United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

October 2007

Dairy 2007

Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health

and Management Practices in the United

States, 2007
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

#N480.1007

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.

Cover photo courtesy of

Agricultural Research Service
USDA APHIS VS / i

Acknowledgments

This report 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).

Thanks to the NASS enumerators who contacted dairy producers and collected

the data. Their hard work and dedication were invaluable. Thanks also to the

personnel at the USDA–APHIS–Veterinary Services’ Centers for Epidemiology

and Animal Health for their efforts in generating and distributing this report.

Additional biological sampling and testing for the Dairy 2007 study were afforded

by the generous contributions of collaborators, 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

• 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
ii / Dairy 2007

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

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

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
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used In This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Dairy Herd Information and Management Practices 5

1. Operation types 5

2. Record-keeping systems 8

3. Individual animal identification 10

4. Herd identification 12

5. National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and U.S. Animal

 Identification Number (AIN) 13

6. Breed of cows 16

7. Cow registration 17

8. Quality assurance programs 19

B. Productivity 21

1. RHA milk production 21

2. Age at first calving 23

3. Days dry 26

4. Calving interval 27

C. Heifer Management 28

1. Source of heifer inventory 28

2. Heifers raised off the operation 29

3. Colostrum management 38

4. Heifer nutrition 46

5. Weaning age 53

6. Preventive practices 55

7. Vaccination practices 56

8. BVD testing 59

D. Heifer Health 60

1. Births, stillbirths, and dystocia 60

E. Cow Management 62

1. Source of cow replacements 62

2. Housing facilities 63

3. Milking facilities 66

4. Cow nutrition 68

5. Number of bulls 72

6. Adverse drug reactions 73

7. Preventive practices 75

8. Vaccination practices 76

9. Types of BVD vaccine 78

10. Bovine somatotropin (bST) 79
iv / Dairy 2007

F. Cow Health 81

1. Abortions 81

2. Cow morbidity 83

3. Permanently removed cows 86

G. Heifer and Cow Mortality 91

1. Mortality 91

2. Carcass disposal 96

H. Biosecurity 99

1. Physical contact with unweaned calves 99

2. Physical contact with other animals 100

3. Biosecurity for new arrivals 102

Section II: Methodology 115

A. Needs Assessment 115

B. Sampling and Estimation 116

1. State selection 116

2. Operation selection 117

3. Population inferences 117

C. Data Collection 117

1. Data collectors and data collection period 117

D. Data Analysis 117

1. Phase I: Validation—General Dairy Management Report 117

E. Sample Evaluation 118

1. Phase 1: General Dairy Management Report 118

Appendix I: Sample Profile 119

A. Responding Operations 119

1. Total inventory, by herd size 119

2. Number of responding operations, by region 119

Appendix II: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations 120

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 121
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is a nonregulatory

program of the United States 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 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 food-borne 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) and provides participants, stakeholders, and the industry as a whole

with valuable information representing 79.5 percent of U.S. dairy operations and

82.5 percent of U.S. dairy cows. Part 1: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States, 2007 is the first in a series of reports

containing national information from the NAHMS Dairy 2007 Study. This report

contains information collected from 2,194 dairy operations.
Introduction

2 / Dairy 2007

Dairy 2007 Participating States

FL

NM

DE MD

TX OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MT

WY

CO

UT

ID

AZ

NV

WA

CA

OR

KY

ME

NY

PA

MI

VT NH

MA

RI CT

VA

WV

OH IN

IL

NC

TN

SC

AL MS

AR

LA

MO

IA

MN

WI

NJ

GA

Regions

East

West

The methods used and number of respondents in the study can be found in

Section II and Appendix I of this report, respectively.

Further information on NAHMS studies and reports is available at:

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov.

For questions about this report or additional copies, please contact:

USDA-APHIS-VS-CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000
USDA APHIS VS / 3

Introduction

Terms Used In

This Report

Bovine viral diarrhea–persistent infection (BVD–PI): Cattle infected with BVD

in utero. These animals continuously shed large quantities of the virus via nasal

discharge, saliva, semen, urine, feces, tears, and milk, thereby serving as a

source of persistently–infected (PI) cattle.

Cow: Female dairy bovine that has calved at least once.

Cow average: The average value for all cows (milking and dry); the reported

value for each operation multiplied by the number of cows on that operation is

summed over all operations and divided by the number of cows on all operations.

This way, results are adjusted for the number of cows on each operation. For

instance, on p. 21, the rolling herd average milk production (lb/cow) is multiplied

by the number of cows for each operation. This product is then summed over all

operations and divided by the sum of cows over all operations. The result is the

average milk production for all cows.

Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHIA): An organization with programs

and objectives intended to improve the production and profitability of dairy

farming. DHIA also aids farmers in keeping milk production and management

records.

Heifer: Female dairy bovine that has not yet calved.

Herd size: Herd size is based on January 1, 2007, cow inventory. Small herds

are those with fewer than 100 cows; medium herds are those with 100 to 499

cows; and large herds are those with 500 or more cows.

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

Operation average: The average value for all operations; a single value for

each operation is summed over all operations reporting divided by the number of

operations reporting. For example, operation average age of heifers at first

calving (shown on p. 23) is calculated by summing reported average age over all

operations divided by the number of operations.
Introduction

4 / Dairy 2007

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

left, 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 (—).

Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the operations from

which Dairy 2007 data were collected.

Regions:

West: California, Idaho, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington

East: Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin

Rolling Herd Average (RHA): Average milk production per cow (lb/cow) in the

herd during the previous 12 months.

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
Section I: Population Estimates

USDA APHIS VS / 5

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Dairy Herd

Information and

Management Practices

1. Operation types

Producers were asked to identify their operations by type, i.e., conventional,

grazing, combination, and organic. On conventional operations, the majority of

forage was harvested and “delivered” to cows; on grazing operations, the

majority of forage was “harvested” by cows; combination operations used both

conventional and grazing practices; and organic operations met USDA organic

standards. The majority of operations (63.9 percent) were conventional

operations, and the majority of cows (82.2 percent) were on these operations.

Grazing and organic operations accounted for only 3.1 and 1.7 percent of

operations, respectively, and together represented less than 3.0 percent of cows.

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

operation type:

Operation Type

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Conventional 63.9 (1.4) 82.2 (0.9) 

Grazing 3.1 (0.6) 1.7 (0.4) 

Combination of 

conventional and grazing 31.1 (1.3) 14.9 (0.8) 

Organic 1.7 (0.4) 1.2 (0.3) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

6 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of conventional operations increased as herd size increased,

while the percentage of combination operations decreased as herd size

increased.

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

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

Operation Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

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

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

Combination of 

conventional and 

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

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

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Other

Organic

Combination

Grazing

Conventional

57.1

3.5

37.2

2.0 0.2

79.9

2.0

17.0

1.1 0.0

91.5

1.0

7.3

0.2 0.0

63.9

3.1

31.1

1.7 0.2

Small

(Fewer than 100)

Medium

(100 to 499)

Large

(500 or More)

All Operations

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Percent Operation Type

Percentage of Operations by Operation Type and by Herd Size
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Section I: Population Estimates

The West region had a higher percentage of conventional operations than the

East region (72.4 and 63.2 percent, respectively). Conversely, the East region

had a higher percentage of combination operations than the West region (32.4

and 15.8 percent, respectively). The percentages of grazing and organic

operations were similar in the West and East regions.

c. Percentage of operations by operation type and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 West East 

Operation Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Conventional 72.4 (2.9) 63.2 (1.4) 

Grazing 8.0 (2.4) 2.7 (0.6) 

Combination 15.8 (2.0) 32.4 (1.4) 

Organic 3.8 (1.3) 1.5 (0.4) 

Other 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Conventional operations and the cows on these operations had the highest RHA

milk production (20,253 and 22,182 lb/cow, respectively). RHA milk production

was similar for grazing, organic, and other operations.

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

operation type:

RHA Milk Production 

Operation Type

Operation 

Average 

(lb/cow)

Standard 

Error 

Cow 

Average 

(lb/cow)

Standard 

Error 

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

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

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

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

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

* “Other” operation types included in “all” operation types. 
Section I: Population Estimates

8 / Dairy 2007

2. Record-keeping systems

Dairy record-keeping systems are commonly used to track milk production,

reproduction, and the health of cows. The use of hand-written records decreased

as herd size increased, while the use of on-farm computer records increased as

herd size increased. The highest percentage of small and medium operations

(77.9 and 67.2 percent, respectively) used hand-written records, while the

highest percentage of large operations (82.7 percent) used on-farm computer

records. Almost all operations (95.1 percent) had some form of record-keeping

system to track individual animals. Operations could have used more than one

system. The majority of operations (73.5 percent) used hand-written records to

track animals, while almost half (45.9 percent) used the Dairy Herd Improvement

Association (DHIA) record-keeping system. Although only 19.4 percent of

operations used on-farm computer record-keeping systems, 56.9 percent of

cows were on these operations.

a. Percentage of operations by type of individual animal record-keeping systems

used for the operation, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Dairy Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

System Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hand written, 

such as a 

ledger or 

notebook 77.9 (1.5) 67.2 (2.1) 38.1 (2.8) 73.5 (1.2) 

DHIA 42.4 (1.7) 56.5 (2.3) 50.5 (2.9) 45.9 (1.4) 

Off-farm 

computer 

record system 

other than 

DHIA 2.7 (0.5) 10.9 (1.4) 10.0 (1.5) 4.9 (0.5) 

On-farm 

computer 

record system 9.3 (1.0) 37.8 (2.2) 82.7 (2.1) 19.4 (0.9) 

Other system 4.0 (0.7) 5.9 (1.2) 3.2 (1.0) 4.4 (0.6) 

Any recordkeeping system 94.2 (0.9) 97.0 (0.9) 99.8 (0.1) 95.1 (0.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Population Estimates

b. Percentage of cows by type of individual animal record-keeping systems used

for the operation:

For operations using on- or off-farm computer data record systems, 34.9 percent

used Dairy Comp 305 as their primary system, accounting for 60.3 percent of

cows. “Other” computer programs were used on 30.8 percent of operations but

accounted for only 13.6 percent of cows. Dairy Quest and Dairy Plan were the

most common other computer programs.

c. For operations using on- or off-farm computer data record systems,

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

primary computer record system used:

Primary System 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Dairy Comp 305 34.9 (2.3) 60.3 (2.0) 

PC Dart 19.3 (1.9) 10.2 (0.9) 

DHI Plus 15.0 (1.7) 15.9 (1.7) 

Other 30.8 (2.4) 13.6 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

System Percent Cows Standard Error 

Hand written, such as a ledger or 

notebook 54.0 (1.5) 

DHIA 48.7 (1.5) 

Off-farm computer record system 

other than DHIA 9.0 (0.9) 

On-farm computer record system 56.9 (1.2) 

Other system 4.0 (0.6) 

Any record-keeping system 98.4 (0.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates

10 / Dairy 2007

3. Individual animal identification

Individual animal identification (ID) is crucial for managing the health and

performance of cattle. Approximately 9 of 10 operations (93.0 percent) used

some form of individual animal ID, and almost all cows (97.4 percent) had some

form of individual animal ID. Most operations (86.5 percent) used ear tags on

cows as a form of individual ID, and most cows (94.0 percent) had individual ear

tags. Branding as a type of individual ID was used on only 4.4 percent of

operations: however, 13.2 percent of cows were branded, suggesting that

branding was more common on larger operations. Various methods of electronic

ID were used on 4.1 percent of operations, accounting for 9.0 percent of cows.

a. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows), by type of individual

animal ID used on at least some cows:

ID Type 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Ear tags (all kinds) 86.5 (1.0) 94.0 (0.5) 

Collars 12.7 (0.9) 10.3 (0.9) 

Photograph or sketch 13.3 (1.0) 4.4 (0.4) 

Branding (all methods) 4.4 (0.5) 13.2 (1.1) 

Tattoo (other than 

tattoo for brucellosis) 7.7 (0.6) 8.5 (0.9) 

Leg bands 3.0 (0.4) 2.9 (0.5) 

Electronic 

(pedometers, bar code, 

RFD, etc.) 4.1 (0.5) 9.0 (0.9) 

Other 7.7 (0.8) 4.7 (0.6) 

Any identification 93.0 (0.8) 97.4 (0.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Population Estimates

13.3

4.4

7.7

3.0 4.1

7.7

Percent

Percentage of Operations (and Percentage of Cows) by Type of Individual

Animal ID Used on at Least Some Cows

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cows

Operations

86.5

12.7

94.0

10.3

4.4

8.5

13.2

2.9

9.0

4.7

97.4

Ear

tags

Collars Photograph/

sketch

Branding Tattoo Leg

bands

Electronic

ID

Other Any

ID Type

93.0
Section I: Population Estimates

12 / Dairy 2007

On operations that used individual animal ID, evaluating milk production and

evaluating genetic improvements were the two most common primary reasons

for using ID (38.1 and 30.4 percent of operations, respectively). Approximately 2

of 10 operations (21.1 percent) listed “other” as a primary reason, with many of

these operations noting that all choices given were primary reasons for using

individual animal ID.

b. For operations that used individual animal ID, percentage of operations by

primary reason ID was used:

Primary Reason Percent Operations Standard Error 

Evaluating milk production 38.1 (1.4) 

Evaluating animal health 8.8 (0.8) 

Disease or residue traceback 1.6 (0.4) 

Evaluating genetic improvements 30.4 (1.4) 

Other 21.1 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 

4. Herd identification

More than one-third of operations (36.4 percent)—representing 54.0 percent of

cows—used some form of unique herd ID. The highest percentage of operations

(34.5 percent) used ear tags for herd ID, and the highest percentage of cows

(41.0 percent) had ear tags as a form of herd ID. Branding as a type of herd ID

was used on 3.1 percent of operations and 18.7 percent of cows.
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Population Estimates

ID Type 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Ear tags (all kinds) 34.5 (1.3) 41.0 (1.5) 

Collars 2.8 (0.4) 2.9 (0.5) 

Branding (all methods) 3.1 (0.3) 18.7 (1.4) 

Tattoo (other than 

tattoo for brucellosis) 2.5 (0.4) 4.6 (0.8) 

Electronic 

(pedometers, bar code, 

RFD, etc.) 1.8 (0.3) 3.9 (0.6) 

Other 2.0 (0.4) 1.7 (0.4) 

Any identification 36.4 (1.3) 54.0 (1.5) 

5. National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and U.S. Animal

Identification Number (AIN)

NAIS is a voluntary program that facilitates the collection of information about all

livestock operations, regardless of livestock species. This information is stored in

a database for use during animal disease events. NAIS is designed to allow

animal tracking during disease outbreaks so that sick or exposed animals can be

located quickly to help contain the disease. Although the program was designed

by USDA, each State is responsible for its implementation. A unique premises ID

is assigned by each State’s Department of Agriculture to all operations enrolled in

NAIS.

Almost half of operations (46.7 percent) had a unique premises ID. A lower

percentage of large operations (32.8 percent) had a unique premises ID

compared to medium and small operations (48.3 and 47.2 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations with a unique premises ID assigned by their State

Department of Agriculture as part of NAIS, 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 

47.2 (1.5) 48.3 (2.1) 32.8 (2.5) 46.7 (1.1) 

Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows) by type of herd identification

used on at least some cows:
Section I: Population Estimates

14 / Dairy 2007

b. Percentage of operations with a unique premises ID assigned by their State

Department of Agriculture as part of NAIS, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

16.5 (1.8) 49.1 (1.2) 

Operations enrolled in NAIS cannot obtain individual animal identification without

a unique premises ID. Once a premises ID is obtained, an operation has the

option of obtaining officially recognized individual animal ID, as outlined in AIN

guidelines. Only 7.8 percent of all operations had implemented individual animal

ID. A higher percentage of large operations (12.5 percent) implemented an

individual animal ID system or technology utilizing AIN guidelines compared to

small operations (7.0 percent).

c. Percentage of operations that had implemented an individual animal ID

system or technology that utilizes AIN guidelines, 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 

7.0 (0.9) 9.6 (1.3) 12.5 (1.8) 7.8 (0.7) 

A lower percentage of operations in the West region (16.5 percent) had a unique

premises ID compared to operations in the East region (49.1 percent).
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Population Estimates

Photo by Dr. Jason Lombard

For operations assigned a unique premises ID, 16.8 percent had implemented

individual animal ID. A higher percentage of large operations (38.2 percent) with

a unique premises ID had implemented an individual animal ID system utilizing

AIN guidelines compared to small operations (14.8 percent).

d. For operations that had a unique premises ID assigned, percentage of

operations that had implemented an individual animal ID system that utilizes AIN

guidelines, 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 

14.8 (1.8) 19.8 (2.6) 38.2 (4.9) 16.8 (1.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates

16 / Dairy 2007

6. Breed of cows

Holsteins continue to be the predominant dairy breed in the United States.

Approximately 95 percent of operations housed at least one Holstein cow, and

Holsteins represented 90.1 percent of all cows. Although 18.1 percent of

operations reported having Jerseys on-hand, only 5.3 percent of all cows were

Jerseys. “Other” breeds, which generally included cross-breed cattle, were

reported on 21.4 percent of operations.

a. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows) by breed:

Breed 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Holstein 95.1 (0.6) 90.1 (0.7) 

Jersey 18.1 (1.1) 5.3 (0.6) 

Ayrshire 3.4 (0.5) 0.3 (0.1) 

Brown Swiss 7.6 (0.7) 0.6 (0.1) 

Guernsey 3.0 (0.5) 0.4 (0.1) 

Other 21.4 (1.2) 3.3 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 

Primary breed for each operation was defined as the most prevalent dairy breed

reported on the January 1, 2007, cattle inventory. Holsteins were the primary

dairy breed on more than 9 of 10 operations (92.2 percent) operations.

b. Percentage of operations by primary breed:

Breed Percent Operations Standard Error 

Holstein 92.2 (0.7) 

Jersey 3.5 (0.4) 

Ayrshire 0.3 (0.1) 

Brown Swiss 0.9 (0.3) 

Guernsey 0.9 (0.3) 

Other 2.2 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Population Estimates

7. Cow registration

A higher percentage of cows on small and medium operations (16.8 and 18.7

percent, respectively) were registered with a breed association compared to

cows on large operations (8.9 percent). Overall, 13.6 percent of cows were

registered.

a. Percentage of cows registered with a breed association, 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 

16.8 (1.2) 18.7 (1.5) 8.9 (1.3) 13.6 (0.8) 

Photo by Judy Rodriguez
Section I: Population Estimates

18 / Dairy 2007

All cows were registered with a breed association on 8.9 percent of operations,

while 71.7 percent of operations had no cows registered. The percentages of

operations with less than 10 percent of their cows registered with a breed

association were similar across herd sizes. A higher percentage of small and

medium operations (14.2 and 15.6 percent, respectively) had 75 percent or more

of their cows registered compared to large operations (6.5 percent).

b. Percentage of operations by registration level (percentage of cows registered

with a breed association) and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Percent of 

Dairy Cows 

Registered Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 73.6 (1.6) 65.5 (2.2) 70.9 (2.7) 71.7 (1.3) 

0.1 to 9.9 5.2 (0.8) 6.4 (1.2) 7.7 (1.5) 5.6 (0.6) 

10.0 to 49.9 5.2 (0.8) 9.8 (1.5) 11.5 (1.8) 6.5 (0.7) 

50.0 to 74.9 1.8 (0.4) 2.7 (0.8) 3.4 (1.3) 2.1 (0.4) 

75.0 to 99.9 4.8 (0.7) 7.1 (1.2) 2.9 (1.2) 5.2 (0.6) 

100 9.4 (1.1) 8.5 (1.2) 3.6 (1.0) 8.9 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Population Estimates

8. Quality assurance programs

Quality assurance programs are designed to educate producers and provide

them with guidelines to ensure the highest quality products. Nearly half of

operations (47.3 percent) participated in any quality assurance program during

2006. The highest percentage of operations (42.2 percent) participated in a local

milk cooperative/processor-sponsored assurance program. A higher percentage

of medium and large operations (58.4 and 65.2 percent, respectively)

participated in any quality assurance program compared to small operations

(42.6 percent).

a. Percentage of operations that participated in the following types of quality

assurance programs 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 

Quality 

Assurance 

Program Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

State sponsored 7.2 (0.9) 11.3 (1.3) 19.7 (2.6) 8.8 (0.7) 

Local milk 

cooperative/ 

processor 

sponsored 38.4 (1.8) 52.5 (2.3) 52.0 (2.9) 42.2 (1.4) 

National industry 

sponsored 2.4 (0.5) 4.7 (1.1) 6.1 (1.2) 3.1 (0.4) 

Other 1.8 (0.4) 2.2 (0.6) 5.2 (1.4) 2.0 (0.3) 

Any of the above 42.6 (1.8) 58.4 (2.3) 65.2 (2.5) 47.3 (1.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates

20 / Dairy 2007

The percentages of operations that participated in individual programs were

similar between regions, but a higher percentage of operations in the West

region (59.5 percent) participated in any program compared to operations in the

East region (46.3 percent).

b. Percentage of operations that participated in the following types of quality

assurance programs during 2006, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Quality Assurance 

Program Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

State sponsored 11.8 (1.9) 8.5 (0.8) 

Local milk cooperative/ 

processor sponsored 50.4 (3.0) 41.6 (1.5) 

National industry 

sponsored 6.1 (1.6) 2.8 (0.5) 

Other 3.9 (1.1) 1.9 (0.4) 

Any of the above 59.5 (2.9) 46.3 (1.5) 

0

20

40

60

80

Any

Other

National industry

sponsored

Local milk cooperative

State sponsored

Small

(Fewer than 100)

Medium

(100 to 499) Large

(500 or more)

All Operations

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Percent

7.2

38.4

2.4 1.8

42.6

11.3

52.5

4.7

2.2

58.4

19.7

52.0

6.1 5.2

65.2

8.8

42.2

3.1 2.0

47.3

Percentage of Operations that Participated in the Following Types of Quality

Assurance Programs During 2006, by Herd Size

Program
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Population Estimates

B. Productivity 1. RHA milk production

RHA milk production is the amount of milk (lb/cow) produced by the average cow

during the last 12 months. Producers were asked to report the RHA for their

operation. The average of this reported number across all operations—referred

to as the operation average—was 19,175 lb/cow.

a. Operation average (and cow average) RHA milk production (lb/cow), by herd

size:

Average 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Measure Lb/Cow 

Std. 

Error Lb/Cow 

Std. 

Error Lb/Cow 

Std. 

Error Lb/Cow 

Std. 

Error 

Operation 18,391 (142) 20,912 (171) 22,686 (215) 19,175 (112) 

Cow 18,943 (135) 21,281 (170) 22,908 (202) 21,483 (115) 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000 Cow average

Operation average

18,391 18,943

20,912 21,281

22,686 22,908

19,175

21,483

Small

(Fewer than 100)

Medium

(100 to 499)

Large

(500 or more)

All Operations

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Pounds

Operation Average (and Cow Average) RHA Milk Production (Lb/Cow), by Herd Size
Section I: Population Estimates

22 / Dairy 2007

More than one-quarter of operations (26.9 percent) had an RHA milk production

of 22,000 lb/cow or more.

b. Percentage of operations by RHA milk production (lb/cow):

Operations that used computer record-keeping systems—either on- or off-farm—

had higher RHA milk production than operations that did not use a computer

system. Operations with on-farm computer systems had higher operation and

cow average RHAs (21,425 and 22,785 lb/cow, respectively) compared to

operations using off-farm computers or no computers.

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

computer usage:

Pounds/Cow Percent Operations Standard Error 

Fewer than 14,000 8.3 (0.8) 

14,000 to 15,999 11.7 (1.0) 

16,000 to 17,999 14.8 (1.0) 

18,000 to 19,999 21.0 (1.2) 

20,000 to 21,999 17.3 (1.0) 

22,000 or more 26.9 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 

Computer Usage 

Operation 

Average 

(lb/cow)

Standard 

Error 

Cow 

Average 

(lb/cow)

Standard 

Error 

Off-farm 20,522 (176) 21,267 (175) 

On-farm 21,425 (205) 22,785 (171) 

No computer 17,094 (168) 17,992 (166) 
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Population Estimates

Holsteins are known for producing the most milk per cow of all dairy breeds.

Operations comprised of primarily Holsteins (more than 50 percent of dairy cows

were Holsteins) had higher RHA milk production than operations with primary

breeds other than Holstein. Operations with primarily Holsteins had an operation

and cow average RHA milk production of approximately 4,000 lb/cow higher than

operations where Holsteins were not the primary breed.

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

primary breed (over 50.0 percent of herd was Holstein):

2. Age at first calving

Age at first calving is important in determining the lifetime productivity of

heifers. In general, the earlier heifers calve after reaching the recommended

height and weight, the more productive they are throughout their lifetime. The

recommended age at first calving is 22 to 24 months. Overall, the average age

at first calving was 25.2 months. Large operations reported the earliest

average age for heifers at first calving at 24.0 months.

a. Operation average age of heifers at first calving, by herd size:

Operation Average Age (Months)

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 

25.4 (0.1) 24.8 (0.1) 24.0 (0.1) 25.2 (0.1) 

Breed 

Operation 

Average 

(lb/cow)

Standard 

Error 

Cow 

Average 

(lb/cow)

Standard 

Error 

Primarily Holstein 19,482 (115) 21,807 (114) 

Not primarily Holstein 15,637 (381) 17,137 (418) 
Section I: Population Estimates

24 / Dairy 2007

Although 48.3 percent of operations reported an average age at first calving of

less than 25 months, these operations accounted for 58.0 percent of heifers.

Almost 1 in 10 operations (8.5 percent) reported an average age at first calving

of 30 or more months, but these operations accounted for only 4.0 percent of

heifers.

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

average age of heifers at first calving:

Average Age (Months) 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Heifers 

Standard 

Error 

Less than 24 12.1 (0.9) 21.2 (1.4) 

24 to 24.9 36.2 (1.4) 36.8 (1.7) 

25 to 25.9 14.9 (1.0) 16.9 (1.3) 

26 to 26.9 17.2 (1.1) 14.3 (1.1) 

27 to 27.9 6.0 (0.7) 3.9 (0.5) 

28 to 28.9 4.3 (0.6) 2.4 (0.3) 

29 to 29.9 0.8 (0.2) 0.5 (0.1) 

30 or more 8.5 (0.9) 4.0 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Population Estimates

0

10

20

30

40

50

Heifers

Operations

Less

than 24

24 to

24.9

25 to

25.9

26 to

26.9

27 to

27.9

28 to

28.9

29 to

29.9

30 or

more

Average Age (Months)

Percent

Percentage of Operations (and Percentage of Heifers on These Operations),

by Average Age of Heifers at First Calving

12.1

36.2

14.9

17.2

6.0

4.3

0.8

8.5

21.2

36.8

16.9

14.3

3.9

2.4

4.0

0.5
Section I: Population Estimates

26 / Dairy 2007

3. Days dry

The dry period is a time for the cow and her mammary glands to rejuvenate and

prepare for the next lactation. Traditionally, a 60-day dry period has been

recommended, but recent research evaluating the optimal dry period length

suggests that 40 days may improve cow health and be more profitable. An

advantage of a 40-day dry period is that cows can be fed a consistent highenergy diet through the dry period, which has been shown to improve energy

balance and decrease fat mobilization during the first month of the subsequent

lactation.

The operation average dry period on medium operations (56.3 days) was about

three days shorter than the average on large operations (59.6 days). The overall

average days dry was 57.8 days.

a. Operation average days dry during 2006, by herd size:

Operation Average Days Dry 

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 

58.2 (0.4) 56.3 (0.4) 59.6 (0.7) 57.8 (0.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Population Estimates

The majority of operations (51.8 percent) reported average days dry of 60 to 69

days. A total of 2.5 percent of operations reported average days dry of fewer than

40 days, and 14.1 percent reported average days dry of 40 to 49 days.

b. Percentage of operations by average number of days dry:

Average Days Dry Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 40 2.5 (0.4) 

40 to 49 14.1 (1.0) 

50 to 59 21.1 (1.1) 

60 to 69 51.8 (1.4) 

70 or more 10.5 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 

4. Calving interval

Calving interval is the time from one calving to the next and is dependent on how

quickly a cow conceives after calving. The longer a cow is open (not pregnant),

the longer the calving interval. Ideally, with a 12-month calving interval, a cow

would become pregnant approximately 90 days after calving. For all operations,

the average calving interval was 13.2 months. No differences were observed in

calving intervals across herd sizes.

a. Operation average calving interval for cows during 2006, by herd size:

Operation Average (Months)

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 

13.2 (0.0) 13.3 (0.1) 13.3 (0.1) 13.2 (0.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates

28 / Dairy 2007

Almost one-third of operations (29.4 percent) reported a calving interval of 12

months or less. A similar percentage of operations reported a calving interval of

13 or 14 months (30.1 and 28.8 percent of operations, respectively).

Approximately 1 in 9 operations (11.7 percent) reported a calving interval of 15 or

more months.

b. Percentage of operations by calving interval for cows:

C. Heifer Management 1. Source of heifer inventory

Nearly all operations (96.5 percent) had at least some heifers that were born and

raised on the operation. Almost 9 of 10 heifers (87.4 percent) were born and

raised on the operation. 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.

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.

Calving Interval 

(Months) Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 12 5.5 (0.7) 

12 23.9 (1.3) 

13 30.1 (1.3) 

14 28.8 (1.3) 

15 8.5 (0.8) 

16 or more 3.2 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Population Estimates

2. Heifers raised off the operation

Raising heifers at a separate site (calf ranches) from the milking string has many

potential 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 disease. 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. 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.

Fewer than 1 of 10 operations (9.3 percent) raised any heifers off the operation.

The percentage 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 to 15.5 percent of medium operations and 46.0

percent of large operations. Almost one-third of large operations (35.3 percent)

raised unweaned calves off-site, compared to 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

heifer classes.

a. Percentage of operations that raised any heifers 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 

Unweaned 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) 
Section I: Population Estimates

30 / Dairy 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

Any of the above

Bred

Weaned

Unweaned

Small

(Fewer than 100)

Medium

(100 to 499)

Large

(500 or more)

All Operations

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Percent

Heifer Class

Percentage of Operations That Raised Any Heifers Off-Site, by Heifer Class

and by Herd Size

1.7

7.1

4.3 4.1 4.7

14.6

11.5

15.5

35.3

44.2

22.5

46.0

4.6

8.6

6.7

9.3

For operations that raised any heifers off the operation, unweaned, 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 operations that raised any heifers off-site, operation average age of

heifers when leaving operation, by heifer class:

Operation Average Age (Days) 

Heifer Class 

Unweaned 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 / 31

Section I: Population Estimates

Producers were asked to identify the primary class of heifers sent off-site. Almost

half of all operations that sent any heifers off-site to be raised sent unweaned 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. Small operations

most commonly sent weaned heifers off-site (54.3 percent); medium operations

sent similar percentages of unweaned and weaned calves off-site (45.6 and 49.7

percent, respectively); and large operations most frequently sent unweaned

heifers off-site (77.2 percent).

c. For operations that raised any heifers off-site, percentage of operations by

primary heifer class sent 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 

Unweaned 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 
Section I: Population Estimates

32 / Dairy 2007

0

20

40

60

80

Bred

Weaned

Unweaned

Small

(Fewer than 100)

Medium

(100 to 499)

Large

(500 or more)

All Operations

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Percent Heifer Class

For Operations That Raised Any Heifers Off-Site, Percentage of Operations

by Primary Heifer Class Sent Off-Site and by Herd Size

35.9

54.3

9.8

45.6

49.7

4.7

77.2

21.1

1.7

50.1

44.1

5.8
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section I: Population Estimates

Approximately 8 of 10 operations (81.1 percent) that sent heifers off-site to be

raised 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 operations that sent heifers off-site to be raised, 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 
Section I: Population Estimates

34 / Dairy 2007

For operations that sent heifers off-site to be raised, the highest percentage of

small and medium operations transported heifers less than 20 miles to the offsite 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.

e. For operations that sent heifers off-site to be raised, 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 

Very few operations (4.1 percent) transported heifers out of State for rearing.

f. For operations that sent heifers off-site to be raised, percentage of operations

where 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) 
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section I: Population Estimates

0

2

4

6

8

10

Small

(Fewer than 100)

Medium

(100 to 499)

Large

(500 or more)

All Operations

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Percent

1.9

2.6

9.1

4.1

For Operations that Sent Heifers Off-Site to be Raised, Percentage of

Operations Where Heifers were Ever Transported Out of State for Off-Site

Rearing, by Herd Size
Section I: Population Estimates

36 / Dairy 2007

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 a single operation. More than one-quarter of operations (27.7

percent) sent heifers to a single rearing facility where heifers did not have

contact with cattle from other operations, but the majority (51.3 percent) sent

heifers to a single rearing facility where heifers had contact with cattle from other

operations.

g. For operations that sent heifers off-site to be raised, percentage of operations

by primary off-site rearing facility:

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 operations that sent heifers off-site to be raised, operation average age

that replacements returned to the operation, by heifer class:

Operation Average Age (Months) 

Heifer Class* 

Weaned Bred Other** 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) 

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

**Heifers that had calved. 

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 
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section I: Population Estimates

Producers were asked to identify the primary class of heifer replacements

usually arriving or returning to the operation. Approximately two of three

operations (67.6 percent) that sent any heifers off-site brought bred heifers back

to the operation from the rearing facility. Approximately one in three operations

(30.3 percent) brought back weaned heifers, while just 2.1 percent brought back

“other” heifers (heifers that had calved). A higher percentage of large operations

(53.4 percent) brought back weaned heifers compared to 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 to large operations (46.6 percent).

i. For operations that sent heifers off-site to be raised, 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 Class* 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) 

Other** 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 

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

**Heifers that had calved. 
Section I: Population Estimates

38 / Dairy 2007

3. Colostrum management

Removing a newborn calf from the calving area and providing quality colostrum

immediately after birth are recommended practices to maximize calf health.

Isolating calves from adult cows reduces the potential for disease transmission,

and providing quality colostrum within 1 hour after birth helps ensure that calves

have antibodies to withstand disease challenges.

Administering colostrum to calves allows providers to determine colostrum

quality and monitor when and how much calves receive. Calves that get

colostrum only during nursing may not receive the proper quality or amount of

colostrum in a timely manner. In addition, if the calving area is not properly

maintained, calves are likely to ingest manure from the environment while

searching for teats and suckling colostrum. Recommendations for colostrum

feeding can be found in “A Guide to Colostrum and Colostrum Management for

Dairy Calves” published by the Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition

(BAMN). Calves should receive 3 quarts of high quality colostrum within 1 hour of

birth and an additional 3 quarts in 12 hours, or 4 quarts administered by

esophageal feeder within 1 hour of birth.

More than half the operations (55.9 percent) removed newborn heifer calves

immediately after calving. These operations accounted for 65.6 percent of all

heifer calves. One in 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 in 10 operations (7.3 percent)—representing 2.6

percent of calves— allowed calves to stay with their dams for more than 24

hours.

a. 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 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Heifer 

Calves* 

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 

*Born during 2006 and alive at 48 hours. 
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section I: Population Estimates

On average, calves received hand-fed colostrum 3.3 hours following birth.

b. For 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, 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) 

More than 24 hours

12 to 24 hours

After nursing but

less than 12 hours

Immediately

55.9%

22.2%

14.6%

7.3%

65.6%

21.3%

10.5%

2.6%

Percentage of Operations (and Percentage of Heifer Calves Born on These

Operations During 2006 and Alive at 48 Hours) by Time Following Birth

that Calves Were Normally Separated from Their Dams

Time

Operations Calves
Section I: Population Estimates

40 / Dairy 2007

Photo by Dr. Jason Lombard

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.

c. 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: (Table revised 2-13-2008)

Colostrum 

Delivery Method 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Heifer 

Calves* 

Standard 

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 

*Born during 2006 and alive at 48 hours.
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section I: Population Estimates

For operations that normally hand-fed colostrum, a total of 45.8 percent of

operations 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 in 10

calves (40.1 percent) received 4 quarts or more, while 16.8 percent of calves

received 2 quarts or less during the first 24 hours.

d. For 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:

More than 2, but 4 quarts or more

less than 4 quarts

2 quarts or less

For Operations that Normally Hand-Fed Colostrum, Percentage of

Operations (and Percentage of Heifer Calves Born and Alive at 48 Hours on

These Operations During 2006) by Amount of Colostrum Normally Fed

During the First 24 Hours

Amount Fed

Operations Calves

23.3%

45.8%

30.9%

16.8%

43.1%

40.1%

Amount 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Heifer 

Calves* 

Standard 

Error 

2 quarts or less 23.3 (1.6) 16.8 (1.4) 

More than 2 but 

less than 4 quarts 45.8 (1.9) 43.1 (2.1) 

4 quarts or more 30.9 (1.7) 40.1 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*Born during 2006 and alive at 48 hours.
Section I: Population Estimates

42 / Dairy 2007

About one in 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 from one herd size to the next, ranging from 7.6 percent of small

operations to 45.2 percent of large operations.

e. For 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) 

The most commonly used methods of evaluating colostrum were a colostrometer

and visual appearance (43.7 and 41.6 percent of operations, respectively).

f. For 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 (pounds) 9.7 (2.8) 

Other 5.0 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section I: Population Estimates

Pooling colostrum may increase calves’ exposure to pathogens. About one in 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.

g. For 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) 

0

20

40

60

Small

(Fewer than 100)

Medium

(100 to 499)

Large

(500 or more)

All Operations

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Percent

For Operations that Normally Hand-Fed Colostrum, Percentage of

Operations that Pooled Colostrum from More Than One Cow, by Herd Size

16.0

26.0

56.9

21.0
Section I: Population Estimates

44 / Dairy 2007

Proper collection, handling, storage, and administration of colostrum are

important in reducing the potential for exposing calves to pathogens. The method

of storing colostrum prior to feeding can dramatically impact its quality and

pathogen load. Studies have shown that storing colostrum at warm ambient

temperatures results in a rapid increase of bacterial growth. Refrigerating

colostrum results in intermediate rates of bacterial proliferation compared to

using a preservative and refrigeration to store colostrum.

The majority of small operations (64.8 percent) did not store colostrum, while

only 11.8 percent of large operations did not store colostrum. The highest

percentage of large operations either stored colostrum in a refrigerator (50.5

percent) or freezer (34.7 percent).

h. For operations that normally hand-fed colostrum, percentage of operations by

primary method of storing colostrum and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Primary 

Method* 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 

*No operations reported “other” as a primary method for storing colostrum. 
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section I: Population Estimates

Pasteurizing colostrum is one method of reducing the potential for transmitting

disease to calves. A high-temperature, short-time (HTST) system is one method

of pasteurizing colostrum. However, HTST pasteurizers cause colostrum to gel

and significantly reduce the amount of antibodies present, particularly

immunoglobulin G (IgG). A batch pasteurizer uses a relatively low temperature

and a longer heating time (60oC for 60-120 minutes). Batch pasteurizers do not

cause colostrum to gel or significantly reduce IgG concentrations. It is important

to note that pasteurization decreases pathogens found in colostrum but does not

improve the quality of colostrum in terms of increased maternal antibodies.

Although pasteurization is commonly used for milk and can be used for

colostrum, the technical issues inherent in pasteurization may be one reason that

dairies have been slow to adopt this management practice.

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 to medium and

small operations (0.9 and 0.2 percent, respectively).

i. For 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) 
Section I: Population Estimates

46 / Dairy 2007

Measuring IgG levels or total serum proteins in calves within the first 3 days of

life is a relatively simple method for evaluating colostrum management

programs. 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 to medium and small operations

(2.4 and 1.1 percent, respectively).

j. 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) 

4. Heifer nutrition

A variety of liquid diets are commonly offered to unweaned calves. Recent

literature suggests that feeding medicated milk replacer increases weaning

weights and decreases morbidity and mortality. However, the most important

factor in reducing morbidity and mortality was high levels of passive transfer

provided through colostrum.

Properly pasteurizing and handling waste (nonsaleable) milk or saleable milk

reduces pathogen loads without affecting milk quality. However, managing a

pasteurization system that consistently provides high-quality nutrition to the calf

with decreased pathogens is an intensive process and requires daily monitoring

of equipment and the feeding system.
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section I: Population Estimates

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) 

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 was fed on more

than half of all operations (57.5 percent). A higher percentage of large operations

(28.7 percent) fed pasteurized waste milk compared to 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).

a. Percentage of operations that fed a liquid diet to heifers at any time prior to

weaning during 2006, by type of diet and by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates

48 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of heifers that received liquid diets was similar to the percentage

of operations that fed a liquid diet. Almost half of all heifers (49.9 percent)

received medicated milk replacer at some point prior to weaning.

b. Percentage of heifers that received a liquid diet any time prior to weaning

during 2006, by type of diet 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) 
USDA APHIS VS / 49

Section I: Population Estimates

0 20 40 60

Heifers

Operations

Percent

Percentage of Operations that Fed a Liquid Diet to Heifers at Any Time Prior

to Weaning During 2006, and Percentage of Heifers that Received a Liquid

Diet Any Time Prior to Weaning, by Type of Liquid Diet

Nonmedicated

milk replacer

Medicated

milk replacer

Unpasteurized

waste milk

Pasteurized

waste milk

Unpasteurized

whole

(unsaleable) milk

Pasteurized

whole

(saleable) milk

Other

Liquid Diet

19.1

49.9

20.9

15.0

13.8

1.0

3.0

12.7

57.5

30.6

2.8

28.0

1.4

2.9
Section I: Population Estimates

50 / Dairy 2007

The most common medication in milk replacer at the operation level was

oxytetracycline in combination with neomycin (49.5 percent of operations).

Oxytetracycline and/or decoquinate were fed on nearly one in five operations

(21.9 and 18.8 percent, respectively).

c. Percentage of operations that fed a medicated milk replacer to heifers during

2006, by 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) 

Any medication 57.5 (1.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section I: Population Estimates

Calf-feeding equipment should be cleaned between calves to prevent the spread

of disease from one calf to another. Approximately one in four operations (24.4

percent) cleaned calf-feeding equipment between calves. A higher percentage of

large and medium operations (39.1 and 30.9 percent, respectively) cleaned

equipment between calves compared to small operations (21.4 percent). The

majority of operations (58.5 percent) cleaned equipment daily, and there was no

difference in percentages across herd sizes. 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 reported cleaning

equipment twice daily, but not between calves.

d. 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. 
Section I: Population Estimates

52 / Dairy 2007

Current recommendations for providing water, starter, and hay to calves can be

found in “A Guide to Dairy Calf Feeding and Management,” published by the

BAMN. This publication recommends that calves have fresh water available from

1 day of age. Starter should be introduced at 4 days of age, and calves should be

consuming 1.5 to 2.0 pounds per day prior to weaning. Hay should not be fed

prior to weaning since—compared to calves fed a high quality, properly balanced

starter— it may slow rumen development and growth.

Across all operations, water was offered to calves at 15.3 days of age. 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 8.5 days of

age, and there were no differences in average days across herd sizes. Hay was

offered at increasing days of age as herd size increased, with the average age

operations offered hay at 24.5 days old.

e. Operation average age (days) of unweaned 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) 
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section I: Population Estimates

0

10

20

30

40

50

Hay or other

roughages

Starter grain or

other concentrates

Water

3.1

Small

(Fewer than 100)

Medium

(100 to 499)

Large

(500 or More)

All Operations

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Days Diet

Operation Average Age (Days) of Unweaned Heifers When Heifers were

Routinely Offered the Following Diets, by Herd Size

16.3

8.9

22.1

13.3

7.5

30.9

8.2 7.8

40.0

15.3

8.5

24.5

5. Weaning age

The recommended weaning age for heifers is 6 to 8 weeks and should occur

when calves are consuming 1.5 to 2.0 pounds of starter daily. 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) 
Section I: Population Estimates

54 / Dairy 2007

Approximately one-third of operations (33.2 percent) weaned heifers at 8 weeks,

while another 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 operation 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 
USDA APHIS VS / 55

Section I: Population Estimates

6. Preventive practices

Preventive practices were commonly used for heifers: 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 vitamin 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. 
Section I: Population Estimates

56 / Dairy 2007

Photo by Dr. Jason Lombard

7. 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), and leptospirosis. With the

exception of IBR, PI3, BRSV, Haemophilus somnus, and Mycobacterium avium

subspecies paratuberculosis, a higher percentage of large operations vaccinated

against the listed diseases compared to medium or small operations. 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.
USDA APHIS VS / 57

Section I: Population Estimates

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) 

a. Percentage of operations that normally vaccinated heifers against the

following diseases, by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates

58 / Dairy 2007

Operations in the West region were more likely to vaccinate heifers for the

majority of the listed diseases than operations in the East region. Almost twice

the percentage of operations in the West region vaccinated against Salmonella,

E. coli mastitis, clostridia, brucellosis, and Neospora compared to operations in

the East region.

b. Percentage of operations that normally vaccinated heifers for 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 / 59

Section I: Population Estimates

c. For operations that gave BVD vaccinations to heifers, percentage of

operations by type of BVD vaccine given:

8. BVD testing

Animals persistently infected (PI) with BVD become infected while in utero and

shed large quantities of BVD virus following birth. This high shedding can infect

susceptible animals and create the next generation of PI animals. The most

efficient method of determining if the dam and her calf are PI with BVD is to test

the calf. Since a PI cow will always produce a PI calf, the dam is negative if the

calf tests negative. Few operations (4.0 percent) routinely tested heifer

replacements for PI with BVD. The percentage of operations that did test

increased as herd size increased.

a. Percentage of operations that routinely tested heifer replacements to

determine if animals were PI with BVD, 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 (0.5) 6.7 (1.1) 21.2 (2.4) 4.0 (0.4) 

Type of Vaccine Percent Operations Standard Error 

Killed 43.1 (1.6) 

Modified live 62.2 (1.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates

60 / Dairy 2007

Of operations that tested heifers, the majority (66.8 percent) used individual earnotch tests, while 21.1 percent tested individual serum samples.

b. For operations that routinely tested heifer replacements to determine if

animals were PI with BVD, percentage of operations by testing method used:

D. Heifer Health 1. Births, stillbirths, and dystocia

Delivery of a calf is an important event for both the health of the cow and the calf.

Current literature suggests that the number of stillborn calves appears to be

increasing, with bull calves more likely to be born dead than heifer calves.

Additionally, calves born to older cows are less likely to be stillborn or require

assistance during calving, compared to first-calf heifers.

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

was alive at 48 hours. Of the calves born during 2006, 93.5 percent were alive at

48 hours, while 6.5 percent were either born dead or died prior to 48 hours of

age. Almost one in five calves (17.2 percent) needed assistance during delivery.

Essentially, half the calves born and alive at 48 hours (50.8 percent) were heifer

calves.

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

1, 2007, cow inventory:

Percent Standard Error 

86.0 (0.6) 

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) 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section I: Population Estimates

b. Calves born alive and dead, as a percentage of calves born during 2006:

Calf Status Percent Calves Standard Error 

Born and alive at 48 hours 93.5 (0.1) 

Stillborn (born dead or 

died within 48 hours of birth) 6.5 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 

c. Calves that required any assistance during birth (dystocia), as a percentage of

calves born during 2006:

Percent Standard Error 

17.2 (0.6) 

d. Heifer calves as a percentage of all calves born during 2006 and alive at 48

hours:

Percent Standard Error 

50.8 (0.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates

62 / Dairy 2007

E. Cow Management 1. Source of cow replacements

Cow replacements born and raised on the operation entered the milking string

during 2006 on the majority of operations (89.8 percent). Replacements

accounted for over one-third of cow inventory (38.4 percent). Almost all

operations (97.0 percent) had some replacements enter the milking string during

2006.

Percentage of operations (and percentage of cow inventory) by source of cow

replacements that entered the milking string in 2006:

Replacement Source

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows* 

Standard 

Error 

Born and raised 

on operation 89.8 (0.8) 27.8 (0.8) 

Born on operation 

raised off operation 6.8 (0.6) 8.0 (0.7) 

Born off operation 14.1 (1.0) 2.6 (0.2) 

Any replacements 97.0 (0.5) 38.4 (0.8) 

*Number of replacements that entered the milking string during 2006, as a percentage of the 

January 1, 2007, cow inventory

Photo by Judy Rodriguez
USDA APHIS VS / 63

Section I: Population Estimates

2. Housing facilities

Animal housing designs play an important role in maximizing animal health,

especially with the diverse climates across the United States. Housing for

unweaned calves should provide a dry area with shelter that does not allow

contact with other calves or older animals, especially. Hutches or individual

animal pens usually are recommended for unweaned calves. Weaned heifers

are more commonly grouped with animals of similar age. Lactating and dry cows

are typically housed in facilities somewhat determined by local climate.

The majority of operations (74.9 percent) housed unweaned heifers in individual

animal pens or hutches at some point during 2006. Approximately half the

operations housed weaned heifers on pasture and/or in inside or outside

multiple-animal areas (49.2, 55.6, and 44.6 percent of operations, respectively).

Lactating cows were frequently housed in tie stall/stanchion barns, pasture, and

freestalls (62.6, 49.4, and 41.1 percent of operations, respectively). Dry cows

commonly had access to pasture on 60.1 percent of operations and to drylot/

multiple-animal outside areas on 40.0 percent of operations.

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

2006, and by cattle class:

Percent Operations 

 Cattle Class 

Unweaned 

Heifers 

Weaned 

Heifers 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry Cows

(Nonlactating) 

Housing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/stanchion 12.1 (1.0) 12.2 (1.0) 62.6 (1.0) 32.7 (1.3) 

Freestall 5.6 (0.7) 20.9 (1.2) 41.1 (1.2) 30.9 (1.2) 

Individual 

pen/hutch 74.9 (1.3) 15.6 (1.1) 3.2 (0.5) 4.4 (0.6) 

Drylot/multiple 

animal outside 

area 5.2 (0.7) 44.6 (1.4) 26.8 (1.2) 40.0 (1.3) 

Multiple animal 

inside area 23.6 (1.3) 55.6 (1.5) 14.7 (1.0) 27.3 (1.2) 

Pasture 6.3 (0.7) 49.2 (1.5) 49.4 (1.4) 60.1 (1.4) 

Other 1.5 (0.3) 1.8 (0.4) 0.4 (0.1) 1.1 (0.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates

64 / Dairy 2007

The most common primary housing types were individual-animal pens/hutches

for unweaned heifers, multiple-animal inside areas for weaned heifers, and tie

stall/stanchion barns for lactating cows. The percentages of dry cow primary

housing were similar for tie stall/stanchion, freestall, drylot/multiple-animal

outside housing, and pasture.

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

2006, and by cattle class:

Percent Operations 

Cattle Class 

Unweaned 

Heifers 

Weaned 

Heifers 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry Cows 

(Nonlactating) 

Housing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/stanchion 8.9 (0.8) 5.9 (0.7) 49.2 (1.3) 23.3 (1.3) 

Freestall 2.7 (0.5) 12.1 (0.9) 32.6 (1.1) 22.8 (1.1) 

Individual 

pen/hutch 67.9 (1.3) 5.3 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.3) 

Drylot/multiple 

animal outside 

area 0.6 (0.2) 22.9 (1.1) 4.6 (0.5) 18.7 (1.0) 

Multiple animal 

inside area 14.2 (1.1) 34.6 (1.4) 3.4 (0.6) 12.9 (0.9) 

Pasture 0.6 (0.2) 10.8 (0.9) 9.9 (0.8) 20.5 (1.1) 

Not housed on 

operation 4.7 (0.5) 7.7 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.1) 

Other 0.4 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 65

Section I: Population Estimates

Photo by Dr. Jason Lombard

Separating dry cows from lactating cows allows the producer to formulate

different diets to meet the specific needs of each group. Limiting potassium

intake and providing anionic salts to dry cows are two preventive practices for

milk fever that 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.

c. Percentage of operations where 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) 
Section I: Population Estimates

66 / Dairy 2007

3. Milking facilities

The majority of operations (60.3 percent) had a tie stall/stanchion milking facility.

Although just 39.5 percent of operations used parlors, 78.2 percent of cows were

on operations that milked in parlors.

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

primary milking facility used in 2006:

Facility Type

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows* 

Standard 

Error 

Parlor 39.5 (1.0) 78.2 (0.6) 

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

Other 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

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

0

20

40

60

80

Cows

Operations

39.5

78.2

60.3

21.8

0.2 0.0

Parlor Tie stall/stanchion Other

Facility Type

Percentage of Operations (and Percentage of Cows* on These Operations) by

Primary Milking Facility Used in 2006

Percent

As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory
USDA APHIS VS / 67

Section I: Population Estimates

Herringbone and parallel parlors were the two most common parlor types. Over

half of operations that used parlors (54.4 percent) used a herringbone parlor, and

these operations accounted for 48.7 percent of cows. Approximately one-fifth of

operations (19.7 percent) used a parallel parlor to milk, and 30.6 percent of cows

were on these operations.

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

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

Parlor Type

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows* 

Standard 

Error 

Side-opening 

(tandem) 6.6 (0.9) 3.7 (0.7) 

Herringbone 

(fishbone) 54.4 (1.8) 48.7 (1.9) 

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

Parabone 

(herringbone-parallel 

hybrid) 3.8 (0.6) 3.8 (0.6) 

Swing 2.2 (0.6) 0.8 (0.2) 

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

Flat barn 9.9 (1.2) 6.2 (0.8) 

Other 2.3 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory.
Section I: Population Estimates

68 / Dairy 2007

4. Cow nutrition

Nutrition is an important component of herd health and productivity. The majority

of operations used either a feed company nutritionist or the owner/operator for

balancing rations fed to cows (41.6 and 36.1 percent of operations, respectively).

The percentage of operations that used an independent nutritionist to balance

rations increased as herd size increased. The percentage of operations that

used the owner/operator to balance rations decreased from 42.2 percent of small

operations to 16.6 percent of large operations. Very few operations used an

employee or veterinarian to balance feed rations.

a. Percentage of operations by person primarily responsible for balancing feed

rations, 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 

Employee 

(nonveterinarian) 2.7 (0.6) 3.5 (1.0) 2.5 (1.0) 2.8 (0.5) 

Independent 

nutritionist 13.7 (1.3) 26.3 (2.1) 42.9 (2.6) 18.0 (1.0) 

Feed company 

nutritionist 40.0 (1.7) 47.7 (2.3) 37.2 (2.9) 41.6 (1.4) 

Veterinarian 1.1 (0.3) 1.2 (0.5) 0.8 (0.3) 1.1 (0.3) 

Operator/owner 42.2 (1.8) 20.8 (1.9) 16.6 (2.5) 36.1 (1.4) 

Other 0.3 (0.2) 0.5 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Section I: Population Estimates

0 10 20 30 40 50

500 or more

100 to 499

Fewer than 100

Percent

Percentage of Operations by Person Primarily Responsible for Balancing

Feed Rations, and by Herd Size

Employee

(nonveterinarian)

Independent

nutritionist

Feed company

nutritionist

Veterinarian

Operator/

owner

Other

Person

0.5

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

2.7

3.5

2.5

13.7

26.3

42.9

40.0

47.7

37.2

1.1

1.2

0.8

42.2

20.8

16.6

0.3

0.0
Section I: Population Estimates

70 / Dairy 2007

Approximately half of operations (51.1 percent) fed a total mixed ration. Feeding

a total mixed ration has the advantage of providing a consistent mixture of feeds

to the cow and her rumen environment. Only 37.8 percent of small operations

fed a total mixed ration, compared to 94.1 percent of large operations. This

practice may be much more common in large herds because there are enough

cows in a similar stage of lactation and/or level of milk production, and the facility

design usually accommodates the efficient formulation of a total mixed ration.

b. Percentage of operations that fed a total mixed ration, 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 

37.8 (1.6) 84.7 (1.7) 94.1 (1.4) 51.1 (1.3) 

A higher percentage of operations with RHA milk production of 20,000 lb/cow or

more (70.7 percent) fed a total mixed ration, compared to 23.5 percent of

operations with an RHA milk production of less than 16,000 lb/cow.

c. Percentage of operations that fed a total mixed ration, by RHA milk production

(lb/cow):

 Percent Operations 

RHA Milk Production (lb/cow)

Less Than 16,000 16,000 to 19,999 20,000 or More

Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

23.5 (2.4) 42.7 (2.3) 70.7 (1.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 71

Section I: Population Estimates

Forage test results were used to balance feed rations on three of four operations

(75.5 percent). A lower percentage of small operations (70.1 percent) used

forage test results to balance feed rations compared to medium and large

operations (89.9 and 90.7 percent, respectively).

d. Percentage of operations that used forage test results to balance feed rations,

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 

70.1 (1.7) 89.9 (1.4) 90.7 (1.8) 75.5 (1.2) 

The use of pasture decreased as herd size increased. The majority of small

operations (68.7 percent) relied on pasture for forage while less than 1 in 5 large

operations (18.6 percent) allowed cows access to pasture during the growing

season. More than half of operations (58.9 percent) used pasture during the

growing season to provide part of the ration forage component. The percentage

of cows that had access to pasture also decreased as herd size increased, with

33.0 percent of all cows having access to pasture.

e. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on these operations) that

relied on pasture during the growing season to provide part of the ration forage

component for cows, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Dairy 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 

Operations 68.7 (1.6) 36.6 (2.2) 18.6 (2.3) 58.9 (1.3) 

Cows 64.3 (1.7) 34.5 (2.1) 16.1 (2.0) 33.0 (1.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates

72 / Dairy 2007

5. Number of bulls

The percentage of operations that used bulls for breeding increased as herd size

increased. Approximately half of small operations (46.3 percent) used bulls for

breeding compared to 82.6 percent of large operations.

a. Percentage of operations by the number of bulls in the January 1, 2007,

inventory used for breeding dairy cows or heifers, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Dairy Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Number of 

Bulls Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 53.7 (1.8) 38.1 (2.3) 17.4 (1.7) 48.3 (1.4) 

1 31.9 (1.7) 22.6 (1.9) 6.5 (1.6) 28.5 (1.3) 

2 to 4 14.2 (1.2) 31.8 (2.1) 22.8 (2.2) 18.6 (1.0) 

5 or more 0.2 (0.1) 7.5 (0.9) 53.3 (2.5) 4.6 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

b. Of all bulls present on January 1, 2007, used for breeding dairy cows and

heifers, percentage of bulls that were dairy bulls:

Percent Bulls* Standard Error 

87.3 (2.1) 

*Number of dairy bulls used for breeding dairy cattle, as a percentage of all bulls used for breeding 

dairy cattle. 
USDA APHIS VS / 73

Section I: Population Estimates

6. Adverse drug reactions

Adverse reactions, which include a lump or swelling at the injection site, hives,

abortion, collapse, or death, can occur following the administration of preventive

or therapeutic products. Only 12.7 percent of operations had at least one

adverse reaction on their operation during 2006.

a. Percentage of operations with at least one cow that had an adverse reaction to

an injection during 2006:

Percent Operations Standard Error 

12.7 (0.8) 

The most common adverse reaction was a lump or swelling at the injection site

(75.9 percent of operations). Loss of milk production was observed on 31.4

percent of operations reporting an adverse reaction.

b. For operations with at least one cow that had an adverse reaction to an

injection, percentage of operations with any cows displaying clinical signs:

Clinical Sign Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Collapse 19.7 (2.8) 

Hives 12.7 (2.1) 

Abortion 13.2 (2.1) 

Lump or swelling at injection site 75.9 (3.0) 

Loss of milk production 31.4 (3.3) 

Lack of product efficacy 5.4 (1.7) 

Fever 11.1 (2.3) 

Lethargy 9.4 (2.1) 

Respiratory disease 6.3 (1.6) 

Infertility 4.5 (1.4) 

Other 6.0 (1.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates

74 / Dairy 2007

For operations with at least one cow that had an adverse reaction to an injection,

approximately one in three operations (29.8 percent) had a veterinarian examine

any cows with adverse reactions.

c. For operations with at least one cow that had an adverse reaction to an

injection, percentage of operations that had a veterinarian examine any cows

with an adverse reaction:

Percent Operations Standard Error 

29.8 (3.2) 

Vaccines, veterinary drugs, and medicated feeds are regulated by two different

governmental agencies: vaccines and other biologics are regulated by the

USDA’s Centers for Veterinary Biologics; veterinary drugs, medicated feeds, and

animal devices are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, Center for

Veterinary Medicine. Both agencies strongly encourage producers encountering

any problems with veterinary products, including adverse reactions in animals, to

contact the manufacturer and report the event prior to contacting the appropriate

regulatory agency. Both agencies have Web sites where the adverse event can

be reported.

To report adverse events associated with vaccines and other biologics, contact

USDA—Center for Veterinary Biologics:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/cvb/html/adverseeventreport.html.

Adverse events associated with drugs, medicated feeds, and animal devices

should be reported to the FDA—Center for Veterinary Medicine:

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/adetoc.htm.

Nearly half of operations (47.1 percent) reported the adverse reaction to their

veterinarian. No producers reported reactions to either USDA or FDA, and only

3.9 percent of operations reported adverse reactions to the manufacturer. More

than half of operations (52.4 percent) did not report the adverse reaction.
USDA APHIS VS / 75

Section I: Population Estimates

d. For operations with at least one cow that had an adverse reaction to an

injection, percentage of operations that reported any adverse reaction, by official

reported to:

Official Percent Operations Standard Error 

Veterinarian 47.1 (3.5) 

Manufacturer 3.9 (1.1) 

USDA’s Center for Veterinary Biologics 0.0 (--) 

FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine 0.0 (--) 

Other 0.3 (0.3) 

Did not report adverse reaction 52.4 (3.5) 

7. Preventive practices

Almost all operations (95.3 percent) used some preventive practice for cows.

Providing vitamin A-D-E or selenium in feed and deworming were the most

frequently practiced preventives given on 80.2, 76.1, and 63.3 percent of

operations, respectively.

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

preventive practices normally used for cows:

Preventive Practice

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows* 

Standard 

Error 

Dewormers 63.3 (1.4) 46.0 (1.3) 

Ionophores in feed 

(e.g., Rumensin®

) 26.8 (1.1) 40.0 (1.5) 

Vitamins A-D-E 

injection 12.9 (0.8) 20.2 (1.2) 

Vitamins A-D-E 

in feed 80.2 (1.2) 79.3 (1.2) 

Selenium injection 14.9 (0.9) 19.8 (1.2) 

Selenium in feed 76.1 (1.2) 73.5 (1.3) 

Probiotics 26.1 (1.2) 34.8 (1.6) 

Anionic salts in closeup dry cow feed 26.7 (1.2) 44.5 (1.5) 

Limited potassium in 

dry cow ration 46.9 (1.4) 62.8 (1.4) 

Other 3.6 (0.6) 2.8 (0.4) 

Any preventive 95.3 (0.7) 96.0 (0.7) 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory. 
Section I: Population Estimates

76 / Dairy 2007

8. Vaccination practices

Approximately four of five operations (82.2 percent) vaccinated cows. With the

exception of “other” disease, a lower percentage of small operations vaccinated

against any single disease listed in the table below compared to medium and

large operations. Compared to medium operations, a higher percentage of large

operations vaccinated against BVD, Salmonella, E. coli mastitis, and clostridia.

Vaccinating for any disease increased as herd size increased, with 77.8, 92.7,

and 98.4 percent of small, medium, and large operations, respectively,

vaccinating for any disease.

a. Percentage of operations that normally vaccinated cows 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) 69.8 (1.7) 87.2 (1.6) 95.7 (1.0) 75.0 (1.3) 

Infectious bovine 

rhinotracheitis 

(IBR) 66.1 (1.7) 84.3 (1.7) 88.0 (2.1) 71.3 (1.3) 

Parainfluenza 

Type 3 (PI3) 58.0 (1.8) 72.3 (2.0) 72.9 (2.5) 61.9 (1.4) 

Bovine respiratory 

syncytial virus 

(BRSV) 59.9 (1.8) 78.1 (1.8) 79.4 (2.5) 65.0 (1.4) 

Haemophilus 

somnus 30.8 (1.7) 41.3 (2.3) 40.8 (2.9) 33.6 (1.3) 

Leptospirosis 65.6 (1.7) 81.1 (1.8) 84.3 (2.4) 70.0 (1.3) 

Salmonella 16.2 (1.3) 37.9 (2.3) 55.1 (3.0) 23.0 (1.1) 

E. coli mastitis 25.3 (1.5) 50.0 (2.3) 79.1 (2.5) 33.5 (1.2) 

Clostridia 20.7 (1.5) 42.7 (2.2) 60.8 (2.9) 27.7 (1.2) 

Neospora 3.6 (0.7) 10.7 (1.6) 17.8 (2.3) 5.9 (0.6) 

Other 7.6 (0.9) 6.6 (1.1) 7.7 (1.5) 7.4 (0.7) 

Any vaccination 77.8 (1.5) 92.7 (1.2) 98.4 (0.5) 82.2 (1.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 77

Section I: Population Estimates

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

diseases, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Disease Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) 82.2 (2.5) 74.4 (1.3) 

Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis 

(IBR) 73.6 (2.8) 71.1 (1.4) 

Parainfluenza Type 3 (PI3) 59.7 (3.0) 62.1 (1.5) 

Bovine respiratory syncytial virus 

(BRSV) 66.8 (3.0) 64.8 (1.5) 

Haemophilus somnus 30.9 (2.8) 33.8 (1.4) 

Leptospirosis 74.7 (2.8) 69.6 (1.4) 

Salmonella 44.5 (3.0) 21.3 (1.2) 

E. coli mastitis 62.1 (2.9) 31.2 (1.3) 

Clostridia 53.7 (3.1) 25.6 (1.3) 

Neospora 14.2 (2.3) 5.3 (0.6) 

Other 6.6 (1.4) 7.4 (0.8) 

Any disease 89.7 (2.2) 81.6 (1.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates

78 / Dairy 2007

9. Types of BVD vaccine

A higher percentage of operations administered killed versus modified live

vaccines to cows (56.3 and 48.9 percent, respectively).

a. For operations that gave BVD vaccinations to cows, percentage of operations

by type of BVD vaccine given:

Type of Vaccine Percent Operations Standard Error 

Killed 56.3 (1.6) 

Modified live 48.9 (1.6) 

For operations that administered BVD vaccine, 60.8 percent reported that the

vaccine contained both Type I and Type II strains. Approximately one-quarter of

operations (27.2 percent) did not know which strain was included in the vaccine.

b. For operations that gave BVD vaccinations, percentage of operations by strain

of BVD contained in vaccine administered:

BVD Strain Percent Operations Standard Error 

Type I only 4.3 (0.6) 

Type II only 7.7 (0.8) 

Combination (Type I and Type II) 60.8 (1.5) 

Did not know 27.2 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 

More than four of five operations that administered BVD vaccine to cows (80.2

percent) reported giving annual booster vaccines.

c. For operations that gave BVD vaccinations to cows, percentage of operations

that gave annual BVD booster injections:

Percent Operations Standard Error 

80.2 (1.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 79

Section I: Population Estimates

10. Bovine somatotropin (bST)

A total of 15.2 percent of operations used bST on 17.2 percent of cows. As herd

size increased so did the percentage of operations that used bST, ranging from

9.1 percent of small operations to 42.7 percent of large operations.

a. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows milked on January 1, 2007)

that used bST in cows during the current lactation (at the time of the Dairy 2007

interview), by herd size:

Percent 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Operations 9.1 (0.9) 28.8 (2.0) 42.7 (2.5) 15.2 (0.8) 

Cows 6.2 (0.7) 17.7 (1.4) 22.6 (1.5) 17.2 (0.8) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cows

Operations

Small

(Fewer than 100)

Medium

(100 to 499)

Large

(500 or more)

All Operations

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Percentage of Operations (and Percentage of Cows Milked on January 1,

2007) that Used bST in Cows During the Current Lactation (at the Time of

the Dairy 2007 Interview), by Herd Size

Percent

9.1

6.2

28.8

17.7

42.7

22.6

15.2

17.2
Section I: Population Estimates

80 / Dairy 2007

Although the percentages of operations that used bST were similar between

regions, a higher percentage of cows in the East region (20.8 percent) received

bST compared to 12.3 percent in the West region.

b. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows milked on January 1, 2007)

that used bST in cows during the current lactation (at the time of the Dairy 2007

interview), by region:

Percent 

Region 

West East 

Measure Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Operations 16.3 (1.6) 15.1 (0.9) 

Cows 12.3 (1.3) 20.8 (1.1) 

Operations that used bST on at least some cows had a RHA milk production of

3,000 to 5,000 lb/cow more milk compared to operations that did not use bST.

Operations that used bST had a RHA of 23,304 lb/cow compared to 18,433 lb/

cow for operations that did not use bST.

c. Operation average RHA milk production (lb/cow) by bST use and by herd size:

Operation Average 

Herd Size (Number of Dairy Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

bST Used Lb/Cow 

Std. 

Error Lb/Cow 

Std. 

Error Lb/Cow 

Std. 

Error Lb/Cow 

Std. 

Error 

Yes 22,490 (392) 23,705 (281) 24,576 (249) 23,304 (210) 

No 17,980 (142) 19,783 (184) 21,278 (275) 18,433 (118) 
USDA APHIS VS / 81

Section I: Population Estimates

F. Cow Health 1. Abortions

Abortion is a term generally used to describe the expulsion of a dead fetus from

45 to 265 days of gestation. A goal is to have less than 2 percent of cows and

heifers abort each year, although up to 5 percent is considered normal. The

overall abortion percentage (including both heifers and cows) was 4.5 percent

during 2006. The abortion percentage was higher for cows than for heifers (5.0

and 3.3 percent, respectively). Large operations had a higher percentage of

abortions than medium and small operations.

a. Percentage of heifers, cows, and both heifers and cows (number aborted

divided by inventory) that aborted during 2006, by herd size:

Percent Abortions 

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* 2.4 (0.2) 2.8 (0.2) 4.1 (0.4) 3.3 (0.2) 

Cows** 4.4 (0.2) 4.1 (0.2) 5.8 (0.4) 5.0 (0.2) 

Both heifers 

and cows*** 3.7 (0.1) 3.7 (0.1) 5.3 (0.3) 4.5 (0.2) 

*Breeding age or older heifers on January 1, 2007 

**Cow inventory minus breeding age and older heifers on January 1, 2007 

***Cow inventory on January 1, 2007 
Section I: Population Estimates

82 / Dairy 2007

Over one-third of operations (38.2 percent) reported an abortion percentage of

less than 2.0 percent. Less than 5 percent of cows and heifers aborted on 72.5

of operations, while on 6.9 percent of operations 10 percent or more of cows and

heifers aborted during 2006.

b. Percentage of operations by reported total abortion percentage:

Abortion Percentage Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 2.0 38.2 (1.4) 

2.0 to 4.9 34.3 (1.3) 

5.0 to 9.9 20.6 (1.1) 

10.0 to 14.9 4.9 (0.6) 

15.0 or more 2.0 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 83

Section I: Population Estimates

2. Cow morbidity

During 2006, more than 80 percent of operations identified at least one case of

clinical mastitis, lameness, retained placenta, infertility problems, or milk fever.

With the exception of “other” health related problems, a higher percentage of

large operations than small operations observed at least one cow with health

problems. Large operations would be expected to observe more health problems

due to the larger numbers of cows at risk for developing any health problem. All

medium and large operations (100.0 percent) observed at least one case of

clinical mastitis, lameness, and milk fever. Neurological problems and “other”

health-related problems were identified on 10.7 and 7.7 percent of all operations,

respectively.

a. Percentage of operations by producer-identified health problems occurring in

cows during 2006, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

ProducerIdentified Health 

Problem Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Clinical mastitis 93.0 (1.0) 100.0 (--) 100.0 (--) 94.9 (0.8) 

Lameness 83.4 (1.4) 100.0 (--) 100.0 (--) 87.9 (1.0) 

Respiratory 

problems 38.0 (1.7) 98.1 (0.8) 100.0 (--) 51.5 (1.4) 

Retained placenta 

(more than 24 

hours) 76.9 (1.5) 99.7 (0.2) 100.0 (--) 82.6 (1.2) 

Infertility problems 

(not pregnant 150 

days after calving) 78.2 (1.5) 99.2 (0.4) 100.0 (--) 83.5 (1.1) 

Other 

reproductive 

problems (e.g., 

dystocia, metritis) 31.0 (1.6) 58.1 (2.2) 67.4 (2.7) 38.8 (1.3) 

Diarrhea for more 

than 48 hours 28.7 (1.6) 51.0 (2.3) 72.6 (2.8) 35.7 (1.3) 

Milk fever 77.9 (1.5) 100.0 (--) 100.0 (--) 83.5 (1.2) 

Displaced 

abomasum 51.2 (1.7) 98.9 (0.4) 100.0 (--) 62.3 (1.4) 

Neurological 

problems 7.6 (1.0) 18.1 (1.7) 23.5 (2.3) 10.7 (0.8) 

Other healthrelated problems 7.4 (1.0) 8.3 (1.3) 10.0 (1.7) 7.7 (0.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates

84 / Dairy 2007

The three most prevalent diseases reported in cows were clinical mastitis,

lameness, and infertility problems (16.5, 14.0, and 12.9 percent of cows,

respectively). Small operations reported a lower percentage of cows with

infertility problems and other reproductive problems compared to medium and

large operations, while large operations reported a lower percentage of cows with

retained placenta, diarrhea for more than 48 hours, milk fever, and displaced

abomasum compared to medium and small operations.

b. Percentage of cows* by producer-identified health problems occurring in cows

during 2006, and by herd size:

Percent Cows* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

ProducerIdentified Health 

Problem Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Clinical mastitis 16.5 (0.5) 14.8 (0.6) 17.5 (1.0) 16.5 (0.5) 

Lameness 13.2 (0.5) 15.6 (0.6) 13.5 (0.8) 14.0 (0.4) 

Respiratory 

problems 2.5 (0.2) 4.1 (0.3) 3.4 (0.3) 3.3 (0.1) 

Retained placenta 

(more than 24 

hours) 8.9 (0.3) 8.9 (0.3) 6.4 (0.4) 7.8 (0.2) 

Infertility problems 

(not pregnant 150 

days after calving) 10.8 (0.4) 13.2 (0.5) 14.1 (0.6) 12.9 (0.3) 

Other 

reproductive 

problems (e.g., 

dystocia, metritis) 3.4 (0.2) 5.0 (0.3) 5.0 (0.5) 4.6 (0.3) 

Diarrhea for more 

than 48 hours 3.9 (0.5) 2.5 (0.3) 1.6 (0.1) 2.5 (0.2) 

Milk fever 6.6 (0.2) 5.9 (0.3) 3.0 (0.2) 4.9 (0.1) 

Displaced 

abomasum 3.6 (0.2) 4.8 (0.2) 2.5 (0.2) 3.5 (0.1) 

Neurological 

problems 0.3 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0) 0.2 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0) 

Other healthrelated problems 0.8 (0.2) 1.0 (0.4) 0.2 (0.0) 0.6 (0.1) 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory 
USDA APHIS VS / 85

Section I: Population Estimates

0 5 10 15 20

Clinical

mastitis

Lameness

Respiratory

problems

Retained

placenta

Infertility

problems

Other reproductive

problems

Diarrhea

Milk fever

Displaced

abomasum

Neurological

problems

Other healthrelated problems

16.5

14.0

3.3

7.8

12.9

4.6

2.5

4.9

3.5

0.3

0.6

Percent

ProducerIdentified

Health Problem

Percentage of Cows* by Producer-Identified Health Problems Occuring in

Cows During 2006

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory
Section I: Population Estimates

86 / Dairy 2007

3. Permanently removed cows

The vast majority of operations permanently removed at least one cow during

2006, regardless of herd size.

a. Percentage of operations that permanently removed any cows from the

operation (excluding cows that died) 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 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

96.5 (0.8) 98.7 (0.7) 97.3 (0.8) 97.0 (0.6) 

There were no differences by region in the percentages of operations that

permanently removed at least one cow during 2006.

b. Percentage of operations that permanently removed any cows from the

operation (excluding cows that died) during 2006, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

94.7 (2.2) 97.2 (0.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 87

Section I: Population Estimates

Approximately one in four cows (23.6 percent) was permanently removed from

operations (excluding cows that died) during 2006. The percentages of

permanently removed cows were not different across herd sizes or between

regions.

c. Percentage of cows permanently removed from operations (excluding cows

that died) during 2006, by herd size:

d. Percentage of cows permanently removed from operations (excluding cows

that died) during 2006, by region:

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 

24.1 (0.6) 23.7 (0.5) 23.4 (0.7) 23.6 (0.4) 

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

Percent Cows* 

Region 

West East 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

22.8 (0.7) 24.3 (0.4) 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory
Section I: Population Estimates

88 / Dairy 2007

For operations that permanently removed cows during 2006, the majority (85.5

percent) sent some cows to a market, auction, or stockyard. Of permanently

removed cows, the majority (76.2 percent) were sent to a market, auction, or

stockyard.

e. For operations that permanently removed cows (excluding cows that died)

during 2006, percentage of operations and percentage of cows removed, by

destination of removed cows:

Percent 

Operations Cows 

Destination Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Directly to another dairy 14.3 (1.0) 5.5 (0.7) 

Market, auction, or 

stockyard 85.5 (1.0) 76.2 (1.1) 

Directly to a packer 

or slaughter plant 26.5 (1.2) 17.5 (1.3) 

Sent elsewhere 3.7 (0.6) 0.8 (0.3) 

Total NA 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 89

Section I: Population Estimates

For operations that permanently removed cows, the highest percentages

removed some cows because of udder or mastitis problems, reproductive

problems, and lameness or injury (79.2, 78.8, and 65.6 percent of operations,

respectively). Of permanently removed cows, 26.3 percent were removed for

reproductive problems and 23.0 percent for udder or mastitis problems.

Lameness or injury and poor production not related to other listed problems led

to the permanent removal of 16.0 and 16.1 percent of cows, respectively. Only

5.8 percent of permanently removed cows were sold to another dairy as

replacement animals. Almost one in six operations (16.8 percent) reported

“other” as a reason for permanently removing cows. These operations accounted

for 8.4 percent of the cows permanently removed. Reasons listed in the “other”

category included specific diseases such as Johne’s disease or reductions in

herd size, but the majority of operations did not specify a reason.

f. For operations that permanently removed cows (excluding cows that died)

during 2006, percentage of operations and percentage of cows removed, by

producer-reported reason:

ProducerReported ReasonPercent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Udder or mastitis 

problem 79.2 (1.2) 23.0 (0.6) 

Lameness or injury 65.6 (1.4) 16.0 (0.4) 

Reproductive 

problems 78.8 (1.2) 26.3 (0.7) 

Poor production 

not related 

to above problems 47.2 (1.4) 16.1 (0.7) 

Aggressiveness or 

belligerence 

(kickers) 9.6 (0.9) 0.7 (0.1) 

Other diseases 15.4 (1.0) 3.7 (0.2) 

Sold as 

replacement 

animals to 

another dairy 14.7 (1.0) 5.8 (0.7) 

Other reasons 16.8 (1.1) 8.4 (1.1) 

Total NA 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

90 / Dairy 2007

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Udder or

mastitis problem

Lameness

or injury

Reproductive

problems

Poor production

not related to

above problems

Aggressiveness

or belligerence

Other diseases

Sold to another dairy

as replacement

 animals

Other reasons

7.8

Percent

ProducerReported

Reason

For Operations That Permanently Removed Cows, Percentage of Cows

Removed, by Producer-Reported Reason

23.0

16.0

26.3

16.1

0.7

3.7

5.8

8.4
USDA APHIS VS / 91

Section I: Population Estimates

G. Heifer and

Cow Mortality

1. Mortality

Compared to small operations, large operations had a lower percentage of

unweaned heifer deaths but a higher percentage of cow deaths. Unweaned

heifer deaths during 2006 accounted for the highest percentage of deaths among

the animal classes at 7.8 percent, while 5.7 percent of cows and 1.8 percent of

weaned heifers died.

a. Percentage of unweaned heifers, weaned heifers, and cows 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 

Unweaned 

heifers* 8.3 (0.4) 9.1 (0.4) 6.5 (0.4) 7.8 (0.2) 

Weaned 

heifers** 1.5 (0.1) 2.0 (0.1) 1.8 (0.1) 1.8 (0.1) 

Cows*** 4.8 (0.1) 5.8 (0.2) 6.1 (0.2) 5.7 (0.1) 

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

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

***As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory.
Section I: Population Estimates

92 / Dairy 2007

0

2

4

6

8

10

All Operations

500 or more

100 to 499

Fewer than 100

Percent Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Percentage of Unweaned Heifers, Weaned Heifers, and Cows that Died

During 2006, by Herd Size

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

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

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

8.3

9.1

6.5

7.8

1.5

2.0 1.8 1.8

4.8

5.8 6.1

5.7

Unweaned heifers* Weaned heifers** Cows***

Cattle Class
USDA APHIS VS / 93

Section I: Population Estimates

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 unweaned heifers, weaned heifers, or cows (8.0, 7.1,

and 13.0 percent, respectively) in order to determine cause of death. With the

exception of weaned heifers, the percentage of operations that performed any

necropsy for a particular cattle class increased as herd size increased. Less than

1 in 10 small operations (8.4 percent) performed necropsies on cows compared

to 33.3 percent of large operations.

b. 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 

Unweaned 

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) 

Cows 8.4 (1.0) 20.2 (1.8) 33.3 (2.7) 13.0 (0.9) 

Approximately 4 percent of deaths within any cattle class were necropsied to

determine the cause of death. There were no substantial differences in the

percentages of deaths necropsied among animal classes or herd sizes.

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

percentage of unweaned heifer deaths, weaned heifer deaths, and cow deaths

where necropsies were performed to determine cause of death, by herd size:

Percent Deaths Necropsied 

Herd Size (Number of Dairy 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 

Unweaned 

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) 

Cows 4.4 (0.7) 6.0 (0.9) 3.5 (0.4) 4.4 (0.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates

94 / Dairy 2007

Scours, diarrhea, or other digestive problems accounted for the highest

percentage of unweaned 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), with unknown reasons, lameness or injury,

scours, diarrhea or other digestive problems each accounting for between 12

and 15 percent of deaths. The single largest cause of cow deaths was lameness

or injury (20.0 percent), followed by mastitis (16.5 percent), calving problems

(15.2 percent), and unknown reasons (15.0 percent).

d. Percentage of unweaned heifer deaths, weaned heifer deaths, and cow

deaths, by producer-attributed cause:

Percent Deaths 

Unweaned Heifers Weaned Heifers Cows 

ProducerAttributed Cause Percent Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Scours, diarrhea, or 

other digestive problems 56.5 (1.3) 12.6 (1.0) 10.4 (0.5) 

Respiratory problems 22.5 (0.9) 46.5 (1.7) 11.3 (0.7) 

Poison 0.0 (0.0) 1.9 (0.9) 0.4 (0.1) 

Lameness or injury 1.7 (0.3) 12.8 (1.0) 20.0 (0.8) 

Lack of coordination, 

severe depression, or 

other CNS 0.3 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 1.0 (0.1) 

Mastitis 16.5 (0.7) 

Calving problems 5.3 (0.7) 15.2 (0.7) 

Joint or navel problems 1.6 (0.3) 1.0 (0.3) 

Other known reasons 4.3 (0.7) 9.9 (1.0) 10.2 (0.8) 

Unknown reason 7.8 (0.9) 14.6 (1.2) 15.0 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 95

Section I: Population Estimates

Scours, diarrhea, or

other digestive problems

Respiratory problems

Poison

Lameness or injury

Lack of coordination,

severe depression,

or other CNS

Mastitis

Calving problems

Other known reasons

Unknown reason

Percentage of Cow Deaths, by Producer-Attributed Cause

Cause

10.4

0 5 10 15 20

11.3

0.4

20.0

1.0

16.5

15.2

10.2

15.0

Percent
Section I: Population Estimates

96 / Dairy 2007

2. Carcass disposal

Rendering and burial were the two most common forms 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).

a. 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 / 97

Section I: Population Estimates

Rendering was the most common method of disposing of dead cows on all

operations (56.9 percent). A lower percentage of large operations (6.2 percent)

buried cow carcasses compared to medium or small operations (17.9 and 22.1

percent, respectively). A higher percentage of large operations (71.9 percent)

had cow carcasses rendered compared to medium and small operations (55.6

and 56.2 percent, respectively). A lower percentage of small operations (15.0

percent) composted cow carcasses compared to medium operations (22.5

percent).

b. Percentage of operations by primary method used to dispose of dead cows,

and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Dairy 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 22.1 (1.4) 17.9 (1.5) 6.2 (1.1) 20.3 (1.1) 

Burned/ 

incinerated 2.4 (0.5) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 1.8 (0.4) 

Rendered 56.2 (1.7) 55.6 (2.1) 71.9 (2.4) 56.9 (1.3) 

Composted 15.0 (1.2) 22.5 (1.7) 17.0 (2.0) 16.8 (1.0) 

Landfill 1.6 (0.3) 2.1 (0.4) 1.4 (0.5) 1.7 (0.3) 

Other 2.7 (0.6) 1.7 (0.6) 3.3 (1.1) 2.5 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

98 / Dairy 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cows

Calves

Percent

Percentage of Operations by Primary Method Used to Dispose of Dead

Calves and Dead Cows

Buried Burned/

incinerated

Rendered Composted Landfill Other

Disposal Method

32.6

2.0

36.5

24.2

1.7 3.0

20.3

1.8

56.9

16.8

1.7 2.5
USDA APHIS VS / 99

Section I: Population Estimates

H. Biosecurity 1. Physical contact with unweaned calves

Unweaned calves are the most susceptible animals to illness on the operation.

Separating calves from older animals is an effective management practice used

to reduce disease exposure to unweaned calves. Seventy-six percent of

operations representing 84.4 percent of calves did not allow unweaned calves to

have physical contact with weaned calves, and approximately 85 percent of

operations did not allow contact with bred heifers or adult cattle. More than two of

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

allow weaned calves to have contact with older animals.

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

operations) where after separation from the dam unweaned heifer calves did not

have physical contact* with the following cattle classes:

Cattle Class

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Calves 

Standard 

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
Section I: Population Estimates

100 / Dairy 2007

2. Physical contact with other animals

Cattle can contract disease agents directly from other animals or by ingesting

fecal material from other animals that have contaminated their feed or water. For

example, Neospora, which can cause abortions, is transmitted via the feces of

dogs and other canids.

More than 40 percent of operations reported that cats, dogs, and deer or other

members of the deer family had contact with cattle, their feed, and/or water

supply. Cattle on operations in the East region were more likely to have contact

with sheep, beef cattle, cats, and deer compared to cattle on operations in the

West region. Almost 4 of 5 operations in the West region (79.2 percent) and 9 of

10 operations in the East region (95.2 percent) reported that at least one of the

listed animals had physical contact with cattle and/or contact with their feed,

minerals, or water.

a. Percentage of operations where the following animals had physical contact

with cattle and/or contact with their feed, minerals, or water supply, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East All Operations 

Animal Type Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Chickens or 

other poultry 9.2 (2.1) 8.3 (0.8) 8.3 (0.8) 

Horses or 

other equids 10.2 (2.2) 13.6 (1.1) 13.3 (1.0) 

Pigs 2.0 (0.6) 2.0 (0.5) 2.0 (0.4) 

Sheep 0.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 

Goats 4.8 (1.6) 2.3 (0.4) 2.5 (0.4) 

Beef cattle 5.1 (1.5) 11.8 (1.0) 11.3 (1.0) 

Exotic species 

(e.g., llamas, 

alpacas, 

emus, etc.) 1.0 (0.6) 0.7 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 

Dogs 63.4 (2.7) 69.4 (1.4) 68.9 (1.3) 

Cats 62.1 (2.8) 87.1 (1.0) 85.2 (0.9) 

Deer or other 

members of 

the deer family 

(e.g., elk, 

moose, etc.) 20.9 (2.9) 51.6 (1.5) 49.3 (1.4) 

Any animal 79.2 (2.0) 95.2 (0.6) 94.0 (0.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 101

Section I: Population Estimates

Cattle that have direct contact with deer could pose a risk of transmitting

diseases such as tuberculosis (TB). TB is transmitted most commonly by the

respiratory route, whereby invisible droplets (aerosols) containing TB bacteria are

exhaled or coughed by infected animals and then inhaled by susceptible animals

or humans. The risk of exposure is greatest in enclosed areas, such as barns;

however, livestock can become infected if they share a common watering place

contaminated with saliva and other discharges from infected deer or other

animals.

For operations where deer or members of the deer family had contact with cattle,

their feed, or water, the majority of operations (90.8 percent) reported that cattle

could possibly or sometimes have face-to-face contact with deer. There were no

differences by region in the percentages of operations that reported face-to-face

contact with deer.

b. For operations where deer had physical contact with cattle and/or contact with

their feed, minerals, or water supply, percentage of operations by frequency with

which members of the deer family had face-to-face contact with cattle, and by

region:

Percent Operations 

 Region 

 West East All Operations 

Frequency Percent Std. 

Error Percent Std. 

Error Percent Std. 

Error 

Never 4.8 (2.1) 9.4 (1.2) 9.2 (1.2) 

Possibly 56.3 (8.0) 64.3 (2.1) 64.1 (2.0) 

Sometimes 38.9 (7.9) 26.3 (1.9) 26.7 (1.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

102 / Dairy 2007

3. Biosecurity for new arrivals

NOTE: The percentage of operations that brought bred dairy heifers onto the

operation (12.2 percent) [table a.] is similar to the percentage of operations

where dairy cow replacements were born off the operation (14.1 percent), see

“Source of cow replacements” p. 62. However, these percentages are higher

than the percentage of heifers born off the operation (6.6 percent), see “Source

of heifer inventory” p. 28. This discrepancy between the percentage of operations

and the source of heifers and cow replacements could be due to a difference in

the survey questions, since the source of heifers in the herd on January 1, 2007,

may not be representative of the source of heifers brought on over the course of

2006.

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 in eight operations brought on bred

dairy heifers, lactating dairy cows, or dairy bulls (12.2, 13.8, and 12.5 percent,

respectively). A lower percentage of large operations brought on unweaned

calves compared to small operations (1.0 and 3.8 percent, respectively), but a

higher percentage of large operations brought on dairy heifers, bred dairy

heifers, dairy bulls, and “any beef or dairy cattle” compared to medium or small

operations.
USDA APHIS VS / 103

Section I: Population Estimates

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 

Unweaned 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) 

Lactating dairy 

cows 13.2 (1.3) 16.0 (1.7) 13.0 (1.9) 13.8 (1.0) 

Dry dairy cows 4.1 (0.8) 4.3 (0.9) 5.5 (1.5) 4.3 (0.6) 

Beef heifers and 

cows 0.9 (0.3) 2.5 (0.7) 1.1 (0.6) 1.3 (0.3) 

Dairy bulls 

(weaned) 11.4 (1.1) 14.1 (1.6) 22.5 (2.4) 12.5 (0.9) 

Beef bulls (weaned) 1.5 (0.4) 2.2 (0.6) 1.5 (0.5) 1.7 (0.3) 

Steers (weaned) 2.0 (0.5) 1.3 (0.5) 0.7 (0.6) 1.8 (0.4) 

Any cattle 35.6 (1.7) 44.3 (2.3) 61.6 (2.8) 38.9 (1.4) 

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

operation during 2006, by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates

104 / Dairy 2007

Although more operations in the West region brought on animals during 2006

compared to operations in the East region (49.3 and 38.0 percent, respectively),

a higher percentage of operations in the East region brought on unweaned

calves, lactating dairy cows, and steers.

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 

Unweaned 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) 

Lactating dairy cows 8.5 (1.5) 14.3 (1.1) 

Dry dairy cows 2.3 (0.7) 4.4 (0.7) 

Beef heifers and 

cows 1.5 (0.7) 1.3 (0.3) 

Dairy bulls (weaned) 21.8 (2.6) 11.8 (0.9) 

Beef bulls (weaned) 2.8 (0.9) 1.6 (0.3) 

Steers (weaned) 0.3 (0.3) 1.9 (0.4) 

Any cattle 49.3 (3.0) 38.0 (1.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 105

Section I: Population Estimates

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 on small operations to 17.3 percent on large operations. For operations

that introduced dry cows, the percentage of inventory brought on as dry cows

ranged from 3.5 percent on medium operations to 9.5 percent on small

operations.

c. For operations that brought the specified cattle classes onto the operation

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

lactating cows, and dry cows, by herd size:

Percent Inventory* 

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 

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

Lactating 

cows 15.1 (1.7) 14.0 (2.2) 10.9 (1.4) 13.1 (1.1) 

Dry cows 9.5 (1.1) 3.5 (1.0) 4.2 (2.1) 5.0 (1.0) 

*As a percentage of January 1, 2007, cow inventory 
Section I: Population Estimates

106 / Dairy 2007

The most common herd additions—bred dairy heifers, lactating cows, and dairy

bulls—were quarantined on less than 20 percent of operations (14.5, 12.1, and

17.1 percent, respectively). Approximately one in five operations (20.3 percent)

that brought cattle onto the operation during 2006 quarantined new additions. For

operations that quarantined new additions, the operation average number of

days quarantined ranged from 15 to 45 days. One-sixth of cattle brought on

were quarantined upon arrival at the operation.

d. 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 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cattle 

Quarantined 

Standard 

Error 

Operation 

Average 

Days 

Quarantined 

Standard 

Error 

Unweaned 

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) 

Lactating dairy 

cows 12.1 (2.4) 17.4 (3.9) 15.6 (2.5) 

Dry dairy cows 15.9 (4.8) 39.5 (14.8) 16.5 (4.3) 

Beef heifers 

and cows 30.1 (9.8) 14.7 (7.2) 33.3 (12.1) 

Dairy bulls 

(weaned) 17.1 (2.9) 25.6 (6.3) 25.3 (3.5) 

Beef bulls 

(weaned) 20.3 (6.5) 53.2 (14.6) 31.9 (12.6) 

Steers 

(weaned) 30.0 (9.6) 32.7 (14.5) 40.7 (18.7) 

Any cattle 20.3 (1.7) 16.7 (2.4) 31.2 (3.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 107

Section I: Population Estimates

Less than 50 percent of operations that brought cattle onto the operation during

2006 required vaccination of new additions prior to arrival. Cattle were required

to be vaccinated against BVD, IBR, and leptospirosis on 42.9, 41.9, and 38.8

percent of all operations, respectively. For all diseases listed below, a lower

percentage of small operations required vaccination of new additions prior to

arrival compared to medium and large operations.

e. For operations that brought any dairy cattle onto the operation during 2006,

percentage of operations that normally required vaccination against the following

diseases before bringing animals onto the operation, 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 

Brucellosis 28.0 (2.6) 50.2 (3.5) 52.2 (3.9) 35.6 (2.0) 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 34.8 (2.8) 59.9 (3.4) 56.7 (3.7) 42.9 (2.1) 

Infectious bovine 

rhinotracheitis 

(IBR) 34.2 (2.8) 57.3 (3.4) 57.1 (3.7) 41.9 (2.1) 

Leptospirosis 32.0 (2.7) 53.6 (3.4) 48.4 (3.8) 38.8 (2.1) 

Neospora 10.8 (1.7) 26.6 (3.1) 22.4 (3.3) 15.7 (1.5) 

Other 4.2 (1.1) 8.7 (1.8) 6.5 (1.6) 5.5 (0.9) 

Any vaccination 37.7 (2.9) 65.2 (3.3) 68.5 (3.2) 47.2 (2.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates

108 / Dairy 2007

0 10 20 30 40 50

7.8

Percent

For Operations That Brought Any Cattle onto the Operation During

2006, Percentage of Operations That Normally Required Vaccination Against

the Following Diseases Before Bringing Animals onto the Operation

Brucellosis

Bovine viral

diarrhea (BVD)

Infectious bovine

rhinotracheitis (IBR)

Leptospirosis

Neospora

Other

Any vaccination

Disease

35.6

42.9

41.9

38.8

15.7

5.5

47.2
USDA APHIS VS / 109

Section I: Population Estimates

Testing individual animals prior to purchase can reduce the chances of bringing

new diseases to an operation. Almost one-fourth of operations (23.3 percent)

required testing of animals brought onto the operation.

f. For operations that brought beef or dairy cattle onto the operation during 2006,

percentage of operations that tested individual animals brought onto the

operation, by testing normally required by 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 

Test Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Brucellosis 11.6 (1.9) 19.8 (2.8) 19.0 (3.0) 14.3 (1.5) 

Mycobacterium 

avium subspecies

paratuberculosis

(Johne’s disease) 9.9 (1.8) 16.6 (2.7) 7.2 (1.8) 11.4 (1.4) 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 10.7 (1.8) 19.4 (2.8) 15.8 (2.7) 13.3 (1.4) 

Bovine tuberculosis 

(TB) 12.0 (1.8) 17.8 (2.7) 15.8 (2.3) 13.8 (1.4) 

Contagious 

mastitis pathogens 10.5 (1.8) 13.1 (2.3) 16.3 (3.3) 11.7 (1.4) 

Other 1.6 (0.6) 2.2 (1.0) 0.4 (0.2) 1.7 (0.5) 

Any testing 20.2 (2.4) 28.2 (3.2) 34.7 (3.8) 23.3 (1.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates

110 / Dairy 2007

0 5 10 15 20 25

7.8

Percent

For Operations that Brought any Beef or Dairy Cattle Onto the Operation

During 2006, Percentage of Operations That Tested Individual Animals

Brought Onto the Operation, by Testing Normally Required by Operation

Brucellosis

Other

Test

Mycopbacterium

paratuberculosis

(Johne's disease)

Bovine viral

diarrhea (BVD)

Bovine

tuberculosis (TB)

Contagious

mastitis

pathogens

Any testing

14.3

11.4

13.3

13.8

11.7

1.7

23.3
USDA APHIS VS / 111

Section I: Population Estimates

Approximately 25 percent of operations reported that testing was already

performed at the herd of origin or that the disease was not a concern to their

operation. “Other” reasons included animals not eligible for testing or were not at

risk for disease transmission (such as testing weaned heifers or bulls for

contagious mastitis pathogens), owners trusted the herd of origin, owners

vaccinated and tested after the animals arrived, owners did not know to

vaccinate and/or test, and owners were bringing back their own cattle.

g. For operations that brought beef or dairy cattle onto the operation during 2006

and did not require individual animal testing, percentage of operations by reason

for not testing and by disease:

Percent Operations 

Disease 

 Brucellosis 

Johne’s 

Disease BVD TB 

Contagious 

Mastitis 

Pathogens 

Reason Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tests already 

performed by 

herd of origin 25.6 (2.0) 22.3 (1.9) 25.9 (2.1) 25.1 (2.0) 23.8 (1.9) 

Too expensive 

to test 4.3 (1.1) 5.9 (1.3) 4.1 (1.0) 4.2 (1.1) 4.3 (1.0) 

Not enough 

time to test 9.5 (1.7) 8.9 (1.5) 9.9 (1.6) 9.4 (1.6) 10.7 (1.7) 

Not recommended 

by veterinarian 7.7 (1.3) 6.8 (1.2) 6.1 (1.2) 7.4 (1.3) 5.7 (1.1) 

Too many 

sources to test 2.5 (0.9) 1.8 (0.6) 2.7 (0.9) 2.3 (0.9) 2.8 (0.9) 

Tests not reliable 0.2 (0.2) 4.4 (1.0) 1.0 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3) 0.7 (0.3) 

Disease is 

not a concern to 

my operation 28.0 (2.3) 28.6 (2.2) 27.5 (2.2) 29.1 (2.3) 27.9 (2.2) 

Other 22.2 (1.9) 21.3 (1.9) 22.8 (2.0) 21.8 (1.9) 24.1 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

112 / Dairy 2007

For many diseases, such as Johne’s diseaseand contagious mastitis, knowing

the status of the herd of origin can be more reliable than testing individual

animals. Almost 3 of 10 operations (28.7 percent) required herd-of-origin

information on disease status prior to purchasing cattle. The only herd-size

difference was in the percentage of operations performing bulk-tank milk cultures

for contagious mastitis pathogens, where a lower percentage of small operations

performed the culture compared to large operations (10.1 and 20.9 percent,

respectively).

h. For operations that brought beef or dairy cattle onto the operation during 2006,

percentage of operations by information on herd of origin normally required by

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 

Herd-of-origin 

Information Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

BVD status 16.7 (2.3) 24.5 (3.0) 19.8 (3.0) 18.9 (1.7) 

Mycobacterium 

avium subspecies 

paratuberculosis 

(Johne’sdisease) 

status 16.0 (2.2) 21.9 (2.9) 12.7 (2.3) 17.2 (1.7) 

Bulk-tank milk 

somatic cell count 18.8 (2.4) 24.4 (3.1) 19.8 (2.9) 20.3 (1.8) 

Bulk-tank 

milk culture 10.1 (1.7) 17.8 (2.8) 20.9 (2.9) 13.0 (1.4) 

Other 2.8 (1.0) 2.3 (1.2) 1.3 (0.8) 2.6 (0.7) 

Any information 25.4 (2.7) 36.0 (3.4) 32.9 (3.3) 28.7 (2.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 113

Section I: Population Estimates

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Percent

For Operations that Brought Beef or Dairy Cattle Onto the Operation During

2006, Percentage of Operations by Information on Herd-of-Origin Normally

Required by Operation

Other

Herd-of-Origin

Information

18.9

17.2

20.3

13.0

2.6

28.7

BVD status

Mycobacterium

paratuberculosis

(Johne's disease)

Bulk-tank milk

somatic cell count

Bulk-tank

milk culture

Any information
Section I: Population Estimates

114 / Dairy 2007

The most common reason given for not requiring herd-of-origin information on

disease status was that the disease was not a concern to the operation

(approximately 30 percent of operations). Interestingly, mastitis was the most

prevalent disease causing illness in cows, the second highest reported reason

for removing cows from the herd, and the second highest reported cause of

cattle death during 2006. A percentage of these mastitis cases would be due to

contagious pathogens. Infertility, which could be associated with BVD, was the

third most prevalent disease on operations, and reproductive problems, such as

infertility, was the most common reason that cows were permanently removed

from the operation. Close to 25 percent of operations listed “other” as the reason

for not evaluating herd-of-origin information. Other reasons for not evaluating

herd-of-origin information were similar to reasons for not testing incoming cattle:

trusted the herd of origin, owned the herd of origin, would address disease

issues after cattle arrived, and didn’t know to test or inquire about diseases.

i. For operations that brought beef or dairy cattle onto the operation during 2006

and did not require herd-of-origin information on the status of the following

diseases and bulk-tank milk, percentage of operations by reason for not normally

requiring information:

Percent Operations 

Herd-of-Origin Information 

 BVD Status

Johne’s 

Disease Status

Bulk-Tank 

Milk 

Somatic Cell 

Count 

Bulk-Tank 

Milk Culture 

Reason 

Not Required Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tests already 

performed by 

herd of origin 18.6 (1.8) 15.2 (1.6) 15.2 (1.6) 15.7 (1.6) 

Too expensive 

to test 3.9 (1.1) 4.4 (1.2) 3.2 (1.0) 3.8 (1.1) 

Not enough time 

to test 9.3 (1.6) 9.3 (1.5) 9.2 (1.6) 10.6 (1.6) 

Not 

recommended 

by veterinarian 8.1 (1.4) 8.9 (1.4) 8.6 (1.4) 8.4 (1.4) 

Too many 

sources to test 3.0 (1.0) 3.0 (1.0) 3.5 (1.1) 3.1 (1.0) 

Tests not 

reliable 1.1 (0.4) 3.3 (0.9) 1.5 (0.5) 1.4 (0.5) 

Disease is not 

a concern to 

the operation 30.5 (2.4) 31.6 (2.3) 30.2 (2.3) 30.0 (2.3) 

Other 25.5 (2.2) 24.3 (2.1) 28.6 (2.2) 27.0 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 115

Section II: Methodology

Section II: Methodology

A. Needs Assessment NAHMS develops study objectives by exploring existing literature and contacting

industry members about their informational needs and priorities during a needsassessment 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 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

Louisville, KY, April 2, 2006

National Johne’s Working Group

National Institute for Animal Agriculture

Louisville, KY, April 3, 2006

National Milk Producers Federation

Animal Health Committee

Teleconference, December 15, 2006

Bovine Alliance on

Management and Nutrition

In addition, a Needs-Assessment Survey was designed to ascertain the top three

management issues, diseases/disorders, and producer incentives from

producers, veterinarians, extension personnel, university researchers, and allied

industry groups. The survey, created in SurveyMonkey, was available online from

early February through late April 2006. The survey was promoted via electronic

newsletters, magazines, and Web sites. Organizations/magazines promoting the

study included 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 were also sent to cooperative members of the National Milk

Producers Federation as well as State and Federal personnel asking for input

and identifying the online site. A total of 313 people completed the questionnaire.
Section II: Methodology

116 / Dairy 2007

Universities/extension personnel accounted for 23 percent of respondents, while

producers accounted for 22 percent, and veterinarians/consultants accounted for

another 20 percent.

Fort Collins, CO, May 18, 2006

CEAH Focus Group meeting

Draft objectives for the Dairy 2007 study, using input from teleconferences, faceto-face meetings, and the online survey, were drafted prior to the CEAH 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:

• Describe trends in dairy cattle health and management practices,

• Evaluate management factors related to cow comfort and removal rates,

• Describe dairy-calf health and nutrition from birth to weaning and evaluate

 heifer disease prevention practices,

• Estimate the prevalence of herds infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus

 (BVD),

• Describe current milking procedures and estimate the prevalence of

 contagious mastitis pathogens,

• Estimate the herd-level prevalence and associated costs of Mycobacterium

 avium subspecies paratuberculosis (Johne’s disease),

• Describe current biosecurity practices and determine producer motivation for

 implementing or not implementing biosecurity practices, and

• Determine the prevalence of specific food-safety pathogens and describe

 antimicrobial resistance patterns.

B. Sampling and

Estimation

1. State selection

The preliminary selection of States to be included in the study was done in

February 2006, using the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) January

27, 2006, “Cattle Report”. A goal for NAHMS national studies is to include States

that account for at least 70 percent of the animals and producer population in the

United States. The initial review of States identified 16 major States representing

82.0 percent of the milk cow inventory and 79.3 percent of the operations with

milk cows (dairy herds). The States were: California, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,

Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
USDA APHIS VS / 117

Section II: Methodology

A memo identifying these 16 States was provided in March 2006 to the USDAAPHIS-VS CEAH Director and, in turn, the VS Regional Directors. Each Regional

Director sought input from the respective States about being included or

excluded from the study. Virginia expressed interest in participating and was

included, bringing the total number of participating States to 17.

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 their January 1 cattle estimates. The list sample from the January 2006

survey was used as the screening sample. Those producers in the 17 States

reporting one or more milk cows on January 1, 2006, were included in the

sample for contact in January 2007.

3. Population inferences

a. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report

Inferences cover the population of dairy producers with at least 1 milk cow in the

17 participating States. As of January 1, 2007, these States accounted for 82.5

percent (7,533,000 head) of milk cows and 79.5 percent (59,740) of operations

with milk cows in the United States. (See Appendix II for respective data on

individual States.) All respondent data were statistically weighted to allow the

sample to reflect the population from which it was 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.

C. Data Collection 1. Data collectors and data collection period

a. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report

From January 1-31, 2007, NASS enumerators administered the General Dairy

Management Report. The interview took slightly over 1 hour.

D. Data Analysis 1. 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.
Section II: Methodology

118 / Dairy 2007

The purpose of this section is to provide various performance measurement

parameters. Historically, the term “response rate” was used as a catch-all

parameter, but there are many ways to define and calculate response rates.

Therefore, the table below presents 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 the VMO phase

of the study (2,067 operations), 1,077 (52.1 percent) consented to be contacted

for consideration/discussion about further participation.

E. Sample Evaluation

 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, 

ineligible4

 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 weighted3

 94.0 74.1 59.6 1

Useable 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 for at least one 

site. 

3

 Weighted response—the rate was calculated using the initial selection weights. 

4

Ineligible—less than 30 head of milk cows on January 14, 2007. 
USDA APHIS VS / 119

Appendix I: Sample Profile

Appendix I: Sample Profile

A. Responding

Operations

1. Total inventory, by herd size

Herd Size (Total Inventory) Number of Responding Sites 

Less than 100 1,028 

100 to 499 691 

500 or more 475 

Total 2,194 

2. Number of responding operations, by region

Region Number of Responding Sites 

West 426 

East 1768 

Total 2,194 
Appendix II: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations

120 / Dairy 2007

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

Number of milk cows on January 1, 2007*

 Number of Milk Cows 

(Thousand Head)

Number of Operations 

2006 

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 

West California 1,790 1,788.2 2,300 1,950 

 Idaho 502 501.0 800 620 

 New Mexico 360 359.3 450 180 

 Texas 347 344.2 1,300 660 

 Washington 235 234.3 790 540 

 Total 3,234 3,227.0 5,640 3,950 

East Indiana 166 154.4 2,100 1,150 

 Iowa 210 203.7 2,400 1,870 

 Kentucky 93 86.5 2,000 1,180 

 Michigan 324 317.5 2,700 1,910 

 Minnesota 455 441.3 5,400 4,800 

 Missouri 114 108.3 2,600 1,400 

 New York 628 612.3 6,400 5,100 

 Ohio 274 252.1 4,400 2,500 

 Pennsylvania 550 536.3 8,700 7,000 

 Vermont 140 137.2 1,200 1,060 

 Virginia 100 97.5 1,300 820 

 Wisconsin 1,245 1,213.9 14,900 12,800 

 Total 4,299 4,161.0 54,100 41,590 

Total (17 States) 7,533 7,388.0 59,740 45,540 

Percentage of U.S. 82.5 82.5 79.5 84.6 

Total U.S. (50 States) 9,129.0 8,955.5 75,140 53,860 

*Source: NASS Cattle report, February 2, 2007, and NASS Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock 

Operations 2006 Summary report, February 2007. 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. 
USDA APHIS VS / 121

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

1. Describe trends in dairy cattle health and management practices

• Part II: Changes in the United States Dairy Cattle Industry 1991-2007,

expected December 2008

• Part V: Changes in Dairy Cattle Health and Management in the United States,

1991-2007, expected May 2008

2. Evaluate management factors related to cow comfort and removal rates

• Dairy Facilities and Cow Comfort on U.S Dairy Operations, 2007 interpretive

 report, expected spring 2008

• Info sheets, expected spring 2008

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

• Colostrum Management info sheet, October 2007

• Off-Site Heifer Raising info sheet, October 2007

• Part IV: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

 United States, 2007, expected April 2008

• Calf Health and Management Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007

 interpretive report, expected spring 2008

• Additional info sheets, expected spring 2008

4. Estimate the prevalence of herds infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus

 (BVD)

• Info sheets, expected spring 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, expected February 2008.

• Info sheets, expected spring 2008.

6. Estimate the herd-level prevalence and associated costs of Mycobacterium

 avium subspecies paratuberculosis

• Info sheets, expected spring 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
Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

122 / Dairy 2007

• Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

 United States, 2007, expected February 2008

• Interpretive report and info sheets, expected spring 2008

8. Determine the prevalence of specific food-safety pathogens and describe

 antimicrobial resistance patterns

• Info sheets, expected spring 2008
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

March 2007

Dairy 2007

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

Industry, 1991–2007
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

#N481.0308

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.

Cover photo courtesy of

Dr. Jason Lombard
USDA APHIS VS / i

Acknowledgments

This report has been prepared from material received and analyzed by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS) via four national studies of health

management and animal health on U.S. dairy operations conducted between

1991 and 2007.

The 1991 National Dairy Heifer Evaluation Project, Dairy 1996, Dairy 2002, and

Dairy 2007 were cooperative efforts between State and Federal agricultural

statisticians, animal health officials, university researchers, and extension

personnel. We want to thank the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)

enumerators, State and Federal veterinary medical officers (VMOs), and animal

health technicians (AHTs) who visited the farms and collected the data. Their

hard work and dedication to the National Animal Health Monitoring System

(NAHMS) are invaluable. The roles of the producer, Area Veterinarian in Charge

(AVIC), NAHMS Coordinator, VMOs, AHTs, and NASS enumerators were critical

in providing quality data for Dairy 2007 reports. Thanks also to the personnel at

the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) 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

• 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
ii / Dairy 2007

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2008. Dairy 2007, Part II: Changes in the U.S. Dairy Cattle Industry,

1991–2007

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

#N481.0308

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
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used In This Report 3

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry 4

A. General Trends 4

1. Milk cow inventory 4

2. Number and size of dairy operations 8

3. Milk production 12

4. Bulk-tank somatic cell counts 16

5. Milk prices 18

6. Milk cow prices 21

7. Dairy cow slaughter 22

8. Value of production 23

B. Dairy Industry Changes by State 24

1. Milk cow inventory 24

2. Number of U.S. dairy operations 26

3. U.S. average dairy herd size 29

4. Milk production per cow 30

Section II: Changes in World Dairy Production 32

General Trends 32

1. Milk cow inventory 32

2. Milk production 33

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates 34

A. Dairy Herd Information 34

1. Record-keeping systems 34

2. Identification 36

3. Breed of dairy cows 38

4. Cow registration 38

5. Quality assurance programs 39

B. Productivity 40

1. Rolling herd average milk production 40

2. Age at first calving 41

3. Days dry 42

4. Calving interval 42

C. Heifer Management 44

1. Source of heifers 44

2. Separation from dam 44

3. Colostrum 45

4. Medicated milk replacer 49

5. Weaning age 50

6. Preventive practices 52

7. Vaccination practices 54

8. Types of BVD vaccine 56
iv / Dairy 2007

D. Heifer Health 57

1. Calves born alive 57

2. Mortality 57

3. Carcass disposal 62

E. Cow Management 63

1. Home-raised replacements 63

2. Housing 63

3. Milking facilities 64

4. Nutrition 66

5. Number of bulls 68

6. Preventive practices 68

7. Vaccination practices 70

8. Types of BVD vaccine 72

9. Bovine somatotropin (bST) 73

F. Cow Health 74

1. Abortions 74

2. Cow morbidity 75

3. Permanently removed cows 77

4. Mortality 78

5. Carcass disposal 80

G. Biosecurity 81

1. Physical contact with unweaned calves 81

2. Physical contact with other animals 82

3. Biosecurity for new arrivals 84

4. Quarantine 84

5. Vaccine requirements 86

6. Testing requirements 88

Appendix I: Methodology Overview 91

Appendix II: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 92
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

In 1983, promoters of the concept that would become the USDA’s National

Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) envisioned a program that would

monitor changes and trends in national animal health and management. They

hoped to provide periodic snapshots of U.S. food animal industries. With these

industry overviews, members could identify opportunities for improvement,

provide changing foundations for research and special studies, and detect

emerging problems.

Section I of this report shows demographic changes of the U.S. dairy industry

from a historical perspective using data provided by the USDA’s National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

Section II shows demographic changes of the world dairy industry using data

provided by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Results of four NAHMS

national studies in Section III complete the overview of change in the U.S. dairy

industry during the 16-year period of 1991 to 2007.

NAHMS’ first national study of the U.S. dairy industry, the 1991 National Dairy

Heifer Evaluation Project (NDHEP), provided the snapshot of animal health and

management that would serve as a baseline from which to measure industry

changes in animal health and management. NAHMS’ Dairy 1996, Dairy 2002,

and Dairy 2007 studies have fulfilled the vision of the program’s founding

objective, monitoring the trends in national animal health and management

practices.

The NDHEP 1991 included herds of 30 or more milk cows and heifer-rearing

operations in 28 States representing 83 percent of U.S. milk cows. Dairy 1996

described dairy production for operations with one or more milk cows in 20

States representing 83 percent of the Nation’s milk cows. Dairy 2002 described

dairy production for operations with one or more milk cows in 21 States

representing 85 percent of the Nation’s dairy cows. Dairy 2007 was conducted in

17 of the Nation’s major dairy States and provides information representing 80

percent of U.S. dairy operations and 83 percent of U.S. dairy cows. This report,

Part II: Changes in the United States Dairy Industry, 1991-2007, provides

national estimates of animal health management practices for comparable

populations from all four studies. Reports from all four NAHMS dairy studies—

including the studies’ methodologies—are available at http://

nahms.usda.aphis.gov.
Introduction

2 / Dairy 2007

Further information on NAHMS studies and reports is available 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

States Participating in NAHMS Dairy Studies, 1991, 1996, 2002, 2007

1 = NDHEP 1991

2 = Dairy 1996

3 = Dairy 2002

4 = Dairy 2007

1,2,3,4

1,2

1,2,3,4

1,2,3,4

1,3

2,3,4

1

2,3,4

1,2,3,4

1,2,3,4

2,3,4

1,2,3

1,2,3,4

1,2,3

1,2,3,4

1,2

3,4

1,2,3,4

1,2,3,4

1,2,3,4

1,2,3,4

1

1,3,4

1

1 1

1,2,3

2,3,4

1
USDA APHIS VS / 3

Introduction

Terms Used In

This Report

Cow: Female dairy bovine that has calved at least once.

Cow average: The average value for all cows; the reported value for each

operation multiplied by the number of cows on that operation is summed over all

operations and divided by the number of cows on all operations. This way, the

result is adjusted for the number of cows on each operation. For instance, on

p 41 the cow average age at first calving is multiplied by the number of cows for

each operation. This product is then summed over all operations and divided by

the sum of cows over all operations. The result is the average age at first calving

for all cows.

Dairy Herd Improvement Association (DHIA): An organization with programs

and objectives intended to improve the production and profitability of dairy

farming. DHIA also aids farmers in keeping milk production and management

records.

Heifer: Female dairy bovine that has not yet calved.

Herd size: Herd size is based on January 1 respective inventories. 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.

NA: Not available.

Operation average: A single value for each operation is summed over all

operations reporting divided by the number of operations reporting. For instance,

operation average age at first calving (shown on p 41) is calculated by summing

reported average age over all operations divided by the number of operations.

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

left, 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. If there

were no reports of the event, no standard error was reported.

Rolling Herd Average (RHA): Average milk production per cow (lb/cow) in the

herd during the previous 12 months.
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

4 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry

A. General Trends

1. Milk cow inventory

On January 1, 2007, U.S. milk cows numbered 9,129,000 head, 94.4 percent of

the 9,672,000 milk cows in 1870. All U.S. cattle and calves numbered 97,002,900

head in 2007, about three times the number of cattle and calves in 1870

(31,082,000 head).

a. Long-term changes in U.S. milk cow January 1 inventory, 1870-2007:

 Milk Cows 

All Cattle 

and Calves 

Year 1,000 Head

Percent of 

1870

Percent of All 

Cattle and 

Calves 1,000 Head 

1870 9,672.0 100.0 31.1 31,082.0 

1880 11,754.0 121.5 27.1 43,347.0 

1890 15,000.0 155.1 25.0 60,014.0 

1900 16,544.0 171.1 27.7 59,739.0 

1910 19,450.0 201.1 33.0 58,993.0 

1920 21,455.0 221.8 30.5 70,400.0 

1930 23,032.0 238.1 37.8 61,003.0 

1940 24,940.0 257.9 36.5 68,309.0 

1950 23,853.0 246.6 30.6 77,963.0 

1960 19,527.0 201.9 20.3 96,236.0 

1970 12,090.7 125.0 10.8 112,368.7 

1980 10,758.2 111.2 9.7 111,242.4 

1990 10,014.8 103.5 10.5 95,816.2 

2000 9,182.8 94.9 9.4 98,199.0 

2007 9,129.0 94.4 9.4 97,002.9 

Note: Unless otherwise noted, tables in this section are comprised from

data collected by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
USDA APHIS VS / 5

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

6 / Dairy 2007

The number of milk cows that calved each year decreased about 6 percent from

1992 to 2002 but remained stable from 2002 to 2007.

b. Recent changes in U.S. milk cow January 1 inventory, 1992-2007:

Milk Cows 

Year 1,000 Head 

Percent 

Previous 

Year 

Percent of 

1992 

Percent of 

1996 

Percent of 

2002 

1992 9,728.2 97.6 100.0 -- -- 

1993 9,658.1 99.3 99.3 -- -- 

1994 9,507.0 98.4 97.7 -- -- 

1995 9,481.8 99.7 97.5 -- -- 

1996 9,419.9 99.3 96.8 100.0 -- 

1997 9,317.9 98.9 95.8 98.9 -- 

1998 9,199.0 98.7 94.6 97.7 -- 

1999 9,128.0 99.2 93.8 96.9 -- 

2000 9,182.8 100.6 94.4 97.5 -- 

2001 9,171.7 99.9 94.3 97.4 -- 

2002 9,105.6 99.3 93.6 96.7 100.0 

2003 9,141.7 100.4 94.0 97.0 100.4 

2004 8,989.5 98.3 92.4 95.4 98.7 

2005 9,005.0 100.2 92.6 95.6 98.9 

2006 9,062.9 100.6 93.2 96.2 99.5 

2007 9,129.0 100.7 93.8 96.9 100.3 
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

The January 1, 2007, number of replacement heifers has increased 4.3 percent

since 1992. Replacement heifers as a percentage of the milk cow inventory

remains between 42.5 and 47.2 percent, with recent years showing the larger

percentage.

c. Recent changes in U.S. replacement heifer January 1 inventory, 1992-2007:

Milk Cow Replacement Heifers 

Year 1,000 Head 

Percent 

Previous 

Year 

Percent of 

1992 

Percent 

of 1996 

Percent 

of 2002 

Percent of 

Milk Cows 

1992 4,131.4 100.9 100.0 -- -- 42.5 

1993 4,176.2 101.1 101.1 -- -- 43.2 

1994 4,124.5 98.8 99.8 -- -- 43.4 

1995 4,121.3 99.9 99.8 -- -- 43.5 

1996 4,090.3 99.2 99.0 100.0 -- 43.4 

1997 4,058.4 99.2 98.2 99.2 -- 43.6 

1998 3,985.7 98.2 96.5 97.4 -- 43.3 

1999 4,068.8 102.1 98.5 99.5 -- 44.6 

2000 3,999.8 98.3 96.8 97.8 -- 43.6 

2001 4,057.0 101.4 98.2 99.2 -- 44.2 

2002 4,054.8 99.9 98.1 99.1 100.0 44.5 

2003 4,113.9 101.5 99.6 100.6 101.5 45.0 

2004 4,020.0 97.7 97.3 98.3 99.1 44.7 

2005 4,118.3 102.4 99.7 100.7 101.6 45.7 

2006 4,275.0 103.8 103.5 104.5 105.4 47.2 

2007 4,309.9 100.8 104.3 105.4 106.3 47.2 
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

8 / Dairy 2007

2. Number and size of dairy operations

Approximately 4 to 7 percent of dairy operations have gone out of business each

year since 1991. Since 1991, the number of dairy operations decreased by 58.4

percent, while milk cow numbers in 2007 were at 93.8 percent of 1992 numbers.

In this time frame, milk per cow increased by 32.7 percent and total milk

production increased by 23.1 percent.

a. Recent changes in the number of U.S. dairy operations*, 1991-2006:

Year 

Number of 

Operations 

Percent 

Previous 

Year 

Percent of 

1991 

Percent of 

1995 

Percent of 

2001 

1991 180,640 93.8 100.0 -- -- 

1992 170,500 94.4 94.4 -- -- 

1993 157,150 92.2 87.0 -- -- 

1994 148,140 94.3 82.0 -- -- 

1995 139,670 94.3 77.3 100.0 -- 

1996 130,980 93.8 72.5 93.8 -- 

1997 123,700 94.4 68.5 88.6 -- 

1998 117,145 94.7 64.8 83.9 -- 

1999 110,855 94.6 61.4 79.4 -- 

2000 105,055 94.8 58.2 75.2 -- 

2001 97,460 92.8 54.0 69.8 100.0 

2002 91,240 93.6 50.5 65.3 93.6 

2003 86,360 94.7 47.8 61.8 88.6 

2004 81,520 94.4 45.1 58.4 83.6 

2005 78,300 96.1 43.3 56.1 80.3 

2006 75,140 96.0 41.6 53.8 77.1 

* An operation is any place having one or more milk cows—excluding cows used to nurse calves—

on hand any time during the year. 
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

10 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of operations with fewer than 50 cows has decreased since

1991, while the percentage of operations with more than 100 head has increased

every year since 1991. More than 1 in 10 operations (11.5 percent) had more

than 100 cows in 1991 compared to about 2 in 10 (23.3 percent) in 2006.

b. Percentage of U.S. dairy operations by herd size, 1991-2006:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Year 1-29 30-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+ 

1991 39.8 22.8 25.9 11.51 

1992 38.9 22.1 26.0 13.01 

1993 37.3 22.2 26.8 9.3 4.42

1994 36.1 22.0 27.4 9.8 4.72

1995 34.5 22.2 28.1 10.2 5.02

1996 32.9 22.3 28.7 10.7 5.42

1997 31.6 22.1 29.0 11.3 4.1 1.9 

1998 30.8 21.8 29.1 11.9 4.4 2.0 

1999 29.7 21.7 29.6 11.9 4.8 2.3 

2000 29.3 21.2 29.7 12.2 5.1 2.5 

2001 29.0 20.4 29.8 12.6 5.3 2.9 

2002 28.9 19.8 30.0 12.6 5.5 3.2 

2003 29.0 19.5 29.9 12.7 5.5 3.4 

2004 29.2 19.0 29.5 12.8 5.8 3.7 

2005 28.7 19.0 29.6 12.8 6.0 3.9 

2006 28.3 18.8 29.6 13.0 6.1 4.2 

1

These estimates include herds of 100 or more head. 

2

These estimates include herds of 200 or more head.
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

Operations with more than 200 cows accounted for 61.7 percent of cows in 2006

compared to 31.8 percent in 1993.

c. Percentage of U.S. milk cow inventory by herd size, 1991-2006:

 Percent Inventory 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Year 1-29 30-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+ 

1991 6.3 16.6 31.7 45.41

1992 5.5 15.2 30.0 49.31

1993 5.0 14.8 29.2 19.2 31.82

1994 4.6 14.0 28.7 19.3 33.42

1995 4.0 13.0 28.0 20.0 35.02

1996 4.0 12.0 27.0 20.0 37.02

1997 3.5 11.5 26.0 20.0 14.6 24.4 

1998 3.6 10.5 24.3 19.3 15.5 26.8 

1999 3.2 10.2 23.3 18.4 16.3 28.6 

2000 2.9 9.1 22.0 18.1 16.6 31.3 

2001 2.7 8.0 20.8 17.2 16.3 35.0 

2002 2.4 7.4 19.6 16.4 15.9 38.3 

2003 2.3 6.9 18.8 15.7 15.4 40.9 

2004 2.1 6.6 17.8 15.1 15.5 42.9 

2005 2.0 6.4 17.1 14.6 15.4 44.5 

2006 1.9 6.0 16.3 14.1 15.0 46.7 

1

These estimates include herds of 100 or more head. 

2

These estimates include herds of 200 or more head.
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

12 / Dairy 2007

3. Milk production

Milk production per cow has increased as much as 1 to 3 percent annually since

1991, with the exception of 2001. Milk production per cow was 19,951 pounds in

2006 compared to 15,031 pounds in 1991—a 32.7-percent increase.

a. Recent changes in U.S. milk production per cow, 1991-2006:

 Milk per Cow 

Year 

Average 

Number of 

Milk Cows* 

(1,000 

Head) 

Pounds 

per Cow 

Percent 

Previous 

Year 

Percent of 

1991 

Percent of 

1995 

Percent of 

2001 

1991 9,826 15,031 101.7 100.0 -- -- 

1992 9,688 15,570 103.6 103.6 -- -- 

1993 9,581 15,722 101.0 104.6 -- -- 

1994 9,494 16,179 102.9 107.6 -- -- 

1995 9,466 16,405 101.4 109.1 100.0 -- 

1996 9,372 16,433 100.2 109.3 100.2 -- 

1997 9,252 16,871 102.7 112.2 102.8 -- 

1998 9,151 17,185 101.9 114.3 104.8 -- 

1999 9,153 17,763 103.4 118.2 108.3 -- 

2000 9,199 18,197 102.4 121.1 110.9 -- 

2001 9,103 18,162 99.8 120.8 110.7 100.0 

2002 9,139 18,608 102.5 123.8 113.4 102.5 

2003 9,083 18,760 100.8 124.8 114.4 103.3 

2004 9,012 18,967 101.1 126.2 115.6 104.4 

2005 9,043 19,565 103.2 130.2 119.3 107.7 

2006 9,112 19,951 102.0 132.7 121.6 109.9 

*Average number during the year, excluding heifers not yet fresh. 
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

14 / Dairy 2007

Total milk production in the United States has increased more than 20 percent

since 1991, despite an approximate 6-percent drop in the number of cows. In

2006, total milk production was 181,798 million pounds compared to 147,697

million pounds in 1991.

b. Recent changes in U.S. total milk production, 1991-2006:

Total Milk Production 

Year 

Total Milk* 

(Million 

Pounds) 

Percent 

Previous 

Year 

Percent of 

1991 

Percent of 

1995 

Percent of 

2001 

1991 147,697 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

1992 150,847 102.1 102.2 -- -- 

1993 150,636 99.8 102.0 -- -- 

1994 153,602 102.0 104.0 -- -- 

1995 155,292 101.1 105.1 100.0 -- 

1996 154,006 99.2 104.3 99.2 -- 

1997 156,091 101.4 105.7 100.5 -- 

1998 157,262 100.8 106.5 101.3 -- 

1999 162,589 103.4 110.1 104.7 -- 

2000 167,393 103.0 113.3 107.8 -- 

2001 165,332 98.8 111.9 106.5 100.0 

2002 170,063 102.9 115.1 109.5 102.9 

2003 170,394 100.2 115.4 109.7 103.1 

2004 170,934 100.3 115.7 110.1 103.4 

2005 176,929 103.5 119.8 113.9 107.0 

2006 181,798 102.8 123.1 117.1 110.0 

*Excluding milk nursed by calves.
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

16 / Dairy 2007

4. Bulk-tank somatic cell counts

Bulk tank somatic cell counts (BTSCCs) from 4 of the 10 U.S. Federal Milk

Marketing Orders were analyzed from 1995 to 2006. Monthly BTSCCs were

weighted based on the pounds of milk shipped, and, subsequently, a geometric

mean of all milk-weighted somatic cell counts was calculated. BTSCCs from the

four Federal Milk Marketing Orders have decreased over the last 12 years.

Typically, BTSCCs spike during summer months and decline quickly during fall.

BTSCCs have ranged from a high of 384,100 in August 1995 to a low of 234,200

in March 2006. Beginning in 2004, BTSCCs have decreased in January through

July for each subsequent year.

a. Milk-weighted bulk tank somatic cell counts from Federal Milk Marketing

Orders, 1995–2006* (January through June):

Bulk Tank Somatic Cell Counts (x1,000 cells/ml), 1995–2006 

 Month (January–June)

Year January February March April May June 

1995 298.8 293.2 297.0 289.3 286.1 308.6 

1996 275.5 283.5 283.3 277.0 280.4 309.2 

1997 288.2 294.9 295.9 291.3 293.4 299.9 

1998 284.4 280.2 282.4 282.6 284.2 298.6 

1999 278.5 288.8 282.8 283.9 286.4 315.3 

2000 258.0 279.9 283.7 282.5 292.6 311.9 

2001 286.5 280.2 281.7 284.5 291.6 305.9 

2002 283.4 281.8 279.1 279.5 270.9 284.9 

2003 274.4 279.9 281.0 271.5 277.6 292.2 

2004 250.0 257.6 266.3 264.4 260.5 274.7 

2005 246.7 248.2 243.8 244.9 245.5 264.3 

2006 240.8 234.7 234.2 236.4 234.7 249.1 

*Agricultural Marketing Service data summarized by NAHMS. 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

b. Milk-weighted bulk tank somatic cell counts from Federal Milk Marketing

Orders, 1995–2006* (July through December):

 Bulk Tank Somatic Cell Counts (x1,000 cells/ml), 1995–2006 

 Month (July–December) 

Year July August September October November December 

1995 342.8 384.1 356.4 296.6 267.7 265.2 

1996 338.7 334.1 313.0 275.6 265.3 285.4 

1997 330.3 336.7 314.1 276.9 257.0 269.3 

1998 330.2 328.4 312.3 288.2 278.2 272.7 

1999 341.4 363.7 325.5 282.4 263.6 259.3 

2000 334.2 341.4 326.4 287.4 280.4 280.5 

2001 332.5 352.5 327.3 288.1 278.7 282.6 

2002 328.0 340.1 318.0 287.0 273.6 267.2 

2003 317.8 323.7 304.1 270.3 252.0 251.2 

2004 294.5 293.6 270.4 247.9 240.9 239.5 

2005 286.8 296.1 281.7 258.9 242.5 240.1 

2006 267.1 296.9 280.3 253.0 235.4 239.4 

*Agricultural Marketing Service data summarized by NAHMS. 

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06

Year

BTSCC X 1,000

Monthly milk-weighted bulk tank somatic cell counts from Federal Milk

Marketing Orders, 1995–2006
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

18 / Dairy 2007

5. Milk prices

From 1991 through 2006, milk prices paid to producers ranged from a low of

$11.00 per hundred pounds of milk from March through June 2003 to a high of

$19.30 in May of 2004. On average, milk prices during this time were between

$13.00 and $14.00. In general, milk prices rise during late summer and early fall,

decrease in mid-winter, and remain stable through the summer.

a. Monthly milk prices received by farmers, all milk 1991–2006 (January through

June):

 Milk Prices* 1991–2006 (Dollars)

 Month (January–June)

Year January February March April May June 

1991 11.70 11.60 11.40 11.30 11.30 11.40 

1992 13.40 12.90 12.50 12.60 12.80 13.20 

1993 12.50 12.20 12.20 12.60 12.90 13.00 

1994 13.60 13.40 13.50 13.40 12.80 12.60 

1995 12.60 12.50 12.60 12.30 12.30 12.10 

1996 14.10 13.90 13.80 13.90 14.30 14.80 

1997 13.50 13.40 13.60 13.20 12.70 12.20 

1998 14.70 14.90 14.50 14.00 13.30 14.20 

1999 17.40 15.20 15.20 12.60 12.80 13.10 

2000 12.00 11.80 11.80 11.90 12.00 12.30 

2001 13.00 13.10 13.90 14.60 15.50 16.20 

2002 13.60 13.10 12.60 12.50 12.10 11.50 

2003 11.80 11.30 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 

2004 13.20 13.60 15.50 18.10 19.30 18.20 

2005 16.10 15.40 15.50 15.20 14.70 14.40 

2006 14.40 13.50 12.60 12.10 11.90 11.90 

*Per 100 pounds of milk. 
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

b. Monthly milk prices received by farmers, all milk 1991–2006 (July through

December):

 Milk Prices* 1991–2006 (Dollars)

 Month (July–December)

Year Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

1991 11.80 12.40 12.80 13.50 13.90 13.80 

1992 13.40 13.50 13.50 13.40 13.10 12.80 

1993 12.80 12.40 12.80 13.10 13.60 13.50 

1994 12.20 12.40 12.80 13.00 13.10 12.80 

1995 12.00 12.40 12.80 13.40 14.00 13.90 

1996 15.40 15.90 16.50 16.40 15.20 14.30 

1997 12.10 12.70 13.10 14.10 14.70 14.80 

1998 14.30 15.50 16.80 17.80 17.90 18.10 

1999 13.80 15.00 15.70 14.90 14.40 12.20 

2000 12.60 12.50 12.90 12.50 12.50 13.00 

2001 16.20 16.50 17.10 15.60 14.40 13.50 

2002 11.10 11.30 11.60 12.10 11.90 11.90 

2003 12.10 13.30 14.50 15.00 14.40 13.80 

2004 16.10 14.90 15.50 15.60 16.20 16.40 

2005 14.80 14.80 15.30 15.50 15.10 14.80 

2006 11.70 12.00 13.00 13.60 13.90 14.20 

*Per 100 pounds of milk.
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

20 / Dairy 2007

Monthly Milk Prices Received by Farmers, All Milk 1991–2006

$10

$11

$12

$13

$14

$15

$16

$17

$18

$19

$20

'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06

Year

Dollars per Cwt

c. Annual milk prices received by farmers, all milk 1991–2006:

 Annual Milk Prices1 1991–2006 (Dollars)

 Nominal Dollars2 2000 Dollars3

1991 12.27 14.53 

1992 13.15 15.22 

1993 12.84 14.52 

1994 13.01 14.41 

1995 12.78 13.87 

1996 14.75 15.71 

1997 13.36 14.00 

1998 15.46 16.02 

1999 14.38 14.69 

2000 12.40 12.40 

2001 15.05 14.70 

2002 12.18 11.69 

2003 12.55 11.80 

2004 16.13 14.78 

2005 15.19 13.48 

2006 12.97 11.16 

1

Per 100 pounds of milk. 

2

Prices producers received. 

3

Nominal prices adjusted for inflation. 
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

6. Milk cow prices

Cow prices were stable from 1991 through 1998, with prices averaging between

$1,000 and $1,200 per cow. Since 1998, cow prices have varied more, with a low

of $1,240 per cow in 1999 and a high of $1,870 in 2005.

Milk-cow prices received by producers, 1991–2006:

 Milk–Cow Prices1 (Dollars)

Year January April July October 

Annual 

Nominal 

Dollars2

2002 

Dollars3

1991 1,100 1,090 1,090 1,100 1,100 1,303 

1992 1,100 1,120 1,150 1,150 1,130 1,308 

1993 1,140 1,160 1,170 1,170 1,160 1,312 

1994 1,170 1,190 1,160 1,160 1,170 1,296 

1995 1,150 1,140 1,130 1,090 1,130 1,227 

1996 1,060 1,070 1,090 1,130 1,090 1,161 

1997 1,090 1,110 1,100 1,090 1,100 1,153 

1998 1,070 1,110 1,120 1,180 1,120 1,161 

1999 1,250 1,240 1,280 1,380 1,280 1,308 

2000 1,330 1,340 1,350 1,350 1,340 1,340 

2001 1,320 1,400 1,590 1,700 1,500 1,465 

2002 1,610 1,710 1,670 1,430 1,600 1,536 

2003 1,380 1,300 1,310 1,380 1,340 1,259 

2004 1,390 1,580 1,720 1,640 1,580 1,444 

2005 1,620 1,770 1,830 1,870 1,770 1,570 

2006 1,840 1,770 1,680 1,650 1,730 1,488 

1

Cows that calved. 

2

Prices producers received. 

3

Nominal prices adjusted for inflation. 
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

22 / Dairy 2007

7. Dairy cow slaughter

Approximately 2 to 3 million dairy cows have been slaughtered annually since

1991. The number of cows slaughtered as a percentage of January 1 inventory

ranged from 25.0 to 32.2 percent.

Recent changes in dairy-cow slaughter, 1991-2006:

 Dairy-Cow Slaughter 

Year 1,000 Head

Percent of January 1 

Cow Inventory 

Percent 

Previous Year 

1991 2,840.0 28.5 106.3 

1992 2,892.0 29.7 101.8 

1993 2,994.8 31.0 103.6 

1994 2,857.8 30.1 95.4 

1995 2,861.7 30.2 100.1 

1996 3,036.9 32.2 106.1 

1997 2,926.2 31.4 96.4 

1998 2,619.6 28.5 89.5 

1999 2,573.3 28.2 98.2 

2000 2,631.5 28.7 102.3 

2001 2,581.9 28.2 98.1 

2002 2,606.9 28.6 101.0 

2003 2,859.9 31.3 109.7 

2004 2,362.7 26.3 82.6 

2005 2,252.1 25.0 95.3 

2006 2,353.5 26.0 104.5 
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—A. General Trends

8. Value of production

In 2006, milk sales accounted for 23.6 percent of the value of selected U.S.

commodities (cattle, milk, poultry, swine, sheep and wool, catfish and trout, and

honey). Since dairy cows, bulls, and steers are also marketed for beef (cattle),

the percentage of value assigned to the entire dairy industry totals more than

one-quarter of the selected U.S. commodity value.

Value of production for selected U.S. commodities, 2002-2006:

 Year 

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Commodity 

Value

($1,000) Pct. 

Value

($1,000) Pct. 

Value

($1,000) Pct. 

Value

($1,000) Pct. 

Value

($1,000) Pct. 

Cattle 27,097,532 34.7 32,112,931 36.7 34,830,872 33.0 36,628,658 34.4 35,740,774 35.7 

Milk 20,720,482 26.6 21,381,324 24.4 27,567,726 26.1 26,873,946 25.2 23,573,744 23.6 

Poultry1 20,501,173 26.3 23,295,445 26.6 28,857,215 27.4 28,174,715 26.5 26,842,833 26.8 

Swine 8,690,923 11.1 9,663,024 11.0 13,072,025 12.4 13,606,780 12.8 12,703,842 12.7 

Sheep and 

wool 335,635 0.4 419,891 0.5 441,199 0.4 479,397 0.4 392,598 0.4 

Catfish and 

trout2 476,902 0.6 484,894 0.5 546,390 0.5 551,483 0.5 555,675 0.6 

Honey 228,338 0.3 253,106 0.3 196,259 0.2 160,428 0.2 161,314 0.2 

Total 78,050,985 100.0 87,610,615 100.0 105,511,686 100.0 106,475,407 100.0 99,970,780 100.0 

1

Includes boilers, eggs, turkeys, and chickens (value of sales). 

2

Total of sales for trout (excluding eggs), and catfish foodsize, broodfish, stocker, and fingerling sales. 
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—B. Dairy Industry Changes by State

24 / Dairy 2007

B. Dairy Industry

Changes by State

Note: The following tables describe U.S. dairy industry changes by State

between 1991 and 2007, based on USDA–NASS data. The tables also

identify which States were in the four NAHMS national dairy studies: the

National Dairy Heifer Evaluation Project (NDHEP) 1991, Dairy 1996, Dairy

2002, and Dairy 2007.

1. Milk cow inventory

States in the Western United States have shown the largest growth in the

number of milk cows since 1992. Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas,

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah have all increased cow numbers since

1992. States in the Southeast, including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and

Mississippi, had the largest percentage decline in dairy cows, but these States

represented less than 5 percent of the overall dairy population. In 2007,

California had the largest number of dairy cows (1.79 million) followed by

Wisconsin (1.245 million), and New York (628,000).
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—B. Dairy Industry Changes by State

Changes in U.S. milk cow inventories by State:

Number of Milk Cows that Calved 

(1,000 Head) January 

State 1992 1996 2002 2007 

2007 as 

Percent of 

1992 

2007 as 

Percent of 

1996 

2007 as 

Percent of 

2002 

Alabama 43* 32 20 13 30.2 40.6 65.0 

Alaska 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.6 75.0 75.0 50.0 

Arizona 96 118 140 175 182.3 148.3 125.0 

Arkansas 69 58 33 19 27.5 32.8 57.6 

California 1,160* 1,320* 1,620* 1,790* 154.3 135.6 110.5 

Colorado 77* 82 93* 115 149.4 140.2 123.7 

Connecticut 33* 31 24 19 57.6 61.3 79.2 

Delaware 9 10 9 7 77.8 70.0 77.8 

Florida 179* 155* 152* 130 72.6 83.9 85.5 

Georgia 105* 98 86 75 71.4 76.5 87.2 

Hawaii 10 10 7 3.8 38.0 38.0 54.3 

Idaho 178* 245* 377* 502* 282.0 204.9 133.2 

Illinois 170* 145* 115* 103 60.6 71.0 89.6 

Indiana 145* 140* 154* 166* 114.5 118.6 107.8 

Iowa 270* 245* 205* 210* 77.8 85.7 102.4 

Kansas 95 83 96 110 115.8 132.5 114.6 

Kentucky 185 160* 125* 93* 50.3 58.1 74.4 

Louisiana 79 72 54 30 38.0 41.7 55.6 

Maine 41* 40 38 32 78.0 80.0 84.2 

Maryland 95* 91 81 60 63.2 65.9 74.1 

Massachusetts 31* 27 21 15.5 50.0 57.4 73.8 

Michigan 332* 326* 299* 324* 97.6 99.4 108.4 

Minnesota 660* 585* 500* 455* 68.9 77.8 91.0 

Mississippi 60 53 34 22 36.7 41.5 64.7 

Missouri 210 185* 140* 114* 54.3 61.6 81.4 

Montana 24 20 19 18 75.0 90.0 94.7 

Nebraska 90* 70 68 60 66.7 85.7 88.2 

Nevada 20 23 25 27 135.0 117.4 108.0 

New Hampshire 21* 20 18 14.5 69.0 72.5 80.6 

New Jersey 24 23 13 10.5 43.8 45.7 80.8 

New Mexico 101 195* 290* 360* 356.4 184.6 124.1 

New York 740* 700* 675* 628* 84.9 89.7 93.0 

North Carolina 99* 84 66 48 48.5 57.1 72.7 

North Dakota 80 63 42 31 38.8 49.2 73.8 

Ohio 320* 285* 260* 274* 85.6 96.1 105.4 

Oklahoma 97 94 84 70 72.2 74.5 83.3 

Oregon 100* 95* 105 115 115.0 121.1 109.5 

Pennsylvania 663* 636* 588* 550* 83.0 86.5 93.5 

Rhode Island 2.4* 2.1 1.4 1.1 45.8 52.4 78.6 

South Carolina 33 26 20 17 51.5 65.4 85.0 

South Dakota 132 115 87 81 61.4 70.4 93.1 

Tennessee 165* 120* 90* 67 40.6 55.8 74.4 

Texas 385 400* 315* 347* 90.1 86.8 110.2 

Utah 76 90 93 86 113.2 95.6 92.5 

Vermont 163* 157* 154* 140* 85.9 89.2 90.9 

Virginia 140* 128 120* 100* 71.4 78.1 83.3 

Washington 238* 260* 247* 235* 98.7 90.4 95.1 

West Virginia 23 21 16 13 56.5 61.9 81.3 

Wisconsin 1,650* 1,475* 1,280* 1,245* 75.5 84.4 97.3 

Wyoming 9 6 5 7 77.8 116.7 140.0 

U.S. 9,728.2 9,419.9 9,105.6 9,129 93.8 96.9 100.3 

NAHMS total 7,910.4 7,829 7,799 7,533 95.2 96.2 96.6 

*NAHMS participating States. 
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—B. Dairy Industry Changes by State

26 / Dairy 2007

2. Number of U.S. dairy operations

With the exception of Alaska, the number of dairy operations in all States has

decreased since 1991. In 2006, Wisconsin had the largest number of dairy

operations (14,900) followed by Pennsylvania (8,700) and New York (6,400).

California reported 2,300 operations, but had the highest number of dairy cows,

demonstrating a large number of cows per herd.

Photo by Dr. Jason Lombard
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—B. Dairy Industry Changes by State

a. Changes in number of U.S. dairy operations, by State:

 Number of Operations1 with Milk Cows 

State 19912 19953 20014 20065

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1991 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1995 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 2001 

Alabama 1,100* 510 250 170 15.5 33.3 68.0 

Alaska 30 30 30 30 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Arizona 500 300 250 200 40.0 66.7 80.0 

Arkansas 2,000 1,700 700 280 14.0 16.5 40.0 

California 4,200* 3,300* 2,500* 2,300* 54.8 69.7 92.0 

Colorado 1,400* 1,000 800* 630 45.0 63.0 78.8 

Connecticut 500* 380 310 220 44.0 57.9 71.0 

Delaware 160 150 110 90 56.3 60.0 81.8 

Florida 1,000* 800* 510* 460 46.0 57.5 90.2 

Georgia 1,400* 1,100 720 580 41.4 52.7 80.6 

Hawaii 80 60 30 30 37.5 50.0 100.0 

Idaho 1,900* 1,500* 1,000* 800* 42.1 53.3 80.0 

Illinois 3,000* 2,600* 1,900* 1,300 43.3 50.0 68.4 

Indiana 4,500* 3,900* 2,900* 2,100* 46.7 53.8 72.4 

Iowa 7,000* 5,200* 3,500* 2,400* 34.3 46.2 68.6 

Kansas 2,300 1,600 1,200 900 39.1 56.3 75.0 

Kentucky 5,500 4,000* 2,900* 2,000* 36.4 50.0 69.0 

Louisiana 1,800 1,100 610 350 19.4 31.8 57.4 

Maine 1,100* 750 600 460 41.8 61.3 76.7 

Maryland 1,600* 1,100 950 810 50.6 73.6 85.3 

Massachusetts 800* 500 350 240 30.0 48.0 68.6 

Michigan 6,000* 4,700* 3,300* 2,700* 45.0 57.4 81.8 

Minnesota 15,000* 12,000* 7,800* 5,400* 36.0 45.0 69.2 

Mississippi 1,300 800 480 330 25.4 41.3 68.8 

Missouri 6,900 5,000* 3,700* 2,600* 37.7 52.0 70.3 

Montana 1,600 900 650 600 37.5 66.7 92.3 

Nebraska 2,700* 1,800 1,100 700 25.9 38.9 63.6 

Nevada 260 200 150 100 38.5 50.0 66.7 

New Hampshire 400* 400 260 200 50.0 50.0 76.9 

New Jersey 450 400 230 150 33.3 37.5 65.2 

New Mexico 1,300 900* 500* 450* 34.6 50.0 90.0 

New York 12,200* 10,000* 7,300* 6,400* 52.5 64.0 87.7 

North Carolina 1,800* 1,300 900 590 32.8 45.4 65.6 

North Dakota 2,100 1,500 850 500 23.8 33.3 58.8 

Ohio 8,900* 6,800* 5,200* 4,400* 49.4 64.7 84.6 

Oklahoma 3,000 2,400 1,700 1,400 46.7 58.3 82.4 

Oregon 1,900* 1,300* 820 720 37.9 55.4 87.8 

Pennsylvania 14,500* 11,800* 10,300* 8,700* 60.0 73.7 84.5 

Rhode Island 60* 40 30 30 50.0 75.0 100.0 

South Carolina 800 350 240 200 25.0 57.1 83.3 

South Dakota 3,300 2,400 1,400 750 22.7 31.3 53.6 

Tennessee 3,500* 2,600* 1,500* 1,100 31.4 42.3 73.3 

Texas 5,300 4,000* 2,100* 1,300* 24.5 32.5 61.9 

Utah 1,500 1,000 760 560 37.3 56.0 73.7 

Vermont 2,600* 2,100* 1,600* 1,200* 46.2 57.1 75.0 

Virginia 2,800* 2,100 1,500* 1,300* 46.4 61.9 86.7 

Washington 3,000* 1,800* 1,000* 790* 26.3 43.9 79.0 

West Virginia 2,000 1,100 600 470 23.5 42.7 78.3 

Wisconsin 33,000* 28,000* 19,100* 14,900* 45.2 53.2 78.0 

Wyoming 600 400 270 250 41.7 62.5 92.6 

U.S. 180,640 139,670 97,460 75,140 41.6 53.8 77.1 

NAHMS total 137,860 112,300 80,910 59,740 43.3 53.2 73.8 

1

An operation is any place having one or more milk cows, excluding cows used to nurse calves, on hand any 

time during the year.

2

NASS, Milk Final Estimates 1988-92. 

3

NASS, Milk Cows and Production Final Estimates 1993-97, January 1999. 

4

NASS, Livestock Operations, Final Estimates 1998-2002, April 2004. 

5

NASS, Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations, 2006 Summary, February 2007. 

*NAHMS participating States. 
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—B. Dairy Industry Changes by State

28 / Dairy 2007

Similar to the changes in the number of dairy operations, the number of licensed

dairy operations (Grade A or B) decreased from 2002 to 2006 for every State

except Alaska, which remained the same over the 5-year period. More than four

of five U.S. dairy operations (82.5 percent) were licensed.

b. Changes in U.S. licensed dairy operations by State:

 Number of U.S. Licensed Dairy Operations (Grade A or B)

 Year 

State 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 2002 

2006 as 

Percent of 

NASS 

Operations 

Alabama 120* 110 100 90 75 62.5 44.1 

Alaska 10 10 10 10 10 100.0 33.3 

Arizona 160 160 150 140 130 81.3 65.0 

Arkansas 320 290 240 210 190 59.4 67.9 

California 2,030* 2,060* 2,030* 1,970* 1,960 96.6 85.7 

Colorado 180* 180 170* 170 170 94.4 27.0 

Connecticut 210* 200 180 170 170 81.0 77.3 

Delaware 95 90 90 90 60 63.2 66.7 

Florida 210* 190* 190* 180 160 76.2 34.8 

Georgia 380* 360 330 320 300 78.9 55.2 

Hawaii 10 10 10 5 5 50.0 16.7 

Idaho 815* 775* 755* 725* 690 84.7 86.3 

Illinois 1,340* 1,295* 1,210* 1,155 1,105 82.5 85.0 

Indiana 2,150* 2,010* 1,900* 1,830* 1,750 81.4 83.3 

Iowa 2,760* 2,500* 2,420* 2,370* 2,230 80.8 92.9 

Kansas 565 530 490 460 450 79.6 50.0 

Kentucky 1,835 1,630* 1,435* 1,335* 1,240 67.6 62.0 

Louisiana 380 340 310 280 250 65.8 71.4 

Maine 430* 400 390 370 350 81.4 76.1 

Maryland 735* 715 695 655 630 85.7 77.8 

Massachusetts 250* 230 220 200 190 76.0 79.2 

Michigan 3,040* 2,840* 2,680* 2,590* 2,530 83.2 93.7 

Minnesota 6,775* 6,235* 5,810* 5,530* 5,295 78.2 98.1 

Mississippi 300 270 250 230 190 63.3 57.8 

Missouri 2,110 1,980* 1,840* 1,780* 1,710 81.0 65.8 

Montana 120 110 120 120 110 91.7 18.3 

Nebraska 540* 500 450 405 380 70.4 54.3 

Nevada 35 30 30 30 30 85.7 30.0 

New Hampshire 170* 150 140 140 130 76.5 65.0 

New Jersey 140 130 130 120 120 85.7 80.0 

New Mexico 160 170* 170* 170* 170 106.3 37.8 

New York 6,930* 6,700* 6,600* 6,430* 5,970 86.1 93.3 

North Carolina 420* 395 375 365 345 82.1 58.5 

North Dakota 510 440 400 360 320 62.7 64.0 

Ohio 4,100* 3,960* 3,780* 3,610* 3,530 86.1 80.2 

Oklahoma 440 420 400 380 350 79.5 25.0 

Oregon 350* 350* 350 330 320 91.4 44.4 

Pennsylvania 9,240* 9,130* 8,720* 8,700* 8,610 93.2 99.0 

Rhode Island 20* 20 20 20 15 75.0 50.0 

South Carolina 120 120 110 95 95 79.2 47.5 

South Dakota 860 780 700 650 600 69.8 80.0 

Tennessee 860* 820* 760* 710 650 75.6 59.1 

Texas 890 850* 810* 780* 740 83.1 56.9 

Utah 405 365 360 345 320 79.0 57.1 

Vermont 1,480* 1,390* 1,280* 1,230* 1,170 79.1 97.5 

Virginia 940* 910 850* 815* 775 82.4 59.6 

Washington 660* 640* 620* 610* 610 92.4 77.2 

West Virginia 170 150 140 130 120 70.6 25.5 

Wisconsin 17,300* 16,400* 15,570* 15,100* 14,640 84.6 98.3 

Wyoming 40 35 35 30 30 75.0 12.0 

U.S. 74,110 70,375 66,825 64,540 61,990 83.6 82.5 

NAHMS total 64,435 61,925 59,600 55,575 
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—B. Dairy Industry Changes by State

3. U.S. average dairy herd size

Average dairy herd sizes in 2006 ranged from 20 cows in Alaska to 875 in

Arizona. The U.S. average dairy herd size in 2006 was 121.5 cows, more than

double the average in 1991 (53.9 cows).

Changes in U.S. average dairy herd size by State:

Average Herd Size1

 

(Number of Milk Cows) 

State 1991 1995 2001 2006 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1991 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1995 

2006 as 

Percent of 

2001 

Alabama 39.1* 62.7 80.0 76.5 195.7 121.9 95.6 

Alaska 26.7 26.7 43.3 20.0 74.9 75.0 46.2 

Arizona 192.0 403.3 588.0 875.0 455.7 216.9 148.8 

Arkansas 34.5 32.9 45.7 67.9 196.8 206.0 148.4 

California 276.2* 408.8* 659.2* 778.3* 281.8 190.4 118.1 

Colorado 55.0* 84.0 125.0* 182.5 331.8 217.3 146.0 

Connecticut 66.0* 78.9 77.4 86.4 130.9 109.4 111.6 

Delaware 56.3 64.7 81.8 77.8 138.2 120.3 95.1 

Florida 179.0* 195.0* 294.1* 282.6 157.9 144.9 96.1 

Georgia 75.0* 88.2 118.1 129.3 172.4 146.6 109.5 

Hawaii 125.0 156.7 220.0 126.7 101.4 80.9 57.6 

Idaho 93.7* 170.7* 388.0* 627.5* 669.7 367.7 161.7 

Illinois 56.7* 53.8* 60.5* 79.2 139.7 147.1 130.9 

Indiana 32.2* 35.9* 52.1* 79.0* 245.3 220.2 151.8 

Iowa 38.6* 46.3* 59.7* 87.5* 226.7 188.8 146.5 

Kansas 41.3 51.3 89.2 122.2 295.9 238.5 137.1 

Kentucky 33.6 38.3* 42.1* 46.5* 138.4 121.6 110.5 

Louisiana 43.9 62.7 78.7 85.7 195.2 136.6 108.9 

Maine 37.3* 54.7 61.7 69.6 186.6 127.3 112.8 

Maryland 59.4* 79.1 85.3 74.1 124.7 93.7 86.9 

Massachusetts 38.8* 54.0 60.0 64.6 166.5 119.6 107.6 

Michigan 55.3* 68.1* 91.2* 120.0* 217.0 176.3 131.6 

Minnesota 44.0* 48.6* 62.4* 84.3* 191.6 173.4 135.0 

Mississippi 46.2 63.8 70.8 66.7 144.4 104.6 94.1 

Missouri 30.4 36.4* 37.0* 43.8* 144.1 120.5 118.4 

Montana 15.0 22.2 27.7 30.0 200.0 135.0 108.3 

Nebraska 33.3* 38.3 60.9 85.7 257.4 223.6 140.7 

Nevada 76.9 125.0 166.7 270.0 351.1 216.0 162.0 

New Hampshire 52.5* 50.0 69.2 72.5 138.1 145.0 104.7 

New Jersey 53.3 55.0 56.5 70.0 131.3 127.3 123.8 

New Mexico 77.7 216.7* 602.0* 800.0* 1029.6 369.2 132.9 

New York 60.7* 70.2* 92.5* 98.1* 161.6 139.8 106.1 

North Carolina 55.0* 63.1 71.1 81.4 148.0 129.0 114.4 

North Dakota 38.1 41.3 47.1 62.0 162.7 150.0 131.8 

Ohio 36.0* 41.3* 50.4* 62.3* 173.1 150.7 123.6 

Oklahoma 32.3 39.2 49.4 50.0 154.8 127.7 101.2 

Oregon 52.6* 71.5* 139.0 159.7 303.6 223.3 114.9 

Pennsylvania 45.7* 53.7* 56.8* 63.2* 138.3 117.7 111.3 

Rhode Island 40.0* 50.0 46.7 36.7 91.8 73.3 78.6 

South Carolina 41.3 74.3 83.3 85.0 205.8 114.4 102.0 

South Dakota 40.0 46.7 61.4 108.0 270.0 231.4 175.8 

Tennessee 47.1* 45.0* 58.7* 60.9 129.3 135.4 103.8 

Texas 72.6 99.3* 151.0* 266.9* 367.6 268.9 176.8 

Utah 50.7 91.0 122.4 153.6 303.0 168.8 125.5 

Vermont 62.7* 74.3* 96.3* 116.7* 186.1 157.1 121.2 

Virginia 50.0* 60.0 79.3* 76.9* 153.8 128.2 97.0 

Washington 79.3* 142.8* 247.0* 297.5* 375.2 208.3 120.4 

West Virginia 11.5 18.2 26.7 27.7 240.9 152.1 103.7 

Wisconsin 50.0* 51.8* 66.5* 83.6* 167.2 161.5 125.6 

Wyoming 15.0 16.5 16.3 28.0 186.7 169.7 171.8 

U.S. 53.9 67.1 93.8 121.5 225.4 181.1 129.6 

NAHMS total 57.4 69.7 96.4 126.1 219.7 181.4 130.4 

1

Average herd size = NASS published number of dairy operations/following-year January 1 milk cow 

inventory. 

*NAHMS participating States. 
Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—B. Dairy Industry Changes by State

30 / Dairy 2007

4. Milk production per cow

Milk production per cow has increased in every State except Alaska since 1991.

In 2006, Colorado had the highest milk production per cow at 23,155 pounds. In

addition, Arizona (22,855), Idaho (22,326), Michigan (22,188), and Washington

(23,055) all had milk production per cow higher than 22,000 pounds during 2006.

The U.S. average milk per cow was 19,951 pounds in 2006, up 32.7 percent

from 15,031 pounds in 1991.

Photo by Judy Rodriguez
USDA APHIS VS / 31

Section I: Historical Changes in the U.S. Dairy Industry—B. Dairy Industry Changes by State

Milk per Cow Production (Pounds) 

State 19911 19952 20013 20064

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1991 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1995 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 2001 

Alabama 12,707* 14,176 14,286 14,500 114.1 102.3 101.5 

Alaska 13,300 17,000 13,055 12,250 92.1 72.1 93.8 

Arizona 18,032 19,735 22,036 22,855 126.7 115.8 103.7 

Arkansas 11,687 12,150 12,343 13,250 113.4 109.1 107.3 

California 18,534* 19,573* 20,904* 21,815* 117.7 111.5 104.4 

Colorado 17,338* 18,687 21,413* 23,155 133.6 123.9 108.1 

Connecticut 15,848* 16,438 18,240 19,316 121.9 117.5 105.9 

Delaware 14,130 14,500 16,667 17,429 123.3 120.2 104.6 

Florida 13,933* 14,698* 15,758* 16,417 117.8 111.7 104.2 

Georgia 13,523* 15,550 16,663 18,234 134.8 117.3 109.4 

Hawaii 13,056 13,654 14,107 13,256 101.5 97.1 94.0 

Idaho 16,399* 18,147* 21,194* 22,326* 136.1 123.0 105.3 

Illinois 14,936* 15,887* 17,414* 19,204 128.6 120.9 110.3 

Indiana 15,439* 15,375* 16,778* 19,994* 129.5 130.0 119.2 

Iowa 15,095* 16,124* 18,024* 20,146* 133.5 124.9 111.8 

Kansas 12,680 14,390 17,312 20,920 165.0 145.4 120.8 

Kentucky 11,231 12,469* 12,969* 13,276* 118.2 106.5 102.4 

Louisiana 11,675 11,908 11,704 12,375 106.0 103.9 105.7 

Maine 14,786* 16,025 17,211 17,938 121.3 111.9 104.2 

Maryland 14,480* 14,725 15,780 17,078 117.9 116.0 108.2 

Massachusetts 15,000* 16,000 17,000 17,375 115.8 108.6 102.2 

Michigan 15,690* 17,071* 19,373* 22,188* 141.4 130.0 114.5 

Minnesota 14,354* 15,894* 17,278* 18,587* 129.5 116.9 107.6 

Mississippi 12,098 12,909 14,200 14,826 122.5 114.9 104.4 

Missouri 13,451 14,158* 13,441* 16,000* 119.0 113.0 119.0 

Montana 13,750 15,000 18,211 18,632 135.5 124.2 102.3 

Nebraska 13,913* 14,797 16,194 18,328 131.7 123.9 113.2 

Nevada 17,500 18,128 19,412 20,667 118.1 114.0 106.5 

New Hampshire 15,143* 16,300 17,889 19,533 129.0 119.8 109.2 

New Jersey 14,160 13,913 16,643 16,182 114.3 116.3 97.2 

New Mexico 19,561 18,969* 20,750* 21,515* 110.0 113.4 103.7 

New York 15,005* 16,501* 17,530* 18,879* 125.8 114.4 107.7 

North Carolina 15,424* 16,314 17,224 18,510 120.0 113.5 107.5 

North Dakota 12,622 13,094 14,000 14,688 116.4 112.2 104.9 

Ohio 14,446* 15,917* 16,519* 17,737* 122.8 111.4 107.4 

Oklahoma 12,354 13,611 15,407 16,630 134.6 122.2 107.9 

Oregon 16,590* 17,289* 18,074 19,000 114.5 109.9 105.1 

Pennsylvania 15,263* 16,492* 18,112* 19,390* 127.0 117.6 107.1 

Rhode Island 14,333* 14,773 16,571 17,273 120.5 116.9 104.2 

South Carolina 12,273 14,481 17,476 16,353 133.2 112.9 93.6 

South Dakota 12,309 13,398 15,393 18,580 150.9 138.7 120.7 

Tennessee 11,863* 13,740* 14,511* 15,657 132.0 114.0 107.9 

Texas 14,036 15,244* 15,666* 21,328* 152.0 139.9 136.1 

Utah 15,975 16,739 17,211 20,291 127.0 121.2 117.9 

Vermont 14,683* 16,210* 17,444* 18,383* 125.2 113.4 105.4 

Virginia 14,614* 15,116 15,975* 17,363* 118.8 114.9 108.7 

Washington 18,814* 20,091* 22,324* 23,055* 122.5 114.8 103.3 

West Virginia 11,739 12,667 15,563 15,385 131.1 121.5 98.9 

Wisconsin 14,140* 15,397* 17,182* 18,824* 133.1 122.3 109.6 

Wyoming 12,563 13,197 14,000 17,612 140.2 133.5 125.8 

U.S. 15,031 16,405 18,162 19,951 132.7 121.6 109.9 

1

NASS, Milk Final Estimates 1988-92. 

2

NASS, Milk Cows and Production Final Estimates 1993-97, May 1999. 

3

NASS, Milk Cows and Production Final Estimates 1998-2002, May 2004. 

4

NASS, Milk Production, Disposition and Income 2006 Summary, April 2007. 

*NAHMS participating States 

Changes in milk per cow, by State:
Section II: Changes in World Dairy Production—General Trends

32 / Dairy 2007

Section II: Changes in World Dairy Production

Note: Tables in this section are comprised from data collected by USDA’s

Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

General Trends

1. Milk cow inventory

In 2006 India had 38 million milk cows, more than any other nation in the world.

China showed the largest increase in number of milk cows from 1991 to 2006

(approximatley 1.5 to 7.9 million, respectively). The former Soviet Union had the

largest decrease in number of milk cows from 1991 to 2006 (approximately 20.6

to 9.9 million, respectively). Total milk cow numbers for these selected countries

decreased 5.9 percent since 1991 but remained steady from 2001 to 2006 at

approximately 125.6 million.

Changes in milk cow inventories in selected countries:

 Number of Milk Cows (1,000 Head) 

Continent/Country 1991 1995 2001 2006 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1991 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1995 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 2001 

North 

America Canada 1,410 1,244 1,091 1,019 72.3 81.9 93.4 

 Mexico 6,440 6,440 6,800 6,875 106.8 106.8 101.1 

 United States 9,826 9,466 9,103 9,112 92.7 96.3 100.1 

Subtotal 17,676 17,150 16,994 17,006 96.2 99.2 100.1 

South 

America Argentina 2,000 2,350 2,450 2,150 107.5 91.5 87.8 

 Brazil 15,500 17,500 15,900 15,290 98.6 87.4 96.2 

Subtotal 17,500 19,850 18,350 17,440 99.7 87.9 95.0 

European 

Union1 Subtotal 25,3922

 22,4342 25,7473 24,9444 98.2 111.2 96.9 

Eastern 

Europe Poland 4,707 3,715 3 4 -- -- -- 

 Romania 1,600 1,778 1,564 4 -- -- -- 

Subtotal 6,307 5,493 1,564 4 -- -- -- 

Former 

Soviet 

Union 

Russia 20,557 18,400 12,500 9,900 48.2 53.8 79.2 

 Ukraine 8,378 7,818 4,958 3,491 41.7 44.7 70.4 

Subtotal 28,935 26,218 17,458 13,391 46.3 51.1 76.7 

South Asia India 30,700 33,000 35,900 38,000 123.8 115.2 105.8 

Subtotal 30,700 33,000 35,900 38,000 123.8 115.2 105.8 

Asia China 1,459 2,252 2,848 7,900 541.5 350.8 277.4 

 Japan 1,081 1,034 971 900 83.3 87.0 92.7 

Subtotal 2,540 3,286 3,819 8,800 346.5 267.8 230.4 

Oceania Australia5 1,629 1,786 2,281 1,870 114.8 104.7 82.0 

 New Zealand6 2,723 2,994 3,557 4,100 150.6 136.9 115.3 

Subtotal 4,352 4,780 5,838 5,970 137.2 124.9 102.3 

Total 133,402 132,211 125,670 125,551 94.1 95.0 99.9 

1

Based on deliveries. 

2

EU-15 includes Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, 

Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, U.K. 

3

EU-25 includes Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 

Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, 

Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, U.K. 

4

EU-27 includes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, 

France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, U.K. 

5

Year ending June 30 of year shown. 

6

Year ending May 31 of year shown. 

Source: FAS Dairy: World Markets and Trade. Based upon counselor and attaché reports, official 

statistics, and results of office research. 
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section II: Changes in World Dairy Production—General Trends

2. Milk production

The European Union produced the most milk in 2006 at 132.2 million metric

tons, a 7.5 percent increase from 1991. China showed the largest increase in

production with a 687 percent increase from 1991 to 2006, which is not

surprising considering the nation’s large increase in cow numbers. Excluding

China, milk production in 2006 as a percentage of 2001 increased no more than

15.5 percent and decreased no more than 6 percent in any country. Milk

production over all selected countries was approximately 419 million metric tons

in 2006, an increase of about 41 million metric tons since 1991.

Changes in milk production in selected countries:

 Milk Production (1,000 Metric Tons) 

Continent/Country 1991 1995 2001 2006 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1991 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 1995 

2006 as 

Percent 

of 2001 

North 

America Canada 7,790 7,920 8,106 8,041 103.2 101.5 99.2 

 Mexico 10,200 7,399 9,501 10,051 98.5 135.8 105.8 

United 

States 66,994 70,440 74,994 82,462 123.1 117.1 110.0 

Subtotal 84,984 85,759 92,601 100,554 118.3 117.3 108.6 

South 

America Argentina 6,400 8,500 9,500 10,200 159.4 120.0 107.4 

 Brazil 14,200 18,375 22,300 25,230 177.7 137.3 113.1 

Subtotal 20,600 26,875 31,800 35,430 172.0 131.8 111.4 

European 

Union1 Subtotal 122,9612

 121,7402 130,0693 132,2064 107.5 108.6 101.6 

Eastern 

Europe Poland 14,504 11,420 3 4 -- -- -- 

 Romania 4,391 5,885 5,188 4 -- -- -- 

Subtotal 18,895 17,305 5,188 4 -- -- -- 

Former 

Soviet 

Union 

Russia 51,971 39,300 33,000 31,100 59.8 79.1 94.2 

 Ukraine 22,409 17,181 13,169 13,017 58.1 75.8 98.8 

Subtotal 74,380 56,481 46,169 44,117 59.3 78.1 95.6 

South Asia India 28,200 32,500 36,400 41,000 145.4 126.2 112.6 

Subtotal 28,200 32,500 36,400 41,000 145.4 126.2 112.6 

Asia China 4,646 5,764 10,255 31,934 687.3 554.0 311.4 

 Japan 8,260 8,382 8,300 8,138 98.5 97.1 98.0 

Subtotal 12,906 14,146 18,555 40,072 310.5 283.3 216.0 

Oceania Australia5 6,578 8,433 10,864 10,395 158.0 123.3 95.7 

New 

Zealand6 8,122 9,684 13,162 15,200 187.1 157.0 115.5 

Subtotal 14,700 18,117 24,026 25,595 174.1 141.3 106.5 

Total 377,626 372,923 384,808 418,974 110.9 112.3 108.9 1

Based on deliveries. 

2

EU-15 includes Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, 

Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, U.K. 

3

EU-25 includes Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 

Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, 

Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, U.K. 

4

EU-27 includes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, 

France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, U.K. 

5

Year ending June 30 of year shown. 

6

Year ending May 31 of year shown. 

Source: FAS Dairy: World Markets and Trade. Based upon counselor and attaché reports, official 

statistics, and results of office research. 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—A. Dairy Herd Information

34 / Dairy 2007

Note: The NDHEP 1991 study included only herds with 30 or more milk

cows; the Dairy 1996, Dairy 2002, and Dairy 2007 studies included

operations with one or more milk cows.

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates

A. Dairy Herd

Information

1. Record-keeping systems

The percentage of operations using hand-written records decreased from 88.3

percent in 1991 to 73.5 percent in 2007, while the percentage of operations using

on-farm computers increased from 13.7 percent to 19.4 during the same time

period. These changes in record-keeping systems are consistent with the need

to quickly store and access information on larger operations.

a. Percentage of operations by...

...type of recordkeeping systems 

used for the 

dairy operation. 

...type of individual animal record-keeping 

systems used. 

System 

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Handwritten, 

such as a 

ledger or 

notebook 88.3 (1.0) 80.7 (1.0) 74.3 (1.1) 73.5 (1.2) 

Dairy Herd 

Improvement 

Association 57.5 (1.8) 43.4 (1.2) 44.8 (1.3) 45.9 (1.4) 

Computer 

located on 

the operation 13.7 (1.1) 15.1 (0.8) 19.4 (0.9) 19.4 (0.9) 

Computer 

located off 

the operation 11.8 (1.2) 9.9 (0.8) 5.0 (0.5) 4.9 (0.5) 

Other system 11.4 (1.1) 6.0 (0.7) 4.1 (0.5) 4.4 (0.6) 

Any 99.9 (0.1) 100.0 (0.0) 95.2 (0.6) 95.1 (0.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—A. Dairy Herd Information

For operations using on- or off-farm computer data records systems, the

percentage of operations that used Dairy Comp 305 increased from 19.4

percent in 2002 to 34.9 percent in 2007. The percentage of cows whose records

were kept using Dairy Comp 305 increased from 48.5 percent in 2002 to 60.3

percent in 2007.

b. For operations using on- or off-farm computer record systems, percentage of

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

computerized record system used:

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Operations Cows Operations Cows 

Primary 

Computer 

Record 

System Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy Comp 

305 19.4 (1.7) 48.5 (1.9) 34.9 (2.3) 60.3 (2.0) 

PC Dart 12.5 (1.4) 10.3 (0.8) 19.3 (1.9) 10.2 (0.9) 

DHI Plus 13.3 (1.7) 13.7 (1.3) 15.0 (1.7) 15.9 (1.7) 

Other 54.8 (2.5) 27.5 (1.6) 30.8 (2.4) 13.6 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—A. Dairy Herd Information

36 / Dairy 2007

2. Identification

Identification methods for dairy cattle have changed little since 1996. The

percentage of operations using ear tags or electronic identification (ID) increased

slightly, while the percentage of operations using collars or photographs or

sketches showed a slight decrease. These changes are expected, as herd sizes

increase and housing systems change from individual animal stalls to freestalls

and drylot housing.

a. Percentage of operations by type of individual animal ID used on at least

some dairy cows:

Percent Operations 

ID Type 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Ear tags 81.2 (1.1) 85.8 (1.0) 86.5 (1.0) 

Collars 22.3 (1.0) 16.8 (1.0) 12.7 (0.9) 

Photographs or 

sketches 17.4 (1.0) 14.1 (0.9) 13.3 (1.0) 

Branding (all methods) 4.9 (0.5) 4.9 (0.5) 4.4 (0.5) 

Electronic ID 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 4.1 (0.5) 

Tattoos (other than for 

brucellosis) 6.5 (0.6) 8.8 (0.7) 7.7 (0.6) 

Other 10.1 (0.9) 10.8 (0.8) 10.5 (0.9) 

Any 91.2 (0.9) 93.7 (0.8) 93.0 (0.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—A. Dairy Herd Information

The percentage of operations that used ear tags as herd identification at the

operation level increased from 29.1 percent in 2002 to 34.5 percent in 2007, but

the percentage of cows that had ear tags as herd ID remained unchanged. The

use of electronic ID increased, as only 0.4 percent of cows were equipped with

electronic ID in 2002 as a method to indentify animals as part of a herd

compared with 3.9 percent in 2007.

b. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows) by type of herd

identification used:

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Operations Cows Operations Cows 

ID Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Ear tags 29.1 (1.1) 41.5 (1.2) 34.5 (1.3) 41.0 (1.5) 

Collars 4.2 (0.5) 3.9 (0.5) 2.8 (0.4) 2.9 (0.5) 

Branding (all 

methods) 3.7 (0.3) 18.0 (1.1) 3.1 (0.3) 18.7 (1.4) 

Electronic ID 0.1 (0.0) 0.4 (0.2) 1.8 (0.3) 3.9 (0.6) 

Tattoos (other 

than for 

brucellosis) 3.4 (0.4) 3.8 (0.5) 2.5 (0.4) 4.6 (0.8) 

Other 2.7 (0.4) 2.9 (0.4) 2.0 (0.4) 1.7 (0.4) 

Any 34.2 (1.1) 53.6 (1.1) 36.4 (1.3) 54.0 (1.5) 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—A. Dairy Herd Information

38 / Dairy 2007

3. Breed of dairy cows

Holsteins remain the predominant breed in the United States, and the percentage

of operations with specific breeds has not changed since 1991.

Percentage of operations by primary breed:

Percent Operations 

Breed 

NDHEP

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Holstein 94.9 (0.7) 93.0 (0.8) 92.4 (0.7) 92.2 (0.7) 

Jersey 2.4 (0.4) 4.1 (0.6) 3.8 (0.5) 3.5 (0.4) 

Ayrshire 0.6 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 

Brown Swiss 1.0 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 0.9 (0.2) 0.9 (0.3) 

Guernsey 0.9 (0.3) 1.7 (0.4) 1.1 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 

Other 0.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 1.5 (0.4) 2.2 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

4. Cow registration

The percentage of operations with no registered cows increased from 59.6 in

1991 to 71.7 percent in 2007. Operations with 100 percent of cows registered

remained similar from 1991 to 2007.

Percentage of operations by percentage of dairy cows registered with a breed

association:

Percent Operations 

Percent 

Dairy Cows 

Registered 

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Dairy Cows 

Registered 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

0 59.6 (1.7) 0 65.5 (1.2) 71.6 (1.2) 71.7 (1.3) 

1 to 9 10.8 (1.1) 0.1 to 9.9 6.7 (0.6) 5.3 (0.6) 5.6 (0.6) 

10 to 50 16.3 (1.3) 10.0 to 49.9 10.3 (0.7) 8.1 (0.7) 6.5 (0.7) 

51 to 75 3.2 (0.6) 50.0 to 74.9 4.4 (0.6) 3.2 (0.4) 2.1 (0.4) 

76 to 99 4.2 (0.6) 75.0 to 99.9 5.5 (0.6) 4.2 (0.5) 5.2 (0.6) 

100 5.9 (0.7) 100 7.6 (0.7) 7.6 (0.7) 8.9 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—A. Dairy Herd Information

5. Quality assurance programs

The percentage of operations participating in any milk quality assurance program

increased from 40.6 percent in 2002 to 47.3 percent in 2007. Local milkcooperative or processor-sponsored programs showed the largest increase in

the percentage of operation participation from 2002 to 2007 (35.2 to 42.2 percent

of operations, respectively).

Percentage of operations that participated in quality assurance programs, by type

of program:

Percent Operations 

Program Type Dairy 2002 Std. Error Dairy 2007 Std. Error 

State sponsored 7.8 (0.6) 8.8 (0.7) 

Local milk cooperative/ 

processor sponsored 35.2 (1.3) 42.2 (1.4) 

National industry 

sponsored 2.8 (0.4) 3.1 (0.4) 

Other 2.8 (0.4) 2.0 (0.3) 

Any 40.6 (1.3) 47.3 (1.4) 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—B. Productivity

40 / Dairy 2007

B. Productivity 1. Rolling herd average milk production

Rolling herd average (RHA) milk production for all herds and for herds with

primarily Holsteins has increased approximately 4,000 pounds (cow average)

since 1991.

a. Operation average RHA milk production (lb/cow):

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

16,703 (96) 16,587 (100) 18,235 (103) 19,175 (112) 

Primarily Holsteins* 

Op. 

Avg.

Std. 

Error

Op. 

Avg.

Std. 

Error

Op. 

Avg.

Std. 

Error

Op. 

Avg.

Std. 

Error

16,925 (96) 16,925 (99) 18,590 (102) 19,482 (115) 

*Operations where Holsteins accounted for 50 percent or more of the January 1, 1998, January 1, 

2002, or January 1, 2007, cow inventory or was the main breed of dairy herd (1991).

b. Cow average RHA milk production (lb/cow):

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

17,532 (81) 18,198 (79) 20,210 (80) 21,483 (115) 

Primarily Holsteins*

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error

17,735 (80) 18,442 (78) 20,467 (79) 21,807 (114) 

*Operations where Holsteins accounted for 50 percent or more of the January 1, 1998, January 1, 

2002, or January 1, 2007, cow inventory or was the main breed of dairy herd (1991).
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—B. Productivity

2. Age at first calving

The age at first calving at the operation level decreased from 25.9 months in

1991 to 25.2 in 2007. Similarly, the cow average age at first calving decreased

from 25.8 to 24.5 months during the same time period.

a. Operation average age at first calving (months):

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

25.9 (0.1) 25.8 (0.1) 25.4 (0.1) 25.2 (0.1) 

b. Cow average age at first calving (months):

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

25.8 (0.1) 25.5 (0.1) 25.0 (0.1) 24.5 (0.1) 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—B. Productivity

42 / Dairy 2007

3. Days dry

In 2007, the average days dry at the operation level and cow level was 57.8 and

58.5 days, respectively. These averages represent a decrease of about 3 days

since 1991.

a. Operation average days dry:

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

61.1 (0.5) 60.5 (0.3) 60.6 (0.3) 57.8 (0.3) 

b. Cow average days dry:

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

61.5 (0.3) 61.7 (0.4) 61.9 (0.2) 58.5 (0.3) 

4. Calving interval

Although the operation average calving interval decreased slightly from 2002 to

2007 (13.3 and 13.2 months, respectively), the average increased from 12.8

months in 1991 to 13.2 in 2007.

a. Operation average calving interval for cows (months):

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

12.8 (0.0) 12.9 (0.0) 13.3 (0.0) 13.2 (0.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—B. Productivity

b. Cow average calving interval for cows (months):

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Cow 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

12.9 (0.0) 13.0 (0.0) 13.4 (0.0) 13.3 (0.0) 

Photo by Dr. Jason Lombard
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

44 / Dairy 2007

C. Heifer Management 1. Source of heifers

In 2002 and 2007, the majority of heifers were born and raised on the same

operation, and the majority of operations had heifers that were born and raised

on the operation. A higher percentage of heifers were raised off the operation in

2007 compared to 2002 (11.5 and 7.2 percent, respectively).

Percentage of operations and percentage of dairy heifers*, by source of heifers:

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Operations Heifers Operations Heifers 

Heifer Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Heifers born and raised 

on same operation 98.1 (0.3) 89.5 (1.0) 96.5 (0.4) 87.4 (1.2) 

Heifers born on the 

operation but raised 

off the operation 3.6 (0.4) 7.2 (0.8) 4.7 (0.5) 11.5 (1.2) 

Heifers were born 

off the operation 6.7 (0.7) 3.3 (0.8) 6.6 (0.8) 1.1 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of January 1 heifer inventory 

2. Separation from dam

The practice of separating newborn heifer calves from their dams immediately

after birth doubled from 1991 to 2007 (28.0 and 55.9 percent of operations,

respectively).

Percentage of operations by age at which newborn heifer calves were separated

from their dams:

Percent Operations 

Age (Hours) 

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error Age (Hours)

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

0 (before 

any nursing) 28.0 (1.7) 

Immediately 

(no nursing) 47.9 (1.3) 52.9 (1.3) 55.9 (1.4) 

Less than 12 39.6 (1.7) 

After nursing, 

but less than 

12 hours 

20.8 (1.0) 22.5 (1.1) 22.2 (1.2) 

12 to 24 22.0 (1.4) 12 to 24 17.4 (1.1) 15.9 (1.0) 14.6 (1.0) 

More than 24 10.4 (1.0) More than 24 13.9 (1.0) 8.7 (0.8) 7.3 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

Photo by Judy Rodriguez

3. Colostrum

In 1991, 1996, and 2002, about 3 of 10 operations allowed heifer calves to get

colostrum during first nursing compared to about 4 of 10 operations in 2007. A

smaller percentage of operations hand-fed colostrum from a bucket or bottle in

2007 compared to operations in 1991, 1996, and 2002.

a. Percentage of operations by method normally used for heifer calves’ first

feeding of colostrum:

Percent Operations 

Method 

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

First nursing 33.7 (1.7) 33.5 (1.2) 30.5 (1.2) 36.3 (1.4) 

Hand-fed 

from bucket 

or bottle 64.0 (1.7) 62.5 (1.2) 64.8 (1.3) 59.2 (1.4) 

Hand-fed 

using 

esophageal 

feeder 2.3 (0.6) 3.6 (0.4) 4.4 (0.5) 4.3 (0.5) 

No 

colostrum 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

46 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of operations that estimated immunoglobulin (Ig) levels in

colostrum or evaluated its quality increased across all herd sizes from 2002 to

2007.

b. For operations that hand-fed colostrum, percentage of operations that

estimated Ig levels of the colostrum or evaluated its quality, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size 

(Number Dairy Cows) 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer than 100) 2.1 (0.6) 7.6 (1.3) 

Medium (100 to 499) 10.6 (1.5) 19.8 (2.3) 

Large (500 or more) 32.2 (2.8) 45.2 (3.2) 

All operations 5.2 (0.5) 13.0 (1.1) 

A smaller percentage of medium and large operations pooled colostrum from

more than one cow in 2007 than in 2002.

c. For 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 Dairy Cows) 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer than 100) 22.1 (1.4) 16.0 (1.7) 

Medium (100 to 499) 37.4 (2.0) 26.0 (2.4) 

Large (500 or more) 70.6 (2.4) 56.9 (3.1) 

All operations 27.0 (1.1) 21.0 (1.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

The percentage of operations by storage methods for colostrum was essentially

unchanged between 2002 and 2007, with the largest percentage of operations

not storing colostrum. Approximately 6 of 10 operations did not store colostrum

in 2002 and 2007.

d. For operations that hand-fed colostrum, percentage of operations by primary

method of storing colostrum:

Percent Operations 

Method 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Stored without refrigeration 4.4 (0.6) 3.9 (0.7) 

Stored in refrigerator 7.8 (0.6) 11.1 (0.9) 

Stored in freezer 27.7 (1.1) 28.2 (1.6) 

Other 0.5 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 

Not stored 59.6 (1.3) 56.8 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

The percentage of operations that pasteurized colostrum did not change from

2002 to 2007.

e. For operations that hand-fed colostrum, percentage of operations that

pasteurized colostrum, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size 

(Number Dairy Cows) 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer than 100) 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 

Medium (100 to 499) 0.8 (0.3) 0.9 (0.4) 

Large (500 or more) 3.6 (0.9) 6.4 (1.6) 

All operations 0.6 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

48 / Dairy 2007

Operations provided calves approximately the same amount of colostrum during

the first 24 hours of life from 1991 to 2007, with approximately one-quarter of

operations feeding 2 quarts or less and about one-third feeding 4 or more quarts.

f. For operations that hand-fed colostrum, percentage of operations by amount of

colostrum normally fed during the first 24 hours:

Percent Operations 

Amount 

(Quarts) 

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

2 or less 25.6 (1.8) 21.4 (1.3) 21.4 (1.4) 23.3 (1.6) 

More than 

2 but less 

than 4 48.2 (2.1) 46.6 (1.6) 47.2 (1.7) 45.8 (1.9) 

4 or more 26.2 (1.9) 32.0 (1.5) 31.4 (1.5) 30.9 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 49

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

4. Medicated milk replacer

Approximately 56 percent of operations fed medicated milk replacer in 2002 and

2007.

a. Percentage of operations that fed medicated milk replacer, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size 

(Number Dairy Cows) 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer than 100) 54.4 (1.6) 55.2 (1.8) 

Medium (100 to 499) 64.1 (1.9) 68.2 (2.1) 

Large (500 or more) 37.7 (2.5) 43.6 (3.1) 

All operations 55.7 (1.3) 57.5 (1.4) 

Photo by Judy Rodriguez
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

50 / Dairy 2007

5. Weaning age

The age at weaning for both the operation and heifer averages has remained

relatively steady since 1996.

a. Operation average age of heifers at weaning (weeks):

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Op. 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

7.9 (0.1) 8.4 (0.1) 8.0 (0.1) 8.2 (0.1) 

Although the percentage of operations that fed milk replacer remained

unchanged between 2002 and 2007, the percentage of operations that fed each

specific medication listed increased from 2002 to 2007.

b. For operations that fed a medicated milk replacer, percentage of operations by

medication used:

Percent Operations 

Medication Used

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Chlortetracycline (CTC) 7.1 (0.7) 12.1 (1.1) 

Oxytetracycline (OTC) 13.7 (0.8) 21.9 (1.5) 

Oxytetracycline in 

combination with Neomycin 

(OxyNEO) 25.6 (1.2) 49.5 (1.9) 

Decoquinate 12.8 (0.9) 18.8 (1.4) 

Lasalocid 3.2 (0.4) 7.2 (0.9) 

Other 3.6 (0.5) 5.4 (0.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

b. Heifer average age at weaning (weeks):

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Heifer 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Heifer 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Heifer 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Heifer 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

8.2 (0.1) 8.7 (0.1) 8.4 (0.1) 8.6 (0.1) 

Photo by Dr. Jason Lombard
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

52 / Dairy 2007

6. Preventive practices

Operation use of specific preventive practices for heifers has remained stable or

increased since 1991. The largest increases in the use of preventive practices

were observed for vitamins A-D-E in feed and selenium in feed.

Percentage of operations by preventive practices normally used for heifers:

Percent Operations 

Preventive 

Practice

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Dewormers 62.2 (2.2) 67.3 (1.3) 69.0 (1.2) 69.4 (1.3) 

Coccidiostats 

in feed 37.8 (2.0) 46.5 (1.2) 44.4 (1.3) 46.5 (1.4) 

Vitamins A-D-E 

injection 11.8 (1.3) 16.3 (1.0) 15.3 (1.0) 10.4 (0.7) 

Vitamins A-D-E in 

feed 57.4 (2.2) 76.9 (1.1) 72.7 (1.2) 74.4 (1.2) 

Selenium 

injection 16.2 (1.8) 12.7 (0.8) 13.3 (0.9) 13.2 (0.9) 

Selenium in feed 50.3 (2.2) 70.8 (1.2) 67.6 (1.3) 69.3 (1.3) 

Ionophores in 

feed (e.g., 

Rumensin®, 

Bovatec®) 40.0 (2.2) 42.2 (1.2) 44.2 (1.3) 45.2 (1.4) 

Probiotics NA 13.1 (0.9) 14.2 (0.9) 20.0 (1.1) 

Anionic salts in 

feed NA NA 20.6 (1.1) 20.9 (1.1) 

Other NA 4.8 (0.6) 3.8 (0.5) 4.6 (0.7) 

Any 91.7 (1.1) 93.6 (0.7) 94.9 (0.6) 94.6 (0.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

54 / Dairy 2007

Percent Operations 

Disease

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 58.4 (2.1) 69.7 (1.3) 71.5 (1.2) 73.7 (1.3) 

Infectious bovine 

rhinotracheitis 

(IBR) 60.6 (2.1) 66.1 (1.3) 67.0 (1.3) 70.4 (1.3) 

Parainfluenza 

Type 3 (PI3) 57.6 (2.1) 60.1 (1.3) 60.0 (1.3) 61.0 (1.4) 

Bovine 

respiratory 

syncytial virus 

(BRSV) 44.0 (2.1) 58.7 (1.3) 58.2 (1.3) 64.9 (1.4) 

Haemophilus 

somnus 14.7 (1.4) 37.3 (1.3) 31.4 (1.2) 34.2 (1.3) 

Leptospirosis 56.1 (2.2) 67.0 (1.3) 65.1 (1.3) 67.7 (1.3) 

Salmonella NA 18.9 (1.0) 16.8 (1.0) 21.5 (1.1) 

E. coli mastitis NA 18.1 (0.9) 21.3 (1.0) 24.1 (1.1) 

Clostridia 

(blackleg/ 

malignant edema) 20.7 (1.4) 32.3 (1.1) 32.8 (1.1) 34.6 (1.3) 

Brucellosis 66.8 (1.9) 63.8 (1.3) 51.0 (1.3) 41.6 (1.3) 

Mycobacterium 

avium subspecies 

paratuberculosis 

(Johne’s disease) NA 5.4 (0.6) 4.6 (0.5) 5.0 (0.6) 

Neospora NA NA 3.6 (0.4) 6.3 (0.6) 

Other NA 7.3 (0.6) 6.9 (0.6) 6.8 (0.7) 

Any 91.3 (1.3) 86.4 (1.0) 84.4 (1.1) 83.0 (1.1) 

7. Vaccination practices

The percentage of operations administering any vaccine decreased from 91.3

percent in 1991 to 83.0 percent in 2007. With the exceptions of parainfluenza,

brucellosis, and Johne’s disease vaccines, vaccine use for all other diseases

increased. The percentage of operations that vaccinated heifers against

brucellosis decreased from 63.8 percent in 1996 to 41.6 percent in 2007. This

decease may be due to the fact that many States switched from a mandatory to

a voluntary brucellosis vaccination program from 1996 to 2007. In addition, the

number of States that were certified brucellosis-free increased from 34 in 1996 to

49 in 2007, which may have impacted how many operations vaccinated against

brucellosis.

Percentage of operations that normally vaccinated heifers against the following

diseases:
USDA APHIS VS / 55

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—C. Heifer Management

56 / Dairy 2007

8. Types of BVD vaccine

The majority of operations that administered BVD vaccines to heifers switched

from giving killed vaccines in 1996 (58.4 percent of operations) to modified-live

vaccines in 2007 (62.2 percent of operations).

For operations that gave BVD vaccinations to heifers, percentage of operations

by type of BVD vaccine given:

 Percent Operations 

Type of 

BVD 

Vaccine 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Killed 58.4 (1.5) 50.6 (1.6) 43.1 (1.6) 

Modified 

live 40.7 (1.5) 49.2 (1.6) 62.2 (1.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 57

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—D. Heifer Health

D. Heifer Health 1. Calves born alive

The number of calves born alive as a percentage of cow inventory decreased

from 93.4 percent in 1996 to 86.0 percent in 2007.

Number of calves born and alive*, as a percentage of January 1 cow inventory:

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

93.4 (0.5) 88.8 (0.5) 86.0 (0.6) 

*In Dairy 2007, included “alive at 48 hours.” 

2. Mortality

The percentages of unweaned and weaned heifer calves that died decreased

from 1996 to 2007. The percentage of unweaned calves that died decreased

from 10.5 percent in 2002 to 7.8 percent in 2007. Weaned heifer calf deaths

increased from 2.2 percent in 1991 to 2.8 percent in 2002 and then decreased to

1.8 percent in 2007.

a. Number of unweaned and weaned heifer deaths, as a percentage of heifers

born alive...

...or moved 

onto the 

operation 

NDHEP 1991 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Heifer 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Unweaned 8.4 (0.4) 10.8 (0.4) 10.5 (0.3) 7.8 (0.2) 

Weaned 2.2 (0.1) 2.4 (0.1) 2.8 (0.1) 1.8 (0.1) 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—D. Heifer Health

58 / Dairy 2007

Scours/diarrhea accounted for more than 50 percent of unweaned heifer deaths

in each study year since 1991, while respiratory problems accounted for 20 to 25

percent of deaths during the same period.

b. Percentage of unweaned heifer deaths by cause:

Percent Deaths 

Cause 

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Scours/ 

diarrhea 52.2 (2.6) 60.5 (1.2) 62.1 (1.1) 56.5 (1.3) 

Respiratory 

problems 21.3 (1.6) 24.5 (1.0) 21.3 (0.9) 22.5 (0.9) 

Joint or navel 

problems 2.2 (0.7) 1.0 (0.1) 1.7 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3) 

Lameness 

or injury NA 0.6 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1) 1.7 (0.3) 

Trauma 2.4 (0.8) NA NA NA 

Lack of 

coordination/ 

severe 

depression NA 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 

Poison NA 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 

Calving 

problems NA NA 4.1 (0.6) 5.3 (0.7) 

Other known 11.7 (1.8) 6.4 (1.1) 2.9 (0.4) 4.3 (0.7) 

Unknown 10.2 (1.4) 6.3 (0.9) 6.9 (0.8) 7.8 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 59

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—D. Heifer Health
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—D. Heifer Health

60 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of weaned heifer deaths caused by respiratory problems

increased from 34.8 percent of deaths in 1991 to 46.5 percent in 2007. Weaned

heifer deaths caused by lameness or injury increased from 4.0 percent of deaths

in 1996 to 12.8 percent in 2007.

c. Percentage of weaned heifer deaths by cause:

Percent Deaths 

Cause 

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Scours/ 

diarrhea 18.4 (2.6) 14.1 (1.6) 12.3 (1.0) 12.6 (1.0) 

Respiratory 

problems 34.8 (3.5) 44.8 (2.1) 50.4 (1.6) 46.5 (1.7) 

Joint or navel 

problems 1.0 (0.4) 1.2 (0.5) 1.4 (0.3) 1.0 (0.3) 

Lameness 

or injury NA 4.0 (0.5) 6.4 (0.6) 12.8 (1.0) 

Trauma 6.7 (0.9) NA NA NA 

Lack of 

coordination/ 

severe 

depression NA 0.5 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 

Poison NA 1.2 (0.3) 1.1 (0.4) 1.9 (0.9) 

Other known 20.8 (2.0) 15.8 (2.4) 12.1 (1.2) 9.9 (1.0) 

Unknown 18.3 (2.1) 18.4 (1.4) 16.0 (1.1) 14.6 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—D. Heifer Health
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—D. Heifer Health

62 / Dairy 2007

3. Carcass disposal

The percentage of operations that used rendering to dispose of dead calves

decreased from 43.8 percent in 2002 to 36.5 percent in 2007, while the

percentage of operations that composted dead calves increased from 10.1 to

24.2 percent during the same period.

Percentage of operations by primary method used to dispose of dead calves:

Percent Operations 

Method of Disposal

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Buried 35.3 (1.3) 32.6 (1.3) 

Burned/incinerated 2.8 (0.4) 2.0 (0.4) 

Rendered 43.8 (1.3) 36.5 (1.3) 

Composted 10.1 (0.8) 24.2 (1.2) 

Landfill 2.4 (0.4) 1.7 (0.3) 

Other 5.6 (0.6) 3.0 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 63

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management

E. Cow Management 1. Home-raised replacements

The percentage of operations that home-raised more than 40 percent of their

cow inventory increased threefold from 2002 to 2007 (8.2 and 24.2 percent,

respectively).

Percentage of operations by percentage of adult-cow inventory that was homeraised:

Percent Operations 

Percent of Home-Raised 

Replacements 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

0 8.4 (0.8) 10.2 (0.8) 

0.1 to 10.0 3.9 (0.6) 3.5 (0.6) 

10.1 to 20.0 23.2 (1.2) 15.8 (1.1) 

20.1 to 30.0 33.1 (1.3) 23.3 (1.2) 

30.1 to 40.0 23.2 (1.1) 22.8 (1.2) 

40.1 or more 8.2 (0.7) 24.4 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

2. Housing

A higher percentage of small and medium operations housed maternity cows

separate from lactating cows in 2007 compared with 1996. For all operations, the

use of separate maternity housing increased from 45.4 percent in 1996 to 60.0

percent in 2007.

Percentage of operations in which maternity housing was separate from housing

used for lactating cows, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size 

(Number Dairy Cows) 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer than 100) 39.1 (1.3) 43.5 (1.6) 51.5 (1.7) 

Medium (100 to 499) 72.6 (2.1) 81.6 (1.7) 80.8 (1.8) 

Large (500 or more) 94.5 (1.8) 91.9 (1.5) 90.4 (2.0) 

All operations 45.4 (1.2) 53.1 (1.3) 60.0 (1.3) 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management

64 / Dairy 2007

3. Milking facilities

The percentage of operations that used a parlor as a primary milking facility

increased from 28.8 percent in 1996 to 39.5 percent in 2007, while the

percentage of operations that used a tiestall or stanchion decreased from 69.5 to

60.3 percent during the same period. A larger shift was observed in the

percentage of cows, as 54.9 percent of cows were milked in parlors in 1996

compared with 78.2 percent in 2007.

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

primary milking1

 facility used:

 Percent Operations Percent Cows2

Facility 

Type

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Parlor 28.8 (0.9) 37.1 (1.0) 39.5 (1.0) 54.9 (1.0) 70.0 (0.8) 78.2 (0.6) 

Tie stall or 

stanchion 69.5 (0.9) 61.9 (1.0) 60.3 (1.0) 43.9 (1.0) 28.9 (0.8) 21.8 (0.6) 

Other 2.9 (0.5) 1.0 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 4.3 (0.7) 1.1 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 

1

Dairy 1996 did not ask about primary milking facilities; therefore, the column totals for 1996 are greater than 100 percent. 

2

As a percentage of January 1 cow inventory. 
USDA APHIS VS / 65

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management

Photo by Dr. Jason Lombard
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management

66 / Dairy 2007

4. Nutrition

The percentage of operations that fed a total mixed ration increased for all herd

sizes from 1996 to 2007.

a. Percentage of operations that fed a total mixed ration, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size 

(Number Dairy Cows) 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer than 100) 28.2 (1.3) 36.6 (1.6) 37.8 (1.6) 

Medium (100 to 499) 68.8 (2.0) 78.3 (1.7) 84.7 (1.7) 

Large (500 or more) 84.1 (3.0) 90.2 (1.7) 94.1 (1.4) 

All operations 35.6 (1.1) 47.0 (1.3) 51.1 (1.3) 

The percentage of operations with an RHA milk production of 16,000 pounds or

more that fed a total mixed ration increased from 1996 to 2002 but was similar

between 2002 and 2007.

b. Percentage of operations that fed a total mixed ration, by RHA milk production:

Percent Operations 

RHA Milk 

Production (Pounds) 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 16,000 28.9 (2.0) 25.4 (2.3) 23.5 (2.4) 

16,000 to 19,999 33.2 (1.7) 45.0 (2.2) 42.7 (2.3) 

20,000 or more 55.4 (2.5) 65.7 (2.1) 70.7 (1.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 67

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management

The percentages of operations that used forage test results to balance feed

rations were similar for individual herd sizes from 1996 to 2007, although a

higher percentage of all operations tested forage in 2007 than in 1996 (75.5 and

67.8 percent, respectively).

c. Percentage of operations that used forage test results to balance feed rations,

by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size 

(Number Dairy Cows) 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer than 100) 64.1 (1.4) 66.1 (1.6) 70.1 (1.7) 

Medium (100 to 499) 84.8 (1.3) 87.1 (1.3) 89.9 (1.4) 

Large (500 or more) 89.2 (2.7) 88.8 (1.8) 90.7 (1.8) 

All operations 67.8 (1.2) 71.2 (1.2) 75.5 (1.2) 

The percentage of operations and percentage of cows on these operations that

relied on pasture during the growing season to provide part of the ration forage

component has increased since 2002.

d. Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on these operations) that

relied on pasture during the growing season to provide part of the ration forage

component for cows:

Percent Operations Percent Cows 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

47.6 (1.3) 58.9 (1.3) 24.7 (0.8) 33.0 (1.3) 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management

68 / Dairy 2007

5. Number of bulls

The percentage of operations with bulls has remained stable since 1996.

Approximately half of dairy operations (48.3 percent) did not house bulls in 2007.

Percentage of operations by the number of bulls in the January 1 inventory used

for breeding dairy cows or heifers:

Percent Operations 

Number Bulls 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

0 45.4 (1.3) 45.1 (1.4) 48.3 (1.4) 

1 34.8 (1.3) 31.1 (1.3) 28.5 (1.3) 

2 to 4 16.9 (0.8) 19.1 (1.0) 18.6 (1.0) 

5 or more 2.9 (0.2) 4.7 (0.3) 4.6 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

6. Preventive practices

Since 1996, the use of dewormers, selenium injections, and probiotics increased

while vitamin A-D-E injections decreased. In 2007, 95.3 percent of operations

administered any preventive compared with 91.5 percent in 1996.

Percentage of operations by preventive practices normally used for cows:

Percent Operations 

Preventive 

Practice

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Dewormers 53.4 (1.3) 60.3 (1.3) 63.3 (1.4) 

Vitamins 

A-D-E injection 15.5 (0.9) 17.1 (1.0) 12.9 (0.8) 

Vitamins 

A-D-E in feed 81.4 (1.1) 80.2 (1.1) 80.2 (1.2) 

Selenium injection 8.4* (0.6) 18.0 (1.0) 14.9 (0.9) 

Selenium in feed 72.5* (1.2) 75.7 (1.1) 76.1 (1.2) 

Probiotics 16.7 (0.9) 20.4 (1.0) 26.1 (1.2) 

Anionic salts 

in feed NA 27.0 (1.2) 26.7 (1.2) 

Limited potassium 

in dry cow ration NA 45.0 (1.3) 46.9 (1.4) 

Ionophores in feed NA NA 26.8 (1.1) 

Other 4.4 (0.5) 5.4 (0.6) 3.6 (0.6) 

Any 91.5 (0.8) 96.3 (0.6) 95.3 (0.7) 

*Lactating cows only. 
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management

70 / Dairy 2007

7. Vaccination practices

The use of Salmonella, E coli, and clostridia vaccines has increased since 1996,

while the use of Haemophilus somnus vaccine decreased. Use of the most

common vaccines (BVD, IBR, PI3, BRSV, and Leptospirosis) has remained

steady since 1996.

Percentage of operations that normally vaccinated cows against the following

diseases:

Percent Operations 

Disease

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 71.4 (1.3) 74.2 (1.2) 75.0 (1.3) 

Infectious bovine 

rhinotracheitis 

(IBR) 69.0 (1.3) 69.3 (1.3) 71.3 (1.3) 

Parainfluenza 

Type 3 (PI3) 62.5 (1.3) 62.2 (1.3) 61.9 (1.4) 

Bovine respiratory 

syncytial virus 

(BRSV) 60.8 (1.3) 61.1 (1.3) 65.0 (1.4) 

Haemophilus 

somnus 38.4 (1.3) 32.4 (1.2) 33.6 (1.3) 

Leptospirosis 70.7 (1.3) 70.1 (1.3) 70.0 (1.3) 

Salmonella 18.8 (1.0) 17.1 (1.0) 23.0 (1.1) 

E. coli mastitis 26.6 (1.1) 31.7 (1.2) 33.5 (1.2) 

Clostridia 21.8 (1.0) 25.0 (1.1) 27.7 (1.2) 

Neospora NA 3.3 (0.4) 5.9 (0.6) 

Other 6.5 (0.6) 7.2 (0.6) 7.4 (0.7) 

Any 81.1 (1.1) 82.8 (1.1) 82.2 (1.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 71

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management

72 / Dairy 2007

8. Types of BVD vaccine

Although the majority of operations administered killed BVD vaccine to cows, the

percentage of operations that used modified-live vaccine increased from 29.3

percent in 1991 to 48.9 percent in 2007. The use of killed BVD vaccine

decreased slightly during the same period.

a. For operations that gave BVD vaccinations to cows, percentage of operations

by type of BVD vaccine given:

A higher percentage of operations used a combination of Type 1 and Type II

vaccines in 2007 compared to 2002 (60.8 and 39.4 percent, respectively).

Producers are becoming more aware of the type of BVD vaccine they used, as

the percentage of operations that did not know which vaccine was used

decreased from 47.6 percent in 2002 to 27.2 percent in 2007.

b. For operations that gave any BVD vaccinations, percentage of operations by

strain of BVD contained in vaccine administered:

 Percent Operations 

Type of 

BVD 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Killed 65.4 (1.4) 61.9 (1.5) 56.3 (1.6) 

Modified 

live 29.3 (1.3) 36.7 (1.5) 48.9 (1.6) 

 Percent Operations 

BVD Strain

Dairy 

2002 

Standard 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Standard 

Error 

Type I only 5.4 (0.6) 4.3 (0.6) 

Type II only 7.6 (0.9) 7.7 (0.8) 

Combination (Type I and 

Type II) 39.4 (1.4) 60.8 (1.5) 

Did not know 47.6 (1.5) 27.2 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 73

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—E. Cow Management

The percentages of operations that gave annual BVD booster injections were

similar in 1996, 2002, and 2007, with about 80 percent of operations giving

booster injections.

c. For operations that gave BVD vaccinations to cows, percentage of operations

that gave annual BVD booster injections:

9. Bovine somatotropin (bST)

With the exception of small operations, the percentage of operations that used

bST and the percentage of cows that received bST increased from 1996 to 2002.

From 2002 to 2007, the percentage of large operations that used bST decreased

from 54.4 percent to 42.7 percent. Overall, the percentage of operations that

used bST remained the same in 2002 and 2007 (15.2 percent for both study

years). The percentage of cows that received bST on medium and large

operations decreased from 24.5 and 34.1 percent, respectively, in 2002 to 17.7

and 22.6 percent, respectively, in 2007. Overall, the percentage of cows that

received bST decreased from 22.3 percent in 2002 to 17.2 percent in 2007.

Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows milked on January 1) that

used bST in cows during the current lactation (at the time of interview), by herd

size:

Dairy 1996 

(All Cows in Inventory 

January 1) 

Dairy 2002 

(Cows Milked 

January 1) 

Dairy 2007 

(Cows Milked 

January 1) 

Herd Size 

(Number Dairy 

Cows) 

Pct. 

Ops. 

Std. 

Error 

Pct. 

Cows 

Std. 

Error 

Pct. 

Ops. 

Std. 

Error 

Pct. 

Cows 

Std. 

Error 

Pct. 

Ops. 

Std. 

Error 

Pct. 

Cows 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer 

than 100) 6.5 (0.6) 3.7 (0.4) 8.8 (0.8) 6.2 (0.7) 9.1 (0.9) 6.2 (0.7) 

Medium 

(100 to 499) 21.0 (1.7) 13.2 (1.3) 32.2 (1.9) 24.5 (1.5) 28.8 (2.0) 17.7 (1.4) 

Large (500 or 

more) 38.7 (3.9) 17.9 (2.3) 54.4 (2.6) 34.1 (1.8) 42.7 (2.5) 22.6 (1.5) 

All operations 9.4 (0.6) 10.1 (0.7) 15.2 (0.8) 22.3 (0.8) 15.2 (0.8) 17.2 (0.8) 

Percent Operations 

Dairy 

1996 

Standard

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Standard 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Standard 

Error 

77.4 (1.3) 82.9 (1.2) 80.2 (1.3) 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—F. Cow Health

74 / Dairy 2007

F. Cow Health 1. Abortions

Abortion percentage for cows and heifers combined increased from 3.5 percent

in 1996 to 4.5 percent in 2007.

a. Percentage of heifers, cows, and heifers and cows combined that aborted:

Percent Heifers/Cows 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Heifers NA NA 3.31 (0.2) 

Cows NA NA 5.02 (0.2) 

Both heifers and cows 3.5 (0.1) 4.0 (0.1) 4.53 (0.2) 

1

Breeding age or older heifers on January 1, 2007 

2

Cow inventory minus breeding age and older heifers on January 1, 2007 

3

Cow inventory on January 1, 2007. 

The percentages of operations by abortion percentage were similar across study

years.

b. Percentage of operations by reported abortion percentage:

Percent Operations 

Abortion Percent

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 2.0 42.7 (1.3) 39.3 (1.3) 38.2 (1.4) 

2.0 to 4.9 36.2 (1.2) 34.6 (1.2) 34.3 (1.3) 

5.0 to 9.9 16.2 (0.9) 20.3 (1.1) 20.6 (1.1) 

10.0 to 14.9 3.2 (0.5) 4.7 (0.7) 4.9 (0.6) 

15.0 or more 1.7 (0.4) 1.1 (0.3) 2.0 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 75

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—F. Cow Health

2. Cow morbidity

The percentage of cows with clinical mastitis, lameness, respiratory problems,

infertility problems, or displaced abomasum increased from 1996 to 2007. The

percentage of cows with diarrhea for more than 48 hours or milk fever decreased

from 1996 to 2007.

Percentage of cows by health problem:

Percent Cows* 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Problem Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Clinical mastitis 13.4 (0.3) 14.7 (0.3) 16.5 (0.5) 

Lameness 10.5 (0.3) 11.6 (0.3) 14.0 (0.4) 

Respiratory 

problems 2.5 (0.1) 2.7 (0.1) 3.3 (0.1) 

Retained placenta 

(more than 24 

hours) 7.8 (0.2) 7.8 (0.2) 7.8 (0.2) 

Infertility problems 

(not pregnant 150 

days after calving) 11.6 (0.3) 11.9 (0.3) 12.9 (0.3) 

Other reproductive 

problems (e.g., 

dystocia, metritis) NA 3.7 (0.2) 4.6 (0.3) 

Diarrhea for more 

than 48 hours 3.4 (0.2) 2.8 (0.2) 2.5 (0.2) 

Milk fever 5.9 (0.1) 5.2 (0.1) 4.9 (0.1) 

Displaced 

abomasum 2.8 (0.1) 3.5 (0.1) 3.5 (0.1) 

Neurological 

problems NA 0.3 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0) 

Other health-related 

problems 2.2 (0.2) 0.8 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 

*As a percentage of January 1 respective-year cow inventory. 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—F. Cow Health

76 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 77

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—F. Cow Health

3. Permanently removed cows

The percentage of cows removed from medium operations increased from 21.6

percent in 1996 to 23.7 percent in 2007, while the percentage of cows removed

from large operations decreased from 27.4 percent in 1996 to 23.4 percent in

2007. For all operations, there were no differences in the percentages of cows

permanently removed from operations.

a. Percentage of cows permanently removed* as a percentage of January 1

inventory, by herd size:

Percent Cows 

Herd Size 

(Number Dairy Cows) 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer than 100) 23.9 (0.7) 24.9 (0.6) 24.1 (0.6) 

Medium (100 to 499) 21.6 (0.4) 23.9 (0.5) 23.7 (0.5) 

Large (500 or more) 27.4 (0.8) 27.5 (0.6) 23.4 (0.7) 

All operations 24.0 (0.4) 25.5 (0.3) 23.6 (0.4) 

*Permanently removed cows include those that permanently left the herd but excludes those that 

died. 

There were no changes in the destination of permanently removed cows from

1996 to 2007, with about 75 percent of cows being sent to market, auction, or

stockyard in all three study years.

b. For operations that permanently removed* cows, percentage of permanently

removed cows by destination:

Percent Cows 

Destination

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Sent directly to 

another dairy 4.5 (1.0) 5.7 (0.6) 5.5 (0.7) 

Sent to market, 

auction, or 

stockyard 74.0 (1.4) 74.0 (1.1) 76.2 (1.1) 

Sent directly to 

packer or 

slaughter plant 21.0 (1.2) 19.6 (1.0) 17.5 (1.3) 

Sent elsewhere 0.5 (0.1) 0.7 (0.1) 0.8 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Permanently removed cows include those that permanently left the herd but excludes those that 

died. 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—F. Cow Health

78 / Dairy 2007

The reasons cows were permanently removed remained fairly constant from

1996 to 2007, although a lower percentage of cows were removed due to poor

production in 2007 (16.1 percent) than in 1996 (21.4 percent).

c. For operations that permanently removed cows, percentage of cows removed,

by reason:

4. Mortality

The percentage of cows that died increased across herd sizes from 1996 to

2007. The overall percentage of cows that died increased from 3.8 percent in

1996 to 5.7 percent in 2007.

 Percent Removals 

Reason

Dairy 

1996 

Standard 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Standard 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Standard 

Error 

Udder or mastitis 

problems 25.3 (0.6) 25.4 (0.5) 23.0 (0.6) 

Lameness 

or injury 14.4 (0.6) 15.5 (0.4) 16.0 (0.4) 

Reproductive 

problems 25.5 (0.8) 25.0 (0.5) 26.3 (0.7) 

Poor production 

not related 

to above 21.4 (0.8) 18.3 (0.7) 16.1 (0.7) 

Aggressiveness 

or belligerence 1.0 (0.1) 0.9 (0.1) 0.7 (0.1) 

Other diseases 4.1 (0.5) 5.6 (0.2) 3.7 (0.2) 

Sold as 

replacements to 

another dairy 4.4 (1.0) 5.5 (0.6) 5.8 (0.7) 

Other 3.9 (0.3) 3.8 (0.4) 8.4 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 79

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—F. Cow Health

Percent Cows 

Herd Size 

(Number Dairy Cows) 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Small (fewer than 100) 3.6 (0.1) 4.4 (0.1) 4.8 (0.1) 

Medium (100 to 499) 3.9 (0.1) 5.0 (0.1) 5.8 (0.2) 

Large (500 or more) 4.0 (0.2) 4.9 (0.1) 6.1 (0.2) 

All operations 3.8 (0.1) 4.8 (0.1) 5.7 (0.1) 

The percentage of cow deaths due to lameness or injury increased from 12.7

percent in 1996 to 20.0 percent in 2007. Conversely, the percentage of cow

deaths due to calving problems and other known reasons decreased from 1996

to 2007.

b. Percentage of cow deaths by cause:

Percent Deaths 

Cause 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Scours, diarrhea, 

or other digestive 

problems 9.0 (1.0) 8.6 (0.5) 10.4 (0.5) 

Respiratory 

problems 9.6 (0.7) 10.3 (0.5) 11.3 (0.7) 

Poison 0.9 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 

Put down due to 

lameness or injury 12.7 (0.7) 13.9 (0.6) 20.0 (0.8) 

Lack of 

coordination or 

severe depression 1.4 (0.2) 1.4 (0.2) 1.0 (0.1) 

Mastitis 16.3 (0.8) 17.1 (0.6) 16.5 (0.7) 

Calving problems 18.3 (0.7) 17.4 (0.7) 15.2 (0.7) 

Other known 

reasons 17.0 (0.9) 11.1 (0.6) 10.2 (0.8) 

Unknown reasons 14.8 (0.8) 19.8 (0.9) 15.0 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

a. Percentage of cows that died as a percentage of January 1 inventory, by herd

size:
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—F. Cow Health

80 / Dairy 2007

5. Carcass disposal

Although rendering remained the primary method of dead-cow disposal, the

percentage of operations that used this method decreased from 62.4 percent in

2002 to 56.9 percent in 2007. Conversely, use of composting increased from 6.9

percent of operations in 2002 to 16.8 percent in 2007. These changes in deadcow disposal are similar to those observed in disposing of dead calves,

Percentage of operations by primary method used to dispose of dead cows:

Percent Operations 

Method of Disposal

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Buried 22.7 (1.1) 20.3 (1.1) 

Burned/incinerated 2.2 (0.4) 1.8 (0.4) 

Rendered 62.4 (1.2) 56.9 (1.3) 

Composted 6.9 (0.7) 16.8 (1.0) 

Landfill 1.9 (0.3) 1.7 (0.3) 

Other 3.9 (0.5) 2.5 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 81

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity

G. Biosecurity 1. Physical contact with unweaned calves

The percentage of unweaned calves not exposed to weaned calves, bred

heifers, or adult cattle increased from 1996 to 2007.

Percentage of operations where, after separation from the dam, unweaned

heifers did not have physical contact* with the following groups:

Percent Operations 

Age Group

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Weaned calves 

less than 

approximately 4 

months of age 68.5 (2.0) 

Calves from 

approximately 4 

months of age 

to breeding 89.6 (1.3) 

67.0 (1.3) 77.2 (1.2) 76.0 (1.2) 

Bred heifers 

not yet calved 95.4 (0.9) 81.2 (1.1) 86.7 (0.9) 86.8 (1.0) 

Adult cattle 89.8 (1.3) 79.8 (1.1) 84.6 (1.0) 84.3 (1.1) 

*Physical contact = possible nose-to-nose contact or sniffling/touching/licking each other, including through a 

fence. 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity

82 / Dairy 2007

2. Physical contact with other animals

The percentage of operations in which pigs, sheep, or beef cattle had physical

contact with dairy cattle and/or their feed, minerals, or water supply was lower in

2007 than in 1991. Dairy-cattle contact with the other listed animals was

unchanged between 1991 and 2007.

Percentage of operations in which the following animals had physical contact

with dairy cattle and/or their feed, minerals, or water supply:

Percent Operations 

Animal Type

NDHEP 

1991 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Chickens/other 

poultry 10.6 (1.4) 7.5 (0.8) 6.8 (0.7) 8.3 (0.8) 

Horses or other 

equids1

 15.0 (1.6) 11.6 (0.9) 12.8 (0.9) 13.3 (1.0) 

Pigs 5.5 (1.0) 3.9 (0.6) 2.3 (0.4) 2.0 (0.4) 

Sheep 3.0 (0.6) 2.3 (0.5) 1.3 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 

Goats 3.1 (0.7) 3.0 (0.5) 2.8 (0.5) 2.5 (0.4) 

Beef cattle 17.3 (1.7) 18.5 (1.1) 10.5 (0.8) 11.3 (1.0) 

Exotic species NA 0.8 (0.2) 0.6 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 

Deer or other 

cervidae2

 56.1 (2.2) 49.3 (1.1) 53.1 (1.3) 49.3 (1.4) 

Dogs NA 77.8 (1.1) 70.6 (1.2) 68.9 (1.3) 

Cats NA 90.2 (0.8) 87.8 (0.8) 85.2 (0.9) 

1

In 1991, “horses” was the animal type; “other equids” was not listed. 

2

In 1991, “deer” was the animal type; “other cervidae” was not listed. 
USDA APHIS VS / 83

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity

84 / Dairy 2007

3. Biosecurity for new arrivals

From 1996 to 2007, about 4 of 10 operations brought cattle onto the operation.

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

operation:

4. Quarantine

There were no differences in the percentages of operations that quarantined new

arrivals between 1996 and 2007 or in the number of days that new additions

were quarantined.

Percent Operations 

Cattle Class

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error Cattle Class 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Calves not 

yet weaned 5.0 (0.7) 

Calves not 

yet weaned 5.1 (0.7) 3.4 (0.6) 

Heifers 

weaned but 

not yet bred 7.3 (0.7) 

Heifers 

weaned but 

not yet bred 6.7 (0.7) 6.4 (0.7) 

Bred heifers 

not yet 

calved 18.5 (0.9) 

Bred heifers 

not yet calved 15.8 (0.9) 12.2 (0.9) 

Lactating 

cows 19.9 (1.0) 

Lactating 

cows 16.4 (1.0) 13.8 (1.0) 

Dry cows 7.1 (0.8) Dry cows 5.9 (0.6) 4.3 (0.6) 

Dairy bulls 13.7 (0.9) 12.5 (0.9) Bulls 8.7 (0.7) 

Beef bulls 2.3 (0.4) 1.7 (0.3) 

 1.9 (0.4) 

Beef heifers 

and cows 1.5 (0.3) 1.3 (0.3) 

Other cattle 

 2.0 (0.3) Steers 1.1 (0.3) 1.8 (0.4) 

Any cattle 43.9 (1.3) Any cattle 45.7 (1.4) 38.9 (1.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 85

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity

a. For operations that brought the following classes of cattle onto the operation,

percentage of operations that quarantined the following cattle classes upon

arrival*:

Percent Operations 

Cattle Class

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error Cattle Class 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Calves not yet 

weaned 26.9 (5.2) 

Calves not yet 

weaned 37.0 (7.3) 44.2 (8.3) 

Heifers weaned 

but not yet bred 24.9 (4.7) 

Heifers 

weaned but 

not yet bred 23.9 (3.9) 23.0 (4.7) 

Bred heifers 

not yet calved 16.0 (2.0) 

Bred heifers 

not yet calved 19.6 (2.3) 14.5 (2.3) 

Lactating cows 6.2 (1.7) Lactating cows 9.5 (1.6) 12.1 (2.4) 

Dry cows 17.9 (4.8) Dry cows 7.1 (2.2) 15.9 (4.8) 

Dairy bulls 15.9 (2.4) 17.1 (2.9) Bulls 11.2 (2.4) 

Beef bulls 23.6 (6.5) 20.3 (6.5) 

Other 

heifers/cows 15.7 (6.0) Beef heifers 

and cows 24.0 (8.5) 30.1 (9.8) 

Steers 21.0 (6.6) Steers 40.0 (11.4) 30.0 (9.6) 

*Producers were asked for the number of head brought on and number of head quarantined. 

b. For operations that quarantined new arrivals, average number of days new

arrivals were quarantined, by cattle class:

Average Number of Days 

Cattle Class

Dairy 

1996 

Std. 

Error Cattle Class 

Dairy 

2002 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 

2007 

Std. 

Error 

Calves not yet 

weaned 40.8 (5.7) 

Calves not yet 

weaned 49.2 (9.3) 42.4 (4.8) 

Heifers weaned 

but not yet bred 21.5 (4.2) 

Heifers 

weaned but 

not yet bred 28.2 (6.0) 20.0 (3.6) 

Bred heifers 

not yet calved 16.8 (2.3) 

Bred heifers 

not yet calved 23.7 (4.0) 22.0 (3.1) 

Lactating cows 11.7 (2.3) Lactating cows 20.1 (4.1) 15.6 (2.5) 

Dry cows 8.9 (2.1) Dry cows 21.4 (4.3) 16.5 (4.3) 

Dairy bulls 19.0 (2.5) 25.3 (3.5) Bulls 21.0 (3.1) 

Beef bulls 32.0 (12.9) 31.9 (12.6) 

Other 

heifers/cows 24.3 (9.1) 

Beef heifers 

and cows 31.1 (6.6) 33.3 (12.1) 

Steers 41.5 (22.0) Steers 41.3 (14.0) 40.7 (18.7) 
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity

86 / Dairy 2007

5. Vaccine requirements

No changes occurred from 1996 to 2007 in the percentage of operations that

vaccinated new additions for BVD, IBR, and leptospirosis before the cattle were

brought onto the operation. Approximately one-third to one-half of operations

vaccinated for the diseases mentioned above. The percentages of operations

that vaccinated for brucellosis decreased for each herd size from 1996 to 2007.

Since many different ages of cattle are brought onto operations, the lower

brucellosis vaccination percentages may be due partially to cattle too old or

already vaccinated for brucellosis at the time of purchase. Neospora vaccination

has remained unchanged in purchased cattle since 2002. The percentages of

operations vaccinating for any disease decreased for small, large, and all

operations.

For operations that brought any dairy cattle onto the operation, percentage of

operations that normally required vaccination against the following diseases

before bringing animals onto the operation, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number Dairy Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) All Operations 

Disease 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Brucellosis 48.9 

(2.5) 

33.4 

(2.5) 

28.0 

(2.6) 

63.6 

(2.9) 

51.3 

(2.7) 

50.2 

(3.5) 

85.2 

(3.0) 

60.0 

(3.1) 

52.2 

(3.9) 

52.9 

(2.0) 

39.9 

(1.9) 

35.6 

(2.0) 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 

43.1 

(2.4) 

36.2 

(2.5) 

34.8 

(2.8) 

59.4 

(2.9) 

51.2 

(2.7) 

59.9 

(3.4) 

58.8 

(4.8) 

53.9 

(3.2) 

56.7 

(3.7) 

46.8 

(2.0) 

41.3 

(1.9) 

42.9 

(2.1) 

Infectious 

bovine 

rhinotracheitis 

(IBR) 

39.2 

(2.3) 

35.8 

(2.6) 

34.2 

(2.8) 

57.9 

(2.9) 

50.5 

(2.7) 

57.3 

(3.4) 

57.4 

(4.8) 

51.2 

(3.2) 

57.1 

(3.7) 

43.4 

(1.9) 

40.8 

(1.9) 

41.9 

(2.1) 

Leptospirosis 41.9 

(2.4) 

32.5 

(2.5) 

32.0 

(2.7) 

57.7 

(2.9) 

48.5 

(2.7) 

53.6 

(3.4) 

54.3 

(4.8) 

47.5 

(3.2) 

48.4 

(3.8) 

45.4 

(2.0) 

37.8 

(1.8) 

38.8 

(2.1) 

Neospora NA 11.1 

(1.6) 

10.8 

(1.7) NA 15.5 (1.8) 

26.6 

(3.1) NA 16.1 (2.3) 

22.4 

(3.3) NA 12.6 (1.2) 

15.7 

(1.5) 

Other 8.2 

(1.1) 

4.3 

(0.8) 

4.2 

(1.1) 

12.8 

(2.2) 

8.4 

(1.4) 

8.7 

(1.8) 

16.5 

(3.6) 

7.7 

(1.5) 

6.5 

(1.6) 

9.4 

(1.0) 

5.6 

(0.7) 

5.5 

(0.9) 

Any 58.0 

(2.5) 

44.6 

(2.7) 

37.7 

(2.9) 

74.8 

(2.6) 

64.0 

(2.7) 

65.2 

(3.3) 

88.8 

(2.9) 

71.9 

(3.0) 

68.5 

(3.2) 

62.3 

(2.0) 

51.6 

(2.0) 

47.2 

(2.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 87

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity

88 / Dairy 2007

6. Testing requirements

Brucellosis testing for new additions decreased across herd sizes between 1996

and 2007. Tuberculosis testing has also decreased for small, large, and all

operations since 1996. Testing for Mycobacterium avium subspecies

paratuberculosis and BVD remained unchanged from 1996 to 2007. The

percentage of operations that performed any testing decreased for small, large,

and all operations since 1996, with less than 1 in 4 operations that purchased

new additions (23.3 percent) performing any testing during 2007.

a. For operations that brought any dairy cattle onto the operation, percentage of

operations that tested individual animals brought onto the operation, by testing

normally required and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number Dairy Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) All Operations 

Test Type 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Brucellosis 28.5 

(2.1) 

13.1 

(1.8) 

11.6 

(1.9) 

38.3 

(2.9) 

19.5 

(2.1) 

19.8 

(2.8) 

50.6 

(4.4) 

29.9 

(2.7) 

19.0 

(3.0) 

31.0 

(1.7) 

15.9 

(1.3) 

14.3 

(1.5) 

Mycobacterium avium 

subspecies 

paratuberculosis (Johne’s 

disease) 

8.5 

(1.3) 

8.3 

(1.4) 

9.9 

(1.8) 

11.0 

(2.3) 

12.7 

(1.9) 

16.6 

(2.7) 

9.6 

(2.9) 

12.2 

(1.9) 

7.2 

(1.8) 

9.1 

(1.1) 

9.8 

(1.1) 

11.4 

(1.4) 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 

15.1 

(1.6) 

8.6 

(1.4) 

10.7 

(1.8) 

18.4 

(2.5) 

15.6 

(2.1) 

19.4 

(2.8) 

19.4 

(3.9) 

15.0 

(2.1) 

15.8 

(2.7) 

15.9 

(1.3) 

10.9 

(1.1) 

13.3 

(1.4) 

Bovine 

tuberculosis 

(TB) 

22.3 

(1.9) 

10.8 

(1.5) 

12.0 

(1.8) 

26.8 

(2.7) 

14.3 

(1.7) 

17.8 

(2.7) 

31.4 

(4.2) 

20.7 

(2.3) 

15.8 

(2.3) 

23.4 

(1.6) 

12.4 

(1.1) 

13.8 

(1.4) 

Contagious 

mastitis 

pathogens NA NA 

10.5 

(1.8) NA NA 

13.1 

(2.3) NA NA 

16.3 

(3.3) NA NA 

11.7 

(1.4) 

Other 2.3 

(0.5) 

2.8 

(0.8) 

1.6 

(0.6) 

3.6 

(1.4) 

4.3 

(1.3) 

2.2 

(1.0) 

3.9 

(2.1) 

3.5 

(1.1) 

0.4 

(0.2) 

2.6 

(0.5) 

3.2 

(0.6) 

1.7 

(0.5) 

Any 31.3 

(2.1) 

21.2 

(2.2) 

20.2 

(2.4) 

40.0 

(2.9) 

29.4 

(2.5) 

28.2 

(3.2) 

54.3 

(4.5) 

38.8 

(2.9) 

34.7 

(3.8) 

33.7 

(1.8) 

24.5 

(1.6) 

23.3 

(1.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 89

Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity
Section III: Management, NAHMS Population Estimates—G. Biosecurity

90 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in 2007 (13.0 percent) required a bulk-tank

milk culture before bringing animals onto the operation than did operations in

1996 (5.8 percent). While the percentage of all operations that required proof of

bulk-tank somatic cell count was unchanged from 1996 to 2007, the percentage

of large operations that required a count decreased from 45.7 percent in 1996 to

19.8 percent in 2007.

b. For operations that brought any dairy cows onto the farm, percentage of

operations that normally required testing or proof of udder health before bringing

animals onto the farm, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number Dairy Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) All Operations 

Type of 

Proof 1996 2002 2007 1996 2002 2007 1996 2002 2007 1996 2002 2007 

Individual-cow 

milk somatic 

cell count 

24.7 

(2.7) 

26.7 

(3.7) NA 

30.1 

(4.1) 

26.7 

(4.0) NA 

27.9 

(8.7) 

29.5 

(5.2) NA 

25.7 

(2.3) 

26.8 

(2.8) NA 

Bulk-tank milk 

somatic cell 

count 

13.4 

(2.0) 

14.3 

(2.9) 

18.8 

(2.4) 

21.3 

(3.1) 

19.2 

(3.4) 

24.4 

(3.1) 

45.7 

(9.0) 

34.1 

(5.9) 

19.8 

(2.9) 

15.3 

(1.7) 

16.6 

(2.2) 

20.3 

(1.8) 

Individual-cow 

milk culture 

9.1 

(1.7) 

10.7 

(2.5) NA 

8.4 

(1.8) 

10.6 

(2.6) NA 

9.4 

(4.1) 

18.8 

(4.8) NA 

9.0 

(1.4) 

11.0 

(1.8) NA 

Bulk-tank milk 

culture 

3.9 

(0.9) 

9.5 

(2.4) 

10.1 

(1.7) 

11.8 

(2.4) 

10.0 

(2.6) 

17.8 

(2.8) 

35.7 

(8.4) 

31.0 

(6.0) 

20.9 

(2.9) 

5.8 

(0.9) 

10.6 

(1.8) 

13.0 

(1.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 91

Appendix I: Methodology Overview

Appendix I: Methodology Overview

NAHMS Dairy Studies 

1991 1996 2002 2007 

Data collection dates 

4/1991-

7/1992 

1/1-1/26 

1996 

12/31/2001-

2/12/2002 

1/1-1/31 

2007 

Minimum number 

of dairy cattle 30 1 1 1 

Number of States 28 20 21 17 

Data collectors National Agricultural Statistics Service enumerators 

States as a percentage of U.S. population coverage 

Operations 76.3 80.4 83.0 79.5 

Cows 81.3 83.1 85.7 82.5 

Respondent Sample profile (herd size) 

Small (fewer than 100 cows) 931 1,480 1,131 1,028 

Medium (100-499 cows) 705 873 820 691 

Large (500 or more cows) 175 189 510 475 

Response category 

Survey complete 1,811 2,542 2,461 2,194 

Percent of total 54.1 56.3 63.5 61.7 

No milk cows 646 227 214 

Out of business/ 

no milk sold in 1995 179 183 111 

Out of scope 16 45 6 

Refused 969 821 785 

Did not contact NA 2 126 

Inaccessible 

NA 

164 137 118 

Total 3346 4,516 3,876 3,554 
Appendix II: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

92 / Dairy 2007

Appendix II: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

1. Describe trends in dairy cattle health and management practices

• Part II: Changes in the U.S. Dairy Cattle Industry 1991-2007, February

2008

• Part V: Changes in Dairy Cattle Health and Management in the United States,

1991-2007, expected summer 2008

2. Evaluate management factors related to cow comfort and removal rates

• Dairy Facilities and Cow Comfort on U.S Dairy Operations, 2007 interpretive

report, expected spring 2008

• Info sheets, expected spring 2008

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 info sheet, November 2007

• Colostrum Management info sheet, February 2008

• Part IV: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007, expected spring 2008

• Calf Health and Management Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007

interpretive report, expected spring 2008

• Additional info sheets, expected spring 2008

4. Estimate the prevalence of herds infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus

(BVD)

• Info sheets, expected spring 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, expected spring 2008.

• Info sheets, expected spring 2008.

6. Estimate the herd-level prevalence and associated costs of Mycobacterium

avium subspecies paratuberculosis

• Info sheets, expected spring 2008.

7. Describe current biosecurity practices and determine producer motivation for

implementing or not implementing biosecurity practices

• Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007, October 2007

• Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007, expected spring 2008


United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

September 2008

Dairy 2007

Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States,

2007
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

#N482.0908

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.

Cover photo courtesy of

Judy Rodriguez
USDA APHIS VS / i

Acknowledgments

This report was a cooperative effort between two U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Agencies: the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Thank you to the NASS enumerators, State and Federal veterinary medical

officers (VMOs), and animal health technicians (AHTs) who visited the operations

and collected the data for the Dairy 2007 study. Their hard work and dedication

to USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) were invaluable.

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

coordinator, VMOs, AHTs, and NASS enumerators were critical in providing

quality data for Dairy 2007 reports. Thanks also 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 for the Dairy 2007 study were afforded

by the generous contributions of collaborators, 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

• 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
ii / Dairy 2007

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2008. Dairy 2007, Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States, 2007

USDA–APHIS–VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO

#N482.0908

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
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used In This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 4

A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices 4

1. Producer familiarity with disease 4

2. Information sources in case of a foreign animal disease outbreak 7

3. Resource contacts 8

4. Employees and visitors 10

5. Specific animal exclusion practices 19

6. Equipment handling for manure and feeding 22

7. Equipment sharing with other livestock operations 23

8. Johne’s disease 26

9. Calving areas 28

B. Source of Replacements 38

1. Cow replacements in the milking herd 38

2. Replacement shipments 43

C. Disease Confirmation 45

1. Laboratory testing 45

2. Abortions 49

D. General Management 54

1. Primary outside access areas 54

2. Flooring type 58

3. Surface moisture 60

4. Barn type 61

5. Heat abatement 62

6. Bedding types 65

7. Feedstuffs 68

8. Feedline and feeding practices 69

9. Water sources 75

10. Permanently removed cows 79

E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures 84

1. Bulk tank somatic cell count 84

2. Milking personnel and training 86

3. Milking frequency 91

4. Premilking procedures 95

5. Postmilking procedures 104

6. Milking equipment 107

7. Milking practices 109

8. Vaccination 111

9. Milk cultures 113

10. Residue testing 121

11. Dry-off procedures/antibiotic treatment 123
iv / Dairy 2007

F. Antibiotic Use 128

1. Unweaned heifers 128

2. Weaned heifers 131

3. Cows 136

Section II: Methodology 142

A. Needs Assessment 142

B. Sampling and Estimation 143

1. State selection 143

2. Operation selection 144

3. Population inferences 144

C. Data Collection 145

1. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report 145

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit 145

D. Data Analysis 145

1. Validation 145

E. Sample Evaluation 145

1. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report 146

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit 147

Appendix I: Sample Profile 148

A. Responding Operations 148

1. Total inventory, by herd size 148

2. Number of responding operations, by region 148

Appendix II: Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Class 149

Appendix III: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations 152

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 153
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is a nonregulatory

program 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 baseline 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 and educational efforts in various production areas, such as

feed management and weaning age.

Information from the NAHMS Dairy 1996 study helped the U.S. dairy industry

identify educational needs and prioritize research efforts on such timely topics as

antibiotic 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 1996 were examined.

The Dairy 2007 study was conducted in 17 of the Nation’s major dairy States

(see map on next page) and provides participants, stakeholders, and the industry

as a whole with valuable information representing 79.5 percent of U.S. dairy

operations and 82.5 percent of U.S. dairy cows.

Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United

States, 2007 (October 2007) was the first in a series of reports containing

national information from the NAHMS Dairy 2007 study. This report contains

information collected from 2,194 dairy operations.
Introduction

2 / Dairy 2007

Part II: Changes in the United States Dairy Industry, 1991-2007 (March 2008)

provides national estimates of animal health management practices for

comparable populations from the NAHMS 1991 NDHEP, Dairy 1996, Dairy 2002,

and Dairy 2007.

Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007 is the third in a series of reports containing national

information from the NAHMS Dairy 2007 study. Data from this report were

collected from 582 operations with 30 or more dairy cows. State and Federal

veterinary medical officers (VMOs) and animal health technicians (AHTs)

collected the data between February 26 and August 3, 2007.

All Dairy 2007 study reports as well as reports from previous NAHMS dairy

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

The methods used and number of respondents in the study can be found in

Section II and Appendix I of this report, respectively.

Further information on NAHMS studies and reports is available at:

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov.

For questions about this report or additional copies, please contact:

USDA-APHIS-VS-CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000
USDA APHIS VS / 3

Introduction

Terms Used In

This Report

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.

Cow: Female dairy bovine that has calved at least once.

Heifer: Female dairy bovine that has not yet calved.

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.

Operation: Premises with at least 30 dairy cows on January 1, 2007.

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 employees

(see table 4b on p 11) is calculated by dividing the total number of employees by

the total number of operations.

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

left, 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 (—).

Regions:

West: California, Idaho, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington

East: Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin

Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the operations from

which Dairy 2007 data were collected.

Usual calving area: An area separate from housing for lactating cows

designated specifically for calving.
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

4 / Dairy 2007

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Disease Familiarity

and Biosecurity

Practices

1. Producer familiarity with disease

Almost half of producers (49.3 percent) knew some basics about foot-and-mouth

disease, while an additional 8.9 percent were fairly knowledgeable about the

disease. More than 8 of 10 producers (80.4 percent) knew some basics or were

fairly knowledgeable about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Almost 60

percent of producers (57.9 percent) were fairly knowledgeable about Johne’s

disease, while an additional 36.2 percent knew some basics about the disease.

Additionally, more than 50 percent of producers at least knew some basics about

Mycoplasma mastitis, bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), and Leptospira hardjo bovis.

Almost all producers (93.9 percent) had not heard of heartwater, which is a

ruminant disease not present in the United States. More than 8 of 10 producers

(80.9 percent) either only recognized the name screwworm or had not heard of it

before. The United States has been free of screwworm since 1966.

a. Percentage of operations by level of familiarity with specific cattle diseases:

Percent Operations 

Level of Familiarity 

Fairly 

Knowledgeable Knew Some 

Basics 

Recognized 

Name, Not 

Much Else 

Had Not 

Heard of 

Before 

Disease Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Foot-and-mouth 

disease 8.9 (1.2) 49.3 (2.9) 40.7 (2.9) 1.1 (0.7) 100.0 

Heartwater 0.6 (0.3) 1.0 (0.4) 4.5 (1.0) 93.9 (1.1) 100.0 

Bovine 

spongiform 

encephalopathy 

(BSE) 19.6 (2.0) 60.8 (2.7) 18.8 (2.2) 0.8 (0.6) 100.0 

Screwworm 4.0 (0.8) 15.1 (1.9) 37.4 (2.6) 43.5 (2.7) 100.0 

Mycobacterium 

avium subspecies

paratuberculosis 

(Johne’s disease) 57.9 (2.9) 36.2 (2.8) 4.4 (1.2) 1.5 (0.6) 100.0 

Bluetongue 2.2 (0.9) 8.5 (1.2) 41.0 (2.8) 48.3 (2.8) 100.0 

Vesicular 

stomatitis 0.7 (0.3) 3.4 (0.8) 14.1 (1.7) 81.8 (1.9) 100.0 

Anthrax 5.1 (1.2) 28.4 (2.6) 56.3 (2.8) 10.2 (1.8) 100.0 

Mycoplasma

mastitis 20.3 (1.8) 39.9 (2.8) 30.4 (2.8) 9.4 (1.8) 100.0 

Hemorrhagic 

bowel syndrome 

(HBS) 8.2 (1.1) 17.6 (1.9) 22.6 (2.3) 51.6 (2.7) 100.0 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 31.3 (2.5) 47.6 (2.9) 18.6 (2.4) 2.5 (1.1) 100.0 

Leptospira hardjo 

bovis 29.5 (2.4) 42.1 (2.9) 21.5 (2.4) 6.9 (1.5) 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 5

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

6 / Dairy 2007

When producers that were fairly knowledgeable or knew some basics about

each disease were combined and evaluated by region, differences in familiarity

were observed for screwworm, bluetongue, vesicular stomatitis, and

Mycoplasma. Producers in the West region were more familiar with the above

diseases than producers in the East region. A higher percentage of producers in

the West region (17.9 percent) at least knew some basics about vesicular

stomatitis than operations in the East region (2.7 percent). Almost 9 of 10

producers in the West region (90.2 percent) at least knew some basics about

Mycoplasma mastitis compared with producers in the East region (57.3 percent).

b. Percentage of operations that were fairly knowledgeable or knew some basics

about specific cattle diseases:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East All Operations 

Disease Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Foot-and-mouth 

disease 71.0 (4.7) 57.0 (3.1) 58.2 (2.8) 

Heartwater 4.7 (2.1) 1.3 (0.6) 1.6 (0.5) 

Bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy 

(BSE) 82.6 (4.1) 80.1 (2.5) 80.4 (2.3) 

Screwworm 34.5 (5.5) 17.6 (2.2) 19.1 (2.0) 

Mycobacterium 

avium subspecies

paratuberculosis 

(Johne’s disease) 85.9 (3.9) 94.9 (1.4) 94.1 (1.3) 

Bluetongue 25.2 (4.5) 9.3 (1.5) 10.7 (1.4) 

Vesicular stomatitis 17.9 (4.0) 2.7 (0.8) 4.1 (0.8) 

Anthrax 41.7 (5.9) 32.7 (2.9) 33.5 (2.7) 

Mycoplasma

mastitis 90.2 (3.8) 57.3 (3.1) 60.2 (2.9) 

Hemorrhagic bowel 

syndrome (HBS) 38.5 (5.4) 24.5 (2.2) 25.8 (2.1) 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 85.7 (4.5) 78.2 (2.7) 78.9 (2.5) 

Leptospira hardjo 

bovis 77.8 (5.1) 71.0 (2.9) 71.6 (2.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

2. Information sources in case of a foreign animal disease outbreak

Almost all operations (93.6 percent) would very likely use a private veterinarian

for information regarding a foreign animal disease outbreak in the United States.

Approximately 4 of 10 operations would very likely seek information from other

dairy producers or magazines (41.4 and 39.0 percent, respectively). The Internet

was not a likely source of information for 48.1 percent of operations.

Percentage of operations by likelihood of using the following information sources

if an outbreak of foreign animal disease occurred in the United States (e.g., footand-mouth disease):

Percent Operations 

Likelihood 

Very 

Likely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

Not 

Likely 

Information 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Other dairy 

producers 41.4 (2.8) 37.8 (2.7) 20.8 (2.3) 100.0 

Private veterinarian 93.6 (1.3) 5.4 (1.3) 1.0 (0.5) 100.0 

Extension agent 32.5 (2.7) 38.9 (2.9) 28.6 (2.5) 100.0 

Dairy organization 

or cooperative 30.7 (2.6) 42.3 (2.8) 27.0 (2.6) 100.0 

Magazines 39.0 (2.8) 49.4 (2.8) 11.6 (1.5) 100.0 

Internet 23.1 (2.2) 28.8 (2.6) 48.1 (2.8) 100.0 

State Veterinarian’s 

office 26.7 (2.4) 37.4 (2.8) 35.9 (2.9) 100.0 

USDA 22.6 (2.4) 42.5 (2.8) 34.9 (2.7) 100.0 

Television/ 

newspapers 25.8 (2.5) 38.8 (2.8) 35.4 (2.6) 100.0 

Other 4.7 (1.2) 2.4 (1.0) 92.9 (1.6) 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

8 / Dairy 2007

3. Resource contacts

If a foreign animal disease was introduced into the United States, infected

animals would need to be identified and diagnosed quickly to stop the spread of

disease. Most operations (98.6 percent) would contact a private veterinarian if an

animal on the operation was suspected of having a foreign animal disease.

a. Percentage of operations that would contact the following resources if an

animal on the operation was suspected of having foot-and-mouth disease or

another foreign animal disease:

Resource Percent Operations Standard Error 

Extension agent/university 20.8 (2.3) 

State Veterinarian’s office 35.7 (2.6) 

USDA 21.8 (2.3) 

Private veterinarian 98.6 (0.5) 

Feed company or milk 

cooperative representative 25.7 (2.3) 

Other 4.1 (1.3) 

Photo courtesy of Chuck Greiner, Agricultural Research Service
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

Decreased milk production, cows with fever, deaths, and/or abortions could

indicate that a new disease has been introduced into the herd. On average, an

operation would have to have a 20.6 percent decrease in milk production before

a veterinarian would be contacted for assistance or consultation. Large

operations had a lower threshold (12.9 percent reduction) compared with small

operations (22.3 percent reduction). Operations reported that a veterinarian

would be contacted if 9.6 percent of cows exhibited a fever, 5.8 percent of cows

died within a short period, or 6.8 percent of cows aborted.

b. Operation average percentage change at which a veterinarian would be

contacted for assistance, by potential problem sign and by herd size:

Operation Average Percent Change 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Potential 

Problem 

Sign Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Decline in total 

daily milk 

production 22.3 (1.2) 18.0 (1.1) 12.9 (1.2) 20.6 (0.9) 

Milk cows 

exhibiting fever 

within a short 

time period 10.7 (1.2) 7.3 (0.9) 6.0 (1.8) 9.6 (0.9) 

Milk cows dying 

within a short 

time period 6.8 (1.1) 3.2 (0.7) 4.2 (1.9) 5.8 (0.8) 

Milk cows 

aborting within a 

short time period 8.1 (1.1) 3.9 (0.7) 4.6 (1.8) 6.8 (0.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

10 / Dairy 2007

Operations in the West region would seek veterinary assistance if daily milk

production declined by 14.1 percent, while operations in the East region would do

so at a 21.3 percent decline. For the other three potential problem signs, there

were no regional differences in the average percentage change at which

operations would seek assistance from a veterinarian.

c. Operation average percentage change at which a veterinarian would be

contacted for assistance, by potential problem sign and by region:

Operation Average Percent Change 

Region 

West East 

Potential Problem Sign Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Decline in total daily 

milk production 14.1 (1.1) 21.3 (1.0) 

Milk cows exhibiting fever 

within a short time period 5.7 (1.3) 10.0 (0.9) 

Milk cows dying within 

a short time period 3.8 (1.3) 5.9 (0.9) 

Milk cows aborting within 

a short time period 4.5 (1.3) 7.0 (0.9) 

4. Employees and visitors

Not surprisingly, a lower percentage of small operations (65.6 percent) had

employees compared with medium and large operations (95.0 and 98.0 percent,

respectively).

a. Percentage of operations that had employees* 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 

65.6 (4.1) 95.0 (2.0) 98.0 (1.9) 75.7 (2.8) 

*Excludes owners and family members. 
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

The number of full-time employees increased as herd size increased. Small

operations averaged 2.0 full-time employees, compared with 3.8 and 12.9 fulltime employees on medium and large operations, respectively. Medium

operations employed more part-time people on average than large operations

(2.4 and 1.2, respectively).

b. Operation average number of employees, by employee type and by herd size:

Operation Average Number Employees* 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Employee Type Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Full-time 2.0 (0.1) 3.8 (0.1) 12.9 (0.8) 3.1 (0.1) 

Part-time 1.8 (0.1) 2.4 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 1.9 (0.1) 

*Paid and unpaid, including owners and family members assigned work duties directly related to the 

dairy’s operation. 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

12 / Dairy 2007

Operations in the West region averaged more full-time employees (7.8)

compared with operations in the East region (2.7). Operations in the East region

averaged more part-time employees. These differences were likely related to the

larger herd sizes in the West region.

c. Operation average number of employees, by employee type and by region:

Operation Average Number Employees* 

Region 

West East 

Employee Type Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

Full-time 7.8 (0.7) 2.7 (0.1) 

Part-time 1.0 (0.1) 2.0 (0.1) 

*Paid and unpaid, including owners and family members assigned work duties directly related to the 

dairy’s operation. 

Photo courtesy of Keith Weller, Agricultural Research Service
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

Implementing biosecurity practices reduces the introduction of disease.

Employees and visitors are potential sources of disease, and operations should

have restrictions and guidelines—for both employees and visitors—designed to

limit the introduction of disease.

A higher percentage of large operations (47.3 percent) trained employees in

performing biosecurity practices compared with small and medium operations

(17.8 and 23.7 percent, respectively). Other than employee training, less than 20

percent of all operations implemented the other biosecurity practices listed.

d. For operations with employees, percentage of operations by biosecurity

practices used and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Biosecurity Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Restrictions on 

employee livestock 

ownership outside this 

operation 17.4 (3.7) 18.6 (3.5) 20.1 (4.7) 18.1 (2.5) 

Guidelines regarding 

foreign travel by 

employees 9.7 (2.7) 16.0 (3.6) 14.7 (3.7) 12.0 (2.0) 

Written standard 

operating procedures 

(other than milking 

procedures) 10.9 (2.7) 13.2 (2.9) 23.0 (4.8) 12.2 (2.0) 

Training for employees 

in performing biosecurity 

practices 17.8 (3.4) 23.7 (3.6) 47.3 (6.2) 21.9 (2.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

14 / Dairy 2007

Nearly all operations, regardless of herd size, allowed visitors in the animal area.

e. Percentage of operations in which visitors were allowed in the animal area:

About one of three operations (30.4 percent) had guidelines regarding which

visitors were allowed in animal areas, and 51.3 percent of operations had

restrictions on vehicles entering animal areas. A lower percentage of small

operations (22.7 percent) provided disposable or clean boots for visitors entering

animal areas compared with medium operations (42.1 percent).

f. For operations that allowed visitors in the animal area, percentage of

operations by biosecurity practices used and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Biosecurity 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Guidelines 

regarding which 

visitors are allowed 

in animal areas 28.0 (3.4) 35.2 (4.3) 39.9 (5.9) 30.4 (2.6) 

Footbaths for 

visitors entering 

animal areas 6.3 (1.7) 7.2 (1.9) 12.1 (3.5) 6.9 (1.3) 

Disposable or 

clean boots for 

visitors entering 

animal areas 22.7 (3.3) 42.1 (4.2) 36.3 (5.5) 28.3 (2.6) 

Restrictions on 

vehicles entering 

animal areas 51.0 (3.8) 54.5 (4.1) 41.9 (6.1) 51.3 (2.9) 

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 

98.6 (0.8) 95.9 (1.8) 97.9 (1.6) 97.9 (0.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

Employees, veterinarians, nutritionists, and milk and cattle haulers routinely

come onto dairy operations. Employees and visitors, who may or may not have

contact with cattle on the operation, are potential sources of disease introduction.

As expected, the number of visits per week increased as herd size increased;

72.2 percent of large operations had 29 or more visits per week compared with

47.6 and 20.0 percent of medium and small operations, respectively.

g. Percentage of operations by number of visits* to the operation per week 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 

Visits 

(Per Week) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 7 35.6 (3.7) 13.7 (3.0) 1.2 (0.7) 28.0 (2.7) 

8 to 14 28.4 (3.6) 16.5 (3.3) 0.8 (0.5) 23.6 (2.6) 

15 to 21 9.0 (2.0) 12.5 (2.8) 13.7 (4.8) 10.2 (1.6) 

22 to 28 7.0 (1.7) 9.7 (2.6) 12.1 (4.0) 8.0 (1.4) 

29 or more 20.0 (3.1) 47.6 (4.1) 72.2 (5.3) 30.2 (2.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Includes employees, veterinarians, neighbors, nutritionists, milk haulers, etc. 

Of operations that had visits, more than 9 of 10 (93.6 percent) had visits that

involved contact with animals on the operation.

h. For operations that had visits, percentage of operations in which visits involved

contact with animals on the operation:

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 

91.3 (1.9) 98.5 (0.7) 100.0 (0.0) 93.6 (1.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

16 / Dairy 2007

For operations in which any visits to the operation involved contact with animals

on the operation, about half of operations (54.2 percent) reported one to seven

visits per week that involved contact with animals on the operation. About 1 of 6

operations (17.1 percent) had 29 or more visits that resulted in contact with

animals. The number of visits that involved animal contact increased as herd

size increased.

i. For operations in which any visits to the operation involved contact with animals

on the operation, percentage of operations by number of visits per week that

involved animal contact, 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 

Visits 

(Per Week) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 7 67.1 (3.8) 31.4 (3.9) 10.3 (3.7) 54.2 (2.8) 

8 to 14 7.9 (2.0) 13.3 (2.9) 10.9 (3.8) 9.5 (1.6) 

15 to 21 11.5 (2.6) 13.8 (3.2) 7.9 (3.4) 11.8 (1.9) 

22 to 28 6.5 (2.0) 9.9 (2.3) 6.2 (3.1) 7.4 (1.5) 

29 or more 7.0 (1.9) 31.6 (3.7) 64.7 (5.4) 17.1 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

18 / Dairy 2007

Photo courtesy of Keith Weller, Agricultural Research Service
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

5. Specific animal exclusion practices

In order to effectively exclude specific diseases from an operation, all potential

disease sources should be considered. Many diseases are initially introduced

into a herd through the purchase of an infected animal. Knowing the source of

purchased cattle may provide the buyer the opportunity to inquire directly about

any diseases on the source operation or any testing that may have been done.

About 6 of 10 operations (64.2 percent) did not introduce cattle into their herds

during the previous 12 months. Only 2.6 percent of operations did not know the

source of any new cattle, while 24.2 percent knew the source of all cattle

introduced. The percentage of operations that had no incoming cattle decreased

as herd size increased.

a. Percentage of operations in which the producer was aware of the source and

geographic origin of all, some, or none of the incoming cattle 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 

Knew the 

Source and 

Geographic 

Origin of . . . Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

All 22.0 (3.3) 28.0 (3.8) 32.0 (5.2) 24.2 (2.4) 

Some 8.6 (2.3) 7.8 (2.3) 19.1 (3.7) 9.0 (1.7) 

None 2.0 (1.2) 3.6 (1.6) 5.4 (2.9) 2.6 (0.9) 

No 

incoming cattle* 67.4 (3.7) 60.6 (4.2) 43.5 (5.7) 64.2 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*If the operation sent heifers off-site but cattle were not commingled with cattle from other operations, 

these operations were considered to have had no incoming cattle. 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

20 / Dairy 2007

There were no regional differences in the percentage of operations by producer

knowledge of the source and geographic origin of incoming cattle.

b. Percentage of operations in which the producer was aware of the source and

geographic origin of all, some, or none of the incoming cattle during the previous

12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Knew the Source 

and Geographic 

Origin of . . . Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

All incoming cattle 16.5 (3.6) 24.9 (2.7) 

Some 

incoming cattle 10.9 (3.0) 8.9 (1.9) 

None 7.3 (2.8) 2.1 (1.0) 

No incoming cattle* 65.3 (4.7) 64.1 (3.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*If the operation sent heifers off-site but cattle were not commingled with cattle from other 

operations, these operations were considered to have had no incoming cattle.
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

The majority of operations used insect and rodent control practices, and

maintained a closed herd. There were no differences across herd sizes in the

percentages of operations that implemented specific biosecurity practices.

c. Percentage of operations that used the following biosecurity practices to

prevent disease 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 

Biosecurity 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Insect control 86.5 (2.7) 88.3 (2.7) 93.6 (3.0) 87.4 (2.0) 

Rodent control 95.7 (1.4) 91.8 (2.0) 90.3 (3.4) 94.4 (1.1) 

Bird control 29.4 (3.6) 44.3 (4.2) 41.4 (5.6) 33.8 (2.7) 

Limit cattle contact 

with other 

livestock, elk, and 

deer 44.8 (3.8) 55.7 (4.2) 59.6 (5.6) 48.5 (2.8) 

Control access to 

cattle feed by 

other livestock and 

wildlife 52.0 (3.9) 46.8 (4.2) 40.1 (5.4) 49.9 (2.9) 

Closed herd* 60.1 (3.9) 49.5 (4.2) 40.6 (5.6) 56.2 (2.9) 

*All replacements are from the operation; no contact with cattle from other operations. 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

22 / Dairy 2007

6. Equipment handling for manure and feeding

Manure is a source of bacteria that can cause disease in animals if feedstuffs

are contaminated. It is generally recommended that equipment used for manure

handling not be used for handling feed. If the equipment is used to handle

manure, it should be cleaned and disinfected before handling feed.

Approximately the same percentages of operations (one-third) routinely, rarely, or

never used the same equipment for manure and feed, and no differences were

observed across herd sizes.

a. Percentage of operations by frequency that the same equipment was used to

handle manure and feed cattle 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 

Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Routinely 34.1 (3.6) 29.8 (3.9) 20.3 (4.7) 32.2 (2.7) 

Rarely 34.4 (3.6) 36.4 (4.0) 46.0 (5.6) 35.6 (2.7) 

Never 31.5 (3.6) 33.8 (3.9) 33.7 (5.5) 32.2 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

For operations that used the same equipment to handle manure and feed cattle,

the majority (61.0 percent) washed equipment with water or steam after handling

manure and before handling feed. The majority of the approximately one of four

operations (23.2 percent) that used “other” procedures reported using separate

loader buckets.

b. For operations that used the same equipment to handle manure and feed

cattle, percentage of operations by procedure that best describes what is usually

done with equipment after handling manure:

Procedure Percent Operations Standard Error 

Wash equipment with 

water or steam only 61.0 (3.4) 

Chemically disinfect only 0.1 (0.1) 

Wash equipment and 

chemically disinfect 4.6 (1.5) 

Other 23.2 (3.1) 

No procedures done 11.1 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 

7. Equipment sharing with other livestock operations

Sharing equipment between operations can spread disease from one operation

to another. Ideally, equipment should be disinfected before it is transported and

used on another operation. A lower percentage of operations in the West region

(13.6 percent) shared equipment compared with operations in the East region

(38.4 percent).

a. Percentage of operations that shared any heavy equipment (tractors, feeding

equipment, manure spreaders, trailers, etc.) with other livestock operations

during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East All Operations 

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

13.6 (3.5) 38.4 (3.0) 36.2 (2.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

24 / Dairy 2007

The majority of operations, regardless of herd size, had not shared any heavy

equipment with other livestock operations during the previous 12 months.

Overall, 63.8 percent of operations had not shared equipment. More than 12

percent of operations across all herd sizes shared equipment at least six times

during the previous 12 months.

b. Percentage of operations by number of times heavy equipment was shared

during the previous 12 months, and by herd size:

Photo courtesy of Keith Weller, Agricultural Research Service

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Number 

of Times Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 64.1 (3.7) 59.0 (4.1) 78.7 (4.3) 63.8 (2.8) 

1 to 2 11.1 (2.6) 15.5 (3.1) 5.3 (2.3) 11.8 (2.0) 

3 to 5 12.6 (2.5) 7.0 (2.4) 3.1 (1.1) 10.6 (1.8) 

6 or more 12.2 (2.3) 18.5 (3.4) 12.9 (3.8) 13.8 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

The majority of producers that shared equipment with other operations (63.0

percent) performed no cleaning procedures prior to using the equipment on their

own operations, while 26.6 percent washed equipment with water or steam.

c. For operations that shared equipment with other livestock operations,

percentage of operations by cleaning procedure usually performed on equipment

shared with other operations prior to use on the operation:

Procedure Percent Operations Standard Error 

Wash equipment with 

water or steam only 26.6 (3.9) 

Chemically disinfect only 0.0 (--) 

Wash equipment and 

chemically disinfect 0.5 (0.3) 

Other 9.9 (3.2) 

No procedures done 63.0 (4.6) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

26 / Dairy 2007

8. Johne’s disease

Herd-level control programs on operations infected with Mycobacterium avium

subspecies paratuberculosis (the causative agent of Johne’s disease) are critical

in controlling the disease. Almost one of three operations (31.7 percent)

participated in some type of Johne’s disease control program. A higher

percentage of medium operations (24.7 percent) had a unique Johne’s disease

program developed specifically for the operation compared with small operations

(12.1 percent). There were no differences across herd sizes in the percentage of

operations that used the other program types.

a. Percentage of operations that participated in Johne’s disease control or

certification programs, by type of program and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Program Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Unique program 

developed 

specifically for the 

operation 12.1 (2.4) 24.7 (3.6) 16.8 (3.8) 15.6 (1.9) 

State-sponsored 

program 20.4 (3.0) 29.2 (3.8) 18.8 (2.9) 22.5 (2.2) 

Other 2.9 (1.1) 5.6 (2.0) 7.6 (2.8) 3.8 (0.9) 

Any program 27.7 (3.3) 42.1 (4.1) 33.3 (4.5) 31.7 (2.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

A higher percentage of operations in the East region (33.0 percent) participated

in any Johne’s disease control program compared with operations in the West

region (18.3 percent).

b. Percentage of operations that participated in a Johne’s disease control or

certification program, by type of program and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Program Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Unique program developed 

specifically for this operation 11.0 (3.3) 16.0 (2.1) 

State-sponsored program 8.0 (2.1) 23.9 (2.5) 

Other 2.6 (1.6) 4.0 (1.0) 

Any 18.3 (3.8) 33.0 (2.7) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

28 / Dairy 2007

A Johne’s disease control program may include testing individual animals in

order to identify those that are shedding Mycobacterium avium subspecies

paratuberculosis and are, 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 tested for Johne’s disease

compared with small operations (47.6 and 30.7 percent, respectively).

c. 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) 

9. Calving areas

Ideally, calving areas are clean, dry, quiet, and provide enough room for a cow to

comfortably lie down and deliver a calf. The majority of operations (70.0 percent)

used a multiple-animal calving area/pen. A lower percentage of small operations

(65.6 percent) used a multiple-animal calving area compared with medium

operations (79.8 percent). Approximately one-quarter of operations used an

individual calving area that was either cleaned between each calving or cleaned

after two or more calvings (25.5 and 26.2 percent, respectively). A higher

percentage of small operations (30.6 percent) used an individual-animal pen that

was cleaned between each calving compared with medium and large operations

(14.6 and 13.5 percent, respectively).
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

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

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Calving Area Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Multiple animal 

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

Individual animal 

area/pen cleaned 

between each 

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

Individual animal 

area/pen cleaned 

after two or more 

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

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

The percentage of operations with a usual calving area ranged from 62.5 percent

of small operations to 98.2 percent of large operations.

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

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100)

Medium 

(100-499)

Large 

(500 or More)

All 

Operations 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

62.5 (3.8) 83.7 (3.3) 98.2 (1.2) 70.1 (2.7) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

30 / Dairy 2007

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 

For operations with a usual calving area, 4 of 10 operations (39.9 percent)

moved cows into the calving area within a day prior to calving. There were no

regional differences. 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.

c. For 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:
USDA APHIS VS / 31

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

32 / Dairy 2007

For operations with a usual calving area, few operations (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).

d. For 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) 

.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 
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

There were no regional differences by length of time that cows remained in the

usual calving area after calving.

e. For 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

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) 

.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 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

34 / Dairy 2007

Allowing sick cows into the calving area is a potential source of disease for other

cows and newborn calves. A higher percentage of small and medium operations

(37.3 and 33.0 percent, respectively) allowed sick cows in calving areas than

large operations (16.5 percent). Approximately 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 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) 
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

Cows that test positive for Johne’s disease present a risk of contaminating the

usual calving area and transmitting the disease to newborn calves. To prevent

calving-area contamination and the potential for infecting calves, test-positive

animals should not be allowed in the calving area or other calf areas. There were

no differences by operation size in the percentage of operations that allowed

Johne’s disease test-positive animals in the calving area; 15.5 percent of

operations that tested for Johne’s disease allowed test-positive cows in the

calving area.

g. For 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) 

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.

h. For 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) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

36 / Dairy 2007

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez

A higher percentage of small operations than large operations reported that less

than three-fourths 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 to 16.6 percent of small

operations.

i. Percentage of operations by percentage of calves born in the usual calving

area/pen, and 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 
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

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. Operations should

either use colostrum from a test-negative cow or pasteurize colostrum prior to

feeding. Approximately 1 of 20 operations (4.9 percent) fed colostrum from testpositive cows to calves. There were no differences by herd size.

j. For 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) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Source of Replacements

38 / Dairy 2007

1. Cow replacements in the milking herd

Approximately one-third of the dairy cow inventory (36.2 percent) was replaced

(primarily by heifers that calved) during the previous 12 months. There were no

differences by herd size.

a. Cow replacements that entered the milking herd during the previous

12 months, as a percentage of cow inventory on the day of interview, 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 

33.0 (1.1) 34.5 (1.1) 39.0 (2.6) 36.2 (1.2) 

B. Source of

Replacements

NOTE: Estimates for sources of cow replacements were published in

NAHMS Dairy 2007 Part I, p 62. Cow-replacement estimates in this report

(Part III) are similar, with the exception of the percentage of operations that

had cow replacements born on the operation and raised off-site—which is

higher in this report than in Part I.
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Source of Replacements

Almost 9 of 10 operations (88.0 percent) had cow replacements enter the milking

herd that were born and raised on the operation. A lower percentage of large

operations (50.7 percent) raised cow replacements on their operations compared

with medium and small operations (84.7 and 92.6 percent, respectively). Off-site

heifer raising of cow replacements was practiced by 13.9 percent of all

operations and was highest for large operations (50.9 percent). Cow

replacements were purchased directly from other dairies by 15.3 percent of

operations. A higher percentage of large operations (20.2 percent) purchased

cow replacements from a dealer compared with medium and small operations

(8.9 and 1.7 percent, respectively). Purchasing cow replacements from auction

markets was practiced by 7.0 percent of operations.

b. Percentage of operations by source of cow replacements that entered the

milking herd during the previous 12 months:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100)

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More)

All 

Operations 

Source of Cow 

Replacements Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Born and 

raised on the 

operation 92.6 (1.9) 84.7 (3.2) 50.7 (6.2) 88.0 (1.6) 

Born on 

operation, 

raised off-site 9.3 (2.2) 17.2 (3.3) 50.9 (5.7) 13.9 (1.8) 

Purchased 

directly from 

other dairies 12.6 (2.7) 21.5 (3.5) 20.7 (4.5) 15.3 (2.1) 

Purchased 

from a dealer 1.7 (0.7) 8.9 (2.6) 20.2 (4.3) 4.6 (0.9) 

Purchased from 

auction markets 7.3 (2.4) 4.3 (1.6) 14.3 (4.0) 7.0 (1.7) 

Purchased from 

other source 2.7 (1.4) 1.6 (0.7) 6.1 (2.6) 2.6 (1.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Source of Replacements

40 / Dairy 2007

All operations had cow replacements enter the milking herd during the previous

12 months. The majority of cow replacements for small and medium operations

were born and raised on the operation (81.5 and 73.8 percent of replacements,

respectively). Cow replacements for large operations were either “home-raised”

or born on the operation and raised off-site (40.5 and 47.8 percent of

replacements, respectively). Less than 15 percent of all cow replacements were

purchased from other dairies, a dealer, auction market, or other source.

c. Percentage of cow replacements that entered the milking herd during the

previous 12 months, by source and by herd size:

Percent Cow Replacements 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Source of Cow 

Replacements Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Born and raised on 

the operation 81.5 (3.3) 73.8 (3.5) 40.5 (6.3) 58.8 (3.5) 

Born on operation, 

raised off-site 9.2 (2.2) 17.2 (3.4) 47.8 (6.0) 30.8 (3.3) 

Purchased directly 

from other dairies 4.6 (1.6) 5.4 (1.1) 4.2 (1.2) 4.6 (0.8) 

Purchased from 

a dealer 0.7 (0.4) 2.2 (0.6) 3.9 (1.0) 2.7 (0.5) 

Purchased from 

auction markets 3.7 (1.4) 0.7 (0.3) 3.4 (1.9) 2.7 (1.0) 

Purchased from 

other source 0.3 (0.2) 0.7 (0.5) 0.2 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Source of Replacements
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Source of Replacements

42 / Dairy 2007

There were no regional differences in source of cow replacements.

d. Percentage of cow replacements that entered the milking herd during the

previous 12 months, by source and by region:

Percent Cow Replacements 

Region 

West East 

Source of Cow 

Replacements Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Born and raised 

on the operation 50.6 (7.4) 64.3 (3.1) 

Born on operation and raised 

by off-site heifer grower 40.4 (7.1) 24.3 (2.8) 

Purchased directly 

from other dairies 2.3 (1.2) 6.2 (1.0) 

Purchased from a dealer 2.2 (0.7) 3.1 (0.7) 

Purchased from 

auction markets 4.2 (2.4) 1.7 (0.6) 

Purchased from other source 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Source of Replacements

2. Replacement shipments

The number of shipments of cow replacements from off-site heifer growers to the

operation increased as herd size increased. During the previous 12 months,

large operations received an average of 55.9 shipments from off-site heifer

growers compared with an average of 5.5 shipments for small operations.

a. Operation average number of shipments by source of cow replacements

during the previous 12 months, and by herd size:

Operation Average Number of Shipments 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Source of Cow 

Replacements Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Born on operation 

and raised by offsite heifer grower 5.5 (1.6) 11.1 (1.3) 55.9 (16.2) 20.9 (5.1) 

Purchased directly 

from other dairies 1.5 (0.2) 2.3 (0.3) 5.3 (1.0) 2.1 (0.2) 

Purchased from 

a dealer 1.4 (0.3) 2.9 (0.5) 6.0 (1.0) 3.3 (0.5) 

Purchased from 

auction markets 3.0 (1.0) 2.0 (0.7) 28.3 (17.1) 7.8 (3.9) 

Purchased from 

other source 4.0 (0.0) 3.0 (1.1) 2.8 (0.8) 3.3 (0.5) 

All sources 2.6 (0.6) 6.0 (0.8) 48.1 (12.3) 9.7 (1.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Source of Replacements

44 / Dairy 2007

Photo courtesy of Peggy Greb, Agricultural Research Service

Operations in the West region had more shipments from off-site heifer growers

during the previous 12 months (65.8) compared to operations in the East region

(10.9). Shipments from other sources were similar for both the West and East

regions. Although the average number of shipments from auction markets was

higher in the West region than in the East region, the standard error for the West

region is large and suggests variability in the number of shipments among

operations in the West region.

b. Operations average number of shipments by source of cow replacements

during the previous 12 months, and by region:

Operation Average Number of Shipments 

Region 

West East 

Source of Cow 

Replacement Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

Born on operation and raised 

by off-site heifer grower 65.8 (24.0) 10.9 (1.3) 

Purchased directly 

from other dairies 5.9 (1.8) 1.9 (0.2) 

Purchased from a dealer 5.5 (1.1) 2.7 (0.4) 

Purchased from 

auction markets 28.3 (17.3) 2.9 (0.9) 

Purchased from other source 3.7 (1.3) 3.2 (0.6) 

All sources 45.5 (14.4) 5.0 (0.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Disease Confirmation

C. Disease

Confirmation

1. Laboratory testing

Laboratory testing is essential in determining the cause of many diseases and

allows the implementation of appropriate preventive or control measures. More

than 20 percent of operations (22.7 percent) reported that Johne’s disease was

confirmed via laboratory testing during the previous 12 months. A lower

percentage of small operations received a laboratory diagnosis for Johne’s

disease (17.4 percent) compared with medium and large operations (35.0 and

34.1 percent, respectively). Less than 10 percent of all operations reported a

laboratory confirmation for the other listed diseases. Neospora and Salmonella

were more frequently diagnosed on large operations via laboratory testing than

on medium and small operations.

a. Percentage of operations in which the following diseases in cattle on the

operation were confirmed via laboratory testing 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 

Disease Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Bovine leukosis 

virus (BLV) 5.7 (1.9) 12.4 (2.9) 7.8 (2.9) 7.5 (1.5) 

Bovine viral 

diarrhea (BVD) 1.1 (0.7) 5.9 (2.0) 9.6 (3.3) 2.8 (0.7) 

Leptospirosis 1.4 (0.8) 2.4 (1.1) 9.7 (3.8) 2.1 (0.7) 

Neospora 3.9 (1.6) 1.0 (0.6) 14.4 (4.4) 3.9 (1.1) 

Salmonella 5.1 (1.8) 10.8 (2.3) 30.9 (5.9) 8.1 (1.4) 

Mycobacterium 

avium subspecies

paratuberculosis 

(Johne’s disease) 17.4 (3.0) 35.0 (3.9) 34.1 (4.8) 22.7 (2.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Disease Confirmation

46 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Disease Confirmation

During the previous 12 months, a higher percentage of operations in the East

region received a laboratory confirmation of Johne’s disease (23.6 percent) than

in the West region (12.8 percent). There were no differences by region in the

percentages of operations reporting laboratory confirmation for the other listed

diseases.

b. Percentage of operations in which the following diseases in cattle on the

operation were confirmed via laboratory testing during the previous 12 months,

by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Disease Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Bovine leukosis virus (BLV) 4.3 (2.0) 7.8 (1.7) 

Bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) 5.3 (2.3) 2.5 (0.7) 

Leptospirosis 5.2 (2.4) 1.9 (0.7) 

Neospora 10.8 (3.5) 3.2 (1.2) 

Salmonella 17.2 (4.2) 7.3 (1.5) 

Mycobacterium avium 

subspecies paratuberculosis 

(Johne’s disease) 12.8 (3.2) 23.6 (2.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Disease Confirmation

48 / Dairy 2007

BLV was most frequently diagnosed via blood samples (88.5 percent of

operations). Blood, ear notches, tissues at necropsy, and aborted fetuses were

the most frequently used samples for diagnosing BVD. Leptospirosis and

Johne’s disease were most frequently diagnosed via blood samples (69.6 and

70.3 percent, respectively). Neospora was confirmed using aborted fetuses,

blood, and tissues at necropsy. Salmonella was most frequently confirmed using

fecal samples (49.3 percent).

c. For operations in which disease was confirmed via laboratory testing,

percentage of operations by diagnostic samples used to confirm disease, and by

confirmed disease:

Percent Operations 

Confirmed Disease 

Bovine 

Leukosis 

Virus (BLV) 

Bovine 

Viral 

Diarrhea 

(BVD) 

Leptospirosis Neospora Salmonella Johne’s 

disease 

Diagnostic 

Sample Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Aborted 

fetus 13.9 (6.7) 22.8 (11.2) 59.0 (14.2) 7.9 (4.9) 

Blood 88.5 (4.8) 47.5 (12.9) 69.6 (12.5) 40.6 (14.2) 16.9 (5.5) 70.3 (5.3) 

Ear notch 41.3 (12.5) 

Feces 7.5 (4.4) 49.3 (9.1) 36.4 (5.5) 

Milk 0.6 (0.4) 20.0 (9.9) 12.4 (3.5) 

Tissues at 

necropsy 6.3 (3.5) 15.7 (7.9) 10.3 (7.4) 18.5 (10.1) 15.4 (4.7) 0.1 (0.1) 

Urine 8.8 (5.4) 

Other 15.5 (6.3) 3.0 (2.9) 0.0 (--) 9.0 (8.5) 5.0 (4.2) 1.7 (1.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 49

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Disease Confirmation

Photo courtesy of Paul Pierlott, Agricultural Research Service

2. Abortions

Abortion generally describes the expulsion of a dead fetus at 45 to 265 days of

gestation. A goal is to have less than 2 percent of cows and heifers abort each

year, although up to 5 percent is considered normal. Across herd sizes,

approximately 30 percent of operations reported that 2 percent or less of cows

aborted (as a percentage of cow inventory). Few operations (0.7 percent)

reported that more than 15.1 percent of cows aborted. No operations had more

than 25 percent of cows abort.

a. Percentage of operations by percentage of abortions 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 

Percent Abortions* Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0.0 18.8 (3.1) 1.8 (1.0) 0.0 (--) 13.4 (2.2) 

0.1 to 2.0 12.4 (2.3) 30.3 (3.8) 31.0 (4.9) 18.0 (1.9) 

2.1 to 5.0 39.1 (3.8) 54.3 (4.2) 34.7 (5.5) 42.6 (2.9) 

5.1 to 15.0 29.1 (3.6) 13.1 (2.9) 32.7 (5.1) 25.3 (2.6) 

15.1 or more 0.6 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 1.6 (1.5) 0.7 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of cow inventory at time of interview.
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Disease Confirmation

50 / Dairy 2007

Almost 9 of 10 operations (86.6 percent) had at least one cow or heifer abort

during the previous 12 months.

b. Percentage of operations that had any abortions:

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

 Error 

86.6 (2.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Disease Confirmation

Determining the cause of abortion can be difficult. In many cases, the event that

caused the fetus to die occurs days to weeks before the actual abortion.

Frequently, the cause of an abortion is no longer detectable, or the fetus is too

decomposed to evaluate or never found at all. Generally, a diagnosis is

determined in less than 40 percent of samples from abortions submitted to

diagnostic laboratories. To improve the chances of diagnosing the cause of

abortion, a detailed history and the proper diagnostic specimens should be

submitted to the laboratory. Specific samples recommended for submission

include sera from the dam, the entire fetus, or specific tissues and placenta.

Approximately one of eight operations (12.4 percent) submitted samples to

determine the cause of abortion.

c. For operations that had any abortions, percentage of operations that submitted

any samples for diagnosis:

For operations that submitted samples, 70.2 percent submitted serum from the

dam and 32.7 percent submitted the placenta.

d. For operations that submitted samples to determine cause of abortion,

percentage of operations by type of sample:

Sample Type Percent Operations Standard Error 

Placenta 32.7 (6.9) 

Entire fetus 53.8 (7.6) 

Serum of dam 70.2 (6.6) 

Other 4.0 (3.2) 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

 Error 

12.4 (1.7) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Disease Confirmation

52 / Dairy 2007

Of the total abortions reported, the placenta was submitted for testing for 1.3

percent of abortions. The entire fetus was submitted for 1.7 percent of abortions,

and serum from the dam experiencing the abortion was submitted for 3.1 percent

of abortions.

e. For operations that had at least one abortion during the previous 12 months,

percentage of abortions by type of sample submitted for laboratory diagnosis:

The majority of operations that had any abortions but did not submit samples for

diagnosis (69.6 percent) did not perceive abortion as a problem on their

operations.

f. For any aborted fetuses that were not submitted for diagnosis, percentage of

operations by reason for not submitting fetus:

Reason Percent Operations Standard Error 

Cost 2.5 (1.0) 

Lack of information obtained 

from previous abortion 

submissions 6.6 (1.3) 

Inconvenience 7.0 (1.7) 

Abortion not perceived 

as a problem on the operation 69.6 (2.7) 

Other 14.3 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 

Sample Type 

Percent Abortions 

Submitted 

Standard 

Error 

Placenta 1.3 (0.3) 

Entire fetus 1.7 (0.3) 

Serum of dam 3.1 (0.6) 

Other 0.1 (0.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Disease Confirmation

Although only 12.4 percent of operations that had abortions submitted samples

for diagnosis, more than 8 of 10 operations (82.0 percent) would submit aborted

fetuses for diagnosis if testing was performed at no cost, and 48.5 percent of

aborted fetuses would be submitted for diagnosis.

g. Percentage of operations that would submit aborted fetuses to a diagnostic

laboratory if testing was performed at no cost, and percentage of aborted fetuses

that would be submitted:

Percent 

Operations

Standard 

Error 

Operation 

Average Percent 

Aborted Fetuses 

Standard 

Error 

82.0 (2.3) 48.5 (4.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

54 / Dairy 2007

D. General

Management

1. Primary outside access areas

Operations most frequently allowed lactating cows access to pasture (50.9

percent of operations) during summer. No outside access was allowed on 13.1

percent of operations in summer. In winter, the highest percentages of

operations allowed lactating cows access to a concrete alley way or pen, dry lot,

or allowed no outside access (35.0, 28.9, and 25.2 percent, respectively).

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

routine access to during summer and winter:

Percent Operations 

Summer Winter 

Primary Outside Area Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture 50.9 (2.7) 9.4 (1.5) 

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

Dry lot 20.8 (2.2) 28.9 (2.7) 

Other 2.4 (0.8) 1.5 (0.6) 

None 13.1 (1.7) 25.2 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

During summer, 39.5 percent of lactating cows were on operations in which the

primary outside area was a dry lot, 22.3 percent were on operations in which the

primary outside area was pasture, and 19.0 percent were on operations with no

outside access. In winter, similar percentages of lactating cows were on

operations in which primary outside access was a concrete alleyway or pen, dry

lot, or allowed no outside access (32.3, 32.7, and 29.7 percent, respectively).
USDA APHIS VS / 55

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

Percent Cows 

Summer Winter 

Primary Outside Area Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture 22.3 (1.6) 4.4 (0.7) 

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

Dry lot 39.5 (3.0) 32.7 (3.5) 

Other 2.7 (1.4) 0.9 (0.3) 

None 19.0 (2.0) 29.7 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*It was presumed that all lactating cows had access to the operation’s primary outside area. 

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

routine access to during summer and winter:*
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

56 / Dairy 2007

The majority of operations (67.2 percent) allowed dry cows access to pasture

during summer. In winter, operations allowed access to pasture, concrete

alleyway or pen, dry lot, or allowed no outside access (18.4, 24.1, 34.2, and 18.5

percent, respectively).

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

access to during summer and winter:

Percent Operations 

Summer Winter 

Primary Outside Area Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture 67.2 (2.5) 18.4 (2.2) 

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

Dry lot 18.5 (2.0) 34.2 (2.7) 

Other 2.1 (0.8) 4.8 (1.3) 

None 6.5 (1.2) 18.5 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

The majority of dry cows were on operations in which pasture (38.5 percent) or

dry lot (41.9 percent) were the primary outside access during summer. Dry lot

was the most common outside access for dry cows in winter (43.5 percent).

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

routine access to during summer and winter:

Percent Cows 

Summer Winter 

Primary Outside Area Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture 38.5 (2.4) 11.9 (1.5) 

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

Dry lot 41.9 (2.6) 43.5 (3.2) 

Other 1.7 (0.5) 3.4 (0.8) 

None 10.6 (1.7) 21.9 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*It was presumed that all dry cows had access to the operation’s primary outside area.
USDA APHIS VS / 57

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

58 / Dairy 2007

2. Flooring type

Flooring surfaces are important to cow health and longevity. When given an

option, cows select flooring that compresses and provides cushion, such as

rubber mats, pasture, or dirt. Concrete flooring is associated with increased

lameness, injuries, and decreased expression of estrus. On approximately half

of operations (51.1 percent), flooring for lactating cows was predominately

concrete, representing 55.6 percent of cows. Pasture was the predominant

flooring on 10.1 percent of operations but for only 5.1 percent of cows. Dirt was

the predominate flooring on 5.4 percent of operations, representing 20.0 percent

of cows, which probably reflects the use of dry lots on large operations.

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

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

milked:

Flooring Type

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

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

Concrete–slatted 1.3 (0.5) 1.1 (0.5) 

Concrete–smooth 15.5 (2.3) 5.8 (0.8) 

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

Pasture 10.1 (1.7) 5.1 (0.9) 

Dirt 5.4 (1.1) 20.0 (3.5) 

Other 10.5 (1.8) 5.4 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 59

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez

For operations with concrete flooring, the use of rubber belting or a similar

material in cow areas reduces the amount of time cows spend on concrete and

may decrease lameness and injuries as well as increase time spent at the feed

bunk. Any rubber belting was present on 21.2 percent of operations and was

accessible to 44.4 percent of cows.

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

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

that had rubber belting or similar flooring, by location of rubber belting:

Location

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Immediately in front 

of feed bunk 11.9 (2.3) 29.2 (5.1) 

Walkway to parlor 6.2 (1.4) 18.9 (4.7) 

Holding pen 8.1 (1.9) 14.2 (3.1) 

Other 7.5 (1.7) 11.1 (1.8) 

Any 21.2 (2.8) 44.4 (4.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

60 / Dairy 2007

3. Surface moisture

Wet flooring can be detrimental to hoof health. Cows on wet surfaces have

increased hoof horn moisture and are more prone to infectious hoof diseases.

The ground or flooring surface for lactating cows was usually dry on 60.3 percent

of operations during summer and 49.5 percent in winter. Lactating cows usually

stood in water or slurry on less than 1 percent of operations (0.6 percent).

Percentage of operations by category that best characterizes the surface

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

summer and winter:

Percent Operations 

Summer Winter 

Flooring Surface Moisture Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Usually dry 60.3 (2.7) 49.5 (2.6) 

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

Almost always wet, but 

no standing water 16.3 (1.7) 28.1 (2.1) 

Usually standing 

water or slurry 0.6 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

4. Barn type

The type of freestall barn affects ventilation, feedbunk space, and square footage

per cow. Two- and four-row barns require less wind to properly ventilate and

provide more feedbunk space per cow and more square footage per cow than

three- or six-row barns. Approximately 8 of 10 large and medium operations

(83.2 and 81.9 and percent, respectively) housed cows in freestalls, compared

with about 3 of 10 small operations (27.2 percent). Less than half of all

operations (44.3 percent) housed cows in freestall barns.

a. Percentage of operations that used freestall barns:

Two-row freestall barns were the predominant setup for small and large freestall

operations (48.1 and 49.5 percent, respectively). The percentage of operations

with six-row barns increased as herd size increased.

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 

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

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Freestall 

Barn Setup Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

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

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

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

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

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

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

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

and by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

62 / Dairy 2007

5. Heat abatement

Using methods to cool cows, such as shade, water sprinklers, or increased air

circulation is important during summer in almost all areas of the United States.

Heat has many deleterious effects on dairy cattle, including decreased feed

intake and milk production, reduced estrous behavior, altered formation and

ovulation of follicles, and increased susceptibility to mastitis. In most areas of the

United States, a combination of sprinklers and fans is recommended. Fans were

the most common method of heat abatement provided on small and medium

operations (74.3 and 77.7 of operations, respectively), while a similar percentage

of large operations provided shade, sprinklers or misters, or fans (55.6, 61.6, and

61.0 percent, respectively). Overall, 94.0 percent of operations provided some

form of heat abatement for lactating cows.

a. Percentage of operations that provided heat abatement during summer 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 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Shade (other than 

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

Sprinklers 

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

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

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

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

Any 96.3 (1.2) 89.1 (2.7) 88.5 (3.7) 94.0 (1.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 63

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

Dry cows were most frequently provided shade on small and large operations

(61.0 and 49.8 percent of operations, respectively). Shade and fans were the

most common heat abatement methods for dry cows on medium operations

(41.0 and 37.8 percent of operations, respectively). More than three of four

operations (77.5 percent) provided some method of heat abatement for dry

cows.

b. Percentage of operations that provided heat abatement during summer for dry

cows, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Shade (other than 

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

Sprinklers or 

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

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

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

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

Any 81.4 (2.8) 68.9 (3.9) 69.2 (5.9) 77.5 (2.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

64 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 65

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

6. Bedding types

The ideal bedding for lactating cows is dry and clean, provides cushion, and

does not support bacterial growth. Sand has these characteristics and is one of

the best bedding options for cows, although sand can lead to excessive wear of

manure-handling equipment. Straw and/or hay were used on 54.1 percent of

operations, representing 33.4 percent of cows. Sawdust/wood products and

rubber mats were used on similar percentages of operations (35.0 and 30.2

percent, respectively), although sawdust/wood products were used for a higher

percentage of cows (31.2 percent) than were rubber mats (18.5 percent). Sand

was used on 21.9 percent of operations and for 30.3 percent of cows.

Straw and/or hay was used as bedding for dry cows by more than 6 of 10

operations (62.2 percent), representing 47.2 percent of cows. Most operations

(92.5 percent) provided bedding to dry cows, and most dry cows (92.7 percent)

had access to bedding.

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

type of bedding used for lactating and dry cows during the previous 90 days:

Percent Operations Percent Cows 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry 

Cows 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry 

Cows 

Bedding Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Straw and/ 

or hay 54.1 (2.7) 62.2 (2.7) 33.4 (2.8) 47.2 (3.2) 

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

Sawdust/wood 

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

Composted/ 

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

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

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

Shredded 

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

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

Corn cobs 

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

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

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

Any 97.0 (0.8) 92.5 (1.4) 94.9 (1.9) 92.7 (1.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

66 / Dairy 2007

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez
USDA APHIS VS / 67

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

The primary bedding types used in the last 90 days for lactating and dry cows

were straw and/or hay, sand, sawdust/wood products, or composted/dried

manure. Composed/dried manure was used on less than 5 percent of operations

but represented almost 25 percent of cows, suggesting that primarily large

operations were using this bedding type.

b. For operations that used bedding during the previous 90 days, percentage of

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

primarily used for lactating and dry cows:

Percent Operations Percent Cows 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry 

Cows 

Lactating 

Cows 

Dry 

Cows 

Bedding Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Straw and/ 

or hay 37.3 (2.9) 43.1 (3.0) 21.1 (2.6) 27.3 (2.6) 

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

Sawdust/wood 

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

Composted/ 

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

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

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

Shredded 

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

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

Corn cobs 

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

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

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

68 / Dairy 2007

7. Feedstuffs

Dairy operations use a variety of feedstuffs based on factors such as nutrient

content, availability, and cost. More than half of operations fed lactating or dry

cows alfalfa hay/haylage, corn silage, whole soybeans or soybean meal, or corn.

Percentage of operations by type of feedstuff fed to lactating and dry cows

during the previous 90 days:

Percent Operations 

Cow Type 

Lactating Dry 

Feedstuffs Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Alfalfa hay/haylage 92.3 (1.6) 75.9 (2.3) 

Corn silage 87.6 (1.8) 80.4 (2.3) 

Clover as forage or 

pasture 23.1 (2.4) 24.1 (2.4) 

Whole cottonseed 33.0 (2.5) 8.0 (1.5) 

Cottonseed 

meal or hulls 9.3 (1.5) 3.4 (1.0) 

Whole soybeans or 

soybean meal 84.4 (2.1) 45.7 (2.8) 

Bakery byproducts 6.6 (1.0) 1.9 (0.6) 

Brewery byproducts 37.1 (2.7) 19.7 (2.3) 

Corn 94.2 (1.4) 67.1 (2.7) 

Barley 14.1 (1.9) 8.6 (1.6) 

Wheat (not silage) 6.7 (1.1) 5.0 (1.0) 

Oats (not silage) 17.5 (2.4) 20.4 (2.5) 

Green chop 4.9 (1.4) 3.4 (1.1) 

Feather/poultry meal 3.2 (0.7) 1.0 (0.3) 

Fish meal 4.4 (0.9) 0.8 (0.4) 

Fat/tallow 32.7 (2.5) 7.9 (1.4) 

Porcine meat and 

bone meal 8.3 (1.3) 0.8 (0.4) 

Blood meal 13.2 (1.7) 2.8 (0.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

8. Feedline and feeding practices

The configuration of the feedline can impact the feeding behavior of dairy cattle.

An increased amount of feedbunk space per cow as well as some form of

physical separation between cows—such as the use of headlocks—reduce

competition and have the greatest positive impact on subordinate cows. The

most common feedline for small operations was a tie stall (46.2 percent of

operations) while post and rail was the single most common feedline on medium

operations (37.1 percent of operations). The majority of large operations

(79.6 percent) used headlocks at the feedline.

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

and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Feedline Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

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

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

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

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

Elevated feed 

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

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

70 / Dairy 2007

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez
USDA APHIS VS / 71

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

Feeding cows based on production or state of lactation can decrease feed costs

while providing optimal nutrition. Some operations are limited in their ability to

provide separate rations due to facilities or cost constraints. The majority of small

and medium operations fed lactating cows the same ration (65.6 and 62.2

percent of operations, respectively), while large operations most frequently fed

individuals or groups based on production or stage of lactation (70.5 percent of

operations).

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Feeding Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Feed all cows the 

same ration 65.6 (3.7) 62.2 (4.0) 27.2 (4.6) 62.3 (2.7) 

Feed individuals or 

groups based on 

production/stage 

of lactation 32.9 (3.6) 34.0 (4.0) 70.5 (4.5) 35.6 (2.7) 

Feed individuals or 

groups based on 

lactation number 1.5 (0.8) 1.6 (0.7) 2.2 (1.2) 1.6 (0.6) 

Feed individuals or 

groups based on 

criteria other than 

production/stage 

of lactation or 

lactation number 0.0 (--) 2.2 (1.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

b. Percentage of operations by feeding practice used to feed lactating cows, and

by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

72 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region (52.9 percent) fed

individual cows or groups of cows based on production or stage of lactation

compared with operations in the East region (33.9 percent). A higher percentage

of operations in the East region (63.8 percent) fed all cows the same ration

compared with operations in the West region (45.8 percent).

c. Percentage of operations by feeding practice used to feed lactating cows, and

by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Feeding Practice Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Feed all cows the 

same ration 45.8 (4.7) 63.8 (2.9) 

Feed individuals or groups 

based on production/stage of 

lactation 52.9 (4.6) 33.9 (2.9) 

Feed individuals or groups 

based on lactation number 0.8 (0.8) 1.7 (0.7) 

Feed individuals or groups 

based on criteria other than 

production/stage of lactation 

or lactation number 0.5 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Feeding anionic salts reduces the incidence of milk fever, although accurate

delivery and palatability are issues associated with feeding anionic salts. Since

heifers are at very low risk for milk fever, feeding them anionic salts is generally

not recommended. The percentage of operations feeding anionic salts to closeup cows increased as herd size increased. A lower percentage of operations fed

anionic salts to springing heifers compared to close-up cows (15.7 and 22.9

percent, respectively). A lower percentage of small operations (11.1 percent) fed

anionic salts to heifers compared with medium and large operations (23.1 and

36.1 percent, respectively).
USDA APHIS VS / 73

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

A higher percentage of operations in the West region fed anionic salts to closeup cows or springing heifers compared with operations in the East region.

e. Percentage of operations that fed anionic salts (e.g., BioChlor, SoyChlor,

ammonium chloride, etc.) to prevent milk fever, by cattle class and by region:

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 

Close-up cows1 16.7 (2.8) 31.4 (3.8) 56.7 (5.5) 22.9 (2.2) 

Springing heifers2 11.1 (2.4) 23.1 (3.3) 36.1 (5.7) 15.7 (1.9) 

1

Cows 2 to 4 weeks prior to calving. 

2

Springing heifers 2 to 4 weeks prior to calving. 

d. Percentage of operations that fed anionic salts (e.g., BioChlorTM, SoyChlor®,

ammonium chloride, etc.) to prevent milk fever, by cattle class and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Cattle Class Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Close-up cows1 49.7 (5.2) 20.3 (2.4) 

Springing heifers2 33.5 (5.2) 14.0 (2.0) 

1

Cows 2 to 4 weeks prior to calving. 

2

Springing heifers 2 to 4 weeks prior to calving.
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

74 / Dairy 2007

Separating close-up cows makes it possible to change feeding strategies, such

as increasing energy levels or adding anionic salts to the diet. The percentage of

operations that separated close-up cows increased as herd size increased;

57.1 percent of all operations separated close-up cows from other dry cows.

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

by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

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

Milk urea nitrogen (MUN) testing provides a measure of energy and protein

balance in rations fed to cows. The majority of small operations (58.3 percent)

never tested MUN, while 48.6 percent of medium operations tested it routinely. A

similar percentage of large operations either tested MUN routinely, only tested if

there was a problem, or never tested MUN. Half of operations (49.8 percent)

tested MUN.

g. Percentage of operations by frequency of milk urea nitrogen testing to

determine ration composition, 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 

Used routinely 24.0 (3.0) 48.6 (4.2) 37.2 (5.7) 30.9 (2.4) 

Use only if had 

a problem 17.7 (2.8) 20.6 (3.4) 24.8 (5.1) 18.9 (2.2) 

Never used 58.3 (3.6) 30.8 (3.8) 38.0 (5.6) 50.2 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 75

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

9. Water sources

Water is one of the most important nutrients for cows. Lactating cows consume,

either directly or in feed, between 20 and 35 gallons of water per day. In addition

to providing clean water, cattle water sources should be easy to clean, readily

accessible, and always available. The most common water source across all

operation sizes was a water tank or trough (93.2 percent of operations).

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

previous 12 months, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Water Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Single cup/bowl 

waterer used by 

one cow only 13.3 (2.8) 8.6 (2.6) 2.4 (1.9) 11.4 (2.0) 

Single cup/bowl 

waterer used by 

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

Water tank or 

trough (covered or 

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

Lake, pond, 

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

Other source 4.4 (1.7) 3.5 (1.5) 0.6 (0.5) 3.9 (1.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

76 / Dairy 2007

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez

A higher percentage of operations in the East region used single cup/bowl

waterers used by one or multiple cows compared with operations in the West

region.

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

previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Water Source Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Single cup/bowl waterer 

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

Single cup/bowl waterer 

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

Water tank or trough 

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

Lake, pond, stream, 

river, etc. 21.7 (4.7) 34.6 (2.9) 

Other source 2.1 (1.1) 4.1 (1.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 77

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

Cleaning water sources may reduce cattle’s exposure to pathogens such as

E. coli and Salmonella. The average number of times per year that dairy

operations cleaned water sources varied. About one of three operations cleaned

single cup/bowl for one cow or water tank/trough 13 or more times per year. No

cleaning was reported on 14.2 percent of operations using a single cup/bowl for

one cow, 24.2 percent of operations using single cup/bowl for multiple cows, and

4.6 percent of operations using a water tank/trough.

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

are drained and cleaned, by water source:

Percent Operations 

Water Source 

Single Cup, 

One Cow 

Single Cup, 

Multiple Cows 

Water Tank/ 

Trough 

Number 

of Times Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

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

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

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

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

78 / Dairy 2007

Chlorinated water sources may reduce bacteria counts. Few operations

(8.7 percent) reported using chlorinated water for cows. A higher percentage of

medium operations (14.9 percent) used chlorinated water compared with small

operations (6.0 percent).

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

chlorinated, and by herd size (table revised 3-12-09):

There were no differences by region in the percentages of operations in which

cows drank chlorinated water.

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

chlorinated, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Chlorinated Water Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Yes 16.7 (4.0) 7.9 (1.3) 

Don’t know 0.4 (0.4) 1.2 (0.6) 

No 82.9 (4.0) 90.9 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Chlorinated 

Water Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

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

Don’t know 0.9 (0.7) 1.8 (1.0) 0.6 (0.3) 1.1 (0.5) 

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 79

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

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 

25.2 (1.1) 24.8 (0.8) 26.7 (1.8) 25.8 (0.9) 

NOTE: The estimates in tables a and b were calculated using data collected

during Phase II of the study (see Methodology). Similar estimates were

generated using data collected during Phase I of the study and are

included on p 87 and 88 of Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States, 2007. The estimates from

Phase I and Phase II are similar and within two standard errors of one

another, even though they represent different 12-month periods.

10. Permanently removed cows

Cows are permanently removed from dairy operations for multiple reasons,

including low productivity, clinical disease, and space issues. Excluding those

that died, one of four cows (25.8 percent) were removed during the previous 12

months. There were no differences across herd sizes in the percentages of cows

removed.

a. Percentage of cows permanently removed from the operation during the

previous 12 months (excluding those that died), by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

80 / Dairy 2007

The majority of operations that permanently removed cows (87.8 percent) sent

cows to a market, auction, or stockyard. No differences were observed across

herd sizes in the percentage of operations by destination of permanently

removed cows.

b. Percentage of operations by destination for permanently removed cows during

the previous 12 months, and by herd size:

An average of 1.5 shipments per month was made to transport permanently

removed cows to a market, auction, or stockyard. The number of shipments

increased as herd size increased. On average, few shipments were reported for

cows going to another dairy, packer or slaughter plant, or other destination.

c. Operation average number of shipments required to transport permanently

removed cows off the operation during an average month, by destination and by

herd size:

Operation Average Number of Shipments (Month)

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Destination No. 

Std. 

Error No. 

Std. 

Error No. 

Std. 

Error No. 

Std. 

Error 

Another dairy 0.6 (0.1) 1.0 (0.2) 1.1 (0.4) 0.8 (0.1) 

Market, auction, 

or stockyard 1.1 (0.1) 2.2 (0.1) 3.8 (0.3) 1.5 (0.1) 

Packer or 

slaughter plant 0.8 (0.1) 1.8 (0.3) 2.7 (0.3) 1.3 (0.1) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 1.2 (0.2) 1.9 (0.7) 0.5 (0.1) 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Destination Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Another dairy 12.0 (2.4) 11.7 (2.6) 8.3 (3.4) 11.7 (1.8) 

Market, auction, 

or stockyard 86.7 (2.7) 90.3 (2.1) 89.8 (3.6) 87.8 (2.0) 

Packer or 

slaughter plant 23.2 (3.4) 26.2 (3.6) 41.1 (5.8) 25.0 (2.5) 

Other 3.7 (1.5) 1.7 (0.7) 2.7 (1.9) 3.2 (1.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 81

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

Cows permanently removed later in lactation usually represent a lower financial

loss than cows removed prior to peak lactation. The majority of permanently

removed cows (58.0 percent) were 200 days or more in milk at the time of

removal, while less than 20 percent were fewer than 50 days in milk.

d. For operations that permanently removed cows during the previous

12 months, percentage of cows removed, by days in milk and by herd size:

Percent Cows 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Days in Milk Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 50 15.9 (1.5) 19.3 (1.3) 14.4 (1.9) 16.2 (1.1) 

50 to 199 24.7 (1.7) 23.3 (1.5) 21.1 (2.5) 22.6 (1.3) 

200 or more 54.5 (2.1) 53.7 (2.0) 62.5 (3.3) 58.0 (1.8) 

Dry cows 4.9 (0.9) 3.7 (0.9) 2.0 (0.4) 3.2 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

82 / Dairy 2007

Operations in the West region permanently removed a higher percentage of

cows 200 days or more in milk (65.7 percent) compared with operations in the

East region (53.1 percent). A higher percentage of dry cows in the East region

(4.2 percent) were permanently removed compared with dry cows in the West

region (1.7 percent).

e. For operations that permanently removed cows during the previous

12 months, percentage of cows removed, by days in milk and by region:

Percent Cows 

Region 

West East 

Days in Milk Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Fewer than 50 13.1 (2.2) 18.1 (1.0) 

50 to 199 19.5 (2.6) 24.6 (1.3) 

200 or more 65.7 (3.5) 53.1 (1.7) 

Dry cows 1.7 (0.3) 4.2 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 83

Section I: Population Estimates—D. General Management

The longer a cow stays in the herd and is productive, the more milk and income

she generates. Cows removed during first lactation are not able to generate

enough income to cover their rearing costs. Approximately one in six

permanently removed cows (16.9 percent) was in its first lactation; there were no

differences across herd size in the percentage of cows removed in first lactation.

A higher percentage of cows on small operations (32.8 percent) were removed at

the fifth lactation or more compared with medium and large operations (26.0 and

19.5 percent of cows, respectively).

f. For operations that permanently removed cows during the previous 12 months,

percentage of cows removed, by lactation number and by herd size:

Percent Cows 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Lactation Number Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

First 17.5 (1.1) 16.4 (0.9) 17.0 (2.2) 16.9 (1.1) 

2 to 4 49.7 (1.8) 57.6 (1.8) 63.5 (2.6) 58.5 (1.4) 

5 or more 32.8 (1.9) 26.0 (1.7) 19.5 (2.4) 24.6 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

84 / Dairy 2007

1. Bulk tank somatic cell count

Bulk tank somatic cell count (BTSCC) refers to the number of white blood cells

(leukocytes) and secretory cells per milliliter of raw milk and is used a measure

of milk quality and udder health. Increased BTSCCs are generally associated

with increased intramammary infection and decreased milk production. The

current regulatory limit for BTSCC in the United States is 750,000 cells/ml.

Although the U.S. regulatory limit is 750,000 cells/ml, producers may lose quality

premiums or receive less money for their milk if it does not meet the quality

guidelines determined by the processor who purchases their milk. Almost 9 of 10

operations (89.6 percent) reported an average BTSCC below 400,000 cells/ml,

and 70.9 percent reported less than 300,000 cells/ml. Herd-size differences were

minimal, with a lower percentage of medium operations having a BTSCC of less

than 100,000 cells/ml compared with small and large operations.

a. Percentage of operations by average BTSCC for milk shipped 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 

BTSCC (cells/ml) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 100,000 3.7 (1.4) 0.3 (0.2) 3.2 (1.8) 2.8 (1.0) 

100,000 to 199,000 26.1 (3.5) 31.4 (4.0) 32.3 (5.5) 27.8 (2.6) 

200,000 to 299,000 38.4 (3.7) 43.5 (4.3) 47.6 (6.2) 40.3 (2.8) 

300,000 to 399,000 19.8 (2.7) 17.0 (3.0) 14.1 (4.1) 18.7 (2.0) 

400,000 to 499,000 9.6 (2.6) 7.8 (2.3) 2.3 (1.2) 8.7 (1.9) 

500,000 or more 2.4 (1.5) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.5) 1.7 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

E. Milk Quality and

Milking Procedures
USDA APHIS VS / 85

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

86 / Dairy 2007

There were no substantial differences by region in the percentages of operations

by average BTSCC.

b. Percentage of operations by average BTSCC for milk shipped during the

previous 12 months, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

BTSCC (cells/ml) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Less than 100,000 2.7 (1.4) 2.8 (1.1) 

100,000 to 199,000 34.6 (5.1) 27.2 (2.8) 

200,000 to 299,000 38.2 (4.9) 40.5 (3.0) 

300,000 to 399,000 18.9 (4.5) 18.7 (2.2) 

400,000 to 499,000 4.7 (2.1) 9.1 (2.1) 

500,000 or more 0.9 (0.6) 1.7 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

2. Milking personnel and training

Owners of large operations are usually more involved with the overall

management of the operation than with specific labor-intensive procedures such

as milking cows. The percentage of owners/operators that milked the majority of

cows decreased from 74.8 percent for small operations to 0.0 percent of large

operations. Family members milked the majority of cows on 17.4 percent of

small operations and on 14.3 percent of medium operations. No large operations

reported family members performing the majority of milking. The number of

employees increased as herd size increased. Large operations averaged almost

13 full-time employees, while small operations averaged 2 (see table 4b p 11).

The percentage of operations in which hired workers milked the majority of cows

increased as herd size increased. Hired workers milked the majority of cows on

100.0 percent of large operations.
USDA APHIS VS / 87

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

a. Percentage of operations by personnel who milked the majority of cows, and

by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Personnel Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Owner/operator 74.8 (3.3) 33.7 (3.9) 0.0 (--) 59.8 (2.5) 

Family member(s) 

of operator 17.4 (3.0) 14.3 (3.1) 0.0 (--) 15.6 (2.2) 

Hired worker(s) 7.8 (1.8) 52.0 (3.9) 100.0 (0.0) 24.6 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hired workers milked the majority of cows on the highest percentage of

operations in the West region (82.7 percent), while owners/operators milked the

majority of cows on the highest percentage of operations in the East region

(64.1 percent). A higher percentage of operations in the East region had family

members milk the majority of cows compared with operations in the West region

(16.9 and 1.2 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by personnel who milked the majority of cows, and

by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Personnel Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Owner/operator 16.1 (3.4) 64.1 (2.7) 

Family member(s) 

of operator 1.2 (0.8) 16.9 (2.4) 

Hired worker(s) 82.7 (3.5) 19.0 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

88 / Dairy 2007

Although owners/operators milked the majority of cows on the most operations

(reflecting the practice of small operations), the highest percentage of cows were

milked by hired workers (68.2 percent) [reflecting the practice of large

operations]. Almost one-quarter of cows (24.4 percent) were milked by owners/

operators, while 7.4 percent were milked by family members.

c. Percentage of cows on operations in which the majority of cows were milked

by the specified personnel:

Training milking personnel in the proper procedures used to milk cows and

providing reasons for the procedures are usually ongoing processes, as milking

protocols are often modified or updated. Milker training increased as herd size

increased, with 42.3 percent of small operations training milking personnel

compared with 75.3 percent of medium operations and 97.8 percent of large

operations. Approximately one of three operations (35.6 percent) trained new

employees only, while almost half of operations (46.0 percent) provided no milker

training. However, approximately one of three operations that reported no milker

training also reported they had no employees. A lower percentage of small

operations (2.9 percent) performed training one to two times/year for all milkers

compared with medium and large operations (14.1 and 27.0 percent,

respectively).

Personnel Percent Cows Standard Error 

Owner/operator 24.4 (1.5) 

Family member(s) 

of operator 7.4 (1.1) 

Hired worker(s) 68.2 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 89

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

d. Percentage of operations by how frequently milking personnel were trained,

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 

As new 

employees only 31.2 (3.6) 46.4 (4.1) 41.5 (5.6) 35.6 (2.7) 

1 to 2 times/year for 

all milkers 2.9 (1.0) 14.1 (2.8) 27.0 (5.5) 7.2 (1.0) 

3 to 4 times/year for 

all milkers 2.3 (1.3) 4.1 (1.3) 13.7 (3.8) 3.5 (1.0) 

5 times/year or 

more for all milkers 1.0 (0.9) 6.6 (2.4) 10.5 (3.4) 3.0 (0.9) 

Other 4.9 (1.6) 4.1 (1.8) 5.1 (2.5) 4.7 (1.2) 

No milker training 57.7 (3.8) 24.7 (3.7) 2.2 (2.1) 46.0 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Photo courtesy of Keith Weller, Agricultural Research Service
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

90 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region provided milker training to

new employees only or provided training one to two times/year for all milkers,

compared with operations in the East region.

e. Percentage of operations by how frequently milking personnel were trained,

and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Frequency Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

As new employees only 53.5 (5.6) 33.9 (2.9) 

1 to 2 times/year for all 

milkers 20.7 (4.0) 5.9 (1.1) 

3 to 4 times/year for all 

milkers 6.7 (2.8) 3.2 (1.0) 

5 times/year or more for all 

milkers 1.5 (0.9) 3.1 (1.0) 

Other 2.0 (1.4) 5.0 (1.3) 

No milker training 15.6 (3.9) 48.9 (3.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Almost all operations that trained milkers (97.1 percent) used on-the-job training.

Almost one-third (31.9 percent) used discussion and lecture, while less than 1 of

10 (6.9 percent) used video training.

f. For operations that trained milking personnel, percentage of operations by

training method used:

Training Method Percent Operations Standard Error 

Video training 6.9 (1.1) 

Discussion/lecture 31.9 (3.2) 

On-the-job training 97.1 (0.9) 

Other 3.9 (1.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 91

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

3. Milking frequency

Milk production can be negatively affected by intramammary pressure. Frequent

milking during peak production can decrease periods of increased intramammary

pressure. Although increased milking frequency opens the teat canal more times,

the risk for intramammary infection does not appear to be increased. Evidence

suggests that increasing the times per day that fresh cows (cows less than 30

days in milk) are milked increases milk production, which persists throughout

lactation. More than 9 of 10 operations (91.8 percent) milked fresh cows twice

daily, while less than 1 of 10 (6.2 percent) milked fresh cows 3 times daily. Few

operations milked fresh cows one time per day or more than three times per day

(0.6 and 1.4 percent, respectively). The percentage of operations that milked

fresh cows three times per day increased as herd size increased.

a. Percentage of operations by number of times per day the majority of fresh

cows were milked, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Times per Day Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 0.6 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 0.0 (--) 0.6 (0.4) 

2 98.4 (0.9) 81.8 (2.8) 58.9 (4.7) 91.8 (1.0) 

3 1.0 (0.6) 13.3 (2.4) 35.1 (4.4) 6.2 (0.8) 

More than 3 0.0 (--) 4.4 (1.7) 6.0 (2.7) 1.4 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

92 / Dairy 2007

A lower percentage of operations in the West region (82.2 percent) milked fresh

cows twice daily compared with operations in the East region (92.7 percent). A

higher percentage of operations in the West region (17.8 percent) milked fresh

cows three or more times daily compared with operations in the East region

(6.7 percent).

b. Percentage of operations by number of times per day the majority of fresh

cows were milked, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Times per Day Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

1 0.0 (--) 0.6 (0.5) 

2 82.2 (3.4) 92.7 (1.0) 

3 13.7 (3.1) 5.5 (0.8) 

More than 3 4.1 (2.0) 1.2 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

The majority of operations (92.5 percent) milked cows (other than fresh cows)

twice daily. As was observed with the frequency of milking fresh cows, the

percentage of operations that milked cows three times per day increased as herd

size increased. No operations milked the majority of their cows more than three

times per day.
USDA APHIS VS / 93

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

c. Percentage of operations by number of times per day the majority of cows

(other than fresh cows) were milked, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Times per Day Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 0.6 (0.6) 0.3 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.4) 

2 98.9 (0.7) 83.0 (2.8) 60.3 (5.2) 92.5 (0.9) 

3 0.5 (0.4) 16.7 (2.8) 39.7 (5.2) 7.0 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

94 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region (14.9 percent) milked cows

three times daily compared with operations in the East region (6.2 percent). No

operations milked the majority of their cows more than three times per day.

d. Percentage of operations by the number of times per day the majority of cows,

other than fresh cows, were milked, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Times per Day Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

1 0.0 (--) 0.6 (0.5) 

2 85.1 (3.0) 93.2 (1.0) 

3 14.9 (3.0) 6.2 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

e. Percentage of operations that milked fresh cows more often than nonfresh

cows:

The percentage of operations that milked fresh cows more frequently than

nonfresh cows increased as herd size increased. Only 0.5 percent of small

operations milked fresh cows more often than nonfresh cows, compared with

5.7 percent of medium operations and 12.3 percent of large operations.

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 

0.5 (0.5) 5.7 (1.8) 12.3 (4.4) 2.5 (0.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 95

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

4. Premilking procedures

Forestripping is the manual removal of a small amount of milk from each teat

prior to the attachment of the milking machine. Forestripping cows stimulates

milk secretion from mammary tissue, allows the milker to observe any

abnormalities in the milk, and removes milk with concentrated somatic cells,

thereby improving milk quality. A higher percentage of large operations

(83.5 percent) forestripped all cows compared with medium and small operations

(66.9 and 53.7 percent, respectively). A higher percentage of small and medium

operations forestripped some cows (37.3 and 30.3 percent, respectively),

compared with 8.3 percent of large operations. Less than 10 percent of

operations across all herd sizes did not forestrip any cows.

a. Percentage of operations by use of forestripping and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Forestripping Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

All cows 53.7 (3.9) 66.9 (3.9) 83.5 (4.2) 58.9 (2.9) 

Some cows 37.3 (3.8) 30.3 (3.9) 8.3 (2.4) 33.7 (2.8) 

No cows 9.0 (2.3) 2.8 (1.1) 8.2 (3.6) 7.4 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

96 / Dairy 2007

If forestripping is performed before teat disinfection or while disinfectant is still on

the teat, it may reduce the transfer of organisms from the milker to the teat.

Teats may become recontaminated with bacteria if forestripping is performed

after drying. Approximately one of four operations (27.4 percent) forestripped

cows prior to teat disinfection. A lower percentage of small operations

forestripped cows after disinfection but prior to drying compared to large

operations (26.8 and 46.7 percent, respectively), while a higher percentage of

small operations (47.0 percent) forestripped cows after disinfection and drying

compared with large operations (22.4 percent).
USDA APHIS VS / 97

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

b. For operations that forestripped any cows, percentage of operations by order

of forestripping and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Order Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Prior to teat 

disinfection 26.2 (3.4) 29.7 (3.9) 30.9 (5.7) 27.4 (2.6) 

After teat 

disinfection but 

prior to drying teats 26.8 (3.5) 31.6 (3.6) 46.7 (6.2) 29.3 (2.6) 

After disinfection 

and/or drying 47.0 (4.0) 38.7 (4.1) 22.4 (5.0) 43.3 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

A lower percentage of operations in the West region (22.8 percent) forestripped

after disinfection and/or drying compared with operations in the East region

(45.2 percent).

c. For operations that forestripped any cows, percentage of operations by order

of forestripping and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Order Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Prior to teat disinfection 37.4 (5.6) 26.4 (2.7) 

After teat disinfection but 

prior to drying teats 39.8 (5.6) 28.4 (2.7) 

After disinfection 

and/or drying 22.8 (4.3) 45.2 (3.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

98 / Dairy 2007

Disinfecting teats before milking reduces environmental bacteria on the teat

surface, bacterial counts in milk, and the incidence of new intramammary

infections. Scientific studies evaluating the efficacy of premilking and postmilking

teat disinfectants have been evaluated and are summarized each year in the

proceedings from the NMC annual meeting. Using a new paper or cloth towel on

each cow also reduces the risk of transmitting organisms from one cow to

another. More than 4 of 10 large operations (41.5 percent) used a wash pen prior

to milking, compared with less than 3 percent of small and medium operations.

There were no differences by herd size in the percentage of operations that used

water hoses; 2.8 percent of operations used water hoses with disinfectant and

4.2 percent used water hoses without disinfectant. A single-use paper towel dry

wipe was used on 7.0 percent of operations. A single-use towel with labeled

disinfectant was the predominant wet wipe used on 8.5 percent of operations. A

higher percentage of small operations used this wet wipe method (10.3 percent)

compared with large operations (1.5 percent). Almost half of all operations

(49.0 percent) applied a labeled disinfectant in a predip via a predip cup. Predip

(using a labeled disinfectant) applied via a sprayer was reported on 18.1 percent

of operations, with a higher percentage of large operations using this method of

teat disinfection than small operations.
USDA APHIS VS / 99

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

d. Percentage of operations by teat preparation and by herd size:

 Percent Operations 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows)

 Teat Preparation 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 

or More) 

All 

Operations 

General 

Method 

Specific 

Procedure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Wash pen Wash animals in pen 

prior to entering parlor 1.2 (1.0) 2.4 (1.0) 41.5 (5.1) 4.1 (0.8) 

Water hose With disinfectant 2.6 (1.4) 2.3 (0.9) 6.7 (2.8) 2.8 (1.0) 

 Without disinfectant 4.7 (1.3) 2.3 (0.9) 5.9 (2.8) 4.2 (1.0) 

Dry wipe Single-use cloth towel 2.7 (1.3) 4.7 (2.0) 3.8 (2.1) 3.3 (1.0) 

 Multiple-use cloth towel 1.3 (0.7) 3.3 (1.2) 6.0 (2.9) 2.1 (0.6) 

 Single-use paper towel 7.9 (1.9) 5.4 (2.1) 3.5 (2.4) 7.0 (1.4) 

 Multiple-use paper towel 0.0 (--) 0.4 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.1) 

Wet wipe Commercial teat wipes, single use 4.0 (1.4) 5.8 (2.3) 0.9 (0.8) 4.2 (1.1) 

Commercial teat 

wipes, multiple use 0.9 (0.9) 0.4 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 0.7 (0.6) 

Towel using labeled 

disinfectant, single use 10.3 (2.4) 5.1 (1.8) 1.5 (0.9) 8.5 (1.7) 

Towel using labeled 

disinfectant, multiple use 6.1 (1.9) 2.0 (0.9) 3.5 (2.4) 4.9 (1.4) 

Towel using 

nonlabeled/homemade 

disinfectant, single use 3.2 (1.7) 2.1 (1.3) 0.0 (--) 2.7 (1.2) 

Towel using 

nonlabeled/homemade 

disinfectant, multiple use 0.5 (0.5) 0.6 (0.5) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.3) 

Multiple use sponge 

with disinfectant 1.8 (0.9) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 1.3 (0.6) 

Predip 

applied via ... Sprayer, labeled disinfectant 13.6 (2.5) 25.4 (3.5) 38.2 (5.6) 18.1 (2.0) 

Sprayer, nonlabeled/ 

homemade disinfectant 0.0 (--) 2.0 (1.4) 1.7 (1.6) 0.6 (0.4) 

 Predip cup, labeled disinfectant 49.8 (3.9) 51.0 (4.2) 32.3 (5.3) 49.0 (2.9) 

Predip cup, 

nonlabeled/homemade 

disinfectant 2.8 (1.5) 0.7 (0.7) 1.9 (1.3) 2.2 (1.0) 

 Foam, labeled disinfectant 1.4 (0.8) 8.2 (2.1) 6.1 (2.5) 3.4 (0.8) 

Foam, nonlabeled/ 

homemade disinfectant 0.0 (--) 0.7 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 

Other 6.5 (1.9) 3.7 (1.4) 1.4 (0.7) 5.5 (1.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

100 / Dairy 2007

Few regional differences were observed in the implementation of premilking teat

preparation practices. A higher percentage of operations in the West used a

wash pen, a water hose without disinfectant, or applied a labeled disinfectant in a

predip via a sprayer compared with operations in the East region. A higher

percentage of operations in the East region used a predip cup to apply a labeled

disinfectant to teats compared with operations in the West.

e. Percentage of operations by teat preparation and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

Teat Preparation West East 

General 

Method 

Specific 

Procedure Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Wash pen Wash animals in pen 

prior to entering parlor 36.8 (4.6) 0.9 (0.8) 

Water hose With disinfectant 9.3 (2.9) 2.2 (1.0) 

 Without disinfectant 13.9 (3.7) 3.3 (1.0) 

Dry wipe Single-use cloth towel 4.2 (2.4) 3.2 (1.1) 

 Multiple-use cloth towel 4.7 (2.4) 1.8 (0.6) 

 Single-use paper towel 12.3 (4.6) 6.5 (1.5) 

 Multiple-use paper towel 0.4 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 

Wet wipe Commercial teat 

wipes, single use 3.5 (2.2) 4.3 (1.2) 

Commercial teat wipes, 

multiple use 0.0 (--) 0.8 (0.7) 

Towel using labeled 

disinfectant, single use 2.2 (1.6) 9.1 (1.9) 

Towel using labeled 

disinfectant, multiple use 7.1 (3.6) 4.7 (1.5) 

Towel using 

nonlabeled/homemade 

disinfectant, single use 3.0 (3.0) 2.7 (1.3) 

Towel using 

nonlabeled/homemade 

disinfectant, multiple use 0.4 (0.4) 0.5 (0.4) 

Multiple use sponge with 

disinfectant 0.8 (0.8) 1.4 (0.7) 

Predip applied 

via . . . Sprayer, labeled disinfectant 36.5 (4.7) 16.3 (2.1) 

Sprayer, nonlabeled/ 

homemade disinfectant 1.1 (1.1) 0.5 (0.4) 

Predip cup, labeled 

disinfectant 27.4 (4.6) 51.1 (3.1) 

Predip cup, 

nonlabeled/homemade 

disinfectant 0.9 (0.9) 2.4 (1.1) 

 Foam, labeled disinfectant 0.0 (--) 3.7 (0.9) 

Foam, nonlabeled/ 

homemade disinfectant 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 

Other 0.0 (--) 6.0 (1.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 101

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

The majority of operations (about 60 percent) used iodophor compounds as

predips in both summer and winter. Chlorhexidine was the next most common

predip used by about 1 of 10 operations. There were no differences in summer

or winter in the percentage of operations by compound used.

f. Percentage of operations by primary predip compounds used as disinfectants,

and by season:

Percent Operations 

Season 

Summer Winter 

Compound Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Iodophor (iodine containing) 59.6 (2.9) 59.7 (2.9) 

Chlorhexidine 11.7 (2.1) 11.8 (2.1) 

Fatty acid based 2.5 (0.7) 2.5 (0.7) 

Quaternary ammonium 0.3 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 

Phenols 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 

Chlorine product 7.2 (1.5) 7.1 (1.5) 

Other 7.9 (1.6) 8.0 (1.6) 

None 10.7 (1.8) 10.5 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

102 / Dairy 2007

Wet teats can cause liner slips and rapid air movement inside the milking claw,

which may result in the injection of bacteria into teat canals, potentially resulting

in mastitis. If teats become wet during premilking teat preparation, they should

be dried using a single-use towel to decrease the risk of new infections. There

were no seasonal differences in teat drying methods. Single-use paper or cloth

towels were used on the majority of operations during summer and winter.

g. Percentage of operations by the method used to dry teats prior to milking, and

by season:

Percent Operations 

Summer Winter 

Drying Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Air dry 12.4 (2.1) 12.3 (2.1) 

Single-use cloth towel 21.5 (2.1) 21.6 (2.1) 

Single-use paper towel 54.8 (2.8) 54.6 (2.8) 

Multiple-use cloth towel 7.1 (1.3) 7.1 (1.3) 

Multiple-use paper towel 0.6 (0.4) 0.6 (0.4) 

Other 0.4 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 

Not applicable–teats not 

wet prior to milking 3.2 (1.1) 3.2 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 103

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

104 / Dairy 2007

5. Postmilking procedures

The use of postmilking teat disinfectant reduces the incidence of contagious

mastitis. Less than 2 percent of operations did not use a postmilking teat

disinfectant during summer and/or winter (1.4 and 1.2 percent, respectively).

More than three of four operations dipped teats with a labeled postdip product in

each season. Approximately one of eight operations applied labeled disinfectant

with a sprayer during the summer and winter (12.6 and 12.8 percent,

respectively).

a. Percentage of operations by postmilking teat disinfection method and by

season:

Percent Operations 

Summer Winter 

Teat Disinfection Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Teats dipped with labeled 

postdip product 79.7 (2.4) 77.0 (2.5) 

Teats dipped with 

nonlabeled/homemade 

solution 0.5 (0.4) 0.5 (0.4) 

Teats sprayed with 

commercial postdip product 12.6 (1.8) 12.8 (1.9) 

Teats foamed with 

commercial postdip product 0.5 (0.3) 0.5 (0.3) 

Teats covered in commercial 

powder product 0.1 (0.1) 2.7 (0.9) 

Other 1.4 (0.9) 1.2 (0.6) 

None 5.2 (1.6) 5.3 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 105

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

The percentages of operations by postdip compound were similar to the

percentages of operations by predip compound. The majority of operations

(approximately 70 percent) used an iodophor compound. Chlorhexidine was

used by about 13 percent of operations.

b. Percentage of operations by primary postdip compounds used as

disinfectants, and by season:

Percent Operations 

Season 

Summer Winter 

Compound Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Iodophor 

(iodine containing) 69.8 (2.9) 67.8 (2.9) 

Chlorhexidine 12.1 (2.1) 13.4 (2.2) 

Fatty acid based 6.4 (1.4) 7.2 (1.5) 

Quaternary ammonium 0.3 (0.2) 0.8 (0.5) 

Phenols 0.0 (--) 0.0 (0.0) 

Chlorine product 2.3 (1.1) 1.7 (0.8) 

Other 3.9 (1.1) 3.8 (1.1) 

None 5.2 (1.6) 5.3 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

106 / Dairy 2007

Barrier teat dip applied after milking provides germicidal protection, improves teat

condition, and reduces the number of new cases of mastitis. Approximately one

of four operations (24.5 percent) used a barrier teat dip on all cows all the time,

with no differences across herd sizes. A higher percentage of large and medium

operations used a barrier teat dip on all cows during winter or adverse weather

compared with small operations. Overall, two of three operations (66.7 percent)

did not use a barrier dip, with a higher percentage of small operations

(70.9 percent) not using a barrier dip compared with large operations (44.7

percent).

c. Percentage of operations by use of barrier teat dip* and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Use of Barrier 

Teat Dip Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

All cows all the time 22.2 (2.9) 29.8 (3.8) 29.3 (5.7) 24.5 (2.2) 

All cows during 

winter or adverse 

weather 0.0 (--) 5.6 (1.8) 14.4 (4.8) 2.3 (0.6) 

Other 6.9 (2.1) 4.2 (1.8) 11.6 (3.9) 6.5 (1.6) 

None 70.9 (3.3) 60.4 (4.1) 44.7 (5.7) 66.7 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*e.g., Blockade®, UDDERgold® 5-star. 
USDA APHIS VS / 107

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

A higher percentage of operations in the East region (68.4 percent) did not use a

barrier teat dip compared with operations in the West region (49.0 percent). A

higher percentage of operations in the West region (9.5 percent) used a barrier

teat dip on all cows during winter or adverse weather compared with operations

in the East region (1.6 percent).

d. Percentage of operations by use of barrier teat dip* and by region:

6. Milking equipment

A backflush system is used between cows to wash the milking claw or cluster,

thereby helping to reduce the spread of contagious mastitis pathogens. There

were no differences in the percentage of operations that used a backflush

system across herd sizes.

a. Percentage of operations that used a backflush system in milking units, by

herd size:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Use of Barrier Teat Dip Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

All cows all the time 37.8 (5.3) 23.2 (2.4) 

All cows during winter 

or adverse weather 9.5 (3.4) 1.6 (0.5) 

Other 3.7 (1.7) 6.8 (1.7) 

None 49.0 (5.4) 68.4 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*e.g., Blockade® Uddergold® 5-star.

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 

5.9 (1.8) 8.6 (2.1) 9.3 (2.6) 6.8 (1.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

108 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region (20.9 percent) used a

backflush system compared with operations in the East region (5.4 percent).

b. Percentage of operations that used a backflush system in milking units, by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

20.9 (4.0) 5.4 (1.4) 

The majority of operations that used a backflush system (91.4 percent) used the

system for every milking.

c. For operations that used a backflush system, percentage of operations that

used the system for every milking:

Percent Operations Standard Error 

91.4 (4.1) 

Automatic takeoffs may improve teat-end condition by promptly removing the

milking claw at a predetermined flow rate. A higher percentage of medium and

large operations (76.9 and 89.5 percent, respectively) used automatic takeoffs

compared with small operations (30.2 percent).

d. Percentage of operations that used automatic takeoffs, 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 

30.2 (3.3) 76.9 (3.8) 89.5 (3.4) 45.4 (2.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 109

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

About 7 of 10 operations in the West region (69.6 percent) used automatic

takeoffs compared with approximately 4 of 10 operations in the East region

(43.1 percent).

e. Percentage of operations that used automatic takeoffs, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

69.6 (4.1) 43.1 (2.8) 

7. Milking practices

Approximately half of operations (55.2 percent) reported that milkers wore latex

or nitrile gloves to milk all cows. However, more than three of four cows

(76.8 percent) were on operations in which gloves were used, suggesting that

the practice is more common on large operations.

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

which milkers wore latex or nitrile gloves to milk all cows:

Percent 

Operations

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

55.2 (2.8) 76.8 (2.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

110 / Dairy 2007

Milking cows with clinical mastitis at the end of milking, with a separate milking

unit, or in a separate string can reduce the exposure of noninfected cows to

mastitis organisms. Approximately one of three operations (34.9 percent) used a

separate milking unit to milk mastitic cows; no differences were observed across

herd sizes. A higher percentage of large operations (83.4 percent) milked

mastitic cows in a separate string from healthy cows compared with medium and

small operations (33.4 and 29.8 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by method used for milking cows with clinical

mastitis, 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 

Separate milking 

unit from healthy 

cows 38.5 (3.7) 25.7 (3.6) 31.5 (5.3) 34.9 (2.7) 

Separate string 

from healthy cows 29.8 (3.5) 33.4 (3.8) 83.4 (4.7) 34.1 (2.6) 

About 6 of 10 operations in the West region (59.9 percent) milked mastitis cows

in a separate string from healthy cows compared with approximately 3 of 10

operations in the East region (31.6 percent).

c. Percentage of operations by method used to milk cows with clinical mastitis,

and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Separate milking unit 

from healthy cows 27.5 (4.9) 35.6 (2.9) 

Separate string from 

healthy cows 59.9 (5.0) 31.6 (2.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 111

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

8. Vaccination

Although the efficacy of certain mastitis vaccines has been questioned, coliform

vaccines have generally provided good protection. Coliform vaccines were used

on at least some cows on 37.6 percent of operations, compared with vaccines

for Salmonella (13.4 percent), siderophore receptors (4.1 percent), Mycoplasma

(1.8 percent), and Staphylococcus aureus (7.3 percent).

a. Percentage of operations by type of vaccination used during the previous

12 months, and by proportion of cows vaccinated:

Percent Operations 

Proportion of Cows 

All Some None 

Vaccination Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Coliform mastitis 32.6 (2.4) 5.0 (1.1) 62.4 (2.6) 100.0 

Salmonella 11.1 (1.5) 2.3 (0.7) 86.6 (1.6) 100.0 

Siderophore 

receptors and porins 

(SRPs) vaccine 3.3 (0.7) 0.8 (0.4) 95.9 (0.8) 100.0 

Mycoplasma 1.4 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 98.2 (0.6) 100.0 

Staphylococcus 

aureus 5.7 (1.1) 1.6 (0.6) 92.7 (1.2) 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

112 / Dairy 2007

Regional differences in vaccine use were observed for coliform mastitis and

Salmonella vaccines. More operations in the West region vaccinated their cows

than operations in the East region.

b. Percentage of operations that vaccinated at least some cows during the

previous 12 months, by vaccination type and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Vaccination Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Coliform mastitis 65.1 (4.7) 35.0 (2.8) 

Salmonella 36.4 (4.8) 11.1 (1.7) 

Siderophore receptors and 

porins (SRPs) vaccine 9.2 (2.9) 3.6 (0.8) 

Mycoplasma 4.1 (2.5) 1.6 (0.6) 

Staphylococcus aureus 13.2 (3.5) 6.7 (1.3) 

Less than 4 percent of operations administered an autogenous vaccine.

c. Percentage of operations that administered autogenous vaccines for any

disease, by proportion of cows receiving vaccine:

Proportion of Cows Percent Operations Standard Error 

All 2.2 (0.6) 

Some 1.4 (0.9) 

None 96.4 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 113

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

9. Milk cultures

Culturing milk has many benefits, including the identification of the most

prevalent cause of clinical mastitis, helping direct mastitis therapy, and screening

purchased herds or milking strings for contagious mastitis pathogens. A lower

percentage of small operations performed individual cow, bulk-tank milk, string

sample, or any cultures compared with medium and large operations. A higher

percentage of large operations performed bulk-tank milk or string-sample

cultures compared with medium and small operations. More than half of all

operations (52.9 percent) performed milk cultures during the previous

12 months. More than 8 of 10 large operations (82.6 percent) performed any

culture, compared with about 7 of 10 medium operations (68.4 percent) and 4 of

10 small operations (44.5 percent).

a. Percentage of operations by source of milk cultures performed 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 

Milk Culture 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Individual cows 36.0 (3.6) 55.4 (4.2) 64.6 (5.3) 42.6 (2.7) 

Bulk-tank milk 25.1 (3.3) 46.4 (4.1) 75.8 (5.1) 33.6 (2.5) 

String samples 0.0 (--) 2.6 (0.8) 19.2 (3.9) 1.9 (0.3) 

Any culture 44.5 (3.8) 68.4 (3.9) 82.6 (4.6) 52.9 (2.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

114 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region performed bulk-tank milk or

string-sample cultures compared with operations in the East region.

b. Percentage of operations by source of milk cultures performed during the

previous 12 months, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Milk Culture 

Source Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Individual cows 43.4 (5.3) 42.6 (2.9) 

Bulk-tank milk 60.6 (5.1) 31.0 (2.7) 

String samples 11.0 (3.0) 1.0 (0.2) 

Any culture 65.1 (5.0) 51.7 (3.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 115

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

For operations that performed milk cultures during the previous 12 months, a

higher percentage of large operations (20.8 percent) performed on-farm cultures

compared with small operations (4.2 percent). A higher percentage of medium

operations (45.5 percent) had cultures performed at a State or university

diagnostic laboratory compared with small operations (24.1 percent). There were

no differences across herd sizes in the percentage of operations that used a

commercial laboratory, with approximately 4 of 10 operations (41.5 percent)

using this facility type to culture milk. Almost 50 percent of operations performing

milk cultures (49.2 percent) used a private veterinary laboratory or clinic, with no

differences across herd sizes.

c. For operations that performed milk cultures during the previous 12 months,

percentage of operations by facility used to perform cultures, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Facility Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

On-farm, by farm 

personnel 4.2 (2.0) 14.0 (3.8) 20.8 (4.8) 9.0 (1.8) 

State or university 

diagnostic 

laboratory 24.1 (4.9) 45.5 (5.0) 31.2 (4.4) 31.8 (3.3) 

Commercial 

laboratory 38.9 (5.6) 45.3 (5.0) 43.8 (6.0) 41.5 (3.6) 

Private veterinary 

laboratory 

(veterinary clinic) 50.5 (5.7) 43.2 (5.1) 60.8 (6.3) 49.2 (3.7) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

116 / Dairy 2007

The only regional difference in the percentage of operations that used a specific

facility to perform milk cultures was observed for State or university diagnostic

laboratory, which was used by 13.0 percent of operations in the West region

compared with 34.0 percent of operations in the East region.

d. For operations that performed milk cultures during the previous 12 months,

percentage of operations by facility used to perform cultures, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Facility Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

On-farm, by farm personnel 13.0 (4.6) 8.5 (1.9) 

State or university diagnostic 

laboratory 13.0 (4.2) 34.0 (3.7) 

Commercial laboratory 59.2 (6.4) 39.4 (4.0) 

Private veterinary laboratory 

(veterinary clinic) 52.5 (6.6) 48.8 (4.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 117

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

Milk was cultured most commonly from cows with chronic clinical disease and

from clinical cases that did not respond to treatment (59.1 and 54.0 percent of

operations, respectively). A higher percentage of large operations performed

cultures on milk from individual fresh cows and from all clinical cases compared

with medium and small operations.

e. For operations that performed cultures on milk from individual cows during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by cow type and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Cow Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fresh cows 8.0 (3.5) 14.9 (3.8) 47.2 (6.6) 13.9 (2.5) 

All clinical cases 22.2 (5.4) 35.4 (5.5) 65.4 (6.4) 30.5 (3.7) 

Chronic 

clinical cases 54.8 (6.4) 64.5 (5.3) 67.0 (7.6) 59.1 (4.2) 

Clinical cases that 

did not respond to 

treatment 50.1 (6.5) 61.1 (5.6) 53.5 (7.9) 54.0 (4.3) 

High somatic cell 

count cows 37.9 (5.7) 49.6 (5.8) 31.5 (6.2) 41.1 (3.9) 

Other 11.0 (4.8) 7.0 (2.5) 8.6 (4.4) 9.5 (3.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

118 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region performed cultures on milk

from individual fresh cows and all clinical cases (49.8 and 60.7 percent,

respectively) compared with operations in the East region (10.5 and 27.7

percent, respectively).

f. For operations that performed milk cultures on individual cows during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by cow type and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Cow Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Fresh cows 49.8 (7.9) 10.5 (2.6) 

All clinical cases 60.7 (8.3) 27.7 (4.0) 

Chronic clinical cases 55.4 (8.5) 59.4 (4.5) 

Clinical cases that did not 

respond to treatment 43.9 (8.1) 54.9 (4.7) 

High somatic cell count cows 46.6 (8.2) 40.6 (4.1) 

Other 4.8 (2.6) 9.9 (3.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 119

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

Similar percentages of operations that performed milk cultures during the

previous 12 months detected Staphylococcus aureus, E. coli/Klebsiella/other

gram negative, or environmental strep (Strep. spp.) (52.3, 53.3, and 60.1 percent

of operations, respectively). A higher percentage of large operations

(21.4 percent) identified Mycoplasma compared with medium and small

operations (3.8 and 4.0 percent, respectively). A lower percentage of small

operations identified E. coli/Klebsiella/other gram negative or coagulase negative

staph (Staph. spp. non-aureus) organisms compared with large operations.

g. For operations that performed milk cultures on individual cows during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by organism identified and by herd

size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Organism Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Strep. agalactiae 29.4 (5.4) 42.2 (5.0) 35.6 (5.7) 34.4 (3.6) 

Staph. aureus 50.5 (6.1) 51.4 (5.1) 64.4 (6.1) 52.3 (3.9) 

Mycoplasma 4.0 (3.2) 3.8 (1.9) 21.4 (4.7) 5.7 (1.9) 

E. coli/ 

Klebsiella/other 

gram negative 41.8 (5.9) 64.3 (4.8) 78.9 (5.4) 53.3 (3.8) 

Coagulase negative 

staph (Staph. spp. 

non-aureus) 25.3 (5.5) 37.6 (4.8) 63.4 (6.0) 33.5 (3.5) 

Environmental 

strep (Strep. spp. 

non-agalactiae) 52.4 (6.1) 67.0 (4.8) 78.3 (5.1) 60.1 (3.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

120 / Dairy 2007

Mycoplasma was isolated from a higher percentage of operations in the West

region (17.7 percent) than operations in the East region (4.2 percent).

h. For operations that performed milk cultures on individual cows during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by organism identified and by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Organism Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Strep. agalactiae 37.3 (6.2) 34.0 (3.9) 

Staph. aureus 53.5 (6.4) 52.1 (4.3) 

Mycoplasma 17.7 (4.5) 4.2 (2.1) 

E. coli/Klebsiella/ 

other gram negative 67.0 (6.3) 51.6 (4.2) 

Coagulase negative staph 

(Staph. spp. non-aureus) 46.5 (6.5) 31.9 (3.9) 

Environmental strep (Strep. spp. 

non-agalactiae) 62.7 (6.5) 59.8 (4.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 121

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

10. Residue testing

Every tanker load of milk in the United States is tested at the milk plant prior to

processing for the presence of specific antibiotics. Consequences of a positive

test include discarding the entire truckload of milk and the possible suspension

of the producer’s permit to sell milk. Milk from cows treated with antibiotics

should be discarded on the operation for a specified withdrawal period, as

directed by the drug manufacturer via the product label. Manufacturers are

required to go through an exhaustive drug approval process that determines the

withdrawal period. If approved drugs are used in the manner prescribed by the

label, producers can use the withdrawal period stated on the label to ensure that

the milk does not contain violative drug residues. However, producers may use

on-farm drug residue testing to be confident that the milk is free from violative

drug residues. One caveat of on-farm drug testing is that the residue testing kits

are approved for bulk milk and not for individual cows. Using residue tests on

individual cows may result in milk being discarded even though it is below the

violative level.

Almost half of operations (49.8 percent) performed residue testing of milk (either

bulk-tank milk or individual cows), with a higher percentage of medium

operations (64.5 percent) performing testing compared with small operations

(44.2 percent).

a. Percentage of operations that performed on-farm antibiotic residue testing of

milk, 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 

44.2 (3.8) 64.5 (4.0) 53.2 (5.4) 49.8 (2.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

122 / Dairy 2007

Numerous tests can be used to screen milk for antibiotic residues. An excellent

reference is the “Milk and Dairy Beef Residue Prevention Protocol,” produced by

the Milk and Dairy Beef Quality Assurance Center. The most commonly reported

residue screening test was the Delvotest®, which was used by 62.9 percent of

operations that tested for residues.

b. For operations that performed on-farm antibiotic residue testing of milk,

percentage of operations by test most commonly used:

Test Percent Operations Standard Error 

Snap® test (beta-lactam or 

tetracycline) 22.8 (2.9) 

Delvotest® 62.9 (3.6) 

CITE Probe® 0.0 (--) 

Charm Farm 10.8 (2.7) 

Penzyme® Milk Test 1.7 (0.6) 

Other 1.8 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 

The majority of operations that screened for antibiotic residues tested individual

cows recently treated for mastitis (90.0 percent of operations), followed by fresh

cows (57.8 percent of operations).

c. For operations that performed on-farm antibiotic residue testing of milk,

percentage of operations by source of sample tested:

Sample Source Percent Operations Standard Error 

Fresh cows 57.8 (3.7) 

Individual cows recently 

treated for mastitis 90.9 (1.6) 

Bulk tank prior to 

processor pickup 29.1 (3.3) 

Other 8.3 (1.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 123

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

11. Dry-off procedures/antibiotic treatment

Research suggests that about half of new intramammary infections occur during

the dry period. Reasons for the increased susceptibility during this period include

increased gland pressure, leading to easier entrance of bacteria through the teat

canal; decreased local immune response; and because milk and bacteria are not

being removed, as would occur during lactation. Internal teat sealants were

developed to reduce the potential of bacteria entering the teat canal and causing

infection at dry-off. A higher percentage of large and medium operations used an

internal teat sealant on all cows at dry-off (49.0 and 45.7 percent, respectively)

compared with small operations (22.7 percent). Approximately 3 of 10 operations

(30.1 percent) used an internal teat sealant on all cows at dry-off, with an

additional 6.2 percent of operations using the sealant on cows with chronic

mastitis, on all cows at dry-off during winter or adverse weather, or at other

times. Approximately 7 of 10 small operations (71.0 percent) did not use an

internal teat sealant, compared with about 5 of 10 medium and large operations

(48.2 and 45.2 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations by use of internal teat sealant* at dry-off and by

herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Use of Internal 

Teat Sealant Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

All cows at 

dry-off 22.7 (3.2) 45.7 (4.2) 49.0 (5.4) 30.1 (2.5) 

Cows with chronic 

mastitis 2.3 (1.1) 2.4 (1.2) 1.2 (1.2) 2.2 (0.8) 

All cows at dry-off 

but only during 

winter or adverse 

weather 2.2 (1.4) 0.8 (0.8) 4.3 (2.5) 2.0 (1.0) 

Other 1.8 (1.0) 2.9 (1.6) 0.3 (0.2) 2.0 (0.8) 

No internal teat 

sealant used on 

this operation 71.0 (3.5) 48.2 (4.2) 45.2 (5.4) 63.7 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*e.g., Orbeseal®. 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

124 / Dairy 2007

The only regional difference in the use of internal teat sealant was that no

operations in the West region used the sealant only on cows with chronic

mastitis, while 2.5 percent of operations in the East region did use sealant only

on chronic mastitis cows.

b. Percentage of operations by use of internal teat sealant* at dry-off and by

region:

Coating the exterior of the teat with a sealant that remains in place for an

extended period (4 to 5 days) is another method used to prevent bacterial

entrance into the mammary gland at dry-off. The majority of all operations (82.8

percent) did not use an external teat sealant. Over 1 of 10 operations (14.0

percent) used a sealant on all cows at dry-off, with no differences across herd

sizes.

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Use of Internal Teat Sealant Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

All cows at dry-off 20.5 (4.2) 31.0 (2.8) 

Cows with chronic mastitis 0.0 (--) 2.5 (0.9) 

All cows at dry-off but only during 

winter or adverse weather 3.1 (1.8) 1.8 (1.0) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 2.2 (0.9) 

No internal teat sealant used on 

this operation 76.2 (4.4) 62.5 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*e.g., Orbeseal®.
USDA APHIS VS / 125

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

c. Percentage of operations by use of external teat sealant* at dry-off and by

herd size:

There were no regional differences in the use of external teat sealants.

d. Percentage of operations by use of external teat sealant* at dry-off and by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Use of External Teat Sealant Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

All cows at dry-off 19.6 (4.3) 13.5 (2.1) 

Cows with chronic mastitis 0.0 (--) 1.3 (0.7) 

All cows at dry-off but only during 

winter or adverse weather 0.0 (--) 0.8 (0.5) 

Other 1.1 (1.1) 1.3 (0.7) 

No external teat sealant used 

on the operation 79.3 (4.3) 83.1 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*e.g., StrongholdTM.

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows)

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Use of External 

Teat Sealant Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

All cows at 

dry-off 12.5 (2.6) 15.1 (2.9) 26.1 (5.7) 14.0 (2.0) 

Cows with chronic 

mastitis 1.1 (0.8) 1.7 (1.3) 0.0 (--) 1.2 (0.6) 

All cows at dry-off 

but only during 

winter or adverse 

weather 1.1 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 0.8 (0.5) 

Other 0.8 (0.8) 2.2 (1.4) 2.0 (1.5) 1.2 (0.7) 

No external teat 

sealant used on 

the operation 84.5 (2.9) 80.9 (3.3) 71.9 (5.7) 82.8 (2.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*e.g., StrongholdTM. 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

126 / Dairy 2007

Administering intramammary antibiotics at the time of dry-off cures many existing

infections and reduces the incidence of new infections. Almost 1 of 10 operations

(9.9 percent) did not use any dry-cow treatment, and a percentage of these were

organic operations in which the use of antibiotics is not allowed. Some, but not

all, cows were treated on 17.8 percent of operations, and all cows were treated

on 72.3 percent of operations. More than four of five cows (81.7 percent) were

treated at dry-off, while 5.9 percent were not treated.

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

percentage of cows treated with dry-cow intramammary antibiotics at dry-off

during the previous 12 months:

Percent of Dry 

Cows Treated 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

0.0 9.9 (1.7) 5.9 (1.5) 

1.0 to 33.0 5.6 (1.4) 2.7 (0.9) 

33.1 to 66.0 3.0 (0.8) 2.4 (0.8) 

66.1 to 99.9 9.2 (1.8) 7.3 (1.3) 

100.0 72.3 (2.7) 81.7 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 127

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

The most commonly used dry-cow antibiotics were cephapirin (31.0 percent of

cows) and penicillin G (procaine)/dihydrostreptomycin (36.9 percent of cows).

f. For cows treated with dry-cow intramammary antibiotics during the previous

12 months, percentage of cows treated, by type of antibiotic:

Antibiotic Percent Cows* Standard Error 

Ceftiofur hydrochloride 7.0 (2.0) 

Cephapirin (benzathine) 31.0 (2.3) 

Cloxacillin (benzathine) 7.9 (1.8) 

Erythromycin 0.3 (0.1) 

Novobiocin 2.5 (1.9) 

Penicillin G (procaine) 1.7 (0.5) 

Penicillin G (procaine)/ 

Dihydrostreptomycin 36.9 (3.2) 

Penicillin G (procaine)/ 

Novobiocin 13.2 (2.4) 

Other 0.0 (--) 

*As a percentage of cows dry treated during the previous 12 months. Some cows were treated with 

more than one antibiotic.
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

128 / Dairy 2007

NOTE: In this section antibiotic and antimicrobial are used synonymously

(see Terms Used in This Report, p 3).

1. Unweaned heifers

Almost one of four unweaned heifers had diarrhea (23.9 percent) during the

previous 12 months, and 17.9 percent of all unweaned heifers were treated for

diarrhea. A lower percentage of unweaned heifers had respiratory disease

(12.4 percent), and 11.4 percent of heifers were treated for respiratory disease.

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

disease or disorder during the previous 12 months:

F. Antibiotic Use

Percent Unweaned 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 unweaned calves affected with diarrhea (74.5 percent) were

treated with an antibiotic.

b. For unweaned heifers affected with a disease or disorder during the previous

12 months, percentage of unweaned heifers treated with an antibiotic:

Disease or Disorder 

Percent Affected 

Unweaned 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 / 129

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

Two-thirds of all operations (66.7 percent) used an antibiotic to treat respiratory

disease in unweaned heifers. The primary antibiotics used to treat respiratory

disease were florfenicol, macrolide, and beta-lactam (18.3, 15.2, and 11.6

percent of all operations, respectively). More than 6 of 10 operations (62.1

percent) treated unweaned heifers with diarrhea with antibiotics, while 17.4

percent of operations with unweaned heifers that had diarrhea did not treat these

animals with antibiotics. The most commonly used primary antibiotics used for

diarrhea were tetracycline, “other,” beta-lactam, and sulfonamide (16.2, 10.5, 9.4,

and 9.2 percent, of all 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 beta-lactam (21.2 percent of all

operations). Less than 5 percent of all 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 unweaned 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) 

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. 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

130 / Dairy 2007

The majority of unweaned heifers treated for respiratory disease were on

operations that used florfenicol, cephalosporin, macrolide, or tetracycline (25.4,

24.6, 19.8, and 13.2 percent of unweaned heifers, respectively). To treat

diarrhea, sulfonamide, tetracycline, and “other” were the antibiotics used on

operations for the highest percentage of unweaned heifers.

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

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

the following diseases/disorders:

Percent Treated Unweaned Heifers 

Disease/Disorder 

 Respiratory Diarrhea* 

Navel 

Infection Other 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

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

Aminoglycoside 2.4 (1.7) 11.5 (3.9) 0.3 (0.2) 0.9 (0.9) 

Beta-lactam 7.9 (2.1) 11.0 (2.8) 69.6 (7.9) 12.9 (6.4) 

Cephalosporin 24.6 (8.5) 9.5 (2.3) 5.0 (1.7) 4.0 (3.4) 

Florfenicol 25.4 (5.5) 5.2 (1.8) 3.7 (2.0) 0.2 (0.2) 

Macrolide 19.8 (3.7) 2.8 (1.6) 11.6 (8.9) 15.2 (10.3) 

Sulfonamide 3.3 (1.8) 23.3 (6.2) 1.8 (1.8) 10.2 (9.1) 

Tetracycline 13.2 (3.3) 16.5 (2.9) 6.7 (3.2) 24.8 (16.5) 

Other 3.3 (1.5) 15.1 (3.0) 1.3 (0.6) 31.8 (18.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Or other digestive problem.
USDA APHIS VS / 131

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

2. Weaned heifers

More than half of 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 in heifer ration 18.2 (2.0) 

Ionophores only in 

heifer rations 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 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

132 / Dairy 2007

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 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 Standard 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) 

Neomycin-oxytetracycline 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) 

Few weaned heifers were affected by or treated for disease. Only 5.9 percent of

weaned heifers were affected with respiratory disease, and 5.5 percent of all

weaned heifers were treated with antibiotics. 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.
USDA APHIS VS / 133

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

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. 

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

disease or disorder during the previous 12 months:

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.

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) 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

134 / Dairy 2007

Almost 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

treated 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), beta-lactam, and

tetracycline. Other diseases were treated with beta-lactam 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 (--) 

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.
USDA APHIS VS / 135

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

The majority of weaned heifers treated for respiratory disease were on

operations that primarily treated with florfenicol, tetracycline, and macrolide.

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. Of 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 (--) 

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.
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

136 / Dairy 2007

3. Cows

Mastitis was the disease that affected the highest percentage of cows

(18.2 percent), and, not surprisingly, the highest percentage of cows were treated

for mastitis (16.4 percent). Lameness and reproductive diseases affected 12.5

and 10.0 percent of cows, respectively, and 7.1 and 7.4 percent of all cows were

treated for lameness and reproductive diseases, respectively.

a. Percentage of cows affected and treated with antibiotics for a disease or

disorder during the previous 12 months:

More than 95 percent of cows with respiratory disease (96.4 percent) were

treated with antibiotics, while 89.9 percent of cows with mastitis were treated.

Less than one-third of cows with diarrhea or digestive disease (32.3 percent)

were treated with antibiotics.

b. For cows affected with a disease or disorder during the previous 12 months,

percentage of cows treated with an antibiotic:

Percent Cows* 

Affected Treated 

Disease or Disorder Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Respiratory 2.9 (0.2) 2.8 (0.2) 

Diarrhea or other 

digestive problem 6.0 (0.6) 1.9 (0.2) 

Reproductive 10.0 (0.7) 7.4 (0.7) 

Mastitis 18.2 (0.9) 16.4 (0.8) 

Lameness 12.5 (0.9) 7.1 (0.7) 

Other 0.7 (0.2) 0.5 (0.1) 

*As a percentage of cow inventory on January 1, 2007. 

Disease or Disorder 

Percent Affected 

Cows Treated 

Standard 

Error 

Respiratory 96.4 (1.2) 

Diarrhea or other 

digestive problem 32.3 (4.0) 

Reproductive 74.7 (3.1) 

Mastitis 89.9 (1.3) 

Lameness 56.5 (4.1) 

Other 66.2 (12.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 137

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

More than 8 of 10 operations (85.4 percent) treated cows for mastitis. About half

of operations treated cows for respiratory disease, reproductive disease, or

lameness. One-quarter of operations treated cows for diarrhea. Third-generation

cephalosporin was the primary antibiotic used to treat all diseases listed, with the

exception of reproductive diseases. Cephalosporin was most likely used

because some products require no milk withdrawal, and slaughter withdrawal is

relatively short compared to other antibiotics. Beta-lactam was the primary

antibiotic used to treat respiratory diseases on 10.5 percent of operations,

reproductive diseases on 13.5 percent, mastitis on 16.9 percent, and lameness

on 13.6 percent of operations. Lincosamide was the primary antibiotic used to

treat mastitis on 15.8 percent of operations. Tetracycline was the primary

antibiotic used for reproductive and lameness on 17.7 and 18.6 percent of

operations, respectively.

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

by primary antibiotic used to treat cows during the previous 12 months, and by

disease or disorder:

Percent Operations 

Disease or Disorder 

 Respiratory Diarrhea* 

Reproductive Mastitis Lameness Other 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol 1.0 (0.5) 0.0 (--) 0.6 (0.6) 1.1 (0.6) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Aminoglycoside 0.3 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Beta-lactam 10.5 (1.8) 8.8 (1.6) 13.5 (2.0) 16.9 (2.0) 13.6 (2.1) 3.0 (1.1) 

Cephalosporin 33.0 (2.7) 11.3 (1.8) 17.2 (2.0) 44.5 (2.9) 23.0 (2.2) 1.8 (0.7) 

Florfenicol 2.4 (0.9) 0.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 

Lincosamide 15.8 (2.1) 

Macrolide 1.2 (0.6) 0.6 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 0.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 

Sulfonamide 1.7 (0.8) 1.3 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 1.8 (0.9) 1.4 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 

Tetracycline 4.7 (1.0) 1.1 (0.4) 17.7 (2.1) 2.5 (0.7) 18.6 (2.2) 0.6 (0.4) 

Other 1.0 (0.5) 1.1 (0.6) 3.6 (1.3) 2.0 (1.0) 1.5 (0.6) 1.5 (0.8) 

Any antibiotic 55.8 (2.9) 25.0 (2.4) 52.9 (2.8) 85.4 (2.2) 58.6 (2.9) 6.9 (1.5) 

No treatment 

but disease 3.5 (1.2) 31.6 (2.7) 21.8 (2.5) 7.7 (1.5) 17.2 (2.4) 3.5 (1.2) 

No disease 40.7 (2.9) 43.4 (2.9) 25.3 (2.5) 6.9 (1.7) 24.2 (2.6) 89.6 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Or other digestive problem.
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

138 / Dairy 2007

The primary antibiotics used to treat cows with specific diseases or disorders

were similar to the primary antibiotics used at the operation level. Beta-lactam

was the primary antibiotic used on operations for more than 19 percent of cows

treated for diarrhea, reproductive disease, mastitis, and lameness.

Cephalosporin was the primary antibiotic used on 70.5 percent of cows treated

for respiratory disease, 53.2 percent treated for mastitis, 36.0 treated for

diarrhea, and approximately 27 percent of cows treated for reproductive or

lameness problems. Lincosamide was used on 19.4 percent of cows with

mastitis. Sulfonamide was the primary antibiotic used on 15.6 percent of cows

with diarrhea. Tetracycline was used to treat more than 4 of 10 cows with

reproductive disease or lameness (44.4 and 42.1 percent, respectively).

d. Of cows treated with antibiotics during the previous 12 months, percentage of

cows by primary antibiotic used on the operation for the following diseases/

disorders:

Percent Treated Cows 

Disease/Disorder 

 Respiratory Diarrhea* 

Reproductive Mastitis Lameness Other 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol 3.3 (1.6) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 2.9 (2.0) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Aminoglycoside 0.6 (0.5) 6.4 (4.4) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Beta-lactam 11.0 (2.5) 30.3 (5.7) 19.7 (3.8) 19.1 (3.0) 19.5 (5.4) 29.9 (11.6) 

Cephalosporin 70.5 (3.9) 36.0 (5.9) 27.9 (4.7) 53.2 (4.1) 27.2 (3.8) 23.6 (11.5) 

Florfenicol 1.9 (0.7) 0.4 (0.4) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 

Lincosamide 19.4 (3.1) 

Macrolide 1.1 (0.5) 1.1 (0.8) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 

Sulfonamide 2.8 (1.4) 15.6 (6.6) 0.2 (0.2) 1.2 (0.5) 4.2 (1.4) 0.0 (--) 

Tetracycline 6.4 (1.6) 7.0 (2.9) 44.4 (6.0) 2.0 (0.7) 42.1 (5.4) 2.6 (1.9) 

Other 2.4 (1.3) 3.2 (2.2) 7.4 (4.5) 1.8 (0.9) 6.0 (3.0) 43.9 (16.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Or other digestive problem.
USDA APHIS VS / 139

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

140 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 141

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Antibiotic Use

Historical effectiveness was the predominant criterion for mastitis treatment

(86.4 percent of operations). Veterinary recommendation was reported as a

criterion on 46.3 percent of operations.

e. For operations that treated lactating cows for mastitis with an intramammary

antibiotic during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by criterion

for treatment:

Criterion Percent Operations Standard Error 

Veterinary recommendation 46.3 (3.0) 

Historical effectiveness 86.4 (2.1) 

Historical culture and 

antimicrobial sensitivity results 20.9 (2.2) 

Individual cow culture results 

prior to therapy 20.2 (2.3) 

Other 4.0 (1.1) 
Section II: Methodology

142 / Dairy 2007

A. Needs Assessment

Section II: Methodology

NAHMS develops study objectives by exploring existing literature and contacting

industry members about their informational needs and priorities during a needsassessment 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 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

Louisville, KY, April 2, 2006

National Johne’s Working Group

National Institute for Animal Agriculture

Louisville, KY, April 3, 2006

National Milk Producers Federation

Animal Health Committee

Teleconference, December 15, 2006

Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition

The 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 asking for 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.
USDA APHIS VS / 143

Section II: Methodology

Universities/extension personnel accounted for 23 percent of respondents, while

producers accounted for 22 percent, and veterinarians/consultants accounted for

another 20 percent.

Fort Collins, CO, May 18, 2006

CEAH Focus Group meeting

Draft objectives for the Dairy 2007 study, using input from teleconferences, faceto-face meetings, and the online survey, were drafted prior to the CEAH 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:

• Describe trends in dairy cattle health and management practices,

• Evaluate management factors related to cow comfort and removal rates,

• Describe dairy-calf health and nutrition from birth to weaning and evaluate

heifer disease prevention practices,

• Estimate the prevalence of herds infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus

(BVD),

• Describe current milking procedures and estimate the prevalence of

contagious mastitis pathogens,

• Estimate the herd-level prevalence and associated costs of Mycobacterium

avium subspecies paratuberculosis (Johne’s disease),

• Describe current biosecurity practices and determine producer motivation for

implementing or not implementing biosecurity practices, and

• Determine the prevalence of specific food-safety pathogens and describe

antimicrobial resistance patterns.

1. State selection

The preliminary selection of States to be included in the study was done in

February 2006, using the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) January

27, 2006, “Cattle Report.” A goal for NAHMS national studies is to include States

that account for at least 70 percent of the animals and producer population in the

United States. The initial review of States identified 16 major States representing

82.0 percent of the milk cow inventory and 79.3 percent of the operations with

milk cows (dairy herds). The States were: California, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,

Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

B. Sampling

and Estimation
Section II: Methodology

144 / Dairy 2007

A memo identifying these 16 States was provided in March 2006 to the USDAAPHIS-VS CEAH Director and, in turn, the VS Regional Directors. Each Regional

Director sought input from the respective States about being included or

excluded from the study. Virginia expressed interest in participating and was

included, bringing the total number of States to 17.

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 producers reporting one 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 participated in Phase I were invited to

participate in data collection for Phase II. A total of 1,077 operations agreed via

written consent to be contacted by veterinary medical officers to determine

whether to complete Phase II.

3. Population inferences

a. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report

Inferences cover the population of dairy producers with at least 1 milk cow in the

17 participating States. As of January 1, 2007, these States accounted for 82.5

percent (7,536,000 head) of milk cows and 79.5 percent (59,640) of operations

with milk cows in the United States. (See Appendix II for respective data on

individual States.) All respondent data were statistically weighted to reflect the

population from which it was 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 Visit

Inferences cover the population of dairy producers with 30 or more milk cows in

the 17 participating States. For operations eligible for Phase II data collection

(those with 30 or more milk cows) weights were adjusted to account for

operations that did not want to continue to Phase II. 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 U.S. dairy operations with 30 or more milk cows

(see Appendix II).
USDA APHIS VS / 145

Section II: Methodology

1. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report

From January 1-31, 2007, NASS enumerators administered the General Dairy

Management Report. The interview took slightly over 1 hour.

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit

From February 26 to April 30, 2007, Federal and State veterinary medical officers

(VMOs) and/or animal health technicians (AHTs) collected the data from

producers during an interview that lasted approximately 2 hours.

1. Validation

a. Phase I: Validation—General Dairy Management Report

Initial data entry and validation for the General Dairy Management Report were

performed in individual NASS State offices. Data were entered into a SAS® data

set. NAHMS national staff performed additional data validation on the entire data

set after data from all States were combined.

b. Phase II: Validation—VS Initial Visit Questionnaires

After completing the VS Initial Visit Questionnaires, data collectors sent them to

their respective State NAHMS Coordinators who reviewed the questionnaire

responses for accuracy. Data entry and validation were completed by CEAH staff

using SAS.

The purpose of this section is to provide various performance measurement

parameters. Historically, the term “response rate” was used as a catch-all

parameter, but there are many ways to define and calculate response rates.

Therefore, the table below presents an evaluation based upon a number of

measurement parameters, which are defined with an “x” in categories that

contribute to the measurement.

C. Data Collection

D. Data Analysis

E. Sample Evaluation
Section II: Methodology

146 / Dairy 2007

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 (VMO

collection) of the study (2,067 operations), 1,077 (52.1 percent) consented to be

contacted for consideration/discussion about further participation.

 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

Useable 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 for at least one 

site. 

3

Ineligible—less than 30 head of milk cows on January 14, 2007. 

4

Weighted response—the rate was calculated using the initial selection weights. 
USDA APHIS VS / 147

Section II: Methodology

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit

There were 1,077 operations that provided consent during Phase I to be

contacted by a veterinary medical officer for Phase II. Of these 1,077, 582

(54.0 percent) agreed to continue in Phase II of the study and completed the

VMO 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 by the VMO during Phase II.

 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

Useable 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. 
Appendix I: Sample Profile

148 / Dairy 2007

Appendix I: Sample Profile

A. Responding

Operations

1. Number of responding operations, by herd size

2. Number of responding operations, by region

Phase I: General Dairy 

Management Report 

Phase II: VS Initial 

Visit 

Region Number of Responding Operations 

West 426 108 

East 1,768 474 

Total 2,194 582 

Phase I: General Dairy 

Management Report 

Phase II: VS Initial 

Visit 

Herd Size 

(Number of Cows) Number of Responding Operations 

Fewer than 100 1,028 233 

100 to 499 691 215 

500 or more 475 134 

Total 2,194 582 
USDA APHIS VS / 149

Appendix II: Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Class

Appendix II: Antibiotic/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 

Beta-lactam

Pro-Pen-GTM Injection Penicillin G procaine 
Appendix II: Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Class

150 / Dairy 2007

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) 
USDA APHIS VS / 151

Appendix II: 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 
152 / Dairy 2007

Appendix III: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations

Appendix III: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations

 

Number of Milk Cows, 

January 1, 2007* 

(Thousand Head)

Number of 

Operations 2006* 

Average 

Herd Size 

Region State 

Milk cows 

on 

operations 

with 1 or 

more head 

Milk cows 

on 

operations 

with 30 or 

more head 

Operations 

with 1 or 

more head 

Operations 

with 30 or 

more head 

Operations 

with 1 or 

more head 

Operations 

with 30 or 

more head 

West California 1,790 1,788.2 2,200 1,920 813.6 931.4 

 Idaho 502 501.0 800 620 627.5 808.1 

 New Mexico 360 358.9 450 180 800.0 1,993.9 

 Texas 347 344.2 1,300 660 266.9 521.5 

 Washington 235 234.3 790 540 297.5 433.9 

 Total 3,234 3,226.6 5,540 3,920 583.8 823.1 

East Indiana 166 154.4 2,100 1,150 79.0 134.3 

 Iowa 210 203.7 2,400 1,870 87.5 108.9 

 Kentucky 93 86.5 2,000 1,180 46.5 73.3 

 Michigan 327 320.5 2,700 1,910 121.1 167.8 

 Minnesota 455 441.3 5,400 4,800 84.3 91.9 

 Missouri 114 108.3 2,600 1,400 43.8 77.4 

 New York 628 612.3 6,400 5,100 98.1 120.1 

 Ohio 274 252.1 4,300 2,400 63.7 105.0 

 Pennsylvania 550 536.3 8,700 7,000 63.2 76.6 

 Vermont 140 137.2 1,300 1,100 107.7 124.7 

 Virginia 100 97.0 1,300 820 76.9 118.3 

 Wisconsin 1,245 1,213.9 14,900 12,800 83.6 94.8 

 Total 4,302 4,163.5 54,100 41,530 79.5 100.3 

Total (17 States) 7,536 7,390.1 59,640 45,450 126.4 162.6 

Percentage 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 2, 2007, and NASS Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock 

Operations 2006 Summary report, February 2007. 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. 

Updates: NASS Cattle report, February 1, 2008, and NASS Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock 

Operations 2007 Summary report, February 1, 2008. 
Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related 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,

1991-2007, 2007, expected fall 2008

2. Evaluate management factors related to cow comfort and removal rates

• Dairy Facilities and Cow Comfort on U.S Dairy Operations, 2007, interpretive

Report, expected fall 2008

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, expected fall 2008

• Calf Health and Management Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007,

interpretive report, expected fall 2008

• Calving Management on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, info sheet, expected fall

2008

4. Estimate the prevalence of herds infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus

(BVD)

• Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD) Detection in Bulk Tank Milk and BVD Management

Practices in the United States, 1996-2007, info sheet, expected September 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, expected

September 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

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs
Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

154 / Dairy 2007

7. Describe current biosecurity practices and determine producer motivation for

implementing or not implementing biosecurity practices

• Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007, October 2007

• Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007, September 2008

• Biosecurity Practices on U.S. Dairy operations, 2002-2007, interpretive report,

expected fall 2008

8. Determine the prevalence of specific food-safety pathogens and describe

antimicrobial resistance patterns

• Antibiotic Use on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002-2007, info sheet, expected

September 2008

• Prevalence of Salmonella and Listeria in Bulk Tank Milk on U.S. Dairy

Operations, 2007, info sheet, expected September 2008

• Salmonella and Campylobacter on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002-2007, info

sheet, expected fall 2008

• Food Safety Pathogens Isolated from U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, interpretive

report, expected winter 2008

Additional informational sheets

• Dairy Cattle Identification Practices in the United States, 2007, info sheet,

November 2007

• Reproduction Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, info sheet, expected

fall 2008

• Bovine Leukosis Virus (BLV) on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, info sheet,

expected September 2008

• Dairy Cattle Injection Practices in the United States, 2007, info sheet, expected

fall 2008

• Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Isolation from Bulk Tank

Milk in the United States, 2007, info sheet, expected fall 2008
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

February 2009

Dairy 2007

Part IV: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States,

2007
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

#N494.0209

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.

Cover photo courtesy of

Dr. Jason Lombard
USDA APHIS VS / i

Acknowledgments

This study was a cooperative effort between two U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) agencies: the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Thank you to the NASS enumerators, State and Federal veterinary medical

officers (VMOs), and animal health technicians (AHTs) who visited the operations

and collected the data for the Dairy 2007 study. Their hard work and dedication

to USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) were invaluable.

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

coordinators, VMOs, AHTs, and NASS enumerators were critical in providing

quality data for Dairy 2007 reports. Thanks also 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 the following:

• USDA:APHIS, National Veterinary Services Laboratory;

• 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
ii / Dairy 2007

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2009. Dairy 2007, Part IV: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States, 2007

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

#N494.0209

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Jason Lombard—970.494.7000

Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Abigail Fienhold—970.494.7000

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used In This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Reproduction 5

1. Voluntary waiting period 5

2. Estrus (heat) detection 6

3. Breeding practices 14

4. AI personnel and services 29

5. Pregnancy diagnosis 33

6. Ultrasound 42

7. Producer use of reproductive parameters 45

B. Calving Practices 48

1. Guidelines 48

2. Calving personnel and training 49

3. Calving difficulty scoring 53

4. Observation close to calving 54

5. Intervention 61

6. Veterinary assistance 68

7. Stillbirths 72

8. Assistance for compromised calves 74

C. Surgical Procedures 78

1. Dehorning 78

2. Extra teat removal 84

3. Tail docking 86

4. Castration 89

D. Hoof Health 91

1. Lameness 91

2. Footbath use 94

3. Hoof trimming 98

E. Hemorrhagic Bowel Syndrome 103

1. Signs 103

2. Preventive measures 106

F. Treatment Practices 108

1. General 108

2. Injection route, purpose, and location 114

3. Record keeping 122

G. Nutrient Management 123

1. Housing facilities 123

2. Manure-handling methods 127

3. Waste storage and treatment systems 134

4. Maximum manure storage capacity 144

5. Manure use 146
iv / Dairy 2007

6. Manure application 148

7. Written nutrient management plan 159

8. Waste-management consultant 162

9. Knowledge of concentrated animal feeding operation classification 165

Section II: Methodology 168

A. Needs Assessment 168

B. Sampling and Estimation 170

1. State selection 170

2. Operation selection 170

3. Population inferences 170

C. Data Collection 171

1. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report 171

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit 171

3. Phase II: VS Second Visit 171

D. Data Analysis 171

1. Validation and estimation 171

E. Sample Evaluation 172

1. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report (GDMR) 172

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit 173

3. Phase II: VS Second Visit 174

Appendix I: Sample Profile 175

A. Responding Operations 175

1. Number of responding operations, by herd size 175

2. Number of responding operations, by region 175

Appendix II: U.S. Milk Cow Population and Operations 176

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 177
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is a nonregulatory

program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a branch of

the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Designed to help meet the

animal health information needs of a variety of stakeholders, NAHMS has

collected data on dairy health and management practices through 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. When an outbreak of human illness related to Escherichia coli

O157:H7 was reported in 1993 in the Pacific Northwest, NDHEP data on the

bacteria’s prevalence in dairy cattle helped officials define public risks as well as

research needs. This baseline picture of the industry also helped identify

additional research and educational needs in various production areas, such as

feed management and weaning age.

Information from the NAHMS Dairy 1996 Study helped the U.S. dairy industry

identify educational needs and prioritize research efforts on such timely topics as

antibiotic use; Johne’s disease; digital dermatitis; bovine leukosis virus (BLV);

and potential foodborne pathogens, including E. coli, Salmonella, and

Campylobacter.

Two major goals of the Dairy 2002 Study were to describe management

strategies that prevent and reduce Johne’s disease and to determine

management factors associated with Mycoplasma and Listeria in bulk-tank milk.

The study was designed also to describe levels of participation in quality

assurance programs, the incidence of digital dermatitis, animal-waste handling

systems used on U.S. dairy operations, and industry changes since the NDHEP

in 1991 and Dairy 1996.

The Dairy 2007 Study was conducted in 17 of the Nation’s major dairy States

(see map on next page) and provides valuable information to participants,

stakeholders, and the industry as a whole. Dairy operations and cows in these

States represent 79.5 percent of U.S. dairy operations and 82.5 percent of U.S.

dairy cows. Results are presented in a variety of publications, including the

following reports.
Introduction

2 / Dairy 2007

• Part 1: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007 (October 2007)—The first in a series of reports containing

national information from the NAHMS Dairy 2007 Study, this report contains

information collected from 2,194 dairy operations.

• Part II: Changes in the United States Dairy Industry, 1991–2007

(March 2008)—This report presents trends by providing national estimates of

animal-health management practices for comparable populations from the

NAHMS 1991–92 NDHEP, Dairy 1996, Dairy 2002, and Dairy 2007 studies.

• Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007 (September 2008)—This report presents national

information from 582 operations with 30 or more dairy cows, a subset of the

2,194 operations described in Part I. State and Federal veterinary medical

officers (VMOs) and animal health technicians (AHTs) conducted questionnaire

interviews with producers and collected biological samples for analysis between

February 26 and April 30, 2007.

• Part IV: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007—This report presents national information from 519

operations with 30 or more dairy cows, a subset of the 582 operations described

in Part III. State and Federal VMOs and AHTs conducted questionnaire

interviews with producers and collected biological samples for analysis between

May 1 and August 31, 2007.
USDA APHIS VS / 3

Introduction

Terms Used In

This Report

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

Cow: Female dairy bovine that has calved at least once.

Estrous: Pertaining to estrus or in reference to the entire reproductive cycle (i.e.,

estrous cycle).

Estrus: Also referred to as “heat,” the period of time 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.

Heifer: Female dairy bovine that has not yet calved.

Herd size: Herd size is based on January 1, 2007, inventory. Small herds are

those with fewer than 100 cows, medium herds are those with 100 to 499 cows,

and large herds are those with 500 or more cows.

Operation average: The average value for all operations. A single value for

each operation is summed over all operations reporting divided by the number of

operations reporting. For example, operation average voluntary waiting period

(see table a. on p 5) is calculated by summing voluntary waiting period (in days)

over all operations divided by the number of operations.
Introduction

4 / Dairy 2007

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

left, 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, which 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 (--).

Regions:

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

• East: Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin

Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the operations from

which Dairy 2007 data were collected.
Section I: Population Estimates A. Reproduction

USDA APHIS VS / 5

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Reproduction 1. Voluntary waiting period

The time between calving and subsequent rebreeding is referred to as the

voluntary waiting period. This period of time allows uterine involution, including

the clearing of material and bacteria associated with parturition and return of the

uterus to its prepregnancy size. Normally, uterine involution occurs within

20 to 30 days of parturition. In addition, it has been reported that 20 to 30 percent

of cows are not cycling at 60 days in milk. Increasing the voluntary waiting period

may increase fertility but can also result in increased days open.

The operation average voluntary waiting period was 54.8 days. The length of the

voluntary waiting period did not differ by herd size.

a. Operation average number of days after calving cows were declared eligible to

be bred (elective or voluntary waiting period) during the previous 12 months, and

by herd size:

Operation Average Number Days 

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 

55.2 (1.2) 53.4 (1.3) 56.1 (1.9) 54.8 (0.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

6 / Dairy 2007

More than one-half of dairy operations (53.5 percent) waited an average of

51 to 60 days after calving to start breeding cows during the previous 12 months.

The low percentage of operations (2.3 percent) with a voluntary waiting period of

0 to 20 days likely housed bulls with all lactating cows. More than 9 of 10

operations (92.3 percent) declared cows eligible to be bred by 70 days after

calving.

b. Percentage of operations by number of days after calving cows were declared

eligible to be bred (elective or voluntary waiting period) during the previous

12 months:

Number of Days Percent Operations Standard Error 

0 to 20 2.3 (0.9) 

21 to 30 6.0 (1.4) 

31 to 40 4.9 (1.2) 

41 to 50 21.5 (2.3) 

51 to 60 53.5 (2.8) 

61 to 70 4.1 (1.0) 

71 or more 7.7 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 

2. Estrus (heat) detection

Detecting estrus is important in artificial insemination programs that do not rely

exclusively on timed insemination. Research has shown that the duration and

intensity of estrus in dairy cows have declined over time. Additionally, cows that

spend a majority of time on concrete flooring have less-intense estrus. Recently

developed methods to monitor estrus include electronic pedometers that

measure increased activity, which is typical of cows in estrus, and electronic

systems such as HeatWatch®, a device glued to the tailhead that detects the

pressure of a mounting animal and transmits information about mounting activity.
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

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 

Visual 

observation 93.5 (1.8) 95.5 (1.3) 77.7 (6.0) 93.0 (1.3) 

Tail chalk/paint 31.2 (3.6) 36.4 (4.1) 66.0 (6.0) 34.7 (2.7) 

Pedometer 0.6 (0.4) 1.5 (0.7) 9.2 (3.0) 1.4 (0.4) 

Pressure devices 

(Kamar®) 15.6 (2.8) 12.2 (2.8) 10.3 (4.0) 14.4 (2.1) 

HeatWatch Estrus 

Detection System 5.2 (1.7) 7.4 (2.3) 4.8 (2.4) 5.7 (1.3) 

Bulls 38.4 (4.0) 44.1 (4.5) 46.2 (6.1) 40.3 (3.0) 

Other 5.9 (1.9) 10.1 (2.9) 10.9 (3.7) 7.3 (1.5) 

The most common method used to detect estrus on operations during the

previous 12 months was visual observation, with 93.0 percent of all operations

using this practice. Bulls or tail chalk/paint were used to detect estrus by

40.3 and 34.7 percent of operations, respectively. Electronic methods of

detection—pedometers and HeatWatch—were used by a low percentage of

operations (1.4 and 5.7 percent, respectively). Visual observation to detect estrus

was used by a higher percentage of small and medium operations

(93.5 and 95.5 percent, respectively) than large operations (77.7 percent) during

the previous 12 months. A higher percentage of large operations used tail chalk/

paint or pedometers (66.0 and 9.2 percent, respectively) than did small and

medium operations. Although 51.7 percent of operations had bulls for breeding

purposes (reported on p 72 of Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States, 2007), only 40.3 percent of

operations used bulls to detect estrus. These operations may have housed bulls

separately from cows and used other methods to detect estrus.

a. Percentage of operations by method used to detect estrus (heat) during the

previous 12 months, and by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

8 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

The only regional differences in estrus-detection methods were for visual

observation and tail chalk/paint. Visual observation was used by a lower

percentage of operations in the West region (73.0 percent) than in the East

region (94.9 percent). The percentage of operations that used tail chalk/paint in

the West region was almost twice that of the East region (61.6 and 32.1 percent,

respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by method used to detect estrus (heat) during the

previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Visual observation 73.0 (5.6) 94.9 (1.4) 

Tail chalk/paint 61.6 (5.1) 32.1 (2.9) 

Pedometer 0.9 (0.6) 1.4 (0.4) 

Pressure devices (Kamar) 12.2 (4.2) 14.7 (2.2) 

HeatWatch Estrus 

Detection System 4.4 (2.1) 5.8 (1.4) 

Bulls 45.5 (6.1) 39.8 (3.2) 

Other 7.3 (2.7) 7.3 (1.6) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

10 / Dairy 2007

Visual observation for estrus is generally accomplished by one of two methods.

Either the owner/employees casually watch females for signs of estrus while

performing other tasks around the dairy, or one or more people are designated to

watch females for a specified length of time during a set number of times per

day. The recommended minimum amount of time for visual observation of estrus

is 30 minutes three times daily.

About 6 of 10 operations (59.7 percent) that used visual observation for estrus

detection had a specific person observe cows for estrus, and the percentage did

not differ by herd size or region.

c. For the 93.0 percent of operations that used visual observation for estrus

(heat) detection, percentage of operations that had a designated person(s)

specifically responsible for visually observing estrus, 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 

61.2 (4.1) 53.6 (4.7) 69.1 (6.6) 59.7 (3.1) 

d. For the 93.0 percent of operations that used visual observation for estrus

(heat) detection, percentage of operations that had a designated person(s)

specifically responsible for visually observing estrus, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

71.2 (6.2) 58.8 (3.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

For operations that used visual observation for estrus detection, 37.9 percent

had a set number of times per day and duration each time for observing estrus.

No herd size or regional differences were observed.

e. For the 93.0 percent of operations that used visual observation for estrus

(heat) detection, percentage of operations that had a set number of times per

day and duration each time for observing estrus, 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 

35.5 (4.0) 42.9 (4.6) 45.4 (6.8) 37.9 (3.0) 

f. For the 93.0 percent of operations that used visual observation for estrus

(heat) detection, percentage of operations that had a set number of times per

day and duration each time for observing estrus, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

48.2 (6.8) 37.1 (3.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

12 / Dairy 2007

For operations with a set number of times per day and duration each time for

visually detecting estrus, one-half (50.3 percent) observed cows twice daily, while

31.1 percent observed cows three or more times daily.

g. For the 37.9 percent of operations with a set number of times per day and

duration each time for observing estrus (heat), percentage of operations by

number of times cows were visually observed for estrus:

Times Per Day Percent Operations Standard Error 

1 18.6 (3.5) 

2 50.3 (4.6) 

3 15.3 (3.0) 

4 or more 15.8 (3.2) 

Total 100.0 

For operations with a set number of times per day and duration each time for

visually observing cows for estrus, about one-third of operations (35.6 percent)

observed cows for 11 to 20 minutes each time cows were observed. Overall,

more than one-half of operations reported visually observing cows for estrus

20 minutes or less at each visual observation period.

h. For the 37.9 percent of operations with a set number of times per day and

duration each time for observing estrus (heat), percentage of operations by

duration each time cows were visually observed for estrus:

Duration Each Time 

(Minutes) Percent Operations Standard Error 

10 or less 27.1 (4.1) 

11 to 20 35.6 (4.4) 

21 to 30 16.1 (3.5) 

31 to 40 0.4 (0.2) 

41 or more 20.8 (3.8) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

For operations with a set number of times per day to observe cows for estrus,

the operation average number of minutes per day that cows were observed was

62.5 minutes. Although the time spent visually observing estrus appears different

by herd size, the differences were not significant.

i. For the 37.9 percent of operations with a set number of times per day and

duration each time for observing for estrus (heat), operation average total

duration per day in minutes that cows were visually observed for estrus, and by

herd size:

Of operations visually observing cows for estrus a set number of times per day,

approximately one-third of operations (30.3 percent) observed estrus for

21 to 40 minutes per day. Approximately 20 percent of operations observed for

estrus 20 minutes or less, 41 to 60 minutes, or 81 or more minutes per day.

j. For the 37.9 percent of operations with a set number of times per day and

duration each time for observing for estrus (heat), percentage of operations by

total duration per day in minutes that cows were visually observed for estrus:

Operation Average Number Minutes 

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 

61.1 (7.4) 60.7 (6.1) 85.9 (11.4) 62.5 (5.2) 

Duration Per Day 

(Minutes) Percent Operations Standard Error 

20 or less 22.9 (3.9) 

21 to 40 30.3 (4.3) 

41 to 60 23.6 (4.0) 

61 to 80 2.2 (1.5) 

81 or more 21.0 (3.6) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

14 / Dairy 2007

3. Breeding practices

Advances in technology and increases in knowledge of cattle reproductive

biology have enabled development of new methods of breeding cattle. Better

understanding of dairy cattle reproduction has led to the induction of estrus and,

more recently, the induction of ovulation. These two advances have allowed

operations to breed cows and heifers at specific times rather than waiting for the

cows to show natural estrus. One protocol, popularly known as Ovsynch, uses

prostaglandins and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in combination to

manipulate ovulation for timed artificial insemination (timed AI). The Presynch

protocol involves the administration of prostaglandins to regress the corpus

luteum, synchronize the timing of estrus, and/or prepare for a timed breeding

program such as Ovsynch. The implementation of an additional Ovsynch

protocol for the second or greater service is termed Resynch.

More than one-half of operations surveyed used artificial insemination (AI) to

natural estrus for first service for the majority of heifers and cows

(57.1 and 54.7 percent, respectively) during the previous 12 months. Natural

service was used for the first service by one-third of operations (33.2 percent) for

heifers and one-fifth of operations (21.7 percent) for cows. Timed-AI programs

(timed AI after the Ovsynch protocol or after Presynch/Ovsynch) were used more

frequently for first service of cows than heifers.

a. Percentage of operations by first-service breeding practice used for the

majority of heifers and cows during the previous 12 months:

Percent Operations 

Heifers Cows 

Breeding Practice Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Natural service (bull-bred) 33.2 (3.0) 21.7 (2.7) 

AI to natural estrus (no 

injections given to induce 

estrus) 57.1 (3.0) 54.7 (3.0) 

AI to induced estrus 

(prostaglandin injections 

only) 4.4 (1.0) 5.6 (1.3) 

AI to induced estrus after 

Ovsynch program 

(prostaglandin and GnRH 

injections) 1.8 (0.8) 5.6 (1.3) 

Timed AI after Ovsynch 

program (prostaglandin 

and GnRH injections) 0.4 (0.2) 6.3 (1.4) 

AI to estrus after 

Presynch/Ovsynch 0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 

Timed AI after 

Presynch/Ovsynch 0.3 (0.2) 3.6 (0.8) 

Other 2.7 (0.8) 2.0 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

16 / Dairy 2007

For the second or greater service, AI to natural estrus was used to breed the

majority of heifers on 46.5 percent of operations and the majority of cows on

39.6 percent of operations during the previous 12 months. Bulls were used for

the second or greater service for heifers on 35.1 percent of operations and for

cows on 22.2 percent of operations. A higher percentage of operations used

timed AI after Ovsynch or Resynch or AI to induced estrus after Resynch for the

second or greater service in cows than in heifers. (The Resynch program is

Ovsynch’s first GnRH started 1 week prior to, or at, pregnancy diagnosis

followed by prostaglandin and second GnRH injection.)

b. Percentage of operations by breeding practice used for the second or greater

service for the majority of heifers and cows during the previous 12 months:

Percent Operations 

Heifers Cows 

Breeding Practice Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Natural service (bull-bred) 35.1 (2.9) 22.2 (2.6) 

AI to natural estrus (no 

injections given to induce 

estrus) 46.5 (3.0) 39.6 (3.0) 

AI to induced estrus 

(prostaglandin injections 

only) 11.0 (2.0) 11.7 (2.0) 

AI to induced estrus after 

Ovsynch program 

(prostaglandin and GnRH 

injections) 4.1 (1.2) 10.0 (1.8) 

Timed AI after Ovsynch 

program (prostaglandin 

and GnRH injections) 1.0 (0.4) 10.3 (1.8) 

AI to induced estrus after 

Resynch program 

(Ovsynch’s 1st GnRH 

started 1 week prior to, or 

at, pregnancy diagnosis) 0.0 (--) 1.0 (0.4) 

Timed AI to Resynch 

program (Ovsynch’s 1st

GnRH started 1 week 

prior to, or at, pregnancy 

diagnosis) 0.2 (0.1) 2.9 (0.9) 

Other 2.1 (0.7) 2.3 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

18 / Dairy 2007

More than one-half of operations (57.6 percent) used timed-AI programs for at

least some cows during the previous 12 months and about one-fourth

(25.4 percent) used timed-AI programs for at least some heifers. Timed-AI

programs were used for either heifers or cows on 58.2 percent of operations. A

higher percentage of medium operations used timed AI for cows (69.7 percent)

and either heifers or cows (70.8 percent) compared with small operations

(52.8 and 53.2 percent, respectively).

c. Percentage of operations that used timed-AI programs to manage

reproduction in heifers, cows, or either heifers or cows during the previous

12 months, and by herd size:

Timed-AI programs for cows and either heifers or cows were used on a higher

percentage of operations in the East region (59.9 and 60.3 percent) compared

with 34.3 and 35.6 percent, respectively, in the West region.

d. Percentage of operations that used timed-AI programs to manage

reproduction in heifers, cows, or either heifers or cows during the previous

12 months, by region:

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 22.7 (3.3) 33.3 (4.2) 24.7 (5.2) 25.4 (2.5) 

Cows 52.8 (4.0) 69.7 (3.8) 62.9 (6.2) 57.6 (2.9) 

Either heifers 

or cows 53.2 (4.0) 70.8 (3.8) 62.9 (6.2) 58.2 (2.9) 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Cattle Class Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Heifers 14.2 (3.7) 26.5 (2.7) 

Cows 34.3 (4.8) 59.9 (3.2) 

Either heifers or cows 35.6 (4.9) 60.3 (3.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

About 4 of 10 operations (43.9 percent) that used timed-AI programs for either

heifers or cows during the previous 12 months had been using timed AI for

7 years or more. More than one-third of operations (33.9 percent) had been

using timed AI for 9 years or more.

e. For the 58.2 percent of operations that used timed-AI programs during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by number of years timed-AI

programs have been used:

Number of Years Percent Operations Standard Error 

Fewer than 2.0 8.0 (2.2) 

2.0 to 2.9 9.3 (2.3) 

3.0 to 4.9 21.7 (3.2) 

5.0 to 6.9 17.1 (2.8) 

7.0 to 8.9 10.0 (2.3) 

9.0 or more 33.9 (3.7) 

Total 100.0 

Almost one-half of operations (48.8 percent) using timed-AI programs during the

previous 12 months reported that timed AI was used only occasionally to catch

up on nonpregnant cows. “Other” reasons best described use of timed AI on

5.6 percent of operations, and these included controlling only first-service,

anestrus cows in addition to all reasons provided.

f. For the 58.2 percent of operations that used timed-AI programs during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by reason that best describes why

timed AI was used:

Reason Percent Operations Standard Error 

To control all first and 

subsequent services 27.7 (3.2) 

To control only second and 

greater services 17.9 (3.0) 

Only occasionally to catch 

up on nonpregnant cows 48.8 (3.9) 

Other 5.6 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

20 / Dairy 2007

A controlled internal drug release (CIDR) insert has been approved for dairy

cows and heifers since 2003. The product contains progesterone and is inserted

vaginally to synchronize estrus in cattle. The CIDR insert is removed after

7 days, and estrus in nonpregnant cows is usually observed 3 to 4 days later.

Approximately one-third of operations (32.4 percent) used a CIDR insert during

the previous 12 months. No significant differences were observed in the use of

inserts by herd size or region.

g. Percentage of operations that used a CIDR insert 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 

28.6 (3.5) 41.1 (4.5) 39.7 (5.5) 32.4 (2.7) 

h. Percentage of operations that used a CIDR insert during the previous

12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

19.5 (4.2) 33.7 (2.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

For operations that reported using a CIDR insert during the previous 12 months,

nearly two-thirds of operations (65.7 percent) used inserts for anestrous females.

A majority of the operations that noted “Other” as the reason for using a CIDR

insert used them for problem breeders.

i. For the 32.4 percent of operations that used a CIDR insert during the previous

12 months, percentage of operations by reason(s) used:

Reason Percent Operations Standard Error 

As part of a herd 

synchronization program 34.3 (4.4) 

Specifically for animals 

identified as anestrous 65.7 (4.4) 

Specifically for animals 

identified as cystic 43.5 (4.7) 

Postbreeding 15.0 (3.8) 

Other 10.9 (3.1) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

22 / Dairy 2007

The owner/operator administered the majority of reproductive injections to cattle

on two-thirds (66.0 percent) of all operations during the previous 12 months. For

70.9 percent of small operations and 58.9 percent of medium operations, the

owner/operator gave the majority of reproductive injections. For large herds, the

owner/operator gave the majority of reproductive injections on 41.2 percent of

operations, with the herdsman giving the majority of reproductive injections on

32.1 percent of operations. The herdsman gave the majority of reproductive

injections for fewer small operations (2.3 percent) than medium or large

operations (14.5 and 32.1 percent, respectively). Reproductive injections were

not administered on 16.4 percent of small operations, 12.3 percent of medium

operations, and 5.2 percent of large operations.

j. Percentage of operations by person who administered the majority of

reproductive injections 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 

Administrator Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Owner/operator 70.9 (3.7) 58.9 (4.4) 41.2 (6.2) 66.0 (2.8) 

Herdsman 2.3 (1.1) 14.5 (3.0) 32.1 (5.2) 7.3 (1.1) 

General 

employee 0.6 (0.5) 1.7 (0.8) 5.0 (2.6) 1.2 (0.4) 

Veterinarian 8.2 (2.5) 7.7 (2.4) 5.1 (2.9) 7.9 (1.8) 

AI service/ 

technician 1.6 (1.2) 3.3 (1.6) 6.3 (3.1) 2.3 (0.9) 

No reproductive 

injections 

administered 16.4 (2.8) 12.3 (3.0) 5.2 (3.2) 14.6 (2.1) 

Other 0.0 (--) 1.6 (1.1) 5.1 (2.8) 0.7 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

24 / Dairy 2007

The only regional difference in the administration of reproductive injections

during the previous 12 months was observed for the owner/operator. The owner/

operator gave the majority of reproductive injections on a lower percentage of

operations in the West region (37.3 percent) than in the East region

(68.7 percent).

k. Percentage of operations by person who administered the majority of

reproductive injections during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Administrator Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Owner/operator 37.3 (5.2) 68.7 (3.0) 

Herdsman 12.4 (2.8) 6.8 (1.2) 

General employee 3.1 (1.9) 1.0 (0.4) 

Veterinarian 10.0 (3.6) 7.7 (1.9) 

AI service/technician 8.3 (3.2) 1.7 (1.0) 

No reproductive 

injections 

administered 25.6 (4.4) 13.6 (2.3) 

Other 3.3 (2.1) 0.5 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

Embryo transfer (ET) can be used to obtain more offspring from cattle with

superior genetics. In addition, for cattle with heat stress, ET has been shown to

achieve higher pregnancy rates than routine AI. Embryos can be collected from

donor cattle and then either transplanted immediately into recipient cattle or

frozen for transplantation at a later date. Superovulated embryos result from

eggs that are fertilized in the uterus of the dam. When the fertilization step

occurs in the laboratory, the embryos are referred to as in vitro produced.

About 1 of 10 operations (11.5 percent) transplanted embryos into any heifers or

cows during the previous 12 months. A similar percentage of each embryo type

(fresh or frozen) was transplanted in heifers and cows. Fresh embryos were

transplanted into heifers and/or cows on 8.2 percent of operations, while frozen

embryos were transplanted into heifers and/or cows on 7.7 percent of

operations.

l. Percentage of operations that transplanted fresh or frozen embryos, or either

type, into heifers or cows, or either heifers or cows, during the previous

12 months:

Percent Operations 

Embryo Type

Fresh Frozen Either

Cattle Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Heifers 7.1 (1.7) 5.2 (1.2) 8.9 (1.8) 

Cows 6.1 (1.6) 4.3 (1.2) 8.6 (1.9) 

Either heifers 

or cows 8.2 (1.8) 7.7 (1.5) 11.5 (2.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

26 / Dairy 2007

More than one-half of operations (54.9 percent) had cattle pregnancies

conceived through natural service (bull breeding). Almost 9 of 10 operations

(88.4 percent) had pregnancies conceived via AI, and about 1 of 10 operations

(9.9 percent) had pregnancies via ET. A higher percentage of large operations

(71.8 percent) used natural service compared with small operations

(51.2 percent).

m. Percentage of operations with cattle pregnancies conceived during the

previous 12 months by breeding method, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Breeding Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Natural service 

(bull-bred) 51.2 (4.0) 60.9 (4.3) 71.8 (4.6) 54.9 (3.0) 

AI (after detected 

estrus or timed) 86.4 (2.8) 93.7 (1.7) 89.6 (4.1) 88.4 (2.0) 

Embryo transfer 

(superovulated or 

in vitro embryo) 8.5 (2.6) 13.0 (3.2) 12.7 (4.0) 9.9 (2.0) 

On average, 72.5 percent of pregnancies were conceived by AI—either after

detected estrus or timed—during the previous 12 months. About one-fourth of

pregnancies (26.8 percent) were conceived through natural service. Less than

1 percent of pregnancies resulted from embryo transfer. No herd size differences

were noted.

n. Operation average percentage of cattle pregnancies conceived during the

previous 12 months by breeding method, and by herd size:

Operation Average Percent Pregnancies 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Breeding Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Natural service 

(bull-bred) 29.1 (3.3) 22.0 (2.8) 19.7 (4.0) 26.8 (2.4) 

AI (after detected 

estrus or timed) 70.3 (3.2) 77.0 (2.8) 79.9 (3.9) 72.5 (2.4) 

Embryo transfer 

(superovulated or 

in vitro embryo) 0.6 (0.2) 1.0 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

28 / Dairy 2007

There were no differences in operation average percent pregnancies by breeding

method between the West and East regions.

o. Operation average percentage of cattle pregnancies conceived during the

previous 12 months by breeding method, by region:

Operation Average Percent Pregnancies 

Region 

West East 

Breeding Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Natural service (bull-bred) 28.6 (4.5) 26.6 (2.6) 

AI (after detected 

estrus or timed) 71.2 (4.5) 72.7 (2.6) 

Embryo transfer 

(superovulated 

or in vitro embryo) 0.2 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

4. AI personnel and services

On operations with any pregnancies conceived through AI during the previous

12 months, the owner/operator performed the majority of AI services on

51.0 percent of operations, while an AI service/technician performed the majority

of these services on 40.7 percent of operations. An AI service/technician

performed the majority of AI services on more than one-half of large operations

(55.9 percent). The owner/operator performed the majority of AI services on a

lower percentage of large operations (19.9 percent) than small or medium

operations (53.2 and 52.8 percent, respectively). A herdsman performed the

majority of AI services on a higher percentage of large operations (18.1 percent)

than small operations (3.2 percent).

a. For the 88.4 percent of operations with cattle pregnancies conceived through

AI during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by person who

performed the majority of AI services, 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 53.2 (4.4) 52.8 (4.7) 19.9 (5.2) 51.0 (3.2) 

Herdsman 3.2 (1.3) 8.6 (1.9) 18.1 (3.8) 5.6 (1.0) 

General 

employee 0.0 (--) 1.0 (0.7) 0.8 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2) 

Veterinarian 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

AI service/ 

technician 41.3 (4.4) 35.6 (4.6) 55.9 (6.5) 40.7 (3.2) 

Other 2.3 (1.5) 2.0 (1.2) 5.3 (3.1) 2.4 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

30 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 31

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

A herdsman performed the majority of AI services on a higher percentage of

operations in the West region (15.8 percent) than in the East region

(4.7 percent).

b. For the 88.4 percent of operations with cattle pregnancies conceived through

AI during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by person who

performed the majority of AI services, by region:

On almost all operations (95.9 percent) that had pregnancies conceived through

AI during the previous 12 months, the person responsible for the majority of AI

services had been formally trained via lecture and/or laboratory exercises in

performing AI.

c. For the 88.4 percent of operations with cattle pregnancies conceived through

AI during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations on which the person

responsible for the majority of AI services was formally trained:

Percent Operations Standard Error 

95.9 (1.2) 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Person Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Owner/operator 39.1 (6.2) 52.0 (3.4) 

Herdsman 15.8 (3.6) 4.7 (1.1) 

General employee 0.0 (--) 0.3 (0.2) 

Veterinarian 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

AI service/technician 39.2 (6.1) 40.9 (3.4) 

Other 5.9 (3.2) 2.1 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

32 / Dairy 2007

Although it has been possible to sex and sort semen since the 1980s, the use of

sexed semen is still not a common practice. The sorting process is extremely

slow, can damage the semen, and greatly reduces the overall semen counts.

Consequently, compared with unsexed semen, sexed semen costs more and

contains fewer viable sperm per straw, leading to a lower conception rate.

Because heifers are generally more fertile, it is recommended that sexed semen

be used only in virgin heifers.

About 1 of 10 heifers (11.4 percent) that eventually entered the milking herd were

inseminated with sexed semen, compared with 3.5 percent of cows.

d. For the 88.4 percent of operations with cattle pregnancies conceived through

AI during the previous 12 months, percentage of heifers and of cows that were

inseminated with sexed semen during that time:

Percent Heifers1 Std. Error Percent Cows2 Std. Error 

11.4 (2.4) 3.5 (2.3) 

1

As a percentage of dairy heifers that entered the milking herd in 2006. 

2

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

For operations with pregnancies conceived through AI during the previous

12 months, approximately two-thirds of operations (70.9 percent) attempted AI

breeding three to six times before designating nonpregnant cows for a different

strategy.

e. For the 88.4 percent of operations with cattle pregnancies conceived through

AI during the previous 12 months, and for cows in which AI was unsuccessful,

percentage of operations by typical maximum number of times AI was attempted

before these cows were designated for a different strategy (e.g., moved to a bull

pen, sold, etc.):

Number AI Attempts Percent Operations Standard Error 

1 or 2 10.8 (2.2) 

3 or 4 33.2 (3.0) 

5 or 6 37.7 (3.2) 

7 or more 18.3 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

5. Pregnancy diagnosis

Pregnancy exams are important in evaluating the reproductive status of heifers

and cows. The biggest advantage of performing pregnancy exams is identifying

animals that are not pregnant so that they can be managed for rebreeding in a

short period of time. Additional benefits of pregnancy exams include identification

of uterine or ovarian disease, diagnosis of twins, and estimation of conception

dates for animals in herds with unobserved natural service.

More than 9 of 10 operations (93.0 percent) had some pregnancy exams

performed during the previous 12 months. Two-thirds of all operations

(67.0 percent) performed pregnancy exams at least monthly during the previous

12 months. Most small operations (50.2 percent) performed exams on a monthly

basis, while most medium operations performed exams every 2 weeks

(38.1 percent) or monthly (31.2 percent). Most large operations performed

exams weekly (39.3 percent) or every 2 weeks (35.7 percent). The increased

frequency of exams with larger herd size might be related to the number of cows

that need to be examined. On 7.0 percent of operations, no pregnancy exams

were performed. Operations listing “Other” frequencies reported examining cows

from 3 months of gestation to once annually.

a. Percentage of operations by frequency with which pregnancy exams were

performed 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 

Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Weekly 0.1 (0.1) 7.0 (1.9) 39.3 (5.1) 4.3 (0.6) 

Every 2 weeks 11.5 (2.5) 38.1 (4.2) 35.7 (5.9) 19.6 (2.1) 

Monthly 50.2 (4.0) 31.2 (4.2) 12.8 (4.1) 43.1 (3.0) 

Every other 

month 11.2 (2.7) 13.4 (3.4) 7.2 (3.3) 11.5 (2.0) 

No pregnancy 

exams 

performed 7.8 (2.1) 6.1 (2.3) 2.2 (2.1) 7.0 (1.5) 

Other 19.2 (3.2) 4.2 (1.3) 2.8 (2.2) 14.5 (2.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

34 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

A higher percentage of operations in the East region (44.9 percent) performed

monthly pregnancy exams than in the West region (25.0 percent).

b. Percentage of operations by frequency with which pregnancy exams were

performed during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Frequency Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Weekly 10.8 (3.1) 3.7 (0.6) 

Every 2 weeks 32.6 (5.1) 18.4 (2.2) 

Monthly 25.0 (4.9) 44.9 (3.3) 

Every other month 11.7 (3.4) 11.4 (2.2) 

No pregnancy 

exams performed 10.2 (4.1) 6.7 (1.6) 

Other 9.7 (3.7) 14.9 (2.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

36 / Dairy 2007

Almost 9 of 10 operations (89.5 percent) used a private veterinarian to perform

the majority of pregnancy exams during the previous 12 months. A higher

percentage of small operations (91.3 percent) used a private veterinarian than

large operations (76.0 percent). Pregnancy exams were performed by

nonveterinarian employees on a higher percentage of large operations

(10.3 percent) than small or medium operations (0.4 and 0.0 percent,

respectively).

c. For the 93.0 percent of operations that had pregnancy exams performed

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

performed the majority of exams, 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 

Private 

veterinarian 91.3 (2.2) 88.2 (2.6) 76.0 (5.3) 89.5 (1.7) 

Veterinary 

technician 1.6 (0.8) 2.4 (1.0) 7.5 (2.8) 2.2 (0.6) 

Employee 

(veterinarian) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 

Employee 

(nonveterinarian) 0.4 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 10.3 (4.2) 1.0 (0.4) 

Owner/operator 3.8 (1.2) 5.2 (1.6) 3.3 (1.9) 4.1 (0.9) 

Other 2.9 (1.7) 4.2 (1.8) 2.8 (1.9) 3.2 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

A higher percentage of operations in the East region (91.5 percent) used a

private veterinarian for pregnancy exams compared with operations in the West

region (68.6 percent). In the West region, a higher percentage of operations

(11.4 percent) used a veterinary technician to perform pregnancy exams than in

the East region (1.3 percent).

d. For the 93.0 percent of operations that had pregnancy exams performed

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

performed the majority of exams, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Person Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Private veterinarian 68.6 (5.3) 91.5 (1.7) 

Veterinary technician 11.4 (3.5) 1.3 (0.6) 

Employee (veterinarian) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (0.0) 

Employee 

(nonveterinarian) 6.5 (3.1) 0.5 (0.3) 

Owner/operator 7.5 (2.7) 3.8 (0.9) 

Other 6.0 (3.0) 2.9 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

38 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

The primary method used to restrain cows for pregnancy diagnosis on most

small operations was tie stall/stanchion (80.7 percent of operations). The

majority of large operations used headlocks (83.0 percent) for cow restraint.

e. For the 93.0 percent of operations that had pregnancy exams performed

during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by primary method

used to restrain cows for pregnancy diagnosis, 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 

Headlocks at 

the feed bunk 6.5 (1.9) 30.0 (3.7) 83.0 (4.4) 17.5 (1.7) 

Palpation rail 0.6 (0.6) 10.3 (2.8) 6.0 (1.8) 3.4 (0.8) 

Tie stall/ 

stanchion 80.7 (2.7) 18.2 (4.1) 1.8 (1.8) 59.7 (2.5) 

Chute 3.0 (1.0) 10.0 (2.8) 1.2 (0.7) 4.7 (1.0) 

Parlor 5.4 (1.2) 11.1 (2.4) 5.6 (3.2) 6.8 (1.0) 

Loose in 

freestalls 0.4 (0.3) 14.3 (3.5) 0.5 (0.2) 3.9 (0.9) 

Other 3.4 (1.4) 6.1 (2.3) 1.9 (1.9) 4.0 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

40 / Dairy 2007

Similar to the differences observed by herd size, a higher percentage of

operations in the West region restrained cows for pregnancy diagnosis using

headlocks at the feed bunk (71.7 percent) than operations in the East region

(12.5 percent). Tie stalls/stanchions were used to restrain cows by 65.0 percent

of operations in the East region compared with 2.5 percent in the West region.

f. For the 93.0 percent of operations that had pregnancy exams performed

during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by primary method

used to restrain cows for pregnancy diagnosis, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Headlocks at 

the feed bunk 71.7 (5.5) 12.5 (1.8) 

Palpation rail 2.4 (1.3) 3.5 (0.9) 

Tie stall/stanchion 2.5 (1.8) 65.0 (2.6) 

Chute 7.0 (2.4) 4.4 (1.0) 

Parlor 13.6 (4.9) 6.2 (1.0) 

Loose in freestalls 1.3 (1.3) 4.2 (1.0) 

Other 1.5 (1.5) 4.2 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

Photo courtesy of “Dairy Herd Management”/“Bovine Veterinarian”

The majority of operations (85.7 percent) routinely used rectal palpation to

perform pregnancy exams. More than one-fourth of operations (27.4 percent)

routinely used ultrasound to determine pregnancy status. Blood tests were not

frequently used. There were no differences by herd size.

g. For the 93.0 percent of operations that had pregnancy exams performed

during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by method used

routinely to determine pregnancy status, 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 

Rectal 

palpation 84.6 (3.2) 88.5 (3.2) 86.5 (3.9) 85.7 (2.4) 

Ultrasound 26.3 (3.7) 30.0 (4.3) 28.3 (5.4) 27.4 (2.8) 

Blood test 4.5 (1.7) 2.3 (1.5) 7.4 (3.2) 4.1 (1.2) 

Milk 

progesterone 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Other 0.7 (0.5) 0.6 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.6 (0.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

42 / Dairy 2007

Rectal palpation was used to detect pregnancy on 96.3 percent of operations in

the West region, compared with 84.7 percent in the East region. A higher

percentage of operations in the East region (28.6 percent) used ultrasound for

pregnancy exams than in the West region (14.0 percent).

h. For the 93.0 percent of operations that had pregnancy exams performed

during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by method used

routinely to determine pregnancy status, by region:

6. Ultrasound

Of operations that routinely used ultrasound to determine pregnancy status

during the previous 12 months, more than three-fourths (77.4 percent) began

using ultrasound for routine pregnancy diagnosis prior to 2006. Almost one-third

of operations (29.6) reported using ultrasound for routine pregnancy exams in

2003 or earlier.

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Rectal palpation 96.3 (2.3) 84.7 (2.6) 

Ultrasound 14.0 (4.0) 28.6 (3.0) 

Blood test 2.6 (1.9) 4.3 (1.3) 

Milk progesterone 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Other 0.0 (--) 0.7 (0.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

Year 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Cumulative 

Percent 

2002 and before 16.4 (4.2) 16.4 

2003 13.2 (4.5) 29.6 

2004 14.9 (4.3) 44.5 

2005 32.9 (6.0) 77.4 

2006 14.9 (3.6) 92.3 

2007 7.7 (2.6) 100.0 

Total 100.0 

For operations that routinely used ultrasound to evaluate pregnancy status during

the previous 12 months, almost all operations (99.6 percent) reported that the

ultrasound equipment was owned by the veterinarian. No herd size or regional

differences were observed for ownership of the ultrasound machine used for

pregnancy diagnosis.

b. For the 27.4 percent of operations that routinely used ultrasound to determine

pregnancy status during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by

owner of the ultrasound equipment used for the majority of pregnancy

diagnoses:

Owner Percent Operations Standard Error 

Veterinarian 99.6 (0.2) 

Dairy operation 0.2 (0.1) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 

a. For the 27.4 percent of operations that routinely used ultrasound to determine

pregnancy status during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by

year in which routine ultrasound diagnosis of pregnancy was first performed:
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

44 / Dairy 2007

Ultrasound was often used to provide additional information during pregnancy

exams. More than two-thirds of operations that routinely used ultrasound for

pregnancy diagnosis during the previous 12 months collected and evaluated

information on ovarian cysts (87.0 percent), twin pregnancies (81.2 percent),

noncycling cows (80.3 percent), and fetal viability (69.9 percent). One-half the

operations (49.0 percent) used ultrasound to determine the sex of the fetus.

c. For the 27.4 percent of operations that routinely used ultrasound to determine

pregnancy status during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by

additional information collected/evaluated during ultrasound exams:

Information Percent Operations Standard Error 

Twin pregnancies 81.2 (4.8) 

Fetal viability 69.9 (5.6) 

Noncycling (no heat) cows 80.3 (4.6) 

Ovarian cysts 87.0 (4.2) 

Fetal sexing 49.0 (5.9) 

Other 8.5 (3.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

7. Producer use of reproductive parameters

The parameters used to evaluate reproductive performance are interrelated and

evolving. Pregnancy rate is calculated as the product of the conception rate

times the heat detection rate. Conception rate is calculated by dividing the

percentage of cows determined to be pregnant by those that were either naturally

or artificially bred. Heat detection rate is the number of cows detected in estrus

divided by the number of cows eligible to be bred within a 21-day period. Mean

days open is typically the average number of days between calving and

conception, but may also include the interval from calving to most recent service

or current days in milk for cows that have gone beyond the voluntary waiting

period and not been bred. The percentage of herd pregnant is typically reported

for a given point in time. Calving interval is calculated by taking the mean number

of months from one calving to the next calving for each cow in the herd.

For each reproductive performance parameter, less than 8 percent of operations

reported that the parameter was not important. The majority of operations

reported that conception rate and pregnancy rate were very important in

evaluating the reproductive performance of the herd (56.9 and 52.9 percent of

operations, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations by level of importance of reproductive parameters

used in evaluating reproductive performance of the herd:

Percent Operations 

Level of Importance 

Very 

Important Important 

Somewhat 

Important 

Not 

Important 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Pregnancy rate 52.9 (3.0) 31.5 (2.9) 9.0 (1.7) 6.6 (1.4) 100.0 

Conception rate 56.9 (3.0) 34.1 (2.9) 6.9 (1.6) 2.1 (0.8) 100.0 

Heat detection rate 39.8 (2.9) 39.0 (3.0) 14.0 (2.0) 7.2 (1.5) 100.0 

Days open 37.0 (2.8) 45.8 (3.0) 14.5 (2.1) 2.7 (0.9) 100.0 

Percentage of herd 

pregnant 33.9 (2.8) 42.9 (3.0) 17.0 (2.1) 6.2 (1.4) 100.0 

Calving interval 29.4 (2.6) 47.1 (3.0) 20.0 (2.5) 3.5 (1.0) 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

46 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Reproduction

The highest percentage of operations (91.0 percent) considered conception rate

to be important or very important in evaluating reproductive performance of the

herd. For large operations, a higher percentage considered pregnancy rate, heat

detection rate, and percentage of herd pregnant to be important or very important

compared with small operations. There were no regional differences in the

percentage of operations that considered reproductive parameters important or

very important.

b. Percentage of operations that considered the following reproductive

parameters to be important or very important in evaluating reproductive

performance of the herd, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Parameter Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Pregnancy rate 81.0 (3.0) 90.4 (2.3) 96.7 (1.9) 84.4 (2.1) 

Conception rate 90.3 (2.4) 92.0 (2.2) 94.2 (3.3) 91.0 (1.7) 

Heat detection rate 76.3 (3.3) 82.5 (3.3) 90.4 (3.2) 78.8 (2.4) 

Days open 80.3 (3.1) 88.1 (2.7) 88.4 (3.8) 82.8 (2.2) 

Percentage of herd 

pregnant 74.4 (3.3) 79.7 (3.2) 91.0 (3.1) 76.8 (2.4) 

Calving interval 75.7 (3.4) 77.8 (3.9) 80.3 (4.9) 76.5 (2.6) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

48 / Dairy 2007

B. Calving Practices 1. Guidelines

Many factors contribute to calving difficulty and the need to intervene and assist

with the calving process. For heifers, an important factor is the relationship of the

calf size to the heifer size. In cows, dystocias are often related to multiple fetuses

or malposition of the fetus. Guidelines for when and how to assist with calving

are available and are slightly different for heifers and cows. Intervening too early

or too late in the calving process can cause injury or death to the dam, the calf,

or both.

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 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, 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 

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 / 49

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

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 of

operations (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 cows:

Percent Operations Standard Error 

51.7 (3.9) 

2. Calving personnel and training

For all operations, the average number of calving personnel (people with any

work duties in the calving area, including employees and family members) was

2.4. The average number of calving personnel increased as herd size increased.

a. Average number of calving personnel, and by herd size:

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) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

50 / Dairy 2007

The majority of small operations (76.4 percent) had one or two calving

personnel, compared with two or three people for medium operations

(64.6 percent) and three or more people for large operations (76.5 percent).

b. 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 

Calving 

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 
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

52 / Dairy 2007

The West region had a higher percentage of operations with five or more people

in the calving area (16.6 percent) than the East region (4.0 percent).

c. Percentage of operations by number of calving personnel, by region:

More than 90 percent of operations (91.9 percent) provided training in calving

intervention for owners/employees of the operation. Most operations

(90.4 percent) used on-the-job training in calving intervention. 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.

d. Percentage of operations by training methods in calving intervention 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) 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Number of 

Calving 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 
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

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) 

There was no difference by region in the percentage of operations with a system

for scoring calving difficulty.

b. Percentage of operations with 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) 

3. Calving difficulty scoring

Recording and monitoring calving difficulty scores can help producers select

sires and make decisions about retaining replacement heifers. The most

common scoring system for the degree of calving difficulty is based on 5 points:

1 point = no problem, 2 = slight problem, 3 = needed assistance,

4 = needed considerable force, and 5 = extreme difficulty/surgical procedure.

Studies have shown that a higher percentage of heifers require assistance than

cows.

More than one-third of operations (38.5 percent) reported having 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 with a system for scoring calving difficulty, and by

herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

54 / Dairy 2007

Of the operations with a system for scoring calving difficulty, almost all

(91.6 percent) record the score for assisted births.

c. For the 38.5 percent of operations with a system for scoring calving difficulty,

percentage of operations that record the calving difficulty score for assisted

births:

Percent Operations Standard Error 

91.6 (3.0) 

4. Observation close to calving

Ideally, heifers and cows close to calving would be observed at all times in case

they need assistance, but this is not practical or even possible for many

operations. The literature suggests, however, that no more than 3 hours should

pass between observation periods.

As one would expect, females close to calving were observed more frequently

during the day than at night. About one-half of operations (47.2 percent) allowed

less 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 of operations let 5 hours or more

pass between observation periods.

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

cattle close to calving, 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 / 55

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

56 / Dairy 2007

Although the normal calving process is classified into three stages, the process

is continuous and proceeds gradually from one stage to the next. Stage 1 is

characterized by cervical dilation and uterine contractions that usually are not

evident as abdominal contractions. Cattle during this stage may be restless/off

feed because of the discomfort of the uterine contractions. Stage 1 usually lasts

2 to 6 hours but may be longer in heifers. During stage 2 of labor, uterine

contractions continue and abdominal contractions become evident. Stage 2 ends

in the delivery of the fetus(es) and usually takes less than 2 hours for mature

cows but up to 4 hours for heifers. In stage 3, the fetal membranes (placenta)

are expelled as a result of continued uterine contractions. The duration of

stage 3 can be minutes to multiple days, if the placenta is retained.

The majority of operations (63.1 percent for heifers and 61.9 percent for cows)

reported that they would examine or assist an animal before 5 hours elapsed if

she shows signs of stage 1 labor without subsequent straining. More than onefourth 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 / 57

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

58 / Dairy 2007

Abdominal contractions and straining typically mark the beginning of stage 2

labor. Once straining is observed, the animal should be assessed if she is not

making good progress in delivery within 2 to 3 hours for heifers and 1 hour for

cows.

Almost 9 of 10 operations reported that they wait less than 3 hours to assist

heifers or cows that are observed to be straining but are not progressing in

delivery of the calf (87.6 and 88.1 percent, respectively). Less than 2 percent of

operations reported that they wait 7 or more hours 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 / 59

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

60 / Dairy 2007

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 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

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) 

5. Intervention

Implementation of the practices listed below is generally recommended when a

dystocia or difficult calving necessitates intervention. More than 50 percent of all

operations reported that they generally implemented recommended practices,

except for calling a veterinarian to assist (12.9 percent) and tying or holding the

tail out of the way (32.4 percent). 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 would restrain the

cow in a head catch or similar equipment; this might reflect the loose housing

systems (such as freestall or drylot) more common on large operations,

compared with the tie stall and stanchion facilities more common on small

operations. A higher percentage of large operations than small operations would

typically wash the perineum area with soap and water (74.8 and 48.8 percent,

respectively); wear obstetrical gloves (87.1 and 62.5 percent, respectively); or

use a lubricant (82.2 and 50.4 percent, respectively) while assisting with delivery.

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

is made to intervene in calving, and by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

62 / Dairy 2007

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 / 63

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

64 / Dairy 2007

Although the dam provides the best lubricant, during difficult deliveries additional

lubricant can be helpful in delivering a healthy calf, as well as in protecting the

dam from trauma. With the exception of water used alone, all the 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 reported generally using 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 use 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 / 65

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

Any instrument that is used to assist with a difficult delivery should be easy to

sanitize, especially instruments that are used inside the vagina and uterus to

deliver calves. Most operations (71.1 percent) used stainless-steel OB chains for

pulling calves; these chains are easy to sanitize and are recommended for use.

Almost 50 percent of operations (49.6 percent) used twine, while 22.1 percent

used rope to pull calves. Stainless-steel OB chains were used on a higher

percentage of medium and large operations compared with small operations.

Alternatively, twine was used on a higher percentage of small operations than

medium or large operations.

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) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

66 / Dairy 2007

The amount of 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 lb while delivering a calf, whereas a calf

jack can exert 2,000 lb of force. If two people cannot deliver a calf manually, then

an alternative delivery method, such as a C-section for live calves or a fetotomy

for dead calves, is 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)

reported using a calf jack to apply traction. A block and tackle was used by a

higher percentage of small operations compared with 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 / 67

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

68 / Dairy 2007

To reduce the possibility of injury to the dam during calving intervention, traction

should be applied when the dam is straining. More than three in four operations

(77.3 percent) reported that traction is generally applied in conjunction with the

dam straining, while 22.7 percent reported that traction is generally applied

continuously.

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

applied during calving intervention:

Traction Application Percent Operations Standard Error 

In conjunction with dam straining 77.3 (2.5) 

Continuously 22.7 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 

6. Veterinary assistance

Although 12.9 percent of operations would call a veterinarian to assist once a

decision is made to intervene during a difficult calving (see table 5a. on p 61),

almost all operations, regardless of herd size or region, would ever seek

veterinary assistance for difficult calvings.

a. Percentage of operations that ever 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) 
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

b. Percentage of operations that ever 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) 

More than 90 percent of operations that ever seek veterinary assistance for

difficult deliveries reported they would seek assistance to help correct the calf’s

position for delivery (93.5 percent), while 85.6 percent of operations 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 ever seek veterinary assistance for

difficult deliveries, percentage of operations that would seek assistance for the

following situations:

Situation Percent Operations Standard Error 

Unable to correctly position 

calf for delivery 93.5 (1.4) 

Applied traction for a specific 

amount of time without progress 85.6 (2.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

70 / Dairy 2007

The best chance of ending up with a live calf and a healthy dam after a difficult

calving requires that the method being used be reassessed if no progress is

made within 15 to 20 minutes. Longer intervention times, without veterinary

assistance, can lead to death of the calf and possibly of the dam. The length of

time operations intervened before calling for assistance was about the same for

both heifers and cows. About 30 percent of operations reported that they would

call for veterinary assistance within 30 minutes of intervening in a calving. The

highest single percentage 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 ever 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 / 71

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

72 / Dairy 2007

Heifers generally require more assistance than cows at calving because of their

immature frame size. 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. 

7. Stillbirths

NOTE: Stillbirths were reported on p 61 of Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle

Health and Management Practices in the United States, 2007. The stillbirth

estimates in Part I are slightly lower (6.5 percent of all calves) than those

reported below.

Stillbirths are usually defined as calves that are born dead or die within 48 hours

of birth. Analysis of DHIA records indicates that the percentage of calves that are

stillborn has increased since the 1980s.

All medium and large operations (100.0 percent) 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. For all operations, 96.3 percent had one or more

stillborn calves. Overall, 8.1 percent of calves were stillborn during the previous

12 months, with no difference in percentage of stillbirths by herd size.
USDA APHIS VS / 73

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

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, and by herd size:

A higher percentage of operations in the West region (100.0 percent) had at least

one stillbirth compared with operations in the East region (96.0 percent),

although the difference was small. The West region had a lower percentage of

stillborn calves than the East region, however (6.6 and 8.9 percent, respectively).

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 

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. 

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.
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

74 / Dairy 2007

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:

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, that increases their chances of survival. Depending on the

environmental conditions, all the procedures listed below, with the exception of

hanging the calf upside down, are considered beneficial to the health of the calf.

Hanging the calf upside down, which was once promoted to assist in removing

fluid from the calf’s lungs, might actually be harmful for two reasons: most of the

liquid comes from the abomasum and not the lungs, making the calf more

susceptible to dehydration, and hanging the calf upside down increases pressure

on the chest, making it more difficult for the calf 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 affect 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, a calf that experienced a difficult birth would

receive nostril stimulation to initiate breathing. Hanging the calf upside down

would be performed on 66.3 percent of operations. Three of the practices that

are simple to perform and do not require special equipment or materials—

positioning the calf on its sternum, drying the calf manually with towels or a hair

dryer, and trying to elicit a suckle response—were performed by at least one-half

of operations. Few operations (1.4 percent) would provide supplemental oxygen.

“Other” practices (14.2 percent of operations) would include allowing the dam to

lick/stimulate the calf and feeding colostrum.

Time of Death Percent Calves* Standard Error 

Born dead 78.6 (1.4) 

Born alive, but died within 48 hr 21.4 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 

*As a percentage of stillborn calves. 
USDA APHIS VS / 75

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

Use of some practices varied with the size of the operation. Almost two-thirds of

large operations (62.5 percent) resuscitated the calf 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 the calf 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) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

76 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 77

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Calving Practices

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

calf was 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) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

78 / Dairy 2007

C. Surgical Procedures 1. Dehorning

Removing the horns of dairy cattle reduces the risk of injury to other cattle and to

people. The two major approaches for removing horns are breeding programs to

produce animals without horns and manual removal. Cattle born without horns,

referred to as polled, were previously suspected of having decreased productivity

compared with horned cattle. It now appears that the tremendous amount of

genetic selection, primarily for milk production, that has occurred in horned dairy

breeds has made them appear superior in terms of productivity. With the same

intensity of selection of polled cattle, productivity might not be a concern.

Disbudding refers to removal of the horn bud in young cattle, whereas dehorning

refers to removal of the horns of cattle. In the European Union, it is illegal to

disbud or dehorn calves more than 14 days old without using a local anesthetic.

The Animal Welfare Committee of the American Veterinary Medical Association

(AVMA) states the following: “Because castration and dehorning cause pain and

discomfort, the AVMA recommends the use of procedures and practices that

reduce or eliminate these effects, including the use of approved or AMDUCApermissible clinically effective medications whenever possible.” AVMA also states

that dehorning should be done at the youngest age possible and “disbudding is

the preferred method of dehorning calves. Local anesthetic should be considered

for other dehorning procedures.”

Overall, 94 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 heiferraising 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) 
USDA APHIS VS / 79

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

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

operation during the previous 12 months, by region:

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 or anesthetics when dehorning calves. More than 90 percent of

operations (94.0 percent) dehorned calves, and 17.7 percent of these operations

used analgesics or anesthetics during the dehorning procedure.

c. Percentage of operations by dehorning method, and corresponding

percentage of operations using that method that used analgesics/anesthetics:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

77.6 (4.6) 95.6 (1.4) 

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) 

Any 94.0 (1.4) 17.7 (2.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

80 / Dairy 2007

Photo courtesy of “Dairy Herd Management”/“Bovine Veterinarian”

The majority of heifer calves on operations that routinely dehorned calves were

dehorned by hot iron (67.5 percent of calves) at an average age of

7.6 weeks. Caustic paste was used on 12.2 percent of calves at 2.7 weeks of

age. A similar percentage was observed for the tube, spoon, or gouge method,

but the average age increased to 16.9 weeks. Saws, wire, or Barnes dehorners

were used 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 while

on the operation during the previous 12 months, percentage of calves dehorned

and average age at dehorning, by method used to dehorn calves:

Method 

Percent 

Heifers* 

Std. 

Error 

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. 
USDA APHIS VS / 81

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

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, 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 

42.9 (4.0) 43.5 (4.6) 18.9 (5.7) 42.0 (3.1) 

Disinfection of dehorning equipment that causes bleeding reduces the possibility

of transmitting diseases such as bovine leukosis virus. Approximately one-half of

operations (46.4 percent) disinfected dehorning equipment for each calf.

f. For the 42.0 percent of 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) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

82 / Dairy 2007

On almost two-thirds of operations (64.4 percent), the owner/operator was

identified as dehorning 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 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 
USDA APHIS VS / 83

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

84 / Dairy 2007

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).

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, 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

Extra teats on dairy cows can interfere with milking and lead to mastitis, and they

are not acceptable in show cattle. As with dehorning, removal of extra teats

should be done at an early age to facilitate 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.

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

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 

46.4 (4.0) 57.1 (4.4) 66.4 (6.2) 50.3 (3.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 85

Section I: Population Estimates—C. 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 12.0 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 while removing extra teats:

Percent Operations Standard Error 

10.6 (3.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

86 / Dairy 2007

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 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.”

Almost half of operations (48.6 percent) had one or more tail-docked cows. A

higher percentage of operations in the West region (81.3 percent) had no taildocked cows than in the East region (48.5 percent of operations). On about one

of seven operations (14.6 percent), all cows had a docked tail.

a. Percentage of operations by percentage of tail-docked cows, 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 
USDA APHIS VS / 87

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

Overall, about 4 of 10 cows (38.8 percent) had a docked tail. 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 a docked tail.

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

The majority of operations that had tail-docked cows most commonly used a

band to dock tails (87.2 percent); these operations represented 90.4 percent of

tail-docked cows. About 1 of 10 operations did not know what procedure was

used, which suggests the cattle were purchased with the tail already docked.

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

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

procedure most commonly used to dock tails:

Procedure 

Percent 

Operations

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

TailDocked 

Cows* 

Standard 

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 

*Number of cows with the tail docked as a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS 

Initial Visit interview. 

Percent Tail-Docked 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. 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

88 / Dairy 2007

For operations with tail-docked cows, 61.0 percent of operations

(accounting for 38.0 percent of tail-docked cows) performed tail-docking on the

majority of animals when they were at least 2 years old. The tail was docked on

almost 3 of 10 cows (28.1 percent) at 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 old (10.5 percent).

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

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

the majority of cattle when the tail was docked:

Age 

Percent 

Operations

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

TailDocked 

Cows* 

Standard 

Error 

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

2 months 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 

*Number of cows with the tail docked as a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS 

Initial Visit interview. 

The majority of operations (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 tail-docked cows.

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

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

use of analgesia or anesthesia:

Analgesia or 

Anesthesia Use 

Percent 

Operations

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Tail-Docked 

Cows* 

Standard 

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 

*Number of cows with the tail docked as a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS 

Initial Visit interview. 
USDA APHIS VS / 89

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

4. Castration

Castration is considered necessary in the management of cattle. As with other

surgical procedures of cattle, castration should be done at the youngest age

possible. In the European Union, it is illegal to castrate calves over 6 months of

age without using a local anesthetic. The AVMA recommends the preoperative

use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and the administration of local

anesthetics to minimize pain associated with castration.

About two-fifths of operations (40.5 percent) routinely castrated bull calves on

the operation during the previous 12 months. Because many dairy operations do

not keep bull calves for more than a day or two, it is likely that many operations

do not have bull calves long enough to castrate them. A higher percentage of

small operations (45.7 percent) routinely castrated bull calves compared with

large operations (16.9 percent).

a. Percentage of operations that routinely castrated bull 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 

45.7 (3.9) 32.0 (4.1) 16.9 (4.1) 40.5 (2.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Surgical Procedures

90 / Dairy 2007

Bands were used most commonly to castrate calves on 60.8 percent of

operations, with 26.9 percent of operations using a knife and 12.2 percent using

a burdizzo most commonly. Calves were castrated at an operation average age

of 8.9 weeks, and 3.2 percent of operations that castrated calves routinely used

analgesics or anesthesia.

b. For the 40.5 percent of operations that routinely castrated bull calves during

the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by method most commonly

used to castrate bull calves:

Method Percent Operations Standard Error 

Burdizzo 12.2 (3.2) 

Knife 26.9 (4.6) 

Band 60.8 (4.9) 

Other 0.1 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 

c. For the 40.5 percent of operations that routinely castrated bull calves during

the previous 12 months, operation average age of calves at castration:

Operation Average Age (Weeks) Standard Error 

8.9 (0.6) 

d. For the 40.5 percent of operations that routinely castrated bull calves during

the previous 12 months, percentage of operations that routinely used analgesics

or anesthesia for castration:

Percent Operations Standard Error 

3.2 (1.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 91

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

D. Hoof Health 1. Lameness

Lameness in dairy cattle can result from many causes, including infectious

agents, such as Fusobacterium necrophorus and Bacteroides melaninogenicus,

which cause foot rot; digital dermatitis (hairy heel warts), which is most likely

caused by spirochetes; excessive intake of rapidly fermentable carbohydrates,

leading to rumen acidosis and subsequent laminitis; and trauma. Lameness was

the second leading health problem in dairy cows, affecting 14.0 percent of cows

in 2006 (reported on p 84 of Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States, 2007).

Note: For the purposes of this report, an animal could have had more than

one case of lameness (gait abnormality) if the animal recovered and

became lame again during the previous 12 months.

Approximately 1 of 10 bred heifers (11.4 percent) and 1 of 4 cows (23.9 percent)

were lame at least once during the previous 12 months. There were no herd-size

differences in the operation average percent of bred heifers that were lame, but

medium operations had a higher percentage of cows with lameness

(30.8 percent) than small operations (21.1 percent).

a. Operation average percentage of lameness cases by cattle class during the

previous 12 months, and by herd size:

Operation Average Percent Lameness Cases 

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 

Bred Heifers1 12.4 (3.5) 8.3 (1.2) 12.1 (2.8) 11.4 (2.5) 

Cows2 21.1 (1.4) 30.8 (3.1) 28.4 (2.9) 23.9 (1.3) 

1

Number of cases as a percentage of dairy cow replacements entering the milking herd in 2006. 

2

Number of cases as a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS Initial Visit interview.
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

92 / Dairy 2007

Lameness is much more common in cows than in heifers. While 3.6 percent of

operations had no cases of lameness in cows, 41.3 percent of operations had no

cases of lameness in heifers. Fewer than 1 of 20 operations (2.8 percent) had

lameness cases in 50.0 percent or more bred heifers, while 12.0 percent of

operations had lameness cases in 50.0 percent or more cows.

b. Percentage of operations by percentage of lameness cases occurring by cattle

class on the operation during the previous 12 months:

Percent Operations 

Cattle Class 

Bred Heifers Cows 

Percent Lameness 

Cases in Bred 

Heifers1 or Cows2

 Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

0 41.3 (3.1) 3.6 (1.1) 

0.1 to 24.9 49.6 (3.0) 63.9 (2.7) 

25.0 to 49.9 6.3 (1.7) 20.5 (2.3) 

50.0 or more 2.8 (1.0) 12.0 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

1

Number of cases as a percentage of dairy cow replacements entering the milking herd in 2006. 

2

Number of cases as a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS Initial Visit interview.
USDA APHIS VS / 93

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

About 3 of 10 operations (28.7 percent) had at least 1 case of digital dermatitis in

bred heifers while 70.2 percent of operations had at least 1 case in cows. A lower

percentage of small operations had any digital dermatitis in bred heifers

compared with medium and large operations. A higher percentage of large

operations (95.0 percent) had any digital dermatitis in cows compared with

medium and small operations (79.1 and 64.9 percent, respectively).

c. Percentage of operations with at least one case of digital dermatitis (hairy heel

warts) in bred heifers or cows in the previous 12 months, and by herd size:

Digital dermatitis caused 61.8 percent of lameness cases in bred heifers and

49.1 percent of lameness cases in cows during the previous 12 months.

d. Percentage of cases of lameness due to digital dermatitis (hairy heel warts) in

bred heifers and cows during the previous 12 months:

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 

Bred heifers 22.4 (3.2) 40.3 (4.6) 57.4 (6.7) 28.7 (2.6) 

Cows 64.9 (3.9) 79.1 (3.8) 95.0 (2.4) 70.2 (2.9) 

Percent Cases 

Bred Heifers1 Cows2

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

61.8 (5.5) 49.1 (2.8) 

1

Number of cases as a percentage of dairy cow replacements entering the milking herd in 2006. 

2

Number of cases as a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS Initial Visit interview.
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

94 / Dairy 2007

2. Footbath use

Footbaths are used to medicate the feet of cattle and aid in preventing lameness.

The majority of operations (61.1 percent) used no footbaths during the previous

12 months. Of the 38.9 percent of operations that used footbaths, 20.3 percent

of operations used a footbath throughout the year. Use of a footbath throughout

the year increased as operation size increased, from 5.2 percent of small

operations to 46.3 percent of medium operations and 80.8 percent of large

operations. Conversely, the percentage of operations that did not use a footbath

decreased as operation size increased, from 77.0 percent of small operations to

11.1 percent of large operations.

a. Percentage of operations by use of a footbath for cows during the previous

12 months, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Footbath 

Use Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Throughout 

year 5.2 (1.5) 46.3 (4.2) 80.8 (5.1) 20.3 (1.7) 

Seasonally/ 

occasionally 12.9 (2.5) 18.6 (3.7) 5.5 (2.4) 13.8 (1.9) 

Other 4.9 (2.1) 4.8 (2.1) 2.6 (2.2) 4.8 (1.5) 

Not used 77.0 (3.3) 30.3 (3.9) 11.1 (4.2) 61.1 (2.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 95

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

96 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region than in the East region

(49.7 and 17.4 percent, respectively) used a footbath throughout the year. A

higher percentage of operations in the East region used footbaths occasionally or

not at all (14.9 and 62.8 percent, respectively) compared with the West region

(3.1 and 43.4 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by use of a footbath for cows during the previous

12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Footbath Use Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Throughout year 49.7 (5.2) 17.4 (1.8) 

Seasonally/ 

occasionally 3.1 (1.4) 14.9 (2.1) 

Other 3.8 (2.1) 4.9 (1.7) 

Not used 43.4 (5.0) 62.8 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Photo courtesy of “Dairy Herd Management”/ “Bovine Veterinarian”
USDA APHIS VS / 97

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

For operations that used footbaths, almost 8 of 10 cows (78.0 percent) were on

operations that used footbaths throughout the year. Of cows on medium and

large operations, the majority were on operations that used a footbath throughout

the year (73.2 and 87.0 percent of cows, respectively). Almost 6 of 10 cows

(57.0 percent) on small operations were on operations that used a footbath

seasonally or occasionally.

c. For the 38.9 percent of operations that used footbaths during the previous

12 months, percentage of cows on those operations by footbath use, and by

herd size:

Percent Cows* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Footbath Use Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Throughout 

year 29.1 (7.3) 73.2 (4.5) 87.0 (7.1) 78.0 (4.5) 

Seasonally/ 

occasionally 57.0 (8.8) 21.5 (4.3) 10.6 (6.9) 17.7 (4.3) 

Other 13.9 (5.9) 5.3 (2.3) 2.4 (2.2) 4.3 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS Initial Visit interview.
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

98 / Dairy 2007

For operations that used footbaths, the majority (66.6 percent) used copper

sulfate most commonly as the footbath medication; these operations accounted

for the majority of cows (63.6 percent). Footbath medications specified for the

“Other” category, which represented 11.6 percent of operations and 18.0 percent

of cows, were primarily a combination of the medications listed in the table.

d. For the 38.9 percent of operations that used footbaths during the previous

12 months, percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on those

operations) by the footbath medication used most commonly:

Footbath Medication 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows* 

Standard 

Error 

Copper sulfate 66.6 (3.9) 63.6 (4.7) 

Formalin/formaldehyde 10.9 (2.0) 16.4 (3.4) 

Oxytetracycline 10.9 (3.3) 2.0 (0.6) 

Hydrogen peroxide 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Other 11.6 (2.3) 18.0 (4.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

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

3. Hoof trimming

Routine hoof trimming is important in identifying hoof disorders and maintaining

proper hoof health. More than 80 percent of operations performed at least some

hoof trimming, with a higher percentage of large operations and medium

operations (99.4 and 95.6 percent, respectively) performing some trimming than

small operations (79.4 percent).

a. Percentage of operations that trimmed any hooves 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 

79.4 (3.4) 95.6 (1.7) 99.4 (0.6) 84.8 (2.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 99

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

More than one-third of operations (38.2 percent) trimmed the hooves of all cows

during the previous 12 months, while 15.2 percent of operations did not perform

any hoof trimming.

b. Percentage of operations by percentage of cows that had their hooves

trimmed at least once during the previous 12 months:

Percent Cows Percent Operations Standard Error 

0 15.2 (2.4) 

0.1 to 33.9 18.3 (2.4) 

34.0 to 66.9 10.2 (1.7) 

67.0 to 99.9 18.1 (2.2) 

100.0 38.2 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

100 / Dairy 2007

About three-fourths of operations (76.7 percent) used a professional hoof

trimmer to do the majority of trimming. The owner or the operation’s personnel

performed the hoof trimming on 17.2 percent of operations.

c. For the 84.8 percent of operations that had cows’ hooves trimmed during the

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

majority of the hooves, 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 

Professional hoof 

trimmer (not the 

operation’s 

personnel) 72.3 (4.0) 85.9 (3.1) 80.3 (4.7) 76.7 (2.8) 

Veterinarian (not 

the operation’s 

personnel) 8.2 (2.7) 0.5 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 5.5 (1.8) 

Owner or the 

operation’s 

personnel 19.0 (3.5) 12.9 (3.1) 18.3 (4.6) 17.2 (2.4) 

Other 0.5 (0.5) 0.7 (0.6) 1.2 (1.1) 0.6 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

The majority of cows (80.1 percent) were on operations where cows’ hooves

were trimmed by a professional hoof trimmer during the previous 12 months.

Almost 2 of 10 cows (17.6 percent) were on operations where the owner or the

operation’s personnel trimmed the majority of hooves. Veterinarians trimmed the

hooves on 5.7 percent of cows on small operations compared with less than

1 percent of cows on medium or large operations.
USDA APHIS VS / 101

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

d. For the 84.8 percent of operations that had cows’ hooves trimmed during the

previous 12 months, percentage of cows on those operations by the person who

trimmed the majority of the hooves, and by herd size:

Percent Cows* 

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 

Professional hoof 

trimmer (not the 

operation’s 

personnel) 74.7 (3.8) 85.2 (3.1) 79.3 (5.8) 80.1 (3.2) 

Veterinarian (not 

the operation’s 

personnel) 5.7 (2.0) 0.5 (0.4) 0.2 (0.2) 1.4 (0.4) 

Owner or the 

operation’s 

personnel 19.1 (3.4) 13.2 (3.1) 19.6 (5.8) 17.6 (3.1) 

Other 0.5 (0.5) 1.1 (1.1) 0.9 (0.9) 0.9 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS Initial Visit interview.
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Hoof Health

102 / Dairy 2007

Professional hoof trimmers made an average of 7.1 visits during the previous

12 months to operations to trim hooves or evaluate lame cows, while

veterinarians made 1.1 visits. The number of visits made by professional hoof

trimmers increased from 2.0 visits for small operations to 9.0 for medium and

44.5 visits for large operations.

e. For the 82.2 percent of operations visited by a professional hoof trimmer or

veterinarian to trim hooves (as part of a routine trimming program) or to evaluate

lame cows, operation average number of visits during the previous 12 months,

and by herd size:

Operation Average Number Visits 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Professional Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Hoof trimmer 2.0 (0.2) 9.0 (0.5) 44.5 (4.0) 7.1 (0.5) 

Veterinarian 1.3 (0.3) 0.7 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 1.1 (0.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 103

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Hemorrhagic Bowel Syndrome

E. Hemorrhagic

Bowel Syndrome

1. Signs

Hemorrhagic bowel syndrome (HBS) is a fatal intestinal disease of milking cows

and is characterized by sudden onset of bloody feces, with or without intestinal

obstruction. Sudden death without prior signs is common. Both medical and

surgical treatments have been relatively unsuccessful. A bloody bowel

accompanied by a blood clot that obstructs the intestine may be observed at

necropsy.

Results of the Dairy 2002 study suggest that management practices

implemented to achieve high milk production, such as increased consumption of

a high energy diet, might increase the risk of cattle developing HBS.

Overall, one-fifth of operations (19.7 percent) had at least one cow with signs of

HBS on the operation during the previous 5 years. The percentage of operations

that had at least one apparent HBS case increased with herd size, from

12.8 percent of small operations to 48.4 percent of large operations. In the West

region, 33.2 percent of operations had at least one cow with signs of HBS during

the previous 5 years, compared with 18.5 percent of operations in the East

region.

a. Percentage of operations that had at least one cow with signs consistent with

HBS on the operation during the previous 5 years, 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 

12.8 (2.6) 31.7 (4.1) 48.4 (6.2) 19.7 (2.1) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Hemorrhagic Bowel Syndrome

104 / Dairy 2007

b. Percentage of operations that had at least one cow with signs consistent with

HBS on the operation during the previous 5 years, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

33.2 (5.1) 18.5 (2.3) 

For 19.3 percent of operations that had observed a cow with HBS signs during

the previous 5 years, the first case occurred prior to 2000.

c. For the 19.7 percent of operations that had at least one cow with signs

consistent with HBS during the previous 5 years, percentage of operations by

year first suspected case of HBS occurred:

Year Percent Operations Standard Error 

1999 or before 19.3 (5.7) 

2000-01 13.9 (3.8) 

2002-03 25.6 (5.0) 

2004-05 22.0 (5.3) 

2006-07* 19.2 (4.7) 

Total 100.0 

*Through day of VS Second Visit interview. 
USDA APHIS VS / 105

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Hemorrhagic Bowel Syndrome

For operations that had at least one cow with clinical signs consistent with HBS,

less than 1 percent of cows (0.8 percent) had clinical signs during the previous

12 months, with no differences by herd size. The percentage of cows with signs

consistent with HBS on all operations was 0.3 percent or less, depending on

herd size.

d. For the 19.7 percent of operations that had at least one cow with signs

consistent with HBS during the previous 5 years and for all operations, operation

average percentage of cows that had signs of HBS during the previous

12 months, and by herd size:

Operation Average Percent Cows* 

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 

with HBS 0.9 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 0.5 (0.1) 0.8 (0.2) 

All Operations 0.1 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.0) 0.2 (0.0) 

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

There were no regional differences in the operation average percentage of cows

displaying clinical signs consistent with HBS.

e. For the 19.7 percent of operations that had at least one cow with signs

consistent with HBS during the previous 5 years, operation average percentage

of cows that had signs of HBS during the previous 12 months, by region:

Operation Average Percent Cows* 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

0.4 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2) 

*As a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS Initial Visit interview.
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Hemorrhagic Bowel Syndrome

106 / Dairy 2007

2. Preventive measures

Almost one-third of operations that had cows with signs consistent with HBS

during the previous 5 years (31.1 percent) had implemented preventive

measures during that time specifically to reduce or eliminate HBS. There were

no differences in the implementation of preventive measures by herd size or

region.

a. For the 19.7 percent of operations that had at least one cow with signs of HBS

during the previous 5 years, percentage of operations that implemented

preventive measures during that time specifically to reduce or eliminate HBS,

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 

23.5 (8.5) 34.0 (6.6) 45.7 (7.9) 31.1 (4.9) 

Even though the cause of HBS is unknown, multiple preventive measures are

recommended based on current knowledge. With the exception of vaccination

with an autogenous Clostridium type A vaccine, all other preventive measures

listed were implemented by about 40 to 50 percent of operations that

implemented some type of measure.

b. For the 31.1 percent of operations that implemented preventive measures for

HBS within the previous 5 years, percentage of operations by measure used

specifically to reduce or eliminate HBS:

Preventive Measure Percent Operations Standard Error 

Vaccination with a commercial 

Clostridium type A vaccine 43.8 (8.0) 

Vaccination with an autogenous 

Clostridium type A vaccine 13.5 (5.3) 

Vaccination with a 7-way 

clostridial vaccine 50.5 (8.2) 

Incorporated a feed additive 

(e.g., Omnigen AF®) 41.7 (8.0) 

Changed feed 

ingredients/composition of ration 50.4 (8.4) 

Changed forage management 

(chop size, source, etc.) 40.7 (8.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 107

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Hemorrhagic Bowel Syndrome

Of the operations that implemented preventive measures specifically to reduce

or eliminate HBS, 60.1 percent perceived a great reduction (75 to 100 percent

decrease) in HBS cases. An additional 20.1 percent of operations believed they

had moderate reduction (50 to 74 percent decrease) in HBS cases, while

3.1 percent of operations experienced no reduction in HBS cases.

c. For the 31.1 percent of operations that implemented preventive measures for

HBS within the previous 5 years, percentage of operations by perceived benefit

from using the measures:

Perceived Benefit Percent Operations Standard Error 

Great reduction in HBS 

cases (75-100 percent) 60.1 (8.1) 

Moderate reduction in HBS 

cases (50-74 percent) 20.1 (6.7) 

Reduction in HBS cases 

(25-49 percent) 11.6 (4.5) 

Slight reduction in HBS 

cases (1-24 percent) 5.1 (2.5) 

No reduction in HBS cases 3.1 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

108 / Dairy 2007

F. Treatment Practices 1. General

Injections for dairy cows can be administered for a variety of reasons, including

preventive measures, such as vaccination; treatment of disease (e.g., antibiotic

injections); manipulation of the estrous cycle for improvements in breeding; and

production enhancement using bovine somatotropin (bST).

Producers were asked to report the number of injections of any kind a dairy cow

typically received during the previous 12 months. For all operations, the

operation average number of injections typically received by a cow was 13.8, or

an average of slightly more than 1 injection per month. The number of injections

per cow increased as herd size increased, with cows on small operations

receiving 6.4 injections and cows on large operations receiving 17.3 injections.

a. Operation average number of injections per cow during the previous

12 months, and by herd size:

Operation Average Number Injections 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

No. 

Std. 

Error No. 

Std. 

Error No. 

Std. 

Error No. 

Std. 

Error 

6.4 (0.7) 14.4 (1.0) 17.3 (1.6) 13.8 (0.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 109

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Number of 

Injections Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 5 63.0 (3.9) 27.0 (4.1) 15.0 (4.7) 51.0 (2.9) 

5 to 9 23.2 (3.5) 22.2 (3.5) 18.7 (4.8) 22.6 (2.6) 

10 to 24 9.5 (2.2) 27.7 (4.0) 40.5 (6.4) 16.0 (1.9) 

25 to 49 3.8 (1.3) 22.4 (3.7) 19.9 (4.3) 9.5 (1.4) 

50 or more 0.5 (0.5) 0.7 (0.5) 5.9 (3.2) 0.9 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

On about one-half of operations (51.0 percent), cows received fewer than five

injections during the previous 12 months. In general, the number of injections a

cow received increased with herd size; 63.0 percent of small operations gave

fewer than five injections, compared with 27.0 percent of medium operations and

15.0 percent of large operations. About two-fifths of large operations

(40.5 percent) gave 10 to 24 injections per cow during the previous 12 months,

compared with 9.5 percent of small operations.

b. Percentage of operations by number of injections a cow typically received

during the previous 12 months, and by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

110 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 111

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

A higher percentage of operations in the East region (52.7 percent) administered

fewer than five injections to cows during the previous 12 months, compared with

32.9 percent of operations in the West region.

c. Percentage of operations by number of injections a cow typically received

during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Number of 

Injections Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Fewer than 5 32.9 (5.6) 52.7 (3.2) 

5 to 9 28.4 (5.4) 22.1 (2.7) 

10 to 24 33.1 (5.5) 14.4 (2.0) 

25 to 49 4.0 (1.9) 9.9 (1.5) 

50 or more 1.6 (1.3) 0.9 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

112 / Dairy 2007

Overall, 80.1 percent of cows were on operations that typically gave cows fewer

than 25 injections during the previous 12 months, with 26.2 percent receiving

fewer than 5 injections, 24.7 percent receiving 5 to 9 injections, and 29.2 percent

receiving 10 to 24 injections. For small operations, the majority of cows were on

operations on which cows typically received fewer than five injections

(60.8 percent), compared with 21.0 percent of cows on medium operations and

11.7 percent of cows on large operations. In contrast, a higher percentage of

cows on medium operations and on large operations (55.0 and 62.6 percent,

respectively) typically received 10 or more injections than cows on small

operations (15.4 percent).

d. Percentage of cows on operations by number of injections a cow typically

received during the previous 12 months, and by herd size:

Percent Cows* 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Number of 

Injections Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 5 60.8 (3.9) 21.0 (3.4) 11.7 (4.3) 26.2 (2.7) 

5 to 9 23.8 (3.5) 24.0 (3.7) 25.7 (7.5) 24.7 (3.8) 

10 to 24 9.9 (2.2) 30.9 (4.3) 38.0 (7.1) 29.2 (3.6) 

25 to 49 5.0 (1.7) 23.4 (3.7) 19.5 (4.5) 17.2 (2.4) 

50 or more 0.5 (0.5) 0.7 (0.4) 5.1 (2.6) 2.7 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*As a percentage of cows on the operation at the time of VS Initial Visit interview.
USDA APHIS VS / 113

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

Almost 9 of 10 injections (89.1 percent) given to dairy cows were administered by

farm personnel, with no differences observed by herd size.

e. Operation average percentage of injections administered by farm personnel,

and by herd size:

Operation Average Percent Injections 

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 

87.8 (1.9) 91.7 (1.7) 92.8 (1.9) 89.1 (1.4) 

Photo courtesy of “Dairy Herd Management”/ “Bovine Veterinarian”
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

114 / Dairy 2007

2. Injection route, purpose, and location

Note: The average number of injections a cow typically received for each

operation was applied to every cow on that operation to calculate the

number of injections by route, purpose, and location of administration.

There are three primary injection routes: intramuscular (IM), subcutaneous (SQ),

and intravenous (IV). The selection and use of appropriate injection route and

body location (or site) are important to both product efficacy and carcass quality

at slaughter. In the 1990s, the National Cattlemen’s Association (now the

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, or NCBA) began conductin the Non-Fed

Beef/Market Cow and Bull Quality Audits. Designed in part to evaluate the

incidence of injection-site lesions, the audits include dairy cattle, which represent

about 20 percent of all beef consumed in the United States. Injection-site lesions

in the muscle cuts of the upper hip (sirloins and rounds) have decreased

substantially since the first audits were conducted. In 2007, 11 percent of dairy

cows had injection-site lesions, compared with 49 percent from 1998 to 2000.

The 1999 audit estimated a loss of $1.46 per head due to trim loss associated

with injection-site lesions. Although injection-site lesions are not a food-safety

issue, the scar tissue affects meat quality. Scar tissue, which forms after IM

injections, toughens muscle tissue, producing a product that may be

unacceptable to consumers. Because muscle cuts of the upper hip (sirloins and

rounds) are frequently marketed as whole cuts, injection lesions may not be

noticed prior to retail sale. Producers are advised to follow Beef Quality

Assurance guidelines and administer products labeled for IM injection in front of

the shoulder—not in the hip or round.

Almost all operations (97.4 percent) administered IM injections during the

previous 12 months. SQ and IV injections were administered on 69.1 and

70.3 percent of operations, respectively. A higher percentage of medium

operations (84.6 percent) administered SQ injections compared with small

operations (63.3 percent).

a. Percentage of operations that administered intramuscular (IM), subcutaneous

(SQ), or intravenous (IV) injections, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Route Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Intramuscular 96.8 (1.1) 98.7 (0.8) 99.4 (0.6) 97.4 (0.8) 

Subcutaneous 63.3 (4.0) 84.6 (3.2) 71.6 (6.0) 69.1 (2.9) 

Intravenous 68.6 (3.8) 76.0 (3.6) 66.1 (6.3) 70.3 (2.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 115

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

About two-thirds of injections (68.7 percent) were administered IM, compared

with 23.9 percent administered SQ and 7.4 percent IV. There were no differences

in injection route by herd size.

b. Operation average percentage of injections by injection route, and by herd

size:

Operation Average Percent Injections 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Route Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Intramuscular 71.1 (2.3) 63.7 (2.5) 61.5 (4.0) 68.7 (1.7) 

Subcutaneous 20.9 (2.1) 30.3 (2.6) 32.6 (3.8) 23.9 (1.6) 

Intravenous 8.0 (1.1) 6.0 (0.8) 5.9 (1.0) 7.4 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

116 / Dairy 2007

Of IM injections administered on the operation, more than two-fifths

(41.3 percent) were given for vaccination, while reproductive and antibiotic

injections each accounted for about one-fourth of IM injections

(27.3 and 23.1 percent, respectively).

c. For the 97.4 percent of operations that administered IM injections, operation

average percentage of IM injections administered for the following purposes, and

by herd size:

Operation Average Percent IM Injections 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Purpose Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Antibiotic 24.7 (2.2) 18.9 (2.0) 22.3 (3.8) 23.1 (1.6) 

Production 

enhancement 

(e.g., bST) 3.1 (1.3) 8.9 (2.1) 5.6 (1.4) 4.7 (1.1) 

Reproduction 25.5 (2.1) 31.9 (2.8) 28.0 (2.4) 27.3 (1.6) 

Vaccination 42.9 (2.8) 36.5 (2.8) 43.8 (3.2) 41.3 (2.1) 

Other 3.8 (1.3) 3.8 (1.5) 0.3 (0.2) 3.6 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 117

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

The primary locations for IM injections were hind leg (45.3 percent) and neck

(34.2 percent). A higher percentage of IM injections were administered in the

neck on large operations (50.9 percent) compared with small or medium

operations (11.8 and 16.5 percent, respectively). Conversely, a lower percentage

of IM injections were administered in the hind leg on large operations

(37.1 percent) than small operations (65.5 percent).

d. For the 97.4 percent of operations that administered IM injections, percentage

of IM injections by location administered, and by herd size:

Percent IM Injections 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Location Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Neck 11.8 (2.9) 16.5 (3.4) 50.9 (6.3) 34.2 (4.0) 

Shoulder 3.3 (1.4) 3.0 (1.1) 1.3 (0.6) 2.1 (0.5) 

Upper hip 16.3 (3.5) 17.4 (3.2) 8.3 (2.0) 12.4 (1.7) 

Hind leg 65.5 (5.0) 50.2 (4.8) 37.1 (6.1) 45.3 (3.7) 

Other 3.1 (1.4) 12.9 (4.6) 2.4 (1.1) 6.0 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

118 / Dairy 2007

More than 4 of 10 production enhancement injections (41.4 percent) were given

in “Other” locations. The most common production enhancement injection, bST

(Posilac), is recommended to be given subcutaneously around the tailhead.

e. For the 97.4 percent of operations that administered IM injections, percentage

of IM injections by location administered, by purpose of injection:

Percent IM Injections 

Purpose 

 Antibiotics 

Production 

Enhancement Reproduction Vaccination Other 

Location Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Neck 41.6 (5.9) 20.5 (8.8) 28.3 (5.7) 47.5 (5.4) 5.3 (3.7) 

Shoulder 2.9 (1.1) 8.7 (3.4) 1.6 (0.6) 1.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.4) 

Upper hip 14.5 (2.6) 8.6 (3.1) 11.7 (2.2) 12.5 (2.0) 19.7 (15.4) 

Hind leg 39.9 (4.6) 20.8 (8.9) 58.1 (5.5) 37.6 (5.0) 73.3 (16.1) 

Other 1.1 (0.6) 41.4 (9.4) 0.3 (0.2) 1.0 (0.3) 1.4 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Almost all operations gave injections to heifers and cows (96.9 and 98.8 percent,

respectively). More than 9 of 10 operations gave IM injections to heifers and

cows (94.0 and 96.1 percent, respectively). Approximately 5 of 10 operations

(51.6 percent) administered IV injections to heifers while 65.9 percent of

operations administered IV injections to cows.

f. Percentage of operations that administered injections to heifers and cows

during the previous 12 months, by injection route:

Percent Operations 

Injection Route

Intramuscular Subcutaneous Intravenous Any 

Cattle Class Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

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

Cows 96.1 (1.0) 66.8 (3.0) 65.9 (2.9) 98.8 (0.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 119

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

Cattle-handling facilities present on an operation dictate where the majority of

animals are handled. This is reflected in the similarity of facility type used across

injection routes for both heifers and cows. To restrain heifers for IM injections,

most 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 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.

g. 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, by injection route:

Percent Operations 

Injection Route—Heifers 

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 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

120 / Dairy 2007

The majority of operations (59.0 percent) administered IM injections to cows in a

tie stall/stanchion, while 17.4 percent of operations used the parlor and

12.4 percent used lock-ups. Tie stall/stanchion also was the primary facility used

for administering SQ (52.4 percent of operations) or IV injections (64.0 percent

of operations) to cows.

h. For the 98.8 percent of operations that administered IM, SQ, and/or IV

injections to cows, percentage of operations by type of cattle-handling facility

primarily used, by injection route:

Percent Operations 

Injection Route—Cows 

Intramuscular Subcutaneous Intravenous 

Cattle-handling 

Facility Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/stanchion 59.0 (2.7) 52.4 (3.3) 64.0 (3.1) 

Lock-up 12.4 (1.4) 17.0 (2.1) 11.5 (1.8) 

Chute/head gate 5.3 (1.2) 7.6 (1.6) 11.9 (1.7) 

Loose in freestall 4.1 (1.3) 2.7 (1.5) 4.7 (1.5) 

Palpation rail 1.6 (0.5) 1.6 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 

Parlor 17.4 (1.8) 18.5 (2.3) 5.0 (1.4) 

Other 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 2.4 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Using a new needle for each cow can decrease disease transmission and also

reduce potential injury to the cow by minimizing the possibility of broken needles.

About one of seven operations (13.6 percent) used a new needle for every

injection during the previous 12 months; these operations represented

9.8 percent of all cows. The majority of operations (50.1 percent), representing

50.2 percent of cows, used each needle to give 2 to 10 injections. Approximately

one-fourth of operations (27.3 percent), which represented 25.2 percent of cows,

used each needle to give 11 to 20 injections. Although less than 4 percent of

operations used needles for more than 30 injections, these operations

represented 8.1 percent of cows, suggesting that this practice is more common

on larger operations.
USDA APHIS VS / 121

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

Number Injections 

per Needle 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows*

Standard 

Error 

New needle for every 

injection 13.6 (2.2) 9.8 (1.6) 

2 to 10 50.1 (3.0) 50.2 (4.0) 

11 to 20 27.3 (2.8) 25.2 (3.2) 

21 to 30 5.1 (1.1) 6.7 (1.9) 

More than 30 3.9 (1.0) 8.1 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*

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

i. For the 98.8 percent of operations that administered IM, SQ, and/or IV

injections to cows, percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on those

operations) by number of injections administered per needle by farm personnel

during the previous 12 months:
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Treatment Practices

122 / Dairy 2007

3. Record keeping

Keeping a record of each treatment a cow receives is important to make sure

that the appropriate length of therapy and withdrawal are followed. Overall, about

three-fifths of operations (58.2 percent) reported keeping a written or

computerized record for each cow that received a treatment requiring a

withdrawal time. A higher percentage of large operations (94.4 percent) than

small operations (51.7 percent) and medium operations (67.4 percent) reported

keeping a written or computerized record of each treatment.

Percentage of operations that kept a written or computerized record for each cow

that received a treatment requiring a withdrawal time before the cow could be

sent to market, 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 

51.7 (4.0) 67.4 (4.2) 94.4 (2.4) 58.2 (3.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 123

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

G. Nutrient

Management

1. Housing facilities

Nutrient management systems are usually dependent on the type and design of

cattle housing, land costs, ambient temperatures, precipitation amounts, and

nutrient use. In general, the West region is more arid than the East region, with

the East region having more cold weather and precipitation during the winter

months.

Of the 92.3 percent of operations that housed weaned heifers, about one-third

housed the heifers primarily in a multiple-animal inside area (34.6 percent), while

one-fourth housed weaned heifers in a drylot/multiple-animal outside area

(22.9 percent). A majority of small operations primarily housed weaned heifers in

drylots/multiple-animal outside and multiple-animal inside areas

(22.3 and 37.8 percent, respectively). More than 4 of 10 large operations

primarily housed weaned heifers in a drylot/multiple-animal outside area

(43.2 percent). The percentage of operations that did not house weaned heifers

increased as herd size increased, with almost one-fourth of large operations not

housing weaned heifers (24.8 percent).

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

weaned heifers during 2006, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Primary 

Housing 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/ 

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

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

Individual pen/ 

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

Drylot/multipleanimal outside 

area 22.3 (1.4) 19.8 (1.8) 43.2 (2.7) 22.9 (1.1) 

Multipleanimal inside 

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

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

Not housed 

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

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

124 / Dairy 2007

Almost one-half of operations in the West region (46.2 percent) housed weaned

heifers primarily in a drylot/multiple-animal outside area. Approximately

1 of 8 operations in the West housed weaned heifers in freestalls (12.7 percent),

multiple-animal inside area (12.1 percent), or pasture (12.7 percent) or did not

house weaned heifers on the operation (12.1 percent). About one-third of

operations in the East region (36.4 percent) housed weaned heifers primarily in a

multiple-animal inside area, while 20.9 percent of operations housed weaned

heifers in a multiple-animal outside area.

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

weaned heifers during 2006, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Primary 

Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

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

Freestall 12.7 (2.0) 12.1 (0.9) 

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

Drylot/multiple-animal 

outside area 46.2 (2.9) 20.9 (1.2) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 12.1 (1.9) 36.4 (1.5) 

Pasture 12.7 (2.3) 10.7 (0.9) 

Not housed 

on operation 12.1 (1.9) 7.3 (0.7) 

Other 0.5 (0.3) 0.7 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 125

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Almost one-half of operations (49.2 percent) housed lactating cows primarily in a

tie stall/stanchion facility. About 1 of 3 operations (32.6 percent) housed cows in

freestalls. The use of tie stall/stanchion facilities decreased from 63.0 percent for

small operations to 0.7 percent for large operations. Alternatively, a higher

percentage of medium and large operations housed lactating cows in freestalls

(67.5 and 72.6 percent, respectively) compared with small operations

(19.0 percent). Almost one-fourth of large operations housed lactating cows

primarily in drylots/multiple-animal outside areas (24.2 percent).

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

lactating cows during 2006, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Primary 

Housing 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Tie stall/ 

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

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

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

Drylot/multipleanimal outside 

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

Multipleanimal inside 

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

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

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

126 / Dairy 2007

Almost one-half of operations in the West region housed lactating cows primarily

in freestall housing (49.7 percent), while 29.8 percent of operations housed cows

in drylot/multiple-animal outside areas and 15.0 percent housed cows on

pasture. The majority of operations in the East region housed lactating cows

primarily in tie stall/stanchions (53.1 percent). A lower percentage of operations

in the East region housed cows in freestalls (31.2 percent) compared with the

West region. Pasture was the primary housing type for lactating cows on about

1 of 10 operations in the East region (9.4 percent).

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

lactating cows during 2006, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Primary Housing Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

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

Freestall 49.7 (2.9) 31.2 (1.1) 

Individual pen 0.8 (0.5) 0.1 (0.0) 

Drylot/multiple-animal 

outside area 29.8 (2.6) 2.6 (0.5) 

Multiple-animal 

inside area 2.6 (0.9) 3.4 (0.6) 

Pasture 15.0 (2.7) 9.4 (0.9) 

Other 0.8 (0.5) 0.2 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 127

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

2. Manure-handling methods

The method used to handle the majority of manure in weaned-heifer housing

areas varied among operations. About one-fourth of operations (23.5 percent)

used an alley scraper to handle the majority of manure, while 22.6 percent of

operations used bedded pack (manure pack), 17.5 percent scraped the drylot,

15.4 percent left manure on pasture, and 14.6 percent used a gutter cleaner. A

higher percentage of small and medium operations than large operations left

manure from weaned-heifer housing areas on pasture or used a bedded pack.

Compared with medium and small operations, a higher percentage of large

operations scraped drylots. More than 1 of 10 large operations flushed the alley

with recycled water (10.6 percent), which was higher than the percentage of

small operations (0.0 percent). Alley scrapers were used on a higher percentage

of medium operations (40.1 percent) compared with small operations

(17.1 percent).

a. For the 92.3 percent of operations that housed weaned heifers, percentage of

operations by method used to handle the majority of manure in weaned-heifer

housing areas, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Handling 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Manure left 

on pasture 17.4 (2.8) 12.6 (3.0) 3.1 (1.7) 15.4 (2.1) 

Drylot scraped 17.0 (3.1) 12.7 (2.9) 41.0 (6.3) 17.5 (2.3) 

Gutter cleaner 19.3 (3.4) 4.4 (2.4) 0.0 (--) 14.6 (2.5) 

Alley scraper 

(mechanical 

or tractor) 17.1 (3.1) 40.1 (4.6) 33.3 (6.4) 23.5 (2.5) 

Alley flush with 

fresh water 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Alley flush with 

recycled water 0.0 (--) 1.2 (0.8) 10.6 (4.1) 0.9 (0.3) 

Slotted floor 1.1 (0.7) 2.8 (1.5) 0.9 (0.7) 1.5 (0.6) 

Bedded pack 

(manure pack) 23.0 (3.4) 25.4 (4.0) 7.2 (2.8) 22.6 (2.6) 

Manure 

vacuum 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (0.0) 

Other 5.1 (2.0) 0.7 (0.7) 3.9 (2.2) 4.0 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

128 / Dairy 2007

Because the West region has a higher percentage of large herds than the East

region, differences in manure-handling methods in weaned-heifer housing areas

by region were similar to differences by herd size. Almost one-half of operations

in the West region (46.3 percent) scraped drylots, compared with 14.6 percent of

operations in the East region. A similar percentage of operations in both regions

used an alley scraper for handling the majority of manure—26.0 percent in the

West region and 23.3 percent in the East region. About 1 in 10 operations in the

West region (9.2 percent) flushed alleys with recycled water. A higher percentage

of operations in the East region than in the West region used gutter cleaners or

bedded packs.

b. For the 92.3 percent of operations that housed weaned heifers, percentage of

operations by method used to handle the majority of manure in weaned-heifer

housing areas, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Handling Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Manure left on pasture 11.1 (3.1) 15.8 (2.3) 

Drylot scraped 46.3 (5.5) 14.6 (2.5) 

Gutter cleaner 0.0 (--) 16.0 (2.7) 

Alley scraper 

(mechanical or tractor) 26.0 (5.2) 23.3 (2.7) 

Alley flush with 

fresh water 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Alley flush with 

recycled water 9.2 (3.3) 0.1 (0.1) 

Slotted floor 0.0 (--) 1.7 (0.7) 

Bedded pack 

(manure pack) 5.5 (2.6) 24.3 (2.8) 

Manure vacuum 0.0 (--) 0.0 (0.0) 

Other 1.9 (1.5) 4.2 (1.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 129

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Almost one-third of operations that housed weaned heifers primarily in a

freestall/multiple-animal inside area (31.8 percent) used an alley scraper to

handle the majority of manure in weaned-heifer housing areas. Bedded packs

were used by 22.7 percent of operations that housed heifers primarily in freestall/

multiple-animal inside areas. For operations that housed weaned heifers in a

drylot/multiple-animal outside area, 33.8 percent scraped the drylot and

30.7 percent used a bedded pack to handle the majority of manure. Of

operations that used pasture as the primary housing type for weaned heifers,

54.4 percent of operations left the majority of manure on the pasture and

19.5 percent used a bedded pack for the manure.

c. For the 92.3 percent of operations that housed weaned heifers, percentage of

operations by method used to handle the majority of manure in weaned-heifer

housing areas, by primary housing type for weaned heifers:

Percent Operations 

Primary Housing Type 

Freestall/ 

Multiple-animal 

Inside Area 

Drylot/ 

Multiple-animal 

Outside Area Pasture 

Handling Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Manure left 

on pasture 10.5 (2.5) 14.2 (4.0) 54.4 (10.3) 

Drylot scraped 14.0 (3.1) 33.8 (6.1) 3.6 (1.7) 

Gutter cleaner 12.9 (3.3) 5.6 (2.5) 11.5 (9.4) 

Alley scraper 

(mechanical 

or tractor) 31.8 (4.1) 13.0 (4.0) 9.0 (5.1) 

Alley flush with 

fresh water 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Alley flush with 

recycled water 0.6 (0.4) 2.1 (1.1) 0.0 (--) 

Slotted floor 3.1 (1.3) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Bedded pack 

(manure pack) 22.7 (3.6) 30.7 (5.8) 19.5 (8.6) 

Manure vacuum 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Other 4.3 (2.1) 0.6 (0.5) 2.0 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

130 / Dairy 2007

In areas used to house cows, more than two-fifths of operations (42.8 percent)

used a gutter cleaner to handle the majority of manure, while 30.1 percent used

an alley scraper. A higher percentage of small operations (58.5 percent) used a

gutter cleaner to handle the majority of manure in cow housing areas, compared

with 11.1 percent of medium operations and 0.0 percent of large operations.

Because gutter cleaners are the primary manure-handling method for tie stall/

stanchion facilities, their increased use on small operations was expected (see

table 1c on p 125). The majority of medium operations (64.1 percent) used an

alley scraper to handle the majority of manure in cow housing areas. About 3 of

10 large operations used an alley scraper (33.5 percent), scraped drylots

(30.1 percent), or flushed alleys with recycled water (27.4 percent).

d. Percentage of operations by method used to handle the majority of manure in

cow housing areas, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Handling 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Manure left 

on pasture 6.0 (1.7) 6.2 (2.2) 0.6 (0.6) 5.7 (1.3) 

Drylot scraped 8.7 (2.0) 8.7 (2.0) 30.1 (5.8) 10.1 (1.5) 

Gutter cleaner 58.5 (3.9) 11.1 (3.3) 0.0 (--) 42.8 (3.0) 

Alley scraper 

(mechanical 

or tractor) 17.2 (2.8) 64.1 (4.3) 33.5 (4.6) 30.1 (2.4) 

Alley flush with 

fresh water 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.4) 1.4 (1.3) 0.2 (0.1) 

Alley flush with 

recycled water 0.0 (--) 2.9 (1.3) 27.4 (5.7) 2.5 (0.5) 

Slotted floor 1.6 (0.9) 1.4 (1.0) 0.5 (0.2) 1.4 (0.6) 

Bedded pack 

(manure pack) 3.4 (1.6) 3.4 (1.5) 0.0 (--) 3.2 (1.2) 

Manure 

vacuum 2.5 (1.6) 0.3 (0.2) 1.5 (1.3) 1.9 (1.1) 

Other 2.1 (1.1) 1.4 (1.1) 5.0 (2.6) 2.1 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 131

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

132 / Dairy 2007

The highest percentages of operations in the West region scraped drylots

(38.2 percent), used an alley scraper (23.4 percent), or flushed alleys with

recycled water (21.0 percent) to handle the majority of manure in cow housing

areas. In the East region, gutter cleaners (47.0 percent of operations) and alley

scrapers (30.7 percent) were the primary manure-handling methods in cow

housing areas.

e. Percentage of operations by method used to handle the majority of manure in

cow housing areas, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Handling Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Manure left on pasture 6.1 (2.5) 5.6 (1.4) 

Drylot scraped 38.2 (5.9) 7.3 (1.5) 

Gutter cleaner 0.0 (0.0) 47.0 (3.2) 

Alley scraper 

(mechanical or tractor) 23.4 (5.1) 30.7 (2.6) 

Alley flush with fresh water 1.7 (1.2) 0.1 (0.1) 

Alley flush with 

recycled water 21.0 (4.4) 0.7 (0.3) 

Slotted floor 1.2 (1.2) 1.5 (0.7) 

Bedded pack 

(manure pack) 2.8 (2.0) 3.2 (1.3) 

Manure vacuum 1.5 (1.1) 1.9 (1.2) 

Other 4.1 (2.1) 2.0 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 133

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

The percentage of operations by primary housing type for lactating cows and

manure-handling methods was predictable because facility designs are usually

associated with specific manure-handling methods. More than 8 of 10 tie stall/

stanchion operations (82.5 percent) used a gutter cleaner to handle the majority

of manure in cow housing areas. The predominant manure-handling method

used by 72.1 percent of freestall operations was an alley scraper, and

50.3 percent of operations that housed cows in a drylot/multiple-animal outside

area scraped the drylot. Of operations that used pasture as the primary housing

facility/outside area for lactating cows, 40.7 percent used gutter cleaners and

27.3 percent left manure on pasture as the handling method for the majority of

manure. Those pasture operations that used gutter cleaners as the method for

handling the majority of manure in cow housing areas likely house cattle indoors

during a particular season or inclement weather.

f. Percentage of operations by method used to handle the majority of manure in

cow housing areas, by primary housing type for lactating cows:

Percent Operations 

Primary Housing Type

Tie stall/ 

stanchion Freestall

Drylot/ 

Multipleanimal 

Outside Area Pasture 

Handling 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Manure left 

on pasture 2.7 (1.6) 1.4 (1.1) 12.4 (8.0) 27.3 (8.6) 

Drylot scraped 3.1 (1.5) 11.6 (2.8) 50.3 (12.8) 11.6 (5.4) 

Gutter cleaner 82.5 (3.8) 1.2 (0.8) 0.0 (--) 40.7 (11.6) 

Alley scraper 

(mechanical 

or tractor) 4.3 (2.0) 72.1 (3.5) 2.1 (1.5) 11.4 (4.8) 

Alley flush with 

fresh water 0.0 (--) 0.4 (0.3) 1.2 (1.2) 0.0 (--) 

Alley flush with 

recycled water 0.0 (--) 6.2 (1.3) 1.4 (1.4) 2.2 (2.2) 

Slotted floor 0.7 (0.7) 3.1 (1.5) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Bedded pack 

(manure pack) 0.0 (--) 1.3 (0.8) 32.6 (14.3) 6.8 (6.4) 

Manure 

vacuum 3.7 (2.3) 0.5 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Other 3.0 (1.5) 2.2 (1.1) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

134 / Dairy 2007

More than 75 percent of operations left manure on pasture or scraped a drylot as

a manure-handling method for weaned-heifer and cow housing areas. Bedded

packs were used in heifer areas on 60.6 percent of operations and in cow areas

on 40.0 percent of operations. Alley scrapers were used by a similar percentage

of operations for heifer (47.3 percent) and cow (54.9 percent) housing areas.

Gutter cleaners were more frequently used in cow housing than in heifer housing

(58.0 and 23.6 percent, respectively). Less than 10 percent of operations used

alley flush with fresh or recycled water, slotted floor, or a manure vacuum for

managing manure.

g. Percentage of operations by all manure-handling methods used in weanedheifer and cow housing areas:

Percent Operations 

Weaned-heifer 

Housing Area* Cow Housing Area 

Handling Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Manure left on pasture 88.5 (1.9) 85.3 (2.3) 

Drylot scraped 75.3 (3.1) 82.5 (2.5) 

Gutter cleaner 23.6 (2.8) 58.0 (2.5) 

Alley scraper 

(mechanical or tractor) 47.3 (3.1) 54.9 (2.9) 

Alley flush with 

fresh water 1.0 (0.4) 1.5 (0.4) 

Alley flush with 

recycled water 3.5 (0.7) 5.0 (0.8) 

Slotted floor 4.9 (1.2) 6.2 (1.2) 

Bedded pack 

(manure pack) 60.6 (3.0) 40.0 (2.9) 

Manure vacuum 0.6 (0.2) 1.5 (0.8) 

Other 6.5 (1.7) 5.3 (1.5) 

*For operations that housed weaned heifers.

3. Waste storage and treatment systems

To store or treat waste, more than one-half of operations used a manure pack

inside a barn (56.1 percent), while more than 40 percent used a manure

spreader to store manure (46.1 percent) or outside storage for solid manure not

in drylot or pen (42.5 percent). A higher percentage of small and medium

operations stored manure in a spreader (50.4 and 44.0 percent, respectively) or

as a manure pack inside a barn (55.8 and 63.4 percent, respectively), compared

with large operations (9.7 and 31.0 percent, respectively). Conversely, a lower
USDA APHIS VS / 135

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

System Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Stored in manure spreader 50.4 (3.9) 44.0 (4.3) 9.7 (3.7) 46.1 (2.9) 

Below-floor slurry 

or deep pit 8.5 (2.0) 18.3 (3.2) 18.8 (4.3) 11.6 (1.6) 

Slurry stored in tank 9.6 (2.2) 21.6 (3.6) 11.7 (3.4) 12.7 (1.8) 

Slurry or liquid manure 

stored in earthen basin 

and NOT treated 24.4 (3.3) 45.7 (4.2) 43.1 (6.2) 30.9 (2.6) 

Treatment lagoon–NOT 

mechanically aerated 3.2 (0.9) 12.3 (2.7) 49.7 (6.2) 8.5 (1.1) 

Treatment lagoon–

mechanically aerated 1.0 (0.6) 0.6 (0.4) 18.7 (4.9) 2.1 (0.5) 

Manure pack (inside barn) 55.8 (3.9) 63.4 (4.2) 31.0 (4.4) 56.1 (2.9) 

Outside storage for 

solid manure NOT in 

drylot or pen 44.0 (4.0) 32.4 (3.9) 65.2 (5.9) 42.5 (3.0) 

Outside storage for solid 

manure within drylot or pen 24.0 (3.4) 20.9 (3.6) 29.1 (5.5) 23.5 (2.5) 

Storage of solid manure 

in a building without 

cattle access 2.7 (1.1) 9.2 (2.3) 8.6 (4.0) 4.7 (1.0) 

Storage of solid manure 

with picket dam 3.1 (1.3) 3.1 (1.1) 3.9 (2.3) 3.2 (0.9) 

Composted 11.3 (2.7) 6.6 (2.1) 26.4 (5.4) 11.1 (2.0) 

Collection of 

methane/biogas 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 0.9 (0.5) 0.1 (0.0) 

Solid separator 0.3 (0.3) 3.2 (1.0) 36.2 (6.1) 3.4 (0.5) 

Other system 4.5 (1.7) 2.9 (1.5) 7.4 (2.9) 4.3 (1.2) 

percentage of small operations stored manure untreated in an earthen basin

(24.4 percent), compared with medium operations (45.7 percent), or in a

treatment lagoon that was not mechanically aerated (3.2 percent), compared with

medium and large operations (12.3 and 49.7 percent, respectively). A higher

percentage of large operations (36.2 percent) used a solid separator than

medium or small operations (3.2 and 0.3 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations by waste storage and/or treatment system used, and

by herd size:
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

136 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region compared with the East

region stored or treated manure in a treatment lagoon, mechanically aerated or

not; in outside storage, either within a drylot or pen or outside the pen; or with a

solid separator system. A lower percentage of operations in the West region

used a manure spreader (7.5 percent) or manure pack (12.4 percent) to store

manure, compared with operations in the East region (49.9 and 60.4 percent,

respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by waste storage and/or treatment system used, by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

System Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Stored in manure spreader 7.5 (2.5) 49.9 (3.1) 

Below-floor slurry or deep pit 16.9 (3.8) 11.1 (1.7) 

Slurry stored in tank 11.8 (3.9) 12.8 (2.0) 

Slurry or liquid manure 

stored in earthen basin 

and NOT treated 44.1 (5.4) 29.7 (2.8) 

Treatment lagoon–NOT 

mechanically aerated 49.5 (5.4) 4.5 (1.0) 

Treatment lagoon–

mechanically aerated 15.6 (4.0) 0.7 (0.4) 

Manure pack (inside barn) 12.4 (3.3) 60.4 (3.1) 

Outside storage for solid 

manure NOT in drylot or pen 65.5 (5.6) 40.2 (3.2) 

Outside storage for solid 

manure within drylot or pen 43.1 (5.1) 21.6 (2.7) 

Storage of solid manure in a 

building without cattle access 13.7 (4.0) 3.8 (1.0) 

Storage of solid manure 

with picket dam 7.5 (3.0) 2.7 (1.0) 

Composted 17.0 (3.9) 10.5 (2.1) 

Collection of methane/biogas 0.5 (0.4) 0.1 (0.0) 

Solid separator 28.8 (4.9) 0.9 (0.3) 

Other system 4.0 (2.0) 4.3 (1.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 137

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Approximately 4 of 10 operations (42.0 percent) stored and/or treated only solid

manure, while 58.0 percent stored and treated both solid and liquid manure.

Storage and treatment of manure differed by herd size. The percentage of

operations that stored and treated only solid manure decreased as herd size

increased, from 52.4 percent of small operations to 0.2 percent of large

operations.

c. Percentage of operations that stored and/or treated solid manure only or both

solid and liquid manure, and by herd size:

Almost all operations in the West region (96.0 percent) stored and/or treated

both solid and liquid manure, compared with 54.3 percent of operations in the

East region.

d. Percentage of operations that stored and/or treated solid manure only or both

solid and liquid manure, by region:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Manure Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Solid only 52.4 (3.9) 24.5 (3.7) 0.2 (0.1) 42.0 (2.9) 

Both solid 

and liquid 47.6 (3.9) 75.5 (3.7) 99.8 (0.1) 58.0 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Manure Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Solid only 4.0 (1.7) 45.7 (3.1) 

Both solid and liquid 96.0 (1.7) 54.3 (3.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

138 / Dairy 2007

More than 4 of 10 operations (43.0 percent) used a manure spreader to store the

majority of solid manure. About one-fifth of operations used a manure pack

(19.6 percent) or outside storage not in drylot or pen (19.0 percent) as the

storage or treatment system for the majority of solid manure. A higher

percentage of small and medium operations (48.5 and 37.7 percent,

respectively) than large operations (4.1 percent) stored solid manure in a manure

spreader. A higher percentage of large operations used outside storage for solid

manure either outside of (45.8 percent) or within a drylot or pen (22.0 percent)

compared with medium (21.3 and 6.6 percent, respectively) or small operations

(15.6 and 9.6 percent, respectively).

e. Percentage of operations by waste storage and/or treatment system used for

the majority of solid manure, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

System Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Stored in manure 

spreader 48.5 (4.2) 37.7 (4.9) 4.1 (3.3) 43.0 (3.2) 

Manure pack 

(inside barn) 18.1 (3.2) 27.2 (4.4) 9.6 (3.2) 19.6 (2.5) 

Outside storage for 

solid manure NOT 

in drylot or pen 15.6 (2.7) 21.3 (3.6) 45.8 (7.1) 19.0 (2.1) 

Outside storage for 

solid manure 

within drylot or pen 9.6 (2.2) 6.6 (2.1) 22.0 (5.7) 9.8 (1.7) 

Storage of solid 

manure in a 

building without 

cattle access 0.8 (0.5) 3.1 (1.2) 0.7 (0.3) 1.3 (0.5) 

Storage of solid 

manure with 

picket dam 3.5 (1.7) 0.0 (0.0) 2.9 (2.2) 2.6 (1.2) 

Composted 1.0 (0.9) 1.9 (1.1) 6.0 (2.8) 1.5 (0.7) 

Solid separator 0.0 (0.0) 1.2 (0.7) 7.7 (3.7) 0.8 (0.3) 

Other system 2.9 (1.6) 1.0 (0.8) 1.2 (0.7) 2.4 (1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 139

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

More than one-half of operations in the West region (51.0 percent) stored solid

manure outside but not in a drylot or pen. Almost 3 of 10 operations in the West

region (28.9 percent) stored solid manure outside within a drylot or pen. In the

East region, the majority of solid manure was stored in a manure spreader on

47.0 percent of operations and as a manure pack on 21.5 percent of operations.

f. Percentage of operations by waste storage and/or treatment system used for

the majority of solid manure, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

System Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Stored in manure spreader 3.6 (2.0) 47.0 (3.4) 

Manure pack (inside barn) 1.6 (1.6) 21.5 (2.7) 

Outside storage for solid 

manure NOT in drylot or pen 51.0 (6.1) 15.7 (2.2) 

Outside storage for solid 

manure within drylot or pen 28.9 (5.3) 7.8 (1.8) 

Storage of solid manure 

in a building without 

cattle access 3.6 (1.9) 1.1 (0.5) 

Storage of solid manure 

with picket dam 2.2 (1.6) 2.7 (1.3) 

Composted 3.5 (2.1) 1.3 (0.8) 

Solid separator 5.6 (2.7) 0.3 (0.2) 

Other system 0.0 (0.0) 2.6 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

140 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 141

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Almost one-half of operations that stored and/or treated liquid or slurry manure

stored the majority of manure in an earthen basin without treatment

(49.4 percent). More than 10 percent of operations stored liquid or slurry manure

in a tank (16.7 percent), in a below-floor slurry or deep pit (13.4 percent), or in a

treatment lagoon that was not mechanically aerated (11.8 percent). Compared

with large operations, a higher percentage of small operations used a below-floor

slurry or deep pit. Compared with large operations, a higher percentage of small

and medium operations stored slurry or liquid manure that was not treated in an

earthen basin. A treatment lagoon—mechanically aerated or not—was used on a

higher percentage of large operations compared with medium or small

operations.

g. For the 58.0 percent of operations that stored and/or treated both solid and

liquid manure, percentage of operations by waste storage and treatment system

used for the majority of liquid or slurry manure, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

System Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Below-floor slurry 

or deep pit 16.6 (4.0) 11.2 (3.2) 3.0 (1.4) 13.4 (2.5) 

Slurry stored in 

tank (either above 

or below ground) 17.3 (4.2) 18.4 (3.9) 7.5 (2.6) 16.7 (2.7) 

Slurry or liquid 

manure stored in 

earthen basin and 

NOT treated 50.6 (5.5) 53.8 (5.0) 26.9 (5.1) 49.4 (3.6) 

Treatment 

lagoon–NOT 

mechanically 

aerated 5.1 (1.6) 13.5 (3.5) 44.5 (6.6) 11.8 (1.7) 

Treatment 

lagoon–

mechanically 

aerated 1.1 (0.6) 0.5 (0.5) 15.4 (5.2) 2.3 (0.7) 

Other system 9.3 (3.6) 2.6 (1.9) 2.7 (1.4) 6.4 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

142 / Dairy 2007

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

System Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Below-floor slurry 

or deep pit 8.4 (3.3) 14.2 (2.9) 

Slurry stored in tank 

(either above or below 

ground) 8.3 (3.9) 18.1 (3.1) 

Slurry or liquid manure 

stored in earthen basin 

and NOT treated 30.3 (4.5) 52.5 (4.1) 

Treatment lagoon–NOT 

mechanically aerated 39.6 (5.6) 7.3 (1.7) 

Treatment lagoon–

mechanically aerated 12.9 (4.1) 0.6 (0.4) 

Other system 0.5 (0.5) 7.3 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

A higher percentage of operations in the West region used treatment lagoons,

either not mechanically aerated (39.6 percent of operations) or mechanically

aerated (12.9 percent), for the majority of liquid or slurry manure, compared with

operations in the East region (7.3 and 0.6 percent, respectively). More than onehalf of operations in the East region (52.5 percent) stored the majority of liquid or

slurry manure untreated in an earthen basin, compared with 30.3 percent of

operations in the West region.

h. For the 58.0 percent of operations that stored and/or treated both solid and

liquid manure, percentage of operations by waste storage and treatment system

used for the majority of liquid or slurry manure, by region:
USDA APHIS VS / 143

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

144 / Dairy 2007

4. Maximum manure storage capacity

Producers were asked the following: “Assuming your facility was completely

emptied of manure and was operating at full animal capacity, how many days

could you operate and store manure before the manure had to be removed from

the storage facility?” Overall, 27.7 percent of operations had fewer than 7 days of

manure storage capacity and 59.5 percent had 90 days or more. Manure storage

capacity tended to increase as herd size increased. For example, the percentage

of operations that had 90 days or more of manure storage capacity ranged from

53.9 percent of small operations to 87.6 percent of large operations.

Percentage of operations by maximum manure storage capacity (in days), and

by herd size (table revised 6/11/2009):

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Capacity 

(Days) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 7 32.6 (3.7) 21.7 (3.6) 0.2 (0.2) 27.7 (2.7) 

7 to 29 8.2 (2.4) 4.1 (1.8) 6.3 (3.4) 7.1 (1.7) 

30 to 59 2.4 (0.9) 4.0 (1.5) 2.9 (1.5) 2.9 (0.7) 

60 to 89 2.9 (1.2) 2.6 (1.3) 3.0 (2.0) 2.8 (0.9) 

90 to 179 10.8 (2.2) 16.7 (3.2) 15.7 (4.5) 12.6 (1.7) 

180 to 364 26.4 (3.4) 37.4 (4.3) 32.3 (5.7) 29.5 (2.6) 

365 or more 16.7 (3.0) 13.5 (3.0) 39.6 (6.3) 17.4 (2.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 145

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Photo courtesy of Dr. Jason Lombard
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

146 / Dairy 2007

5. Manure use

Almost all operations applied manure—solid or liquid or both—to land either

owned or rented (99.1 percent). A higher percentage of large operations sold

manure or received other compensation, gave manure away, or used composted

manure as bedding compared with small operations.

a. Percentage of operations by method of manure use, 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 

Applied 

manure to land 

either owned 

or rented 99.5 (0.5) 99.6 (0.4) 93.8 (3.4) 99.1 (0.4) 

Sold manure 

or received 

other 

compensation 4.9 (1.7) 7.2 (2.1) 28.9 (5.8) 7.1 (1.3) 

Gave manure 

away 13.9 (2.7) 20.7 (3.5) 32.3 (5.5) 16.8 (2.0) 

Used 

composted 

manure as 

bedding 3.5 (1.9) 1.7 (0.8) 35.7 (5.8) 5.1 (1.4) 

Other 0.3 (0.3) 2.3 (1.1) 2.0 (1.8) 0.9 (0.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 147

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

A higher percentage of operations in the West region sold manure or received

other compensation (20.6 percent), gave manure away (44.8 percent), or used

composted manure as bedding (26.4 percent) compared with operations in the

East region.

b. Percentage of operations by method of manure use, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Method Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Applied manure to land 

either owned or rented 94.5 (2.7) 99.6 (0.4) 

Sold manure or received 

other compensation 20.6 (4.5) 5.7 (1.4) 

Gave manure away 44.8 (5.2) 14.0 (2.2) 

Used composted 

manure as bedding 26.4 (4.5) 3.1 (1.4) 

Other 4.6 (2.4) 0.5 (0.3) 

For operations that used solid or liquid manure, the majority of manure, whether

solid or liquid, was applied to land either rented or owned.

c. Percentage of operations by method of use for the majority of manure, by

manure type:

Percent Operations 

Manure Type 

Solid Liquid or Slurry 

Method Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Applied manure to land 

either owned or rented 97.4 (0.6) 98.6 (0.5) 

Sold manure or received 

other compensation 0.8 (0.4) 0.3 (0.2) 

Gave manure away 0.6 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 

Used composted 

manure as bedding 0.7 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 

Other 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

148 / Dairy 2007

6. Manure application

More than 9 of 10 operations (91.5 percent) used a broadcast/solid spreader to

apply manure to land. Surface application was used by 34.6 percent of small

operations, 57.5 percent of medium operations, and 40.3 percent of large

operations. More than one-half of large operations (56.5 percent) used irrigation/

sprinkler to apply manure, compared with only 1.3 percent of small and

11.6 percent of medium operations.

a. For the 99.1 percent of operations that applied manure to land, percentage of

operations by manure application method used, 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 

Broadcast/ 

solid spreader 92.4 (2.2) 90.2 (2.8) 86.8 (4.2) 91.5 (1.7) 

Surface 

application 34.6 (3.7) 57.5 (4.2) 40.3 (5.4) 40.7 (2.8) 

Subsurface 

injection 5.5 (1.7) 16.4 (3.3) 14.3 (3.5) 8.8 (1.5) 

Irrigation/ 

sprinkler 1.3 (0.5) 11.6 (2.1) 56.5 (6.3) 7.3 (0.8) 

Other 1.0 (0.9) 1.7 (0.8) 2.4 (1.6) 1.3 (0.7) 

A higher percentage of operations in the West region applied manure using

irrigation/sprinkler compared with operations in the East region.

b. For the 99.1 percent of operations that applied manure to land, percentage of

operations by manure application method used, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Method Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Broadcast/solid spreader 89.0 (3.6) 91.7 (1.8) 

Surface application 31.1 (5.8) 41.6 (3.1) 

Subsurface injection 6.5 (2.5) 9.0 (1.6) 

Irrigation/sprinkler 60.0 (5.1) 2.5 (0.5) 

Other 2.0 (1.4) 1.2 (0.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 149

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Overall, 22.0 percent of operations that applied manure to land always or almost

always incorporated it into the soil within 24 hours of application, with

52.7 percent of large operations using this practice. Manure was sometimes

incorporated within 24 hours on 42.0 percent of operations, and 36.0 percent of

operations never incorporated manure into the soil.

c. For the 99.1 percent of operations that applied manure to land, percentage of

operations by frequency that manure was incorporated into soil within 24 hours

after application, including subsurface injection, 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 

Always or 

almost always 18.5 (2.8) 24.1 (3.8) 52.7 (6.3) 22.0 (2.2) 

Sometimes 43.2 (4.0) 41.4 (4.5) 31.3 (5.6) 42.0 (3.0) 

Never 38.3 (4.0) 34.5 (4.1) 16.0 (5.0) 36.0 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

150 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region (40.1 percent) always or

almost always incorporated manure into the soil within 24 hours of application,

compared with operations in the East region (20.3 percent). A higher percentage

of operations in the East region (37.5 percent) than in the West region

(19.4 percent) never incorporated manure into the soil.

d. For the 99.1 percent of operations that applied manure to land, percentage of

operations by frequency that manure was incorporated into soil within 24 hours

after application, including subsurface injection, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Frequency Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Always or almost always 40.1 (5.3) 20.3 (2.4) 

Sometimes 40.5 (5.2) 42.2 (3.2) 

Never 19.4 (4.1) 37.5 (3.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Photo Courtesy of “Dairy Herd Management”/ “Bovine Veterinarian”
USDA APHIS VS / 151

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

About one-fourth of operations analyzed manure for nitrogen, phosphorus, or

potassium during the previous 12 months. A lower percentage of small

operations analyzed manure (less than 18.0 percent) compared with medium or

large operations (42.9 and 60.3 percent, respectively).

e. For the 99.1 percent of operations that applied manure to land, percentage of

operations that analyzed manure for the following nutrients 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 

Nutrient Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Nitrogen 17.9 (3.0) 42.9 (4.4) 60.3 (6.0) 26.9 (2.4) 

Phosphorus 17.3 (2.9) 42.9 (4.4) 60.3 (6.0) 26.4 (2.3) 

Potassium 17.3 (2.9) 42.9 (4.4) 60.3 (6.0) 26.4 (2.3) 

There were no regional differences in the percentage of operations that analyzed

nutrient content of manure.

f. For the 99.1 percent of operations that applied manure to land, percentage of

operations that analyzed manure for the following nutrients during the previous

12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Nutrient Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Nitrogen 39.4 (5.0) 25.7 (2.5) 

Phosphorus 39.4 (5.0) 25.2 (2.5) 

Potassium 39.4 (5.0) 25.2 (2.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

152 / Dairy 2007

The criteria operations used most commonly to determine frequency and

quantity of manure application were based on soil quality improvement

(70.7 percent of operations) and manure volume/acreage available

(70.3 percent of operations). About 50 percent of operations used crop

requirement for nitrogen or phosphorous to determine application rate and

frequency, even though only about one-fourth of operations reported analyzing

manure for these nutrients during the previous 12 months

(see table 6e. on p 151). The only herd-size difference was that a higher

percentage of medium operations (61.6 percent) than small operations (44.3

percent) used the crop phosphorus requirement in determining manure

application rates. Criteria used for determining how much or how frequently

manure is applied to the land did not differ by region.

g. For the 99.1 percent of operations that applied manure to land, percentage of

operations by criteria used to determine how much or how frequently manure is

applied to the land, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Criteria Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Crop nitrogen 

requirement 52.9 (4.1) 65.2 (4.4) 58.6 (6.4) 56.3 (3.0) 

Crop phosphorus 

requirement 44.3 (4.1) 61.6 (4.4) 52.9 (6.2) 49.2 (3.1) 

Manure 

volume/acreage 

available 69.3 (3.8) 75.1 (3.9) 61.8 (6.5) 70.3 (2.8) 

Soil quality 

improvement 73.1 (3.6) 65.5 (4.4) 65.5 (6.4) 70.7 (2.8) 

Other 6.8 (2.1) 5.4 (2.3) 2.7 (1.3) 6.2 (1.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 153

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Manure was applied to land fewer than 100 feet from surface water on

24.4 percent of operations and 1,000 feet or more on 30.8 percent of operations.

A higher percentage of operations in the West region applied manure 1,000 feet

or more from surface water (52.1 percent) compared with 28.8 percent of

operations in the East region. Alternatively, a higher percentage of operations in

the East region applied manure 200 to 499 feet from surface water

(21.8 percent) compared with the West region (4.5 percent).

h. For the 99.1 percent of operations that applied manure to land, percentage of

operations by minimum distance (in feet) between location of manure application

and surface water, such as a lake, pond, stream, or river, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East All Operations 

Distance (Feet) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 100 23.4 (4.7) 24.5 (2.7) 24.4 (2.5) 

100 to 199 14.6 (3.8) 16.9 (2.3) 16.7 (2.2) 

200 to 499 4.5 (2.3) 21.8 (2.7) 20.3 (2.5) 

500 to 999 5.4 (2.4) 8.0 (1.8) 7.8 (1.7) 

1,000 or more 52.1 (5.3) 28.8 (3.1) 30.8 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

154 / Dairy 2007

More than 9 of 10 operations (94.2 percent) spread solid manure on land,

whereas about two-thirds of operations (66.3 percent) applied liquid manure. The

percentage of operations that applied liquid manure increased as herd size

increased, from 56.9 percent of small operations to 94.6 percent of large

operations.

i. Percentage of all operations that applied solid or liquid manure to land, and by

herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Manure Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Solid 93.9 (2.2) 96.1 (1.8) 89.5 (4.0) 94.2 (1.6) 

Liquid 56.9 (4.0) 84.8 (3.4) 94.6 (3.0) 66.3 (2.9) 

Operations spread liquid or slurry manure more often during spring or fall than

summer or winter. About 50 percent of operations did not apply liquid manure

during the summer (48.1 percent) or winter (57.3 percent).

j. For the 66.3 percent of operations that applied liquid manure to land,

percentage of operations by frequency that liquid manure was applied to owned

or rented land, by season:

Percent Operations 

Season 

Spring Summer Fall Winter 

Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Daily 18.1 (2.7) 10.4 (2.1) 19.7 (2.8) 12.7 (2.4) 

Weekly 9.5 (2.0) 10.5 (2.2) 9.7 (2.0) 6.6 (1.8) 

2 to 3 times a month 9.0 (1.6) 7.4 (1.3) 10.1 (1.7) 6.2 (1.4) 

Monthly or less often 49.4 (3.4) 23.6 (2.4) 56.2 (3.4) 17.2 (2.2) 

Not spread during 

this season 14.0 (2.7) 48.1 (3.4) 4.3 (1.0) 57.3 (3.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 155

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

156 / Dairy 2007

Operations also spread solid manure more commonly in spring or fall than

summer or winter. During spring, 37.2 percent of operations spread solid manure

on a daily basis. About 30 percent of operations did not spread solid manure in

summer (30.4 percent) or winter (25.8 percent).

k. For the 94.2 percent of operations that applied solid manure to land,

percentage of operations by frequency that solid manure was applied to owned

or rented land, by season:

Percent Operations 

Season 

Spring Summer Fall Winter 

Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Daily 37.2 (3.0) 24.0 (2.7) 34.6 (3.0) 32.4 (2.9) 

Weekly 16.2 (2.3) 16.7 (2.5) 19.0 (2.5) 14.1 (2.2) 

2 to 3 times 

a month 8.6 (1.6) 7.5 (1.5) 10.0 (1.7) 7.0 (1.5) 

Monthly or 

less often 32.8 (2.7) 21.4 (2.2) 31.9 (2.6) 20.7 (2.1) 

Not spread 

during this 

season 5.2 (1.1) 30.4 (2.8) 4.5 (1.1) 25.8 (2.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 157

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

158 / Dairy 2007

The practice of spreading manure on growing crops and then feeding those

crops to livestock can spread disease from pathogens in the manure. Pathogens

on dairy operations that potentially could be spread through grazing on manurefertilized forages include E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp., and Mycobacterium

avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP). Of these pathogens, MAP appears to

be the most persistent, surviving for 6 months on pasture. Some methods and

additives for ensiling forages appear to decrease the survival of MAP. The

general recommendation is to avoid spreading manure on growing plants that will

be grazed by cattle. In the case of MAP, to which young cattle appear to be more

susceptible, grazing on fertilized pasture by cattle less than 1 year old is not

recommended.

About one-half of operations (52.2 percent) applied manure to pasture or hay

crops during the growing season. Almost two-thirds of all operations applied

manure to any actively growing crops. Manure was applied to forage to be

ensiled or any crops on 57.0 and 85.1 percent, respectively, of large operations.

l. Percentage of all operations that applied manure to actively growing plants by

crop type, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Crop Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Pasture or hay 52.6 (4.0) 52.4 (4.4) 46.1 (6.1) 52.2 (2.9) 

Forage to 

be ensiled 23.9 (3.3) 31.7 (3.9) 57.0 (6.3) 28.0 (2.5) 

Other forage 10.9 (2.5) 16.9 (3.3) 26.1 (5.8) 13.4 (1.9) 

Grain or oilseed 9.6 (2.2) 11.2 (2.5) 19.2 (5.0) 10.7 (1.7) 

Other 5.3 (2.0) 0.1 (0.1) 3.1 (2.2) 3.9 (1.4) 

Any 63.7 (3.9) 60.8 (4.4) 85.1 (4.2) 64.4 (2.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 159

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

A higher percentage of operations in the West region applied manure to forage to

be ensiled (47.9 percent), other forage crops (27.7 percent), or any crops

(79.4 percent) compared with operations in the East region

(26.1, 12.0, and 62.9 percent, respectively).

m. Percentage of all operations that applied manure to actively growing plants by

crop type, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Crop Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture or hay 49.7 (5.0) 52.4 (3.2) 

Forage to be ensiled 47.9 (5.3) 26.1 (2.7) 

Other forage 27.7 (5.2) 12.0 (2.0) 

Grain or oilseed 15.7 (4.1) 10.2 (1.8) 

Other 2.1 (1.7) 4.0 (1.5) 

Any 79.4 (4.1) 62.9 (3.1) 

7. Written nutrient management plan

About one-third of small operations (35.1 percent) had a written plan addressing

nutrient management compared with 62.1 percent of medium and 62.7 percent

of large operations.

a. Percentage of operations that had a written nutrient management plan

addressing topics such as land treatment practices or manure storage

structures, 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 

35.1 (3.8) 62.1 (4.4) 62.7 (5.9) 43.6 (2.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

160 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region (67.7 percent) had a written

nutrient management plan than in the East region (41.3 percent).

b. Percentage of operations that had a written nutrient management plan

addressing topics such as land treatment practices or manure storage

structures, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Percent Standard Error Percent Standard Error 

67.7 (4.9) 41.3 (3.1) 

Of the operations that had a written nutrient management plan,

9 of 10 operations (89.2 percent) developed the plan in cooperation with the

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) or a local conservation

district. Compared with medium and large operations, a higher percentage of

small operations (78.0 percent) developed a plan as part of a USDA voluntary

cost-share program. A higher percentage of large operations developed a plan to

help satisfy a State or local regulatory requirement (86.9 percent) compared with

small operations (53.7 percent).
USDA APHIS VS / 161

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Plan Was... Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Developed in 

cooperation with 

the USDA Natural 

Resource 

Conservation Service 

(NRCS) or a local 

conservation district 92.2 (3.2) 88.0 (3.4) 75.9 (6.2) 89.2 (2.2) 

Implemented to help 

satisfy a State or local 

regulatory requirement 53.7 (6.6) 71.0 (5.0) 86.9 (6.7) 62.9 (4.2) 

Part of USDA voluntary 

cost-share program 78.0 (4.7) 51.2 (5.3) 34.5 (6.6) 64.5 (3.6) 

c. For the 43.6 percent of operations that had a written nutrient management

plan, percentage of operations that developed or implemented the plan in

cooperation with Federal, State, or local agencies or requirements, and by herd

size:
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

162 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region (88.4 percent) than in the

East region (58.9 percent) implemented a written nutrient management plan to

help satisfy a State or local regulatory requirement. A higher percentage of

operations in the East region developed a plan in cooperation with the USDA

NRCS or a local conservation district (92.0 percent) or as part of a USDA

voluntary cost-share program (71.3 percent) compared with operations in the

West region (71.4 and 20.9 percent, respectively).

d. For the 43.6 percent of operations that had a written nutrient management

plan, percentage of operations that developed or implemented the plan in

cooperation with Federal, State, or local agencies or requirements, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Plan Was... Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Developed in cooperation with 

the USDA Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) 

or a local conservation district 71.4 (7.0) 92.0 (2.3) 

Implemented to help satisfy a 

State or local regulatory 

requirement 88.4 (5.2) 58.9 (4.7) 

Part of USDA voluntary 

cost-share program 20.9 (4.8) 71.3 (3.9) 

8. Waste-management consultant

More than 20 percent of operations consulted with an agronomist/crop consultant

(45.2 percent), NRCS personnel (32.8 percent), or a private nutrient

management consultant (23.8 percent) about waste management on their

operations during the previous 12 months. Almost two-thirds (63.9 percent) of

operations contacted a waste management consultant during the previous

12 months. Compared with small operations, a higher percentage of large

operations consulted with a private nutrient management consultant, State or

local department of natural resources or department of agriculture, consulting

nutritionist, or environmental engineering consultant. Any consultant was used on

a higher percentage of medium operations (82.3 percent) than small operations

(56.2 percent).
USDA APHIS VS / 163

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Consultant Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

University/extension 

personnel 15.0 (2.8) 24.2 (4.0) 29.4 (5.4) 18.2 (2.2) 

Private nutrient 

management 

consultant 18.7 (3.0) 31.2 (4.1) 49.3 (6.1) 23.8 (2.4) 

Natural Resource 

Conservation 

Service (NRCS) 

personnel 27.6 (3.4) 45.2 (4.2) 41.2 (5.9) 32.8 (2.6) 

State or local 

department of 

natural resources 

personnel 4.1 (1.4) 14.4 (2.6) 31.2 (5.5) 8.4 (1.2) 

State or local 

department of 

agriculture 

personnel 9.1 (2.1) 18.9 (3.4) 30.4 (5.2) 12.9 (1.7) 

Agronomist/crop 

consultant 40.5 (3.9) 56.7 (4.4) 50.7 (5.8) 45.2 (2.9) 

Consulting 

nutritionist 12.3 (2.5) 19.8 (3.6) 35.6 (6.0) 15.7 (2.0) 

Environmental 

engineering 

consultant 3.4 (1.4) 10.6 (2.9) 30.7 (5.2) 7.0 (1.3) 

Private veterinary 

practitioner 2.2 (0.9) 5.7 (1.8) 9.4 (3.8) 3.5 (0.8) 

Other 1.2 (1.0) 1.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.2) 1.2 (0.7) 

Any 56.2 (3.9) 82.3 (3.5) 74.6 (5.6) 63.9 (2.8) 

a. Percentage of operations that consulted with the following people about waste

management for their operations during the previous 12 months, and by herd

size:
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

164 / Dairy 2007

A higher percentage of operations in the West region consulted with State or

local departments of natural resources (19.8 percent) or agriculture personnel

(32.3 percent) compared with operations in the East region

(7.3 and 11.0 percent, respectively). A higher percentage of operations in the

East region consulted with an agronomist/crop consultant (46.7 percent)

compared with the West region (28.8 percent).

b. Percentage of operations that consulted with the following people about waste

management for their operations during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Consultant Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

University/extension 

personnel 16.0 (3.6) 18.4 (2.4) 

Private nutrient 

management consultant 29.8 (4.9) 23.2 (2.5) 

Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) 

personnel 38.0 (5.1) 32.3 (2.8) 

State or local department of 

natural resources personnel 19.8 (4.1) 7.3 (1.3) 

State or local department of 

agriculture personnel 32.3 (5.3) 11.0 (1.8) 

Agronomist/crop consultant 28.8 (4.8) 46.7 (3.1) 

Consulting nutritionist 19.0 (4.5) 15.3 (2.1) 

Environmental 

engineering consultant 14.2 (3.4) 6.3 (1.3) 

Private veterinary practitioner 3.9 (2.2) 3.5 (0.8) 

Other 1.0 (1.0) 1.2 (0.7) 

Any 67.1 (6.0) 63.6 (3.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 165

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

9. Knowledge of concentrated animal feeding operation classification

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has guidelines to determine whether

an operation should be classified as a concentrated animal feeding operation

(CAFO). An operation with 200 to 699 mature cows can be designated a CAFO

by the permitting authority or by regulatory definition if the operation meets one of

the medium category discharge criteria. Large CAFOs have at least 700 mature

cows, with no other criteria. Additionally, an operation that is not classified as a

CAFO by size can be designated a CAFO by the permitting authority if the

operation is a significant contributor of pollutants to surface water.

Producers were asked how their operation is or would be classified under current

Federal EPA guidelines regarding CAFOs. A higher percentage of small and

medium operations were not nor would likely be classified as CAFOs (40.5 and

36.6 percent, respectively) compared with large operations (3.5 percent). Almost

two-thirds of large operations (63.1 percent) were or would likely be classified as

CAFOs, compared with 23.6 percent of medium operations and 1.4 percent of

small operations. Overall, 37.2 percent of operations were not considered to be

CAFOs and 10.8 percent were considered to be CAFOs.

a. Percentage of operations by actual or perceived classification under current

Federal EPA guidelines regarding concentrated animal feeding operations

(CAFOs), and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

 Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Classification 

Category Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Never heard 

of CAFO 38.4 (3.9) 14.6 (3.3) 18.3 (5.1) 31.2 (2.8) 

Have heard 

of CAFO, but 

unsure 19.7 (3.5) 25.2 (4.1) 15.1 (4.9) 20.8 (2.7) 

My operation 

is not nor will 

likely be 

classified as 

a CAFO 40.5 (3.7) 36.6 (4.2) 3.5 (1.4) 37.2 (2.8) 

My operation 

is or will likely 

be classified 

as a CAFO 1.4 (0.8) 23.6 (3.7) 63.1 (6.3) 10.8 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

166 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 167

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Nutrient Management

A higher percentage of operations in the West region were or were likely to be

classified as CAFOs than in the East region (35.2 and 8.5 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by actual or perceived classification under current

Federal EPA guidelines regarding concentrated animal feeding operations

(CAFOs), by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West East 

Classification Category Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Never heard of CAFO 21.8 (4.7) 32.1 (3.1) 

Have heard of CAFO, but unsure 14.5 (4.0) 21.3 (2.9) 

My operation is not nor will likely 

be classified as a CAFO 28.5 (4.4) 38.1 (3.0) 

My operation is or will likely 

be classified as a CAFO 35.2 (4.8) 8.5 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section II: Methodology

168 / Dairy 2007

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 conduct a national survey

to collect information from U.S. dairy producers and other dairy specialists about

what they perceived to be the most important dairy health and productivity

issues. A driving force of the needs assessment was the desire of NAHMS

researchers to receive as much input as possible from a variety of producers,

industry experts and representatives, veterinarians, extension specialists,

universities, and dairy organizations. 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.
USDA APHIS VS / 169

Section II: Methodology

Respondents to the needs assessment 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, and

• Other—4 percent.

CEAH Focus Group meeting

Fort Collins, CO, May 18, 2006

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:

• Describe trends in dairy cattle health and management practices,

• Evaluate management factors related to cow comfort and removal rates,

• Describe dairy calf health and nutrition from birth to weaning and evaluate

 heifer disease-prevention practices,

• Estimate the prevalence of herds infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus

 (BVDV),

• Describe current milking procedures and estimate the prevalence of

 contagious mastitis pathogens,

• Estimate the herd-level prevalence and associated costs of Mycobacterium

 avium subspecies paratuberculosis (Johne’s disease),

• Describe current biosecurity practices and determine producer motivation for

 implementing or not implementing biosecurity practices, and

• Determine the prevalence of specific food-safety pathogens and describe

 antimicrobial resistance patterns.
Section II: Methodology

170 / Dairy 2007

B. Sampling

and Estimation

1. State selection

The preliminary selection of States to be included in the study was done in

February 2006, using the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) January

27, 2006, “Cattle Report.” A goal for NAHMS national studies is to include States

that account for at least 70 percent of the animals and producer population in the

United States. The initial review of States identified 16 major States representing

82.0 percent of the milk cow inventory and 79.3 percent of the operations with

milk cows (dairy herds). The States were California, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,

Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

A memo identifying these 16 States was provided in March 2006 to the

USDA: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.

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 (VMOs) to determine whether to

complete Phase II.

3. Population inferences

a. Phase I: General Dairy Management Report

Inferences cover the population of dairy producers with at least 1 milk cow in the

17 participating States. As of January 1, 2007, these States accounted for

82.0 percent (7,432,000 head) of milk cows and 79.3 percent (62,110) of

operations with milk cows in the United States. (See Appendix II for respective

data on individual States.) All respondent data were statistically weighted to

reflect the population from which they were selected. The inverse of the

probability of selection for each operation was the initial selection weight. This

selection weight was adjusted for nonresponse within each State and size group

to allow for inferences back to the original population from which the sample was

selected.
USDA APHIS VS / 171

Section II: Methodology

b. Phase II: VS Initial and Second Visits

For operations eligible for Phase II data collection (those with 30 or more dairy

cows), weights were adjusted to account for operations that did not want to

continue to Phase II. In addition, weights were adjusted for nonresponse to the

questionnaire in each visit. The 17-State target population of operations with

30 or more dairy cows represented 82.5 percent of dairy cows and 84.7 percent

of dairy operations (Appendix II).

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 (VMOs) and/or Animal Health Technicians (AHTs) 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 VMOs and/or AHTs collected

data from producers during an interview that lasted approximately 2 hours.

D. Data Analysis 1. Validation and estimation

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.
Section II: Methodology

172 / Dairy 2007

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 table below presents 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 (GDMR)

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.

 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 / 173

Section II: Methodology

2. Phase II: VS Initial Visit

There were 1,077 operations that agreed to be contacted by a VMO during

Phase I. Of these 1,077 operations, 582 (54.0 percent) agreed to continue in

Phase II of the study and completed the VS Initial Visit questionnaire; 380 (35.3

percent) refused to participate. Approximately 10 percent of the 1,077 operations

were not contacted, and 0.4 percent were ineligible because they had no dairy

cows at the time they were contacted.

 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. 
Section II: Methodology

174 / Dairy 2007

3. Phase II: VS Second Visit

Of the 582 operations that completed the VS Initial Visit Questionnaire, 519

(including one operation that did not complete the VS Initial Visit on time)

completed the VS Second Visit questionnaire; 47 (8.1 percent) refused to

participate. Approximately 3 percent of the 583 operations were not contacted,

and 0.3 percent were ineligible because they had no dairy cows at the time of the

VS Second Visit.

 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 / 175

Appendix I: Sample Profile

Appendix I: Sample Profile

A. Responding

Operations

1. Number of responding operations, by herd size

2. Number of responding operations, by region

Number of Responding Operations 

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 

Number of Responding Operations 

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 
176 / Dairy 2007

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

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

 

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. 
Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

USDA APHIS VS / 177

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related 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,

1991-2007, expected spring 2009

2. Evaluate management factors related to cow comfort and removal rates

• Dairy Facilities and Cow Comfort on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, Interpretive

Report, expected spring 2009

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, January 2009

• Calf Health and Management Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007,

Interpretive Report, expected spring 2009

• Calving Management on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, info sheet, February

2009

4. Estimate the prevalence of herds infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus

(BVD)

• Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD) Detection in Bulk Tank Milk and BVD

Management Practices in the United States, 1996-2007, 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, September

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
Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

178 / Dairy 2007

7. Describe current biosecurity practices and determine producer motivation for

implementing or not implementing biosecurity practices

• Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007, October 2007

• Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007, September 2008

• Biosecurity Practices on U.S. Dairy operations, 2002-07, Interpretive Report,

expected spring 2009

8. Determine the prevalence of specific food-safety pathogens and describe

antimicrobial resistance patterns

• Antibiotic Use on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002-07, info sheet, September 2008

• Listeria and Salmonella in Bulk Tank Milk on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002-07,

info sheet, expected spring 2009

• Salmonella and Campylobacter on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002-07, info sheet,

expected spring 2009

• Food Safety Pathogens Isolated from U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, Interpretive

Report, expected spring 2009

Additional informational sheets

• Dairy Cattle Identification Practices in the United States, 2007, info sheet,

November 2007

• Reproduction Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, info sheet, February

2009

• Bovine Leukosis Virus (BLV) on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007, info sheet,

September 2008

• Dairy Cattle Injection Practices in the United States, 2007, info sheet,

February 2009

• Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Isolation from Bulk Tank

Milk in the United States, 2007, info sheet, expected spring 2009

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

July 2009

Dairy 2007

Part V: Changes in Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States,

1996-2007
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

#519.0709

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. Cover photograph of man with pail courtesy of Hibbard

Studio Photo, Minnesota Historical Society. Other photographs 

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

Selected Highlights of Trends in the U.S. Dairy Industry

This report is Part V of the NAHMS Dairy 2007 study and provides an in-depth

look at changes in the U.S. dairy industry from 1996 to 2007, as identified from

three NAHMS studies: Dairy 1996, Dairy 2002, and Dairy 2007.

Here are a few highlights from the fifth report of the Dairy 2007 study:

The percentage of operations that had employees increased from 47.2 percent in

2002 to 75.7 percent in 2007. This increase was primarily driven by the

percentage of small operations (fewer than 100 cows) with employees, which

doubled from 32.2 percent in 2002 to 65.6 percent in 2007.

Dairy producers’ familiarity with Johne’s disease, Mycoplasma mastitis, and

hemorrhagic bowel syndrome (HBS) increased from 2002 to 2007. However, the

majority of producers remain unfamiliar with heartwater, screwworm, bluetongue,

vesicular stomatitis, and HBS.

Participation in a Johne’s disease control or certification programs and testing for

Johne’s has increased since 1996. Approximately one-third of operations

participated in a program and /or testing in 2007.

As facilities change with the ever-increasing size of dairy operations, the use of

concrete as the predominant flooring type has decreased from 85.8 percent of

operations in 1996 to 51.1 percent in 2007. In 2007, pasture was the

predominant flooring for lactating cows on 10.1 percent of operations and for 5.1

percent of cows. Dirt was the predominant flooring on 5.4 percent of operations

and 20.0 percent of cows in 2007, which likely reflects the use of drylots on large

operations.

The percentage of operations in which milkers wore gloves to milk all cows

increased from 32.9 percent in 2002 to 55.2 percent in 2007. The percentage of

cows on operations in which milkers wore gloves increased from 48.7 percent in

2002 to 76.8 percent in 2007.

The percentage of operations that used automatic takeoffs increased from 36.0

percent in 2002 to 45.4 percent in 2007.

The percentage of operations that administered dry-cow intramammary

antibiotics at dry-off was about 90 percent in 2007.
ii / Dairy 2007

Antibiotic use in preweaned heifers remained unchanged from 2002 to 2007.

For mastitis treatment, the percentage of operations that used cephalosporin

increased from 2002 to 2007 (33.3 and 44.5 percent, respectively), while the use

of noncephalosporin beta-lactam and macrolide antibiotics to treat mastitis

decreased from 2002 to 2007.

More than 9 of 10 operations routinely dehorned calves in 1996 and 2007. The

percentage of operations that used hot iron/electric dehorners increased from

1996 to 2007, while the percentage of operations that used a tube, spoon,

gouges, saws, wire, and Barnes dehorners decreased.

Lameness in bred heifers and cows continues to be a challenge for dairy

producers. The percentage of operations with cases of lameness in bred heifers

increased from 36.5 percent in 2002 to 58.7 percent in 2007. The percentage of

operations that had 50.0 percent or more cows affected with lameness increased

from 5.0 percent in 1996 to 12.0 percent in 2007. With this increase in lameness,

a higher percentage of operations used footbaths and routine hoof trimming in

2007 than in 1996.

The percentage of operations in which at least one cow showed clinical signs

consistent with HBS doubled from 2002 to 2007 (9.1 and 19.7 percent,

respectively).

There were no changes between 2002 and 2007 in methods used to handle the

majority of manure in weaned heifer or cow housing areas. Manure storage

remained relatively unchanged from 2002 to 2007. Surface application of liquid

manure increased between 1996 and 2007. Written nutrient management plans

were implemented by a higher percentage of operations in 2007 compared with

2002.
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Acknowledgments

This report has been prepared from material received and analyzed by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS) via three national studies conducted between

1996 and 2007. All three studies focused on health management and animal

health practices on U.S. dairy operations.

The Dairy 1996, Dairy 2002, and Dairy 2007 studies were cooperative efforts

among State and Federal agricultural statisticians, animal health officials,

university researchers, and extension personnel. We want to thank the National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) enumerators, State and Federal veterinary

medical officers (VMOs), and animal health technicians (AHTs) who visited the

farms and collected the data. Their hard work and dedication to the National

Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) are invaluable. The roles of the

producer, Area Veterinarian in Charge (AVIC), NAHMS Coordinator, VMO, AHT,

and NASS enumerator were critical in providing quality data for Dairy 2007

reports. Our appreciation also goes to the personnel at the Centers for

Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) for their efforts in study design, data

validation, estimate generation, and report distribution. Additional support was

afforded by the generous contributions of collaborators for the NAHMS dairy

studies, including:

• USDA-APHIS, National Veterinary Services Laboratories;

• USDA-ARS, Beltsville Agricultural 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 NAHMS dairy studies possible.

Larry M. Granger

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
iv / Dairy 2007

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2009. Dairy 2007, Part V: Changes in Dairy Cattle Health and

Management Practices in the United States, 1996-2007

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

# 519.0709

Contacts for further information:

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

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

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

Feedback

Feedback, comments, and suggestions regarding 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.”)
USDA APHIS VS / v

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 4

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices 5

1. Producer familiarity with disease 5

2. Information sources in case of a foreign animal disease outbreak 8

3. Resource contacts 9

4. Employees and visitors 10

5. Specific biosecurity practices 14

6. Equipment handling for manure and feeding 15

7. Equipment sharing with other livestock operations 17

8. Johne’s disease 17

9. Calving areas 20

B. General Management 21

1. Flooring type 21

2. Surface moisture 22

3. Bedding types 23

4. Feedstuffs 24

5. Feeding practices 25

6. Water source 27

7. Permanently removed cows 29

C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures 31

1. Bulk tank somatic cell count 31

2. Milking frequency 32

3. Udder and teat preparation 33

4. Postmilking procedures 36

5. Milking practices 37

6. Milking equipment 37

7. Vaccination 38

8. Dry-off procedures/antibiotic treatment 39

D. Antibiotic Use 41

1. Preweaned heifers 41

2. Weaned heifers 47

3. Cows 54

E. Surgical Procedures 63

1. Dehorning 63

2. Tail docking 66

F. Hoof Health 67

1. Lameness 67

2. Footbath 68

3. Hoof trimming 70

Table of Contents
vi / Dairy 2007

G. Hemorrhagic Bowel Syndrome (HBS) 73

1. Clinical signs 73

H. Nutrient Management 74

1. Manure-handling methods 74

2. Waste-storage and treatment systems 76

3. Maximum manure storage capacity 78

4. Manure use 80

5. Manure application 80

6. Written nutrient management plan 85

7. Waste-management consultant 86

8. Knowledge of concentrated animal feeding

 operation (CAFO) classification 88

Appendix I: Methodology 89

Appendix II: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 90
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is a nonregulatory

program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a branch of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Designed to help meet the animal

health information needs of a variety of stakeholders, NAHMS has collected data

on dairy health and management practices through four previous studies.

The NAHMS 1991–92 National Dairy Heifer Evaluation Project (NDHEP)

provided the dairy industry’s first national information on the health and

management of dairy cattle in the United States. Just months after the study’s

first results were released in 1993, cases of acute bovine viral diarrhea (BVD)

surfaced in the United States following a 1993 outbreak in Canada. NDHEP

information on producer vaccination and biosecurity practices helped officials

address the risk of disease spread and target educational efforts on vaccination

protocols. When an outbreak of human illness related to Escherichia coli

O157:H7 was reported in 1993 in the Pacific Northwest, NDHEP data on the

bacteria’s prevalence in dairy cattle helped officials define public risks as well as

research needs. This baseline picture of the industry also helped identify

additional research and educational needs in various production areas, such as

feed management and weaning age.

Information from the NAHMS Dairy 1996 study helped the U.S. dairy industry

identify educational needs and prioritize research efforts on such timely topics as

antibiotic use; Johne’s disease; digital dermatitis; bovine leukosis virus (BLV);

and potential foodborne pathogens, including E. coli, Salmonella, and

Campylobacter.

Two major goals of the Dairy 2002 study were to describe management

strategies that prevent and reduce Johne’s disease and to determine

management factors associated with Mycoplasma and Listeria in bulk-tank milk.

The study also described levels of participation in quality assurance programs,

the incidence of digital dermatitis, animal-waste handling systems used on U.S.

dairy operations, and industry changes since the NDHEP in 1991 and the Dairy

1996 study.
Introduction

2 / Dairy 2007

The Dairy 2007 study provides valuable information to participants,

stakeholders, and the industry as a whole. Dairy operations and cows in these

States represented 79.5 percent of U.S. dairy operations and 82.5 percent of

U.S. dairy cows. Results are presented in a variety of publications, including the

following reports:

• Part 1: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007 (October 2007)—The first in a series of reports

containing national information from the NAHMS Dairy 2007 study, this

report contains data collected from 2,194 dairy operations.

• Part II: Changes in the U.S. Dairy Cattle Industry, 1991–2007 (March

2008)—This report presents trends in the dairy industry by providing

national estimates of animal-health management practices for comparable

populations from the NAHMS 1991–92 NDHEP, Dairy 1996, Dairy 2002,

and Dairy 2007 studies.

• Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007 (September 2008)—This report presents national

information from 582 operations with 30 or more dairy cows, a subset of the

2,194 operations described in Part I. State and Federal veterinary medical

officers (VMOs) and animal health technicians (AHTs) conducted

questionnaire interviews with producers and collected biological samples

for analysis between February 26 and April 30, 2007.

• Part IV: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007 (February 2009)—This report presents national

information from 519 operations with 30 or more dairy cows, a subset of the

582 operations described in Part III. State and Federal VMOs and AHTs

conducted questionnaire interviews with producers and collected biological

samples for analysis between May 1 and August 31, 2007.

This report, Part V: Changes in Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices

in the United States, 1996–2007 provides national estimates of dairy cattle

health and management practices for comparable populations from the NAHMS

Dairy 1996, Dairy 2002, and Dairy 2007 studies. For the 2002 and 2007 studies,

data were collected via two VMO surveys. Due to ongoing educational efforts,

producers’ awareness and recognition of some diseases have increased and

may be partially responsible for some changes observed in this report.
USDA APHIS VS / 3

Introduction
Introduction

4 / Dairy 2007

Terms Used in

This Report

Antibiotics: Chemical 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.

Cow: Female dairy bovine that has calved at least once.

Heifer: Female dairy bovine that has not yet calved.

Herd size: Herd size is based on January 1 dairy cow inventory for each study

year. 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.

Operation: Premises with at least 30 dairy cows on January 1 of each study

year.

Operation average: A single value for each operation is summed over all

operations reporting divided by the number of operations reporting. For instance,

operation average number of visits (p 72) is calculated by summing reported

average number of visits over all operations divided by the number of operations.

Population estimates: The estimates in this report make inference to all of the

operations with 30 or more dairy cows in the target population (see Methodology

section, p 89). 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.

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 left, 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 (—).

Preweaned: Prior to removal from a liquid ration. Previous studies used the

term unweaned to mean preweaned.

Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the operations from

which data were collected.
USDA APHIS VS / 5

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Disease Familiarity

and Biosecurity

Practices

1. Producer familiarity with disease

Familiarity with various diseases is an important part in developing an effective

biosecurity plan. By being familiar with different diseases, producers are able to

implement biosecurity practices specifically designed to prevent the introduction

of a particular disease. Disease familiarity may also help limit the spread of a

disease should it be introduced into the herd.

Producer familiarity with diseases varied by disease. Most producers at least

knew some basics about foot-and-mouth disease, bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE), Johne’s disease, and Mycoplasma mastitis; however, the

majority of producers were unfamiliar with heartwater, screwworm, bluetongue,

vesicular stomatitis, and hemorrhagic bowel syndrome (HBS). In 2002, nearly

twice the percentage of operations were fairly knowledgeable about foot-andmouth disease compared with operations in 2007 (16.5 and 8.9 percent,

respectively). In contrast, the percentage of operations fairly knowledgeable

about Johne’s disease, Mycoplasma mastitis, and HBS increased from 2002 to

2007.
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

6 / Dairy 2007

Percent Operations 

Level of Familiarity 

Fairly 

Knowledgeable Knew Some 

Basics 

Recognized the 

Name, Not 

Much Else 

Had Not Heard 

of It Before 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Disease 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Foot-and-mouth 

disease 

16.5 

(1.5) 

8.9 

(1.2) 

54.6 

(2.1) 

49.3 

(2.9) 

28.1 

(1.9) 

40.7 

(2.9) 

0.8 

(0.3) 

1.1 

(0.7) 

Heartwater 0.3 

(0.2) 

0.6 

(0.3) 

0.9 

(0.3) 

1.0 

(0.4) 

3.7 

(0.7) 

4.5 

(1.0) 

95.1 

(0.8) 

93.9 

(1.1) 

Bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy 

(BSE) 

13.9 

(1.5) 

19.6 

(2.0) 

46.5 

(2.2) 

60.8 

(2.7) 

38.0 

(2.1) 

18.8 

(2.2) 

1.6 

(0.5) 

0.8 

(0.6) 

Screwworm 5.9 

(1.0) 

4.0 

(0.8) 

11.5 

(1.2) 

15.1 

(1.9) 

45.1 

(2.2) 

37.4 

(2.6) 

37.5 

(2.2) 

43.5 

(2.7) 

Johne’s disease 

(Mycobacterium 

avium subspecies

paratuberculosis) 

45.3 

(2.1) 

57.9 

(2.9) 

42.3 

(2.1) 

36.2 

(2.8) 

11.4 

(1.4) 

4.4 

(1.2) 

1.0 

(0.3) 

1.5 

(0.6) 

Bluetongue 2.6 

(0.6) 

2.2 

(0.9) 

5.2 

(0.8) 

8.5 

(1.2) 

40.7 

(2.0) 

41.0 

(2.8) 

51.5 

(2.1) 

48.3 

(2.8) 

Vesicular stomatitis 1.1 

(0.3) 

0.7 

(0.3) 

2.8 

(0.5) 

3.4 

(0.8) 

12.9 

(1.3) 

14.1 

(1.7) 

83.2 

(1.4) 

81.8 

(1.9) 

Anthrax 9.6 

(1.2) 

5.1 

(1.2) 

32.6 

(2.0) 

28.4 

(2.6) 

54.0 

(2.2) 

56.3 

(2.8) 

3.8 

(0.8) 

10.2 

(1.8) 

Mycoplasma

mastitis 

8.7 

(1.0) 

20.3 

(1.8) 

21.8 

(1.7) 

39.9 

(2.8) 

46.6 

(2.2) 

30.4 

(2.8) 

22.9 

(2.0) 

9.4 

(1.8) 

Hemorrhagic bowel 

syndrome (HBS) 

1.0 

(0.2) 

8.2 

(1.1) 

2.5 

(0.4) 

17.6 

(1.9) 

8.7 

(1.3) 

22.6 

(2.3) 

87.8 

(1.3) 

51.6 

(2.7) 

Percentage of operations by level of familiarity with specific cattle diseases:
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

8 / Dairy 2007

2. Information sources in case of a foreign animal disease outbreak

An outbreak of foreign animal disease in the United States could be catastrophic.

Knowing where producers would turn for information in the event of a foreign

animal disease outbreak is critical to planning for the control of the disease.

Most producers in 2002 and 2007 indicated they would contact their private

veterinarian for disease information if a foreign animal disease outbreak

occurred in the United States. Other information sources would also be used, but

not to the extent of the private veterinarian. There were no changes in the

percentage of operations that were very likely to use a specific information

source between 2002 and 2007.

Percentage of operations by likelihood of using the following information sources

if an outbreak of foreign animal disease occurred in the United States (e.g., footand-mouth disease):

Percent Operations 

Likelihood 

Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Information 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Other dairy 

producers 40.5 (2.1) 41.4 (2.8) 34.5 (2.0) 37.8 (2.7) 25.0 (1.9) 20.8 (2.3) 

Private 

veterinarian 92.8 (1.1) 93.6 (1.3) 6.6 (1.1) 5.4 (1.3) 0.6 (0.3) 1.0 (0.5) 

Extension 

agent 34.2 (2.0) 32.5 (2.7) 36.9 (2.1) 38.9 (2.9) 28.9 (2.0) 28.6 (2.5) 

Dairy 

organization 

or cooperative 30.3 (1.9) 30.7 (2.6) 41.8 (2.1) 42.3 (2.8) 27.9 (1.9) 27.0 (2.6) 

Magazines 41.8 (2.1) 39.0 (2.8) 44.7 (2.1) 49.4 (2.8) 13.5 (1.5) 11.6 (1.5) 

Internet 19.0 (1.6) 23.1 (2.2) 27.4 (1.9) 28.8 (2.6) 53.6 (2.1) 48.1 (2.8) 

State 

Veterinarian’s 

office 34.7 (2.1) 26.7 (2.4) 31.3 (2.0) 37.4 (2.8) 34.0 (2.1) 35.9 (2.9) 

U.S. 

Department 

of Agriculture 25.1 (1.8) 22.6 (2.4) 38.1 (2.2) 42.5 (2.8) 36.8 (2.1) 34.9 (2.7) 

Television/ 

newspapers 30.7 (2.1) 25.8 (2.5) 35.2 (2.0) 38.8 (2.8) 34.1 (2.0) 35.4 (2.6) 

Other 3.7 (0.9) 4.7 (1.2) 0.8 (0.3) 2.4 (1.0) 95.5 (1.0) 92.9 (1.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

3. Resource contacts

Almost all producers in 2002 and 2007 (97.9 and 98.6 percent, respectively)

would contact their private veterinarian if they suspected that an animal on their

operation had a foreign animal disease. Approximately 4 of 10 operations would

use the State Veterinarian’s office as a resource. These responses highlight the

continuing need to educate veterinary practitioners on how to identify and handle

suspected foreign animal diseases on livestock operations.

Percentage of operations that would contact the following resources if an animal

on the operation was suspected of having foot-and-mouth disease or another

foreign animal disease:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Resource Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Extension 

agent/university 25.4 (1.8) 20.8 (2.3) 

State Veterinarian’s office 43.9 (2.2) 35.7 (2.6) 

U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 25.5 (1.8) 21.8 (2.3) 

Private veterinarian 97.9 (0.7) 98.6 (0.5) 

Feed company or milk 

cooperative 

representative 28.0 (1.9) 25.7 (2.3) 

Other 3.3 (0.7) 4.1 (1.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

10 / Dairy 2007

4. Employees and visitors

Employees or visitors—especially those who have contact with animals off the

operation—can introduce disease agents via their boots, clothing, vehicles, or

other equipment. As people travel more frequently to parts of the world that have

animal diseases not present in the United States, the risk of inadvertent or

intentional introduction of disease agents onto U.S. livestock operations

increases. Establishing written policies or guidelines pertaining to visitor and

employee animal contacts and travel is an important step in reducing the risk of

disease introduction.

The percentage of operations that had employees increased from 47.2 percent in

2002 to 75.7 percent in 2007. The percentage of small operations with

employees doubled from 32.2 percent in 2002 to 65.6 percent in 2007.

a. Percentage of operations that had employees*, 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 

Dairy 2002 32.2 (2.5) 84.2 (2.4) 99.0 (0.6) 47.2 (2.0) 

Dairy 2007 65.6 (4.1) 95.0 (2.0) 98.0 (1.9) 75.7 (2.8) 

*Question variation: 2007 estimates specifically exclude owners and family members. 
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

The percentage of operations that placed restrictions on employee livestock

ownership outside the operation, had guidelines regarding foreign travel by

employees, and trained employees in performing biosecurity practices declined

from 2002 to 2007. Alternatively, the percentage of operations that had written

standard operating procedures (other than milking procedures) increased from

5.1 percent in 2002 to 12.2 percent in 2007.

b. For operations with employees, percentage of operations by biosecurity

practices used:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Biosecurity Practice Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Restrictions on employee 

livestock ownership outside 

this operation 27.7 (2.2) 18.1 (2.5) 

Guidelines regarding foreign 

travel by employees 21.8 (2.3) 12.0 (2.0) 

Written standard operating 

procedures (other than 

milking procedures) 5.1 (0.8) 12.2 (2.0) 

Training for employees in 

performing biosecurity 

practices 42.1 (2.7) 21.9 (2.5) 

Photo courtesy of Chuck Greiner, Agricultural Research Service
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

12 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

A higher percentage of small operations and all operations allowed visitors

access to animal areas in 2007 compared with 2002. More than 8 of 10

operations, regardless of herd size, allowed visitors into animal areas during both

study years.

c. Percentage of operations that allowed visitors in animal areas, 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 

Dairy 2002 84.6 (2.0) 91.7 (1.5) 89.2 (2.8) 86.5 (1.5) 

Dairy 2007 98.6 (0.8) 95.9 (1.8) 97.9 (1.6) 97.9 (0.7) 

Of the following biosecurity practices implemented specifically for visitors, a

higher percentage of operations in 2007 than in 2002 required disposable or

clean boots for visitors entering animal areas and had restrictions on vehicles

entering animal areas. The percentages of operations that had guidelines

regarding which visitors were allowed in animal areas or had footbaths for

visitors entering animal areas remained unchanged from 2002 to 2007.

d. For operations that allowed visitors in the animal areas, percentage of

operations by biosecurity practices used:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Biosecurity Practice Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Guidelines regarding 

which visitors are allowed 

in animal areas 38.6 (2.0) 30.4 (2.6) 

Footbaths for visitors 

entering animal areas 6.3 (1.0) 6.9 (1.3) 

Disposable or clean boots 

for visitors entering 

animal areas 18.9 (1.6) 28.3 (2.6) 

Restrictions on vehicles 

entering animal areas 44.2 (2.1) 51.3 (2.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

14 / Dairy 2007

5. Specific biosecurity practices

Many diseases are initially introduced by an infected animal purchased as an

addition to the herd. The majority of operations maintained a closed herd during

2002 and 2007. Over four-fifths of operations had insect and rodent control

programs. Approximately one of three operations had a bird control program.

Nearly one-half of all operations limited cattle contact with other livestock, elk,

and deer, and controlled access to feed by other livestock and wildlife, or had a

closed herd.

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Biosecurity Practice Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Insect control 92.5 (1.1) 87.4 (2.0) 

Rodent control 94.7 (0.9) 94.4 (1.1) 

Bird control 29.1 (1.9) 33.8 (2.7) 

Limit cattle contact with 

other livestock, elk, and 

deer 41.4 (2.1) 48.5 (2.8) 

Control access to cattle 

feed by other livestock 

and wildlife 53.7 (2.1) 49.9 (2.9) 

Closed herd* 59.5 (2.1) 56.2 (2.9) 

*All replacements are from the operation; no contact with cattle from other operations. 

Percentage of operations that used the following biosecurity practices to prevent

disease during the previous 12 months:
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

6. Equipment handling for manure and feeding

Using the same equipment to remove manure and handle feed increases the risk

of contaminating feed with disease-causing organisms, especially Salmonella

and M. paratuberculosis. On some operations, it may not be feasible to have

equipment dedicated solely to either feed handling or manure removal. In those

cases, training employees to clean and disinfect equipment between uses will

reduce the likelihood that feed will be contaminated with feces and pathogens.

There were no differences between 2002 and 2007 in the percentages of

operations by frequency that the same equipment was used to handle manure

and feed cattle.

a. Percentage of operations by frequency that the same equipment was ever

used to handle manure and feed cattle:

Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002* Dairy 2007 

Frequency Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Routinely 32.2 (2.7) 

Rarely 

58.8 (2.1) 

35.6 (2.7) 

Never 41.2 (2.1) 32.2 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*In 2002, question was “Does this operation ever use the same equipment to handle manure and 

feed cattle.” 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

16 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of operations that used the same equipment to handle manure

and feed cattle then washed the equipment with water or steam (54.2 and

61.0 percent of operations, respectively) remained unchanged from 2002 to

2007. The majority of operations that used “other” procedures in 2007 used

separate loader buckets.

b. For operations that ever used the same equipment to handle manure and feed

cattle, percentage of operations by procedure that best describes what is usually

done with equipment after handling manure:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Procedure Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Wash equipment with 

water or steam only 54.2 (2.9) 61.0 (3.4) 

Chemically disinfect only 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.1) 

Wash equipment and 

chemically disinfect 5.7 (1.5) 4.6 (1.5) 

Other 24.9 (2.5) 23.2 (3.1) 

No procedures 15.2 (2.2) 11.1 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

Percentage of operations that shared any heavy equipment (tractors, feeding

equipment, manure spreaders, trailers, etc.) with other livestock operations

during the previous 12 months:

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 

Dairy 2002 40.0 (2.7) 33.4 (2.8) 28.0 (3.7) 38.0 (2.1) 

Dairy 2007 35.9 (3.7) 41.0 (4.1) 21.3 (4.3) 36.2 (2.8) 

8. Johne’s disease

A Johne’s disease control program may include testing individual animals to

identify those shedding Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis and

thereby presenting a risk to noninfected animals on the operation.

The percentage of operations participating in a Johne’s disease control or

certification program has increased for each herd size category and for all

operations since 1996. Less than 1 percent of operations participated in a

Johne’s disease control or certification program in 1996 compared with

11.2 percent in 2002 and 31.7 percent in 2007.

7. Equipment sharing with other livestock operations

Sharing heavy equipment with other operations increases the risk of introducing

new disease-causing agents to an operation. If equipment is shared, it should be

sanitized and disinfected prior to use. In 2002 and 2007, about one of three

operations shared equipment with other livestock operations.
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

18 / Dairy 2007

a. Percentage of operations that participated in any Johne’s disease control or

certification program, 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 

Dairy 1996* 1.0 (0.4) 0.5 (0.4) 0.4 (0.4) 0.9 (0.3) 

Dairy 2002* 9.5 (1.7) 16.5 (2.3) 11.3 (2.3) 11.2 (1.4) 

Dairy 2007 27.7 (3.3) 42.1 (4.1) 33.3 (4.5) 31.7 (2.5) 

*Question variation: In 1996, “Is this operation currently on a Johne’s certification program.”; In 2002, 

“Does operation participate in a Johne’s disease herd status, control, or certification program.” 
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

The percentage of operations that tested for Johne’s disease increased across

herd sizes from 1996 to 2002 and for all operations from 1996 to 2007;

13.1 percent of operations tested for Johne’s in 1996, 25.7 percent tested in

2002, and 35.3 percent tested in 2007. Based on the percentage of operations

that participated in a Johne’s disease control program (table 8a, p18), it appears

that a substantial percentage of operations performed testing without being

formally enrolled in a Johne’s disease control or certification program.

b. Percentage of operations that performed any testing 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 

Dairy 1996* 10.5 (1.3) 22.0 (2.4) 19.9 (4.3) 13.1 (1.1) 

Dairy 2002 20.4 (2.5) 39.5 (3.3) 38.3 (4.0) 25.7 (1.9) 

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

*Question variation: 1996 estimate was operations that tested in the last 24 months, while the 2002 

and 2007 estimates are for testing performed during the previous 12 months. 

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Disease Familiarity and Biosecurity Practices

20 / Dairy 2007

9. Calving areas

Sick cows in the calving area are potential sources of disease for both dams and

newborn calves. Although more than 50 percent of operations allowed sick cows

in the calving area in 1996 and 2002, only 34.2 percent did so in 2007.

a. Percentage of operations that allowed sick cows in the calving area:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007* 

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

54.9 (1.8) 54.1 (2.4) 34.2 (3.2) 

*Question variation: Estimate only for operations with a dedicated calving area. 

Cows that test positive for Johne’s disease can contaminate the calving area,

resulting in transmission of disease to newborn calves. To prevent calving-area

contamination, test-positive animals should not be allowed in the calving area or

other areas where calves could be exposed and potentially infected.

There were no differences between 2002 and 2007 in the percentage of

operations that allowed Johne’s disease test-positive cows into the calving area.

b. For operations that tested for Johne’s disease, percentage of operations that

allowed Johne’s test-positive cows in the calving area:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007* 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

15.2 (1.8) 15.5 (3.2) 

*Question variation: Estimate only for operations with a dedicated calving area.
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

B. General Management 1. Flooring type

Flooring surfaces affect cow health and longevity. When given an option, cows

select flooring that compresses and provides cushion, such as rubber mats,

pasture, or dirt. Concrete flooring is associated with increased lameness,

injuries, and decreased expression of estrus.

Overall, the percentage of operations that used concrete as the predominate

flooring type for cattle decreased from 85.8 percent in 1996 to 51.1 percent in

2007. A higher percentage of operations used rubber mats over concrete in 2007

compared with 2002 (22.9 and 10.8 percent, respectively). In 2007, pasture was

the predominant flooring for lactating cows on 10.1 percent of operations and for

5.1 percent of cows; dirt was the predominant flooring on 5.4 percent of

operations and for 20.0 percent of cows, which probably reflects the use of

drylots on large operations.

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

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

milked:

Percent Operations Percent Cows 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Flooring 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Concrete–

grooved 27.2 (1.4) 31.1 (1.7) 39.3 (1.7) 45.7 (1.9) 

Concrete– 

textured 16.2 (1.4) 5.7 (1.0) 

34.3 (2.4) 

17.2 (1.7) 4.0 (0.7) 

48.7 (3.5) 

Concrete– 

slat 0.8 (0.3) 1.0 (0.3) 1.3 (0.5) 1.6 (0.7) 1.7 (0.5) 1.1 (0.5) 

Concrete–

smooth 41.6 (1.8) 26.3 (2.0) 15.5 (2.3) 26.7 (1.4) 12.6 (1.0) 5.8 (0.8) 

Rubber mats 

over concrete 10.8 (1.4) 22.9 (2.5) 6.9 (1.0) 13.9 (2.2) 

Pasture 6.9 (1.0) 12.4 (1.3) 10.1 (1.7) 4.6 (0.6) 7.8 (0.8) 5.1 (0.9) 

Dirt 5.8 (0.8) 7.1 (1.0) 5.4 (1.1) 9.6 (1.0) 18.0 (1.8) 20.0 (3.5) 

Other 1.5 (0.4) 5.6 (1.0) 10.5 (1.8) 1.0 (0.3) 3.3 (0.7) 5.4 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

22 / Dairy 2007

2. Surface moisture

Wet flooring can be detrimental to hoof health. Cows on wet surfaces have

increased hoof-horn moisture and are more prone to infectious hoof diseases.

The ground or flooring surface for lactating cows in 2007 was usually dry on

60.3 percent of operations in summer and 49.5 percent in winter, down from

71.0 and 58.9 percent, respectively, in 1996. The percentage of operations in

which flooring was almost always wet but no standing water was present in

summer increased from 7.8 percent in 1996 to 16.3 percent in 2007. The

percentage of operations in which flooring was almost always wet, but no

standing water was present in winter increased from 16.9 percent in 1996 to

28.1 percent in 2007.

Percentage of operations by category that best describes the surface moisture of

the ground or flooring that lactating cows stood on most of the time, and by

season:

Percent Operations 

Season 

Summer Winter 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Surface 

Moisture Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Usually dry 71.0 (1.6) 63.3 (2.0) 60.3 (2.7) 58.9 (1.5) 49.7 (2.1) 49.5 (2.6) 

Wet about 

half the time 20.9 (1.5) 22.2 (1.8) 22.8 (2.4) 22.9 (1.4) 26.0 (1.8) 21.8 (2.2) 

Almost 

always wet, 

but no 

standing 

water 7.8 (0.8) 13.3 (1.2) 16.3 (1.7) 16.9 (1.0) 23.1 (1.5) 28.1 (2.1) 

Usually 

standing 

water 

or slurry 0.3 (0.1) 1.2 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3) 1.3 (0.3) 1.2 (0.4) 0.6 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

3. Bedding types

The ideal bedding for lactating cows is dry and clean, provides cushion, and

does not support bacterial growth. Of the bedding types listed in the table below,

only the use of straw and/or hay decreased from 1996 to 2007, on operations

and for cows. The percentage of cows bedded on corn cobs and stalks

decreased by about one-half from 1996 to 2007. The percentage of operations

that used sand or mattresses increased, with mattresses showing the largest

increase from 4.7 percent in 1996 to 23.7 percent in 2007. Composted manure

use increased, as 9.0 percent of cows were bedded on composted manure in

1996 compared with 24.2 percent in 2007.

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

of bedding used for lactating cows during the previous 90 days:

Percent Operations Percent Cows 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Bedding 

Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Straw 

and/or hay 66.9 (1.5) 54.0 (2.0) 54.1 (2.7) 47.7 (1.5) 35.6 (1.5) 33.4 (2.8) 

Sand 11.2 (1.0) 18.1 (1.5) 21.9 (2.0) 15.3 (1.3) 21.3 (1.6) 30.3 (2.6) 

Sawdust/ 

wood 

products 27.9 (1.5) 35.0 (1.9) 35.0 (2.6) 27.3 (1.3) 32.1 (1.5) 31.2 (2.8) 

Composted/ 

dried manure 2.4 (0.4) 2.3 (0.4) 3.9 (0.5) 9.0 (1.4) 12.7 (1.5) 24.2 (2.6) 

Rubber mats 27.0 (1.6) 25.8 (2.0) 30.2 (2.7) 18.8 (1.2) 15.0 (1.2) 18.5 (2.1) 

Rubber tires 1.0 (0.3) 1.3 (0.4) 1.6 (0.6) 1.6 (0.5) 1.7 (0.4) 1.1 (0.4) 

Shredded 

newspaper 6.7 (0.9) 7.9 (1.2) 5.2 (1.2) 5.7 (0.7) 5.4 (0.7) 3.1 (0.7) 

Mattresses 4.7 (0.6) 17.4 (1.5) 23.7 (2.4) 7.0 (0.8) 18.1 (1.2) 20.1 (1.9) 

Corn cobs 

and stalks 12.8 (1.3) 10.5 (1.4) 11.0 (1.9) 10.1 (1.1) 6.6 (0.8) 5.7 (1.0) 

Shells/hulls 1.8 (0.4) 5.9 (1.1) 

Waterbeds 1.7 (0.8) 2.3 (1.0) 

Other 3.7 (0.8) 5.0 (1.0) 11.7 (1.9) 4.8 (1.0) 6.8 (1.1) 13.3 (2.5) 

Any bedding 95.2 (0.5) 93.2 (0.8) 97.0 (0.8) 87.5 (1.3) 85.8 (1.6) 94.9 (1.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

24 / Dairy 2007

4. Feedstuffs

The percentage of operations that fed alfalfa hay/haylage and/or corn silage to

lactating cows increased from 1996 to 2007.

Percentage of operations by type of feedstuff fed to lactating cows during the

previous 90 days:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Feedstuff Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Alfalfa hay/haylage 72.3 (1.6) 93.8 (1.0) 92.3 (1.6) 

Corn silage 77.4 (1.5) 81.6 (1.7) 87.6 (1.8) 

Clover as forage or 

pasture 31.2 (1.7) 22.5 (1.9) 23.1 (2.4) 

Whole cottonseed 28.7 (1.5) 37.8 (2.0) 33.0 (2.5) 

Cottonseed meal or hulls 8.9 (0.9) 7.9 (1.0) 9.3 (1.5) 

Whole soybeans or 

soybean meal 80.0 (1.3) 83.6 (1.5) 84.4 (2.1) 

Bakery byproducts 6.4 (0.8) 5.5 (0.8) 6.6 (1.0) 

Brewery byproducts 28.7 (1.6) 30.6 (1.9) 37.1 (2.7) 

Corn 95.8 (0.7) 94.2 (1.4) 

Barley 12.8 (1.2) 14.1 (1.9) 

Wheat (not silage) 6.7 (1.0) 6.7 (1.1) 

Oats (not silage) 22.3 (2.0) 17.5 (2.4) 

Green chop 3.9 (1.0) 4.9 (1.4) 

Feather/poultry meal 3.0 (0.7) 3.2 (0.7) 

Fish meal 4.9 (0.7) 4.4 (0.9) 

Fat/tallow 25.3 (1.5) 20.0 (1.6) 32.7 (2.5) 

Porcine meat and 

bone meal 8.3 (1.3) 

Blood meal 

21.8* (1.4) 

 13.2 (1.7) 

*Question variation 1996: “Meat and bone meal or blood meal.” 
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

5. Feeding practices

There were no differences in the percentages of operations by specific feeding

practices for lactating cows. The majority of operations fed all lactating cows one

ration in both study years.

a. Percentage of operations by feeding practices that best describe how lactating

cows were fed:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Feeding Practice Pct. Std. 

Error Pct. Std. Error 

Feed all lactating 

cows the same ration 59.1 (2.2) 62.3 (2.7) 

Feed individuals or groups based 

on production/stage of lactation 38.2 (2.2) 35.6 (2.7) 

Feed individuals or groups based 

on lactation number 1.6 (0.6) 

Feed individuals or groups based on 

criteria other than production/stage of 

lactation or lactation number 2.7 (0.4) 0.5 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

A similar percentage of operations fed anionic salts to close-up cows and/or

springing heifers in 2002 and 2007.

b. Percentage of operations that fed anionic salts (e.g., BioChlor, SoyChlor,

ammonium chloride, etc.) to prevent milk fever, by cattle class:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Cattle Class Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Close-up cows1 19.1 (1.4) 22.9 (2.2) 

Springing heifers2 14.3 (1.2) 15.7 (1.9) 

1

Cows 2 to 4 weeks prior to calving. 

2

Heifers 2 to 4 weeks prior to calving.
Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

26 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of operations that separated close-up cows from other dry cows

did not change from 2002 to 2007.

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

by herd size:

Percent Operations 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

 Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 2002 56.1 (2.8) 81.7 (2.3) 98.2 (1.2) 63.9 (1.9) 

Dairy 2007 47.1 (3.9) 74.9 (3.7 96.0 (2.1) 57.1 (2.9) 

The use of any milk urea nitrogen (MUN) testing increased from 22.3 percent of

operations in 2002 to 49.8 percent in 2007. The percentage of operations that

routinely used MUN testing increased from 9.3 percent in 2002 to 30.9 percent in

2007.

d. Percentage of operations by use of milk urea nitrogen (MUN) testing to

determine ration composition:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Frequency Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Use routinely 9.3 (1.0) 30.9 (2.4) 

Use only if have a problem 13.0 (1.3) 18.9 (2.2) 

Never used 77.7 (1.6) 50.2 (2.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

6. Water source

Water sources for cows have changed since 1996. The use of a single cup/bowl

by only one cow decreased from 52.5 percent of operations in 1996 to

10.7 percent in 2002 and 11.4 percent in 2007. The percentage of operations

that used a single cup/bowl for multiple cows increased from 50.0 percent of

operations in 1996 to 64.1 percent in 2007. The percentage of operations that

used a water tank or trough increased from 77.9 percent in 1996 to 93.2 percent

in 2007. The changes in water sources reflect the changes in housing in which

cows are in loose housing rather than restricted to a single stall and water

source.

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

previous 12 months:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Water Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Single cup/bowl 

waterer used by one 

cow only 52.5 (1.6) 10.7 (1.4) 11.4 (2.0) 

Single cup/bowl 

waterer used by 

multiple cows 50.0 (1.8) 61.7 (1.8) 64.1 (2.4) 

Water tank or trough 

(covered or uncovered) 77.9 (1.5) 89.1 (1.4) 93.2 (1.5) 

Lake, pond, stream, 

river, etc. 37.1 (1.7) 35.1 (2.0) 33.4 (2.7) 

Other source 1.1 (0.4) 2.1 (0.7) 3.9 (1.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

28 / Dairy 2007

The frequency that water tanks/troughs were cleaned 13 or more times a year

increased from 13.6 percent of operations in 1996 to 34.2 percent in 2007.

b. For operations with a water tank or trough, percentage of operations by

average number of times per year water tank or trough was drained and

cleaned:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Number 

Times/Year Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

0 8.4 (1.2) 6.2 (1.1) 4.6 (1.4) 

1 to 4 51.8 (2.1) 46.5 (2.3) 37.1 (3.2) 

5 to 12 26.2 (1.9) 22.3 (1.9) 24.1 (2.8) 

13 or more 13.6 (1.4) 25.0 (1.9) 34.2 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

The percentage of operations that chlorinated drinking water for cows has not

changed since 1996 and remains at approximately 9 percent. This percentage

may not reflect water sources for cattle that are chlorinated prior to arriving at the

operation, such as municipal water supplies.

c. Percentage of operations that usually chlorinated drinking water for cows:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

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

10.7 (1.0) 9.8 (1.0) 8.7 (1.2) 

7. Permanently removed cows

About one of four cows was permanently removed (excluding those that died)

from operations in 2002 and 2007.

a. Percentage of cows permanently removed from the operation during the

previous 12 months (excluding those that died):

Percent Cows* 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

24.9 (0.4) 25.8 (0.9) 

*As a percentage of cow inventory at the time of interview. 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. General Management

30 / Dairy 2007

The majority of permanently removed cows were removed at 200 or more days

in milk in 2002 and 2007. The percentage of permanently removed cows by days

in milk did not change between 2002 and 2007.

b. Percentage of cows permanently removed during the previous 12 months, by

days in milk:

Percent Cows 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Days in Milk Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Fewer than 50 15.6 (0.5) 16.2 (1.1) 

50 to 199 24.1 (0.7) 22.6 (1.3) 

200 or more 60.3 (0.9) 58.0 (1.8) 

Dry cows 3.2 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez
USDA APHIS VS / 31

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

C. Milk Quality and

Milking Procedures

1. Bulk tank somatic cell count

Bulk tank somatic cell count (BTSCC) refers to the number of white blood cells

(leukocytes) and secretory cells per milliliter of raw milk and is used as a

measure of milk quality and udder health. Increased BTSCCs are generally

associated with increased intramammary infection and decreased milk

production. The current regulatory limit for BTSCCs in the United States is

750,000 cells/ml. Although the U.S. regulatory limit is 750,000 cells/ml, producers

may lose quality premiums or receive less money for their milk if it does not meet

the quality guidelines determined by the processor who purchases the milk.

The majority of operations had an average BTSCC between 100,000 and

299,000 cell/ml during each of the three study years.

Percentage of operations by average BTSCC for milk shipped during the

previous 12 months:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 19961

 Dairy 20022 Dairy 20073

BTSCC (cells/ml) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 100,000 4.4 (0.7) 2.4 (0.6) 2.8 (1.0) 

100,000 to 199,000 25.4 (1.6) 23.6 (1.9) 27.8 (2.6) 

200,000 to 299,000 34.4 (1.7) 34.5 (2.1) 40.3 (2.8) 

300,000 to 399,000 20.2 (1.5) 21.7 (1.7) 18.7 (2.0) 

400,000 to 499,000 10.1 (1.2) 11.0 (1.4) 8.7 (1.9) 

500,000 to 599,000 5.5 (0.9) 6.8 (1.1) 1.7 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Question variation: 11996 question asked about previous 6 months. 22002 question asked about 

previous 90 days. 3

2007 question asked about previous 12 months. 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

32 / Dairy 2007

2. Milking frequency

Milk production can be negatively affected by intramammary pressure. Frequent

milking during peak production can shorten periods of increased intramammary

pressure. Although increased milking frequency opens the teat canal more often,

the risk for intramammary infection does not appear to be increased. Evidence

suggests that increasing the times per day that fresh cows (cows less than

30 days in milk) are milked increases milk production during that period and

persists throughout lactation.

More than 9 of 10 operations milked the majority of cows twice a day in 2002 and

2007.

Percentage of operations by number of times per day the majority of cows* were

milked:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Times per Day Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

1 0.5 (0.4) 0.5 (0.4) 

2 93.6 (0.8) 92.5 (0.9) 

3 5.8 (0.7) 7.0 (0.8) 

More than 3 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*Question variation: other than fresh cows specified in 2007. 
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

3. Udder and teat preparation

The percentage of operations that forestripped all cows increased from

44.5 percent in 2002 to 58.9 percent in 2007. The percentage of operations that

did not forestrip any cows decreased from 13.1 percent in 2002 to 7.4 percent in

2007.

a. Percentage of operations by use of forestripping:

Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Forestripping Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

All cows 44.5 (2.1) 58.9 (2.9) 

Some cows 42.4 (2.1) 33.7 (2.8) 

No cows 13.1 (1.5) 7.4 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

34 / Dairy 2007

Iodophor was the predominant predip compound used during summer and winter

in 2002 and 2007. The use of primary predip compounds did not change from

2002 to 2007.

b. Percentage of operations by primary predip compounds used as

disinfectants, by season:

Percent Operations 

Season 

Summer Winter 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Predip 

Compound Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Iodophor (iodine 

containing) 64.7 (2.4) 59.6 (2.9) 65.1 (2.4) 59.7 (2.9) 

Chlorhexidine 9.4 (1.6) 11.7 (2.1) 10.6 (1.7) 11.8 (2.1) 

Fatty acid 

based 4.7 (1.1) 2.5 (0.7) 4.7 (1.1) 2.5 (0.7) 

Quaternary 

ammonium 0.3 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2) 0.5 (0.4) 0.3 (0.2) 

Phenols 0.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 

Chlorine 

product 3.7 (0.8) 7.2 (1.5) 3.7 (0.8) 7.1 (1.5) 

Other 7.1 (1.2) 7.9 (1.6) 6.9 (1.2) 8.0 (1.6) 

None 9.8 (1.6) 10.7 (1.8) 8.2 (1.5) 10.5 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

Single-use paper towel was the most common drying method used in 2002 and

2007. In summer and winter, the percentage of operations that air dried teats

prior to milking decreased from about 27 percent in 2002 to about

12 percent in 2007. The use of single-use cloth towels increased from 2002

(10.2 and 7.9 percent in summer and winter, respectively) to 2007 (21.5 and

21.6 percent in summer and winter, respectively).

c. Percentage of operations by the method used to dry teats prior to milking, and

by season:

Percent Operations 

Season 

Summer Winter 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Drying Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Air dry 27.0 (3.4) 12.4 (2.1) 27.4 (3.4) 12.3 (2.1) 

Single-use 

cloth towel 10.2 (2.2) 21.5 (2.1) 7.9 (1.8) 21.6 (2.1) 

Single-use 

paper towel 49.7 (3.9) 54.8 (2.8) 50.8 (3.8) 54.6 (2.8) 

Multiple-use 

cloth towel 7.4 (1.6) 7.1 (1.3) 7.0 (1.5) 7.1 (1.3) 

Multiple-use 

paper towel 4.2 (1.7) 0.6 (0.4) 5.4 (1.8) 0.6 (0.4) 

Other 1.5 (1.0) 0.4 (0.3) 1.5 (1.0) 0.6 (0.3) 

Not applicable– 

teats not wet prior 

to milking 3.2 (1.1) 3.2 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

36 / Dairy 2007

4. Postmilking procedures

As with predip compounds, iodophor was the predominant postdip compound

used during summer and winter in 2002 and 2007. The use of primary postdip

compounds in summer and winter at the operation level did not change from

2002 to 2007.

Percentage of operations by primary postdip compounds used as disinfectants,

and by season:

Percent Operations 

Season 

Summer Winter 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Predip 

Compound Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Iodophor (iodine 

containing) 71.1 (1.9) 69.8 (2.9) 69.7 (2.0) 67.8 (2.9) 

Chlorhexidine 11.4 (1.4) 12.1 (2.1) 12.1 (1.4) 13.4 (2.2) 

Fatty acid 

based 5.4 (0.8) 6.4 (1.4) 6.2 (0.9) 7.2 (1.5) 

Quaternary 

ammonium 0.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) 0.8 (0.5) 

Phenols 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 

Chlorine 

product 1.2 (0.4) 2.3 (1.1) 1.2 (0.4) 1.7 (0.8) 

Other 3.8 (0.8) 3.9 (1.1) 3.7 (0.8) 3.8 (1.1) 

None 6.3 (1.1) 5.2 (1.6) 6.2 (1.2) 5.3 (1.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

5. Milking practices

The percentage of operations in which milkers wore gloves to milk all cows

increased from 32.9 percent in 2002 to 55.2 percent in 2007. The percentage of

cows on operations in which milkers wore gloves increased from 48.7 in 2002 to

76.8 percent in 2007.

Percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on these operations) in which

milkers wore gloves to milk all cows:

6. Milking equipment

Less than 7.0 percent of operations used a backflush system in 2002 and 2007.

There were no differences across herd sizes between 2002 and 2007 in the use

of a backflush system.

a. Percentage of operations that used a backflush system in milking units, by

herd size:

Percent Operations 

 Herd Size (Number of Dairy 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 

Dairy 2002 4.9 (1.1) 9.8 (1.7) 20.7 (3.1) 6.7 (0.9) 

Dairy 2007 5.9 (1.8) 8.6 (2.1) 9.3 (2.6) 6.8 (1.3) 

Percent Operations Percent Cows 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007* Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007* 

Percent

Std. 

Error Percent

Std. 

Error Percent

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

32.9 (1.9) 55.2 (2.8) 48.7 (1.9) 76.8 (2.5) 

*Question variation: Specified latex or nitrile gloves in 2007. 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

38 / Dairy 2007

Although there were no changes by herd size from 2002 to 2007 in the

percentage of operations that used automatic takeoffs, the percentage of all

operations increased from 36.0 percent in 2002 to 45.4 percent in 2007.

b. Percentage of operations that used automatic takeoffs, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

 Herd Size (Number of Dairy 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 

Dairy 2002 21.3 (2.1) 71.0 (2.8) 93.3 (1.5) 36.0 (1.8) 

Dairy 2007 30.2 (3.3) 76.9 (3.8) 89.5 (3.4) 45.4 (2.6) 

7. Vaccination

There were no changes from 2002 to 2007 in the percentage of operations that

administered coliform mastitis and Salmonella vaccines. As reported in both

2002 and 2007, about 4 of 10 operations vaccinated for coliform mastitis and

about 1 of 10 vaccinated for Salmonella. Salmonella vaccine might also help

prevent coliform mastitis.

a. Percentage of operations by type of vaccination used during the previous

12 months:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 20021

 Dairy 20072

Vaccination Type Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Coliform mastitis 36.0 (2.0) 37.6 (2.6) 

Salmonella 10.7 (1.3) 13.4 (1.6) 

1

Question variation: Majority of cows. 

2

Question variation: All or some cows. 
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

8. Dry-off procedures/antibiotic treatment

There were no differences between 2002 and 2007 in the percentage of

operations by percentage of cows treated with dry-cow intramammary antibiotics

at dry-off during the previous 12 months. More than 8 of 10 cows in 2002 and

2007 were on operations that dry treated 100.0 percent of cows.

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

percentage of cows treated with dry-cow intramammary antibiotics at dry-off

during the previous 12 months:

Percent Operations Percent Cows 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Percent Dry 

Cows Treated Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0.0 5.9 (1.0) 9.9 (1.7) 4.3 (0.8) 5.9 (1.5) 

1.0 to 33.0 7.1 (1.2) 5.6 (1.4) 3.7 (0.6) 2.7 (0.9) 

33.1 to 66.0 2.9 (0.7) 3.0 (0.8) 2.0 (0.6) 2.4 (0.8) 

66.1 to 99.9 8.9 (1.2) 9.2 (1.8) 6.6 (0.9) 7.3 (1.3) 

100.0 75.2 (1.9) 72.3 (2.7) 83.4 (1.4) 81.7 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Milk Quality and Milking Procedures

40 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of cows treated with cephapirin decreased from 42.1 percent in

2002 to 31.0 percent in 2007, while the use of penicillin G (procaine)/novobiocin

increased from 5.8 to 13.2 percent. Ceftiofur hydrochloride was used to treat

7.0 percent of cows in 2007 and was not approved for use in 2002.

b. For cows treated with dry cow intramammary antibiotics during the previous

12 months, percentage of cows treated, by type of antibiotic:

 Percent Dry Cows1 Treated 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Antibiotic Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Ceftiofur 

hydrochloride2 7.0 (2.0) 

Cephapirin 

(benzathine) 42.1 (1.8) 31.0 (2.3) 

Cloxacillin 

(benzathine) 12.8 (1.4) 7.9 (1.8) 

Erythromycin 0.8 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 

Novobiocin 5.7 (1.1) 2.5 (1.9) 

Penicillin G (procaine) 1.3 (0.4) 1.7 (0.5) 

Penicillin G 

(procaine)/ 

dihydrostreptomycin 31.7 (2.0) 36.9 (3.2) 

Penicillin G 

(procaine)/ 

novobiocin 5.8 (1.0) 13.2 (2.4) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 

1

As a percentage of cows dry treated during the previous 12 months. Some cows were treated with 

more than one antibiotic. 

2

Approved for use in dry cows in 2005.
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

D. Antibiotic Use NOTE: In this section, the terms antibiotic and antimicrobial are used

synonymously (See Terms Used in This Report, p 4).

1. Preweaned heifers

Diarrhea or other digestive problem was the single most common disease or

disorder affecting preweaned heifer calves in 2002 and 2007, and a higher

percentage of preweaned heifers were affected in 2007 (23.9 percent) compared

with 2002 (15.3 percent). There were no differences between 2002 and 2007 in

the percentages of preweaned heifers affected or treated for respiratory disease.

Nor was there a difference in the percentage of heifers treated with antibiotics for

diarrhea or other digestive problem between 2002 and 2007. The percentage of

preweaned heifers treated for navel infection in 2007 was slightly higher than in

2002 (1.5 and 0.8 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of preweaned heifers affected with the following diseases or

disorders during the previous 12 months and percentage treated with antibiotics:

Percent Preweaned Heifers* 

Affected Treated 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Disease or 

Disorder Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Respiratory 9.0 (0.5) 12.4 (1.3) 8.6 (0.5) 11.4 (1.3) 

Diarrhea or 

other digestive 

problem 15.3 (0.9) 23.9 (1.9) 13.1 (0.8) 17.9 (1.7) 

Navel infection 1.0 (0.1) 1.6 (0.2) 0.8 (0.1) 1.5 (0.2) 

Other 0.4 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 

*As a percentage of dairy heifer calves born alive.
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

42 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of preweaned heifers affected with a specific disease or disorder

and treated with an antibiotic did not change between 2002 and 2007.

b. Of preweaned heifers affected with the following diseases or disorders during

the previous 12 months, percentage treated with an antibiotic:

 Percent Affected Preweaned Heifers Treated 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Disease or 

Disorder Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Respiratory 95.6 (1.1) 93.4 (2.3) 

Diarrhea or other 

digestive problem 85.7 (2.0) 74.5 (4.8) 

Navel infection 82.8 (4.9) 92.3 (2.4) 

Other 96.9 (2.0) 97.2 (1.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

In 2002 and 2007, florfenicol and noncephalosporin beta-lactam were the

primary antibiotics used for preweaned heifers with respiratory disease on more

than 10 percent of operations. Although the primary antibiotic used on operations

for diarrhea or other digestive problem did not change, a higher percentage of

operations had heifers affected with diarrhea in 2007 than in 2002 (79.5 and

66.2 percent, respectively). A lower percentage of operations that had heifers

with diarrhea or other digestive problem did not treat affected heifers in 2007

compared with 2002 (17.4 and 7.0 percent, respectively). The use of

noncephalosporin beta-lactam as the primary antibiotic used for navel infection

increased from 11.4 percent of operations in 2002 to 21.2 percent in 2007.

Additionally, in 2007 a higher percentage of operations had preweaned heifers

with navel infections than in 2002 (31.2 and 17.0 percent, respectively), and a

higher percentage of operations used any antibiotic to treat navel infections in

2007 than in 2002 (28.7 and 15.2 percent, respectively).
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

44 / Dairy 2007

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:

In 2007, 11.4 percent of preweaned heifers were treated for respiratory disease;

17.9 percent were treated for diarrhea or other digestive problem; and

1.5 percent were treated for navel infection (see table 1a). Table d. on the

following page presents the primary antibiotic used to treat these preweaned

heifers.

Percent Operations 

Disease/Disorder 

 Respiratory 

Diarrhea/ 

Other Digestive 

Problem Navel Infection Other 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Primary Antibiotic 

Used 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Aminocyclitol* 0.0 

(0.0) 

1.7 

(0.7) 

0.0 

(--) 

0.0 

(--) 

Aminoglycoside 1.1 

(0.4) 

0.6 

(0.4) 

6.0 

(1.0) 

4.0 

(1.1) 

0.3 

(0.2) 

0.0 

(0.0) 

0.3 

(0.3) 

0.4 

(0.4) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 

13.9 

(1.7) 

11.6 

(2.0) 

12.4 

(1.6) 

9.4 

(1.8) 

11.4 

(1.3) 

21.2 

(2.5) 

1.1 

(0.4) 

1.4 

(0.7) 

Cephalosporin 6.9 

(1.0) 

8.2 

(1.5) 

4.7 

(0.8) 

5.6 

(1.1) 

1.1 

(0.4) 

2.2 

(0.6) 

0.1 

(0.0) 

0.5 

(0.4) 

Florfenicol 11.8 

(1.4) 

18.3 

(2.2) 

2.3 

(0.6) 

4.0 

(1.1) 

0.6 

(0.4) 

1.1 

(0.5) 

0.2 

(0.1) 

0.0 

(0.0) 

Macrolide 9.6 

(1.3) 

15.2 

(2.1) 

3.4 

(0.9) 

1.5 

(0.5) 

0.3 

(0.3) 

0.8 

(0.4) 

0.1 

(0.1) 

0.3 

(0.2) 

Sulfonamide 2.8 

(0.8) 

1.9 

(0.7) 

13.8 

(1.6) 

9.2 

(1.5) 

0.1 

(0.1) 

0.9 

(0.9) 

0.0 

(--) 

0.2 

(0.1) 

Tetracycline 9.7 

(1.2) 

8.9 

(1.7) 

12.8 

(1.4) 

16.2 

(2.3) 

1.4 

(0.4) 

1.4 

(0.4) 

0.6 

(0.3) 

1.0 

(0.6) 

Other/unknown 1.9 

(0.5) 

2.0 

(0.7) 

3.8 

(0.8) 

10.5 

(1.8) 

0.0 

(0.0) 

1.1 

(0.6) 

0.0 

(--) 

0.7 

(0.5) 

Any antibiotic 57.7 

(2.3) 

66.7 

(2.8) 

59.2 

(2.2) 

62.1 

(2.8) 

15.2 

(1.5) 

28.7 

(2.6) 

2.4 

(0.6) 

4.5 

(1.1) 

No treatment but 

disease 

0.5 

(0.3) 

1.4 

(0.6) 

7.0 

(1.2) 

17.4 

(2.2) 

1.8 

(0.6) 

2.5 

(0.7) 

0.3 

(0.2) 

0.2 

(0.2) 

No disease or 

disorder 

41.8 

(2.3) 

31.9 

(2.8) 

33.8 

(2.1) 

20.5 

(2.4) 

83.0 

(1.6) 

68.8 

(2.7) 

97.3 

(0.6) 

95.3 

(1.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Included in “other” in 2002.
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

The percentage of preweaned heifers by primary antibiotic used to treat a

disease or disorder did not change between 2002 to 2007. For both study

periods, more than 14 percent of heifers treated for respiratory disease were on

operations that primarily used cephalosporin, florfenicol, or macrolide to treat

respiratory disease. In 2002 and 2007, sulfonamide and tetracycline were the

primary antibiotics used to treat more than 15.0 percent of heifers with diarrhea

or other digestive problem. The majority of preweaned heifers treated for navel

infection were on operations that primarily used noncephalosporin beta-lactam

antibiotics to treat navel infections.

d. Of preweaned heifers treated with antibiotics for the following diseases or

disorders during the previous 12 months (see table 1a, p 41), percentage of

preweaned heifers by primary antibiotic used to treat disease or disorder:

Percent Treated Preweaned Heifers 

Disease/Disorder 

 Respiratory 

Diarrhea/ 

digestive 

Navel 

Infection Other 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Aminocyclitol* 0.1 

(0.1) 

5.1 

(2.0) 

0.0 

(--) 

0.0 

(--) 

Aminoglycoside 1.8 

(0.7) 

2.4 

(1.7) 

11.5 

(2.5) 

11.5 

(3.9) 

0.5 

(0.5) 

0.3 

(0.2) 

12.7 

(8.5) 

0.9 

(0.9) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 

14.5 

(2.0) 

7.9 

(2.1) 

14.4 

(2.3) 

11.0 

(2.8) 

80.5 

(4.2) 

69.6 

(7.9) 

28.5 

(9.9) 

12.9 

(6.4) 

Cephalosporin 14.6 

(2.0) 

24.6 

(8.5) 

10.6 

(2.0) 

9.5 

(2.3) 

4.8 

(2.1) 

5.0 

(1.7) 

0.8 

(0.8) 

4.0 

(3.4) 

Florfenicol 29.3 

(3.3) 

25.4 

(5.5) 

3.8 

(1.1) 

5.2 

(1.8) 

3.9 

(2.6) 

3.7 

(2.0) 

19.1 

(13.1) 

0.2 

(0.2) 

Macrolide 16.1 

(2.2) 

19.8 

(3.7) 

7.1 

(1.8) 

2.8 

(1.6) 

1.2 

(1.1) 

11.6 

(8.9) 

0.9 

(0.8) 

15.2 

(10.3) 

Sulfonamide 3.9 

(1.4) 

3.3 

(1.8) 

23.8 

(2.7) 

23.3 

(6.2) 

0.4 

(0.3) 

1.8 

(1.8) 

0.0 

(--) 

10.2 

(9.1) 

Tetracycline 17.9 

(2.7) 

13.2 

(3.3) 

21.9 

(3.2) 

16.5 

(2.9) 

8.7 

(2.8) 

6.7 

(3.2) 

38.0 

(13.5) 

24.8 

(16.5) 

Other 1.9 

(0.6) 

3.3 

(1.5) 

6.9 

(1.5) 

15.1 

(3.0) 

0.0 

(--) 

1.3 

(0.6) 

0.0 

(--) 

31.8 

(18.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Included in “other” in 2002. 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

46 / Dairy 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

2. Weaned heifers

Ionophores have not consistently been considered antibiotics, but according to

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines ionophores are a type of

antibiotic. Excluding ionophores, antibiotic use in weaned heifer rations remained

the same between 2002 and 2007. However, when including ionophores as

antibiotics, 50.9 percent of operations used antibiotics in weaned heifer rations to

prevent disease or promote growth in 2007 compared with 17.5 percent in 2002.

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

prevent disease or promote growth during the previous 12 months:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Antibiotic Usage Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Antibiotics in heifer ration 17.5 (1.5) 18.2 (2.0) 

Ionophores only in 

heifer ration* 32.7 (2.6) 

Did not know if antibiotics 

were in heifer ration 2.0 (0.6) 2.3 (0.9) 

No antibiotics in 

heifer ration 76.6 (1.7) 44.2 (2.8) 

No weaned heifers 

on operation 3.9 (0.7) 2.6 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*Ionophores have not consistently been considered antibiotics, but according to FDA guidelines 

ionophores are a type of antibiotic. 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

48 / Dairy 2007

Of operations that used antibiotics in weaned heifer rations, a lower percentage

used chlortetracycline or sulfamethazine in 2007 than in 2002. In 2007, no

operations used bacitracin methylene disalicylate or tylosin phosphate in weaned

heifer rations.

b. For operations that used antibiotics in weaned heifer rations during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by antibiotic used:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Antibiotic Used Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Bacitracin methylene 

disalicylate 3.7 (1.8) 0.0 (--) 

Bambermycin 0.9 (0.5) 0.5 (0.5) 

Chlortetracycline 

compounds 62.4 (4.5) 14.4 (2.3) 

Neomycin sulfate 4.6 (1.7) 4.1 (1.8) 

Ionophores 84.9 (2.8) 

Neomycin-oxytetracycline 14.5 (3.2) 5.4 (1.9) 

Oxytetracycline 

compounds 21.5 (3.6) 10.9 (2.2) 

Sulfamethazine 27.2 (4.1) 5.7 (1.5) 

Tylosin phosphate 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 

Virginiamycin 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 

Other antibiotics 2.3 (2.1) 2.0 (1.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 49

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

Respiratory disease was the most common disease or disorder affecting weaned

heifers; however, the percentage of weaned heifers affected was less than

6 percent during 2002 and 2007. There were no differences between 2002 and

2007 in the percentages of weaned heifers affected or treated with antibiotics for

a specific disease or disorder.

c. Percentage of weaned heifers affected with the following diseases or disorders

during the previous 12 months and percentage treated with antibiotics:

Percent Weaned Heifers* 

Affected Treated 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Disease or 

Disorder Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Respiratory 4.7 (0.3) 5.9 (0.5) 4.6 (0.3) 5.5 (0.5) 

Diarrhea or 

other digestive 

problem 0.8 (0.2) 1.9 (0.7) 0.4 (0.2) 1.6 (0.7) 

Other 1.5 (0.2) 1.7 (0.6) 1.2 (0.2) 1.4 (0.6) 

*As a percentage of weaned heifer inventory on January 1. 

Photo courtesy Dr. Jason Lombard
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

50 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of weaned heifers affected with a specific disease or disorder

and treated with antibiotics did not differ between 2002 and 2007. Although the

percentage of heifers affected and treated for diarrhea or other digestive problem

appeared much lower in 2002 compared with 2007 (50.7 and 85.4 percent,

respectively), the large standard errors associated with the estimates preclude

identifying a change.

d. Of weaned heifers affected with the following diseases or disorders during the

previous 12 months, percentage treated with an antibiotic:

 Percent Affected Weaned Heifers Treated 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Disease or Disorder Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Respiratory 97.5 (0.9) 93.3 (1.8) 

Diarrhea or other 

digestive problem 50.7 (12.6) 85.4 (7.8) 

Other 86.3 (4.3) 81.3 (8.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

The percentage of operations that had weaned heifers with respiratory disease

increased from 41.9 percent in 2002 to 54.3 percent in 2007. However, the

percentage of operations that used any antibiotic to treat respiratory disease in

weaned heifers was similar in 2002 and 2007. A lower percentage of operations

in 2002 than in 2007 reported respiratory disease but did not treat it (0.5 and

5.1 percent, respectively). A lower percentage of operations in 2002 than in 2007

used any antibiotic to treat diarrhea or other digestive problem in weaned heifers

(3.5 and 7.4, respectively). “Other” diseases or disorders were treated with an

antibiotic on 14.8 percent of operations in 2002 and 6.2 percent in 2007. There

was also an increase in the percentage of operations reporting “other” diseases

that did not treat with an antibiotic (0.7 percent in 2002 and 4.7 percent in 2007).

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/disorder:

Percent Operations 

Disease/Disorder 

Respiratory Diarrhea/Other 

Digestive Problem Other 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

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

Aminoglycoside 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 7.2 (1.1) 7.8 (1.6) 1.0 (0.4) 1.6 (0.8) 7.1 (1.0) 3.3 (1.1) 

Cephalosporin 4.6 (0.8) 4.5 (1.3) 0.5 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 

Florfenicol 8.0 (1.1) 12.4 (1.7) 0.0 (--) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Macrolide 6.5 (1.0) 8.0 (1.2) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 0.8 (0.4) 0.2 (0.2) 

Sulfonamide 2.2 (0.7) 1.5 (0.5) 0.8 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 

Tetracycline 11.6 (1.3) 11.0 (1.7) 0.8 (0.3) 1.4 (0.5) 5.1 (0.8) 1.9 (0.6) 

Other 1.3 (0.5) 3.6 (1.1) 0.1 (0.1) 2.5 (0.7) 0.5 (0.3) 0.4 (0.2) 

Any antibiotic 41.4 (2.1) 49.2 (2.9) 3.5 (0.6) 7.4 (1.3) 14.8 (1.4) 6.2 (1.3) 

No treatment but 

disease 0.5 (0.3) 5.1 (1.4) 3.1 (0.8) 4.2 (1.1) 0.7 (0.4) 4.7 (1.5) 

No disease or 

disorder 58.1 (2.1) 45.7 (2.9) 93.4 (1.0) 88.4 (1.6) 84.5 (1.5) 89.1 (1.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Included in “other” category in 2002. 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

52 / Dairy 2007

In 2007, 5.5 percent of weaned heifers were treated for respiratory disease; 1.6

percent were treated for diarrhea or other digestive problem; and 1.4 percent

were treated for “other” diseases or disorders (see table 2c, p 49). The following

table presents the primary antibiotic used to treat these weaned heifers.

In 2002 and 2007, florfenicol, macrolide, and tetracycline were the primary

antibiotics used to treat respiratory disease in more than 15 percent of weaned

heifers. The percentage of treated weaned heifers on operations that primarily

used noncephalosporin beta-lactam antibiotics decreased from 9.3 percent in

2002 to 3.4 percent in 2007.

f. Of weaned heifers treated with antibiotics during the previous 12 months (see

table 2c, p 49), percentage of weaned heifers by primary antibiotic used for the

following diseases/disorders:

Percent Treated Weaned Heifers 

Disease/Disorder 

Respiratory Diarrhea/Digestive Other 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

2002 

Dairy 

2007 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

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

Aminoglycoside 0.4 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 9.2 (7.8) 0.0 (--) 1.3 (1.3) 0.0 (--) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 9.3 (1.5) 3.4 (0.8) 12.6 (7.2) 3.9 (2.8) 41.3 (7.2) 24.1 (14.2) 

Cephalosporin 5.6 (1.2) 9.8 (2.8) 54.3 (20.0) 3.2 (2.3) 3.7 (2.3) 0.9 (0.9) 

Florfenicol 26.4 (3.8) 30.3 (4.9) 0.0 (--) 10.0 (8.3) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Macrolide 17.4 (3.4) 15.6 (3.2) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 2.3 (1.2) 0.5 (0.4) 

Sulfonamide 5.2 (1.8) 4.1 (1.7) 11.0 (5.7) 2.0 (1.2) 3.0 (1.6) 1.7 (1.4) 

Tetracycline 34.3 (3.9) 25.0 (4.7) 11.8 (6.7) 55.1 (22.2) 46.2 (6.8) 67.0 (16.2) 

Other 1.4 (0.7) 9.0 (3.5) 1.1 (1.2) 25.6 (15.1) 2.2 (1.3) 5.8 (4.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Included in “other” category in 2002. 
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

54 / Dairy 2007

3. Cows

The percentage of cows with reproductive disease increased from 7.3 percent in

2002 to 10.0 percent in 2007, and the percentage treated for reproductive

disease increased from 4.9 percent in 2002 to 7.4 percent in 2007.

a. Percentage of cows affected with the following diseases or disorders during

the previous 12 months and percentage treated with antibiotics:

Percent Cows* 

Affected Treated 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Disease or 

Disorder Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Respiratory 2.4 (0.2) 2.9 (0.2) 2.2 (0.1) 2.8 (0.2) 

Diarrhea or 

other digestive 

problem 4.5 (0.3) 6.0 (0.6) 2.0 (0.2) 1.9 (0.2) 

Reproductive 7.3 (0.4) 10.0 (0.7) 4.9 (0.3) 7.4 (0.7) 

Mastitis 16.3 (0.7) 18.2 (0.9) 15.0 (0.7) 16.4 (0.8) 

Lameness 10.9 (0.7) 12.5 (0.9) 7.0 (0.6) 7.1 (0.7) 

Other 0.6 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1) 

*As a percentage of cow inventory on January 1.
USDA APHIS VS / 55

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

56 / Dairy 2007

The percentage of cows affected with a specific disease and treated with

antibiotics did not change between 2002 and 2007.

b. Of cows affected with the following diseases or disorders during the previous

12 months, percentage treated with an antibiotic:

 Percent Affected Cows Treated 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Disease or Disorder Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Respiratory 92.6 (4.0) 96.4 (1.2) 

Diarrhea or other 

digestive problem 44.7 (3.7) 32.3 (4.0) 

Reproductive 66.9 (3.1) 74.7 (3.1) 

Mastitis 91.9 (1.2) 89.9 (1.3) 

Lameness 64.9 (3.3) 56.5 (4.1) 

Other 41.4 (11.0) 66.2 (12.7) 

In 2002, 52.5 percent of operations had cows with reproductive disease

compared with 74.7 percent of operations in 2007. The percentage of operations

that used cephalosporin as the primary antibiotic to treat reproductive disease in

cows increased from 7.3 percent in 2002 to 17.2 percent in 2007. The

percentage of operations that treated reproductive disease with antibiotics

increased from 42.1 percent in 2002 to 52.9 percent in 2007. In addition, the

percentage of operations that had cows with reproductive disease and did not

treat them with an antibiotic increased from 2002 to 2007 (10.4 and 21.8 percent,

respectively).

For mastitis treatment, the percentage of operations that used cephalosporin

increased from 2002 to 2007 (33.3 and 44.5 percent, respectively), while the use

of noncephalosporin beta-lactam and macrolide antibiotics to treat mastitis

decreased from 2002 to 2007. The percentage of operations with lame cows

increased from 60.2 percent in 2002 to 75.8 percent in 2007. The overall

percentage of operations that used antibiotics for lameness remained the same

between 2002 and 2007; however, the percentage of operations that had cows

with lameness but did not treat them with antibiotics increased between 2002

and 2007 (8.6 and 17.2 percent, respectively).
USDA APHIS VS / 57

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

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

by primary antibiotic used to treat cows during the previous 12 months, and by

disease/disorder:

Percent Operations 

Disease/Disorder 

Reproductive Mastitis Lameness 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol* 0.6 (0.6) 1.1 (0.6) 0.0 (--) 

Aminoglycoside 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 0.9 (0.4) 0.5 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 15.9 (1.7) 13.5 (2.0) 29.0 (2.1) 16.9 (2.0) 14.7 (1.6) 13.6 (2.1) 

Cephalosporin 7.3 (1.0) 17.2 (2.0) 33.3 (2.2) 44.5 (2.9) 18.3 (1.6) 23.0 (2.2) 

Florfenicol 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.3 (0.2) 

Lincosamide 11.9 (1.5) 15.8 (2.1) 

Macrolide 0.3 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 2.7 (0.8) 0.3 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 

Sulfonamide 1.8 (0.8) 0.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.4) 1.8 (0.9) 1.8 (0.5) 1.4 (0.4) 

Tetracycline 16.7 (1.7) 17.7 (2.1) 4.4 (0.9) 2.5 (0.7) 13.9 (1.6) 18.6 (2.2) 

Other 0.0 (0.0) 3.6 (1.3) 1.0 (0.5) 2.0 (1.0) 2.3 (0.7) 1.5 (0.6) 

Any antibiotic 42.1 (2.3) 52.9 (2.8) 84.3 (1.7) 85.4 (2.2) 51.6 (2.3) 58.6 (2.9) 

No treatment but 

disease 10.4 (1.4) 21.8 (2.5) 1.0 (0.5) 7.7 (1.5) 8.6 (1.5) 17.2 (2.4) 

No disease 47.5 (2.3) 25.3 (2.5) 14.7 (1.7) 6.9 (1.7) 39.8 (2.3) 24.2 (2.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Included in “other” category in 2002. 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

58 / Dairy 2007

In 2007, respiratory disease was reported on about 6 of 10 operations

(59.3 percent). The highest percentage of operations (33.0 percent) that had

cows with respiratory disease used cephalosporin as the primary antibiotic to

treat the disease. The percentage of operations that had cows with diarrhea or

other digestive problem increased from 43.1 percent in 2002 to 56.6 percent in

2007. A two-fold increase was observed between 2002 and 2007 in the

percentage of operations that had cows with digestive disease but did not treat

with antibiotics (15.2 and 31.6 of operations, respectively). No change occurred

between 2002 and 2007 in the percentage of operations that treated cows with

antibiotics for digestive disease. Less than 7.0 percent of operations treated

“other” diseases with antibiotics in 2002 and 2007.

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

by primary antibiotic used to treat cows during the previous 12 months, and by

disease/disorder:

Percent Operations 

Disease/Disorder 

Respiratory Diarrhea/Other 

Digestive Problem Other 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol* 1.0 (0.5) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Aminoglycoside 0.5 (0.4) 0.3 (0.3) 1.0 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 9.0 (1.4) 10.5 (1.8) 11.4 (1.4) 8.8 (1.6) 3.1 (0.9) 3.0 (1.1) 

Cephalosporin 27.6 (2.0) 33.0 (2.7) 10.1 (1.3) 11.3 (1.8) 0.9 (0.5) 1.8 (0.7) 

Florfenicol 1.3 (0.4) 2.4 (0.9) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 

Macrolide 1.9 (0.8) 1.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.3) 0.6 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Sulfonamide 1.9 (0.7) 1.7 (0.8) 2.8 (0.6) 1.3 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 

Tetracycline 6.2 (1.0) 4.7 (1.0) 2.1 (0.6) 1.1 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) 0.6 (0.4) 

Other 0.6 (0.3) 1.0 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 1.1 (0.6) 0.0 (--) 1.5 (0.8) 

Any antibiotic 49.0 (2.3) 55.8 (2.9) 27.9 (2.0) 25.0 (2.4) 4.8 (1.1) 6.9 (1.5) 

No treatment but 

disease 1.5 (0.5) 3.5 (1.2) 15.2 (1.7) 31.6 (2.7) 3.3 (0.9) 3.5 (1.2) 

No disease 49.5 (2.3) 40.7 (2.9) 56.9 (2.2) 43.4 (2.9) 91.9 (1.4) 89.6 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Included in “other” category in 2002. 
USDA APHIS VS / 59

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

In 2007, 7.4 percent of cows were treated for reproductive disease; 16.4 percent

were treated for mastitis; and 7.1 percent were treated for lameness (see table

3a, p 54). Table e. on the following page presents the primary antibiotic used to

treat these cows.

No changes occurred between 2002 and 2007 in the percentage of treated cows

by primary antibiotic used for reproductive disease. Tetracycline, cephalosporin,

and noncephalosporin beta-lactam remained the primary antibiotics used to treat

cows with reproductive disease.

The percentage of cows treated for mastitis with noncephalosporin beta-lactam

and macrolide antibiotics decreased from 2002 to 2007, while the use of

cephalosporin increased.

The majority of cows were on operations that primarily used tetracycline,

cephalosporin, or noncephalosporin beta-lactam antibiotics to treat lameness.
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

60 / Dairy 2007

e. Of cows treated with antibiotics for the following diseases or disorders during

the previous 12 months (see table 3a, p 54), percentage of cows by primary

antibiotic used to treat disease or disorder:

Percent Treated Cows 

Disease/Disorder 

Reproductive Mastitis Lameness 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol* 0.2 (0.2) 2.9 (2.0) 0.0 (--) 

Aminoglycoside 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 1.0 (0.5) 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 31.1 (3.4) 19.7 (3.8) 33.8 (2.9) 19.1 (3.0) 17.3 (3.3) 19.5 (5.4) 

Cephalosporin 23.2 (3.0) 27.9 (4.7) 36.8 (3.1) 53.2 (4.1) 29.8 (4.4) 27.2 (3.8) 

Florfenicol 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.3) 

Lincosamide 21.3 (3.2) 19.4 (3.1) 

Macrolide 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 2.8 (1.0) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.3) 

Sulfonamide 4.2 (2.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.7 (0.3) 1.2 (0.5) 4.4 (1.1) 4.2 (1.4) 

Tetracycline 41.2 (4.1) 44.4 (6.0) 3.1 (0.8) 2.0 (0.7) 42.4 (5.1) 42.1 (5.4) 

Other 0.1 (0.1) 7.4 (4.5) 0.5 (0.2) 1.8 (0.9) 5.8 (1.8) 6.0 (3.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Included in “other” category in 2002. 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

In 2007, 2.8 percent of cows were treated for respiratory disease; 1.9 percent

were treated for diarrhea or other digestive problem; and 0.5 percent were

treated for “other” disease or disorder (see table 3a). Table f. on the following

page presents the primary antibiotic used to treat these cows.

For respiratory disease and diarrhea or other digestive problem, the percentages

of treated cows by primary antibiotic used did not change from 2002 to 2007. As

opposed to the treatment of reproductive disease and lameness in the previous

table, tetracycline was not used on a high percentage of cows treated for

respiratory or digestive disease between 2002 and 2007. Cephalosporin was the
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Antibiotic Use

62 / Dairy 2007

primary antibiotic used to treat the majority of cows with respiratory disease in

2002 and 2007 (67.3 and 70.5 percent of treated cows, respectively). About 7 of

10 cows treated for digestive disease were on operations that used

noncephalosporin beta-lactam or cephalosporin as primary antibiotics for

diarrhea or other digestive problem.

f. Of cows treated with antibiotics for the following diseases or disorders during

the previous 12 months, percentage of cows by primary antibiotic used on the

operation to treat a disease or disorder:

Percent Treated Cows 

Disease/Disorder 

Respiratory Diarrhea/Other 

Digestive Problem Other 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Primary 

Antibiotic Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Aminocyclitol* 3.3 (1.6) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--)

Aminoglycoside 0.4 (0.4) 0.6 (0.5) 3.2 (1.7) 6.4 (4.4) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--)

Noncephalosporin 

beta-lactam 13.0 (1.9) 11.0 (2.5) 41.2 (4.3) 30.3 (5.7) 61.4 (15.1) 29.9 (11.6) 

Cephalosporin 67.3 (3.1) 70.5 (3.9) 37.9 (4.3) 36.0 (5.9) 16.1 (8.0) 23.6 (11.5)

Florfenicol 2.1 (0.8) 1.9 (0.7) 0.4 (0.3) 0.4 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--)

Macrolide 1.3 (0.5) 1.1 (0.5) 0.7 (0.7) 1.1 (0.8) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--)

Sulfonamide 3.1 (1.0) 2.8 (1.4) 11.9 (2.4) 15.6 (6.6) 7.1 (6.9) 0.0 (--)

Tetracycline 11.6 (2.0) 6.4 (1.6) 4.6 (1.7) 7.0 (2.9) 15.3 (9.8) 2.6 (1.9)

Other 1.2 (0.5) 2.4 (1.3) 0.1 (0.1) 3.2 (2.2) 0.0 (--) 43.9 (16.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Included in “other” category in 2002. 
USDA APHIS VS / 63

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Surgical Procedures

E. Surgical Procedures 1. Dehorning

Between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of operations that dehorned heifer

calves while on the operation decreased on large operations and on all

operations. In 2007, 94.0 percent of operations still dehorned calves. The

percentage of large operations that dehorned calves decreased from

88.9 percent in 1996 to 64.3 percent in 2007, which might be due to the increase

in operations that have calves raised off-site.

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

operation, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Study Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 1996 98.6 (0.5) 98.9 (0.4) 88.9 (4.1) 98.4 (0.4) 

Dairy 2007 97.3 (1.6) 92.6 (2.8) 64.3 (6.3) 94.0 (1.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Surgical Procedures

64 / Dairy 2007

The use of hot iron/electric dehorners increased from 40.2 percent of operations

in 1996 to 64.4 percent in 2007. In contrast, the use of tube, spoon, or gouge,

and saws, wire, or Barnes dehorners decreased by about one-half in the same

period.

b. For operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves, percentage of operations

by primary method used to dehorn heifer calves:

 Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2007 

Primary Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Hot iron/electric 40.2 (1.7) 64.4 (3.0) 

Caustic paste 6.7 (1.0) 8.1 (1.8) 

Tube, spoon, or gouge 33.9 (1.8) 17.7 (2.4) 

Saws, wire, or Barnes 19.2 (1.5) 9.3 (1.6) 

Other 0.5 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 65

Section I: Population Estimates—E. Surgical Procedures

Approximately 4 of 10 operations that used a method to dehorn calves that

caused bleeding disinfected the equipment between each animal.

c. For operations that routinely dehorned heifer calves with surgical dehorning

equipment that causes bleeding, percentage of operations that chemically

disinfected equipment between each animal:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2007 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

38.3 (2.6) 46.4 (4.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. Surgical Procedures

66 / Dairy 2007

2. Tail docking

About one-half of operations tail-docked cows in each study period.

a. Percentage of operations by percentage of tail-docked cows:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Percent Cows Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

0 49.5 (2.1) 51.4 (2.9) 

1.0 to 24.9 17.5 (1.6) 10.8 (1.9) 

25.0 to 75.9 9.1 (1.3) 8.9 (1.6) 

76.0 to 99.9 8.0 (1.1) 14.3 (2.2) 

100.0 15.9 (1.5) 14.6 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Overall, 38.8 percent of cows had their tail docked in 2007 compared with 32.9

percent in 2002. A higher percentage of cows had their tail docked on medium

operations than on small or large operations in 2002 and 2007.

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

Percent Cows* 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Study Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 2002 27.3 (2.3) 44.3 (2.6) 27.0 (2.7) 32.9 (1.5) 

Dairy 2007 27.1 (3.2) 55.5 (3.6) 34.5 (4.3) 38.8 (2.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 67

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Hoof Health

F. Hoof Health 1. Lameness

The percentage of operations with cases of lameness in bred heifers increased

from 36.5 percent in 2002 to 58.7 percent in 2007. The highest percentage of

operations that had lameness in bred heifers reported that between 1.0 and

24.9 percent of bred heifers were affected.

From 1996 to 2007, almost all operations had at least 1.0 percent of cows

affected by lameness during the previous 12 months. The percentage of

operations that had 1.0 to 24.9 percent of cows affected by lameness decreased

from 75.4 percent in 1996 to 63.9 percent in 2007. However, the percentage of

operations that had 50.0 percent or more cows affected with lameness increased

from 5.0 percent in 1996 to 12.0 percent in 2007.

a. Percentage of operations by percentage of lameness cases in bred heifers

and cows during the previous 12 months:

Percent Operations 

Cattle Class 

Bred Heifers Cows 

 Dairy 19961 2

 Dairy 20023 Dairy 20074 Dairy 19961 5 Dairy 20026 Dairy 20077

Percent 

Lameness 

Cases Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 63.5 (1.7) 61.1 (2.1) 41.3 (3.1) 4.9 (0.8) 4.7 (1.0) 3.6 (1.1) 

1.0 to 24.9 29.8 (1.6) 32.0 (1.9) 49.6 (3.0) 75.4 (1.6) 68.5 (2.0) 63.9 (2.7) 

25.0 to 49.9 5.0 (0.8) 4.8 (0.9) 6.3 (1.7) 14.7 (1.3) 16.6 (1.5) 20.5 (2.3) 

50.0 or more 1.7 (0.6) 2.1 (0.6) 2.8 (1.0) 5.0 (0.8) 10.2 (1.3) 12.0 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Question variation: 

1

1996 question variation: asked number of animals that showed clinical signs of lameness. 

2

Cows in first lactation were used as a proxy for total bred heifers during the previous 12 months. 

3

As a percentage of home-raised replacements entering milking string in 2001. 

4

As a percentage of dairy-cow replacements entering milking string in 2006. 

5

As a percentage of milk cows on the operation January 1, 1996. 

6

As a percentage of milk cows on the operation at time of interview (February through April, 2002). 

7

As a percentage of milk cows on the operation at time of interview (February through August, 2007). 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Hoof Health

68 / Dairy 2007

2. Footbath

Between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of operations that used footbaths for

cows throughout the year increased from 13.6 percent in 1996 to 20.3 percent in

2007. Footbath use throughout the year increased as herd size increased.

Percentage of operations by use of a footbath for cows during the previous

12 months, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number Dairy Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2007 

Footbath Use 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Throughout year 6.4 

(1.0) 

5.2 

(1.5) 

34.9 

(2.7) 

46.3 

(4.2) 

66.3 

(6.2) 

80.8 

(5.1) 

13.6 

(1.0) 

20.3 

(1.7) 

Seasonally/ 

occasionally 

12.2 

(1.4) 

12.9 

(2.5) 

22.8 

(2.4) 

18.6 

(3.7) 

9.2 

(3.7) 

5.5 

(2.4) 

14.3 

(1.2) 

13.8 

(1.9) 

Other 4.9 

(2.1) 

4.8 

(2.1) 

2.6 

(2.2) 

4.8 

(1.5) 

None 81.4 

(1.7) 

77.0 

(3.3) 

42.3 

(2.7) 

30.3 

(3.9) 

24.5 

(5.5) 

11.1 

(4.2) 

72.1 

(1.5) 

61.1 

(2.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Digital dermatitis remained the primary cause of lameness in bred heifers,

accounting for more than 50 percent of all lameness cases. In cows, digital

dermatitis as a percentage of all lameness cases decreased from 63.4 percent in

1996 to 49.1 percent in 2007.

b. Percentage of lameness cases in bred heifers and cows due to digital

dermatitis (hairy-heel warts), by cattle class:

Percent Lameness Cases 

Cattle Class 

Bred Heifers Cows 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

54.9 (3.3) 61.8 (2.8) 61.8 (5.5) 63.4 (2.5) 53.9 (2.0) 49.1 (2.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Hoof Health
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Hoof Health

70 / Dairy 2007

3. Hoof trimming

Hoof trimming increased from 75.9 percent of operations in 1996 to 84.8 percent

in 2007. A substantial increase occurred between 1996 and 2007 in the

percentage of operations that trimmed 90 to 100 percent of cows during the

previous 12 months (13.0 and 46.4 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations by percentage of cows that had their hooves

trimmed at least once during the previous 12 months:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2007 

Percent Cows Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

0 24.1 (1.6) 15.2 (2.4) 

1 to 9 24.0 (1.6) 5.4 (1.5) 

10 to 39 20.0 (1.5) 13.1 (2.1) 

40 to 59 8.8 (1.0) 9.0 (1.6) 

60 to 89 10.1 (0.9) 10.9 (1.9) 

90 to 100 13.0 (1.0) 46.4 (3.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 71

Section I: Population Estimates—F. Hoof Health

Professional hoof trimmers trimmed the majority of hooves on 50.8 percent of

operations in 1996 and on 76.7 percent of operations in 2007. The percentages

of operations in which a veterinarian or owner or operation personnel trimmed

the majority of hooves decreased from 1996 to 2007. Between 1996 and 2007,

the percentage of cows that had hooves trimmed by a professional hoof trimmer

increased from 68.0 percent in 1996 to 80.1 percent in 2007.

b. For operations that had cows’ hooves trimmed during the previous 12 months,

percentage of operations (and percentage of cows on these operations) by the

person who trimmed the majority of hooves:

 Percent Operations Percent Cows 

 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2007 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2007 

Hoof 

Trimmer Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Professional 

hoof trimmer 

(not the 

operation’s 

personnel) 50.8 (2.0) 76.7 (2.8) 68.0 (1.8) 80.1 (3.2) 

Veterinarian 

(not the 

operation’s 

personnel) 20.2 (1.8) 5.5 (1.8) 11.5 (1.0) 1.4 (0.4) 

Owner or the 

operation’s 

personnel 28.9 (1.9) 17.2 (2.4) 20.2 (1.7) 17.6 (3.1) 

Other 0.1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.4) 0.3 (0.2) 0.9 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—F. Hoof Health

72 / Dairy 2007

The operation average number of visits made by a professional hoof trimmer or

either a professional hoof trimmer or veterinarian during the previous 12 months

increased in each herd size from 1996 to 2007. On medium operations, the

average number of visits by a veterinarian to trim hooves decreased during the

same period. For all operations, the operation average number of visits for

professional hoof trimmers increased from 2.6 in 1996 to 7.1 in 2007.

c. For operations in which a professional hoof trimmer or veterinarian visited to

trim hooves or to evaluate lame cows (as part of a routine trimming program),

operation average number of visits made by professional hoof trimmer,

veterinarian, or either during the previous 12 months, by herd size:

Operation Average Number Visits 

Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2007 

Dairy 

1996 

Dairy 

2007 

Professional 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Pct. 

(SE) 

Hoof trimmer 1.1 

(0.1) 

2.0 

(0.2) 

4.4 

(0.3) 

9.0 

(0.5) 

17.8 

(1.7) 

44.5 

(4.0) 

2.6 

(0.1) 

7.1 

(0.5) 

Veterinarian 2.3 

(0.3) 

1.3 

(0.3) 

2.0 

(0.3) 

0.7 

(0.2) 

0.4 

(0.3) 

0.2 

(0.2) 

2.2 

(0.2) 

1.1 

(0.2) 

Either 3.4 

(0.3) 

3.3 

(0.3) 

6.4 

(0.4) 

9.7 

(0.6) 

18.2 

(1.7) 

44.7 

(4.0) 

4.8 

(0.2) 

8.2 

(0.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 73

Section I: Population Estimates—G. Hemorrhagic Bowel Syndrome (HBS)

G. Hemorrhagic Bowel

Syndrome (HBS)

1. Clinical signs

Clinical signs consistent with HBS were observed in at least one cow on a lower

percentage of medium operations in 2002 than in 2007 (13.4 and 31.7 percent,

respectively). The percentage of operations in which at least one cow showed

clinical signs consistent with HBS increased from 9.1 percent in 2002 to 19.7

percent in 2007.

Percentage of operations in which at least one cow showed clinical signs

consistent with HBS during the previous 5 years, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Study Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 2002 6.4 (1.3) 13.4 (1.9) 31.2 (3.8) 9.1 (1.1) 

Dairy 2007 12.8 (2.6) 31.7 (4.1) 48.4 (6.2) 19.7 (2.1) 
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

74 / Dairy 2007

1. Manure-handling methods

The percentage of operations that left manure on pasture as a manure-handling

method increased for weaned-heifer and cow housing areas between 2002 and

2007. Similarly, the use of scrapers on drylots as a manure-handling method

increased for both housing areas from 2002 to 2007. When comparing manure

handling methods in weaned heifer and cow housing areas, a higher percentage

of operations used gutter cleaners in cow housing areas, while bedded packs

were used by a higher percentage of operations in weaned-heifer housing.

a. Percentage of operations by manure handling methods used in weaned-heifer

and cow housing areas:

H. Nutrient Management

Percent Operations 

Housing Area 

Weaned-heifer* Cow 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Manurehandling 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Manure left on 

pasture 73.8 (1.8) 88.5 (1.9) 72.4 (1.8) 85.3 (2.3) 

Drylot scraped 50.3 (2.2) 75.3 (3.1) 57.0 (2.1) 82.5 (2.5) 

Gutter cleaner 18.1 (1.8) 23.6 (2.8) 63.2 (1.3) 52.6 (1.9) 58.0 (2.5) 

Alley scraper 

(mechanical or 

tractor) 42.7 (2.1) 47.3 (3.1) 57.7 (1.7) 51.4 (2.0) 54.9 (2.9) 

Alley flush 

with fresh 

water 0.9 (0.3) 1.0 (0.4) 2.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.4) 

Alley flush 

with recycled 

water 2.3 (0.5) 3.5 (0.7) 

2.8 (0.3) 

4.4 (0.6) 5.0 (0.8) 

Slotted floor 2.9 (0.7) 4.9 (1.2) 3.9 (0.6) 6.2 (1.2) 

Bedded pack 

(manure pack) 62.1 (2.1) 60.6 (3.0) 31.6 (2.0) 40.0 (2.9) 

Manure 

vacuum 0.6 (0.2) 1.5 (0.8) 

Other method 4.8 (1.0) 6.5 (1.7) 1.1 (0.4) 3.9 (0.8) 5.3 (1.5) 

*For operations that housed weaned heifers.
USDA APHIS VS / 75

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

There were no changes between 2002 and 2007 in methods used to handle the

majority of manure in weaned-heifer housing or cow housing areas. In weanedheifer housing, more than 9 percent of operations left manure on pasture,

scraped the drylot, used a gutter cleaner, alley scraper, or bedded pack to handle

the majority of manure. In cow-housing areas, gutter cleaners or alley scrapers

were used by more than 30 percent of operations as the method or handling the

majority of manure.

b. Percentage of operations by method used to handle the majority of manure in

weaned-heifer and cow housing areas:

Percent Operations 

Housing Area 

Weaned-heifer* Cow 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Manure-handling 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Manure left on 

pasture 18.1 (1.7) 15.4 (2.1) 8.6 (1.2) 5.7 (1.3) 

Drylot scraped 14.0 (1.5) 17.5 (2.3) 7.5 (1.0) 10.1 (1.5) 

Gutter cleaner 9.1 (1.4) 14.6 (2.5) 43.4 (2.0) 42.8 (3.0) 

Alley scraper 

(mechanical or 

tractor) 26.7 (1.9) 23.5 (2.5) 34.2 (1.9) 30.1 (2.4) 

Alley flush with 

fresh water 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 0.6 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 

Alley flush with 

recycled water 0.9 (0.2) 0.9 (0.3) 2.1 (0.3) 2.5 (0.5) 

Slotted floor 1.3 (0.5) 1.5 (0.6) 1.1 (0.4) 1.4 (0.6) 

Bedded pack 

(manure pack) 27.1 (2.0) 22.6 (2.6) 1.1 (0.5) 3.2 (1.2) 

Manure vacuum 0.0 (0.0) 1.9 (1.1) 

Other 2.5 (0.7) 4.0 (1.4) 1.4 (0.6) 2.1 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*For operations that housed weaned heifers.
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

76 / Dairy 2007

2. Waste-storage and treatment systems

The only change in the use of waste-storage or treatment systems between 2002

and 2007 was the increase in the percentage of operations that used compost

(4.3 and 11.1 percent, respectively). However, from 1996 to 2002 increases

were seen in the percentages of operations that stored slurry in a tank, stored

untreated slurry or liquid manure in an earthen basin, or used a manure pack.

a. Percentage of operations by waste-storage and/or treatment system used:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Treatment System Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Store in manure spreader 51.0 (2.0) 46.1 (2.9) 

Below-floor 

slurry or deep pit 7.9 (0.8) 11.5 (1.2) 11.6 (1.6) 

Slurry stored in tank 5.4 (0.7) 10.7 (1.2) 12.7 (1.8) 

Slurry or liquid manure 

stored in earthen basin 

and NOT treated1 16.3 (1.2) 26.1 (1.8) 30.9 (2.6) 

Treatment lagoon–NOT 

mechanically aerated2 8.5 (1.1) 

Treatment lagoon–

mechanically aerated2

 1.5 (0.3) 

7.3 (0.8) 

2.1 (0.5) 

Manure pack (inside barn) 21.4 (1.5) 48.1 (2.1) 56.1 (2.9) 

Outside storage for solid 

manure NOT in drylot or pen 36.6 (1.8) 32.6 (2.0) 42.5 (3.0) 

Outside storage for solid 

manure within drylot or pen 14.9 (1.4) 18.2 (1.6) 23.5 (2.5) 

Storage of solid manure 

in a building without cattle 

access 3.0 (0.6) 2.3 (0.6) 4.7 (1.0) 

Storage of solid manure 

with picket dam 3.3 (0.7) 3.2 (0.9) 

Composted 4.3 (0.9) 11.1 (2.0) 

Collection of 

methane/biogas 0.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.0) 

Solid separator 3.4 (0.5) 

Other system 12.8 (0.9) 0.2 (0.1) 4.3 (1.2) 

1

Question variation: In 1996 only asked about slurry storage in earthen basin. 

2

These two categories were combined in Dairy 2002.
USDA APHIS VS / 77

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

78 / Dairy 2007

3. Maximum manure storage capacity

Producers were asked the following: “Assuming your facility was completely

emptied of manure, and it was operating at full animal capacity, how many days

could you operate and store manure before manure had to be removed from the

storage facility?”

Overall, the days of storage capacity remained unchanged between 2002 to

2007.

Percentage of operations by maximum manure storage capacity:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Storage 

Capacity (Days) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Fewer than 7 31.4 (2.1) 27.7 (2.7) 

7 to 29 7.4 (1.1) 7.1 (1.7) 

30 to 59 6.7 (1.2) 2.9 (0.7) 

60 to 89 5.2 (1.0) 2.8 (0.9) 

90 to 179 10.7 (1.2) 12.6 (1.7) 

180 to 364 24.9 (1.7) 29.5 (2.6) 

365 or more 13.7 (1.4) 17.4 (2.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 79

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

80 / Dairy 2007

5. Manure application

Between 1996 and 2007, approximately 9 of 10 operations used a broadcast/

solid spreader to apply manure to land. The percentage of operations that used

surface application of liquid manure increased each study year. The percentage

of operations that used subsurface application of liquid manure increased from

4.3 percent in 1996 to 8.8 percent in 2007.

4. Manure use

Almost all operations applied manure to owned or rented land in all three study

years. Between 1996 and 2007, the percentages of operations that sold manure

or received other compensation or gave manure away increased.

Percentage of operations by method of manure use:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Applied manure to 

land either owned or 

rented 98.9 (0.3) 98.3 (0.4) 99.1 (0.4) 

Sold manure or 

received other 

compensation 2.3 (0.3) 4.8 (0.7) 7.1 (1.3) 

Gave manure away 6.8 (0.8) 16.2 (1.5) 16.8 (2.0) 

Used composted 

manure as bedding 4.7* (0.7) 1.8 (0.3) 5.1 (1.4) 

Other 0.1 (0.1) 0.9 (0.4) 

*Question variation: In 1996 inquired about composting manure, not using it as bedding. 
USDA APHIS VS / 81

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Broadcast/ 

solid spreader 88.7 (1.1) 90.0 (1.2) 91.5 (1.7) 

Surface application 22.7 (1.4) 30.1 (1.8) 40.7 (2.8) 

Subsurface 

application 4.3 (0.7) 6.1 (0.8) 8.8 (1.5) 

Irrigation/ 

sprinkler 7.0 (0.6) 7.6 (0.7) 7.3 (0.8) 

Other 0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 1.3 (0.7) 

The percentage of operations that never incorporated manure into the soil within

24 hours of application decreased from 82.1 percent in 1996 to 36.0 percent in

2007. The percentage of operations that always or almost always incorporated

manure in the soil within 24 hours after application increased from 13.9 percent

of operations in 2002 to 22.0 percent in 2007.

a. For operations that applied manure to land, percentage of operations by

manure application method used:

b. For operations that applied manure to land, percentage of operations by

frequency that manure was incorporated into soil within 24 hours after

application, including subsurface injection:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 1996* Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Always or almost always 13.9 (1.4) 22.0 (2.2) 

Sometimes 

17.9 (1.3) 

42.6 (2.2) 42.0 (3.0) 

Never 82.1 (1.3) 43.5 (2.2) 36.0 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*1996 question variation: yes/no question. 
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

82 / Dairy 2007

Crop nitrogen and phosphorus requirements used as criteria to determine

frequency of applying manure to land increased from 44.8 and 38.5 percent,

respectively, in 2002 to 56.3 and 49.2 percent, respectively, in 2007.

d. For operations that applied manure to land, percentage of operations by

criteria used to determine how much or how frequently manure is applied to the

land:

The percentage of operations that analyzed the nutrient content of manure

increased from 14.0 percent in 1996 to about 26 percent in 2007.

c. For operations that applied manure to land, percentage of operations that

analyzed manure during the previous 12 months, by nutrient:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 1996* Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Nutrient Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Nitrogen 20.9 (1.6) 26.9 (2.4) 

Phosphorus 20.4 (1.6) 26.4 (2.3) 

Potassium 

14.0 (1.2) 

20.3 (1.6) 26.4 (2.3) 

*1996 question variation: asked if analyzed content of manure such as nitrogen. 

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 1996* Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Criteria Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Crop nitrogen 

requirement 44.8 (2.1) 56.3 (3.0) 

Crop phosphorus 

requirement 

43.2 (1.8) 

38.5 (2.1) 49.2 (3.1) 

Manure 

volume/acreage 

available 68.3 (2.1) 70.3 (2.8) 

Soil quality 

improvement 70.7 (2.8) 

Other criteria 6.5 (1.0) 6.2 (1.5) 

*1996 question variation: asked if manure application rate was established based on manure 

nutrients and/or crop needs. 
USDA APHIS VS / 83

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

There were no differences from 2002 to 2007 in the percentage of operations by

distance between where manure was applied and surface water. Almost one of

four operations applied manure 100 feet or less from surface water. About one of

three operations applied manure 1,000 feet or more away from surface water.

e. For operations that applied manure to land, percentage of operations by

minimum distance (in feet) between location of manure application and surface

water, such as a lake, pond, stream, or river:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Minimum 

Distance (Feet) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Less than 100 24.3 (1.8) 24.4 (2.5) 

100 to 199 14.9 (1.6) 16.7 (2.2) 

200 to 499 16.3 (1.6) 20.3 (2.5) 

500 to 999 7.2 (1.1) 7.8 (1.7) 

1,000 or more 37.3 (2.1) 30.8 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

84 / Dairy 2007

There were no changes between 2002 and 2007 in the percentage of operations

that applied manure to crops. More than one-half of operations applied manure

to actively growing pasture or hay. Almost one of three operations applied

manure to forage to be ensiled during 2002 and 2007.

f. Percentage of operations that applied manure to actively growing plants, by

crop type:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Crop Type Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Pasture or hay 55.6 (2.2) 52.2 (2.9) 

Forage to be ensiled 30.6 (2.0) 28.0 (2.5) 

Other forage 9.0 (1.1) 13.4 (1.9) 

Grain or oilseed 9.2 (1.2) 10.7 (1.7) 

Other 0.4 (0.2) 3.9 (1.4) 

Any 63.9 (2.1) 64.4 (2.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 85

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

6. Written nutrient management plan

A higher percentage of operations in 2007 than in 2002 had a written nutrient

management plan (43.6 and 30.6 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations that had a written nutrient management plan

addressing topics such as land treatment practices or manure storage

structures, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

 Herd Size (Number of Cows) 

Small 

(Fewer 

than 100) 

Medium 

(100-499) 

Large 

(500 or More) 

All 

Operations 

Study Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Dairy 2002 23.3 (2.3) 48.4 (3.0) 55.8 (4.1) 30.6 (1.8) 

Dairy 2007 35.1 (3.8) 62.1 (4.4) 62.7 (5.9) 43.6 (2.9) 

For operations that had a written nutrient management plan, the percentage of

operations that participated in a USDA voluntary cost share program increased

from 45.9 percent in 2002 to 64.5 percent in 2007.

b. For operations that had a written nutrient management plan, percentage of

operations that developed or implemented the plan in cooperation with Federal,

State, or local agencies or requirements:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Plan was... Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent Std. Error 

Developed in cooperation with 

the USDA Natural Resource 

Conservation Service or a local 

conservation district 81.0 (2.6) 89.2 (2.2) 

Implemented to help satisfy a 

State or local regulatory 

requirement 54.9 (3.8) 62.9 (4.2) 

Part of USDA voluntary cost 

share program 45.9 (3.5) 64.5 (3.6) 
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

86 / Dairy 2007

7. Waste-management consultant

The percentage of operations that used a private nutrient management

consultant, Natural Resource Conservation Service personnel, or agronomist/

crop consultant for waste management consultation increased between 2002

and 2007. However, the use of any consultant was similar in both studies.

Percentage of operations that consulted with the following people about waste

management for their operation during the previous 12 months:

 Percent Operations 

 Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Consultant Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent Std. Error 

University/extension 

personnel 17.2 (1.6) 18.2 (2.2) 

Private nutrient 

management consultant 16.0 (1.4) 23.8 (2.4) 

Natural Resource 

Conservation Service 

personnel 21.9 (1.6) 32.8 (2.6) 

State or local department of 

natural resources personnel 10.7 (1.3) 8.4 (1.2) 

State or local department of 

agriculture personnel 10.6 (1.3) 12.9 (1.7) 

Agronomist/crop consultant 34.7 (2.0) 45.2 (2.9) 

Consulting nutritionist 15.7 (2.0) 

Environmental engineering 

consultant 7.0 (1.3) 

Private veterinary 

practitioner 5.5 (1.0) 3.5 (0.8) 

Other 2.1 (0.5) 1.2 (0.7) 

Any 57.0 (2.2) 63.9 (2.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 87

Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management
Section I: Population Estimates—H. Nutrient Management

88 / Dairy 2007

8. Knowledge of concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO)

classification

There were no differences between 2002 and 2007 in the percentage of

operations by actual or perceived CAFO classification of the operation.

Percentage of operations by actual or perceived classification* under current

Federal EPA guidelines regarding CAFOs:

Percent Operations 

Dairy 2002 Dairy 2007 

Classification Category Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Never heard of CAFO 38.1 (2.1) 31.2 (2.8) 

Have heard of CAFO, but 

unsure how my operations is 

or will be classified 20.5 (1.8) 20.8 (2.7) 

My operation is 

not or will likely not be 

classified as a CAFO 33.3 (2.0) 37.2 (2.8) 

My operation is or will likely 

be classified as a CAFO 8.1 (0.9) 10.8 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 

*Regulations of the CAFO rule became effective December 22, 2008. 
USDA APHIS VS / 89

Appendix I: Methodology

Appendix I: Methodology*

NAHMS Dairy Studies 

1996 2002 2007 

Data collection dates 2/20-5/24 2/25-4/30 2/26-8/31 

Minimum number of dairy cattle 30 30 30 

Number of States 20 21 17 

Data collectors State and Federal VMOs and AHTs 

Participating States as a percentage of U.S. population coverage

Operations 85.6 86.6 84.7 

Cows 82.7 85.5 82.5 

Respondent Sample profile (herd size)

Small (fewer than 100 cows) 630 400 233 

Medium (100-499 cows) 502 392 215 

Large (500 or more cows) 87 221 134 

Response category

Survey complete 1,219 1,013 582 

Percent of total 76.0 70.4 54.0 

Refused 340 335 380 

Did not contact 16 76 111 

Ineligible 29 14 4 

Total 1,604 1,438 1,077 

*For more detailed information about the methodology for each study, see methodology section of

each descriptive report at: http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov
Appendix II: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

90 / Dairy 2007

Appendix II: Study Objectives and Related 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 fall 2009

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

2009

• Calf Health and Management Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007,

Interpretive Report, expected summer 2009

• Failure of Passive Transfer in Dairy Heifer Calves, 200, info sheet, expected

fall 2009

4. Estimate the prevalence of herds infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus

(BVDV)

• Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD) Detection in Bulk Tank Milk and BVD

Management Practices in the United States, 1996-2007, 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, September

2008
USDA APHIS VS / 91

Appendix II: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

6. Estimate the herd-level prevalence and associated costs of Mycobacterium

avium subspeciesparatuberculosis

• Johne’s Disease on U.S. Dairies, 1991-2007 info sheet, April 2008

7. Describe current biosecurity practices and determine producer motivation for

implementing or not implementing biosecurity practices

• Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007, October 2007

• Part III: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the

United States, 2007, September 2008

• Biosecurity Practices on U.S. Dairy operations, 2002-07, Interpretive Report,

expected summer 2009

8. Determine the prevalence of specific food-safety pathogens and describe

antimicrobial resistance patterns

• Antibiotic Use on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002-07, info sheet, September

2008

• Listeria and Salmonella in Bulk Tank Milk on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002-07,

info sheet, June 2009

• Salmonella and Campylobacter on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2002-07, info

sheet, June 2009

• Food Safety Pathogens Isolated from U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007,

Interpretive Report, expected winter 2009

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

• Dairy Cattle Injection Practices in the United States, 2007, info sheet,

February 2009

• Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Isolation from Bulk Tank

Milk in the United States, 2007, info sheet, expected spring 2009