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

Dr. Lock begins with an overview of his presentation, discussing nutrition and genomics impacts on the speed of progress in milk fat production. He also talks about historic differences in milk fat production in Europe compared to the US. With the reduction in generation interval that genomics provides, a more complete understanding of rumen and mammary metabolism will continue to be imperative. How do we supply the nutrients she needs to meet her genetic potential? (3:34)

Can we feed too much 16:0? The panel discusses how palmitic and other fatty acids are incorporated into milk fat. They emphasize that no matter what, milk fat will remain a liquid at body temperature, so that does provide some limitations. Processors can alter their protocols to account for increased palmitic acid in milk fat and for increased milk fat in milk overall. (8:35)

There is a gene called DGAT that can explain about 50% of the variation in milk fat content. Dr. Lock discusses some research looking at more vs less favorable DGAT profiles and how feeding palmitic acid interacted with those profiles in milk fat production. (13:04)

The panel discusses whether there is a physiological limit for how much milk fat a cow can produce. Traditionally, when milk yield increased, fat yield decreased, but that is not the current case. We are learning more all the time about altering rations and using new oilseed ingredients like whole cottonseed and high-oleic soybeans. Dr. De Souza emphasizes that understanding de novo fatty acid synthesis is really important to keep pace with genomic progress. (16:08)

Amino acid supplementation has recently been linked with milk fat production, with the assumed mechanism of action being increased mammary gland enzyme synthesis and activity. Dr. Lock describes a study assessing amino acid-fatty acid interactions in fresh cows. The amino acid (metabolizable protein) effect was greater for fat yield than feeding fatty acids, which was interesting. But perhaps more exciting was the effects were additive. Feeding both high metabolizable protein and 2% palmitic:oleic acid blend resulted in 9.5 kg more energy-corrected milk and a carryover effect after supplementation ceased. (22:41)

Dr. Lock summarizes some of his group’s work on using oilseeds in dairy diets.(28:24)

Dr. De Souza and Dr. Lock give some perspective on just how much we have learned about milk components over the last several years. (34:38)

Panelists share their take-home thoughts, including practical advice on increasing milk fat production and what’s on the horizon for fatty acid nutrition research. (37:15)

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 [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

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

Dr. Kononoff begins with some renewable fuels history. Since the renewable fuels standard in 2007, corn production for ethanol has increased to around 50% of the crop going to ethanol production. With the subsequent increase in fuel has come an increase in distillers grains and the industry has learned how to use them to feed cattle better. Later, the government created additional policy for next-stage renewable fuels, which has spurred biodiesel production. Currently, just under 50% of the soybean crop goes to fuel production. Soybean meal availability has increased and costs have decreased over the past few years. Most of the soybean oil is solvent-extracted.   (5:57)

Dr. Lock talks about increased acres of high-oleic soybeans in dairy-soybean crossover states. He summarizes some of the work his group has done on feeding high-oleic roasted whole soybeans as a replacement for soybean meal in the diet, citing the benefits of the oil in the diet as well as increased bypass protein. (15:41)

The panel discusses whether canola meal, which is fairly high in oleic acid, would show similar benefits to feeding whole roasted soybeans. They also talk about how tariffs may or may not impact canola meal and canola oil prices. (24:26)

Over time, the dairy industry has moved away from alfalfa as a protein source and toward soybean meal. The panel discusses the pros and cons of this change. (26:46)

Dr. Kononoff gives his perspective on just how much soybean meal can be fed in dairy cow diets. Nitrogen excretion is an important consideration. He reminds the audience that renewable fuels policy is the reason behind many of the feed ingredient changes we’ve observed in the past 15-20 years, and that policy can change very rapidly. He emphasizes the industry needs to remain nimble and prepared to adapt. The panel also touches on pricing of feed ingredients in different parts of the country and how distillers grains are currently used in dairy diets. (31:08)

Panelists share their take-home thoughts. (40:49)

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 [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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. Bach gives an overview of his presentation, highlighting that buffers make the rumen resistant to a decrease in pH while alkalizers immediately increase rumen pH. He prefers magnesium oxide, an alkalizer, over sodium bicarbonate, a buffer. Both are effective, but sodium bicarbonate requires a larger amount, thus taking up more room in the diet. The magnesium oxide must be of high quality and soluble in the rumen. (3:40)

Dr. Richards asks if we should use magnesium oxide more as a first line of defense against acidosis. Dr. Bach notes that the very best strategy is to avoid using either additive by making a proper ration balanced in terms of amount and rate of degradation of starch. But there are many constraints in the field, so he recommends using magnesium oxide before sodium bicarbonate. For the magnesium oxide to be effective, it must be solubilized in the rumen to magnesium hydroxide, and solubility can be tested in a variety of ways to determine quality. (7:35)

The panel discusses the impact of magnesium oxide in place of sodium bicarbonate on DCAD and which DCAD equation(s) should be used for calculations. Dr. Bach recommends removing sodium bicarbonate from rations containing less than 1% of the ingredient. It will have little effect on the rumen, but make room in the ration. The panel explores how this can impact farm-level economics. (12:39)

Dr. Bach also mentions probiotics and their impact on rumen function. In vitro studies have shown a wide variety of modes of action and positive results. Extrapolating in vitro doses to the cow often results in unsustainable amounts of the additive needing to be fed. Applied studies at the cow level have yielded inconsistent results. (23:29)

Scott asks how long Dr. Bach has been making the case for pulling sodium bicarbonate out and putting magnesium oxide in, and what kind of pushback he has received. Dr. Bach gives some of the reasons farmers have given for not wanting to make this management change. He also notes that farmers who do make the switch do not tend to go back to sodium bicarbonate. (25:18)

Dr. Bach and Maimie discuss grass silage diets and grazing diets with high amounts of moisture and how best to combat acidosis symptoms with those. In diets like this, where you’re not trying to make room for energy, sodium bicarbonate can be a good choice. Dr. Richards chimes in with questions about the ratio of the two ingredients; Dr. Bach indicates the ratio doesn’t mean much to him. (26:16)

Panelists share their take-home thoughts. (33:27)

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 [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

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

Microbial protein has always been Dr. Frikins’ main interest. It’s the most important and consistent source of protein for the cow, with a very high amino acid content. Histidine is the only exception, but bypass protein sources high in histidine complement microbial protein well. Our assessment of microbial protein is all based on prediction models. In his presentation, Dr. Firkins talked about what we can do to have consistently high microbial protein production and how to make the best use of the models. He touched on starch and fat content as two areas of focus, emphasizing a balanced diet to achieve a balanced supply of microbial protein. (5:36)

Dr. Firkins notes that about 90% of the bacteria in the rumen can’t be cultured, and there is great diversity in the rumen. There’s a core group of bacteria that almost every cow has that are really good at their job because they’ve been co-selected along with the cow for fiber digestion. The panel discusses how much the microbiome changes over time, host interactions with the microbial population, and inoculation of calves at birth and weaning. (8:47)

Dr. De Souza and Dr. Faciola talk about starch associative effects and their impacts on fiber digestibility, how sugars impact the rumen and butyrate production, and the importance of butyrate in de novo milk fat synthesis. Dr. Frikins hypothesizes that when sugars improve fiber digestibility, the sugar stimulates how fiber digesters do their job. Some studies have shown an increase in rumen pH when sugars are supplemented, which may be part of the mechanism of improved fiber digestibility. However, he doesn’t recommend using sugars when there is a lot of starch in the diet. (13:38)

Dr. Faciola and Dr. Firkins discuss some of the finer points of the dietary starch and fiber digestibility relationship. What are you replacing when you add more starch? What is the proper amount of effective fiber in higher-starch diets? On the other hand, if you decrease starch a little bit, there might be more room for fat. Well-managed cows with adequate effective fiber can probably handle more starch. Dr. Firkins underlines that starch is more digestible than fiber and thus supports microbial protein, but an optimum level is desirable, perhaps 28-20%. (20:37)

The panel talks about microbial growth efficiency and the energy-spilling mechanisms some bacteria have. Some models suggest that starch-digesting bacteria have higher maintenance energy requirements. The group then pivots to methane production and available feed additives marketed to reduce methane. Dr. Firkins notes that there is quite a bit of variability in the additives. He emphasizes that if we’re using these products, we need to know and measure what’s in them and have them be consistent. This is challenging due not only to variability in product, but also rumen adaptation. Dr. Firkins also reminds the audience that improving the cow’s efficiency in general in a variety of ways will lead to a smaller environmental footprint. This can range from improving reproductive efficiency to understanding differences in the microbiome of cows who emit more or less methane and trying to shift microbial populations to those with lower emissions. (23:12)

Dr. De Souza and Dr. Firkins discuss fatty acid supplementation and fiber digestion relationships. Dr. Firkins explains that in the microbiology literature, it's common to culture bacteria in a simple or complex medium, then add yeast culture. Interestingly, the yeast culture contains a lot of palmitic acid, which has been shown to improve fiber digestibility. He suggests the cell membrane of the bacteria is very critical. When fat supplementation depresses fiber digestibility, he suspects it’s disrupting the bacterial membrane. Dr. De Souza recommends 1-2% palmitic acid in the diet for optimal results. (33:58)

The panel touches on the importance and relevance of in vitro fermentation work, why histidine is the limiting amino acid in microbial protein, and Dr. Firkins’ passion for protozoa. (43:08)

Panelists share their take-home thoughts. (53:40)

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 [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

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

Dr. Hemme begins with a demonstration of three different-sized glasses of milk representing the daily average dairy consumption in China, Europe, and the world as a whole. He explains that when you make predictions, it’s good to identify the two main drivers of uncertainty in your industry. In the case of dairy, he cites whether or not people like dairy and whether or not they can afford it. He goes on to describe the four scenarios that can be created from those main drivers: people like dairy and can afford it, people don’t like dairy but could afford it, people like dairy but can’t afford it, and people don’t like dairy and can’t afford it.  (4:05)

Walt asks Dr. Hemme to give some perspective on what makes a country a reliable exporter built for the global economy. He gives a unique example of how American football versus soccer compares to exporting dairy from the US to the global market. Matt chimes in with his perspective on how DFA is positioning the industry for exports. He notes that we live in the world of VUCA - volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity - and that we have a lot of VUCA happening in the US right now. In general, he’s very bullish on our natural resources, management skills, and technical capability in the US dairy industry.  (10:17)

The panel discusses who in the world is going to be able to meet the building demand for dairy products, and what the US might need to do to be a major player - in essence, moving from playing football to playing soccer. Dr. Hemme gives culture, policy, and relationship building as potential challenges for the US. (16:37)

Matt is encouraged by the new investments in processing plants in the US and looks for a “build it and we will grow into it” scenario as we move forward. Dr. Hemme agrees that the processors are on board. But he wonders about the dairy farm side - no growth in cow numbers, not much growth in production, and breeding so many cows with beef semen makes him think the US is not believing in a growing dairy industry. He also talks about changing interest rates over time and impact on capital management. (25:50)

The panel discusses the US milk price compared to the world milk price, the cost of production, and exchange rates. (29:45)

Matt gives some perspective on beef-on-dairy. As the beef cycle levels back out and more beef heifers are retained, he forecasts fewer dairy cows being bred to beef semen and an increase in the supply and retention of dairy heifers. (34:31)

Dr. Hemme talks about dairy demand and global population growth trends and predictions. (39:38)

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 [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.

Dr. Nicholson details the high points of his presentation, including a milk price outlook, implications of changes to milk and milk component pricing that will take place in June, and changes in butterfat value over time. As a result of the pricing changes, milk component values are expected to decrease. (3:15)

Net impacts on milk prices for a dairy will depend mostly on where they’re located, but also a little bit on how their milk is currently priced. Dr. Nicholson expects a decrease of around $0.32/cwt for dairies in his area. The panel discusses how a dairy might shift management and feeding to try to increase milkfat to recoup that loss. Dr. Zimmerman asks if the pricing changes will affect fat and protein pricing equally or differently. Butter and other non-fat solids are all going to have the same impact every month. But protein is slightly different because the formulas for protein pricing use both the price of cheese and the price of butter, and those factors interact. Brian comments the impacts for a cheese and powder type of dairy stand to be quite different from a fluid milk dairy. Chuck talks about some of the background as to why dairy cooperatives and dairy producers voted in favor of the milk pricing changes. (8:16)

The panel discusses the impact of cheese demand on component pricing and production. Billions of dollars worth of cheese processing capacity are coming online in the next couple of years, so demand should remain strong. Tariffs are definitely bringing a lot of uncertainty to the market. Some of the new cheese plants have a lot of whey processing capacity on the back end to add value. Whey products are one of our major exports. (13:54)

Brian talks about the shift in what’s considered an acceptable butterfat percentage over the span of his career. The panel talks about the influence of genomics and feeding management on that trend. Dr. Lock talks about a recently completed study in his lab feeding fresh cows two different levels of metabolizable protein and supplementing 0%, 1% or 2% of a 60:30 palmitic-oleic fatty acid blend. Cows fed a higher level of metabolizable protein and a 2% fatty acid blend produced 9.5 kilograms more energy-corrected milk in the first three weeks of lactation. He mentions the protein had more of an impact on milk fat than he had anticipated, that protein and fat supplementation showed additive positive effects, and there was a carryover effect after supplementation ceased. (21:04)

Dr. Lock summarizes some recent work on feeding high oleic soybeans to lactating cows. The panel chats about roasting vs. not roasting soybeans, transportation costs and economics. Dr. Lock’s group is now looking at feeding the oil from high-oleic beans to see how the response differs, if at all, from feeding the beans. (25:42)

Dr. Nicholson predicts a pretty good margin year for 2025, forecasting about $3 above the average long-term margin, even with the upcoming milk pricing changes. The big wild card is exports and trade policy, which could have a significant impact on what margins look like going forward. (31:32)

Panelists share their take-home thoughts. (33:36)

Scott invites the audience to Bourbon and Brainiacs at ADSA in Louisville - a bourbon tasting with all your favorite professors! Sign up here: https://balchem.com/anh/bourbon/ (37:55)

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 [email protected]. 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.

In 2020, the Institute for Feed Education and Research (IFEEDER), American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), North American Renderers Association (NARA) and Pet Food Institute (PFI) collaborated to publish the Pet Food Consumption Report. The organizations collaborated again to publish a second edition in 2025, which Lara presented at Petfood Forum. Data sets from both brick-and-mortar sales and Amazon sales were used to create the report. (6:16)

Lara explains that data analysts reverse-engineered product labels from dog and cat food and treats in the dataset to identify trends, including ingredient use, value, tonnage, upstream value, and what pet food adds to the economy. Dry dog food makes up the largest volume of sales at 55%, and also takes the number one spot in value of sales at 38%. Dry cat food is the second largest by volume (16%), followed by dog treats (11%). However, dog treats are the second largest by value (20%), followed by dry cat food (12%).  (7:57)

Louise and Charles talk about trends in non-veterinary spending on pets, cultural shifts in consumer perceptions of pet ownership, pet food trends in developing countries, and consumer understanding of human and pet nutrition needs. (12:04)

Lara notes that the top five ingredients in the report are chicken and chicken products, whole grains, milled grains, beef and beef products, and marine-based ingredients. Chicken and chicken products made up 2.2 million tons, while marine-based products represented about 500,000 tons. Marine products doubled in volume from the 2020 report to the 2025 report, signifying a trend of higher value, more select ingredients coming into the pet food space. Salmon and cod are the primary marine ingredients. Lara remarks that the specialty ingredients side of the report is fascinating, with items like blueberries, tomatoes, peas, beet pulp, cranberries, and flaxseed making an appearance. Louise explains the 2020 report had less than 400 ingredients, while more than 600 ingredients appear in the 2025 report. Charles notes that since the last report, there has been a slight shift to more fresh meat products and slightly less rendered products. (16:10)

About half the cat and dog food is made up of upcycled ingredients. The panel discusses consumer perceptions of byproducts and co-products, the sustainability role that these products play in the industry, and their organizations’ commitments to education and policy efforts. (22:27)

Pet food manufacturers purchase 9.8 million tons of ingredients valued at about $13.2 billion, which then represents about $52 billion in sales. Lara talks about some of the upstream impacts of the pet food industry. Pet food is manufactured in 43 states, with the top five being Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and California. Each of these states is selling more than $700 million worth of ingredients to pet food manufacturing. Relatively few pet food ingredients are imported; amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and marine products would be the exception. Manufactured pet food has a fairly strong export market. (29:55)

Lastly, panelists share their take-home thoughts. (35:56). 

The 2025 report is available at https://www.ifeeder.org/. You can download the full report as well as graphics, and there is a feature that allows you to create your graphs and charts with the data. 

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 [email protected]. Include your size and mailing address, and we’ll mail you a shirt.