Effects of technoyeast (Biochem) supplementation on milk energy value, milk quality, and feed-energy efficiency in lactating dairy cows

Introduction

Live yeast and yeast culture products derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae are widely used in dairy cattle diets to support rumen fermentation stability, fiber digestion, and microbial protein synthesis (Nocek and Kautz, 2006; Robinson and Erasmus, 2009) [6,8] . Quantitative meta-analyses of randomized trials have reported favorable, though variable, effects of yeast supplementation on rumen fermentation parameters and milk production (Desnoyers et al., 2009) [7] , and a meta-analysis specific to a commercial yeast culture product reported mean increases of approximately 1.18 kg/day in milk yield and 1.65 kg/day in Energy Corrected Milk (ECM) versus untreated controls (Poppy et al., 2012) [11] . More recent meta-analytic work continues to report improvements in milk yield and milk composition with yeast culture supplementation in Holstein cows (Xiang et al., 2025) [12] , and controlled studies have reported reduced somatic cell count (SCC) with sustained Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation, consistent with a supportive role in udder health and immune function (Suayroop et al., 2026; Vailati-Riboni et al., 2021) [13,14] . Because raw milk yield does not account for differences in milk fat and protein content, Energy Corrected Milk (ECM) is widely used to standardize milk output to a common energy basis (Tyrrell and Reid, 1965; NASEM, 2021) [2] , and is considered a more commercially relevant metric than raw yield alone, particularly where milk payment systems reward solids content and where feed-energy efficiency drives profitability. The present trial was conducted to evaluate whether TechnoYeast (Biochem), a yeast-based supplement, was associated with differences in milk yield, ECM, milk composition, SCC, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and feedenergy efficiency relative to a regular yeast supplement under commercial farm conditions, and to translate any observed ECM advantage into an indicative feed-cost and return-oninvestment (ROI) model for corporate and commercial evaluation.

Materials and Methods

Animals and trial design

Twenty-four lactating dairy cows were allocated to two Control replicates (C1, C2; fed regular farm feed with a standard yeast supplement) and two Treatment replicates (T1, T2; fed regular farm feed with TechnoYeast, Biochem), with six cows per replicate. The trial ran from 22 April to 02 June 2026 and included a baseline/adaptation phase and an experimental phase. The supplied dataset (24 cows) differed from an earlier proposed protocol of five cows per group; this should be clarified before any external scientific publication of these data.

Data collection

Daily milk yield was recorded as the sum of morning and evening milking. Milk composition (fat, solids-not-fat [SNF], protein, lactose) and somatic cell count (SCC) were recorded on multiple sampling dates across the trial. Blood urea and BUN were measured on three dates (09 May, 20 May, and 28 May 2026). Blood urea and BUN represent the same nitrogen metabolism pathway (BUN = blood urea x 0.467) and were treated as a single biomarker for interpretation.

Energy corrected milk (ecm) calculation

ECM was calculated using the standard US dairy-industry formula derived from the milk-energy relationships of Tyrrell and Reid (1965) [2]: ECM (kg/day) = 0.327 x Milk kg + 12.95 x Fat kg + 7.20 x Protein kg where Fat kg = Milk kg x Fat% / 100, and Protein kg = Milk kg x Protein% / 100.

Statistical approach

Because Control and Treatment groups were not balanced for baseline milk yield (Control cows started at higher production), primary comparisons used within-cow change from baseline to the experimental phase and a difference-indifference (DID) calculation for ECM: DID = (Treatment change) -(Control change). Simple group means are reported for transparency but are not used alone as the basis for commercial claims.

Feed-energy and economic modeling

Actual ration Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) and dry matter intake (DMI) were not measured in this trial. A scenariobased model was therefore used to translate the observed ECM advantage into feed-energy and cost equivalents, using the relationship NEL (Mcal/kg DM) = 0.0245 x TDN% -0.12, an assumed energy requirement of 0.74 Mcal NEL per kg ECM, and an assumed feed intake of 20 kg/cow/day (held constant across groups and phases for comparability). Cost assumptions were: dairy feed cost at 70% TDN = Rs 30/kg; TechnoYeast cost = Rs 650/kg; inclusion rate = 1 kg/MT feed (Rs 0.65/kg finished feed). These figures are scenario estimates, not directly measured ration values, and are presented as such throughout this report. Control had higher raw milk yield at trial start; the within-cow comparison shows both groups declined during the experimental phase, with a small difference in decline magnitude (-1.00 vs -1.03 kg/cow/day). [13,14] . This should be interpreted as a milk-quality and udder-health supportive signal rather than a therapeutic disease-control claim. 4.

Results

Milk yield

Energy corrected milk (ECM)

Blood urea nitrogen (bun)

Return on Investment (ROI) Model

Table 10: Implied dietary TDN% corresponding to observed ECM, assuming a fixed DMI of 20 kg/cow/day for both groups (modeled equivalence, not a measured ration TDN).

Feed intake kg/day

Gross

Discussion

The direction of the ECM and SCC findings in this trial is consistent with published meta-analyses of yeast and yeast culture supplementation in dairy cattle. Poppy et al. (2012) [11] reported a mean ECM increase of 1.65 kg/day with a commercial yeast culture product across 36 studies, and Desnoyers et al. (2009) [7] . reported improved rumen fermentation parameters across 157 experiments with live yeast supplementation. A more recent meta-analysis (Xiang et al., 2025) [12] . similarly reported improved milk yield and composition with yeast culture supplementation in Holstein cows. The magnitude of the ECM advantage observed here (0.99 kg/cow/day, difference-in-difference) is directionally consistent with, though numerically smaller than, the pooled estimate reported by Poppy et al. (2012) [11] , which is expected given the present trial's small sample size, short duration, and baseline imbalance between groups. [13,14] , and with proposed mechanisms involving yeast-derived betaglucans and mannans supporting immune function and rumen stability (Nocek and Kautz, 2006; Robinson and Erasmus, 2009) [6,8] . This should nonetheless be treated as a supportive milk-quality signal rather than a validated disease-control claim, since this trial was not designed or powered to evaluate clinical or subclinical mastitis outcomes directly. The feed-energy and ROI scenarios in Section 3.6-3.7 rely on assumed, not measured, ration TDN and DMI, and should be interpreted as illustrative commercial modeling rather than as a validated cost-benefit claim. The core biological result -a smaller ECM decline and lower SCC with TechnoYeast -is the primary finding that should inform commercial discussion, with the feed-cost modeling providing an indicative, assumption-dependent translation of that result into economic terms.

Limitations

Control and Treatment groups were not balanced at baseline milk yield; all comparisons should be read as baselineadjusted, not as simple group averages. Actual ration TDN and DMI were not measured; all TDN and ROI figures are scenario models, not directly measured values.

Milk composition sampling schedule should be harmonized across all cows in future trials, ideally with cow-level rather than group-level averaging.

The 24-cow dataset differs from an earlier proposed 5cows/group protocol; this discrepancy should be resolved before any external scientific submission.

Conclusion

In this farm-level trial, TechnoYeast (Biochem) supplementation was associated with a smaller decline in Energy Corrected Milk (approximately 0.99 kg/cow/day difference-in-difference advantage) and approximately 40.4% lower somatic cell count relative to a regular yeast supplement, indicating better-conserved milk energy value and supportive milk-quality effects. A scenario-based feedenergy model suggests a plausible positive return on investment (approximately 54% ROI at a 2% effective TDNequivalent advantage), pending confirmation with measured ration TDN and DMI. These findings are directionally consistent with the published literature on yeast and yeast culture supplementation in dairy cattle, but given the trial's baseline imbalance, small scale, and short duration, further controlled validation with matched parity, days in milk, body condition, DMI, and ration TDN is recommended before broader commercial or scientific claims are made.

References

1. National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th rev ed. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2001.
2. Tyrrell HF, Reid JT. Prediction of the energy value of cow's milk. J Dairy Sci. 1965;48(9):1215-1223.
3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 8th rev ed. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2021.
4. Overton TR, Waldron MR. Nutritional management of transition dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2004;87:E105-E119.
5. Lean IJ, et al. Invited review: use of meta-analysis in animal health and reproduction. J Dairy Sci. 2012;95:5425-5438.
6. Nocek JE, Kautz WP. Direct-fed microbial supplementation on ruminal digestion, health and performance of pre-and postpartum dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89:260-266.
7. Desnoyers M, Giger-Reverdin S, Bertin G, DuvauxPonter C, Sauvant D. Meta-analysis of the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on ruminal parameters and milk production of ruminants. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92(4):1620-1632.
8. Robinson PH, Erasmus LJ. Effects of analyzable diet components on responses of lactating dairy cows to Saccharomyces cerevisiae products. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2009;149:185-198.
9. Nousiainen J, et al. Evaluation of milk urea nitrogen as a diagnostic of protein feeding. J Dairy Sci. 2004;87:386398.
10. Jonker JS, et al. Using milk urea nitrogen to predict nitrogen excretion and utilization efficiency in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1998;81:2681-2692.
11. Poppy GD, Rabiee AR, Lean IJ, Sanchez WK, Dorton KL, Morley PS. A meta-analysis of the effects of feeding yeast culture produced by anaerobic fermentation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on milk production of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2012;95(10):60276041.
12. Xiang H, Dong X, Lin X, Hou Q, Wang Z. Effects of yeast culture supplementation on milk yield and milk composition in Holstein dairy cows: a meta-analysis. Animals (Basel). 2025;15(21):3065.
13. Suayroop N, Khanthusaeng V, Kraisoon A, Bunma T, Nabthonglang J, Navanukraw P, et al. Longterm Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation enhances milk yield and reproductive performance in lactating dairy cows on smallholder farms. Animals (Basel). 2026;16(1):32.
14. Vailati-Riboni M, Coleman DN, Lopreiato V, Alharthi A, Bucktrout RE, Abdel-Hamied E, et al. Feeding a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product improves udder health and immune response to a Streptococcus uberis mastitis challenge in mid-lactation dairy cows. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2021;12:62.