from genomic codes to robot facts we cut through
the noise no holes back. Not your daddy's dairy
news tonight. Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast,
your hub for the boldest ideas and insights transforming
the dairy industry. In today's episode, we unpack
groundbreaking research from Michigan State University
that challenges everything you thought about
corn silage nutrition and strategy. Get ready
for fresh, actionable intel that could boost
your milk production and farm profitability.
Welcome back to the bull vine podcast the show
that digs deep into the topics that matter to
dairy producers And what a topic we have today
We're diving into a feature article from the
bull vine that has truly sent ripples through
the dairy industry It's forcing us to reconsider
some long -held beliefs and we're gonna break
down every facet of this deep dive Absolutely,
the article that has captured everyone's attention
is titled br2 corn silage a new challenger to
BMR. Yeah If that title alone doesn't pique your
interest, let me assure you, its central, provocative
claim certainly will. This piece suggests that
recent Michigan State VR2 corn trials may completely
flip the script on BMR's long -standing reputation
as the unbeatable silage. Flip the script feels
like an understatement, doesn't it? It really
does. When this research first started circulating
at summer dairy meetings, there was a palpable
buzz, almost a sense of disbelief. among seasoned
producers and nutritionists alike. BMR has been
the gold standard, the undisputed champion of
high quality forage for so long. It's been the
cornerstone of high producing Gary rations for
decades. Ages, yeah. So to hear that this new
BR2, short stature corn, isn't just competing,
but actually outperforming BMR in some really
critical metrics. Well, it genuinely makes you
sit up and take notice. It's like hearing a new
rookie just beat the perennial MVP. It truly
is. And for you, our listener, our mission today
is to thoroughly unpack this surprising research.
Yeah, let's get into it. We want to really understand
its intricate details and implications and ultimately
help you figure out what these findings could
mean for your 2025 feed strategy. We're here
to provide the clarity you need to make informed
data -driven decisions for your operation. And
before we get too deep, let's quickly set the
stage by defining a few key terms we'll be using
throughout our conversation. Just so we're all
on the same page. Good idea. First up, the familiar
BMR. BMR, which stands for brown midrib, is a
type of corn characterized by a naturally reduced
lignin content. Right, that reduced lignin. This
reduction is absolutely crucial because lignin
is essentially the indigestible glue in the plant
cell wall, and less of it means significantly
improved fiber digestibility. That's the key.
For decades, BMR has been the premium forage
standard. the benchmark against which all other
silages were measured for high -producing dairy
cows. Then we have BR2, which is shorthand for
brachydic 2. Okay. This is a novel gene that
gives us short -stature corn. What's truly unique
about BR2 is its completely different plant architecture
compared to conventional or even BMR corn. How
so? It's much shorter, much more compact, and
that structural difference plays a significant
role in its agronomic and nutritional profile.
Gotcha. And as we talk about performance, you'll
hear us refer to ECM or energy corrected milk.
Important one. This isn't just about the volume
of milk. It's the metric that truly reflects
what matters for your milk check, as it accounts
for both the milk volume and its energy rich
components like fat and protein. Right. It balances
it out. It gives us a more accurate picture of
the energy output from the cow. And finally,
DMI or dry matter intake. This is simply how
much feed your cows are actually consuming. on
a dry matter basis. Pretty straightforward. Generally,
higher DMI often correlates with higher production,
because the more high -quality nutrients a cow
can consume, the more she has available to convert
into milk. Makes sense. But, as we'll see today,
it's not always a direct one -to -one relationship.
Hmm. All the fascinating data and observations
we're dissecting today, those numbers that got
everyone talking, come from rigorous scientific
research. Yeah, this isn't just hearsay. Specifically,
we're drawing from the work by Sirmikasaglulu
et al. published in August 2025 in the Journal
of Dairy Science Communications. Right. So this
isn't speculation. It's backed by credible peer
-reviewed science, which is vital when we're
discussing such potentially disruptive findings.
Okay, let's truly unpack this. The executive
summary from the article doesn't mince words.
It drops some pretty remarkable numbers right
off the bat. Yeah, it gets right to it. It claims
these new BR2 short -stature corn hybrids are
crushing BMR in the feed bunk. Now, crushing
is a strong word. But when you look at the raw
data, it's hard to argue. It becomes incredibly
difficult to argue with the sentiment. Yeah.
It really does. We're talking about an impressive
8 % higher dry matter intake for cows on BR2
silage compared to those on BMR. 8%. That's huge.
But what's truly significant is that this isn't
just a number on a spreadsheet. That higher intake
translates directly into a 3 .8 % increase in
overall milk production. It's a compelling story
playing out in the bulk tank. And that 3 .8 %
increase isn't just an abstract percentage point.
The article quantifies it for us, estimating
it at roughly 2 .6 extra pounds of milk per cow
daily. 2 .6 pounds. For a lot of producers, that's
not just a statistic. It's a game changer for
their bulk tank. day in and day out. Definitely.
What also strikes me about that intake jump is
the sheer metabolic drive it represents. An 8
% higher DMI means cows were consuming over four
pounds more dry matter daily when fed BR2. Over
four pounds more feed? Wow! That's a massive
amount of additional fuel driving a more productive
engine. Absolutely. When you start connecting
these numbers to your bottom line, the picture
becomes even clearer. Yeah, let's talk money.
The article suggests this increased production
could inject an additional $1 .25 per cow daily
into your operation. $1 .25 a cow. If you multiply
that across your herd over a year, you're looking
at nearly $400 annually per cow based on current
market prices. And let's not overlook the potential
for a significant protein bump, especially with
protein prices hovering around, what, $1 .87
per pound in many markets? Yeah, protein's valuable.
That's real, tangible money that directly impacts
your profitability and could easily justify considering
this new forage. What truly makes these findings
even more remarkable and honestly a bit eyebrow
-raising is the context in which this trial took
place. Right, the conditions. This was during
the 2023 Michigan corn year, which, as many dairy
producers painfully remember, was characterized
by a severe and brutal drought. Oh yeah, that
was tough. Now, BMR corn, while excellent, often
doesn't perform at its absolute best under such
intense environmental stress. No, it can struggle.
So for BR2 to not only hold its own, but actually
show this kind of success and challenging drought
-affected conditions, that to me is genuinely
noteworthy and suggests a robust resilience.
It does. It raises the question, could BR2's
unique compact plant architecture, perhaps with
a more efficient root system or less surface
area for transpiration, be inherently more tolerant
to water stress than the taller BMR hybrids?
That's a good question. Something to watch. That's
something worth watching in future research.
And the cows involved were mid -lactation, averaging
around 150 days in milk, not fresh cows. Right,
not the fresh group. Typically, we see BMR shine
brightest and offer its most pronounced advantages
in those early lactation high -demand periods
when cows are peaking and need maximum energy
density and rapid passage. Exactly. Fresh cows
need that kickstart. For BR2 to show such strong
results in mid -lactation hints at a broader
utility, suggesting it might be a valuable tool
across different stages of the lactation curve,
which is something we might not have initially
assumed. That's interesting. And beyond the impressive
feed bunk performance and milk increases, there's
an agronomic advantage that's a real kicker for
producers. Oh, yeah. What's that? The article
highlights that BR2 hybrids also offer better
standability in the field. Ah, standability.
That's huge. This means a significantly reduced
risk of lodging that dreaded situation where
the corn stalks fall over and tangle, making
harvest an absolute nightmare. Lodged corn is
the worst. Anyone who's had to deal with tangled
lodged corn knows the sheer frustration, time
loss, and valuable silage tonnage sacrificed.
The peace of mind alone that comes from better
standability when the weather turns ugly is a
substantial on -farm benefit. It truly is a double
win, isn't it? better performance in the cow,
and better resilience in the field, reducing
harvest headaches and protecting your yield.
Seems like it. But, as with anything that promises
such significant upside, there are always a few
practical trade -offs and hurdles to consider,
and the executive summary is commendably upfront
about them. Right, it's not all roses. It's not
a magic bullet. You're right. The two main downsides
highlighted are a slight drop in butterfat, about
0 .13 percentage points. Okay, 0 .13 fat points.
Which, while not massive, is certainly something
to monitor very closely, especially if you're
shipping to a plant with strict fat requirements.
Definitely need to watch that. And then there's
the big one. that need to budget for equipment
modifications, an estimated $15 ,000 to $22 ,000
per machine to handle the lower ear heights of
BR2. Wow, $15 ,000 to $22 ,000 per machine. Yeah.
While these are certainly significant considerations,
the article posits that when you crunch the numbers,
the overall economics still look pretty compelling,
at least on paper. Okay, so the math might still
work out. even with those costs. It's crucial
to understand the scientific rigor behind this
research. This wasn't some small -scale anecdotal
observation on a handful of cows. No, it was
proper study. Michigan State conducted a meticulously
designed trial putting three different BR2 short
spatcher hybrids head to head against Pioneer's
P0956 AMX BMR, which is a widely recognized and
high performing BMR hybrid. Yep, a good benchmark.
As well as a conventional tall hybrid. They used
40 mid lactation cows, rotating them through
three 21 day periods. Standard crossover design.
This kind of crossover design with multiple replicates
is a fairly standard and a robust protocol for
dairy nutrition work. adding significant credibility
to the findings. And that rigor truly makes the
author's personal admission even more impactful.
The article mentions that when the author first
saw Dr. Mike Van de Haar's initial numbers, their
immediate thought was that there must have been
a mistake somewhere in the data collection or
analysis. Really? They thought it was an error.
Yeah. That raw human reaction really highlights
just how deeply entrenched BMR's reputation is
as the ultimate silage, and how genuinely disruptive
and unexpected these new BR2 findings truly are.
Wow. It forces everyone in the industry to take
a second, much closer look. So the production
numbers are genuinely impressive, and they've
certainly got everyone's attention. But here's
where it gets really interesting, and frankly
a bit puzzling for us as nutritionists and scientists.
the article highlights a significant disconnect
between what the standard lab tests predicted
and what actually happened inside the cow. Ah,
the lab versus cow disconnect. This is the big
one. And that, to me, is the true head scratcher
that might force us to rethink how we evaluate
forage quality. Exactly. This is the part that
has nutritionists everywhere scratching their
heads, perhaps even questioning some of our core
assumptions. I break it down. The pretrial lab
work, conducted as we normally would, showed
exactly what we've all come to expect. BMR absolutely
crushed the competition for fiber digestibility,
clocking in at an impressive 63 % IVND -FD after
30 hours. 63 % IVND -FD for BMR? That sounds
about right. Compare that to the BR2 hybrids,
which range from just 57 % to 60%. OK, so quite
a gap in the lab. Based purely on those lab numbers,
any dairy nutritionist would confidently predict
BMR to be the clear winner, driving superior
intake and performance in the cow. Makes sense
based on the standard metrics, but... But then,
when they actually measured total tract digestibility
in live cows, which is the real acid test of
what nutrients the animal actually absorbs. Right.
What the cow actually gets out of it. That lab
advantage for BMR completely vanished. Vanished!
Really? The NDF digestibility was essentially
identical across the board. 45 .4 % for BMR and
45 .2 % for BR2. Wow. Practically the same. The
difference was statistically insignificant. Look,
this isn't just a minor discrepancy. This fundamentally
challenges a lot of our long -standing assumptions
about how we evaluate forage quality and what
truly drives performance in the animal. It really
makes you wonder what we're missing, doesn't
it? It really does. What's truly fascinating
here is how this disconnect directly impacts
our heavy reliance on 30 -hour IVNDFD numbers
for forage purchasing decisions. Yeah, that 30
-hour number is king. For years, that metric
has been a go -to. often dictating premium prices
for BMR. We put so much stock in that value,
believing it's the ultimate predictor of how
a forage will perform in the cow. But if actual
total tract digestibility, the real world performance,
tells a different story, it strongly suggests
that we might be oversimplifying the biological
process. So maybe that one lab value isn't the
whole picture. Perhaps we're missing something
more significant, a more complex interaction
within the rumen and the... entire digestive
tract that isn't fully captured by a single in
vitro lab value. It absolutely raises a profoundly
important question for the industry. Are we leaning
too heavily on one lab test, perhaps ignoring
the holistic living system of the cow? It kind
of feels like it based on this. It implies that
the cow herself is the ultimate most sophisticated
laboratory and what happens in her unique room
and environment and subsequent digestive tract
is far more nuanced and complex than a snapshot
of fiber degradation in a test tube. Yeah. This
could mean a paradigm shift in how we approach
forage breeding and evaluation moving forward.
It really could. Let's let's really dig deeper
into the parlor numbers because ultimately this
is where producers make their money. and evaluate
their free choices. Right, the proof is in the
production. The article provides a clear daily
production comparison that truly tells the story.
For feed intake, BMR fed cows were at 24 .5 kilograms
of dry matter per day. Okay, 24 .5 kilogram DMI
for BMR. While the BR2 average soared to 26 .5
kilograms. 26 .5 kilograms. That's an impressive
8 .2 percent increase for BR2, meaning those
cows were consuming over four pounds more feed
daily. That's a huge difference in fuel. Wow,
that intake difference is striking. And as we
discussed, that higher intake directly translated
to higher milk production. BMR fed cows produced
32 .0 kilograms per day, while BR2 fed cows hit
33 .2 kilograms per day. OK, so 32 versus 33
.2 kilograms. That's a 3 .8 % increase or an
additional 2 .6 pounds of milk per cow per day.
For many operations, even a fraction of a pound
makes a difference, so 2 .6 pounds is a significant
boost to the bulk tank, especially when compounded
across a large herd. Definitely noticeable. More
importantly for today's market, where component
premiums are king and milk protein is highly
valued, milk protein yield saw a healthy and
valuable bump. Protein's key. What were the numbers?
BMR came in at $1 .10 kilograms per day, while
BR2 produced 1 .15 kilograms per day, a 4 .5
% increase. Nice bump in protein. With protein
premiums sometimes reaching as high as $3 .50
per hundred weight in certain markets, that increase
isn't just significant, it's extremely valuable
revenue that goes directly into your pocket.
Yeah, that adds up quickly. It's a key reason
why BR2's economic appeal is so strong. Now we
do need to address the trade -off, and it's an
important one, with milk fat. Ah yes, the fat
percentage. The percentage dropped from 4 .45
% on BMR to 4 .32 % on BR2. Okay, that .13 point
drop. That .13 percentage point hit is certainly
not nothing, as the article states, especially
for operations dealing with very particular processing
plants or quotas. You gotta watch your components.
However, it's worth noting that due to the significantly
higher milk volume from BR2, the total pounds
of fat produced per cow actually remain quite
similar between the two diets. So total pounds
of fat were similar. That's important. Exactly.
So while the percentage drops, the overall fat
output in terms of total pounds was maintained,
which is a crucial distinction. OK, good clarification.
And here's another point that truly highlights
the nuance and prevents us from seeing this as
a simple winner takes all scenario. when we look
at feed efficiency. Right, ECM per DMI. BMR still
was the champion. It registered at 1 .51 ECM
per unit of DMI compared to BR2's 1 .43. Oh,
interesting. So BMR was more efficient. That's
a 5 .3 % difference favoring BMR. So it's clearly
not a simple case of BR2 being better across
the board. No, definitely more complex. This
disparity in efficiency, despite higher intake
in production, points directly what the article
calls two distinctly different feeding philosophies.
OK, explain that. Different philosophies. What's
truly fascinating here is that this isn't necessarily
about declaring one forage better or worse than
the other, but rather about recognizing that
we now have different highly effective tools
for different situations on the farm. Right,
different tools for different jobs. BMR. with
its demonstrated higher efficiency, and the Michigan
State data showing BMR cows maintaining slightly
better body condition. Better body condition
with BMR? Truly seems built for efficiency and
condition maintenance. This could make it an
ideal choice for specific groups, like fresh
cows that need to recover body condition quickly
while still producing at a high level. Its rapid
passage rate is crucial here. Okay, so BMR for
fresh cows, maybe. Where efficiency and condition
are paramount. Exactly. If you're focusing on
those critical early lactation animals, where
every pound of body condition matters not just
for current production, but for future reproductive
success and overall health. Right. BMR's characteristics
that efficient nutrient utilization and maintenance
of condition might be precisely what you need
in that phase. It helps them maintain that delicate
balance and sets them up for success throughout
lactation. On the other hand, BR2 really looks
like a high throughput production driver. Yeah,
push the intake, push the milk. It's allowing
cows to consume more feed, which is then translated
into significantly more milk and valuable components.
This could be particularly well suited for well
-conditioned cows in mid to late lactation, where
your primary goal shifts slightly from conditioned
recovery to maximizing component output and driving
that bulk tank number. Right. Cows that can handle
the higher intake. These cows are already stable
and you want to push them for maximum yield.
It's about tailoring your forage strategy, providing
a more refined approach to precision nutrition
based on the specific needs and goals for different
groups within your herd. Yeah, makes sense. More
tools in the toolbox. It's not a one size fits
all solution, but rather an expanded and more
specialized toolbox that allows for more sophisticated
management. And the researchers, to their credit,
were incredibly refreshing and honest about why
BMR might have stumbled in this particular trial.
Yeah, they didn't hide the context. This transparency
is incredibly valuable for interpreting the results
and understanding how they might or might not
apply to your own operation. It's a vital piece
of the puzzle. First, and we briefly touched
on this, it was a 2023 Michigan corn year, which
was a brutal drought year. Right. The drought
factor again? This intense environmental stress
likely impacted BMR more severely than the more
structurally robust Br2 hybrids. Okay. As many
producers know, drought -stressed BMR can become
extremely challenging both agronomically in terms
of standability and harvestability and nutritionally,
where the benefits of reduced lignin can be overshadowed
by overall plant stress when water is scarce.
Yeah, drought BMR can be tough. Its genetic advantages
might be compromised in such extreme conditions.
Second, these were mid -lactation cows, averaging
150 days in milk, not fresh cows. Right, we covered
that. In mid -lactation, animals aren't typically
as constrained by physical fill as they are in
early lactation when they're rapidly ramping
up intake. So BMR's signature faster passage
rate, which is a huge advantage for clearing
the rumen and allowing more feed intake in fresh
cows, might not have provided the same significant
benefit in these mid -lactation animals whose
appetites are already well established and less
physically restricted. The need just wasn't as
great, maybe. The physiological need simply isn't
as acute. Third, and this is a crucial detail
that highlights the complexity of research. Okay,
what's this? When the herd switched from their
normal diet to the study diets, both intake and
milk yield dropped by 3 .6 and 4 .8 kilograms
per day, respectively, across all groups. Oh,
wow. So production dropped when they went on
to the study diets. Yeah, for everyone. This
suggests the experimental diets, despite careful
formulation, might not have been perfectly optimal
or palatable for these specific cows. This general
stress response or dietary challenge could have
potentially masked some of BMR's usual advantages,
or perhaps even limited the full expression of
BIA2's potential, making it harder to discern
specific dietary effects. That's a really important
caveat because it underscores that even in a
highly controlled research setting, external
factors and dietary transitions can influence
outcomes. Absolutely. Additionally, the study
didn't include mycotoxin analysis. Ah, no myco
data. In a drought year, particularly one as
severe as 2023, mycotoxin contamination is always
a concern. Big concern in drought years. The
absence of this analysis leaves an important
question unanswered, especially when unexpected
intake patterns are observed. It's a piece of
the puzzle that's missing and could have impacted
the overall health and performance of the cows
on any of the diets. Yeah, that would have been
good to know. This trial, despite its remarkable
findings, perfectly illustrates why, as an industry,
we absolutely cannot solely rely on isolated
lab numbers or even single -location trial results.
It's never that simple, is it? Real cows, real
environmental stresses, and real -world management
constraints. They all interact in complex ways
and matter far more than we sometimes admit.
The lab provides a valuable starting point. A
hypothesis. But the farm, with all its variables,
provides the ultimate undeniable truth about
what truly performs. So the cow performance data
is compelling, and it definitely paints an intriguing
picture for the future of forage. It does. But
here's the reality check we mentioned earlier.
The article is also very clear that BR2 isn't
a plug and play solution. You can just seamlessly
drop into your existing system without forethought.
Nope. Definitely not plug -and -play. There's
a significant elephant in the machine shed we
absolutely need to talk about. The equipment
required for harvest. That's right. The harvest
challenges for BR2 are substantial, primarily
due to its defining characteristic, those significantly
lower ear heights. Right, the short stature means
low ears. Industry sources are reporting BR2
ear heights ranging from 20 to 26 inches, which
is considerably lower than the typical 34 to
40 inches we see for conventional or BMR models.
Wow, that's a big difference 20 -26 versus 34
-40 inches. This isn't just a minor adjustment.
It often forces existing headers to operate well
below their normal designed operating range,
which creates a host of issues. And this distance
isn't trivial in terms of cost or logistics.
Based on conversations with equipment dealers
across the Midwest, preliminary estimates for
necessary header modifications are running a
hefty $15 ,000 to $22 ,000 per machine for older
equipment. Oof. 15 to 22 grand per machine. Even
newer machines will require significant setup
changes and potentially slower ground speeds,
especially during that initial learning curve.
It's not just old equipment. It's a substantial
upfront investment that can't be ignored when
you're looking at the full ROI. It's a truly
significant upfront investment, as you said.
And early adopters have emphasized budgeting
not just money, but also extra time for adjustments
during harvest. Right. Time is money, too. Expect
some initial learning curve losses in that first
year. You need to get your settings meticulously
dialed in correctly. And that takes time, patience,
and effort. It's definitely not something you
want to be figuring out on the fly when the weather
window is closing fast and every hour counts.
This can impact your overall harvest efficiency
and profitability. To help minimize harvest losses,
which can eat into those potential gains, the
article details a practical loss check protocol.
Yeah. Gotta check your losses. It's pretty straightforward
but absolutely essential. You need to stop periodically
during chopping and physically count years behind
the header across several transects. Get out
look. Then weigh those measured swaths to accurately
estimate your actual loss percentages. This gives
you concrete data to work with. And based on
those findings you immediately adjust your deck
plates, your stout angles, and your header height
accordingly. Check and adjust, check and adjust.
It's an iterative process and Critically, you
should be targeting kernel processing scores
above 70 % on your standard lab analysis. Gotta
crack those kernels! This isn't just about getting
the corn off the field, it's about getting it
off efficiently and processed optimally, so those
valuable kernels are fully available to the cow,
not passing through undigested. Makes sense.
Beyond the harvest, we absolutely need to talk
about ration management, specifically protecting
butterfat. Right, back to that fat percentage.
That .13 percentage point drop in milk fat we
discussed earlier isn't just a number. It adds
up fast, especially with current component pricing
structures. It sure does. This makes getting
your nutritionist involved early and deeply in
the conversation an absolute necessity if you're
even contemplating trialing BR2 silage. Yeah,
call your nutritionist first thing. They will
be your co -pilot in navigating this. The enhanced
starch digestibility of BR2 means potentially
faster and more vigorous rumen fermentation.
Okay, faster fermentation. While this can be
good for energy, it also requires careful monitoring.
You'll want your nutritionist to watch your physically
effective NDF, BNDF levels, very closely to ensure
adequate rumen health and function. Keep an eye
on PennNDF. If fermentation happens too quickly,
rumen pH can drop, impacting fiber digestion
and potentially leading to acidosis or milk fat
depression. Monitor fecal starch like a hawk
during any transition periods as it's a direct
indicator of how well that starch is being utilized
and whether it's too rapidly fermentable or simply
passing through. Fecal starch checks. Got it.
And to prevent exacerbating milk fat depression
issues, you might need to consider adjusting
buffer levels in the diet based on real -time
room and pH patterns. Adjust buffels. And carefully
monitor the total unsaturated fatty acid load
in the ration, as excessive levels can also depress
butterfact. Okay, watch the fatty acids too.
It's a holistic approach to managing room and
function and balancing the entire diet. The good
news though is that the protein response was
consistently solid across all three BR2 hybrids
tested. That's good news on protein. Which in
today's market with those high protein premiums
really matters and helps offset any fat concerns.
So let's talk economics, the real numbers for
2025 because this is where the rubber meets the
road for every producer. Yep. Time to crunch
the numbers. If BR2 consistently gets you an
extra 2 .6 pounds of milk daily, and assuming
protein premiums hold strong around $3 .50 per
100 weight in many markets, that could translate
to roughly $1 .25 per cow per day in additional
revenue. $1 .25 a day, that's that number again.
That's a powerful incentive, assuming you can
navigate the butterfat considerations and maintain
your overall component standards. Big assumption,
but powerful number. But you absolutely cannot
look at just the revenue side of the equation.
You must realistically budget for the additional
costs involved. Right. Gotta look at the expense
side. Seed premiums for BR2 hybrids are generally
15 -25 % higher per bag compared to conventional
or BMR, though this can vary by seed company
and specific hybrid. Okay, seed's more expensive.
You also likely need higher planting populations,
typically in the range of 38 ,000 to 42 ,000
plants per acre. compared to the conventional
$32 ,000 to $36 ,000. Higher pops, too. Which
means more seed costs per acre. Then there are
the substantial equipment modifications we discussed.
Those $15 ,000 to $22 ,000 per machine, which
need to be amortized over their useful life,
but still represent a significant capital outlay.
That equipment cost is a biggie. And let's not
forget the soft learning curve costs. Potential
harvest losses even have minimized and slower
ground speeds, especially in that first year,
which translates to increased labor and fuel
costs per acre harvested. Right, the hidden costs
of learning. These are very real expenses that
can quickly erode profits if not accounted for.
The article uses an example of a 500 cow operation
with 800 acres of corn silage. Okay, decent size
operation. For an operation of that size, you're
looking at a truly significant upfront investment
when you combine all these factors. The economics
can certainly work and look very appealing, but
only if you achieve the full production response
shown in the Michigan State trial. Yeah, gotta
hit those numbers. There's little margin for
error here, so careful planning, meticulous execution,
and discipline tracking are absolutely paramount
to ensure a positive ROI. So if you're listening
to all this fascinating data and thinking about
diving into B or two, the article provides some
really clear, practical guidance on how to trial
it correctly for 2025. Okay, actionable advice
time. It emphasizes starting smart, being methodical,
and documenting absolutely everything. This isn't
the flip a switch whole farm conversion decision.
No, got to ease into it, Hal. Absolutely. The
advice is to plant a manageable trial acreage,
perhaps 50 to 100 acres of BR2 right alongside
your current hybrid and ideally in the same soil
zone. Side -by -side trial. Makes sense. This
minimizes variables and allows for a direct side
-by -side comparison. When it comes to harvest,
aim for a dry matter content of 32 -35 % and
make sure your processor is dialed in tight.
Get that processing score up. You're looking
for kernel processing scores above 70 % on your
standard lab analysis to maximize starch availability.
And set your theoretical length of cut between
17 and 22 millimeters based on your specific
pin DF goals for your ration. Right, get the
chop length right too. This meticulous approach
to harvest and processing is truly crucial for
unlocking the full nutritional potential of this
silage. This isn't just about getting it off
the field, it's about getting it ready for the
rumen. What's truly not optional for making an
informed decision about expanding BR2 acres is
meticulous tracking. To track the data, what
specifically? You need to closely track dry matter
intake, DMI, milk yield, energy corrected milk,
ECM, butterfat percentage in total pounds, milk
protein percentage in total pounds, and even
fecal starch for at least three to four weeks
minimum after introducing it. Okay, track everything.
This comprehensive data is your compass for making
scientifically sound future decisions, allowing
you to see if those promising trial results are
replicating on your farm. Before you even think
about planting next spring, there's a vital pre
-planting checklist to tackle. Okay, homework
before planting. First, get definitive answers
from your equipment dealers on header modifications
and their actual costs for your specific harvesters.
Nail down those equipment costs. Second, confirm
seed availability and population recommendations
for your area, as new genetics can sometimes
be in high demand. Check seed supply. Good point.
Third, Budget meticulously for those higher seed
costs and increase planting populations. And
crucially, map out your most uniform field for
the trial. Pick a good, even field. You want
to eliminate as many confounding variables as
possible to get a clear, unbiased picture of
BR2's performance on your farm. The key thing
everyone's learning is that header setup and
ground speed matter more with BR2 than they ever
have for conventional corn. Really got to dial
in that harvest. You'll want to start with low
profile snouts, if available, and ensure your
deck plates are set tighter. Responsive header
height control is also critical, and this is
vital. Establish a lost check routine before
you start chopping. Don't wait until you're halfway
through the field to realize you're leaving money
on the ground. Check losses early and often.
Proactive management here will save you a lot
of headaches, frustration, and lost tonnage,
which directly impacts your bottom line. As compelling
as these Michigan State results are, the article
readily acknowledges that we're still working
with limited data. Yeah, it's just one study
really. This initial work is solid, truly foundational,
but it's one trial. from one specific year under
a particular set of conditions. Right. To truly
understand the full comprehensive picture of
BR2's potential, we still need to know a lot
more before widespread adoption. Absolutely.
We need more data points. Specifically, we urgently
need early lactation data. This is where BMR
typically shows its biggest, most critical advantages
for cows under immense metabolic stress. Yep.
The fresh cow question is huge. Understanding
how BR2 performs in this phase is paramount.
We also need multi -location trials across different
climates, soil types, and management systems.
Right. Michigan isn't everywhere. What works
exceptionally well in Michigan might not translate
directly to, say, the dry conditions of the southwest
or the humid environments of the southeast. Each
region presents its own unique challenges and
opportunities for forage performance. And perhaps
most importantly, we need performance data. from
actual commercial dairies, not just research
facilities where conditions are typically more
controlled and optimized. Real world results.
That's key. Real world farms face equipment limitations,
labor challenges, variable weather, and daily
economic pressures that can significantly influence
outcomes. How does BR2 perform when everything
isn't perfectly managed? Yeah, that's the real
test. This is where the rubber truly meets the
road. This need for more diverse data is powerfully
highlighted by the contrasting Italian work mentioned
in the MSU paper. Oh yeah, the Italian study.
That research, apparently using different BR2
genetics or under vastly different environmental
and management conditions, found no effects on
DMI, ECM, or body weight. from BR2. Wow, completely
different results. That's a pretty different
story from Michigan's remarkable results and
it makes you really ponder just how significant
genotype by environment GXE interactions are.
Big time. And how much location specific genetics
and local management truly matter in expressing
these traits. It suggests these aren't universal
plug and play findings. It's also an incredibly
important caveat that these results pertain specifically
to the BR2 genetics used in this Michigan State
trial. Right. Not all short corn is the same.
Not all short stature corn is created equal.
Other short stature platforms using different
genetic mechanisms or breeding approaches may
not deliver the same performance benefit. So
don't assume that any short corn hybrid will
give you these same impressive results. You need
to know exactly what genetics you're planting
and what data backs that specific hybrid. Looking
ahead, what's coming down the pike to help fill
these data gaps? Well, Penn State and Cornell,
two highly respected dairy research institutions,
are reportedly planning trials for next year.
OK, more research coming. This is fantastic news,
as it should definitely help fill in the picture
with more diverse data from different regions,
different climates, and different management
systems. That multi -state, multi -environmental
data will be invaluable for broader industry
adoption decisions. And the most intriguing possibility
on the distant horizon, something that truly
sparks the imagination, is the potential of combining
BR2 with BM3 genetics. Ooh, BR2 plus BM3. This,
theoretically, could achieve the best of both
worlds. Both the improved standability and compact
architecture of BR2, and the even further enhanced
digestibility of BM3. Wow, that would be something.
If successfully developed, this could create
a truly robust and incredibly high -performing
hybrid that addresses multiple challenges simultaneously.
But that's still very much in development, so
it's something to watch for in the future with
keen interest. Yeah, one to keep an eye on for
sure. Ultimately, what we really need moving
forward is honest, transparent, and detailed
feedback from commercial producers who are willing
to try these hybrids under real world conditions.
Right, need that farmer feedback. University
trials are fantastic and provide critical foundational
data, but they don't always capture the full
reality of tight harvest windows, equipment limitations,
unpredictable weather, and the daily economic
pressures that actual farms face. That commercial
validation is the next critical step for BR2.
to distill all this down to the bottom line for
your operation. Three things truly stand out
from this groundbreaking work that matter for
your 2025 decisions. Okay, let's summarize. First,
the production potential appears to be genuinely
real based on Michigan State's data. We're talking
about a four plus pound higher daily dry matter
intake and meaningful milk protein increases
that could translate to a compelling $1, $1 .25
per cow daily in additional revenue with current
pricing. The upside looks real. That is a powerful
upside that demands attention. Second, the equipment
challenges are significant, unavoidable, and
expensive. Can't ignore the cost. You need to
budget $15 ,000 to $22 ,000 per machine for older
equipment modifications, plus you much realistically
factor in a learning curve on harvest management.
This isn't just about swapping out a seed variety.
It's a fundamental shift in how you might harvest
your corn silage, and it demands upfront investment
and careful planning. And third, this is definitively
not a plug -and -play technology. Needs management.
It requires proactive nutritional management,
particularly focused on protecting butterfat
and optimizing room and health. It demands careful
monitoring and a willingness to adjust rations
to fully maximize those intake advantages while
avoiding potential pitfalls. Right. It's a system
change, not just a simple product swap, and it
requires a dedicated, informed approach. So what's
your strategic move for 2025? Yeah, what should
listeners do? If you're running newer equipment,
Have the financial flexibility for some calculated
experimentation and a strong relationship with
your nutritionist. A 50 to 100 acre trial of
BR2 makes a lot of sense. Okay, for some folks
a trial makes sense. Start with your most uniform
field. Get your nutritionist deeply involved
from day one to manage the ration and document
absolutely everything meticulously. That data
will be your most reliable guide for future decisions.
But for most operations... For most operations,
especially those with older equipment, tighter
margins, or simply a lower appetite for risk,
I'd lean towards watching and waiting. Let's
see more diverse research results from other
regions and gather more real -world feedback
from those early adopters. Allow someone else
to work through the initial learning curve first,
and then you can make a more informed decision
with less financial and operational risk. Patients
might be wise here patients can definitely pay
off here what I'm really watching for and what
this deep dive has profoundly highlighted for
me is how the striking disconnect between lab
predictions and actual cow performance challenges
our fundamental assumptions about how we evaluate
forages. That lab versus cow thing again? It's
huge! If Br2 corn can consistently deliver higher
intake and milk production while maintaining
those crucial agronomic advantages across varied
environments, it could fundamentally reshape
our entire approach to corn genetics, breeding
programs, and even our scientific metrics for
forage quality. This might indeed be the start
of a significant paradigm shift, pushing us towards
breeding for more balanced genetics that perform
consistently and robustly across varied conditions
and management systems. Right, breeding for resilience.
Rather than simply chasing a single isolated
trait like ultra -low lignin. That kind of inherent
robustness and resilience is precisely what our
industry needs as weather patterns become increasingly
unpredictable and economic pressures continue
to mount, making every decision on the farm that
much more critical. So after all that incredible
detail, what's the key takeaway, the most actionable
insight for farmer listening today? Okay, boil
down. For you, the farmer, the article really
boils down to three core actionable insights
you can apply right now. All right, number one.
One, evaluate the ROI with open eyes. The production
potential of BR2 is significant and exciting,
but you must factor in the substantial equipment
modification costs and increased seed expenses.
Don't just look at the potential for more milk
per cow. Look at your total budget and the full
financial picture, including those initial capital
outlays and potential learning curve costs. Okay,
see the whole picture, costs included. Number
2. Nutritional partnership is non -negotiable.
If you decide to trial BR2, bring your nutritionist
into the conversation from day one, even before
you planned. Protecting butterfat, optimizing
room and health, and managing those faster fermentation
dynamics will be absolutely critical to realizing
the full component premium benefits and avoiding
potential pitfalls that could negate your gains.
Get your nutritionist involved early. Makes sense.
And number three. Three. Start small and document
everything. This is not a wholesale switch for
2025. If you're going to try it, allocate a manageable
trial acreage, say 5 ,100 acres, choose your
most uniform field, and meticulously track every
relevant metric, DMI, milk components, and even
harvest losses. This comprehensive farm -specific
data is your compass for making sound future
decisions, allowing you to scale up confidently
or re -evaluate. Start small, track everything.
Got it. Great points. And that's all the time
we have for today's deep dive into this fascinating
research. For more articles and insights, be
sure to visit Don't forget to subscribe wherever
you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening.
Thanks for listening to the Bull Vine Podcast.
If you found value today, subscribe, leave a
review and share this episode with your fellow
dairy innovators. Here's to pushing boundaries
and driving innovation on your farm. Until next
time, keep disrupting and growing.