Breaking free from the chains of the past Where
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law
waiting on some printed page We're charting new
ground in the digital age From genomic codes
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight
we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast,
the show where we cut through the noise and get
straight to what matters in dairy. I'm your host
from the Bullvine, and today we're diving into
another hot topic shaping the future of our industry.
Whether you're milking cows before sunrise, managing
a progressive herd, or just passionate about
all things dairy, you're in the right place.
So grab your coffee or your favorite milkshake,
and let's get started. Okay, picture this. There's
a line item on your dairy farm that, according
to one analysis, could be bleeding you $36 ,740
every single year for every 200 cows you milk.
Wow. And it's not just the cash going out. It
might actually be hurting your butterfat tests.
Sounds wild, right? Yeah. Especially when we've
always thought of that expense as the engine
driving cow visits in robotic systems. It absolutely
flies in the face of conventional wisdom for
robotic dairies. I mean, most people think pellets
in the robot are non -negotiable. Right. But
the Bullvine article we're deep diving into today
presents some pretty compelling data that seriously
challenges that assumption. It does. Welcome
to the Deep Dive. Today, we're unpacking a specific
article from www .thebullvine .com that takes
a hard look at something many robotic dairy operators
just accept. the cost and impact of feeding pellets
in the robot. Yeah, our mission today is really
to distill the core arguments from this Bullvine
article. We'll look at the data, the real world
examples they highlight, really dig into the
crucial why, you know, the physiology behind
the impact. We'll explore the non -negotiable
steps for making this transition, look honestly
at who this strategy isn't suited for, and hopefully
leave you with practical takeaways you can immediately
consider for your own farm. And the article frames
robot pellets not just as a feed cost, but almost
like, well, They call them the dairy industry's
most expensive security blanket. A bit funny,
but maybe true. Huh. Yeah, that's a good line.
So we're going to talk through this like we're
having coffee at the feed bunk, examining the
numbers, the biology, and asking if cloning to
that blanket is costing more than it's worth.
And as you hinted, it's not just the direct cost.
The article builds a strong case that the way
cows consume pellets in the robot actively works
against key performance indicators, particularly
component percentages like butterfat. Okay, let's
get right into that problem statement then. The
main assertion from the Bullvine article is stark.
Robot pellets are an expensive habit. We mentioned
that $36 ,740 figure per 200 cows, which, you
know, no matter your scale, Isn't pocket change.
Not at all. Where does the bulk of that number
come from? Well, the largest piece is the feed
itself. The article cites research indicating
robot pellets carry a premium of roughly $30
.23 per pound compared to a well -balanced TMR.
When you factor that into a typical feeding scenario
for a 200 -cow herd, you're looking at roughly
$31 ,500 annually just from the cost difference
of the feed delivered in the robot versus feeding
it in the bunk. So over 31 grand is just a direct
premium on the feed. Wow. But the article says
it's not just about paying more for pellets.
It's also costing you on the milk check side.
Exactly. That's the second major point. And arguably
the more insidious cost is the potential harm
to component percentages. The physiology section
of the article makes a compelling case that feeding
pellets in the robot can suppress butterfat levels.
Okay, so the promise, if you follow the path
laid out in the article and successfully move
away from routine pellet feeding, is pretty significant
then. slash that high feed cost, and potentially
boost butterfat by 0 .2 to 0 .4%. Yeah, that's
the potential gain. That's the route to serious
profitability, the article describes. And importantly,
they don't present this as just theory, right?
The article is heavily supported by real -world
farm examples, showing that producers are successfully
implementing this approach and seeing these results.
They really lean on the evidence. Like, take
Heeg Bros in Wisconsin. The article points to
their operation implying around 450 cows hitting
impressive daily numbers. Over 48 kilograms of
milk per cow and a 4 .55 % butterfat test. That's
huge. And how many robot pellets are they feeding?
Zero. None. See, that larger operation is a powerful
illustration that high production and excellent
components are achievable without pellets. But
the article also includes smaller examples mentioned
by the University of Gulf Extension showing it's
not just for big herds. Right. Like that 41 cow
operation in Ontario hitting 41 kilograms daily
with three visits per cow. Or the 77 cow jersey
herd at 22 kilogram daily with 2 .35 visits.
Right. These farms are also operating successfully
without relying on robot pellets as the primary
motivator. These examples really prove it's a
viable management strategy across different sizes
and breeds. Combining that confirmed feed cost
difference with the potential component upside,
the economic argument moves from, you know, interesting
theory to proven farm reality. Okay, let's get
into the how. Why would not feeding pellets actually
help butterfat? That seems counterintuitive.
The article does a great job breaking down the
physiology. It does. The core concept is something
they call slug feeding. Basically, this is what
happens when a cow stands in the robot and rapidly
consumes a concentrated feed like pellets in
a short burst. Like us wolfing down a quick snack
versus eating a balanced meal slowly. Is that
the idea? Exactly the analogy they use. That
rapid intake of readily fermentable carbohydrates
causes a sudden significant drop in rumen pH.
The article references research like from UC
Davis Veterinary Medicine explaining how these
pH crashes cause a dramatic shift in the microbial
populations within the rumen. And that microbial
shift disrupts butterfat production. Is that
the link? Precisely. The bacteria that thrive
in a higher, more stable pH environment, those
are the ones that efficiently digest fiber and
produce acetate. And acetate is the primary building
block for butterfat. So when pH drops, those
beneficial fiber digesters are suppressed and
you get a proliferation of acid -producing microbes
instead. This also significantly increases the
risk of sera subacute ruminal acidosis. Which
is the last thing you want for herd health and
production. Absolutely. The article, backing
it with USDA ARS research, links this physiological
reality directly to that observed 0 .2 -0 .4
% butterfat increase seen on farms that successfully
transition away from pellet slug feeding. It's
not magic, it's just... Well, it's allowing basic
rumen function to operate more consistently,
supported by a steady intake of... And quantifying
that butterfat increase really seals the deal
economically. A 0 .20 -0 .4 % bump can add over
$10 ,000 annually for a 200 -cow herd at current
component prices. So you're not just cutting
costs, you're enhancing revenue. It significantly
strengthens the economic case. However... And
this is a big however. The Bullvine article is
brutally honest. This is not a simple switch.
Right. They outline three absolutely critical
things you must get right. And they note that
many farms fail spectacularly on one or more
of these pillars. OK, let's look at those non
-negotiables. The first one sounds like it's
literally cast in concrete. Pillar one. Pillar
one. Barn layout is king. The article is unequivocal.
You cannot just pull pellets in a free flow barn
and expect success. It will fail. Hard. Really?
Why so definitive? They cite Michigan State University
research showing free flow barns need 3 .2 times
more pellets than guided traffic systems just
to maintain robot visits. Oh, three times more.
Yeah. Because without the layout pushing them
towards the robot, there's no motivation once
the pellet reward is gone. Precisely. Guided
flow systems are essential because they use gates
and alleyways to direct cows. basically forcing
them through the robot path as the most convenient
way to access the feed bunk or return to their
pens. So the layout becomes the incentive. Right.
This structural guidance replaces the pellet
incentive as the primary motivator for robot
visits. The article specifies the key requirements.
short return alleys back to feed, less than 75
meters ideally, functional pre -selection gates,
and absolutely zero ability for cows to backtrack
around the robot. Even experienced farms like
Heeg Bros had a learning curve on this, apparently.
Kelly Hutchings from Delaval mentions their first
group of cows trying to bypass the robots initially.
It just underscores how the physical environment
must support the behavior you want. It really
highlights that your layout is the foundation.
If that's not right, the rest won't matter. Pillar
two is the one the article suggests trips up
most farms. Ah, the legendary TMR quality. I
had a feeling this was coming. Yes. The article
is incredibly direct here. Your TMR must be freaking
amazing and consistent. That's the quote. Freaking
amazing. They describe it as requiring obsessive
attention to details. Farms that succeed here
are absolutely fanatical about their TMR. They
even provide specific. non -negotiable parameters,
right? Like numbers. They do. Pulling from sources
like UW -Madison Dairy Science, we're talking
physical consistency day -to -day with less than
3 % variation. That means it looks and feels
the same every single day. Less than 3 % variation.
That's tight. It is minimum NDF digestibility
of 65%, feed pushed up at least eight times daily,
moisture levels kept tight between 46 -52 % to
minimize sorting, daily variation in critical
nutrients kept under 2%, and consistent particle
length distribution with less than 5 % variation
in key particle sizes. That level of consistency
sounds incredibly challenging to achieve on a
working farm, day in, day out. How are farms
actually managing that? Well, that's where the
obsessive attention comes in. It means rigorous
feed delivery protocols, regular mixer wagon
audits using tools like that UW -Madison one
they mentioned, strict moisture checks on silages,
monitoring particle separation at the bunk constantly.
So it's constant vigilance. It really is. The
article emphasizes that this isn't just about
nutrition. It's about creating a physically consistent
palatable feed that cows cannot easily sort.
If your cows can pick through the TMR like a
kid leaving vegetables on a dinner plate within
an hour or two of it being delivered. Yeah. The
article's blunt assessment is you're not ready
for pellet free milking. Full stop. Ouch. That
kid's dinner plate analogy really paints a picture,
though. It does, and the sensitivity is real.
There's a quote from Fred Van Lift that's eye
-opening. Skip one push -up, you'll see 18 %
fewer robot visits by dinner. 18 % fewer visits
from missing one push -up. Wow. That shows how
critical constant access to this consistent,
unsorted TMR is, because it becomes the primary
driver for the cow to spend time near the robot
area. They do mention using palatability enhancers
like molasses during the transition phase can
be helpful, just to encourage that initial TMR
consumption. Okay, so we need the right layout
and absolutely perfect TMR. It was the third
piece, pillar three. Pillar three is the shift
in labor focus. And the article tackles the potentially
uncomfortable reality here. This isn't necessarily
less work, at least initially, it's different
work. Ah. So you're trading one kind of work
for another. Pretty much. You're shifting effort
from managing complex pellet feeding tables in
the robot software to intensive cow observation
and fetch protocols. The article quantifies that,
too, suggesting fetch labor might increase from
around 1 .2 to maybe 1 .9 hours daily for a 200
-cow herd. Yeah. That's an additional labor cost,
right? Estimated around $8 ,760 annually based
on some VitaPlus loyal data, they cited. It's
important to acknowledge that cost, absolutely.
But the article points out the net economic benefit
from feed savings and component gains still far
outweighs it. The crucial element here isn't
just the time, it's the discipline. Discipline
and fetching. Total discipline. Implementing
absolutely strict, consistent fetch protocols
like checking every cow over 10 hours since last
milking and fetching them immediately with no
exceptions ever is non -negotiable. The article
warns that inconsistent fetching is one of the
fastest ways to derail the entire system. Okay,
for many farms, consistent labor and sticking
to protocols are already huge challenges. How
do farms successfully navigate that labor shift
and ensure that discipline? Seems like a management
hurdle. It is a significant management hurdle,
and the article implies it requires serious buy
-in and training for the whole team. The experience
of Matt Strickland in California is illustrative
here. He took a very gradual approach, phasing
down pellets over an entire year. Oh, a year.
Yeah, and even now, he still has about seven
cows who receive a minimal pellet allocation
because that's what works best for them individually.
His perspective is key. I didn't invest in robots
to feed my cows. I got the robots to milk my
cows. That's a great quote. It shows patience
pays off, and the goal isn't necessarily 100
% zero pellets for every single cow, but finding
the optimal allocation for each operation's specific
conditions, as Dr. Bill Weiss from OSU suggests.
It brings in that nuance. Yeah, that perspective
from Dr. Weiss is important. It's about optimization,
not just elimination for the sake of it. Okay,
let's circle back to the dollars and cents. The
article provides a summary of the math. Can you
walk us through that? Sure. It basically confirms
the significant economic difference we talked
about. For that 200 -cow herd example, the estimated
$36 ,740 net annual difference comes from roughly
$3 ,500 in feed cost savings, offset by about
$8 ,760 in increased fesh labor, plus over $10
,400 gained from just a 0 .2 % butterfat bump,
and an estimated $3 ,600 saved on wasted robot
feed. It really crystallizes where the savings
and gains come from. And there was that Vita
Plus Loyal survey cited in the article looking
at 32 robotic herds. seemed to back up this counterintuitive
idea, too. It did. That survey showed that high
robot pellet costs actually hurt income over
feed cost and even negatively impacted milk production
per visit, which is not what you'd expect. No.
What's particularly interesting is the survey
found the herds with the highest income over
feed cost were often either feeding very low
cost pellets or focusing on nutrient dense PMRs
with less reliance on the robot feeder. Exactly
the nutritional shift this pellet free strategy
achieves. So the data seems to be challenging
the traditional thinking. It really does. It's
powerful data suggesting the traditional approach
isn't always the most profitable. It's a strong
case, but. The article is balanced enough to
say this isn't a magic bullet for everyone, right?
Yeah. There are situations where maintaining
pellets still makes sense. Absolutely. It stresses
this isn't some ideological movement. It's a
profitability strategy and it might not fit your
specific farm. The article is clear on the scenarios
where pellets might still be necessary or beneficial.
Top of that list has to be the free flow barns
we already mentioned. Unquestionably, the MSU
research is pretty definitive. They need 3 .2
times more pellets just to function. Trying to
go pellet -free in a free -flow system is likely
doomed to fail. Okay. What about those elite,
high -genetic cows pushing the limits? Does it
work for them? That's a key exception. The article
includes perspectives from experts like Dr. Michael
Overton at the University of Georgia. He argues
that very high -producing, high -genetic merit
herds might actually metabolically benefit from
the targeted nutrient delivery pellets provided
during milking. So for those top cows... the
pellets might still be worth it. Potentially.
For these animals, where every gram of energy
counts, strategic, consistent pellet allocation
might outweigh the potential room and disturbance
risk, especially if the TMR quality is already
absolutely top tier to begin with. And the article
also mentions supporting transition cows, keeping
pellets for them. Yes, drawing on insights from
Dr. Steven LeBlanc at the University of Guelph.
He highlights that fresh cows, particularly in
the first 10 days or so postpartum, show measurable
metabolic advantages from receiving supplemental
energy via the robot. So a modest pellet allocation
during that critical early lactation phase could
still be beneficial. It brings us back to that
point about optimal allocation versus total elimination
for every single cow. Reinforcing that nuance
is key based on the cow, the phase of lactation,
and the farm setup. Exactly. It's not about a
rigid rule, but about making data -driven decisions
for your operation. And for those producers who
look at the data and think this might be for
them, the article lays out a practical, structured
90 -day game plan. Okay, a 90 -day plan. Walk
us through those first steps. Phase one. Phase
one, reality check weeks one to four. Before
changing anything, get data. Put pH sensors on
about 10 % of your herd to establish a baseline
for rumen health and stability. Audit your TMR
consistency rigorously using a shaker box or
similar tool. The article says if your day -to
-day variation is over 5%, fix that first before
even thinking about pulling pellets. Okay, TMR
first. What else? Identify your pellet junkie.
Cows those getting high amounts that will be
hardest to transition. Double -check your guided
traffic system is functioning perfectly, especially
selection gates, and meticulously document your
baseline production, component tests, and health
metrics. Get your starting point clear. That
initial phase sounds crucial for identifying
roadblocks and assessing if you're even ready
to try this. It is. It tells you whether you
have fundamental TMR or rumen health issues to
address first. Then, phase two, weeks 5 -12,
is the wean. This is the actual transition phase.
The tricky part. Right. Gradually reduce pellet
allocations, aiming for about 5 % reduction per
week. Consider using molasses or other palatability
enhancers in the TMR during this phase to keep
intake high. Daily pH checks are vital. If you
see cows spending more than two hours below 5
.8 pH consistently, you may need to slow down
or reassess your TMR. And this is where that
labor shift really kicks in, right? The fetching.
Absolutely. You must implement strict, consistent
fetch protocols. Every cow over 10 hours since
last milking gets fetched, no exceptions, every
time. Track incomplete milkings, kickoffs from
the robot, and milk flow rates closely. These
are your early warning signs. And critically,
increase your TMR pushups by at least 25 % during
this phase to ensure constant access. The article
mentions this can be a year -long process like
Matt Strickland's experience, but also that fresh
cows adapt faster, maybe 40 % quicker. That flexibility
is important. You could start with a smaller
group or just your fresh cows to test the waters,
you know. Then phase three, month four and beyond
is show me the money. If the first two phases
were executed with discipline, this is where
you start seeing the results pay off. What metrics
indicate success? What should you be looking
for? Rumen pH stabilizing in that desired 6 .0,
6 .5 range is a key indicator. You should see
butterfat tests starting to lift, often by that
0 .2 % mark around week 12. Fetch rates should
be dropping significantly below 5 % of the herd
by week 10, ideally, as cows habituate to the
TMR motivation. Look for dramatically reduced
feeds sorting at the bunk and more consistent
manure. Your key performance indicators become
robot visit frequency stabilizing above, say,
2 .4 visits per cow daily, and those clear improvements
in component percentages. And your management
focus shifts permanently at this point. Absolutely.
TMR quality and feed push -up frequency are no
longer just important. They become your two most
critical management points. They essentially
replace the complexity of managing multiple robot
feeds. tables. Now, the article also gives us
a sense that this trend isn't just a North American
phenomenon. It's happening elsewhere. That's
right. The pellet -free or reduced pellet movement
seems to be global, often driven by slightly
different factors. In the Netherlands, for instance,
Wageningen University research points to herds
seeing 15 % lower vet costs post -transition,
largely attributed to improved rumen health and
reduced sera. And in Europe, environmental regulations
are playing a role, too. They are. EU methane
regulations link methane and methane. emissions
to rumen health. Reduced sera translates to less
methane, potentially saving European farmers
around 120 hertz per cow annually in compliance
costs alone. So it aligns environmental incentives
with profitability. Interesting. What about New
Zealand with its pasture systems? How does it
apply there? Yeah, James Robertson, a farmer
there, discussed implementing a seasonal hybrid
model. They eliminate robot pellets entirely
during peak grass -growing seasons, capturing
a reported 17 % feed cost reduction in that period
with no impact on production. It shows the adaptability
of the core principle. Even in challenging climates
like Israel, they're doing this. Apparently so.
Despite significant heat stress, Farms there
have successfully transitioned. Dr. Al Sarusi
from the Agricultural Research Organization suggests
that the stable rumen function achieved with
consistent TMR feeding actually helps cows better
cope with heat stress, adding another unexpected
benefit. And looking ahead, is this changing
the industry? Are equipment manufacturers thinking
about this shift? The article hints strongly
in this. Industry whispers suggest major robot
manufacturers are starting to view pellet delivery
as potentially an optional feature on future
models rather than central to the design. Carlos
Pereira from Lilly is quoted acknowledging that
while their systems were designed with pellets
in mind, they see farms succeeding without them.
So they're adapting. It seems so, implying a
shift towards potentially minimal allocation
being optimal for some, rather than high rates
being the default. That could definitely impact
future robot installations, maybe lower costs
or simplify things. It could. The article also
notes the emergence of specialized consultants
focusing on helping farms transition to these
TMR -based motivation systems, indicating professional
support is growing. And those regulatory drivers
we mentioned in Europe could eventually influence
practices elsewhere. you know? Yeah, makes sense.
Okay, we've covered a lot of compelling points
for reducing or eliminating pellets, but it's
worth revisiting that nuance again. Not everyone
agrees this is the universal best approach, right?
That's an important point the article includes.
Experts like Dr. Thomas Overton at Cornell still
emphasize the potential value of targeted nutrient
delivery via pellets, especially for those very
high -producing early lactation animals. They
argue it can provide metabolic support difficult
to achieve solely through the TMR. So there's
still a case for pellets in specific situations.
Yes. And Dr. Bill Weiss at Ohio State Champions,
that middle ground we touched on, he advocates
for finding the optimal pellet allocation for
each specific farm and set of cows rather than
a strict all -or -nothing approach. These perspectives
are valuable reminders that it's complex, and
the decision really depends on your unique farm
circumstances, genetics, and management capabilities.
So wrapping all this up, the Bullvine article's
conclusion for you, the listener, is pretty direct,
isn't it? It is. The data from farms operating
this way, from Wisconsin to the Netherlands,
is mounting. The article presents it almost as
essential profit physics. You essentially have
a choice. Continue accepting that estimated $36
,740 annual cost per 200 cows for robot pellets.
Which is a lot. It is. Or make the upfront investment
in management discipline, which they estimate
at roughly 120 hours of intensive training and
oversight during the transition for a 200 cow
herd for potentially significant perpetual savings
and improved performance. And the article's core
message seems to be that success hinges entirely
on that management discipline, particularly around
TMR quality and fetching. And that idea that
cows don't miss what they never had when it comes
to the pellet habit. It's a powerful thought
and a key mindset shift, I think. The big takeaways
are clear. The economic impact is potentially
massive. That $36 ,740 net savings figure, driven
by feed savings, offset slightly by labor, but
boosted significantly by components. The technical
requirements are strict. Guided flow is mandatory.
TMR must be held to incredibly high specific
standards with frequent push -ups. The physiological
benefits are real. Stable room in pH, leading
to potentially improved butterfat. And the implementation
requires a structured plan. That 90 -day protocol
is a roadmap, acknowledging the initial labor
spike, but showing how fetch rates and components
should improve over that period. And crucially,
knowing when not to attempt it if you have a
free -flow barn, cannot achieve or maintain amazing
TMR consistency, or struggle with labor discipline,
this probably isn't for you right now. Exactly.
This deep dive really highlights that while challenging,
rethinking routine robot pellet feeding presents
a significant opportunity backed by solid data
and an understanding of cow physiology. So based
on everything in this Bullvine article, what
are some immediate practical steps you listening
can take? Yeah. The article leaves us with three
things you can do starting, well, right now.
Step one, today. Download that free UW -Madison
Mixer Evaluation Toolkit the article mentions
and audit your TMR consistency. Just find out
where you stand. It's a good first step regardless.
Step two, maybe this month. Select five cows,
maybe average ones, maybe some high producers,
and get some rumen pH monitoring probes in to
see your baseline rumen health dynamics. Get
some real numbers. And step three, perhaps this
year. If those initial reality checks look good
and your physical infrastructure and management
foundation are solid, start planning a phased
pellet reduction using the 90 -day protocol described
in the article. But don't rush it. Take your
time. Good advice. The Bullvine article leaves
us with a provocative thought to chew on. The
revolution's happening whether we like it or
not. The question is, will you lead it or chase
it? It definitely gives you a clear, data -backed
direction if you choose to lead something to
think about. We strongly encourage you to read
the full article on www .thebullvine .com. It
contains all the detailed charts, data, and expert
quotes we discussed that really bring this whole
topic to life. Absolutely worth the read. Thanks
for joining us for this deep dive into robot
feeding strategies. We'll catch you on the next
one. That's a wrap for this episode of the Bullvine
Podcast. Thanks for tuning in and being part
of our forward -thinking dairy community. If
you enjoyed today's discussion, don't forget
to subscribe, leave us a review, and share the
episode with your fellow dairy enthusiasts. Got
a burning question or a topic you want us to
tackle next? Drop us a line at The Bullvine.
Until next time, keep challenging the status
quo and striving for excellence. Because at The
Bullvine, we're all about revolutionizing dairy
one story at a time.