Buckeye Dairy News: VOLUME 27: ISSUE 6

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

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


    Figure 1. Actual and predicted cost of 21 feed commodities fed on Ohio dairy farms; November 20, 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 November 20, 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 single point in time. Therefore, 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. In the month of November, soybean and wheat products are overpriced, while corn products are a bargain.

    Figure 2 helps to summarize market trends in the Ohio region. In Ohio, the cost of many feedstuffs have increased, despite some of them being classified as a bargain. In the month of November, the price of corn products increased by an average of $4/ton and the price of soybean products increased by an average of $3.5/ton. Corn and soy products are common energy and protein sources. Therefore, these price increases can have a significant impact on the income over feed costs for dairy producers.


    Figure 2. Percent change of the actual cost of 21 feedstuffs fed on Ohio dairy farms from September 24, 2025 to November 20, 2025. Feedstuffs that decreased in price since the previous issue are shown in green, while those that increased in price are colored red. The cost of corn silage has not changed since September, as it is priced on a biannual basis.

    The appraisal set, shown in Table 1, predicts the prices for the 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, November 20, 2025. 
    Feed Nutrient Prices

    Since the last report in September, the cost of net energy of lactation (NEL) and physically effective fiber (e-NDF) decreased by about $0.018/ lb and $0.01/lb, respectively. The cost of metabolizable protein (MP) increased by $0.10/lb. The economic values of nutrients are shown in Table 2.

    Table 2. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms, November 20, 2025, compared to September 25, 2025.
    Milk and Milk Component Prices

    This month, the Class III milk price and butterfat price decreased by $2.18/cwt and $0.90/lb, respectively, while the milk protein price increased by $0.92/lb. 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. The formula does not include factors that may affect profitability, such as the cost of replacement and cull cows in the herd. This month, the income over nutrient cost (IONC) for cows milking 85 and 70 lb/day is about $11.78/cwt and $11.31/cwt, respectively. Both estimates are expected to be profitable.

    Table 3. Prices of milk and milk components, sourced from the Federal Marketing Order 33, for Ohio dairy farms, November 20, 2025, compared to September 24, 2025.
    In November, the price of many corn and soybean products increased since September, though some of them are still classified as bargains. The price for milk and butterfat decreased, while milk protein price increased. These factors suggest the current benefits of investing in some corn and soybean products to support milk and milk protein yields.

  2. Milk Components and Feeding the “One Ton” Dairy Cow

    Dr. Dwight Roseler, Adjunct Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University. 

    The one-ton dairy cow is not a cow’s body weight but a measure of performance of a dairy cow’s ability to produce a ton (2000 pounds) of milk components in a single lactation.  Historically, dairy farmers were paid for pounds of milk with little economic benefit from increased milk fat and milk protein.  As consumer demand has shifted from drinking milk to eating cheese, ice cream, butter and protein drinks, the demand for milk protein and butterfat has increased.  Dairy farmers have increased their herd component production as evidenced by Federal Order 33 regional component changes.  In the past 25 years, milkfat percentage has increased from 3.65 to 4.30% in 2025.  Milk protein percentage has increased from 2.98  to 3.28%.  The dairy farmer’s milk check now is weighted to payment on pounds of milkfat and milk protein.  Elevated milk components are attributed to improvements in genetics, nutrition, forages, feeding, and housing. This article highlights strategic opportunities with forages and nutrition that can yield a ton or more of milk components.  

    One Ton Milk Components

    How does a dairy cow produce one ton of milk components?  Some simple math will show evidence. A Holstein cow that produces 85 lb/day of milk (~27,000 lb yearly) at a 4.2% butterfat and 3.2% milk protein will make 6.3 lb/day of components.  A lactation length of 320 days (45 dry days) will annually calculate to 2000 lb of combined milkfat and milk protein.  A Jersey cow producing 67 lb/day of milk (~22,500 lb yearly) at a 5.5% butterfat and 3.7% milk protein over a 320-day lactation will generate 2000 lb of components. Several top performing Holstein herds are producing milk with 4.8% fat and 3.5% protein and producing in excess of a ton of yearly components.  A high production 3800 cow NY Holstein herd with a 4.3% milk fat and 3.2% milk protein and a tank average of 100 lb/cow/day is producing 7.5 lb/day of components (2400 lb annually). This is proof that high milk volume and high components can occur. An average dairy herd producing 5.1 lb/day of components produces 1600 lb of components per year. What is the economic benefit to the dairy farmer of improved milk components?  The economic value of 400 lb of additional components results in increased gross yearly revenue of around $100,000 per 100 cows based upon $2.50/lb for components. The increased revenue for a specific farm will depend on the pay price for components. The return on investment (ROI) to improve milk components can range from 10:1 to negative.  Each  farm must calculate their potential investment to increase components.  Use the marginal return ROI with your farm advisory team to determine the best management practice to implement to increase milk components on your farm.  The “lowest hanging fruit” concept for ROI is implementing the fastest, easiest, and most cost-effective investment for a return. Realize that genetic, housing, and nutrition investments require several months to realize the full return as milk components increase slowly.  Dairy farmers, ask your management and trusted advisor team to evaluate the “lowest hanging fruit” on your farm.          

    Top Component Herd Nutrition

    How do dairy herds achieve higher components? This article will review three nutrition factors that support high component herds.  The primary factor is feeding high levels of highly digestible forage. Highly digestible forages not only reduce purchased feed but increase component yield when properly formulated in the ration. Highly digestible forage starts with correct soil fertility along with proper harvest techniques. For alfalfa and grass forages, important are wide swath mowing, correct chop length, dense bunker silo packing, timely bunker oxygen barrier covers, and prayers for proper harvest weather. That last one requires some hand folding and head bowing!  Quality forage improves rumen microbial efficiency. Cows host a coliseum of billions of beneficial rumen microbes that digest quality forage. These microbes reproduce every few minutes and daily produce billions of “Kamikaze microbes” that get digested by the cow in her 4th stomach. These microbes contain all the essential and non-essential amino acids. The priority is always feed the rumen first.                                                                

    High component farms segregate the high digestible alfalfa, grass, and triticale forages in storage. This highly digestible forage then exclusively is fed to early lactation and peak production cow groups. This forage is fed primarily during the summer months. High digestible forages fed in summer months minimize the normal component reduction that occurs during hot weather. 
                                                                                                                                               
    Highly digestible forage can be identified pre-harvest with scissor field cut or during harvest.  A NIR lab test for 30-hour NDF digestibility (NDFd), undigested NDF at 240 hours (uNDF240), and 7-hour starch digestion can identify quality forage. Quality corn silage will have 30 hr NDFd above 63%, uNDF240 values below 9%, kernel processing above 78%, and 7 hr starch digestion over 70%.  Small grain and triticale forages will have 30 hr NDFd over 70% and uNDF240 values below 8%.  Alfalfa silage will have 30 hr NDFd above 55% and uNDF240 below 15%.  

    Amino Acid Nutrition

    High yield component herds have amino-acid balanced diets. Amino acids are the building blocks for protein synthesis.  Proteins are foundational for proper growth, milk production, reproduction, and health. Amino acid-balanced diets contain the proper levels of both non-essential (synthesized from another amino acid) and the required 10 essential amino acids. Essential amino acids must be supplied in the diet. 

    The first limiting amino acid is the essential amino acid that first becomes deficient in the animal and will be the limitation to the cow’s udder to produce additional milk protein. The three most limiting essential amino acids in US dairy cattle diets are typically lysine, methionine, and histidine. Recent research has shown that by providing a proper balance of amino acids, both milk protein and milk fat levels can increase.                 

    Fatty Acid Nutrition                                                 

    A third factor in high component herds is proper levels of dietary fat. Fats in forages, grains, and other ingredients contain various fatty acids which when properly balanced in the dairy cow diet improves butterfat. Butterfat is made up of a combination of three types of fatty acids – denovo, preformed, and mixed. 

    Denovo fatty acids are small fatty acids primarily manufactured from fiber digestion in the rumen in the form of acetate and butyrate. Preformed fatty acids from long fatty acids include corn or soy oil, feed fat, or body fat. The third milk component is mixed fatty acids that are medium size fatty acids and sourced from denovo and preformed fatty acids. The majority of milk processing plants test bulk tank milk for denovo, mixed, and preformed fatty acids. Consult your milk plant manager to gain access to milk fatty acid data.  Milk fatty acid data are valuable information to improving milk components.  

    Forages contain low levels of fatty acids. A TMR formulated to increase components includes supplemental fatty acids from grains and other ingredients. Examples of ingredients that contain high levels of preformed fatty acids are roasted soybeans (Hi Oleic), whole cottonseed, prilled fats, palm fat, calcium salts of fatty acids, and animal tallow. Ingredients with moderate to lower levels of preformed fatty acids are distiller grains, extruded soymeal, solvent soybean meal, and canola meal. TMR diets balanced properly for the fatty acids of palmitic (C16), stearic (C18), oleic (C18:1), linoleic (C18:2), linolenic (C18:3) and omega 3, 6 fats will show improved butterfat content. High oleic (Plenish) roasted soybeans show high promise in improving butterfat.

    Top Component Herds

    The current genomic trends in US dairy cows with selection for improved milk fat and milk protein shows that what took decades to achieve genetically can now be achieved in a few short years.  Modern dairy cows today have the genetic ability to produce in excess 9 lb/day of components (3000 lb yearly).  Feeding and management is advancing rapidly where dairy farmers, forage agronomists, and qualified nutritionists must apply the advances in soil fertility, forage genetics, forage harvest management, proper bunker management, amino acid balancing and fatty acid nutrition to continue to achieve profitable outcomes.  Consult with your qualified nutrition advisor for a complete evaluation of your herd rations.                                     

    Information for this article is summarized from recent university research and presentations hosted by Balchem Corporation at the October 2025 Cornell Nutrition Conference.  

  3. Supplying Energy to Dairy Cows – When to Add Starch or Fat?

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

    Introduction

    Throughout 2025, I have focused on various aspects of carbohydrate nutrition. I am going to continue that theme again to complete this year of Buckeye Dairy News. Carbohydrates are the largest portion of a lactating cow ration and starch comprises about half of the total carbohydrate fraction. Generally, we feed starch because it provides degradable nutrients in the rumen and postruminally. Each kg of starch digested equates to 4.2 Mcal of energy for the cow to partition amongst her various needs (NASEM, 2021). Fortunately, starch is not the only energy source we can feed to cows. Both protein and fat provide energy; fatty acids have 9.4 Mcal/kg of energy while protein has 5.65 Mcal/kg (NASEM, 2021). For this article, we’ll focus on the comparison of starch to fatty acids as an energy source for cows.

    The choice of how much energy to provide each cow and which form to provide is an important strategic choice. We need to consider a variety of factors like stage of lactation of the cows being fed, level of forage NDF in the ration, the degradability of the starch sources in the ration, the type of fatty acids to which you have access, the marginal cost of additional starch or fat, and the marginal benefit of including additional starch or fat when making this choice of how to meet the cow’s energy needs.

    The goal of this article is to provide some food for thought about when additional starch or fat may be useful for lactating dairy cattle. When done right, providing proper amounts of starch and fat can maximize milk component production, animal health, and profitability.

    The following are 3 considerations when determining whether additional starch or additional fat is the right choice for meeting a cow’s energy needs:

    1.  Do you need more milk fat or milk protein?

    The choice of energy source has a direct effect on both milk fat and milk protein production from lactating dairy cattle. During 2024, milk fat price averaged at $3.29/lb while protein averaged $1.90/lb and producers were incentivized to increase milk fat production. The quickest way to increase milk fat production under market conditions like this is by providing fatty acids. One of the most potent fatty acids for increasing milk fat is palmitic acid; supplementing approximately 400 g/d of palmitic acid supplement increased milk fat yield by 110 g/d (Shepardson and Harvatine, 2021, Bales et al., 2024).

    On the other hand, adding starch to increase energy may reduce milk fat yield in some cases (dos Santos Neto et al., 2025), but it also may increase milk protein yield (Morris et al., 2020, Krogstad and Bradford, 2023). Starch increases milk protein yield because it may increase microbial protein production and alter mammary metabolism such that protein synthesis increases.

    If you’re short on milk fat and the economics make sense, additional fatty acids may help. If you’re short on protein, some additional starch may be part of the solution from an energy perspective.

    2.  Managing body condition.

    Applied nutrition and energetics can be thought of as an exercise in body condition management. If cows are getting too thin, they may need additional energy or an energy source that is more likely to be partitioned to body tissue than to milk. Or, perhaps, cows are getting too fat, and the goal is to limit additional body condition gain.

    If your goal is to increase body condition gain or bodyweight gain, additional starch generally increases bodyweight gain in lactating dairy cattle. Cows fed a 21% starch with 2.7 % animal fat gained bodyweight while cows fed 15% starch diet with 3.5% animal fat lost bodyweight in early lactation (Piccioli-Cappelli et al., 2014). Similar results have been observed in mid and late lactation cows, too; in diets with similar energy concentration, starch, in place of fatty acids and fiber, increased bodyweight gain (Boerman et al., 2015, Morris et al., 2020, dos Santos Neto et al., 2025). Of course, this strategy can be overdone as additional starch may reduce milk fat production (van Knegsel et al., 2007, Boerman et al., 2015).

    Supplementing palmitic acid, depending on the stage of lactation, also influences body weight change. Supplementing 300 g/d of palmitic acid during early lactation has resulted in greater bodyweight loss (de Souza and Lock, 2019) while supplementing palmitic acid to mid-lactation cows did not alter bodyweight gain – both palmitic acid fed cows and control cows gained bodyweight (de Souza and Lock, 2018).

    3.  What does the basal diet include?

    When deciding to make ration changes to increase energy, it is critical to factor in what the diet already includes. For example, if you’re considering adding starch to the ration you must ensure that you have adequate forage NDF. In two experiments we’ve conducted at OSU we’ve demonstrated this concept. When forage NDF is low (~12.5% of diet DM), increasing starch reduces milk fat production from 1.9 kg/d to 1.6 kg/d. When forage NDF was adequate (~19% of diet DM), increasing starch did not affect milk fat production. Another consideration is the concentration of unsaturated fats in the diet; including additional starch with increasing concentrations of unsaturated fatty acids may increase the risk of milk fat depression (Ramirez Ramirez et al., 2015)..

    If you’re considering adding fat to the ration you MUST monitor DMI. Increasing calcium salts of fatty acids can reduce DMI by 1 kg for each percentage unit of FA increased above 3% of the diet in the ration (Weld and Armentano, 2017). Thus, although adding fat to a diet increases energy density of the ration, it may reduce DMI which mitigates the potential increases in energy intake.

    Conclusion

    As with any nutritional decision, whether to add starch or fat to meet the energy needs of the cow depends on the context, goals, and economics of the farm and the time. When milk fat is economically valuable, like it was for much of 2024, feeding additional fat from sources like palmitic acid may be the best option for increasing energy in the diet. When fat is less valuable as it is currently ($2.19/lb) then you may want to re-evaluate the supplementation of fatty acids. If protein is more valuable, like it was during 2022, then additional starch may be more economical. The other considerations include body condition management and what the basal diet includes. Balancing rations that maximize profitability will always be three-dimensional chess where there is almost never 1 correct answer.

    References

    Bales, A.M., M.E. Cinzori, and A.L. Lock. 2024. Increasing palmitic acid and reducing stearic acid content of supplemental fatty acid blends improves production performance of mid-lactation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 107(1):278-287. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2023-23874

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

    de Souza, J., and A.L. Lock. 2018. Long-term palmitic acid supplementation interacts with parity in lactating dairy cows: Production responses, nutrient digestibility, and energy partitioning. J. Dairy Sci. 101(4):3044-3056. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13946

    de Souza, J., and A.L. Lock. 2019. Effects of timing of palmitic acid supplementation on production responses of early-lactation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 102(1):260-273. 10.3168/jds.2018-14976

    dos Santos Neto, J.M., J. Garver, J. de Souza, M.J. VandeHaar, and A.L. Lock. 2025. Effects of including a palmitic acid–enriched supplement in low- and high-starch diets on milk production and energy partitioning of primiparous and multiparous dairy cows between mid and late lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 108(4):3573-3585. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25731

    Krogstad, K.C., and B.J. Bradford. 2023. The effects of feeding α-amylase-enhanced corn silage with different dietary starch concentrations to lactating dairy cows on milk production, nutrient digestibility, and blood metabolites. J. Dairy Sci. 106(7):4666-4681. 10.3168/jds.2022-23030

    Morris, D.L., T.M. Brown-Brandl, K.E. Hales, K.J. Harvatine, and P.J. Kononoff. 2020. Effects of high-starch or high-fat diets formulated to be isoenergetic on energy and nitrogen partitioning and utilization in lactating Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 103(5):4378-4389. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17638

    NASEM. 2021. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 8th rev. ed. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

    Piccioli-Cappelli, F., J.J. Loor, C.J. Seal, A. Minuti, and E. Trevisi. 2014. Effect of dietary starch level and high rumen-undegradable protein on endocrine-metabolic status, milk yield, and milk composition in dairy cows during early and late lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 97(12):7788-7803. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8336

    Ramirez Ramirez, H.A., E. Castillo Lopez, K.J. Harvatine, and P.J. Kononoff. 2015. Fat and starch as additive risk factors for milk fat depression in dairy diets containing corn dried distillers grains with solubles. J. Dairy Sci. 98(3):1903-1914. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8528

    Shepardson, R.P., and K.J. Harvatine. 2021. Effects of fat supplements containing different levels of palmitic and stearic acid on milk production and fatty acid digestibility in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 104(7):7682-7695. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19665

    van Knegsel, A.T.M., H. van den Brand, J. Dijkstra, W.M. van Straalen, M.J.W. Heetkamp, S. Tamminga, and B. Kemp. 2007. Dietary energy source in dairy cows in early lactation: Energy partitioning and milk composition. J. Dairy Sci. 90(3):1467-1476. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71632-6

    Weld, K. A., and L.E. Armentano. 2017. The effects of adding fat to diets of lactating dairy cows on total-tract neutral detergent fiber digestibility: A meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 100(3):1766-1779. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11500

     

  4. Forage Management After Drought and a Tough Growing Season

    Dr. Emma Matcham, Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; Christine Gelley, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Noble County; and Dr. Ted Wiseman, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Perry County, The Ohio State University

    After two years of drought stress followed by erratic rainfall patterns in 2025, Ohio forage producers are facing a challenging landscape. Pastures across the region show signs of wear—uneven growth, bare patches, and thin stands—while newly seeded alfalfa fields have struggled to establish due to poor planting conditions and unpredictable moisture. As winter approaches, now is the time to take action to protect soil, improve forage stands, and plan for a more successful spring.

    Bare ground in pastures is more than an eyesore—it can lead to erosion, weed invasion, and mud. To prevent further degradation, producers should aim to cover exposed soil before winter sets in. At this point in the year, it is too late for most Ohioans to establish annual crops for soil cover over winter. Even winter rye establishes inconsistently after November 1. Instead of using new seedlings to cover soil, applying mulch with hay or straw can help protect the soil and may even introduce residual seed that germinates in spring.

    Frost seeding legumes like red or ladino clover during late winter freeze-thaw cycles is another effective strategy, especially when heavy equipment access is limited. These practices work best when animal traffic is minimized to allow new seedlings to be established. For producers with access to drones or spinner spreaders, frost seeding can be done efficiently across large areas without compacting sensitive ground.

    New alfalfa plantings have been hit hard by this year’s weather. Wet spring conditions delayed planting, while dry summer soils prevented proper seed emergence. Fields with fewer than 25 stems per square foot and less than 6 inches of growth are at high risk for winter kill. Producers should assess stand density and consider overseeding with grasses like orchardgrass or perennial ryegrass to boost yield and forage quality. Cereal crops such as oats or triticale can also provide tonnage, while legumes may improve forage quality but typically yield less. When overseeding, timing and soil moisture are critical—early spring with a no-till drill is ideal, but broadcasting can work if conditions are favorable.

    Autotoxicity is a concern when interseeding alfalfa into older stands. Fields planted before April 2025 are likely unsuitable for replanting with alfalfa, while August 2025 plantings may be safe for spring interseeding in 2026. Fields planted in mid-May through June fall into a gray area, where autotoxic compounds may persist depending on soil type and rainfall. Coarser soils may flush these compounds more quickly, while heavier soils may retain them longer.

    Looking ahead, spring 2026 forage establishment will require careful planning. Soil testing before planting is essential to match seed selection with fertility conditions. Producers should consider using high-biomass winter cover crops to help dry soil faster in spring and explore reduced-tillage systems to maximize planting windows. Nurse crops like oats or barley can protect young alfalfa seedlings from harsh winter conditions and improve stand survival. On fields with a history of poor drainage, winter cover crops can also help transpire excess moisture and improve seedbed conditions.

    Whether managing pastures or alfalfa, rest and recovery are key. Reducing animal movement across stressed areas will give new seedlings a fighting chance. Producers should also consider rotational grazing strategies to prevent overuse of vulnerable areas. With thoughtful planning and timely action, Ohio producers can rebuild forage systems and prepare for a more productive season ahead.

    As Ohio’s land-grant university, The Ohio State University Extension is here to support producers with science-based recommendations, soil testing services, and practical resources. County Extension offices across the state offer localized guidance and can help tailor regeneration strategies to your specific conditions. For more information on cover crops, forage species, and pasture management, visit ohioline.osu.edu, where you’ll find fact sheets and tools to guide your next steps.

  5. Good Stockmanship Begins with Understanding Cattle Behavior

    John Yost, Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wayne County, The Ohio State University

    How cattle react to a handler’s presence is governed by three principles: instincts, past treatment, and what is happening in the moment.  Instincts are behaviors that an animal is born with.  They have a natural instinct to either flee from, or fight, a predator.  A mother with a newborn calf, and intact males, may chose fight over flight, when their natural instinct is to flee from what they perceive as danger.

    Physiology

    Their instincts and physiology give cattle advantages that have historically helped them protect themselves.  Their eyes are set on the side of their head, which gives them a 310-degree field of vision.  Also, their vertical vision is more limited than humans.  If we hold our heads still and look down to the ground, and then look up as high as we can see, we have 140 degrees of vertical vision.  Cattle only have 60 degrees of vertical vision.  While they have a wider field of vision, they have difficulty focusing on an object.  This is why when they encounter an obstacle, like a hose stretched across an alleyway, they will stop to raise and lower their head to try and get the object into focus.  When you also consider that they are color blind, transitions from very bright areas to shadows will cause them to hesitate or completely attempt to avoid those locations.

    Their ears allow them to hear noise at both a higher and lower frequency than humans, but similar to their eyesight, they have issues pinpointing a sound.  Humans can identify a sound’s location within 5 degrees of accuracy, where cattle can get within 30 degrees.  We relate this to when in the wild, they wouldn’t need to know the exact location of a predator, but only the general direction so they can flee away.  Having a greater range of hearing makes them more sensitive to noise.  This is why it is recommended to avoid excessive yelling and inducing metallic-like sounds.

    Past Treatment

    Although personal experiences may tell us otherwise, cattle do not have the ability to think but they do have the ability to learn.  We know that our cows quickly become accustomed to our daily routine.  If you are on a set milking schedule, many of the cows will be standing at the gate ready to head to the parlor when it is time.  They may also be waiting at the bunk line when they hear the feed tractor start up.

    There is also the negative side of this situation.  Cattle have the ability to remember places where they have previously had a bad experience.  There is sufficient literature to support the idea that, if given a choice, cattle will avoid locations where they have had bad experiences. In addition, there is also work that suggests that they can recognize specific people that have treated them badly.  This is why you may see an animal react differently to specific members of the crew.

    What is Happening in the Moment

    Although I have said that cattle can’t think, we also know that they can only have one “thought” at a time.  As a herdsman, you have to understand that whatever an animal is doing, or not doing, is directly related to what you are doing, or not doing.  As I explained earlier, due to their natural instincts and physiology, cattle can become easily distracted.  When you enter a pen, all of the cattle will acknowledge your presence and move to have you in their line of sight.  This is the time you can start to ask them to move in the direction that you want them to move.  Distractions can come in many forms.  If while trying to get them to move, a tractor starts up outside the barn, their attention may become diverted so that you are no longer the focus of their attention.  There could be a hose laying across the alleyway, or a shadow, that will change what they are thinking about.  You have to give them time to understand what the new distraction is, and then regain their focus on you, before you can resume herding them in the direction you want them to go.

    Why does all this matter?  Many of you have made considerable investments in facility features that maximize cow comfort and cattle movement.  In doing so, you are reducing cow stress that we know becomes silent drain on production and welfare.  Whether we want to accept it or not, our mere presence causes stress in animals and if we handle cattle roughly, we can increase their stress level leading to health and production issues.

    What can you do?  In the cattle stockmanship world, we preach about using low-stress handling techniques.  The first step is developing that understanding of your cattle’s instincts and physiology so that you can anticipate how they will react in a given situation.  After that, it comes down to gaining experience in herding cattle.  This is a skill that can be improved, regardless of your experience level.

    As far as specific points to consider when herding cattle:

    • Prior to moving a pen, inspect the path they will travel for any potential distractions.  Did someone leave that hose out again?  This there an area that transitions from bright light to a shadow during the middle of the day that you may need to address with lowing or raising a curtain?  Did someone hang their jacket on a fence in the alleyway?
    • Make sure that the cattle are focused on you so that they respond to what you are asking them to do.  If they get distracted, give them a moment and then get them to focus back on you.  This is also a part of not asking them to do more than one thing at a time.
    • Avoid excessive noise.  It is ok to make a little vocal noise to get their attention.  You shouldn’t be consistently yelling.  Don’t bang on gates.  This is moving the animals by scaring them and will not help you in the moment or in the future when you try to move them again.
    • Avoid excessive physical contact.  Every now and then, you may have to twist a tail or give them a pat on the rump.  Don’t be overly aggressive.  If you are twisting the tail, don’t do it to the point it could break.  Once they start moving, stop twisting their tail.
    • Allow the cattle to move at their own pace.  Cattle typically walk at about 2 mph.  If you are in a hurry and get them to run, there is a chance for them to slip and injure themselves or slam into obstacles.

  6. Celebrating Mr. Royce Thornton’s 42 Years at Ohio State ATI


    After 42 remarkable years of service, mentorship, and leadership, Mr. Royce Thornton retired from his full-time faculty position at Ohio State ATI on September 30, 2025. His departure marks the end of an era defined by his deep commitment to students, his transformative impact on the dairy program, and his unwavering devotion to the mission of agricultural education.

    A Lifelong Passion for Dairy and Education

    Raised on a farm in southwest Idaho, Royce developed a love for dairy at an early age. By middle school, he and his brother had founded Kunadell Jerseys, and at just 12 years old, he purchased his first registered Jersey heifers, paying taxes and running a business before most kids had their first summer job. That early entrepreneurial spirit carried him through a B.S. in Dairy Science from California Polytechnic State University and an M.S. in Dairy Cattle Genetics from Penn State. He joined Ohio State ATI in 1983, bringing with him a wealth of hands-on experience as a self-employed dairy producer and industry leader.

    A Career Dedicated to Students

    Throughout his 42 years at ATI, Royce wore many hats: Assistant Professor, Technology Coordinator of Dairy Cattle Programs, advisor, judging team coach, division chair, and mentor. Yet above all, he has always been an educator first. “Students have always been my number one priority,” he wrote in his retirement letter. “Helping students prepare for their life and career has brought me great satisfaction. Hearing of and observing former students’ successes brings tremendous personal fulfillment, even if they didn’t stay in the dairy industry.”

    Royce has worked directly with more than 470 dairy graduates, and at least 500 more students who went on to successful careers beyond ATI. He’s advised the Dairy Club, coached 29 dairy cattle judging teams to national and international recognition, and guided students to opportunities across the U.S. and abroad. His mentorship extended beyond the classroom, from internships and field trips to professional networking and industry involvement, to ensuring ATI graduates were prepared to lead wherever their paths took them.

    Building a Nationally Recognized Dairy Program

    Tasked with transforming a herd of 20 below-average cows into an award winning herd, he oversaw the design and construction of a new dairy facility, launched a successful donation program, and implemented a cutting-edge genetic improvement plan. Under his leadership, the ATI Holstein herd ranked among the top 500 genetic herds in the nation for 20 consecutive years, while the Jersey herd achieved top-five national production rankings and produced sires for industry bull studs.

    “I appreciated the opportunity to develop an excellent dairy herd and facility during my first 38 years,” Royce reflected. “Both the Holstein and Jersey herds received national recognition for their genetic and production excellence. The journey to build the herds was challenging but rewarding.”

    A Legacy Beyond the Classroom

    Royce’s leadership extended well beyond the ATI.  He served on the board of the National Dairy Shrine, helped launch the Ohio Spring Dairy Expo, and contributed to numerous research projects advancing herd management and genetic selection. His work in organizing training programs, study tours, and industry collaborations built bridges between ATI and the dairy community — relationships that strengthened the program and enriched student learning.

    But for Royce, it’s always been about people. “The colleagues I’ve worked with at Ohio State ATI have been great,” he wrote. “I could not have accomplished what I did without the people around me. People made all the difference in having an enjoyable career.”

    A Bittersweet Goodbye

    While retirement is a well-earned next chapter, the decision did not come easily. “The decision to retire has not been emotionally easy as a huge part of my life and identity will close or at least change,” he shared. “I will miss the students, faculty, and staff. However, I know the timing is right; I must go on. As I leave Ohio State ATI, I have many wonderful memories. I thank Ohio State ATI and the wonderful people for an excellent life journey.”

    As Mr. Royce Thornton steps into retirement, his impact will continue to ripple across classrooms, dairy barns, and boardrooms around the world — wherever former students are shaping the future of agriculture. His legacy is written in the success of those he taught, the programs he built, and the community he helped create. And while he may be leaving campus, the lessons, leadership, and dedication he shared will remain a part of Ohio State ATI forever.

     

  7. Ohio Hosts Two Dairy Challenges During Autumn 2025

    Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    The North American Intercollegiate Dairy Challenge (NAIDC) program began in 2002 (https://www.dairychallenge.org/) and the first regional program began in the northeast in 2003. Since that time, midwest, southern, and western regional dairy challenges have been organized. In addition, Ohio State hosts a local dairy challenge each fall semester to provide training for students in the dairy herd management course and other college students. Students from the Agricultural Technical Institute also have participated for several years, and sometimes, students from Wilmington College participate.

    Dairy Challenge provides the opportunity for students to experience the process of evaluating management practices on a dairy farm and to interact with representatives in the dairy industry. The program is held in a contest format for undergraduate students whereby they are grouped into teams of three to four individuals. Locally, veterinary and graduate students are invited to attend the farm visit and participate in a meeting later in the evening with the contest judges to discuss observations on the farm. A farm in central Ohio is selected and records from the farm are made available to students. Typically, students are taken to the farm for a visit to interview the owner and to observe the facilities for about two hours. Then the teams of students return to campus to finalize their assessment into a presentation for the following day. The students present their findings to a panel of judges consisting of individuals from the University and from allied industries.

    Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge

    The Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge was held October 16-18, 2025 on the Wooster campus in the Sisler Center. The host was Dr. Shaun Wellert with the Agricultural Technical Institute. Eighty-eight students participated from the northeast and midwest regional areas, including students from Ohio State at the Columbus and Wooster campuses. Students, judges, mentors, volunteers, and coaches were welcomed by one of two dairy farms: RMD Dairy in Rittman and Clardale Farms in Fulton. All attendees also had the opportunity to tour the new Pine Tree Dairy in Burbank.

    Ohio Dairy Challenge

    The program this year was held November 7-8, 2025 and was sponsored by ADM Animal Nutrition, Cargill, Purina Animal Nutrition, RP Nutrients, ST Genetics, DSM-firmenich, and Feedworks. The farm selected for the contest was the Rosedale Dairy owned by Paul Keener in Ashland. There were 50 undergraduate students (39 from Columbus, 5 from ATI, and 6 from Wilmington College) and 5 graduate students participating in the program. During the Saturday morning presentations, the students had 20 minutes to present their findings and 10 minutes for questions from the judges. The judges for the program this year were Brian Lammers (ADM Animal Nutrition), Candace Lease (ST Genetics), Laura Tavera (Purina Animal Nutrition), Michele Lahmers (RP Nutrients), Paige Gott (DSM), Maurice Eastridge (Professor, Department of Animal Sciences), and Haley Linder (Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences).

    National NAIDC

    The National NAIDC Contest and Dairy Challenge Academy will be held April 12-14, 2026 in Sioux Falls, SD. The 25th year anniversary of the program will be hosted by Michigan State University in 2027, the location of the first dairy challenge program. The Dairy Challenge program on the Columbus campus is coached by Dr. Maurice Eastridge, on the Wooster campus by Dr. Shaun Wellert, and Daryl Nash is the coordinator at Wilmington College.

    OSU Columbus students participating in the 2025 Northeast Regional Dairy Challenge, Pictured (L to R): Karissa Ayers, Noah Edwards, MaKenzie Morgan, Emma Irvin, Dr. Maurice Eastridge (coach), and Abbie Sapp.