This episode was recorded at the 2025 Western Dairy Management Conference in Reno, Nevada.

Dr. DeVries gives an overview of his presentation on the economics of feeding more than one ration to lactating cows, with special consideration for additional costs (beyond increased feed costs) such as delivering additional loads of TMR, labor cost and mixing errors. He notes that producer surveys indicate that simplicity and not making mistakes are reasons given for not feeding an increased number of different rations. The surveys suggest there is some real money to be made if appropriate rations are used. Diminishing marginal returns should also be considered: going from one ration to two will yield the largest gain in income over feed costs, with each additional ration yielding smaller gains. (1:52)

Dr. Burhans and Dr. Overton discuss some considerations for feeding multiple rations, including environmental impacts, herd size, pen availability, feed costs and milk production impacts. Dr. DeVries emphasizes the costs of feed delivery are a big part of this as well. (9:20)

The panel discusses a spreadsheet that Dr. DeVries presented during his presentation to calculate delivery costs. Dr. Burhans mentions some of the on-farm software gives an assessment of how close the actual ration was to the formulated ration, allowing for adjustments if needed. (16:28)

The panel considers the importance of body condition scores and recording actual data during nutritionist walk-throughs of dairy herds. They also delve into feeding frequency and optimal feed refusals levels. (27:45)

Panelists share their take-home thoughts. (43:08)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to anh.marketing@balchem.com. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

This episode was recorded at the 2025 Petfood Forum in Kansas City, Missouri.

Austin begins with an overview of the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). Their membership consists of all government officials in the US and other countries who are charged by law to regulate animal feed, including pet food, in their jurisdictions. Canada, Costa Rica, and the US all participate in AAFCO. In the US, animal feed regulation is an integrated food safety system with a partnership between state and federal regulators as well as FDA. AAFCO’s ultimate goal is to harmonize animal feed regulation across all states and provide a level playing field for the industry. (8:14)

He goes on to explain that AAFCO and FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine had a long-standing MOU in place that outlined an ingredient approval pathway that ended on October 1, 2024. FDA chose not to renew that MOU to focus on improving their other regulatory pathways, the Food Additive Petition Process and the Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) Notice Program. The FDA also has a new Animal Food Ingredient Consultation Process for ingredient approval. AAFCO has partnered with Kansas State University’s Olathe Innovation Campus to scientifically review new ingredients, then bring them back through the AAFCO process to get formal approval. Ingredient companies can choose one of these four pathways for new ingredient approval. (10:05)

Dr. Starkey notes that the process a company chooses will depend on the ingredient. If it’s similar to ingredients proven safe on the market already, the KSU-AAFCO system would be a good route. If it’s something a little more sophisticated or a new chemical, that may be more appropriate for a food additive petition, where toxicology studies would be conducted. (12:49)

The panel discusses how scrutiny of GRAS rules might impact the pet food industry. Dr. Larson explains the scientific rigor involved in evaluating new ingredients. Dr. Starkey notes that there are different levels of GRAS, one of which is self-affirmed, which might be the one under the most scrutiny at this point. The panel agrees that transparency is critical for consumer confidence and ensuring health and safety of pets. (15:47)

Austin talks about some of the ripple effects of the federal reduction in force in the regulatory arena. He and Dr. Larson talk about how the AAFCO-K-State partnership came to be, how K-State is ramping up to manage this project, and future plans for the partnership. (19:52)

Dr. Starkey underlines the importance of timely ingredient approvals and how the new AAFCO-K-State partnership allows for companies to be more competitive due to the speed of approvals. Austin notes that an ideal submission with no follow-up questions or back-and-forth would have taken about 18 months to get approval under the old MOU between AAFCO and FDA, and a very small percentage of applications would be considered ideal. With the new AAFCO-K-State process, an expert panel reviews the submission in 60-90 days and the entire approval process is cut roughly in half, to about nine months. (25:55)

Scott and the panel discuss how approval pathways differ for ingredient approval based on the claim being made. For example, is it a nutrient or is there some sort of pharmaceutical claim? (28:36)

Panelists share their take-home thoughts. (37:19)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to anh.marketing@balchem.com. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

This episode was recorded at the 2025 Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium.

Dr. Baumgard begins with an overview of his presentation, “Importance of gut health to drive animal performance and health.” He notes the metabolic and inflammatory fingerprint of all stressors is essentially the same, indicating they likely all emanate from the gut. Overall, we’re gaining a better understanding of how typical on-farm stressors negatively influence gut barrier function. He thinks the most likely mechanism of leaky gut is the immune cell known as a mast cell. When an animal or human is stressed, the enteric nervous system releases corticotropin-releasing factor, which binds to the mast cell, the mast cell degranulates, and the former contents of the mast cell (TNF-alpha, proteases, histamine, etc.) causes the gut to become leaky. (4:20)

Once the GI tract barrier becomes compromised, antigens like lipopolysaccharide (LPS) can infiltrate, stimulating the immune system. Immune activation causes loss of appetite much like any other infection. The gut heals fairly quickly upon removal of the stressor(s), and the gut can also acclimate to stress such that the early stages of a stress event are more severe than later stages. Strategies to combat leaky gut remain scarce, and there is no silver bullet. There are a variety of dietary strategies to target the gut permeability issue itself. Another approach would be to bind pathogens or curb their proliferation at the membrane of the small intestine. (7:06)

Dr. Neiehues asks if an antihistamine would work on gut mast cells the way it does in other body systems. Dr. Baumgard isn’t sure that’s ever been looked at, although there have been some studies in pigs using a product targeted to prevent mast cell degranulation. Dr. Nelson wonders if we should interfere in some of these processes because they’re obviously there for a reason. Panelists discuss stress events related to parturition and transition, particularly for first-calf heifers. Dr. Baumgard notes that stacking stressors on top of one another compromises an animal’s ability to tolerate stress. (9:28)

We know stress can cause ulcers in humans and horses - what about ruminants? Dr. Baumgard thinks it is likely that it’s happening, but we aren’t looking for it. Few animals who die on-farm do receive a thorough postmortem exam. It could also be that these types of insults to the gut are not visible to the naked eye. (19:11)

Dr. Nelson asks what makes some cows, despite all the challenges, able to be up and milking 150 pounds a day in no time after calving. What makes them unique? Dr. Baumgard lists some possibilities, including lower pathogenic inflammation than other cows, less tissue trauma damage to the uterus during calving, and lower sensitivity to immune activation. The panel disagrees with the notion that high-producing cows are stressed. (23:16)

Dr. Niehues and Dr. Baumgard trade stories of experiments where cows maintained production even with high stress and inflammatory markers. The panel goes on to discuss subclinical infections and their impact on transition cows. Dr. Nelson notes there are retrospective datasets where cows who had metritis showed decreased feed intake even before calving. Dr. Baumgard feels that the decrease in intake has been incorrectly assumed to be the cause of the metritis. He says the decrease in intake is often around two weeks before calving and he doesn’t think it’s a coincidence that at the same time, the mammary gland is initiating lactogenesis. He hypothesizes the mammary gland is causing an immune response, resulting in a decrease in intake. Dr. Nelson wonders if measuring somatic cell counts of colostrum would show any differences in mammary gland inflammation during this prepartum period. (29:18)

Panelists share their take-home thoughts. (42:02)

Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.

If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to anh.marketing@balchem.com. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.