The advent of a new milk board payout to producers that encourages less milk fat production will likely prompt dairy producers to reformulate their lactation diets and may significantly change their feed costs.

I’d be the first to admit that I like to pencil out the “dollars and cents” of such cost-effective dairy diets.

It’s a matter of matching their nutrient requirements to diets, which support vital functions, rumen health and lactation performance.

In the latter, I target early to mid lactation dairy cows (60 to 150 DIM) that are producing 40 kilogram milk production, four per cent milk fat and 3.3 per cent protein.

Both 2025 and 2026 lactation diets and their daily costs are illustrated in the accompanying chart.

Needless to say, these diets are also designed to promote good dry matter intake in lactating dairy cows.

I do this by laying a foundation of high-quality forages supplemented with palatable grains and grain byproducts.

A complementary dairy premix is added that contains essential macro-minerals as well as important trace minerals and fat soluble A, D and E vitamins.

Limit-fed by-pass fat and dietary feed additives are formulated in the final dairy diets.

When I see $9.39 spent per day on each lactating cow in 2026 and compare it to the 2025 feed cost, there is a $0.67 per head, or seven percent, savings. This difference translates into about a $20 decrease in the monthly cost of feeding each lactating cow.

It doesn’t seem like much of a decrease, but if a dairy producer milks 200 dairy cows, the real decrease is about $4,000.

Subsequently, the largest 2026 savings in feed costs is due to less grams of palm fat being fed.

Like most commercial dairies, I had followed the mainstream feeding rate by adding “500 grams per head per day” of rumen bypass palm fat to my 2025 lactating dairy total mixed rations.

In doing so, I expect any herd that fed my 2025 diet would have a 0.2 to 0.4 per cent milk fat advantage.

However, with the new focus on producing less kilograms of milk fat, I reduced it to 225 grams. As a result, there was about a $1 feed cost savings and it significantly dropped the percentage of palm fat costs of the entire lactation diet from 15 per cent to a nominal five per cent.

Reducing palm fat in the 2026 diet is really only one way to reduce the cost of feeding lactating dairy cows. Yet, I look for other ways where substantial feed costs might be saved without sacrificing lactation performance.

Here are some cost-saving measures to consider:

• Implement a strong forage foundation. For example, high quality corn silage supplies a significant amount of dietary energy and digestible fibre to support good milk and milk fat. It reduces the need for more expensive grain or off-farm purchases of other feedstuffs.
• Shop for feed protein. With the significant drop in the current price of soybean meal, canola meal and corn distiller grains, it is tempting to buy one or another simply on a lower price. However, when each one is examined for its crude protein/bypass protein content, it may change the final choice of a “better buy.”
• Analyze forages and grains. These feed tests help match their dietary nutrition with the nutrient requirements of high producing lactation cows. It also helps avoid feeding excessive amounts of nutrients. Test moisture of silages and their final TMR diet on a weekly basis.

By using current prices for forages and other feeds and implementing some cost-cutting measures, I can draw a picture as to what it actually costs to feed a lactating dairy cow.

In doing so, I believe dairy producers can format their own true economic feeding budget.

The virus, identified as H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b genotype D1.1., was confirmed through whole genome sequencing by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories on December 17, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service said in a statement.

It said most detections of highly pathogenic avian influenza in U.S. dairy herds have resulted from movements linked to an original spillover event that occurred in Texas in late 2023, involving the B3.13 strain.

Earlier this year, two isolated spillovers were detected in Nevada and Arizona, involving the D1.1 strain.

The Wisconsin case, detected under USDA’s National Milk Testing Strategy, has not led to additional herd infections, APHIS said.

USDA said the findings do not pose a risk to consumer health or the commercial milk supply, as pasteurization kills the virus and milk from affected animals is diverted or destroyed.

It added that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to consider the risk to the public to be low.

USDA urged dairy producers to maintain strict biosecurity and report any livestock showing clinical signs or unusual wildlife deaths.

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators last week urged the administration of President Donald Trump to finalize a science-based plan for developing a bird flu vaccine for livestock, according to a letter seen by Reuters.

— Reporting by Anjana Anil in Bengaluru

The four western provinces joined forces to designate two producer and staff representatives each to support the new initiative, which focuses on dairy farm sustainability, animal health, composition, processing and milk quality.

“This partnership enables us to commit to a single research strategy focused on dairy producer priorities for the entire West. The partnership also enables us to guide the funding of applied and basic research and leverage resources and expertise to better support western Canadian dairy producers,” Alberta Milk general manager Reuben Joosse said at the organization’s fall producer meeting in Lethbridge.

Why it Matters: A handful of dairy research projects showcase a 30-year trend of 7:1 return for funding with producer buy-in.

Funding for the 2024-25 research cycle saw producers commit $420,000 to five multi-year projects.

One of them will look at changes in weaning management of dairy calves. It will evaluate the potential for high quality chopped versus pelleted alfalfa to partially replace conventional starters, promote gut development, ease the weaning transition and maintain performance through to first lactation.

The initiative will also look at enhancing dairy and ag lipids. The study is showing the effects of feeding canola meal and wheat/barley distiller solubles to lactating dairy cows, focusing on changes to milk lipid composition.

Other research will look at reducing methane emissions from dairy cows through milk metabolite profiling. The results of the project will be integrated into existing technology to improve the accuracy of data used in genetic selection.

Synergistic rumen microbial consortia research is looking at developing two new probiotics based on synthetic rumen microbial communities. The findings are expected to optimize forage use, lower feed costs and reduce environmental impacts.

Another project is being conducted through the University of British Columbia’s dairy cattle welfare program, which will focus on improving dairy cattle welfare through evaluating animal care practices, welfare improvements and producer perceptions on cattle welfare across Canada.

The initiative’s producer representatives and provincial staff are currently evaluating 2025-26 dairy research proposals.

“Over the past 30 years of supporting research, each dollar of Alberta dairy producer investment in research has leveraged another $7.19 in funding from government and other funding agencies, mostly results driven agriculture research. Private industry Involvement is rare, but but it can happen,” said Joosse, adding 155 projects have been funded so far.

“In international relations, the pot can call the kettle black — but doing so doesn’t build trust, goodwill, or alliances, and weakens credibility,” said Al Mussell, Agri-Food Economic Systems’ research lead and author of the policy paper.

Despite criticisms of Canadian dairy policy, the American dairy industry has many of the same protectionist tendencies Canada does, Mussell argued in Throwing Stones from a Glass House: Understanding the US Narrative on Canada Dairy Policy.

Complaints from the industry, President

Earlier this month, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote an open letter in which he accused Canada of charging “extraordinary Tariffs to (American) Dairy Farmers — up to 400%.”

This figure has been disputed, though Canada’s dairy tariffs are over 200 per cent.

Recently members of the National Milk Producers Federation in the U.S. told the U.S. International Trade Commission that Canada was undermining American dairy producers’ access to foreign markets with “artificially low-priced exports.”

Despite the frequent American complaints, “there are many similarities in dairy and trade policies between the U.S. and Canada,” Mussell said in a news release.

Systems compared

These policy parallels include pricing milk collected from farms in end-use classes and “barriers to imports that facilitate the operating of their respective milk marketing systems,” the paper said.

In trade policy, both countries use tariffs and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs).

“The level of access that Canada offers to its dairy market via TRQs is … proportionately much higher than the U.S.,” due to high accessibility for products like skim milk powder,” said Mussell.

The two countries are also remarkably similar in how they administer permits and allocate TRQ.

The U.S. has objected to the allocation of dairy import permits by Canada to processors, “but this is what the U.S. does,” Mussell wrote.

He noted Canada allocates dairy import permits proportional to historical imports or output and so does the U.S.

Although the U.S. has complained that Canada doesn’t fill some of its dairy import quotas, Mussell said the U.S. leaves many of its own dairy import quotas unfilled.

Meanwhile, the U.S. also employs policy measures that distort markets, like pooling of milk revenue to advantage dairy manufacturing, and non-tariff barriers relating to Grade A milk products that the U.S . employs and Canada does not.

Mussell also noted the crucial differences between the two countries’ systems, like the pricing structure. Canada’s system is based mostly on cost of production. The U.S. pricing structure is more variable, requiring government stabilization program support.

The similarity between the two nations’ dairy trade policy presents an opportunity for alignment, Mussell concluded.

The full policy note is available here.

Why it matters: Canada’s supply management system remains a sticking point in trade negotiations with the U.S.

“This agreement, negotiated in close consultation with Canadian dairy stakeholders, will result in certain minor policy changes to Canada’s TRQ (tariff rate quotas) administration, and does not amend Canada’s market access commitments,” International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu and Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald said in a statement.

New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay added in a separate statement that the government was pleased the dispute has now been settled, and New Zealand exporters are guaranteed better access to the Canadian market.

“Today’s agreement reinforces support for the rules-based trading system,” McClay said.

New Zealand launched a claim against Canada in May 2022, arguing that Ottawa’s implementation of dairy tariff rate quotas under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade agreement were against the its rules.

Under the new agreement, Canada has committed to make commercially meaningful changes to the way it administers its dairy quotas under CPTPP, according to the New Zealand government. The Canadian government added that this means there are technical policy changes but these are limited to quotas administered under the terms of the CPTPP.

Canada’s supply management system, which since the 1970s has tightly controlled supplies of dairy, eggs and poultry by restricting production and limiting imports through onerous tariffs, has become a sticking pointing in its ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized what he calls tremendously high Canadian tariffs on dairy products.

The field is called epigenetics, and Antler Bio is one of the first companies to create a testing program to prove management-genetic interactions.

Follow all our Ag in Motion coverage here

Andy Lessey, chief operating officer of Antler Bio, was at Ag in Motion 2025 as part of the Cultivator by Conexus display. Cultivator is a Saskatchewan-based technology accelerator that has a partnership with InnovateUK to have some British tech companies as part of its cohorts.

Before this detection, all of the 957 bird flu infections among dairy cow herds reported this year had been caused by the same strain of the virus, according to the USDA.

The agency on Wednesday said that genome sequencing of milk from Nevada had identified a different strain present in dairy cows for the first time, according to the email.

That strain was the predominant genotype among wild birds this past fall and winter, the email said. It was identified through the agency’s National Milk Testing Strategy, which began testing milk across the country for bird flu in December.

Reuters could not immediately verify the email with the USDA. The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Nevada Department of Agriculture said in a Jan. 31 statement that herds in two counties had been placed under quarantine due to bird flu detections. It did not identify which strain had infected the herds, only that the strain had been detected in wild birds.

The state agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The USDA on January 31 reported four dairy herds in Nevada with bird flu, according to agency data.

Bovaer 10 consists of silicon dioxide (basically sand), propylene glycol (a food stabilizer) and the active compound 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP).

Bovaer and 3-NOP were approved for use in Canada in early 2024. Canadian beef and dairy industry leaders generally lauded this as a positive development.

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation about the safety of 3-NOP, with some labelling milk from herds fed the additive as “Frankenmilk”. Others have been concerned it could make its way to humans via beef.

The bottom line is that 3-NOP is safe. Let’s unpack some of the major misunderstandings.

Why do we need to reduce methane production?

In our attempts to reduce global warming, most of the focus has been on CO₂ as a a major human-produced greenhouse gas. But methane is also a greenhouse gas, and although we produce less of it, it is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂.

Agriculture is the largest human-produced source of methane. As cattle herds expand to fuel our increasing desire for meat and milk, reducing methane production by cows is an important way to reduce greenhouse emissions.

There are several ways to do this. Stopping the bacteria in cows’ stomachs that generate methane from making methane is one approach.

The methane cows and sheep produce is not from the animals themselves, but from microbes that live in their digestive systems. 3-NOP stop the enzymes that do the final step of methane synthesis in these microbes.

3-NOP is not the only compound trialled as a feed additive. A seaweed-based Australian product, Rumin8, for example, is also under development. Saponins, soap-like chemical compounds found in plants, and essential oils have also been investigated.

However, 3-NOP is currently one of the most effective treatments.

Is it a poison?

There is concern on social media about Bovaer “poisoning our food”.

But, as we say in toxicology, it’s the dose that makes the poison. Arsenic, for example, is lethal at 2–20 milligram per kilogram of body weight.

In contrast, 3-NOP was not lethal at the doses used in safety studies, up to 600 mg 3-NOP per kg of body weight. At 100 mg per kg of body weight in rats, it had no adverse effects.

Does it cause reproductive issues?

The effect of 3-NOP on reproductive organs has caused a lot of comment.

Research in rats and cows found that doses of 300–500 mg per kg of body weight resulted in ovarian and testicular shrinkage.

To put that in perspective, to achieve the same exposure in humans, a 70 kg human would need to consume 21–35 grams (around 2 tablespoons) of pure 3-NOP a day every day for weeks on end to see this effect.

No human will be exposed to this amount as 3-NOP does not enter milk – it’s fully metabolized in the cow’s gut.

No cow will be exposed to these levels either.

Does it cause cancer?

The ingredient 3-NOP is not genotoxic or mutagenic, meaning it can’t damage DNA. So 3-NOP’s effects are dose-limited, meaning small doses aren’t harmful while very high doses are (unlike radiation, where there is no safe dose).

At a dose of 300 mg per kg of body weight, researchers found benign tumours in the small intestines of female rats, but not male rats, after 2 years of daily consumption. At a 100 mg of 3-NOP per kg of body weight, no tumours were seen.

Cows are consuming less than 2 grams Bovaer 10 a day (of which only 10 per cent or 0.2 grams, is 3-NOP). This is around 1,000 times less than the acceptable daily intake of 1 mg 3-NOP per kg of body weight a day for a 450 kg cow.

This level of intake will not result in tumours, or any of the other adverse effects.

How much will humans be exposed to?

Consumers of milk and meat will not be exposed to 3-NOP. It does not get into milk or meat: it is completely metabolised in the cow’s gut.

Farmers might be exposed to a small amount handling the feed additive and industrial workers producing 3-NOP will be potentially exposed to more. Farmers and industrial workers already wear personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to other agricultural chemicals – and are recommended to do so with Bovaer 10 as well.

How extensively has it been tested?

Over the 15 years 3-NOP was developed, it was subject to multiple reviews by the European Food Safety Authority, the United Kingdom’s Food Safety Authority and others.

It has been extensively tested over months of exposure to cattle with no adverse effects. Some studies actually say it improves milk and meat quality.

Bovaer has been approved for use in dairy cattle by the European Union since 2022 and in Japan in 2024. It is also used in many other countries, including in beef products in Australia.

Very little 3-NOP enters the environment (less than 0.2 per cent of the ingested dose), it does not accumulate and is readily broken down so is not an environmental risk.

Since humans are not exposed to 3-NOP though milk and meat, long-term human exposure is not an issue.

How was Bill Gates involved?

Bill Gates has invested in a different feed treatment for methane, the Australian seaweed based Rumin8. But he has nothing to do with Bovaer 10.

The company that makes 3-NOP has received research grants for malaria control research from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but not for 3-NOP.

The bottom line is that adding 3-NOP to animal feed poses no risk to consumers, animals or the environment.

— Ian Musgrave is a senior lecturer in pharmacology at the University of Adelaide. Additional files from Glacier FarmMedia.

The move comes after livestock and veterinary groups pushed the USDA to strengthen its current surveillance approach, calling it inadequate to contain the virus, according to state records and industry documents reviewed by Reuters.

The agency in early November will begin sampling milk in states where dairy cattle have contracted bird flu, including testing specific farms as needed to track the virus’ spread, Vilsack said in an interview.

USDA will then begin testing in states that have not identified the virus in dairy cows, he said.

The rapid spread of the virus in California, where nearly 200 dairy herds have tested positive since late August, contributed to the USDA’s decision that further surveillance efforts are needed, Vilsack said.

“These situations evolve over time and as they evolve over time there needs to be a recalibration and adjustment,” Vilsack added.

The effort adds to an emergency order issued in April that requires testing of cattle moving across state lines, and a USDA program that covers farmers’ costs for voluntary testing. Reuters previously reported USDA had softened those rules following pushback from state officials and industry representatives.

Bird flu has infected nearly 400 dairy herds in 14 states and at least 36 people, according to data from the USDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Virologists and federal health officials are also concerned the convergence of bird flu and seasonal influenza could enable the bird flu virus to mutate if people become co-infected, making it more easily transmissible among humans.

For now, the CDC has said the danger to the general population remains low.

The U.S. Animal Health Association, whose members include the largest dairy, egg, and poultry trade groups, and the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, a veterinary group, developed recommendations this autumn for how USDA could improve its approach, according to the documents, which have not previously been reported.

The USDA had previously said eliminating bird flu in the nation’s dairy cattle was possible using its prior approach.

The agency still wants to eradicate the virus, Vilsack said, adding that Colorado’s use of bulk milk testing eliminated new dairy cow cases in the state.

Dairy farmers in some states have resisted voluntary testing of their animals for fear of economic repercussions.

‘Inadequate’

The U.S. Animal Health Association passed a resolution on Oct. 16 at its annual meeting that emphasized the need for a coordinated state and federal surveillance plan, according to a copy of the document seen by Reuters, which has since been posted on the association web site.

“The narrow requirement of pre-movement testing of only lactating dairy cows moving interstate is inadequate,” it said. It recommends instead that the agency coordinate livestock sectors and states in a national surveillance and data collection strategy.

“We can’t wait for a virus to burn out. That strategy has not worked,” said Keith Poulsen, director of the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, who has been involved in discussions about the new recommendations.

The American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) in September also drafted recommendations on how the USDA could better contain the virus, with weekly testing of milk tankers, among other strategies, according to emails and a copy of the draft obtained from the Missouri Department of Agriculture in a public records request.

“The disease continues to spread and current voluntary surveillance is inadequate,” wrote AABP Executive Director K. Fred Gingrich II to a group listserv on Sept. 28.

He noted that just 50 of the nation’s 27,000 dairy herds at the time were enrolled in USDA’s voluntary herd testing program, and that 17.6 million commercial poultry birds had been killed after flocks tested positive for the bovine variant of bird flu, suggesting that dairy farms are fueling the virus’ spread.

There are now 64 farms enrolled in the voluntary testing program, according to USDA data.

The document was sent on Sept. 30 by Missouri’s state veterinarian to other state animal health officials and a USDA official at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which is managing the agency’s bird flu response, the emails show.

The bovine practitioners group’s recommendations came after it had participated in a September meeting of the American Veterinary Medical Association alongside representatives from the poultry, cattle and swine industries, the emails show.

“While we understand the traditional and business significance of attending these events, the current HPAI situation in the U.S. may pose a risk of introducing and spreading the virus into Canada and may negatively impact the health of your animals,” the CFIA said on its website.

At the end of August, California became the fourteenth state this year to report an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, or bird flu, in dairy cattle. Sixteen people, mainly farm workers, have also tested positive for the virus.

The CFIA said it doesn’t recommend showing beef or dairy cattle at U.S. exhibitions —particularly if the exhibition is in a state with a known bird flu outbreak in cattle or poultry.

Some exhibitions may have testing requirements for cattle entering the show.

“If you choose to participate, be sure to contact exhibition organizers to find out what is required before your departure from Canada,” the CFIA said.

Since mid-August, Canadian cattle returning to the country after stays of less than 60 days in the U.S have required a special export certification statement, signed by a veterinarian, saying the animal has tested negative for avian influenza in the last seven days. Lactating cattle entering Canada from the U.S. have required a negative test for avian influenza since late April.

The CFIA recommends isolating beef cattle for 21 days after they return to Canada.

Dairy cattle returning to Canada will be subject to isolation requirements, a bulk tank test, testing of individual cattle, and other measures, the CFIA said.

To date, no cases of avian influenza have been reported in Canadian cattle.