Buckeye Dairy News: VOLUME 28: 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

    The American Farm Bureau Foundation states that US row crop and specialty crop producers have received negative returns for their total cost of production since the year of 2022. These negative returns have become more native in recent years and continue to decline so far in 2026. According to an issue of Farm Policy News from the University of Illinois, this market trend, along with crop producer decisions and unpredictable weather patterns, may influence the cost of feed for dairy farmers across the US.

    Figure 1. Actual and predicted cost of 21 feed commodities fed on Ohio dairy farms; July 29, 2026.

    Figure 1. Actual and predicted cost of 21 feed commodities fed on Ohio dairy farms; July 29, 2026. 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).

    Figure 2. Percent change of the actual cost of 21 feedstuffs fed on Ohio dairy farms from May 25, 2026, to July 29, 2026.

    Figure 2. Percent change of the actual cost of 21 feedstuffs fed on Ohio dairy farms from May 25, 2026, to July 29, 2026. 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.

    Economic Value of Feeds

    Figure 1 displays the costs for the 21 reported commodities in Ohio. These results were produced by SESAME™ for the central Ohio region on July 29, 2026. The prices and estimates displayed in Figure 1 are from a single point in time; therefore, their economic classification may differ as time passes, though they remain a useful tool to predict the cost of a ration. Furthermore, they may provide insight as to which crops are worth the financial investment and may be better left out of a ration until their cost better represents their nutritive value. Although most of the feedstuffs in this issue are currently considered a bargain or priced at market value, the cost of most of these feedstuffs has increased since the previous issue in May (Figure 2).

    The appraisal set, shown in Table 1, predicts the prices for commodities that did not have a current local price. These commodity prices were predicted by SESAME™ 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 when considering the purchase of these ingredients.

    Table 1. Estimated feedstuffs prices not reported for Ohio, July 29, 2026. 
    Table 1. Estimated feedstuffs prices not reported for Ohio, July 29, 2026.

    Feed Nutrient Prices

    The current economic values of nutrients are reported below in Table 2. In July, the cost of the cost of net energy of lactation (NEL), metabolizable protein (MP) and physically effective fiber (e-NDF) increased. The cost of non- physically effective fiber (ne-NDF) decreased since the previous issue.

    Table 2. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms on July 29, 2026 compared to May 25, 2026.
    Table 2. Prices of nutrients for Ohio dairy farms on July 29, 2026 compared to May 25, 2026.

    Milk and Milk Component Prices

    Class I milk price, as well as the price of butter fat and milk protein, all increased in the month of May. This directly increased the Cow-Jones Index estimates of the profitability of milk production. The Cow-Jones Index considers factors including the nutrient input costs displayed in Table 2, cow production metrics, and the current milk and component prices shown in Table 3. The prediction formula uses a 1,500-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 $8.44 and $7.86 /cwt, respectively. Profit margins at both production levels have significantly decreased in the month of July but are still considered to be marginally profitable.

    Table 3. Prices of milk and milk components, sourced from the Federal Marketing Order 33, for Ohio dairy farms on July 29, 2026 compared to May 25, 2026.
    Table 3. Prices of milk and milk components, sourced from the Federal Marketing Order 33, for Ohio dairy farms on July 29, 2026 compared to May 25, 2026.

    In July, the cost of most feedstuffs increased. Additionally, although the Class I milk price increased, the milk component prices decreased. These feed and milk market trends have resulted in small margins of profitability for Ohio dairy producers.  

  2. Corn Silage Pricing and Grain Yield Determination

    Jason Hartschuh, Assistant Professor, Extension Field Specialist, Dairy Management and Precision Livestock, The Ohio State University

    Pricing Corn Silage

    Corn silage is the most economical forage ingredient in dairy cattle diets based upon Sesame ingredient pricing. Corn silage constitutes from 35 to 60% of the total ration intake and is 25 to 40% of the total lactating feed cost. A proper economic value to corn silage is important to optimize farm income.  

    Three ways to price corn silage. Actual production expense (fixed land cost and variable inputs), alternative ingredient market value, or an agreed upon cost from the neighbor for standing corn silage. This article will cover these three alternatives.

    Actual production cost

    The actual production expense provides a method to account for the variable costs (seed, fertilizer, chemicals, machinery, labor, insurance, etc.) and fixed costs (land, taxes, etc.) associated with the effort to plant, grow, harvest and feed corn silage. The Ohio State Extension 2026 Corn Budget values 190-bushel corn grain variable costs at $640/acre and fixed land, labor, and management costs at $550/acre for a total per acre cost of $1,190 to grow and harvest an acre of grain corn. Corn silage yield of 27 tons per acre calculates to a value of about $39/ton standing in the field, with a range of  $37 to 50 depending on yield and starch content. Your specific fixed and variable farm costs can be used to find your farm corn silage cost. The 2025 Ohio State Extension Corn Silage Budget allows users to input their specific farm costs and can be downloaded by searching OSU Farm Office enterprise budgets. 

    Corn silage total cost into a ration requires adding harvest, haul, pack, inoculate, storage losses (shrink), and feed out costs. OSU Extension 2026 Custom Rate Survey (https://farmoffice.osu.edu) rates for chop, haul, and pack range from $7 to 14.40/ton. Industry costs for inoculant range from $0.50 to 1.50/ton, storage shrink $4 to 8/ton, and feed out cost of $0.6 to 2/ton.

    Corn market price

    Another option is to use the OSU corn silage pricing tools which assist in calculating corn silage value based on market prices, which can be found at: https://go.osu.edu/cornsilageprice. This tool allows you to enter your yield estimates and corn market price to arrive at a price per ton and per acre. The tool also allows users to include the harvest cost of grain and silage to arrive at a fair market price for both the buyer and the seller. At Poet in Marion, Ohio, the current new crop price for October/November is $4.54/bu. With current corn prices, the market value of a 27-ton-per-acre corn silage ranges from $37 to 67/ton as fed. When including the harvest cost that the seller doesn’t incur, the value of the corn silage is $35.18/ton as fed while the upper value for the buyer based on feed value is $63.48/ton as-fed.

    Alternative market ingredient value

    Alternative ingredient market value (Sesame) calculates an economic value on corn silage based upon market costs of ground corn grain, alfalfa hay (silage), and various co-products. The Buckeye Dairy News regularly publishes and archives historical ingredient values and calculates predicted prices of various ingredients.  Based on May prices, corn silage value per ton in recent years has been predicted at $85.82 74.33, 75.00, and $78.00 in years 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026, respectively. Corn grain and 48% soybean meal price in those same years was $321/$455, $201/$384, $163/$307 and $174/$378/ton, respectively. “Home grown” corn silage is an economical and valuable ingredient into dairy farm rations. Get it grown, chopped, and packed properly.  

    Pricing Standing Corn Silage

    Purchasing standing corn indicates that current silage inventory is limited, and more forage is required.  Prior to buying standing corn, evaluate these options for alternative forages:  1) Plant a fall or winter cover crop. Spring oat, spring triticale, and annual/Italian ryegrasses are options for early August plantings. Oat and triticale can produce 2 to 2.5 ton/ac DM yield by mid-October in the boot stage or possible 3 ton/acre at head stage in early November; 2) Reduce current corn silage usage and replace with optional economically priced co-products. A dairy nutritionist educated in ration software optimization can provide “best cost” pricing of forage byproducts that could supply cost savings over purchasing standing corn silage; and 3) Reduce lactating or replacement herd inventory. Cull inefficient low-producing cows and reduce replacement heifer inventory to 75% of mature cows if expansion is not in the future.  

    Purchasing standing corn for silage can be accomplished in multiple ways. The agreement must be fair for both buyer (dairy farmer) and seller (crop farmer). Purchasing standing corn silage starts with determining the yield of grain of the standing corn. Then a grain price can be figured out by local cash markets, forward-contract, or delayed pricing. Add on the value of the silage fodder that is removed and deduct a harvest charge the seller will not incur.  Each aspect of this pricing will be reviewed.    

    Grain yield determination

    Determining the grain yield of standing corn can be estimated in several ways: 1) Leave multiple test blocks in each field that can be harvested as dry corn for yield; 2) Use a grain yield estimate calculated by crop insurance; 3) Harvest the standing corn as silage. Obtain tonnage and moisture at time of chopping. Adjust total silage tons to a 35% dry matter basis. Calculate the bushels of corn grain in each ton by using the equivalent factor of 0.15 tons of corn silage harvested equals one bushel of corn grain. Another general rule is each ton of corn silage contains 7 bushels of dry shelled corn; or 4) Use the starch content method, which requires a record of tons chopped and a forage test to determine starch content. Multiple forage tests should be used since different corn varieties have different starch content.    

    Starch method calculations

    DM starch yield  =  as fed silage yield in pounds × % dry matter × % starch (DM basis)
    Example: 27 ton/ac x 2000 lb/ton  x 0.35 (dry matter of the silage) x 0.33 (% starch from feed analysis on a DM Basis) = 6,237 pounds of starch
    Grain yield = lbs starch DM ÷ (% starch content) ÷ (DM % of shell corn at 56 lb/bu)
    Example: 6,237 pounds of starch (from above) ÷ 0.72 (starch content of shelled corn) ÷ .845 (DM % of traded shelled corn) ÷ 56 lb/bu (shelled corn )=183 bu/acre of shelled corn

    Add the stover value of the corn silage removed.  Corn silage has roughly 50% stover on a dry basis. Value the stover based upon good quality grass hay. Every ton of harvested corn silage would remove about 400# of stover on a dry hay equivalent basis (15% moisture); 400 lb of grass hay at $120/ton market price would equate to $24/ton of fodder from the corn silage removed. 

    Remove the dry grain harvest cost for the seller since the grain producer will not be harvesting the crop as dry corn. The OSU Ohio Custom Rates Survey has a value of $10.50/ton to harvest, haul, and fill a corn silage bunker.

    Example:  Standing corn silage that yields 25-ton corn silage (35% DM) per acre. The 0.15 factor equates to 167-bushel corn grain. This factor may be low in high-yielding grain corn where a ton of silage may contain 8.6 bu of corn.  Corn price of $4.52/bu generates $754/acre for grain yield.  $754 divided by 25-ton corn silage equals $30.19/ton for the corn silage. Add $24 value of fodder and subtract the $10.50 harvest charge. The final price for the corn silage is: $30.19 + $24 - $10.50 = $43.69/ton.

    Summary

    Corn silage is a critical and key part of the production and economic return for your dairy farm.  Prepare the equipment, set and monitor the correct chop length and kernel rolls, keep people safety first, and review and update equipment safety.  Scout silage fields regularly for proper fungicide application. Communicate with silage contractors and neighbors on establishing the corn silage price. Have a safe, abundant, and blessed silage season.

  3. Managing Energy Partitioning in Lactating Dairy Cattle

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

    Introduction

    Energy is in body tissue, organs, and products like meat and milk. A nutritionist’s goal is to direct, or partition, as much energy toward the desired outcome for a particular group of cows. The goal of where to direct energy during lactation may change. The cow’s natural inclination for energy partitioning also changes as lactation progresses. The following quote from NASEM (2021) sums it up nicely:

    “Energy partitioning is most affected by stage of lactation but also by the interaction between diet and physiological state of the cows as they progress through lactation.”

    In early lactation, cows direct more energy to milk, while in later lactation energy shifts toward body weight gain (Figure 1). Therefore, a skillful nutritionist alters the energy sources and concentrations fed to cows to direct the energy to the desired locale at the desired time.

    Figure 1. Cow's metabolism and energy flow changes during lactation.

    Figure 1. Cow’s metabolism and energy flow changes during lactation. Strategically using energy sources can maximize milk yield and improve body condition, but the optimal sources depend on the stage of the cow’s lactation. Created in Biorender.com

    Energy partitioning is an important part of ration formulation but is not necessarily reflected in ration models. Models like NASEM and CNCPS include requirements for milk production, growth, and pregnancy, but the models do not directly reflect the metabolic shifts within the cow. If you’re diligent, inputting the pregnancy status and target body weight change, then models do partially reflect the changes in energy partitioning as lactation progresses. At this point, understanding how to use energy sources and manage energy concentrations to optimize energy partitioning is a skill requiring proper nutrition model use and knowledge of the cow’s nutritional biochemistry. The latter is what this article strives to describe.

    Early Lactation – Step on the Gas!

    During early lactation, mammals, not just cows, prioritize milk production. A byproduct of decades of dairy cow nutrition research is a thorough understanding of postpartum metabolism. After calving, there are coordinated changes across tissues that prioritize milk production: the liver increases gluconeogenesis, adipose tissue reduces fatty acid uptake and increases lipolysis, the muscle decreases glucose use and increases protein degradation, and insulin declines; each change prioritizes resource use by the mammary gland for milk production (Baumgard et al., 2017). As a nutritionist, we can use these built-in adaptations to lactation to increase milk yield and profitability.

    Promoting the production of milk components in early lactation can be achieved through provision of energy like starch and palmitic acid. One great example of the cow’s ability to take energy from starch and convert it to milk yield was a research project by Maltz et al. (2013). They provided more of the concentrate mix (composed of corn grain, cottonseed, citrus pulp, soybean hulls, and soybean meal) to cows depending on their calculated energy balance. As cows were provided more energy, mostly from more starch, they made more milk. The additional energy in early lactation was not used for body weight or body condition. McCarthy et al. (2015) also observed that feeding 26% starch instead of 21% dietary starch increased early lactation milk yield.

    Supplementing palmitic acid can also increase postpartum milk yield. Both Parales-Girón et al. (2025) and de Souza et al. (2021) observed that feeding palmitic acid at 1.5% of diet DM increased milk and milk fat yields after calving. The risk of additional palmitic acid is that body weight loss may also increase. Excess body weight loss can reduce fertility or increase disease risk and should be monitored if feeding palmitic acid.

    The risks for feeding both additional starch and palmitic acid can be mitigated with sound ration formulation. First, when feeding additional starch, it is best to avoid highly rumen degradable sources, like barley or high moisture corn, as feeding them may reduce feed intake and milk yield (Albornoz and Allen, 2018). Providing adequate forage NDF (17-27%; NASEM, 2021) or physically effective NDF (20% of diet DM) can also help mitigate risks of increasing dietary starch. The body weight loss when feeding palmitic acid can be reduced by feeding some oleic acid, often in a fatty acid blended product targeting 0.8 or 0.9% of diet DM as oleic acid (de Souza et al., 2021). Feeding high oleic soybeans likely provides a similar benefit.

    Later Lactation – Maintain Body Condition

    As lactation progresses, a cow’s metabolism shifts. The resources we provide her are not as strongly prioritized toward the mammary gland. It’s also likely, if her lactation has gone according to plan, that she is pregnant and allocating resources to a growing fetus. Her metabolic and physiological changes require changes in dietary substrate to maintain milk production and a healthy body condition.

    As lactation progresses, providing dietary starch as an energy source promotes body tissue accretion. Feeding starch in place of NDF and fatty acids increases body weight gain in lactating dairy cattle (Boerman et al., 2015; Morris et al., 2020; dos Santos Neto et al., 2025). This is likely a result of increased propionate which promotes insulin signaling, a pro-tissue building signal in mammals. Feeding digestible NDF as a carbohydrate, instead of starch, generally promotes acetate production in the rumen, not propionate. Acetate does not cause the same insulin response and thus does not promote the same weight gain. In later lactation cows, feeding NDF in place of starch can maintain or sometimes increase milk yield.

    Additionally, supplementing palmitic acid may increase milk fat yield while avoiding body weight gain from additional energy in later lactation. The ability of oleic acid supplementation to increase fatty acid digestibility and increase sensitivity to insulin signals increases the risk of excessive body weight gain during later lactation. Thus, oleic acid supplementation should be limited, and palmitic acid should be increased as lactation progresses.

    Conclusions

    The bottom line is that cows’ needs, and their bodies’ partitioning of nutrients to suit those needs, change as lactation progresses. As nutritionists, we can use those metabolic changes to manage the cows according to our goals throughout lactation. In early lactation, we can strategically provide energy sources, like starch and fatty acids, to maximize milk production. During later lactation, providing digestible NDF sources minimizes body weight gain while maintaining or increasing milk production. Implementing these feeding strategies to both maintain milk production and manage body condition of your cows will increase animal health and production over the course of their lifetime while increasing the farmer’s profitability and efficiency. 

    References and Suggested Reading

    Albornoz, R.I., and M.S. Allen. 2018. Highly fermentable starch at different diet starch concentrations decreased feed intake and milk yield of cows in the early postpartum period. J. Dairy Sci. 101(10):8902-8915. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14843

    Baumgard, L.H., R.J. Collier, and D.E. Bauman. 2017. A 100-Year Review: Regulation of nutrient partitioning to support lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 100(12):10353-10366. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13242

    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., C.M. Prom, and A.L. Lock. 2021. Altering the ratio of dietary palmitic and oleic acids affects production responses during the immediate postpartum and carryover periods in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 104(3):2896-2909. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19311

    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

    Maltz, E., L.F. Barbosa, P. Bueno, L. Scagion, K. Kaniyamattam, L.F. Greco, A. De Vries, and J.E.P. Santos. 2013. Effect of feeding according to energy balance on performance, nutrient excretion, and feeding behavior of early lactation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96(8):5249-5266. 10.3168/jds.2013-6549

    McCarthy, M.M., T. Yasui, C.M. Ryan, G.D. Mechor, and T.R. Overton. 2015. Performance of early-lactation dairy cows as affected by dietary starch and monensin supplementation. J. Dairy Sci. 98(5):3335-3350. 10.3168/jds.2014-8820

    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. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

    Parales-Girón, J.E., J.M. dos Santos Neto, G.A. Contreras, and A.L. Lock. 2025. Supplemental palmitic acid and chromium propionate impact production responses during the immediate postpartum in multiparous dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 10.3168/jds.2024-25658

  4. Assessing Protein Quality in Heat-Treated Soybean Products

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

    Protein is a critical nutrient in the diets of food-producing animals. It provides amino acids to tissues for cellular structure and function (e.g., muscle is about 20% protein) and can be used as an energy source. Thus, it is vital for maintenance, growth, and production by animals. Crude protein (CP) generally consists of 12 to 20% of the diets for food-producing animals, depending on age and productive stage of the animal, with 16% being a typical concentration. For ruminants, the protein is supplied via concentrates and forages, but for non-ruminants, the protein is primarily supplied by grains. Soybean products are by far the most abundant source of supplemental protein in diets for food animals in the US. Of the soybeans produced in the US, about 97% are processed for animal feed, biofuels and vegetable oil; 2.6% is directly used for animal feed; and 0.1% used directly for human food. The primary ingredient for supplemental protein in farm animal diets is soybean meal (SBM). The oil is extracted either by solvent or mechanically, with about 99% of the SBM available being from solvent extraction because the solvent process results in a higher recovery of the oil than mechanical extraction. Solvent extracted SBM will have about 1.5% residual oil versus 5 to 7% with mechanically extracted SBM. Solvent extracted SBM typically contains 48% (CP, as-fed basis) if the hulls are left out during processing or 44% CP if the hulls are added back into the meal. Soybean hulls can be purchased as a separate commodity, but they only contain about 14% CP. Mechanically processed SBM is priced higher because of the residual oil for energy and the higher level of rumen undegradable protein (RUP) in comparison to solvent extracted SBM.

    There is growing interest in feeding full-fat soybeans (SB) to food animals, especially to lactating dairy cattle for the energy and protein. Typical SB contain about 48% of the fatty acids (FA) as linoleic acid (C18:2) and 25% as oleic acid (C18:1). In the new variety of high oleic acid Plenish SB, C18:2 is at about 6% and C18:1 at 74% (Bales and Lock, 2024). The lower level of unsaturation results in lower risks to disrupting ruminal fermentation. Heat treating both types of SB has interest to reduce the antinutritional properties and increase the level RUP in the SB, whereby more of the protein is degraded in the small intestine instead of in the rumen. Therefore, the goal is to adequately heat the SB to reduce the antinutritional properties but not overheat the protein source whereby the total tract digestibility of the protein is reduced. The heat processing (roasting) may be done at a feed plant or on-farm. In either case, the temperature used in the roasting, steeping time, and cooling mechanisms post-roasting are critical for optimal results. Thus, various options for assessment of protein quality in SBM and full-fat SB are described in Table 1. Several commercial laboratories offer these analytical methods.

    Conclusions

    Soybeans are a source of high-quality protein and typically at an economical advantage for dairy farms compared to other feed ingredients. However, further heat processing can increase the value of the meal or beans as discussed above. The additional heating needs to be adequate for the desired outcome and overheating can be detrimental to protein digestibility and amino acid absorption, but underheating limits animal response while having increased the cost of the ingredient. The analyses described above provide insightful information, but oftentimes, the absolute number from the analysis for a given feed will be less valuable than using the analytical data to assess the difference in values among different processors or a change in a value caused by a processing change.

    Sources

    Bales, A.M., and A.L. Lock. 2024. Feeding high oleic acid soybeans to lactating dairy cows. Proceedings 32nd Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, Columbus, OH. https://www.tristatedairy.org/

    Boucher, S.E., S. Calsamiglia, C.M. Parsons, H.H. Stein , M.D. Stern, P.S. Erickson, P.L. Utterback, and C.G. Schwab. 2009. Intestinal digestibility of amino acids in rumen undegradable protein estimated using a precision-fed cecectomized rooster bioassay: I. Soybean meal and SoyPlus. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :4489–4498.

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2025. Accessed via OurWorldinData.org/agricultural-production

    Multi-step in vitro protein evaluation (MSPE). Cumberland Valley Analytical Services. Water, Waynesboro, PA, https://www.foragelab.com/Services/Forage-and-Feed/Invitro-Digestibility

    NASEM. 2021. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 8th rev. ed. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, National Academies Press, Washington DC.

    Raver, K. and J. Goeser. Technical Insights: Evaluating soybean roasting efficacy. Rock River Laboratory, Inc. Watertown, WI. https://rockriverlab.com/file_open.php?id=557 

    van Eys, J.E., and N. Ruiz. 2021.Quality manual and analysis for soybean products in the feed industry. 3rd ed., US Soy and US Soybean Export Council. https://ussec.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/QualityManualAnalyses_NewBrandColors_0629_Final.pdf

    Table 1. Analytical measures to assess protein quality in soybean meal (SBM) and soybeans (SB).

    Feature

    Desired Level

    Comments

    Antinutritional properties

    Urease index (UI)

    Measured as change in pH; 0.0-0.075 pH unit rise

    Assesses whether inadequate heat treatment occurred

    Trypsin inhibitor (TI) index

    <1.6-2.5 mg/g or 3-4 TIU/mg; TIU = TI units

    Assesses whether inadequate heat treatment occurred; results similar to UI for SBM, but TI is preferred for full-fat soybeans

    Changes in chemical properties

    Protein Dispersibility Index (water solubility; PDI)

    15-30% of N

    Simplest and most consistent method to assess overheating; may be reflective of changes in antinutritional and chemical properties; can be used with SBM and full fat SB, but may be more suitable for SBM; value may change with feed storage time

    Protein solubility (potassium hydroxide)

    78 -85%

    Assesses if overheating has occurred; more reliable with SBM than full fat SB

    Acid detergent insoluble nitrogen (ADIN)

    0.16 +0.13% of DM (NASEM)

    Assesses protein availability from forages; it overestimates the unavailability of protein in grains

    Rumen degradability

    In-situ digestibility

     

    NA

    Samples (2 g) ground at 2 mm and incubated for 16 to 60 hr in rumen cannulated animal; used to determine rate and extent of digestibility

    In-vitro digestibility

    (sometimes referred to as multistep or Ross protein evaluation)

    NA

    Samples (0.5 g) ground at 1 mm and incubated for 30 to 60 hr in rumen fluid; used to determine rate and extent of digestibility; used to estimate rumen degradable/undegradable protein within the laboratory setting

    In-vivo digestibility

    NA

    Digestibility within the animal; restricted primarily to research laboratories; very costly

    Changes in Amino Acids

     

     

    Reactive lysine

    Digestibility > 88% of total lysine

    Method to assess the availability of lysine from the E-amino group as low reactive lysine would be indicative of overheating the SB product

     

  5. Feeding Pre-Weaned Calves, Part 4: Solid Diet – Feeding the Rumen Transition

    Liat Schiowitz, Graduate Student and Dr. Grazyne Tresoldi, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    In this final article of our four-part series, we bring together the core components of early-life nutrition that boosts calf welfare and lifetime performance. Having covered colostrum, milk, and fresh water, today we focus on establishing the digestive capacity required for a successful transition at weaning and beyond: the solid diet.

    Building the Functional Rumen: Grain and Forage

    You probably are familiar with the idea that the calf grain starter – or more specifically the volatile fatty acids (VFA) produced by its fermentation – stimulates papillae growth, so that the rumen can become functional and absorb nutrients into the bloodstream. Beyond chemical development, it may also provide enough particle structure to trigger chewing and rumination.

    However, another often-overlooked, essential component of the solid diet is forage. While some starters get chewing started, forage provides the additional physical bulk and muscular stimulation needed for the rumen to expand in volume and develop optimal motility. Physical fiber also keeps the rumen wall healthy by reducing buildup on the lining. It sustains long-term rumination and saliva flow, keeping ruminal pH optimal.

    In addition, both grain and forage provide the essential nutrients necessary to cultivate a diverse population of microbes throughout the rumen and gut. As fermentation activity increases, these microbes establish a stable, mature ecosystem. Research has shown that early colonization and the establishment of a healthy microbiome influence metabolic efficiency and immune system development, yielding persistent, positive benefits into adulthood.

    What Makes a High-Quality Solid Diet?

    Establishing early solid feed intake requires balancing multiple aspects such as palatability, physical texture, particle size, nutritional density, and overall quality. Calves are quick to sort through feed and will pick out components they dislike or reduce feed intake altogether.

    Starter Grain

    Texture and physical form: coarsely texturized starter (containing whole, cracked, or steam-flaked grains blended with molasses) often supports healthier ruminal pH and can improve intake compared to finely ground or pelleted feeds. Coarse grains increase chewing time, encourage earlier rumination, and boost natural saliva buffering. Calves dislike fine, dust-like particles and will refuse to eat them, reducing dry matter intake (DMI) by ~10%.

    Nutritional specifications: Target 20 to 22% crude protein (DM basis), focusing on the availability of essential amino acids (lysine, methionine, and threonine) to support lean frame growth under higher milk feeding programs. Texturized starters can safely contain 35 to 40% starch due to their larger particle size, whereas high starch in finely ground or pelleted feeds ferments too quickly. Keep supplemental fat under 5% as high fat diets reduce intake and fiber digestion.

    Forage

    Although some may believe forage causes "potbellies" or stalls growth, research in this area has grown rapidly and shown that when fed at precise levels, forage complements starter intake, often increasing total intake and body weight. Common forage choices include hay (e.g., alfalfa, oat, and grass hays), silage (e.g., corn, triticale), straw (e.g., wheat, barley), and pasture.

    As a general starting point, aim for roughly 12% of total DM as forage, but optimal inclusion depends on forage type and quality. Highly digestible forages like alfalfa or good oat/grass hay can be fed at higher rates without displacing energy-dense starter intake. For example, alfalfa can be fed up to 20% for optimal performance, whereas low-quality forages like straw are included at low rates (~9%) not for growth but to support ruminal pH and rumen health.

    Particle size matters: Forage should be coarsely chopped to 1 to 2 inches to reduce feed sorting, stimulate rumination, and maintain a clean, healthy rumen lining. Additionally, providing forage reduces non-nutritive oral behaviors, such as cross-sucking or licking pen fixtures.

    How to Offer Solid Feeds

    Even the highest quality starter and forage won't yield good results if management doesn't match calf feeding behavior. Key considerations include:

    • Offer starter and forage separately: providing feeds in separate containers allows calves to self-regulate their fiber intake without reducing grain consumption.
    • Introduce solid feed early: offer small amounts early to entice calves to explore and consume solids. Calves often sample feed as early as day 3 of life. If providing forage later, research shows introducing it by week 2 yields better growth performance and rumen development compared to waiting until week 4 or 6.
    • Keep feed fresh: replace starter daily, starting with small handfuls and increasing as intake grows. Always pair solid feed with continuous access to clean, fresh water, which creates the fluid environment required for rumen fermentation to take place.
    • Container design matters: calves seem to prefer eating from shallow containers compared to placing their heads deep into buckets, where their eyes are covered and vision is obstructed.
    • Harness social facilitation: calves housed in pairs or small groups often begin eating earlier and in larger quantities than individually housed calves, as bolder pen-mates teach timid calves through social learning. Always adjust feeding practices to account for competition (such as providing multiple feeding containers).

    Setting up Calves for a Successful Weaning

    While calves are traditionally weaned based on age, solid feed intake is the most reliable metric for weaning readiness. To ensure a smooth transition, calves should be consuming at least 2.5 to 3 lb/day of starter for 3 consecutive days before milk is completely removed. Because solid intake varies with milk allowance, calves fed higher milk volumes may reach this benchmark later. However, there are substantial long-term benefits to this trade-off, as discussed in Part 2.

    Reduce milk gradually. Abrupt milk removal often results in a "slump" where calves lose weight or stagnate because they haven't learned to consume enough solid feed to meet their energy needs. A 7- to 14-day gradual milk step-down (reducing volume, frequency, or diluting milk) creates a gentle energy deficit that prompts the calf to increase solid feed intake, boosting ruminal maturation and reducing signs of distress.

    Take-Home Messages (Table 1)

    • Solid diet encompasses both grain starter and forage. Each play distinct, complementary roles in establishing chemical absorption, physical strength, and microbial diversity in the digestive tract.
    • When fed at recommended levels, high quality forages increase total dry matter intake and body weight gain.
    • Watch your calves: along with their growth, measure what and how much they are eating to guide management decisions.
    • Feeding goes beyond what is fed: management aspects such as container design, feed freshness, and social companionship directly affect how much solid feed calves consume.
    • All aspects of early-life nutrition are intertwined: milk allowance, starter specifications, forage quality, and water access work as an integrated system. Work closely with your nutritionist and Extension team to align solid diet parameters with your specific milk program and farm goals.

    Table 1. Key benchmarks: Solid diet and weaning transition.

    Management Area Target/Benchmark Why it Matters
    Solid diet introduction As early as possible, in shallow containers. Stimulates early exploration and solid feed intake; calves prefer to eat from shallow containers.
    Starter type and formulation Coarsely texturized; 20 to 22% CP, 35 to 40% starch, <5% fat. Supports rumen lining development and lean frame growth under high milk allowances.
    Forage inclusion and delivery 12% of DM, coarsely chopped, fed in a separate container. Stimulates rumen volume expansion and muscular motility without compromising starter intake; allows self-regulation of fiber.
    Weaning readiness Calves eat 2.5 to 3 lb/day of starter for > 3 days. Ensures the rumen microbial population and surface area can fully support growth post-milk.
    Weaning method 7 to 14-day gradual milk step-down Prevents post-weaning growth slumps and minimizes weaning distress.

    Selected References

    Castells, Ll., A. Bach, G.  Araujo, C. Montoro, and M.Terré. 2012. Effect of different forage sources on performance and feeding behavior of Holstein calves. J. Dairy Sci. 95(1), 286–293. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4405 

    Ghaffari, M.H., J.K. Drackley, and A.F. Kertz. 2025. Invited review: Unlocking growth and development potential in dairy calves through precision protein feeding. J. Dairy Sci.108, 6601–6616. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26419

    Miller-Cushon, E.K., and T.J. DeVries. 2015. Invited review: Development and expression of dairy calf feeding behaviour. Can. J.  Anim. Sci. 95(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas-2014-163

    Song, Y., S. Wen, and L.L. Guan. 2026. Unraveling the dynamic changes in the intestinal microbiome: Impacts on pre-weaning calf health and productivity. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-026-01354-6 

    Toledo, A.F., A.P. Silva, F.V. Barbosa, R.D. Barboza, I.C. Oliveira, E.D. Marino, D.M. Polizel, and C.M. Bittar. 2024. Forage sources in total mixed rations on rumen fermentation, gut fill, and development of the gastrointestinal tract of dairy calves. Sci. Rep. 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-80271-y 

    Xiao, J., G.M. Alugongo, J. Li, Y. Wang, S. Li, and Z. Cao. 2020. Review: How forage feeding early in life influences the growth rate, ruminal environment, and the establishment of feeding behavior in pre-weaned calves. Animals 10, 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020188

    Xiao, J., J. Tian, Y. Peng, R. Hu, Q. Peng, L Wang, B. Xue, and Z. Wang. 2025. Effects of forage feeding to calves on performance, rumen fermentation, and nutrient digestibility: A meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 108(1), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-24917  

     

     

  6. Preparing for Harvest: Do You Need Silage Inoculants?

    Kirby Krogstad, Assistant Professor; Jason Hartschuh, Dairy Field Specialist; Dwight Roseler, Adjunct Faculty; and Maurice Eastridge, Professor, The Ohio State University

    Introduction

    Silage, whether it be corn, alfalfa, or some other crop, is a staple in dairy cattle rations. Silage can be fed to animals at nearly all ages, from post-weaning heifers to mature cows. High quality silage can promote efficient growth of replacement dairy cattle or efficient milk production of lactating dairy cows. As positive as high-quality silage can be, poor silage can be equally problematic. Whether the silage is of great or poor quality, you’re stuck with it for at least a year. As Kung and Muck (2017) stated, “…decisions made during the relatively few days a year spent on harvesting and silo filling can affect feeding value of the silage for the next year.” Investing time, energy, and resources to get silage harvested and stored right are resources well spent.

    Creating high-quality silage is a product of multiple management decisions, such as harvest timing, chop length, packing density, and effective sealing, covering, or bagging of the silage. Selection and utilization of silage inoculants play an important supporting role in silage management. While inoculants don’t guarantee a perfect silage crop, they increase the probability of having a good silage crop, especially by mitigating dry matter losses during storage. Our goal is to introduce and describe important considerations when selecting microbial silage inoculants.

    Silage Fermentation

    Silage fermentation proceeds in stages (Figure 1). First, a silage is aerobic, meaning there is oxygen present. During this stage, plant respiration continues and aerobic bacteria are present. After the silage is covered and microbes begin their work, the oxygen is consumed and carbon dioxide is produced which begins to create an anaerobic environment. As the oxygen is depleted, sugars are degraded and anaerobic bacteria increase, which results in the production of acids that reduce silage pH, especially lactic acid. If these steps proceed as described, the silage will have a low pH, be at low risk for clostridium or other contaminants, and remain relatively stable, even for long periods of time and have better aerobic stability when the surface is exposed. Silage inoculants can shorten the first 4 phases of this process by aiding in acid production and pH decline.

    Phases of normal fermentation.1
    Figure 1. Process of silage fermentation. Adapted from Jones et al., 2004.

    Types of Inoculants

    Inoculants aid silage in three key areas: enhance adequate fermentation, prevent clostridial fermentation, and enhance aerobic stability of silage at feed out.

    The microbial species used in inoculants are categorized based on their lactic acid production: homolactic acid bacteria, heterolactic acid bacteria, and combination of both homo- and heterolactic acid bacteria. The distinction may seem superfluous, but the microbial metabolism is critical to the benefits of using an inoculant during silage production.

    Homolactic acid bacteria are those that produce only lactic acid as an end-product of their metabolism. Lactobacillus plantarum and Enterococcus faecium are two such examples. Homolactic acid bacteria have long been used for microbial silage inoculants because they produce lactic acid which reduces the pH – a critical step in the ensiling process. Enhancing pH reduction is important in forages with less starch or sugar as these fuel acid production during ensiling. Alfalfa silage is a prime example; ensiling alfalfa silage with homolactic acid bacteria inoculants reduced the alfalfa silage pH by 0.3 units and increased lactic acid by 10 to 20% (Li et al., 2022). Similar results were obtained in a meta-analysis; homolactic acid bacteria inoculants reduced silage pH, increased lactic acid, and reduced yeasts and mold contaminants (Blajman et al., 2020).

    Heterolactic acid bacteria produce a distinct fermentation pattern, greater acetate production being the most prominent change. Acetic acid increases by 20 to 78% when utilizing Lactobacillus buchneri in a microbial silage inoculant. Researchers have observed that lactic acid was reduced and pH was similar or marginally greater when adding L. Buchneri to silage, but yeast contamination was reduced and aerobic stability increased when utilizing this heterolactic acid bacteria (Kleinschmit and Kung, 2006, Schmidt and Kung, 2010). Thus, when using heterolactic acid bacteria, expect greater acetic acid, less lactic acid, and slightly greater pH than if using a homolactic acid bacteria inoculant.

    Figure 2. Decision tree to aid in selection of microbial inoculants for silages fed to dairy cattle.
    Figure 2. Decision tree to aid in selection of microbial inoculants for silages fed to dairy cattle. Created in https://BioRender.com.

    How to Choose

    Choosing an inoculant depends on the goals of the silage management program, the challenges facing the silage program, or the forage type being ensiled.

    If you’re ensiling alfalfa or grass (low in starch), homolactic acid silage inoculants are preferred as they rapidly reduce silage pH. The rapid pH reduction inhibits problematic bacteria, like Clostridium. Grain silages experience less benefit from homolactic acid silage inoculants because the sugar and starch content of the feed helps enhance fermentation to reduce pH. Homolactic acid bacteria generally don’t reduce pH in a well-fermented grain silage. Grain silage can benefit from a mixed or heterolactic acid silage inoculant because the increased acetic acid improves stability at feedout while reducing yeast or mold contamination. Mixed and heterolactic acid silage inoculants are beneficial if you’re expecting challenges that affect aerobic stability like greater dry matter at harvest, hot weather when feeding, feeding from multiple silage faces, not feeding enough silage from the silage face, or if you have to move the silage and re-ensile it. The decision tree in Figure 2 may be a helpful starting point when selecting your microbial silage inoculant.

    Milk Production Responses

    Improvements in silage fermentation alone have a dollar value but inoculated-silage also promotes greater milk production when fed to dairy cattle. This could occur in response to forage of greater nutritional value and by increasing dry matter intake. A 2026 research experiment demonstrated that cows fed corn silage inoculated with a mixed lactic acid bacteria inoculant produced 2.6 kg/d (5.7 lb/d) more milk than cows fed a non-inoculated corn silage (Niño de Guzmán et al., 2026). In a meta-analysis (a summary of 31 experiments), feeding inoculated silage increased milk yield by 0.37 kg/d (0.82 lb/d) (Oliveira et al., 2017).  These experiments demonstrate that microbial inoculation helps with both silage fermentation and the cow’s milk production.

    Conclusions

    Silage quality is important for dairy farm’s nutrition program, milk yield, animal health, and therefore can has considerable economic impact. Good silage management, including proper harvest timing, ensiling, storage, and feedout are nonnegotiable fundamentals when feeding silage. Silage inoculants play an important supporting role by reducing silage pH, increasing aerobic stability, and improving milk production. Using an inoculant typically is not an ‘if’ scenario, but a ‘which one’ proposition. When selecting a microbial silage inoculant, following our decision tree will be a useful starting point.

    References and Suggested Reading

    Blajman, J.E., G. Vinderola, R.B. Páez, and M.L. Signorini. 2020. The role of homofermentative and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria for alfalfa silage: a meta-analysis. J. Agric. Sci. 158(1-2):107-118. 10.1017/S0021859620000386

    Kleinschmit, D.H. and L. Kung. 2006. A meta-analysis of the effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn and grass and small-grain silages. J. Dairy Sci. 89(10):4005-4013. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72444-4

    Kung, L. and R.E. Muck. 2017. Silage harvesting and storage. Pages 723-738 in Large Dairy Herd Management. 3rd ed. D.E. Beede, ed. American Dairy Science Association, Champaign, IL.

    Li, Y., E.B. da Silva, J. Li, and L. Kung. 2022. Effect of homo-fermentative lactic acid bacteria inoculants on fermentation characteristics and bacterial and fungal communities in alfalfa silage. Fermentation 8(11):621.

    Niño de Guzmán, C., J. Portuguez, R. Trumpp, C. Cornejo, K.V. Almeida, D. Vassolo, S. Paladugu, I. Fernandez-Marenchino, L. Mu, F.X. Amaro, L. Lima, H. Sultana, K. Arriola, A.T. Adesogan, and D. Vyas. 2026. Effects of feeding silage inoculated with Lactococcus lactis and Lentilactobacillus buchneri on performance and nutrient utilization in transition dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 109(4):3818-3833. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-27566

    Oliveira, A.S., Z.G. Weinberg, I.M. Ogunade, A.A.P. Cervantes, K.G. Arriola, Y. Jiang, D. Kim, X. Li, M.C.M. Gonçalves, D. Vyas, and A.T. Adesogan. 2017. Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and the performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 100(6):4587-4603. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11815

    Schmidt, R.J. and L. Kung. 2010. The effects of Lactobacillus buchneri with or without a homolactic bacterium on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silages made at different locations. J. Dairy Sci. 93(4):1616-1624. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2555

  7. Ground Preparation for Winter Small Grain Forages

    Alyssa Essman, Assistant Professor and Emma Matcham, Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

    We’re still a few months away from planting winter annual forages in Ohio, but now is a great time to start planning for fall. This article covers some ground preparation reminders that help overcome common challenges with establishment, winter kill, and weed control in small grain forages.

    Planting for small grains should occur after the Hessian Fly Free date, and planting before this date rarely increases spring yield. Earlier plantings of small grains in Ohio are only recommended when utilizing small grains for fall pasture. Aim to plant wheat or barley within 10-14 days of the fly free date for your county (Figure 1). Cereal rye is our most cold tolerant small grain and can be planted up to November 1. Triticale is more cold tolerant than wheat but less cold tolerant than cereal rye; aim to plant triticale by October 20th in southern Ohio and October 10th in northern Ohio.

    Fly free date mapo for Ohio.
    Figure 1. Fly free date map for Ohio, originally from https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter/2015-29/hessian-fly-free-date-good-wheat-cover-crops-and-disease

    Many fields in a silage corn-small grain baleage rotation will have compaction issues along field entrances and other paths of travel. Evaluate compaction during your summer crop, focusing on paths of travel that get used during harvest and manure application. Signs to watch out for include shorter plants, horizontal root development, and harder soils. I like to bring a survey flag with me and insert it into the soil, feeling for areas with increased resistance to the flag.

    If you identify compacted areas, consider whether targeted deep tillage would be useful in portions of your field(s), and if so, when, where, and how deep to till. Generally, aim to till at least one inch deeper than the compacted layers. This deeper tillage pass may only be necessary in parts of the field with frequent machinery traffic, and avoiding tillage across the whole field can help maintain soil health in other portions of the field while reducing how much you spend on diesel while tilling. Tillage between silage corn harvest and small grain planting is frequently easier than tilling in the spring between small grain harvest and corn planting, partially due to dryer weather and partially due to the timing of corn silage harvest.  

    Small grains have slightly larger seeds than a lot of our other common forage crops and should be planted a bit deeper—aim for around 1.5 inches below the soil surface. Consistent planting depth into a firm seedbed helps emergence and overwintering in small grains. Check depth regularly, especially in wet conditions or when soils are hard and dry. Recommended seeding rates for wheat and rye planted in the 2 weeks following the fly-free date is 1.2 to 1.6 million seeds/acre; when planting 3 to 4 weeks after the fly free date, target 1.5 to 2 million seeds/acre. Aim to plant at the higher end of those ranges when growing small grains for forage.

    Where tillage will not be implemented between corn silage and small grain planting, management of fall-emerging winter annual weeds should be a consideration. Successful crop establishment resulting in a healthy, dense stand allows small grains to effectively compete with weeds in the spring. Glyphosate, saflufenacil (Sharpen), and paraquat can be used as burndown options ahead of crop emergence. Control of winter annuals including chickweed, purple deadnettle, and other emerged plants at the time of application should be a priority for any fall treatments. In the spring, herbicides can help clean up any break throughs from summer annual species that may be of concern. For effective herbicide options, review control ratings in the small grains herbicide table of the Weed Control Guide. Spring applications can largely take place prior to jointing, after which it will be increasingly important to check labels to assess growth stage cutoffs. When reviewing labels, also be sure to evaluate any grazing or forage feeding restrictions.  

    For cereal rye planted after silage corn, grass weed control is complicated by few labeled herbicide options, even compared with wheat and barley. Management largely relies on cultural practices. In general, cereal rye is very competitive, and if allowed to generate sufficiently, biomass will smother and outcompete most grassy weed species. Using crop rotation can be an effective method to increase control diversity and reduce weeds. Prioritizing grass weed control in these other rotations can help drive down populations and seeds in the soil seedbank over time.

  8. Light and Darkness: Managing Photoperiod in Dairy Barns

    Lucas González-Chappe and Anaclara Daudet, Graduate Research Associates, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

    As dairy cows spend more time in indoor housing, their exposure to light is increasingly determined by barn design and management rather than by the natural day–night cycle alone (Winsten et al., 2010; Cloutier et al., 2025). Light exposure has received limited attention despite its potential role regulating circadian rhythms and influencing physiology, metabolism, and behavior in mammals (Dauchy and Blask, 2023). Photoperiod-management programs have been increasingly adopted by dairy operations during both the transition period and lactation (Adamczyk et al., 2024).

    Light suppresses melatonin synthesis, whereas darkness stimulates its secretion (Elsabagh et al., 2020). Melatonin therefore serves as an endocrine signal of the environmental light–dark cycle and contributes to the regulation of circadian rhythms, metabolism, physiology, and behavior (Mayo et al., 2017). In dairy cows, melatonin is a key hormone associated with increased antioxidant capacity, improved reproductive function, and enhanced overall health and performance (Afzal et al., 2024). Importantly, melatonin secretion is influenced not only by the duration of light exposure, or photoperiod, but also by light intensity and wavelength (Shen et al., 2026). Consequently, lighting conditions within confined dairy housing systems may alter circulating melatonin concentrations.

    Matching the Photoperiod to the Physiological Stage

    The effect of photoperiod management for dairy cows is not a new concept. In dairy facilities where lighting can be controlled, evidence supports different photoperiod management strategies depending on the physiological stage of the cow (Dahl et al., 2000). As summarized by Shoemaker (2005) in a previous issue of Buckeye Dairy News, for lactating dairy cows, long-day photoperiods consisting of approximately 16 h of light followed by 8 h of darkness are associated with 5-10 % increases in milk yield. For cows milked three times daily, at least 6 h of uninterrupted darkness was recommended, whereas approximately 8 h was considered optimal for cows milked twice daily.

    Dry cows, in contrast, may benefit from a short-day photoperiod of approximately 8 h of light followed by 16 h of darkness (Miller et al., 2000). Short-day photoperiods during the dry period may support mammary development and cellular immune function. Moreover, cows exposed to short-day photoperiod have produced 6.83 lb/day more milk during the subsequent lactation (Dahl et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2000). According to Dahl et al. (2000), managing lighting during the dry period offers an opportunity to producers who find lighting programs impractical during lactation. According to a relatively recent study (McCabe et al., 2021), another important factor of lighting is consistency. These authors found that exposing cows to chronic light–dark phase shifts during late gestation negatively affected mammary gland development and added to insulin resistance development, which highlights the importance of keeping consistency in the lighting programming.

    Light Intensity: Are the Cows Receiving Enough Light?

    Beyond photoperiod, lighting is also characterized by its intensity and spectrum, both of which may influence cow physiology and productivity. Light intensity is commonly expressed as lux or foot-candles (fc). Lux describes the amount of light reaching a surface, with 1 lux equal to 1 lumen per square meter. In contrast, lumens describe the total amount of light emitted by a fixture, whereas watts describe the electrical power consumed. Because different lighting technologies vary in efficiency, wattage alone does not indicate how much light a fixture produces. When comparing fixtures, producers should focus on total lumen output and luminous efficacy (lumens per watt), rather than wattage alone (Table 1).

    So, how can we determine whether our cows are receiving enough light? A reliable way to evaluate a lighting program is with a handheld light meter (Figure 1). Measurements should be taken at cow-eye level in feed alleys, stalls, holding areas, and other locations where cows spend time. Recording the minimum and maximum values helps identify dark areas that may reduce the effectiveness of the lighting program.

    Measuring Light Intensity at Cow-Eye Level
    Figure 1. Measuring light intensity at cow-eye level using a handheld light meter in a freestall dairy barn. Photos were taken at the Krauss Dairy Center (Wooster, OH) on July 26 at 7:30 PM while the barn lighting system was operating. The barn has a north–south orientation, and natural daylight was still present.

    For long-day photoperiod programs, a minimum of approximately 100 lux (9.3 fc) at cow-eye level has traditionally been recommended. However, designing for approximately 150 to 200 lux (14.0 to 18.6 fc) provides a practical safety margin for uneven light distribution, fixture aging, and dust accumulation (Janni, 2002; Lim et al., 2021). Importantly, the average barn illumination is often less informative than the darkest locations. Even if the average light intensity meets recommendations, poorly illuminated areas may reduce the effectiveness of the lighting program.

    Table 1. Typical characteristics and practical considerations of common light sources used in dairy facilities.


    Light Source    		 Typical Luminous Efficacy
    Practical Considerations
    Incandescent 10-17 lm/W Warm yellow light, good color rendering, but high energy consumption and short life.
    Compact Fluorescent 50-80 lm/W Available from warm yellow to daylight appearance; performance may decline in cold conditions and lamps contain mercury.
    Metal Halide 60-100 lm/W High light output for tall buildings, but requires warm-up and loses output with age.
    High-Pressure Sodium 70-140 lm/W High efficiency and long lamp life, but poor color rendering and requires warm-up.
    LED 80-150 lm/W High efficiency, immediate start-up, long rated life, and compatible with timers and dimmers; fixture quality varies.

    Note: lm/W = lumens per watt. Values are approximate and vary among products. Fixtures should also be evaluated for light distribution, moisture and corrosion resistance, operating temperature, warranty, and compatibility with controls.

    Does Light Color Matter?

    Cattle perceive light differently from humans because species vary in the number and sensitivity of retinal photoreceptors (Li et al., 2025). Cattle have dichromatic vision and can distinguish long-wavelength red light from shorter-wavelength blue or green light (Phillips and Lomas, 2001). Therefore, red light is visible to cattle and should not automatically be considered equivalent to darkness. However, red light appears to stimulate some biological responses less strongly than blue or white light. In dairy cows, increasing blue- or white-light intensity caused greater pupillary constriction, whereas red light produced little or no additional pupillary response as intensity increased (Lindkvist et al., 2021). This supports the traditional use of dim red lighting for nighttime observation and animal handling.

    For practical purposes, red light should be used at the lowest intensity needed for employees to work safely and only for the time required to complete nighttime tasks. A recent study compared cows exposed at night to darkness, red light, or yellow light at 350–500 lux. Red light produced responses similar to darkness for milk melatonin concentration, milk yield, and several milk-quality measurements (Shen et al., 2026). In contrast, yellow light increased milk melatonin concentration and milk yield and was associated with greater antioxidant capacity and lower concentrations of the inflammatory indicators TNF-α and IL-6 (Shen et al., 2026). These results suggest that different wavelengths may produce distinct physiological responses. However, the findings for yellow light should be interpreted cautiously because evidence remains limited. More research is needed to make recommendations for commercial dairy farms.

    Putting it into Practice: Equipment and Consistency

    Producers interested in adopting or refining a photoperiod program should think about three practical factors

    1. Measure before you manage. Use a basic light meter, or a smartphone lux-meter app, held at cow-eye level in the resting and feeding areas.
    2. Automate. Timers or programmable controllers help maintain the same on/off schedule every day which maintains consistency.
    3. Match the light fixture to the purpose. LED fixtures allow more precise control of intensity, and in some systems of spectrum, and are more energy-efficiency than legacy fluorescent or incandescent fixtures. For nighttime handling in prepartum and maternity pens, a dedicated, dimmable red-light circuit, separate from the main barn lighting, makes it easier to keep the general dark period while still allowing staff to work when calving activity requires it.

    Wrapping Up: What Should Dairy Producers do Today?

    Effective light management involves not only how many hours the lights are on, but also when, how brightly, and with what type of light cows are exposed (Figure 2). Understanding these different dimensions of light exposure may help producers use lighting more strategically.

    Key Recommendations
    Figure 2. Key recommendations for lighting programs in dairy barns.

    Acknowledgement

    We thank Dr. Jason Hartschuh for reviewing this article and for sharing his valuable insights on the topic.

    References

    Adamczyk, K., P. Herbut, D. Godyn, S. Angrecka, R. Kupczynski, and F.M. Corrêa Vieira. 2024. Effect of light on dairy cattle in farm conditions – A review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 4:1139-1151. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2024-0052

    Afzal, A. 2024. Melatonin as a multifunctional modulator: emerging insights into its role in health, reproductive efficiency, and productive performance in livestock. Front. Physiol. 15:1501334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1501334  

    Cloutier, M.L., D. Liptzin, A. Coyolt, A.E. Baxter, and C.L.S. Morgan. 2025. Environmental sustainability in US dairy farms: Polices, practices, and outcomes. J. Environ. Qual. 54:1163-1186. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.70031

    Dahl, G.E., Buchanan, B.A., Tucker, H.A. 2000. Photoperiodic effects on dairy cattle: a review. J. Dairy Sci. 83(4):885–893. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74952-6

    Dauchy, R.T. and D.E. Blask. 2023. Vivarium lighting as an important extrinsic factor influencing animal-based research. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 62(1):3–25. https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-23-000003

    Elsabagh, M., M. Mon, Y. Takao, A. Shinoda, T. Watanabe, S. Kushibiki, T. Obitsu, and T. Sugino. 2020. Exposure to blue LED light before the onset of darkness under a long-day photoperiod alters melatonin secretion, feeding behaviour and growth in female dairy calves. Anim. Sci. J. 91:e13353. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13353

    Janni, K. A. 2002. Summary of Dairy Lighting Research and Practice. Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

    Li, C., H. Shu, and X. Gu. 2025. Photoperiod management in farm animal husbandry: A review. Animals. 15, 591. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15040591

    Lim, D.H., T.I. Kim, S.M. Park, K.S. Ki, and Y. Kim. 2021. Effects of photoperiod and light intensity on milk production and milk composition of dairy cows in automatic milking system. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 63(3):626–639. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e59

    Lindkvist, S., E. Ternman, S. Ferneborg, D. Bånkestad, J. Lindqvist, B. Ekesten, and S. Agenäs. 2021. Effects of achromatic and chromatic lights on pupillary response, endocrinology, activity, and milk production in dairy cows. PLoS ONE 16(7):e0253776. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253776

    Mayo, J.C., R.M. Sainz, P. González-Menéndez, D. Hevia, and R. Cernuda-Cernuda. 2017. Melatonin transport into mitochondria. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 74:3927– 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-017-2616-8?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle

    McCabe, C.J., A. Suarez-Trujillo, K.A. Teeple, T.M. Casey, and J.P. Boerman. 2021. Chronic prepartum light-dark phase shifts in cattle disrupt circadian clocks, decrease insulin sensitivity and mammary development, and are associated with lower milk yield through 60 days postpartum. J. Dairy Sci. 104:2422-2437. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19250

    Miller, A.R.E, R.A. Erdman, L.W. Douglas, and G.E. Dahl. 2000. Effects of photoperiodic manipulation during the dry period of dairy cows. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)74960-5

    Phillips, C.J.C and C.A. Lomas. 2001. The perception of color by cattle and its influence on behavior. J. Dairy Sci. 84:807-813. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74537-7

    Shen, Z., W. Wang, X. Liu, X. Shan, H. Wu, G. Li, S. Yao, Y. Liu, L. Yan, P. Ji, B. Wang, and G. Liu. 2026. Yellow light improves milk quality, antioxidant capacity, immunity, and reproductive ability in dairy cows by elevating endogenous melatonin. Front. Vet. Sci. 12:1730661. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1730661

    Shoemaker, D. 2005. Controlled lighting in dry period increases production in the following lactation. Buckeye Dairy News. Vol 5, Issue 5.

    Winsten, J.R., C.D. Kerchner, A. Richardson, A. Lichau, and J.M. Hyman. 2010. Trendsin the Northeast dairy industry: Large-scale modern confinement feeding and management-intensive grazing. J. Dairy Sci. 93:1759-1769. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1831

     

  9. Sweat Equity on Dairy Farms: I’ll Gladly Pay You Tuesday for a Hamburger Today

    David L. Marrison, Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management, The Ohio State University

    One of the core memories of my childhood is reading the Popeye the Sailor Man comic strip in the daily paper and watching the cartoon on Saturday mornings. Many of us remember Popeye, Olive Oyl, Bluto, and little Swee’Pea. But it was another character, J. Wellington Wimpy, who left an indelible impression on me.

    Wimpy was known for his love of hamburgers and his famous line: “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Of course, Tuesday never actually came, and Wimpy rarely paid for his tab.

    I think of Wimpy often in my work with OSU Extension, especially when farm families discuss sweat equity. Too often, the successor generation is told, “We can’t pay you what you’re worth, but we’ll make it up to you later.” Unfortunately, later in these situations can be just as elusive as Wimpy’s Tuesday.

    Sweat equity generally arises when a child contributes labor, management, or value to the farm business without receiving compensation equal to that contribution. If there’s no clear plan in place, well‑meant promises to “square things up later” often slip through the cracks.

    As a rule, avoid promising to make it up later. As time passes, memories fade about how much sweat equity was given or how it should be valued. Sometimes, one parent mentally tracks the underpayment and plans to fix it in their estate plan, only to pass away before doing so. The surviving spouse may have no record of the promise, eliminating any chance of honoring that Tuesday repayment. This can lead to frustration, resentment, and conflict within the family.

    So, what can you do if you truly cannot pay the next generation what they are worth? If this is the case, track it and work with your attorney to include clear, written provisions for sweat equity in your transition plan. Documentation, not verbal promises, can help keep things fair. Written documentation also helps avoid misunderstandings among siblings and provides guidance to attorneys, executors, and surviving family members.

    Consider this example: Johnny Holstein could earn $65,000 a year working as an assistant herdsman for a neighboring 1,000 cow dairy. His parents’ 55 cow tie‑stall operation can only afford to pay him $50,000, even though he has the major responsibility for milking, breeding, maintenance, and herd records. If benefits are equal, his opportunity cost is $15,000 per year. Over 15 years, that totals $225,000. If the parents wish to treat their heirs equally, the first $225,000 of the estate could be distributed to Johnny before the remainder is divided among all siblings. This isn’t a bonus, favoritism, or extra inheritance. It is a compensation correction.

    A key component of this conversation is first knowing what the true compensation is for each member of the farm family. Compensation is more than wages. It also can include health insurance, housing, meals, in-kind or paid childcare, vehicle and fuel, utilities, and/or free meat or other farm products. Creating an annual compensation summary for each family member helps ensure transparency and reduces misunderstandings.

    Not all sweat equity comes from accepting below-market wages. It can also arise when the farm grows substantially due in part to the efforts of the child who returns to the operation. Consider another scenario: Sarah Jersey returns to her family’s 150 cow dairy after college and works alongside her parents for 12 years. During that time, she takes the lead on reproductive management, improves pregnancy rates, implements activity monitoring technology, and develops protocols that increase milk production and reduce veterinary costs.

    As a result, the dairy grows from 150 cows to 350 cows and significantly increases its profitability and strengthens the farm’s balance sheet. Sarah’s compensation was fair for her labor, but her management decisions and leadership helped create much of the farm’s growth. In this case, sweat equity is not based on underpaid wages but on the value that she helped create in the business. Families should discuss how much of that growth, whether in equipment, land, livestock, or overall net worth, should be attributed to the heir’s hard work.

    And don’t overlook the nonbusiness contributions of each heir. These may include transporting parents to medical appointments, managing household needs, or offering in-home care. These tasks have economic and emotional value and should be part of sweat equity conversations.

    Sweat equity is one of the most misunderstood and most emotionally charged issues in farm transition planning. This article is only a quick look at the issue. Valuing unpaid labor, tracking contributions, documenting promises, balancing fairness among siblings, and aligning sweat equity with estate and business structures are all deeper layers that require thoughtful discussion.

    If your family is wrestling with questions about sweat equity or transitioning the farm, I encourage you to attend one of OSU Extension’s “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” workshops. Learn more at https://go.osu.edu/farmsuccession

    These conversations shouldn't wait for "someday," and they certainly should not depend on a Wimpy style promise to pay on a future Tuesday. On successful farm transitions, Tuesday is put in writing today.

    References:

    Goeller, D. J. (2008, October 22). Putting a value on "sweat equity." Cornhusker Economics. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agecon_cornhusker/396

    Krultz, J. D. (2022). An analysis of three common sweat equity arrangements in family farm succession planning (Master’s thesis, Kansas State University). K-REx, Kansas State University Research Exchange. https://krex.k-state.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/517891df-9fe5-470b-b78c-2548fca987ad/content

     

     

  10. On-Farm Dairy Workshop: Auditing your Feed and Forage Program

    On-Farm Dairy Workshop

  11. Welcome Dr. Sherri Nuttle to OSU ATI

    Dr. Shaun Wellert, Assistant Professor and Chair, Division of Animal Sciences and Technologies, Agricultural Technical Institute, College of Food Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University

    Dr, Sherri NuttleOhio State ATI is pleased to welcome Dr. Sherri Gress Nuttle as the new faculty member, with the responsibilities of coordinating the Dairy Program and coaching the ATI Dairy Judging Team.

    Dr. Nuttle brings a unique combination of dairy industry experience, veterinary expertise, regulatory leadership, and a passion for student development. Raised on a 60-cow dairy farm in northeastern Ohio, she developed her love for the dairy industry through participation in 4-H, FFA, Dairy Quiz Bowl, and Dairy Judging. Those formative experiences not only fostered a lifelong commitment to dairy cattle but also helped shape the leadership, communication, and mentoring skills that continue to guide her work today.

    A proud Ohioan, Dr. Nuttle earned her Bachelor of Science degree from The Ohio State University before pursuing her Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) degree at Cornell University.  Her professional career spans dairy veterinary practice, regulatory medicine, epidemiology, and food safety. As a dairy veterinarian, Dr. Nuttle worked closely with dairy producers on reproductive management, calf health, disease prevention, milk quality, animal welfare, and employee training. These hands-on experiences provided her with practical insight into dairy management that she is excited to bring to ATI’s classrooms, laboratories, and experiential learning opportunities.

    In addition to her veterinary practice experience, Dr. Nuttle has served in leadership roles with the Texas Animal Health Commission, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, and most recently as a Regional Veterinarian with the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Throughout her career, she has trained producers, inspectors, and veterinarians, led multidisciplinary teams, conducted epidemiological investigations, and developed educational programs and presentations. Her ability to translate complex scientific and regulatory concepts into practical, accessible information aligns perfectly with ATI’s applied, student-centered approach to education.

    Since returning to Ohio in 2023, Dr. Nuttle has remained actively involved in the State’s dairy and youth organizations. She has contributed to Dairy Palooza planning efforts, assisted with the State Dairy Quiz Bowl contests at the Ohio State Fair, and volunteered with county 4-H skillathons. Her dedication to supporting and developing the next generation of agricultural professionals reflects the land-grant mission that is central to Ohio State ATI.

    As coordinator of the dairy program and coach of the Dairy Judging Team, Dr. Nuttle looks forward to preparing students for successful careers in the dairy industry through hands-on learning, industry engagement, leadership development, and experiential opportunities. Her knowledge, enthusiasm, and commitment to student success will be tremendous assets to ATI, the dairy industry, and the broader agricultural community.

    Please join us in welcoming Dr. Sherri Nuttle to Ohio State ATI. We are excited for the expertise, leadership, and passion she brings to our students and dairy programs.