Buckeye Dairy News: VOLUME 27: ISSUE 4

  1. Dairy Dollars: Feed Prices, Nutrient Costs, and Milk Income

    Andie Majewski, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Managing feed costs is an important part in ensuring dairy farm profitability. It is necessary to be aware of the frequently fluctuating feed costs to make informed decisions about which feedstuffs are worth the investment. At times, investing in more expensive feed commodities may prove to have a positive return on investment by increasing milk production or feed efficiency. However, things like access to feedstuffs, milk and component yields, milk prices, and herd size also factor into the decision when dairy producers consider which feeds could result in greater income over feed costs.

    Figure 1. Actual and predicted cost of feedstuffs with 75% confidence interval (CI) of 21 feed commodities fed on Ohio Dairy Farms; July 28, 2025. Feedstuffs that are priced above the upper prediction price limit are overpriced (red bars). Feedstuffs that fall within the upper and lower limits of the predicted prices are breakeven feeds (grey bars). Feedstuffs that are priced below the lower prediction price limit are considered a bargain (green bars).

    Economic Value of Feeds

    Figure 1 displays the costs for the 21 reported commodities in Ohio. These results were produced by SESAMETM for the central Ohio region on July 28, 2025. In Figure 1, the bargain feedstuffs (green), the overpriced feedstuffs (red), and the breakeven feedstuffs (grey) are displayed, along with their average costs and predicted costs. These prices and estimates are from a point in time and their economic classification may change from what is reported, though they remain as a useful tool to predict the cost of feedstuff changes in a ration and to summarize market trends in the Ohio region. In July, some corn products, such as corn grain and corn gluten meal are considered overpriced while some protein sources like soybean meal and soybean expellers can be considered adequately priced or a bargain. It is important to note that while the costs of these feedstuffs typically only vary slightly from one issue to the next, the ever-changing prices can make managing income over feed costs more difficult. Bargain commodities can have a place in a dairy cattle ration, especially in diets fed to lower producing members of the herd. However, it is important to consider the investment opportunity that might come from feeding “overpriced” feedstuffs, as some may help to improve the herd milk production and component values.

    The appraisal set, shown in Table 1, predicts the prices for these commodities that did not have a current local price. These commodity prices were predicted by SESAMETM and represent the estimated value at one specific point in time and are therefore subject to change. These values may be used as a benchmark if you are considering purchasing these ingredients for your dairy farm.

    Table 1. Estimated feedstuffs prices not reported for Ohio, July, 2025.
    Feed Nutrient Prices

    The cost of net energy of lactation (NEL) remained about the same as in the previous issue, decreasing by about $0.005/lb. The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) remained about the same as well, increasing by $0.003/lb. The cost of physically effective fiber (e-NDF) increased by $0.036/lb. Values of nutrients are shown in Table 2.

    Table 2. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, July 28, 2025, compared to May 25, 2025.
    Milk and Milk Component Prices

    The Class III milk price increased about $2.25/cwt since May and is now $$22.62/cwt. Additionally, the milk fat and protein prices increased by $0.39 and $0.36/lb, respectively. The Cow-Jones Index estimates the profitability of milk production, considering factors including the nutrient input costs displayed in Table 2, cow production metrics, and the current milk and component prices which are shown in Table 3. The prediction formula uses a 1500 lb cow, producing milk with 4.09% fat and 3.22% protein. This month, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 85 lb/day and 70 lb/day is about $14.35/cwt and $13.85/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are expected to be profitable, despite not including factors such as replacement and cull cows in the herd. These margins of profitability are much larger than those seen in the previous issue.

    Table 3. Prices of milk and milk components, sourced from the Federal Marketing Order 33, for Ohio dairy farms, July 28, 2025, compared to May 25, 2025.
    In July, there was an increase in milk and component prices for dairy producers in Ohio. This, in addition to the generally lower feed costs compared to those in the previous issue, may result in greater profitability this month for dairy producers.

  2. Choosing Carbohydrates: Starch or Sugar?

    Irie Moussiaux and Andie Majewski, Graduate Research Associates and Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Introduction

    Dietary carbohydrates comprise more than half of the diet fed to dairy cattle. Getting the carbohydrate profile perfected to maximize milk production and profitability is the goal of every practicing dairy farmer and nutritionist. One of the choices that dairy nutritionists face is whether to include sugar or additional starch to provide digestible energy to the cows. This is an important choice because starch and sugar behave differently in the rumen and may lead to different production responses. The choice between starch and sugar is not a "this or that” proposition. The optimum carbohydrate profile for efficient milk production may include both starch and sugar, but finding the right balance is the secret sauce to feeding lactating dairy cattle.

    Chemistry and Digestibility of Starch vs. Sugar

    Starches and sugars are both classified as non-structural carbohydrates. Starch is a complex carbohydrate, or a polysaccharide. The average total tract digestibility of starch is about 94%, varying with grain type and grain processing methods (Ferraretto et al., 2013). Sugars are simple carbohydrates and can be further classified as either monosaccharides or disaccharides. Monosaccharaides are the simplest form of sugars and include glucose, fructose, and galactose. Disaccharides include sucrose and lactose. Sugar is rapidly and completely digested in the rumen (Weisbjerg et al., 1998). Regardless of the chemical structure, both starch and sugar are highly digestible sources of energy for the cow.


    Figure 1. Comparison of water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) and starch contents in common feedstuffs on a DM basis (NASEM 2021).

    Sugars are generally fermented more rapidly in the rumen than starch, although precise degradation rates are difficult to quantify (Gao and Oba, 2016; Allen, 2000). Sugars are fermented at a rate of about 300%/h, while starch fermentation rate is about 40%/h, depending on the grain type and particle size (Oba et al., 2015). Both sugar and starch can increase microbial protein synthesis, increasing the supply of metabolizable protein and volatile fatty acids to the cow (Broderick et al., 2008). While starch fermentation can produce propionate in the rumen (Firkins and Mitchell, 2023), sugar fermentation can increase butyrate production which may promote rumen papillae growth and fiber digestion (Gao and Oba, 2016).

    Acidosis Risk

    As mentioned previously, both starch and sugar are rumen degradable with sugar being degraded more rapidly than starch. Although it is counterintuitive, supplying sugar in place of starch may reduce the acidosis risk by increasing ruminal pH. Unlike starch, the inclusion of sugar in diets has not been shown to reduce ruminal pH when incorporated at moderate levels (Oba et al., 2015). Perhaps rumen pH is better modulated by enhanced rumen papillae growth and ruminal VFA absorption when sugar is fed. If true, this process creates a rumen environment more capable of modulating rumen pH (de Ondarza et al., 2017; Gao and Oba, 2016). Thus, including sugar in a ration, when balanced with fiber and total fermentable carbohydrates, poses minimal acidosis risk.

    Non-Nutrient Considerations 

    Starch is commonly provided through ground or flaked corn, barley, wheat, or sorghum, while sugar sources include molasses, whey, bakery waste, and citrus pulp; (Figure 1; NASEM, 2021). Beyond their nutritional values, starch and sugar sources differ in physical form and palatability, which can influence dairy cow feeding behavior and total mixed ration (TMR) consistency. Liquid sugar sources can reduce sorting behavior when feeding a TMR. For example, liquid molasses can bind fine particles together, reducing ingredient separation in the TMR and promoting more consistent intake of the formulated diet. In some cases, inclusion of molasses has increased DMI (Broderick and Rodloff, 2004); the research suggests that the increased DMI may be related to improved palatability. Despite these potential benefits, practical challenges of feeding sugar must be considered. In colder climates, molasses and whey are prone to freezing, which can complicate storage and handling (NRC, 2001). Therefore, selection of carbohydrate sources for dairy diets should consider nutrient value, non-nutrient characteristics to support consistent intake, and cost.

    Production Effects

    Sugar and starch affect milk and component yields in different ways due to how they are fermented in the rumen. Increasing sugar in the diet can increase butyrate production, a precursor of de novo fatty acid synthesis in the mammary gland (Gao and Oba, 2016). This can contribute to increased milk fat concentration. Conversely, increasing starch in the diet may increase milk protein production, though it can also cause milk fat depression (Boerman et al., 2015) due to increased production of trans-10, cis-12 conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in the rumen, inhibiting milk fat synthesis (Peterson et al., 2003). The contrasting effects that sugar and starch have on milk fat production indicate the need to identify an appropriate ratio of sugar and starch to optimize milk fat and protein production without sacrificing milk production. The addition of 5 to 7% dietary sugar, resulting in 6 to 8% sugar of the total diet DM, paired with 22 to 27% dietary starch, may be optimal to increase fat-corrected milk without limiting overall milk production (de Ondarza et al., 2017).

    Increasing sugar in the diet at the expense of starch can reduce the overall energy of the diet, limiting milk yield and protein production (de Ondarza et al., 2017), despite potentially increasing milk fat concentration (Hall and Zanton, 2022). In recent research shared by Norato et al. (2025) at the American Dairy Science Association annual meeting, increasing sugar while reducing starch (from 0% sugar and 32% starch up to 12.3% sugar and 20% starch) linearly increased milk fat concentration but decreased yields of milk, energy-corrected milk, protein, and lactose. Therefore, drastically increasing the sugar content of a diet while dramatically reducing its starch content will hinder dairy cow productivity. Perhaps slightly increasing the amount of sugar in a diet, while moderately decreasing the amount of starch may be an advantageous way to provide enough energy to maintain milk and milk protein yields while increasing milk fat yield. A proper mix of sugar and starch may also mitigate ruminal acidosis risk.

    Conclusion

    Incorporating both starch and sugar into dairy cow diets is essential for optimizing cow health and milk production. Rather than prioritizing one carbohydrate source over the other, achieving the right balance of starch and sugar is key. Ultimately, sugars may support rumen health and increase milk fat concentration as they can promote butyrate production and rumen papillae growth. Starch serves as a primary energy source that supports microbial protein synthesis and yields of milk and milk protein. Starch cannot completely replace sugar in the diet because excessive starch can increase the risk of ruminal acidosis and lead to milk fat depression. Conversely, sugar cannot completely replace starch as milk production may decline, and the cost of sugar is typically higher than the cost of starch. Therefore, strategic inclusion of both sugar and starch is critical when appropriately feeding high-producing dairy cows and optimizing income over feed costs.

    References

    Boerman, J. P., Potts, S. B., VandeHaar, M. J., & Lock, A. L. (2015). Effects of partly replacing dietary starch with fiber and fat on milk production and energy partitioning. Journal of Dairy Science, 98(10), 7264–7276. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9467

    Broderick, G. A., Luchini, N. D., Reynal, S. M., Varga, G. A., & Ishler, V. A. (2008). Effect on production of replacing dietary starch with sucrose in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(12), 4801–4810. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1480

    Buse, K. K., & Kononoff, P. J. (2025). Testing preference of alfalfa hay of different relative feed value and brome hay in lactating Jersey cows. JDS Communications, 6(2), 223–226. https://doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2024-0653

    Carroll, A. L., Fincham, G. M., Buse, K. K., & Kononoff, P. J. (2024). Feed preference in lactating dairy cows for different pellet formulations. JDS Communications, 5(4), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2023-0517

    de Ondarza, M. B., Emanuele, S. M., & Sniffen, C. J. (2017). Effect of increased dietary sugar on dairy cow performance as influenced by diet nutrient components and level of milk production. Professional Animal Scientist, 33(6), 700–707. https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2017-01648

    Ferraretto, L. F., Crump, P. M., & Shaver, R. D. (2013). Effect of cereal grain type and corn grain harvesting and processing methods on intake, digestion, and milk production by dairy cows through a meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 96(1), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5932

    Firkins, J. L., & Mitchell, K. E. (2023). Invited review: Rumen modifiers in today’s dairy rations. In Journal of Dairy Science (Vol. 106, Issue 5, pp. 3053–3071). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22644

    Gao, X., & Oba, M. (2016). Effect of increasing dietary nonfiber carbohydrate with starch, sucrose, or lactose on rumen fermentation and productivity of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(1), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9871

    Hall, M. B., & Zanton, G. I. (2022). Substitution of cane molasses for corn grain at two levels of degradable protein. I. Lactating cow performance, nutrition model predictions, and potential basis for butterfat and intake responses. Journal of Dairy Science, 105(5), 3939–3953. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21241

    Oba, M., Mewis, J. L., & Zhining, Z. (2015). Effects of ruminal doses of sucrose, lactose, and corn starch on ruminal fermentation and expression of genes in ruminal epithelial cells. Journal of Dairy Science, 98(1), 586–594. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8697

    Peterson, D. G., Matitashvili, E. A., & Bauman, D. E. (2003). Nutrient-Gene Interactions Diet-Induced Milk Fat Depression in Dairy Cows Results in Increased trans-10, cis-12 CLA in Milk Fat and Coordinate Suppression of mRNA Abundance for Mammary Enzymes Involved in Milk Fat Synthesis 1,2.

    Weisbjerg, M. R., Hvelplund, T., & Bibby, B. M. (1998). Hydrolysis and fermentation rate of glucose, sucrose and lactose in the rumen. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A: Animal Sciences, 48(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064709809362398

     

  3. Heifer Mastitis: When Should We Start to Care?

    Elizabeth Plunkett, Graduate Research Associate, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    With the price of heifers continually climbing and reaching historic highs, producers must place even greater emphasis on raising high-quality replacements. Achieving this requires a proactive, preventive approach to heifer management. Although heifers are often viewed as low maintenance compared to lactating cows, they are the future of the herd and warrant significant investment of time and resources. Over the past two decades, research on heifer rearing has advanced significantly, highlighting the economic advantages of optimizing heifer nutrition, housing, and welfare. However, one important area remains underappreciated: heifer mastitis.

    What is Mastitis?

    Mastitis is inflammation of the mammary gland that typically results from an intramammary infection. Intramammary infections occur due to bacteria entering the mammary gland through the teat canal. In lactating cows, mastitis is a common occurrence due to increased exposure of the mammary gland to potential pathogens during milking. While the mammary gland possesses several physical and immunological defense mechanisms, bacteria have the opportunity to overwhelm these defenses during times when other pressures are present (e.g., parturition). Heifers possess an additional defense, the keratin plug, a wax-like substance that obstructs the teat canal, preventing bacteria from entering the mammary gland. However, the keratin within the teat canal can become overwhelmed with bacteria at any stage of development, and these bacteria can persist for up to a year. The colonization of bacteria within the teat canal can compromise mammary gland development at a crucial time and decrease the future milking potential of infected quarters. Additionally, infected heifers can serve as a reservoir for mastitis-causing bacteria, particularly Staphylococcus aureus, which can create chronic problems in your milking herd.

    How do Heifers Contract Mastitis?

    Similar to lactating cows, dirty bedding and flies can be a major component of harboring and spreading bacteria in a heifer’s environment. Maintenance of bedding in the milking herd occurs daily, if not more frequently. While heifers may not require this intense regimen, their bedding needs to be thoroughly maintained at least weekly and spot-checked frequently. Clean, dry bedding can be an easy yet extremely impactful way to limit the risk of heifer mastitis by reducing bacterial load in the environment.

    Flies are a nuisance not only in our lives, but heifers as well. They serve as the perfect reservoir for bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, and Staphylococcus spp., all known to cause mastitis. Fly populations can amass to over 100,000 flies from just a single pair in as little as 2 weeks, stressing the importance of controlling flies before they have a chance of establishing a notable population. The presence of any unwanted organic matter (e.g., manure in the pens, wet feed in the bunk, wet bedding or bales, etc.) can supply flies with the perfect breeding ground. Additionally, keeping weeds sprayed or mowed around heifer facilities will help limit fly populations and have the added bonus of helping with ventilation. Constructing a pest management plan that includes proper sanitation protocols along with the use of a larvicide, if needed, can be a helpful strategy to mitigate bacterial reservoirs and fly breeding grounds.

    Cross suckling in youngstock is a suspected cause of the introduction of bacteria to the teat. Not only can the physical force applied to the teat during this undesirable behavior cause trauma, but if calves are being fed unpasteurized waste milk from infected cows, this can provide the opportunity for bacteria to enter the traumatized teat. While data indicating a direct link between cross-suckling and the incidence of mastitis during first lactation remains inconclusive, this behavior should not be overlooked.

    Additionally, times when stressors are high (e.g., pen moves within a farm, weaning, moving to or from contract grower, etc.) provide the perfect opportunity for bacteria to colonize the mammary gland due to weakened host defenses. Therefore, minimizing the number of times animals are introduced to a new pen hierarchy and ensuring weaning is a smooth transition can help keep host defenses prepared to adequately manage unsuspecting bacteria that are looking for an opportunity to strike.

    The Physiology Behind Production Losses

    The greatest amount of mammary gland development occurs during first gestation. During this time, milk secretory tissue (i.e., parenchymal tissue) increases exponentially while supportive tissue (i.e., stromal tissue) begins to decline as it serves more of a supportive role during milk production, and the increased need for milk secretory capacity creates a competition for space in the mammary gland. Development should not be confused with growth, as development is the specialization of the tissue to complete its specific function, whereas growth is simply an increase in size or number of something. The greatest amount of mammary gland growth occurs from 3 to 12 months. However, the introduction of bacteria during either growth or development can be harmful to future mammary gland productivity.

    There are two factors that determine milk production by the mammary gland: the number of secretory cells and their rate of secretion. When bacteria enter the mammary gland and establish themselves, they can damage the growing and developing secretory tissue via the production of noxious agents and through the stimulation of the immune system. Immune cell recruitment into the mammary gland during infection is a natural process; however, when these immune cells complete their effector functions, this causes collateral damage to the surrounding secretory tissue, leading to the development of connective tissue (i.e., scar tissue), which decreases future milking potential. Increased immune cell recruitment to an infected mammary gland can also leave animals in a heightened immune state and lead to nutrients being repartitioned towards fighting an infection when they should be used for maintenance and growth.

    When Should You Start to Care?

    The simplest answer is, as soon as that heifer calf hits the ground. Every step of growth and development during the heifer’s life is an opportunity to ‘program’ them to be a high-functioning herd mate in the future. But on the downside, for every opportunity that we have to make positive impacts, we also have the opportunity for negative inputs to cause lasting damage that may be irreversible. By making sure we are doing the little things right (e.g., cleaning pens, managing flies, etc.), we can have a big impact on reducing the risk of heifer mastitis and raise high-quality replacements that have the most milk-secreting potential, which is a plus for your future pocketbook.

  4. Buckeye Dairy Network Feeder School

    Dr. Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    To sign up: https://go.osu.edu/bdnfeederschool2025