A new injectable vitamin product containing five nutrients (zinc, copper, manganese, selenium, and vitamin B12) works just as well as an older four-nutrient product for helping dairy cows get pregnant, according to Gram Research analysis of a 2026 randomized trial of 3,801 cows. The new product showed no meaningful differences in pregnancy rates, conception rates, or time to pregnancy compared to the older product in healthy herds without nutrient deficiencies.
Researchers tested whether a new injectable vitamin product containing five nutrients (zinc, copper, manganese, selenium, and vitamin B12) worked as well as an older product with four nutrients for helping dairy cows get pregnant. They studied nearly 3,800 cows on seven New Zealand farms over one breeding season. The new product performed just as well as the older one across all measures of reproductive success. This means farmers can use either product and expect similar results in healthy herds without nutrient deficiencies.
Key Statistics
A 2026 randomized controlled trial of 3,801 dairy cows in New Zealand found that a new five-nutrient injectable product (ZMSC) was non-inferior to a four-nutrient product (VMM) for reproductive outcomes, with a 6-week pregnancy rate odds ratio of 1.12 (95% CI = 0.96-1.31).
In the same trial, conception rate to first service showed an odds ratio of 1.06 (95% CI = 0.93-1.21) between the new and older injectable products, indicating essentially identical reproductive performance.
Time to conception was similar between the new and older injectable products in the 2026 trial, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI = 0.96-1.13), meaning cows conceived at nearly identical rates regardless of which product was used.
The Quick Take
- What they studied: Whether a new injectable vitamin product with five nutrients works as well as an older product with four nutrients for helping dairy cows become pregnant
- Who participated: Nearly 3,800 dairy cows on seven commercial farms in New Zealand’s Waikato and Canterbury regions. About 1,900 cows received the new product and 1,900 received the older product, about 4 weeks before breeding season
- Key finding: The new product (ZMSC) worked just as well as the older product (VMM) for getting cows pregnant. Pregnancy rates were similar between groups, with no meaningful differences in any reproductive measure tested
- What it means for you: If you manage a dairy farm with healthy cows that don’t have nutrient deficiencies, you can confidently use the new injectable product as an alternative to the older one. Both should produce similar breeding results. However, this study only applies to herds in good health—results may differ in herds with actual nutrient shortages
The Research Details
This was a randomized controlled trial, which is one of the strongest types of research studies. Researchers randomly assigned cows to receive either the new product (ZMSC) or the older product (VMM) about four weeks before the breeding season began. The study took place on seven real dairy farms in New Zealand, making it practical and relevant to actual farming conditions.
Before the study started, researchers checked whether the farms actually needed these nutrients by testing 10 cows on each farm. They only included farms where most cows had normal nutrient levels—this was important because the study was designed to compare two active treatments, not to test whether supplementation helps deficient herds.
The researchers tracked reproductive outcomes from farm records, including how many cows got pregnant within 6 weeks, how many got pregnant overall, how many got pregnant on their first breeding attempt, and how quickly cows conceived. They used statistical methods that accounted for differences between farms, cow age, and other factors that might affect results.
This research approach matters because it tests whether a new product actually works as well as an established one in real-world farming conditions. By studying cows on actual farms rather than in laboratory settings, the results are more likely to apply to farmers’ everyday situations. The researchers also made sure farms were similar in terms of nutrient status, which makes the comparison fair and meaningful.
This study has several strengths: it was randomized (reducing bias), included a large number of cows (nearly 3,800), took place across multiple farms (making results more generalizable), and used proper statistical methods. However, the study only included farms with good baseline reproductive performance and no evidence of nutrient deficiency. Results may not apply to herds with actual nutrient shortages or poor reproductive performance. The study compared two active treatments rather than testing whether supplementation helps compared to no treatment at all.
What the Results Show
The new product (ZMSC) performed identically to the older product (VMM) across all measures of reproductive success. For the 6-week pregnancy rate, the new product showed an odds ratio of 1.12, meaning it was slightly numerically higher but the difference was not statistically significant. The final pregnancy rate showed an odds ratio of 1.06, again showing no meaningful difference. Conception rate to first service had an odds ratio of 1.06, and the 3-week submission rate had an odds ratio of 1.18—all showing similar performance between products.
Time to conception (how quickly cows got pregnant) was also similar between groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.04. This means cows receiving the new product conceived at essentially the same rate as cows receiving the older product. None of these differences reached statistical significance, meaning they could easily be due to chance rather than a real difference between products.
The researchers concluded that the new product was non-inferior to the older product, which is the technical way of saying ‘it works just as well.’ They set a 5% non-inferiority margin before the study, meaning they would accept small differences up to that threshold. All results fell well within this acceptable range.
The study also examined whether the new product might actually be superior (better) than the older one. Although the new product contains an additional nutrient (vitamin B12), the data showed no evidence that it outperformed the older product on any measure. This suggests that for healthy herds without nutrient deficiencies, the extra nutrient doesn’t provide additional reproductive benefits.
This research adds to the growing body of evidence that injectable trace element products can support reproductive performance in dairy cattle. However, this is one of the first studies to directly compare a five-nutrient product to a four-nutrient product in a rigorous randomized trial. The findings support the use of either product in well-managed herds, though they don’t establish whether either product is better than no supplementation at all.
The study only included farms in New Zealand with good baseline reproductive performance and no evidence of nutrient deficiency. Results may not apply to herds with actual nutrient shortages, poor reproductive performance, or different management systems. The study compared two active treatments rather than testing whether supplementation helps compared to no treatment. Additionally, the study was conducted in pasture-grazed systems, so results may differ in other farming systems. The study also didn’t measure other important outcomes like milk production, health, or longevity.
The Bottom Line
For dairy farms with healthy cows and no evidence of nutrient deficiency, the new injectable product (ZMSC) can be used as a comparable alternative to the older product (VMM) with confidence. Both products should produce similar reproductive results. However, these recommendations apply specifically to well-managed herds in good health. Farms with suspected nutrient deficiencies should consult with a veterinarian before deciding on supplementation strategy. The study does not provide evidence about whether supplementation helps compared to no treatment at all.
Dairy farmers and veterinarians managing pasture-grazed herds in good health should care about this research. It provides practical guidance for choosing between two injectable products. However, farmers managing herds with poor reproductive performance, suspected nutrient deficiencies, or different management systems should consult with a veterinarian before applying these findings. This research is less relevant to intensive confinement systems or herds in regions with very different feed quality.
Injectable trace element products are typically given once before the breeding season. Reproductive benefits should be observable within one breeding cycle (about 3 weeks for conception, up to 6 weeks for pregnancy confirmation). However, this study measured outcomes over an entire breeding season, so full benefits may take several weeks to months to become apparent in herd-level statistics.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the new injectable vitamin product with B12 work better than the older product for dairy cow pregnancy?
No, a 2026 trial of 3,801 cows found the new five-nutrient product (ZMSC) performed identically to the older four-nutrient product (VMM) across all reproductive measures. The additional B12 nutrient provided no extra benefit in healthy herds.
What injectable trace element products should I use for my dairy herd?
If your herd is healthy with no nutrient deficiencies, either the new ZMSC or older VMM product will produce similar reproductive results. Consult your veterinarian to determine if supplementation is needed and which product suits your specific farm conditions.
How much do injectable vitamin products improve dairy cow pregnancy rates?
This study compared two products rather than testing whether supplementation helps versus no treatment. In healthy herds without deficiencies, both products showed similar performance, but the study doesn’t establish absolute improvement over no supplementation.
Will the new injectable product work for my dairy farm?
The new product worked well in New Zealand pasture-grazed herds with good reproductive performance and no nutrient deficiencies. Results may differ in herds with poor reproduction, suspected deficiencies, or different management systems—consult your veterinarian.
When should I give injectable trace element products to dairy cows?
In this study, cows received injections about 4 weeks before the breeding season started. Timing may vary based on your farm’s specific breeding schedule and herd needs—work with your veterinarian to determine optimal timing.
Want to Apply This Research?
- Track conception rate (percentage of cows pregnant on first service) and 6-week in-calf rate (percentage pregnant within 6 weeks of breeding start) monthly. Compare these metrics before and after implementing the new product to monitor real-world performance on your specific farm.
- If using the app to manage a dairy herd, log the date of injectable product administration and the specific product used (ZMSC or VMM). Then track individual cow breeding dates and pregnancy confirmation dates to monitor whether the new product delivers expected reproductive performance in your herd.
- Create a dashboard comparing your herd’s conception rates and pregnancy rates to baseline performance from previous years. Monitor these metrics monthly throughout the breeding season. If performance drops significantly below historical averages, consult with a veterinarian to investigate other factors that might be affecting reproduction.
This research applies specifically to pasture-grazed dairy herds in good health with no evidence of trace element deficiency. Results may not apply to herds with poor reproductive performance, suspected nutrient deficiencies, different management systems, or different geographic regions. This study compared two active treatments rather than testing whether supplementation helps compared to no treatment. Farmers should consult with a veterinarian before making decisions about injectable supplementation for their specific herd, as individual farm conditions, feed quality, and herd health status may significantly affect outcomes. This article is for informational purposes and should not replace professional veterinary advice.
This research translation is published by Gram Research, the science division of Gram, an AI-powered nutrition tracking app.