Breaking free from the chains of the past Where
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law
waiting on some printed page We're charting new
ground in the digital age From genomic codes
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight
we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast,
where we dig deep into the innovations reshaping
dairy farming. Today's episode is a game changer.
Imagine a world where a single genetic tweak
could save a baby's life, and that same technology
is now poised to revolutionize your herd. We're
breaking down how CRISPR, the gene editing tool
behind a recent medical miracle, is steering
dairy farming into uncharted territory. From
mastitis -resistant Holsteins to heat -tolerant
jerseys, and the end of dehorning, this isn't
sci -fi. It's the future of your farm. We'll
unpack the science, the savings, and the ethical
questions every dairy professional needs to ask.
So grab your milk jug, settle in, and let's explore
how gene editing could rewrite the rules of dairy
genetics. Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we're
tackling a topic that's really stirring things
up in ag science, and it has, well, potentially
huge implications for your dairy operation. We've
put together a pretty comprehensive report for
the Bullvine Newsroom, Gene Editing Revolutionizing
Dairy Farming, and our job today is to pull out
the crucial bits, the real need -to -know stuff
for you. Exactly. This deep dive is all about
navigating this fast -moving world of gene editing
in dairy. We want to give you a clear picture
of what it is, how it's different from older
methods, the real benefits for farmers. And the
timelines too, right? Plus costs, regulations,
consumer thoughts, the whole package. The whole
package. The goal is really to equip you with
solid information so you can make smart decisions
for your farm's future. Okay, let's get right
into it then. What is gene editing exactly? The
report uses this analogy I liked, like a molecular
find and replace for DNA. And CRISPR -Cas9 is
the big name here. That's a really good way to
think about it, yeah. Find and replace. What's
key is the precision. It's totally different
from older genetic modification where you might
stick in genes from, I don't know, a different
species entirely. Gene editing lets scientists
make really specific tweaks within the animal's
own genetic code. The Journal of Dairy Science
has a lot on this, calling it a super precise
genetic selection tool, right down at the DNA
level. So CRISPR is like, what, tiny scissors
cutting and pasting DNA? Kind of, yeah. Very
precise molecular scissors. They find a specific
spot and make an edit. So it's about improving
what's already there, not adding totally foreign
stuff. The report says this lets you turn on
good traits, switch off bad ones, or just fine
-tune how genes work. Sounds way more efficient.
Oh, it is. Dramatically so. I mean, think about
traditional breeding. You could maybe get some
of these changes over, well, decades? Right,
a long time. Gene editing. The research we looked
at suggests you could achieve what might take,
say, 55 years of conventional breeding, potentially
in just one generation. 55 years in one generation.
Wow. That's a game changer right there. It really
is. Compressing half a century of progress. That's
the potential disruption we're looking at. Okay,
but how does this actually happen on the ground?
The report makes it clear, you know, farmers
won't be doing... CRISPR in the barn. No, no,
definitely not. This is high -tech lab work.
It's done by breeding companies, research institutions,
that sort of thing. So for you listening, access
would come through things you already use, like
AI or maybe embryo transfer, similar to getting
top genetics from select sires or GenX now. Exactly.
That's the likely route. The existing infrastructure?
The systems you use every day, that's probably
how these advanced genetics will be delivered.
Dr. Allison Van Einemem at UC Davis put it well.
She said something like, gene editing doesn't
replace breeding programs. It enhances them.
It lets us make those precise changes much, much
faster. Right, like how genomic testing sped
things up without changing the basic breeding
pyramid structure. Precisely. Same idea. Just
another powerful tool layered on top. Okay, got
it. So we know what it is. Let's dig into the
benefits the game -changing stuff mentioned in
the report. First up, mastitis, called a $2 billion
annual problem for the industry. Ouch. It's a
staggering number, isn't it? Really highlight
the economic weight of mastitis. And the report
breaks it down. Just one clinical case, early
lactation, could cost you around $444. Wow. Yeah,
that's milk loss, treatment, dumped milk, labor,
even higher culling risk. So the idea of gene
editing creating mastitis -resistant hole schemes,
that's huge. And research is happening, places
like Cornell. That's right. They're looking at
specific immune response genes aiming to boost
resistance against bugs like Staph aureus, for
example. The knock -on effects seem massive.
The report lists them. Less antibiotic use. Crucial
point, that one. Lower somatic cell counts, better
animal welfare, fewer treatments, maybe even
better milk quality premiums. It's a whole cascade
of positives. And think about sustainability.
Consumer views on antibiotics. Reducing antibiotic
use is a major, major win. It really makes you
ask, with these kinds of losses and this potential
solution, can the industry afford not to pursue
this? Good question. And lower SEC means healthier
cows, better milk, better paychecks, hopefully.
Exactly. Okay, next big benefit area in the report,
dehorning. Gene editing could eliminate the need
for it using the polled gene. That feels like
a big step for welfare. A really big step. Dehorning
is... You know, it's a tough procedure. Gene
editing for the pole gene means calves are born
naturally hornless. It's a permanent fix. And
there are cost savings, too? Yep. University
Extension folks estimate around $40 per animal
saved just on the dehorning process itself. The
report compares it to how A2A2 genetics became
pretty standard. Colds could go the same way.
So becoming just a baseline expectation. Potentially,
yes. Yeah. And the USDA's Ag Research Service,
they think this pole trait via gene editing is
already in regulatory review. Could be commercially
available in... say, three to five years. That
seems relatively quick compared to maybe some
other applications. It does seem to be one of
the front runners, yeah. All right, another challenge,
especially with climate change, heat stress.
The report says gene editing has answers here,
too. Increasingly critical, this one, when that
temperature humidity index, the THI, gets over
72, production just tanks. You know this if you're
farming in hotter areas. Research down at the
University of Florida, they've introduced the
S -L -I -C -K gene. Gives cattle shorter, sleeker
hair coats. Helps them handle the heat better.
Slick gene, okay. And does it work? Field trials
will look promising. Data from ag experiment
stations shows maybe an 8 -12 % reduction in
production losses from heat stress in these S
-L -I -C -K cattle. 8 -12 % less loss during
heat waves? That's significant. The report mentioned
a California organic farmer losing maybe 15 %
of summer production to heat? Exactly. So reducing
that loss by 8 -12%, that hits the bottom line.
Gene editing here offers a permanent built -in
solution that works alongside your fans and sprinklers.
It's not just about stopping losses and bad weeks.
It's about consistency, right? Keeping production
steadier through the heat. Precisely. It raises
a question for you listening, especially if you're
in a heat -prone area. How much is heat stress
costing you now? What would cutting that loss
by, say, 10 % mean for your farm's viability?
Good questions to ask. Okay, the report also
touched on something exciting. Using gene editing
for specialty milk. Creating premium products,
maybe alternatives to standard fluid milk. Yeah,
this is really interesting. The potential to
fine -tune milk composition is huge. For example,
converting A1 cows to produce only A2 milk. Gene
editing can do that efficiently by targeting
the beta -casein gene. And people seem interested
in A2 milk, right? Willing to pay more. Studies
suggest so, yeah. Growing interest, premium potential.
But it goes beyond A2. You could enhance kappa
casein for better cheese making, think higher
yields, faster setting. A research actually showed
they could potentially double kappa casein using
gene editing. Double it. Wow. And then there's
removing allergens like beta -lactoglobulin to
create hypoallergenic milk options. With fluid
milk consumption facing challenges, these specialty
milks could be a real opportunity, couldn't they?
New markets, added value. Absolutely. It fits
right into diversification, meaning changing
consumer tastes. Which leads to a question for
the processors and co -ops listening. Are you
exploring these specialty milk potentials? Are
you looking at how gene editing could create
new value streams? Okay, let's shift gears to
the practical side. Timelines. Economics. When
can farmers actually get these genetics and what's
it going to cost? Right. The nitty gritty. Access,
as we said, likely through the breeding companies,
AI services, the usual channels. And because
AI is so widespread, once a good gene edited
trait gets into elite bulls. it can spread pretty
quickly. Okay, so what are the estimated timelines?
The report had some figures based on USDA, ARS,
and university work. It did. So hornlessness,
the polled trait, we mentioned three, five years,
maybe $40 per animal saved. Mastitis resistance,
targeting genes like CD18, looking more like
five, seven years out. But with that huge $2
billion potential industry impact, heat tolerance,
the SLICK gene, maybe six, eight years, offering
that 8 -12 % reduction in heat loss. And further
out, maybe 8 -10 years. Things like tuberculosis
resistance, targeting the NRAMP1 gene, which
could save the industry $150 million a year.
The report also mentioned an uncomfortable truth.
that these timelines might drag on because of
regulations or just industry inertia, not just
technical hurdles. That's a really important
caveat. Yes, the tech might be ready or nearly
ready, but the pathway to market can be slow.
Economic analyses suggest every year of delay
costs the industry billions in lost opportunities.
Billions. Billions lost. And what about the cost
to the farmer for these genetics? Premium price
expected. Probably. At least initially. You'd
expect a premium over conventional semen or embryos.
That reflects the R &D costs and the extra value
these traits bring. We saw the same pattern with
sex semen, with high genomic embryos when they
first came out. But you have to weigh that initial
cost against the long -term savings, right? That's
the calculation. Exactly. The report stresses
that. You weigh the upfront cost against, say,
$40 saved per pulled calf, maybe $400 plus saved
per avoided mastitis case. That 8 -12 % less
production lost to heat. Plus, maybe better growth.
Lower stress, better longevity. And feed efficiency,
too. Potentially huge savings there. Huge. Feed
is, what, 50, 60 percent of costs? And like genomic
testing, the expectation is that access costs
will probably come down over time as the tech
becomes more common. Economies of scale kick
in. So the report kind of asks farmers, are you
going to wait until your neighbor has a resistant
herd before you demand access yourself? Pretty
much. Industry publications like Dairy Herd Management
suggest the early adopters, the ones pushing
for this, they'll likely see the benefits first.
It's something to really think about in your
long -term planning. Definitely food for thought.
Okay, another massive piece of this puzzle. Consumer
acceptance. Will people buy milk from gene -edited
cows? The million -dollar question, isn't it?
Crucial for the whole supply chain, co -ops,
processors, everyone. Research seems mixed, but
generally more positive than for older GMOs.
Well, studies in the Journal of Agricultural
Communications suggest more acceptance, especially
if the edits are within the same species, not
bringing in foreign genes. University surveys
found something like 45 % of consumers think
food from CRISPR -modified organisms is safe.
Okay, 45%. That's not overwhelming yet. No, and
there's a potential snag. The report notes that
specifically labeling milk as from gene -edited
cows might make people less willing to pay. So
you could have farmers paying a premium for the
genetics, but consumers wanting a discount. A
bit like the RBST situation back in the day.
Ah, right. That parallel again. So how do you
bridge that gap? The benefit story. That seems
absolutely critical. Research by the American
Dairy Science Association shows public support
goes way up when the benefits are clear. Like
what kind of benefits? Animal welfare is a big
one. Pulled cattle, no dehorning. That gets around
71 % support. Also clear health advantages like
less antibiotic use or environmental benefits.
And just explaining clearly how gene editing
is different from old GMOs, that alone can boost
acceptance maybe 19%. So communication is key.
Framing it around animal well -being, lower environmental
impact. Absolutely. The industry needs to be
proactive, tell that positive story, address
concerns head on. It really puts the onus on
dairy marketers and communicators. What's the
plan to educate consumers effectively about why
this is beneficial? Okay, let's tackle the regulatory
maze. The report says it's very different depending
on where you are in the world. Let's start with
the US. Right. In the States, the FDA treats
gene -edited animals under the banner of Intentional
Genomic Alterations, or IGAs. Basically, they
regulate them kind of like new animal drugs.
Like drugs. So lots of hoops to jump through.
Pretty much. Extensive safety assessments, you
need data showing the trade is stable across
generations. And with cattle having long generation
times, getting that multi -generational data
can add years, maybe four years or more, to the
approval process. That sounds slow. Are there
any signs of it speeding up? Well, the report
mentions some positives, like the FDA giving
low -risk determinations for some IGAs, like
the SLICK trait in beef cattle, but it also asks
a pretty pointed question. Should regulatory
agencies, who might not fully grasp day -to -day
farm realities, be setting the pace for this
kind of innovation? Hmm. A fair question. Is
the current system maybe overly cautious, treating
gene editing as riskier than the science suggests?
That's the concern raised, especially for precise...
within species edits and studies show these regulatory
delays aren't just theoretical they cost the
industry billions in lost opportunities and you
could argue prolong animal suffering from things
we could potentially prevent okay what about
canada how are they handling it canada looks
at products with novel traits no matter how they
were created interestingly health canada and
cfia recently exempted some gene edited plants
and feeds from certain assessments if they don't
have foreign dna but not animals animals with
novel traits even from gene editing still face
significant scrutiny the key distinction in canada
seems to be no foreign dna versus having a novel
trait. That difference dictates the level of
regulation. It's a bit like the difference between,
say, grass -fed and organic, different labels,
different rules. I see. And then there's the
EU, known for being pretty strict on GMOs. Extremely
strict. Gene -edited animals fall under their
comprehensive GMO laws. And to date, zero GM
animals have been approved for food in the EU.
Zero. Zero. There's talk about maybe easier paths
for some gene -edited plants, but not animals
right now. So EU dairy farmers could find themselves
at a competitive disadvantage compared to farmers
elsewhere using these technologies. Again, echoes
of the RBST situation there. Okay, the report
brings up a really fascinating, maybe tricky
area. Organic dairy and gene editing. Ideology
versus animal welfare. It's a really complex
intersection. Current organic rules, the NOP
standards, flat out prohibit genetic engineering,
and that includes gene editing. So organic farmers
simply can't use these genetics and stay certified.
Correct. Can't use the animals, can't use their
products. But the report poses this ethical question.
Is it truly upholding organic principles to potentially
let animals suffer from, say, severe heat stress
when a specific genetic could offer a humane
solution? That's a tough one for organic producers.
The report mentioned that California organic
farmer, again, saying they would consider S -L
-I -C -K cattle for heat stress if the rules
allowed it and it didn't hurt productivity. Right.
It shows there might be openness. if the benefits,
especially welfare benefits, are clear. It suggests
maybe there needs to be a conversation within
the organic community as these technologies mature
and their impacts become undeniable. A bit like
how robotics were maybe viewed skeptically at
first in organic circles, but are now being adopted
more. Possibly a similar dynamic, yeah. A careful
weighing of principles versus practical benefits,
especially for animal well -being. So pulling
this all together, we've covered the science,
the benefits, the hurdles. What's the bullvine
bottom line? What are the actionable takeaways
for farmers listening right now? Okay, several
key things. First, stay informed. This stuff
is moving fast. And importantly, advocate. Talk
to your co -op, your breed association, industry
groups. Push for sensible regulations and faster
adoption of where it makes sense. Use your extension
services. They're great resources. Okay, stay
informed, advocate. What else? Second, look at
your farm. What are your biggest challenges?
Mastitis, heat stress, dehorning labor. Figure
out which of these potential gene -edited traits
would give you the biggest bang for your buck.
Think about it like any other major farm investment.
A barn upgrade, new equipment. Where's the best
ROI? Makes sense. Prioritize based on your specific
needs. Third, think long -term breeding strategy.
How could these traits fit into where you want
your herd to be in 5 -10 years? Is it pulled
for easier management? Mastitis resistance for
lower costs and better milk. It's really just
an extension of the genetic planning you're already
doing. Right, integrating it into existing plans.
Fourth, get involved in the conversation. Industry
discussions matter. Farmer input shapes research.
It shapes public perception. Bring these topics
up at your co -op meetings, your breed meetings.
And fifth, prepare your marketing story. Yes,
crucial. Think now about how you talk about the
benefits to consumers. Animal welfare, fewer
antibiotics, environmental pluses. The communication
piece is huge, as we discussed. The report frames
this historically, right? Like AI in the 40s,
genomics in the 2000s. Gene editing is the next
big step. That's the perspective. The dairy industry
always evolves by adopting technology. Gene editing
looks like the next frontier. So the question
is, do you want to lead the charge or risk falling
behind? But approach it carefully, right? Like
not breeding your whole herd to one unproven
bull. Absolutely. Measured steps. But the core
message from university research is clear. The
farmers who are informed, who understand this,
they'll be the ones best positioned to benefit.
The report ends with a real zinger. Oh, yeah.
It asks, if gene editing can save a baby's life,
what could it do for your herd's health, welfare,
profitability? Are you ready for that next revolution?
Because according to the major research institutions,
it's not if. It's when. Okay, so let's recap
this deep dive. We've seen the huge potential
of gene editing for precise improvements in dairy
cattle, big benefits for farmers tackling tough
issues like disease, heat stress, but also critical
hurdles, regulations, cost, and maybe the biggest
one, consumer trust. The need for farmers to
be proactive, informed, and really own the narrative
about the benefits seems paramount. That sums
it up well. Gene editing offers targeted solutions,
but realizing that potential means navigating
regulations. smartly, handling the economics
and building consumer confidence. This report
is basically a call to action for farmers. Stay
informed, get engaged, and be ready to make strategic
choices about incorporating these innovations.
So we'll leave you with this final thought to
chew on. What happens long term? For your farm,
for the whole industry? If we embrace these technologies
thoughtfully versus if we ignore them, what does
dairy farming look like in 10 or 15 years? And
what part will gene -edited cows play? It's about
shaping the future, really. Are you ready to
dig deeper and be part of that? Thanks for joining
us on The Bullvine Podcast. If this episode sparked
your curiosity, share it with a fellow farmer.
Leave us a review and subscribe wherever you
get your podcasts. Want the full story? Dive
deeper into the research and resources we discussed
today at www .thebullvine .com. Got questions
or topics you'd like us to tackle? Slide into
our DMs or drop us an email. We're here to amplify
your voice in this conversation. Until next time,
keep your herds healthy, your margins sharper,
and your vision bold.