Dairy Cattle

California Dairy Study Raises New Questions About How H5N1 Spreads

Fri, 08 May 2026 15:46:20 GMT

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

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

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

Infectious H5N1 Virus Detected in Dairy Parlor Air

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

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

Environmental sampling findings included:

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Systems are a Possible H5N1 Exposure Route

Researchers also detected widespread contamination throughout dairy wastewater systems.

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

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

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

Some Infected Cows Showed Few Clinical Signs

The study also identified evidence of subclinical infection.

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

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

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

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

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

Biosecurity Implications Continue to Evolve

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

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

That could influence future discussions around:

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

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

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

Scientists Uncover a Hidden Methane Engine Inside the Rumen

Wed, 06 May 2026 13:55:25 GMT

Methane emissions from cattle are rooted in normal rumen function. Fermentation produces hydrogen, which methanogenic archaea convert into methane. What has been less clear is how protozoa, long known to be associated with methanogens, amplify that process.

New research published in “Science” provides an answer. The study shows rumen ciliates play a more direct role than previously understood, not just hosting methanogens but actively fueling them.

Rumen ciliates are single-celled protozoa that make up a substantial portion of the rumen microbial biomass. They are characterized by hair-like structures called cilia, which they use for movement and feeding. In the rumen, they contribute to fiber breakdown, starch metabolism and microbial turnover, placing them at a central point in fermentation dynamics.

Discovery of the Hydrogenobody

At the center of the finding is a newly identified organelle, termed the hydrogenobody.

This structure functions as a metabolic engine within ciliate cells. It produces hydrogen, maintains anaerobic conditions and supports methanogens living in close physical association.

By producing hydrogen exactly where it is needed, the hydrogenobody increases methane production efficiency at the cellular level. Imaging and genetic labeling indicate this organelle is widespread among rumen ciliates, although its abundance varies between species.

Linking Ciliate Data to Cattle Outputs

To determine whether this mechanism translates to animal-level outcomes, researchers paired large-scale genomic data with methane measurements from dairy cattle. They assembled a catalog of roughly 450 rumen ciliate genomes and integrated it with nearly 1,900 multi-omics datasets. These data were then linked to measured methane emissions, allowing direct comparisons between microbial profiles and production outcomes.

The analysis identified consistent associations between ciliate abundance, species composition and methane output. Certain ciliate groups, like Isotricha and Dasytricha, were repeatedly linked to higher emissions. Higher hydrogenobody abundance followed the same trend, supporting a functional role rather than a coincidental association.

Isotricha intestinalis

(Sharon Franklin)

Why Does this Matter for Cattle Management?

The implications extend into day-to-day herd management.

Methane mitigation strategies have largely focused on feed additives, broad microbiome suppression or direct inhibition of methanogens. While some approaches show promise, they can be inconsistent under field conditions and may carry trade-offs for rumen function.

Identifying a specific cellular driver shifts the focus upstream. Targeting rumen ciliates — or the hydrogen-producing machinery within them — could allow for more precise methane reduction without broadly disrupting fermentation.

Protozoal removal has already been shown to reduce methane emissions, although it is not widely adopted due to practical and nutritional considerations. This work provides a clearer mechanistic explanation and may help refine more targeted, feasible approaches.

New Methane Mitigation Strategies for Cattle

The hydrogenobody introduces a level of precision that has been largely missing from methane mitigation efforts.

Instead of managing the rumen ecosystem broadly, researchers may now be able to focus on a defined cellular mechanism. This opens the door to more targeted interventions, including precision feed additives, microbiome-directed strategies and potentially selecting for lower-emission microbial profiles within herds.

Key questions remain around how to selectively target specific ciliate populations, how stable these interventions will be under real production conditions and how they may influence digestion and animal performance.

This represents a shift toward more precise, mechanism-driven tools for methane reduction — approaches that could integrate more cleanly into herd health and nutrition programs without compromising rumen function.

From Defense to Damage: Cattle Bunching on Dairy Farms

Mon, 04 May 2026 16:28:10 GMT

As temperatures rise and fly pressure builds, cattle bunching becomes a familiar sight. Often dismissed as a seasonal nuisance, it is actually a vital signal to interpret. What begins as a defense against stable flies quickly triggers a cascade of production and welfare challenges.

The economic impact is significant. Research indicates milk production declines by 0.6 kg per cow daily for every stable fly per leg. Furthermore, the presence of bunching itself is associated with a 0.45 kg daily loss. By the time this behavior is visible, production losses are already well underway.

Bunching is a predictable response to environmental stressors. While fly pressure is the primary trigger, factors like heat load, airflow and pen design determine the behavior’s intensity. Once a threshold is exceeded, bunching appears quickly and can spread across an entire pen.

Ultimately, bunching is not the problem; it is clinical evidence the system and the herd are already under immense pressure.

Why Do Cows Bunch?

Stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans) are blood-feeding insects that target the lower legs, delivering repeated, painful bites. Cows respond with a sequence of defensive behaviors: stomping, tail flicking and eventually, clustering.

This clustering is not random; it’s strategic.

By grouping tightly, cows reduce the number of flies landing on any one individual — a dilution effect. Animals compete for positions toward the center of the group, where exposure is lowest, creating the characteristic movement often observed in bunched pens.

Behavioral changes begin early. Around five flies per leg, cattle reach what is commonly considered an economic injury level, with measurable impacts on both behavior and production. More recent work suggests the threshold for behavioral change may be even lower under field conditions.

This is a coordinated response to discomfort, and in modern dairy systems, that response comes with trade-offs.

How Cattle Bunching Impacts Health and Performance

What begins as protection can quickly become part of the problem.

As cows bunch, they create localized conditions that amplify other stressors:

Airflow between animals is reduced, limiting the effectiveness of ventilation and cooling systems.
Heat builds within the group, increasing the risk of heat stress even when barn-level conditions appear acceptable.
Feeding behavior is disrupted. Cows are less willing to leave the group, and competition at the bunk increases. Reduced dry matter intake can occur before any visible drop in milk production.
Resting behavior is reduced. Increased fly pressure raises standing time, and bunching compounds this effect. Reduced lying time leads to less rumination and contributes to increased lameness risk over time.
Hygiene deteriorates. Clustering often occurs in areas with higher manure accumulation, increasing exposure to mastitis pathogens.

A behavior intended to reduce fly bites ends up amplifying heat stress, disrupting intake and compromising welfare.

Why Bunching Varies Between Pens

One of the more telling aspects of bunching is how uneven it can be. Within the same barn, under the same management, one pen may bunch consistently while another remains relatively unaffected. Bunching is strongly influenced by microenvironmental conditions that can differ across short distances.

Differences in airflow can create pockets where flies accumulate. Manure buildup increases local breeding pressure. Variations in shade, moisture or surrounding environment can further influence where flies — and therefore cows — concentrate.

Over time, these small differences become consistent patterns. The same pens bunch, often in the same locations, day after day. Cows are responding to environmental gradients that are easy to overlook but highly relevant to their comfort.

How to Diagnose the Cause of Cattle Bunching

When bunching behavior appears, a structured evaluation can help identify the underlying cause:

1. Fly pressure

Assess leg counts or trap counts where possible. Even relatively low counts can be meaningful, and increases beyond five flies per leg indicate significant impact.

2. Heat load

Review temperature-humidity trends and observe when bunching occurs. Heat amplifies both fly activity and cow response.

3. Airflow

Look for uneven ventilation or dead zones within the pen. These often correspond directly with bunching locations.

4. Stocking density

Overcrowding increases competition and accelerates clustering once cows begin to group.

5. Pen-level variation

Compare affected pens with those that remain stable. Differences in surroundings or management often explain the pattern.

This approach reframes bunching from a nuisance behavior into a diagnostic entry point.

When to Act on Cattle Bunching

One of the most useful aspects of bunching is how early it appears. Cows respond to environmental stressors faster than most monitoring systems detect them. As a result, bunching often appears before changes are obvious in bulk tank data or performance metrics. That creates an opportunity to act sooner.

When bunching emerges at consistent times or in specific areas, it provides a reliable signal that conditions have shifted. Adjusting fly control, improving airflow or modifying cooling strategies at that point can prevent escalation and limit cumulative losses.

Cattle bunching is a visible signal the system is under pressure. The goal is not to stop cows from bunching, but to understand why they are doing it and respond before defense turns into damage.

New Dual-Route Vaccine Shows Promise Against Bird Flu in Cattle and Beyond

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:03:07 GMT

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) is no longer just a poultry problem. Since its detection in U.S. dairy cattle in 2024, the virus has spread across herds, cutting milk production, driving economic losses and raising concerns about zoonotic transmission to humans. Infected cows can lose substantial milk output in a matter of weeks. The virus has been detected in milk, respiratory secretions and mammary tissue.

Despite this, there are currently no licensed influenza vaccines for cattle, leaving producers reliant on biosecurity and herd management to limit spread.

Against this backdrop, researchers at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln have developed a vaccine designed to keep pace with a virus that is both evolving and expanding its host range. Rather than targeting a single strain, the approach uses a centralized consensus H5 antigen, positioned near the center of the virus’s evolutionary tree to maximize cross-protection across variants.

Dual-Route Delivery Targets Where Infection Starts

What sets this vaccine apart is not just its breadth, but how it is delivered. Researchers combined intramuscular and intranasal administration, aiming to activate immune defenses both throughout the body and at the primary site of infection.

“The idea was that if we put it intramuscularly, we can prevent it from spreading in the body, and then a mucosal aspect, intranasally, would prevent it from spreading from animal to animal,” said Eric Weaver, professor of biological sciences and director of the Nebraska Center for Virology, in a news release .

This dual-route design is intended to generate:

Systemic immunity through circulating antibodies and T cells
Mucosal immunity in the respiratory tract, where influenza viruses first establish infection

Together, these responses may improve protection against disease while also reducing viral transmission.

The platform uses adenoviral vectors in a prime–boost regimen, switching vector types between doses to strengthen immune responses and avoid interference from preexisting immunity.

Strong and Broad Immune Responses

The vaccine was evaluated in both mice and Holstein dairy calves, with consistent findings across species. In each model, it generated robust immune responses spanning multiple arms of the immune system.

Antibodies isolated from animal serum and nasal swabs recognized a wide panel of H5 strains, from early isolates in the late 1990s through recent 2024 bovine strains. Mucosal IgA responses increased notably after booster vaccination, indicating the vaccine is effectively engaging respiratory immunity.

In parallel, strong T-cell responses were observed against both historical and contemporary viral strains, supporting the idea that protection may extend beyond traditional neutralizing antibody responses.

Complete Protection in Challenge Studies

In mouse challenge experiments, the vaccine demonstrated strong protective efficacy. Animals exposed to lethal doses of divergent H5N1 strains, including a recent bovine isolate, showed minimal clinical signs and survived infection.

Vaccinated mice maintained body weight and showed no significant disease
All unvaccinated controls experienced severe disease and were euthanized

This protection occurred even when neutralizing antibody responses were limited against some strains, suggesting broader immune mechanisms, including T cells, play a key role.

Still Early, but Promising

“We’d like to have a vaccine for the farm and the farmer, and everything shows that this would be an effective vaccine platform for humans as well,” Weaver said.

While the findings are encouraging, the vaccine remains in the experimental stage. The study did not include challenge trials in cattle, and questions remain about durability, field performance and effectiveness against fully virulent strains.

Even so, the results point to a meaningful shift in influenza vaccine design. By combining cross-reactive antigen targeting with dual-route delivery, this approach aims to anticipate viral evolution rather than react to it.

If those advantages hold up in real-world conditions, it could offer a much-needed tool for managing H5N1 in cattle and reducing the risk of further spillover.

Are We Treating the Wrong Cows for Metritis?

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 14:11:42 GMT

One in four dairy cows develops metritis. It’s one of the most common and costly diseases in the postpartum period.

But Caio Figueiredo, assistant professor at the College of Veterinary Medicine of Washington State University, raises the following uncomfortable question:

What if we’re not actually defining metritis correctly in the first place?

Because if the definition is off, everything downstream — diagnosis, treatment, antimicrobial use — follows it.

The Cracks Start at Diagnosis

In practice, metritis is diagnosed visually, using vaginal discharge scoring. It’s simple, fast and scalable across herds. Cows are generally scored on a scale of 1 to 5. The issue lies not within how to score cows, but in which scores define metritis.

“There isn’t a clear consensus of what discharge, on the clinical level, distinguishes a cow with metritis or not,” Figueiredo explains.

That lack of agreement directly shapes which cows get treated. So before we even talk about treatment protocols, we’re already dealing with a moving target.

Most scoring systems eventually funnel into two categories that matter clinically:

VD4: Purulent discharge
VD5: Fetid, watery, red-brown discharge

Both are commonly labeled “metritis” and both are commonly treated.

But they don’t look the same — and the data suggests they don’t behave the same either.

“Are these two conditions metritis? Should we treat both, or just one?” Figueiredo asks.

Despite the uncertainty, most dairies don’t differentiate, treating both VD4 and VD5 cows with antibiotics.

“Only a very selected group treat exclusively VD5 cows. The remaining dairies treat both conditions,” Figueiredo explains, referencing a survey of 45 dairies in California .

(Photos: Merck)

VD5 Looks Like a Different Disease

When you step back and look across studies, a consistent signal starts to emerge:

“There is some evidence that those groups are not necessarily the same,” Figueiredo states.

That difference becomes much harder to ignore once you look beyond the discharge itself.

Start with inflammation, which isn’t just a uterine issue.

“VD5 cows have greater levels of inflammation compared to those with purulent discharge (VD4),” Figueiredo says. “Those VD5 cows have greater systemic inflammation as well.”

At the microbial level, the pattern holds. A 2024 study looked at the uterine microbiome to investigate the differences between VD5 cows and all others.

“Only cows with vaginal discharge score 5 have greater bacterial count compared to the other discharges,” Figueiredo explains.

These animals had greater overall bacterial counts, as well as increased Fusobacterium, Porphyromonas and Bacteroides counts compared to lower-scoring cows. And when you zoom out to the whole animal, the separation becomes even clearer.

In unpublished data from Figueiredo’s lab, VD5 cows show:

Higher acute phase proteins (e.g., haptoglobin) postpartum
Worse liver function indicators (↓ albumin, ↑ bilirubin, ↓ cholesterol)
Altered metabolic profiles at diagnosis
Reduced rumination and activity during peak risk windows

These results suggest this is not just a discharge difference, but a systemic disease state.

Performance Consequences

The biological differences translate directly into outcomes.

In large multi-herd datasets VD5 cows had noticeably impaired performance:

Milk production: Up to 1,000 kg less milk over 300 DIM
Reproduction:
- Lower likelihood of resuming cyclicity
- Reduced probability of receiving first AI
- Lower pregnancy rates by 300 DIM
Survival:
- Higher risk of culling
- Faster removal from the herd

By contrast, VD4 cows were indistinguishable from lower score cows across many of these same parameters.

What Is VD4?

According to Figueiredo, if VD5 represents a true systemic disease, VD4 may represent something else — perhaps a milder, localized or even transient condition.

Across multiple datasets, VD4 cows perform similarly to their lower-scored herd mates.

Which raises a critical question: Are we treating cows that don’t actually need treatment?

The Economic Reality of Treating VD4 Cows

In the U.S. alone there are ~9.5 million dairy cows and a ~25% VD4 and ~25% VD5 incidence. That puts millions of cows into each category annually.

If both groups are treated:

Total antimicrobial treatment costs can exceed $500 million annually

If VD4 cows are excluded from treatment:

Potential savings approach $270 million per year

This difference in cost doesn’t account for labor, any effects of handling stress or the downstream impacts of antimicrobial use.

Why This Matters More Than It Seems

This isn’t just a classification issue. It touches multiple pressure points:

Antimicrobial Stewardship
Metritis is a leading driver of antibiotic use. Refining treatment criteria is one of the fastest ways to reduce unnecessary exposure.

Economic Efficiency
Treating cows that don’t benefit is pure inefficiency at scale.

Public Trust
Consumer concern around antimicrobial use continues to grow. Precision matters.

From Visual Diagnosis to Biological Precision

The takeaway isn’t to stop treating metritis, but to start treating it more precisely.

Right now, decisions are largely driven by what we can see. But the evidence suggests what we see doesn’t always reflect what’s happening biologically.

A more practical, data-aligned framework could look like:

VD5 → clear systemic disease → treat
VD4 → uncertain or mild → monitor, refine or selectively treat

This shift moves us away from a purely visual diagnosis model.

“We’re going to have to look deeper into the biology and then come back to the real-life problem,” Figueiredo says.

That means integrating:

Immune and inflammatory markers
Microbiome makeup
Metabolic and behavioral signals

The goal is straightforward: Align diagnosis with biology, not just appearance.

Ultimately, VD4 and VD5 cows don’t share the same biology, the same risk or the same consequences. One behaves like a mild or localized condition while the other is a true systemic disease with measurable impacts on performance and survival.

Treating them the same way is inefficient and outdated.

The future of metritis management isn’t about treating more cows, it’s about treating the right ones.

The Top Three Biggest Mistakes When Using Crowd Gates

Tue, 11 Mar 2025 17:47:51 GMT

Crowd gates are often one of the most used tools on a dairy. Not only do they save significant time for employees, but they also help reduce the stress associated with moving cows.

However, just like any tool, crowd gates can be used incorrectly and can sometimes negatively impact cow comfort and welfare. Carolina Pinzon, a Dairy Outreach Specialist with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, highlights the three most common mistakes she sees in crowd gate usage and provides practical strategies to avoid them.

Overcrowding the Holding Area

Occasionally, overcrowding the holding area happens, but Pinzon warns that prolonged overcrowding can negatively impact cow health, production, and welfare. This is especially concerning during summer when cows generate extra body heat and require sufficient airflow.

“Signs of an overcrowded holding pen include cows with their heads up, unable to plant their four feet on the ground, and looking restless and uncomfortable,” Pinzon says. “Short-term overcrowding can also result from misuse of the crowd gate, by employees pushing it too far forward and smashing the cows.”

To prevent overcrowding, Pinzon recommends balancing parlor and pen sizes, so cows spend no more than one hour away from their pens during each milking. Holding areas should allow at least 20 square feet per cow.

“If needed, a large pen can be divided into smaller groups,” Pinzon suggests. “While this means more trips to the parlor for workers, it significantly reduces the time cows spend in the holding pen. Additionally, short-term overcrowding can be alleviated by moving the crowd gate backward to provide more space for the cows.”

Being Careless

While dairy cows are typically gentle giants, they can be stubborn and slow to move. This, however, doesn’t justify using force. Moving crowd gates too quickly or applying electricity can cause unnecessary stress and fear for the animals.
Instead, Pinzon emphasizes the importance of calm and gentle handling. She advises guiding cows to the parlor without pressure or haste.

“Once the cows on one side of the parlor have exited, the crowd gate can be moved forward,” Pinzon says. “This regular adjustment is crucial to accommodate the changing number of animals and available space in the holding area. Automating crowd gates to move forward every time exit gates are open/lift can help reduce misuse.”

Pinzon recommends keeping crowd gates at least three feet from the cows to avoid pressing against their backs. She suggests using sound cues, like bells or ringing, to train cows to move forward, rather than relying solely on gate movement. If the gate gets too close, pull it back to give the cows more space before resuming forward movement. These practices promote a stress-free and productive environment for both cows and workers.

Workers Entering the Holding Area

Crowd gates are valuable tools for safely and efficiently moving cows toward the parlor entrance. However, when employees enter the holding pen to push cows, it can create unnecessary stress for the animals and put workers at risk of injury.

Pinzon highlights the importance of regularly training employees on proper cow handling and the correct use of crowd gates. She stresses avoiding the practice of entering the holding area to chase cows and instead maintaining a calm and consistent environment for the animals.

“Except for when loading the last cows of a pen and fresh cows, the door from the parlor pit to the holding area should remain closed during most of the milking process,” she adds. “This physical reminder is to discourage workers from entering the holding area. In addition, regular maintenance of crowd gates, prompt reporting of issues, and swift resolution of problems by management are crucial for proper gate function.”

Spotting these three common mistakes in crowd gate use and taking proactive steps to address them can significantly improve cow welfare, employee safety, and your herd’s operational efficiency. Regular maintenance, clear protocols, and proper training go a long way in preventing overcrowding and keeping things calm and stress-free for both cows and workers.

Is Bovine Leukemia Virus Hiding on Your Dairy?

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 15:07:52 GMT

Bovine leukemia virus (BLV) is present in most U.S. dairy herds, but many producers do not know it. Because infected animals often appear healthy, the virus can circulate quietly for years before its impact becomes visible.

“BLV is often present long before it becomes an issue. So, if you’re not looking for it on the farm, chances are it’s there, but if you’re not looking, you don’t know or you don’t see it,” Tasia Kendrick, associate professor at Michigan State University, says on a recent episode of “The Dairy Health Blackbelt Podcast.”

Kendrick studies BLV epidemiology and control strategies in dairy herds.

That quiet presence can make BLV difficult to recognize. On many farms, the infection only becomes visible after production or health problems begin to accumulate.

“I’ve talked to quite a few producers, and it’s not a problem until it is. And then, all of a sudden, the animals dying are condemned at slaughter. It’s too late to do anything about when we get to that point,” Kendrick says.

BLV at a Glance:

Present in 80% to 90% of U.S. dairy herds
Up to 40% to 50% of animals infected within affected herds
Impacts immune function, longevity and production
Spreads primarily through blood-to-blood transfer

Subclinical Production and Immune Effects of BLV

Part of the challenge with BLV is that infected animals often appear normal during daily observation. However, research increasingly shows the virus can affect multiple aspects of herd performance.

“Those animals may appear to be normal, but you may be treating them for other ailments through their entire life, and then they leave the herd early, which leads to profit loss for that producer,” Kendrick says.

The economic impact often comes from small performance losses that accumulate across the herd. Reduced milk production, shorter productive lifespans and additional health treatments can all contribute to lower overall profitability.

The virus affects the immune system directly, which can influence both disease resistance and vaccine response.

“The way the virus works is it lays latent in the immune system. It targets B cells, one of your immune cells, and it can lay latent and dormant until it doesn’t,” Kendrick says.

Because BLV infects immune cells, affected animals may be more susceptible to secondary diseases or respond less efficiently to vaccination programs. Over time, those subtle effects can reduce both longevity and productivity.

How BLV Spreads on Farms

Understanding transmission is central to controlling the virus. BLV spreads primarily through the transfer of infected blood between animals.

“The virus itself targets B cells, which are just cells of the immune system that are in the blood system. So it’s a blood-to-blood transfer that moves it from animal to animal,” Kendrick says.

Routine management procedures can inadvertently contribute to transmission if proper precautions are not taken. Shared needles, contaminated equipment or procedures that transfer even very small amounts of blood between animals can spread the virus.

Vertical transmission is also possible.

“The virus is small enough that it can go through the placenta wall, so there is some dam-to-calf transfer as well as colostrum,” Kendrick says. “If raw colostrum or milk is fed, there’s potential for live virus to infect the animal that way.”

These pathways mean infections can occur both in the milking herd and during early life stages.

Practical Management of BLV

Because dairy operations differ widely in their management practices, BLV control strategies often need to be tailored to individual farms.

“It’s not one solution for every farm because every farm is managing their animals differently from colostrum all the way up to the milking herd,” Kendrick says.

Still, several practical steps can help reduce transmission risk.

“It’s really thinking about management strategies of what you can do to reduce blood-to-blood transfer, whether that’s single-use needles, single-use sleeves, fly control, anything that’s going to decrease the chances of blood transfer,” Kendrick says.

Key Strategies to Reduce BLV Transmission

1. Reduce blood transfer.

Use single-use needles.
Use new palpation sleeves for each cow.
Maintain strict hygiene during procedures.

2. Manage colostrum carefully.

Avoid feeding raw pooled colostrum.
Freeze or pasteurize colostrum when possible.

3. Control biting flies.

4. Establish herd status through targeted testing.

Testing every animal may not be necessary to understand the scope of infection.

“If you test 40 specific animals across the lactation in your herd, you get a pretty good picture of the prevalence, so you have a starting point and you don’t have to test every animal in your herd,” Kendrick says.

The Michigan State University BLV website recommends testing the 10 most recently calved cows that are greater than three days in milk from each lactation group (first, second, third and fourth-plus).

Looking More Closely

BLV has circulated in the dairy industry for decades, often without drawing much attention, but growing evidence of its effects on immunity, productivity and longevity is prompting veterinarians and producers to take a closer look.

For many herds, the first step is simply recognizing the virus may already be present.

Bovine Tuberculosis Detected in Michigan Dairy

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:18:19 GMT

The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) has confirmed a case of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in a dairy herd in Charlevoix County, located west of Michigan’s Modified Accredited Zone (MAZ), where the disease is known to be present in the state’s white-tailed deer population.

(Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development)

According to state officials, the detection followed identification of bovine TB in an adult cow at a USDA Food Safety Inspection Service-inspected processing plant. Through animal traceability efforts, officials traced the animal back to its herd of origin. Subsequent testing of the herd identified additional bovine TB cases.

“This latest detection of bovine TB highlights two important realities: how challenging the disease is to address; and why it is so crucial to use all of our tools for detection to swiftly identify cases and take actions to limit disease spread,” say Nora Wineland, state veterinarian for Michigan. “While finding a newly affected herd is never ideal, this case demonstrates our systems for detection and traceability are working, allowing us to quickly implement measures to protect animal health and public health in Michigan.”

MDARD reports an epidemiological investigation is already underway to determine whether additional cases may be linked to the affected herd. There are currently two TB zones within the state: a four-county area in northern lower Michigan called the Modified Accredited Zone, and the remainder of the state’s 83 counties is referred to as the Accredited Free Zone.

This is Michigan’s second confirmed bovine TB case in the past 13 months. The previous case was identified in a beef herd in Alcona County, located within the state’s Modified Accredited Zone, in January 2025. With this latest detection, a total of 84 cattle herds have been confirmed with bovine TB in Michigan since 1998.

What is Bovine Tuberculosis?

According to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), bovine tuberculosis is a chronic bacterial disease that can infect all mammals, including humans. It is caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis and spreads through both direct contact between infected and uninfected animals and indirect exposure, such as contaminated feed, water or the environment.

The disease progresses slowly, often developing over several years. Infection typically begins in the lymph nodes before advancing to the lungs and chest cavity, where it can cause serious lesions.

While cattle are the primary host, the disease can also be present in white-tailed deer and elk, as well as bison, goats and certain carnivores, including coyotes.

The Symptoms

Unfortunately, infected cattle are typically asymptomatic. Detection usually occurs during live animal skin testing or, more commonly, at slaughter through our national slaughter surveillance program, according to USDA. If cattle or bison show clinical signs of tuberculosis, the disease has advanced to affect multiple organ systems, which is rare.

Can it be Prevented?

Bovine TB most often spreads through close contact, especially nose-to-nose interaction between animals, or when cattle consume feed or water that’s been contaminated. In most cases, herds become infected one of two ways: by bringing in an infected animal or through exposure to infected wildlife.

While the prevalence of tuberculosis in cattle is extremely low in the U.S., with an estimated prevalence of 7 per 1 million cattle screened, it can occur. Producers should work alongside their veterinarian to help create a biosecurity plan.

How is it Identified?

According to APHIS, the primary source of tuberculosis surveillance is carcass inspection at all federal and state inspected slaughter establishments. The other main sources of tuberculosis detection are testing animals before interstate movement and during disease investigations. Live animal testing is performed with a screening test. If positive, the regulatory veterinarian will conduct a confirmatory test.

Can it be Treated?

Unfortunately, tuberculosis in livestock is not a treatable disease. When health officials find tuberculosis in a herd, it is managed by either depopulating the herd or by testing and removing reactor animals.

Why We Need Technology and Human Expertise to Close The Mastitis Detection Gap

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:51:54 GMT

Mastitis detection remains constrained by parlor realities. Modern dairies are designed to maximize throughput, leaving little margin for detailed milk inspection on every cow at every milking. Even highly trained milkers can overlook subtle milk changes or early signs of disease when operating under fatigue, time pressure and competing demands.

“With how fast parlors are being pushed, workers are asked to milk more cows in shorter amounts of time. To look at and examine milk thoroughly for 8- or 12-hour shifts, it doesn’t always happen on every single cow,” says Dr. Justin Hess of Clinton Veterinary Services. “You’d be amazed at how much you can actually miss.”

Subclinical mastitis is particularly vulnerable to underdetection because it requires intentional testing that is accompanied by labor, cost and workflow implications.

Improving mastitis outcomes depends less on detection itself and more on what happens afterward. Farms today are generating more information than ever, but that information does not automatically translate into better decisions. Sound mastitis protocols need to be in place and understood by all on a dairy.

“If you try to develop a protocol, and the management team isn’t on board and you don’t have the right people in place, you’re going to struggle and probably make things more difficult,” Hess explains. “We like to keep things simple but effective.”

These protocols largely include management choices surrounding animal density, mastitis detection methods and even the choice of bedding in the stalls.

Concerning mastitis detection methods, on-farm culturing demonstrates the tension between simple and complex protocols well.

(Rose Memories Photography LLC)

“Culturing on-farm can be a struggle because of the increase in labor and having a dedicated person to do it. You also need the knowledge and desire to do it and do it correctly,” Hess says.

When farms have dedicated personnel, clear interpretation guidelines and confidence in how results will be used, culturing can reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and improve outcomes. When those conditions are absent, culturing may delay treatment without changing behavior, prompting farms to revert to broad-spectrum approaches for the sake of speed.

The challenge isn’t just the size of the farm, but the speed at which data must be converted into a treatment decision.

As the limitations of manual culturing and visual inspection become more apparent, the industry is shifting toward passive detection — systems that monitor the cow without requiring extra labor hours.

To address the complexity of dairy systems, Dr. Alon Arazi, chief veterinarian at Afimilk, hopes consolidating data generated by monitoring animals in existing protocols will help refine management and improve animal health.

“All this data is being gathered into one piece of software in which we do the analysis to detect mastitis,” Arazi says.

Sensor systems can also be used to detect mastitis based on deviations from the norm at a cow level. This baseline varies for each cow, meaning you need historical data for comparison.

“The main way to detect mastitis is based on what’s normal [for that animal]. Increased conductivity of a cow or dropped lactose to a lower level than is expected. This is mainly happening with clinical mastitis,” Arazi says. “One of the problems with subclinical mastitis is that the changes sometimes are very, very low and very hard to detect. In that case, we are looking for more and more sophisticated modeling algorithms that combine more and more things together to see things that are just starting to change.”

Mastitis Indicators Used in Automated Monitoring Systems

Automated monitoring systems identify cows suspected of mastitis by analyzing multiple milk and cow-level parameters simultaneously, rather than relying on a single signal. Key indicators include:

Milk conductivity
- Increased electrical conductivity associated with changes in ion flow during mastitis
- One of the primary and earliest milk signals used
Milk yield
- Sudden or unexpected drops in production relative to the cow’s baseline
Lactose concentration
- Decreases in lactose production when udder function is impaired
- Possible lactose leakage from milk or utilization by bacteria
Milk flow / milking dynamics
- Changes in milk flow rate that may reflect udder discomfort or inflammation
Rumination patterns
- Decreases in rumination associated with illness or discomfort
Eating behavior / dry matter intake
- Reduced intake relative to expected performance
Activity and behavior changes
- Deviations from individual cow behavioral baselines

This collected data is then compared and put into context on the individual, group and herd levels. Mastitis alerts are generated by combining multiple indicators, rather than any single threshold.

These disparate data points, along with the sheer volume of data, are where machine learning thrives.

“AI or machine learning will allow you to detect things that, even for us, are hard to see now. This for sure will improve subclinical detection,” Arazi predicts.

These systems aim to provide directional insight that shortens the time between detection and action by reducing the workload and finding changes in cow performance before they would be noticed by a worker. Catching a case 24 hours earlier could be the difference between a quick recovery and a culled cow.

“You don’t have to check every cow because the system has checked every cow two or three times in a day depending on how many milkings there are,” Arazi says. “You get the information, and you get the option to catch things earlier than people can see with their eyes.”

The Human Filter: Why Detection Requires Interpretation

Alerts without context quickly become noise. High alert frequency, poor specificity or unclear next steps can erode trust in the system. This is where veterinary intervention can help a dairy understand what they’re seeing and how best to act.

Hess stressed the questions he poses to dairies implementing updated mastitis detection protocols: “When you have that information, what are you going to do with that information? Are you going to actually change your protocols?”

Having more data is only useful for improving animal management if accompanied by a plan to act on what that data is telling you.

(Afimilk)

Technologies offering continuous observation and reduced reliance on human detection can introduce risks related to accuracy, workflow fit and trust. There is also the worry of false alerts.

“We can still improve accuracy, reduce false alerts and get more sensitivity,” Arazi says, speaking on the Afimilk system for mastitis detection.

These systems are, of course, not infallible. As with all hardware, there are uncontrollable hiccups that need to be considered when looking at the data generated.

“There are some critical parts of measuring conductivity,” Hess says. “If milk is moving or if air gets into the system, it can affect the sensitivity or the reading on it.”

At their core, these tools are designed to flag abnormal patterns, not to dictate diagnoses or management decisions. Alerts of deviations are only meaningful after interpretation by people who understand the cows, the parlor and the operation of the farm. Without the human layer, accurate detection risks becoming background noise.

“The only thing worse than no data is having wrong or misleading data,” Hess says.

The limitation is not simply technological, but decisional. This becomes most apparent when detection systems skew too far toward sensitivity at the expense of specificity. Highly sensitive tools identify earlier or more subtle changes, but they also generate more false positives. Each unnecessary alert pulls time and attention away from other priorities.

At the other end of the spectrum, overly specific systems may miss early disease signals, limiting their preventative value. Effective mastitis detection depends on deliberate trade-offs, favoring actionable accuracy over alert volume. The future of the dairy isn’t just in the data collecting sensors, but in how the person in the office uses that data to provide better care for the cow.

How Technology is Changing the Game in Mastitis Prevention and Detection

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 22:14:24 GMT

Mastitis is commonly described as an infectious disease, but in real-world dairy systems, it behaves far more like a systems problem. Case rates and economic impact are shaped by the barn environment, milking routines, labor capacity and cow flow long before a pathogen is identified. Mastitis persists not because veterinarians and producers lack knowledge, but because it emerges from the interaction of multiple, interconnected management decisions.

From a practice perspective, mastitis is never truly absent on a dairy.

The Ever-Present Risk of Mastitis

“Mastitis is always something you’re managing. It’s ever-present on a dairy and something you try to manage, control, keep in check and improve upon,” says Dr. Justin Hess, veterinarian at Clinton Veterinary Services in Michigan. “It’s always at the forefront to some degree. You hope to have control measures in place and treatment protocols well developed to make it easy and fairly straightforward for a dairy, but it’s ever-present.”

(Rose Memories Photography LLC)

Even well-managed herds maintain a baseline level of mastitis that fluctuates with the season, staffing changes and parlor consistency. Therefore, the practical objective is control rather than eradication. Success is measured by manageable case rates, quick identification of infection, limited impact on bulk tank somatic cell counts and culling pressure.

“Management choices such as bedding type used in stalls, overcrowding and detection methods for mastitis can all influence the case rate,” Hess says.

This reality contrasts with the tendency to treat mastitis as an isolated event. In practice, spikes in mastitis often follow subtle changes in the environment or management system. Instead of just identifying a pathogen, the vet’s value lies in identifying the systemic failure that allowed the pathogen to thrive.

(Afimilk)

Integrating Data Into Clinical Insight

Dr. Alon Arazi, chief veterinarian at Afimilk, shares the perspective that mastitis is not just one thing, but one signal inside a much bigger system of animal health, welfare and performance. That’s where technology comes in, specifically animal health monitoring systems where signals from multiple biological inputs are combined to paint a bigger picture of cow health leading to diagnosis. Technology, such as the Afimilk system, allows for the collection of large data sets from both activity and milk monitoring hardware to help with mastitis prevention and detection. Patterns, or deviations from these patterns, can signal when a cow needs a closer look.

“Twenty years ago, a very small percentage of farms used this technology. Now they are using it much more; more farms on a larger scale,” Arazi says. “In the past it was only milk matter and milk production. Now we have much more information. Information about the behavior of the cow and also more information about the milk, such as components … which led us to improving the accuracy of [mastitis] detection.”

(Photo: Rose Memories Photography LLC)

These ideas converge on a critical point: There is not one single component of herd health management that dictates mastitis prevalence; it is the sum of the whole. New technologies improve our monitoring capabilities, but they must be applied with strong fundamentals, management and prevention practices.

Solving the Root Cause of Mastitis

“If you cull the top 5% or the top few highest cows as far as somatic cell count, you’ll remove those cows and that’s easy, right? But it doesn’t actually tell you what’s causing those cows to get to that place,” Hess says. “If you’re not changing something upstream, you’re always going to deal with an issue downstream.”

Ultimately, the shift from reactive treatment to proactive system management is what defines a modern, resilient dairy. As Dr. Hess and Dr. Arazi highlight, data and technology are powerful allies, but they function best when they empower the people on the ground to make better “upstream” decisions. By treating mastitis as a symptom of the system rather than a standalone event, dairies can move away from constant firefighting to a more predictable, profitable future.

Having spent their careers at the intersection of veterinary medicine and dairy technology, Dr. Hess and Dr. Arazi share a common passion for evolving how we look at herd health. On the first episode of The Bovine Vet Podcast , they join host Andrea Bedford to discuss why mastitis is much more than a simple infection. Together, they explore the “systems” approach to dairy management and share insights on how veterinarians and producers can use data and environment to stay ahead of the curve.

nixiFLOR Injection Approved by the FDA for Bovine Respiratory Disease Treatment

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 19:37:10 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nixiFLOR injectable solution by Parnell Technologies, marking the first FDA-approved generic version of Resflor GOLD by Merck Animal Health. This product is indicated for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) associated with Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni and Mycoplasma bovis, and for control of BRD-associated fever in beef and non-lactating dairy cattle.

nixiFLOR contains the same active ingredients as Resflor GOLD:

Florfenicol, a broad spectrum antibiotic effective against key bacterial pathogens involved in BRD
Flunixin meglumine, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that helps reduce fever and inflammation associated with respiratory infection

The FDA determined nixiFLOR is bioequivalent to the brand name product and that, when used according to the label, residues in edible tissues do not pose a public health concern. A withdrawal phase of 38 days must be observed before cattle treated with nixiFLOR enter the food supply.

Administered via subcutaneous injection in the neck, nixiFLOR is prescribed at 40 mg florfenicol/kg body weight and 2.2 mg flunixin/kg body weight (approximately 6 mL per 100lb. of body weight), with no more than 10 mL per injection site. This product is available by prescription only from licensed veterinarians, ensuring accurate diagnosis and responsible use.

Tips to Make Informed Culling and Cow Longevity Choices in a Dairy Herd

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:54:27 GMT

How long a cow should remain in a milking herd is a tricky question without a straightforward answer. Some people will argue that increased herd longevity is a good thing. Nigel Cook from the University of Wisconsin outlines how this argument has been presented to him:

“People think longer lives result from healthier cows and that reflects better animal welfare, decreased environmental footprint (raising fewer replacements can decrease our methane emissions per pound of milk), and we can improve our economics because we’re keeping cows longer,” he says.

However, if you look a little deeper, this reasoning may be flawed. When comparing real herds, there are a variety of situations that may explain why there is no one-size-fits-all for turnover rates in a dairy.

“There are herds with lower turnover rates, with great welfare and excellent health. They sell heifers or build another barn, they expand. But there are also herds with lower turnover rates that have low turnover rates because they have to keep cows. Those cows may be high somatic cell count cows, mastitic cows or lame cows, and that impacts their overall performance and fertility,” Cook explains.

On the other hand, high turnover rates can also reflect good herd management.

“There are herds with high turnover rates that can support those rates because of good health and good fertility. They have the replacement supply they need to do it,” Cook continues.

Avoid Hasty Culling Choices

In the U.S, the average time for a dairy cow to remain in the herd is 2.5 lactations. Over the past 10 years, many improvements have been made in dairy herds: cattle are producing more milk with improved component contents, fertility rates are up and somatic cell counts are down. Despite these changes, herd turnover rates have remained fairly constant. Cook proposes this is because producers follow breeding, and not necessarily culling.

“The process of culling is enormously variable,” Cook says. “Few farms use relatively well organized, high quality summaries of data to help them select cows early enough in lactation to decide which cow leaves.”

Cook highlights how a lot of farms put too much focus on the cow’s immediate production history instead of their lifetime production.

“They have a heifer, they have a slot. They’re just making that decision that day without a lot of prior planning. I wish we could change that,” he says.

This can lead to hasty cull decisions that may not be the best move for the herd overall. This was confirmed in an unpublished survey of over 60 Wisconsin dairy herds. Cook and colleagues found that 29% of cows culled for production reasons were better performers than half of the cows in their own herds.

“We should be holding our farms accountable to the quality of the cows leaving the herd, not the quantity,” Cook says.

The Economics of Culling Decisions

Mike Overton, global dairy platform lead for Zoetis, suggests letting herd economics be a driving factor when making the decision to cull and selecting cull cows.

“When we look at [culling decisions], we’re trying to replace an inferior cow, and that represents an opportunity to improve the herd,” Overton says. “It comes down to timing. We do it too late, we cost the herd money. If we do it prematurely, we cost the herd money.”

Consider the predicted value of the incoming and potential cull animals. If you replaced that animal, what would the improvement in milk production be? How about the improvement in herd genetics? One additional consideration is the revenue for the current cow when she leaves.

“When you have a heifer calving into a herd and her predicted value is greater than the lowest value cow in the herd, replace that cow. If not, that heifer should go elsewhere,” Overton says.

While Overton advocates for more aggressive replacement strategies, he says he is often countered with the idea of whether the departing cow has ‘paid for herself’.

“The decision to replace the cow should never account for when she’s paid for herself. That’s flawed logic,” Overton says. “This line of thinking might work for your average and above average animals, but your lower producing cows, the ones you should be culling sooner, will end up staying in the herd longest.”

Also consider older cows have a higher risk of health complications, as well as a lower market value per pound at slaughter. The salvage value of a cow should play into your culling decisions.

“Most people assume a low replacement rate equals greater profitability,” Overton explains. “It would be true all things being equal. If you think about if all cows were healthy and equal in production and market value, and the only reason for replacement was mortality, a lower replacement rate is going to be better. But we also know that cows are not equal in value or productivity.”

It’s possible to fall into the trap of trying to hit longevity, productivity or replacement rate benchmarks; however, these may cause lower performing cows to be kept for longer. Cull decisions should be well informed and tailored to each herd.

“Don’t be afraid to replace poor producing animals, even first lactation animals, if you’ve got heifers available to take their place. Never restrict replacement just to try and hit a benchmark,” Overton says.

Turn Milk Data Into An Early Diagnosis

Tue, 18 Nov 2025 14:23:58 GMT

Modern dairy operations generate an extraordinary amount of information from every milking, yet some of the most valuable health indicators are hiding in plain sight inside the milk meter. For veterinarians, these data streams offer one of the earliest, most reliable windows into emerging disease, often days before clinical signs appear.

“Most people forget about milk production,” says Dr. Aurora Villarroel of Athyr Vet, a dairy herd health consulting company. “The milking machine is actually your best biosensor. It’s your most important one and most people ignore it.”

While different monitoring systems may present data in different ways, interpreting milk yield, component and conductivity data can allow for clinicians to detect subclinical disorders with greater precision than traditional observation alone. As technology becomes more integrated into routine dairy management, the veterinarian’s role increasingly centers on interpreting these numbers, guiding producers toward timely responses and translating these metrics into practical on-farm outcomes.

Milk Yield Deviations

Milk yield is often the first and most sensitive indicator that something is wrong. A cow that deviates from her expected production curve, given lactation history, or a fresh cow whose production isn’t increasing as it should needs to be looked at.

Villarroel advises putting together the milk yield data from a given cow’s lactation history to assist in spotting any irregularities.

“Some of the software will allow you to superimpose all of the lactations of the same cow,” Villarroel says. “What you’re going to see is that the lactations have the same shape. It’s genetic, but it’s a different shape in each cow.”

By comparing the life lactation history of an animal, you can determine whether any observed shifts in milk yield are expected or out of the norm. Villarroel emphasizes the importance of zooming out to get the big picture. When you’re looking closely at two to three days of milking data, small changes in yield may seem insignificant; however, when you put these two to three days into context with a greater portion of the lactation, it may tell a different story.

Component Changes: Fat & Protein

Milk components add critical context to yield changes and help pinpoint specific metabolic disorders. Fat percentage often rises when a cow is metabolizing excessive body fat, making it one of the most consistent indicators of negative energy balance or subclinical ketosis. Conversely, milk protein tends to drop with decreased feed intake, rumen dysfunction or systemic illness. The fat-to-protein ratio (FPR) is particularly useful in transition cow monitoring: an elevated FPR may indicate an energy deficit.

If you’re evaluating whether a new nutrition program is working for your herd, consider using butter fat content and animal activity as indicators.

“The milk yield takes a while still to change, but butter fat and resting time are the first two things that change almost immediately,” Vilarroel says.

Milk Conductivity

Changes in milk conductivity are also useful as an indicator of udder health and useful for the diagnosis of mastitis. Conductivity measures the salt content of the milk, which is dependent on the permeability of blood vessels, or damage to the blood-milk barrier. Because this shift can occur before visible changes in milk or the udder, conductivity is one of the earliest warning signs of mastitis at the quarter level.

“When the conductivity goes up, there’s inflammation in the udder. Something is going on in the udder so that there’s more salt in the milk,” Villarroel explains. “Conductivity changes are a precursor to somatic cell count changes.”

Somatic cell count patterns offer a complementary perspective, highlighting cows that are experiencing subclinical infections. Reviewing somatic cell count trends on a per-cow and per-lactation basis can help identify management decisions that may be affecting udder health.

Put Milk Measurements Together

While each milk metric offers useful information on its own, their real power emerges when they are interpreted together. No single measurement is diagnostic, but patterns across multiple indicators can be used to identify cattle who need to be checked on.

“How do you check every single thing in a cow every single day?” Villarroel says. “Guess what? You can. You just need to know how to interpret it.”

A cow showing modest yield drop may simply be responding to heat stress or social disruption; however, a yield drop paired with an elevated FPR suggests negative energy balance or early ketosis. Similarly, a spike conductivity alone may reflect milking irregularities, but when it appears alongside a somatic cell increase, the probability of mastitis increases.

Transforming milk data into meaningful herd health outcomes requires consistent workflows that integrate monitoring, diagnosis and communication. This may start with a focus on high-risk groups (transition cows, fresh cows, high-somatic cell count repeat offenders) and building structured review protocols around them. At the herd level, data driven insights can shape broader management decisions. Rising conductivity across a pen may indicate bedding or hygiene issues, while recurrent FPR spikes may indicate ration inconsistencies. By combining milk measurements into a cohesive health signal, you can move from reactive case management to proactive herd surveillance — catching problems early when they are the most treatable.

Mooving Cows: A New Approach to Training Cow Handling

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 21:35:24 GMT

Veterinarians have long been advocates for animal welfare, not only in treatment, but in dairy management. Yet one of the most significant welfare determinants on dairy farms often lies outside the treatment pen: how cows are moved and handled. Cow-handling practices directly affect stress physiology, lameness risk, udder health, milk let-down and handler safety. Veterinarians are uniquely positioned to influence these routines.

Studies consistently show the way cows are approached, moved and restrained has measurable impacts on cortisol levels, heart rate and behavior. Handling stress can compromise immune function, increase the incidence of masitis and interfere with reproduction. Conversely, calm, predictable handling improves milk yield and reduces fear responses over time.

Proper cow handling is not just good practice in welfare terms, but it is central to safe farms and productive herds.

When Jennifer Van Os from the University of Wisconsin-Madison spoke with producers, the need for education on animal handling became clear.

“I met with a bunch of Wisconsin dairy farm owners and managers to ask them about some of the challenges that they face with animal care and animal welfare,” Van Os says. “One of the most popular requests that I got was: Can you please come to my farm and train my staff on proper handling?”

Unfortunately, this wasn’t feasible, but she took the message to heart and considered what she could do to address the request.

Reimagining Animal Handling Training

Enter a clever training twist: the serious game ‘Mooving Cows’. Developed by Van Os and the animal welfare team at the University of Wisconsin, this digital touchscreen game enables farm staff (and anyone interested) to practice moving cows in a simulated dairy farm environment. Van Os and colleagues conducted research with four focus groups including farm staff and decision-makers (farm owners, veterinarians) on the game prototype to help shape the 1.0 release.

“Animal handling is really important for animal welfare, as well as other aspects of productivity and profitability on the farm,” Van Os says. “We know that when we handle cows appropriately, this can reduce the risk of injury, both to the cows themselves and to the people who work with them. We also know that when we handle them appropriately, it reduces cow stress levels, which then helps with milk yield as well as efficiency in the milking parlor.”

Rather than simply reading a manual, trainees play through a series of scenarios: moving cows from pasture to barn, guiding them into the milking parlor and navigating when a cow is reluctant. The game rewards patience, calm movements and minimal startling gestures, while it penalizes rushing, shouting or forcing cows into motion. In effect, it applies the principles of low-stress livestock handling in a safe, virtual form: pressure and release, staying on the edge of an animal’s flight zone, moving at a walk and staying in the cow’s line of sight.

One of the key aspects of the application is the opportunity for failure.

“There is this principle in educational video games that it provides this safe environment where you can deliberately mess up,” Van Os explains. “It provides an opportunity for you to learn by making mistakes or learn by failure, and that’s something you can’t necessarily do in training. If it’s hands-on and active and interactive, there are real life stakes where you don’t want to get injured and you don’t want the animals getting stressed or injured.”

Research performed by Van Os’ group shows users found that the application to be an easy-to-use training tool and knowledge of best cow handling practices improved after playing through the game.

‘Mooving Cows’ is completely free and is available for both Apple and Android devices. The application has been approved by the Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) Animal Care program for continuing education on stockmanship; completion of the game provides users with a certificate.

Van Os and her team hope to continue developing interactive, gamified cow handling applications with their sights set on training for maternity pens, the parlor and down cows.

Monitoring Tools Can Strengthen Herd Health Programs

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 23:46:03 GMT

Early identification of health challenges is one of the most effective ways to reduce disease severity, minimize treatment costs and support long term herd productivity. While experienced caretakers have always relied on stockmanship and close observation, today’s operations can benefit from data beyond what we can consistently monitor with our own eyes. Monitoring tools provide an additional layer of insight, helping recognize subtle changes in behavior, intake or environment before clinical signs are obvious.

Dr. Tiago Tomazi, dairy technical services veterinarian with Merck Animal Health, shared his advice at the Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council annual meeting on how the dairy landscape has progressed, allowing us to use monitoring technologies and management practices for improved animal health.

“If we go back to the ‘80s, we can say that dairy farming was still dominated by small-and-medium-sized family farms, right? We used to call cows by name,” Tomazi says. “Then the ‘90s and 2000s came, and there was a marked acceleration in the growth of large scale operations. There was an explosion of studies, of investigations, and scientific investigation that helped a lot to bring us to the point we’re at nowadays as far as reproduction and production in dairy cows and cattle health.”

Following this growth in knowledge came the development of monitoring technologies to assist producers and veterinarians identify potential animal issues earlier.

That being said, data-driven decision making does not necessarily require advanced technology. In many herds, structured record keeping, routine scoring (such as body condition scoring, lameness scoring or feed bunk assessments), and consistent visual checks are foundational monitoring practices. The goal is to identify patterns and changes over time, not just isolated events.

Combine Technology with Strong Management Practices

When technology is added on top of strong stockmanship, the combination can be especially powerful.

“Point No. 1 is that monitoring systems are not a diagnostic tool,” Tomazi reminds. “But they help in identifying a cow that’s not having a good day.”

These activity monitoring technologies are not meant to tell you what ailment the cow has, but rather to alert you that a cow may be worth checking up on.

“Biology is not math,” Tomazi says. “While math uses formulas, numbers and calculations to get you the exact result, biology [has to] take into consideration a set of factors associated with the biology of the cow and the environment.”

While a variety of wearable tools exist for the earlier recognition of health changes, the interpretation of the data remains critical. Similar patterns can have multiple causes. For example, a decrease in rumination may reflect heat stress, early illness, social stress or rumen upset. Likewise, changes in activity could indicate estrus, discomfort or pain. Connecting these data points to clinical reasoning and management is key.

Application Evidence from Research

Data from these monitoring tools can be applied for health predictions in a number of scenarios.

Chabel and colleagues from the University of Florida evaluated of over 4,500 dairy cattle across three commercial dairy herds wearing automated monitoring devices designed for estrous detection. They found early postpartum estrous characteristics were valuable indicators of reproductive potential; they were able to identify cows at risk for suboptimal fertility. By combining these characteristics with other health, genetic and environmental data, they were able to improve the prediction of fertility outcomes and provide targeted reproductive management for the cattle.

A series of three studies by Stangaferro and colleagues at Cornell University investigated the use of automated monitoring devices for the identification of health issues in dairy cattle. They found health index scores (calculated using an algorithm using rumination and activity data) provided sensitive detection for cattle with metabolic and digestive disorders , reducing time to clinical diagnosis by approximately 2 days. However, this system was less sensitive for the detection of mastitis and metritis , being most effective for cattle with severe cases.

While these monitoring devices may not perfectly identify all health issues in your herd, they can certainly help identify some disease signs earlier than human observation alone. It’s also important to note that the implementation of these monitoring devices will be different from farm to farm.

“We have to take into consideration the level of disease protection you want at your farm as well as the feasibility and labor capabilities,” Tomazi says. “You can be very intensive, but if you don’t have the people to provide you with that intensity, then it makes everything harder. On the other hand, you can be less intensive and find that balance where you’re not going to compromise the reproduction or production during the location of those cows.”

Data Interpretation is just as Important

Training caretakers to recognize when and how to respond to monitoring data is just as important as selecting the technology. A monitoring system is only as good as the team interpreting it.

While the benefits can be significant, monitoring tools also introduce challenges. The amount of data generated can be overwhelming. Time and training is required to get the most out of your investment and use the data effectively. This provides a great opportunity for veterinarians and producers to work together in prioritizing the metrics that are the most actionable and will make the most impact on the operation’s herd health goals.

The Future with Monitoring Tools

Looking ahead, predictive models and machine learning based alerts are likely to play an increasing role in herd health programs. With these systems will come the need for increased expertise on interpretation, contextual decision making and ongoing evaluation of how monitoring tools fit into preventative care strategies.

“I think integration is what we are walking toward,” Tomazi says. “The integration of these technologies with biological factors and management factors all together will help us make decisions considering the specific scenario at each dairy farm.”

Ultimately, monitoring tools are most effective when combined with strong stockmanship and veterinary oversight. When data and observation inform each other, disease can be detected earlier, interventions become more targeted and herds can become healthier overall.

5 Tips for Vaccine Handling

Fri, 07 Nov 2025 16:53:40 GMT

Vaccines are one of the most effective and economical tools available to maintain herd health, reduce disease loss and support animal well-being. However, even the best vaccine can fail if it’s not handled correctly. Dr. Jon Townsend, dairy technical services veterinarian with Merck Animal Health, recently touched on the topic during a Dairy Calf and Heifer Association webinar .

“You’ve made the investment in those vaccines. You want to get the best response out of them. You want to get the best cow health possible,” Townsend says.

Whether you’re working with calves, replacement heifers or mature cattle, following consistent vaccine handling practices ensures your investment delivers the intended immunity. Here are five key guidelines to keep in mind.

1. Store Vaccines at the Right Temperature

Vaccines are sensitive, biological products. Many must be kept refrigerated at a specific temperature range to remain effective.

Use a dedicated refrigerator (not the one used for drinks and lunches), as frequent door opening causes temperature swings.
Place a thermometer in the fridge to monitor temperature regularly.
Avoid storing vaccines in the refrigerator door where temperatures fluctuate the most.

2. Don’t Mix all your Vaccine at Once

Many livestock vaccines are sold as two-part products. Once mixed, the live organisms begin to break down.

“Only mix what you’ll use in the next one to two hours if you have to mix up a vaccine,” Townsend advises. “Your modified live vaccines you have to mix. So don’t mix a huge bottle that’s going to take the whole day to use. By the time you get to the last dose that vaccine has potentially degraded, and you won’t get the same response that you would have immediately after reconstitution.”

3. Keep Mixed Vaccines Cool and Out of Sunlight

Heat and sunlight can rapidly damage vaccines, particularly modified-live vaccines.

Keep syringes and mixed bottles in an insulated cooler with cold packs.
Do not place vaccine bottles on the chute, in your shirt pocket, or on a truck dashboard.
Check your cooler throughout the day to ensure cold packs are still cold and not melted.

Unsure about what cooler to use? Consider making it yourself.

“You can either buy a fancy one, or you can make one yourself with an Igloo cooler and drill some holes,” Townsend says. In the end, the goal is the same. “It’s really important to keep that vaccine cool. If you’re using a multi-dose syringe, make sure you’re keeping [it] cool between calves.”

4. Maintain Needle Cleanliness

Contamination can destroy vaccine potency and introduce infection to animals.

Use new clean needles when drawing vaccine from the bottle.
Do not set uncapped syringes or needles down on surfaces like tailgates or barn rails.
If a needle becomes dirty, bent or touches anything questionable, replace it.

“We need to be thinking about changing out needles more frequently than [we] did 30 years ago,” Townsend says. “Then disinfect the needle and syringes after use or dispose of them, and think about disinfecting multi-dose syringes.”

Townsend also highlights the importance of making sure there is no disinfectant residue remaining after cleaning as it has the potential to inactivate your vaccines. Producers and veterinarians should work together to set up protocols for syringe reuse.

5. Use Sharp, Appropriate Needles

A sharp needle ensures a clean injection and reduces animal discomfort.

Replace needles regularly and check for sharpness.
Choose needle size based on animal size, vaccine viscosity and route of administration:
- Subcutaneous: typically 16 to 18 gauge, ½" to ¾"
- Intramuscular: typically 16 to 20 gauge, 1" to 1½"

Townsend specifically warns about the development of burrs, small barbs or defects that can catch on skin, on your needles after too many uses.

“If you wouldn’t want it going into your arm for a vaccine, you shouldn’t be putting it into a cow or calf either,” he says.

Overall, the immunity an animal gains from vaccination is only as good as the care taken in handling the product. Proper storage, careful mixing, maintaining temperature and using clean, sharp needles are straightforward steps that protect your investment and your herd.

Marketing Cull Dairy Cattle: How to Integrate Welfare and Economics into Decision-Making

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 19:54:46 GMT

Dairy cattle span multiple product sectors, with a first career as a dairy animal and a second career as a beef animal. With a declining cattle herd population in the U.S., focusing on health and welfare of each animal remains important. In addition, finding extra value in each animal is critical to each operation’s business.

Look At The Factors
According to the 2022 National Beef Quality Audit, dairy or beef cows and bulls that can no longer be used for their original purpose are still valuable. Cull cattle, or animals being removed from the herd, can be marketed in several ways dependent on the type of operation, their production and marketing goals, resources, and other factors.

In a guide titled “Right Way. Right Time. A guide to cull dairy cattle management,” the National Dairy Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) program collaborated with CattleFax and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to evaluate these various factors and improve cull cattle management to enhance animal welfare while considering economics.

This document uses established standards to address key areas of opportunity for effective cull cattle management and provide strategies for making timely culling decisions and improving welfare. It is designed to help producers examine the opportunity to capture more value.

“‘The Right Way. Right Time.’ handbook provides practical steps to help farmers and veterinarians make the right decision on the complex question of ‘When is the right time for a dairy cow to change careers,’” says Meggan Hain, chief veterinary officer for the National Milk Producers Federation and the National Dairy FARM Program.

Topics Covered
The handbook establishes a mechanism for proper diagnosis, treatment protocols and training topics like fitness for transport and euthanasia decisions.

When it comes to minimizing stress during transportation or career changes, understanding how temperature, wind speed, humidity and storms affect cattle and calves during transportation is important. There are also many aspects of transportation that can be controlled — including where the animal is marketed, the equipment used, stocking density and transporter education. Recommendations for calf transport from the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) are included in the resource.

The BQA Transportation certification, which helped guide the ‘Right Way. Right Time.’ documents, provides direction on fitness for transport decisions with topics such as mobility scoring, body condition scoring, length of transport and withdrawal times. Both educational resources can be training tools for veterinarians when working with their dairy and calf operations.

For example, the following are points to consider before deciding to ship an animal:

Ensure all animals have cleared withdrawal times prior to shipping
Make proactive decisions to ensure early treatment or early culling to lead to better outcomes for the animal
Do not transport cattle with a Body Condition Score of 2 or less to reduce bruising, prioritize welfare and improve yield/payment
Mobility score 3 (using a 5-point scale) should be strongly scrutinized at the farm or auction market and evaluated for their ability to make the full trip to their end destination and in shape to walk into the processing plant
Full udders can cause animal discomfort and mobility issues, in addition to being a food safety concern since milk is considered a contaminant

With all fitness for transport and culling decisions, we should be asking ourselves, “What does it mean when the animal leaves the farm in that condition? Is this what is best for the animal?”

Euthanasia is also an important decision for which veterinarians should be a crucial adviser. Supporting producers in making euthanasia and culling decisions and developing protocols can help take the decision making away from the producer, making it easier to take that next step. For animals that should be euthanized rather than transported, ensuring landmarks are correct and maintenance of euthanasia tools are more steps to improving welfare. Considerations for carcass disposal should be weighed depending on what is available in the area and what is practical for the operation.

The Veterinarian’s Role
The veterinarian is key to the discussion, and can provide guidance and training on these topics.

It is important to recognize that cull cow marketing is rarely an all-or-nothing decision. There are nuances on each operation that the dairy farmer, employees and veterinarian should discuss when deciding to remove an animal from the herd. Cull cow management and marketing on the dairy is an important part of the business that deserves attention, rather than just serving as a byproduct from producing milk. Veterinarians are encouraged to use industry resources such as the “Right Way. Right Time. A guide to cull dairy cattle management” document, the National Dairy FARM resources at https://nationaldairyfarm.com/ , and the BQA program at www.bqa.org .

Insights into Calf Mortality at Commercial Calf Ranches

Fri, 24 Oct 2025 12:52:20 GMT

As the dairy industry embraces beef-on-dairy crossbreeding, a new type of animal is reshaping the U.S. calf and feedlot landscape. These calves, born on dairies but destined for the beef supply chain, are prized for their hybrid vigor, growth potential and carcass quality. Their journey often includes an early stay at commercial calf ranches, where young calves are reared in large groups under varying environmental and management conditions.

While these specialized facilities play a key role in raising thousands of calves efficiently, they also present unique animal health challenges. Calves arrive from multiple dairies, often within days of birth, and face stresses from transport, commingling and pathogen exposure. The industry has long suspected that respiratory disease dominates mortality at these sites, but until recently, detailed, systematic data to confirm those patterns were limited.

A new study by Rebecca Bigelow and colleagues from Kansas State University set out to change that. The study compiles data from over 240 necropsies performed across four different commercial calf ranches over a 12-month period documenting cause of death, concurrent conditions and whether these patterns shifted by season, sex, breed or location. These necropsies included both beef-dairy cross (152) and dairy calves (91). Their findings confirm respiratory disease is indeed the leading cause of death, but they also shed light on gastrointestinal (GI) disease and septicemia. Their work provides a valuable benchmark for working to improve early-life calf health.

Of the 243 necropsied calves, 67.5% of them had a primary diagnosis of respiratory disease. Gastrointestinal causes accounted for 11.5%, septicemia for 9.5%, and miscellaneous cases (including trauma, umbilical infection and liver abscesses) for the remaining 11.5%.

Most calves had no additional comorbidities recorded, but among those that did, respiratory plus another condition was the most common combination. Within the respiratory category, bronchopneumonia represented nearly 90% of cases, while bronchopneumonia with interstitial pattern was less frequent. Considering GI lesions, 49% of calves had no lesions, while 21% had upper GI lesions (rumen and abomasum), 13% had lower GI lesions (small and large intestine), and 30% had both.

One of the study’s more surprising findings was what didn’t change. Statistical modeling showed no significant associations between the likelihood of respiratory or GI diagnoses and season, sex, breed or ranch. This result suggests the underlying disease pressures in these systems are persistent year-round rather than being driven by environmental conditions or genetic background. Further, beef-dairy cross calves had no improved disease resistance compared to dairy calves under commercial rearing conditions.

These results can be summarized into the following takeaway points for animal caretakers:

Prioritize respiratory prevention.

With two thirds of deaths linked to respiratory causes, calf ranches must focus on preventative strategies: proper ventilation, gradual group transitions and consistent monitoring for early signs of respiratory illness. Review vaccination programs and align them for protection at times of stress and exposure.

Necropsies pay off.

Routine necropsy programs can help producers spot emerging disease trends before they escalate.

Maintain consistent management year-round.

Prevention and monitoring must remain equally rigorous through all seasons, not just in winter or transport peaks.

Collaborate across the production chain.

Calf health outcomes at ranches depend on colostrum management, navel care and nutrition practices at the dairy of origin, as well as transport and receiving protocols. Strong communication between dairies, calf ranches and veterinarians ensures continuity of care.

How Certified Veterinary Technicians Can Strengthen Your Cattle Practice

Mon, 13 Oct 2025 19:40:10 GMT

Oct. 12-18, 2025, is National Veterinarian Technician Week. This is the perfect time to celebrate some of the most versatile, hard-working, and essential members of the veterinary world or consider whether having a credentialed veterinary technician (CVT) could be good for your practice.

In cattle practice, where every day brings a new challenge — from calving complications to herd health checks and emergency calls miles down the road — CVTs bring structure to the chaos. They’re the steady hands that keep the work moving, the organized minds behind the paperwork, and the friendly faces clients often see first.

But beyond the appreciation posts and coffee gift cards, this week is a good reminder to ask a bigger question: How could a veterinary technician make your practice stronger?

The Value of CVTs

Cattle veterinarians wear a lot of hats. On any given day, they might manage herd health programs, run regulatory testing, deliver calves, diagnose lameness and field a few “while-you’re-here” questions about nutrition. It’s a demanding mix of clinical skill, logistics and endurance.

A skilled CVT helps shoulder that load. Under proper supervision, technicians can collect samples, assist with treatments, monitor anesthesia, record data, maintain biosecurity and help keep visits efficient and thorough.

That support means veterinarians can spend more time where their expertise is most valuable: making diagnoses, planning herd strategies and strengthening client relationships. It’s not just about saving time; it’s about elevating care.

Recognizing the growing role of technicians in food animal work, the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) released new Guidelines for Credentialed Veterinary Technicians in Bovine Practice in 2024.

The goal? To help practices use CVTs safely, effectively and confidently.

The guidelines outline:

Clear definitions. They distinguish CVTs from assistants.
Task lists and supervision levels. Each procedure — from sample collection to post-operative care — includes a recommended level of supervision (direct, indirect or veterinarian-only).
Built-in flexibility. They’re not meant to limit what practices do but to encourage veterinarians and techs to sit down together and ask, “Where can we work smarter?”

These guidelines are meant to open the door for team discussions about how to delegate tasks responsibly while improving efficiency and morale.

Lessons from the Field

At the 2025 AABP conference, Oberlin McDaniel of NC Mobile Veterinary Service emphasized something every good cattle practice knows instinctively: Teamwork is everything.

Many large animal practitioners are operating solo practices, meaning performing every task personally. This could lead to inefficiencies, missed revenue opportunities and physical and mental fatigue.

McDaniel pointed out that CVTs could contribute greatly to data flow in modern herd management. Whether entering lab results, tracking treatments or uploading records, technicians keep the information stream accurate and actionable — a key edge for practices embracing digital herd health platforms.

The return on investment is also a significant concern for veterinarians. Research has shown that the use of CVTs in small and mixed animal practices can increase revenue by 14% and increase veterinary productivity by 17%. In this work, 25% of the mixed animal practices were primarily bovine. The USDA Veterinary Services Grant Program is also available to support technician training and retention in underserved areas.

Perhaps most importantly, McDaniel emphasized that better technician integration isn’t just about doing more work, it’s about doing better work. When CVTs handle routine or preparatory tasks, veterinarians have time to consult more deeply with producers or tackle complex cases. Everyone wins, especially the cattle.

How Could a CVT Improve Your Practice?

If you’re not sure where to start, consider these benefits:

More visits, less rush. With a CVT preparing samples, logging data and managing restraint, veterinarians can cover more ground, literally and figuratively.
Better preventive care. CVTs can lead vaccination, sampling or deworming programs, improving consistency and compliance.
Stronger communication. CVTs can provide an enhanced client experience with more responsive communication. Techs help reinforce messages and build trust.
Cleaner data, better records. From digital uploads to treatment logs, accurate data makes your job easier. Having a CVT could streamline this process.
A happier, more sustainable practice. Delegating appropriately prevents burnout, improves job satisfaction and keeps teams motivated.

Practices that invest in training and trust see higher productivity and stronger team retention, two things every rural practice could use more of.

Celebrating and Empowering Vet Techs

National Veterinarian Technician Week is a great time to thank your technicians, but the best way to celebrate them is by giving them the professional recognition and responsibility they’ve earned. A well-utilized CVT doesn’t just make your day easier, they make your practice stronger, your clients happier and your herd care better.

So this October, take a moment to recognize the hands, minds and hearts that keep your practice moving forward and ask yourself how you can help them do even more.

The Impact of Low Trace Minerals in Cattle May Be Bigger Than You Expect

Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:12:13 GMT

Trace minerals — including copper, selenium, zinc, manganese and cobalt — are needed in vanishingly small amounts. However, when these nutrients fall even the smallest bit short of a cow’s needs, the consequences can be significant. These results can include slower growth, compromised immunity and poor reproduction.

Although trace minerals make up less than 0.01% of an animal’s body weight, they’re fundamental co-factors in enzymes, antioxidants, metabolic and immune pathways. Subclinical deficiencies may be a more extensive problem as the symptoms are not evident and there is no intervention, leading to economic losses.

David Schaeffer, professor at the University of Illinois, and his colleagues recently published work analyzing trace mineral concentrations from beef and dairy livers submitted to the California Animal Health & Food Safety Lab System laboratory between 2012 and 2021. The aim of this work was to compare any correlation patterns of copper, selenium, and manganese contents, and incidence of disease.

This work included 1,495 liver samples collected from cattle submitted for diagnostic testing. They were categorized as beef (857) or dairy (638), and further grouped by age (neonates, adolescents and adults).

The study revealed significant differences between deficiencies in beef and cattle. Overall, 73% of beef cattle and 45% of dairy cattle were found to be deficient in at least one trace mineral. In beef cattle, 46% of cattle were deficient in selenium, while 39% were deficient in manganese and 33% were deficient in copper. In dairy cattle, 10% of cattle were deficient in selenium, while 37% were deficient in manganese, and only 5% were deficient in copper.

(Adapted from Schaeffer et al., 2025)

The observed increased incidence of deficiency in beef cattle is likely expected as these animals often rely on free choice minerals, while dairy cattle are fed a total mixed ration including a mineral supplement. Interestingly, Schaeffer also reported a large portion of dairy cattle may have been oversupplemented as they observed above normal copper and selenium levels.

Associations between mineral status and disease occurred across both groups, but were most prevalent in beef cattle.

In beef cattle reported to have bovine respiratory disease (BRD), 68% of animals were deficient in copper, selenium or both minerals. The median age of these animals was 8 months, and most of them had been recently transported and co-mingled with other calves.

One thing the authors noticed was some conditions that are usually subclinical in beef cattle, for example parasites, were fatal in animals that were deficient in copper, selenium, or both.

“Now obviously we don’t know the condition score of those animals,” says co-author David Villar on a recent episode of “Have You Herd?”. “I would imagine it was pretty poor to die from internal parasites.”

As stated above, dairy cattle cases had much lower prevalences of trace mineral deficiency. Along with this, they also had lower incidences of correlation between deficiency and disease.

Of the dairy cattle with only one deficiency, the most frequent diagnoses were BRD (23%), Salmonella (14%), scours (16%), and septicemia (6%). Of all dairy cattle, 11% of those with BRD also had a copper or selenium deficiency.

It’s important to remember these are correlations between mineral status and disease, not causation.

Villar highlights what he hopes producers and veterinarians would take away from this work: “The main conclusion I would make is that beef, but not dairy, are still largely deficient in essential microminerals, copper and selenium. We need to check the herd management to see what’s happening.”

These results present an opportunity for producers and veterinarians to build preventative mineral nutrition programs, especially in beef herds where deficiencies are more prevalent. Proactive monitoring and targeted supplementation could reduce disease, mortality and economic loss in cattle herds.

Generic vs. Pioneer Drugs for Cattle: Should You Care?

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 13:58:12 GMT

Medication use is an essential part of maintaining health, productivity and welfare in dairy and beef cattle. From treating mastitis on a dairy to managing respiratory disease in a feedlot, veterinarians and producers rely on a range of pharmaceuticals to keep herds healthy. However, with many drugs available in both pioneer and generic forms, the question arises: Is there a meaningful difference between the two?

For veterinarians and producers, the decision involves more than just the label. Understanding the approval process, economics and practical considerations behind generic and pioneer drugs can help guide responsible choices that support animal health, food safety and economic sustainability.

What are Pioneer and Generic drugs?

Pioneer drugs are the original products developed by a pharmaceutical company that have an approved new animal drug application (NADA). They are protected by patents, which give the company exclusive marketing rights for a period of time. This exclusivity allowed the manufacturer to recoup the significant investment made in research, development and regulatory approval.

Generic drugs enter the market once those patents expire and have an approved abbreviated NADA (ANADA). A generic contains the same active ingredient, in the same dosage form and strength, and is administered through the same route as its brand name counterpart. In other words, a generic drug must deliver the same therapeutic effect as the brand name drug.

The key differences often lie in the inactive ingredients, such as stabilizers, preservatives or carriers, that can vary between products. These differences generally do not affect stability or efficacy, but may influence characteristics such as palatability or ease of administration.

Approval and Regulatory Oversight

Both pioneer and generic veterinary drugs are regulated by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. However, the approval pathways differ:

Pioneer drug approval requires a company to submit an NADA. This includes extensive studies to prove the product’s safety for the target species, its effectiveness against the labeled condition, tolerance in the animal, food safety data (residue studies for milk and meat) and environmental impact. These studies often involve large clinical trials and can take years to complete.
Generic approval follows the ANADA process. Instead of repeating all of the brand name drug’s trials, the generic manufacturer must prove bioequivalence — that the drug behaves the same way in the animal’s body as the original product. Generics must also demonstrate consistent manufacturing practices and establish withdrawal times for milk and meat.

The result is that generics are held to rigorous standards of safety and efficacy. They are not weaker or inferior, they simply follow a more streamlined approval process as the groundwork has already been laid by the pioneer product.

Economics

One of the most notable differences between pioneer and generic drugs is cost. For producers, generic options can significantly reduce the cost of herd-level treatment, which is an important factor when treating dozens or hundreds of animals. For veterinarians, cost can influence prescribing practices and client satisfaction. Offering effective but more affordable treatment options might improve compliance and strengthen the veterinarian-producer relationship. In the long term, the availability of generics supports more sustainable herd health programs, particularly for common or recurring conditions.

Clinical and Practical Considerations

Does it work? vs. Did it work here?

When speaking on generic drugs, one of the key distinctions Dr. Nora Schrag, from Kansas State University, pointed out was the difference between whether a drug works and whether a drug worked in a specific production environment.

“‘Does the thing in the bottle work’ is a fundamentally very different question than ‘did it work,’ Schrag says. “‘Did it work’ includes the stuff in the bottle, but it also includes the people that are getting the stuff in the bottle into the critter, it includes the critters, it includes the weather, it includes everything else.”

Outcomes are influenced not just by the drug but also by management. Measuring whether a drug worked in a particular production setting requires keeping good records, monitoring success rates and comparing farm outcomes to peer benchmarks.

While generics and pioneer drugs are equivalent in active ingredient and expected efficacy, a few practical points deserve attention:

Perception: Some producers might be skeptical, perceiving pioneer products as more trustworthy. Veterinarians play a critical role in reassuring clients with evidence-based guidance.
Formulation differences: Rarely, a difference in inactive ingredients might influence animal tolerance or ease of use.
Compliance and stewardship: Regardless of whether pioneer or generic, observing label directions, withdrawal periods and judicious antimicrobial use principles remains essential.

Guidance for Decision-Making

The choice of what drug to use should be a collaborative effort between veterinarians and producers.

Veterinarians should evaluate both clinical needs and economic considerations. Recommending a generic is often appropriate, but being prepared to explain the science behind equivalency helps build producer confidence.
Producers should recognize withdrawal times and responsible use requirements apply equally to both drug types. Partnering with veterinarians ensures choices align with herd health goals and regulatory compliance.
Both parties must consider not only cost, but also judicious antimicrobial use, animal welfare and food safety when selecting products.

Both brand name and pioneer drugs are indispensable tools for managing cattle health. FDA’s rigorous approval process ensures generics are just as safe and effective as their pioneer counterparts. Generics offer producers significant cost savings that support sustainable operations. Working with their clients, veterinarians can help guide drug choices to ensure effective treatment while promoting stewardship and trust.

In the end, the decision is not about brand loyalty but using evidence-based judgment to balance animal health, food safety and economics. Together, these values benefit both the beef and dairy industry.

New World Screwworms Could Prey on Calves and Other Species

Tue, 02 Sep 2025 20:48:46 GMT

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when some Texas cattle hands riding the range had just one job: detecting and treating “wormies.”

The wormies were calves infected with New World screwworm (NWS) , according to San Angelo, Texas, veterinarian and rancher Dr. Chris Womack. He said calves are the perfect prey for NWS, because, unlike most other myiasis parasites that feed on dead and necrotic tissue, NWS feed on living tissue.

On a recent episode of the Have You Herd? podcast from the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Womack noted one of the ideal feeding sites for the burrowing NWS myiasis (maggots): the fresh navel of a newborn calf, along with any other open wounds like disbudding sites. But cattle and calves certainly are not the only hosts of NWS. Infestations can occur in all mammals, including humans.

That fact leaves Womack concerned about the possible spread of the pest. If it does cross the U.S. border, he believes the “sentinel animal” in which it is first detected will be either a companion animal or a wildlife species.

The current rate of spread also alarms him. NWS was basically eradicated from the U.S. in 1966, thanks to collaborative biological efforts that resulted from public-private partnerships between donors and the U.S. and Mexican governments. “At the time more than $2 million in private funds were raised,” he Womack shared. “It was that big of deal to producers that they were willing to put their own dollars up to fight it.”

As an example, the state of Texas lost an estimated 180,000 head of cattle to NWS in 1935 alone, according to T.R. Lansford III, DVM, deputy executive director and assistant state veterinarian with the Texas Animal Health Commission.

“Through medicine or miracle, they figured out they could irradiate the male fly and make him sterile,” Womack recalled. Because NWS females mate only once in their lifetimes, mating with a sterile male results in sterile larvae, breaking the fly’s production cycle.

“They bred and raised hundreds of millions of sterile male screwworm flies and blanketed the southern U.S. border with them,” said Womack. After they had pushed them out of the United States, those same efforts continued in Mexico for 25-30 years, until the parasite had been driven all the way across the Panama Canal and south of the Darien Gap.

But that progress shifted in the second half of 2024. Womack said a rancher in Panama told him NWS had been detected in Panama in early August 2024. “From that time until Thanksgiving, it migrated clear across Central America and into Chiapas, Mexico,” noted Womack. “That’s really terrifying.”

In addition to closing – then re-opening and closing again – the U.S./Mexican border to imports of cattle, bison, and horses, USDA also is ramping up eradication efforts in Mexico and Central America. State departments of agriculture in the border states of New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona also are involved. But in the meantime, the deadly parasite has continued its march north through Mexico, and has been detected within 370 miles of the U.S./Mexico border.

Womack also is concerned that range cattle and wildlife are not as closely observed as they used to be. And while there may be fewer cattle on open pastures in Texas compared to 60 years ago, Texas is now home to tens of thousands of dairy calves at calf ranches, many of whom travel to various outposts around the country as they mature.

USDA resources indicate that NWS flies are slightly larger than the common housefly. They have orange eyes, a metallic blue or green body, and three dark stripes along their backs. Symptoms of effected animals include irritated behavior, head shaking, the smell of decay, and the presence of maggots in open wounds.
Producers who suspect their animals may be infected with NWS should contact their veterinarians and are encouraged to submit maggot samples to a diagnostic lab.

Womack lamented that because the problem was so well-controlled for so long, there is a generational gap in knowledge about NWS. “Because it was so fantastically eradicated, it was a non-issue for decades. But now it’s an issue again. We need to be aware of and vigilant about this problem,” he stated.

Your Next Read: The Smell You’ll Never Forget: A Calf Infested with New World Screwworm

U.S. Dairy Herd Continues to Grow: Fastest Pace in 17 Years

Mon, 25 Aug 2025 20:52:17 GMT

Last fall, after more than a year of low dairy cow cull rates, U.S. dairy producers started to rebuild the milk herd. So far this year, dairy producers have held cull rates low enough to add milk cows at the fastest rate since 2008, says Sarina Sharp, analyst with the Daily Dairy Report.

“While the heifer shortage has remained acute this year, today’s herd is the largest in four years, but it’s also growing older,” Sharp says. “To fill every stall, producers are holding on to cows for an extra lactation or keeping cows whose milk yields are lower than desired because not enough heifers exist to replace less-productive livestock.”

In late-September 2023, U.S. dairy producers began to rein in cull rates, sending fewer animals to packing plants. At first, the lighter slaughter volumes were not substantial enough to offset the ongoing heifer shortage, and the U.S. dairy herd declined. The herd continued to shrink until January 2024, but as producers continued to hold onto lower-end cows, the decline in U.S. milk cow numbers ended, and the national dairy herd began growing again last autumn, Sharp says.

“Now the trade is watching closely for any sign that cull rates are climbing, which would foster slower growth in milk cow counts” she says.

For the first time since March, USDA’s weekly slaughter volumes regularly topped 50,000 head in July, and in the last two weeks of the month, producers sent more cows to packing plants than they did a year earlier. At first glance, rising slaughter volumes appear to indicate the situation could be changing, but a deeper dive shows otherwise, according to Sharp.

“The increases in cull rates can easily be explained by seasonality, mathematics and weather,” she says. “First, cull rates typically jump in July following spring flush. And while U.S. dairy producers are now milking 146,000 more cows than a year ago, slaughter volumes can top last year’s very low counts without boosting culling percentages.”

Over the past two decades, she explains, dairy producers have typically culled about 32% of the milk cow herd each year. Last year, the cull rate dropped to 29.6%. This year, with 146,000 more cows, producers could continue to cull less than 30% of the herd and still send nearly 1,000 more cows to slaughter each week.

In addition, while slaughter in late July was unusually high in the Midwest, a derecho that slammed into the Central Plains was likely a major driver of the increase. USDA data showed that slaughter in the Midwest jumped 2,400 head above the prior year in the final week of July.

“Powerful winds damaged facilities and forced some producers to send cows to the packer while they repaired barns and milk parlors,” Sharp says. “Eventually, health and longevity will necessitate a return to historical cull rates, but for now, economics suggest slaughter volumes will remain near year-ago levels and expansion will continue, leading to strong milk production.”

Your Next Read:
Milk Production Soars: Record-Breaking Growth for Dairy Industry in Four Years

New Dairy Training Platform Boosts Consistency and Compliance

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:55:15 GMT

As the dairy industry continues to grow and change, it’s met with a unique set of challenges— from job roles to the expectations surrounding animal care and efficiency. Consumers are increasingly eager to understand how their food is produced and to verify ethical practices are followed.

Rising to meet these needs is DairyKind, an innovative platform transforming training processes within the dairy industry.

New System For Animal Welfare
Designed by a dedicated team of seven veterinarians, DairyKind offers a robust system for training and monitoring animal well-being practices on farms. This third-party platform ensures accountability and transparency by providing verification to the consumer, effectively bridging the gap between farm practices and public concern.

“The DairyKind seal gives confidence to consumers that the dairy products they purchase come from farms prioritizing animal well-being,” says Michelle Schack, DVM and co-creator of DairyKind.

Schack, along with her team, created DairyKind in response to the increasing audits and evaluations dairies face regarding welfare, safety and environmental concerns.

The Training Gap
DairyKind was conceptualized in 2019 and launched in 2020, starting in Arizona and quickly expanding to 12 states. It’s delivered more than 72,000 trainings across the U.S., offering a comprehensive online platform which provides accessible training in employees’ native languages. This ensures clear communication from day one and establishes foundational knowledge that supports ongoing in-person training by veterinarians and farm managers.

“It’s so important that every farm employee has very clear expectations from day one,” she says. “Group training is great, but it’s not enough. There was a gap there that needed to be filled. We saw that need, and we created DairyKind, as an online platform to deliver training that is accessible at any time in the native language of the person, and is a way that the farmers can deliver training to their employees in a very practical way.”

The platform has been particularly beneficial for ensuring compliance during various audits, whether that be the National Dairy Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) audit or others.

As highlighted by Schack, training deficiencies consistently rank among the top program corrective actions within industry evaluations. DairyKind aids farms by providing structured, reliable training documentation, simplifying the audit process and helping maintain high welfare standards.

The Benefits of Standardizing Training
Beyond compliance, DairyKind offers farms a practical training solution, informed by veterinarians who understand the unique operational challenges faced by dairy farmers. Courses are brief, typically ranging from five to fifteen minutes — making them easily integrable into daily routines without overwhelming staff. They even have quizzes to ensure employees comprehend the training lessons. The system also empowers farm owners, allowing them to oversee operations across multiple sites and ensure consistent communication of values and expectations.

For larger operations, DairyKind offers a hierarchy system that enables owners to efficiently manage training across different locations. Whether it’s a small family-run farm or a vast multi-location enterprise, the ability to track training and ensure every employee understands the ‘why’ behind their duties helps maintain consistency in animal care.

“We’ve really focused on seeing that people understand the ‘why’,” she says. “Understanding the ‘why’ can help them be better equipped to make better decisions in their everyday job and do the best job that they can and feel more empowered.”

When a farm has an audit — whether they have two employees or hundreds — it requires documentation of some type of training. DairyKind offers just that.

Consumer Connections
By upholding rigorous standards and maintaining transparency, DairKind allows consumers greater insight into the sources of their dairy products. Some clients have gone as far as to incorporate the DairyKind logo on their products, underscoring their commitment to animal welfare and engaging consumers with their values.

DairyKind is more than just a platform; it’s a catalyst for change, offering the dairy industry a path forward in an increasingly conscientious market. Through tools like this, the future of dairy will not only involve more efficient practices, but also greater alignment with the values of transparency, accountability and ethical treatment of animals — values that consumers passionately support.

Your Next Read:
Enhancing Biosecurity on Calf Ranches: Balancing Animal and Human Health

It's Time to Go Back to the Feedbunk Managment Basics

Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:45:40 GMT

How feed is managed at the bunk can have a bigger impact on cow health and production than farmers might think. Seemingly small details such as timing, consistency or mix quality can make a significant difference in how cows eat and perform.

Getting feedbunk management right starts with going back to the basics. Dr. Kirby Krogstad, assistant professor of dairy nutrition at Ohio State University, stresses that clear routines, attention to detail and teamwork at the feedbunk are the foundation for keeping cows healthy and productive.

During a recent conversation on the “Dairy Health Blackbelt Podcast,” he shared practical tips and strategies that dairies of all sizes can use to improve herd performance.

“One of the fundamentals that constantly needs revisiting is how to manage a bunk properly,” Krogstad says. “If you feed cows, do you have a written protocol for how you want your cows fed and how often you want feed pushed up? If you don’t have that, you need to start there.”

Make a Plan and Stick to It

For many dairies, labor availability and time management are ongoing challenges. Krogstad notes that feed push-ups don’t always happen as often as they should, and feeding times can vary. That can leave cows without feed for an extended period of time, which can reduce intake, upset the rumen and lead to dips in milk production.

A written feeding protocol is the first step. It should outline exactly how and when feed is delivered, how often push-ups occur and what to do if feed runs low. Once everyone knows the plan, it becomes easier to train employees, maintain consistency and monitor compliance.

“You have to implement a program with yourself, your staff, your family — whoever does the feeding — in mind. Then you can start using additional in a more effective way,” Krogstad says.

Simple Tools Can Make a Big Difference

Technology doesn’t have to be complicated or expensive. Krogstad recommends using time-lapse cameras as a simple way to track feed delivery and cow behavior.

“Hang cameras to see when feed is being pushed up, when cows are coming to the bunk and to monitor out-of-feed events,” he says. “Sometimes what we think is happening is not actually happening. A camera can show you the gaps and help you fix them.”

These cameras provide an objective view of daily routines and can highlight inconsistencies between written protocols and what actually happens. By spotting problems early, producers can adjust routines before they affect production or cow health.

Check Your Mix

Even if feed is delivered on time, the mix itself has to be consistent from one end of the bunk to the other. Krogstad suggests using a Penn State particle separator to check feed uniformity. Uneven mixing can result from operator error, improper ingredient order or worn mixer components such as kicker plates, knives or restrictors.

“If the mix isn’t consistent, you might have an operator error or equipment problem,” Krogstad explains. “Fixing these issues ensures every cow gets the same quality feed, which keeps intake steady and production predictable.”

Feed Is Too Valuable to Waste

Krogstad also emphasizes the importance of paying close attention to bunk management, especially given the high cost of feed and the challenges of maintaining reliable labor on many dairies.

“Nutrition is a huge cost,” he says. “It puzzles me why people don’t pay more attention to this when it’s the biggest input you have on your dairy.”

Feed waste can happen in many ways. Uneven mixing in the TMR can leave some cows with too little of key nutrients and others with more than they need, which can lead to portions of feed being pushed aside or left uneaten. Gaps in feed delivery or infrequent push-ups can also cause cows to compete for feed or wait for fresh feed, leaving bunk space empty or spoiled feed behind. Even small amounts of leftover feed add up to significant costs over a year.

By paying closer attention to how feed is delivered, checking the mix for consistency and keeping push-ups regular, producers can reduce waste.

“A little extra effort each day at the bunk can save a lot of feed and prevent drops in production,” Krogstad notes. “It’s one of those areas where attention to detail really shows up on the bottom line.”

Focus on Consistency

Krogstad stresses that a reliable routine is the key to an efficient feedbunk. That means consistent feeding times, consistent push-ups, consistent mix quality and consistent adherence to protocols. When cows can rely on a steady routine and uniform feed, their intake stabilizes, rumen health improves, and milk production becomes more predictable.

By focusing on these fundamentals, producers can improve cow performance, reduce feed waste and run a more efficient operation. Small, consistent improvements in the bunk add up to better herd health, higher milk production and stronger profits for the farm.

The Future of Methane Reduction: Breakthrough Technologies Take the Lead

Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:47:59 GMT

In a significant leap forward for sustainable agriculture, the groundbreaking Methane Eradication Photochemical System (MEPS) has successfully demonstrated its capability to eliminate dilute methane emissions from dairy barns at a commercial scale. This pioneering field demonstration marks the first real-world validation of a scalable technology that addresses methane emissions from livestock operations.

Methane poses a substantial environmental challenge, with a global warming potential 84 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. As livestock are responsible for approximately 30% of global anthropogenic methane emissions. the importance of MEPS in the dairy industry’s journey to net zero emissions cannot be overstated.

The U.S. dairy industry is actively working to reduce methane emissions through various strategies, including:

Improved manure management
Enhanced feed efficiency
Innovative technologies like anaerobic digesters

These efforts are part of a broader commitment to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Field Trials in Denmark: A Major Milestone
The large-scale trial was conducted at the Hofmansgave Foundation farm in Denmark. The MEPS unit, housed in a standard 40' shipping container, efficiently processed air samples from a 250-cow open-sided dairy barn. This trial signifies a significant transition from laboratory prototypes to a commercially viable solution.

“The system successfully oxidized methane from dairy barn ventilation air across varying concentration levels, proving that MEPS can deliver consistent performance under real agricultural conditions with co-pollutants present. Across the initial tests, up to 90% of inlet air methane was eradicated over a methane concentration range of 4.3 ppm to 44 ppm,” says Matthew S. Johnson, co-founder and chief science officer at Ambient Carbon.

Industry Support and Collaboration
The support of Danone North America played an instrumental role in this field trial, reflecting their commitment to innovation that strengthens farm longevity and the supply chain. Ambient Carbon, in collaboration with Benton Group Dairies, works toward validating MEPS’ performance and supporting sustainable farming practices.

Jessie Copeland, head of regenerative agriculture at Danone North America, expresses satisfaction with the initial results.

“The success in Denmark paves the way for further strategic collaborations... reinforcing our shared commitment to enhancing farmer and supply chain resiliency,” he says.

Chris Williams, conservation lead at Benton Dairies, adds: “We are excited to work alongside Ambient Carbon to push the boundaries of sustainable milk production.”

Beyond methane eradication, MEPS also removes ammonia and barn odors, generating fertilizer as a by-product and enhancing resource efficiency through its closed-loop circular technology.

The Path Forward
As emphasized by Dave Kenney, CEO of Ambient Carbon, proving MEPS technology at scale is a crucial step toward delivering a commercial solution by 2026.

MEPS is poised to become the only effective and commercially viable solution for methane concentrations below 1000 ppm — which is typical of dairy barns. Its modular design and non-invasive nature allow flexible deployment across various barn sizes without affecting farm operations.

While the field trial focused on dairy barn emissions, the MEPS system holds promise for other sources of methane emissions, including manure storage, biogas plants and wastewater treatment facilities — potentially expanding its climate impact.

The successful demonstration of MEPS underscores a pivotal moment for agricultural sustainability, potentially transforming the dairy industry and beyond, while reinforcing the importance of innovation in combating climate change.

Your Next Read:
U.S. Dairy Exports Surge Dramatically as Global Demand Soars

Do Trained Heifers Really Perform Better With Robots?

Wed, 13 Aug 2025 13:15:58 GMT

A new study has found that giving heifers a little practice time with an automated milking system (AMS) before calving can significantly improve how quickly they adapt during the first few weeks of lactation.

The transition to a robot can be a stressful experience for heifers who must not only learn to become a cow but also figure out how to navigate and use an unfamiliar milking system. Researchers from the University of Guelph recently set out to test whether structured precalving training could smooth the transition for first-lactation cows into robotic milking.

The study involved 30 pregnant Holstein heifers, enrolled about three weeks before their expected calving date. To keep results consistent, the animals were paired according to due date and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. The control group received no exposure to the AMS before calving, while the training group participated in a four-day familiarization program.

For the training, heifers were brought into the AMS pen approximately two weeks before their actual calving date. Over the four days, they experienced three short training sessions per day. These sessions introduced them to the robot, the feed concentrate available during milking and the mechanical arm and operational noises of the AMS. The goal was to remove as many “first-time” stressors as possible before actual milking began.

Once the heifers calved in individual maternity pens, both groups were moved between three and seven days in milk, to a free-traffic AMS pen. Here, cows could voluntarily visit the milking unit or be fetched if they did not enter within a certain time. A fetch pen, located near the AMS entrance, held cows that needed to be brought in.

For the next 21 days, researchers monitored milking activity, cow behavior and milk production. They recorded the number of visits to the AMS, voluntary milkings, fetch events and time spent in the fetch pen. They also assessed “ease of entry” into the machine, milk letdown and kicking behavior during the first six milkings across the first two days in the AMS.

At the conclusion of the study, it was clear that the heifers who got some practice time in were better prepared for robotic milking. These animals had a significantly better ease-of-entry score and better milk-letdown scores compared with untrained heifers. Trained heifers were also more willing to enter the machine and let their milk flow without hesitation.

Milking frequency saw an increase compared to the untrained animals as well. Over the 21-day period, trained heifers averaged 6.1 total visits to the AMS per day, compared with 5.0 for the control group. When looking at voluntary visits, the trained group averaged 5.6 per day, compared with just 4.2 for untrained heifers. They also had slightly more voluntary milkings, averaging 2.6 per day versus 2.2 for controls.

This higher level of voluntary engagement translated into less time and labor spent fetching cows. Untrained heifers averaged one fetch per day and spent 18.7 minutes per day in the fetch pen. Trained heifers averaged only 0.8 fetches per day and 14.6 minutes in the fetch pen.

Trained heifers also stood out for producing more milk. On average, first-lactation animals in the rehearsed group yielded 72.3 lb. per day during the study, about 4.9 lb. more than the untrained group’s 67.3 lb. Researchers noted that this early advantage can carry through the entire lactation, leading to greater overall productivity and profitability compared to their non-trained counterparts.

Even though heifers without training can still adjust to the AMS, the researchers believe the improved adaptation and performance in the trained group stem from reduced novelty and stress. Getting familiar with the sights, sounds and movements of the machine before calving helped them feel more comfortable when it was time to start milking.

For farms using robotic milking, spending a little time familiarizing heifers with the system before their first milking could make the transition to the AMS smoother and give first-lactation cows a jump-start to their early milk production.