2 

Failure 

11.2 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 
64  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

e. Percentage of tested heifer calves by IgG passive transfer status, and by herd 

size 

Percent Calves 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 

100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

IgG Passive 

Transfer Status Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Excellent 

(15.0 mg/mL or more) 65.5 (3.5) 67.8 (2.7) 68.5 (5.6) 66.7 (2.2) 

Adequate 

(10.0-14.9 mg/mL) 15.1 (2.5) 15.0 (1.7) 9.4 (1.7) 14.1 (1.4) 

Failure 

(Less than 10.0 

mg/mL) 19.4 (2.5) 17.2 (2.2) 22.1 (4.7) 19.2 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

The percentages of tested calves with failure of

passive transfer based on IgG levels were similar

across herd sizes.

A higher percentage of calves in the East region

than in the West region had adequate passive

transfer. The percentages of calves in the

excellent and failure categories were similar

between the regions.

f. Percentage of tested heifer calves by IgG passive transfer status, and by region 

Percent Calves 

Region 

West East 

IgG Passive 

Transfer Status Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error

Excellent (15.0 mg/mL or more) 70.0 (5.8) 66.1 (2.4) 

Adequate (10.0-14.9 mg/mL) 8.8 (1.7) 15.1 (1.7) 

Failure (Less than 10.0 mg/mL) 21.2 (4.8) 18.8 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  65

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

Season of birth did not influence the passive

transfer status of calves.

g. Percentage of tested heifer calves by IgG passive transfer status, and by season 

of birth 

Percent Calves 

Season of Birth 

Winter Spring Summer 

IgG Passive Transfer 

Status Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Excellent 

(15.0 mg/mL or more) 67.6 (6.4) 67.7 (3.4) 65.7 (3.2) 

Adequate 

(10.0-14.9 mg/mL) 13.6 (3.4) 13.7 (2.0) 14.6 (2.3) 

Failure 

(Less than 10.0 mg/mL) 18.8 (5.0) 18.6 (2.5) 19.7 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

For calves fed by bottle or tube, about 7 of 10

tested had excellent passive transfer of immunity

(68.2 percent and 72.4 percent, respectively). In

comparison, about 5 of 10 calves (54.1 percent)

that received their first feeding of colostrum by

nursing their dams had excellent passive transfer

of immunity.

h. Percentage of tested heifer calves by IgG passive transfer status, and by 

method of first feeding of colostrum 

Percent Calves

Colostrum Delivery Method 

Hand-fed 

from Bottle 

Hand-fed 

Using 

Esophageal 

Tube 

Nursed 

Dam 

Multiple 

Methods/Other 

IgG Passive Transfer 

Status Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Excellent 

(15.0 mg/mL or more) 68.2 (2.7) 72.4 (5.9) 54.1 (6.1) 64.1 (5.5) 

Adequate 

(10.0-14.9 mg/mL) 16.0 (1.9) 6.3 (2.0) 17.8 (6.1) 10.7 (2.3) 

Failure 

(Less than 10.0 

mg/mL) 15.8 (1.8) 21.3 (6.1) 28.1 (5.0) 25.2 (4.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
66  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

Calves allowed to nurse their dams were more

likely to have failure of passive transfer than

calves that did not —p value <0.05 (25.8 and

16.9 percent, respectively).

i. Percentage of tested heifer calves by IgG passive transfer status, and by 

whether calves nursed colostrum from their dams 

Percent Calves 

Nursed Dam 

Yes No 

IgG Passive 

Transfer Status Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error

Excellent (15.0 mg/mL or more) 60.2 (4.2) 69.0 (2.5) 

Adequate (10.0-14.9 mg/mL) 14.0 (3.0) 14.1 (1.6) 

Failure (Less than 10.0 mg/mL) 25.8 (3.3) 16.9 (1.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  67

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

For the 74.8 percent of calves not allowed to

nurse their dams (table see table b., p62), failure

of passive transfer occurred in 25.8 percent of

calves that received less than 2.0 quarts of

colostrum at first feeding and in 13.6 percent of

calves that received 4.0 quarts or more.

However, when considering the standard errors,

these estimates were not substantially different.

j. For the 74.8 percent of calves not allowed to nurse their dams, percentage of 

tested heifer calves by IgG passive transfer status, and by quantity of colostrum 

administered at first feeding 

Percent Calves 

Quantity of Colostrum Fed at First Feeding (Quarts) 

Less 

than 2.0 2.0 to 2.9 3.0 to 3.9 

4.0 or 

more

All Hand-fed 

Calves 

IgG Passive 

Transfer 

Status Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Excellent 

(15.0 mg/mL 

or more) 68.4 (8.2) 64.4 (3.7) 70.1 (6.5) 75.3 (3.8) 68.8 (2.5) 

Adequate 

(10.0-14.9 

mg/mL) 5.8 (3.2) 18.0 (2.6) 12.0 (3.0) 11.1 (2.6) 14.2 (1.6) 

Failure 

(Less than 

10.0 mg/mL) 25.8 (7.8) 17.6 (2.7) 17.9 (5.5) 13.6 (2.8) 17.0 (1.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
68  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status
USDA APHIS VS  69

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

5. Calf serum total

protein passive

transfer status

Serum samples collected from heifer calves for

IgG testing were also tested for total protein.

Serum total protein in calves is often used as an

estimate of the serum IgG level. Previous studies

have reported correlation between serum IgG

levels and serum total protein for predicting

passive transfer level and have suggested that a

serum total protein greater than or equal to 5.0 to

5.2 g/dL correlates with an IgG level of 10 mg/mL

or greater in healthy calves that are not

dehydrated (Tyler et al., 1996).

In the following tables, passive transfer status

was considered excellent if serum total protein

level was 5.5 g/dL or greater. Passive transfer

was considered adequate if total protein was

5.0 to 5.4 g/dL, and total protein less than

5.0 g/dL was defined as failure of passive

transfer.

The percentages of tested calves by serum total

protein passive transfer status were similar

across herd sizes, between regions, and among

seasons of birth. Over one-half of all calves had

excellent passive transfer based on total protein

levels (58.5 percent), and 21.3 percent had failure

of passive transfer. As expected, these results

are very similar to the IgG passive transfer

results.

a. Percentage of tested heifer calves by serum total protein passive transfer 

status, and by herd size 

Percent Calves 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Serum Total Protein 

Passive Transfer 

Status Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Excellent 

(5.5 g/dL or more) 56.7 (3.6) 60.6 (2.8) 59.8 (6.1) 58.5 (2.3) 

Adequate 

(5.0 to 5.4 g/dL) 20.8 (2.7) 20.3 (1.7) 18.4 (2.5) 20.2 (1.6) 

Failure 

(Less than 5.0 g/dL) 22.5 (2.8) 19.1 (2.4) 21.8 (5.5) 21.3 (1.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
70  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

b. Percentage of tested heifer calves by serum total protein passive transfer 

status, and by region 

Percent Calves 

Region 

West East 

Serum Total Protein 

Passive Transfer Status Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error

Excellent 

(5.5 g/dL or more) 63.5 (6.3) 57.5 (2.4) 

Adequate 

(5.0 to 5.4 g/dL) 16.2 (2.6) 21.0 (1.8) 

Failure 

(Less than 5.0 g/dL) 20.3 (5.6) 21.5 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

c. Percentage of tested heifer calves by serum total protein passive transfer 

status, and by season of birth 

Percent Calves 

Season of Birth 

Winter Spring Summer 

Serum Total Protein 

Passive Transfer Status Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Excellent 

(5.5 g/dL or more) 58.1 (7.9) 59.9 (3.5) 57.4 (3.2) 

Adequate 

(5.0 to 5.4 g/dL) 20.8 (4.8) 21.7 (2.6) 19.0 (2.1) 

Failure 

(Less than 5.0 g/dL) 21.1 (5.3) 18.4 (2.7) 23.6 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  71

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

About 8 of 10 calves fed by bottle had excellent

or adequate passive transfer (81.4 percent).

Excellent or adequate passive transfer status

was seen in 73.7 percent of calves that received

their first feeding of colostrum by nursing their

dams and in 72.6 percent of calves that were fed

by esophageal tube (see also IgG results in table

h., p 65).

d. Percentage of tested heifer calves by serum total protein passive transfer 

status, and by method of first feeding of colostrum 

Percent Calves

Colostrum Delivery Method 

Hand-fed 

from Bottle 

Hand-fed Using 

Esophageal 

Tube 

Nursed 

Dam 

Multiple 

Methods/Other 

Serum Total 

Protein Passive 

Transfer Status Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Excellent 

(5.5 g/dL or more) 60.7 (2.9) 58.9 (6.0) 49.5 (5.0) 53.4 (5.9) 

Adequate 

(5.0 to 5.4 g/dL) 20.7 (2.1) 13.7 (2.5) 24.2 (5.2) 21.3 (3.4) 

Failure 

(Less than 5.0 

g/dL) 18.6 (2.2) 27.4 (6.0) 26.3 (4.9) 25.3 (5.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

The percentage of calves with failure of passive

transfer based on serum total protein levels was

similar between those that nursed and those that

did not (25.2 and 20.0 percent, respectively) (see

also IgG results in table i., p 66).

e. Percentage of tested heifer calves by serum total protein passive transfer 

status, and by whether calves nursed colostrum from their dams 

Percent Calves 

Nursed Dam 

Yes No 

Serum Total Protein 

Passive Transfer Status Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error

Excellent 

(5.5 g/dL or more) 51.8 (4.3) 60.7 (2.7) 

Adequate 

(5.0 to 5.4 g/dL) 23.0 (3.1) 19.3 (1.8) 

Failure 

(Less than 5.0 g/dL) 25.2 (3.7) 20.0 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
72  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

For the 74.8 percent of calves not allowed to

nurse their dams (table b., p 62), failure of

passive transfer based on serum total protein

levels occurred in 25.3 percent of calves that

received less than 2.0 quarts of colostrum and in

15.1 percent of calves that received 4.0 quarts or

more (see also IgG results in table j., p67).

However, as was the case with the IgG

estimates, these estimates were not significantly

different.

f. For the 74.8 percent of calves not allowed to nurse their dams, percentage of 

tested heifer calves by serum total protein passive transfer status, and by 

quantity of colostrum administered at first feeding 

Percent Calves 

Quantity of Colostrum Fed at First Feeding (Quarts) 

Less 

than 2.0 2.0 to 2.9 3.0 to 3.9 

4.0 or 

more

All Hand-fed 

Calves 

Serum Total 

Protein Passive 

Transfer Status Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Excellent 

(5.5 g/dL or 

more) 64.8 (8.3) 55.6 (4.0) 60.9 (6.5) 67.3 (4.3) 60.6 (2.7) 

Adequate 

(5.0 to 5.4 g/dL) 9.9 (4.7) 21.6 (2.6) 20.5 (4.8) 17.6 (3.1) 19.4 (1.8) 

Failure 

(Less than 

5.0 g/dL) 25.3 (7.1) 22.8 (3.4) 18.6 (5.4) 15.1 (3.2) 20.0 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  73

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Colostrum Management and Passive Transfer Status

6. Comparison of

IgG and total

protein status

Total protein and IgG passive transfer status

agreed in 75.4 percent of samples taken from

heifer calves (excellent 55.1, adequate 6.4, and

failure 13.9 percent). The highest percentage of

results with disagreement occurred for calves

with excellent passive transfer based on IgG, but

only adequate passive transfer based on total

protein (9.4 percent of calves).

Percentage of tested calves by IgG and serum total protein passive transfer status 

Percent Calves 

IgG Passive Transfer Status 

Excellent 

(15.0 mg/mL 

or more)

Adequate 

(10.0-14.9 

mg/mL)

Failure 

(Less than 

10.0 mg/mL) Total 

Serum Total 

Protein Passive 

Transfer Status Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Excellent 

(5.5 g/dL or more) 55.1 (2.3) 2.5 (0.6) 0.9 (0.3) 58.5 (2.3) 

Adequate 

(5.0-5.4 g/dL) 9.4 (1.1) 6.4 (0.9) 4.4 (0.8) 20.2 (1.6) 

Failure 

(Less than 

5.0 g/dL) 2.2 (0.5) 5.2 (1.0) 13.9 (1.5) 21.3 (1.9) 

Total 66.7 (2.2) 14.1 (1.4) 19.2 (1.7) 100.0 
74  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Nutrition

D. Nutrition

Note: Estimates in the following tables represent operations with any dairy cows.

Calves undergo remarkable physiological

changes from birth to weaning. At birth, the

abomasum makes up almost 50 percent of the

total weight of a calf’s stomach (Warner and

Flatt, 1965). The abomasum is often referred to

as the true stomach because it digests proteins

in a fashion similar to the stomach of a

nonruminant (Davis and Drackley, 1998). During

the first few weeks of life, calves receive most of

their energy by digesting milk or milk replacer in

the abomasum and the small intestine. Young

calves have a unique feature called the

esophageal groove that helps deliver milk

directly to the abomasum. The esophageal

groove is a tube created by the contraction of

certain muscles in the esophagus. These

muscles lie in a fold of tissue that extends from

the base of the esophagus (cardia) to the

reticulo-omasal orifice (Orskov et al., 1970;

Orskov, 1972). Because of the esophageal

groove, 97 percent of the milk or milk replacer

bypasses the reticulorumen and enters the

abomasum, where it can be digested to provide

nutrients for the calf (Tuolloc and Guilloteau,

1989).

2. Liquid diets

(milk/milk

replacer)

Selecting a suitable liquid feeding plan is

important to the health of dairy calves.

Producers must select an appropriate liquid diet

that will support the calves until they are

weaned. Liquid diets commonly fed to dairy

calves include commercial milk replacer, saleable

milk, and nonsaleable milk.

Until the 1950s, most dairy calves were fed

whole milk (Otterby and Linn,1981). Although

pasteurized saleable milk is an excellent source

of nutrition for calves, it has traditionally been

the most expensive liquid diet option (Davis and

Drackley, 1998). Commercial milk replacers were

developed in the 1950s as an economical

alternative to feeding saleable milk. Other

advantages of milk replacers include easy

storage, diet consistency from day to day, and

disease control (Davis and Drackley, 1998). The

table below shows a comparison between whole

milk and a 20:20 (percent fat: percent protein)

milk replacer. Whole milk has higher amounts of

protein and fat per gallon compared with most

milk replacers. Despite this, if calves are fed

large amounts of high quality milk replacer their

growth can equal that of calves fed whole milk.

When comparing milk replacer to whole milk, it

is important to compare them based on equal

calf nutrient intake. In other words, since milk

contains more energy per gallon, feeding 2

quarts of milk replacer is not equal to feeding 2

quarts of whole milk.

1. Introduction
USDA APHIS VS  75

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Nutrition

a. Comparison of whole milk and milk replacer 

Parameter Whole Milk 

20:20 Milk Replacer 

(1 lb/gal water) 

Total solids (percent) 12.5 11.4 

Fat* (percent) 28.8 20.7 

Protein* (percent) 27.1 20.7 

lb protein/gal 0.285 0.190 

lb fat/gal 0.317 0.190 

*Dry matter basis: since milk replacer is about 96 to 98 percent dry matter, a product that contains 20 percent 

fat on the label actually contains 20.7 percent fat on a dry matter basis. Source: adapted from Corbett (2007) 

and Jones et al. (2007). 

Many commercial milk replacers are available,

most of which contain 18 to 28 percent protein

and 10 to 22 percent fat. A number of different

protein sources are used in milk replacers. Milkderived proteins such as dried skim milk, casein,

and dried whey are most common; soy protein,

egg, and animal plasma are also used. The most

common source of fat is tallow or lard. Other

important ingredients include carbohydrates,

trace minerals, and vitamins A, B, D, and E. Some

milk replacers are medicated with lasalocid or

decoquinate (anticoccidials) or contain

subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics intended to

prevent calf scours. The use of subtherapeutic

antibiotics is coming under scrutiny due to

concerns about antimicrobial resistance. A

recent study showed that calves fed a medicated

milk replacer had decreased overall morbidity

and increased weight gain compared with calves

fed a nonmedicated milk replacer. However, the

most important factor in reducing calf morbidity

and mortality was successful passive transfer

provided through colostrum. The study

concluded that removal of antibiotics from milk

replacers may have a significant negative impact

on calf health in the absence of adequate

passive transfer (Berge et al., 2005).

Nonsaleable milk is another liquid-diet option for

calves. Nonsaleable milk typically includes

surplus colostrum, transition milk, abnormal

(mastitic) milk, and milk from cows treated with

medications that call for a withdrawal period.

Disease transmission via pathogens in milk is

one concern about feeding raw, nonsaleable milk

to calves; Selim and Cullor (1997) showed that

unpasteurized, nonsaleable milk had more

bacteria than milk replacer or saleable (bulk-tank)

milk. To reduce bacterial contamination,

nonsaleable milk can be pasteurized.

Pasteurization destroys or significantly

decreases the number of pathogens that can

affect calf health, without affecting milk quality

(Stabel et al., 2004). However, pasteurization is a

labor-intensive process that requires frequent

monitoring of equipment and the feeding

system.
76  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Nutrition

Feeding pasteurized nonsaleable milk to calves

may offer economic advantages over feeding

saleable milk or milk replacers. A study by

Godden et al. (2005) showed that calves fed

pasteurized nonsaleable milk gained more

weight, had higher weights at weaning, lower

morbidity in summer, and lower morbidity and

mortality in winter than calves fed an equal

volume of milk replacer. However, these findings

were expected since calves fed pasteurized

nonsaleable milk received more dry matter

protein and energy than those fed milk replacer.

In addition, feeding waste milk resulted in a

savings of $0.69 per calf per day when compared

with feeding milk replacer.

Despite the possible economical advantages to

feeding pasteurized nonsaleable milk, some

concern exists about antibiotic residues and the

lack of consistency of the diet from day to day.

In a study in which calves were fed surplus

colostrum, diet variability from day to day did

not impact weight gain or increase the

occurrence of scours (Foley and Otterby, 1978);

however, most operations fed a blend of

colostrum, transition milk, waste milk, and milk

replacer. More studies are needed to investigate

the effects of antibiotic residues in nonsaleable

milk. In one trial, Wray et al. (1990) found an

increase in streptomycin resistance of intestinal

bacteria in calves fed waste milk containing

antibiotics; however, no increase in antibiotic

resistance was observed when the trail was

repeated. Langford et al. (2003) reported an

increase in resistance of intestinal bacteria when

milk was artificially spiked with varying amounts

of penicillin (6.25, 12.5, 25 and 50 microliters of

10,000 IU/mL Penicillin G per kilogram of milk).

Regardless of the type of liquid diet fed,

adequate nutrition must be provided to prevent

disease and promote growth. The 2001 Nutrient

Requirements of Dairy Cattle (National Research

Council, Nutrient Requirements of the Young

Calf, chapter 10 and the computer calf model)

can be used as a guide for determining a

specific feeding plan for milk or milk replacer.

Daily feeding quantities should be based on the

weather conditions, the health of the calf, the

calf’s weight, and the desired growth rate for

the calf. It is important to note that feeding

strategies must be adjusted when the

temperature is outside the thermoneutral range

(60 to 68 oF). At higher or lower temperatures,

more whole milk or milk replacer must be fed.

Otherwise, calves will use energy reserves to

maintain body temperature, instead of using the

energy for growth and the maintenance of a

healthy immune system. For example, at 25 oF,

calves require 32 percent more energy than they

do when the temperature is in the thermoneutral

zone (Scibilia et al., 1987). Management

practices recommended for cold weather

(less than 60 oF) include: milk/milk replacer and

water should be warmed to about 105 oF prior to

feeding; and the amount of nutrition provided

should be increased by either increasing the

solids content of the milk replacer to 15 to 18

percent, adding additional fat to the diet, or

feeding a third meal consisting of 25 to 50

percent more milk or milk replacer (BAMN, 2003;

Corbett, 2007).

To summarize, selecting a liquid feeding

program on a particular operation depends upon

performance goals for calves, the number of

calves, economics, disease concerns, individual
USDA APHIS VS  77

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Nutrition

preferences, and the availability of resources

(i.e., supply of nonsaleable milk). Appropriate

management decisions in this area can improve

calf health and growth efficiency.

A higher percentage of large operations

(26.4 percent) fed nonmedicated milk replacer

than medium and small operations (14.2 and 11.4

percent, respectively). Alternatively, small and

medium operations (55.2 and 68.2 percent,

respectively) were more likely to feed medicated

milk replacer than large operations

(43.6 percent). Overall, medicated milk replacer

(including antibiotics and anticoccidials) was

fed on more than one-half of all operations

(57.5 percent). A higher percentage of large

operations (28.7 percent) fed pasteurized waste

milk compared with medium and small operations

(3.0 and 1.0 percent, respectively). Small

operations (32.2 percent) were more likely to

feed unpasteurized whole (saleable) milk than

medium and large operations (17.4 and 12.1

percent, respectively). Similar percentages of

operations fed unpasteurized waste milk and

unpasteurized whole (saleable) milk

(30.6 and 28.0 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by type of liquid diet fed to heifers calves at any time 

prior to weaning 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 

Liquid Diet Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Nonmedicated 

milk replacer 11.4 (1.2) 14.2 (1.7) 26.4 (2.4) 12.7 (0.9) 

Medicated 

milk replacer 55.2 (1.8) 68.2 (2.1) 43.6 (3.1) 57.5 (1.4) 

Unpasteurized 

waste milk 32.2 (1.7) 25.7 (2.0) 27.6 (2.8) 30.6 (1.3) 

Pasteurized 

waste milk 1.0 (0.3) 3.0 (0.9) 28.7 (2.7) 2.8 (0.3) 

Unpasteurized 

whole (saleable) 

milk 32.2 (1.7) 17.4 (1.7) 12.1 (1.9) 28.0 (1.3) 

Pasteurized whole 

(saleable) milk 1.3 (0.4) 1.6 (0.8) 2.0 (0.7) 1.4 (0.3) 

Other 2.6 (0.6) 3.5 (0.9) 4.9 (1.8) 2.9 (0.5) 
78  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Nutrition

The percentages of heifers by type of liquid

diets fed were similar to the percentages of

operations by type of liquid diets fed. About

one-half of all heifers (49.9 percent) received

medicated milk replacer at some point prior to

weaning. Although only 2.8 percent of

operations fed pasteurized waste milk, 15.0

percent of heifers received pasteurized waste

milk, suggesting that this practice was more

common on larger operations.

c. Percentage of heifers by type of liquid diet fed any time prior to weaning during 

2006, and by herd size 

Percent Heifers 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Liquid Diet Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Nonmedicated 

milk replacer 10.4 (1.1) 13.7 (1.7) 27.9 (2.6) 19.1 (1.3) 

Medicated 

milk replacer 57.9 (1.8) 63.0 (2.2) 36.4 (3.0) 49.9 (1.5) 

Unpasteurized 

waste milk 23.2 (1.5) 20.3 (1.8) 19.9 (2.5) 20.9 (1.3) 

Pasteurized 

waste milk 1.2 (0.3) 2.6 (0.6) 31.5 (2.6) 15.0 (1.2) 

Unpasteurized 

whole (saleable) 

milk 25.5 (1.6) 13.3 (1.5) 6.9 (1.3) 13.8 (0.8) 

Pasteurized whole 

(saleable) milk 0.9 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 1.4 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 

Other 1.6 (0.4) 3.1 (0.9) 3.7 (1.3) 3.0 (0.6) 

The most common medications in milk replacer

at the operation level were oxytetracycline in

combination with neomycin (49.5 percent of

operations). Oxytetracycline and decoquinate

were fed on nearly one of five operations

(21.9 and 18.8 percent, respectively).
USDA APHIS VS  79

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Nutrition

Calf-feeding equipment should be cleaned

between calves to prevent the spread of disease

from one calf to another. Approximately one of

four operations (24.4 percent) cleaned calffeeding equipment between calves. A higher

percentage of large and medium operations

(39.1 and 30.9 percent, respectively) cleaned

equipment between calves compared with small

operations (21.4 percent). The majority of

operations (58.5 percent) cleaned equipment

daily, and there was no difference by herd size in

the percentage of operations that cleaned daily.

Small and medium operations were more likely to

clean equipment weekly (7.0 and 5.2 percent,

respectively) than large operations (1.3 percent).

“Other” frequency accounted for 7.5 percent of

operations, and a high percentage of these

operations cleaned equipment twice daily, but

not between calves.

e. Percentage of operations by frequency milk feeding equipment* was cleaned 

and disinfected, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100)

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Between calves 21.4 (1.5) 30.9 (2.2) 39.1 (2.7) 24.4 (1.2) 

Daily 59.8 (1.8) 55.9 (2.3) 51.8 (2.8) 58.5 (1.4) 

Weekly 7.0 (1.0) 5.2 (0.9) 1.3 (0.9) 6.4 (0.8) 

Monthly 3.8 (0.7) 1.4 (0.6) 2.2 (1.0) 3.2 (0.5) 

Other 8.0 (1.0) 6.6 (1.1) 5.6 (1.3) 7.5 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Bottles, buckets, nipples. 

d. For operations that fed a medicated milk replacer to heifers during 2006, 

percentage of operations by type of medication used 

Medication Percent Operations Standard Error 

Chlortetracycline (CTC) 12.1 (1.1) 

Oxytetracycline (OTC) 21.9 (1.5) 

Oxytetracycline in combination with 

Neomycin (Oxy NEO) 49.5 (1.9) 

Decoquinate 18.8 (1.4) 

Lasalocid 7.2 (0.9) 

Other 5.4 (0.9) 
80  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Nutrition

3. Water and

calf starter

Calves should be offered free-choice water from

birth for several reasons. A study showed that

calves not offered water consume milk to satisfy

their thirst. In this situation, the esophageal

groove did not close, and milk was delivered to

the forestomach (Orskov, 1972). In addition,

research has shown that calves given freechoice water from birth to 4 weeks of age ate

more dry feed, had improved daily weight gain,

and had no increase in incidence of scours

compared with calves deprived of water (Kertz et

al., 1984). Detailed recommendations for

providing water, starter, and hay to calves can

be found in “A Guide to Dairy Calf Feeding and

Management” (BAMN, 2003).

Rumen maturation in calves is triggered by the

introduction of calf starter. Specifically, the

microbial fermentation of carbohydrates and

proteins in the dry feed produces volatile fatty

acids (VFAs): acetic, propionic, and butyric

acids. Butyric and propionic acids are the

principal VFAs involved in accelerating

forestomach (rumen, reticulum, and omasum)

development; they directly affect proliferation

and differentiation of gastrointestinal epithelial

cells, and they provide energy for the growing

stomach tissue (McGilliard et al., 1965; Velazquez

et al., 1996). Thus, to ensure normal rumen

development and achieve the economic benefits

of an early weaning age for calves, high quality

calf starter should be introduced by the time

calves are 4 days old.

Producers should begin by offering small

amounts of calf starter, replacing it daily. Hay

should not be fed to calves prior to weaning

because—compared with calves fed a high

quality, properly balanced starter—it may delay

rumen development. Calves fed primarily grain

(starter) have better development of rumen

tissue, longer papillae, and heavier rumen weight

than calves fed primarily hay (Stobo et al. [1966];

Davis and Drackley [1998]). The best time to

start hay is after weaning, when calves are about

8 to 10 weeks old and consistently consuming a

minimum of 5 pounds of starter daily.

Across all operations, water was offered to

calves at 15.3 days of age on average. Large

operations offered water earlier (8.2 days) than

medium and small operations (13.3 and 16.3

days, respectively). Starter was routinely offered

at an average of 8.5 days of age. The average

age of heifers receiving hay or other roughage

increased as operation size increased, ranging

from 22.1 days of age on small operations to 40.0

days on large operations.
USDA APHIS VS  81

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Nutrition

 Operation average age (days) of preweaned heifers when heifers were routinely 

offered the following diets, by herd size 

Operation Average Age (Days) 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100)

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Diet Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Water 16.3 (0.7) 13.3 (0.8) 8.2 (0.9) 15.3 (0.6) 

Starter grain or 

other concentrate 8.9 (0.3) 7.5 (0.4) 7.8 (0.7) 8.5 (0.3) 

Hay or other 

roughage 22.1 (0.7) 30.9 (1.1) 40.0 (1.9) 24.5 (0.6) 
82  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Growth from Birth to Weaning

Estimates in the following tables represent only operations with 30 or more dairy cows.

E. Growth from Birth to Weaning

1. Introduction Dairy heifer growth represents the culmination

of many feeding, health, and management

practices. Growth is fundamentally important in

determining the age at which heifers can be bred

and become productive. Heifers that calve with

less than optimal body weight produce less milk

during first lactation and are, therefore, less

profitable to the dairy producer.

Heifer growth was measured as part of the Dairy

2007 study. Measurements of heart girth and

wither height were taken from heifers between

birth and weaning using a Coburn calf tape. Calf

weight was estimated based on the girth

measurement. Each heifer was measured only

once, and her age was recorded at the time of

measurement.

A total of 5,381 heifer calves from 418

operations were evaluated for growth

parameters, of which 4,667 were Holsteins

(386 operations). The remaining calves were

comprised of Jersey, Brown Swiss, Guernsey,

and crossbreed dairy cattle whose numbers

were too small to report growth curves.

The following tables allow producers to

compare their Holstein heifers with other heifers

in the United States. A recommended goal for

producers is to have their heifers fall somewhere

near the 75th percentile. For more information,

and for instructions on measuring heifers,

producers can refer to the Penn State

publication “Monitoring Dairy Heifer Growth”

(Heinrichs and Lammers, 1998).
USDA APHIS VS  83

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Growth from Birth to Weaning

2. Holstein growth

parameters

At one month of age (28 to 34 days), the median

weight of a Holstein heifer calf was 126 pounds;

at 2 months of age (56 to 62 days) the median

weight was 177 pounds; and by 3 months of age

(84 to 90 days) the median was 236 pounds. For

comparison, data collected during the NAHMS’

a. Percentile and weight (pounds) of Holstein heifers, by age (days) 

Weight (Pounds)

Age (Days) 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile 

Less than 7 91 97 105 

7 to 13 91 101 115 

14 to 20 97 105 115 

21 to 27 97 115 126 

28 to 34 115 126 138 

35 to 41 120 138 151 

42 to 48 126 151 164 

49 to 55 138 151 177 

56 to 62 157 177 204 

63 to 69 171 191 220 

70 to 76 171 191 212 

77 to 83 184 204 236 

84 to 90 204 236 260 

NDHEP study conducted in 1991-92 indicated

that the median weights for Holstein heifer

calves at 1, 2, and 3 months of age were 119, 161,

and 211 pounds, respectively (Heinrichs and

Lammers, 1998).
84  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Growth from Birth to Weaning

Weight

(lbs)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Age (days)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

95th percentile

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

5th percentile

Percentile and Weight (pounds) of Holstein Heifers, by Age (Days)
USDA APHIS VS  85

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Growth from Birth to Weaning

The median wither height for Holstein heifer

calves was 32.5 inches at 1 month of age

(28 to 34 days), 35.0 inches at 2 months

(56 to 62 days), and 37.0 inches at 3 months

(84 to 90 days). For comparison, data collected

during the NAHMS’ NDHEP study conducted in

1991-92 indicated that the median wither heights

for Holstein heifer calves at 1, 2, and 3 months of

age were 31.0, 33.0, and 35.0 inches, respectively

(Heinrichs and Lammers, 1998).

b. Percentile and wither height (inches) of Holstein heifers, by age (days) 

Wither Height (Inches)

Age (Days) 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile 

Less than 7 30.0 31.0 32.0 

7 to 13 30.0 31.0 32.3 

14 to 20 30.5 31.5 33.0 

21 to 27 31.0 32.0 33.0 

28 to 34 31.5 32.5 33.0 

35 to 41 32.0 34.0 35.0 

42 to 48 32.5 34.0 35.0 

49 to 55 33.0 34.0 35.0 

56 to 62 34.0 35.0 36.5 

63 to 69 34.0 35.0 37.0 

70 to 76 34.0 35.0 36.0 

77 to 83 35.0 36.0 37.0 

84 to 90 35.0 37.0 38.0 
86  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Growth from Birth to Weaning

Wither Height

(inches)

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Age (days)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

95th percentile

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

5th percentile

Percentile and Wither Height (Inches) of Holstein Heifers, by Age (Days)
USDA APHIS VS  87

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

F. General Management

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

1. Housing Housing design plays an important role in

maximizing calf health, especially with the

diverse climates across the United States.

Housing for preweaned calves should provide a

dry area with shelter that does not allow contact

with other calves or, especially, older animals.

Providing a deep layer of dry bedding is

important to keep the calves warm during cold

weather. For preweaned calves, hutches or

individual animal pens are usually

recommended. Individual hutches have several

advantages. Hutches keep calves separated,

thereby reducing the spread of disease, and

they offer calves a choice of several different

thermal zones: the back of the hutch, the front of

the hutch, and the outdoor pen (Brunswold et

al., 1985). The primary disadvantage of hutches

is the difficulty that dairy personnel face in

caring for calves during a snowstorm or other

adverse weather event, particularly on

operations with a large number of calves. Some

operations house preweaned calves in

individual pens inside a barn. This design is

easier on caretakers and can be an effective

system as long as the barn is adequately

ventilated. After weaning, heifers are usually

placed in group housing with other animals of

similar age.

The majority of operations (74.9 percent) housed

preweaned heifers in individual animal pens or

hutches at some point during 2006.

Approximately one-half of operations housed

weaned heifers on pasture and/or in inside and

outside multiple-animal areas (49.2, 55.6, and 44.6

percent of operations, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations by type of housing used for any length of time during 

2006, and by cattle class 

Percent Operations 

Cattle Class 

Preweaned Heifers Weaned Heifers 

Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Tie stall/ 

stanchion 12.1 (1.0) 12.2 (1.0) 

Freestall 5.6 (0.7) 20.9 (1.2) 

Individual 

pen/hutch 74.9 (1.3) 15.6 (1.1) 

Drylot/multipleanimal outside 

area 5.2 (0.7) 44.6 (1.4) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 23.6 (1.3) 55.6 (1.5) 

Pasture 6.3 (0.7) 49.2 (1.5) 

Other 1.5 (0.3) 1.8 (0.4) 
88  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

The most common primary housing types were

individual-animal pens/hutches for preweaned

heifers and multiple-animal inside areas for

weaned heifers.

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

2006, and by cattle class 

Percent Operations 

Cattle Class 

Preweaned Heifers Weaned Heifers 

Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Tie stall/stanchion 8.9 (0.8) 5.9 (0.7) 

Freestall 2.7 (0.5) 12.1 (0.9) 

Individual pen/hutch 67.9 (1.3) 5.3 (0.7) 

Drylot/multiple-animal 

outside area 0.6 (0.2) 22.9 (1.1) 

Multiple-animal inside area 14.2 (1.1) 34.6 (1.4) 

Pasture 0.6 (0.2) 10.8 (0.9) 

Not housed on operation 4.7 (0.5) 7.7 (0.7) 

Other 0.4 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  89

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

2. Off-site heifer

raising

Heifer rearing represents about 20 percent of the

total operating expenses on dairy operations,

making it the second largest expense behind

feeding costs (Heinrichs, 1993). To raise heifers,

dairies invest money and resources in feed,

labor, and housing without receiving a return on

their investments until the heifers calve, usually

around 24 months of age. As dairy operations

become larger (increased number of cows), the

use of off-site calf ranches is increasingly

common (Wolf, 2003). Calf ranches that raise a

large number of heifers likely realize economies

of scale that may allow them to produce heifers

at a cost lower than an individual dairy farm.

Calves are transported to calf ranches at a

predetermined age, such as prior to or after

weaning. Typically, producers and calf ranches

enter into a contract that specifies expectations

of care, growing performance, and payment

responsibilities. Various types of contracts are

used, such as contracts in which producers pay

calf ranches by the day or by pound of gain, or

contracts in which producers sell heifers to the

ranch upon delivery and retain the option to

buy them back prior to freshening.

On operations with limited facilities, labor, or

other components of a dairy operation,

contracting with an off-site calf ranch has many

advantages. Calf-ranch personnel are usually

dedicated to working only with calves, which

can result in increased attention to the feeding

and health of calves and also decreased

exposure to adult-cow diseases. In addition, if

calves are not commingled with older animals or

animals from other operations, their exposure to

disease agents such as Mycobacterium avium

subspecies paratuberculosis (the causative

agent of Johne’s disease) is reduced. Moving

heifers off-site frees-up labor and space

previously dedicated to heifer housing and feedstorage facilities. This extra labor and space can

be used for the milking herd. Raising heifers

off-site also reduces the amount of manure

produced at single sites and/or may allow

producers to maintain larger milking herds on

the same acreage. Using off-site calf ranches

may enable producers to reduce expenses,

especially if the heifer-raising aspect of the

operation is costly or inefficient, which might be

indicated by consistent, higher-than-normal calf

illness or death loss, or by heifers that calve

later than 24 months of age and/or calve at

suboptimal weights.

There can be drawbacks to using off-site calf

ranches. For example, many calf ranches

commingle heifers from different operations,

presenting an increased risk of disease

introduction. Wolf (2003) found that only 6 of 57

calf ranches permanently separated heifers

according to farm of origin during the rearing

period. Other drawbacks of using calf ranches

include less control over management practices

used in raising heifers, transportation costs of

moving heifers to the off-site facility, and issues

related to entering into and meeting contract

obligations.
90  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

In Dairy 2007, about 1 of 10 operations

(9.3 percent) raised some dairy heifers off the

operation. The percentages of operations that

raised heifers off-site increased as herd size

increased for all heifer classes. Less than 5

percent of small operations raised any heifers

off-site, compared with 15.5 percent of medium

operations and 46.0 percent of large operations.

Almost one-third of large operations

(35.3 percent) raised preweaned calves off-site,

compared with 7.1 percent of medium operations

and 1.7 percent of small operations. Similar

herd-size differences in the percentages of

operations that raised heifers off-site were

observed among all three heifer classes.

a. Percentage of operations that had any heifers raised off-site, by heifer class 

and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Heifer Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Preweaned 1.7 (0.5) 7.1 (1.2) 35.3 (2.9) 4.6 (0.5) 

Weaned 4.3 (0.7) 14.6 (1.6) 44.2 (2.9) 8.6 (0.7) 

Bred 4.1 (0.7) 11.5 (1.5) 22.5 (2.3) 6.7 (0.6) 

Any of the above 4.7 (0.7) 15.5 (1.7) 46.0 (2.9) 9.3 (0.7) 

For operations that raised any heifers off the

operation, preweaned, weaned, and bred heifers

were sent off-site at an operation average age of

4.9, 189.8, and 413.8 days, respectively. The

average age at which any calves left to be raised

off-site was 110.3 days.

b. For the 9.3 percent of operations that had any heifers raised off-site, operation 

average age of heifers when leaving operation, by heifer class 

Operation Average Age (Days) 

Heifer Class 

Preweaned Weaned Bred All Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

4.9 (0.7) 189.8 (15.7) 413.8 (25.3) 110.3 (11.2) 
USDA APHIS VS  91

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

Producers were asked to identify the primary

class of heifers sent off-site. Almost one-half of

operations that sent any heifers off-site to be

raised sent preweaned or weaned calves

(50.1 and 44.1 percent of operations,

respectively). Only 5.8 percent of operations

sent bred heifers off-site to be raised. Medium

operations sent similar percentages of

preweaned and weaned calves off-site (45.6 and

49.7 percent, respectively), and large operations

most frequently sent preweaned heifers off-site

(77.2 percent).

c. For the 9.3 percent of operations that had any heifers raised off-site, percentage 

of operations by primary heifer class raised off-site and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Heifer 

Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Preweaned 35.9 (7.7) 45.6 (5.8) 77.2 (3.3) 50.1 (3.8) 

Weaned 54.3 (7.9) 49.7 (5.9) 21.1 (3.2) 44.1 (3.8) 

Bred 9.8 (4.0) 4.7 (2.4) 1.7 (0.6) 5.8 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
92  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

About 8 of 10 operations that sent heifers

off-site to be raised (81.1 percent) retained

ownership of the heifers sent. A total of 9.4

percent of operations sold the heifers sent

off-site and repurchased the same animals, and

9.5 percent of operations sold the animals sent

and replaced them with different animals.

d. For the 9.3 percent of operations that had any heifers raised off-site, 

percentage of operations by ownership of the majority of 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 

Ownership Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Ownership 

retained 72.3 (7.5) 83.8 (4.1) 89.6 (2.1) 81.1 (3.3) 

Same animals sold 

and then 

repurchased 11.1 (6.1) 10.0 (3.2) 6.0 (1.6) 9.4 (2.6) 

Animals sold 

outright, replaced 

with different animals 16.6 (5.6) 6.2 (2.8) 4.4 (1.4) 9.5 (2.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

For operations that sent heifers off-site to be

raised, the highest percentage of small and

medium operations transported heifers fewer

than 20 miles to the rearing facility, while the

highest percentage of large operations

transported heifers between 5 and 50 miles. A

total of 10.6 percent of operations transported

heifers 50 miles or more.
USDA APHIS VS  93

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

e. For the 9.3 percent of operations that had any heifers raised off-site, 

percentage of operations by number of miles heifers were transported to the 

off-site rearing facility, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Miles Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 5.0 43.5 (8.4) 26.0 (5.4) 10.1 (2.8) 27.6 (3.7) 

5.0 to 19.9 35.3 (8.7) 47.5 (6.1) 37.7 (4.4) 40.8 (3.9) 

20.0 to 49.9 12.8 (5.2) 18.8 (4.7) 34.5 (4.7) 21.0 (3.0) 

50 or more 8.4 (4.3) 7.7 (2.7) 17.7 (2.7) 10.6 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Relatively few operations (4.1 percent)

transported heifers out of State for rearing.

f. For the 9.3 percent of operations that had any heifers raised off-site, percentage 

of operations in which heifers were ever transported out of State for off-site 

rearing, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1.9 (1.8) 2.6 (1.5) 9.1 (1.8) 4.1 (1.0) 
94  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

Producers were asked to choose the description

that best described their primary off-site rearing

facility. Ideally, heifer-raising facilities would

only house animals from one operation. More

than one-fourth of operations (27.7 percent) sent

heifers to a single rearing facility in which

heifers did not have contact with cattle from

other operations, but the majority (51.3 percent)

sent heifers to a single rearing facility in which

heifers had contact with cattle from other

operations.

g. For the 9.3 percent of operations that had any heifers raised off-site, percentage 

of operations by primary off-site rearing facility 

Off-site Rearing Facility 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Heifers sent to a single rearing facility and 

did not have contact with cattle from 

other operations 27.7 (3.3) 

Heifers sent to multiple rearing facilities 

and did not have contact with cattle from 

other operations 8.5 (2.1) 

Heifers sent to a single rearing facility 

and had contact (commingled) with cattle 

from other operations 51.3 (4.0) 

Heifers sent to multiple rearing facilities and 

had contact (commingled) with cattle from other 

operations 12.5 (3.0) 

Total 100.0 

On average, weaned and bred heifers returned to

the operation from the rearing facility at 7.0 and

21.6 months of age, respectively. The operation

average age of any heifers returning was

17.3 months.

h. For the 9.3 percent of operations that had any heifers raised off-site, operation 

average age that heifers returned to the operation, by heifer class 

Operation Average Age (Months) 

Heifer Class1

Weaned Bred Other2 All Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

7.0 (0.6) 21.6 (0.3) 28.6 (1.0) 17.3 (0.6) 

1

No operations reported preweaned heifers returning from an off-site rearing facility. 

2

Heifers that had calved. 
USDA APHIS VS  95

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

Producers were asked to identify the primary

class of heifer replacements usually arriving or

returning to the operation. About two of three

operations that sent any heifers off-site

(67.6 percent) brought bred heifers back to the

operation from the rearing facility. About one of

three operations (30.3 percent) brought back

weaned heifers, while just 2.1 percent brought

back “other” heifers (primarily heifers that had

calved). A higher percentage of large operations

(53.4 percent) brought back weaned heifers

compared with medium and small operations

(27.3 and 15.1, respectively). A higher

percentage of small and medium operations

(79.1 and 72.2 percent, respectively) brought

back bred heifers compared with large

operations (46.6 percent).

i. For the 9.3 percent of operations that had any heifers raised off-site, percentage 

of operations by primary class of heifers arriving or returning to the operation, 

and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Heifer Class1 Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Weaned 15.1 (6.0) 27.3 (5.1) 53.4 (4.7) 30.3 (3.4) 

Bred 79.1 (6.7) 72.2 (5.2) 46.6 (4.7) 67.6 (3.5) 

Other2 5.8 (3.4) 0.5 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 2.1 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1

No operations reported preweaned heifers returning from an off-site rearing facility. 

2

Heifers that had calved. 
96  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

3. Weaning age Weaning is a stressful time for calves. To reduce

this stress, calves should only be weaned when

they are healthy and should not be moved to

different housing for 1 week after weaning.

Deciding when to wean calves should be based

on starter intake rather than age. When a calf

has eaten 2 pounds of calf starter per day for

three consecutive days, it is ready to be weaned

(Corbett, 2007).

If careful attention is paid to proper nutrition,

calves can often be weaned at a relatively young

age (5 to 7 weeks). Early weaning can cut costs

because feeding calf starter is less expensive

and less labor-intensive than feeding milk or milk

replacer.

The operation average age at weaning was 8.2

weeks, with large operations weaning calves at

an older age (9.1 weeks) than medium and small

operations (7.9 and 8.2 weeks, respectively).

a. Operation average age of heifers at weaning, by herd size 

Operation Average Age (Weeks) 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

8.2 (0.1) 7.9 (0.1) 9.1 (0.2) 8.2 (0.1) 
USDA APHIS VS  97

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

About one-third of operations (33.2 percent)

weaned heifers at 8 weeks of age, while 20.5

percent weaned heifers at 6 weeks. Less than 5

percent of operations (4.8 percent) weaned

heifers at 4 weeks of age.

b. Percentage of operations by average 

weaning age of heifers 

Operation 

Average 

Weaning 

Age 

(Weeks) 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

4 4.8 (0.6) 

5 5.6 (0.6) 

6 20.5 (1.2) 

7 10.3 (0.8) 

8 33.2 (1.4) 

9 4.5 (0.6) 

10 5.9 (0.6) 

11 1.1 (0.3) 

12 8.9 (0.9) 

13 or more 5.2 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 

4. Preventive

practices

Various preventive practices, such as

deworming, are utilized to improve heifer growth

and health. Common helminths (worms) that

affect cattle are Cooperia, Bunostomum,

Strongyloides, Nematodirus, Toxocara,

Oesophagostomum, Trichuris, and the stomach

worms Ostertagia, Haemonchus, and

Trichostrongylus. Younger animals are more

likely to have high worm burdens than adult

animals, since they have not yet acquired

immunity to these parasites (Yazwinski and

Gibbs, 1975; Merck, 1998). Heavy worm burdens

cause diminished growth, poor health, and

decreased milk production in dairy cattle (Block

and Gadbois, 1986; Bradley et al., 1986; Block et

al., 1987). The goal of a deworming protocol is to

decrease existing worm burdens and to prevent

future infections by reducing parasite load in the

pasture. Choosing an appropriate deworming

protocol depends upon the seasonal pattern of

helminth disease and pasture access of the herd.

Deworming products can be rotated to reduce

the chance of developing anthelmintic

resistance.

Coccidia are another important group of

parasites in dairy cattle. The species of Coccidia

most likely to cause diarrhea and

immunosuppression are Eimeria bovis and

Eimeria zuernii. Coccidia are present in the
98  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

environment of both pastured and confinementraised animals. A combination of stressed

animals and eating off the ground tend to be the

cause of most disease outbreaks. For calves,

outbreaks can occur after weaning, dehorning,

castration, or during cold weather. There are two

classes of medications used to prevent

coccidiosis in calves. Coccidoistats, such as

Deccox (decoquinate) are one option.

Ionophores are another method and have the

added benefit of acting as growth promotants.

In addition to being coccidiocidal, ionophores

alter the rumen bacterial population, thereby

changing the production of certain volatile fatty

acids and facilitating more efficient use of feed.

Common ionophores are lasalocid (Bovatec) and

monensin (Rumensin). Ionophores have come

under some scrutiny due to concerns about

antimicrobial resistance. The USDA Food and

Feed Safety Research Unit, Southern Plains

Agricultural Research Center, reported in 2003

that the use of ionophores does not appear to

contribute to antibiotic resistance to important

human drugs (Callaway et al., 2003). The use of

anticoccidial drugs in milk replacers and calf

starter is recommended because these drugs

increase growth rate and reduce health problems

in calves (Anderson et al., 1988; Eicher-Pruiett et

al., 1992; Heinrichs, 1993; Quigley et al., 1997).

Certain vitamins and minerals are often

supplemented to prevent nutritional deficiencies

in dairy cattle. Selenium, an essential trace

mineral, is deficient in the soil and plants in

some parts of the United States (Allaway, 1969).

Selenium deficiency causes white muscle

disease in calves; affected calves can have

weakness, stiffness, and muscle tremors.

Selenium deficiency also decreases overall

growth and health in cattle, and increases the

occurrence of mastitis and retained placentas in

cows (Harrison et al., 1984; Smith et al., 1984;

Kincaid, 1995). Selenium supplements can be

added to feed in organic or inorganic forms.

Sodium selenate and sodium selenite are the

two inorganic forms of selenium; selenized

yeast is an example of an organic source of

selenium. Selenium can also be administered by

injection. Vitamins A, D, and E are also essential

to the health of dairy cattle. Chapters 6 and 7 of

the “2001 Nutrient Requirements of Dairy

Cattle” (National Research Council) give

detailed recommendations for supplementing

vitamins and minerals.

Anionic salts such as magnesium chloride and

magnesium sulfate (MgCl2, MgSO4), ammonium

chloride and ammonium sulfate

(NH4Cl, (NH4)

2

SO4), and calcium chloride and

calcium sulfate (CaCl2, CaSO4) are sometimes fed

to dairy cows during the dry period to prevent

hypocalcemia (milk fever). Although anionic

salts are beneficial to cows, they are not

recommended for heifers because parturient

hypocalcemia is uncommon in heifers. Also,

anionic salts are unpalatable, and feeding them

to heifers can result in decreased dry matter

intake, decreased energy balance, and lower

body weight gains (Moore et al., 2000).

Probiotics are defined by the World Health

Organization as “live microorganisms which

when administered in adequate amounts confer

a health benefit on the host” (FAO/WHO, 2001).

Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus

faecium, and Bifidobacterium subtillus are
USDA APHIS VS  99

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

common microorganisms that have been used as

probiotics in dairy calves. Studies have shown

that probiotics in some situations are effective

for growth promotion and disease prevention in

calves (Abe et al., 1995; Donovan et al., 2002;

Khuntia and Chaudhary, 2002; Timmerman et al.,

2005).

Preventive practices were used for heifers on

almost all operations: 94.6 percent of operations

administered at least one preventive practice to

heifers, and 94.6 percent of heifers were on these

operations. Nearly 7 of 10 operations

(69.4 percent) dewormed heifers, and similar

percentages of operations provided vitamins

A-D-E or selenium in feed (74.4 and 69.3 percent,

respectively).

Percentage of operations (and percentage of heifers on these operations) by 

preventive practices normally used for heifers 

Preventive Practice

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Heifers*

Standard 

Error 

Dewormers 69.4 (1.3) 55.2 (1.5) 

Coccidiostats in feed 46.5 (1.4) 56.5 (1.6) 

Vitamins A-D-E injection 10.4 (0.7) 17.4 (1.3) 

Vitamins A-D-E in feed 74.4 (1.2) 71.9 (1.5) 

Selenium injection 13.2 (0.9) 17.2 (1.2) 

Selenium in feed 69.3 (1.3) 65.4 (1.6) 

Ionophores in feed (e.g., 

Rumensin®, Bovatec®) 45.2 (1.4) 58.1 (1.6) 

Probiotics 20.0 (1.1) 27.7 (1.6) 

Anionic salts in feed 20.9 (1.1) 28.1 (1.5) 

Other 4.6 (0.7) 2.5 (0.4) 

Any preventive 94.6 (0.7) 94.6 (0.9) 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, heifer inventory. 
100  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

5. Injection

practices

Almost all operations gave injections to heifers

(96.9 percent). More than 9 of 10 operations

(94.0 percent) gave intramuscular (IM) injections

to heifers , and approximately 5 of 10 operations

(51.6 percent) administered intravenous

(IV) injections to heifers.

a. Percentage of operations that administered injections to heifers during the 

previous 12 months, by injection route 

Percent Operations* 

Injection Route

Intramuscular Subcutaneous Intravenous Any 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

94.0 (1.4) 62.2 (3.0) 51.6 (3.0) 96.9 (1.1) 

*Operations with 30 or more dairy cows. 

To restrain heifers while administering IM

injections, operations primarily used lock-up

(30.4 percent of operations), tie stall/stanchion

(28.8 percent), or chute/head gate (22.6 percent)

facilities. These same types of facilities also

were primarily used for subcutaneous (SQ) and

IV injections for heifers. Less than 11 percent of

operations gave any injections to heifers loose

in freestalls, in a palpation rail, or in the parlor.

b. For the 96.9 percent of operations that administered IM, SQ and/or IV injections 

to heifers, percentage of operations by type of cattle-handling facility primarily 

used, and by injection route 

Percent Operations* 

Injection Route 

Intramuscular Subcutaneous Intravenous 

Cattle-handling 

Facility Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/stanchion 28.8 (2.9) 24.2 (3.4) 36.3 (4.1) 

Lock-up 30.4 (2.5) 36.4 (3.3) 31.6 (3.6) 

Chute/head gate 22.6 (2.5) 23.4 (2.8) 20.1 (3.0) 

Loose in freestall 10.2 (2.0) 7.5 (2.1) 5.7 (1.7) 

Palpation rail 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 

Parlor 5.5 (1.2) 4.3 (1.3) 2.4 (1.2) 

Other 2.2 (1.1) 3.7 (1.7) 3.7 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Operations with 30 or more dairy cows. 
USDA APHIS VS  101

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

6. Vaccination

practices

More than 60 percent of operations vaccinated

heifers against bovine viral diarrhea (BVD),

infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR),

parainfluenza Type 3 (PI3), bovine respiratory

syncytial virus (BRSV), or leptospirosis. With

the exception of IBR, PI3, BRSV, Haemophilus

somnus, and Mycobacterium avium subspecies

paratuberculosis, a higher percentage of large

operations than medium or small operations

vaccinated against the listed diseases. Less than

half of operations (41.6 percent) normally

vaccinated heifers against brucellosis. For

heifers, a lower percentage of small operations

vaccinated against each of the listed diseases

than medium or large operations.

a. Percentage of operations that normally vaccinated heifers against the following 

diseases, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Disease Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 69.0 (1.7) 84.5 (1.7) 94.1 (1.4) 73.7 (1.3) 

Infectious bovine 

rhinotracheitis (IBR) 65.7 (1.7) 81.7 (1.8) 88.4 (1.8) 70.4 (1.3) 

Parainfluenza 

Type 3 (PI3) 57.1 (1.8) 70.2 (2.1) 76.2 (2.4) 61.0 (1.4) 

Bovine respiratory 

syncytial virus 

(BRSV) 60.6 (1.8) 75.4 (2.0) 80.8 (2.2) 64.9 (1.4) 

Haemophilus 

somnus 31.1 (1.7) 42.4 (2.3) 43.0 (2.6) 34.2 (1.3) 

Leptospirosis 63.2 (1.7) 78.1 (1.9) 86.7 (1.9) 67.7 (1.3) 

Salmonella 15.5 (1.3) 34.4 (2.2) 52.5 (3.0) 21.5 (1.1) 

E. coli mastitis 17.6 (1.4) 36.6 (2.2) 61.8 (3.0) 24.1 (1.1) 

Clostridia 28.3 (1.6) 48.8 (2.2) 63.4 (2.9) 34.6 (1.3) 

Brucellosis 37.4 (1.7) 49.5 (2.2) 66.7 (2.5) 41.6 (1.3) 

Mycobacterium 

avium subspecies

paratuberculosis 

(Johne’s disease) 3.4 (0.7) 8.7 (1.3) 10.6 (2.1) 5.0 (0.6) 

Neospora 3.8 (0.7) 11.3 (1.6) 20.5 (2.4) 6.3 (0.6) 

Other 6.9 (0.9) 6.3 (1.0) 7.8 (1.4) 6.8 (0.7) 

Any disease 79.3 (1.5) 92.0 (1.3) 97.1 (0.8) 83.0 (1.1) 
102  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

Operations in the West region were more likely

to vaccinate heifers for the majority of the listed

diseases than operations in the East region.

About twice the percentage of operations in the

West than in the East region vaccinated against

Salmonella, E. coli mastitis, clostridia,

brucellosis, and Neospora. No regional

differences in vaccination were seen for PI3,

BRSV, Haemophilus somnus, and Johne’s

disease.

b. Percentage of operations that normally vaccinated heifers against the following 

diseases, by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Disease Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) 85.6 (2.3) 72.8 (1.4) 

Infectious bovine 

rhinotracheitis (IBR) 78.4 (2.7) 69.8 (1.4) 

Parainfluenza Type 3 (PI3) 67.0 (3.0) 60.5 (1.5) 

Bovine respiratory 

syncytial virus (BRSV) 72.3 (2.9) 64.4 (1.5) 

Haemophilus somnus 36.6 (3.0) 34.1 (1.4) 

Leptospirosis 78.8 (2.4) 66.9 (1.4) 

Salmonella 41.5 (2.9) 20.0 (1.1) 

E. coli mastitis 48.3 (2.9) 22.1 (1.2) 

Clostridia 65.3 (3.0) 32.2 (1.3) 

Brucellosis 87.0 (1.8) 38.0 (1.4) 

Mycobacterium avium 

subspecies 

paratuberculosis 

(Johne’s disease) 8.3 (1.7) 4.7 (0.6) 

Neospora 17.9 (2.5) 5.4 (0.6) 

Other 7.5 (1.8) 6.8 (0.7) 

Any disease 97.8 (0.7) 81.2 (1.2) 
USDA APHIS VS  103

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

7. Bovine viral

diarrhea (BVD)

BVD infection in a dairy herd can result in large

economic and production losses, primarily

because of reproductive problems, decreased

overall herd health, and decreased milk

production (Houe, 1999; Heuer et al., 2007). BVD

causes two types of infections in cattle:

persistent infection and transient infection.

Persistently infected animals become infected

while in utero. These animals never clear the

infection, so they shed large amounts of the

virus continually throughout life. They are the

primary source for transmitting transient

infections to other members of the herd.

Transiently infected animals are those animals

infected with BVD following birth. These

animals may be subclinical or they may have

mild or severe symptoms such as diarrhea or

decreased milk production, but they will

eventually clear the virus and recover if the

infection is not severe enough to be fatal. A

persistently infected calf is produced if the dam

is persistently infected or becomes transiently

infected during pregnancy. In this way, the next

generation of persistently infected animals is

created and the cycle of BVD continues in the

herd. Other possible outcomes when a cow is

transiently infected during pregnancy include

abortions and congenital (birth) defects.

Culling persistently infected cattle is a critical

step in eliminating BVD from a dairy herd.

According to the 2006 Academy of Veterinary

Consultants position statement on the

disposition of persistently infected cattle, “the

marketing or movement of PIs in any manner

that potentially exposes at-risk cattle is strongly

discouraged.” Therefore, the persistentinfection status of cattle that are culled should

be disclosed.

Some BVD persistently infected animals appear

ill, but many show no obvious symptoms. There

are several testing options for identifying

persistently infected animals. One method of

determining if a dam and her calf are persistently

infected with BVD is to test the calf. Since a

persistently infected cow will always produce a

persistently infected calf, the dam is negative if

the calf tests negative. However, a persistently

infected calf does not necessarily mean that the

dam is persistently infected. Ear notch testing is

a popular method for identifying animals

persistently infected with BVD, and ear notch

tests are accurate for cattle of any age (Fulton et

al., 2006). Ear notches can be tested with either

IHC (immunohistochemistry) or antigen-capture

ELISA; either method is acceptable.

Alternatively, serum samples can be tested

using virus isolation, antigen capture ELISA, or

PCR. Serum samples have the disadvantage of

not being able to distinguish persistent infection

from transient infection with a single sample.

Animals that test positive on the first serum

sample will need to be retested in about 3 weeks

to distinguish persistent infection from transient

infection. Also, some serum tests are inaccurate

in young animals, so they are best reserved for

animals older than 2 to 3 months of age. PCR on

whole blood is one blood test that can be used

with accuracy in young calves (Larson et al.,

2005).
104  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

Few operations (4.0 percent) routinely tested

heifer replacements for persistent infection with

BVD. The percentage of operations that tested

and the percentage of heifers represented by

Of operations that tested heifers for persistent

infection with BVD, the majority (66.8 percent)

used individual ear notch tests, while 21.1

percent tested individual serum samples.

b. For the 4.0 percent of operations that routinely tested heifer replacements to 

determine if animals were persistently infected with BVD, percentage of 

operations by testing method used 

Testing Method Percent Operations Standard Error 

Individual ear notch 66.8 (5.7) 

Pooled ear notch 11.4 (4.0) 

Individual serum sample 21.1 (5.4) 

Pooled serum sample 6.0 (3.0) 

Other 6.5 (2.4) 

these operations increased as herd size

increased. More than 1 of 10 heifers (11.2

percent) were on operations that routinely

tested for BVD.

a. Percentage of operations (and percentage of heifers on these operations) that 

routinely tested heifer replacements to determine if animals were persistently 

infected with BVD, by herd size 

Percent 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Population Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Operations 1.9 (0.5) 6.7 (1.1) 21.2 (2.4) 4.0 (0.4) 

Heifers 2.2 (0.5) 7.2 (1.2) 18.6 (2.2) 11.2 (1.1) 
USDA APHIS VS  105

Section I: Population Estimates—F. General Management

Vaccination is an important management tool for

controlling BVD and should be implemented

along with a plan to test and remove persistently

infected animals. There are two types of

vaccines: modified live and killed. Killed

vaccines contain inactivated virus mixed with

substances that stimulate an immune response;

modified live vaccines contain virus that has

been modified so that it is unlikely to cause

disease. The most notable advantage of

modified live vaccines is that they provide

quicker, stronger, and longer lasting immunity

than killed vaccines. The biggest advantage of

killed vaccines is their overall safety, especially

for pregnant animals. The vaccination schedule

should be designed to reduce reproductive

losses and calf morbidity and mortality. If using

a modified live vaccine, heifers should be

vaccinated twice, at 3- to 4-week intervals about

60 days prior to breeding. Cows can then be

boostered annually, 2 weeks before breeding.

For killed vaccines, the second dose in the

primary series for heifers should be given 2

weeks before breeding, and annual boosters for

cows can still be given 2 weeks before breeding

(Kelling, 2004). Although vaccination of the dam

provides some degree of fetal protection, no

vaccine has been shown to completely protect

the fetus from persistent infection if the dam is

exposed to BVD during pregnancy (Cortese et

al., 1998; Kovacs et al., 2003; Ficken et al., 2006).

A higher percentage of operations administered

modified live BVD vaccines than killed vaccines

to heifers (62.2 percent and 43.1 percent,

respectively).

c. For the 73.7 percent of operations that gave BVD vaccinations to heifers, 

percentage of operations by type of BVD vaccine given 

Type of Vaccine Percent Operations Standard Error 

Killed 43.1 (1.6) 

Modified live 62.2 (1.5) 
106  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

G. Surgical Procedures

Note: Estimates in the following tables represent only operations with 30 or more dairy cows.

1. Dehorning Horns are removed from dairy cattle to reduce

the risk of injury to people and other cattle. In

young calves, horns start as buds located in the

skin of the polls. The horn bud attaches to the

skull adjacent to the frontal sinus when the calf

is about 2 months of age. In adult cattle, a

portion of the frontal sinus chamber extends into

the horn. The cells that lie at the connection

between the skin and the horn are called the

corium; these cells produce the horn material.

Disbudding refers to the removal of the corium

while the horn is still a bud, usually when the

calf is 12 weeks of age or less. Disbudding is

preferred over dehorning because it is less likely

to cause a setback in calf growth (Loxton et al.,

1982; Laden et al., 1985), and is less likely to

cause complications such as bleeding or sinus

infection. Caustic paste (chemical cauterization),

hot irons (heat cauterization), and dehorning

spoons or tubes (scooping techniques) are all

used for disbudding calves. Chemical

cauterization can be accomplished by applying a

paste that contains sodium hydroxide or calcium

hydroxide to the horn buds. Caustic paste works

best if calves are less than 3 weeks of age and

individually housed. Caution must be exercised

to ensure that the caustic paste does not get

into the calf’s eyes or on its skin. Rather than

destroying the corium with heat or chemicals,

scooping techniques remove it.

Dehorning is the term used to describe removal

of the horns at an older age, when the horns

have already started to develop. Chemical or

heat cauterization is not effective at this stage,

so the horn must be physically removed. Typical

techniques for dehorning include the Barnes

scoop dehorner and the use of wire or saws. If

any part of the corium is left behind during

dehorning or disbudding, the horn tissue will

grow back. For simplicity, the term dehorning

will be used to refer to both disbudding and

dehorning for the remainder of this discussion.

Dehorning causes behavioral and physiological

signs of pain in calves. Studies have shown that

dehorning results in behavioral signs of

discomfort, such as head shaking, head

rubbing, tail flicking, and ear flicking. In

addition, dehorning causes increased blood

levels of cortisol, a stress hormone, for 6 to 8

hours after the procedure (Morisse et al., 1995;

McMeekan et al., 1997; McMeekan et al., 1998;

Graf and Senn, 1999; Groendahl-Nielsen et al.,

1999; Faulkner and Weary, 2000; Doherty et al.,

2007). In the United States, there are no

regulations concerning dehorning procedures.

The American Veterinary Medical Association’s

Animal Welfare Division states “Both

dehorning and castration should be done at the

earliest age practicable. Disbudding is the

preferred method of dehorning calves. Local

anesthetic should be considered for other

dehorning procedures.” In the European Union,

it is illegal to disbud or dehorn calves over 14

days of age without using a local anesthetic.

Local anesthesia has been advocated to reduce

the pain of dehorning. Each horn can be

desensitized by an injection of local anesthetic

near the cornual nerve. Lidocaine, a frequently

used local anesthetic, provides local anesthesia

for about 2 hours. Most studies on the benefits
USDA APHIS VS  107

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

of lidocaine suggest that it is effective in

reducing the behavioral and physiological signs

of pain for the duration of effect of the

anesthetic. Sylvester et al. (2004) showed that

6-month-old calves that received lidocaine had a

decrease in behavioral signs of pain for 2 hours

after dehorning. After 2 hours, the signs of pain

were comparable to calves that did not receive

lidocaine. In addition, several studies have

shown that local anesthesia temporarily reduced

or prevented the rise in plasma cortisol levels

after dehorning in a variety of age groups.

However, the effect only lasted as long as the

anesthesia; when the local anesthetic wore off,

cortisol levels increased (Petrie et al., 1996;

McMeekan et al., 1998; Sutherland et al., 2002).

It should be noted that lidocaine does not

appear to be effective for pain relief when

caustic paste is used for disbudding, perhaps

because the pH of the paste interferes with the

lidocaine (Vickers et al., 2005).

The use of local anesthesia with ketoprofen, a

nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)

nearly eliminated the postdehorning rise in

cortisol in 3- to 4-month-old calves when used

prior to scoop dehorning (McMeekan et al.

(1998). However, ketoprofen is not approved by

the FDA for use in food animals in the United

States. Flunixin meglumine is the only NSAID

approved for use in cattle in the United States,

and it is approved only for the treatment of

mastitis, endotoxemia, or respiratory disease.

Future research to determine if flunixin

meglumine would also be effective as an

analgesic for dehorning would be useful.

The use of xylazine, a sedative and mild

analgesic, has also been investigated for

dehorning calves (Ley et al., 1990); however,

xylazine is not approved by the FDA for use in

food animals in the United States. When a

sedative, a local anesthetic, and ketoprofen were

combined, behavioral signs of pain were greatly

reduced for calves dehorned with a hot iron. In

fact, calves did not even require restraint for the

dehorning procedure when this protocol was

used (Faulkner and Weary, 2000). However, a

multiple-injection protocol such as this may not

be practical for many operations. For operations

wanting a simpler approach, Vikers et al. (2005)

reported that the pain from the use of caustic

paste was adequately controlled with xylazine

alone.

Considering the challenges of using

pharmaceuticals (cost and availability of

approved drugs) to reduce pain during

dehorning, selective breeding for polled stock

may be an attractive alternative for the dairy

industry.
108  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

Overall, 94.0 percent of operations routinely

dehorned heifer calves while they were on the

operation during the previous 12 months. A

lower percentage of large operations

(64.3 percent) dehorned heifer calves than small

or medium operations (97.3 and 92.6 percent,

respectively). More than 95 percent of

operations in the East region (95.6 percent)

routinely dehorned heifer calves, compared with

77.6 percent of operations in the West region.

Herd-size and regional differences are likely

related to large operations moving calves to

heifer-raising facilities when calves are still too

young for disbudding/dehorning.

a. Percentage of operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves while on the 

operation 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 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

97.3 (1.6) 92.6 (2.8) 64.3 (6.3) 94.0 (1.4) 

b. Percentage of operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves while on the 

operation during the previous 12 months, by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

77.6 (4.6) 95.6 (1.4) 
USDA APHIS VS  109

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

For operations that routinely dehorned heifer

calves during the previous 12 months, more than

two-thirds (69.1 percent) used a hot iron;

28.2 percent used a tube, spoon, or gouge; and

16.3 percent used saws, wire, or Barnes

dehorners. For operations that used a hot iron to

dehorn calves, 13.8 percent used analgesics/

anesthetics when dehorning calves.

c. For the 94.0 percent of operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves during 

the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by dehorning method, and 

corresponding percentage of operations using that method in tandem with 

analgesics/anesthetics 

Method 

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Operations 

that Used 

Analgesics/ 

Anesthetics 

Std. 

Error 

Hot iron 69.1 (2.8) 13.8 (2.6) 

Caustic paste 9.2 (1.8) 14.2 (5.8) 

Tube, spoon, or gouge 28.2 (2.9) 21.5 (5.1) 

Saws, wire, or Barnes 16.3 (2.3) 21.5 (6.7) 

Other 1.7 (0.9) 17.1 (16.5) 

Photo courtesy of Dairy Herd Management/Bovine Veterinarian
110  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

The majority of heifer calves (67.5 percent) were

dehorned using a hot iron at an average age of

7.6 weeks. Caustic paste was used on 12.2

percent of calves at an average age of 2.7 weeks.

A similar percentage was observed for the

tube-spoon-or gouge method, but average age

increased to 16.9 weeks. Saws, wire, or Barnes

dehorning was performed on 7.1 percent of

heifer calves at an average age of 23.5 weeks.

d. For the 94.0 percent of operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves during 

the previous 12 months, percentage of calves dehorned and operation average 

age at dehorning, by method used to dehorn calves 

Method 

Percent 

Heifers* 

Std. 

Error 

Operation 

Average Age 

(Weeks) 

Std. 

Error 

Hot iron 67.5 (3.1) 7.6 (0.4) 

Caustic paste 12.2 (2.6) 2.7 (0.3) 

Tube, spoon, or gouge 13.0 (1.7) 16.9 (1.2) 

Saws, wire, or Barnes 7.1 (1.1) 23.5 (2.6) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 32.7 (6.9) 

Total 100.0 

*Dairy heifer calves weaned during the previous 12 months. 

Of the dehorning equipment used on operations,

tubes, spoons, gouges, saws, wire, and Barnes

dehorners commonly cause bleeding. More than

4 of 10 operations (42.0 percent) used dehorning

equipment that causes bleeding. A higher

percentage of small and medium operations

(42.9 and 43.5 percent, respectively) used

dehorning equipment that causes bleeding

compared with large operations (18.9 percent).

e. For the 94.0 percent of operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves while 

on the operation during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations that 

dehorned heifer calves with equipment that can cause bleeding, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

42.9 (4.0) 43.5 (4.6) 18.9 (5.7) 42.0 (3.1) 
USDA APHIS VS  111

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

Disinfecting dehorning equipment that causes

bleeding reduces the possibility of transmitting

diseases such as bovine leukosis virus. Of the

operations that used dehorning equipment that

causes bleeding, 46.4 percent disinfected

dehorning equipment for each calf.

f. For operations that routinely 

dehorned heifer calves with 

equipment that can cause bleeding, 

percentage of operations that 

chemically disinfected surgical 

dehorning equipment for each calf 

Percent 

Operations Standard Error 

46.4 (4.9) 

On almost two-thirds of operations

(64.4 percent), the owner/operator dehorned the

majority of calves. The person who dehorned

the majority of calves differed with operation

size, however, with the owner/operator

dehorning the majority of heifer calves on about

two-thirds of small and medium operations

(66.5 percent and 63.7 percent, respectively) but

only on about one-third of large operations

(34.5 percent). An employee dehorned the

majority of calves on 63.1 percent of large

operations, compared with 2.7 percent of small

operations and 14.9 percent of medium

operations. Veterinarians performed the majority

of dehorning on 23.7 percent of small

operations, 17.2 percent of medium operations,

and 1.4 percent of large operations.

g. For the 94.0 percent of operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves during 

the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by person who dehorned the 

majority of heifer calves on the operation, and by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Person Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Owner/operator 66.5 (3.8) 63.7 (4.2) 34.5 (7.5) 64.4 (2.9) 

Employee 2.7 (1.1) 14.9 (2.9) 63.1 (7.4) 8.4 (1.1) 

Veterinarian 23.7 (3.4) 17.2 (3.4) 1.4 (0.5) 21.1 (2.6) 

Other 7.1 (2.2) 4.2 (1.8) 1.0 (0.6) 6.1 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
112  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures
USDA APHIS VS  113

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

Employees dehorned the majority of heifer

calves on a higher percentage of operations in

the West region (33.4 percent) than in the East

region (6.4 percent), which may be due to the

larger operations in the West.

h. For the 94.0 percent of operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves during 

the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by person who dehorned the 

majority of heifer calves on the operation, and by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Person Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Owner/operator 55.1 (6.8) 65.2 (3.1) 

Employee 33.4 (5.5) 6.4 (1.1) 

Veterinarian 11.5 (4.6) 21.8 (2.8) 

Other 0.0 (--) 6.6 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

2. Extra teat

removal

a. Percentage of operations that routinely removed extra teats from heifer calves 

during the previous 12 months, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

46.4 (4.0) 57.1 (4.4) 66.4 (6.2) 50.3 (3.0) 

Extra teats on dairy cows can interfere with

milking and lead to mastitis, and they are not

acceptable in show cattle. As with dehorning,

removing extra teats at an early age is usually

less painful for calves and helps to ensure a

quick recovery.

About one-half of operations (50.3 percent)

routinely removed extra teats from heifer calves

during the previous 12 months. The percentage

of operations that removed extra teats did not

differ by herd size.
114  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

About one-fifth of operations (20.3 percent) that

routinely removed extra teats from heifer calves

removed the teats when the heifers were less

than 12 weeks old, while one-third (32.2 percent)

removed teats at 12.0 to 17.9 weeks of age.

About 20 percent of operations removed extra

teats from animals in each of the next two age

categories (18.0 to 23.9 weeks and 24.0 to 29.9

weeks).

b. For the 50.3 percent of operations 

that routinely removed extra teats 

from heifer calves during the 

previous 12 months, percentage of 

operations by age at which extra 

teats were removed 

Age (Weeks) Percent 

Operations

Standard 

Error 

Less than 12.0 20.3 (3.4) 

12.0 to 17.9 32.2 (3.8) 

18.0 to 23.9 20.1 (3.4) 

24.0 to 29.9 18.6 (3.5) 

30.0 or more 8.8 (1.9) 

Total 100.0 

One of 10 operations (10.6 percent) routinely

used analgesia or anesthesia during extra teat

removal, which is similar to usage for dehorning.

c. For the 50.3 percent of operations 

that routinely removed extra teats 

from heifer calves during the 

previous 12 months, percentage of 

operations that used analgesics or 

anesthesia to remove extra teats 

Percent 

Operations Standard Error 

10.6 (3.0) 

3. Tail docking Tail docking was initially promoted to reduce the

incidence of leptospirosis in milking personnel

in New Zealand, but subsequent research

demonstrated leptospiral titers of milkers had no

relationship with tail docking. Tail docking is

currently prohibited California and must not be

performed as a routine management procedure in

the European Union.

The AVMA is opposed to tail docking, and the

American Association of Bovine Practitioners

(AABP) states the following: “The AABP is not

aware of sufficient scientific evidence in the

literature to support tail docking in cattle. If it is

deemed necessary for proper care and

management of production animals in certain

conditions, veterinarians should counsel clients

on proper procedures, benefits and risks.”
USDA APHIS VS  115

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

About half of operations (51.4 percent) had no

cows with the tail docked. A higher percentage

of operations in the West region (81.3 percent)

had no cows with the tail docked than in the

East region (48.5 percent of operations). On

about one of seven operations (14.6 percent), all

cows had the tail docked.

a. Percentage of operations by percentage of dairy cows with the tail docked, and 

by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East All Operations 

Percent Cows Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 81.3 (4.3) 48.5 (3.2) 51.4 (2.9) 

0.1 to 24.9 0.7 (0.7) 11.8 (2.0) 10.8 (1.9) 

25.0 to 75.9 9.6 (3.7) 8.8 (1.7) 8.9 (1.6) 

76.0 to 99.9 5.5 (1.9) 15.1 (2.4) 14.3 (2.2) 

100.0 2.9 (1.5) 15.8 (2.2) 14.6 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Overall, about 4 of 10 cows (38.8 percent) had

the tail docked. A higher percentage of cows on

medium operations (55.5 percent) than on small

or large operations (27.1 and 34.5 percent,

respectively) had the tail docked.

b. Percentage of cows with the tail docked, and by herd size: 

Percent Cows* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

27.1 (3.2) 55.5 (3.6) 34.5 (4.3) 38.8 (2.4) 

*As a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS Initial Visit interview. 
116  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

The majority of operations that had cows with

the tail docked most commonly used a band to

dock tails (87.2 percent); these operations

represented 90.4 percent of cows with the tail

docked. About 1 of 10 operations did not know

what procedure was used, which suggests that

the cattle were purchased with the tail already

docked.

Of operations with tail-docked cows, 61.0

percent (accounting for 38.0 percent of cows

with the tail docked) performed tail-docking on

the majority of animals when they were 2 years

of age or older. The tail was docked on almost 3

of 10 cows (28.1 percent) when they were less

than 2 months of age. About 10 percent of

operations docked tails when cattle were less

than 2 months of age (10.2 percent) or from 2

months to less than 6 months of age

(10.5 percent).

c. For the 48.6 percent of operations with tail-docked cows, percentage of 

operations (and percentage of tail-docked cows on these operations) by 

procedure most commonly used to dock tails 

Procedure 

Percent 

Operations

Std. 

 Error 

Percent TailDocked 

Cows 

Std. 

Error 

Band 87.2 (2.9) 90.4 (2.9) 

Surgical removal 2.0 (1.0) 5.2 (2.4) 

Hot knife 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Other 1.9 (0.9) 2.7 (1.2) 

Unknown procedure 8.9 (2.7) 1.7 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

d. For the 48.6 percent of operations with tail-docked cows, percentage of 

operations (and percentage of tail-docked cows on these operations) by age of 

the majority of animals when the tail was docked 

Age 

Percent 

Operations

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

TailDocked 

Cows 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 2 months 10.2 (2.0) 28.1 (5.0) 

2 to less than 6 months 10.5 (2.6) 17.1 (3.4) 

6 months to less than 2 years 9.5 (2.0) 16.3 (3.5) 

2 years or older 61.0 (4.0) 38.0 (4.9) 

Unknown 8.8 (2.7) 0.5 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  117

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Surgical Procedures

The majority of operations with tail-docked

cows (90.3 percent) did not routinely use

analgesics or anesthetics for tail docking,

compared with 1.1 percent that routinely used

analgesics or anesthetics. Operations that

routinely used analgesics or anesthetics

represented 0.9 percent of cows with the tail

docked.

e. For the 48.6 percent of operations with tail-docked cows, percentage of 

operations (and percentage of tail-docked cows on these operations) that 

routinely used analgesia or anesthesia 

Percent 

Operations

Std. 

Error 

Percent TailDocked 

Cows 

Std. 

Error 

Yes 1.1 (0.6) 0.9 (0.6) 

Don’t know 8.6 (2.6) 1.3 (0.6) 

No 90.3 (2.7) 97.8 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
118  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Biosecurity

Note: Estimates in the following tables represent operations with any dairy cows.

H. Biosecurity

1. Introduction Because infectious diseases can cause

tremendous economic losses for dairy

operations, biosecurity practices to prevent and

control disease are an essential aspect of raising

replacement heifers. Biosecurity on dairy

operations results from implementing

management practices designed to prevent the

introduction of disease-causing agents onto the

operation. Biocontainment is the result of

implementing strategies designed to prevent the

spread of disease agents between animal groups

(Wells, 2000; Dargatz et al., 2002). Strategies

directed at both biosecurity and biocontainment

are necessary to minimize potential impacts of

disease on dairy operations. These strategies

are particularly important for calves because

preweaned calves are the animals most

susceptible to disease.

Recognizing and understanding all aspects of

potential biosecurity breaches are important

when managing a successful biosecurity

program. Generally, the issues that receive the

most attention are: the process of introducing

new animals onto the farm, including knowledge

of their source and health history; isolating new

animals from the main herd, and testing them for

appropriate diseases; designing strategic

vaccination programs; and hygiene practices,

including disinfecting equipment and manure

management. However, many other key

components of infectious disease control are

often overlooked. For example, minimizing stress

helps animals better resist and combat disease.

Animal stress can be reduced by providing a

comfortable, clean environment, sufficient

housing space, adequate bunk space, and by

segregating cattle into appropriate age and/or

size groups. For calves, providing high quality

colostrum, quality feed and water, maintaining

adequate nutrient intake, and providing clean

housing help to decrease nutritional stress and

ensure optimal immune function for disease

resistance. Managing and regulating visitor,

service personnel, employee, and animal traffic

are also essential aspects of biosecurity. For

instance, workers should care for calves before

they care for older animals on the operation, and

the number of visitors should be limited

(Wallace, 2001; McCluskey, 2002).
USDA APHIS VS  119

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Biosecurity

Although 4.7 percent of operations had heifers

born on the operation but raised elsewhere,

these operations accounted for 11.5 percent of

all heifers. Of the remaining heifers, 87.4 percent

were born and raised on the operation, and

nearly all operations (96.5 percent) had at least

some dairy heifers born and raised on the

operation.

2. Source of

heifer inventory

Percentage of operations and percentage of heifers, by source of heifers 

Heifer Source

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Heifers* 

Standard 

Error 

Born and raised 

on operation 96.5 (0.4) 87.4 (1.2) 

Born on operation raised 

off operation 4.7 (0.5) 11.5 (1.2) 

Born off operation 6.6 (0.8) 1.1 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 

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

3. Animals

brought onto

the operation

The introduction of new animals can introduce

diseases to the herd, especially if the new

additions are not properly screened for disease

prior to introduction. Almost 4 of 10 operations

(38.9 percent) brought at least 1 new addition

onto the operation during 2006. Approximately

one of eight operations (12.2 percent) brought

on bred dairy heifers. A lower percentage of

large operations brought on preweaned calves

compared with small operations (1.0 and 3.8

percent, respectively), but a higher percentage

of large operations brought on dairy heifers,

bred dairy heifers, or any beef or dairy cattle

compared with medium or small operations.

a. Percentage of operations that brought the following classes of cattle onto the 

operation during 2006, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Cattle Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Preweaned calves 

(dairy or beef) 3.8 (0.8) 2.5 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 3.4 (0.6) 

Dairy heifers 

(weaned but 

not bred) 5.3 (0.8) 7.6 (1.2) 16.3 (2.6) 6.4 (0.7) 

Bred dairy heifers 8.9 (1.0) 18.1 (1.8) 34.7 (2.6) 12.2 (0.9) 

Any cattle 

(dairy or beef) 35.6 (1.7) 44.3 (2.3) 61.6 (2.8) 38.9 (1.4) 
120  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Biosecurity

Although more operations in the West region

brought on animals during 2006 than operations

in the East region (49.3 and 38.0 percent,

respectively), a higher percentage of operations

in the East region brought on preweaned calves.

b. Percentage of operations that brought the following classes of cattle onto the 

operation during 2006, by region 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Cattle Class Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Preweaned calves 

(dairy or beef) 0.6 (0.3) 3.6 (0.6) 

Dairy heifers 

(weaned but not bred) 12.6 (2.2) 5.9 (0.7) 

Bred dairy heifers 21.1 (2.3) 11.5 (0.9) 

Any cattle (dairy or beef) 49.3 (3.0) 38.0 (1.5) 

For operations that introduced bred heifers, the

percentage of cow inventory brought on as bred

heifers was similar across herd sizes, ranging

from 15.1 percent of small operations to 17.3

percent of large operations.

c. For the 12.2 percent of operations that brought bred heifers onto the operation 

during 2006, percentage* of cow inventory that was brought on as bred heifers, 

by herd size 

Percent Cow Inventory* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

15.1 (1.7) 15.6 (1.8) 17.3 (1.4) 16.7 (1.1) 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory. 
USDA APHIS VS  121

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Biosecurity

4. Quarantine of

herd additions

Bred dairy heifers were quarantined on less than

20 percent of operations (14.5 percent).

Approximately one of five operations

For operations that brought the following classes of cattle onto the operation 

during 2006, percentage of operations that quarantined the following classes of 

cattle upon arrival, percentage of arriving cattle quarantined, and operation 

average number of days quarantined 

Cattle Class

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Cattle 

Quarantined Std. 

Error 

Operation 

Average 

Days 

Quarantined Std. 

Error 

Preweaned calves 

(dairy or beef) 44.2 (8.3) 20.1 (12.6) 42.4 (4.8) 

Dairy heifers 

(weaned but 

not bred) 23.0 (4.7) 7.1 (2.6) 20.0 (3.6) 

Bred dairy heifers 14.5 (2.3) 19.7 (3.5) 22.0 (3.1) 

Any cattle 

(dairy or beef) 20.3 (1.7) 16.7 (2.4) 31.2 (3.5) 

5. Calf contact

with other cattle

Percentage of operations (and percentage of heifer calves born on these 

operations) in which after separation from the dam preweaned heifer calves did 

not have physical contact* with the following cattle classes 

Cattle Class

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Calves 

Std. 

Error 

Weaned calves not 

yet of breeding age 76.0 (1.2) 84.4 (1.1) 

Bred heifers not 

yet calved 86.8 (1.0) 91.3 (0.8) 

Adult cattle 84.3 (1.1) 89.2 (0.9) 

No contact with 

above classes 69.5 (1.3) 78.7 (1.2) 

*Physical contact is defined as nose-to-nose contact or sniffing/touching/licking each other, including through a 

fence.

Separating calves from older animals is an

effective management practice used to reduce

disease exposure of preweaned calves. Seventysix percent of operations, representing 84.4

percent of calves, did not allow preweaned

calves to have physical contact with weaned

calves, and about 85 percent of operations did

not allow contact with either bred heifers or

adult cattle. More than two of three operations

(69.5 percent), representing 78.7 percent of heifer

calves, did not allow preweaned calves to have

contact with older cattle.

(20.3 percent) that brought cattle onto the

operation during 2006 quarantined new

additions.
122  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—I. Health

I. Health

Note: In this report antibiotic and antimicrobials are used synonymously (see Terms Used in This Report, p 4). A list of

antibiotics and their respective classes are provided in Appendix III. Also, Estimates in the following tables represent only

operations with 30 or more dairy cows.

1. Morbidity and

antibiotic use in

preweaned heifers

Almost one of four preweaned heifers had

diarrhea (23.9 percent), and 17.9 percent of all

preweaned heifers were treated with antibiotics

for diarrhea. A lower percentage of preweaned

heifers had respiratory disease (12.4 percent),

and 11.4 percent of preweaned heifers were

treated with antibiotics for respiratory disease.

a. Percentage of preweaned heifers affected and treated with antibiotics for a 

disease or disorder during the previous 12 months 

Percent Preweaned Heifers* 

Affected Treated 

Disease or Disorder Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Respiratory 12.4 (1.3) 11.4 (1.3) 

Diarrhea or other 

digestive problem 23.9 (1.9) 17.9 (1.7) 

Navel infection 1.6 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2) 

Other 0.6 (0.2) 0.6 (0.2) 

*As a percentage of dairy heifer calves born alive in 2006. 

More than 9 of 10 of calves affected with

respiratory disease or navel infection were

treated with an antibiotic (93.4 and 92.3 percent,

respectively). Almost three-fourths of

preweaned calves affected with diarrhea

(74.5 percent) were treated with an antibiotic.

b. For preweaned heifers affected with 

a disease or disorder during the 

previous 12 months, percentage of 

preweaned heifers treated with an 

antibiotic 

Disease 

or Disorder 

Percent 

Affected 

Preweaned 

Heifers 

Treated 

Standard 

Error 

Respiratory 93.4 (2.3) 

Diarrhea 

or other 

digestive 

problem 74.5 (4.8) 

Navel 

infection 92.3 (2.4) 

Other 97.2 (1.9) 
USDA APHIS VS  123

Section I: Population Estimates—I. Health

Two-thirds of operations (66.7 percent) used an

antibiotic to treat respiratory disease in

preweaned heifers, and almost one-third

(31.9 percent) had no respiratory disease in

preweaned heifers. The primary antibiotics used

to treat respiratory disease were florfenicol,

macrolides, and noncephalosporin beta-lactams

(18.3, 15.2, and 11.6 percent of operations,

respectively). More than 6 of 10 operations

(62.1 percent) treated preweaned heifers with

antibiotics for diarrhea, while 17.4 percent of

operations with preweaned heifers that had

diarrhea did not treat these animals with

antibiotics. The most commonly used primary

antibiotics used for diarrhea were tetracycline,

“other,” noncephalosporin beta-lactams, and

sulfonamides (16.2, 10.5, 9.4, and 9.2 percent, of

operations, respectively). The primary

antibiotics from the “other” category included

trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole, amprolium, and

lincomycin/spectinomycin. Navel infection was

treated on 28.7 percent of operations, and the

primary antibiotics used were noncephalosporin

beta-lactams (21.2 percent of operations). Less

than 5 percent of operations (4.5 percent) treated

for other diseases.

c. Percentage of operations (including those not reporting diseases or disorders) 

by primary antibiotic used to treat preweaned heifers during the previous 12 

months, and by disease or disorder treated 

Percent Operations 

Disease/Disorder 

Respiratory Diarrhea* Navel Infection Other 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol 0.0 (0.0) 1.7 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Aminoglycoside 0.6 (0.4) 4.0 (1.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.4) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 11.6 (2.0) 9.4 (1.8) 21.2 (2.5) 1.4 (0.7) 

Cephalosporin 8.2 (1.5) 5.6 (1.1) 2.2 (0.6) 0.5 (0.4) 

Florfenicol 18.3 (2.2) 4.0 (1.1) 1.1 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 

Macrolide 15.2 (2.1) 1.5 (0.5) 0.8 (0.4) 0.3 (0.2) 

Sulfonamide 1.9 (0.7) 9.2 (1.5) 0.9 (0.9) 0.2 (0.1) 

Tetracycline 8.9 (1.7) 16.2 (2.3) 1.4 (0.4) 1.0 (0.6) 

Other/unknown 2.0 (0.7) 10.5 (1.8) 1.1 (0.6) 0.7 (0.5) 

Any antibiotic 66.7 (2.8) 62.1 (2.8) 28.7 (2.6) 4.5 (1.1) 

No treatment but 

disease 1.4 (0.6) 17.4 (2.2) 2.5 (0.7) 0.2 (0.2) 

No disease 

or disorder 31.9 (2.8) 20.5 (2.4) 68.8 (2.7) 95.3 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Or other digestive problem. 
124  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—I. Health

NOTE: To determine the percentage of treated preweaned heifers, the primary antibiotic used by the operation to treat a

specific disease or disorder was applied to all treated heifers on the operation.

The majority of preweaned heifers treated for

respiratory disease were on operations that used

florfenicol, cephalosporins, macrolides, or

tetracycline as the primary antibiotic to treat

respiratory disease (25.4, 24.6, 19.8, and 13.2

percent of preweaned heifers, respectively). To

treat diarrhea, sulfonamides, tetracycline, and

“other” were the antibiotics used on operations

for the highest percentage of preweaned heifers.

d. Of preweaned heifers treated with antibiotics during the previous 12 months, 

percentage of preweaned heifers by primary antibiotic used on the operation 

for the following diseases/disorders 

Percent Treated Preweaned Heifers 

Disease/Disorder 

Respiratory Diarrhea* Navel Infection 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol 0.1 (0.1) 5.1 (2.0) 0.0 (--) 

Aminoglycoside 2.4 (1.7) 11.5 (3.9) 0.3 (0.2) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 7.9 (2.1) 11.0 (2.8) 69.6 (7.9) 

Cephalosporin 24.6 (8.5) 9.5 (2.3) 5.0 (1.7) 

Florfenicol 25.4 (5.5) 5.2 (1.8) 3.7 (2.0) 

Macrolide 19.8 (3.7) 2.8 (1.6) 11.6 (8.9) 

Sulfonamide 3.3 (1.8) 23.3 (6.2) 1.8 (1.8) 

Tetracycline 13.2 (3.3) 16.5 (2.9) 6.7 (3.2) 

Other 3.3 (1.5) 15.1 (3.0) 1.3 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Or other digestive problem.
USDA APHIS VS  125

Section I: Population Estimates—I. Health

2. Morbidity and

antibiotic use in

weaned heifers

Ionophores have not consistently been

considered antibiotics, but according to Food

and Drug Administration guidelines ionophores

are a type of antibiotic. More than one-half of

The majority of operations that used antibiotics

in weaned heifer rations used ionophores

(84.9 percent) followed by chlortetracycline

(14.4 percent) and oxytetracycline compounds

(10.9 percent).

b. For the 50.9 percent of operations 

that used antibiotics in rations for 

weaned dairy heifers during the 

previous 12 months, percentage of 

operations by antibiotic used 

Antibiotic Used Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Bacitracin 

methylene 

disalicylate 0.0 (--) 

Bambermycin 0.5 (0.5) 

Chlortetracycline 

compounds 14.4 (2.3) 

Neomycin 

sulfate 4.1 (1.8) 

Ionophores 84.9 (2.8) 

Neomycinoxytetracycline 5.4 (1.9) 

Oxytetracycline 

compounds 10.9 (2.2) 

Sulfamethazine 5.7 (1.5) 

Tylosin 

phosphate 0.0 (--) 

Virginiamycin 0.2 (0.2) 

Other antibiotics 2.0 (1.4) 

operations (50.9 percent) used antibiotics in

rations for weaned heifers, including 32.7

percent that used only ionophores.

a. Percentage of operations by use of antibiotics in weaned-heifer rations during 

the previous 12 months to prevent disease or promote growth 

Usage Percent Operations Standard Error 

Antibiotics (other than 

ionophores) in heifer ration 18.2 (2.0) 

Ionophores only in heifer ration 32.7 (2.6) 

Did not know if antibiotics 

were in heifer ration 2.3 (0.9) 

No antibiotics in heifer ration 44.2 (2.8) 

No weaned heifers on operation 2.6 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 
126  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—I. Health

Few weaned heifers were affected by or treated

for disease. Only 5.9 percent of weaned heifers

were recognized as having respiratory disease,

and 5.5 percent of all weaned heifers were

treated with antibiotics for respiratory disease.

Diarrhea was reported in 1.9 percent of weaned

heifers, and 1.6 percent of all weaned heifers

were treated. Less than 2 percent of weaned

heifers had other diseases or disorders.

More than 9 of 10 weaned heifers affected with

respiratory disease (93.3 percent) were treated

with antibiotics. About 8 of 10 weaned heifers

with diarrhea or other digestive problems (85.4

percent) were treated with antibiotics.

d. For weaned heifers affected with a 

disease or disorder during the 

previous 12 months, percentage of 

weaned heifers treated with an 

antibiotic 

Disease or 

Disorder 

Percent 

Affected 

Weaned 

Heifers 

Treated 

Standard 

Error 

Respiratory 93.3 (1.8) 

Diarrhea or 

other 

digestive 

problem 85.4 (7.8) 

Other 81.3 (8.9) 

c. Percentage of weaned heifers affected and treated with antibiotics for a disease 

or disorder during the previous 12 months 

Percent Weaned Heifers* 

Affected Treated 

Disease or Disorder Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Respiratory 5.9 (0.5) 5.5 (0.5) 

Diarrhea or other 

digestive problem 1.9 (0.7) 1.6 (0.7) 

Other 1.7 (0.6) 1.4 (0.6) 

*As a percentage of weaned heifer inventory on January 1, 2007. 
USDA APHIS VS  127

Section I: Population Estimates—I. Health

Almost one-half of operations (49.2 percent)

treated some weaned heifers for respiratory

disease, while only 7.4 percent treated for

diarrhea and 6.2 percent for other diseases. The

primary antibiotics used on operations for

respiratory disease in weaned heifers were

florfenicol and tetracycline (12.4 and 11.0

percent of operations, respectively). Antibiotics

used to treat diarrhea in weaned calves included

“other” (primarily amprolium), noncephalosporin

beta-lactams, and tetracycline. Other diseases

were treated with noncephalosporin

beta-lactams and tetracycline on 3.3 and 1.9

percent of operations, respectively.

e. Percentage of operations (including those not reporting diseases or disorders) 

by primary antibiotic used to treat weaned heifers during the previous 12 

months, and by disease or disorder 

Percent Operations 

Disease/Disorder 

Respiratory Diarrhea* Other 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Aminoglycoside 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 7.8 (1.6) 1.6 (0.8) 3.3 (1.1) 

Cephalosporin 4.5 (1.3) 0.7 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 

Florfenicol 12.4 (1.7) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 

Macrolide 8.0 (1.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 

Sulfonamide 1.5 (0.5) 0.4 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 

Tetracycline 11.0 (1.7) 1.4 (0.5) 1.9 (0.6) 

Other 3.6 (1.1) 2.5 (0.7) 0.4 (0.2) 

Any antibiotic 49.2 (2.9) 7.4 (1.3) 6.2 (1.3) 

No treatment but disease 5.1 (1.4) 4.2 (1.1) 4.7 (1.5) 

No disease 45.7 (2.9) 88.4 (1.6) 89.1 (1.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Or other digestive problem.
128  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—I. Health

NOTE: To determine the percentage of treated weaned heifers, the primary antibiotic used by the operation to treat a specific

disease or disorder was applied to all treated heifers on the operation.

The majority of weaned heifers treated for

respiratory disease were on operations that

primarily treated respiratory disease with

florfenicol, tetracycline, and macrolides.

Tetracycline was the primary antibiotic used on

operations to treat more than 50 percent of

weaned heifers with diarrhea or “other”

diseases (55.1 and 67.0 percent, respectively).

f. For weaned heifers treated with antibiotics during the previous 12 months, 

percentage of weaned heifers by primary antibiotic used on the operation for the 

following diseases/disorders 

Percent Treated Weaned Heifers 

Disease/Disorder 

Respiratory Diarrhea* Other 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol 2.8 (2.5) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Aminoglycoside 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 3.4 (0.8) 3.9 (2.8) 24.1 (14.2) 

Cephalosporin 9.8 (2.8) 3.2 (2.3) 0.9 (0.9) 

Florfenicol 30.3 (4.9) 10.0 (8.3) 0.0 (--) 

Macrolide 15.6 (3.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.4) 

Sulfonamide 4.1 (1.7) 2.0 (1.2) 1.7 (1.4) 

Tetracycline 25.0 (4.7) 55.1 (22.2) 67.0 (16.2) 

Other 9.0 (3.5) 25.6 (15.1) 5.8 (4.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Or other digestive problem.
USDA APHIS VS  129

Section I: Population Estimates—J. Mortality and Carcass Disposal

J. Mortality and Carcass Disposal

Note: Estimates in the following tables represent operations with any dairy cows.

1. Mortality Compared with small operations, large

operations had a lower percentage of preweaned

heifer deaths; 7.8 percent of preweaned heifers

and 1.8 percent of weaned heifers died in 2006.

2. Necropsy Determining the cause of death is important in

preventing future deaths and improving the

health of the herd. A relatively small percentage

of operations performed necropsies on

preweaned heifers or weaned heifers

(8.0 and 7.1, respectively) in order to determine

cause of death. The percentage of operations

that performed necropsies increased as herd size

increased.

a. For operations that had at least one death in the following cattle classes, 

percentage of operations that performed necropsies to determine the cause of 

death, by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Cattle 

Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Preweaned 

heifers 4.4 (0.9) 11.9 (1.4) 22.6 (2.5) 8.0 (0.7) 

Weaned 

heifers 5.8 (1.4) 6.9 (1.2) 13.5 (2.1) 7.1 (0.9) 

Percentage of preweaned heifers and weaned heifers that died during 2006, by 

herd size 

Percent 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Cattle 

Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Preweaned 

heifers1 8.3 (0.4) 9.1 (0.4) 6.5 (0.4) 7.8 (0.2) 

Weaned 

heifers2 1.5 (0.1) 2.0 (0.1) 1.8 (0.1) 1.8 (0.1) 1

As a percentage of heifers born during 2006 and alive at 48 hours. 2

As a percentage of January 1, 2007, heifer inventory (weaning age to calving). 
130  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—J. Mortality and Carcass Disposal

Necropsies were performed for 3.5 percent of

preweaned heifer deaths and 4.1 percent of

weaned heifer deaths.

3. Cause of death Scours, diarrhea, or other digestive problems

accounted for the highest percentage of

preweaned heifer deaths (56.5 percent), followed

by respiratory problems (22.5 percent). For

weaned heifers, respiratory disease was the

single largest cause of death (46.5 percent).

Unknown reasons, lameness or injury, and

scours, diarrhea, or other digestive problems

each accounted for between 12 and 15 percent

of weaned heifer deaths.

b. For operations that had at least one death in the following cattle classes, 

percentage deaths in which necropsies were performed to determine cause of 

death, by herd size 

Percent Deaths Necropsied 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Cattle 

Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Preweaned 

heifers 1.8 (0.4) 4.7 (1.1) 3.8 (0.5) 3.5 (0.4) 

Weaned 

heifers 3.9 (1.0) 4.8 (1.5) 3.7 (0.7) 4.1 (0.6) 
USDA APHIS VS  131

Section I: Population Estimates—J. Mortality and Carcass Disposal

Percentage of preweaned heifer deaths and weaned heifer deaths, by producerattributed cause 

Percent Deaths 

Preweaned Heifers Weaned Heifers 

ProducerAttributed Cause Percent Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Scours, diarrhea, or other 

digestive problem 56.5 (1.3) 12.6 (1.0) 

Respiratory problem 22.5 (0.9) 46.5 (1.7) 

Poison 0.0 (0.0) 1.9 (0.9) 

Lameness or injury 1.7 (0.3) 12.8 (1.0) 

Lack of coordination, 

severe depression, 

or other CNS problem 0.3 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 

Calving problem 5.3 (0.7) NA 

Joint or navel problem 1.6 (0.3) 1.0 (0.3) 

Other known reason 4.3 (0.7) 9.9 (1.0) 

Unknown reason 7.8 (0.9) 14.6 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
132  Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates—J. Mortality and Carcass Disposal

4. Carcass

disposal

Rendering and burial were the two most common

methods of disposing of dead calves (36.5 and

32.6 percent of operations, respectively). Burial

as a disposal method decreased as herd size

increased. Conversely, rendering increased as

herd size increased. Almost two of three large

operations (65.4 percent) disposed of dead

calves by rendering. Composting calf carcasses

was more common on medium operations

(29.5 percent) than on large operations

(21.8 percent).

Percentage of operations by primary method used to dispose of dead calves, and 

by herd size 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Disposal 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Buried 36.5 (1.7) 25.5 (1.9) 7.8 (1.2) 32.6 (1.3) 

Burned/ 

incinerated 2.5 (0.6) 0.8 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 2.0 (0.4) 

Rendered 33.5 (1.7) 39.6 (2.2) 65.4 (2.2) 36.5 (1.3) 

Composted 22.8 (1.5) 29.5 (1.9) 21.8 (1.8) 24.2 (1.2) 

Landfill 1.6 (0.4) 2.2 (0.5) 1.4 (0.5) 1.7 (0.3) 

Other 3.1 (0.6) 2.4 (0.7) 3.3 (1.1) 3.0 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  133

Section II: Methodology

Section II: Methodology Section II: Methodology

A. Needs Assessment

NAHMS develops study objectives by

exploring existing literature and contacting

industry members and other 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 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. Information was collected via

focus groups and through a Needs Assessment

Survey.

Focus group teleconferences and meetings were

held to help determine the focus of the study:

Teleconference, March 30, 2006

National Johne’s Working Group

Meeting, Louisville, KY, April 2, 2006

National Johne’s Working Group

National Institute for Animal Agriculture

Meeting, 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 Vance

Publishing’s “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. E-mail

messages requesting input 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 questionnaire.

Respondents to the Needs Assessment Survey

represented the following affiliations:

• University/extension personnel—23

 percent of respondents

• Producers—22 percent

• Veterinarians/consultants—20 percent

• Federal or State government personnel—

 15 percent

• Nutritionists—8 percent

• Allied industry personnel—8 percent

• Other—4 percent
134  Dairy 2007

Section II: Methodology

Fort Collins, CO, May 18, 2006

CEAH Focus Group meeting

Draft objectives for the Dairy 2007 study, based

on input from teleconferences, face-to-face

meetings, and the online survey, were developed

prior to the focus group meeting. Attendees

included producers, university/extension

personnel, veterinarians, 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.

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.

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 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) on

January 1, 2006. 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:APHIS:VS:CEAH Director and, in turn,

the VS Regional Directors. Each Regional

Director sought input from the respective States

about being included in or excluded from the

study. Virginia expressed interest in

participating and was included, bringing the

total number of States to 17.
USDA APHIS VS  135

Section II: 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 list

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 to

determine whether to complete Phase II.

3. Animal

selection for

IgG sampling

Operations that participated in Phase II of Dairy

2007 were given the opportunity to test newborn

heifer calves for serum IgG and total protein

levels. A maximum of 10 calves were tested from

each operation. Instructions stated that to be

considered for testing, calves should be 1 to 7

days of age, healthy, and should have received

colostrum. For each calf tested, information was

recorded about the calf’s age, the quantity of

colostrum the calf received at first feeding, and

the method by which colostrum had been

administered. A total of 2,030 serum samples

were collected from 413 operations in 17 States.

Serum samples were shipped on ice to the

National Veterinary Services Laboratories, where

IgG levels were determined by radial

immunodiffusion (RID), and serum total protein

was determined using a VITROS chemistry

system.

Testing methods

Blood samples were received in serum separator

tubes and centrifuged to separate the serum.

Sample tubes were stored refrigerated at 4°C for

up to 5 days and then stored at -20°C until

tested. All serum samples were tested over a

period of 16 days using a commercially available

RID kit (Bovine IgG SRID Kit - Range 400 to

3,200 mg/dL, VMRD, Pullman, WA). The kit has

an IgG detection range of 400 to 3,200 mg/dL

(4 to 32 mg/mL). Briefly, 3 μl of each of 4

reference standards was placed into the first

four wells of a plate from each kit. For each

sample tested, 3 μl of serum was placed into a

well of one plate from the kit. The plates were

covered and left at room temperature for 18 to 21

hours. Subsequently, the diameters of the rings

(in mm) were read using a Finescale comparator

and a standard curve established. The IgG

concentration of each sample was determined by

finding the point on the standard curve that

corresponded to the sample’s ring diameter and

then determining the immunoglobulin

concentration that coordinated with that point.

Samples with diameters that were too small to

read were classified as < 4 mg/mL and those with

too large of diameters were classified as

> 32 mg/mL.
136  Dairy 2007

Section II: Methodology

4. 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 IV 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

within each State and size group to allow for

inferences back to the original population from

which the sample was selected.

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 IV).

C. Data Collection

1. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report

From January 1 to 31, 2007, NASS enumerators

administered the General Dairy Management

Report questionnaire. The interview took

slightly more than 1 hour.

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit

From February 26 to April 30, 2007, Federal and

State veterinary medical officers and/or animal

health technicians collected data from producers

during an interview that lasted approximately

2 hours.

3. Phase II: VS Second Visit

From May 1 to August 31, 2007, Federal and

State veterinary medical officers and/or animal

health technicians collected data from

producers during an interview that lasted

approximately 2 hours.
USDA APHIS VS  137

Section II: Methodology

D. Data Analysis

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.

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.
138  Dairy 2007

Section II: Methodology

Responses for Phase I: General Dairy Management Report (GDMR) 

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. 
USDA APHIS VS  139

Section II: Methodology

2. Phase II:

VS Initial Visit

There were 1,077 operations that agreed to be

contacted by a veterinary medical officer 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. 
140  Dairy 2007

Section II: Methodology

3. Phase II: VS

Second Visit

Of the 582 operations that completed the VS

Initial Visit Questionnaire, 519 (including one

operation that completed the initial visit after the

deadline) completed the VS Second Visit

questionnaire; 47 operations (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. 
USDA APHIS VS  141

Appendix I: Sample Profile

Appendix I: Sample Appendix I: Sample

Profile 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 

Fewer than 100 1,028 233 211 

100 to 499 691 215 188 

500 or more 475 134 120 

Total 2,194 582 519 

b. Number of responding operations by region

Region 

Phase I: General 

Dairy Management 

Report 

Phase II: VS 

Initial Visit 

Phase II: VS 

Second Visit 

West 426 108 93 

East 1,768 474 426 

Total 2,194 582 519 
142  Dairy 2007

Appendix II: Sample Profile for Passive Transfer Status and Growth

Appendix II: Sample Profile Appendix II: Sample Profile

for Passive Transfer

Status and Gr atus and Growth

1. Number of

calves sampled for

IgG testing by age

Number and percentage of heifer calves by age (days) when blood was collected 

for IgG testing 

Age (Days) Number Calves Percent Calves 

Less than 1 51 2.5 

1 275 13.5 

2 347 17.1 

3 272 13.4 

4 253 12.5 

5 258 12.7 

6 237 11.7 

7 263 12.9 

Greater than 7 60 3.0 

Age not recorded 14 0.7 

Total 2,030 100.0 

For the IgG and total protein population

estimates, calves fewer than 1 day old or older

than 7 days at the time of blood collection were

excluded. In addition, calves were excluded if

Most calves were tested in the spring or summer.

they were ill at the time of testing, were bull

calves, or had received a colostrum replacer

product. A total of 214 samples were excluded

for these reasons.

2. Number of

calves sampled for

IgG testing by

season

Number and percentage of heifer calves by season in which blood was collected 

for IgG testing 

Season Number Calves Percent Calves 

Winter (February, March) 243 12.0 

Spring (April, May) 854 42.1 

Summer (June, July, August) 933 45.9 

Total 2,030 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS  143

Appendix II: Sample Profile for Passive Transfer Status and Growth

3. Number of

preweaned heifer

calves measured

for growth, by age

and breed

Number and percentage of preweaned heifer calves measured for growth, by age 

and breed 

Breed 

Age (Days) Holstein Jersey Guernsey 

Brown 

Swiss Other 

Holstein/ 

Jersey 

Cross 

Total 

Calves 

Less than 7 751 33 3 5 26 11 829 

7 to 13 481 33 2 10 26 8 560 

14 to 20 404 26 1 5 21 5 462 

21 to 27 316 24 0 8 16 8 372 

28 to 34 393 20 2 3 22 7 447 

35 to 41 443 33 1 9 20 12 518 

42 to 48 349 28 4 8 16 13 418 

49 to 55 324 27 3 5 13 7 379 

56 to 62 301 15 1 2 10 7 336 

63 to 69 278 18 2 4 10 9 321 

70 to 76 202 18 1 1 7 9 238 

77 to 83 202 12 0 3 9 9 235 

84 to 90 112 12 0 2 3 10 139 

More than 

90 111 4 0 4 5 3 127 

Total 4,667 303 20 69 204 118 5,381 

Percentage 86.7 5.6 0.4 1.3 3.8 2.2 100.0 
144  Dairy 2007

Appendix III: Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Class

Appendix III: Antibiotic/ Appendix III: Antibiotic/

Antimicrobial Class Antimicrobial Class

Antibiotic/ 

Antimicrobial Class Product Name Active Ingredient 

Aminocyclitol Adspec® Spectinomycin 

AmTech Neomycin Oral Solution Neomycin 

Biosol® Liquid Neomycin sulfate 

Gentamicin Gentamicin 

Neomix Ag® 325 Soluble Powder Neomycin sulfate 

Neomix® 325 Soluble Powder Neomycin sulfate 

Neomycin 325 Soluble Powder Neomycin sulfate 

Neomycin Oral Solution Neomycin sulfate 

Neo-Sol 50 Neomycin sulfate 

Strep Sol 25% Streptomycin sulfate 

Aminoglycoside

Streptomycin Oral Solution Streptomycin 

Agri-CillinTM Penicillin G procaine 

Amoxi-Bol® Amoxicillin 

Amoxi-Inject ® Amoxicillin 

Amoxi-Mast® Intramammary Infusion Amoxicillin 

AquacillinTM Penicillin G procaine 

Aqua-Mast Intramammary Infusion Penicillin G (procaine) 

Combi-PenTM-48 Penicillin G (benzathine) 

Crysticillin 300 AS Vet. Penicillin G procaine 

Dariclox® Intramammary Infusion Cloxacillin (sodium) 

Duo-Pen® Penicillin G benzathine; procaine 

DurapenTM Penicillin G benzathine; procaine 

Hanford’s/US Vet Masti-Clear 

Intramammary Infusion Penicillin G (procaine) 

Hanford’s/US Vet/Han-Pen G/Ultrapen Penicillin G Procaine 

Hanford’s/US Vet/Han-Pen-B/Ultrapen B Penicillin G (benzathine) 

Hetacin®K Intramammary Infusion Hetacillin (potassium) 

Microcillin Penicillin G procaine 

Pen-G MaxTM Penicillin G (procaine) 

Penicillin G Procaine Penicillin G procaine 

PFI-Pen G® Penicillin G procaine 

Polyflex® Ampicillin 

Princillin Bolus Ampicillin trihydrate 

Noncephalosporin betalactam

Pro-Pen-GTM Injection Penicillin G procaine 
USDA APHIS VS  145

Appendix III: Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Class

Antibiotic/ 

Antimicrobial Class Product Name Active Ingredient 

Cefa-Lak®/Today Intramammary 

Infusion Cephapirin (sodium) 

ExcedeTM Sterile Suspension Ceftiofur crystalline free acid 

Excenel® RTU Ceftiofur hydrochloride 

Naxcel® Ceftiofur sodium 

SpectramastTM LC Intramammary 

Infusion Ceftiofur 

Cephalosporin 

ToDAY® Intramammary Infusion Cephapirin (sodium) 

Florfenicol Nuflor Injectable Solution Florfenicol 

Lincosamide Pirsue® Intramammary Infusion Pirlimycin 

DraxxinTM Tulathromycin 

Gallimycin®-100 Injection Erythromycin 

Gallimycin®-36 

Intramammary Infusion Erythromycin 

Micotil® 300 Injection Tilmicosin phosphate 

Macrolide 

Tylan Injection 50/200 Tylosin Injection Tylosin 

AS700 Chlortetracycline/sulfamethazine 

CORID 20% Soluble Powder Amprolium 

CORID 9.6% Oral Solution Amprolium 

Deccox-M Decoquinate 

Linco-Spectin® Sterile Solution Lincomycin/Spectinomycin 

Other 

TMZ Trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole 

20% SQX Solution Sulfaquinoxaline 

Albon® Bolus Sulfadimethoxine 

Albon® Concentrated Sol.12.5% Sulfadimethoxine 

Albon® Injection 40% Sulfadimethoxine 

Albon® SR Bolus Sulfadimethoxine 

Di-Methox & 12.5% Oral Solution Sulfadimethoxine 

Di-Methox Injection 40% Sulfadimethoxine 

Di-Methox Soluble Powder Sulfadimethoxine 

Liquid Sul-Q-Nox Sulfaquinoxaline (sodium) 

SDM Injection Sulfadimethoxine 

SDM Injection 40% Sulfadimethoxine 

SDM Solution Sulfadimethoxine 

Sulfadimethoxine 12.5% Oral Solution Sulfadimethoxine 

Sulfadimethoxine Inj. 40% Sulfadimethoxine 

Sulfadimethoxine Soluble Powder Sulfadimethoxine 

Sulfa-Nox Concentrate Sulfaquinoxaline 

Sulfa-Nox Liquid Sulfaquinoxaline (sodium) 

Sulfaquinoxaline Sodium Solution 20% Sulfaquinoxaline (sodium) 

SulfaSureTM SR Cattle/Calf Bolus Sulfamethazine 

Sulmet® Drinking Water Solution 12.5% Sulfamethazine (sodium) 

Sulmet® Oblets® Sulfamethazine 

Sulmet® Soluble Powder Sulfamethazine (sodium) 

Sustain III® Cattle Bolus Sulfamethazine 

Vetisulid Injection Sulfachlorpyridazine (sodium) 

Sulfonamide 

Vetisulid Powder Sulfachlorpyridazine (sodium) 
146  Dairy 2007

Appendix III: Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Class

Antibiotic/ 

Antimicrobial Class Product Name Active Ingredient 

AgrimycinTM 100 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

AgrimycinTM 200 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

AmTech Oxytetracycline HCL 

Solution Powder - 343 Oxytetracycline 

Aureomycin® Soluble Powder Chlortetracycline hydrochloride 

Aureomycin® Soluble Powder 

Concentrate Chlortetracycline hydrochloride 

Bio-Mycin® 200 Oxytetracycline 

Bio-Mycin® C Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

CLTC 100 MR Chlortetracycline calcium 

Duramycin-100 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Duramycin-200 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Liquamycin® LA-200® Oxytetracycline 

Maxim-200® Oxytetracycline 

MaximTM-100 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Oxy 500 and 1000 Calf Bolus Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

OxybioticTM 200 Oxytetracycline 

OxycureTM 100 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Oxy-MycinTM 100 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Oxy-MycinTM 200 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Oxytetracycline HCL Soluble Powder Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Oxytetracycline HCL Soluble Powder 

343 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Panmycin® 500 Bolus Tetracycline hydrochloride 

PennchlorTM 64 Soluble Powder Chlortetracycline hydrochloride 

PennoxTM 200 Injectable Oxytetracycline 

PennoxTM 343 Soluble Powder Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Polyotic® Soluble Powder Tetracycline hydrochloride 

PromycinTM 100 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Solu/Tet Soluble Powder Tetracycline hydrochloride 

Terramycin® 343 Soluble Powder Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Terramycin® Scours Tablets Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Terramycin® Soluble Powder Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Terra-Vet 100 Oxytetracycline hydrochloride 

Tet-324 Tetracycline hydrochloride 

Tetra-Bac 324 Tetracycline hydrochloride 

Tetracycline HCL Soluble Powder324 Tetracycline hydrochloride 

TetradureTM 300 Oxytetracycline 

Tetrasol Soluble Powder Tetracycline hydrochloride 

Tetracycline 

Tet-SolTM 324 Tetracycline hydrochloride 
USDA APHIS VS  147

Appendix IV: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations

Appendix IV Appendix IV: 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 

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 

West 

Total 3,234 3,226.6 5,540 3,920 583.8 823.1 

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 

East 

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. 
148  Dairy 2002

Appendix V: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

Appendix V Appendix V: Study

Objectives and Related Objectives and Related

Outputs 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 in the United States,

 1996–2007, June 2009

2. Evaluate management factors related to cow

comfort and removal rates

• Part VI: Dairy Facilities and Cow Comfort

 on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, Interpretive

 Report, expected spring 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, January 2010

• Passive Transfer in Dairy Heifer Calves,

 1991–2007, info sheet, December 2009

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
USDA APHIS VS  149

Appendix V: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

• 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,

 expected winter 2009–10

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, September 2008

• Prevalence of Listeria and Salmonella 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

• Food Safety Pathogens Isolated from U.S.

 Dairy Operations, 2007, Interpretive Report,

 expected spring 2010

• Prevalence of Coxiella burnetti on U.S.

 Dairy Operations, 2007, info sheet,

 expected spring 2010

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, September

 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,

 expected spring 2010
150  Dairy 2002

AppendixVI: References

Appendix VI: References Appendix VI: References

1 The Merck Veterinary Manual, 8th Edition.

Whitehouse, NJ: Merck and Company, Inc.,

1998.

2 Abe F, Ishibashi N, Shimamura S. Effect of

administration of bifidobacteria and lactic acid

bacteria to newborn calves and piglets. J Dairy

Sci 1995 78:2838-2846.

3 Adams GD, Bush LJ, Horner JL, Staley TE.

Two methods for administering colostrum to

newborn calves. J Dairy Sci 1985 68:773-775.

4 Allaway, WH. Selenium concentrations in

crops from different parts of the United States.

Georgia Nutr Conf Feed Manuf 1969 Atlanta

University, Atlanta, GA.

5 Anderson KL, Nagaraja TG, Morrill JL, Reddy

PG, Avery TB, Anderson NV. Performance and

ruminal changes of early-weaned calves fed

lasalocid. J Anim Sci 1988 66:806-813.

6 Arthur GH, Noakes DE, Pearson H. Veterinary

Reproduction and Obstetrics. London, UK:

Bailliere Tindall, 1989.

7 Berge AC, Lindeque P, Moore DA, Sischo

WM. A clinical trial evaluating prophylactic and

therapeutic antibiotic use on health and

performance of preweaned calves. J Dairy Sci

2005 88:2166-2177.

8 Besser TE, Gay CC, Pritchett L. Comparison of

three methods of feeding colostrum to dairy

calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991 198:419-422.

9 Block E, Gadbois P. Efficacy of morantel

tartrate on milk production of dairy cows: a field

study. J Dairy Sci 1986 69:1135-1140.

10 Block E, McDonald WA, Jackson BA.

Efficacy of Levamisol on milk production of

dairy cows: a field study. J Dairy Sci 1987

70:1080-1085.

11 Bovine Alliance on Management and

Nutrition. A Guide to Colostrum and Colostrum

Management for Dairy Calves, 2001 revision.

Accessed December 2009 http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/

dairy/bamn/BAMNColostrum.pdf

12 Bovine Alliance on Management and

Nutrition. A Guide to Dairy Calf Feeding and

Management, 2003 revision. Accessed

December 2009 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/

ceah/ncahs/nahms/dairy/bamn/

BAMNGuide_to_Dairy_Feeding.pdf

13 Bradley RE, Bliss DH, Newby TJ. Efficacy of

a morantel sustained-release bolus for the

control of gastrointestinal nematodes in Florida

dairy heifers. Am J Vet Res 1986 47:2385-2388.

14 Brakel WJ, Rife DC, Salisbury SM. Factors

associated with the duration of gestation in

dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 1952 35:179-194.

15 Brignole TJ, Stott GH. Effect of suckling

followed by bottle feeding colostrum on

immunoglobulin absorption and calf survival. J

Dairy Sci 1980 63:451-456.

16 Brody S. Bioenergetics and Growth. New

York: Hafner Publishing Co., Inc., 1945.
USDA APHIS VS  151

Appendix VI: References

17 Brunsvold RE , Cramer CO, Larsen HJ.

Behavior of dairy calves reared in hutches as

affected by temperature. Transactions of the

American Society of Agricultural and Biological

Engineers 1985 28:1265-1268.

18 Burton JL, Kennedy BW, Burnside EB, Wilkie

BN, Burton JH. Variation in serum

concentrations of immunoglobulins G, A, and M

in Canadian Holstein-Friesian calves. J Dairy Sci

1989 72:135-149.

19 Butler JE. Bovine immunoglobulins: an

augmented review. Vet Immunol Immunopathol

1983 4:43-152.

20 Callaway TR, Edrington TS, Rychlik JL et al.

Ionophores: their use as ruminant growth

promotants and impact on food safety. Curr

Issues Intest Microbiol 2003 4:43-51.

21 Chigerwe M, Dawes ME, Tyler JW,

Middleton JR, Moore MP, Nagy DM. Evaluation

of a cow-side immunoassay kit for assessing IgG

concentration in colostrum. J Am Vet Med

Assoc 2005 227:129-131.

22 Corbett, RB. Utilizing milk replacer to

maximize early growth rates Part 1:Traditional

milk replacers. Am Assoc Bov Pract Mtg 2007,

Vancouver, BC.

23 Cortese VS, Grooms DL, Ellis J, Bolin SR,

Ridpath JF, Brock KV. Protection of pregnant

cattle and their fetuses against infection with

bovine viral diarrhea virus type 1 by use of a

modified-live virus vaccine. Am J Vet Res 1998

59:1409-1413.

24 Dargatz DA, Garry FB, Traub-Dargatz JL. An

introduction to biosecurity of cattle operations.

Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2002 18:1-5.

25 Davis CD, Drackley JK. The Development,

Nutrition and Management of the Young Calf.

Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1998.

26 Doherty TJ, Kattesh HG, Adcock RJ et al.

Effects of a concentrated lidocaine solution on

the acute phase stress response to dehorning in

dairy calves. J Dairy Sci 2007 90:4232-4239.

27 Donovan DC, Franklin ST, Chase CC, Hippen

AR. Growth and health of Holstein calves fed

milk replacers supplemented with antibiotics or

Enteroguard. J Dairy Sci 2002 85:947-950.

28 Eicher-Pruiett SD, Morrill JL, Nagaraja TG,

Higgins JJ, Anderson NV, Reddy PG. Response

of young dairy calves with lasalocid delivery

varied in feed sources. J Dairy Sci 1992 75:857-

862.

29 Faber SN, Faber NE, McCauley TC, Ax RL.

Effects of colostrum ingestion on lactational

performance. Prof Anim Sci 2005 21:425.

30 Fahey JL, McKelvey EM. Quantitative

determination of serum immunoglobulins in

antibody-agar plates. J Immunol 1965 94:84-90.

31 FAO/WHO. Health and Nutritional Properties

of Probiotics in Food including Powder Milk

with Live Lactic Acid Bacteria. Report of a Joint

FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Evaluation of

Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in

Food Including Powder Milk with Live Lactic

Acid Bacteria, 2001.
152  Dairy 2002

AppendixVI: References

32 Faulkner PM, Weary DM. Reducing pain

after dehorning in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci 2000

83:2037-2041.

33 Ficken MD, Ellsworth MA, Tucker CM,

Cortese VS. Effects of modified-live bovine viral

diarrhea virus vaccines containing either type 1

or types 1 and 2 BVDV on heifers and their

offspring after challenge with noncytopathic

type 2 BVDV during gestation. J Am Vet Med

Assoc 2006 228:1559-1564.

34 Foley JA, Otterby DE. Availability, storage,

treatment, composition, and feeding value of

surplus colostrum: A Review. J Dairy Sci 1978

61:1033-1060.

35 Fulton RW, Johnson BJ, Briggs RE et al.

Challenge with bovine viral diarrhea virus by

exposure to persistently infected calves:

protection by vaccination and negative results

of antigen testing in nonvaccinated acutely

infected calves. Can J Vet Res 2006 70:121-127.

36 Godden S. Colostrum management for dairy

calves. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2008

24:19-39.

37 Godden SM, Fetrow JP, Feirtag JM, Green LR,

Wells SJ. Economic analysis of feeding

pasteurized nonsaleable milk versus

conventional milk replacer to dairy calves. J Am

Vet Med Assoc 2005 226:1547-1554.

38 Godden SM, Smith S, Feirtag JM, Green LR,

Wells SJ, Fetrow JP. Effect of on-farm commercial

batch pasteurization of colostrum on colostrum

and serum immunoglobulin concentrations in

dairy calves. J Dairy Sci 2003 86:1503-1512.

39 Godden S, Fetrow J, Feirtag J, Wells S, Green

L. A review of issues surrounding the feeding of

pasteurized non saleable milk and colostrum.

Am Assoc Bov Pract Mtg, 2007, Vancouver, BC.

40 Graf B, Senn M. Behavioral and

physiological responses of calves to dehorning

by heat cauterization with or without local

anaesthesia. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1999 62:153-

171.

41 Grondahl-Nielsen C, Simonsen HB, Lund JD,

Hesselholt M. Behavioural, endocrine and

cardiac responses in young calves undergoing

dehorning without and with use of sedation and

analgesia. Vet J 1999 158:14-20.

42 Harrison JH, Hancock DD, Conrad HR.

Vitamin E and selenium for reproduction of the

dairy cow. J Dairy Sci 1984 67:123-132.

43 Heinrichs AJ. Raising dairy replacements to

meet the needs of the 21st century. J Dairy Sci

1993 76:3179-3187.

44 Heinrichs AJ, Bush GJ. Evaluation of

decoquinate or lasalocid against coccidiosis

from natural exposure in neonatal dairy calves. J

Dairy Sci 1991 74:3223-3227.

45 Heinrichs J, Lammers B. Monitoring Dairy

Heifer Growth. The Pennsylvania State

University, 1998.

46 Heuer C, Healy A, Zerbini C. Economic

effects of exposure to bovine viral diarrhea virus

on dairy herds in New Zealand. J Dairy Sci 2007

90:5428-5438.
USDA APHIS VS  153

Appendix VI: References

47 Hopkins BA. Effects of the method of calf

starter delivery and effects of weaning age on

starter intake and growth of Holstein calves fed

milk once daily. J Dairy Sci 1997 80:2200-2203.

48 Hopkins BA, Hunt E, Hunt LD. Effect of milk

feeding regimen and weaning age on growth and

performance of Holstein calves. J Dairy Sci 1993

76(suppl. 1):274.

49 Houe H. Epidemiological features and

economical importance of bovine virus diarrhoea

virus (BVDV) infections. Vet Microbiol 1999

64:89-107.

50 James RE, Polan CE. Effect of orally

administered duodenal fluid on serum proteins

in neonatal calves. J Dairy Sci 1978 61:1444-1449.

52 Johnson JL, Godden SM, Molitor T, Ames T,

Hagman D. Effects of feeding heat-treated

colostrum on passive transfer of immune and

nutritional parameters in neonatal dairy calves. J

Dairy Sci 2007 90:5189-5198.

53 Jones C, Heinrichs J. Spreadsheet to

Compare Cost of Milk and Milk Replacer. 2007.

http://www.das.psu.edu/research-extension/

dairy/nutrition/xls/calfmilkcostcompare.xls.

Accessed 12-4-2009.

54 Kehoe SI, Jayarao BM, Heinrichs AJ. A

survey of bovine colostrum composition and

colostrum management practices on

Pennsylvania dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 2007

90:4108-4116.

55 Kelling CL. Evolution of bovine viral diarrhea

virus vaccines. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim

Pract 2004 20:115-129.

56 Kertz AF, Reutzel LF, Mahoney JH. Ad

libitum water intake by neonatal calves and its

relationship to calf starter intake, weight gain,

feces score, and season. J Dairy Sci 1984

67:2964-2969.

57 Khuntia A, Chaudhary LC. Performance of

male crossbred calves as influenced by

substitution of grain by wheat bran and the

addition of lactic acid bacteria to diet. AsianAustralasian J An Sci 2002 15:188-194.

58 Kincaid RL. The biological basis for selenium

requirements of animals. Prof Anim Sci 1995

11:26-29.

59 Klobasa F, Goel MC, Werhahn E. Comparison

of freezing and lyophilizing for preservation of

colostrum as a source of immunoglobulins for

calves. J Anim Sci 1998 76:923-926.

60 Kovacs F, Magyar T, Rinehart C, Elbers K,

Schlesinger K, Ohnesorge WC. The live

attenuated bovine viral diarrhea virus

components of a multi-valent vaccine confer

protection against fetal infection. Vet Microbiol

2003 96:117-131.

61 Laden SA, Wohlt JE, Zajac PK, Carsia RV.

Effects of stress from electrical dehorning on

feed intake, growth, and blood constituents of

Holstein heifer calves. J Dairy Sci 1985 68:3062-

3066.
154  Dairy 2002

AppendixVI: References

62 Langford FM, Weary DM, Fisher L.

Antibiotic resistance in gut bacteria from dairy

calves: a dose response to the level of

antibiotics fed in milk. J Dairy Sci 2003 86:3963-

3966.

63 Larson RL, Brodersen BW, Grotelueschen

DM et al. Considerations for bovine viral

diarrhea (BVD) testing. Bovine Pract 2005 39:96-

100.

64 Levieux D, Ollier A. Bovine immunoglobulin

G, beta-lactoglobulin, alpha-lactalbumin and

serum albumin in colostrum and milk during the

early post partum period. J Dairy Res 1999

66:421-430.

65 Ley S, Waterman A, Livingston A. Variation

in the analgesic effects of xylazine in different

breeds of sheep. Vet Rec 1990 126:508.

66 Lombard JE, Garry FB, Tomlinson SM, Garber

LP. Impacts of dystocia on health and survival

of dairy calves. J Dairy Sci 2007 90:1751-1760.

67 Loxton ID, Toleman MA, Holmes AE. The

effect of dehorning Brahman crossbred animals

of four age groups on subsequent bodyweight

gain. Aust Vet J 1982 58:191-193.

68 McCluskey BJ. Biosecurity for arthropodborne diseases. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim

Pract 2002 18:99-114, vi-vii.

69 McGilliard AD, Jacobson NL, Sutton JD.

Physiological development of the ruminant

stomach. In: Physiology of Digestion in the

Ruminant. Washington D.C., Butterworth, 1965.

70 McGuirk SM, Collins M. Managing the

production, storage, and delivery of colostrum.

Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2004 20:593-

603.

71 McMeekan CM, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ,

Bruce RA, Ward RN, Gregory NG. Effects of

shallow scoop and deep scoop dehorning on

plasma cortisol concentrations in calves. N Z

Vet J 1997 45:72-74.

72 McMeekan CM, Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ,

Bruce RA, Ward RN, Gregory NG. Effects of

regional analgesia and/or a non-steroidal antiinflammatory analgesic on the acute cortisol

response to dehorning in calves. Res Vet Sci

1998 64:147-150.

73 Mee JF. Newborn dairy calf management. Vet

Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2008 24:1-17.

74 Meyer CL, Berger PJ, Koehler KJ.

Interactions among factors affecting stillbirths

in Holstein cattle in the United States. J Dairy

Sci 2000 83:2657-2663.

75 Meyer CL, Berger PJ, Koehler KJ, Thompson

JR, Sattler CG. Phenotypic trends in incidence of

stillbirth for Holsteins in the United States. J

Dairy Sci 2001 84:515-523.

76 Meylan M, Rings DM, Shulaw WP, Kowalski

JJ, Bech-Nielsen S, Hoffsis GF. Survival of

Mycobacterium paratuberculosis and

preservation of immunoglobulin G in bovine

colostrum under experimental conditions

simulating pasteurization. Am J Vet Res 1996

57:1580-1585.
USDA APHIS VS  155

Appendix VI: References

77 Molla A. Immunoglobulin levels in calves fed

colostrum by stomach tube. Vet Rec 1978

103:377-380.

78 Moore M, Tyler JW, Chigerwe M, Dawes ME,

Middleton JR. Effect of delayed colostrum

collection on colostral IgG concentration in

dairy cows. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005 226:1375-

1377.

79 Moore SJ, VandeHaar MJ, Sharma BK et al.

Effects of altering dietary cation-anion

difference on calcium and energy metabolism in

peripartum cows. J Dairy Sci 2000 83:2095-2104.

80 Morin DE, Constable PD, Maunsell FP,

McCoy GC. Factors associated with colostral

specific gravity in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2001

84:937-943.

81 Morisse JP, Cotte JP, Huonnic D. Effect of

dehorning on behavior and plasma cortisol

responses in young calves. Appl Anim Behav

Sci 1995 43:239-247.

82 Mortimer RG. Calving Management Manual,

Chapter 6: Calving and Handling Calving

Difficulties. 2009. Available at:

www.cvmbs.colostate.edu/ilm/projects/neonatal/

Calving%20and%20Handling%20Calving%20Difficulties.pdf

(accessed 3/13/09)

84 Orskov ER. Reflex closure of the esophageal

groove and its potential application in ruminant

nutrition. S Afr J Anim Sci 1972 2:169-176.

85 Orskov ER, Benzie D, Kay RN. The effects of

feeding procedure on closure of the oesophageal

groove in young sheep. Br J Nutr 1970 24:785-

795.

86 Otterby DE, Linn JG. Advances in nutrition

and management of calves and heifers. J Dairy

Sci 1981 64:1365-1377.

87 Petrie NJ, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Bruce RA,

Ward RN. Cortisol responses of calves to two

methods of disbudding used with or without

local anaesthetic. N Z Vet J 1996 44:9-14.

88 Philipsson J, Foulley JL, Lederer J,

Liboriussen T, Osinga A. Sire evaluation

standards and breeding strategies for limiting

dystocia and stillbirth. Report of an EEC/EAAP

working group. Livestock Production Science

1979 6(2):111-127.

89 Pritchett LC, Gay CC, Hancock DD, Besser TE.

Evaluation of the hydrometer for testing

immunoglobulin G1 concentrations in Holstein

colostrum. J Dairy Sci 1994 77:1761-1767.

90 Quigley JD III, Drewry JJ, Murray LM, Ivey

SJ. Effects of lasalocid in milk replacer or calf

starter on health and performance of calves

challenged with Eimeria species. J Dairy Sci 1997

80:2972-2976.

91 Rajala P, Castren H. Serum immunoglobulin

concentrations and health of dairy calves in two

management systems from birth to 12 weeks of

age. J Dairy Sci 1995 78:2737-2744.
156  Dairy 2002

AppendixVI: References

92 Scibilia LS, Muller LD, Kensinger RS,

Sweeney TF, Shellenberger PR. Effect of

environmental temperature and dietary fat on

growth and physiological responses of newborn

calves. J Dairy Sci 1987 70:1426-1433.

93 Selim SA, Cullor JS. Number of viable

bacteria and presumptive antibiotic residues in

milk fed to calves on commercial dairies. J Am

Vet Med Assoc 1997 211:1029-1035.

94 Smith KL, Harrison JH, Hancock DD,

Todhunter DA, Conrad HR. Effect of vitamin E

and selenium supplementation on incidence of

clinical mastitis and duration of clinical

symptoms. J Dairy Sci 1984 67:1293-1300.

95 Stabel JR, Hurd S, Calvente L, Rosenbusch

RF. Destruction of Mycobacterium

paratuberculosis, Salmonella spp., and

Mycoplasma spp. in raw milk by a commercial

on-farm high-temperature, short-time pasteurizer.

J Dairy Sci 2004 87:2177-2183.

96 Stewart S, Godden S, Bey R et al. Preventing

bacterial contamination and proliferation during

the harvest, storage, and feeding of fresh bovine

colostrum. J Dairy Sci 2005 88:2571-2578.

97 Stobo IJ, Roy JH, Gaston HJ. Rumen

development in the calf. 1. The effect of diets

containing different proportions of concentrates

to hay on rumen development. Br J Nutr 1966

20:171-188.

98 Stott GH, Marx DB, Menefee BE, Nightengale

GT. Colostral immunoglobulin transfer in calves

I. Period of absorption. J Dairy Sci 1979 62:1632-

1638.

99 Streeter RN, Hoffsis GF, Bech-Nielsen S,

Shulaw WP, Rings DM. Isolation of

Mycobacterium paratuberculosis from

colostrum and milk of subclinically infected

cows. Am J Vet Res 1995 Oct;56(10):1322-4.

100 Sutherland MA, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ,

Gregory NG, Bruce RA, Ward RN. Cortisol

responses to dehorning of calves given a 5-h

local anaesthetic regimen plus phenylbutazone,

ketoprofen, or adrenocorticotropic hormone

prior to dehorning. Res Vet Sci 2002 73:115-123.

101 Swan H, Godden S, Bey R, Wells S, Fetrow

J, Chester-Jones H. Passive transfer of

immunoglobulin G and preweaning health in

Holstein calves fed a commercial colostrum

replacer. J Dairy Sci 2007 90:3857-3866.

102 Sylvester SP, Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ, Bruce

RA, Ward RN. Behavioural responses of calves

to amputation dehorning with and without local

anaesthesia. Aust Vet J 2004 82:697-700.

103 Timmerman HM, Mulder L, Everts H et al.

Health and growth of veal calves fed milk

replacers with or without probiotics. J Dairy Sci

2005 88:2154-2165.

104 Toullec R, Guilloteau P. Research into the

digestive physiology of the milk-fed calf. In:

Nutrition and digestive physiology of

monogastric farm animals. Pudoc, Wageningen,

1989.

105 Tyler JW, Hancock DD, Parish SM et al.

Evaluation of 3 assays for failure of passive

transfer in calves. J Vet Intern Med 1996 10:304-

307.
USDA APHIS VS  157

Appendix VI: References

106 Tyler JW, Parish SM, Besser TE, Van Metre

DC, Barrington GM, Middleton JR. Detection of

low serum immunoglobulin concentrations in

clinically ill calves. J Vet Intern Med 1999 13:40-

43.

107 USDA. 2007. Dairy 2007, Part I:Reference of

Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices

in the United States, 2007 USDA-APHIS-VS,

CEAH. Fort Collins, CO #N480.1007

108 Velazquez OC, Lederer HM, Rombeau JL.

Butyrate and the colonocyte. Implications for

neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci 1996 41:727-739.

109 Vickers KJ, Niel L, Kiehlbauch LM, Weary

DM. Calf response to caustic paste and hot-iron

dehorning using sedation with and without local

anesthetic. J Dairy Sci 2005 88:1454-1459.

110 Wallace RL. Biosecurity and animal health

protocols during herd expansion, 2001. http://

www.livestocktrail.uiuc.edu/biosecurity/papers/

herd_expansion.htm. Accessed 12-4-2009.

111 Warner RG, Flatt WP. Anatomical

development of the ruminant stomach. In:

Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant.

Washington DC: Butterworths, 1965.

112 Weaver DM, Tyler JW, VanMetre DC,

Hostetler DE, Barrington GM. Passive transfer of

colostral immunoglobulins in calves. J Vet Intern

Med 2000 14:569-577.

113 Wells SJ. Biosecurity on dairy operations:

hazards and risks. J Dairy Sci 2000 83:2380-2386.

114 Wells SJ, Dargatz DA, Ott SL. Factors

associated with mortality to 21 days of life in

dairy heifers in the United States. Prev Vet Med

1996 29(1):9-19.

115 Wolf CA. Custom dairy heifer grower

industry characteristics and contract terms. J

Dairy Sci 2003 86:3016-3022.

116 Wray C, Furniss S, Benham CL. Feeding

antibiotic-contaminated waste milk to calves—

effects on physical performance and antibiotic

sensitivity of gut flora. Br Vet J 1990 146:80-87.

117 Yazwinski TA, Gibbs HC. Survey of helminth

infections in Maine dairy cattle. Am J Vet Res

1975 36:1677-1682.