What if the best way to increase profits isn’t adding more cows, but giving the ones you have room to be comfortable?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: What farmers are discovering across dairy regions is that optimal stocking density often means fewer cows, not more. University of Florida research shows that a 120% stocking density maximizes profit per stall, yet many operations run at 140% or higher, resulting in a daily loss of 3.7 pounds of milk per cow for each hour of lying time. With current market conditions creating the perfect window—USDA cull cow prices at $311.16/hundredweight and replacement costs jumping 73% to $2,850 per heifer—strategic density reduction makes financial sense like never before. Operations were reduced from 140% to 115% stocking, resulting in a 3.5-pound increase in milk per cow daily, 40% fewer lameness treatments, and improved feed efficiency within 60 days. Research from institutions like UBC, Wisconsin, and the Miner Institute consistently shows that cow comfort drives profitability more than maximizing headcount. For producers willing to challenge conventional thinking, current market dynamics offer an unprecedented opportunity to optimize both animal welfare and bottom-line performance.

You know what’s interesting? Last month, I was talking with a producer in Ohio who mentioned something that really got me thinking. He’d increased his milk checks by reducing his herd by 120 cows. Sounds backward, right? However, as I’ve been traveling to different operations lately—from the robot barns I’ve visited in the Netherlands to traditional parlor operations across the upper Midwest—I keep hearing variations of the same story.

The old “more cows equals more profit” thinking might be costing us money. Especially right now, with market conditions creating what could be the perfect window to test some assumptions we’ve held for years. Between high cull cow prices, expensive replacement heifers, and relatively steady milk prices, it’s worth asking whether we’re actually maximizing what our barns can do.

What the Research Actually Shows About Overcrowding

The university data on this subject has been accumulating for years, and it’s quite eye-opening when you put it all together. Dr. Julie Fregonesi’s groundbreaking work at the University of British Columbia—published in the Journal of Dairy Science back in 2007—showed that cows at 100% stocking density were getting about 13 hours of lying time per day. Push that to 150%? They lose nearly two full hours of rest.

That lost lying time translates directly to lost milk because cows can’t “catch up” on rest later—something we’ve learned the hard way in other contexts, too. The follow-up research has been consistent: farms operating above 100% density consistently struggle to hit the 12-hour lying time benchmark, while about 22% of farms at or below 100% achieve it.

You know what’s interesting? when I first heard about it from Dr. Rick Grant’s research team at the William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute in New York was that Overcrowding can actually trigger more subacute ruminal acidosis than dietary changes alone. Cows at 142% density were spending over four hours per day below pH 5.8—nearly double the time compared to cows at 100% density, eating the exact same diet.

We are creating metabolic problems through poor space management. That’s something to consider, especially when we’re already pushing ration formulations to their limits in many operations.

Albert De Vries at the University of Florida has conducted some excellent work in quantifying the relationship between lying time and milk production. His research, presented at the Western Canadian Dairy Seminar, shows that for each hour of reduced lying time, approximately 3.7 pounds of milk are lost daily. When he runs those numbers through profit calculators, optimal stocking densities consistently fall between 100% and 120%, with returns dropping off sharply when pushed higher.

Examining this trend across various systems, the Dairyland Initiative in Wisconsin has documented similar lying time losses in both sand-bedded and mattress systems when stocking density exceeds 120%. Even with the newer precision monitoring technologies—such as rumination sensors, activity monitors, and automated health tracking—the fundamental relationship between space and comfort remains true.

Understanding Why Good Producers Still Overstock

Now, if the research is this clear, why are so many well-managed operations still running at 140% or higher utilization rates? It’s not just about missing the data—the reasons go much deeper.

First, there’s the infrastructure reality that many of us face. Most barns were designed for maximum capacity, and when you’ve invested heavily in facilities designed to house a certain number of cows, suggesting that “too many” might be counterproductive feels like questioning fundamental business decisions. That’s psychologically difficult territory.

Then there’s cash flow, which is where theory meets reality pretty quickly. Even when long-term modeling shows better returns at optimal density, culling excess cows creates an immediate revenue drop that many operations cannot absorb, regardless of the projections.

I’ve also noticed there’s peer pressure to consider. When neighboring operations are running at 140-150% density, stepping back feels risky from a community perspective. Nobody wants to appear unsuccessful or overly conservative—especially in regions where dairy farming is highly visible and competitive.

And here’s something that often comes up in many conversations: many excellent producers believe they can “manage out” the downsides of overcrowding. They believe that enhanced feeding programs, improved ventilation, or facility modifications can help overcome space constraints. This confidence in solving problems through superior management encourages them to push more animals into available stalls.

This mindset is particularly strong in high land-cost areas. Whether you’re in California’s Central Valley, Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County, or parts of the Northeast, producers feel tremendous pressure to maximize every square foot. The economics of land acquisition make expansion seem impossible, so intensification appears to be the only path forward.

Current Market Dynamics Create an Unusual Opportunity

What makes this discussion particularly timely is how market conditions have aligned to make density optimization more financially attractive than it’s been in recent memory.

Cull cow values are at levels that would have seemed impossible just a few years ago. The USDA’s September 19th Direct Cow Report showed average negotiated prices for Cutter cows at $311.16 per hundredweight dressed weight—that translates to about $1,830 per 1,200-pound cow. Compared to recent years, that’s a substantial improvement, creating a meaningful buffer for strategic culling decisions.

Meanwhile, replacement heifer costs have reached a territory that’s frankly shocking to those of us who remember more moderate pricing. Wisconsin data from the USDA show that replacement dairy animal costs increased by 73% between October 2023 and October 2024, rising from approximately $1,990 to $ 2,850 per head. That’s an $860 increase in a single year.

Mike North from Ever.ag captured the reality pretty bluntly back in January when replacement prices were spiking: “Some animals moving in the northwest last week were north of $4,000 an animal. That’s a pretty tall price.” When replacement costs jump that dramatically, the economics of keeping marginal performers shift significantly.

As for milk prices, they’ve held their ground better than many expected despite production increases. While Class III futures remain volatile, current market stability means each additional pound of milk from enhanced cow comfort has meaningful value.

And there’s this whole beef-on-dairy opportunity that’s really taken off in recent years. Those crossbred calves are now fetching $800 to $ 1,000 per head at auction, creating revenue streams that weren’t widely available even five years ago.

This creates an interesting situation where the financial risks of density optimization are probably lower than they’ve been in years, while the potential benefits remain substantial.

Learning From Real Transitions: A Composite Example

Let me share a situation that really opened my eyes to how this plays out in practice. I’ve been following several operations through density transitions, and while I need to keep specific details confidential, the patterns are worth discussing as a composite example.

There’s a 1,200-cow freestall setup—representative of what I’ve seen in similar Wisconsin operations—that had been running at 140% stocking density. The management team spent two full seasons trying to work around the resulting problems. These weren’t inexperienced managers—they doubled feed push-ups, added extra fans, switched to higher-fiber rations. All the sophisticated approaches you’d expect from people who know what they’re doing.

Despite these efforts, their key performance indicators remained problematic. Lying time stayed stuck around 10 hours per day, well below that critical 12-hour target. Monthly lameness treatments were affecting 18% of the herd. Per-cow milk production had plateaued at 85 pounds, and mastitis cases weren’t responding to improved protocols.

In fall 2024, they made what felt like a risky decision: cull 10% of their herd—120 animals—bringing stocking density down to 115%. The selection process was entirely data-driven, utilizing their DairyComp 305 system to target animals with below-average performance, elevated somatic cell counts, poor reproductive efficiency, high lameness scores, and older cows with declining feed conversion efficiency.

The timeline of results was fascinating to watch. Lying time started improving within three weeks, initially increasing from 10 to 11.2 hours, and then reaching 12.4 hours by the end of week six. Milk yield improvements followed a similar gradual pattern, resulting in a 3.5-pound daily increase by the 60-day mark. Monthly lameness treatments fell by 40% over the same period, and bulk tank somatic cell count dropped by 50,000 cells per milliliter.

“We kept waiting for the negative impact on our milk check,” the farm manager told me during a follow-up conversation. “Instead, we were hitting volume records with 120 fewer cows. Feed efficiency improved, vet bills dropped, and the cows just looked more comfortable walking through the barn.”

What’s particularly noteworthy is that this wasn’t a high-tech operation with comprehensive monitoring systems. They were using basic activity monitors and visual assessments twice daily. The improvements were obvious to anyone walking through the facility.

Navigating the Transition Successfully

From what I’ve learned, talking with farms going through this type of transition, timing and approach matter more than most of us initially think. The biggest challenge isn’t the concept—it’s the execution.

Treating density optimization as a one-time event creates chaos. Removing 25% of your herd at once disrupts everything: you get downstream overcrowding in other groups, disrupted milking schedules, labor cost spikes, and often a panic response that undoes potential gains.

The farms that seem to navigate this transition smoothest tend to reduce density in 5% monthly increments. For a 1,200-cow operation, that means about 60 animals per month—manageable from both a systems and cash flow perspective.

Start by mapping every group with your herd management software. Look at actual stocking percentages across lactating, fresh, transition, dry, and heifer pens. Target the most overcrowded groups first—usually fresh pens or peak-milk groups where stress costs are highest and most measurable.

As you cull from lactating pens, coordination becomes critical. You need to coordinate movements between groups to maintain optimal density across all pens simultaneously. I’ve seen farms reduce lactating cow density only to create problems in their dry cow areas because they forgot to rebalance the entire system.

Monitor weekly metrics religiously during transition periods. Track lying time, per-cow milk yield, somatic cell counts, and lameness treatments. If any metric stalls or reverses, pause further culling and investigate what’s happening before proceeding.

Timing considerations vary significantly by operation type. If you’re dealing with seasonal calving patterns—something we see more often now as farms explore different breeding strategies—major culling decisions might need to wait until after the fresh cow rush subsides. Summer heat stress can also complicate density assessment, since cows naturally spend less time lying during peak heat periods.

Recognizing System Differences and Global Approaches

What works for freestall operations doesn’t necessarily translate to other housing systems, and that’s worth acknowledging upfront. Tie-stall operations—still common in parts of Vermont, eastern Canada, and much of Europe—face entirely different challenges. You can’t really overstock individual stalls, but you can overstock feed alleys, holding areas, and exercise lots.

Robotic milking systems create entirely different dynamics. Since cows aren’t competing for parlor access at specific times, some operations successfully maintain higher densities. However, even in robotic systems, access to lying space and feed bunk remains a fundamental factor affecting cow comfort and production. The precision feeding capabilities of some newer robotic systems may provide more flexibility to compensate for tighter spaces, although the fundamental physiology of rest requirements remains unchanged.

What farmers are finding in grazing operations is their own set of variables to consider. Pasture-based systems can use rotational patterns to manage effective stocking density, moving cattle more frequently to maintain grass quality while providing adequate space. Some progressive grazing operations in New Zealand and Ireland have found that slightly understocking paddocks during peak growing season actually improves both grass utilization and animal performance.

Dry lot systems in the Southwest present yet another scenario. Heat stress management becomes the primary concern, and shade space often becomes the limiting factor rather than lying area. The stocking density calculations that work in climate-controlled barns need significant modification for these environments, where heat abatement infrastructure becomes as critical as resting space.

Developing Better Measurement Systems

Changing organizational thinking from headcount to performance requires different metrics and consistent communication approaches. The most successful operations I’ve worked with develop comprehensive tracking systems that focus on dollars per stall rather than just cows per stall.

This involves tracking milk revenue per stall (price × average yield), feed cost per stall (total feed expense ÷ number of stalls in use), health expense per stall (vet and treatment costs ÷ number of stalls), and comprehensive profit per stall calculations.

Weekly reporting on comfort and health indicators provides tangible evidence of improvement during transitions. Monitor average daily lying time (activity monitors make this much easier now), monthly lameness treatments per 100 cows, bulk tank somatic cell count trends, and feed conversion efficiency measures.

When you can demonstrate incremental profit from each 5% density reduction through projected milk revenue, cull cow returns, and saved health costs, the business case becomes much clearer. Most existing farm management software packages can model different scenarios before implementation. The University of Wisconsin Extension has developed some particularly useful spreadsheet tools for economic modeling of stocking density decisions. Their publication, “Getting Stocking Density Right for Your Cows,” walks through the calculations step by step.

Your extension dairy specialist or consultant can often help with this type of analysis if you’re not comfortable with the modeling yourself. Some farms have found it helpful to create visual representations showing relationships between stocking density and key performance indicators.

Industry Evolution or Competitive Advantage?

While research clearly supports optimal stocking strategies, widespread adoption remains limited. From an industry perspective, this creates interesting questions about where we’re headed.

Change happens slowly because success metrics still emphasize headcount and growth in herd size. Infrastructure designed for maximum capacity represents a 15-20 year commitment that is difficult to modify. Information transfer from research institutions to practical application takes time, and risk perception generally favors known approaches over projected improvements.

But this also means density optimization currently represents a potential competitive advantage for operations willing to challenge conventional approaches. Early adopters are achieving measurable improvements in per-animal productivity, health cost management, feed conversion efficiency, and overall profitability per unit of facility investment.

As Albert De Vries found in his economic analysis published in Dairy Herd Management, “120% was the optimal stocking rate in terms of maximum profit per stall.” The research consistently supports this, yet many well-managed operations continue to push well beyond this threshold.

I suspect we’ll see this transition happen at different rates regionally. High-cost areas with environmental restrictions on expansion will likely lead to adoption, simply because maximizing efficiency per animal becomes more critical when growth options are limited. Traditional dairy regions with more flexibility might take longer to embrace these approaches.

What’s particularly interesting is how this parallels broader trends we’re seeing in precision agriculture—such as variable-rate fertilizer application in crops, GPS-guided field operations, and sensor-based irrigation management. Whether you’re talking about optimizing inputs per unit in crops or strategic stocking density in dairy, the underlying principle is similar: better often beats bigger.

When Higher Density Makes Sense

Now, I’m not suggesting this approach works for everyone—dairy operations are too diverse for one-size-fits-all solutions. Some operations successfully maintain higher densities because of superior facility design, exceptional management systems, or specific operational circumstances.

Newer facilities with excellent stall design, generous bunk space, and comprehensive ventilation systems often handle stocking levels of 130-140% without major performance compromises. I’ve visited operations with 4-inch sand beds, 30-inch feed alleys per cow, and extensive cooling systems that maintain good lying times even at elevated densities.

Operations with exceptional feed management—precise timing, frequent push-ups, consistently well-mixed rations—can often compensate for tighter bunk space per cow. Some farms employ specialized feeding strategies or additives that enable animals to consume an adequate amount of dry matter despite reduced bunk access time.

Your nutritionist and veterinarian know your operation better than anyone, so their input on facility capabilities and management systems becomes crucial in these decisions. They can help you evaluate whether your specific situation might allow for higher stocking rates while maintaining performance.

The key is an honest assessment of your specific situation. Suppose you’re consistently achieving 12+ hours of lying time, maintaining low lameness rates, and seeing strong per-cow production at higher densities. In that case, you might have the management systems and facilities to make elevated stocking rates work profitably.

However, if you’re seeing stress indicators—such as elevated somatic cell counts, lameness problems, poor body condition scores, and reproductive challenges—it’s worth questioning whether current stocking rates are actually maximizing long-term profitability.

Practical Next Steps and Available Resources

Current market conditions create what might be an unprecedented opportunity to test density optimization approaches with relatively limited downside risk. High cull cow prices provide attractive exit values, expensive replacements make retention of marginal performers costly, and stable milk prices support per-cow productivity investments.

Start with a comprehensive assessment. Calculate current stocking density across all cow groups—your milking system software probably tracks this, but if not, it’s simply the number of cows divided by available stalls or resting spaces. Evaluate lying time through visual observation or activity monitors if available. Review health costs and per-cow performance metrics over the past 12 months.

Model financial scenarios for various density targets. Most farm management software packages include modules for this type of analysis. The University of Wisconsin Extension publication “Crowding Your Cows Too Much Costs You Cash” provides detailed economic frameworks for these decisions. Cornell’s PRO-DAIRY program offers similar resources through its extension publications.

For implementation, begin with the most overcrowded groups showing the clearest stress indicators. Plan gradual reductions rather than dramatic changes. Coordinate closely with your nutritionist and veterinarian to maximize benefits from improved cow comfort.

Some operations are finding that investing in improved stall design, enhanced bedding systems, or better ventilation provides better returns than simply adding more cows. The question becomes: what’s the best use of your next capital investment?

Consider seasonal timing as well. Spring transitions might align well with natural culling cycles, while summer heat stress periods might not be ideal for major management changes that could temporarily disrupt routine.

Questions to Ask Your Team

Before making any major changes to stocking density, it’s worth having some honest conversations with your management team:

• Are we consistently achieving target lying times across all groups?
• What’s our current lameness rate, and how does it compare to industry benchmarks?
• How do our per-cow productivity metrics compare to similar operations?
• What would happen to our cash flow if we reduced cow numbers by 10% over six months?
• Do we have the feed management and facility infrastructure to support current density levels?
• What are our biggest bottlenecks during peak times (breeding, fresh cow management, transition periods)?

These conversations often reveal insights that pure data analysis might miss. Your team members—whether that’s family, employees, or advisors—see things from different perspectives that can help inform these decisions.

The Broader Industry Context

Between what the research tells us and current market conditions, it’s an interesting time to be asking these fundamental questions about dairy operation design. The farms willing to question conventional assumptions about stocking density may find themselves with sustainable competitive advantages in an increasingly challenging industry environment.

From conversations with farmers and their advisors across different regions—from progressive operations in the Netherlands to family farms in Wisconsin to large-scale Western dairies—it appears that we’re gradually shifting our perspective on dairy productivity. Instead of focusing solely on total milk shipped, the most profitable operations are optimizing milk per stall, margin per cow, and return on facility investment.

The research is compelling, market conditions are supportive, and implementation tools are available. The question becomes whether individual operations are ready to challenge the “more is always better” mindset that’s influenced dairy management thinking for the past generation.

It’ll be interesting to see how this trend develops—whether it accelerates as more farms demonstrate results, or whether we see regional variations based on land costs, environmental regulations, and local farming cultures. International perspectives add another layer of complexity, as European tie-stall systems, New Zealand grazing operations, and North American confinement facilities all face different constraints and opportunities.

Either way, it’s a conversation worth having with your team, your advisors, and, honestly, with your cows. Because at the end of the day, comfortable cows are profitable cows—and sometimes that means giving them a little more room to be comfortable.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Quantified comfort pays: Reducing stocking density from 140% to 115% typically increases milk production by 3.5 pounds per cow daily while cutting lameness treatments by 40% within two months—improvements that translate to measurable profit gains per stall.
• Market timing creates opportunity: With cull cow values at historic highs ($1,830 per head) and replacement costs at $2,850, strategic culling in 5% monthly increments allows cash flow-positive transitions to optimal density levels.
• Research-backed sweet spot: University studies consistently show 120% stocking density maximizes profit per stall, as cows lose 3.7 pounds of daily milk production for each hour of lying time below the critical 12-hour threshold.
• System flexibility matters: While freestall operations benefit most from density optimization, robotic milking systems, grazing operations, and tie-stall facilities each require tailored approaches based on facility design and management capabilities.
• Implementation success depends on a gradual transition: farms achieving the best results reduce density in manageable increments while rebalancing all cow groups simultaneously, using weekly metrics to track lying time, milk yield, and health indicators throughout the process.

Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.

Learn More:

• Precision Feeding Strategies Every Dairy Farmer Needs to Know – This guide reveals how to manage feed, social grouping, and stocking density to boost feed efficiency and nutrient utilization, providing tactical, hands-on strategies to complement your cow comfort efforts.
• Navigating Today’s Dairy Margin Squeeze: Insights from the Field – Understand the broader market forces driving the need for efficiency. This article details current trends in profitability, rising costs, and component-based milk checks that make the economic case for optimizing your herd.
• The $500000 Precision Dairy Gamble: Why Most Farms Are Being Sold a False Promise – This piece provides a critical look at the ROI of precision technology, helping you navigate the investment risks and understand how tools like rumination sensors can deliver real value to your operation.

Join the Revolution!

Join over 30,000 successful dairy professionals who rely on Bullvine Weekly for their competitive edge. Delivered directly to your inbox each week, our exclusive industry insights help you make smarter decisions while saving precious hours every week. Never miss critical updates on milk production trends, breakthrough technologies, and profit-boosting strategies that top producers are already implementing. Subscribe now to transform your dairy operation’s efficiency and profitability—your future success is just one click away.