Milk Replacer Costs and Your Options

On a dairy farm, the focal point of management decisions is typically anchored on the milking herd. However, it’s critical to consider other enterprises on the operation as well, such as calves. Calves are non-revenue generating unless they are sold or until they reach the milking herd. Therefore, expense management becomes a priority for this enterprise. The largest expense for calves is feed costs. There are several options to reduce feed costs for calves on milk; each has pros and cons, and it is important to consider the goals of your calf-rearing program in addition to obvious cash costs. In this article, we discuss the pros and cons of feeding milk replacer, whole milk, and waste milk, and economic considerations to support informed decision-making.

Calf Milk Feeding Options: Pros and Cons

Milk Replacer

Milk replacer has been the predominant alternative to whole milk for feeding dairy calves for decades, largely because it provides a consistent nutrient composition, is easy to store and handle, and reduces the risk of disease transmission (Van Saun, 2025). Milk replacer also offers flexibility in feeding rates, allowing producers to adjust programs to accommodate changes like calf age and weather. However, milk replacer costs are sensitive to milk protein markets, and all-milk formulations have become expensive during periods of whey protein price volatility. For example, increasing price volatility since 2000 has led to milk replacer costs exceeding $75 per 50-pound bag for standard products containing 20% protein, 20% fat, and all-milk protein. In these circumstances, the potential cost advantage of feeding milk replacer becomes more questionable.

All-Milk Milk Replacer and Alternative Protein Sources

Since the introduction of milk replacers, their formulation has focused on two primary objectives: providing ingredients with highly digestible protein and minimizing the cost of feeding calves. Balancing these objectives, however, has often been challenging. Historically, as the price of ingredients fluctuated, milk replacer manufacturers adjusted formulations to lower production costs. Once a source of protein is identified, processing techniques are refined to maximize its utilization. Increased processing typically creates new uses for the protein, enhancing its value and prompting manufacturers to search for alternative protein sources.

In all-milk milk replacer formulas, dry whey and whey protein concentrate (WPC) are the two main sources of protein. Figure 1 shows the price of whey protein concentrate (containing 34% protein, WPC-34) and dry whey used in milk replacer from January 2000 to January 2026. The price of WPC is driven by demand for use in human foods, both in the US and around the world. From January 2000 to the present, we have experienced fairly stable prices for dry whey used in milk replacer in real terms, but 2007 had the highest prices. Similarly, WPC-34 had the highest prices in 2007 and much greater price volatility over the time period presented relative to whey milk replacer.

Note: Prices reported weekly and are inflation adjusted to 2025 dollars.

Milk proteins can be replaced by a variety of non-milk proteins, such as soy, wheat, egg, blood plasma, and potato. These non-milk proteins are less expensive than milk protein, but it is important to understand that they are not equivalent to milk protein. Replacement of milk protein with certain non-milk protein sources in milk replacers may reduce calf growth rates, depending on the protein source (Huang et al., 2015). Soy proteins are the most researched of these alternatives, but there are several types of soy protein that vary in their acceptability. The list below provides alternative proteins categorized by their suitability for use in calf milk replacer. Proteins in the "preferred" category are milk proteins. Those categorized as "acceptable" are processed specifically for milk replacer, and their use is supported by research. Proteins in the "marginal" category are sometimes used in milk replacer, but they may vary in quality and should be used with caution.

Milk replacer protein sources categorized by their acceptability:

Preferred

• Dried whey protein concentrate
• Dried skim milk
• Casein
• Dried whey
• Dried whey product

Acceptable*

• Soy protein isolate
• Protein-modified soy flour
• Soy protein concentrate
• Animal plasma
• Egg protein
• Modified wheat protein

*Acceptable when used as a partial substitute for milk protein.

Marginal

• Soy flour
• Modified potato protein

Adapted from "A Guide to Modern Milk Replacer," Bovine Alliance on Management and Nutrition, 2002.

Non-milk proteins are not acceptable for feeding calves younger than 3 weeks of age, as they do not digest non-milk proteins efficiently (Van Saun, 2025). A further consideration is that whenever calves' feed is changed, they will undergo a period of adjustment. Changing feeds around 2 to 3 weeks of age puts stress on calves at the precise time when their immune system is at its lowest point (Hulbert and Moisá, 2016). Protection from colostrum is waning, and the calf's own immune system has not developed full functionality. Also, if calves are weaned at 4 or 5 weeks, they will barely have had time to adjust to the new milk replacer before weaning. Therefore, combining early weaning with a change in milk replacer is not advised. Another consideration when using products with alternative proteins is that two milk replacer products are needed to meet the needs of all calves (e.g., milk protein source < 3 weeks of age, non-milk protein source for older calves). These products must be kept separate on the farm, which requires increased management time to handle two products each day for calves of various ages.

Saleable Whole Milk

Another option, one that has been discouraged for over 50 years, is feeding calves saleable whole milk from the bulk tank. Historically, this has not been the most profitable option; however, given the current high prices for milk replacer, it is an option worth considering. Before switching from milk replacer to whole milk, it is important to consider:

• Disease risk. Feeding raw (not pasteurized) milk to calves can spread Johne's and perpetuate the disease in a herd. If possible, only feed milk from test-negative cows. If Johne's disease status is unknown or milk cannot be separated, pasteurization should be considered.
• Pasteurization cost. Disease risk can be reduced greatly by proper pasteurization of whole milk prior to feeding. Be sure to include investment and operating costs. Another important consideration is whether the costs to install the pasteurization equipment will be justified if milk replacer prices come back to a more reasonable level.
• Convenience and labor. One of the advantages of milk replacer is the convenience of storing a dry, relatively stable product rather than a perishable liquid. Consider the storage and handling changes that would need to occur if switching to whole milk.

Waste Milk

Waste milk from treated or recently fresh cows that cannot be sold is another potential option to reduce your milk replacer cost. There are several management issues that must be addressed to take the best advantage of this milk. First, it is strongly recommended that waste milk be pasteurized. This milk is more likely than saleable whole milk to contain large populations of infectious organisms, and proper pasteurization is very effective in reducing bacterial numbers. In addition, feeding waste milk often exposes calves to more antibiotics and increases the risk of antibiotic residues in market calves. This is less of an issue, however, if calves are strictly kept as herd replacements.

It is also important to recognize that the nutrient value of waste milk often fluctuates from day to day, depending on the number of cows contributing milk and the reason their milk is being kept out of the bulk tank. Daily variation in the milk's composition can contribute to scouring in calves. This is most important in smaller herds where 1 or 2 cows make up a majority of the waste milk. In larger herds, this problem is often diluted out and is not as critical.

Another challenge is developing a feeding strategy that maximizes the use of waste milk but does not compromise calf health or growth. Most farms do not have enough waste milk to supply all calves from birth to weaning. If there is enough waste milk to meet this need, it is highly likely that milk quality and herd health are compromised. If there is not enough waste milk to supply, then additional strategies are implemented. One strategy is to use some high somatic cell count cows to add to the waste milk supply, which would also lower your bulk tank SCC level. If high SCC milk is fed to calves, it becomes even more important to prevent intersucking. Research shows that calves can drink milk containing mastitis pathogens with no added risk of developing infections in their mammary gland later in life. However, those bacteria can be spread from one calf's mouth to another's udder if intersucking is allowed. The simplest way to prevent intersucking is to house calves individually. A secondary strategy to make up for the gap between available waste milk and that needed to feed calves is to feed milk replacer or whole milk for all or part of the pre-weaning period. It is preferable to place the highest priority on the nutrition of calves less than 3 weeks of age, as they are less able to cope with changes in feed than older calves.

Comparing Milk Replacer and Whole Milk Feeding Costs

We developed a simple spreadsheet to compare the cost of feeding whole milk versus milk replacer, with a link provided for producers who wish to enter their own values. The spreadsheet calculates the cost per pound of dry matter fed and compares the nutrients provided by each feed. Table 1 uses this spreadsheet to present a side‑by‑side comparison, including cost per pound of dry matter and a summary of nutrients.

For whole milk, the table shows the mailbox milk price and nutrient composition (e.g., total solids, true protein, and fat). These values should be available on your milk check; if total solids are not reported, a value of 12.5% can be used. The weight of liquid whole milk fed to calves (1.5 gal/day, 12.9 lb) is also listed.

For milk replacer, the table provides the cost and weight per bag, nutrient composition (e.g., dry matter, crude protein, and fat), and the weight of powder fed to calves (6 L/day, 1.65 lb powder). Dry matter content of milk replacer should be listed on the bag, but if not, a value of 95% can be assumed.

The table shows the calculations for the cost per pound of dry matter for each feed and the cost for 50 pounds of dry matter. This allows for a quick comparison. For example, the table below shows whole milk costs at $59 per 50 lb of dry matter, and milk replacer costs of $79 per 50 lb of dry matter. The table also accounts for the fact that milk replacer is not 100% dry matter, so the cost per bag is higher than the equivalent dry matter cost.

Finally, the table below reports the daily cost per calf, which considers both the amount fed and the cost. It also provides a comparison of the nutritional content of the feeds, showing crude protein and fat on a dry matter basis, as well as the actual amounts fed to calves. Based on these costs, feeding whole milk is more economical than feeding milk replacer under the current price assumptions. However, it's also important to note the assumptions used in the calculations and that these prices are relatively variable.

Table 1. Cost comparison of whole milk versus milk replacer.

References

Hulbert, L. E., and S. J. Moisá. 2016. Stress, immunity, and the management of calves. J. Dairy Sci. 99:3199–3216. doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10198

Huang, K., Y. Tu, B. Si, G. Xu, J. Guo, F. Guo, C. Yang, and Q. Diao. 2015. Effects of protein sources for milk replacers on growth performance and serum biochemical indexes of suckling calves. Anim. Nutr. 1:349–355. doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.11.012

Van Saun, R. J. 2025. Feeding young dairy calves. Merck Veterinary Manual. Accessed April 10, 2026. 

Authors

Original article developed by Coleen M. Jones and Jud Heinrichs. Updated by Jessica Mitchell, PhD and Becca Weir, PhD.