WEBVTT

00:00:11.720 --> 00:00:15.060
Breaking free from the chains of the past Where

00:00:15.060 --> 00:00:18.820
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law

00:00:18.820 --> 00:00:21.660
waiting on some printed page We're charting new

00:00:21.660 --> 00:00:25.300
ground in the digital age From genomic codes

00:00:25.300 --> 00:00:29.120
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold

00:00:29.280 --> 00:00:32.460
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight

00:00:32.460 --> 00:01:02.380
we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast,

00:01:02.859 --> 00:01:05.159
where we challenge conventional dairy industry

00:01:05.159 --> 00:01:08.379
thinking with bold insights that boost your bottom

00:01:08.379 --> 00:01:11.799
line. I'm your host, Andrew, and today we're

00:01:11.799 --> 00:01:13.900
diving into one of the most expensive mistakes

00:01:13.900 --> 00:01:16.560
plaguing dairy operations across North America.

00:01:17.359 --> 00:01:19.579
Here's a question that should keep every dairy

00:01:19.579 --> 00:01:22.939
operator awake at night. Why are you still paying

00:01:22.939 --> 00:01:26.280
to mutilate calves when you could eliminate dehorning

00:01:26.280 --> 00:01:29.959
forever in just one generation? If you think

00:01:29.959 --> 00:01:32.420
gradual polled adoption is the smart, progressive

00:01:32.420 --> 00:01:35.439
approach, prepare to have your assumptions shattered.

00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:39.040
Our latest analysis reveals that half -polled

00:01:39.040 --> 00:01:41.319
herds are actually bleeding money faster than

00:01:41.319 --> 00:01:44.459
fully horned operations. We're talking about

00:01:44.459 --> 00:01:48.120
a $23 per head disadvantage that compounds every

00:01:48.120 --> 00:01:51.769
single year. In the next few minutes... You'll

00:01:51.769 --> 00:01:54.030
discover why partial polled adoption delivers

00:01:54.030 --> 00:01:57.430
the worst possible return on investment, how

00:01:57.430 --> 00:02:00.250
elite polled genetics now outperform horned counterparts,

00:02:00.629 --> 00:02:03.569
and the specific 90 -day action plan that can

00:02:03.569 --> 00:02:07.349
transform your entire operation. We'll expose

00:02:07.349 --> 00:02:09.590
the transition trap that's costing producers

00:02:09.590 --> 00:02:12.689
thousands annually and reveal why European breeders

00:02:12.689 --> 00:02:16.050
are racing towards 67 % polled adoption by 2025.

00:02:17.840 --> 00:02:20.020
This isn't theory, it's hard economics backed

00:02:20.020 --> 00:02:23.680
by real farm data. Let's dive in. Okay, let's

00:02:23.680 --> 00:02:26.199
unpack this. Imagine for a second you're walking

00:02:26.199 --> 00:02:29.319
through your barn. You see your calves, healthy

00:02:29.319 --> 00:02:31.879
and growing, maybe some you've just dehorned

00:02:31.879 --> 00:02:35.960
or are about to. It feels like a necessary task,

00:02:36.180 --> 00:02:38.159
right? Right, something you've always done maybe,

00:02:38.379 --> 00:02:42.120
part of the routine. Exactly. But what if that...

00:02:42.490 --> 00:02:45.789
Standard practice, something as fundamental as

00:02:45.789 --> 00:02:49.949
dehorning, is actually a significant drain on

00:02:49.949 --> 00:02:52.789
your operations profitability. We're going about

00:02:52.789 --> 00:02:55.430
it potentially costing you far more than you've

00:02:55.430 --> 00:02:58.650
ever calculated. And what if right now there

00:02:58.650 --> 00:03:01.750
was a clear, immediate path to eliminate that

00:03:01.750 --> 00:03:05.000
cost entirely forever? It's a tough question

00:03:05.000 --> 00:03:07.360
to face, isn't it? Especially because, as the

00:03:07.360 --> 00:03:09.199
Bullvine article we're diving into points out,

00:03:09.259 --> 00:03:10.900
many producers feel like they're already making

00:03:10.900 --> 00:03:13.139
progress, you know? Yeah, I can see that. They've

00:03:13.139 --> 00:03:15.020
got some polled animals in the herd. Maybe they're

00:03:15.020 --> 00:03:16.979
using some polled genetics. They think, OK, we're

00:03:16.979 --> 00:03:18.479
moving in the right direction. Making steps.

00:03:18.759 --> 00:03:22.020
Exactly. But this article, the one titled Profit

00:03:22.020 --> 00:03:25.300
from Pold and Dehorning Forever, it really challenges

00:03:25.300 --> 00:03:27.780
that comfortable notion head on. And it does

00:03:27.780 --> 00:03:31.460
it with some pretty compelling and... frankly,

00:03:31.500 --> 00:03:34.080
surprising data. Absolutely. And that's what

00:03:34.080 --> 00:03:36.879
this deep dive is really laser focused on, the

00:03:36.879 --> 00:03:40.139
economics of polled genetics, specifically exploring

00:03:40.139 --> 00:03:43.319
the core argument of this Bullvine article that

00:03:43.319 --> 00:03:45.780
committing to 100 % polled genetics might be

00:03:45.780 --> 00:03:50.300
dramatically, significantly more profitable than

00:03:50.300 --> 00:03:52.560
continuing down that path of gradual partial

00:03:52.560 --> 00:03:54.479
adoption. Yeah, that's our mission here today.

00:03:54.830 --> 00:03:57.449
We want to really pull apart the specific arguments,

00:03:57.610 --> 00:03:59.750
the numbers, the insights presented in this article.

00:03:59.830 --> 00:04:01.689
We want to understand why they're making such

00:04:01.689 --> 00:04:03.770
strong claims about this, well, this economic

00:04:03.770 --> 00:04:05.830
shift towards polls. And most importantly. And

00:04:05.830 --> 00:04:07.509
most importantly, translate what that actually

00:04:07.509 --> 00:04:09.490
means for you listening right now, for your day

00:04:09.490 --> 00:04:11.430
-to -day operations, your long -term balance

00:04:11.430 --> 00:04:14.270
sheet, and your competitive edge in the market.

00:04:15.210 --> 00:04:17.410
The article doesn't pull any punches right from

00:04:17.410 --> 00:04:19.829
the start, does it? It makes this really striking

00:04:19.829 --> 00:04:23.769
claim that 100 % pulled herds outperform partial

00:04:23.769 --> 00:04:27.709
adoption by a measurable $23 per head annually.

00:04:28.509 --> 00:04:31.589
$23? That's not insignificant. Not at all. And

00:04:31.589 --> 00:04:33.509
then it hits you with that really direct question.

00:04:33.769 --> 00:04:36.529
Why are you still paying to mutilate horned calves

00:04:36.529 --> 00:04:38.870
when you could eliminate the practice entirely

00:04:38.870 --> 00:04:41.730
in just one generation? It's definitely designed

00:04:41.730 --> 00:04:44.639
to make you stop and think. It is. And that question

00:04:44.639 --> 00:04:46.459
directly addresses that feeling you mentioned

00:04:46.459 --> 00:04:48.500
earlier, the producer who feels they're already

00:04:48.500 --> 00:04:50.420
progressing because they have some polled animals.

00:04:50.600 --> 00:04:53.019
Right. The article basically argues that this

00:04:53.019 --> 00:04:56.819
middle ground, this partially polled state is

00:04:56.819 --> 00:04:59.579
actually the most financially damaging position

00:04:59.579 --> 00:05:01.879
to be in right now. Financially damaging. That's

00:05:01.879 --> 00:05:04.360
strong. Well, they call it financially destructive

00:05:04.360 --> 00:05:06.699
in the current market reality where margins are

00:05:06.699 --> 00:05:09.959
thin and. Let's face it, every dollar of operational

00:05:09.959 --> 00:05:12.240
efficiency is absolutely critical. You're essentially

00:05:12.240 --> 00:05:14.720
paying for the solution and keeping half the

00:05:14.720 --> 00:05:16.980
problem. OK, so let's get into the nuts and bolts

00:05:16.980 --> 00:05:19.399
of the problem itself then. According to the

00:05:19.399 --> 00:05:22.839
Bullvine article, why does dehorning still hurt

00:05:22.839 --> 00:05:26.399
and cost producers so much? And why is that cost

00:05:26.399 --> 00:05:29.100
so often, you know, underestimated? What are

00:05:29.100 --> 00:05:31.160
we missing? That's really where they start building

00:05:31.160 --> 00:05:34.019
their case. The fundamental issue, as they see

00:05:34.019 --> 00:05:36.279
it, is that most producers only look at the most

00:05:36.279 --> 00:05:38.980
obvious, immediate expenses when thinking about

00:05:38.980 --> 00:05:41.360
dehorning. Like the paste or the iron. Exactly.

00:05:41.740 --> 00:05:44.240
They dramatically underestimate the true cost

00:05:44.240 --> 00:05:46.240
because they focus on the price of the paste

00:05:46.240 --> 00:05:49.800
or maybe the gas for the iron. But the real expense,

00:05:50.139 --> 00:05:52.160
the article argues, is much, much deeper than

00:05:52.160 --> 00:05:54.120
that. So it's more than just the sticker price

00:05:54.120 --> 00:05:56.879
of the tool. Oh, way more. Let's break down the

00:05:56.879 --> 00:05:59.040
direct costs they talk about first. The article

00:05:59.040 --> 00:06:01.480
provides a range, noting that direct dehorning

00:06:01.480 --> 00:06:05.759
costs can swing anywhere from, say, $6 to a pretty

00:06:05.759 --> 00:06:09.019
staggering $25 per head. Wow, that's a big range.

00:06:09.240 --> 00:06:11.139
It is. It depends on the method, calf age, who's

00:06:11.139 --> 00:06:13.120
doing it, all that. But the article reports that

00:06:13.120 --> 00:06:15.360
the average most operations are seeing, it falls

00:06:15.360 --> 00:06:19.360
somewhere around $12 to $13 per calf. Okay, $12

00:06:19.360 --> 00:06:22.779
to $13 per calf. Even that average, well, it

00:06:22.779 --> 00:06:24.680
adds up pretty quickly across a herd, doesn't

00:06:24.680 --> 00:06:26.339
it? It really does. And to make it concrete,

00:06:26.620 --> 00:06:28.740
they give a specific example from a Pennsylvania

00:06:28.740 --> 00:06:31.920
producer, Reed Hoover. He reported his direct

00:06:31.920 --> 00:06:35.600
costs were $10 per head on young calves. Straightforward

00:06:35.600 --> 00:06:38.759
enough. $10. But if calves get older, maybe you

00:06:38.759 --> 00:06:41.100
miss them initially, or you're managing a larger

00:06:41.100 --> 00:06:44.040
group batching them, that cost jumps up significantly,

00:06:44.319 --> 00:06:47.939
up to $20 per head for those older ones. double

00:06:47.939 --> 00:06:50.459
the cost just from waiting a bit longer. Yeah.

00:06:50.579 --> 00:06:53.459
So timing and management play a role even in

00:06:53.459 --> 00:06:56.189
just the direct cost itself. And the article

00:06:56.189 --> 00:06:58.189
then takes this further, right? It combined these

00:06:58.189 --> 00:07:01.490
expenses to get a more complete sort of all -in

00:07:01.490 --> 00:07:04.230
picture. Yes, exactly. They factor in everything.

00:07:04.410 --> 00:07:06.810
It's not just the cost of the dehorning method

00:07:06.810 --> 00:07:09.550
itself, you know, the paste, the cautery irons,

00:07:09.550 --> 00:07:11.889
maybe anesthetics, things like that. It's also

00:07:11.889 --> 00:07:14.350
potential medical care needed if there are complications.

00:07:14.589 --> 00:07:17.550
It's any rare but, you know, potentially devastating

00:07:17.550 --> 00:07:20.490
death loss related to the procedure. And critically,

00:07:20.670 --> 00:07:23.250
it includes... The labor involved, your time,

00:07:23.370 --> 00:07:25.430
your staff's time. Right. The labor component,

00:07:25.670 --> 00:07:28.069
often forgotten. Totally. So when you add up

00:07:28.069 --> 00:07:30.550
all those components, supplies, medical, mortality

00:07:30.550 --> 00:07:33.720
risk, labor. The article calculates the combined

00:07:33.720 --> 00:07:37.879
direct expenses reach approximately $17 .36 per

00:07:37.879 --> 00:07:43.139
head. $17 .36. Yeah. And this $17 .36 figure,

00:07:43.220 --> 00:07:46.300
it's presented as the baseline cost many operations

00:07:46.300 --> 00:07:48.920
are incurring for each calf they have to dehorn.

00:07:49.120 --> 00:07:53.399
Whoa. Okay, $17 .36 per calf, just for the direct

00:07:53.399 --> 00:07:56.449
stuff. That's already, I bet, higher than many

00:07:56.449 --> 00:07:58.550
producers probably estimate just looking at the

00:07:58.550 --> 00:08:00.790
tube of paste or whatever. Absolutely. And this

00:08:00.790 --> 00:08:02.410
is where the article says it gets even worse

00:08:02.410 --> 00:08:05.589
because that $17 .36 is only the start. Those

00:08:05.589 --> 00:08:07.509
figures don't even account for the hidden costs.

00:08:07.750 --> 00:08:09.550
Ah, the hidden costs. Yeah, the ones that are

00:08:09.550 --> 00:08:12.310
less obvious but are constantly sort of gnawing

00:08:12.310 --> 00:08:14.410
away at your farm's efficiency and profitability.

00:08:14.810 --> 00:08:17.350
These are the insidious costs, as they put it.

00:08:17.410 --> 00:08:19.550
Okay, insidious costs. Let's unpack those. What

00:08:19.550 --> 00:08:21.649
are the main hidden costs the article points

00:08:21.649 --> 00:08:24.750
to? Well, first and foremost. Complications and

00:08:24.750 --> 00:08:26.870
the need for additional treatment. The article

00:08:26.870 --> 00:08:29.310
highlights that dehorned calves are simply more

00:08:29.310 --> 00:08:31.529
likely to need follow -up treatment. Makes sense.

00:08:31.829 --> 00:08:34.629
Infections, poor healing. Right. Issues ranging

00:08:34.629 --> 00:08:38.210
from infections to improper healing. They cite

00:08:38.210 --> 00:08:42.480
a range, saying, 1 % to maybe 8 % of dehorned

00:08:42.480 --> 00:08:44.919
calves require some kind of additional care.

00:08:45.399 --> 00:08:48.240
Now, compare that to naturally polled animals.

00:08:48.480 --> 00:08:51.139
For polled animals, the likelihood of needing

00:08:51.139 --> 00:08:53.840
treatment for any horn -related issue is dramatically

00:08:53.840 --> 00:08:57.080
lower, like just 1 % to 3%. Oh, a much smaller

00:08:57.080 --> 00:08:59.840
window for problem. Exactly. That difference

00:08:59.840 --> 00:09:02.240
in needing medical intervention, the cost of

00:09:02.240 --> 00:09:05.200
the drugs, maybe vet time, the labor to handle

00:09:05.200 --> 00:09:07.659
that calf again, it really adds up across a calf

00:09:07.659 --> 00:09:09.299
crop. You're not just paying for the procedure.

00:09:09.419 --> 00:09:11.419
You're paying a higher likelihood of ongoing

00:09:11.419 --> 00:09:13.659
medical bills for those specific calves. OK,

00:09:13.759 --> 00:09:15.539
that makes sense. Yeah. What else falls under

00:09:15.539 --> 00:09:17.500
these hidden costs? And they bring in bruising

00:09:17.500 --> 00:09:20.659
losses, which I think many dairy producers might

00:09:20.659 --> 00:09:23.139
kind of overlook. Yeah. Maybe think of it more

00:09:23.139 --> 00:09:25.659
as a beef industry issue. Possibly. The article

00:09:25.659 --> 00:09:28.139
references data from the North American beef

00:09:28.139 --> 00:09:31.440
industry. pointing out a staggering $35 million

00:09:31.440 --> 00:09:34.080
annually is lost just because of bruising on

00:09:34.080 --> 00:09:37.059
carcasses caused by horned cattle jostling and

00:09:37.059 --> 00:09:40.419
injuring each other. $35 million, wow. It's a

00:09:40.419 --> 00:09:43.720
huge number. And while that's an industry -wide

00:09:43.720 --> 00:09:46.179
figure, the article converts it to a per head

00:09:46.179 --> 00:09:49.799
figure directly related to horns. $1 .90 per

00:09:49.799 --> 00:09:53.299
head. $1 .90 per head. Across the entire industry.

00:09:53.539 --> 00:09:55.899
Yeah. How does that actually impact a dairy operation,

00:09:56.139 --> 00:09:58.059
though? Well, it impacts the entire value chain,

00:09:58.179 --> 00:10:00.419
right? While you might not see a line item for

00:10:00.419 --> 00:10:02.899
bruising on your milk check, this cost is absorbed

00:10:02.899 --> 00:10:05.740
somewhere in the system. Okay. And for operations

00:10:05.740 --> 00:10:07.840
that sell surplus animals, whether that's feeder

00:10:07.840 --> 00:10:10.340
calves or cull cows, it absolutely affects their

00:10:10.340 --> 00:10:13.090
value. A horned animal is statistically more

00:10:13.090 --> 00:10:15.509
likely to cause bruising to itself or others

00:10:15.509 --> 00:10:17.750
during transport or handling. So it can ding

00:10:17.750 --> 00:10:19.929
the price you get for those animals. It can impact

00:10:19.929 --> 00:10:22.269
its market value or even the value of others

00:10:22.269 --> 00:10:24.389
it's transported with. It's part of that hidden

00:10:24.389 --> 00:10:26.529
inefficiency burden that comes with having horns

00:10:26.529 --> 00:10:29.370
in the mix. Okay, so we've got potential medical

00:10:29.370 --> 00:10:33.450
complications, bruising losses. What else is

00:10:33.450 --> 00:10:35.669
hidden? Delayed growth. This is another big one

00:10:35.669 --> 00:10:38.120
that's... Maybe hard to put a simple dollar figure

00:10:38.120 --> 00:10:41.080
on immediately, but the impact is real. The article

00:10:41.080 --> 00:10:43.840
makes the point pretty logically that dehorning

00:10:43.840 --> 00:10:46.120
is a traumatic procedure. Sure. Causes pain and

00:10:46.120 --> 00:10:49.200
stress. Exactly. Calves experience pain and stress

00:10:49.200 --> 00:10:52.600
as they recover. And this trauma, this recovery

00:10:52.600 --> 00:10:55.960
period, it causes delayed growth. They just don't

00:10:55.960 --> 00:10:58.559
gain as well for a period. So they're literally

00:10:58.559 --> 00:11:01.480
set back. developmentally, just as you're trying

00:11:01.480 --> 00:11:03.299
to push them forward towards breeding age and

00:11:03.299 --> 00:11:05.720
entering the milking string. Precisely. And what

00:11:05.720 --> 00:11:07.259
are you doing during that recovery period? You're

00:11:07.259 --> 00:11:09.620
still feeding them, right? Still housing them,

00:11:09.659 --> 00:11:11.360
still providing care. Yeah, the meter's still

00:11:11.360 --> 00:11:13.639
running. The meter's still running. You're paying

00:11:13.639 --> 00:11:17.480
for feed and labor while their growth trajectory

00:11:17.480 --> 00:11:19.460
has slowed down because they're recovering from

00:11:19.460 --> 00:11:23.039
the procedure you paid to do. And this delayed

00:11:23.039 --> 00:11:25.799
development, it has a domino effect. It impacts

00:11:25.799 --> 00:11:27.879
when they reach breeding weight, when they calve

00:11:27.879 --> 00:11:30.440
in, and ultimately their total lifetime productivity.

00:11:30.840 --> 00:11:33.159
Their contribution to milk yield and components

00:11:33.159 --> 00:11:35.399
over their whole career in your herd. So it's

00:11:35.399 --> 00:11:37.960
a compounding drain on their efficiency. And

00:11:37.960 --> 00:11:40.120
therefore your operations efficiency. That's

00:11:40.120 --> 00:11:42.620
exactly right. The article uses a really perfect

00:11:42.620 --> 00:11:46.120
analogy for this whole situation. It's like running

00:11:46.120 --> 00:11:48.519
your milking system with a persistent vacuum

00:11:48.519 --> 00:11:51.679
leak. Oh, okay. I like that. Yeah, it's not necessarily

00:11:51.679 --> 00:11:54.039
a catastrophic failure that stops everything,

00:11:54.240 --> 00:11:57.360
but it's this constant insidious drain on performance

00:11:57.360 --> 00:12:00.080
and efficiency. You might not immediately notice

00:12:00.080 --> 00:12:02.960
it on a daily basis, but over time it adds up

00:12:02.960 --> 00:12:05.840
significantly. It reduces your overall operational

00:12:05.840 --> 00:12:07.980
output for the same input. And really hit on

00:12:07.980 --> 00:12:10.500
the scale of this. The article applies that $17

00:12:10.500 --> 00:12:14.559
.36 baseline direct cost to a typical operation

00:12:14.559 --> 00:12:16.580
size, right? Yes, exactly. They use the example

00:12:16.580 --> 00:12:19.870
of a 500 cow operation. Assuming, you know, fairly

00:12:19.870 --> 00:12:23.429
typical year -round calving, that $17 .36 per

00:12:23.429 --> 00:12:26.350
head baseline cost for dehorning alone adds up

00:12:26.350 --> 00:12:30.230
to over $8 ,600 annually. Over $8 ,600 a year.

00:12:30.559 --> 00:12:32.340
Just for the direct procedure and the immediate

00:12:32.340 --> 00:12:34.299
associated costs. And remember, that's before

00:12:34.299 --> 00:12:36.759
you even start trying to factor in any of those

00:12:36.759 --> 00:12:39.600
productivity losses from stressed calves or the

00:12:39.600 --> 00:12:41.960
time and labor inefficiencies when your team

00:12:41.960 --> 00:12:44.279
has to handle horned animals versus pulled ones

00:12:44.279 --> 00:12:46.580
or those other hidden costs like bruising potential.

00:12:46.960 --> 00:12:50.559
Wow. It makes the financial scale of this vacuum

00:12:50.559 --> 00:12:53.500
leak, as you called it, much, much clearer. Over

00:12:53.500 --> 00:12:57.000
$8 ,600 a year just for the act of dehorning

00:12:57.000 --> 00:13:00.509
itself. Well, minimum. For a 500 cow herd, that's

00:13:00.509 --> 00:13:03.129
real money. Yeah, no kidding. Okay, so the costs

00:13:03.129 --> 00:13:05.309
of dehorning are significant, clearly, and often

00:13:05.309 --> 00:13:07.850
underestimated. But the article makes a really

00:13:07.850 --> 00:13:10.090
strong point, maybe even a controversial one,

00:13:10.210 --> 00:13:12.850
that the worst situation isn't even being fully

00:13:12.850 --> 00:13:15.009
horned anymore. It's being partially pulled.

00:13:15.090 --> 00:13:17.529
They call it the half -pulled trap. Why on earth

00:13:17.529 --> 00:13:19.690
is that the case? This is where the article really

00:13:19.690 --> 00:13:22.429
pivots to its central and, yeah, maybe controversial

00:13:22.429 --> 00:13:25.789
argument. It claims that being in this partially

00:13:25.789 --> 00:13:28.250
pulled state, which... like we said many producers

00:13:28.250 --> 00:13:29.929
might feel good about, like it's a step towards

00:13:29.929 --> 00:13:32.490
polled, actually creates the most financially

00:13:32.490 --> 00:13:35.149
detrimental scenario. Worse than just having

00:13:35.149 --> 00:13:37.750
horned animals and dehorning them. That's the

00:13:37.750 --> 00:13:39.769
argument. That you're trying to do the right

00:13:39.769 --> 00:13:41.570
thing by adding some polled genetics, but you

00:13:41.570 --> 00:13:43.350
actually end up in the worst possible economic

00:13:43.350 --> 00:13:46.370
position because of it. How is it the worst?

00:13:46.509 --> 00:13:49.830
What's the economic double whammy they describe

00:13:49.830 --> 00:13:52.580
for a partially polled herd? You're essentially

00:13:52.580 --> 00:13:55.039
getting hit from both sides, right? Doubling

00:13:55.039 --> 00:13:57.980
down on your inefficiency costs in a way. First,

00:13:58.220 --> 00:14:00.519
you've likely made an investment in polled genetics.

00:14:00.700 --> 00:14:03.240
You're probably paying premium prices for polled

00:14:03.240 --> 00:14:05.500
semen. Or maybe you've purchased some polled

00:14:05.500 --> 00:14:07.399
animals at a higher price. Right, you've put

00:14:07.399 --> 00:14:09.200
money into the solution side. You've put money

00:14:09.200 --> 00:14:11.899
into the solution. But second, and this is the

00:14:11.899 --> 00:14:14.320
trap part, you are still shouldering approximately

00:14:14.320 --> 00:14:17.500
50 % of those traditional dehorning costs we

00:14:17.500 --> 00:14:21.220
just calculated. If that baseline cost is $17

00:14:21.220 --> 00:14:25.100
.36 per head, well, you're still paying something

00:14:25.100 --> 00:14:27.500
very close to that amount, but now it's applied

00:14:27.500 --> 00:14:30.480
to about half of your calf crop every year. Okay,

00:14:30.500 --> 00:14:32.759
wait. So you've paid extra for the pole genetics,

00:14:33.000 --> 00:14:34.779
and you're still paying thousands of dollars

00:14:34.779 --> 00:14:38.200
a year to dehorn roughly half your calves. Exactly.

00:14:38.200 --> 00:14:40.600
You've paid for the technology, the upgrade,

00:14:40.840 --> 00:14:43.639
the supposed solution, but you haven't actually

00:14:43.639 --> 00:14:46.240
eliminated the costs and the inefficiencies of

00:14:46.240 --> 00:14:49.779
the old system. The article uses another brilliant

00:14:49.779 --> 00:14:52.279
analogy here. It's like deciding to upgrade to

00:14:52.279 --> 00:14:55.620
a fancy new automated milking system. Okay. But

00:14:55.620 --> 00:14:58.100
then you keep running your old parallel parlor

00:14:58.100 --> 00:15:00.759
right alongside it. Ah. Yeah, okay, that makes

00:15:00.759 --> 00:15:03.080
no sense. Right. You've paid for the premium,

00:15:03.279 --> 00:15:05.299
state -of -the -art technology that's designed

00:15:05.299 --> 00:15:07.539
for efficiency, but you haven't gotten rid of

00:15:07.539 --> 00:15:09.639
the labor, the energy costs, the maintenance,

00:15:09.840 --> 00:15:12.019
and the fundamental inefficiencies of the old

00:15:12.019 --> 00:15:14.620
system. You're just supporting two systems instead

00:15:14.620 --> 00:15:16.740
of fully benefiting from the better one. And

00:15:16.740 --> 00:15:19.330
this isn't just, like... bad planning necessarily.

00:15:19.629 --> 00:15:22.049
It's driven by the genetics itself, if you're

00:15:22.049 --> 00:15:24.110
not careful, right? The article brings up the

00:15:24.110 --> 00:15:27.009
genetic reality of heterozygous offspring. This

00:15:27.009 --> 00:15:29.049
is absolutely key to understanding why you get

00:15:29.049 --> 00:15:31.029
stuck in this trap. Remember, your basic genetics,

00:15:31.250 --> 00:15:34.529
polled, which we use P for, is dominant over

00:15:34.529 --> 00:15:38.289
horned, little p. An animal that is heterozygous

00:15:38.289 --> 00:15:41.169
polled, meaning it has the genotype PP, carries

00:15:41.169 --> 00:15:43.950
one polled gene and one horned gene. Okay, PPP.

00:15:44.230 --> 00:15:47.259
Now, if you breed that PE animal, maybe it's

00:15:47.259 --> 00:15:49.440
a cow or maybe it's the bull you're using, to

00:15:49.440 --> 00:15:52.779
a horned animal, which is always PP, well, basic

00:15:52.779 --> 00:15:54.899
Mendelian genetics tells you about half of the

00:15:54.899 --> 00:15:57.820
offspring will inherit the big P gene, resulting

00:15:57.820 --> 00:15:59.980
in PT, so they'll be pulled. And the other half?

00:16:00.080 --> 00:16:02.299
And about half will inherit only the little P

00:16:02.299 --> 00:16:05.019
genes, resulting in PP, so they'll be horned.

00:16:05.159 --> 00:16:08.480
Ah, so even if you have pulled cows or you're

00:16:08.480 --> 00:16:11.299
using... Pulled bulls that are only heterozygous,

00:16:11.360 --> 00:16:15.360
PP, you are genetically guaranteed to keep producing

00:16:15.360 --> 00:16:17.820
a significant portion of horned calves. You're

00:16:17.820 --> 00:16:21.220
locked in. Precisely. That genetic reality locks

00:16:21.220 --> 00:16:24.259
you into needing to dehorn roughly half of your

00:16:24.259 --> 00:16:27.379
calf crop indefinitely, unless you make a drastic

00:16:27.379 --> 00:16:29.759
change in your breeding strategy towards homozygous

00:16:29.759 --> 00:16:31.620
pulled. So you're still dealing with all those

00:16:31.620 --> 00:16:34.139
costs we talked about. The labor, the stress,

00:16:34.340 --> 00:16:36.960
the potential complications, the delayed growth.

00:16:37.440 --> 00:16:39.600
But only for half your calves, despite having

00:16:39.600 --> 00:16:42.360
already invested maybe significantly in pulled

00:16:42.360 --> 00:16:45.440
genetics, it's really the definition of perpetuated

00:16:45.440 --> 00:16:47.620
inefficiency. It sounds like you're just perpetually

00:16:47.620 --> 00:16:49.379
stuck in transition, like you never actually

00:16:49.379 --> 00:16:52.000
get there. The article connects this exact scenario

00:16:52.000 --> 00:16:55.659
to what it terms a transition trap or being stuck

00:16:55.659 --> 00:16:58.559
in evaluation mode. Evaluation mode. Yeah, it's

00:16:58.559 --> 00:17:00.840
like those producers who perpetually trial and

00:17:00.840 --> 00:17:03.259
test new precision agriculture technologies.

00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:06.359
Maybe they try out some automated calf feeders.

00:17:06.359 --> 00:17:08.599
Maybe they use a few activity monitors here and

00:17:08.599 --> 00:17:10.500
there, but they never fully commit. They never

00:17:10.500 --> 00:17:12.740
fully integrate the data, never eliminate the

00:17:12.740 --> 00:17:15.509
old manual systems entirely. So they're always

00:17:15.509 --> 00:17:18.109
kind of testing but never reaping the full reward.

00:17:18.349 --> 00:17:20.730
Exactly. They stay in this state of perpetual

00:17:20.730 --> 00:17:23.650
evaluation, incurring the cost of the new technology

00:17:23.650 --> 00:17:26.210
without achieving the full efficiency gains because

00:17:26.210 --> 00:17:28.789
they haven't gotten rid of the old ways. The

00:17:28.789 --> 00:17:31.210
article argues the half -pulled herd is exactly

00:17:31.210 --> 00:17:34.329
that situation for genetics and dehorning. So

00:17:34.329 --> 00:17:36.799
the message is pretty stark then. Being partially

00:17:36.799 --> 00:17:38.859
polled isn't some cost -effective transition

00:17:38.859 --> 00:17:42.019
period. It's actually a financially draining

00:17:42.019 --> 00:17:44.779
state where you bear the costs of both the past

00:17:44.779 --> 00:17:47.380
and the future without fully benefiting from

00:17:47.380 --> 00:17:49.799
either one. That's the powerful argument the

00:17:49.799 --> 00:17:51.660
article makes. It basically says this middle

00:17:51.660 --> 00:17:54.079
ground is the absolute most expensive place to

00:17:54.079 --> 00:17:56.640
be in modern dairy farming. All right, wow. So

00:17:56.640 --> 00:17:59.359
if this gradual half -in, half -out approach

00:17:59.359 --> 00:18:02.660
is, as the article puts it, a trap, what do they

00:18:02.660 --> 00:18:05.220
propose? as the real solution they talk about

00:18:05.220 --> 00:18:07.980
complete pulled transformation potentially even

00:18:07.980 --> 00:18:10.460
in a single generation how does that work this

00:18:10.460 --> 00:18:12.480
is where they really offer the alternative path

00:18:12.480 --> 00:18:15.599
and they position it as not just you know a different

00:18:15.599 --> 00:18:19.099
way but the only economically rational way forward

00:18:19.099 --> 00:18:22.680
in their view a rapid decisive complete transformation

00:18:22.680 --> 00:18:25.180
of the herd's horn status and they highlight

00:18:25.180 --> 00:18:28.099
something unique about boldness itself that makes

00:18:28.099 --> 00:18:31.140
this rapid shift possible unlike trying to improve

00:18:31.140 --> 00:18:34.250
say complex health traits. Yeah, this is a really

00:18:34.250 --> 00:18:36.490
key point about the genetics here. Poldmus, because

00:18:36.490 --> 00:18:38.690
it's controlled by a single dominant gene primarily,

00:18:38.970 --> 00:18:41.549
offers an almost unprecedented opportunity for

00:18:41.549 --> 00:18:44.569
rapid phenotypic change in dairy genetics. Phenotypic

00:18:44.569 --> 00:18:46.730
meaning the physical trait, the lack of horns.

00:18:47.210 --> 00:18:49.509
Correct. You can achieve a near complete transformation

00:18:49.509 --> 00:18:52.910
in the horn status of your calves within a single

00:18:52.910 --> 00:18:55.069
breeding cycle, basically, by using the right

00:18:55.069 --> 00:18:58.369
sires. Unlike, say, milk components or disease

00:18:58.369 --> 00:19:00.809
resistance traits that are governed by many genes

00:19:00.809 --> 00:19:03.890
or have lower heritability traits that take generations

00:19:03.890 --> 00:19:06.750
of careful selection to see significant shifts

00:19:06.750 --> 00:19:08.750
across the whole herd. Takes a long time. Takes

00:19:08.750 --> 00:19:11.670
a long time. Pulledness offers this potential

00:19:11.670 --> 00:19:15.490
for dramatic immediate change capability using

00:19:15.490 --> 00:19:18.289
homozygous pulled. That's P .P. Sires. Okay.

00:19:18.509 --> 00:19:21.190
Homozygous pulled. That's the magic phrase, isn't

00:19:21.190 --> 00:19:22.609
it? Yeah. We'll definitely dig into that distinction

00:19:22.609 --> 00:19:25.930
more. But first, what does this immediate complete

00:19:25.930 --> 00:19:28.470
transformation mean for those costs we just laid

00:19:28.470 --> 00:19:32.029
out? That $17 .36 and all the hidden stuff. It

00:19:32.029 --> 00:19:34.809
means immediate total cost elimination for dehorning.

00:19:35.109 --> 00:19:38.490
Simple as that. That $17 .36 per head in direct

00:19:38.490 --> 00:19:41.049
savings we discussed? Yeah. That savings is triggered

00:19:41.049 --> 00:19:43.970
instantly for every single calf born once you

00:19:43.970 --> 00:19:46.730
commit to using only homozygous pulled PP sires

00:19:46.730 --> 00:19:48.650
for all your planned breedings. Every single

00:19:48.650 --> 00:19:50.990
one? Every single one. Going back to that 500

00:19:50.990 --> 00:19:54.890
cow operation example, that's over $8 ,600 in

00:19:54.890 --> 00:19:57.869
annual savings that hits your bottom line immediately,

00:19:58.150 --> 00:20:00.490
year after year after year, just from eliminating

00:20:00.490 --> 00:20:03.029
the act of dehorning entirely. So the savings

00:20:03.029 --> 00:20:05.069
aren't gradual. They're pretty much all or nothing

00:20:05.069 --> 00:20:07.529
once you make that full switch to P .P. Sires.

00:20:07.690 --> 00:20:09.410
OK, but what about performance? That's always

00:20:09.410 --> 00:20:11.869
been the hang up, right? For years, the perception

00:20:11.869 --> 00:20:14.490
was you had to sacrifice production or type to

00:20:14.490 --> 00:20:16.970
get polled animals. Does the article tackle that

00:20:16.970 --> 00:20:19.430
old chestnut? It absolutely does. And it really

00:20:19.430 --> 00:20:22.750
frames that perception as outdated, you know,

00:20:22.750 --> 00:20:25.190
a relic of a time when polled genetics were.

00:20:25.690 --> 00:20:28.230
frankly, less developed. The article presents

00:20:28.230 --> 00:20:30.930
data that directly contradicts this idea that

00:20:30.930 --> 00:20:33.269
polled genetics automatically compromise performance.

00:20:33.650 --> 00:20:36.309
What kind of data? It said specific Arizona herd

00:20:36.309 --> 00:20:38.720
data. pretty large scale, showing that pulled

00:20:38.720 --> 00:20:40.740
cows in that study actually produced slightly

00:20:40.740 --> 00:20:43.299
more milk daily compared to their horned counterparts.

00:20:43.599 --> 00:20:48.059
The numbers were 66 .5 kilograms versus 65 .9

00:20:48.059 --> 00:20:50.500
kilograms daily. Okay, 0 .6 kilograms difference.

00:20:50.599 --> 00:20:53.160
It's not a massive amount daily. No, not massive,

00:20:53.200 --> 00:20:54.839
but like you said earlier, in a tight market,

00:20:54.920 --> 00:20:57.819
every little bit helps, right? Especially when

00:20:57.819 --> 00:21:00.920
you multiply it across a whole herd over a lactation.

00:21:01.099 --> 00:21:03.500
True. And the article mentions other benefits

00:21:03.500 --> 00:21:06.700
too. Indirect ones. Yeah, indirect benefits as

00:21:06.700 --> 00:21:09.099
well. Things like animal handling. Naturally

00:21:09.099 --> 00:21:11.740
pulled cattle are generally calmer, easier to

00:21:11.740 --> 00:21:13.799
handle, less stress on them, less stress on your

00:21:13.799 --> 00:21:17.269
team. Which could impact health. Exactly. This

00:21:17.269 --> 00:21:19.569
reduced stress and improved handling can contribute

00:21:19.569 --> 00:21:21.710
to better overall animal health and potentially

00:21:21.710 --> 00:21:25.009
even improved milk quality parameters. The article

00:21:25.009 --> 00:21:27.410
mentions operations reporting cows moving through

00:21:27.410 --> 00:21:29.809
the barn easier, less fighting at the feed bunk,

00:21:29.990 --> 00:21:32.430
and more efficient use of space in freestall

00:21:32.430 --> 00:21:34.309
barns when you don't have to worry about horns

00:21:34.309 --> 00:21:36.609
taking up space or causing injuries. Okay, that

00:21:36.609 --> 00:21:39.680
makes sense. Beyond just the daily milk weight,

00:21:39.779 --> 00:21:42.640
what about overall genetic merit? Are the top

00:21:42.640 --> 00:21:45.460
polled animals today genuinely competitive with

00:21:45.460 --> 00:21:48.079
the top horned animals in terms of indexes like

00:21:48.079 --> 00:21:51.539
net merit or TPI? The article is very, very clear

00:21:51.539 --> 00:21:54.279
on this point. Yes, they absolutely are. It provides

00:21:54.279 --> 00:21:57.180
data showing that the top homozygous polled sires

00:21:57.180 --> 00:22:00.319
available today average an impressive $1 ,108

00:22:00.319 --> 00:22:03.900
in net merit. Over $1 ,100 net merit average

00:22:03.900 --> 00:22:06.660
for the top pee -pee bulls. That's strong. It's

00:22:06.660 --> 00:22:08.859
very strong. It also compares the difference

00:22:08.859 --> 00:22:10.900
in another index, herd health profit dollars,

00:22:11.039 --> 00:22:13.920
between the top -horned and top -polled NCSGN

00:22:13.920 --> 00:22:16.500
sires, stating the difference is less than $100.

00:22:16.880 --> 00:22:19.480
Less than $100 difference on that specific index.

00:22:19.640 --> 00:22:21.880
Yeah. And the article basically argues this difference

00:22:21.880 --> 00:22:24.640
is, quote, negligible when you compare it to

00:22:24.640 --> 00:22:27.200
the significant guaranteed operational benefits

00:22:27.200 --> 00:22:30.619
and cost savings you get from eliminating dehorning

00:22:30.619 --> 00:22:33.319
across your entire herd. So the genetic gap,

00:22:33.460 --> 00:22:35.900
if it ever truly existed at those elite levels.

00:22:36.329 --> 00:22:38.670
has essentially closed, according to this analysis.

00:22:38.990 --> 00:22:40.710
That's the article's strong assertion, and it

00:22:40.710 --> 00:22:43.130
seems backed by the current sire evaluation data.

00:22:43.329 --> 00:22:45.390
And they don't just talk averages. They list

00:22:45.390 --> 00:22:48.109
specific examples of these top PP sires that

00:22:48.109 --> 00:22:50.529
are ranking right alongside the best horned bulls.

00:22:50.569 --> 00:22:53.769
Names like Luster P, Banjo P, and Monument P.

00:22:54.009 --> 00:22:56.349
And these aren't like niche bulls just for polled

00:22:56.349 --> 00:22:58.769
breeders. Not at all. The article points out

00:22:58.769 --> 00:23:00.990
they are consistently appearing on the top 100

00:23:00.990 --> 00:23:04.950
TPI proven sire list. These are mainstream, high

00:23:04.950 --> 00:23:07.640
-impact sires. Okay, this all seems to really

00:23:07.640 --> 00:23:10.039
hinge on understanding that critical genetic

00:23:10.039 --> 00:23:12.660
distinction you brought up earlier. The difference

00:23:12.660 --> 00:23:15.099
between just being polled and being homozygous

00:23:15.099 --> 00:23:16.640
polled. Can you break that down again? Yeah,

00:23:16.660 --> 00:23:19.160
this is the absolute core concept for achieving

00:23:19.160 --> 00:23:21.559
that single generation transformation the article

00:23:21.559 --> 00:23:24.299
advocates for. It's crucial. As we discussed

00:23:24.299 --> 00:23:27.019
briefly, an animal that's just... generally called

00:23:27.019 --> 00:23:30.019
polled, could be heterozygous carrying that PP

00:23:30.019 --> 00:23:32.940
genotype. One polled gene, one horned gene. Right.

00:23:33.039 --> 00:23:36.079
And that PP animal, if bred to a horned animal,

00:23:36.319 --> 00:23:38.799
will still produce roughly 50 % horned offspring.

00:23:38.940 --> 00:23:41.380
You're stuck in that loop. But a homozygous polled

00:23:41.380 --> 00:23:44.640
animal genotype, PP, carries two copies of the

00:23:44.640 --> 00:23:47.380
dominant polled gene. Both alleles are for polledness.

00:23:47.880 --> 00:23:51.240
PP, two big Ps. Exactly. And this genetic composition,

00:23:51.559 --> 00:23:54.119
having two copies of the polled gene, means that

00:23:54.119 --> 00:23:57.160
PP animal will guarantee 100 % hornless offspring

00:23:57.160 --> 00:23:59.500
every single time, regardless of whether the

00:23:59.500 --> 00:24:02.099
mate is horned or even heterozygous polled, PP.

00:24:02.380 --> 00:24:04.940
They can only pass on a P gene. Okay, that makes

00:24:04.940 --> 00:24:07.630
perfect sense now. Two copies of the polled gene

00:24:07.630 --> 00:24:09.670
means they only pass on a polled gene, so the

00:24:09.670 --> 00:24:11.990
calf always gets at least one P, making it polled.

00:24:12.210 --> 00:24:14.630
Exactly right. And that genetic certainty is

00:24:14.630 --> 00:24:17.549
the magic key here. That PP genotype is what

00:24:17.549 --> 00:24:19.730
allows you to make the switch immediately and

00:24:19.730 --> 00:24:22.769
completely eliminate dehorning procedures. Permanently.

00:24:23.150 --> 00:24:25.730
And as the article details later on, it also

00:24:25.730 --> 00:24:28.210
unlocks some really significant strategic breeding

00:24:28.210 --> 00:24:31.009
opportunities that just aren't possible if you're

00:24:31.009 --> 00:24:32.849
stuck with a mixed or partially polled herd.

00:24:33.259 --> 00:24:35.279
So the solution is clear then, according to the

00:24:35.279 --> 00:24:37.920
Bullvine article. It's a rapid, decisive move

00:24:37.920 --> 00:24:41.380
to 100 % polled offspring by exclusively using

00:24:41.380 --> 00:24:44.180
homozygous polled PP sires. This immediately

00:24:44.180 --> 00:24:47.900
saves you that $17 .36 per calf, gets rid of

00:24:47.900 --> 00:24:50.000
the hidden costs, and allows you to use elite

00:24:50.000 --> 00:24:52.079
genetics without compromise. That's the fundamental

00:24:52.079 --> 00:24:54.980
argument, yes. Presented as a pragmatic, financially

00:24:54.980 --> 00:24:57.160
smart decision based on the current state of

00:24:57.160 --> 00:24:59.599
genetics, technology, and the market. Let's dive

00:24:59.599 --> 00:25:01.980
deeper into that genetic side then. The article

00:25:01.980 --> 00:25:04.980
talks about a genetic revolution and some pretty

00:25:04.980 --> 00:25:07.720
exciting strategic breeding opportunities this

00:25:07.720 --> 00:25:11.059
100 % polled commitment unlocks. It argues pretty

00:25:11.059 --> 00:25:13.400
forcefully that the whole idea of making a genetic

00:25:13.400 --> 00:25:16.059
sacrifice to go polled is basically a myth now.

00:25:16.349 --> 00:25:19.210
He uses really strong language here. Yeah. Stating

00:25:19.210 --> 00:25:21.410
that the historical argument against adopting

00:25:21.410 --> 00:25:23.910
pole genetics, you know, the idea that you had

00:25:23.910 --> 00:25:26.829
to give up genetic merit or compromise on production

00:25:26.829 --> 00:25:30.250
or settle for lower type, that argument has definitively

00:25:30.250 --> 00:25:33.049
collapsed. Collapsed. Okay. And they use a powerful

00:25:33.049 --> 00:25:34.589
piece of evidence to prove that point, right?

00:25:34.670 --> 00:25:37.700
I do. The success of elite polled sires like

00:25:37.700 --> 00:25:40.220
Cherry Lily, Lester P is their prime example.

00:25:40.359 --> 00:25:42.880
Lester P, he's been huge. Absolutely huge. The

00:25:42.880 --> 00:25:44.480
article highlights that Lester P has sold over

00:25:44.480 --> 00:25:48.339
901 ,300 doses globally. Just think about that

00:25:48.339 --> 00:25:51.759
number for a second. Over 900 ,000 doses. He's

00:25:51.759 --> 00:25:54.380
become the world's first polled millionaire sire

00:25:54.380 --> 00:25:57.240
purely based on semen sales. And the article

00:25:57.240 --> 00:25:59.680
emphasizes that his massive success and global

00:25:59.680 --> 00:26:02.440
popularity are not despite him being polled.

00:26:03.019 --> 00:26:05.240
but arguably because he combines that highly

00:26:05.240 --> 00:26:08.180
desired hornless trait with exceptional, truly

00:26:08.180 --> 00:26:11.160
elite performance metrics across the board. Net

00:26:11.160 --> 00:26:14.640
merit, TPI, type, health traits, the whole package.

00:26:14.920 --> 00:26:17.660
So poultness isn't a handicap anymore. It's actually

00:26:17.660 --> 00:26:20.180
becoming a feature that makes elite genetics

00:26:20.180 --> 00:26:22.859
even more valuable in today's market. That's

00:26:22.859 --> 00:26:24.980
precisely the article's point. And it attributes

00:26:24.980 --> 00:26:27.480
much of this rapid advancement we've seen in

00:26:27.480 --> 00:26:29.680
polled genetics to technological breakthroughs,

00:26:29.680 --> 00:26:32.279
particularly the advent of genomic evaluations

00:26:32.279 --> 00:26:35.279
back in 2009. Right. Genomics changed everything

00:26:35.279 --> 00:26:37.500
in dairy breeding. How did it have such a big

00:26:37.500 --> 00:26:39.559
impact specifically on polled genetics? Well,

00:26:39.559 --> 00:26:41.779
genomics allowed breeders to identify superior

00:26:41.779 --> 00:26:44.240
polled animals, especially young bulls and heifers,

00:26:44.259 --> 00:26:46.960
much, much earlier and with much higher accuracy

00:26:46.960 --> 00:26:49.059
than ever before possible. Compared to waiting

00:26:49.059 --> 00:26:52.039
for progeny testing. Exactly. Before genomics,

00:26:52.140 --> 00:26:54.099
breeders relied heavily on pedigree information

00:26:54.099 --> 00:26:56.660
and then waiting years for progeny testing results

00:26:56.660 --> 00:26:59.619
to prove a bull's worth and to confirm his polled

00:26:59.619 --> 00:27:02.920
status reliably. With genomics, suddenly you

00:27:02.920 --> 00:27:05.339
could get a highly reliable estimate of an animal's

00:27:05.339 --> 00:27:07.880
total genetic merit and its polled status, whether

00:27:07.880 --> 00:27:10.859
it was PP, PP, or PP from just a tissue sample

00:27:10.859 --> 00:27:13.240
taken from a young calf. Game changer. Total

00:27:13.240 --> 00:27:16.180
game changer. This ability to quickly identify

00:27:16.180 --> 00:27:19.910
and select the truly elite polled individuals,

00:27:20.230 --> 00:27:23.009
both male and female, at a young age dramatically

00:27:23.009 --> 00:27:26.309
compressed generation intervals. It just massively

00:27:26.309 --> 00:27:28.549
accelerated the rate of genetic progress within

00:27:28.549 --> 00:27:30.789
the polled lines. And genomic testing for polled

00:27:30.789 --> 00:27:32.789
status itself is very accurate now, isn't it?

00:27:33.069 --> 00:27:35.009
Extremely accurate. The article mentions the

00:27:35.009 --> 00:27:36.990
current genomic testing capability for heifer

00:27:36.990 --> 00:27:40.529
calves has a remarkable 99 % accuracy in confirming

00:27:40.529 --> 00:27:44.089
polled status. PP, PP, or PP. That level of certainty

00:27:44.089 --> 00:27:46.789
allows you, as a producer, to make breeding and

00:27:46.789 --> 00:27:48.880
management decisions with very high confidence

00:27:48.880 --> 00:27:51.240
right when that calf is still very young. Now,

00:27:51.380 --> 00:27:54.660
this high accuracy and the increasing availability

00:27:54.660 --> 00:27:58.119
of these elite PP animals leads to a strategic

00:27:58.119 --> 00:28:00.940
advantage the article says most producers might

00:28:00.940 --> 00:28:03.380
be missing out on. What's that? This is a really

00:28:03.380 --> 00:28:05.799
insightful point they make, I think. Once your

00:28:05.799 --> 00:28:08.920
herd becomes homozygous polled, meaning you have

00:28:08.920 --> 00:28:11.839
PP females, or even if you just have some individual

00:28:11.839 --> 00:28:15.519
PP females, you unlock a unique strategic breeding

00:28:15.519 --> 00:28:19.460
opportunity. You can confidently outcross those

00:28:19.460 --> 00:28:23.880
PP females with the absolute elite horned bulls

00:28:23.880 --> 00:28:25.759
in the breed. We're talking the highest ranking,

00:28:25.859 --> 00:28:27.779
top of the charts bulls, regardless of whether

00:28:27.779 --> 00:28:30.200
they carry the polled gene or not. So use the

00:28:30.200 --> 00:28:32.380
very best bull, period, even if he's horned.

00:28:32.380 --> 00:28:35.799
Yes, and still guarantee 100 % hornless offspring

00:28:35.799 --> 00:28:37.920
from that mating. Wait, really? So you can tap

00:28:37.920 --> 00:28:40.039
into the very best genetics available anywhere

00:28:40.039 --> 00:28:42.019
in the breed, even if they happen to be in horned

00:28:42.019 --> 00:28:44.099
bulls, without ever bringing horns back into

00:28:44.099 --> 00:28:46.299
your herd phenotypically. That seems like you're

00:28:46.299 --> 00:28:47.980
genuinely getting the best of both worlds there.

00:28:48.269 --> 00:28:50.509
That's precisely the strategic advantage the

00:28:50.509 --> 00:28:53.609
article highlights. It describes this as a sophisticated

00:28:53.609 --> 00:28:55.950
breeding strategy that allows you to maximize

00:28:55.950 --> 00:28:58.829
both polledness and overall genetic advancement

00:28:58.829 --> 00:29:02.109
simultaneously. You're no longer limited to only

00:29:02.109 --> 00:29:04.430
the pool and polled bulls when you want to introduce

00:29:04.430 --> 00:29:07.390
top genetics from outside lines. Your PP females

00:29:07.390 --> 00:29:10.230
give you the power to tap into the entire breed's

00:29:10.230 --> 00:29:13.329
elite genetic pool while locking in that desirable

00:29:13.329 --> 00:29:15.349
hornless trait in the calves. That's clever.

00:29:15.589 --> 00:29:17.900
It is. They compare it to how progressive operations

00:29:17.900 --> 00:29:20.500
are using detailed activity monitoring data,

00:29:20.660 --> 00:29:23.500
not just for basic heat detection anymore, but

00:29:23.500 --> 00:29:26.480
to pinpoint their absolute top genetic cows and

00:29:26.480 --> 00:29:29.619
optimize breeding timing specifically for those

00:29:29.619 --> 00:29:32.339
elite individuals. It's about leveraging technology

00:29:32.339 --> 00:29:35.220
and genetic strategy to maximize gain on your

00:29:35.220 --> 00:29:37.980
most valuable animals. And this outcrossing strategy

00:29:37.980 --> 00:29:40.420
also directly addresses a historical concern

00:29:40.420 --> 00:29:42.359
that sometimes comes up with polled populations,

00:29:42.640 --> 00:29:45.039
the issue of genetic diversity and potential

00:29:45.039 --> 00:29:48.170
inbreeding down the line. Yes, exactly. The article

00:29:48.170 --> 00:29:50.730
positions this outcrossing strategy as the direct

00:29:50.730 --> 00:29:53.210
answer to those historical concerns about, perhaps,

00:29:53.430 --> 00:29:55.849
a limited genetic diversity within polled lines

00:29:55.849 --> 00:29:58.910
in the past. By being able to cross your PP females

00:29:58.910 --> 00:30:01.750
with diverse, elite horned bulls from completely

00:30:01.750 --> 00:30:04.890
different bloodlines, you are actively introducing

00:30:04.890 --> 00:30:07.509
new genetics and broadening the diversity base

00:30:07.509 --> 00:30:10.029
of your polled herd while still guaranteeing

00:30:10.029 --> 00:30:12.289
every calf born is polled. Okay, but is there

00:30:12.289 --> 00:30:15.160
already... decent diversity within the polled

00:30:15.160 --> 00:30:17.559
population itself even before you start thinking

00:30:17.559 --> 00:30:19.940
about outcrossing like that. The article assures

00:30:19.940 --> 00:30:22.440
us there is, and it's definitely growing. It

00:30:22.440 --> 00:30:24.859
specifically mentions, as an example, that three

00:30:24.859 --> 00:30:27.680
commonly available, distantly related PP bowls

00:30:27.680 --> 00:30:30.700
currently show no common sires for at least three

00:30:30.700 --> 00:30:33.660
generations back. So unrelated options exist.

00:30:33.980 --> 00:30:36.799
Exactly. This, the article states, is proof that

00:30:36.799 --> 00:30:38.640
genetic diversity solutions are being actively

00:30:38.640 --> 00:30:41.000
developed and do exist within the homozygous

00:30:41.000 --> 00:30:43.220
pulled lines being offered by the major AI companies

00:30:43.220 --> 00:30:45.690
today. You're not just reliant on one source

00:30:45.690 --> 00:30:48.430
or one family of PP genetics. There are multiple

00:30:48.430 --> 00:30:51.349
diverse options becoming available. And why is

00:30:51.349 --> 00:30:53.910
this point about avoiding inbreeding particularly

00:30:53.910 --> 00:30:56.509
important for producers who are really focused

00:30:56.509 --> 00:30:59.299
on longevity and lifetime production? Well, because

00:30:59.299 --> 00:31:01.940
inbreeding depression can negatively impact crucial

00:31:01.940 --> 00:31:04.779
traits like health, fertility, and just overall

00:31:04.779 --> 00:31:07.960
things that are absolutely critical for a cow's

00:31:07.960 --> 00:31:10.240
longevity and profitability in the herd. Right.

00:31:10.319 --> 00:31:12.539
You want cows that last. You want cows that last

00:31:12.539 --> 00:31:14.759
multiple lactations and contribute consistently

00:31:14.759 --> 00:31:18.119
over their lifetime. So managing inbreeding is

00:31:18.119 --> 00:31:21.039
key. The article argues that by being able to

00:31:21.039 --> 00:31:23.900
either use diverse PP sires or strategically

00:31:23.900 --> 00:31:27.059
outcross your PP females to diverse elite horn

00:31:27.059 --> 00:31:30.119
sires, you can maintain elite genetic progress

00:31:30.119 --> 00:31:32.880
while actively managing those inbreeding risks.

00:31:33.609 --> 00:31:35.630
That's fundamental for building a profitable,

00:31:35.809 --> 00:31:38.730
long -lasting herd, not just one focused on first

00:31:38.730 --> 00:31:41.190
lactation performance. So the whole genetic landscape

00:31:41.190 --> 00:31:43.369
for polled animals has completely shifted then.

00:31:43.470 --> 00:31:45.609
It's really not about making a sacrifice anymore.

00:31:45.690 --> 00:31:47.730
It's about leveraging elite genetics strategically

00:31:47.730 --> 00:31:50.549
to gain a valuable physical trade advantage,

00:31:50.690 --> 00:31:53.269
plus all the cost savings. That's the powerful

00:31:53.269 --> 00:31:56.359
shift the article describes, yeah. Driven by

00:31:56.359 --> 00:31:59.579
technology like genomics and the increasing availability

00:31:59.579 --> 00:32:02.720
of these top -tier PP sires. Okay, but the economic

00:32:02.720 --> 00:32:05.299
argument isn't just about saving costs, is either,

00:32:05.400 --> 00:32:08.339
is it? The Bullvine article also digs into the

00:32:08.339 --> 00:32:11.289
other side of the coin. Capturing premium markets

00:32:11.289 --> 00:32:14.130
and riding what seems like a growing wave of

00:32:14.130 --> 00:32:16.750
global momentum towards polled genetics. Correct.

00:32:16.970 --> 00:32:19.289
The article argues that the financial benefits

00:32:19.289 --> 00:32:22.170
extend well beyond just eliminating that dehorning

00:32:22.170 --> 00:32:24.950
bill, important as that is. They move into tangible

00:32:24.950 --> 00:32:27.210
opportunities for increased revenue and better

00:32:27.210 --> 00:32:29.720
market access. And this seems to be partly driven

00:32:29.720 --> 00:32:32.200
by consumer demand and what the big buyers are

00:32:32.200 --> 00:32:34.400
looking for now. Absolutely. This is a crucial

00:32:34.400 --> 00:32:36.519
market signal they really highlight. The article

00:32:36.519 --> 00:32:38.420
points out that Meiji dairy buyers, and they

00:32:38.420 --> 00:32:40.539
list some big recognizable names like Nestle,

00:32:40.619 --> 00:32:43.119
General Mills, Dunkin' Brands, are increasingly

00:32:43.119 --> 00:32:46.079
prioritizing suppliers who can demonstrate humane

00:32:46.079 --> 00:32:48.970
animal treatment practices. Makes sense. Consumers

00:32:48.970 --> 00:32:51.029
care more about that. They do. And the article

00:32:51.029 --> 00:32:53.190
states unequivocally that this trend is creating

00:32:53.190 --> 00:32:55.869
a clear, tangible market pull for operations

00:32:55.869 --> 00:32:58.990
raising naturally pulled cattle. And this isn't

00:32:58.990 --> 00:33:01.650
just some potential future possibility like maybe

00:33:01.650 --> 00:33:03.970
someday. It's happening now. That's what the

00:33:03.970 --> 00:33:06.329
article strongly emphasizes. These are current

00:33:06.329 --> 00:33:08.869
market realities. Being able to confidently tell

00:33:08.869 --> 00:33:11.630
a buyer our herd is 100 percent naturally hornless.

00:33:11.650 --> 00:33:14.210
We don't dehorn any animals. That's becoming

00:33:14.210 --> 00:33:16.470
a real marketing advantage right now. And the

00:33:16.470 --> 00:33:19.450
100 % poll designation itself, just having that

00:33:19.450 --> 00:33:21.609
label, is becoming valuable in the livestock

00:33:21.609 --> 00:33:23.990
markets. The article argues it absolutely is.

00:33:24.130 --> 00:33:26.170
It's functioning kind of like a premium attribute,

00:33:26.490 --> 00:33:29.049
similar to how other genetic certifications or

00:33:29.049 --> 00:33:31.569
specific trait verifications can add value to

00:33:31.569 --> 00:33:34.549
animals. It provides a clear, easily marketable

00:33:34.549 --> 00:33:37.089
characteristic that certain buyers actively value

00:33:37.089 --> 00:33:40.069
and may pay more for. What kind of sales streams

00:33:40.069 --> 00:33:42.049
are we talking about? The article details several.

00:33:42.480 --> 00:33:45.099
bread heifers, fresh cows, feeder calves, and

00:33:45.099 --> 00:33:47.819
even service bulls. Being able to market these

00:33:47.819 --> 00:33:50.160
animals explicitly as naturally polled, especially

00:33:50.160 --> 00:33:53.019
homozygous polled, can create additional revenue

00:33:53.019 --> 00:33:55.319
streams that operations still dealing with horned

00:33:55.319 --> 00:33:57.539
animals might struggle to access, or at least

00:33:57.539 --> 00:34:00.119
not get the same premium for. Okay, that covers

00:34:00.119 --> 00:34:02.740
the animal sales side. What about actual milk

00:34:02.740 --> 00:34:05.160
market premiums? Are those happening yet for

00:34:05.160 --> 00:34:08.510
milk from polled herds? The article discusses

00:34:08.510 --> 00:34:11.510
the trajectory towards emerging milk market premiums

00:34:11.510 --> 00:34:14.530
for products originating specifically from naturally

00:34:14.530 --> 00:34:16.889
polled herds. Now, it acknowledges these are

00:34:16.889 --> 00:34:18.210
still developing, right? It's not widespread

00:34:18.210 --> 00:34:20.949
yet. But the path seems clear, according to the

00:34:20.949 --> 00:34:23.730
article, driven by that underlying consumer demand

00:34:23.730 --> 00:34:26.690
for products perceived as more humanely produced.

00:34:27.389 --> 00:34:30.070
The writing is on the wall, they suggest, that

00:34:30.070 --> 00:34:32.570
milk from naturally hornless herds is likely

00:34:32.570 --> 00:34:35.389
to command premiums in the future as these programs

00:34:35.389 --> 00:34:38.860
develop. So by going 100 % polled, you're potentially

00:34:38.860 --> 00:34:41.699
creating multiple profit centers. You're saving

00:34:41.699 --> 00:34:44.579
significant costs from stopping dehorning, you're

00:34:44.579 --> 00:34:46.480
potentially getting enhanced value for animals

00:34:46.480 --> 00:34:48.760
you sell, and you're positioning yourself for

00:34:48.760 --> 00:34:51.679
potential future premiums on your milk. Precisely.

00:34:51.679 --> 00:34:54.599
And in an industry with historically tight margins,

00:34:54.860 --> 00:34:58.119
like dairy, diversifying and enhancing your revenue

00:34:58.119 --> 00:35:00.940
streams from a single genetic decision like eliminating

00:35:00.940 --> 00:35:04.860
horns is a pretty significant advantage. It positions

00:35:04.860 --> 00:35:08.000
your operation to capture value at multiple points

00:35:08.000 --> 00:35:10.500
in the chain. The article also provides what

00:35:10.500 --> 00:35:13.380
it calls a global market reality check, showing

00:35:13.380 --> 00:35:15.679
this isn't just a North American trend or discussion.

00:35:16.039 --> 00:35:19.079
Oh, far from it. The article presents some really

00:35:19.079 --> 00:35:22.179
eye -opening data on the European trend. It projects

00:35:22.179 --> 00:35:25.599
that nearly 67 percent, two -thirds of bulls

00:35:25.599 --> 00:35:29.099
used there will be pulled by 2025. 67 percent

00:35:29.099 --> 00:35:31.599
by next year. Wow. Yeah. Think about that. Two

00:35:31.599 --> 00:35:33.880
-thirds of the bulls used in major European dairy

00:35:33.880 --> 00:35:36.300
countries will be pulled very, very soon. That's

00:35:36.300 --> 00:35:38.659
massive international momentum. And compare that

00:35:38.659 --> 00:35:40.500
to the North American figure the article cited.

00:35:40.659 --> 00:35:43.260
What was it? Just 13 percent pulled bull usage

00:35:43.260 --> 00:35:45.920
back in the 2019 data they used. That's a huge,

00:35:45.980 --> 00:35:47.269
huge difference. difference in adoption rate.

00:35:47.349 --> 00:35:50.010
It is a massive difference. And the article used

00:35:50.010 --> 00:35:52.690
this comparison to really show how much faster

00:35:52.690 --> 00:35:55.070
other major dairy regions are moving on this.

00:35:55.230 --> 00:35:57.829
It also mentions places like New Zealand, where

00:35:57.829 --> 00:36:00.670
adoption is heavily influenced by export market

00:36:00.670 --> 00:36:03.650
requirements that favor polled. And Australia,

00:36:03.710 --> 00:36:06.050
where polled adoption is growing, partly for

00:36:06.050 --> 00:36:08.030
heat stress tolerance benefits, but also for

00:36:08.030 --> 00:36:10.570
general efficiency. So what's the main takeaway

00:36:10.570 --> 00:36:13.190
for producers here from looking at these global

00:36:13.190 --> 00:36:16.380
patterns? The article argues forcefully that

00:36:16.380 --> 00:36:19.139
these global adoption trends signal pretty clearly

00:36:19.139 --> 00:36:21.360
that pole genetics aren't just some niche market

00:36:21.360 --> 00:36:24.559
or a passing fad. They are rapidly becoming the

00:36:24.559 --> 00:36:27.460
industry standard worldwide. The standard, not

00:36:27.460 --> 00:36:30.659
the exception. Exactly. And operations that recognize

00:36:30.659 --> 00:36:33.239
this shift and embrace it early stand to gain

00:36:33.239 --> 00:36:35.949
a significant first mover advantage. Not just

00:36:35.949 --> 00:36:37.929
in accessing those developing premium markets

00:36:37.929 --> 00:36:40.050
we talked about, but also in getting ahead on

00:36:40.050 --> 00:36:42.769
the genetic development curve itself as the elite

00:36:42.769 --> 00:36:45.010
-pulled lines continue their rapid advancement

00:36:45.010 --> 00:36:47.510
globally. So it's not just being driven by animal

00:36:47.510 --> 00:36:50.969
welfare concerns or avoiding a painful task anymore.

00:36:52.110 --> 00:36:54.690
Internationally, It's clearly being seen and

00:36:54.690 --> 00:36:57.449
adopted as a fundamental competitive advantage.

00:36:57.789 --> 00:37:00.070
That's exactly the framing the article uses.

00:37:00.329 --> 00:37:03.010
The international dairy community, often driven

00:37:03.010 --> 00:37:05.650
maybe more strongly by regulatory pressures and

00:37:05.650 --> 00:37:08.489
consumer demands than here, has already embraced

00:37:08.489 --> 00:37:11.030
polled genetics as a key competitive advantage

00:37:11.030 --> 00:37:13.989
for their operations moving forward. Okay, to

00:37:13.989 --> 00:37:16.550
make all of this feel even more real and achievable,

00:37:16.730 --> 00:37:19.369
the Bullvine article features some real -world

00:37:19.369 --> 00:37:22.039
success stories. operations that are already

00:37:22.039 --> 00:37:24.559
doing this leading the way. Yeah, they highlight

00:37:24.559 --> 00:37:26.739
several farms that really demonstrate this isn't

00:37:26.739 --> 00:37:29.059
just theory written in an article. It's a proven,

00:37:29.199 --> 00:37:32.420
successful, long -term strategy out on actual

00:37:32.420 --> 00:37:35.119
dairies. The first one they feature is Burkitt

00:37:35.119 --> 00:37:38.010
Falls Farm in Pennsylvania. Burkitt Falls. What's

00:37:38.010 --> 00:37:39.949
special about their story? They really represent

00:37:39.949 --> 00:37:42.369
long -term commitment and viability. The article

00:37:42.369 --> 00:37:44.710
calls them six decades of polled excellence.

00:37:45.050 --> 00:37:47.469
They've been dedicated to breeding polled Holsteins

00:37:47.469 --> 00:37:50.570
for over 60 years. 60 years. That's incredible

00:37:50.570 --> 00:37:53.210
dedication. It really is. They've consistently

00:37:53.210 --> 00:37:56.630
maintained over 90 % polled animals in their

00:37:56.630 --> 00:38:00.010
herd, with a significant portion, around 35%,

00:38:00.010 --> 00:38:02.730
being homozygous polled. What's been their driving

00:38:02.730 --> 00:38:05.320
philosophy behind that long commitment? The article

00:38:05.320 --> 00:38:07.699
includes a great quote from John Burkett outlining

00:38:07.699 --> 00:38:09.699
their consistent philosophy over that time. He

00:38:09.699 --> 00:38:11.860
says, we want to breed a cow that classifies

00:38:11.860 --> 00:38:15.539
EX, produces 200 ,000 pounds and 90 ,000 kilograms

00:38:15.539 --> 00:38:18.960
of component -rich milk, and is polled. Simple,

00:38:19.119 --> 00:38:21.780
balanced, and includes polled right there. Exactly.

00:38:21.860 --> 00:38:24.280
He continues, This philosophy has remained the

00:38:24.280 --> 00:38:26.699
same for a long time. We have never pursued the

00:38:26.699 --> 00:38:28.960
trend of the month. It just shows their focus

00:38:28.960 --> 00:38:31.260
has always been on a balanced, highly functional,

00:38:31.400 --> 00:38:34.500
long -lasting cow that also happens to be polled.

00:38:34.679 --> 00:38:36.960
Poldness is just an integrated trait in their

00:38:36.960 --> 00:38:39.420
overall pursuit of breeding excellence. And their

00:38:39.420 --> 00:38:42.099
influence has been truly global. It's actually

00:38:42.099 --> 00:38:44.420
remarkable. The article states that over two

00:38:44.420 --> 00:38:46.760
-thirds, again, that two -thirds number of polled

00:38:46.760 --> 00:38:49.199
Holsteins worldwide trace their genetics back

00:38:49.199 --> 00:38:51.539
somehow to Burkitt Falls bloodlines. It provides

00:38:51.539 --> 00:38:54.760
really compelling real -world proof that committed

00:38:54.760 --> 00:38:56.940
polled breeding does not require sacrificing

00:38:56.940 --> 00:39:00.719
longevity, production, or type excellence. They've

00:39:00.719 --> 00:39:03.840
proven it's possible for decades. Okay, who else

00:39:03.840 --> 00:39:06.460
do they feature as a success story? They highlight

00:39:06.460 --> 00:39:09.599
Drew Holm Holsteins, run by Andrew Morton. His

00:39:09.599 --> 00:39:12.280
operation serves as a great example of successfully

00:39:12.280 --> 00:39:14.820
integrating polled genetics into already high

00:39:14.820 --> 00:39:17.519
-performing established cow families without

00:39:17.519 --> 00:39:20.460
disrupting that existing performance base. How

00:39:20.460 --> 00:39:22.739
do they manage that integration? They strategically

00:39:22.739 --> 00:39:25.300
brought in the polled gene through a specific

00:39:25.300 --> 00:39:29.440
bowl named OCD Eraser, ZipItP, and this move,

00:39:29.599 --> 00:39:31.639
the article explains, has led to the production

00:39:31.639 --> 00:39:34.460
of popular high -ranking AI sires coming out

00:39:34.460 --> 00:39:36.940
of their program while they simultaneously maintained

00:39:36.940 --> 00:39:39.300
elite production and type within their core cow

00:39:39.300 --> 00:39:41.239
families. What's Andrew Martin's view on this

00:39:41.239 --> 00:39:43.719
now? He's quoted very simply but powerfully,

00:39:44.139 --> 00:39:47.179
polled is the way of the future. Clear conviction

00:39:47.179 --> 00:39:49.869
there. The article describes their breeding focus

00:39:49.869 --> 00:39:52.469
as developing balanced, easy -to -handle cows

00:39:52.469 --> 00:39:55.210
with strong udders. Again, you see that theme

00:39:55.210 --> 00:39:57.710
of integrating polledness into a program focused

00:39:57.710 --> 00:40:00.250
on overall functional excellence and usability.

00:40:00.750 --> 00:40:04.570
And they use a specific cow from Drew Home as

00:40:04.570 --> 00:40:06.889
an example, right? Drew Home's Super Shot Leisure.

00:40:07.119 --> 00:40:09.480
Yes, she's a fantastic illustration of their

00:40:09.480 --> 00:40:12.420
success. Drew Holm's super shot leisure is classified

00:40:12.420 --> 00:40:16.599
EX92 with a 94 -point udder demonstrating truly

00:40:16.599 --> 00:40:19.219
elite type and functionality. 94 udder, wow.

00:40:19.500 --> 00:40:22.000
Yeah, and she produced over 90 ,000 kilograms,

00:40:22.199 --> 00:40:24.519
that's nearly 200 ,000 pounds, in her lifetime,

00:40:24.719 --> 00:40:27.619
showing excellent production and longevity. And

00:40:27.619 --> 00:40:29.900
the key part, she is the great random of several

00:40:29.900 --> 00:40:32.260
popular Drew Holm sires that carry the pole gene,

00:40:32.420 --> 00:40:35.000
including homozygous pole bulls like Lehigh PP

00:40:35.000 --> 00:40:37.860
and Logic PP. plus another popular one, Leighton

00:40:37.860 --> 00:40:40.199
P. She really shows you can have it all. Elite

00:40:40.199 --> 00:40:42.940
type, massive production longevity, and successfully

00:40:42.940 --> 00:40:44.760
integrate polled genetics right into the heart

00:40:44.760 --> 00:40:46.920
of the family. That's a powerful example. And

00:40:46.920 --> 00:40:48.920
the final one they mentioned was North Pole Genetics.

00:40:49.099 --> 00:40:51.719
Right. This is a more recent example, but equally

00:40:51.719 --> 00:40:54.179
powerful in its message. It's a partnership established

00:40:54.179 --> 00:40:57.380
just back in 2021. They made a very significant

00:40:57.380 --> 00:41:00.400
strategic investment by acquiring five elite

00:41:00.400 --> 00:41:03.199
polled cows, and notably... Four of those five

00:41:03.199 --> 00:41:05.460
were daughters of the globally renowned cow,

00:41:05.699 --> 00:41:09.320
Calvert Kingboy Miranda EX93. Oh, yeah. Miranda

00:41:09.320 --> 00:41:11.900
was a huge deal in the show ring and genetically,

00:41:12.099 --> 00:41:14.199
wasn't she? Absolutely huge. The article lists

00:41:14.199 --> 00:41:16.860
some of her major accolades. She was the global

00:41:16.860 --> 00:41:20.309
cow winner in 2021. the polled impact cow in

00:41:20.309 --> 00:41:23.690
2022, and even runner -up red impact cow in 2022.

00:41:24.150 --> 00:41:26.570
So acquiring her polled daughters was a bold

00:41:26.570 --> 00:41:28.630
move that really underscores a key point the

00:41:28.630 --> 00:41:31.690
article makes. Polled animals can and are competing

00:41:31.690 --> 00:41:33.949
at the absolute highest levels of breed excellence,

00:41:34.269 --> 00:41:37.150
recognition, and importantly, market value worldwide.

00:41:37.789 --> 00:41:39.510
So these are pretty diverse examples, then. You've

00:41:39.510 --> 00:41:41.570
got a multi -decade legacy herd and operations

00:41:41.570 --> 00:41:43.809
strategically integrating polled into their existing

00:41:43.809 --> 00:41:46.170
elite lines, and a newer partnership focused

00:41:46.170 --> 00:41:48.489
specifically on acquiring top -tier polled genetics

00:41:48.489 --> 00:41:51.869
right from the start. Exactly. And the article

00:41:51.869 --> 00:41:53.929
points out the common threads running through

00:41:53.929 --> 00:41:57.349
all these success stories. A clear, long -term

00:41:57.349 --> 00:42:00.269
commitment to polled breeding, a consistent focus

00:42:00.269 --> 00:42:03.070
on overall functional traits in production, in

00:42:03.070 --> 00:42:05.780
addition to polledness. It's not an either. And

00:42:05.780 --> 00:42:08.280
the strategic use of the best available genetics,

00:42:08.559 --> 00:42:10.860
whether that means using top peepee sires or

00:42:10.860 --> 00:42:13.539
acquiring elite polled females, they all treat

00:42:13.539 --> 00:42:16.139
polledness as an integral, valuable part of their

00:42:16.139 --> 00:42:18.840
overall breeding program, not just some afterthought

00:42:18.840 --> 00:42:21.519
or something they dabble in occasionally. These

00:42:21.519 --> 00:42:24.539
stories really do reinforce that idea that polled

00:42:24.539 --> 00:42:27.199
isn't a compromise anymore. It's fully compatible

00:42:27.199 --> 00:42:29.519
with elite performance and long -term operational

00:42:29.519 --> 00:42:31.880
success. And it's being done successfully right

00:42:31.880 --> 00:42:34.960
now by serious, profitable operations. It's not

00:42:34.960 --> 00:42:37.260
just a theory. Let's shift gears slightly and

00:42:37.260 --> 00:42:38.880
talk about the practical side of things. Yeah.

00:42:38.980 --> 00:42:41.119
The role technology plays in all this and how

00:42:41.119 --> 00:42:43.239
the Bullvine article addresses some of the potential

00:42:43.239 --> 00:42:46.360
implementation challenges or barriers. Right.

00:42:46.800 --> 00:42:49.639
The article argues that advanced genetic technologies

00:42:49.639 --> 00:42:52.840
aren't just enabling this shift towards 100 %

00:42:52.840 --> 00:42:55.500
polled. They are actually amplifying the advantages

00:42:55.500 --> 00:42:58.420
and making the implementation much more achievable

00:42:58.420 --> 00:43:00.460
and rapid than it ever could have been before.

00:43:00.719 --> 00:43:03.539
And genomic testing comes back into play here

00:43:03.539 --> 00:43:06.550
again, I assume. It seems foundational. Absolutely

00:43:06.550 --> 00:43:09.050
foundational. The article reiterates the immense

00:43:09.050 --> 00:43:12.010
value of genomic testing for that early, accurate

00:43:12.010 --> 00:43:14.829
confirmation of polled status, remembering that

00:43:14.829 --> 00:43:18.769
99 % accuracy figure for heifers. 99%. That's

00:43:18.769 --> 00:43:21.550
huge for decision making. It's invaluable. And

00:43:21.550 --> 00:43:23.610
this early, precise information, the article

00:43:23.610 --> 00:43:26.409
points out, integrates perfectly with other precision

00:43:26.409 --> 00:43:28.690
agriculture technologies that many farms are

00:43:28.690 --> 00:43:30.769
already using, like activity monitoring systems

00:43:30.769 --> 00:43:32.829
for heat detection and health monitoring. How

00:43:32.829 --> 00:43:35.139
so? Well, you can confirm the polled status,

00:43:35.380 --> 00:43:39.199
PP, BP, or PP, of a heifer calf when she's very

00:43:39.199 --> 00:43:42.340
young using genomics. Then you can use that information

00:43:42.340 --> 00:43:45.380
combined with her overall genomic proof for production,

00:43:45.579 --> 00:43:47.940
health, and type, and maybe even her activity

00:43:47.940 --> 00:43:50.980
data later on, to make highly informed, precise

00:43:50.980 --> 00:43:53.880
breeding decisions specifically for her future

00:43:53.880 --> 00:43:56.860
in your herd. It allows for much more targeted

00:43:56.860 --> 00:43:59.039
management. And the article also touches on gene

00:43:59.039 --> 00:44:01.519
editing. That still feels a bit like future tech

00:44:01.519 --> 00:44:04.019
for most farms. It does, yeah. But the article

00:44:04.019 --> 00:44:05.940
mentions it, I think, mainly to highlight the

00:44:05.940 --> 00:44:08.880
future potential for even faster and more targeted

00:44:08.880 --> 00:44:11.659
transformation down the road. It discusses technologies

00:44:11.659 --> 00:44:14.480
like CRISPR -Cas9 and their potential to introduce

00:44:14.480 --> 00:44:17.500
polled alleles directly into elite horned germplasm

00:44:17.500 --> 00:44:20.119
with incredible precision. So essentially adding

00:44:20.119 --> 00:44:22.739
the polled gene to top cow families that never

00:44:22.739 --> 00:44:26.280
had it. That's the potential, yes. Now, the article

00:44:26.280 --> 00:44:28.659
acknowledges that consumer acceptance and regulatory

00:44:28.659 --> 00:44:31.380
frameworks around gene editing in livestock are

00:44:31.380 --> 00:44:33.860
still evolving globally. It's not something you

00:44:33.860 --> 00:44:36.659
can just go out and do widely today. But it views

00:44:36.659 --> 00:44:39.480
these technologies as powerful long -term tools

00:44:39.480 --> 00:44:42.480
that could allow for rapid, highly targeted genetic

00:44:42.480 --> 00:44:45.840
changes, like introducing polledness into the

00:44:45.840 --> 00:44:48.860
very best horned cow families almost instantly,

00:44:49.159 --> 00:44:52.000
bypassing generations of traditional crossing.

00:44:52.239 --> 00:44:54.380
And they reference actual research on this being

00:44:54.380 --> 00:44:56.920
done. Yes, they briefly cite research demonstrating

00:44:56.920 --> 00:44:59.320
that gene editing has already been used successfully

00:44:59.320 --> 00:45:02.159
to introduce the specific polled Celtic variant

00:45:02.159 --> 00:45:05.079
into Holstein genetics, creating naturally hornless

00:45:05.130 --> 00:45:07.929
offspring from previously horned lines. It just

00:45:07.929 --> 00:45:10.289
shows the technology itself is real and applicable,

00:45:10.590 --> 00:45:12.789
even if commercial use is still down the road.

00:45:12.929 --> 00:45:14.869
So the combination of current tools like genomic

00:45:14.869 --> 00:45:17.110
selection and these potential future technologies

00:45:17.110 --> 00:45:19.489
like gene editing has really, really sped up

00:45:19.489 --> 00:45:21.210
the clock on herd transformation possibilities.

00:45:22.000 --> 00:45:25.059
Massively. The article emphasizes that, historically,

00:45:25.380 --> 00:45:28.219
trying to transition a dairy herd's horn status

00:45:28.219 --> 00:45:30.980
from mostly horned to mostly polled using only

00:45:30.980 --> 00:45:33.199
traditional breeding methods would have taken

00:45:33.199 --> 00:45:36.820
many, many decades. Generations of work. Lifetime

00:45:36.820 --> 00:45:39.860
project, really. Easily. But with the combination

00:45:39.860 --> 00:45:42.840
of current genomic selection strategies, the

00:45:42.840 --> 00:45:45.980
ability to accurately identify PP animals early,

00:45:46.079 --> 00:45:48.920
and the increasing availability of elite PP sires,

00:45:49.039 --> 00:45:51.599
that timeline for achieving complete herd transformation

00:45:51.599 --> 00:45:53.800
phenotypically has been compressed dramatically

00:45:53.800 --> 00:45:56.440
down to just single generations. But what about

00:45:56.440 --> 00:45:58.599
the barriers to actually making the switch right

00:45:58.599 --> 00:46:00.579
now? Are there common concerns that producers

00:46:00.579 --> 00:46:03.059
raise that the article addresses? Like, is it

00:46:03.059 --> 00:46:05.889
really that easy? It does directly confront the

00:46:05.889 --> 00:46:07.909
concerns that producers might understandably

00:46:07.909 --> 00:46:10.110
have. One major one we touched on earlier is

00:46:10.110 --> 00:46:12.550
genetic diversity. The fear of narrowing the

00:46:12.550 --> 00:46:15.329
gene pool by focusing only on polled lines. The

00:46:15.329 --> 00:46:17.750
article reiterates that this is being systematically

00:46:17.750 --> 00:46:20.269
addressed now by the increased availability of

00:46:20.269 --> 00:46:22.409
diverse polled sires from multiple different

00:46:22.409 --> 00:46:25.349
AI companies. You're not reliant on just one

00:46:25.349 --> 00:46:28.030
or two polled bloodlines anymore, which significantly

00:46:28.030 --> 00:46:30.789
reduces those potential inbreeding risks compared

00:46:30.789 --> 00:46:33.530
to, say, 10 or 20 years ago. And the success

00:46:33.530 --> 00:46:35.590
stories kind of back that up, showing it's possible

00:46:35.590 --> 00:46:38.929
to integrate polled without running into diversity

00:46:38.929 --> 00:46:42.070
problems. Yes, they do. The article points back

00:46:42.070 --> 00:46:44.309
to breeding programs like Drew Hum Holstein's

00:46:44.309 --> 00:46:46.449
and their success integrating polled genetics

00:46:46.449 --> 00:46:49.150
into their elite families, like that L family

00:46:49.150 --> 00:46:51.750
we talked about, which produced top sires like

00:46:51.750 --> 00:46:55.489
Leia IPT and Logic PP. It demonstrates that you

00:46:55.489 --> 00:46:57.969
can maintain strong performance and breed health

00:46:57.969 --> 00:47:01.050
while going polled if you manage it strategically.

00:47:01.130 --> 00:47:03.849
Okay, what about the economic barrier of the

00:47:03.849 --> 00:47:05.710
transition itself? It might feel like a big upfront

00:47:05.710 --> 00:47:08.670
investment, maybe buying PPC even costs more,

00:47:08.750 --> 00:47:10.849
or there's a period where you're kind of losing

00:47:10.849 --> 00:47:12.929
money during the switch. How does the article

00:47:12.929 --> 00:47:15.590
frame that? The article frames the economic transition

00:47:15.590 --> 00:47:18.369
very differently, actually. It argues that while

00:47:18.369 --> 00:47:20.210
it certainly requires strategic planning, it

00:47:20.210 --> 00:47:22.710
offers immediate returns, unlike many other genetic

00:47:22.710 --> 00:47:26.289
investments. Immediate returns. How? Unlike complex

00:47:26.289 --> 00:47:28.829
traits like, say, improving fertility or feed

00:47:28.829 --> 00:47:31.150
efficiency, which might require multigenerational

00:47:31.150 --> 00:47:33.190
investment before you see a tangible payoff across

00:47:33.190 --> 00:47:36.110
the herd, the simple, dominant nature of the

00:47:36.110 --> 00:47:38.650
pulled gene enables that rapid phenotypic change

00:47:38.650 --> 00:47:41.809
we discussed. The payback, the article states

00:47:41.809 --> 00:47:44.750
forcefully, is immediate. The very first calf

00:47:44.750 --> 00:47:46.809
born without horns, because it came from a pee

00:47:46.809 --> 00:47:48.889
-pee sire mating, represents a direct saving

00:47:48.889 --> 00:47:52.190
of that $17 .36 in dehorning costs, plus all

00:47:52.190 --> 00:47:54.230
the associated labor and stress you avoided.

00:47:54.619 --> 00:47:57.179
So the ROI isn't years down the line. It literally

00:47:57.179 --> 00:47:59.380
starts with the first pulled calf hitting the

00:47:59.380 --> 00:48:01.440
ground from a pee -pee sire. That's the core

00:48:01.440 --> 00:48:03.440
argument they make on the economics of transition.

00:48:03.780 --> 00:48:06.780
And the implementation timeline itself is relatively

00:48:06.780 --> 00:48:09.079
straightforward and quick in terms of seeing

00:48:09.079 --> 00:48:11.320
those results spread through the herd. You commit

00:48:11.320 --> 00:48:14.420
to using pee -pee sires across the board. Within

00:48:14.420 --> 00:48:17.139
approximately 9 -10 months, you start seeing

00:48:17.139 --> 00:48:21.590
your first 100 % pulled calves being born. Within

00:48:21.590 --> 00:48:24.530
about 21 months or so, your entire calf crop

00:48:24.530 --> 00:48:26.829
being born from that point forward will be naturally

00:48:26.829 --> 00:48:29.889
hornless. That transition period where you might

00:48:29.889 --> 00:48:32.750
have both horned and pulled calves needing different

00:48:32.750 --> 00:48:35.369
handling is actually minimized compared to a

00:48:35.369 --> 00:48:38.619
slow, gradual approach. To help producers navigate

00:48:38.619 --> 00:48:40.860
this, the article actually provides a concrete

00:48:40.860 --> 00:48:43.579
plan, doesn't it? A 90 -day action plan. Yes,

00:48:43.579 --> 00:48:46.179
it lays out a very actionable, structured, step

00:48:46.179 --> 00:48:48.199
-by -step plan to guide producers through the

00:48:48.199 --> 00:48:50.480
process of making the switch effectively. Can

00:48:50.480 --> 00:48:51.940
you walk us through that briefly? What are the

00:48:51.940 --> 00:48:54.440
key steps? Sure. It breaks it down into three

00:48:54.440 --> 00:48:58.280
30 -day chunks. Days 130. Assessment and planning.

00:48:59.199 --> 00:49:00.840
This first month is really about getting your

00:49:00.840 --> 00:49:03.059
house in order, both genetically and financially.

00:49:03.380 --> 00:49:06.000
The recommendation is to genomic test your breeding

00:49:06.000 --> 00:49:08.079
age females if you haven't already, to confirm

00:49:08.079 --> 00:49:10.559
their polled status, especially helpful for identifying

00:49:10.559 --> 00:49:13.440
any existing PP animals you might have, and their

00:49:13.440 --> 00:49:16.530
overall genetic merit. Crucially, they say, you

00:49:16.530 --> 00:49:19.150
need to calculate your actual current dehorning

00:49:19.150 --> 00:49:23.869
costs. Use that $17 .36 baseline figure or track

00:49:23.869 --> 00:49:26.409
your own costs even more closely and multiply

00:49:26.409 --> 00:49:28.449
by the number of calves you typically dehorn

00:49:28.449 --> 00:49:31.469
annually. Get that real number. Then evaluate

00:49:31.469 --> 00:49:33.469
your current breeding program goals and start

00:49:33.469 --> 00:49:35.929
researching the available elite PP sires that

00:49:35.929 --> 00:49:38.380
fit your criteria. Start developing a genetic

00:49:38.380 --> 00:49:40.539
diversity strategy by looking for distantly related

00:49:40.539 --> 00:49:42.940
pulled bulls from different AI studs. Okay, get

00:49:42.940 --> 00:49:44.900
the baseline data and start looking at sire options.

00:49:45.119 --> 00:49:49.179
Makes sense. What's next? Days 31 to 60. Sire

00:49:49.179 --> 00:49:51.380
selection and contracts. This is the decision

00:49:51.380 --> 00:49:53.579
-making phase. Based on your research, you secure

00:49:53.579 --> 00:49:56.219
contracts for semen orders with multiple AI companies

00:49:56.219 --> 00:49:59.199
to ensure you have access to those diverse, distantly

00:49:59.199 --> 00:50:02.079
related PP sires you identified. The article

00:50:02.079 --> 00:50:04.059
even lists some examples of top options available

00:50:04.059 --> 00:50:07.420
at the time, like Roddy PP, Algon PP, and Remover

00:50:07.420 --> 00:50:10.480
PP, just to show they exist. Then you develop

00:50:10.480 --> 00:50:12.920
your specific breeding protocols, which PP bulls

00:50:12.920 --> 00:50:15.019
go on, which cows or heifers, based on their

00:50:15.019 --> 00:50:17.619
genetics and your goals. You should also calculate

00:50:17.619 --> 00:50:20.079
your projected return on investment, ROI, based

00:50:20.079 --> 00:50:22.360
on your herd size and those dehorning costs you

00:50:22.360 --> 00:50:24.679
calculated. And importantly, start training your

00:50:24.679 --> 00:50:27.019
staff on how to identify and manage the polled

00:50:27.019 --> 00:50:29.659
calves that will soon be arriving. So walk in

00:50:29.659 --> 00:50:31.760
the genetics, plan the matings, project the savings,

00:50:31.800 --> 00:50:33.880
and prep the team. Got it. And the final 30 days.

00:50:34.199 --> 00:50:37.710
Days 61 -90. implementation and monitoring. This

00:50:37.710 --> 00:50:39.670
is when you actually flip the switch. You begin

00:50:39.670 --> 00:50:42.570
using the selected pp sires for all planned breedings

00:50:42.570 --> 00:50:45.289
moving forward. No more horn sires, no more pp

00:50:45.289 --> 00:50:47.710
sires if you want that immediate 100 % polled

00:50:47.710 --> 00:50:50.510
result. At the same time, you establish monitoring

00:50:50.510 --> 00:50:52.530
protocols to track conception rates and breeding

00:50:52.530 --> 00:50:55.150
efficiency with the new pp sires, just to make

00:50:55.150 --> 00:50:57.590
sure everything's working smoothly. You should

00:50:57.590 --> 00:50:59.789
also document your baseline herd metrics, things

00:50:59.789 --> 00:51:03.269
like dry matter intake, DMI, milk yield, components,

00:51:03.710 --> 00:51:06.389
calving ease so you can track any changes, positive

00:51:06.389 --> 00:51:09.170
or negative, after the full implementation. And

00:51:09.170 --> 00:51:11.789
finally, plan your genomic testing schedule for

00:51:11.789 --> 00:51:13.750
the resulting offspring, especially heifers,

00:51:13.849 --> 00:51:16.289
to confirm their PP status and use that info

00:51:16.289 --> 00:51:18.659
for future decisions. That's a really clear,

00:51:18.760 --> 00:51:21.519
practical, step -by -step guide. It takes the

00:51:21.519 --> 00:51:24.679
big abstract idea of go 100 % pulled and breaks

00:51:24.679 --> 00:51:26.599
it down into manageable tasks over a typical

00:51:26.599 --> 00:51:30.119
three -month planning cycle. It does. And the

00:51:30.119 --> 00:51:33.199
article emphasizes why following a structured

00:51:33.199 --> 00:51:36.380
plan like this is so important. It helps ensure

00:51:36.380 --> 00:51:38.340
you capture the full benefits from the shift,

00:51:38.480 --> 00:51:41.420
you minimize potential transition risk or hiccups,

00:51:41.519 --> 00:51:44.019
and it helps align the whole process with your

00:51:44.019 --> 00:51:46.239
existing breeding cycles and management routines.

00:51:46.559 --> 00:51:49.239
You're making a calculated strategic change,

00:51:49.320 --> 00:51:52.400
not just, you know, a hopeful leap. So the message

00:51:52.400 --> 00:51:55.519
seems to be. The technology is here. The elite

00:51:55.519 --> 00:51:58.019
genetics are available. The success stories prove

00:51:58.019 --> 00:52:00.820
it works. And there's even a practical plan laid

00:52:00.820 --> 00:52:03.000
out for you to follow right now to make this

00:52:03.000 --> 00:52:05.400
transition happen. That's absolutely the article's

00:52:05.400 --> 00:52:07.820
conclusion on the implementation side. The tools

00:52:07.820 --> 00:52:10.340
are there. The path is clear. All right, let's

00:52:10.340 --> 00:52:12.059
bring it all together then. Yeah. Let's talk

00:52:12.059 --> 00:52:13.980
about the bottom line as the Bullvine article

00:52:13.980 --> 00:52:16.480
presents it. We need to circle back to that initial

00:52:16.480 --> 00:52:19.340
pretty pointed question they asked. Why are you

00:52:19.340 --> 00:52:21.760
still paying to dehorn calves when you really

00:52:21.760 --> 00:52:24.440
don't have to anymore? Yeah. And based on everything

00:52:24.440 --> 00:52:26.360
we've unpacked from this article, the costs,

00:52:26.420 --> 00:52:29.380
the genetics, the markets, the technology, the

00:52:29.380 --> 00:52:32.340
answer, in their view, should be unequivocally

00:52:32.340 --> 00:52:35.119
clear by now. You really shouldn't be. And the

00:52:35.119 --> 00:52:37.440
economic case for making that immediate, complete

00:52:37.440 --> 00:52:40.800
transformation to 100 % polled herds is presented

00:52:40.800 --> 00:52:43.130
not just as an option, but as... overwhelming.

00:52:43.210 --> 00:52:45.150
Absolutely overwhelming. That's the term they'd

00:52:45.150 --> 00:52:47.730
likely use. The article summarizes the payoff

00:52:47.730 --> 00:52:50.210
again at the end, and it's significant. You get

00:52:50.210 --> 00:52:54.090
that immediate, guaranteed $17 .36 per head in

00:52:54.090 --> 00:52:56.730
direct dehorning cost savings right off the bat.

00:52:56.829 --> 00:52:59.190
Minimum savings. Minimum savings. You eliminate

00:52:59.190 --> 00:53:01.809
those risks of treatment complications, infections,

00:53:02.030 --> 00:53:04.050
and delayed growth associated with dehorning.

00:53:04.190 --> 00:53:07.110
You potentially gain enhanced resale values for

00:53:07.110 --> 00:53:10.050
your surplus livestock, heifers, bulls, even

00:53:10.050 --> 00:53:13.099
cull cows. And you clearly position your operation

00:53:13.099 --> 00:53:15.579
to capture future premiums in those emerging

00:53:15.579 --> 00:53:18.940
humane -focused consumer markets. And crucially,

00:53:19.000 --> 00:53:20.960
the article argues this is all accomplished while

00:53:20.960 --> 00:53:22.940
maintaining or actually improving your herd's

00:53:22.940 --> 00:53:24.800
overall genetic merit and production performance,

00:53:25.000 --> 00:53:27.320
thanks to the quality of modern polled sires.

00:53:27.789 --> 00:53:30.269
That's the point they hit home repeatedly. That

00:53:30.269 --> 00:53:32.250
old argument about having to sacrifice genetics

00:53:32.250 --> 00:53:35.570
to get polled, it's dead, according to this analysis.

00:53:35.989 --> 00:53:38.190
Elite polled genetics are available, they're

00:53:38.190 --> 00:53:40.429
performing at the highest levels, and they offer

00:53:40.429 --> 00:53:43.610
this massive additional benefit. So the takeaway

00:53:43.610 --> 00:53:46.469
for producers is that those who see this convergence

00:53:46.469 --> 00:53:49.489
of factors, the economics, the genetics, the

00:53:49.489 --> 00:53:52.349
market trends, and act decisively now are going

00:53:52.349 --> 00:53:54.949
to gain a pretty significant competitive advantage.

00:53:55.349 --> 00:53:57.070
That's the article's strong conclusion, yes.

00:53:57.519 --> 00:54:00.119
It argues these advantages, the direct cost savings,

00:54:00.340 --> 00:54:03.260
the potential market premiums, the ongoing genetic

00:54:03.260 --> 00:54:05.360
progress combined with the polled trait will

00:54:05.360 --> 00:54:08.340
compound annually. Think about it. Every year

00:54:08.340 --> 00:54:11.820
a producer is spending that $17 .36 or more per

00:54:11.820 --> 00:54:14.320
head dehorning. A competitor down the road who

00:54:14.320 --> 00:54:17.139
has gone 100 % polled is pocketing that money

00:54:17.139 --> 00:54:18.940
and potentially getting more for their animals

00:54:18.940 --> 00:54:21.840
and avoiding all the hassle. That gap widens

00:54:21.840 --> 00:54:23.800
every single year. And the flip side of that

00:54:23.800 --> 00:54:26.280
coin. What about those operations who continue

00:54:26.280 --> 00:54:28.760
on a gradual half -pulled path we talked about

00:54:28.760 --> 00:54:31.239
or just delay making the change altogether? What's

00:54:31.239 --> 00:54:33.340
the article's outlook for them? The article is

00:54:33.340 --> 00:54:36.519
quite blunt, really. It says they will find themselves

00:54:36.519 --> 00:54:38.760
increasingly disadvantaged in the marketplace.

00:54:39.260 --> 00:54:42.000
They will continue to hemorrhage those significant

00:54:42.000 --> 00:54:44.840
dehorning costs and deal with the associated

00:54:44.840 --> 00:54:47.360
inefficiencies while the market increasingly

00:54:47.360 --> 00:54:50.099
rewards operations that can demonstrate a 100

00:54:50.099 --> 00:54:53.139
% naturally hornless herd. They'll essentially

00:54:53.139 --> 00:54:55.460
be spending money that their competitors are

00:54:55.460 --> 00:54:58.019
saving and missing out on potential revenue opportunities

00:54:58.019 --> 00:55:00.519
that those same competitors are capturing. It

00:55:00.519 --> 00:55:02.889
puts them behind the curve. And the article emphasizes

00:55:02.889 --> 00:55:05.010
again that you don't have to wait for some future

00:55:05.010 --> 00:55:06.789
development or try to develop this all yourself.

00:55:07.070 --> 00:55:09.030
The tools and genetics are already available

00:55:09.030 --> 00:55:11.190
today. That's a critical point they make right

00:55:11.190 --> 00:55:13.659
at the end. The genetic tools are here right

00:55:13.659 --> 00:55:16.820
now. The elite PP sires are available from multiple

00:55:16.820 --> 00:55:19.500
sources. Genomics provides the certainty needed

00:55:19.500 --> 00:55:22.320
for planning. The proven bloodlines exist and

00:55:22.320 --> 00:55:24.880
are being successfully integrated, as shown by

00:55:24.880 --> 00:55:27.059
those success stories like Burkitt Falls and

00:55:27.059 --> 00:55:29.760
Drew Holm. And the market trends and potential

00:55:29.760 --> 00:55:32.199
support systems from buyers are already in play.

00:55:32.460 --> 00:55:35.260
They reiterate those genetic quality proof points

00:55:35.260 --> 00:55:38.570
again. Elite PP sires averaging over $1 ,100

00:55:38.570 --> 00:55:41.829
net merit. TPI scores competing with the very

00:55:41.829 --> 00:55:44.610
best. The global sales success of bulls like

00:55:44.610 --> 00:55:47.849
Luster P and other PP sires like Remover PP topping

00:55:47.849 --> 00:55:51.030
industry lists. The proof is there. And the article

00:55:51.030 --> 00:55:54.010
wraps up with a very... Direct personal call

00:55:54.010 --> 00:55:56.030
to action for you, the listener. It does. It

00:55:56.030 --> 00:55:58.030
really puts the numbers back squarely in your

00:55:58.030 --> 00:56:00.469
hands. It challenges you directly to calculate

00:56:00.469 --> 00:56:03.590
your current annual dehorning costs, use their

00:56:03.590 --> 00:56:07.250
conservative $17 .36 per head baseline if you

00:56:07.250 --> 00:56:09.949
don't track it precisely, or use your own number

00:56:09.949 --> 00:56:11.989
and then multiply that annual cost by the number

00:56:11.989 --> 00:56:14.110
of years you realistically see yourself operating

00:56:14.110 --> 00:56:17.070
your dairy. Look at the lifetime cost. Exactly.

00:56:17.230 --> 00:56:19.429
Look at that total number, which could easily

00:56:19.429 --> 00:56:21.730
be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars

00:56:21.730 --> 00:56:23.829
over the remaining course of your career. And

00:56:23.829 --> 00:56:26.050
then ask yourself, very directly and honestly,

00:56:26.389 --> 00:56:28.889
can you truly afford not to make this change

00:56:28.889 --> 00:56:31.570
now, given the alternatives? That's a powerful

00:56:31.570 --> 00:56:34.510
way to frame it. And the concrete next step they

00:56:34.510 --> 00:56:37.530
recommend isn't complicated either. No, the article's

00:56:37.530 --> 00:56:39.510
final recommendation is simple and immediate.

00:56:39.960 --> 00:56:42.380
Contact your AI representative this week. Don't

00:56:42.380 --> 00:56:45.059
put it off. Start the conversation. Discuss the

00:56:45.059 --> 00:56:47.239
PP sires available that fit your breeding goals.

00:56:47.440 --> 00:56:49.619
Talk about developing that structured plan we

00:56:49.619 --> 00:56:53.239
outlined and aim to implement 100 % homozygous

00:56:53.239 --> 00:56:56.280
polled sire usage beginning with your very next

00:56:56.280 --> 00:56:59.699
breeding cycle. Take action now. It sounds like

00:56:59.699 --> 00:57:01.219
the revolution, as they call it in the article,

00:57:01.340 --> 00:57:03.900
is happening with or without individual producers

00:57:03.900 --> 00:57:06.219
making the choice. That's really the article's

00:57:06.219 --> 00:57:08.380
powerful concluding message, yeah. In today's

00:57:08.380 --> 00:57:10.619
challenging dairy market, where maximizing every

00:57:10.619 --> 00:57:12.860
single ounce of operational efficiency and capturing

00:57:12.860 --> 00:57:15.679
every possible dollar of revenue is absolutely

00:57:15.679 --> 00:57:18.440
critical for survival and future success. The

00:57:18.440 --> 00:57:20.360
article argues the choice between continuously

00:57:20.360 --> 00:57:23.079
hemorrhaging money on dehorning versus capturing

00:57:23.079 --> 00:57:25.519
the comprehensive economic benefits and market

00:57:25.519 --> 00:57:28.480
premiums of going 100 % polled isn't really a

00:57:28.480 --> 00:57:30.860
choice at all anymore. The revolution in polled

00:57:30.860 --> 00:57:33.849
genetics and its market acceptance is here. And

00:57:33.849 --> 00:57:35.809
the fundamental question left for each producer

00:57:35.809 --> 00:57:37.730
is whether you'll step up to lead it on your

00:57:37.730 --> 00:57:40.570
own operation, reap those benefits early, or

00:57:40.570 --> 00:57:42.190
if you'll watch from the sidelines while your

00:57:42.190 --> 00:57:44.369
competitors claim the advantages and leave you

00:57:44.369 --> 00:57:46.250
struggling with outdated costs and practices.

00:57:46.570 --> 00:57:48.989
That really is a challenging and definitely thought

00:57:48.989 --> 00:57:50.849
-provoking conclusion from the Bullvine article.

00:57:51.659 --> 00:57:54.579
If, as they've laid out so comprehensively, adopting

00:57:54.579 --> 00:57:57.199
100 % pulled genetics truly offers immediate

00:57:57.199 --> 00:58:00.380
significant cost savings, if it unlocks enhanced

00:58:00.380 --> 00:58:03.340
market opportunities now and in the future, and

00:58:03.340 --> 00:58:05.719
if it can be done while maintaining or even improving

00:58:05.719 --> 00:58:07.739
your herd's genetic progress and production,

00:58:07.920 --> 00:58:10.260
well, what does that truly mean for the long

00:58:10.260 --> 00:58:12.860
-term sustainability, the competitiveness, and

00:58:12.860 --> 00:58:15.519
ultimately the profitability of operations that

00:58:15.519 --> 00:58:18.309
decide not to make this transition? It certainly

00:58:18.309 --> 00:58:20.610
leaves you, the listener, with something crucial

00:58:20.610 --> 00:58:22.550
to consider about where your own farm is heading

00:58:22.550 --> 00:58:24.789
in the future landscape of this rapidly changing

00:58:24.789 --> 00:58:27.050
dairy industry. It really does. A decision with

00:58:27.050 --> 00:58:29.489
compounding impacts, positive or negative, year

00:58:29.489 --> 00:58:31.849
after year. Lots to think about there. There

00:58:31.849 --> 00:58:35.010
you have it. The brutal economic truth about

00:58:35.010 --> 00:58:37.550
polled genetics that most producers are missing

00:58:37.550 --> 00:58:40.710
entirely. The choice between hemorrhaging money

00:58:40.710 --> 00:58:44.050
on dehorning or capturing polled premiums isn't

00:58:44.050 --> 00:58:47.230
really a choice at all. Your action step is simple.

00:58:47.679 --> 00:58:50.079
Calculate your current annual dehorning costs

00:58:50.079 --> 00:58:54.820
using that $17 .36 baseline, multiply by the

00:58:54.820 --> 00:58:57.679
years remaining in your operation, and ask yourself

00:58:57.679 --> 00:59:01.000
if you can afford not to make this change. Head

00:59:01.000 --> 00:59:03.300
over to thebullvine .com to read the complete

00:59:03.300 --> 00:59:06.619
analysis, including the detailed 90 -day implementation

00:59:06.619 --> 00:59:09.920
plan and real -world case studies from operations

00:59:09.920 --> 00:59:13.559
that have already made the transformation. You'll

00:59:13.559 --> 00:59:16.019
also find our comprehensive comparison tables

00:59:16.019 --> 00:59:18.639
and the specific polled sires that are dominating

00:59:18.639 --> 00:59:22.880
global rankings. If this episode challenged your

00:59:22.880 --> 00:59:25.159
thinking or helped clarify your breeding strategy,

00:59:25.559 --> 00:59:28.019
share it with fellow producers who need to hear

00:59:28.019 --> 00:59:30.659
this message. The polled revolution is happening

00:59:30.659 --> 00:59:33.599
with or without you. The only question is whether

00:59:33.599 --> 00:59:35.760
you'll lead it or watch your competitors capture

00:59:35.760 --> 00:59:40.139
the advantages you could have claimed. Thanks

00:59:40.139 --> 00:59:42.199
for joining us for the Bullvine Podcast, where

00:59:42.199 --> 00:59:44.619
we turn industry insights into immediate profits.

00:59:45.300 --> 00:59:48.199
Until next time, keep challenging the status

00:59:48.199 --> 00:59:50.280
quo and keep building better herds.