Archive for residual feed intake

The $700 Truth: Your Best Milkers Are Your Worst Investment (And 3,000 Dairies Just Proved It)

Just found out our 90-lb cow loses $3/day while our 85-lb cow makes $10/day. The difference? 6kg of feed. This changes everything

Executive Summary: What if your highest-producing cows are actually costing you money? Feed efficiency technology deployed across 3,000 dairy farms proves it’s not just possible—it’s common. The numbers are stark: cows producing identical 100-pound milk yields show daily profit swings from -$7 to +$10, based solely on whether they consume 17kg or 23kg of feed. Ryzebol Dairy transformed this insight into action, breeding inefficient cows for beef ($700 premiums) while focusing genetics on the efficient third that actually drives profit. At $75-150K investment returning $470/cow annually, payback takes just 3-5 years. The industry is splitting fast between operations still chasing volume, and those chasing profit—and the profit-chasers are pulling away.

For nearly a century, dairy farming has operated on a simple equation: more milk per cow equals more profit.

But what farmers are discovering through new feed efficiency technology is turning that fundamental assumption on its head. The highest-producing cows in many herds are actually the least profitable—a revelation that’s prompting forward-thinking operations to reimagine their breeding, feeding, and culling strategies completely.

I recently had a fascinating conversation with Clare Alderink, general manager of Ryzebol Dairy’s 3,000-cow operation in Bailey, Michigan. When his farm implemented Afimilk’s feed efficiency estimation system, the data revealed something that challenged everything he thought he knew about his herd.

“There’s no way the service knew these cows were from the same farm, yet all those cows found themselves on the top of the list as the most feed efficient.”

All of his most feed-efficient animals traced back to one group of purchased Holsteins—cows that weren’t his top milk producers but were generating the highest profit per dollar of feed consumed.

The Hidden Economics That Traditional Metrics Miss

You know, what’s really striking when you dig into the economics is just how much variation exists between seemingly similar operations.

The folks at Vita Plus Corporation ran an analysis in 2024 examining 20 Midwestern herds—all shipping roughly 100 pounds of energy-corrected milk per cow daily. What they found should make every dairy farmer pause.

Income over feed cost ranged from less than $7 to greater than $10 per head per day.

Think about that $3.50 daily difference for a moment. On a 1,000-cow operation, we’re talking about over $1.2 million in margin opportunity annually. Money that’s essentially invisible if you’re only tracking milk production.

QUICK TAKE: THE EFFICIENCY GAP

Cow GroupDry Matter Intake (kg/day)Difference (kg/day)Cost Savings per Cow (lactation period)
Efficient17.306$700
Inefficient23.306$0

What’s interesting here is that we’re finally understanding the mechanism behind this variation through individual cow measurement. A study published in Frontiers in Genetics in 2024 evaluated genomic markers for residual feed intake in 2,538 US Holstein cows.

The differences they found between efficient and inefficient animals were eye-opening:

  • First-lactation cows? The most efficient animals consumed 17.30 kg of dry matter daily, while the least efficient needed 23.30 kg
  • Second-lactation cows showed an even wider gap, with efficient cows eating 20.40 kg versus 27.50 kg for inefficient animals

Now, here’s where it gets interesting for those of us looking at feed bills.

According to University of Wisconsin Extension data, feed costs in the Upper Midwest are averaging around $381 per ton of dry matter. That 6 kg daily difference? It represents roughly $700 per cow per lactation in feed cost variation between animals producing identical milk volumes.

Shane St. Cyr from Adirondack Farms in New York put it perfectly:

“You have the income half of the equation on most dairies. But without that expense equation, you’re really kind of flying blind.”

The Strategic Breeding Revolution: Beef-on-Dairy Meets Feed Efficiency

Perhaps the most dramatic shift I’m seeing—and I’ve been watching this space closely—is how farms are completely rethinking their breeding strategies once they have feed efficiency data in hand.

Instead of the old approach (trying to create replacement heifers from every cow that’ll stand still long enough to breed), operations are now using what’s essentially a three-tier system:

TOP 20-30% (HIGH EFFICIENCY):

  • Bred with sexed dairy semen
  • Create the next generation
  • Keep these genetics forever

MIDDLE 40-50%:

  • Conventional dairy semen
  • Backup replacement strategy
  • Flexible based on herd needs

BOTTOM 20-30% (LOW EFFICIENCY):

  • Bred exclusively with beef semen
  • Generate $350-700 premiums per calf
  • Transform losses into profit centers

The beef-on-dairy market has absolutely exploded in ways that, honestly, nobody saw coming five years ago.

Purina Animal Nutrition surveyed 500 dairy producers in 2024 and found that 80% are now receiving premiums for beef-on-dairy calves. Some crosses are fetching over $1,000 in tight cattle markets, particularly in Texas and the Central Plains.

Think about this for a minute:

  • Purebred dairy bull calf: $50-150 (if you’re lucky)
  • Many producers: Actually paying disposal costs
  • Same cow bred to beef: $500-850 per calf

The math here isn’t subtle, folks.

For Ryzebol Dairy, this strategic allocation based on feed efficiency data has completely transformed how they view their inefficient cows.

“I want that efficient cow to stay in my herd a long, long time,” Alderink explained. “Whereas the other inefficient cows I would want to use to make a beef calf because she’s a lower-value cow.”

What University Research Missed: The Power of Individual Variation

Here’s something that really drives home why on-farm measurement matters more than controlled research trials. Ryzebol’s experience with high oleic soybeans illustrates this perfectly.

The university studies—Penn State ran a trial with 48 Holstein cows in 2024, and Michigan State published similar work—showed that high-oleic soybeans improved energy-corrected milk and components. The improvements were significant, particularly for butterfat. Solid research. Peer-reviewed. Convincing stuff.

So Ryzebol implemented them herd-wide and saw improvements.

But then Alderink did something the research couldn’t do. He used individual cow feed efficiency data to dig deeper.

“Increasing the average doesn’t always tell the whole story. It may have made our best cows really efficient and done little for the low cows.”

What he discovered should make every nutritionist rethink how we apply research findings:

TOP 30% OF COWS:

  • Excellent milk and component response
  • Strong returns on premium ingredient cost
  • Worth every penny

MIDDLE 40%:

  • Marginal improvement
  • Barely justified the extra cost
  • Questionable economics

BOTTOM 30%:

  • Little to no benefit
  • Essentially throwing money away
  • Better off with standard ration

This insight—that research-validated improvements don’t apply equally to all animals—represents a fundamental shift in how we can optimize nutrition economics.

The Technology Landscape: Understanding What’s Real vs. What’s Promised

Let’s talk about what this technology actually does, because there’s plenty of confusion out there.

Afimilk’s feed efficiency service represents a breakthrough in estimating individual cow feed efficiency through collar sensor data. The system tracks eating time and rumination patterns, then combines this with milk production information to generate efficiency values for each animal.

You’re entering weekly dry matter intake data from your feeding software to calibrate the estimates. According to validation studies at UW-Madison, the correlation between the algorithm’s estimates and actual measured intake has proven strong enough for commercial application.

THE NUMBERS THAT MATTER:

InvestmentAnnual servicePayback periodROIBeef premiumFeed savings
$75,000-$150,000 (500 cows)$10,000-$25,0003-5 years$470/cow/year$350-700/calf$700/cow/lactation

Early adopters are reporting that the technology can deliver $470 per cow in annual profitability gains through better breeding and culling decisions.

On a 1,000-cow operation? That’s nearly half a million dollars in annual value.

Though I should note—and this is important—that’s assuming farms actually act on the data.

The Adoption Reality: Barriers Beyond Technology

Despite these clear economic benefits, several factors are creating real headwinds for adoption.

CAPITAL CONSTRAINTS We’re talking $75,000-$150,000 for basic sensor systems on 500 cows. Field data from early adopters suggests payback periods of 3-5 years. But that upfront investment? It’s tough when milk prices are volatile.

SYSTEM INTEGRATION Feed efficiency estimation needs to pull data from multiple sources:

  • Milk meters
  • Cow ID systems
  • Feeding software
  • Health records

According to Progressive Dairy’s 2024 tech adoption survey, approximately 70% of North American dairies have older equipment or mixed vendors. Additional integration costs that nobody mentions in the sales pitch.

PSYCHOLOGICAL RESISTANCE Here’s the barrier nobody wants to talk about. Kent Weisenberger from Vita Plus put it bluntly in a recent podcast:

“The technology works fine. Whether farmers will cull their favorite high-producing cow because she’s inefficient? That’s the real question.”

It’s worth noting that feed efficiency estimation isn’t a silver bullet for every situation. Grazing-based operations or farms with highly variable feed quality from homegrown forages might find the economics less compelling.

Environmental Benefits: The Profit-Sustainability Alignment

What I find particularly interesting about feed efficiency selection is how environmental benefits just naturally emerge from economic optimization.

You’re not trying to save the planet—you’re trying to make money—but the planet benefits anyway.

Research from Wageningen University in 2024 found that methane production varies by approximately 25% within herds due to genetic factors. The correlation between feed efficiency and methane reduction is strongly positive.

Since April 2023, Canada has been implementing national genetic evaluations for methane emissions through Lactanet. They’re projecting 20-30% reductions in breeding alone by 2050.

The Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding calculates that genomic selection for feed efficiency has already delivered $70 per cow per year in additional value—before accounting for any environmental benefits or carbon credits.

The key point? You don’t need expensive additives. Simply breeding from more efficient animals reduces methane automatically at zero additional cost.

Looking Ahead: The Industry Transformation

Here’s where things get really interesting for the bigger picture.

If enough operations start breeding away from high-volume, low-efficiency genetics, it fundamentally challenges what the breeding industry has been selling for decades.

VikingGenetics launched their Feed Efficiency 3.0 program earlier this year, explicitly prioritizing efficiency over raw production. Meanwhile, established players like Semex and Alta have scrambled to launch “sustainable genetics” programs.

The uncomfortable truth? While high producers generally dilute maintenance costs effectively (gross feed efficiency), metabolic efficiency—measured as Residual Feed Intake—is a distinct genetic trait. You can have a high producer that’s metabolically inefficient, or a moderate producer that’s exceptionally efficient at the cellular level.

For 40 years, the breeding industry chose production over efficiency. With feed accounting for 50-75% of operating costs, according to USDA data, the math increasingly favors a more nuanced approach.

THE BULLVINE BOTTOM LINE: Your Monday Morning Action List

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS (THIS WEEK):
□ Calculate your current income over feed cost variance between top and bottom cows
□ Call your nutritionist—ask if they’ll support data-driven feeding changes
□ Visit a farm already using the technology (find one in your area)

EVALUATION PHASE (NEXT 30 DAYS):
□ Get quotes from 3 vendors for feed efficiency estimation systems
□ Run your herd’s numbers: What’s your potential at $470/cow/year?
□ Talk to your banker about financing options (3-5 year payback)

DECISION CHECKPOINT:
□ Can you afford to wait while neighbors gain $700/cow/lactation advantage?
□ Will you act on uncomfortable data about favorite cows?
□ Are you ready to challenge 40 years of production-first thinking?

The technology exists. The economics are proven. The only question: Will you act before your neighbors do?

As Alderink reflects: “I think we are just scratching the surface on all this, but it is taking us down a path where we can really start to look at these things because we have something to measure it.”

That ability to see which cows convert feed efficiently—versus which simply produce milk—represents the difference between optimizing for volume and optimizing for profit.

In today’s margin environment, that distinction increasingly determines which operations thrive and which struggle to survive.

Your move.

Key Takeaways:

  • The $700 Discovery: Efficient cows (17kg DMI) and inefficient cows (23kg DMI) produce identical milk but differ by $700/lactation in profit—measure to know which you have
  • Transform Your Breeding: Feed data creates three profit tiers → Top 30% get premium genetics | Bottom 30% produce beef calves ($350-700 each) | Middle 40% flex by needs
  • Precision Feeding Pays: Individual response data shows premium feed additives only benefit ~30% of cows—saving $200+/cow by removing non-responders from expensive rations
  • Competitive Clock Ticking: 3,000 early adopters gaining $470/cow annually are building herds 10-15% more efficient by 2030—each month you wait widens the gap

Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.

Learn More:

Join the Revolution!

Join over 30,000 successful dairy professionals who rely on Bullvine Weekly for their competitive edge. Delivered directly to your inbox each week, our exclusive industry insights help you make smarter decisions while saving precious hours every week. Never miss critical updates on milk production trends, breakthrough technologies, and profit-boosting strategies that top producers are already implementing. Subscribe now to transform your dairy operation’s efficiency and profitability—your future success is just one click away.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

Cracking the Code: Behavioral Traits and Feed Efficiency

Uncover the hidden potential of Holstein cows’ behaviors for enhancing feed efficiency. Are you set to amplify dairy profits by delving into these genetic revelations?

Picture this: every bite your cow takes could boost profits or quietly nibble away at them. Feed efficiency, crucial in dairy farming, accounts for a staggering 54% of total milk production costs in the U.S. as of 2022 (USDA ERS, 2023). Like a car’s fuel efficiency, feed efficiency maximizes milk production per pound of feed, directly impacting profitability. Traditionally measured by Residual Feed Intake (RFI), it requires costly and labor-intensive individual feed intake tracking. But did you know hidden wisdom lies in your Holsteins’ daily routines? Their behaviors—captured through sensors monitoring rumination, downtime, and activity levels—offer incredible insights into feed efficiency, potentially saving resources without the hefty costs. Rumination time indicates efficient feed processing, lying time shows energy conservation, and steps reflect exertion, giving a cost-effective glimpse into feed efficiency.

Exploring Cow Behavior: A New Path to Understanding Productivity 

Let’s dive into the fascinating study that explores the genetic ties between behavioral traits and feed efficiency in lactating Holstein cows. Imagine observing what makes a cow more productive by observing its everyday habits. That’s what researchers aimed to uncover here. They looked at how cows spent their days—ruminating, lying down, and moving about—to see how those activities tied back to how efficiently cows used to feed.  Published in the Journal of Dairy Science:  Genetic relationships between behavioral traits and feed efficiency traits in lactating Holstein cows.

This was no ordinary study. It involved two major research stations, tapping into the knowledge of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Florida. Researchers gathered a wealth of data at each site using the latest animal monitoring technology. From fancy ear tags to trackers counting each step, they banked on the latest gadgets to give each cow its behavior profile and feed efficiency. The data was then analyzed using statistical methods to identify genetic correlations and potential applications for improving feed efficiency on dairy farms. 

Here’s a big part of what they did: They harnessed thousands of daily records about how many steps cows took, how long they spent ruminating (cow-speak for chewing their cud), and how much downtime they logged lying around. Then, they matched those with how well the cows converted feed into milk. This process helps pinpoint whether genetics have a hand in which cows become efficient producers. By breaking it down to basics like rumination time and activity levels, they hoped to draw links to feed efficiency without the usual heavy lifting of manually tracking each cow’s feed intake. This research can be applied to your farm using similar monitoring technology to track your cows’ behavior and feed efficiency.

Unlocking Feed Efficiency: The Genetic Link Between Cow Behaviors and Productivity

Understanding the intricate genetic connections between behavioral traits and feed efficiency gives us insightful information into dairy cattle production. Specifically, rumination time, lying time, and activity levels play significant roles. Rumination time is strongly correlated with higher dry matter intake (DMI) and residual feed intake (RFI), implying that cows with higher consumption tend to ruminate more and are generally less efficient. Meanwhile, longer lying times show a negative genetic correlation with RFI, suggesting that cows resting more are more efficient overall. 

From a genetic selection perspective, these behavioral traits exhibit varying heritability and repeatability, which are crucial for breeding decisions. Rumination and activity traits have moderate heritability, approximately 0.19, whereas lying time shows a slightly higher heritability, 0.37. These traits are not only genetically transferrable but also display high repeatability across different timeframes, indicating their potential for consistent genetic selection. Lying time stands out with a repeatability estimate ranging up to 0.84 when aggregated weekly, emphasizing its reliability as a selection criterion. 

Predicting feed efficiency using these traits is beneficial as commercially available wearable sensors easily record them. This technology supports the identification and selection of genetically efficient cows. It promotes healthier and more cost-effective dairy farm operations. Transitioning from traditional to sensor-based monitoring systems provides farmers practical tools to enhance herd productivity while leveraging genetic insights for sustained improvement. 

Delving into the Genetic Connections Between Cow Behaviors and Feed Efficiency

When we talk about cow behavior, we’re delving into a treasure trove of insights that can inform us about their efficiency in feed conversion. One standout finding from recent studies is the positive genetic correlation between rumination time and dry matter intake (DMI). In numerical terms, this correlation sits at a robust 0.47 ± 0.17. What does this tell us? Simply put, cows that spend more time ruminating tend to consume more, which might make them seem less efficient in terms of residual feed intake (RFI). Isn’t it fascinating to consider how chewing could unveil so much about a cow’s intake patterns? 

On the other hand, lying time paints a different picture. There’s a negative genetic correlation, with RFI hovering at -0.27 ± 0.11. This genetic wisdom suggests that our bovine friends who enjoy more downtime are more efficient. It makes you wonder: How might a cow’s leisure time hint at its overall efficiency? 

These behavioral gems potentially allow us to streamline farm operations. By monitoring cows’ rumination and lying times through wearable sensors, farmers can gradually identify superstars who convert feed more efficiently without the nitty-gritty of tracking every nibble they take. This saves time and labor and provides a more comprehensive understanding of each cow’s productivity, leading to more informed breeding and management decisions. 

Time to Transform Your Herd: Are We Overlooking the Quiet Achievers? 

Imagine pinpointing which cows in your herd are top producers and efficient eaters. Thanks to advancements in sensor-based data collection technologies, this is now possible! For those contemplating adding a layer of tech to their herd management, sensors can revolutionize how they select and breed Holstein cows. 

First, wearable sensors—like SMARTBOW ear tags used in recent studies—can provide continuous data on cow behavior, such as rumination time, lying time, and activity levels. You can identify genetic patterns that correlate with feed efficiency by understanding these behaviors. This means selecting cows that lie more and walk less, as they are more efficient producers. 

Beyond selection, these sensors offer multiple advantages in everyday management. They can alert you to changes in a cow’s behavior that might indicate health issues, allowing for early intervention. This proactive approach boosts cow welfare and can save significant costs for treating late-diagnosed health problems. 

Additionally, these real-time insights can enhance reproductive management. Sensors help pinpoint the perfect estrus detection, improving the timing of insemination and increasing success rates—every dairy farmer’s dream. With each chosen selection, you’re not just reducing reproductive waste; you’re enhancing the genetic lineage of your herd. 

The benefits of sensor technology extend to data-driven decision-making regarding feed adjustments. With precise intake and behavior data, farmers can tweak diets to match each cow’s nutritional needs, potentially skyrocketing productivity and reducing feed costs—a win-win! 

While the initial investment in wearable technology might seem significant, consider it an asset purchase rather than a liability. These devices pay for themselves through improved herd management, production rates, and more innovative breeding selections. So, ask yourself: Is it time to embrace Tech in your dairy operation? We think the ROI will echo with each moo of approval. 

The Bottom Line

The genetic interplay between behavioral traits like rumination time, lying time, and activity and feed efficiency is an intriguing research topic and a practical opportunity for the dairy industry. As we’ve uncovered, more efficient cows generally spend more time lying down—a simple indication that precision and efficiency can be quietly monitored through actions we might have previously overlooked. 

Behavioral traits are emerging as feasible proxies for assessing feed efficiency. They are already accessible through wearable technology. Behavioral traits offer a promising pathway to optimizing productivity without requiring intensive manual data collection. This presents a significant advancement for dairy farmers aiming to streamline operations and improve herd performance. 

But what does this mean for you? Whether you work directly on a dairy farm or serve the industry in another capacity, consider integrating these insights into your decision-making processes. Invest in the right technologies, monitor the right behaviors, and select cows with these traits to improve your herd’s economic outcomes. 

Don’t just take our word for it—try implementing these strategies and observe the results. We want to hear from you! Share your experiences and thoughts on how these findings could reshape your approach to herd management. Comment below, or start a conversation by sharing this article with your network. If you’re already using these wearable technologies, what changes have you noticed in your herd’s efficiency? 

Key Takeaways:

  • Behavioral traits like rumination time, lying time, and activity are heritable in lactating Holstein cows.
  • Rumination time shows a positive genetic correlation with dry matter intake (DMI) and residual feed intake (RFI), reflecting its potential as a proxy for feed efficiency.
  • more efficient Cows tend to spend more time lying down, which is linked to lower RFI.
  • Highly active cows, as measured by the number of steps per day, often demonstrate less efficiency due to higher energy expenditure.
  • Using wearable sensors can facilitate easy and practical data collection of behavioral traits on commercial farms.
  • Selection of cows based on these behavioral traits can improve feed efficiency without costly individual feed intake measurements.
  • This study highlights the potential of sensor-based behavioral monitoring to enhance dairy cow productivity and management.

Summary:

Welcome to the fascinating world of dairy cow genetics and behavioral traits! Imagine unlocking a new level of feed efficiency in your Holstein herd by understanding milk production or size and how your cows behave—how they rest, eat, and move. This intriguing study reveals that behaviors like lying time and activity are heritable and inversely related to feed efficiency, suggesting that the most relaxed cows might be the most efficient. Feed expenses account for a whopping 54% of U.S. milk production costs, and understanding this can bolster profitability. Researchers using wearable sensors have uncovered genetic links between behavioral traits and feed efficiency, showing cows with higher dry matter intake (DMI) and residual feed intake (RFI) tend to ruminate more, appearing less efficient overall. In contrast, more resting correlates with better efficiency. Predicting feed efficiency through these traits, quickly recorded by sensors, offers practical tools for enhancing productivity and sustaining improvements in dairy operations.

Learn more:

Join the Revolution!

Bullvine Daily is your essential e-zine for staying ahead in the dairy industry. With over 30,000 subscribers, we bring you the week’s top news, helping you manage tasks efficiently. Stay informed about milk production, tech adoption, and more, so you can concentrate on your dairy operations. 

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

Unlocking the Secrets of Dry Matter Intake in US Holstein Cows: The Genomic and Phenotypic Influence on Milk Components and Body Weight

Uncover the potential of genomic and phenotypic insights to enhance dry matter intake management in US Holstein cows, ultimately boosting milk production and body weight management. Intrigued by the possibilities?

In the context of dairy farming, ‘dry matter intake’ (DMI) is not just a term for veterinarians and nutritionists. It’s a crucial factor for US Holstein cows, the key players in milk production. The efficiency of these cows is directly linked to what they eat, how much they eat, and how effectively they convert that intake into milk and robust health. Therefore, understanding DMI is not just important for maximizing farm potential, but it’s also the key to connecting feed efficiency, milk production, and overall animal welfare

“Optimizing dry matter intake is crucial for enhancing milk yield and ensuring cow health. It’s the linchpin of dairy farm efficiency.” 

This article explores the genomic and phenotypic impacts of DMI, highlighting its role in milk production and body weight management. Using data from 8,513 lactations of 6,621 Holstein cows, we’ll examine: 

  • The link between DMI and milk components like fat and protein.
  • How body size traits affect DMI.
  • The impact on breeding programs aiming for better feed efficiency and productivity.

Join us as we dive into these dynamics and discover strategies to boost profitability and sustainability in dairy farming.

Unveiling the Genomic and Phenotypic Dynamics of Dry Matter Intake in Holstein Cows 

Understanding dry matter intake (DMI) in Holstein cows is crucial for nutrition management and breeding programs. Large data sets have revolutionized this research, allowing precise estimation of feed requirements for milk production and body maintenance. These datasets provide a strong foundation for refining predictive models. 

Two main approaches are used to evaluate DMI: phenotypic and genetic regressions. Phenotypic regressions use visible traits and help dairy farmers adjust feeding strategies based on real-time data for milk yield, fat, and protein content. This is vital for optimizing feed efficiency and maintaining herd health. 

Genetic regressions, on the other hand, examine the genetic factors influencing DMI. These are especially useful in breeding programs that aim to enhance important traits through selective breeding. Genetic evaluations guide breeding decisions that promote traits like higher milk yield, better milk quality, and improved feed efficiency. 

The difference between phenotypic and genetic regressions highlights the distinct goals of nutrition management and genetic improvement. Phenotypic data meets immediate needs, while genetic data fosters long-term improvements. Combining both approaches enhances current and future herd performance. 

These advancements in genomic tools and statistical models, such as BostaurusUMD3.1.1 for genomic evaluations, underscore the collaborative effort to advance DMI research. This collective endeavor aims to optimize productivity and sustainability in dairy farming, a goal we all share in the scientific community.

An Unprecedented Dive into Dry Matter Intake Through Genomic and Phenotypic Lenses 

This study makes a unique contribution to the field of dairy farming and genetics by analyzing DMI using a large dataset from 8,513 lactations across 6,621 Holstein cows. By integrating phenotypic and genomic views, we were able to provide a detailed look at DMI through sophisticated mixed models. These models included variables like days in milk, age parity, trial dates, management groups, and body weight changes during 28—and 42-day feeding trials in mid-lactation, ensuring accuracy in the results. 

Based on observable traits, phenotypic regressions gave practical insights for nutritional management. In contrast, genomic regressions, grounded in genetic data, offered deeper insights crucial for breeding programs. Both evaluation types provided a comprehensive understanding of feed efficiency and milk production potential, aiding in better selection and breeding strategies.

Balancing Nutritional Demands: Insights from Phenotypic and Genomic Regressions 

The phenotypic regressions of Dry Matter Intake (DMI) on milk, fat, and protein revealed specific coefficients that underscore the intricate balance required in nutrition management. For milk, the coefficient was modest (0.014 ± 0.006), indicating a relatively low increase in DMI per unit increase in milk production. Conversely, fat (3.06 ± 0.01) and protein (4.79 ± 0.25) showed more substantial coefficients, demonstrating that increases in these components significantly elevate the DMI requirements. These results suggest that nutritional plans must be meticulously tailored, focusing more on the feed requirements for fat and protein production to ensure optimal energy balance and animal health

When we compare these findings to the corresponding genomic regressions, we observe stark contrasts. Genomic regressions yielded higher coefficients across all components: milk (0.08 ± 0.03), fat (11.30 ± 0.47), and protein (9.35 ± 0.87). This difference implies that genetic potential is more dominant in determining feed efficiency than phenotypic observations alone. Simply put, cows with higher genetic predispositions for milk components require substantially more feed, reflecting their superior production capabilities. 

These discrepancies highlight an essential consideration for breeding programs. While phenotypic data provide valuable insights into immediate nutritional needs, genomic data offer a more comprehensive forecast for long-term feed efficiency and production potential. Consequently, integrating these genomic insights into breeding strategies can drive advancements in producing more feed-efficient cows, aligning with evolving economic and environmental objectives.

The ECM Formula: Unveiling the Energy Dynamics in Dairy Production 

The ECM formula is vital for measuring milk’s energy content by considering its fat, protein, and lactose components. This standardization allows for fair comparisons across various milk types. Our study uses the ECM formula to reveal the energy needs of different milk components, shedding light on the nutritional and economic facets of dairy farming. 

Regarding DMI for fat and protein, phenotypic and genomic regressions show significant differences. Phenotypic regressions suggest protein production needs 56% more DMI than fat. Genomic regressions show a smaller gap, with protein needing 21% more DMI than fat. Sire genomic regressions add complexity, indicating fat requires 35% more DMI than protein. These differences highlight the challenge of converting genetic data into practical feed efficiency. 

These findings have profound implications for feed cost management. Increased DMI for any milk component escalates feed expenses, a critical consideration for farmers aiming to enhance profitability. However, breeders can leverage genomic data to select cows with lower residual feed intake that still yield ample milk, fat, and protein. This strategic approach enhances the economic viability of dairy operations, fostering more efficient and sustainable feeding practicesthat benefit both producers and consumers.

Sustaining Holstein Vigor: The Role of Body Weight and Maintenance 

Examining annual maintenance needs in Holstein cows through phenotypic, genomic, and sire genomic regressions unveils notable consistency. Estimates, expressed in kilograms of dry matter intake (DMI) per kilogram of body weight per lactation, show phenotypic regression at 5.9 ± 0.14, genomic regression at 5.8 ± 0.31, and sire genomic regression, adjusted by two, at 5.3 ± 0.55. These are higher than those from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM, 2021) using Net Energy for Lactation (NEL) equations. 

Discrepancies arise because NASEM’s general equations overlook individual genetic and environmental nuances. Genomic data offer a more dynamic and specific view, capturing intricate biological interactions. Modern genomic evaluations, encompassing various genetic traits, provide a clearer picture of maintenance needs, suggesting earlier models may underestimate the metabolic demands of high-yield dairy cows

This analysis highlights the need to blend genomic insights with phenotypic data to grasp maintenance requirements reliably. By refining models with the latest genetic data, the dairy industry can enhance nutrition plans, improving animal welfare and productivity.

Decoding Dairy Efficiency: The Interplay of Type Traits and Body Weight Composite

Exploring multiple regressions on genomic evaluations for the body weight composite (BWC) traits, we find that strength stands out. It’s the best predictor of body weight and Dry Matter Intake (DMI), confirming its crucial role in the current BWC formula. 

Other traits seem less significant in predicting DMI. This suggests that breeding programs enhance strength to improve body weight and feed efficiency. Prioritizing strength can balance robust body weight with better feed utilization. 

Breeders can build more productive and cost-effective Holstein herds by selecting for strength. This aligns to improve profitability through more brilliant breeding and makes a strong case for ongoing genomic research in dairy production.

Optimizing Genetic Gains: The Evolution of the Net Merit Formula 

The 2021 revision of the Net Merit formula marked a pivotal shift towards improving the economic efficiency of breeding programs. Integrating recent findings on dry matter intake (DMI) and other traits, the formula better aligns with the complex relationships among milk production components, body size, and feed efficiency. 

The updated formula prioritizes more miniature cows with traits like harmful residual feed intake and higher milk, fat, and protein yields. This strategic approach promotes cows that produce more milk and enhance feed efficiency, reducing operational costs and boosting profitability. By incorporating genomic and phenotypic data, the Net Merit formula advances precision breeding, considering the economic impact of each trait and supporting a sustainable dairy industry. 

This revision synchronizes breeding goals with economic benefits, encouraging the development of cows that excel in productivity while minimizing feed costs. It highlights the vital link between genetic research and practical breeding strategies, solidifying the Net Merit formula’s essential role in modern dairy farming.

The Bottom Line

The exploration of dry matter intake (DMI) in US Holstein cows through both genomic and phenotypic lenses has unveiled crucial insights into the nutritional and economic dynamics of dairy farming. The study revealed that genomic regressions provide a more accurate estimate of feed required for individual milk components or body maintenance than phenotypic regressions. Furthermore, the energy-corrected milk (ECM) formula highlighted that fat production demands significantly higher DMI than protein production, establishing a clear difference in nutrient requirements based on milk composition. 

One of the pivotal findings emphasizes the significant benefits of selecting more miniature cows with harmful residual feed intake (RFI). These cows require less feed and exhibit an enhanced production of milk, fat, and protein, thereby improving overall farm profitability. This aligns with the revised Net Merit formula, which aims to optimize genetic traits for economic efficiency. 

The implications for breeding programs are profound. Adopting strategies that prioritize genomic evaluations can lead to more efficient feed utilization and better economic outcomes. This study suggests that future research should delve deeper into the genetic mechanisms underlying RFI and explore the long-term impacts on herd health and productivity. Additionally, there’s potential for these findings to inform genetic selection criteria in dairy breeding programs globally, enhancing the sustainability and profitability of the dairy industry.

Key Takeaways:

  • Large datasets allow precise estimation of feed required for individual milk components and body maintenance.
  • Genetic regressions are more impactful for breeding programs than phenotypic regressions, which are more useful for nutrition management.
  • Fat production requires significantly more DMI than protein production when analyzed through the energy-corrected milk (ECM) formula.
  • Phenotypic regressions underestimate the DMI compared to genetic regressions.
  • Annual maintenance DMI for body weight is slightly underestimated in phenotypic regressions compared to genomic estimations.
  • Strength is the type trait most strongly associated with body weight and DMI, as highlighted by the revised body weight composite (BWC) formula.
  • To enhance profitability, breeding programs should focus on selecting smaller cows with negative residual feed intake that are high producers of milk, fat, and protein.
  • The Net Merit formula has been updated to reflect these insights, aiming for an economically optimal genetic selection response.

Summary: A study analyzing dry matter intake (DMI) in US Holstein cows found that understanding DMI is crucial for maximizing farm potential and connecting feed efficiency, milk production, and animal welfare. The study used data from 8,513 lactations of 6,621 Holstein cows and genetic regressions to analyze DMI. Phenotypic regressions used visible traits to adjust feeding strategies based on real-time data for milk yield, fat, and protein content. Genetic regressions examined genetic factors influencing DMI, useful in selective breeding programs. Results suggest that nutritional plans must be meticulously tailored, focusing on feed requirements for fat and protein production to ensure optimal energy balance and animal health. Genomic insights can drive advancements in producing feed-efficient cows, aligning with economic and environmental objectives. The Energy-Correlated Milk (ECM) formula is a crucial tool for measuring milk’s energy content, revealing significant differences in DMI for fat and protein.

Send this to a friend