Dairy Nutrition News

A Late First Cutting Can Cost You All Season

Tue, 05 May 2026 22:04:11 GMT

With spring fieldwork underway, farmers are juggling a long list of jobs. Planters are rolling, fields are getting prepped and every good weather window is maximized.

At the same time, alfalfa fields continue to grow and are inching closer to first cutting. This timing tends to line up with some of the busiest stretches, and when alfalfa reaches the right stage, it becomes the priority, causing other fieldwork to get set aside. And the challenge with planning first cutting is working within a short window where crop conditions can change in a hurry.

First Cutting Sets the Tone for the Year

According to Kimberly Cassida, a Michigan State University forage specialist, the first cutting often represents a third or more of total seasonal forage production. And in shorter growing season regions, it can approach half of a farm’s total yield. Because of that, timing has a strong impact on feed supplies and ration flexibility throughout the year.

Early in the season the crop changes quickly and the decision to cut comes down to balancing higher yield against declining forage quality.

“For any kind of a forage crop, we always have to deal with a trade-off between yield and quality,” Cassida says. “As our forage crop is increasing in yield over time, it’s becoming more mature, and when it’s more mature, that means it has more fiber, more lignin, more cell wall and more stem compared to leaves.”

(Farm Journal)

Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) increases as the crop matures, while digestibility declines faster in first growth than in later cuttings. Crude protein also declines with maturity, which reduces both energy and protein value when harvest is delayed.

“We like to keep NDF around 40% for dairy-quality hay,” Cassida says. “And that level can change by nearly one percentage point per day.”

What to Look for in the Field

Once you understand how fast quality can change, the focus shifts to determining when the stand is ready to cut. Instead of waiting for a certain date, fields can be walked to assess plant stage, height and how development is progressing.

Plant cues and simple measurements do most of the work in narrowing timing. A few field indicators include:

Stage of growth: “For highest quality, we would like to be harvesting alfalfa at late bud and no later than one‑tenth bloom,” Cassida says. “Once you see purple flowers across the field, you’re past that mark.”
Plant height: First‑cut alfalfa for high‑quality feed is often in the harvest window when bud‑stage plants are about 28 to 32 inches tall. Cassida notes that many growers aim for a point where “bud‑stage alfalfa is about 26 inches tall” as a dairy‑quality target.
Bud development: Look for visible buds with little to no purple bloom showing. A few scattered flowers are acceptable; widespread purple signals you are moving out of the dairy window.
Field variability: Check multiple areas of the field. High spots, low spots, and traffic lanes can all mature at different speeds.
Rapid change in warm weather: In first cutting, quality can slip fast. RFQ can drop four to five points per day, which Cassida linked to “about $10 per day in value per ton” when hay is headed for premium markets.

Together, these help identify when the crop is entering the harvest window where yield and quality are still in balance.

Regrowth Starts the Clock

The first cutting doesn’t just affect one harvest. It ends up setting the timing for the rest of the season and how the remaining cuttings fall into place.

“This date also determines your second, third, fourth and potentially fifth cutting windows,” Cassida says.

(PDPW)

Once the first cutting is made, regrowth starts the clock for the rest of the season. When harvest is delayed, later cuttings can become compressed, reducing flexibility and making it harder to hit optimal timing later in the year.

Delays can also affect plant recovery and overall productivity.

“If you are forced to delay the first cutting due to environmental conditions, this could have negative consequences with a slower regrowth and perhaps a reduction in future yield production,” Cassida says.

Working Within the Window

First cutting carries more weight than any other harvest in the system. It represents a large share of total forage yield, sets the pace for the rest of the season and changes quickly once the crop reaches the bud stage. Weather variability, stand differences and rapid spring growth all influence timing. But combining plant stage, height and regular scouting helps narrow the window.

For most farms, the goal is not just getting it done, but getting it done in a window where yield and quality are still aligned.

The Corn Silage Factors that Show Up in Milk Production

Mon, 04 May 2026 18:14:55 GMT

For most dairies, feed remains the largest expense, and corn silage continues to form the foundation of the ration. That makes it worth taking a closer look at what shapes silage performance and where management decisions can improve return.

On a recent Dairy Signal episode, John Goeser, dairy nutrition and management consultant at Progressive Dairy Solutions Inc., and Luiz Ferraretto, assistant professor and Extension specialist in dairy nutrition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, , walked through how corn silage management is evolving. Their discussion covered feed hygiene, chop height, and other management decisions in the field and at feedout, and how those choices connect back to cow performance and milk production.

Their focus stayed on understanding how agronomics, harvest decisions, and feeding management show up in the bunk and ultimately in the tank. Rather than chasing trends, the goal is to evaluate what works within each farm’s system.

Back to Basics: Fiber and Starch

Many producers are taking a closer look at what defines good corn silage. Ferraretto brings the focus back to the fundamentals that drive performance in the ration.

“From a corn silage perspective, I think there are two main things we need to focus on,” he says. “First is fiber and the other is starch.”

Fiber and starch together often make up close to half the plant. But total nutrients alone do not tell the full story. What matters is how much of those nutrients the cow can actually use.

“If we talk about fiber, we need to understand digestibility,” Ferraretto says. “And if we talk about starch, we need to understand digestibility, because having a nutrient there but not being available does not help us either.”

(North Dakota State University Extension)

Goeser says it’s easy to focus too narrowly when evaluating forage quality.

“We are enamored with discussing fiber digestibility,” he says. “But it is only one component. There are really four components that drive forage quality with corn silage and equate to the milk per ton we’re ultimately going to look for.”

Those include fiber content, fiber digestibility, starch content and starch digestibility. Looking at all four together provides a clearer picture of how a crop will perform in a ration.

He also encourages producers to think beyond forage quality alone and consider total return.

“We need to take into account the agronomic costs and considerations, the acres needed to feed the herd, as well as the intake and milk production in our economic scenarios,” Goeser says.

Feed Hygiene: An Overlooked Limiter

Even high-quality silage can fall short if feed hygiene isn’t managed well. Spoilage yeasts, molds, mycotoxins and other unwanted organisms can be introduced at harvest or develop during storage and feedout.

“Feed hygiene i ncludes all the anti-nutritional components that can show up in forages or in the ration when it’s fed to cows,” Goeser says. “Even when forage quality is good, spoilage organisms can still be present. Those microbes can disrupt rumen energy use and reduce performance, almost like water in diesel fuel.”

Ferraretto points to yeast as a common concern in corn silage systems.

“If there’s a lot of yeast contamination for whatever reason, you should expect lower milk production,” he says. “That can be tied to lower intake, reduced palatability and also impacts on fiber digestibility.”

(Trey Cambern)

One of the challenges is that spoilage is not always obvious.

“These are not things we can see,” Goeser says. “We need laboratory testing. Infrared cameras can also be very helpful, because when we’re talking about yeast, we’re really talking about spoilage yeast.”

He notes that yeast counts can range widely across farms, sometimes reaching tens of millions of colony-forming units per gram.

“If we have 10,000 or even 30 million CFU per gram, that means there can be millions of yeast organisms in just a small amount of feed,” Goeser says. “Now think about how much of that feed a cow eats every day, and how quickly that adds up.”

Ferraretto adds that controlling contamination starts with basics in harvest and storage. Clean surfaces, good packing, and consistent feedout all help reduce spoilage risk. Soil, dust and manure contamination can add to the problem.

“A lot of different avenues could act and compromise some of the hard work that you put into preparing that silage,” Ferraretto says.

Managing Stability at Feedout

To help limit spoilage, both Ferraaretto and Goeser point to inoculants and organic acids as tools that can support stability under the right conditions.

For corn silage, Ferraretto highlights Lactobacillus buchneri–based inoculants.

“The Buchneri type inoculant shift fermentation towards acetic acid at a certain point,” he says. “Acetic acid actually delays the proliferation of these molds when we are feeding cows after opening the silo.”

Better stability can show up as reduced heating at the bunk and more consistent intake.

Jerseys

(Trey Cambern)

“If you’ve ever been to a feed bunk, put your hand in the TMR, and you saw that the TMR is very warm and the cows don’t want to eat, that’s what we’re talking about,” Ferraretto says.

Goeser adds that the benefit can extend beyond the bunker and into the TMR.

“Silage has a longer shelf life,” he says. “It can really be valuable… so much so that it can carry into the total mix ration and actually increase the shelf life of the total TMR to a measurable amount.”

For wetter forages, inoculants alone may not fully control spoilage. Organic acids may be part of the solution.

“I usually think about propionic acid as the potential savior when you have all that silage warming up,” Ferraretto says. “You can kind of stabilize that for palatability a little bit.”

Application rate matters if you want to see a real response. Too little product won’t move the needle on stability or spoilage control, even if the ingredient itself works.

“One or two pounds per ton isn’t going to make a difference,” Goeser says. “Fifteen to twenty pounds per ton would be equivalent to what a fermentation would create.”

Chop Height: A Measurable Tradeoff

Chop height is one of the most direct ways to influence fiber digestibility, but it comes with a clear yield tradeoff. Ferraretto shares results from a meta-analysis that breaks down the impact in numbers.

“For every 10 inches of increase, you have about 2.5 percentage units increase in NDF digestibility, about the same amount increase in starch, but then you have a half ton decrease per acre in dry matter yield,” he says.

On an as-fed basis, that equates to roughly 1.5 tons per acre lost for every 10-inch increase in cut height.

Goeser says that tradeoff deserves attention.

“To me, that’s something that we should be looking at each year,” he says.

Harvesting corn silage.

(Farm Journal, Inc.)

Response depends heavily on crop conditions. More mature corn tends to benefit more from higher chop height, while immature corn shows less response. Drought-stressed fields are generally less suitable.

“Drier plants benefit more than immature plants when you are increasing chop height,” Ferraretto says.

Field conditions also play a role. In fields with disease pressure or significant lower canopy dieback, leaving more of that material in the field can improve forage quality going into the silo.

“If we had a diseased field, it may be beneficial to raise that cutter head up just to limit some of that less digestible material,” Goeser says.

Connecting the System

Corn silage performance comes back to how the whole system works together. Hybrid selection, plant health, soil fertility, harvest timing, and feed management all influence what ends up in the bunk and in milk production. Ferraretto and Goeser emphasize that no single decision drives results on its own.

For dairy producers, the opportunity is in seeing how these pieces fit together across the season and not treating any one of them in isolation. Small improvements in multiple areas can add up over time, and measuring how those changes show up in intake, milk production, and overall feed efficiency helps fine-tune decisions year after year.

China, U.S., and Brazil Lead Global Feed Surge Amid Regional Shifts

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 19:46:38 GMT

A newly released global feed survey estimates world feed production increased in 2025 by 2.9% to 1.44 billion metric tons.

In the 2026 Agri-Food Outlook released by Alltech , data shows most regions and sectors experienced growth.

“The numbers suggest a strong recovery phase for animal agriculture; but the data show that growth was uneven, increasingly regionalized and driven less by herd expansion than by structural change, productivity gains and shifts in how production is measured and recorded,” Alltech reports.

In North America, operational efficiency gains, sustainability pressures, formulation optimization and consolidation among feed mills continue to reshape the feed industry across the region. Feed tonnage contracted modestly, primarily due to a historically tight cattle cycle and declining beef herd dynamics. Alltech says the region still saw some selective, species-driven momentum, with growth concentrated in broilers and dairy. While pork feed stabilized, the egg and turkey sectors remained in recovery following health-related disruptions.

The survey collected data from 142 countries and 38,837 feed mills in late 2025. By analyzing compound feed production and prices, the survey provides a comprehensive snapshot of global feed production. Alltech says these insights serve as a barometer for the overall livestock industry, highlighting key trends across species, along with regional challenges and opportunities for growth.

Top 10 Feed-Producing Countries

The top 10 feed-producing countries produced 65.2% of the world’s feed in 2025. The survey also showed 47.7% of all global feed tonnage was produced in the top three countries: China, U.S. and Brazil.

Global Feed Volume by Species

More Regional Results

Asia: 559.297 million mt

Asia reigns as the global center of feed production, with growth via industrialization and price-conscious consumers increasing the demand for poultry and aquaculture in 2025. The survey shows continued shifts from on-farm mixing to commercial feed, especially in China. In addition, Southeast Asia experienced a recovery of the sow herd which lifted pork output. Poultry feed tonnage also remained strong.

Europe: 274.061 million mt

Europe’s feed sector in 2025 was differentiated, yet broadly resilient, growing by 1.0%, Alltech notes. Lower raw material prices, supported by large global harvests of soybeans, rapeseed, wheat and maize, improved margins and stimulated production in several key markets. The region stabilized overall even with ongoing disease pressure and regulatory constraints. Modest gains in dairy and broilers offset challenges in other segments.

Latin America: 204.446 million mt

Latin America solidified its position as the world’s premier “protein basket” in 2025. Compound feed demand expanded 2.8% year over year, rising by 5.536 million mt, supported by strong export markets and lower grain prices. Growth was broad-based across the poultry, pork and aquaculture sectors. However, local disruptions in parts of the Andean and Caribbean sub-regions tempered overall expansion.

Africa and the Middle East: 102.549 million mt

Africa expanded strongly (+11.5%) on commercialization and rising compound feed penetration as the Middle East entered a structural plateau (+1.1%). Across both sub-regions, Alltech says three forces shaped performance: protein affordability, input vulnerability driven by grain prices and currency volatility, and continued disease disruptions — particularly related to foot-and-mouth disease and avian influenza.

Oceania: 11.104 million mt

Oceania experienced broad-based gains last year, with an overall 3.4% increase supported by population growth, resilient livestock sectors and strong export demand. Absolute increases were at their strongest in the broiler, layer, beef and pig sectors, the report says. High feedlot numbers and elevated cattle inventories sustained record beef production, particularly in Australia (+11%), with more moderate growth in New Zealand (+1.6%). Recovery in layer feeds following an avian influenza outbreak, along with steady demand for chicken and pork, led to a balanced regional expansion.

FAQs

Q: What was the total world feed production in 2025?
A: 1.44 billion metric tons.

Q: Why did U.S. feed production decrease?
A: Production fell by 0.8% due to a tight cattle cycle and declining beef herd dynamics.

Q. Which countries are the top producers of animal feed?
A. The top three feed-producing countries are China (330.06 million mt), the United States (267.38 million mt), and Brazil (89.90 million mt). Together, they account for 47.7% of the world’s total feed tonnage.

Q. Which livestock species saw the highest growth in feed demand?
A. Aquaculture experienced the highest growth rate at 4.7%, followed closely by the broiler sector at 3.7%.

Q. What is driving the growth in the global feed industry?
A. According to Alltech, growth is being driven by structural changes, productivity gains, and shifts in production measurement rather than simple herd expansion.

Q. Which global region had the highest percentage of growth in feed production?
A. Africa saw the most significant growth at 11.5%, fueled by increased commercialization and the rising use of compound feed.

The compound feed production totals and prices reported in the 2026 Alltech Agri-Food Outlook were collected in the first quarter of 2026 with assistance from feed mills and industry and government entities around the world. These figures are estimates and are intended to serve as an informative resource for industry stakeholders. To access more data and insights, visit alltech.com/agri-food-outlook .

Feed Handling Hiccups Hit Hard

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:27:23 GMT

Feed is likely the single largest expense on a dairy, whether it is grown on farm or purchased from outside suppliers. Because of that, even small inefficiencies in storage, handling or mixing can quickly become expensive.

When feed accounts for close to half of a dairy’s total costs, managing it well becomes one of the biggest opportunities to improve profitability. Feed management goes well beyond ration formulation. How feed is stored, tracked, mixed and delivered can have just as much influence on the true cost of feeding the herd.

Shrink Starts Before the Bunk

Feed loss often happens unnoticed. Unlike milk production or reproduction metrics, shrink is not always measured directly. Yet it can occur at multiple points between harvest and the feed bunk.

Commodity sheds, silage piles, storage bags, loading areas and mixing processes all create opportunities for loss. Without a system to track or control it, small inefficiencies can build over time and eat into profitability.

Mike Brouk, Ph.D., professor and Extension specialist in the Department of Animal Sciences and Industry at Kansas State University, says minimizing shrink is one of the most overlooked economic opportunities on many dairies.

Designing Storage with Loss in Mind

When building or upgrading commodity storage, the design of the structure can have a long-term impact on feed retention and efficiency. Many sheds are poorly protected from wind and moisture or are not sized appropriately for the ingredients they hold.

Over time, exposure to weather can degrade feed quality and increase losses.

Producers planning new storage facilities should think carefully about several design factors. Sevel tips include:

• Match the number and size of bays to actual feed use patterns
• Locate sheds where they are protected from prevailing wind, rain and snow
• Grade the site so water drains away from the storage area
• Allow easy access for loaders and mixing equipment

Brouk notes that some facilities end up using less than half of their physical storage space effectively because of poor layout or design limitations.

commodity barn

(Farm Journal)

Managing Feed Inside the Shed

Infrastructure is important, but daily management also plays a major role in how much feed is ultimately preserved.

One of the most important principles is maintaining proper inventory rotation. Without it, older feed can accumulate in the back of bays where it loses quality or becomes spoiled.

Good feed management starts with simple practices.

• Use an all in, all out approach whenever possible
• Push older feed to the front before unloading new deliveries
• Keep batches separated so their nutrient values remain accurate
• Avoid unintentionally blending old and new ingredients

“Otherwise, you’ll end up with a back end containing feed that is months or even years old, lower quality and potentially spoiled,” Brouk says.

When outdated feed works its way into the ration, it does more than create physical loss. It can also reduce ration consistency and make it harder for nutritionists to predict cow performance.

Weather and Wind Losses Add Up

Environmental exposure is another common source of feed shrink that is easy to overlook.

Wind can carry away fine particles from dry commodity ingredients during both storage and loading. Rain and snow can also lead to spoilage along the edges of piles or near open shed entrances.

Several simple adjustments can help limit those losses.

• Install roll down curtains or tarps on open shed sides during periods when the building is not in use
• Use stacked bales or barriers to block wind from entering the structure
• Position loading areas where they are shielded from direct wind exposure
• Consider partially enclosed loading systems where possible

Even when feeding activity stops overnight, leaving commodity sheds wide open can allow wind to remove a surprising amount of feed by morning.

Mixing TMR - Bridgewater Dairy.jpg

(Farm Journal)

Loading Matters More than Expected

Another area where feed loss can occur is during the loading process itself.

When ingredients are loaded into mixers outdoors or in windy conditions, fine particles can easily be blown away before they ever reach the ration. Brouk says the load out location and technique can have a noticeable impact on feed retention.

“Load out itself is a critical control point where feed is lost if it is conducted out in the open,” Brouk adds.

Daily operating practices can also influence how much feed is preserved.

• Train feeders to avoid taking oversized scoops with loader buckets
• Watch for spillage along bucket edges during loading
• Use windbreaks near commodity sheds when possible
• Clean up spilled feed quickly before it spoils

Some dairies use power broom attachments on skid loaders to recover spilled feed and keep traffic areas clean. While the recovered feed may not always return to the ration, it prevents unnecessary waste and keeps work areas safer.

Managing Feed as One system

Reducing shrink is only one part of a larger shift in how many dairies are approaching feed management. Increasingly, farms are looking at feeding as a connected system rather than a series of separate steps.

That process often begins with better inventory tracking. Simple tools that monitor feed supplies and link them to ration requirements can help producers understand how long feed inventories will last.

By connecting inventories to herd size and ration formulation, producers can identify potential shortages earlier. That information can guide purchasing decisions, help plan crop acres and reduce the risk of emergency feed purchases later in the year.

Feed alley.

(Trey Cambern)

Accuracy and Consistency

Once feed is properly stored and protected, the next step is making sure it is delivered accurately.

Small inconsistencies during batching can create ration variation that adds up over time. While shrink is often discussed in terms of physical loss, variation in ingredient loading can have similar economic consequences.

Some dairies are turning to automated batching systems that control ingredient loading with greater precision. In some cases, these systems have reduced deviations to very small margins. Improving batching accuracy not only reduces waste but also helps ensure cows receive the ration the nutritionist intended.

Feeding Systems are Becoming More Continuous

Feed delivery strategies are also evolving. Instead of delivering one or two large loads each day, some farms are shifting toward more frequent feeding.

Automated feeding equipment can mix and deliver smaller loads throughout the day, keeping feed fresher and more evenly distributed along the bunk. More frequent feed delivery can reduce refusals and encourage more consistent eating patterns. In some situations it also allows producers to manage bunk space more efficiently while maintaining stable intakes.

Small Improvements Can Have a Big Impact

The tools used to improve feed management vary widely from farm to farm. Some start with simple inventory tracking, while others invest in new storage facilities or automated feeding systems. Regardless of the approach, the underlying principle is the same. Small inefficiencies in feed handling can compound quickly when feed represents such a large share of total farm expenses.

Improving feed management does not always require major capital investment. Often the first step is simply measuring more carefully, managing storage more intentionally and tightening daily feeding practices. Over time, those incremental improvements in storage design, shrink reduction and batching accuracy can add up to meaningful gains in both efficiency and profitability.

Fatty Liver in Dairy Cows: The Export Problem You’re Overlooking

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:29:49 GMT

The transition cow is often discussed as having an energy problem. Cows eat less, demand ramps up and they fall into negative energy balance. While true, this is only part of the story. The bigger issue is a logistical bottleneck: What happens to the fat that gets mobilized? If the cow cannot move that fat out of the liver efficiently, metabolic problems stack up quickly.

Why the Liver Gets Overwhelmed

Around calving, a cow’s dry matter intake drops by 30% to 35%, while energy demand increases sharply. To fill this gap, the cow mobilizes body fat and sends it to the liver. Once there, the fat follows three main paths:

Complete Oxidation: It is burned for fuel to generate ATP (energy).
Ketogenesis: It is converted into ketones.
Export: It is packaged and sent back into circulation to be used for milk synthesis.

When the volume of fat exceeds the liver’s capacity to process it, the system breaks down.

“Lipolysis happens, that adipose tissue is breaking down. Part is going to be used for milk synthesis, part is going to go for complete oxidation and generate ATP and part goes to ketogenesis. The third thing that happens is that triglycerides accumulate, and when the liver cannot keep up, fat builds up in the liver and we start to see metabolic problems in cows,” says Fabio Lima, assistant professor at UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.

Choline as the Liver’s “Shipping Crate”

The fundamental struggle for the modern dairy cow is her low capacity to export triglycerides from the liver as very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL). Choline is the key ingredient needed to build the VLDL “package” that carries fat out of the liver cells.

“What we know about our modern dairy cows is that they have a low capacity to export triglycerides from the liver as VLDL. That inability to increase fatty acid oxidation or export is what leads our cows to develop fatty liver. Choline has been shown to be a key ingredient to reverse that,” Lima says.

By supporting the synthesis of phosphatidylcholine, a specific fat-transporting molecule, choline ensures the liver can keep up with the surge of fat mobilization.

“The modern dairy cow has been selected for high production. That creates a demand that makes nutrients like choline strategically important. It helps support that level of production,” Lima explains. “Choline is critical for VLDL assembly and hepatic fat export. And it’s critical to reduce fatty liver risk and minimize its impact. Phosphatidylcholine seems to depend on adequate choline, especially during the transition period.”

Why Rumen-Protection is Non-Negotiable

While choline is present in common feed ingredients like soybean meal, canola meal and forages, it is almost entirely degraded by rumen microbes before the cow can use it. Because natural feed sources rarely provide enough absorbable choline to meet the high demands of early lactation, rumen-protected choline is added to ensure the nutrient reaches the small intestine for absorption.

Despite the clear biological mechanism, the dairy industry is still refining exactly how much choline a cow needs. Because rumen dynamics are complex and every cow mobilizes fat differently, providing a one-size-fits-all dose remains a challenge.

“There has been 40 years of research, and we think, ‘Well, 40 years is a lot of research, we’re probably going to get some clear guidance.’ But we’re still not sure. There’s still the rumen dynamics and how much is metabolized, where it goes. All those things that make it difficult,” Lima says.

Rethink Transition Management

Success in the transition period requires looking beyond the feed bunk. The critical question is no longer just “Is she eating enough?” but rather: Is the transition cow able to handle the fat she is mobilizing?

Instead of focusing only on energy intake, it is equally important to consider how effectively the cow can process and move that energy. Supporting liver health through fat export is one of the most direct ways to reduce metabolic disorders and improve performance in the modern dairy cow.

Spring is the Time to Inspect Silage Storage

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:23:58 GMT

As last year’s forage inventories slowly decline, many producers are starting to turn their attention to the upcoming crop. With less feed in bunkers, bags and silos, it becomes easier to evaluate storage structures and address maintenance needs before the next harvest fills them again.

Liz Gartman, regional crops educator with UW–Madison Extension, says this spring is an ideal time for producers to inspect silage structures and make improvements that protect next season’s forage. Producers invest heavily in growing and harvesting high-quality forage, but that effort can be lost if storage systems don’t maintain the right conditions.

“All this hard work can be negated by using silage structures that fail to preserve the crop or allow for spoilage or additional contamination,” Gartman explains.

Oxygen is the Biggest Threat

Regardless of how silage is stored, keeping oxygen out is the biggest piece of preserving feed quality.

“Oxygen is the enemy of quality silage,” Gartman says. “When air infiltrates silage, it can lead to heating, mold growth and secondary fermentation that reduce feed value and increase shrink.”

Many producers focus on the plastic covering used to seal silage, but oxygen infiltration can occur in several other ways. Cracks in bunker walls, leaking silo doors or holes in silage bags can all introduce air into the silage mass.

Before refilling any storage structure, Gartman recommends removing all remaining feed and cleaning the storage area thoroughly. Spoiled or moldy feed left behind can contaminate the next crop. In addition, acids produced during fermentation can damage concrete and metal over time, contributing to deterioration in silage structures.

Each system has its own maintenance needs, which is why spring is the best time to inspect closely, take note of problem areas and plan repairs for summer so everything is ready before the next silage harvest.

Inspect Bunkers Before Filling

(Farm Journal, Inc.)

Bunker silos are a common storage method because they offer flexibility and relatively low construction costs, but they require regular attention to maintain an airtight seal.

Gartman notes that oxygen can move through concrete walls and floors, especially when cracks develop from freeze-thaw cycles, heavy equipment traffic or normal wear.

Now is a good time to inspect for cracks in walls, joints and floors and complete repairs or sealing work as needed, while also planning ahead so issues can be addressed before the next silage harvest. Drainage should also be checked to ensure seepage moves away from the pile rather than collecting at the base.

Some producers line bunker floors or walls with plastic to improve the oxygen barrier, but care is needed during filling and feedout to avoid damaging those barriers, which can quickly lead to spoilage.

Bags and Piles Need the Right Location

Silage bags and piles offer flexibility for many operations, but their placement and management play a major role in maintaining feed quality.

Bags located in high-traffic areas, poorly drained sites or areas accessible to wildlife are more likely to experience damage or contamination. Mud around bags can also increase the risk of soil entering the feed during filling and feedout.

If muddy conditions are common, consider moving bags to a firm base such as concrete or packed limestone screenings. Leveling ruts and improving drainage around storage areas can also reduce problems.

Regularly checking bags and piles for plastic damage should be standard practice. Any holes caused by birds, rodents or weather should be repaired quickly to keep oxygen out and protect silage quality.

Silos Require Routine Checks

Upright silos are no longer as common on many dairies, but they still require a different set of maintenance checks.

Gartman encourages producers to identify areas where spoilage regularly occurs, as those locations may signal air leaks or structural problems. Walls should be inspected for cracks, while damaged doors should be repaired or replaced to ensure a tight seal.

Other areas to review include:

Roofs and seals that may allow water or air infiltration
Ladders, cages and chutes that may need repair
Unloaders, cables and pulleys that show signs of wear
Safety guards on moving equipment

Because many silos have been in service for decades, periodic professional inspections can help identify structural concerns before they become major issues.

Safety Remains a Top Priority

(Canva)

Working around silage structures carries risks, particularly when entering silos or working near silage faces. Gartman stresses the importance of following proper safety procedures when performing inspections or repairs.

For upright silos, producers should follow OSHA confined space entry protocols. Workers should use a harness connected to a lifeline, wear appropriate personal protective equipment and ensure equipment is locked out so it cannot be accidentally started.

Additional safety reminders include:

Wearing high-visibility clothing when working around flat storage structures
Avoiding the silage face and maintaining a safe distance to prevent avalanche risks
Working in pairs so someone can call for help if needed

“Always keep safety top of mind when you are inspecting and repairing silage structures,” Gartman says.

Small Repairs Can Protect Valuable Feed

happy-silage-face.jpg

On many dairies, maintenance tasks can easily get pushed aside by more immediate priorities. But silage storage plays a critical role in protecting one of the farm’s most valuable feed resources.

Taking time to inspect bunkers, silos and bags can help reduce feed shrink and preserve forage quality. When storage systems are well maintained, they do a better job protecting the investment made in every crop.

10 Practical Tips for Milk Fever Prevention and Treatment

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:55:19 GMT

Milk fever is still one of the most costly transition cow problems. While down cows get the attention, it’s often the subclinical cases quietly eroding performance that matter most.

To help producers navigate these challenges, we’ve gathered insights from a panel of experts featured on “ The Bovine Vet Podcast ”:

Heather Chandler, a practicing field veterinarian.
Burim Ametaj, an immunometabolism researcher at the University of Alberta.
Megan Connelly, a transition cow specialist with Protekta.

Identify the Invisible

1. Monitor the herd, not just the emergencies

Subclinical hypocalcemia is often invisible, yet it drives secondary diseases and lost milk.

“Blood calcium is an easy thing to look at if we want to be proactive,” Connelly says.

The Action: Pull blood samples from 10 to 12 fresh cows (0-72 hours post-calving) and track the percentage of the group falling below normal calcium thresholds.

2. Watch the cow, not just the spreadsheet

Data is vital, but the eye of a trained herdsman is irreplaceable. Connelly notes many subclinical cases simply show up as cows that “don’t come in and thrive.”

The Action: Train your team to flag cows with reduced intake, lower rumination or generally “off” behavior. Performance dips often precede clinical disease.

Choose and Lock in a Strategy

3. Pick one strategy and execute it flawlessly

Consistency beats complexity every time. Whether you choose a negative DCAD diet or a Zeolite program, the success of the program depends on execution rather than the choice itself.

The Action: If using DCAD, monitor urine pH religiously. If using Zeolite, focus on the feeding rate and dietary phosphorus levels.

4. Respect the 21-day close-up window

A transition diet only works if the cow actually eats it for the required duration. Chandler emphasizes both DCAD and Zeolite programs need to be fed 20 to 25 days before calving.

The Action: Separate close-up cows into their own group 21 days before their due date and ensure they have daily access to the specific transition ration.

Immediate Calving Intervention

5. Time your calcium boluses for maximum impact

Calcium demand spikes the moment the calf hits the ground. Timing is everything.

“You can even give boluses before she calves,” Chandler suggests.

The Action: For high-risk cows, provide one bolus at the onset of labor (or immediately at calving) and a second bolus 12 to 24 hours later.

6. Treat down cows as true emergencies

A cow that cannot stand is a race against time.

“The pure weight of a down cow leads to muscle necrosis quickly,” Chandler warns.

The Action: Respond immediately. While waiting for the vet, roll the cow side-to-side to maintain circulation and ensure she is on deep, supportive bedding. When administering IV calcium, do it slowly and monitor the heart rate.

7. Address the full mineral picture

If a cow isn’t responding to calcium, it may not be a simple case of milk fever. Chandler notes low phosphorus or magnesium are often at play.

The Action: If a cow’s response to treatment is poor, work with your vet to supplement phosphorus or magnesium and review your overall mineral protocols.

Long-Term Stability

8. Prioritize rumen health to support calcium

Rumen stress and inflammation can directly disrupt a cow’s ability to regulate calcium. Ametaj points out many transition cows exist in a chronic inflammatory state.

The Action: Protect the rumen by avoiding sudden starch increases. Push up feed frequently to prevent sorting and ensure the ration contains adequate effective fiber.

9. Avoid over-acidification

While DCAD is effective, more is not always better. Over-acidifying the diet can lead to a drop in dry matter intake, creating a new set of problems.

The Action: Regularly check urine pH. For Holsteins, aim for a target of 5.5 to 6.5. If you see intake drop, reassess the diet immediately.

10. Commit to a monthly program review

“Collaboration is the key to success,” Connelly says. A program that worked six months ago may need a tune-up today.

The Action: Meet monthly with your veterinarian and nutritionist to review fresh cow disease data, milk fever cases and blood calcium trends. Small, data-driven adjustments prevent major wrecks.

Watch the latest episode of The Bovine Vet Podcast focusing on milk fever here:

Colostrum Quality Starts Weeks Before the Calf Arrives

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 16:00:49 GMT

On most dairies, colostrum management is treated as a short window right after calving. The first milking is collected, tested and quickly fed to the calf. But new research suggests colostrum quality is shaped weeks before it ever reaches the pail.

Research from Amanda Fischer-Tlustos examines colostrogenesis, the process that produces colostrum, and how nutrition, metabolism and mammary activity during the dry period influence what ends up in that first milking.

“We always talk about harvesting colostrum to feed the calves,” she said during a recent Dairy Health Blackbelt Podcast. “But how are the cows producing it?”

Her work suggests the answer starts much earlier than many farms think, with high-quality colostrum developing gradually in the weeks leading up to calving.

Looking Beyond IgG

Colostrum conversations often revolve around immunoglobulin G, or IgG. Because calves are born without functional immunity, they depend on these antibodies from colostrum to establish passive transfer.

While IgG remains the cornerstone of colostrum quality, Fischer-Tlustos believes focusing only on antibodies overlooks much of what makes colostrum biologically powerful.

“I wanted to focus on it more than just IgG,” she says. “There’s all these other things in colostrum aside from IgG. Not just when is IgG transferred from the serum into the colostrum prior to calving, but also when are the macronutrients starting to be synthesized, and when are bioactive compounds starting to be synthesized or transferred?”

These additional components include hormones, growth factors and specialized carbohydrates known as oligosaccharides. Although they exist in much lower concentrations than fat or antibodies, they can have meaningful effects on calf development.

“To me, the definition of a bioactive compound is something that is present in low concentrations compared to IgG or fat,” Fischer-Tlustos says. “But even though they’re present at low concentrations, they could still have a really big impact on calf development and physiology.”

Taken together, these compounds reveal colostrum as a complex biological package rather than simply the first milk produced after calving.

“It’s almost like the cow has tailored her colostrum to the calf’s needs,” Fischer-Tlustos adds.

(File Photo)

A Staggered Timeline Before Calving

To understand when these components begin forming, Fischer-Tlustos followed a group of Holstein cows from dry-off through calving. The cows were dried off approximately eight weeks before their expected calving date, allowing researchers to monitor mammary changes throughout the dry period.

The team collected small samples of mammary secretions at regular intervals leading up to calving.

“We didn’t want to take too much, because then we could induce them into lactation, which would wreck our colostrum,” Fischer-Tlustos says.

What the team discovered was a surprisingly staggered timeline of colostrum formation.

Lactose and fat production, two hallmarks of normal milk secretion, began very close to calving.

“We found that lactose and fat really only start to turn on within about one to two days prior to calving,” she says. “And that makes sense to me. They kind of turn on with lactogenesis, which is milk production.”

Protein synthesis began slightly earlier.

“We found that protein starts to turn on about a week prior to calving,” Fischer-Tlustos says.

The timeline for IgG accumulation, however, followed a different pattern.

“When we looked at IgG, what we actually found was that it started to accumulate substantially in some cows even as early as six weeks prior to calving, and some cows were accumulating it even before that,” she says.

Because the cows in the study were dried off roughly eight weeks before calving, that means antibody accumulation began soon after the dry period started. The discovery challenged the assumption that the close-up period is the primary window for influencing colostrum quality.

“It kind of really started to reframe my thinking,” Fischer-Tlustos says. “We try to put in nutritional strategies or management strategies in the close-up period to try to drive more IgG transfer. But it made me think, maybe this isn’t the time we need to be looking at that.”

Further analysis reinforced the importance of early accumulation. Cows that began building IgG earlier in the dry period consistently produced better colostrum.

“The earlier it could accumulate in the prepartum secretion, the better the colostrum would be after she calved,” she says. “And we found that the more gradual or slowly that that accumulation could happen, the better for first milking colostrum.”

(Farm Journal)

Giving the Udder Rest

While studying differences between cows, Fischer-Tlustos began looking at another important factor: mammary activity during the dry period.

Her team measured indicators of mammary metabolism including milk yield at dry-off, mammary blood flow and uptake of metabolic fuels such as glucose and acetate.

“These were kind of indicators of mammary activity during the dry period,” she says.

The findings revealed a counterintuitive relationship. Cows whose udders remained more active during the far-off dry period tended to produce poorer colostrum.

“We found that cows that had more mammary activity during the far-off period had worse colostrum production,” Fischer-Tlustos says.

Many producers have seen these cows in the dry pen. They are the animals that never seem to fully dry off.

“We see cows in the dry pen that are like three weeks dry, and they have huge udders and they’re leaking milk still,” she says. “And I think these are those cows that have a lot of difficulty drying off, and they’re not able to get into that rest and regeneration state, which coincides with colostrogenesis.”

High milk production heading into dry-off appears to intensify the problem.

“We also found, too, that the more milk the cow made at dry off, she had more mammary activity in the far-off period, and then worse colostrum,” Fischer-Tlustos says. “This is even more exacerbated for our high producing cows, which are typically our ones that have trouble drying off.”

Nutrition and Metabolism Influence Composition

Additional work examined how prepartum nutrition influences colostrum formation. Beginning roughly 19 days before calving, primiparous and multiparous cows were fed diets with either high or low energy density.

Interestingly, the dietary treatments did not significantly affect IgG concentration or total colostrum yield. However, they did alter several other components.

Cows fed higher-energy diets produced colostrum with greater concentrations of insulin, somatic cells and sialic acid. At the same time, they had lower concentrations of total oligosaccharides.

The metabolic drivers of colostrum production also differed by parity. In first-lactation cows, colostrum yield appeared more closely linked to circulating glucose levels. Multiparous cows showed a stronger association with hormonal signaling, particularly insulin.

According to Fischer-Tlustos, these differences suggest that cows in different stages of life may rely on different metabolic pathways to support colostrum synthesis.

Rethinking Dry-Off

Another management factor that may affect colostrum development is the way cows are dried off.

According to Fischer-Tlustos, abrupt dry-off remains common practice.

“I read a review paper from 2020 that said 75% of U.S. farms are practicing abrupt dry off,” she says. “So just dry off in one day. Which is, from my standpoint, concerning from colostrum production, but that’s also really concerning for milk production.”

The challenge, she says, is that cows may not receive enough time for the mammary gland to fully transition from lactation to regeneration.

“I was trying to think of an analogy, and the Olympics were on,” she says. “You have to think they are like a pro athlete. They need to rest. They can’t just go right into the next Olympics two months later. They need a rest and regeneration period.”

Without adequate rest, the mammary gland may remain partially active during the dry period, limiting its ability to accumulate antibodies and other compounds needed for high-quality colostrum.

From Harvesting Colostrum to Developing It

Taken together, Fischer-Tlustos’ research suggests the industry may need to expand how it thinks about colostrum management.

Rather than focusing solely on the harvest and testing of colostrum at calving, her findings highlight the importance of the weeks leading up to it. Successful dry-off, controlled mammary activity and adequate time for mammary tissue to regenerate all appear to influence how colostrum develops.

For dairy producers striving to deliver consistent, high-quality colostrum to newborn calves, the most important management window may begin much earlier than previously thought. Long before the calf is born and the colostrum is harvested, the cow has already been building it.

Zeolite Strategies Reshape Milk Fever Management on Dairy Farms

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:13:41 GMT

Milk fever remains one of the most well-known metabolic diseases in dairy cattle, yet it is far from solved. While clinical cases still occur on most farms, the larger — and often more costly — challenge lies beneath the surface: subclinical hypocalcemia.

That’s why transition cow management continues to be a critical focus for veterinarians and producers alike.

“If you have transition cow issues, you’re going to have metabolic issues. Cows aren’t going to come in and perform the way you think they should. You’re going to have repro issues. You’re going to see a whole host of effects,” Meghan Connelly says, research and technical director at Protekta and guest on the most recent episode of “The Bovine Vet Podcast” .

Against that backdrop, a growing number of nutritionists and veterinarians are turning to zeolite-based pre-fresh diets, a relatively new approach that is reshaping how the industry manages calcium metabolism during the transition period.

The Hidden Burden of Hypocalcemia in Dairy Cows

On most dairies, clinical milk fever rates fall between 1% and 5%, depending on herd management and nutrition strategies. Subclinical hypocalcemia, however, is far more prevalent, affecting an estimated 25% to 45% of cows in many herds.

Unlike clinical cases, subclinical hypocalcemia is difficult to detect — but no less important.

“Subclinical is where we can’t see it, but it’s happening. The cow has low blood calcium, but we can’t tell that she’s low. But that still has consequences for the cow. There’s all these different systems and calcium is such a critical mineral for all those systems. So many different diseases that are influenced by calcium status,” Connelly says.

Instead of obvious signs, these cows often present as subtle inefficiencies that compound over time. Reduced rumination, lower feed intake and increased rates of retained placenta, metritis and mastitis are all commonly linked to inadequate calcium status. These hidden cases can quietly erode both performance and profitability.

DCAD Diets: The Traditional Approach to Milk Fever Prevention

For decades, the primary strategy for preventing milk fever has been the negative DCAD (dietary cation-anion difference) diet, which works by inducing a mild metabolic acidosis that improves the cow’s responsiveness to parathyroid hormone (PTH).

“We feed different feed supplements that contain anions in order to drop urine pH. When urine pH drops, the system is primed for PTH to work and mobilize bone and help support calcium homeostasis when the cow calves,” Connelly says.

This approach is well validated and remains a cornerstone of transition cow nutrition. However, it comes with practical constraints that can limit its use, particularly in larger or more complex feeding systems.

Where DCAD can create friction:

Requires consistent access to low-potassium forages
Can reduce dry matter intake due to metabolic acidification
Depends on monitoring tools such as urine pH
Often still requires post-calving calcium supplementation

As operations scale and feed variability increases, these limitations have driven interest in alternative strategies that can deliver similar or improved outcomes with fewer constraints.

(Meghan Connelly)

How Zeolite Works: A New Strategy for Hypocalcemia Management

Zeolite offers a fundamentally different approach to milk fever prevention, one that targets phosphorus rather than acid-base balance.

“When we feed a zeolite diet pre-fresh, we bind dietary phosphorus. The cow goes, ‘Oh, I better go get more phosphorus.’ The main storage for phosphorus is in the bone. When she mobilizes bone, she brings double the amount of calcium with it,” Connelly says, referencing the P:Ca ratio in bone.

By binding dietary phosphorus in the gastrointestinal tract, zeolite creates a mild, controlled drop in blood phosphorus. The cow responds by mobilizing bone reserves to restore balance. Because bone contains both phosphorus and calcium in a fixed ratio, this process results in a simultaneous release of calcium into circulation.

Unlike DCAD diets, which rely on parathyroid hormone sensitivity, zeolite operates through a separate pathway involving fibroblast growth factor-23, a hormone produced in bone cells that acts on the kidneys to regulate phosphate levels, and vitamin D metabolism. The outcome — improved calcium availability at calving — is similar, but the biological mechanism is distinct.

Why Zeolite Adoption Is Increasing on Dairy Farms

Although zeolite has only been available in the U.S. since 2017, adoption has accelerated rapidly, according to Connelly. Much of that momentum is driven by a combination of visible on-farm results and meaningful management advantages.

Producers implementing zeolite programs often report improved calcium status through the first 48 to 72 hours after calving, along with fewer clinical milk fever cases.

“If you go from having 30 down cows a month to four, that’s a pretty big change,” Connelly says, referencing the improvement she has seen on farms changing to zeolite.

Beyond clinical outcomes, zeolite introduces greater flexibility into ration formulation. Because it does not depend on lowering dietary potassium, producers can incorporate a wider range of forages — including haylage, rye and sorghum — that would typically be restricted in DCAD programs. This allows better use of homegrown feeds and can reduce reliance on purchased inputs.

Zeolite programs are also associated with reduced dependence on calcium supplementation after calving. With cows already mobilizing calcium effectively, the need for boluses and intravenous treatments often declines, lowering both labor and treatment costs.

Management simplicity is another advantage. Zeolite eliminates the need for urine pH monitoring and reduces the number of adjustments required in close-up groups. In addition, because it does not induce metabolic acidosis, it avoids the intake suppression sometimes observed with DCAD diets, helping support dry matter intake during a critical window.

Where Zeolite May Not Be the Best Fit

Despite its advantages, zeolite is not universally applicable. Its effectiveness depends heavily on overall diet composition, particularly phosphorus levels.

Situations where DCAD may still be the better fit:

Diets high in phosphorus (e.g., distillers grains, canola meal)
Operations with well-optimized DCAD programs already in place
Systems where tight ration control supports consistent acidification

In high-phosphorus diets, zeolite may become saturated, allowing the absorption of the remaining free phosphorus, reducing its effectiveness and making DCAD the more reliable strategy.

A Technology Still Evolving and the Veterinarian’s Role

Compared to DCAD, which has decades of supporting research, zeolite remains a relatively new tool. Since its introduction in 2017, both research and field experience have rapidly expanded understanding of how best to implement it.

“We didn’t necessarily know everything about it when it came out. I like to say that we continue to learn in real time with this strategy,” Connelly says.

Advances in feeding guidelines, monitoring approaches and troubleshooting frameworks have already improved consistency across farms, and further refinement is expected as adoption continues.

As that evolution continues, veterinarians are playing an increasingly central role. Transition cow programs are becoming more nuanced, and selecting the right strategy requires more than simply choosing between DCAD and zeolite. It involves identifying herd-level challenges, interpreting blood calcium data and aligning protocols with nutrition and management realities on each operation.

Close collaboration between veterinarians, nutritionists and producers remains essential. No single approach fits every farm, and the most successful programs are those tailored to available feed resources, labor capacity and herd goals.

Zeolite is not a replacement for DCAD, it is an expansion of the milk fever management toolbox.

It represents a shift from priming calcium regulation through acidification to directly driving mineral mobilization through phosphorus control. For many dairies, that shift is delivering higher blood calcium, fewer clinical cases and simpler management during one of the most critical periods in the production cycle.

As the industry continues to refine its use, zeolite is quickly moving from a novel concept to a practical, field-proven strategy in transition cow nutrition.

To hear more from Connelly on using zeolite for the management of transition cows to avoid hypocalcemia, listen to the full conversation on the latest episode of “The Bovine Vet Podcast.”

Rethinking Milk Fever in Dairy Cows: How the Immune System Impacts Calcium Levels

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 22:54:01 GMT

Milk fever has long been framed as a calcium problem. But what if that framing is too narrow and part of the reason prevention strategies don’t always deliver consistent results?

Work from Burim Ametaj , Professor at the University of Alberta and recent guest on “The Bovine Vet Podcast” , is helping reframe hypocalcemia through what he terms the calci-inflammatory network — a model that links calcium dynamics directly to immune function during the transition period.

A Common Problem, Often Hidden

Milk fever remains one of the most widespread metabolic disorders in dairy cattle, but much of its impact is hidden in subclinical cases.

“Milk fever is widespread, but now we have this subclinical part of milk fever that is not visible. You need to get a blood sample to measure calcium to determine, based on the concentration of calcium in blood, whether the cow is going through subclinical milk fever or clinical milk fever,” Ametaj says.

These subclinical cases lack obvious signs, yet they are consistently linked to reduced intake, impaired immune function and increased risk of diseases such as mastitis , metritis and ketosis.

Despite decades of focus on calcium supplementation and DCAD strategies, hypocalcemia remains prevalent. This has prompted a closer look at the underlying biology.

(Farm Journal)

Total Versus Ionized Calcium: A Critical Distinction

A key refinement in this emerging framework is the distinction between total calcium and ionized calcium. While total calcium is commonly measured, much of it is bound to proteins like albumin or other molecules. Only a fraction exists as ionized calcium — the biologically active form required for muscle contraction, nerve signaling and immune cell function.

This distinction has important implications for treatment. While calcium borogluconate is a known treatment for hypocalcemia in cattle, Ametaj suggests it may not be ideal for ionized calcium availability.

“What happens?” asks Ametaj about blood ionized calcium levels when an animal receives calcium borogluconate. “It is decreased, in fact. In 1985 , there was a scientist who injected sheep with calcium borogluconate. He reported that ionized calcium decreased.”

Calcium therapy can improve clinical signs, particularly in recumbent cows, but it may not consistently restore the functional calcium pool. This helps explain why some cows respond only temporarily or relapse after treatment.

A Shift in Thinking: Hypocalcemia as Part of Immunity

Ametaj’s work proposes a fundamental shift in how hypocalcemia is interpreted — not simply as a failure of calcium supply, but as part of a broader physiological response.

“Hypocalcemia is important, because it’s not a deficiency, but part of immunity,” Ametaj says. “That’s where the entire new concept starts.”

In this model, calcium dynamics are closely tied to immune activity, particularly during the stress of calving and early lactation.

This model builds on another important shift: transition cows are not immunosuppressed, but are actively responding to inflammatory signals.

“Usually, the dogma is that the cows around calving are immunosuppressed, but in fact, they are mounting an immune response, especially the innate immunity is very active and acute phase response,” Ametaj explains.

Inflammatory markers begin to rise weeks before calving and peak around parturition. Cytokines such as TNF-alpha, interleukin-1 and interleukin-6, along with acute phase proteins, are consistently elevated during this period. Rather than a failure of immunity, this suggests the cow is managing a significant inflammatory load at the same time she is adapting metabolically to lactation.

In the framework of the calci-inflammatory network, bacterial endotoxins from conditions like mastitis or acidosis trigger an inflammatory response that suppresses parathyroid hormone secretion. This cascade ultimately inhibits calcium absorption and bone resorption, leading to hypocalcemia, commonly known as milk fever in cattle.

(Farm Journal)

Endotoxin: A Likely Trigger

One of the proposed drivers of this inflammation is endotoxin, or lipopolysaccharide (LPS), originating from the gastrointestinal tract.

Transition diets high in fermentable carbohydrates can lower rumen pH, disrupt epithelial integrity and increase endotoxin release and absorption. As rumen conditions become more acidic, Gram-negative bacteria break down and release LPS into the rumen environment.

“When you feed different amounts of grain, you increase the amount of endotoxin in the rumen fluid by 18- to 20-fold,” Ametaj says, noting these shifts were also seen in the blood along with changes in cytokines and acute phase proteins.

Once endotoxin enters circulation, it contributes to systemic inflammation, linking nutritional management directly to immune activation. The immune system responds rapidly to endotoxin exposure by activating macrophages and triggering signaling pathways designed to neutralize and remove the threat.

“If macrophages are activated, they release pro-inflammatory cytokines: tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin-1, interleukin-6. Why do they do that? Because they invite more cells, immune cells, to come there to remove endotoxin,” Ametaj explains.

This response is essential, but also metabolically demanding. Nutrients and minerals are redirected to support immune function, and physiology shifts to prioritize survival over production.

Calcium as an Active Player in Immunity

Within this framework, calcium is not simply a nutrient to maintain but an active participant in immune function.

One key role is in endotoxin handling. Lipopolysaccharide carries a strong negative charge, allowing calcium to bind and promote aggregation. This clustering makes endotoxin easier for immune cells to recognize and remove.

“Endotoxin is very negatively charged. And calcium binds to molecules of endotoxin and brings them together and creates aggregates,” Ametaj explains.

Endotoxin can also bind to lipoproteins in circulation and be transported to the liver, where it is neutralized and excreted in bile. This process is rapid and tightly regulated, linking inflammatory load to liver function and lipid metabolism.

Together, these pathways suggest calcium is being actively used and redistributed during immune responses, not simply depleted.

Current Strategies

Current approaches to milk fever focus on increasing calcium availability, either through supplementation or dietary strategies, such as DCAD. These tools remain valuable, but they operate within a more complex biological system than previously appreciated.

“By triggering metabolic acidosis, you also trigger elimination of calcium from the blood through urine outside. Why? Because calcium and other cationic ions bind these acids, and they are eliminated,” Ametaj says.

DCAD programs improve calcium mobilization, but they also shift systemic mineral balance. Similarly, calcium therapy can resolve clinical signs without addressing the underlying drivers of inflammation. This may help explain why these strategies work well in some situations but inconsistently in others.

What This Means for Veterinarians and Producers

This evolving perspective does not replace current practices, but it does broaden the approach to prevention.

In addition to managing calcium, attention may need to shift toward upstream factors that influence both inflammation and mineral balance, including:

Maintaining rumen stability and avoiding sharp drops in pH
Managing starch levels and fermentation rates
Supporting gut barrier integrity
Reducing systemic inflammatory load

These areas may offer opportunities to improve consistency in transition cow outcomes.

The immune–calcium network offers a more integrated way to understand milk fever — one that connects metabolism, inflammation and mineral dynamics.

Rather than asking only how to raise calcium status, a more useful question may be: Why is calcium low in the first place?

Answering that question may be key to improving transition cow health and to making existing prevention strategies work more consistently.

To hear more from Ametaj on the immune-calcium network and the management of transition cows to avoid hypocalcemia, listen to the full conversation on the latest episode of “The Bovine Vet Podcast.”

Brazil Turns to Sorghum Silage Where Corn Struggles

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:05:31 GMT

Brazil is famous for corn and soybeans, but in the country’s toughest, driest regions, farmers are starting to look more seriously at sorghum for silage.

Arthur Behling Neto, professor at the Federal University of Mato Grosso, says sorghum is becoming an important forage option for livestock producers who need reliability under tough growing conditions — without the high input costs associated with corn.

“Here in Brazil, as I believe it is in the U.S., corn is the main plant for ensiling because it has very good nutritional quality and characteristics for ensiling,” Neto explained during a recent episode of the “Dairy Nutrition Blackbelt Podcast.” “Sorghum is usually an alternative for areas that corn does not grow very well, especially because of the lack of proper rain.”

This is particularly true in eastern Brazil and drier parts of Mato Grosso where sorghum’s drought tolerance gives it an advantage. Economics also play a role.

“Compared to corn, the seed is cheaper and we use fewer pesticides. We also don’t need as much fertilizer, so it’s cheaper than corn for our farmers,” Neto adds.

As input prices keep rising, sorghum’s durability and lower price tag are catching more farmers’ attention.

Different Types of Sorghum

Sorghum in Brazil serves several purposes. Neto describes five main types:

Grain sorghum
Forage sorghum
Sorghum for cutting and grazing
Broom sorghum
Energy-focused sorghum, such as sweet sorghum and biomass sorghum

Grain sorghum remains the most widely grown overall. But when it comes to silage, forage sorghum and biomass sorghum are gaining traction.

“For silage, we use more forage sorghum,” Neto says. “However, we are also increasing the use of biomass sorghum because of its very high productivity.”

His research team is working to identify varieties that maintain good nutritional value while improving yield.

“What we are doing here is looking for different varieties that can produce more but still keep the quality that forage sorghum usually provides for the animals,” he says.

Match Sorghum to Beef and Dairy

In Central Brazil, sorghum silage is used primarily in beef cattle systems.

Forage and biomass sorghum provide the volume and fiber needed for cost-effective beef diets. Dairy producers, however, often prioritize energy density and may turn to grain sorghum silage.

“When we talk about dairy cattle, some farmers look for grain sorghum because it has higher energy content and lower fiber,” Neto explains. “It is close enough to corn.”

Although grain sorghum produces less tonnage than forage types, its nutritional profile can better match the needs of dairy cows.

forage_sorghum

(John Bernard/UGA)

The Yield and Quality Trade-Off

One of the main challenges with sorghum silage is balancing yield and nutritional quality. Grain sorghum plants are relatively short and produce lower yields, but they deliver higher energy concentrations.

“Grain sorghum usually grows about 3.5' to 5' tall and produces around 10 to 14 tons per acre,” Neto says. “The yield is not very high, but the energy content is.”

Forage sorghum grows much taller and delivers substantially more tonnage.

“Our forage sorghum can reach 8' to 12' in height and produce between 18 and 32 tons per acre,” he explains.

Biomass sorghum pushes yields even further. Neto’s research team is evaluating varieties capable of producing 35 to 55 tons per acre.

However, extremely high yields often come with reduced feed quality.

“When we reach these very high yields, fiber content can go up to 70%,” Neto says. “Crude protein can drop to about 5% to 6%, and lignin can reach 8% to 10%.”

Because of this, his team is searching for hybrids that maintain nutritional value while still delivering strong yields.

sorghum

(Darrell Smith)

Managing Tall Crops

Biomass sorghum can grow exceptionally tall, sometimes reaching 14' to 20'. To manage these large plants, producers typically harvest them in two cuttings rather than waiting for full maturity.

“Our biomass sorghum has a cycle of about 180 days,” Neto says. “We plant at the beginning of the rainy season in October. The first cut is usually in December or January, and the second cut happens around April.”

Plants are typically cut about 8" above the soil surface.

For silage, Neto generally targets 28% to 30% dry matter. While the traditional recommendation is 30% to 35%, slightly earlier harvest can help prevent grain from becoming too hard for animals to digest.

Sugar Content and Fermentation

Sorghum also contains significant levels of natural sugars, which can aid fermentation.

“For forage sorghum, we usually have between 15% to 18% water-soluble carbohydrates,” Neto says. “That’s very good for ensiling.”

Biomass sorghum tends to fall slightly lower, around 12% to 15%. Sweet sorghum, however, can contain dramatically higher sugar levels.

“Sweet sorghum can reach 30% to 35% water-soluble carbohydrates.”

While these sugars help drive fermentation, they can also lead to ethanol production, similar to what occurs with sugarcane silage.

“We sometimes have problems with ethanol fermentation,” Neto explains. “But with proper additives, we can still produce very good sweet sorghum silage.”

Forage_Sorghum

A Complement to Corn

Despite its growing role, Neto emphasizes sorghum is not meant to replace corn silage entirely.

“Sorghum silage is increasing in Brazil because it is a cheaper alternative for some farmers,” he says. “However, I do not believe it will reach the same levels as corn silage.”

Instead, he sees sorghum as a complementary crop that provides flexibility when corn production becomes difficult.

“We don’t want it to substitute corn,” Neto says. “We only want to use it when corn cannot produce very well.”

For farmers working in hotter, drier regions with limited inputs, that flexibility may be exactly where sorghum silage delivers the most value.

For more on silage, read:

Better Timing Your Triticale Silage Harvest Pays Off

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 20:01:13 GMT

Small-grains like triticale are a familiar part of the forage program on many dairy farms. But deciding when to harvest them can influence far more than just yield.

Sarah Morrison, a dairy nutrition research scientist at the William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, explains that the decision of when to harvest small-grains is often influenced by the balance of forage inventories, crop rotations, nutrient management plans and weather conditions. She adds that how closely harvest timing aligns with forage maturity can influence the nutritional composition and digestibility of the harvested forage.

With so many factors influencing harvest timing, it helps to understand the differences between the various maturity stages.

Boot stage vs. Soft-Dough Stage

Harvesting triticale earlier generally produces higher-quality forage, according to Morrison. She notes that studies comparing triticale harvested at the boot stage with triticale harvested at the soft-dough stage consistently show clear nutritional differences.

The boot stage occurs when the developing grain head is still enclosed in the flag leaf sheath. At this point, the plant is less mature, which typically results in higher crude protein, lower fiber levels and greater digestibility, though overall yield is usually lower.

The soft-dough stage occurs later in plant development after the grain head has emerged and kernels have formed. While harvesting at this stage increases yield and adds some starch from the developing grain, the plant fiber is more mature, leading to higher neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and lower digestibility.

“In general, by harvesting at the boot stage the forage has higher crude protein, lower neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and higher NDF digestibility,” she says. “However, forage yield may be lower when harvested at this earlier maturity.”

That trade-off often raises a question for producers. Does forage maturity actually impact ration cost or cow performance? Some research suggests the impact may be small when diets are balanced for forage quality.

“When compared from a least-cost ration-formulation standpoint, some work indicates that the harvest maturity of small-grains has minimal effect on feed cost,” Morrison explains. “This may be true as we balance around the quality of the forage included in the diet, but this doesn’t necessarily mean cows won’t respond to better-quality feed.”

New Research on Triticale Maturity

A recent study published in the Journal of Dairy Science evaluated how triticale maturity affects cow performance when included in rations with different forage levels. The research compared triticale harvested at the boot stage or soft-dough stage and fed within either low-forage or high-forage diets.

The high-forage diets contained 52% forage, while the low-forage diets contained 37%. In both cases, triticale made up 49% of the forage portion, with corn silage providing the remainder.

Morrison notes that the nutritional differences between maturity stages were substantial. Boot-stage triticale contained 16.7% crude protein and 51.1% NDF, while soft-dough triticale had only 8.7% crude protein and 62.6% NDF. The later-harvested forage also contained higher levels of lignin and undigestible fiber.

Milk Production Response

Those nutritional differences affected how the cows performed in several ways.

Cows fed boot-stage triticale produced 7.7 lbs. more milk per day than cows fed soft-dough triticale across both forage-inclusion levels. Diet structure also played a role, as cows on lower-forage diets produced 8.6 lbs more milk than those on higher-forage diets.

Milk components responded differently. While cows fed the soft-dough triticale had slightly higher milkfat percentage, overall milkfat yield remained similar due to lower milk volume.

Protein production told a different story. Cows fed boot-stage triticale had both higher milk protein content and greater protein yield. They also tended to produce more energy-corrected milk.

Digestibility differences were another key factor. Morrison notes that cows fed boot-stage triticale had higher total-tract digestibility for both dry matter and NDF. Meanwhile, the higher levels of undigestible fiber in the soft-dough triticale likely limited intake in higher-forage diets due to increased rumen fill.

Balancing Quality and Practicality

While the study highlights the performance advantages of earlier-harvested triticale, Morrison emphasizes that real-world feeding programs often balance forage inventories and costs.

“Overall, maturity does seem to play a role when incorporated into dairy cow diets,” she says. “The expected or observed response might be more pronounced in different forage inclusion levels of the diet.”

However, the difference isn’t as big when the ration is already adjusted for the forage quality on hand.

“Although cost and inventory may be critical considerations for the utility of small-grain silages in the diets of lactating dairy cows,” Morrison notes.

In other words, harvest timing still matters, but how that forage fits into the rest of the ration often determines how much cows respond to it.

For more on silage, read:

Camelina: A New Cover Crop Option After Corn Silage?

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 20:47:32 GMT

After corn silage comes off, dairy farmers will often consider seeding fields to winter rye as a cover crop. It’s an easy, familiar option that establishes reliably in the fall and helps take up residual nitrogen from the soil.

However, that heavy nitrogen uptake can sometimes contribute to a yield drag in the following corn crop. This limitation has prompted growing interest in a lesser-known alternative. Camelina sativa, also sometimes referred to as false flax, is an oilseed researchers are evaluating as a cover crop that could bring added flexibility to dairy rotations.

While much of the crop’s earlier production has occurred in western dryland regions, winter camelina is now generating interest in the upper Midwest as an overwintering cover crop that can fit into rotations with corn and soybeans. And for dairy producers who are working with a continuous corn, camelina could be a useful option after corn silage to help with disease, weeds and nutrient loss.

A Smart Choice for Corn-Heavy Fields

Camelina belongs to the Brassicaceae family, like canola and mustard, which makes it different from grasses such as corn and rye. Because it’s not a grass, camelina can fit into rotations in ways that help break pest and disease cycles. Agronomists say this also means it can provide many of the same environmental benefits as rye, like reducing nitrate loss and protecting soil, without some of rye’s potential drawbacks.

“A lot of people are concerned with using rye because it might cause yield drag,” says Anastasia Kurth, a University of Wisconsin Extension agronomist and educator. “Rye takes up a lot of nitrogen, which is great for reducing nitrates in our groundwater. But if you’re planting corn silage afterward and really want high tonnage, camelina might be a better option.”

Kurth notes camelina also generally produces less biomass than rye, which can make spring management simpler.

“I would say it’s a pretty easy entry cover crop,” Kurth adds. “There’s little-to-no yield effect on the corn following the cover crop.”

Termination is also straightforward.

“It’s very easy to kill,” Kurth notes. “With rye or winter wheat, you often have a lot of biomass that’s hard to manage and can make planting difficult. Camelina doesn’t have that issue, so I’d call it a low-risk entry cover crop for someone looking to try something new.”

However, camelina doesn’t have to replace rye entirely. For farms that rely on rye for spring forage, the two crops can potentially be grown together.

“It definitely could be [a sweet spot], because if you want to take that rye for any forage, that could be an option as well,” Kurth says. “I think that could be a really great mix for folks.”

Recommended rates in a mixed stand include roughly 30 lb. per acre of rye with 3 lb. to 5 lb. per acre of camelina.

A Natural Fit After Corn Silage

According to Kurth, corn silage harvest provides one of the best opportunities for getting camelina established.

“Silage gives us a great opportunity to get the crop in,” she says. “It comes off earlier than grain corn, which provides plenty of time for establishment.”

In Wisconsin and other northern states with similar climates, camelina is typically planted from September through early October. The crop establishes quickly and forms a small rosette before going dormant over the winter.

Kurth says silage harvest also leaves conditions that favor camelina establishment.

“Silage removes more of the residue, and camelina really likes good seed-to-soil contact,” Kurth says. “So, when there’s a little less residue left after a silage harvest, it’s more beneficial for establishing the crop.”

Seed size is also an important consideration. Camelina seed is extremely small, with roughly 400,000 seeds per pound, meaning proper seeding depth and seed-to-soil contact are essential. Kurth notes drilling is generally recommended at about 6 lb. to 8 lb. per acre, though broadcasting can also work with slightly higher seeding rates.

A Natural Option for Managing Weeds

Another reason camelina is drawing interest is its potential role in weed suppression.

“Leaving corn silage ground bare is obviously a risk for weeds popping up,” Kurth says.

As a brassica crop, camelina produces compounds called glucosinolates. Kurth notes these compounds are known for their biofumigant properties and may help suppress certain weed species.

“Just that chemical compound being in the soil reduces some of those smaller seeded weeds,” she adds.

Early field observations hint that the effect could be meaningful in some situations.

“Some farmers struggle with heavy waterhemp pressure in their fields,” Kurth says. “But in fields planted with camelina, they didn’t see any waterhemp emerge — only large ragweed. It looks like camelina may be helping suppress the waterhemp.”

A Cover Crop Ready for Its Turn in the Field

While still in the early adoption phase, camelina is steadily moving from research plots into real farm rotations. As more dairy producers look for ways to reduce nutrient loss, manage weeds and protect soil without sacrificing corn silage yield, the ancient oilseed may offer a practical new option. For many farms, the next step may simply be trying camelina on a few acres after silage and seeing how it performs in their own system.

Does Short Corn Stack Up as a Silage Option?

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 21:33:35 GMT

Brown midrib (BMR) corn silage has long been a go‑to forage option for dairy farmers looking to improve fiber digestibility and maintain strong milk production. But as seed companies begin to phase out their BMR offerings, producers and nutritionists are evaluating other silage strategies.

One option gaining attention is short-stature corn.

How Short Corn Works

Short-stature corn hybrids are designed to change the structure of the plant without sacrificing its productivity. Instead of growing tall stalks, these hybrids shorten the space between leaves, known as internodes. The plant still produces a similar number of leaves and ears, but the overall plant height is reduced.

Luiz Ferraretto, assistant professor and Extension specialist in dairy nutrition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, shares his thoughts on short-stature corn, explaining the altered plant structure may also affect how fiber is distributed within the stalk.

“Basically, [short-stature corn] has shorter internodes, and there are some claims that there are changes in lignin distribution within the stalk,” Ferraretto says.

As researchers take a closer look at how these shorter plants are built, the early results are looking pretty promising. Trials in both Italy and the U.S. show the shorter stalk structure seems to boost forage quality. Across several plots, short‑stature corn has consistently come in with higher starch and better‑digesting fiber compared with regular hybrids.

This plot data matches what university researchers are seeing, too. At Michigan State University, Mike VandeHaar, a professor of animal science, has seen similar trends in fiber digestibility and yield with short corn. During a recent “Dairy Nutrition Blackbelt” podcast, he explained how his team ran studies comparing short hybrids with conventional tall corn and BMR varieties to see how they performed side by side.

“We compared three short corn varieties with a conventional tall hybrid and a BMR variety. We treated the conventional corn as the low-fiber-digestibility baseline and the BMR as the high-fiber-digestibility benchmark to see where the short corn fit in between,” VandeHaar says.

In the trial, the team measured fiber digestibility using 30-hour in vitro NDF.

“What we found was the shorts really did have better fiber digestibility than the tall. The BMR had higher in vitro NDF digestibility at 30 hours, like 65% versus 55%, and the shorts were all around 60%,” he says.

These differences suggest short corn could offer a real nutritional advantage over conventional hybrids.

Yield Performance

Those nutritional gains didn’t seem to come at the expense of tonnage. In the Italian trials, short corn yielded right with conventional hybrids and even topped the BMR in that dataset. Ferraretto notes the bump in starch and better NDF digestibility didn’t show any clear yield penalty.

John Goeser, dairy nutrition and management consultant at Progressive Dairy Solutions Inc., added his thoughts on how short corn performs at higher plant populations.

“Generally speaking with greater plant populations, say 40,000 to 45,000, we see a decrease in fiber digestibility,” Goeser says. “Yield will actually increase, but there’s usually a trade-off between quality and yield. The fact that short corn is being planted at higher populations and still maintaining — or improving — fiber digestibility is intriguing.”

Milk Production Response

For dairy farmers, forage quality only matters if it translates into milk production. Feeding trials with short corn silage suggest these hybrids can boost milk in a way that differs from BMR. Ferraretto described a trial in Italy where cows started on a common diet before switching to rations containing either conventional or short corn silage.

“What we saw change was milk production,” Ferraretto says. “Feed intake didn’t really differ between groups. That’s important because with BMR, almost every trial increases intake to drive more milk. Short corn seems to work differently — milk went up without cows eating more. I don’t know if that’s better, but it’s promising and interesting to see this kind of response.”

At Michigan State University, VandeHaar structured diets to limit cows by gut fill, ensuring improvements in fiber digestibility would show up as a milk response.

“I fed diets that had more forage NDF than I would normally even feed to cows in about 200 days in milk, and when I put them on my diet, milk production dropped about five pounds or so, showing that they were, in fact, limited by fill. So therefore, if I had a forage with better NDF digestibility, I would have expected a response, and we did, in fact, see that,” VandeHaar says.

That improvement appeared as increased energy-corrected milk. In a follow-up trial, the same short hybrid was compared with conventional tall corn at two starch levels, 32% and 24%. The advantage for short corn persisted.

“We went on and did another study with that variety,” VandeHaar adds. “In both cases, the cows fed the short produced about two kilos, so about four or five pounds more energy corrected milk than the conventional.”

What it Means for Silage Decisions

As BMR availability changes, dairy farms may need to consider multiple strategies to maintain silage quality. Hybrid selection, harvest timing, kernel processing and ration formulation all affect fiber digestibility and milk production. But adding short-stature corn to your silage lineup may be another tool to add to your toolbox.

Short corn is unlikely to fully replace BMR, but early results suggest it could provide another option for high-quality silage. As more trials are conducted and management practices become clearer, producers will better understand how short corn fits into their forage programs.

The Colostrum Chronicles: New Things We’ve Learned

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 13:04:00 GMT

There is virtually nothing more important to a newborn calf’s long-term health and performance than the timely delivery of high-quality, hygienic colostrum.

In recognition of that fact, researchers continue to study colostrum in search of ways to enhance it and perfect its delivery to calves. One such researcher is Dr. Trent Westhoff, who earned his PhD at Cornell University while investigating the nuances of colostrum.

Westhoff joined Elanco Animal Health in 2025 as a Dairy Technical Consultant. He recently presented a webinar – “Colostrum Management: Factors Influencing Yield, Quality, and Calf Health” -- on behalf of the Dairy Calf and Heifer Association . In it, he shared four recent, research-based findings that may lead to colostrum-management changes in the future:

Dry-period length influences yield and quality – Westhoff acknowledged the seasonal frustration that most dairy producers experience in the fall and winter – a dip in colostrum yield that may result in a colostrum shortage or lowering of quality standards to meet volume needs.

He and other researchers have investigated multiple factors in an effort to boost yields. The one detail that has been recognized so far in making a significant difference is dry-period length. In a study of more than 18,000 cows from 18 commercial U.S. dairies, Westhoff and his colleagues stratified cows into dry-period length of less than 47 days, 47-67 days, and greater than 67 days. They found that colostrum yield increased incrementally with each group. From a commercial production standpoint, he said the data showed managing for a 60-day dry period would yield about 5 pounds more colostrum per cow compared to aiming for a 40-day dry period.

The cows with the longest dry period also had significantly higher Brix %, an indirect assessment of colostrum IgG concentration, than the other two groups, indicating higher quality.
Oxytocin may help boost yield in first-calf heifers – In another study, Dr. Sabine Mann’s team at Cornell University explored whether administering oxytocin 45 seconds before unit attachment during colostrum harvest might help them let down more colostrum. They evaluated 636 cows in one New York herd that were milked in a rotary parlor. They looked at the quantity and quality outcomes of dosing cows intramuscularly with 0, 20, and 40 international units (IU) of oxytocin.

It made a difference in one group – the first-calf heifers that received the highest dose (40 IU) of oxytocin before their first milking. That group produced about 2.9 and 3.5 pounds more colostrum than the 20 IU group and the untreated controls, respectively, without affecting quality. The same response was not observed in second-lactation and older cows.
More is not necessarily better – Westhoff detailed a study (Frederick et al. 2025) of 88 calves that looked at the volume of colostrum delivered relative to subsequent serum IgG concentration and apparent efficiency of absorption (AEA) of immunoglobulin proteins. They examined first-feeding volumes of 6, 8, 10, and 12% of birth bodyweight. For reference, 9% of bodyweight of a 90-pound calf would equate to ~3.7 liters (~1 gallon) of colostrum, which is a standard first feeding for many dairies.

They found that serum IgG concentration increased substantially between 6% and 8% and increased numerically between 8% and 10%, but bumping that volume from 10% to 12% produced no benefit in serum IgG concentration. Meanwhile, AEA went down incrementally with each higher volume of colostrum. Based on these results, Westhoff advised feeding colostrum in the 8-10% of bodyweight range. He noted there is marginal benefit to “mega-dosing” up to 12%, and it could actually cause physical discomfort to calves to feed them that much. “If you want to get more colostrum into them, come back with a second meal,” he advised.
Heat treatment can create bacterial vulnerability – Heat-treating of colostrum can effectively reduce pathogenic bacteria levels. That can be a valuable step, because high bacteria levels have been proven to interfere with antibody absorption. But it comes with a hazard.

Westhoff said heat-treating colostrum to 140°F for 60 minutes has been shown to reduce bacteria count by a median of 93%. But a Cornell study in which he was involved (McKane et al. 2025) that looked at colostrum after heat-treating told another compelling story. They inoculated heat-treated colostrum, colostrum replacer, raw colostrum, and frozen colostrum with fecal E. coli. At 4 hours through 24 hours later, the colostrum replacer and heat-treated colostrum had significantly higher regrowth of bacteria compared to the raw and frozen samples.

The reason: “Colostrum has natural antimicrobial properties,” Westhoff explained. “When we heat-treat colostrum, we remove its ability to naturally manage that bacteria. This underscores the importance of cooling colostrum very quickly after you remove it from the heat-treatment system.”

Looking forward, Westhoff believes researchers will continue to parse the many factors in the complex system that makes up colostrum synthesis and management, with the hope of arriving at practical improvements that can be made on-farm.

As one example, he said in addition to IgG, colostrum contains valuable minerals, vitamins, hormones, immune cells, and antimicrobial peptides. “In the future, it may become possible to quantify colostrum quality with these or other factors, in addition to IgG,” he predicted.

Life After BMR: How Dairy Farmers Can Rethink Corn Silage

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 22:23:06 GMT

For years, brown midrib (BMR) corn silage has been a solid forage option for dairy producers looking to push forage quality and milk production. While it was rarely planted across an entire farm, many producers valued BMR as a strategic addition to their hybrid lineup.

But as seed companies have adjusted their hybrid portfolios, BMR options have become less available. As a result, many producers are preparing for a future where BMR is no longer a choice, and they are reevaluating their silage plans with that change in mind.

During the Professional Dairy Producers Business Conference, John Goeser, dairy nutrition and management consultant at Progressive Dairy Solutions Inc., and Luiz Ferraretto, assistant professor and Extension specialist in dairy nutrition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, discussed what that shift could mean for dairy rations and how producers can adapt.

What BMR Offered

Compared with conventional corn silage, BMR hybrids typically deliver greater fiber digestibility and lower levels of undigestible fiber. The difference stems from reduced lignin in the plant cell wall, allowing rumen microbes to break down more of the neutral detergent fiber (NDF).

Because the fiber in BMR silage was easier for cows to use, they often ate more and gained more energy from their ration.

“If you improve fiber digestibility, there is potential for cows to improve intake,” Ferraretto says. “And when intake increases, there is potential for greater milk production.”

Despite these advantages, BMR typically made up only a portion of a farm’s corn silage acres. The hybrids often yielded less than conventional corn silage and carried a greater agronomic risk. Over time, these challenges pushed some producers away from the variety.

“For whatever reason, people were not really planting BMR a lot anymore,” Ferraretto says. “But whenever companies decided that this would be phasing out of the market, everybody started asking, ‘What do I do now?’”

According to Ferraretto and Goeser, the answer is not to search for a direct replacement. Instead, the transition away from BMR may push producers to rethink how they evaluate and manage corn silage altogether.

Selecting Hybrids

As BMR corn silage phases out, producers are learning they cannot rely on a single hybrid trait to solve digestibility challenges. While BMR delivered higher fiber digestibility than conventional corn, that advantage came from a specific genetic mutation most other hybrids do not have.

“BMR corn silage sits in its own class for fiber digestibility,” Goeser says. “No current conventional hybrid matches it in the same way.”

Corn silage quality has always come from a mix of traits, not just one. Hybrid choices for digestibility, starch and overall forage quality matter, but so do agronomic traits like standability, disease resistance and yield potential.

“What drives our bottom line isn’t necessarily how much cows eat but what efficiency we get,” Goeser says. “We need to understand what our cost of production is per acre. Then we can judge our hybrid choice and our management decisions relative to the yield and energy we’re getting from that acre.”

According to Ferraretto’s colleagues at UW-Madison, choosing hybrids with strong fiber digestibility, measured as neutral detergent fiber digestibility at 30 hours (NDFD30), is an option. Most conventional corn silage hybrids have NDFD30 values between 47% and 67%, while BMR hybrids typically range from 54% to 74%. Choosing a top-performing conventional hybrid with NDFD30 around 60% to 65% can produce as much, or even more, milk per ton than an average BMR hybrid.

“There’s nothing that’s going to replace a brown midrib mutant, kernel for kernel, in terms of fiber digestibility,” Goeser says. “But there are still several management decisions producers can make to improve fiber digestibility in their silage program.”

Planting Population

How many corn plants are planted per acre can affect silage quality. Research with the Midwest Forage Association found that planting 30,000 plants per acre produced higher fiber digestibility than planting 35,000 or 40,000 plants per acre. In other words, fewer plants per acre can make forage easier for cows to digest.

“Generally speaking, with greater plant populations, say 40,000 to 45,000, we see a decrease in fiber digestibility,” Goeser says. “Yield will increase, but there’s a negative relationship between quality and yield.”

Increasing plant population can boost total dry matter yield, but only to a point. Beyond that, adding more plants may not improve yield and can reduce digestibility. Farmers also need to consider other risks, such as higher potential for insect and disease damage when plants are crowded.

Not every hybrid reacts the same way. Soil type, fertility, row spacing and weather during the growing season can all change how plant population affects silage quality. That means planting decisions should be tailored to each farm and each field rather than following a single number for all acres.

Cutting Height

Among the tools available to improve fiber digestibility, adjusting chop height is one of the simplest and most effective. Raising the cutter bar leaves the lower, most fibrous part of the plant in the field and harvests more of the digestible portion.

“I’ve been asked many times what happens if we increase our cut by 8 or 10 inches,” Goeser says. “Every 10 inches higher, we give up about a ton and a half in as-fed yield, but we gain roughly two units of starch and two units of fiber digestibility. This strategy essentially trades some total tonnage for higher-quality feed.”

Research supports this approach. Studies show that milk per ton is highest at a cutter bar height of 18 inches and lowest at 6 inches. Yield drops about 15% at the higher cut, but starch concentration increases.

However, the economics of higher cuts depend on the year. In years with big crops, it is easier to trade some yield for better feed quality. In tighter years, the focus may shift toward maximizing tonnage. The key is to make the decision intentionally, rather than treating chop height as a fixed setting. Even with the best hybrid, fertility and disease control, timing the harvest and processing the silage properly is critical to capture its full feed value.

Adjusting for the Future

As BMR becomes harder to find, the focus will shift toward a broader mix of management decisions that shape forage quality. Hybrid selection, harvest timing, chop height and emerging genetics all play a role in shaping forage quality. The challenge for producers will be determining how those pieces fit together within the economics of their operation.

Does Every Calf Need a Gallon of Colostrum? Not Necessarily

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 22:04:43 GMT

For years, feeding a gallon of colostrum shortly after birth has been considered the gold standard for calf care. It’s simple, easy to remember and straightforward to train employees to follow. But today’s calves don’t all look the same. With more variation in size, some researchers are asking whether the same volume makes sense for every newborn.

During a recent “Dairy Health Blackbelt” podcast, Dr. Sabine Mann, associate professor at Cornell University, revisited the research behind that long-standing recommendation.

“One of the questions I have gotten frequently is, why are we feeding all calves a gallon of colostrum?” she says. “It’s a pretty widespread management strategy in the U.S. And if you try to dig into the literature of why that came about, there’s actually not that much evidence that that is the best approach for every calf.”

She notes that for an average 85- to 90-pound calf, four liters is probably appropriate. But not every calf falls into that range. When birthweights vary, feeding the same volume across the board may not always match what each individual calf truly needs.

Putting the Gallon Rule to the Test

To take a closer look at the gallon recommendation, Dr. Mann and her team conducted a study on a commercial dairy in collaboration with researchers at the University of Guelph.

They began by pooling colostrum to keep quality consistent across calves. From each pool, four calves were assigned different feeding levels based on a percentage of their body weight.

“We made a big pool of colostrum, and then we assigned four calves to that pool, and one calf got 6% and one calf got 8% and one calf got 10% and one calf got 12% so that was our range, six to 12,” Mann explains.

Rather than giving every calf the same fixed volume, the team adjusted how much colostrum each calf received relative to its size.

The intent was not to create a complicated system requiring producers to weigh every calf and calculate exact doses.

“This is not meant for people to weigh each and every single one of the calves and then figure out the milliliters,” Mann says. “But it’s for us to understand, is there an effect on the calf’s ability to take up IgG into circulation. And if there is, how would we translate this into actionable recommendations on farm.”

Ultimately, the study focused on whether feeding different amounts based on body weight would influence how well calves absorb the antibodies they need early in life.

More Isn’t Always Better

The study looked at how different colostrum volumes (as a percent of body weight) affected IgG in the blood, absorption efficiency, stomach emptying and calf comfort. As expected, bigger feeds gave calves more total IgG

“We found that the more volume they got within a certain quality of colostrum, the more IgG they had in their blood, which makes sense, right? The more you give, the more you get,” Mann says.

But the benefit slowed at the highest volume, 12% of the calf’s body weight.

“There was a declining return on investment, so to say, with increasing volumes,” Mann says. “There was a steep increase from 6% to 8% to 10% of body weight, but only a very small improvement in blood IgG concentration at 12% of body weight.”

This happened because calves absorbed a smaller proportion of the IgG when fed very large amounts.

“The proportion of the IgG in colostrum that actually appears in the blood was declining, meaning that the more volume you put into them, the less proportion the calf can actually take up into that in that window of time.”

When calves get a large meal, their stomach empties more slowly, so less colostrum reaches the intestine while the gut is still “open” to IgG absorption.

“We wanted to see if different volumes affect how the stomach empties colostrum into the intestine, and timing matters because the gut is only open for IgG absorption for a limited period.”

She compared it humans overeating during a holiday meal.

“We do this around Thanksgiving and Christmas, and we sit there and our belly hurts, right? Our systems know to slow down the gastric output in those situations, and that’s the same that happens in calves.”

Calf Comfort and Behavior

Dr. Mann’s team also looked at calf behavior, since small calves fed four liters often appear bloated or uncomfortable.

“We were interested in this notion from the field, and we did observe that the more volume we fed, the more we saw behavior associated with colic, like kicking the abdomen,” she says.

While lying time wasn’t significantly affected, higher volumes tended to reduce relaxed resting.

“We didn’t find a statistical effect in lying time, but those calves fed higher volumes tended to lie less in a relaxed position, similar to us at Thanksgiving,” she joked.

The “Goldilocks” Approach

When it comes to determining how much colostrum a calf truly needs, Mann describes the “Goldilocks” approach as the best option.

“I think we’re getting back to a Goldilocks approach where you want to have enough, but you don’t have to give too much,” she says. “Just the right amount is most beneficial to the calf.”

Based on this research, around 10% of a calf’s body weight is a solid target for an initial feeding. That amount provides enough immunoglobulins to support immunity without overwhelming the stomach, and it can be adjusted for smaller or larger calves.

Mann adds that while colostrum is packed with nutrients, extra benefits might be better delivered through multiple feedings rather than one very large meal.

“The nutritive value of colostrum should not be underestimated, but we also have to keep in mind the comfort of the calf,” she says. “Maybe it’s better given in separate feedings. A lot of farms have gone to feeding second feedings or even third feedings of colostrum.”

Practical Takeaways

While colostrum is essential for newborn calf health, Mann emphasizes that the goal isn’t to hit a fixed volume, but to give calves the right start while keeping them comfortable. She provides the following tips to use on the farm:

1. Know your herd’s average birth weight. “A good first step is to know the average birth weight of calves in your herd, since that can vary,” Mann says. “Once you know that, you can adjust the colostrum volume to match your average calf.”

2. Use a couple of standard volumes rather than one fixed size, “Many herds now use two standard volumes, like three liters and four liters. That way, even without a scale, you can look at a calf and decide: this one won’t be over 85 pounds, so it gets the smaller amount,” she says.

3. Consider second or third colostrum feedings. “Instead of giving all the colostrum at once, it can help to split it into two or three feedings if your farm can manage it,” Mann says. “Many people see benefits from this, though we could always use a bit more research to confirm.”

Mycotoxin Risk Holds Steady in 2025

Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:49:12 GMT

According to the dsm-firmenich World Mycotoxin Survey , which assessed the global mycotoxin threat, 86% of North American samples tested above the recommended threshold for at least one mycotoxin. While mycotoxin levels haven’t necessarily escalated from 2024 to 2025, there was a shift in the distribution, which has some implications for cattle and swine operations.

“The 2025 results show a continued mycotoxin challenge, with contamination rates rising for both aflatoxins and zearalenone and average levels increasing across all major mycotoxins,” said Ursula Hofstetter, head of mycotoxin risk management at dsm-firmenich, in a press release.

The Major Players

Mycotoxins are toxic metabolites produced by fungi, most commonly Fusarium, Aspergillus and Claviceps species. They develop in the field and can persist through harvest and storage. Weather stress, hybrid selection and storage management all influence which toxins dominate in a given year.

The primary mycotoxins shaping North American livestock risk in 2025 were:

Deoxynivalenol (DON)
A Type B trichothecene produced by Fusarium species. Commonly found in corn and wheat. Often referred to as ‘vomitoxin’.
Zearalenone (ZEN)
Also a Fusarium toxin. Structurally estrogenic and frequently present alongside DON in corn and small grains.
Fumonisins (FUM)
Produced by Fusarium verticillioides and related species. Predominantly found in corn.
Aflatoxins (AFLA)
Produced by Aspergillus species. More common in drought- or heat-stressed corn.
Ergot alkaloids (ERGOT)
Produced by Claviceps species. Typically associated with small grains.

These toxins rarely occur in isolation. Co-contamination often shapes the reality producers see on the farm.

What Changed from 2024 to 2025

The 2025 North American mycotoxin prevalence in raw materials compared to 2024 shows the following shifts:

DON: 74% → 76%
ZEN: 73% → 78%
FUM: 46% → 55%
AFLA: 15% → 17%
ERGOT: 44% → 9%

Trichothecenes remain deeply entrenched, with DON prevalence increasing slightly. Most of this increase is a result of an increase in wheat (73% → 93%). Meanwhile, fumonisins rose meaningfully and ergots dropped sharply.

Cattle: Rumen Function, Immune Resilience and Production Losses

Cattle historically are considered somewhat more resilient to mycotoxins than monogastrics, owing to partial ruminal detoxification. However, evidence increasingly shows persistent exposure to Fusarium toxins like DON, ZEN and FUM, especially in combination, can exert significant effects on digestion, immunity and metabolic health.

When looking at global finished feed samples for ruminants:

DON was prevalent in 69% of samples and above the risk threshold in 53% of samples.
ZEN was prevalent in 73% of samples and above the risk threshold in 33% of samples.
AFLA was present in 34% of samples and above the risk threshold in 29% of samples.

Studies have demonstrated short-term exposure to Fusarium toxins, including ZEN and FUM, affects fermentation patterns and the microbial community, which in turn can reduce fiber breakdown and volatile fatty acid production — key drivers of energy supply in cattle. Even modest disruptions to the rumen microbiota can reduce feed efficiency and gain over time.

The immune system is also affected by mycotoxins. The immunosuppressive effects of common mycotoxins in ruminants have been documented , including alterations in cytokine gene expression, immunoglobulin production and macrophage function.

Further, individual toxins like AFLA have well-established effects on liver function and general metabolism in cattle. Chronic AFLA exposure has been linked to reduced appetite, lower weight gains and elevated liver enzymes, indicating compromised hepatic function that can impact production and health resilience.

These findings indicate how cattle performance and disease resistance can be eroded by the mycotoxin patterns reported in the 2025 data. Persistent DON and ZEN exposure, combined with higher FUM presence, places additional load on rumen fermentation and immune competence, potentially contributing to subclinical production drift.

Swine: Immune Disruption, Gut Barrier Injury and Performance Drag

In swine, elevated prevalence of DON, ZEN and FUM can exert systemic effects on immune function, gut integrity and reproductive physiology at both clinical and subclinical levels.

When looking at global finished feed samples for swine:

DON was present in 85% of samples and above the risk threshold in 41% of samples.
ZEN was present in 79% of samples and above the risk threshold in 19% of samples.
FUM was present in 44% of samples and above the risk threshold in 8% of samples.

Research has shown DON and FUM alter the gut epithelial barrier, impair immune defenses and increase bacterial translocation from the gut, making pigs more susceptible to infections even when properly vaccinated. In the immune tissues themselves, DON exposure has been linked to changes in the gene expression of key antimicrobial and inflammatory regulators, implying a weakened ability to respond to disease challenge at the cellular level.

ZEN adds another layer of complexity. Beyond its well-known estrogenic effects (i.e., swelling of reproductive tissues and altered estrous cycles), ZEN has been shown to suppress antibody production in porcine immune cells, reducing levels of IgM, IgG and IgA. These immunoglobulins are important for protective vaccine responses. This explains why farms employing what should be effective vaccination programs still report breakthrough disease.

Collectively, these mechanisms mean widespread DON and ZEN exposure is a disease vulnerability issue. When the gut barrier is compromised and immune cell function is suppressed, pigs are less able to defend against respiratory pathogens, enteric bacteria and systemic infections alike, and their response to vaccination may be diminished.

Mycotoxin Co-Contamination Defines 2025

The defining feature of mycotoxins in 2025 is not a single toxin spike, but co-contamination. Feeds routinely contain multiple mycotoxins at once and their effects overlap, creating steady biological pressure.

The result is rarely dramatic toxicosis, but production drift is reflected in reduced gains, narrower reproductive margins, lowered health resilience and increased performance variability.

With persistent DON, rising ZEN and higher FUM prevalence in North America, ingredient-level vigilance and close monitoring of performance trends are important. The mycotoxin burden did not spike, but it did rearrange.

Why Fiber Quality Matters More for Beef-on-Dairy

Thu, 05 Feb 2026 22:33:19 GMT

On paper, a beef-on-dairy steer may look about the same as conventional beef at finishing. But at the bunk and in the rumen, it’s a very different animal.

While physically these animals are identical, beef-on-dairy cattle are running on a more expensive engine, according to University of Nebraska beef systems Extension educator Alfredo Di Costanzo. During his recent webinar on beef-on-dairy fiber requirements, he used grazing data to highlight the different fiber needs for this terminal cross.

Different Genetics, Different Requirements

During a recent study, when Di Costanzo compared beef breeds to beef-on-dairy animals on pasture, the results were consistent. The traditional beef cattle converted forage to gain more efficiently, while the beef-on-dairy group gained more slowly and finished at lighter weights. To Di Costanzo, it showed the genetic influence of the dairy breed increases the energy required for growth.

“Because I put dairy [genetics] on this beef animal, the maintenance requirements have gone up,” he explains. “If we’re going to increase fiber inclusion, we’re going to have to do it with a better-quality forage.”

Why Low-Quality Fiber Doesn’t Cut It

The challenge is not just that beef-on-dairy cattle use more energy. It is also how quickly feed moves through their systems.

Dairy and dairy-cross animals tend to have a faster rate of passage through the rumen, Di Costanzo notes. That may not sound like a major difference, but it changes what kind of forage they can actually use. A stemmy, lower-quality roughage a beef steer might handle fairly well can end up acting like little more than gut fill in a Holstein-influenced calf.

While this study focused on cattle on pasture, the same idea applies at the feed bunk.

Di Costanzo explains lower-quality fiber does not stay in the rumen long enough to be properly digested for these beef-on-dairy crosses. In nutrition terms, that can create negative effects where poor-quality roughage drags down the performance of the entire ration by taking up space without delivering much energy in return.

“Lower quality forage, for me, means less time for ruminal digestion and more time, too, for negative associative effects,” Di Costanzo warns.

Those negative effects can show up as lower total digestibility, poorer feed efficiency and more variability in intake, especially when cattle are already being pushed on a high‑concentrate program. For beef‑on‑dairy cattle, that means cheap, low‑quality roughage is rarely worth the investment. Di Costanzo notes every pound of dry matter must work harder, making junk roughage a poor economic fit.

Is Cheap Roughage Costing You Gain?

Biologically, cattle can get by on very little fiber if energy and protein are there, Di Costanzo notes.

“At zero or near-zero inclusion of fiber in the diet, cattle are continuing to thrive,” he adds. “There’s really no NDF requirement for maintenance or growth.”

But in a real‑world feeding program, beef‑on‑dairy cattle need rations that turn a profit, not just keep them alive. That’s why Di Costanzo warns against using cheap, low‑quality hay or residues just to say the diet has enough roughage.

Instead, he suggests aiming for about 10% to 15% NDF from good‑quality forage. For many feed yards, that might mean favoring well‑processed silages or higher‑quality forages over the cheapest roughage available. The goal isn’t to stuff the rumen. It’s to support muscle gain without sacrificing efficiency.

Quality Over Quantity

Fiber decisions are not just about keeping the rumen healthy. They also affect how cattle perform on feed and the value you get when it’s time to sell.

Adding more fiber to beef-on-dairy diets can help support greater feed intake, but there’s a limit. Average daily gain starts to drop quickly once physically effective NDF goes above about 15.5%, and feed conversion efficiency also declines. The challenge for producers and nutritionists is finding the sweet spot where cattle eat enough without slowing growth.

Overall, the type of NDF is less important than making sure cattle get the right amount of good-quality fiber. Hitting that balance helps support intake, maintain feed efficiency and keep beef-on-dairy steers performing at their best. For beef on dairy cattle, a well-planned grower ration with the right balance of concentrate and quality fiber can set cattle up for a better finish.

Can Young Calves Manage Distillers Grain?

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 19:00:00 GMT

Soybean meal is currently the nearly universal protein source for calf starter grain formulations in the U.S.

But if you could tame some of the wilier aspects of distillers grain, it too can pack a powerful protein punch. Dr. Billy Brown, Assistant Professor at Kansas State University specializing in dairy cattle nutrition, discussed that possibility on a recent episode of The Dairy Nutrition Blackbelt podcast.

“One of the fascinating aspects of the ethanol industry today is that they’re getting really aggressive about trying to add value to the co-products they’re producing,” Brown noted. “It’s not just a bi-product. They’re doing a great job of trying to add value to those products that could realistically do great things for us in the dairy industry.”

Brown and his colleague recently conducted a preweaned calf study evaluating a specialty distillers grain product called “ Protomax^TM , manufactured by ICM, Inc.

The researcher noted there has been very little published literature summarizing research utilizing distillers grain as a protein source in calf starters. He said the few studies that have been performed showed relatively poor performance for calves fed distillers grains, in terms of calf growth and average daily gain (ADG).

“The high fiber content of the corn bran in distillers grains is probably a little bit more difficult for those calves to digest in that early life period,” Brown stated.

But thanks to a fractionation process that removes the corn brand, Protomax is more easily digested by preweaned calves. And, unlike earlier renditions of distillers grain, this product is dried without the solubles and fiber fractions.

The result is a highly digestible, low-fiber feedstuff that rivals soybean meal in protein content at about 50% crude protein. Brown said the manufacturers are also enhancing the product by fermenting yeast bodies, condensing the products of fermentation, and adding them back into the finished high-protein distillers grain.

Brown and his colleagues recently conducted a study comparing a starter grain formulation containing the new product to traditional calf starter using soybean meal as the protein source.

“We kind of expected some negative results as a part of including this high-protein corn product in the diet,” shared Brown. “We actually saw the opposite. Calves on the high-protein corn product grew more, had greater average daily gain, and tended to have more dry-matter intake, but there was no evidence of difference in feed efficiency.”

Even more encouraging were the results of actual digestibility. “To our surprise, the calves on the high-protein corn product actually had greater apparent total tract digestibility and crude protein digestibility,” he shared.

Brown noted that, compared to previous studies of distillers grains in preweaned calf diets, the Kansas State researchers were mindful of amino acid balancing. They used the CNCPS model to meet estimated lysine and methionine requirements using rumen-protected supplements for those potentially limiting amino acids.

And the financial bottom line? Encouraging as well. The cost of the distillers grain-based ration was about $5.00/ton less than the traditional soybean meal-based ration. Even including the cost of the amino acid supplements, the net cost was about 6 cents/calf/day lower for the distillers ration.

While acknowledging this study is an initial foray into a whole new possibility for preweaned calf rations, Brown is encouraged by the results.

“We know that calves that gain more weight in the preweaning period have greater lifetime milk production,” he noted. “A lot of that comes from the milk feeding program, but if we can also help accomplish that with the grain feeding program – even carrying into the post-weaning period for a month or so – that’s a really positive benefit for that calf long-term down the road.”

Your Next Read: There are Many “Wheys” to Feed Dairy Cows

New Dietary Guidelines Move Food Pyramid Closer to the Farm

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 20:43:24 GMT

The White House delivered a simple but clear message to Americans today: Eat real food.

“We are finally putting real food back at the center of the American diet. Real food that nourishes the body, restores health, fuels energy and builds strength,” says Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. “This pivot also leans into the abundant, affordable and healthy food supply already available from America’s incredible farmers and ranchers. By making milk, raising cattle and growing wholesome fruits, vegetables and grains, they hold the key to solving our national health crisis.”

In the “most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in decades,” the White House released the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030 . The updated pyramid inverts the 1992 USDA version by prioritizing:

Protein (1.2 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, an increase from 0.8 grams)
Dairy and healthy fats as the foundation
Vegetables (3 servings per day)
Fruits (2 servings per day)

Unlike the old pyramid’s grain-heavy base and processed carbs, new recommendations limit whole grains to 2 to 4 servings per day and added sugars and highly processed oils should be avoided entirely.

Eat More Protein

Rollins says the previous dietary guidelines demonized protein in favor of carbohydrates.

“These guidelines reflect gold standard science by prioritizing high-quality, nutrient-dense protein foods in every meal,” Rollins says. “This includes a variety of animal sources, including eggs, poultry, seafood, and red meat, in addition to plant-sourced protein foods such as beans, peas, lentils, legumes, nuts, seeds and soy.”

To put the new protein recommendations into perspective, Sigrid Johannes, executive director of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, says for folks who should be consuming 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight that’s a 100% increase in recommended daily protein intake.

Dairy’s Seat at the Table

Dairy emerged in a strong position under the new dietary guidelines, with federal nutrition guidance supporting dairy at all fat levels for the first time.

“One of the key messages they’re telling consumers is eat dairy and eat dairy at all fat levels — that’s whole milk, cheese and butter,” says Matt Herrick of the International Dairy Foods Association. He calls it “a significant watershed moment,” reflecting how many families currently eat and shop today.

Echoing Herrick’s perspective, National Milk Producers Federation President and CEO Gregg Doud adds by better recognizing both fat and protein, the guidelines give a fuller picture of dairy’s nutritional value.

“Not all fats are created equal, and because the guidelines acknowledge this, dairy’s benefits are better reflected in this iteration of the guidelines,” Doud says.

When it comes to protein, consumer demand is reshaping the category, with cottage cheese at its highest level since the 1980s because of the high-protein trend, Herrick notes.

“Consumers are looking at labels more than ever and trying to find cleaner, less processed foods. Dairy fits that bill. Most products have just a handful of ingredients, and they’re all high in protein. People are turning to protein for growth, energy and overall health, and we’re going to continue to see consumers look to dairy to fulfill their protein and healthy fats needs,” Herrick says.

The processing sector has grown alongside the rising demand for dairy, reflecting both increased production and changing consumer preferences. Roughly $8 billion has been invested in new processing facilities from 2022 to 2025, with another $11 billion expected through 2028.

“We’re going to continue to see investments in processing facilities — new plants, updated lines and more capacity — to meet growing consumer demand for dairy protein and healthy fats,” Herrick notes.

Eat More Meat and Poultry

When it comes to meat and poultry, Julie Anna Potts, Meat Institute President and CEO, says Secretary Rollins and Secretary Kennedy’s leadership have simplified the dietary guidelines making it clear meat is a protein powerhouse.

“Robust scientific evidence demonstrates that meat is a rich source of high-quality protein, essential vitamins and highly bioavailable minerals that support human health throughout the lifespan,” Potts says.

Kansas beef producer Marisa Kleysteuber describes the new “commonsense” dietary guidelines as “exciting and refreshing.”

“As beef producers we are blessed to work with a ruminant animal that can utilize Mother Nature’s production of cellulose from rain and sunshine and then convert it to one of the most nutrient rich proteins there is,” she says. “Whether the consumer is desiring an organic, grass fed or corn fed beef product, there are cattlemen and women all over the U.S. who put their heart into raising these cattle to produce a nutritious and delicious product that we have always believed in and now our leaders are standing behind the ranchers and farmers of America.”

Quintessentially American foods such as burgers, steaks, pork chops and Easter hams can remain a staple of American households, and the guidelines go so far as to recommend parents introduce nutrient-dense foods, including meat, early and continue focusing on “nutrient-dense foods such as protein foods” throughout childhood.

“America’s pork producers appreciate the 2025 dietary guidelines putting pork front and center on the plate. They took note of producer concerns and rightly gave pork and other high-protein, nutrient-dense and delicious meats their due when it comes to Americans’ health and dietary habits,” says Rob Brenneman , National Pork Producers Council president-elect and pork producer from Washington, Iowa.

Maddie Hokanson , a Minnesota pork producer and mother of two, says the new dietary guidelines’ strong emphasis on protein is a positive for the pork industry. She believes the new guidelines, paired with pork’s quality nutrition and versatility, bring together the perfect opportunity to increase pork consumption and demand in the U.S.

“As pig farmers, we are proud to produce a meat product that is packed with high-quality protein, while also being nutrient-dense with many essential vitamins and minerals,” Hokanson says. “As a parent to young children, I see both the physical and cognitive benefits of prioritizing protein in the diet at all ages, and I’m excited to see what the short- and long-term effects of this recommendation will be.”

Three Servings of Veggies and Two Servings of Fruit

Dairy and meat weren’t the only items at the top of the new dietary pyramid. Fresh fruits and vegetables were also given top billing.

“Diets rich in vegetables and fruits reduce disease risk more effectively than many drugs,” says Robert F Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health.

The new dietary guidelines recommend three servings of vegetables and two servings of fruit per day. Like past editions of the dietary guidelines , the new guidelines recommend Americans eat “a variety of colorful, nutrient-dense vegetables and fruits” and advises whole produce items be eaten “in their original form.” Though not explicitly stated, the updated guidelines also call out “frozen, dried, or canned vegetables or fruits with no or very limited added sugars” as good options.

“Today’s dietary guidelines reinforce the critical role fruits and vegetables play in overall health,” says Mollie Van Lieu, International Fresh Produce Association vice president of nutrition and health, in the group’s response. “Scientific evidence consistently shows that fruits and vegetables should make up the majority of what people eat. The Administration’s focus on whole foods is an opportunity to increase fruit and vegetable intake, as they are the most nutrient-dense foods available.”

Rollins Teases Plan to Expand Real Food Retail Accessibility

There was more than the new dietary guidelines announced at the press event. Rollins mentioned upcoming changes at retail she says would increase the accessibility of whole, healthy foods to those in food deserts.

“Soon, USDA will finalize our stocking standards,” she says, explaining retailers that take SNAP benefits are bound by the stocking standards. “Very soon we will be finalizing that rule that will mandate all 250,000 retailers in America to double the type of staple foods they provide for America’s SNAP households. This means healthier options will be in reach for all American families, regardless of circumstance, at levels never seen before in our country.”

Grains and Oilseed Industry Focuses on Positives

In terms of grains, in its guidance USDA recommends Americans “focus on whole grains, while sharply reducing refined carbohydrates.” The National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) shared mixed reactions to the changes.

“We appreciate the continued recognition of whole grains as an essential part of Americans’ diets,” said a spokesperson with NAWG in a statement to Farm Journal. “However, we are concerned that some portions of the new guidelines around grains and wheat are unintentionally confusing. Wheat, wheat flour, and foods made from wheat have been nutrient-rich, life-sustaining staples for tens of thousands of years and deserve clear, continued support as a central part of our nation’s diet.”

The American Soybean Association (ASA) focuses on the positives saying it highlights the importance of increased protein consumption, including plant-based proteins, such as soy-based foods. They also emphasize prioritizing healthy fats, including oils rich in essential fatty acids like soybean oil.

ASA says an addendum continues to call into question the process of soybean oil extraction, which it says is scientifically proven to be safe for human health.

“Soybean oil and soy protein play a critical role in the health and nutrition of Americans,” says Scott Metzger, ASA president and Ohio farmer, in a press release. “We remain deeply concerned by the rhetoric and selectively cited studies regarding the health and safety of soybean oil in DGA supporting material.”

Metzger says soybean growers will continue to work with the administration and educate MAHA commission leadership on the health benefits of soy-based foods and soybean oil.

The National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) echoed those concern: “Vegetable oils, or “seed oils” as they’re sometimes referred to, are a significant provider of essential fatty acids and remain a safe and cost-effective source of dietary fats in the American diet, as they are globally,” said a NOPA press release. “However, some appendices rely on a narrow evidence base with limited citations, which is concerning given the administration’s rhetoric questioning the safety of certain vegetable oils despite an established scientific consensus.”

NOPA also argues oilseeds support the production of affordable meat, dairy and eggs as meal produced from oilseeds are a key component of livestock diets.

Feed Efficiency: Creating a Data Action Plan

Wed, 31 Dec 2025 18:05:00 GMT

Feed efficiency is becoming a more commonly discussed measure on dairy farms. While it can be a “nice to know” number, it becomes a “need to know” tool when used intentionally to inform decision-making and drive management changes. However, collecting data without a clear path often results in wasted effort. To unlock its full potential, farms need an action plan that defines goals, outlines data collection and analysis methods, and ensures insights are applied.

As part of a series discussing feed efficiency, this article outlines how to create a practical and impactful data action plan around the feed efficiency metric. The general guidelines from this article can apply to any data used on dairy farms.

In this article, Feed Efficiency specifically refers to energy-corrected milk divided by dry matter intake (ECM/DMI), an on-farm metric to evaluate cows’ conversion of feed into milk.

Start With Your Goals

Begin with a clear understanding of why you’re tracking feed efficiency. What do you hope to accomplish? Will ECM/DMI help you meet specific herd or farm goals? Be candid about whether feed efficiency is the best tool for your current priorities.

Consider these questions:

Are you using feed efficiency data to monitor performance or to guide decision-making?
Do you know what decisions you may make based on the results?
Is feed efficiency the right focus now, or are there more pressing priorities on the farm?

Without a clear purpose, it’s easy to collect data that never leads to action. Ensure feed efficiency supports your bigger picture strategy.

Collect Effective Data

The value of feed efficiency data depends entirely on quality data. To calculate feed efficiency, you need:

Reliable milk production and composition data
Accurate dry matter intake values, not just formulated TMR amounts

For accurate DMI, track actual feed delivered and refusals, not just mixing sheet figures. Evaluating feed efficiency at the individual cow level requires consistent, cow-specific intake data which is often a challenge on commercial dairies. Some new technologies can help estimate individual intakes, but DMI is more commonly and easily tracked at the pen or herd level.

Set up a clear system:

Who collects and enters the data?
Where is it recorded and stored?
Who oversees the process?

Consistency is key. Incomplete or inaccurate data limits usefulness.

Analyze and Act to Make ECM/DMI Part of the System

This is where data becomes powerful. Analyzing ECM/DMI can highlight trends, raise questions, or drive management changes, but only if used with context. For typical ECM/DMI ranges across lactation stages, refer to benchmarks provided in What Shapes Feed Efficiency in Dairy Cows?

Feed efficiency is not a perfect metric. It has limitations and blind spots as discussed in previous articles. Many factors affect feed efficiency, from diet formulation to cow comfort, so approach this data with both curiosity and caution.

To maximize its value:

Pair feed efficiency with other measures, such as Income Over Feed Costs, to broaden perspective.
Review your original goals. Are you seeing something worth acting on?
What actions will you take? Possibilities include feed reformulation, cow grouping strategies, or investigating changes in cow health or behavior.

Finally, evaluate how ECM/DMI will become a part of your farm’s monitoring routine. If you decide this will become a regularly evaluated metric, determine how often you’ll review the data – weekly, monthly, or seasonally.

Turning Feed Efficiency Data into Action

Feed efficiency can provide helpful insight, but only if you act on it. If you’re considering integrating this metric into your management toolbox, do it with a clear plan:

Define your goals and expectations.
Collect consistent, accurate data.
Analyze with context and act based on findings.

By treating data collection as a strategic tool rather than a routine task, feed efficiency can become more than a number. It can become a catalyst for meaningful improvement on your farm.

For additional background on feed efficiency, including typical ECM/DMI ranges across different stages of lactation, see the previous articles in this series.

Managing Feed Efficiency: What You Can Control

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 14:32:51 GMT

Knowing the forces that shape feed efficiency is only half the story; the next step is using them to your advantage. As a part of a series discussing feed efficiency for dairy farms, this article explores strategies related to feeding and management that farms can use to influence it.

In this article, Feed Efficiency specifically refers to energy-corrected milk divided by dry matter intake (ECM/DMI), an on-farm metric to evaluate cows’ conversion of feed into milk.

Feeding Strategies to Influence Feed Efficiency

If you want to improve feed efficiency on your farm, several feeding strategies can help:

Improve feed quality to enhance nutrient digestibility. Harvest forages at optimal maturity, properly process corn silage and grains, and maintain good silage hygiene to avoid losses from spoilage or contamination (1, 2).
Fine-tune rations for efficiency. Avoid overfeeding nutrients, like protein, that may be wasted. Instead, consider precision tools like supplemental amino acids. Balance sources of starch and protein for synchronized rumen fermentation. Ensure rations support both performance and rumen health (2, 3).
Group cows strategically to feed more targeted diets. Avoid underfeeding early-lactation animals or overfeeding those late in lactation. Matching diets to physiological needs helps prevent nutrient waste and improves whole-herd efficiency (4).
Minimize feed waste and shrink. While shrink isn’t reflected in ECM/DMI calculations, it’s still lost energy. Lost feed is lost energy that the cow never had the opportunity to use.

Management Strategies to Influence Feed Efficiency

Improving feed efficiency also requires management that minimizes cows unnecessarily expending energy:

Prevent health challenges that might decrease milk production, increase feed intakes, or divert energy to the immune system. A smooth transition period, proper mastitis prevention, and early lameness treatment all help reduce unnecessary energy loss (5, 6).
Limit environmental stressors. Ensure cows have adequate feed and water access, push up feed regularly, and provide enough bunk and resting space to prevent competition (3, 7).
Promote cow comfort. Provide proper cooling, minimize long walking distances, and avoid extended time away from feed and water (1, 8, 9).
Optimize reproduction. Avoid extended calving intervals which keep cows in late lactation (the least efficient phase) longer than necessary (10).
Ensure proper heifer development. Well-grown heifers are better positioned for efficient lactation. These cows can divert less feed energy to growth than poorly grown heifers.

Genetic Strategies to Influence Feed Efficiency

Genetic selection provides a long-term path to improved efficiency. Residual feed intake (RFI) is a relatively new trait that reflects how much a cow eats relative to what is expected for her size, production, and growth. This trait is included in breeding indexes such as Lifetime Net Merit (NM$) and allows farms to select animals that are more efficient. Genetic selection should align with your broader herd goals, including health, fertility, and production so that efficiency gains don’t come at the cost of other performance areas.

Conclusion

Feed efficiency can be influenced by many different factors from genetics to cow comfort. Recognizing how you can adjust management strategies allows feed efficiency to become a tool to influence decisions, not just a number.

References:

1. Hutjens, M. (2013). Hoard’s Dairyman webinar: Feed efficiency – what’s new? [Webinar]. Hoard’s Dairyman. https://hoards.com/videos-54-hoards-dairyman-webinar-feed-efficiency&mdashwhats-new.html

2. de Ondarza, M.B. & Tricarico, J.M. (2017). Review: Advantages and limitations of dairy efficiency measures and the effects of nutrition and feeding management interventions. The Professional Animal Scientist, 33:393-400. https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2017-01624

3. Krpalkova, L., O’Mahony, N., Carvalho, A., Campbell, S., Corkery, G., Broderick, E., Riordan, D., & Walsh, J. (2021). Dairy, 2:684-694. https://doi.org/10.3390/dairy2040053

4. VandeHaar, M.J. (n.d.). Feeding and breeding dairy cattle to improve feed efficiency.

5. Huhtanen, P., & Bayat, A.R. (2024). Milk somatic cell count affects feed efficiency through increased heat production of lactating dairy cows. Livestock Science, 284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2024.105479

6. Guinguina, A, & Danielsson, R. (2025). Milk somatic cell count and its relationship with feed efficiency, and with GreenFeed-estimated methane emission and energy partitioning variables in Nordic Red cows. Livestock Science, 296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105697

7. Llonch, P., Mainau, E., Ipharraguerre, I.R., Bargo, F., Tedo, G., Blanch, M., & Manteca, X. (2018). Chicken or the egg: The reciprocal association between feeding behavior and animal welfare and their impact on productivity in dairy cows. Frontier in Veterinary Science, 5:305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00305

8. Holden, L. (2023). Are your cows taking a vacation? Accessed online at https://extension.psu.edu/are-your-cows-taking-a-vacation

9. Neave, H., Edwards, J.P., Thoday, H., Saunders, K., Zobel, G., & Webster, J.R. (2021). Do walking distance and time away from the paddock influence daily behavior patterns and milk yield of grazing dairy cows? Animals, 11:2903. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102903

10. Linn, J. 2006. Feed efficiency: Its economic impact in lactating dairy cows. WCDS Advances in Dairy Technology, 18:19-28.

Next Year’s Silage Season Starts Now

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 14:47:24 GMT

As many producers finalize their seed selections for 2026, the foundation for next year’s silage crop is being set well before planting. But how do these early decisions affect yield, quality and feed efficiency?

Hybrid selection plays a major role in forage quality, cow performance and feed costs for the next 12 months. Making seed decisions now allows farms to take advantage of early-order pricing or discounts, review data from last season and coordinate with agronomists, nutritionists or crop managers on the best plan.

Kevin Putnam, northeast dairy specialist with Pioneer, works with producers across the region to help guide hybrid selection and silage management. He offers practical advice on using harvest data and plant performance to make informed decisions for the coming season.

What Can You Learn From Last Year’s Harvest?
Looking back at last year’s harvest is one of the simplest ways to make better silage decisions for the year ahead. Yield, forage quality and what shows up in the bunk all provide clues about which hybrids fit your farm.

“I think it’s a good practice to go back through your records from harvest,” Putnam says. “Look at how the crop performed in each field, check your yields, note any disease pressure and review forage quality results. Understanding what worked and what didn’t helps guide your decisions for the next year.”

That review shouldn’t stop at the field. Putnam also encourages producers to take bunk samples and watch what’s coming through the cows. Regular forage tests help track starch levels, fiber digestibility and fermentation quality, while a quick look at the manure can reveal whether kernels are being processed adequately— or if too many are passing through whole.

“If you’re seeing a lot of intact kernels, that’s a sign to revisit your processing and cut length for next year,” he notes. “You’ve already paid to grow that grain, so you want to be sure the cows can actually use it.”

He recommends using harvest and bunk data to fine-tune seed and hybrid choices rather than making major shifts in hybrid lineups based on a single season.

“Every year is different. Some seasons crops mature faster or slower than expected, but it’s important not to make major changes based on just one year,” he adds. “I recommend reviewing your harvest data and considering your farm’s goals for yield and feed quality to make informed decisions for the next season.”

What to do next: Pull harvest and bunk data together before finalizing seed orders to avoid overreacting to one season.

Can Plant Health and Stability Help Reduce Risk?
In some regions, 2025 brought record-breaking silage yields. In others, farmers wrestled with a roller coaster of early rains followed by drought stress. That kind of year-to-year and even field-to-field variability underscores the need for hybrids that can stand up to a wide range of environments, not just shine in a “perfect” season.

For Putnam, the conversation for hybrid selection in 2026 should quickly turn to plant health and standability. Leaf diseases like tar spot, northern corn leaf blight and gray leaf spot are now common in many areas and can reduce both yield and quality if they appear too early.

“Late-season plant health is huge,” Putnam says. “We want the ear maturing and drying down while the plant stays alive and healthy. We don’t want the plant to die early and drag the silage too dry before the ear is ready.”

When plants dry prematurely, fields can look “ready” from the road, but the ear may lag behind in maturity and starch accumulation. That mismatch can leave producers with silage that’s either too wet for ideal fermentation or too dry and hard to pack. In both cases, they sacrifice quality and feed-out stability.

Instead of stopping at top-line yield numbers, Putnam encourages producers to dig into the agronomic profile of each hybrid, paying particular attention to how it performs under pressure. That means looking closely at disease ratings for the leaf diseases most common in their area, evaluating each hybrid’s drought tolerance and stress response, and understanding its late-season plant integrity.

“I’m a big fan of the ‘Steady Eddies,’” he notes. “Some hybrids may not always top the plot, but they’re consistently near the top, year after year, across a lot of different environments. Those are the ones that help you sleep at night.”

That consistency matters because most farms can’t risk a hybrid that’s spectacular one year and below average the next. By prioritizing stability and resilience, producers can better protect themselves against the kind of weather and disease swings that defined 2025.

What to do next: Note last year’s disease pressure and prioritize hybrids with strong late-season plant health ratings.

How Many Hybrids Should You Plant?
The next practical question is how many hybrids to work into the plan. Too many can complicate management; too few can leave a farm exposed.

Diversity, Putnam says, is one of the simplest tools producers have to protect against weather swings, variable field conditions and maturity challenges. Different maturities and hybrid types respond differently to stress, so spreading acres out can soften the blow if one hybrid or one field has a tough year.

“Four to five different hybrids might be a good spot to start depending on how many acres you’re actually working,” he says.

Farm size, whether silage is the primary use or part of a dual-purpose strategy and whether you work with one or multiple seed companies will all influence that number.

Just as important as how many hybrids is how they are spread out by maturity. Staggered maturities help widen both pollination timing and harvest windows, which can be critical when a hot, dry spell or prolonged wet period hits at the wrong time.

“One hybrid means one pollination window. We want to spread our risk,” Putnam notes. “By planting hybrids with slightly different maturities, you give yourself a buffer if one week of weather doesn’t cooperate.”

That mix of hybrids and maturities gives farms more flexibility — not only to manage risk, but also to line up harvest timing, packing capacity and labor with the realities of a busy fall.

What to do next: Aim for a manageable mix of maturities to spread risk without overcomplicating harvest.

Who Should Be Part of the Discussion?
Hybrid selection shouldn’t fall solely on one person. Nutritionists, agronomists and on-farm managers each bring valuable insight that connects genetics to feed value, crop health and cow performance.

“Ideally, all of the above would be there or at least at different times be part of the discussion,” Putnam says.

Nutritionists link hybrids to ration goals and bunk outcomes, while agronomists provide insight on field performance and disease resistance. On-farm managers add practical knowledge about harvest and operations.

“Get a lot of people at the table. It’d be good to have everybody there, or at least part of the conversation at some point,” he says.

Including multiple viewpoints helps farms make informed decisions that balance agronomic performance with feed quality and efficiency.

What to do next: Bring key advisers into the seed discussion early so hybrid choices align with both field performance and feed goals.

Planning for a Strong Silage Season
As producers look toward 2026, the most successful silage programs will be the ones built on good records, the right hybrids, and a strong advisory team. Using last year’s data to refine seed choices, spreading risk across maturities and agronomics and checking that what goes into the bunk matches what the ration calls for all add up to more consistent feed.

By leaning on good data, tapping the expertise of nutritionists and agronomists, and favoring steady, resilient hybrids, producers can turn an unpredictable growing season into a more predictable feed supply.

Be Careful Before You Make the Switch from Replacer to Whole Milk

Mon, 24 Nov 2025 22:22:47 GMT

With tighter margins in the dairy industry, it’s no surprise farmers are looking for ways to cut costs, but making changes purely to save money can come with real risks.

One area producers are exploring cost-saving measures is calf feeding. Many farms have considered making the switch from milk replacer to whole milk, especially when they have non-salable milk available. But a change like this requires much more than just deciding to use the milk already in the tank. A successful switch depends on understanding volumes, dry matter, pasteurization needs and calf health monitoring. And without a solid plan, the savings that look good on paper can disappear quickly.

Whole Milk Can Make Financial Sense

According to Cassie Yost, dairy Extension educator at Pennsylvania State University, using on-farm milk can be a real advantage when the conditions are right.

“[You can] alleviate financial burdens of feeding milk replacer if you have available non-salable milk,” she notes. “Using the milk produced on the farm and saving the milk replacer bill is a financial win-win situation.

However, she stresses that feeding whole milk will not fit every operation. Facility layout, workflow, access to a pasteurizer, disease risk and calf management all play major roles.

“Each individual farm has different management styles that fit its unique operation,” she says.

No one should expect to make the change overnight or assume it will save money without first looking at the details. Farms must first evaluate whether feeding whole milk aligns with both their calves’ health needs and their farm’s management style.

Making Sure Your Calves Get the Right Nutrition

Nutrition, of course, is one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle. Whole milk is only about 13% dry matter, which means calves need enough volume each day to meet their needs. Milk replacer is fed at higher dry-matter levels to match the nutrient density of whole milk, so it is important to compare programs side by side before making any changes.

Farmers should also understand whole milk components vary naturally but not enough to cause major issues in a well-managed system. Yost points out the fat and protein in whole milk do not swing any more than the components in your bulk tank. A typical Holstein herd might test around 3.7% fat and 3.3% protein, which works out to roughly 28% fat and 25% protein on a dry-matter basis.

It is also essential to work with your veterinarian or a calf nutrition specialist when planning the switch. Having an expert guide the transition reduces risk and helps ensure the switch is truly beneficial for the calves.

Keeping Calves Safe With Good Sanitation

Health and safety are just as important as nutrition. Whole milk has to be handled with care, and farms without a strong sanitation plan should think carefully before switching. Yost stresses that skipping pasteurization is risky, especially for farms unsure of their herd health status.

“Pasteurizers can help to decrease the chance of disease transfer; however, they will not completely eliminate all disease pathogens,” she explains.

Regular testing of bacterial counts is also key because high levels can lead to scours and hurt calf performance. Timing matters as well. Milk that sits too long before being pasteurized can become unsafe. Thus, farms need reliable routines in place, or the risks can outweigh the savings.

Deciding What Works Best for Your Farm

For some operations, whole milk feeding can work extremely well. For others, milk replacer is still the more consistent, convenient and sanitary option. The most important thing is that the decision is made with intention.

“Whatever change you may decide to implement, make sure it is an economical decision that has the future of your farm in mind,” Yost says.

Switching to whole milk is not a quick fix. It takes careful planning and consistent routines to make sure calves get the nutrition they need. Farms that are ready to put in the extra effort can see benefits in both calf health and feed costs. For others, sticking with milk replacer might be the better option.

Biotics in Bovines: Postbiotic Applications for Dairy Cattle

Thu, 06 Nov 2025 20:03:00 GMT

Dairy cattle nutrition is increasingly being designed to shape the microbiome, not just to feed it. Postbiotics represent the third category in that effort. Rather than supplying live microbes (probiotics) or microbial substrates (prebiotics), postbiotics are the beneficial compounds microbes produce, without the organisms themselves.

This matters because high-producing dairy cows operate under tight metabolic margins. Transition stress, rapid shifts in energy demand, and rumen fermentation instability can all disrupt gut integrity and immune balance. Postbiotics offer a way to influence those systems even when microbial populations are stressed, inconsistent or slow to stabilize.

This is the fifth installment of the Biotics in Bovines series where we will explore the role and application of prebiotics, probiotics and postbiotics in dairy and beef cattle nutrition. Each installment will examine a different facet of microbiome-focused nutrition from how these products work to what recent research says about their effectiveness and on-farm value. The goal is to help veterinarians and producers make informed, evidence-based decisions about integrating biotic feed technologies into herd health and performance programs.

Postbiotics are non-living microbial products that interact with the rumen and immune systems. They commonly include:

Yeast Fermentation Products
Lactic Acid Bacteria Metabolites
Inactivated Bacteria

These compounds can be used to strengthen gut barrier integrity, support immune signaling, encourage resilience in fiber-fermenting microbes and reduce the impact of stress-related dysbiosis. Unlike probiotics, they do not require survival through pelleting, storage or rumen passage, which could be a practical advantage on the farm.

Evidence in Dairy Systems

In dairy calves , yeast fermentation products fed in the milk replacer had greater postweaning average daily gains and body weights with similar feed intake. These calves also had improved rumen absorption (observed as increased plasma volatile fatty acid concentrations) and increased immune response to lipopolysaccharide stimulation at weaning.

During the transition period , postbiotics containing yeast fermentation products have been shown to improve the lactation performance and metabolic status of dairy cows. This supplementation reduced inflammation and enhanced liver metabolic function resulting in greater milk fat and improved energy corrected milk yield.

One study in lactating dairy cattle investigated whether the incorporation of yeast fermentation products had any effect on the prevention and control of digital dermatitis. They found that postbiotic treatment decreased the risk of cattle having ulcerative and active lesions and slowed the negative progression of lesions.

In dairy cattle with mastitis , the administration of a heat-killed Lactococcus lactis postbiotic was as effective in eliciting a localized immune response as the administration of live L. lactis. Postbiotic treated cattle had an equally potent interleukin-8 response and cure rates based on somatic cell counts compared to probiotic treated cattle. These results could have beneficial implications for farmers worried about the shelf-life of live probiotics.

Practical On-Farm Guidance

Consider incorporating postbiotics into your milk replacer. Postbiotics can support healthy rumen and hind-gut development jump-starting calves for their postweaning lives.
Use postbiotics to strategically support the immune system. This includes stressful events such as heat stress events, group/pen changes and vaccination periods.
Check the label. Dose and duration guidelines vary by product and production stage.
Postbiotics are less susceptible to environmental conditions than probiotics. This might make them a better fit for your farm.

Limitations and Research Gaps

Postbiotics are relatively new to ruminant nutrition. Extensive research has not yet been completed and the most effective metabolite combinations may remain to be discovered. The long-term effects across multiple lactations remain uncertain; using postbiotics as precision tools rather than as blanket-use additives might be most beneficial.

Actionable Takeaways

Start where the risk is the highest. Prioritize young calves or transition cows where the research shows the clearest and most repeatable benefits.
Choose products with a clearly stated microbial source and processing method. ‘Fermentation product’ tells you very little about what you are feeding. Look for specific strain and process information.
Pair postbiotics with management, not instead of management. Foot baths, milking hygiene, feed access and bunk management still drive outcomes. Postbiotics can support these efforts, but they don’t replace them.
Reassess during quiet periods. Once stressors ease, evaluate whether continued supplementation still provides return on investment.

Your next reads:
Biotics in Bovines: Prebiotic Applications for Beef Cattle
Biotics in Bovines: Prebiotic Applications for Dairy Cattle
Biotics in Bovines: Probiotic Applications for Dairy Cattle
Biotis in Bovines: Probiotic Applications for Beef Cattle

Rethink the First Feeding: Calf Health Begins with Smarter Colostrum Strategies

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 15:16:06 GMT

For decades, dairy producers have fed newborn calves based on standard protocols for first-milking colostrum, but as Dr. Donald Sockett and Dr. Ryan Breuer from the University of Wisconsin noted on a recent Raising Your Best Dairy Heifer webinar, the underlying assumptions might be due for revision.

“The current colostrum feeding guidelines that are considered best practices today were developed a little more than two decades ago,” Breuer says. “So we’ve had some time to observe what’s going on with it and whether we need to make some changes or not.”

Sockett explains that the conventional gold standard of 50 grams of immunoglobulin G (IgG) per liter, which the guidelines are based on, was reasonable back then, but times have changed.

“The average here is 75 g to 95 g per liter,” he says. “Why would we build a program around fair [quality] colostrum?”

Because calves are receiving colostrum of higher quality than what the older guidelines are built around, feeding volumes and methods might need adjustment.

In a recent case report , Sockett and Breuer described a Holstein heifer that received what is considered best practice for colostrum delivery based on 10% body weight: 4 liters of first-milking colostrum 30 minutes after birth and an additional 2 liters six hours after the first feeding. Shortly after the second feeding, the calf developed colic and was in apparent pain. This animal was humanely euthanized less than 24 hours later after a lack of response to on-farm medical care.

According to the attending veterinarian, this was not a one-off case.

“This wasn’t the only calf at this dairy,” Breuer says. “The veterinarian had also seen similar situations at other dairies where these calves, after the recommended colostrum feeding, had distress or colic.”

Upon necropsy, they noticed incidents of aspiration in the lungs. It was concluded aspiration pneumonia killed the calf after some colostrum was regurgitated due to a distended abomasum from colostrum volume.

This report emphasizes the need to reevaluate colostrum feeding standards.

In September, Frederick and colleagues from Cornell University published a study looking into the effects of feeding colostrum at 6%, 8%, 10% or 12% of a calf’s body weight on IgG absorption, gastric emptying and postfeeding behavior.

Gastric emptying is an important factor as no colostrum absorption occurs in the abomasum. Passage to the small intestine in a timely manner before absorption efficiency goes down is key. Calves fed at 10% and 15% of their body weight had significantly lower apparent efficiency of absorption of IgG rates and showed significantly more behavioral signs of discomfort (abdomen kicks) than those fed 6% and 8%.

“So yes, you’re feeding a bigger mass of immunoglobulin when you feed these larger body weight [percentages], but if your efficiency of absorption is going down and you have these health complications, is that really the best thing for the calf?” Sockett says.

A study of 818 calves across 61 Holstein dairy farms by Morin and colleagues at the University of Montreal looked into how colostrum management practices impacted transfer of passive immunity (TPI). They found that the No. 1 factor affecting apparent IgG absorption was the concentration of IgG in the colostrum, or colostrum quality. Calves fed colostrum with a Brix value over 24.5% were almost three times more likely to have received adequate TPI. Additionally, calves fed equal to or greater than 2.5 liters of colostrum at their first meal (notably less than 10% of the calves body weight) within three hours of birth had the highest odds of receiving adequate TPI.

This adds weight to Sockett’s assertion.

“Think about our recommendation standards,” he says. “We haven’t even been talking about the two most important variables of effective efficiency of colostrum absorption. We have to start thinking about the quality of the colostrum and the mass of colostrum being delivered.”

If you’re creating a colostrum feeding program for a dairy operation, Sockett and Breuer recommend collecting a database of information of what’s going on in the herd. Answer the following questions to tailor the program to your farm:

What is the average birth weight of the calves? What are the lightest and heaviest animals?
Are you feeding pooled or individual colostrum?
What is the normal weight of the colostrum?
What is the mean and standard deviation of the Brix scores?
What is the timing of first colostrum delivery?
What are your TPI goals?

The idea is not to abandon colostrum best practices but to update them strategically. By refining colostrum feeding protocols, verifying colostrum quality, aligning volume with body weight and monitoring outcomes, dairy operations can create their own evidence-based practice. The result? Healthier calves, fewer complications and better use of that liquid gold.