I read, with care and concern, the articles published today regarding beef and dairy cattle ration perspectives. When we live in a world of high cost commodities and dwindling supplies, my question is:

“With what and how are we going to meet the energy demands of the high producing dairy cow with these components at historically high market prices without going bankrupt in milk production?”

Approximately 90% of the dairy cows in the United States experience a period of negative energy balance in the first four to ten weeks after calving. The energy requirements are so great that these cows cannot physically consume enough feedstuffs to meet them, even though they are fed what is believed to be high-energy, high-concentrate diets which are comprised of high priced grains, protein sources, fats, oils, sugars, and other antiquated means of introducing soluble carbohydrates into the diet of the rumen animal. Where is the long stem effective fiber?

This early lactation period is also the time a dairy cow must be bred to maintain a 365 day calving interval, however reproducing is a luxury for the animal. Milk production is the higher priority of her body, and reproduction function is compromised during the period of negative energy balance because the energy is used for milk production rather than the estrus cycle and pregnancy.

Many authorities are of the perspective that we need to increase corn silage feeding where possible to meet the digestible carbohydrates in the diet of the high producing genetic bred cows of today. Some resources elaborate extensively on BMRCS for higher NDF fermentability and good starch levels, but my question is: Where does the cow get her effective long stem fiber to reach the requirements for milk, butterfat, protein, conception, and sustain energy balance for maintenance (body score/health stability)? Some suggest harvesting earlier maturities of grass and alfalfa to reach highly digestible NDF in soluble fiber. Again, may I reiterate: Where is the long stem effective fiber?

There are those that taut using monensin to improve rumen propionate yields and milk production efficiency, providing more return for lower loss and then state that yeast, derivatives and several direct fed microbials (DFMs) improve carbohydrate digestion, but they only suggest carbohydrate digestion instead of utilization of forage. Once more, I say: With high cost grains and meals, where is the efficiency on the recommendation for feeding lower fiber producing feedstuffs with higher digestible fiber carbohydrates, minimal NDF, and starch?

Few in the industry today seem to be concerned about the utilization of complex carbohydrate and the 140-160 relative value (i.e., alfalfa hay, grass, and silage/haylage, etc.) which if thoroughly investigated would show that most regions with dairy operations are in 150-170 RFV forage ranges rather than 200-225 RFV forage. We have to be concerned about the reality of the dairy owners regarding their feedstuffs, and we must be able to supply their high producers with adequate energy for today’s genetic challenges.

It seems that few truly understand the role of rumen fermentation, as far as a complex carbohydrate, because the published papers qualify the conundrum. Everybody wants to talk about simple sugars, starches, fats, oils, or some highly fermentable energy source, but what do these do to the animal?   No one elaborates on the side effects of these ingredients when incorporated into the diet.   How do we progress from this point to understanding the validity of roughage loving bacteria? How do we come to understand that these roughage-loving bacteria remove the sugars and starches from the stem of the lower quality feedstuffs and allow available energy to the host?   We have to introduce to these bacteria a source of hydrogen to multiply their action to affect the removal of the sugars and starches that end up in the manure pit instead of in the milk tank.

The sugar obtained by the breakdown of cellulose is either used in the synthesis of amino acids, or stored as a glucose polymer within the cell. Per prior research with many years of review by Chalupa, Evans, and Stillion (referencing 1959), hydrogen-rich ethanol or ethyl (grain) alcohol was found to increase roughage loving bacteria which enhanced cellulose digestion under in vitro conditions.

In 1959, William Chalupa, J.L. Evans, and M.C. Stillion found that ethanol increased cellulose digestion under in vitro conditions. Under in vitro conditions by the equi-caloric addition of several metabolites suggests that ethanol was functioning as an energy source (Dori and Doosli, 1959). Ethanol in rumen fermentation is an energy source. Resource: Cooperative Extension, US Department of Agriculture, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.

In 1983, “Digestion of rumen bacteria in vitro”, British Journal of Nutrition 49:101—108. (Rowlett Research institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB, Scotland.)

Since 1968, the successes with this product have expanded to include many dairy herds that experience the enhancements of a liquid hydrogen-enriched solutions. Income over feed costs (IOFC) is advancing, body score and coat condition are improved, milk production is up, butterfat and milk fat are elevated, health challenges are reversed (i.e., bloat, DA’s, Laminitis, acidosis, ketosis, estrus depletions, etc.), improving the overall operation from costs and labor to production and quality products.

The studies I reference are only a few of the clinical and field study instances wherein ethanol worked, and continues to work, in the rumen to substantiate the extraction of sugars and starches from the stem of lower RFV forages. Recent data from West Virginia University and the University of Minnesota substantiates the findings of the last 50+ years regarding liquid hydrogen-enriched supplementation or solutions (LHES, pronounced ‘Less’.

Would it not make more sense to direct the dairymen of this age to feed a supplemental energy source in the form of hydrogen energy that allows the Gram-negative bacteria to better utilize lower quality forages, and decrease the high priced grains, protein sources, fats, oils, sugars, and other antiquated means of introducing soluble carbohydrates into the diet of the rumen animal? Also, using a hydrogen-enriched supplementation in place of a high grain ration increases microbial efficiency by 39% which decreases the gases in the rumen to approximately 8%, thereby deterring bloat, decreasing mortality rates and impacting green house gas effects that are a vital concern of late.

The beauty of LHES is that it is effective in both ruminant and monogastric livestock. The UN Report on Carbon emissions and the carbon footprint studies indicated that livestock contributes to 20% of the carbon gases, globally. Alexander Hristov’s article in the February, 2011, issue of Progressive Dairyman states: “In the United States, farm animals are responsible for about 50 percent of anthropogenic Ammonia emissions.” Significant reductions are possible and are in effect at many facilities, today.

A hydrogen atom has six different levels of ultraviolent rays (UV-1). Ethyl alcohol contains the highest levels of UV-1 known to man. The roughage loving bacteria in rumen are not interested in the alcohol per se, but in the hydrogen.

Beef and Dairy cattle have to meet their daily hydrogen requirements through rations. This requires the animal to consume more pounds of feed and reduces conversion.   Weakened cattle consume less than a full ration. Healthy cattle cannot consume enough to meet the need. There is not enough provision in a high grain, carbohydrate, fat, oil and sugar enriched ration, consequently forcing the animal to consume more pounds of feed, reducing conversion and weakening the production source. Increased roughage utilized by the dairy cow will enhance butterfat, milk protein without milk flow decline, and afford the opportunity for increased product price gains. In beef production, growth acceleration, growth stability, increased supply, health maintenance, reduced stress, elevated nutritional utilization, yields lower costs of production, and Choice qualities.

Over fifty years of studies have proven the effective impacts of using an ethanol feed supplement, determining that one pound of LHES plus three pounds of roughage has the grain energy of four pounds of corn. Ethyl Alcohol has been proven to work thirty times faster than a carbohydrate source of energy and does not create acidosis challenges as induced by high grain rations. The hydrogen rich supplementation exponentially increases the number of roughage loving bacteria in the rumen. This allows the animal to utilize and process a greater ratio of roughage to grain, reducing the incidences of laminitis prolific with high grain rations with the most common cause being high grain and low long stem rations that are still used in trying to satisfy the demands of present day genetics without consideration of evolving, constant and absolute stressors. Everyone just keeps trying to adjust a system that does not function as effectively as it should, and that is simply not progressive.

Dairy concerns are conception, butterfat, milk production, production costs, and cull rates. Beef producers are concerned with conception, increased weaning weight, production costs, and culling rate. Any producer pursuing success needs an energy source that aids in solving challenges and offers the opportunity to utilize a simplistic application of hydrogen-enriched supplement that the animal is capable of consuming on a daily basis.

Decreased production costs (i.e., grains, additives, health care, culls, mortality, reproduction, and labor, etc.), environmental advantages, and increased product production, and improved product quality diminishing age-old universal challenges within these industries results in more profit, less risk, greater value to both the producer and the consumer, with the added value of an overall improved production tool – the ruminant animal – the most dominant species on the planet. USDA reported in 2002, over 33.3 million beef cattle in the United States, alone.

University of Minnesota study information of 2009, the West Virginia University exclusive study prepared in 2010, and the Charles Sniffen and Stephen Mehen expert review of the West Virginia University Study support the data of fifty years ago authored or sponsored by Phil and Kent Anderson of Feed Service Corporation.   The formula utilized with a simple implementation of free choice or TMR, works on several levels, in many disciplines.

There is a better way. As with new genetics and new challenges in environment, annual grain production reductions of 3% per annum through 2019, historically higher costs standardization for grain commodities, continually demanding global markets, and industry regulations forcing consolidations of operations and production, demand strategies and formulas for successful implementation as requirements will evolve. Either we meet the challenge and utilize the knowledge or we keep applying the antiquated perspectives and let opportunities expire. Fifty years of results may well be the future of the industry. There is a solution, and yes, we have a choice. Feed them to death or feed them to life.

LHES is more. Think about it.

Dr. Kenneth W. Youngblood, PhD. He is the CEO of 1 on 1 Nutrition and has studied and designed liquid hydrogen-enriched supplement formulas since 1967. You may contact him by emailing

© 2017 by Kenneth Youngblood – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>