Independent Science for Animals, Farms and Ecosystems.
Rethinking How We Dry Off Dairy Cows
Udder Health, Antibiotics, and the Individual Cow.
Alvaro Garcia DVM PhD
Global Farming Digest
For many dairy farms, drying off a cow is still viewed as a simple event: milk her for the last time, administer the appropriate dry-cow treatment and move her into the dry-cow group. But science increasingly suggests that dry-off is much more than a final milking.
The mammary gland must undergo involution and prepare for the next lactation while the risk of new intramammary infection changes. At the same time, decisions made around dry-off can affect antimicrobial use, cow comfort, metabolic health, and subsequent performance. Recent research therefore encourages us to think about dry-off as a management process rather than a single event.
Instead of simply asking, “What should we give the cow when we dry her off?” the better question is “What does this particular cow need to make the transition safely?”
Why the dry period matters
A non-lactating period allows the mammary gland to undergo involution and prepare for the next lactation. It also provides an opportunity to cure existing intramammary infections and prevent new ones before calving. However, the dry period is not automatically a low-risk period. Immediately after milking stops, the physical and biological barriers protecting the mammary gland change, and the teat canal may remain vulnerable to environmental bacteria.
Modern dairy cows may also be producing substantial quantities of milk when they reach the conventional dry-off date. Higher milk production at cessation increases the potential for udder engorgement and milk leakage, raising questions about both comfort and exposure to environmental pathogens. These challenges suggest that dry-off management should consider not only udder health, but also how much milk the cow is producing and how that production is ended.
When should the cow be dried off?
A dry period of approximately 60 days has traditionally been widely used, but growing evidence raises the question of whether every cow needs the same length. Shortening or, in selected cases, eliminating the conventional dry period can reduce the severity of negative energy balance after calving because the cow does not experience the same abrupt transition from no milk production to extremely high production. This may also reduce the risk of metabolic problems such as subclinical ketosis in appropriately managed cows.
These potential benefits come with important trade-offs. Short or absent dry periods can reduce milk production in the subsequent lactation and may affect udder health. The evidence therefore does not suggest that farms should simply eliminate the dry period. Instead, it raises a more useful possibility: dry-period management may eventually become more individualized. A high-producing, persistent older cow may present a different situation from a lower-producing cow approaching dry-off. Parity, milk yield, lactation persistency, body condition, and expected performance in the next lactation could all contribute to the decision. For most farms, the conventional dry period will remain appropriate, but the assumption that every cow must follow the same protocol deserves reconsideration.
How should milking end?
Most farms still use abrupt cessation of milking. The approach is straightforward and practical, but high-producing cows can experience substantial udder filling after the final milking, potentially resulting in discomfort and milk leakage. Whether milk production should instead be reduced more gradually before dry-off remains an important research question.
Research currently underway at Cornell University is examining incomplete milking during the final seven days of lactation. Researchers are evaluating udder pressure, milk leakage, intramammary infection, colostrum quantity and quality, indicators of pain and welfare, and metabolic markers such as beta-hydroxybutyrate and non-esterified fatty acids. The biological rationale is compelling, particularly for high-producing cows, but this is ongoing research rather than a completed peer-reviewed trial. Gradual cessation should therefore be viewed with cautious interest rather than assumed to be superior to abrupt cessation.
Does every cow need antibiotics?
This is an area where recent research provides much stronger evidence. A 2025 network meta-analysis by Schipper et al. evaluated randomized controlled trials from 137 papers comparing dry-off interventions for curing existing intramammary infections and preventing new ones. For curing existing infections, both selective and blanket dry-cow antimicrobial therapy performed better than non-antimicrobial interventions. For preventing new infections, several selective strategies achieved similarly low infection risks when combined with an internal teat sealant. The authors concluded that selective dry-cow therapy combined with an internal teat sealant is likely to be a suitable strategy for maintaining udder health while reducing antimicrobial use.
This distinction is critical. Selective dry-cow therapy does not mean stopping the use of dry-cow antibiotics. It means using them where there is a reasonable expectation that the cow or quarter will benefit. That requires reliable information for identifying animals likely to have an existing infection. Individual somatic cell count and clinical mastitis history, previous bacteriology or culture results, parity, herd mastitis patterns and, where appropriate, testing close to dry-off can all contribute to the decision. A 2025 review by Rowe et al. emphasizes that selective programs need to be designed around the individual herd and its ability to identify infected cows or quarters accurately.
This is also why a single universal SCC threshold should be used cautiously. Somatic cell count provides valuable information, but the decision depends on more than one number. The cow's history, reliability of farm records, pathogens present in the herd and consequences of failing to identify an infected animal all matter.
The teat sealant provides a different type of protection.
An internal teat sealant and antibiotics serve different purposes. The sealant does not treat an existing bacterial infection. Instead, it provides a physical barrier intended to prevent bacteria from entering the mammary gland during the dry period. This distinction explains why selective antimicrobial treatment, when indicated, combined with an internal teat sealant is particularly attractive. The 2025 network meta-analysis found that this approach could maintain a minimal risk of new intramammary infection while retaining a high probability of curing existing infections and reducing antimicrobial use.
No product, however, can compensate for poor application technique. Teat preparation, hygiene, and avoiding contamination during administration remain critical. The objective is to introduce the product into a clean teat canal without carrying bacteria into the udder. The environment after dry-off is equally important. Even an excellent protocol cannot prevent every new infection if cows enter wet, dirty, or overcrowded pens.
Dry-off involves more than the udder.
Dry-period length also influences the cow's nutritional and metabolic transition. Shortening or eliminating the dry period can redistribute energy demands and potentially improve metabolic status after calving, but these benefits need to be balanced against effects on subsequent milk production and udder health. Body condition is particularly important. Cows should not use the dry period as an opportunity for excessive condition gain, and nutritional management should prepare them for the metabolic demands of the next lactation.
Milk yield, body condition, parity, mastitis history, expected calving date, lactation persistency and metabolic risk may all influence the appropriate strategy. This broader perspective connects decisions that have often been considered separately, including when to stop milking, how to stop, whether antimicrobial treatment is justified and how the cow should be managed afterward.
From a universal protocol to a risk-based decision
The practical lesson from the emerging evidence is not to replace one universal dry-off protocol with another. Farms should instead consider moving toward a risk-based approach. A herd currently using blanket antibiotic treatment, for example, should not simply stop treating every cow. The first step is to determine whether the farm has sufficiently reliable information and management to implement selective therapy safely. A dry-off audit can focus on a few questions:
Which cows are likely to have an intramammary infection at dry-off?
What information is available to identify them?
What are the important mastitis pathogens in the herd?
Is the internal teat sealant being administered correctly?
How much milk are cows producing when milking stops?
What happens to SCC, new infections, and clinical mastitis after the protocol changes?
The final question may be the most important. A dry-off protocol should be judged by its outcomes. Reducing antimicrobial use is valuable, but it should not be considered successful if new intramammary infections, clinical mastitis or SCC subsequently increase.
The bottom line
The latest research does not provide one ideal dry-off protocol. Instead, it provides a better framework for making the decision. For udder health, strong recent evidence supports selective dry-cow therapy combined with an internal teat sealant in appropriately managed herds. For antimicrobial stewardship, the objective should be to identify cows likely to benefit from antibiotics rather than automatically treating every animal. For cessation of milking, gradual approaches are biologically interesting, particularly for high-producing cows, but important questions remain and ongoing research should not yet be interpreted as definitive evidence.
Dry-period length, nutrition, body condition, milk production, parity, and metabolic risk should also be considered as parts of the same management process. The future of dry-off may therefore be less about finding “the best dry-off protocol” and more about finding the best protocol for this cow, in this herd, under these conditions.
Further reading
1. García, A. 2024. “Rethinking the Dry Period by Shortening or Eliminating.” Progressive Dairy, June 17, 2024.
https://www.agproud.com/articles/59766-rethinking-the-dry-period-by-shortening-or-eliminating
2. Schipper, N., M. Bodmer, S. Dufour, N. M. C. Hommels, M. Nielen, and B. H. P. van den Borne. 2025. “Network Meta-Analysis Based Ranking of Dry Off Interventions to Cure or Prevent Intramammary Infections in Dairy Cows.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 239:106487.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587725000728
3. Rowe, S., S. M. Godden, A. Vasquez, and D. V. Nydam. 2025. “A Practitioner's Guide to Selective Dry Cow Therapy.” Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 41(2):209–222.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40185671/
4. Wieland, M., S. Mann, and A. Sipka. “Optimizing the Dry-Off Process: The Impact of a Gradual Cessation of Milking on Dairy Cow Health and Wellbeing.” Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. Ongoing research project.