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 cut through the industry noise to deliver
the hard -hitting insights that actually move
your operation forward. I'm your host, and today
we're tackling a problem that's silently bleeding
money from dairy operations across the industry.
Retained placentas. If you think retained placentas
are just an unavoidable part of dairying, think
again. We're diving deep into research that shows
each case is costing you exactly $389, and that's
just the beginning. Most producers accept rates
of 10 % to 15 % when leading operations consistently
maintain rates below 5 % through targeted nutritional
strategies. In today's episode, we'll break down
the real financial impact hitting your bottom
line, expose the nutritional deficiencies that
are setting your transition cows up for failure,
and give you the exact supplementation protocols
that progressive dairies are using to virtually
eliminate this costly condition. This episode
features an AI -generated analysis of our latest
feature article, synthesizing the latest research
from the Journal of Dairy Science, University
of Florida Studies, and real -world success stories
from operations that have slashed their retained
placenta rates by over 60%. Whether you're running
50 cows or 5 ,000, the science is clear and the
solutions are proven. Let's get started. Okay,
let's unpack this. Imagine a single health event
on your dairy hitting you for $389. Not, you
know, over the year, but per cow, per time it
happens. That figure is the immediate hook in
the Bullvine article we're diving into today,
and it really makes you stop and think. That
$389 number for a retained placenta case. Yeah.
Yeah, it immediately elevates it from maybe a
routine nuisance to a really significant financial
drain. It's way more costly than a lot of producers
might realize. Exactly. And that's the core of
our topic today, retained placentas in dairy
cows. It's incredibly common, yes, but the angle
in this Bullvine article, it's titled Profit
Drainage, Preventing Retained Placentas Through
Nutrition. it really challenges the common wisdom.
It makes a very strong case that this isn't just
about bad luck or genetics, it's primarily a
nutrition problem. Right. And our mission in
this deep dive is basically to take this compelling
bullvine article, sort of cut through the noise,
really understand the true cost of retained placentas
on your farm, including maybe some hidden costs,
and zero in on the practical nutrition -based
strategies the article highlights. Okay. These
are the methods progressive dairies are using
to not just manage, but virtually eliminate this
issue. We're talking directly to you, the dairy
farmer, the herd manager, everyone in the industry
who feels the pinch of these, well... preventable
problems. So let's start with that headline number
then, $389 per case. Where does that specific
cost actually come from? What's making it so
expensive? Well, there was a 2018 study in the
Journal of Dairy Science, the article references
it, and it broke it down pretty clearly. The
biggest hit, $287. That's from lost milk production.
Okay, wow. Then you've got about $73 due to delayed
breeding, you know, pushing out that next lactation.
And finally, maybe $25 accounts for the increased
risk of other diseases that often follow a retained
placenta. Lost milk. delayed pregnancies, and
setting the cow up for more problems. Man, when
you stack those up, that $389 starts to feel
very, very real. It does. And the Bullbine article
gives a relatable example. A 500 -cow dairy with
a retained placenta rate of just 10%, which...
Frankly, the article argues way too high. Way
too high, yeah. As potentially bleeding nearly
$20 ,000 annually just from this one issue. It's
really worth taking a moment right now to think
about your own operation. You know, what's your
herd size? What's your current retained placenta
rate? Even if it's, say, 5 % or 7%, plug those
numbers into that $389 figure. What's it actually
costing your farm? The amount might surprise
you. And it gets worse for your most valuable
animals, right? The article points out mature
cows are hit much harder financially. That's
right. That same study found the cost is $313
for multi -paris cows compared to only $150 for
first -calf heifers. So you're higher producing,
you're proving cows. They're costing you more
than double when they have this issue. And as
the Bullvine article really emphasizes, it retained
placenta. It rarely exists in isolation. It's
a major trigger for metritis, that painful and...
costly uterine infection. Right, the follow -on
problem. Exactly. University of Florida research
mentioned the article tax on another $171 to
$386 per metritis case. So if a retained placenta
leads to metritis, you could easily be looking
at a total bill nearing, what, $775 per cow?
That's getting alarmingly close to $1 ,000 for
a chain reaction of health issues that potentially
start with... something preventable and this
is where the bullvine article really lands its
punch challenging that old belief that rps are
just you know part of the game yeah it states
plainly they are often not just bad luck or genetics
the article makes a compelling case that they
stem from nutritional issues that can be identified
and fixed and that's such a critical mindset
shift isn't it instead of just treating the retained
placenta and then the metritis that follows you're
focusing on actually preventing the underlying
cause in the first place right stop it before
it starts Speaking of causes, the Bulvan article
points out a really interesting seasonal warning
sign that maybe many producers might overlook.
Retained placentas often spike during winter
months. That's right. And research, like a study
mentioned from 2019, ties this directly back
to a common issue in winter. Dietary carotene
deficiency, when cows don't have access to fresh
forage. You know, stored feeds, they lose vitamins
over time. Okay, so it's not just the cold weather
itself, it's the change in feed causing a vitamin
problem. Makes sense. And Dr. Rafael Bissinoto
at the University of Florida, he's quoted in
the article, offers specific nutritional adjustments
for those winter months. Yeah, he recommends
boosting vitamin A significantly, up to 100 ,000
IUs per day, and increasing vitamin E to 2 ,000
IU per day, particularly when cows aren't out
on pasture. 2 ,000, okay. Yeah. He also stresses
the need to be really vigilant about your stored
feed quality and maybe considering beta carotene
supplementation, 300, 500 milligrams per day
if needed. And the article does the math for
you on that beta carotene. It costs about dollars
and 85 cents per cow per day. Now, that sounds
like something you might pause at initially.
Right. Until you remember you're trying to prevent
a $389 problem. Precisely. It just puts the cost
of targeted prevention into perspective against
the massive cost of just, well. accepting the
problem, doesn't it? Absolutely. Because accepting
a high retained placenta rate, as the article
demonstrates, it just sets off this whole expensive
cascade. The Merck Veterinary Manual suggests
typical prevalence is like 5 -15%, but the leading
operations, they're consistently below 5%. Right.
And the connection to other issues is just undeniable.
The Journal of Dairy Science highlighted back
in 2012 that cows... that experience milk fever
are four times more likely to develop protein
placenta. Four times, that's huge. So calcium
metabolism goes wrong, dramatically increasing
RP risk, which then skyrockets the risk of metritis.
Exactly. And the USDA estimates metritis costs
the industry between, what, $665 and $900 million
annually? That's enormous. Impressive numbers.
Yeah. And the Bullvine article asks a very pointed
question. How much of that enormous cost is coming
directly out of your pocket? Because you haven't
prioritized reducing retained placentas. Thinking
about it as a chain reaction really makes that
upfront investment in prevention feel far more
urgent. You've got to stop it at the source.
Okay, so if nutrition is the key lever here,
what are the specific nutrients we really need
to dial in? The article dives deep into four
crucial ones. Yeah, and this is where the science
gets really fascinating. The article explains
the underlying issue isn't simply... like a mechanical
failure it's actually a breakdown in the cow's
own immune system right at the connection point
between the cow and the placenta okay specifically
these tiny immune cells called neutrophils which
is supposed to help the placenta to catch smoothly
they just aren't working effectively yeah there
was research back in 2006 dr gunnink that established
this link to immune function huh So it's really
about supporting the cow's immune system so it
can do its job properly and release the placenta
naturally. Which nutrients are critical for that
then? Okay, first up is one the Bullvine article
calls the game changer. Selenium. Selenium, okay.
Point to a classic 1997 study by Dr. Larry Smith
at Ohio State that had, I mean, frankly, stunning
results. Stunning how? What did they find? Well,
they were seeing a 38 % retained placenta incidence
rate in their herd. 38 %? That's high. Extremely
high. They increased the cow's daily selenium
intake from a pretty low 0 .23 milligrams up
to just 0 .92 milligrams. Still well within acceptable
levels, mind you. And they saw the incidence
drop all the way to zero. Wait, from 38 % to
zero? Just by adjusting selenium? 0%. The article
recommends targeting 0 .3 milligrams per kilogram
of dry feed, which works out to about 6 milligrams
per day total intake. And it really challenges
that old school thinking that you only need just
barely enough selenium. Wow. That kind of result,
it makes you reevaluate everything, doesn't it?
What about vitamin E? The article calls it the
silent partner. Yeah, and the point there is
that while many commercial mineral mixes might
have adequate selenium these days, they often
fall short on vitamin E, especially for dry cows.
The Merck Veterinary Manual recommends 11 ,168
to 1 ,200 IU daily during that transition period.
Okay, so over 1 ,000 IU. Right. And the Bullvine
article pushes back on the common practice of
relying only on vitamin S -linium injections.
They basically call injections a short -term
band -aid. Right, a quick fix. Yeah, it only
lasts maybe two, three weeks. The truly progressive
approach, they argue, is feeding sufficient levels
in the daily premix, day in and day out. Got
it. Don't just use a shot as a fix. Build it
into the daily diet. Makes sense. Now, calcium.
The article calls it the double -edged sword.
Why is that? And that's a perfect description.
The counterintuitive part here is that feeding
too much calcium before calving is actually detrimental.
Too much? How so? Well, you're essentially making
the cow system kind of lazy at mobilizing her
own calcium reserves from her bones. Then right
after calving, when milk production demands a
massive amount of calcium almost instantly, her
body can't access it fast enough. That leads
to milk fever. Oh, okay. And as we just discussed,
milk fever cows are four times more likely to
have retained placentas. Trying to prevent milk
fever by oversupplying calcium before calving
actually increases your retained placenta risk?
Yeah. Yeah, that's a tough concept to get your
head around. It absolutely is, but it's so critical
for preventing both problems. The article gives
the target sweet spot levels from the Merck Veterinary
Manual, about 0 .44 % calcium for far -off dry
cows and 0 .48 % for close -up cows. 0 .44 and
0 .48. Exactly. And it strongly advises analyzing
your rations calcium content. because exceeding
these levels is actively working against you.
Analyze your feed. Simple advice, but clearly
essential. And the final nutrient is protein,
which the article describes as the surprising
culprit. How does protein fit in? This is really
fascinating science. Research cited from the
Journal of Animal Science back in 2009 found
that when cows are fed low -protein diets, their
placentas actually grow larger. Larger, why?
In an attempt to absorb more nutrients from the
limited supply. And these heavier, larger placentas
are significantly more prone to being retained
after calving. It's harder for the cow to extel
them. Wow. So cutting corners on protein to save
feed costs could literally be growing your retained
placenta problem down the line. Exactly. Pennywise
on protein, Dollar Foolish on retained placentas,
and all the expensive issues that follow. The
article provides target protein levels. Around
9 .9 % crude protein for far off and 12 .4 %
for close -up dry cows. 9 .9 and 12 .4. Got it.
Yeah. And it even cites a Journal of Dairy Science
study from 2010 where simply adding some soybean
meal to boost protein -reduced retained placentas
from a staggering 50 % down to 20%. 50 down to
20. Just with protein. These scientific insights
really underline why these specific nutrients
are so impactful, don't they? They really do.
And for anyone wanting a quick reference, the
Bullvine article even includes a handy cheat
sheet, right? It does, yeah. It pulls the key
nutrition requirements from the 2023 Merck Veterinary
Manual for both far -off and close -up dry cows.
It lists the target levels for crude protein,
calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, NDF, vitamin
A, and vitamin E. Having those numbers right
there side by side is super practical for checking
your own ration or talking to your nutritionist.
Definitely. And it briefly reminds you why each
is important, like the protein placenta size
link we just talked about or managing calcium
to prevent milk fever and its ripple effect on
our peas. It's a great little guide. Okay, but
theory is one thing. Does this approach actually
deliver results on a real farm? The article includes
a powerful case study, which I think is really
important. It does. It features Tom Wilson from
Wilson View Dairy out in Oregon. Tom's farm was
facing a 12 % retained placenta rate, right in
that higher end of the typical range, you know.
12%. Yeah, that's not ideal. No. And he wasn't
willing to just accept it. So working with his
nutritionist, Dr. Sarah Collins, they implemented
a targeted program based on exactly these principles
we've been discussing. Okay, what specific changes
did they actually make on his farm? What did
they do? The article details three main adjustments.
First, they significantly boosted vitamin E from
around 500 IU up to the recommended 1200 IU daily.
Big jump. Yeah. Second, they fine -tuned their
DCAD program, their dietary... So higher levels
of those key nutrients we talked about, vitamin
E, managing calcium and protein, and the outcome.
What happened? The results were... Pretty dramatic
and happened fast. Within just three months,
their retained placenta rate plummeted from 12
% down to 4 .8%. Wow. In three months? Yep. And
within six months, they were consistently operating
below 3 .5%. That's cutting the problem by more
than two -thirds. That must have had a huge impact
on their bottom line. Oh, absolutely. According
to the Bullvine article, the economic impact
was immediate and substantial. Tom Wilson reported
a 60 % reduction in fresh cow treatments overall.
60%. A 4 .3 pounds increase in early lactation
milk yield and significantly fewer metabolic
issues across the board. He estimated the cost
of the nutritional program paid for itself within
the very first month. Paid for itself in 30 days.
Yeah, just through those reduced treatment costs
alone. That real -world proof is incredibly compelling.
Seeing that kind of return on investment in just
a month really underlines that whole profit drainage
idea. But... Let's be real for a second. Implementing
a premium nutrition program like this does have
an upfront cost, right? It absolutely does. And
the article addresses that head on. It acknowledges
that these higher quality mineral packages might
add, say, $25 to $45 per cow per day during that
crucial 21 -day close -up period. So that's an
investment of about $5 .25 to maybe $9 .45 per
transition cow. Okay, so you're spending roughly
$5 to $10 extra per cow in that high -risk period.
But as we keep saying, you're trying to prevent
a problem that costs $389. And the article does
the simple math that really cuts right to the
chase. Based on that investment range, you only
need to prevent one single case of retained placenta
for every 41 to 74 transition cows you feed.
Just one case. to break even on that nutritional
investment. It poses the question directly, can
you really afford not to make that investment
when the potential loss is so high? And that
frames it perfectly, doesn't it? It's not really
an expense. It's avoiding a much, much larger
loss. What about producers with smaller herds?
Is this approach still practical for them? Yeah,
that's a good question. Dr. Mike Hutchins from
the University of Illinois, he's also featured
in the article, offers practical advice specifically
for herds under about 100 cows. Okay, what does
he suggest? He suggests things like using commercially
available transition top dress products, which
could be easier to manage in smaller batches.
Potentially using injectables for very small
groups where mixing accurately is difficult.
But he stresses the non -negotiables. Which are?
Absolute focus on forge quality and excellent
bunk management to ensure consistent dry matter
intake. Those basics are critical, regardless
of herd size. Good to know there are scalable
options. So once a producer makes these changes,
how should they monitor if it's actually working?
What metrics really matter? The article suggests
tracking specific things. First, obviously, your
weekly retained placenta rate and set a clear
goal of getting below 5%. If you're not there,
ask why. Okay. Track the RP rate? Yep. Then compare
your fresh cow treatment costs before and after
making the changes. Are they going down? Monitor
early lactation performance. How are cows milking
in the first 30 days? Are you seeing that lift
like Wilson View did? New production, yeah. And
importantly, track body condition scores at calving.
And then again, maybe 30 days into lactation.
Are cows holding condition better? Are they transitioning
more smoothly? Right, those visual cues too.
Measurable outcomes are definitely key to knowing
if your investment is paying off. The Bullvine
article wraps things up with a pretty concise...
five -step action plan for producers looking
to get serious about this. Yeah. It basically
summarizes the path that progressive producers
are taking. Number one, implement that targeted
nutrition, really focusing on selenium and vitamin
E levels. Get those right. Two, actively manage
calcium metabolism to prevent hypocalcemia. That's
absolutely critical because of that four times
link. Right. The milk fever connection. Exactly.
Right. Three, monitor your programs rigorously
and demand results. If your rate is staying above
5%, Something needs attention. Don't just accept
it. Be proactive. Four, calculate the real cost
of retained placentas for your farm. Make that
$389 number personal. Figure out what it's costing
you. And five, don't forget the basics like maintaining
clean, comfortable calving areas. The environment
still plays a role alongside nutrition. That's
a solid, actionable plan. Seems very doable.
So what's the ultimate takeaway then, the real
bottom line from this bullvine deep dive? Well,
the article quotes Dr. Jose Santos from the University
of Florida, who puts it really well. He says,
when producers view retained placentas as a nutritional
problem rather than a reproductive one, prevention
rates improve dramatically. Viewing it differently.
Exactly. The core message is that accepting 5
-15 % prevalence isn't inevitable. It's basically
accepting preventable profit loss. Progressive
farms are pushing towards virtually eliminating
RPs, not just to, you know. tick a box, but because
it's absolutely key to optimizing that entire
transition cow period and boosting overall profitability.
It completely reframes the issue, doesn't it?
It shifts from how do I treat this sick cow to
how do I feed this cow properly so she never
gets sick in the first place. That's it, precisely.
And the article leaves you with that potent question
we started with. With $389 potentially lost per
case, how much longer can you really afford not
to optimize your transition cow nutrition? Yeah,
that question really hits home. So we've taken
a deep dive today into this Bullvine article
highlighting how retained placentas are a major,
maybe underestimated source of profit drainage.
Definitely. We've hopefully debunked the idea
that they're just unavoidable. And most importantly,
laid out the specific science -backed nutritional
strategies focusing on selenium, vitamin E, that
tricky calcium balance and protein that the evidence
shows can dramatically reduce incidence. ultimately
boost your bottom line. The financial case for
prevention is just overwhelmingly clear and the
article provides those practical steps to get
there. We really encourage you to take these
insights, maybe calculate what retained placentas
are truly costing your specific form, and have
a conversation with your nutritionist armed with
the specific strategies and nutrient levels discussed
in this Bullvine article. And of course to read
the full article for yourself, see all the case
study details, and review those specific nutrient
levels nice and clearly, you can find it online
at www .thebullvine .com. Definitely worth checking
out that full article. And just maybe a final
thought to leave you with. If preventing a single
$389 retained placenta case pays for the preventive
nutrition for, what, up to 74 cows during their
transition? Yeah, potentially. What other seemingly
minor health or performance issues on your farm
could be hiding massive preventable financial
losses just waiting for you to dig into the science
behind them like this? That's a great question
to ponder. Where else can nutrition make a difference?
There you have it, the hard truth about retained
placentas and the proven nutritional strategies
to prevent them. The bottom line is simple. At
$389 per case, you can't afford to keep accepting
this as inevitable. The key takeaways are crystal
clear. First, optimize your selenium and vitamin
E supplementation during the transition period.
Second, manage calcium levels carefully to prevent
the cascade of metabolic issues. Third, Don't
shortchange protein in your close -up rations.
And finally, implement seasonal adjustments for
winter feeding when carotene deficiency spikes
your risk. Remember, the implementation cost
of just 25 to 45 cents per cow per day during
the transition period pays for itself by preventing
one case for every 41 to 74 transition cows.
The math isn't complicated. The question is how
much longer you can afford not to act. You can
find the complete article with detailed nutritional
requirements, cost calculators, and implementation
strategies at www .thebullvine .com. We've included
all the research citations, specific supplementation
protocols, and real -world case studies to help
you implement these changes immediately. If this
episode challenged your thinking about transition
cow nutrition, share it with your nutritionist,
your vet, and other producers in your network.
The dairy industry moves forward when we all
embrace evidence -based management instead of
accepting costly problems as unavoidable. Thanks
for listening to the Bullvine Podcast. Keep pushing
the boundaries of what's possible in your operation,
and we'll see you next time when we continue
cutting through the industry noise to deliver
the insights that matter. Until then, stop accepting
preventable losses and start optimizing for profit.