1

Special Needs Facilities Recommendations for housing

pregnant, lactating and sick cows

J.F. SmithAnimal Sciences & Industry

Kansas State University

J.P. Harner IIIBiological & Agricultural Engineering

Kansas State University

M.J. BroukAnimal Sciences & Industry Kansas State

University

When planning new dairy facilities, a lot of time is spentselecting and sizing the milking parlor and cow housing. Often,not enough effort is put into designing facilities to meet the spe-cial needs of lactating, pregnant or sick cows. From a cow healthand milk production standpoint, there are an overwhelmingnumber of reasons for providing such facilities. This publicationoffers tips on planning and design using examples based on a2,400 lactating cow dairy with freestall housing configured in4-row barns.

The transition from apregnant cow to a lactatingcow represents the period ofgreatest challenge to thehealth and productivity of thedairy cow. Most of the meta-bolic and infectious diseasethe cow will experience willoccur in the first weeks of lac-tation. The sudden onset ofmilk production in early lacta-tion outpaces the animal’sability to increase nutrient in-take and places the animal innegative balance for such vitalnutrients as energy, proteinand calcium. Cows failing thismetabolic challenge can de-velop milk fever, ketosis anddisplaced abomasum.

Hormonal changes as-sociated with the act of calv-ing suppress the immune sys-tem of the animal and increasesusceptibility to infectious dis-eases such as mastitis and Sal-monellosis. Negative energybalance and environmentalstresses can have an additiveeffect on immune cells furthersuppressing the animal’s re-sistance to infection. To reducedisease and improve produc-tivity, facilities and strategiesmust be designed to maximizefeed intake and reduce stresson the transition cow. Stresscan take many forms, but gen-erally results in increased cor-tisol release by the cow, whichtends to reduce immune cellfunction.

DefinitionsFirst, it is important to

define some terms:

Special needs facility — Thefacility and equipmentneeded to manage cowsand heifers from 21 daysbefore calving (close-ups)to 16 days after calving(fresh cows) may housesick cows and high-risklactating cows. This facilitymust ensure the safety andwell-being of employeesand minimize the stress ona dairy animal(s) due toadditional interactionsbetween the employee anddairy animal.

Close-up — Cows and heifersthat are from 4 to 28 daysprepartum up to but notincluding calving.

Maternity — The area pro-vided for cows and heifersto give birth.

Fresh cows and heifers —Cows and heifers fromcalving to 16 days postpar-tum.

Transition period — 28 daysprepartum to 16 dayspostpartum.

High-risk lactating cows —Cows that produce milkthat can be sold, but thatneed special attention—forexample, lame cows, oldercows, slow milkers andcows that had just beenreleased from the sick pen.

Mastitis and sick cows —Lactating and sick cows

2

that have been treated withantibiotics.

Activities to be Completedin Special Needs Facilities

A number of activitiesmust be carried out in the spe-cial needs facilities. Much hasbeen written on restrainingand treating cows. Table 1 lists

these activities and possiblelocations for carrying themout. The decision to use or notto use headlocks should bemade early in the design pro-cess. If headlocks are installedalong the feed barrier, manyof these activities may be car-ried out in headlocks. Theplanning team must deter-

mine how activities will beperformed by the manage-ment team.

Grouping Strategies andBuilding Requirements

The size and number ofcow groups on a dairy arecritical planning factors. Fac-

3

tors affecting the number andtypes of groups are largely as-sociated with parlor size,maximizing cow comfort,feeding strategies, reproduc-tion and increasing labor effi-ciency. Lactating cows fit oneof seven classifications:

1. Healthy lactating heifers2. Healthy lactating cows3. Fresh cows and heifers with

non-sellable milk (0 to 2days postpartum)

4. Fresh cows with sellablemilk (3 to 16 days postpar-tum)

5. Fresh heifers with sellablemilk (3 to 16 days postpar-tum)

6. Sick cows with non-sellablemilk

7. High risk cows withsellable milk

Cows in classifications3 to 7 are typically housed inthe special needs area alongwith close-up cows and heif-ers. Figure 1 illustrates howcows and heifers would movethrough the special needsarea, beginning 21 daysprepartum. Some may chooseto move heifers into this facil-ity 28 to 35 days prepartum.

Heifers respond favor-ably when grouped separatelyfrom older cows. Heifers havelower dry matter intakes and

greater growth requirementsthan older cattle. In addition,mixing heifers with oldercattle increases social pressureresulting in less than optimalheifer performance.

Isolating heifers frommature cows immediately af-ter calving is difficult on mostdairies due to the small num-ber of cows and heifers thatwill be two days postpartumat any given time. In Figure 1,cows and heifers are co-mingled for two days aftercalving.

Close-up dry cows andspringing heifers differ in nu-tritional requirements. Close-

4

up cows have greater intakesand are more likely to developmilk fever than heifers.Springing heifers may alsobenefit from a longer transi-tion period than normally al-lowed for cows. Thus, heifersand dry cows should be sepa-rated.

Close-up cows shouldbe moved into a close-up pen21 days before calving. Thediet in this pen typically hasgreater concentrations of pro-tein and energy than the far-off dry cow diet. In addition,the diet should be low in cal-cium and potassium or con-tain anionic salts with appro-priate amounts of calcium and

potassium to prevent milk fe-ver.

Milk fever is generallynot a problem with heifers,but heifers may benefit fromreceiving the typical transitiondiet for five weeks rather thanthree weeks. Feeding a dietwith higher levels of proteinand energy without anionicsalts for five weeks beforefreshening would be benefi-cial for heifers.

If heifers are to behoused 28 to 35 days prepar-tum rather than 21 days, thisshould be addressed duringthe planning process. Immedi-ately before calving (24 to 48hours), close-up cows and

heifers would be moved into amaternity pen with a beddedpack. Following calving, cowsand heifers may be co-mingled or kept separate untilthe milk can be sold. This isthe only place in the specialneeds area where cows andheifers may be housed to-gether. If the facilities allow,keeping the cows and heifersseparated during this periodis recommended. Cows andheifers can be segregatedwhen they move out of thefresh non-sellable pen into thefresh pens. Cows and heiferswould be housed in the freshpens for 14 days where rectaltemperatures, dry matter in-takes and general appearance

5

can be monitored on a dailybasis.

Other pens for maturecows and heifers in the spe-cial needs area might includea sick pen used to housecows treated with antibioticsand a high-risk pen for lamecows and slow-milkers pro-ducing sellable milk. Anotherpen could be used as a hold-ing area for cows to be culled,dried off or moved to anothergroup of cows.

Generally, this is a dry-lot pen, conveniently locatednear the shipping area. Spacenear the maternity area isneeded to process and housecalves after calving. Calfhousing should be providedfor the number of calves thatwill be born in a 24-hour pe-riod or sized according to calfgrower pick-up arrange-ments.

Table 2 shows recom-mended groups, group sizesand typical housing require-ments for cows, heifers andcalves. It is important to realizethese group sizes have been in-creased to account for fluctua-tions in calvings and cow andheifer numbers. If pens aresized only for static or averagenumbers, special needs facili-ties will be overstocked for aconsiderable amount of time.

Selection of Cow HousingIn a freestall dairy, cows

and heifers in special needs fa-cilities are housed in eitherfreestalls or loose housing.There are advantages and dis-advantages to the two housingsystems. Loose housing maxi-mizes cow comfort but re-quires additional space, bed-ding material and labor tomaintain a sanitary environ-ment.

This is particularly truewhen organic bedding is used.Freestalls reduce the laborcost of maintaining the restingarea. Stalls may intimidatecertain groups of cows and,therefore, should not be used.Housing options that can beused for different groups ofcows are listed in Table 2.

The drawing in Figure2, page 5, is based on the rec-ommended group sizes.

Transition Cow CoolingHeat stress in the transi-

tion cow may impair health,decrease milk yield andlengthen time to peak milkproduction and feed intake.Transition cows are particu-larly susceptible to infectiousdiseases and metabolic disor-ders. Cost estimates of im-paired health in the fresh cowrange from $145 per case of

6

clinical ketosis to $340 percase for displaced abomasum.Perhaps the biggest challengein managing the fresh cow isto get her on feed the first fewweeks postpartum. Aggres-sive postpartum appetitesminimize time spent in nega-tive energy balance and arenecessary to support high lev-els of milk production.

Research reports thatprepartum cooling consis-tently decreases rectal tem-perature, lowers respirationrate, and increases calf birthweight. While milk produc-tion responses have beensomewhat variable, thesevariations may be explainedby differences in duration andextent of prepartum coolingacross trials.

One study reportedhigher peak milk production(up to 5 percent) in cowscooled prepartum comparedto those not cooled prepartum(88.4 versus 84.2 pounds milkper cow per day for cooledand control cows, respec-tively). Another study re-ported trends for higher milkproduction due to prepartumcooling (either as shades orevaporative cooling systems).Field trials have demonstratedincreased peak milk yield andearlier days to peak produc-tion in fresh cows cooled withevaporative cooling comparedto non-cooled cows.

Likewise, cooled cowsshowed greater lactation per-sistency compared to non-cooled control cows.

The endocrine system isperhaps more sensitive tomoderate heat stress duringthe dry period than duringlactation. Prepartum heatstress affects growth of mater-nal tissues (mammary gland,placental, or fetal tissue), in-

fluences postpartum mam-mary function, decreases calfbirth weight by as much as10 percent, reduces immuno-globulin content, and lowersnutrient (fat,protein, and lac-tose) concentration in colos-trum. Calves born during thesummer suck their dams lessvigorously and may have im-paired absorption efficiencycaused by heat stress.Thislowered absorption efficiency,coupled with the lowered con-tent of colostrum, may in-crease the incidence of healthcomplications and mortalityin calves born during thesummer and early fall.

Heat stress in cows be-fore breeding and during theimplantation phase may influ-ence fertility. A 1988 study re-ported an increase in bothconception rate (59 vs 17 per-cent) and 90-day pregnancyrate (44 vs 14 percent) ofcooled cows compared to non-cooled cows. Additionally, es-trous behavior lasted longer incooled cows (16 hours) thannon- cooled cows (11.5 hours)having low body conditionscores (average 2.6). Othershave demonstrated a 15 per-cent decrease in services perconception and a reduction inthe number of cows culled forreproductive failure (19 vs7.7 percent) in response toprepartum cooling. A 1971study reported heifers ex-posed to heat stress the first72 hours after artificial insemi-nation did not conceive at all.Postpartum production ben-efits of cooling dry cows maydepend on the length of thecooling period.

Initial research in thisarea involved shade as thecooling method. While ad-equate shade is recommendedfor the far-off dry cow (first4 to 6 weeks of the dry pe-

riod), recent work suggeststhat more extensive coolingsystems may be justified forclose-up dry cows. Much ofthe immune and endocrine re-sponses reported with transi-tion cows may be applicableto other immune-compro-mised groups, such as high-risk, mastitis, and sick pens.

Cooling should be pro-vided for all cows housed inthe special needs area. Low-pressure sprinklers or soakersshould be placed on the feedlines. Mechanical ventilationor fans should be providedboth on the feed lines and thehousing area. The sprinklersshould provide .03 gallons ofwater per square foot of wet-ted area per cycle. A commoncycle would be 3 minutes onand 12 off. Typically 6 to 8 feetis wetted behind the feedlines.

Fans should be placedon the feed lines and the cowhousing areas to provide 800to 1000 cfm per cow. Typically,a single row of fans over thefeed lines and a single row offans over the freestalls will ac-complish the desired airflow.Thirty-six inch fans should bespaced a maximum of every30 feet and 48-inch fansshould be spaced every 40feet. Fans over loose housingshould be placed in bankswith fans 10 feet on centerwith the banks of fans beingspaced according to the diam-eter of the fans being used.

Dairy LayoutOne of the issues with

special needs facilities is theirlocation on the dairy. Theywill either be located near themilking parlor or at the backof the dairy. Locating these fa-cilities near the milking parlorreduces walking distance toand from the milking parlor.

7

It also allows employeesworking near the parlor to ob-serve close-up cows. The ad-vantage of locating these fa-cilities at the back of the dairyis to allow for easy movementto and from the special needsfacilities of far-off dry cows,beef cows and cows that havebeen dried off.

Locating these facilitiesaway from the main parlormay create the need for a hos-pital parlor. If the dairy hastwo main parlors in a head-to-head configuration, specialneeds facilities can be splitinto two barns directly behindthe parlors.

Figure 2 shows a 2,400lactating cow dairy with spe-cial needs facilities incorpo-

rated. Notice that the specialneeds facility requires spaceequivalent to three pens ofhealthy lactating cows. Fig-ures 3 and 4 include detaileddrawings of the freestallbuildings that would includethe special needs facility.

Special Needs FacilitiesEconomic Impact

Generally, special needsfacilities require additionalcapital investments by thedairy producer. These invest-ments must be recovered inthe form of additional milksales from reduced culling,better health, etc. Unfortu-nately, the economic impact ofspecial needs facilities is casespecific and generalization

can be dangerous. The objec-tive here is to estimate the ad-ditional investments and ex-penses required, andadditional milk production re-quired to cover such costs.

The following points areimportant for this analysis:

1. Cash-flow issues are notconsidered. It is assumedthat the dairy has access toadditional capital and thatadditional cash reservesare in place to ensure cashcoverage in the short andmedium term.

2. All capitalization projectsare assumed to be financedat an annual rate of8 percent for 10 years. Nodifferentiation is made on

8

the source of such capital.So any additional equitycapital has an implicit8percent annual rate ofreturn built into it.

3. Because cash-flow issuesare not considered, itmakes no difference from aprofitability standpointwhether the annual capitalcost is in the form ofinterest or depreciation.The depreciation used fortax purpose could bedifferent depending onprevious fiscal decisions,current tax liabilities,future tax expectations,and changes in tax laws.Tax implications couldchange cost figures signifi-cantly.

4. Repairs and maintenance asan annual cost percentageof initial capital cost wasset at 2 percent for build-ings and 5 percent forequipment.

The additional capitalinvestment assumed for eachcomponent of the specialneeds facilities are reported inTable 3 along with a percent-age of the milking herd forwhich they should be de-signed. Depending on the spe-cific conditions of a herd,there are two views that canbe taken with regard to theseinvestments. The first is that— with the exception of thefree-stalls for close-up cowsand heifers and the hospitalparlor if constructed — facili-ties would have to be securedfor the different classes ofcows whether these animalsare housed separately fromthe milking herd or not. Forexample, mastitic and sickcows would require 48 stallsin the freestall barns if specialfacilities were not built.

An alternate view looksat all special needs facilities asa single investment project.With this view, all specialneeds facilities are consideredadditional investments. In thisdocument, results are re-ported for both ends of thisspectrum. So additional capi-tal for special needs facilitieswould range between$288,000 and $1,056,400 in a2,400 milking-cow dairy, or anadditional $120 to $440 ofcapital investment per milk-ing cow.

The costs of capital ex-penses (building and equip-ment) are reported in Table 3both on a total annual basisand on a per-cow-per-year ba-sis. At the low end, facilitiesfor close-up cows and close-up heifers incur an additionalcapital cost of $18 per milkingcow per year. At the high end,these costs would amount to$66 per cow per year, includ-ing the cost of a small double-10 parlor to milk an averageof 48 mastitic and sick cowsand 24 cows with non-sellablemilk. Table 3 also presents thebedding cost expected fromthese specialized facilities.These costs are based on bed-ding cost of $50 per stall peryear, and $0.75 per cow perday on a bedded pack. Totalbedding costs in the specialneeds facilities amount to $17per cow per year.

This figure overesti-mates the real net cost becauseit assumes that alternatives todedicated special needs facili-ties would incur no beddingcost. Total expenses for specialneeds facilities are estimatedat $23 per cow per year at thelow end, and $83.25 per cowper year at the high end.

Special needs facilitiesmay result in additional oper-

ating costs or savings depend-ing on the conditions. The effi-ciency of cleaning animal fa-cilities may or may not beimproved. Parlor efficiencywould likely improve if asmall parlor were built tohandle cows with non-sellablemilk. Assuming that addi-tional cows with sellable milkcan be milked through thelarge herd parlor(s). The dairycould theoretically milk an ad-ditional 100 to 200 cowsthrough the large parlor with-out additional fixed costs andlittle additional labor cost.

Assuming gross milkrevenues of $12 per cwt andnet marginal revenues (in-come minus variable costs) of$6 per cwt, special needs fa-cilities require, at the mini-mum, an additional 383pounds of milk per cow peryear to break even or roughly1 pound of milk per cow perday. Using the high estimatefor costs, special needs facili-ties require an additional2,770 pounds of milk per cowper year, or roughly 7.5pounds per cow per day. Be-cause, in general, a great pro-portion of the capital and bed-ding cost would be incurredregardless of whether separatespecial needs facilities arebuilt, a figure equivalent to 2pounds of milk cow per day isa good benchmark for thesituation where a small parloris not included.

Because large parlorsare more capital and labor ef-ficient than small parlors, newfacilities should be designedwhere all cows are milked inone large milking center. Thelarge milking parlor would beused to milk the nine groupsof healthy lactating cows andhigh-risk sellable cows threetimes per day in 6.5 hours pershift, allowing 1.5 hours per

9

shift to milk sick cows, freshcows non-sellable and to cleanthe parlor facilities. Duringplanning, allowances shouldbe made to construct a hospi-tal parlor in the future. Thisway, a dairy can increase thenumber of cows with sellablemilk being milked in the largedairy parlor by 5 to 10 per-cent.

Risk Management andBiosecurity

The special needs areaprovides a dairy an opportu-nity to manage risk throughdisease control measures.Manageable risks include bothhuman and animal disease, fi-nancial loss, marketability ofmilk, and animals and poten-

tial liability. Animals housedin these facilities are particu-larly vulnerable to contractingnew infections. This is espe-cially true for fresh cows,which have suppressed im-munity around the time ofcalving. The newborn calf isat risk to contract Johne ’s dis-ease, Mycobacterium paratuber-culosis. Cleanliness and daily

10

maintenance of the calvingarea and the special needs fa-cilities are critical. This areaalso provides an excellent op-portunity to reduce the risk ofantibiotic contamination ofmilk, as treated animals canbe effectively isolatedfromthe lactating herd.

It is important to iden-tify and prioritize potentialrisks and develop appropriatecontrol measures. The man-ager needs to gather informa-tion and advice from the herdveterinarian and others toproperly assess exposure tothese various diseases and de-velop a plan.

Some pathogens gener-ally regarded as high risk fordairy herds includeStaphylcoccus aureus, Mycobac-terium paratuberculosis (Johne’sdisease), bovine viral diarrhea(BVD) and Salmonella species.In addition diseases such asmycoplasma, foot warts,Chlamydia and other patho-gens for which there is not aneffective vaccine could jeopar-dize individual cows as wellas herd health.

The highest risk for in-troduction of new disease intothe herd comes from pur-chased cattle. Therefore, an ef-fective program ofprescreening and isolation ofnew arrivals is a key elementof an effective biosecurity pro-gram. A location for accepting,processing and quarantiningnew arrivals should be locatedat least one-half mile from theclosest animal facility. An ad-ditional risk exists with move-ment of animals in multiplesite operations. Considerationshould also be given to cattlemovement, people movement,vehicles and equipment,feedstuffs, birds, rodents and

wild ruminants, water andmanure management.

To be effective, abiosecurity program shouldbe written and clearly com-municated to employees, con-sultants and visitors. Dairiesshould display appropriatesignage to alert and remindpeople of the dairy’s policies.

The biosecurity planshould include a drawing de-picting the traffic flow planfor all activities on the dairy.Access to special needs facili-ties should be limited to thosepersonnel necessary to carryout daily activities. This mini-mizes the transfer in or out oforganic material or contami-nated equipment that couldspread infectious disease.

Veterinarians, hoof trim-mers, service persons, salespeople and other visitors tothe dairy should have easy ac-cess and a defined area wherethey are to perform their ser-vice to the dairy. This mini-mizes unnecessary trafficaround the dairy.

A place to disinfectequipment should be pro-vided near working areas.Professional, delivery, serviceand sales personnel need to beaware of the dairy’s policy ondisease containment. Equip-ment and vehicles should beclean and/or disinfected.Clothing should also be clean,and footwear should be of thetype that can easily be disin-fected. In some cases, on-sitedisposable coveralls and shoecovers may be provided.

Vehicles entering thedairy to deliver new arrivalsshould be provided an entrypoint that bypasses the major-ity of the dairy and allowseasy access to the isolation/

quarantine area. Vehicles ar-riving to remove dead or cullanimals should have a desig-nated location where easyloading is available and awayfrom the special needs area.

This area could alsodouble as a location where theherd veterinarian could per-form post mortem examina-tions on dead animals. A pro-vision for cleaning anddisinfection should be consid-ered. After carcass removaland rinsing of the area, a finaldisinfection should occur. Ex-amples of disinfectant solu-tions include chlorhexidinediacetate (Nolvasan ®-S), so-dium hypochlorite (bleach),quaternary ammonium chlo-ride (Spectrosol ®), and qua-ternary ammoniums withbisntributylin oxide (Roccal®-D Plus).

11

ReferencesBickert,W.G. 2000. Re-

straint and treatment facilitiesand equipment. NRAES-129:Proceedings of Dairy Housingand Equipment Systems:Managing and Planning forProfitability. Northeast Re-gional Agricultural Engineer-ing Service. Ithaca, NY.

Bickert,W.G.1998. Sort-ing, handling and restraininglactating cows for treatmentand other purposes. Proceed-ings of Fourth InternationalDairy Housing Conference.American Society of Agricul-tural Engineers, St.Joseph, MI.

Brouk, M.J., J.F. Smith,and J.P. Harner, III. 2000.Freestall barn design and cool-ing systems. Heart of AmericaDairy Management Confer-ence, St.Joseph, MO. pp.87-94.

Collier, R.J., R.M. Eley,A.K. Sharma, R.M. Pereira,and D.E. Buffington. 1981.Shade management in sub-tropical environment for milkyield and composition in Hol-stein and Jersey cows. J.DairySci. 62:844.

Collier, R.J., S.G.Doelger, H.H. Head, W.W.Thatcher, and C.J. Wilcox.1982. Effect of heat stress dur-ing pregnancy on maternalhormone concentrations, calfbirth weight, and postpartummilk yield of Holstein cows.J. Anim. Sci. 54:309.

Curtis, C.R., H.N. Erb,C.J. Sniffen, R.D. Smith, andD.S. Kronfeld. 1985. Pathanalysis of dry period nutri-tion, postpartum metabolicand reproductive disorders,and mastitis in HolsteinCows. J. Dairy Sci. 68:2347-2360.

Hardin, D.K., R.F.Randle and J.M. Zulovich.1994. Creating a palpationworkstation to enhance repro-ductive herd health. Proceed-ings of Third InternationalDairy Housing Conference:Dairy Systems for the 21stCentury. American Society ofAgricultural Engineers.St.Joseph, MI.

Harner, J.P.III, J.P.Murphy, M.J. Brouk, and J.F.Smith. 2000. Fan selection andmaintenance. Heart ofAmerica Dairy ManagementConference, St.Joseph, MO.pp.32-36.

Harner, J.P. III, J.F.Smith, M.Brouk, and J.P.Murphy. 1999. Sprinkler sys-tems for cooling dairy cows ata feed line. MF-2401. Coopera-tive Extension Service publi-cation. Manhattan, Kansas:Kansas State University.

Kammel, D.W. and K.A.Janni. 2000. Facility design forthe transition cow. NRAES-129: Proceedings of DairyHousing and Equipment Sys-tems: Managing and Planningfor Profitability. NortheastRegional Agricultural Engi-neering Service. Ithaca, NY.

Kammel, D.W., S.L.Gunderson, T. Rehbein, andR.A. Thompson. 2000.Transi-tion cow facilities: case stud-ies. NRAES-129: Proceedingsof Dairy Housing and Equip-ment Systems: Managing andPlanning for Profitability.Northeast Regional Agricul-tural Engineering Service.Ithica, NY.

Moore,R.B., J.W.Fuquay,and W.J.Drapala.1992. Effectsof late gestation heat stress onpostpartum milk productionand reproduction in dairycattle .J.Dairy Sci.75:1877-1882.

Nocek, J.E.1997. Feed-ing management of the post-partum cow. In: Mid-SouthRuminant Nutrition Confer-ence Proceedings ed. E.R. Jor-dan. pp.54-61.

Stokes, S.R. and J. Pope.1997. The response to KorralKool Systems on dairy cowperformance in Central Texas.In: Balanced Dairying ed. E.R.Jordan. Vol. 20, No. 4.

Stone, B. 2000. Definingand managing specialcows.NRAES-129: Proceed-ings of Dairy Housing andEquipment Systems:

Managing and Planningfor Profitability. Northeast Re-gional Agricultural Engineer-ing Service. Ithaca, NY.

Veenhuizen, M.A. andR.E. Graves 1994. Handlingand treatment facilities forlarge dairies. Proceedings ofThird International DairyHousing Conference: DairySystems for the 21st Century.American Society of Agricul-tural Engineers. St.Joseph.,MI.

Wells, S.J. 2000.Biosecurity on Dairy Opera-tions: Hazards and Risks. J.Dairy Sci.83: 2380-2386.

Wolfenson, D., I.Flamenbaum, and A.Berman.1988. Hyperthermia and bodyenergy store effects on estrousbehavior, conception rate, andcorpus luteum function indairy cows. J. DairySci.71:3497-3504.

Wiersma,F. and D.V.Armstrong. 1988. Evaporativecooling dry cows for im-proved performance. Am. Soc.Ag. Eng. Int. Mtg. #88-4053.

12

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

EP 100 July 2001

It is the policy of Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service that all persons shall have equalopportunity and access to its educational programs, services, activities, and materials without regard to race, color, religion, national origin,sex, age or disability. Kansas State University is an equal opportunity organization. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Actsof May 8 and June 30, 1914, as amended. Kansas State University, County Extension Councils, Extension Districts, and United StatesDepartment of Agriculture Cooperating, Marc A. Johnson, Director.

Brand names appearing in this publication are for identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended,nor is criticism implied of others not mentioned.

Publications from Kansas State University are available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu

Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. In each case, credit Smith et al.,Special Needs Facilities: Recommendations for housing for pregnant, lactating and sick cows. Manhattan, KS, Kansas State University, July 2001.

N. St.-Pierre—Department of Animal Science, The Ohio State University

S.R. Stokes—Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University

D.V. Arnstrong—Department of Animal Science, University of Arizona

M.J. Gamroth—Department of Animal Science, Oregon State University

W. J. Cole—Monsanto Dairy Business

J.P. Goff—National Animal Disease Center

G. Boomer—Monsanto Dairy Business

G. Bethard—G & R Dairy Consulting

Contributing authors: