Veterinary Research

California Dairy Study Raises New Questions About How H5N1 Spreads

Fri, 08 May 2026 15:46:21 GMT

For months, discussions around H5N1 in dairy cattle have focused largely on infected milk and contaminated milking equipment. New research from California suggests the transmission picture may be far more complex.

In a study published this week in PLOS Biology , researchers investigating 14 H5N1-positive California dairies found evidence supporting several possible transmission pathways, including aerosols generated during milking and contamination within dairy wastewater systems. The study also identified signs of subclinical infection in some cows, raising new questions about how easily infected animals may be missed during outbreaks.

The findings add to growing evidence that the dairy environment itself may play a larger role in H5N1 transmission than previously recognized.

Infectious H5N1 Virus Detected in Dairy Parlor Air

One of the study’s most significant findings came from air sampling inside milking parlors.

Researchers collected aerosol samples during milking and detected not only viral RNA, but infectious H5N1 virus in some air samples. Viral material was also identified in exhaled breath collected from infected cattle.

Environmental sampling findings included:

Infectious virus recovered from parlor air samples and wastewater systems
Viral RNA identified in cow breath samples
Evidence of infection in some cows without obvious clinical signs

The distinction between viral RNA and infectious virus is important. Detecting RNA alone does not confirm viable virus is present, while recovery of infectious virus suggests aerosolized particles could potentially contribute to transmission.

The authors stopped short of concluding that airborne spread is a primary transmission route on dairies. However, the findings raise new questions about respiratory exposure risks in enclosed milking environments.

Milking parlors routinely generate aerosols through animal movement, splashing fluids, equipment use and high-pressure cleaning systems. The study suggests those environments may warrant closer attention during outbreak investigations and biosecurity planning.

The findings also have implications for worker safety. Since the U.S. dairy outbreak began, human infections linked to dairy cattle exposure have generally been mild, with conjunctivitis among the most commonly reported symptoms. Aerosol exposure during milking has remained a persistent concern for occupational health experts.

Wastewater Systems are a Possible H5N1 Exposure Route

Researchers also detected widespread contamination throughout dairy wastewater systems.

H5N1 viral RNA was identified in parlor drains, wastewater sumps, lagoons and reclaimed water systems. Infectious virus was recovered from some wastewater-associated samples as well. This finding may be particularly relevant for modern dairy operations, where reclaimed water is frequently reused for flushing and other management purposes.

The authors noted wastewater systems could create additional opportunities for virus movement within the farm environment through splashing, aerosol generation, contaminated surfaces and possible wildlife exposure. Wild birds have already played a major role in the global spread of H5N1. Contaminated wastewater or standing water could represent another point of interaction between dairies and wildlife populations.

The study does not establish wastewater systems as a major driver of transmission. However, it does suggest environmental contamination pathways may deserve more attention as researchers continue investigating how the virus behaves in dairy systems.

Some Infected Cows Showed Few Clinical Signs

The study also identified evidence of subclinical infection.

Some cows tested positive for H5N1 despite showing limited or no obvious clinical illness. In several cases, cows produced H5N1-positive milk without severe visible mastitis signs. Researchers also detected antibodies in animals without previously recognized disease.

Infection patterns within udders added another layer of complexity. Researchers noted some patterns did not fully align with expectations if transmission were occurring solely through contaminated milking equipment.

If milking equipment was the only major transmission route, infections between udder quarters would likely appear more predictable. Instead, the findings suggested additional exposure pathways may be involved.

These subclinical infections could complicate surveillance and outbreak detection efforts. Farms relying primarily on visibly sick cows may miss infected animals, particularly during the early stages of transmission. That has implications for testing strategies, animal movement decisions and outbreak response planning.

The findings also highlight how differently H5N1 behaves in cattle compared to poultry, where highly pathogenic avian influenza often causes rapid and severe disease.

Biosecurity Implications Continue to Evolve

The authors emphasized more research is needed to determine which transmission pathways are most influential on commercial dairies. Still, the study broadens the conversation around H5N1 biosecurity.

Early outbreak discussions focused heavily on milk contamination and fomite transmission through milking equipment. This study suggests aerosols, wastewater systems, environmental contamination and subclinical infections may also play a role.

That could influence future discussions around:

Parlor ventilation
PPE use during milking
Wastewater handling
Environmental sanitation
Surveillance strategies
Monitoring apparently healthy cows

The paper also underscores how much remains unknown about H5N1 adaptation in dairy cattle. Researchers identified mutations in some environmental samples that have previously been associated with mammalian adaptation, though the significance of those findings remains unclear.

This study offers an updated look at a disease situation that continues to evolve rapidly — and suggests transmission on dairies may involve a broader network of environmental exposures than initially believed.

Preweaning Performance Data Emerges for Beef-on-Dairy Calves

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:54:47 GMT

Preweaning performance shapes everything that follows, but for beef-on-dairy calves, investigation into that early-life picture has been sparse. While crossbreeding has been evaluated extensively in the feedlot, data from the first weeks of life has lagged behind. A new Journal of Dairy Science study from the University of Guelph helps close that gap, observing the early life performance of crossbred calves compared to Holsteins.

Key findings from the study include:

Crossbred calves demonstrated comparable or improved preweaning growth.
Health outcomes, including morbidity and mortality, were similar between groups.
Crossbred calves had reduced incidence of diarrhea and required fewer respiratory disease retreatments.
No additional management complexity was identified for crossbred calves.

Growth Performance Signals Early Advantages

Crossbred calves showed comparable or improved growth during the preweaning period. Crossbred calves had increased body weights by day 28, and weighed ~7 kg more than Holstein calves by day 84. This is consistent with what would be expected from heterosis, particularly for traits like growth efficiency and robustness.

That shift is notable because most of the economic rationale for crossbreeding has focused on downstream performance. This work suggests those advantages may begin earlier than previously documented.

This pattern is not isolated. In a controlled study of Angus × Holstein calves, crossbreds gained about 0.14 kg/day more than Holsteins and reached higher weaning weights under the same management conditions. Additional work reports similar trends, reinforcing performance differences can emerge during the preweaning period rather than later in production.

From a clinical standpoint, early growth is also a useful indicator of how well calves are handling nutrition, colostrum management and disease pressure. On that front, crossbred calves appear to perform at least as well as Holsteins under typical conditions.

Health Outcomes Show Targeted Advantages

Overall morbidity and mortality were similar between groups; however, important differences emerged in specific disease outcomes. Holstein calves had a higher incidence of diarrhea and were more likely to require repeat treatments for respiratory disease compared with crossbred calves. This pattern suggests that while total disease occurrence was similar, crossbred calves experienced fewer or less persistent clinical events.

These findings do not indicate a need for different protocols, but they do suggest crossbred calves may be less likely to require repeated intervention once disease occurs. This has potential implications for labor and antimicrobial use.

Measures of passive transfer, including serum total protein, were similar between groups, indicating these differences were not driven by variation in colostrum management.

Implications for Veterinary Practice and Calf Value

As beef-on-dairy crossbreeding becomes more common, veterinarians are increasingly involved in guiding how these programs are implemented and evaluated. The growing body of preweaning data provides a more complete foundation for those discussions.

Key implications include:

Crossbred calves can be integrated into existing calf-rearing programs without added health risk
Growth advantages may begin during the preweaning period, not just later in life
Standard health and nutrition protocols remain appropriate across genetic groups
Management fundamentals continue to have the greatest influence on outcomes
Early-life performance should be considered part of the overall value equation in beef-on-dairy systems

Taken together, the evidence points in a consistent direction: beef-on-dairy calves perform as well as, if not better than, Holsteins early in life, without added health risk. As more data emerges, that consistency strengthens confidence these calves can be managed within standard systems while delivering comparable or improved early-life performance.

A Closer Look at Delayed Cow-Calf Separation

Wed, 11 Feb 2026 15:50:52 GMT

Delayed cow-calf separation is a topic that usually gets people talking — whether they are focusing on animal welfare, public perception or personal experience. However, we rarely see the conversation anchored in controlled data. New, yet-to-be-published research from Dr. Adam Beard and his team at Cornell University is changing that, providing a clearer picture of how short-term contact and transition milk feeding affect a calf’s early life.

The study focused on the perinatal period: the final two months of pregnancy through the first two months after birth. This is a time of developmental plasticity, meaning management decisions can have a long-term impact on growth and future performance.

“We were interested in the physiologic impacts of transition milk feeding, as well as the societal components of cow-calf contact — if it’s something that’s feasible, could be implemented and what challenges might there be,” Beard explains.

While we know how much prenatal care matters, the big question remains: Does staying with the mother after birth continue to have a meaningful biological effect?

To find out, researchers set up a controlled study where delayed separation was defined as unrestricted contact for the first five days of life. Calves in this group stayed with their dams, had full social contact and nursed freely.

They were compared to two other groups that were separated immediately: one fed the dam’s transition milk and another fed bulk tank whole milk. To ensure the results weren’t skewed by a poor start, every calf in the study met strict criteria for high-quality colostrum intake and birth vigor.

Does Delayed Separation Affect Passive Transfer of Immunity?

A common worry is that delayed separation might interfere with a calf’s immune system. In this study, it didn’t. All calves received high-quality colostrum (>22% Brix) shortly after birth, and their antibody levels (serum IgG) were the same regardless of whether they stayed with the cow or were moved. This reinforces that the timing and quality of colostrum are the real drivers of immunity, not the housing method.

Impact of Nursing on Calf Growth and Health Risks

For those first five days, nursing calves did appear heavier. However, the researchers found this difference disappeared quickly after separation. The early weight gain was likely just gut fill — a result of nursing frequency — rather than actual tissue growth. By day seven, after all calves had transitioned to a standard feeding schedule, the weights converged and no lasting differences remained.

Health risks are often seen as a major barrier to keeping cows and calves together. However, this data showed no link between delayed separation and a higher frequency of fever or diarrhea.

“Some people might suspect that this would make calves more vulnerable to health challenges,” Beard says. “We just don’t see that here.”

While scours occurred across all groups, the patterns were consistent with what is typically seen in newborns, regardless of the feeding system.

The team followed replacement heifers through nine weeks of age. Across the board, there were no differences in:

Average daily gain
Final body weight
Hip and withers height
Solid feed intake before weaning

How Suckling Affects Cow Milk Yield and Udder Health

While the calves were nursing, there was a predictable drop in salable milk yield. However, production rebounded within 24 hours of separation, and there were no lasting penalties in early lactation.

Interestingly, preliminary findings suggested cows being suckled had higher cure rates for intramammary infections, though that analysis is ongoing. Notably, the study reported no calf injuries or human safety incidents during the contact period.

Is Short-Term Cow-Calf Contact Practical?

“We don’t have any results that are remarkably different between the transition milk, whole milk or transition milk with cow-calf contact, but the outcomes also weren’t any worse for having the calf in the environment with the cow,” Beard says.

This research doesn’t suggest that delayed cow-calf separation is a performance-enhancing tool. When calves already receive great colostrum and consistent management, the growth and health outcomes are largely neutral.

The real takeaway is short-term contact can be implemented without negative effects under controlled conditions. Proving this practice isn’t inherently risky will allow the industry to move past anecdotal fears and look deeper into the biology of transition milk and long-term development.

A Cow with a Tool: What Veronika Reveals about Cattle Cognition

Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:47:25 GMT

In a remarkable new study published in “Current Biology”, researchers document the first quantitative evidence that a domestic cow can use tools flexibly and purposefully. This behavior has been long thought to be restricted to primates and certain bird species.

Veronika, a 13-year-old Swiss Brown cow living in rural Austria, was the subject of an experimental study that systematically tested whether she could use a simple implement for different goals. Rather than stumbling onto tool behavior by chance, Veronika grasped and manipulated a deck brush in distinct ways depending on the task at hand.

The research team, Antonio Osuna-Mascaro and Alice Auersperg of the University of Vienna, presented Veronika with a deck brush oriented in various positions.

“The goal of the study was to test whether Veronica’s tool use met the criteria for flexible tool use. In other words, whether her use of tools was goal oriented, repetitive and consistent with the tools functional properties,” Osuna-Mascaro says.

Across multiple trials she demonstrated:

Selective grasping of different parts of the brush
Deliberate orientation of the tool to solve specific problems (for example, using the bristles versus the handle depending on where she wanted to scratch)
Goal-oriented adjustments, such as releasing the tool and regrasping it to achieve better control

The pattern of behavior meets stringent definitions of tool use where an animal adapts the function of an external object to achieve a desired outcome and challenges long-held assumptions about cattle cognition.

“This might even qualify as the use of a multipurpose tool,” Osuna-Mascaro says, alluding to the fact Veronika used each end of the tool a different way.

A New Lens on Cattle Cognition

Until now, scientific literature on tool use has focused overwhelmingly on primates (e.g. chimpanzees cracking nuts ) and some bird species like crows and parrots . Veronika’s behavior pushed the boundaries of what researchers considered possible for large herbivores.

“Veronika is certainly special, but we don’t think she’s particularly different to other cows. Her conditions are,” Osuna-Mascaro explains.

Several conditions may have contributed to her skill:

Veronika was raised as a pet rather than as traditional livestock, giving her exposure to novel objects and environments.
She was free to interact with brushes and sticks over the years before any testing.
Her age and lived experience may have supported learning and exploration.

This context suggests environmental richness and individual experience may play significant roles in the development of complex behaviors, even in species not typically associated with high cognitive flexibility.

Reframing Livestock Intelligence

Veronica’s behavior challenges long-standing assumptions about cognitive limits in cattle:

Animal cognition research may need to revisit assumptions about which species are capable of flexible problem solving.
Livestock welfare and management discussions should integrate cognitive enrichment as a meaningful component of animal care.
Ecology and environment can shape animal intelligence; cognitive abilities are not fixed by species alone.

Inside a Simulated HPAI Outbreak in a Dairy Herd

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 19:28:32 GMT

In spring 2020, U.S. dairy producers were forced to dump millions of pounds of milk when the system around them failed. Schools closed, institutional buyers disappeared, processing plants couldn’t pivot and the disconnect between production and demand became painfully clear. That experience raised a critical question: Could similar system-wide disruptions happen again, driven not by markets but by disease?

That question helped drive a new proof-of-concept project from the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security (WIFSS) at UC Davis: a simulation model designed to examine what happens when H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) enters a dairy herd.

“This was more a proof of concept,” says David Goldenberg, food safety and security training coordinator for WIFSS at UC Davis. “Can we develop a model that would mimic a dairy farm and the resulting impacts [HPAI] would have not only on the farm but also elsewhere and down the road?”

Rather than attempting to predict the next outbreak, their goal was to understand what an outbreak would look like on a single dairy and how its impacts unfold over time.

What the Model Simulated

The team based their simulation on a small dairy herd of roughly 260 cows with the following assumptions:

No animals were purchased from outside sources; replacements were born into the herd
Labor, equipment and milking infrastructure functioned normally
Cows were assumed healthy apart from H5N1 infection
Milk from infected cows was discarded

Further, reinfections were not modeled, and the analysis focused on acute infection rather than chronic disease.

Speed of Spread Mattered More than Severity

One of the clearest lessons from the simulation was how fast H5N1 spreads through a herd might matter more than how sick individual cows appear.

The model evaluated low, medium and high infectivity scenarios. In high-infectivity cases, nearly the entire herd became sick within about 30 days. That rapid clustering overwhelmed treatment capacity, increasing the risk of dehydration, delayed care and mortality. This wasn’t because the disease was more severe but because too many animals required attention at once.

“That’s a tremendous effort to simultaneously try to treat every cow in your herd at the same exact time due to limited resources,” says Nelson Alfaro Rivas, simulation consultant with MOSIMTEC. “Unfortunately, some of the cows might succumb just because of dehydration from the disease just because you don’t have an unlimited number of veterinarians to try and hydrate the cows as they’re sick.”

In lower-infectivity scenarios, illness spread more slowly, peaking later and involving fewer animals simultaneously. The contrast underscored why early isolation, movement control and disease recognition can fundamentally change outcomes.

Milk Loss Didn’t End When Cows Recovered

Even when cows clinically recovered, milk production did not bounce back quickly.

The simulation assumed infected cows experienced either a 15% or 30% reduction in milk yield for the remainder of their lactation, figures drawn from field observations. In high-infectivity, worst-case scenarios, total milk production across the herd fell sharply within the first month.

Over time, those losses accumulated. In the most severe scenarios, the herd produced approximately 25% less milk over the modeled period compared with an uninfected baseline. Perhaps more striking, herd-level production did not return to baseline for almost a year, long after the active outbreak had resolved.

“How long does it take to recover from something like this?” Rivas asks. “All the cows were recovered by day 26, but what you don’t really see is that the herd that got infected doesn’t really recover and produce the same amount of milk as the non-infected herd until almost 300 days later.”

This gap matters not only for producers but also reframes recovery as an extended process rather than a clinical endpoint.

Recovery Didn’t Mean Economic Recovery

Because dairies run on thin margins, sustained milk loss drove decisions beyond treatment and recovery. Cows producing well below expectation after infection were more likely to be removed from the herd, even if they survived the disease itself.

“At the end of the day, farms are businesses, and you can’t keep an underproducing and therefore unprofitable cow,” Rivas says.

The model reinforced a familiar reality: Profitability, not survival alone, determines herd composition after disease events.

Where Biosecurity Fits

Biosecurity practices were not explicitly modeled as individual actions. Instead, their effects were represented indirectly through changes in infectivity. Lower infectivity scenarios approximated the benefit of practices such as isolating sick cows, cleaning equipment and controlling farm access.

Those measures come with costs — labor, time and disruption — but the simulation showed even modest reductions in spread speed dramatically altered outcomes. The model did not attempt to assign dollar values to biosecurity steps, but it made clear why reducing infectivity yields outsized returns.

Why This Matters Now

What this model ultimately provides is a clearer sense of risk timing, not new disease facts. By compressing complex outbreak dynamics into a single on-farm view, it shows how quickly routine management assumptions can be tested once disease pressure rises, particularly when multiple animals require attention at the same time. The practical consequence is that delays in recognition or response can carry operational costs that aren’t immediately visible.

The take away is not alarm but foresight. Decisions around monitoring, separation and communication that are made early shape how manageable an outbreak remains and how disruptive its aftermath becomes. By visualizing those downstream effects in advance, the model offers a way to stress-test response strategies before they’re needed, helping dairies prepare for uncertainty rather than react to it.

Waste Milk Feeding Alters Calf Immune Development

Tue, 06 Jan 2026 16:05:31 GMT

For many dairies, feeding waste milk — milk that can’t be sold because of antibiotic residues, high somatic cell counts or other quality issues — is an appealing way to save on calf-rearing costs. It’s calorie-rich, familiar to calves and readily available. However, waste milk is one of the least standardized inputs in calf nutrition as it varies in microbial load, drug residues and inflammatory components. While the short-term economics are easy to calculate, the potential biological impact is less clear.

Most evaluations of waste milk stop at visible outcomes like growth rates or scours. What’s harder to see is how early antigen exposure shapes immune development below the surface. New research from the University of São Paulo shows the immune system of a growing Holstein calf responds differently depending on whether it’s fed salable milk (SM), pasteurized waste milk (PWM) or raw waste milk (WM).

In the study, 30 calves were raised on one of these three liquid diets for the first nine weeks of life and regularly sampled for immune markers and cellular responses. Although overall health scores (temperature, diarrhea prevalence, respiratory signs) didn’t differ among groups, the internal immune story was much more revealing.

Immune Cell Counts and Cytokines Shift With Waste Milk Feeding

Calves fed PWM and WM showed consistent differences in systemic immune markers:

Serum total protein and Brix values were higher in WM calves.
Total protein and Brix are composite biomarkers influenced by both innate inflammatory response and adaptive humoral immunity. This observed increase likely represents innate immune responses associated with increased microbial and antigen exposure.

Plasma IgG concentrations did not differ by diet.
Levels followed the expected passive transfer pattern in all groups, with a decline at 21 days as maternal antibodies waned.

PWM and WM calves exhibited increased circulating immune cell numbers.
Lymphocyte and total mononuclear cell counts were higher compared to SM calves, but these did not translate into greater immune function. Immune cell proliferation in response to bacterial challenge was not impacted by liquid diet.

Cytokine profiles differed by diet.
SM and PWM calves produced more IL-10, a regulatory cytokine, while WM calves showed higher IL-17, consistent with a more pro-inflammatory profile.

What These Findings Mean for Calf Health Decisions

Together, these findings suggest waste milk feeding alters immune development in subtle but meaningful ways, even when calves appear outwardly healthy.

Several implications stand out:

Waste milk is not immunologically neutral.
It exposes calves to greater antigenic stimulation, increasing immune cell numbers and inflammatory signaling without improving functional responsiveness.

Higher TP and Brix values should be interpreted cautiously.
In WM calves, these markers likely reflect inflammatory proteins rather than improved humoral immunity.

Pasteurization reduces, but does not eliminate, immune effects.
PWM calves consistently showed intermediate immune profiles between SM and WM, supporting pasteurization as a risk-mitigation step rather than a complete solution.

Early immune skewing might matter most under stress.
An immune system biased toward activation rather than regulation could respond differently during weaning, transport, pathogen exposure or vaccination.

Diet quality is part of immune programming.
Liquid diet decisions influence not just growth and scours but how the calf immune system is shaped during a critical developmental window.

While this study did not directly assess long-term health or vaccine outcomes, it reinforces an important message for calf programs: What calves drink early in life can influence how their immune systems are wired.

Why is H5N1 Showing Up in Cattle?

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 14:02:00 GMT

As H5N1 continues to be detected in U.S. dairy cattle, new research shows some modern bird flu viruses are genetically better equipped to infect bovine cells than earlier strains, helping explain why cattle are now part of the outbreak.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is no longer just an avian problem. Recent detections of H5N1 in dairy cattle, including the latest confirmed case in a Wisconsin herd , have elevated concern among veterinarians, producers and animal health authorities. According to USDA, HPAI has been detected in dairy herds in at least 18 states since March 2024, with milk testing serving as a routine detection pathway.

A newly published Nature Communications study led by scientists at the MRC–University of Glasgow Center for Virus Research provides critical insight into why certain H5N1 viruses are now capable of infecting cattle and highlights that some recent H5N1 variants are better at infecting cow cells and mammary tissues than older viruses. This suggests recent spillover events are not random accidents but might reflect viral genetic traits that support infection in cattle.

“Our work shows that different bird flu viruses have very different abilities to infect cow cells and tissues,” says Professor Massimo Palmarini, from both the Erasmus Medical Center and the MRC–University of Glasgow Center for Virus Research. “While the strain currently spreading in U.S. cattle is clearly the best adapted so far, there are other bird viruses that could potentially infect cows if given the chance.”

Key Findings Veterinarians Should Know

H5N1’s ability to infect cattle varies by viral lineage and the outbreak clade stands out

Researchers evaluated a wide range of historical and contemporary H5N1 viruses in bovine cell systems. The results were clear: Replication efficiency in bovine cells differed substantially between strains. Earlier H5N1 viruses often showed limited replication, while variants of the current outbreak from clade 2.3.4.4b, including genotypes B3.13 and D1.1, performed significantly better.

Why it matters: This variability helps explain why cattle infections are being detected now, after decades of HPAI circulation in birds. This also aligns closely with what field veterinarians are seeing: dairy cows developing clinical signs, such as reduced milk production and abnormal milk, often in the absence of severe respiratory disease.

The phenotypes of the reassortant viruses described in the study using either bovine or human cells and restriction factors as indicated.

(Nature Communications (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-67234-1)

Internal genes, not just surface proteins, drive adaptation

The study highlights that synergistic interactions among internal gene segments, including viral polymerase complex and non-structural genes, play a critical role in determining how well H5N1 replicated in bovine cells. This shifts the focus away from viral surface protein hemagglutinin alone.

Why it matters: Viral evolution that improves replication in cattle could occur without obvious changes to classical avian influenza red flags, complicating surveillance and risk assessment.

Adaptation does not mean inevitability, but it raises the stakes

The authors stop short of suggesting H5N1 is becoming a cattle-adapted virus. However, they do demonstrate a biological pathway for improved compatibility with bovine hosts.

Why it matters: If H5N1 continues circulating in cattle, even transiently, it carries opportunities for viral maintenance, farm-level spread, and additional spillover events.

Connecting Lab Findings to Field Observations

These results provide a critical biological framework for the unusual epidemiology seen in recent cattle detections. The finding that modern H5N1 variants replicate efficiently in bovine mammary cells explains why dairy herds, and not beef, have been the focus of this outbreak and why milk has emerged as a vital surveillance sample.

This shift in viral tropism is directly reflected in the field: Infections are typically identified not by respiratory distress but by sudden drops in milk yield and abnormal milk consistency. While commercial pasteurization ensures the general milk supply remains safe, the high viral loads in raw milk highlight a pressing need for enhanced biosecurity within the milking environment. Ultimately, when production anomalies coincide with local avian influenza activity, H5N1 testing should be considered an essential component of the diagnostic workup.

Can We Shape Calves Before Birth?

Thu, 20 Nov 2025 15:35:49 GMT

What if the most powerful determinant of a calf’s lifetime performance isn’t the genetics you select or the ration you feed, but the environment that calf experienced as a one-cell embryo? As research accelerates, developmental programming is becoming one of the most promising frontiers in cattle reproduction.

For two decades, the beef and dairy industries have focused relentlessly on improving fertility — and it worked. Conception rates rose, days open stabilized and the long slide in reproductive performance reversed. With conventional reproductive efficiency nearing a functional ceiling, scientists are shifting attention upstream, where the environment itself may program the future trajectory of the calf.

It’s well known that a resulting phenotype represents the consequence of genotype and environmental interactions. The performance of an animal depends on the genes they inherited, how much feed they get, whether they get sick, whether it’s hot or cold, and a plethora of other environmental factors.

“We’ve made tremendous progress in optimizing the environment that those animals are raised in by providing the best nutrition, the best housing, the optimal photo period and treating disease with pharmaceuticals to optimize phenotype,” says Peter Hansen of the University of Florida. “But we usually do that after the animals are born. We don’t really think too much about what is happening to those animals when they’re embryos or when they’re fetuses or even when the germ cells are being produced.”

Evidence of Developmental Programming

Recent work has shown us the environment of the mother and the early embryo can affect the postnatal phenotype of that embryo. The environment of the fetus can affect what kind of calf it becomes.

When embryos are produced in vitro, they are put in an artificial medium. Under normal protocols, this culture medium is choline-free. Choline is a methyl donor that may factor into the one-carbon metabolism of bovine embryos. In the uterus, choline is present at millimolar concentrations.

Work led by Eliam Estrada-Cortes in Dr. Hansen’s lab investigated the effect of culturing bovine embryos with or without choline. They found choline cultured embryos resulted in calves that were heavier at weaning with altered muscle DNA methylation.

“We’ve done this experiment three times, and each time the choline calves weigh more than the calves without choline. And that goes all the way through to slaughter,” Hansen says. A nutrient present (or absent) in the culture dish during critical development time can make a big difference.

The condition of the fertilizing bull can also affect embryonic development and quality. Arslan Tariq from the University of Florida investigated the effect of bull overnutrition on fertility, finding heavier bulls produced semen that delayed embryonic development and decreased embryo quality, without changes to sperm motility or fertilization rate.

Historically, seminal plasma is removed from sperm for artificial insemination as it contains elements that can be detrimental during storage. That being said, seminal plasma modulates the maternal environment in a significant way, impacting the establishment and maintenance of pregnancy. As a part of her PhD thesis, Gabriela Macay at the University of Florida evaluated the reproductive, health and production performance of female offspring conceived in the presence of seminal plasma. These animals had increased birth weights, increased milk yield and had greater persistence in the herd compared to controls.

“What we now know is the environment of the mother that the early embryo is in can affect the postnatal phenotype of that embryo. The environment of the fetus can affect what kind of calf it becomes,” Hansen says. “And the environment of the bull.”

How Does This Affect Reproductive Management?

Developmental programming shifts reproductive management from a focus on achieving conception to a broader view of how early-life conditions shape an animal’s long-term health, productivity and resilience. This expands the veterinary role from problem solver to long term system designer who helps producers make choices that shape herd-level outcomes years down the line.

The next revolution in cattle reproduction may come from understanding the earliest biological environment that determines how a calf learns to grow, metabolize and perform.

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.

Staph. aureus is being Confirmed More Frequently as the Culprit Contributing to Subclinical Mastitis

Mon, 07 Apr 2025 20:39:38 GMT

If you look hard enough, you can find Staphylococcus aureus (Staph aureus) in at least one cow on every dairy, according to Dr. Justine Britten a PhD animal scientist working at Udder Health Systems Inc .

Despite that bold statement, Britten is not implying every dairy has a mastitis problem or is gearing up for an outbreak. Rather, she is pointing out how common the pathogen is on the farm and that it often flies under the radar, contributing most frequently to subclinical disease.

“One thing I’m still surprised about, is I think that most producers, veterinarians, and consultants know that, and they don’t necessarily,” she tells Dr. Fred Gingrich, Executive Director for the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, during a recent “Have You Herd” podcast: Managing Staph aureus Mastitis in Dairy Cows

Britten says that the prevalence of Staph aureus is increasing, based on the 7,800 bulk milk samples her company tests, on average, each year. From 2017 to 2021, the prevalence stayed relatively flat at about 20%. Today, the prevalence is more than double that.

“We’re seeing it now at around 44% to 45% of all bulk tank samples we do are positive for Staph aureus,” she says.

Consider The Heifer Population

Something Britten says has surprised her is that heifers may calve into a subclinical infection, resulting from Staph aureus, even in a closed herd.

“Being a closed herd will help reduce the chances that’s going to happen, but it’s still possible,” she says.

In evaluating literature, Britten says between 2% and 15% of heifers are going to calve in with it, and they may have a clinical episode. However, cell counts in the infected heifers tend to be low which lessens detection.

“That’s one of the most frustrating things, is that positive heifers may stay around 100,000 or less with their cell count for quite a while before it begins to climb, and that makes it really difficult for producers to get their minds around the fact that this animal is permanently infected with a contagious pathogen. It also makes the disease that much more difficult to manage,” she says.

If the dairy is not proactively screening, heifers typically recover from an episode and look fine. At that point, they are usually returned to the herd where they may infect other heifers and cows.

“My takeaway is if Staph aureus was easier to see, more like a mycoplasma, I suspect producers would be a lot less tolerant of it than they currently are,” she says.

Screen All Cows And Heifers

Britten considers a monthly bulk tank culture as the bare minimum that a dairy can do towards monitoring pathogens in the bulk tank, and she calls it an incredibly helpful tool.

“You’re really operating in a vacuum otherwise,” she says. “Even by monitoring at the bulk tank level, we’re monitoring at the 10,000-foot view. But if [the dairy] is not doing any other culturing, it’s still better than nothing.”

Britten says she is a strong advocate for screening all cows and heifers as that’s the most proactive approach to prevention.

“It works, I know that it works, but it is very important to have some kind of audit system in place, so that you get them all, not 50% of them, not 70% of them, all of them, and that you have a management plan in place for what to do with them,” she says.

On the dairies she works with that have a very low staff positivity rate, they often sell the cows.

“They’re not going to tolerate them, while for others it’s too expensive to do that,” she says. “They’re going to go into a staff pen, or with the heifers, they try and treat them and see if we can get them cleared up. But yeah, screening, culturing of all fresh cows and heifers is the best way to find those animals early and to manage them.”

Take-Home Messages

In the podcast, Gingrich and Britten discuss that in outbreak situations it is important to evaluate why cows are getting infected and remember that cows typically get infected in the parlor and focus efforts there. This includes evaluating teat condition, parlor procedures and equipment function.

Aggressive culturing programs, segregation and culling are important to minimize risk.

Britten provides these three additional take-home points, per the AABP discussion:

Take-home point #1 – Not all Staph aureus colonies exhibit beta-hemolysis, therefore, it is important that all Staph colonies undergo coagulase testing to identify Staph aureus.

Take-home point #2 – Monthly bulk tank cultures are a bare minimum monitoring program for dairy farms.

Take-home point #3 – Somatic cell count is a lagging indicator and cultures will detect infections earlier. Britten emphasized that the difference lies in management practices. Proactive monitoring, culturing, and implementing strict control measures can prevent Staph aureus from becoming a major issue, even though the pathogen is present.

For more information and recommendations, be sure to check out the podcast: Managing Staph aureus Mastitis in Dairy Cows

Some California Veterinarians Say Virus-Hit Dairies See More Abortions in First-Calf Heifers and Dry Cows

Tue, 14 Jan 2025 20:11:12 GMT

Triple-digit temperatures lasting for days and then weeks helped fuel a firestorm of highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus (HPAI A H5N1) cases on California dairy farms last summer.

“August wasn’t too bad, September was kind of rough, and then early October was severe,” recalls Dr. Maxwell Beal. “I think part of the problem was the cows had little relief from the heat even at night.”

But even with the onset of winter, Beal, with Mill Creek Veterinary Services, Visalia, Calif., adds that, “Cooler temperatures haven’t slowed the spread.”

Indeed, cases of the virus continue to trend upward in California. The state, the single largest producer of milk in the U.S., with 1,300 commercial herds and 1.7 million milk cows, holds the dubious distinction of being the current epicenter for HPAI H5N1.

As of Dec. 19, 2024, the California Department of Food and Agriculture had confirmed 650 dairy cowherds – roughly half of the commercial herds in the state – had been infected with the virus (see AHFSS - AHB - H5N1 Bird Flu Virus in Livestock - CDFA).

Bovine Veterinarian talked with several veterinarians in the Golden State and elsewhere about what their herds, producers and farmworkers have experienced and how they are addressing the virus. This is a summary of what practitioners shared.

Younger Dairy Animals Are Being Affected, As Well As Lactating Cows.

Among production animals on the dairy farm, lactating cows have taken the brunt of the virus infections so far, but that doesn’t mean other segments in cowherds aren’t or can’t be affected.

“I’m hearing reports from California veterinarians of sick young calves and challenges with cows resuming production and reports of dry cows aborting,” says Dr. Barb Petersen, owner and operator of Sunrise Veterinary Service, Amarillo, Texas. Petersen helped confirm the first case of HPAI H5N1 identified in U.S. dairy cattle last spring.

One of those reports came to her from Beal in California.

“I tell people, ‘Don’t sleep on your heifers, calves or your bulls, because there could be issues that we don’t know about yet simply because that’s not been our focus,’” says Beal, who reports that his virus-hit dairies have all experienced an uptick of abortions in first-calf heifers.

“One thing that happens at every affected dairy is we lose more calves, that were already called pregnant, and they’ll be all over the map as far as gestational age,” he says.

“It happens to dry cows, it happens to big calves, and these heifer abortions were all at 180- to 220-days (DCC), somewhere in there,” he adds. “Whether that’s directly caused by the bird flu or it’s caused by the clinical symptoms of the flu, I don’t know. And it’s the same for other veterinarians in our practice to the point that we will go back and reconfirm pregnant animals that we had already reconfirmed.”

Dr. Blaine Melody has had similar experiences: “We’ve consistently seen more early embryonic death and fetal loss at various days of gestation. We have recommended clients switch from long-acting dry cow tubes to lactating if we’re given the heads up before clinical outbreak, via early non-negative bulk tanks,” says Melody, a partner at Lander Veterinary Clinic, Turlock, Calif.

The Virus Amplifies Existing Health And Management Issues.

While HPAI H5N1 is associated with high morbidity and mortality in birds, this hasn’t been the case for dairy cattle in most regions of the country. Most affected animals reportedly recover with supportive treatment, and the mortality/culling rate has been low at 2% or less, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.

That percentage fits with Beal’s experience in California, but dairy producers in some parts of the state have reported higher mortality levels. Some have experienced cow mortality rates as high as 15% or 20%, according to a Reuters article published in October. See Cows dead from bird flu rot in California

“Cows that get H5N1 are compromised, so any other health issues that are present in the dairy increase,” Beal explains. “Staph aureus, mastitis, mycoplasma, all of them go up.”

“The virus takes the problems that are already on your dairy that you’ve either figured out how to cope with or they’re just sitting at a low level, and it exacerbates them for probably a month,” he adds.

Melody says management quality plays a huge role in what producers and their employees must deal with when the virus hits.

“If you have overcrowded pens, bad cow comfort, poor nutrition management, poor transition cow management or any other underlying risk factors, you will have a worse outcome with a clinical HPAI outbreak. That’s a given,” he says.

In mid-December, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to address the virus in California dairy cattle, ramping up monitoring, quarantine efforts, and resource deployment. See California Issues State of Emergency Warning in Response to More Bird Flu Found on Dairies

The number of farmworkers infected with the virus is likely higher than what’s being reported.

Officially, there have been 66 confirmations of human being infected by the virus in the U.S. See H5 Bird Flu: Current Situation

Melody, Beal and other veterinarians told Bovine Veterinarian they have seen presumed infected employees on farms working with cows.

“Some of these workers are at potential risk, because we don’t know all the ways this virus is spreading yet,” Melody says.

“They just put their heads down and work, so they can keep their paycheck,” Beal adds.

Drenching Cows Can Help, But Rest Can Do As Much Good In Some Scenarios.

Both Beal and Melody say drenching can help clinical HPAI cows, but veterinarians and their producers need a good plan for the treatment to work well.

Beal says there is a significant learning curve for people who have never or seldom drenched a cow. Employees on some of the infected dairies he works with went from never using the practice to suddenly treating hundreds and even thousands of cows a day.

In that intense scenario, Beal says it’s nearly impossible for employees to succeed.

“When you run a drench hose through 1,000 cows, you will not do as good a job with that last cow as you did with the first one,” he explains.

There is real potential to cause more harm than good to the animal physically, Melody adds.

“Drenching can help, but if you’re locking cows up too long or drowning cows because you’re drenching lots of cows and you’re exhausted, that undoes any good you’re trying to accomplish,” he says.

Beal says after working with a couple of outbreaks, he decided to try a different approach.

“We started to use a let-the-cows-rest approach, and I felt like we were still doing just as much good for the animals and not exhausting our staff in the process,” he says.

However, he continued to encourage workers to drench the ones that were clinically dehydrated or exhibiting signs of duress.

“I would say the ones that showed clinical signs to the degree that they warranted treatment has averaged around 30% in a herd,” Beal says. “The ones that are obviously clinically affected we need to treat, but not necessarily the ‘she’s got a runny nose,’ cows.”

What Is Your Definition Of Disease?

Melody says one of the challenges is how veterinarians and producers define disease as well as their definition of severity. With regard to HPAI H5N1, he has observed inconsistent practices and varied approaches to reporting, because people don’t have a consistent benchmark for reference.

“When you get HPAI on dairies, every cow that gets sick is then called a flu cow, but you can’t conflate that it’s all influenza,” he says.

Melody also encourages practitioners to keep a tight rein on their treatment protocols and to maintain consistent practices with regard to regulations.

“If you make things gray, when it comes to regulatory standards, we can quickly start to spiral, because you start going, ‘Well, we made this exception for this, so why not here too?’” Melody says. “Stay with your established playbook, and don’t deviate from it.”

Melody and Beal both say they have been frustrated at times by slow turnarounds by state laboratories responsible for providing test results. Their advice: Be a squeaky wheel with regard to getting virus test results.

“Many testing labs are overrun with samples, and the process gets bogged down, or the results don’t get to the veterinarian because of confidentiality rules,” Melody says.

“Some people are shipping animals that are infected but don’t know it because they didn’t get the information back in a timely fashion from the bulk tank tests,” Beal adds. “There needs to be a reworking of the testing protocols.”

Nutrition And Cow Comfort Practices Can Help Affected Animals Return To Good Production Levels.

Melody and Beal say most of their clients’ cows return to a good level of production post infection.

“Now, do they all come back 100%? No, I haven’t seen that on any of my dairies,” Beal says. “If people compare production now to last December, there’s likely a deficit. Some of the cows are ending up 5 lb. to 6 lb. under where they were this same time last year. That’s not unusual.”

Beal adds that veterinarians who can talk with their clients about what ramifications to expect from the disease, before it ever reaches their herd, can probably save a significant number of cows from being culled in the future.

What can improve that scenario for virus-impacted cows in the future is investing dollars in nutrition and facilities as farm resources permit, Melody adds.

“Renovate your dry cow barn, put some shade over those animals, put a little extra metabolizable protein into the fresh cows right now to make sure they’re getting off to a good start,” Melody advises. “Do good management, the things that you know are going to make your cows strong. Those things will pay for themselves whether you’re in the midst of a virus outbreak or wanting to help cows in the long-term.”

____________________________________________________________________________

‘No Established Gold Standard’

Dr. Blaine Melody, a partner at Lander Veterinary Clinic in Turlock, Calif., says somatic cell counts (SCC) are not a gold standard for defining parameters of the HPAI A H5N1 virus. He says SCCs can be wildly different for each farm because of management differences — whether dumping not dumping milk, sturdy versus frail cows, good or bad preexisting milk quality practices.

“My goal is trying to get as close to an apples-to-apples comparison between farms, and you can only decipher that by knowing the farms and asking more questions when people start throwing numbers around,” he says.

Melody offers one real-life example from his experience:

“Two dairies get HPAI at the same time,” Melody says. “One farm gets hammered with a 15% cow clinical mastitis case rate for the duration of the epidemic. The other farm may say it never had any HPAI clinical mastitis cows and only treated a handful of febrile cows with no milk, respiratory or GI disease. You look at their records and can confirm that to be ‘true.’ You ask more questions and also learn that the primary method of identifying mastitis is different between those two farms: the first farm strips and visually screens each quarter for abnormal milk, while the second does not and relies solely on milk conductivity sensors.”

“The vast majority of these clinical cows in our area are mild cases of mastitis with no effect on the udder or cow,” he adds. “This thick, clinical HPAI milk did not get flagged with conductivity sensors. Even within the same brand there can be modified settings farm to farm. The truth in this example ‘lied’ in the salable milk quality when their SCC more than doubled.

“The importance is understanding the farm management differences and knowing what further questions to ask rather than jumping at naked numbers that are often without clear denominators,” Melody says.
____________________________________________________________________________

200-Plus Mammal Species Infected

While researchers have learned a lot about HPAI A H5N1 since its confirmation in a Texas dairy herd in March 2024, much is still unknown, including the various ways the disease might spread and which animals it infects.

According to USDA’s APHIS, in addition to dairy cows, more than 200 other mammal species in the U.S. have been infected by the virus since 2022. One of the hardest hit animal populations on farms are barn cats, which often consume colostrum and raw milk, not to mention potentially infected birds and vermin.

Other U.S. mammals infected with the virus include a bottlenose dolphin, foxes, bobcats, mountain lions, coyotes, skunks, harbor and grey seals, opossums, squirrels, minks, otters, black bears, brown bears, polar bears, and a single pig on a backyard farm in Oregon, confirmed in late October.

Your Next Read: I’m Going Into 2025 With Increased Concerns About HPAI H5N1

10 Understated Things Economists Say Could Impact Agriculture in the New Year

Thu, 26 Dec 2024 16:29:47 GMT

This past year was definitely full of surprises, but there were also happenings in agriculture that economists warned about at the end of 2023.

The bleak outlook for commodity prices, along with elevated interest rates, created a downturn in the ag economy, which is something many economists warned would happen. It’s the speed of which margins crumbled that might have been the bigger surprise.

The latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists if the U.S. was either in a recession or on the brink of one. The majority of ag economists say U.S. agriculture is ending the year in a recession.

56% of ag economists responded by saying agriculture is currently in a recession, which is up from the 53% who responded that way in October.
81% of economists surveyed said the U.S ag economy is on the brink of a recession, which is a significant jump from the 56% of economists who responded that way in the October survey.

One occurrence that wasn’t on anyone’s radar in 2023: H5N1. What was first thought to be a mystery illness impacting dairy herds in Texas was later confirmed as Highly Pathogenic Avian Flu, the first time the disease was detected in mammals.

At the end of 2024, what are economists watching in 2025? In Farm Journal’s latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, we asked economists: “What’s the one factor impacting the ag economy that’s not being talked about or covered by the media enough right now?”

From trade to deregulation plus numerous unknowns in a new administration, economists have no shortage of issues they’re watching in the new year.

Here’s What Economists Are Saying:

“The media seems consumed with the negatives of a Trump administration/Republican trifecta. It’s certainly good to be aware of the challenges with any political transition, but more forward thinking on what is positive, would be helpful: the outlook for taxes, biofuels policy, trade deals with agriculture included, deregulation all seem to be potential positives we could be talking about more.”
“Prospective tariff war is being downplayed, despite published research measuring expected range of damage.”
“Farmer attitudes toward alternative land use: CRP, solar and other forms to help diversify incomes.”
“Policy uncertainty is high right now. Will tariffs be imposed and if so, what will be the reaction of other countries? Will the new Administration take regulatory actions that favor or hurt the biofuel industry? What will be the outcome of debates over tax and budgetary policy? Will economic assistance to the farm sector be approved during the lame duck session or in early 2025? What about a new farm bill? Many people are making assumptions about how these questions will be answered, but we don’t know.”
“Farm income varies greatly by region. While we often focus on the Midwest and the financial health of that region, it is also important to notice that regions in the southern U.S. are really struggling.” It is also important to watch what production adjustments producers make to cope with today’s tighter operating margins?
“Could federal budget cuts/austerity dramatically change/reduce the federal farm income safety net?”
“Cash rent prices staying constant during a downturn in crop prices.”
“Let’s be clear — the clean fuels tax credit goes to the fuel producer, not the farmer. It enables market access into the biofuels market for the farm economy, but the ability for the farm economy to capitalize upon it is hamstrung by credit levels that have incentivized large inflows of foreign feedstocks at the expense of literally homegrown feedstocks like SBO.”
“The Brazil real is depreciating, which eventually leads to more U.S. competition.”
“China, Europe, Mexico and others know what to expect out of Trump. They’ve seen it before. Everyone is discounting the possibility that Trump’s tariff threat could result in some pre-emptive trade agreements that benefit us here in the states. The U.S. is the biggest buyer of consumer goods in the world. They can’t afford to cut us off. Note that I said consumer goods, not commodities.”

Your Next Read — Economic Loss Assistance Program Payments Passed by Congress: Here’s What Farmers Need to Know

USDA Announces New Federal Order, Begins National Milk Testing Strategy to Address H5N1 in Dairy Herds

Fri, 06 Dec 2024 19:32:32 GMT

Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is announcing the start of its National Milk Testing Strategy (NMTS), which builds on measures taken by USDA and federal and state partners since the outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 in dairy cattle was first detected in March 2024. Today, USDA is issuing a new Federal Order, as well as accompanying guidance, requiring that raw (unpasteurized) milk samples nationwide be collected and shared with USDA for testing. This new guidance from USDA, which was developed with significant input from state, veterinary and public health stakeholders, will facilitate comprehensive H5N1 surveillance of the nation’s milk supply and dairy herds.

“Since the first HPAI detection in livestock, USDA has collaborated with our federal, state and industry partners to swiftly and diligently identify affected herds and respond accordingly. This new milk testing strategy will build on those steps to date and will provide a roadmap for states to protect the health of their dairy herds,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Among many outcomes, this will give farmers and farmworkers better confidence in the safety of their animals and ability to protect themselves, and it will put us on a path to quickly controlling and stopping the virus’ spread nationwide. USDA is grateful to our partners who have provided input to make this strategy effective and actionable, and we look forward to continued collaboration in seeing this through.”

This NMTS is designed to increase USDA’s and public health partners’ understanding of the virus’ spread in the United States through a structured, uniform, and mandatory testing system that will help swiftly identify which states, and specific herds within them, are affected with H5N1; support the rapid implementation of enhanced biosecurity measures to decrease the risk of transmission to other livestock; and importantly, inform critical efforts to protect farmworkers to help lower their risk of exposure. USDA believes this additional step is needed to proactively support effective biosecurity measures, which is key for states and farmers to contain and eliminate H5N1 infections from their livestock and to eliminate HPAI in livestock across the U.S. dairy population.

“This testing strategy is a critical part of our ongoing efforts to protect the health and safety of individuals and communities nationwide,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “Our primary responsibility at HHS is to protect public health and the safety of the food supply, and we continue to work closely with USDA and all stakeholders on continued testing for H5N1 in retail milk and dairy samples from across the country to ensure the safety of the commercial pasteurized milk supply. We will continue this work with USDA for as long and as far as necessary.”

The Federal Order released today makes three new requirements. First, it requires the sharing of raw milk samples, upon request, from any entity responsible for a dairy farm, bulk milk transporter, bulk milk transfer station, or dairy processing facility that sends or holds milk intended for pasteurization. Second, the Federal Order requires herd owners with positive cattle to provide epidemiological information that enables activities such as contact tracing and disease surveillance. Finally, like USDA’s April 24 Federal Order, it requires that private laboratories and state veterinarians report positive results to USDA that come from tests done on raw milk samples drawn as part of the NMTS. The first round of silo testing under the Federal Order and the NMTS is scheduled to begin the week of Dec. 16, 2024, although some states are already conducting testing compatible with the NMTS.

This new Federal Order does not override or supersede USDA’s April 24 Federal Order , which still requires the mandatory testing of lactating dairy cows prior to interstate shipment and requires that all privately owned laboratories and state veterinarians report positive test results connected with those tests. The new Federal Order announced today is intended to complement and enhance this existing order.

National Milk Testing Strategy

As part of the National Milk Testing Strategy, APHIS will work with each state in the contiguous United States to execute testing in a way that works for the state and that aligns with the NMTS standards. Once a state begins testing under the NMTS, APHIS will place that state into one of five stages based on the HPAI H5N1 virus prevalence in that state. As states move to another stage, we will have a stronger picture of our progress towards eliminating HPAI H5N1 at state, regional and national levels. These stages include:

Stage 1: Standing Up Mandatory USDA National Plant Silo Monitoring

USDA will immediately begin nationwide testing of milk silos at dairy processing facilities. This national sample will allow USDA to identify where the disease is present, monitor trends, and help states identify potentially affected herds.

Stage 2: Determining a State’s H5N1 Dairy Cattle Status

Building on the results of silo monitoring, in collaboration with states, USDA will also stand up bulk tank sampling programs that will enable us to identify herds in the state that are affected with H5N1.

Stage 3: Detecting and Responding to the Virus in Affected States

For states with H5N1 detections, APHIS will work quickly to identify specific cases and implement rapid response measures, including enhanced biosecurity using USDA’s existing incentives programs, movement controls and contact tracing.

Stage 4: Demonstrating Ongoing Absence of H5 in Dairy Cattle in Unaffected States

Once all dairy herds in a given state are considered to be unaffected, APHIS will continue regular sampling of farms’ bulk tanks to ensure the disease does not re-emerge. Bulk tank sampling frequency will progressively decline as the state demonstrates continual silo negativity (e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly if continually negative). If a state becomes affected, USDA will re-engage detection and response activities, and the state will return to Stage 3.

Stage 5: Demonstrating Freedom from H5 in U.S. Dairy Cattle

After all states move through Stage Four, APHIS will work with the states to begin periodic sampling and testing to illustrate long-term absence from the national herd.

As of this announcement, the following six states will be included in the first round of states brought into the program for testing: California, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

As states begin testing under the NMTS and as they move through the five stages, their progress will be shared at USDA HPAI in Livestock Testing . While the majority of states will enter the NMTS at Stage 1, we anticipate states with ongoing testing may meet the testing requirements described above in Stages 2-4. USDA will work closely with states to determine each state’s status. While the majority of states will enter the NMTS at Stage 1, we anticipate states with ongoing testing may meet the testing requirements described above in Stages 2-4. USDA will work closely with states to determine each state’s status.

Webinars and Additional Information

USDA will co-host information sessions for all state animal health officials and state dairy regulators the week of Dec. 9 to learn more about the National Plant Silo Monitoring and sampling procedures. These sessions are scheduled for Tuesday Dec. 10 and Wednesday Dec. 11 to allow multiple opportunities for dairy regulators and industry stakeholders to participate.

APHIS has been working diligently to educate and inform key state and animal health partners about this Federal Order and National Milk Testing Strategy, as well as to establish written agreements with states to support how they can work with USDA under the new strategy.

APHIS has also sought and received input from state animal and public health partners about potential needs for the strategy and implementation across their various states, particularly for standardized sampling tools, outreach, and potential personnel and fiscal resources from USDA.

In the coming weeks, APHIS will include additional states in the NMTS. Throughout this process APHIS will continue to support and offer resources to states that develop bulk milk testing plans in a way that meets the needs of each state and the importance of the response. APHIS will work with each of the 48 contiguous states to participate in the program.

USDA’s Multifaceted Effort to Address H5N1

Since confirming the initial H5N1 infections in cattle in March 2024, USDA has taken significant steps to better understand and control the virus’s spread. This response was aided by APHIS’ more than 50 years of experience in research and managing influenzas across other animal species, and by long-standing partnerships with state animal health officials that allow for the swift establishment of all testing and response activities. APHIS and state partners have seen significant success in responding to detections identified through state-level testing programs, and the NMTS builds on these efforts and will better identify the prevalence of the virus and guide response steps nationwide.

USDA has provided all H5 livestock testing through the NAHLN laboratory network, free of charge, regardless of whether it was performed for pre-movement testing under the current Federal Order; through the Dairy Herd Status Program; under testing programs that some states have designed pursuant to their unique authorities; prior to intrastate movement to fairs, exhibitions, or sales as part of state testing programs; or for producers interested in learning the status of their livestock herds. As a result of this testing, USDA has received samples from each of the 48 contiguous states over the course of this outbreak, with all confirmed positive findings being reported through the APHIS website, and whole genome sequences of each detected virus uploaded to public databases.

USDA continues to stress to farmers nationwide that effective biosecurity practices are the best weapon against the spread of disease, and that all farms should review their current biosecurity measures and ensure best practices identified over the past eight months are incorporated, even if H5N1 has not been detected in their state or region.

USDA strongly encourages herd owners to participate in the already available producer support programs, which help to cover the cost such as biosecurity programming, PPE for employees, and veterinary care. Producers can find more information at Financial Assistance | Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service , or at your nearest USDA Farm Service Agency county office .

USDA Research Related to H5N1 in Dairy Cattle

USDA has been working collaboratively with its federal partners at HHS to better understand the origin of the emergence of the virus and its potential impact in both bovines and humans. USDA has leveraged its laboratories, researchers, and regulatory agencies to address this issue and, in partnership with FDA, help ensure the safety of our nation’s food supply. This includes lab and personnel support for FDA-designed studies to test the safety of milk and dairy products and reaffirm the efficacy of pasteurization for the safety of products on retail shelves. USDA FSIS has also completed a series of studies on beef , which demonstrate that safely cooking beef inactivates the H5N1 virus, if present. USDA APHIS has also prepared and shared two separate epidemiological reports on the virus and its spread, which can inform biosecurity practices and next steps.

To learn more about USDA’s response to HPAI in dairy cattle, visit www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock .

#

Oregano: Not Just for Pizza Anymore

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:05:20 GMT

Move over, pizza and pasta. Oregano – specifically, its essential oil – is finding its way into calf diets.

Oregano essential oil has been shown to have antibacterial properties against Gram-negative bacteria, especially E. coli. It also has been shown to have antiviral and anticryptosporidial effects in laboratory settings.

Two recent studies examined the effects of oregano essential oil in calf diets.

The first study, led by researchers at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece, examined the effects on early life diarrhea by supplementing newborn calves with Greek oregano essential oil. A total of 91 Holstein calves from three dairy farmers were included.

Half of the calves received a drench of oregano essential oil at 12.5 mg/kg of bodyweight for the first 10 days of life. The other half received no treatment. The researchers noted that, because oregano oil has a strong flavor, they opted for a drench delivery to avoid affecting milk intakes. The oil was diluted with saline solution up to 60 mL.

Results included:

· The overall incidence of diarrhea was significantly lower in the calves receiving oregano oil. That difference was the result of a dramatically lower incidence at one of the farms, which had outstanding hygiene, leading the researchers to speculate that diarrhea incidence was reduced most effectively by oregano oil when pathogen loads were low.

· For calves from all farms, the severity of diarrhea was appreciably lower in the oregano-oil-treated calves. This was the result of a lower number of days with diarrhea, lower diarrhea index, shorter duration of sickness, and fewer calves requiring treatment (antibiotic and supportive therapy).

The researchers speculated that reduced severity of diarrhea in calves treated with oregano oils was due to inhibition of coliform bacteria overgrowth in the small intestine of diarrheic calves, leading to lower incidence of bacteremia.

The second study , conducted at the Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences in China, examined the potential of replacing monensin with oregano essential oil in the grower diet of weaned Holstein bull calves. The research team speculated that oregano could provide the same benefits to rumen fermentation as monensin, modulating rumen fermentation and potentially lowering acidosis.

One of four treatments was assigned to three calves each, for a total of 12 calves in the study. Starting at 70 days of age, calves were followed for the next 240 days, receiving (1) no treatment (control); (2) oregano essential oil at 36 mg/kg of dry matter (DM)in the TMR; (3) monensin at 25 mg/kg of DM; and (4) a combination therapy including both the same dose of oregano oil and monensin.

Both the oregano essential oil group and the monensin group had significantly higher weight gain than the other two groups. Interestingly, the lowest weight gain was in the combination therapy group, leading the researchers to believe that the two treatments had an antagonistic effect on one another.

They concluded that using oregano essential oil alone could be a valid alternative to monensin, providing a non-antibiotic alternative that still yielded growth promotion benefits.

Livestock and mRNA Vaccines: What You Need To Know

Fri, 27 Sep 2024 01:56:43 GMT

As misinformation regarding the use of mRNA vaccines in livestock filter through social media, there are facts begging to be set straight.

Recently, a claim was made saying producers are required to inject livestock with mRNA vaccines.

According to USDA spokesperson, Marissa Perry says, “There is no requirement or mandate that producers vaccinate their livestock for any disease. It is a personal and business decision left up to the producer and will remain that way,” in response to the claim, Associated Press shared in an article .

National Pork Board’s Director of Consumer Public Relations, Jason Menke echoed the statement to AP, noting that the decision to use vaccines and other medical treatments to protect animal health and well-being are made by the farmer under the direction of the herd veterinarian.

To further explain mRNA vaccines and shed light on controversies, Dr. Kevin Folta, a molecular biologist and professor at the University of Florida, shares his viewpoint and experience with the technology.

What are mRNA Vaccines?

First introduced to the population through the COVID-19 vaccines, mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines have been in development for decades, says Folta in a recent AgriTalk segment.

He adds that the technology’s potential in human health makes it a likely candidate to have a place in animal health as well. However, “the technology is being maligned in social media, and is now shaping decisions at the level of state legislature,” Folta says. This leads to the growing importance that producers and consumers become more educated on the topic.

What Folta believes began in January of this year, based on claims with very little data, certain advocates against mRNA vaccines are concerned that mRNA vaccines are in use and development in livestock. Additionally, these vaccines may then be present in the food these animals provide.

Why mRNA Vaccines Are Not Present in Food

“It’s not in your food. It’s a vaccine for the animal that, just like any vaccine, protects the animal from disease,” Folta says.

Current mRNA vaccines being used in swine are injected into the muscle, Folta explains, which causes the development of the immune response protein to then stimulate the body to work against the virus.

“In the absence of the virus, it’s kind of like giving the virus or giving the body a ‘wanted’ poster that says, ‘when this individual comes along, and this virus comes along, work against it,’ and it’s all gone within hours,” he adds.

The mRNA never leaves the cells from where it was injected. RNA is a very unstable molecule that must be kept cold, buffered and in solvent, to remain viable, Folta explains.

Additionally, any licensed vaccine comes with a minimum time before that animal can enter the food chain, also known as the “withdrawal time,” says Alan Young, professor in the Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences at South Dakota State University and founder of protein platform (non-mRNA) vaccine company Medgene.

The Animal’s Genes Are Not Altered

While mRNA vaccines include genetic code, Folta says the use of a mRNA vaccines does not alter the animal’s genes in any way.

“This [mRNA] is an intermediate between the gene itself and the products that the gene encodes. So, it’s like having a blueprint and a house. The mRNA is like the construction worker. It takes the blueprint and manufactures the house. In the case of the cell, it takes the DNA blueprint and then takes a little bit of that information to build part of the final structure. The mRNA is just that intermediate, it does not change the genes. It doesn’t change the DNA itself,” he explains.

What are the Benefits of mRNA Vaccines?

More flexibility and faster response to new disease, Folta describes as reasons why mRNA vaccines are becoming more popular.

Traditional vaccines require large amounts of a virus to be raised and purified before being injected to elicit an immune response, he adds. Meanwhile, mRNA encourages the body to make a little piece of protein to elicit the desired immune response.

“It’s much cleaner, much easier. If you’re moving parts in this machine, to make this product that induces an immune response, it’s so good in so many ways,” Folta says.

In pork production specifically, researchers are working with mRNA vaccines that will work this way against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), which is a viral disease that causes economic loss totals around $664 million per year in the U.S. (Holtkamp et al., 2013).

Additionally, the use of mRNA technology adds another tool to the toolbox, which may be helpful in combating diseases, such as African swine fever (ASF), avian influenza and other food-animal diseases.
“This stands to be a revolutionary technology if we don’t get in the way,” Folta adds.

Are There Risks to mRNA Vaccines?

Folta says everything has some sort of risk, but it’s important to weigh the benefits against the risk.
As seen with the COVID-19 vaccines, in rare cases, people experienced side effects from the vaccine. However, Folta is encouraged by the initial results in livestock.

“If you look in animals where these [vaccines] have been used, there have been no unusual effects noted. Everything potentially has risk, but it’s monitored, and especially in large animal populations, we can look very carefully at that for surveillance,” he explains.

mRNA Enters State Legislation

While some consumers spread misinformation about the use of mRNA vaccines, the ideas have also crept into state legislation.

The Missouri House Bill 1169 , with a special hearing set for Apr. 19 on the matter, aims to require a label be used on meat from animals treated with an mRNA vaccine, identifying the “potential gene therapy product.”
This bill falsely claims that mRNA vaccines would modify the genes of the organism, Folta explains.

mRNA vaccines are simply another modality that can protect animal health, which results in healthy animals producing the best and safest food products, Folta says, and provides producers with more options to help combat disease.

“To have affordable food, we need to have continual innovation in the animal, medical, veterinary space and mRNA vaccines are safe and an effective way to treat the animal that does not change the final product,” he adds.

The COVID-19 pandemic simply “broke the seal” to the development of these new modalities that will change the way human and animal diseases will be treated in the years to come.

More on Vaccines:

Genvax Technologies Secures $6.5 Million to Advance Novel Vaccine Platform

Cattle Veterinarians Have New Vaccination Guidelines

Don’t Assume That Old Refrigerator Is Good Enough To Store Vaccines

OTC Livestock Antibiotics Will Require Prescription June 11

USDA Invests $17.6 Million to Protect Health and Welfare of Livestock

Wed, 11 Sep 2024 15:55:31 GMT

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and African swine fever (ASF) are two high-priority research areas that will be funded through a $17.6-million investment by USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to protect the health and welfare of agricultural animals.

“Protecting the health and welfare of agricultural animals is integral to ensuring a safe, sustainable, resilient and ethically-sound food system,” NIFA Director Manjit Misra said in a release. “Healthy livestock are more productive and less likely to harbor and spread diseases that can affect humans. In addition, properly managed livestock systems help maintain biodiversity and sustainable land use.”

These projects are part of USDA’s “One Health” efforts, an integrated, collaborative approach to address issues that impact the health of people, plants, animals and our ecosystems. The awards include $12.7 million for 27 projects funded through NIFA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative’s (AFRI) Diseases of Agricultural Animals program and $4.8 million for 10 projects funded through AFRI’s Welfare of Agricultural Animals program.

The AFRI Diseases of Agricultural Animals program focuses on maintaining healthy agricultural animals to ensure a safe and adequate food supply, USDA explains. The program supports research in whole-animal health, including disease prevention and control.

“Several projects focus on research related to vaccines that could mitigate the spread of HPAI and ASF. HPAI is a major threat to animal health, trade and the economy worldwide. ASF is a deadly pig disease that spreads rapidly and affects domestic and wild swine. While not a threat to human health, the virus could devastate America’s swine industry and food supply if it entered the United States,” USDA says.

Examples of the 27 funded projects include:

• University of Georgia researchers aim to develop mass vaccination strategies against a prevalent HPAI subtype. The potential benefits extend beyond avian influenza, paving the way for similar studies on other respiratory viruses affecting poultry and livestock.

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists will design and evaluate ASF engineered vaccine antigens. This work will ultimately lead to development of a vaccine against ASF to aid in disease control and swine health.

• University of Missouri researchers plan to develop safer and more effective swine influenza vaccines, with the potential to reduce both animal and human influenza infections, and block potential zoonotic transmission from swine to humans.

The AFRI Welfare of Agricultural Animals program supports projects that evaluate current animal agriculture production practices and/or development of new or enhanced management approaches that safeguard animal welfare and adaption to climate change, the release says.

• Purdue University researchers will investigate the most effective indicator traits and breeding strategies to enhance heat tolerance in ducks. Scientists plan to develop guidelines that outline optimal management and breeding strategies to improve heat tolerance in poultry—offering a potential long-term solution to climate change impacts on poultry production globally.

• University of Vermont scientists will investigate how early-life calf management affects long-term behavioral development, emotional states and physiological stress in dairy cattle. The results will benefit the dairy cattle industry by increasing longevity and improving animal welfare and care standards.

Your Next Read: Canada To Develop a Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Bank

The Specificity of IgG in Milk Replacers Varies Widely, According to New Research

Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:34:12 GMT

When it comes to the IgG antibodies in milk replacer, not all calf milk replacers are the same. New research presented at the American Dairy Science Association’s annual meeting in June, revealed a vast difference in the total amount of IgG contained in milk replacers, and in the specificity of that IgG to bind to and remove enteric pathogens that target pre-weaned calves.

It was a conversation with a veterinarian at a trade show that sparked the idea for the analysis, explains Shawn Jones, PhD, process and development manager at Arkion Life Sciences.

Jones says the veterinarian oversaw a calf ranch that had a recurring issue with rotavirus infections. In discussing the issue with some of his colleagues, he was told that the milk replacer contained antibodies effective against rotavirus that should take care of the issue. However, it wasn’t working for him.

“That’s what got us thinking, how can we design a test to measure the specificity of IgG in milk replacers?” says Jones.

Five commercially available calf milk replacers were selected for analysis. All products were made with milk components only. Products from DFA, Denkavit, Land O’Lakes, Milk Specialties Global, and Provimi North America were used and were all compared on the same basis (a 10 oz. dose).

To do the analysis, first a commercial ELISA kit was used to determine total IgG titers in each milk replacer sample. The IgG concentration ranged from 2.01 mg/g to 12.16 mg/g of milk replacer.

Next the IgG was extracted and purified from the milk replacers and then labeled with a horseradish peroxidase. Direct ELISAs were then conducted against nine antigens that cause scours in calves: Bovine rotavirus, Bovine coronavirus, Cryptosporidium parvum, E. coli (mix of K88, K99, 987P and F41), Salmonella Typhimurium, Salmonella Dublin, Salmonella Heidelberg, Clostridium perfringens (Type A and Type C/D). Each milk replacer sample was run in triplicate for each of the nine antigens tested.

Results are reported as the absorbance at 450nm (A450). The A450 value is the raw output from the ELISA and is a measure of how much IgG is bound to the specific antigen of interest. The higher the A450 value the higher the specificity of the IgG antibodies for a specific antigen. The A450 values cannot be compared between antigens, only between milk replacer samples for the same antigen.

All samples were randomized to remove brand identifiers and to focus on the data analysis.

“Our analysis showed there was a wide variance in both the total amount of IgG contained, and the specificity of the IgG in the five commercial milk replacers tested,” says Jones.

For example, even though Sample A and Sample E contained similar amounts of total IgG (11.1 mg/g vs 12.2 mg/g), Sample E had significantly higher A450 values (indicating higher specificity) for each antigen tested. High total IgG in a sample does not necessarily mean that the IgG has high specificity for the antigens on your farm. In order to assess a calf milk replacer’s ability to boost passive immunity on your farm, both total IgG and the specificity of that IgG should be tested.

These results demonstrate the dairy industry’s need for a testing service that can accurately determine the specificity of IgG to various antigens. That’s why later this year Arkion Life Sciences will launch its Antibody Specificity Testing Service through Bio-Technical Resources, a division of Arkion, in Manitowoc, WI. The ELISA-based service will offer specificity testing of antibody-containing products or ingredients such as milk replacer, colostrum replacer, whey protein concentrate, and serum or plasma.

Additional results are shown in the chart at the end of the story.

“This type of test has not been available before,” says Dr. Roger Saltman, consulting veterinarian, RLS Management Solutions, Cazenovia, N.Y. “Few people have even considered how much IgG is available in the milk replacer being used on farm, or what gut pathogens that the IgG is specific to.”

When it comes to the IgG antibodies in milk replacer, not all calf milk replacers are the same, reports Arkion Life Sciences in its latest research results.

(Arkion Life Sciences)