Breaking free from the chains of the past Where
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law
waiting on some printed page We're charting new
ground in the digital age From genomic codes
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight
we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast,
where we challenge conventional dairy industry
thinking with bold insights that boost your bottom
line. I'm your host, Andrew, and today we're
diving into one of the most expensive mistakes
plaguing dairy operations across North America.
Here's a question that should keep every dairy
operator awake at night. Why are you still paying
to mutilate calves when you could eliminate dehorning
forever in just one generation? If you think
gradual polled adoption is the smart, progressive
approach, prepare to have your assumptions shattered.
Our latest analysis reveals that half -polled
herds are actually bleeding money faster than
fully horned operations. We're talking about
a $23 per head disadvantage that compounds every
single year. In the next few minutes... You'll
discover why partial polled adoption delivers
the worst possible return on investment, how
elite polled genetics now outperform horned counterparts,
and the specific 90 -day action plan that can
transform your entire operation. We'll expose
the transition trap that's costing producers
thousands annually and reveal why European breeders
are racing towards 67 % polled adoption by 2025.
This isn't theory, it's hard economics backed
by real farm data. Let's dive in. Okay, let's
unpack this. Imagine for a second you're walking
through your barn. You see your calves, healthy
and growing, maybe some you've just dehorned
or are about to. It feels like a necessary task,
right? Right, something you've always done maybe,
part of the routine. Exactly. But what if that...
Standard practice, something as fundamental as
dehorning, is actually a significant drain on
your operations profitability. We're going about
it potentially costing you far more than you've
ever calculated. And what if right now there
was a clear, immediate path to eliminate that
cost entirely forever? It's a tough question
to face, isn't it? Especially because, as the
Bullvine article we're diving into points out,
many producers feel like they're already making
progress, you know? Yeah, I can see that. They've
got some polled animals in the herd. Maybe they're
using some polled genetics. They think, OK, we're
moving in the right direction. Making steps.
Exactly. But this article, the one titled Profit
from Pold and Dehorning Forever, it really challenges
that comfortable notion head on. And it does
it with some pretty compelling and... frankly,
surprising data. Absolutely. And that's what
this deep dive is really laser focused on, the
economics of polled genetics, specifically exploring
the core argument of this Bullvine article that
committing to 100 % polled genetics might be
dramatically, significantly more profitable than
continuing down that path of gradual partial
adoption. Yeah, that's our mission here today.
We want to really pull apart the specific arguments,
the numbers, the insights presented in this article.
We want to understand why they're making such
strong claims about this, well, this economic
shift towards polls. And most importantly. And
most importantly, translate what that actually
means for you listening right now, for your day
-to -day operations, your long -term balance
sheet, and your competitive edge in the market.
The article doesn't pull any punches right from
the start, does it? It makes this really striking
claim that 100 % pulled herds outperform partial
adoption by a measurable $23 per head annually.
$23? That's not insignificant. Not at all. And
then it hits you with that really direct question.
Why are you still paying to mutilate horned calves
when you could eliminate the practice entirely
in just one generation? It's definitely designed
to make you stop and think. It is. And that question
directly addresses that feeling you mentioned
earlier, the producer who feels they're already
progressing because they have some polled animals.
Right. The article basically argues that this
middle ground, this partially polled state is
actually the most financially damaging position
to be in right now. Financially damaging. That's
strong. Well, they call it financially destructive
in the current market reality where margins are
thin and. Let's face it, every dollar of operational
efficiency is absolutely critical. You're essentially
paying for the solution and keeping half the
problem. OK, so let's get into the nuts and bolts
of the problem itself then. According to the
Bullvine article, why does dehorning still hurt
and cost producers so much? And why is that cost
so often, you know, underestimated? What are
we missing? That's really where they start building
their case. The fundamental issue, as they see
it, is that most producers only look at the most
obvious, immediate expenses when thinking about
dehorning. Like the paste or the iron. Exactly.
They dramatically underestimate the true cost
because they focus on the price of the paste
or maybe the gas for the iron. But the real expense,
the article argues, is much, much deeper than
that. So it's more than just the sticker price
of the tool. Oh, way more. Let's break down the
direct costs they talk about first. The article
provides a range, noting that direct dehorning
costs can swing anywhere from, say, $6 to a pretty
staggering $25 per head. Wow, that's a big range.
It is. It depends on the method, calf age, who's
doing it, all that. But the article reports that
the average most operations are seeing, it falls
somewhere around $12 to $13 per calf. Okay, $12
to $13 per calf. Even that average, well, it
adds up pretty quickly across a herd, doesn't
it? It really does. And to make it concrete,
they give a specific example from a Pennsylvania
producer, Reed Hoover. He reported his direct
costs were $10 per head on young calves. Straightforward
enough. $10. But if calves get older, maybe you
miss them initially, or you're managing a larger
group batching them, that cost jumps up significantly,
up to $20 per head for those older ones. double
the cost just from waiting a bit longer. Yeah.
So timing and management play a role even in
just the direct cost itself. And the article
then takes this further, right? It combined these
expenses to get a more complete sort of all -in
picture. Yes, exactly. They factor in everything.
It's not just the cost of the dehorning method
itself, you know, the paste, the cautery irons,
maybe anesthetics, things like that. It's also
potential medical care needed if there are complications.
It's any rare but, you know, potentially devastating
death loss related to the procedure. And critically,
it includes... The labor involved, your time,
your staff's time. Right. The labor component,
often forgotten. Totally. So when you add up
all those components, supplies, medical, mortality
risk, labor. The article calculates the combined
direct expenses reach approximately $17 .36 per
head. $17 .36. Yeah. And this $17 .36 figure,
it's presented as the baseline cost many operations
are incurring for each calf they have to dehorn.
Whoa. Okay, $17 .36 per calf, just for the direct
stuff. That's already, I bet, higher than many
producers probably estimate just looking at the
tube of paste or whatever. Absolutely. And this
is where the article says it gets even worse
because that $17 .36 is only the start. Those
figures don't even account for the hidden costs.
Ah, the hidden costs. Yeah, the ones that are
less obvious but are constantly sort of gnawing
away at your farm's efficiency and profitability.
These are the insidious costs, as they put it.
Okay, insidious costs. Let's unpack those. What
are the main hidden costs the article points
to? Well, first and foremost. Complications and
the need for additional treatment. The article
highlights that dehorned calves are simply more
likely to need follow -up treatment. Makes sense.
Infections, poor healing. Right. Issues ranging
from infections to improper healing. They cite
a range, saying, 1 % to maybe 8 % of dehorned
calves require some kind of additional care.
Now, compare that to naturally polled animals.
For polled animals, the likelihood of needing
treatment for any horn -related issue is dramatically
lower, like just 1 % to 3%. Oh, a much smaller
window for problem. Exactly. That difference
in needing medical intervention, the cost of
the drugs, maybe vet time, the labor to handle
that calf again, it really adds up across a calf
crop. You're not just paying for the procedure.
You're paying a higher likelihood of ongoing
medical bills for those specific calves. OK,
that makes sense. Yeah. What else falls under
these hidden costs? And they bring in bruising
losses, which I think many dairy producers might
kind of overlook. Yeah. Maybe think of it more
as a beef industry issue. Possibly. The article
references data from the North American beef
industry. pointing out a staggering $35 million
annually is lost just because of bruising on
carcasses caused by horned cattle jostling and
injuring each other. $35 million, wow. It's a
huge number. And while that's an industry -wide
figure, the article converts it to a per head
figure directly related to horns. $1 .90 per
head. $1 .90 per head. Across the entire industry.
Yeah. How does that actually impact a dairy operation,
though? Well, it impacts the entire value chain,
right? While you might not see a line item for
bruising on your milk check, this cost is absorbed
somewhere in the system. Okay. And for operations
that sell surplus animals, whether that's feeder
calves or cull cows, it absolutely affects their
value. A horned animal is statistically more
likely to cause bruising to itself or others
during transport or handling. So it can ding
the price you get for those animals. It can impact
its market value or even the value of others
it's transported with. It's part of that hidden
inefficiency burden that comes with having horns
in the mix. Okay, so we've got potential medical
complications, bruising losses. What else is
hidden? Delayed growth. This is another big one
that's... Maybe hard to put a simple dollar figure
on immediately, but the impact is real. The article
makes the point pretty logically that dehorning
is a traumatic procedure. Sure. Causes pain and
stress. Exactly. Calves experience pain and stress
as they recover. And this trauma, this recovery
period, it causes delayed growth. They just don't
gain as well for a period. So they're literally
set back. developmentally, just as you're trying
to push them forward towards breeding age and
entering the milking string. Precisely. And what
are you doing during that recovery period? You're
still feeding them, right? Still housing them,
still providing care. Yeah, the meter's still
running. The meter's still running. You're paying
for feed and labor while their growth trajectory
has slowed down because they're recovering from
the procedure you paid to do. And this delayed
development, it has a domino effect. It impacts
when they reach breeding weight, when they calve
in, and ultimately their total lifetime productivity.
Their contribution to milk yield and components
over their whole career in your herd. So it's
a compounding drain on their efficiency. And
therefore your operations efficiency. That's
exactly right. The article uses a really perfect
analogy for this whole situation. It's like running
your milking system with a persistent vacuum
leak. Oh, okay. I like that. Yeah, it's not necessarily
a catastrophic failure that stops everything,
but it's this constant insidious drain on performance
and efficiency. You might not immediately notice
it on a daily basis, but over time it adds up
significantly. It reduces your overall operational
output for the same input. And really hit on
the scale of this. The article applies that $17
.36 baseline direct cost to a typical operation
size, right? Yes, exactly. They use the example
of a 500 cow operation. Assuming, you know, fairly
typical year -round calving, that $17 .36 per
head baseline cost for dehorning alone adds up
to over $8 ,600 annually. Over $8 ,600 a year.
Just for the direct procedure and the immediate
associated costs. And remember, that's before
you even start trying to factor in any of those
productivity losses from stressed calves or the
time and labor inefficiencies when your team
has to handle horned animals versus pulled ones
or those other hidden costs like bruising potential.
Wow. It makes the financial scale of this vacuum
leak, as you called it, much, much clearer. Over
$8 ,600 a year just for the act of dehorning
itself. Well, minimum. For a 500 cow herd, that's
real money. Yeah, no kidding. Okay, so the costs
of dehorning are significant, clearly, and often
underestimated. But the article makes a really
strong point, maybe even a controversial one,
that the worst situation isn't even being fully
horned anymore. It's being partially pulled.
They call it the half -pulled trap. Why on earth
is that the case? This is where the article really
pivots to its central and, yeah, maybe controversial
argument. It claims that being in this partially
pulled state, which... like we said many producers
might feel good about, like it's a step towards
polled, actually creates the most financially
detrimental scenario. Worse than just having
horned animals and dehorning them. That's the
argument. That you're trying to do the right
thing by adding some polled genetics, but you
actually end up in the worst possible economic
position because of it. How is it the worst?
What's the economic double whammy they describe
for a partially polled herd? You're essentially
getting hit from both sides, right? Doubling
down on your inefficiency costs in a way. First,
you've likely made an investment in polled genetics.
You're probably paying premium prices for polled
semen. Or maybe you've purchased some polled
animals at a higher price. Right, you've put
money into the solution side. You've put money
into the solution. But second, and this is the
trap part, you are still shouldering approximately
50 % of those traditional dehorning costs we
just calculated. If that baseline cost is $17
.36 per head, well, you're still paying something
very close to that amount, but now it's applied
to about half of your calf crop every year. Okay,
wait. So you've paid extra for the pole genetics,
and you're still paying thousands of dollars
a year to dehorn roughly half your calves. Exactly.
You've paid for the technology, the upgrade,
the supposed solution, but you haven't actually
eliminated the costs and the inefficiencies of
the old system. The article uses another brilliant
analogy here. It's like deciding to upgrade to
a fancy new automated milking system. Okay. But
then you keep running your old parallel parlor
right alongside it. Ah. Yeah, okay, that makes
no sense. Right. You've paid for the premium,
state -of -the -art technology that's designed
for efficiency, but you haven't gotten rid of
the labor, the energy costs, the maintenance,
and the fundamental inefficiencies of the old
system. You're just supporting two systems instead
of fully benefiting from the better one. And
this isn't just, like... bad planning necessarily.
It's driven by the genetics itself, if you're
not careful, right? The article brings up the
genetic reality of heterozygous offspring. This
is absolutely key to understanding why you get
stuck in this trap. Remember, your basic genetics,
polled, which we use P for, is dominant over
horned, little p. An animal that is heterozygous
polled, meaning it has the genotype PP, carries
one polled gene and one horned gene. Okay, PPP.
Now, if you breed that PE animal, maybe it's
a cow or maybe it's the bull you're using, to
a horned animal, which is always PP, well, basic
Mendelian genetics tells you about half of the
offspring will inherit the big P gene, resulting
in PT, so they'll be pulled. And the other half?
And about half will inherit only the little P
genes, resulting in PP, so they'll be horned.
Ah, so even if you have pulled cows or you're
using... Pulled bulls that are only heterozygous,
PP, you are genetically guaranteed to keep producing
a significant portion of horned calves. You're
locked in. Precisely. That genetic reality locks
you into needing to dehorn roughly half of your
calf crop indefinitely, unless you make a drastic
change in your breeding strategy towards homozygous
pulled. So you're still dealing with all those
costs we talked about. The labor, the stress,
the potential complications, the delayed growth.
But only for half your calves, despite having
already invested maybe significantly in pulled
genetics, it's really the definition of perpetuated
inefficiency. It sounds like you're just perpetually
stuck in transition, like you never actually
get there. The article connects this exact scenario
to what it terms a transition trap or being stuck
in evaluation mode. Evaluation mode. Yeah, it's
like those producers who perpetually trial and
test new precision agriculture technologies.
Maybe they try out some automated calf feeders.
Maybe they use a few activity monitors here and
there, but they never fully commit. They never
fully integrate the data, never eliminate the
old manual systems entirely. So they're always
kind of testing but never reaping the full reward.
Exactly. They stay in this state of perpetual
evaluation, incurring the cost of the new technology
without achieving the full efficiency gains because
they haven't gotten rid of the old ways. The
article argues the half -pulled herd is exactly
that situation for genetics and dehorning. So
the message is pretty stark then. Being partially
polled isn't some cost -effective transition
period. It's actually a financially draining
state where you bear the costs of both the past
and the future without fully benefiting from
either one. That's the powerful argument the
article makes. It basically says this middle
ground is the absolute most expensive place to
be in modern dairy farming. All right, wow. So
if this gradual half -in, half -out approach
is, as the article puts it, a trap, what do they
propose? as the real solution they talk about
complete pulled transformation potentially even
in a single generation how does that work this
is where they really offer the alternative path
and they position it as not just you know a different
way but the only economically rational way forward
in their view a rapid decisive complete transformation
of the herd's horn status and they highlight
something unique about boldness itself that makes
this rapid shift possible unlike trying to improve
say complex health traits. Yeah, this is a really
key point about the genetics here. Poldmus, because
it's controlled by a single dominant gene primarily,
offers an almost unprecedented opportunity for
rapid phenotypic change in dairy genetics. Phenotypic
meaning the physical trait, the lack of horns.
Correct. You can achieve a near complete transformation
in the horn status of your calves within a single
breeding cycle, basically, by using the right
sires. Unlike, say, milk components or disease
resistance traits that are governed by many genes
or have lower heritability traits that take generations
of careful selection to see significant shifts
across the whole herd. Takes a long time. Takes
a long time. Pulledness offers this potential
for dramatic immediate change capability using
homozygous pulled. That's P .P. Sires. Okay.
Homozygous pulled. That's the magic phrase, isn't
it? Yeah. We'll definitely dig into that distinction
more. But first, what does this immediate complete
transformation mean for those costs we just laid
out? That $17 .36 and all the hidden stuff. It
means immediate total cost elimination for dehorning.
Simple as that. That $17 .36 per head in direct
savings we discussed? Yeah. That savings is triggered
instantly for every single calf born once you
commit to using only homozygous pulled PP sires
for all your planned breedings. Every single
one? Every single one. Going back to that 500
cow operation example, that's over $8 ,600 in
annual savings that hits your bottom line immediately,
year after year after year, just from eliminating
the act of dehorning entirely. So the savings
aren't gradual. They're pretty much all or nothing
once you make that full switch to P .P. Sires.
OK, but what about performance? That's always
been the hang up, right? For years, the perception
was you had to sacrifice production or type to
get polled animals. Does the article tackle that
old chestnut? It absolutely does. And it really
frames that perception as outdated, you know,
a relic of a time when polled genetics were.
frankly, less developed. The article presents
data that directly contradicts this idea that
polled genetics automatically compromise performance.
What kind of data? It said specific Arizona herd
data. pretty large scale, showing that pulled
cows in that study actually produced slightly
more milk daily compared to their horned counterparts.
The numbers were 66 .5 kilograms versus 65 .9
kilograms daily. Okay, 0 .6 kilograms difference.
It's not a massive amount daily. No, not massive,
but like you said earlier, in a tight market,
every little bit helps, right? Especially when
you multiply it across a whole herd over a lactation.
True. And the article mentions other benefits
too. Indirect ones. Yeah, indirect benefits as
well. Things like animal handling. Naturally
pulled cattle are generally calmer, easier to
handle, less stress on them, less stress on your
team. Which could impact health. Exactly. This
reduced stress and improved handling can contribute
to better overall animal health and potentially
even improved milk quality parameters. The article
mentions operations reporting cows moving through
the barn easier, less fighting at the feed bunk,
and more efficient use of space in freestall
barns when you don't have to worry about horns
taking up space or causing injuries. Okay, that
makes sense. Beyond just the daily milk weight,
what about overall genetic merit? Are the top
polled animals today genuinely competitive with
the top horned animals in terms of indexes like
net merit or TPI? The article is very, very clear
on this point. Yes, they absolutely are. It provides
data showing that the top homozygous polled sires
available today average an impressive $1 ,108
in net merit. Over $1 ,100 net merit average
for the top pee -pee bulls. That's strong. It's
very strong. It also compares the difference
in another index, herd health profit dollars,
between the top -horned and top -polled NCSGN
sires, stating the difference is less than $100.
Less than $100 difference on that specific index.
Yeah. And the article basically argues this difference
is, quote, negligible when you compare it to
the significant guaranteed operational benefits
and cost savings you get from eliminating dehorning
across your entire herd. So the genetic gap,
if it ever truly existed at those elite levels.
has essentially closed, according to this analysis.
That's the article's strong assertion, and it
seems backed by the current sire evaluation data.
And they don't just talk averages. They list
specific examples of these top PP sires that
are ranking right alongside the best horned bulls.
Names like Luster P, Banjo P, and Monument P.
And these aren't like niche bulls just for polled
breeders. Not at all. The article points out
they are consistently appearing on the top 100
TPI proven sire list. These are mainstream, high
-impact sires. Okay, this all seems to really
hinge on understanding that critical genetic
distinction you brought up earlier. The difference
between just being polled and being homozygous
polled. Can you break that down again? Yeah,
this is the absolute core concept for achieving
that single generation transformation the article
advocates for. It's crucial. As we discussed
briefly, an animal that's just... generally called
polled, could be heterozygous carrying that PP
genotype. One polled gene, one horned gene. Right.
And that PP animal, if bred to a horned animal,
will still produce roughly 50 % horned offspring.
You're stuck in that loop. But a homozygous polled
animal genotype, PP, carries two copies of the
dominant polled gene. Both alleles are for polledness.
PP, two big Ps. Exactly. And this genetic composition,
having two copies of the polled gene, means that
PP animal will guarantee 100 % hornless offspring
every single time, regardless of whether the
mate is horned or even heterozygous polled, PP.
They can only pass on a P gene. Okay, that makes
perfect sense now. Two copies of the polled gene
means they only pass on a polled gene, so the
calf always gets at least one P, making it polled.
Exactly right. And that genetic certainty is
the magic key here. That PP genotype is what
allows you to make the switch immediately and
completely eliminate dehorning procedures. Permanently.
And as the article details later on, it also
unlocks some really significant strategic breeding
opportunities that just aren't possible if you're
stuck with a mixed or partially polled herd.
So the solution is clear then, according to the
Bullvine article. It's a rapid, decisive move
to 100 % polled offspring by exclusively using
homozygous polled PP sires. This immediately
saves you that $17 .36 per calf, gets rid of
the hidden costs, and allows you to use elite
genetics without compromise. That's the fundamental
argument, yes. Presented as a pragmatic, financially
smart decision based on the current state of
genetics, technology, and the market. Let's dive
deeper into that genetic side then. The article
talks about a genetic revolution and some pretty
exciting strategic breeding opportunities this
100 % polled commitment unlocks. It argues pretty
forcefully that the whole idea of making a genetic
sacrifice to go polled is basically a myth now.
He uses really strong language here. Yeah. Stating
that the historical argument against adopting
pole genetics, you know, the idea that you had
to give up genetic merit or compromise on production
or settle for lower type, that argument has definitively
collapsed. Collapsed. Okay. And they use a powerful
piece of evidence to prove that point, right?
I do. The success of elite polled sires like
Cherry Lily, Lester P is their prime example.
Lester P, he's been huge. Absolutely huge. The
article highlights that Lester P has sold over
901 ,300 doses globally. Just think about that
number for a second. Over 900 ,000 doses. He's
become the world's first polled millionaire sire
purely based on semen sales. And the article
emphasizes that his massive success and global
popularity are not despite him being polled.
but arguably because he combines that highly
desired hornless trait with exceptional, truly
elite performance metrics across the board. Net
merit, TPI, type, health traits, the whole package.
So poultness isn't a handicap anymore. It's actually
becoming a feature that makes elite genetics
even more valuable in today's market. That's
precisely the article's point. And it attributes
much of this rapid advancement we've seen in
polled genetics to technological breakthroughs,
particularly the advent of genomic evaluations
back in 2009. Right. Genomics changed everything
in dairy breeding. How did it have such a big
impact specifically on polled genetics? Well,
genomics allowed breeders to identify superior
polled animals, especially young bulls and heifers,
much, much earlier and with much higher accuracy
than ever before possible. Compared to waiting
for progeny testing. Exactly. Before genomics,
breeders relied heavily on pedigree information
and then waiting years for progeny testing results
to prove a bull's worth and to confirm his polled
status reliably. With genomics, suddenly you
could get a highly reliable estimate of an animal's
total genetic merit and its polled status, whether
it was PP, PP, or PP from just a tissue sample
taken from a young calf. Game changer. Total
game changer. This ability to quickly identify
and select the truly elite polled individuals,
both male and female, at a young age dramatically
compressed generation intervals. It just massively
accelerated the rate of genetic progress within
the polled lines. And genomic testing for polled
status itself is very accurate now, isn't it?
Extremely accurate. The article mentions the
current genomic testing capability for heifer
calves has a remarkable 99 % accuracy in confirming
polled status. PP, PP, or PP. That level of certainty
allows you, as a producer, to make breeding and
management decisions with very high confidence
right when that calf is still very young. Now,
this high accuracy and the increasing availability
of these elite PP animals leads to a strategic
advantage the article says most producers might
be missing out on. What's that? This is a really
insightful point they make, I think. Once your
herd becomes homozygous polled, meaning you have
PP females, or even if you just have some individual
PP females, you unlock a unique strategic breeding
opportunity. You can confidently outcross those
PP females with the absolute elite horned bulls
in the breed. We're talking the highest ranking,
top of the charts bulls, regardless of whether
they carry the polled gene or not. So use the
very best bull, period, even if he's horned.
Yes, and still guarantee 100 % hornless offspring
from that mating. Wait, really? So you can tap
into the very best genetics available anywhere
in the breed, even if they happen to be in horned
bulls, without ever bringing horns back into
your herd phenotypically. That seems like you're
genuinely getting the best of both worlds there.
That's precisely the strategic advantage the
article highlights. It describes this as a sophisticated
breeding strategy that allows you to maximize
both polledness and overall genetic advancement
simultaneously. You're no longer limited to only
the pool and polled bulls when you want to introduce
top genetics from outside lines. Your PP females
give you the power to tap into the entire breed's
elite genetic pool while locking in that desirable
hornless trait in the calves. That's clever.
It is. They compare it to how progressive operations
are using detailed activity monitoring data,
not just for basic heat detection anymore, but
to pinpoint their absolute top genetic cows and
optimize breeding timing specifically for those
elite individuals. It's about leveraging technology
and genetic strategy to maximize gain on your
most valuable animals. And this outcrossing strategy
also directly addresses a historical concern
that sometimes comes up with polled populations,
the issue of genetic diversity and potential
inbreeding down the line. Yes, exactly. The article
positions this outcrossing strategy as the direct
answer to those historical concerns about, perhaps,
a limited genetic diversity within polled lines
in the past. By being able to cross your PP females
with diverse, elite horned bulls from completely
different bloodlines, you are actively introducing
new genetics and broadening the diversity base
of your polled herd while still guaranteeing
every calf born is polled. Okay, but is there
already... decent diversity within the polled
population itself even before you start thinking
about outcrossing like that. The article assures
us there is, and it's definitely growing. It
specifically mentions, as an example, that three
commonly available, distantly related PP bowls
currently show no common sires for at least three
generations back. So unrelated options exist.
Exactly. This, the article states, is proof that
genetic diversity solutions are being actively
developed and do exist within the homozygous
pulled lines being offered by the major AI companies
today. You're not just reliant on one source
or one family of PP genetics. There are multiple
diverse options becoming available. And why is
this point about avoiding inbreeding particularly
important for producers who are really focused
on longevity and lifetime production? Well, because
inbreeding depression can negatively impact crucial
traits like health, fertility, and just overall
things that are absolutely critical for a cow's
longevity and profitability in the herd. Right.
You want cows that last. You want cows that last
multiple lactations and contribute consistently
over their lifetime. So managing inbreeding is
key. The article argues that by being able to
either use diverse PP sires or strategically
outcross your PP females to diverse elite horn
sires, you can maintain elite genetic progress
while actively managing those inbreeding risks.
That's fundamental for building a profitable,
long -lasting herd, not just one focused on first
lactation performance. So the whole genetic landscape
for polled animals has completely shifted then.
It's really not about making a sacrifice anymore.
It's about leveraging elite genetics strategically
to gain a valuable physical trade advantage,
plus all the cost savings. That's the powerful
shift the article describes, yeah. Driven by
technology like genomics and the increasing availability
of these top -tier PP sires. Okay, but the economic
argument isn't just about saving costs, is either,
is it? The Bullvine article also digs into the
other side of the coin. Capturing premium markets
and riding what seems like a growing wave of
global momentum towards polled genetics. Correct.
The article argues that the financial benefits
extend well beyond just eliminating that dehorning
bill, important as that is. They move into tangible
opportunities for increased revenue and better
market access. And this seems to be partly driven
by consumer demand and what the big buyers are
looking for now. Absolutely. This is a crucial
market signal they really highlight. The article
points out that Meiji dairy buyers, and they
list some big recognizable names like Nestle,
General Mills, Dunkin' Brands, are increasingly
prioritizing suppliers who can demonstrate humane
animal treatment practices. Makes sense. Consumers
care more about that. They do. And the article
states unequivocally that this trend is creating
a clear, tangible market pull for operations
raising naturally pulled cattle. And this isn't
just some potential future possibility like maybe
someday. It's happening now. That's what the
article strongly emphasizes. These are current
market realities. Being able to confidently tell
a buyer our herd is 100 percent naturally hornless.
We don't dehorn any animals. That's becoming
a real marketing advantage right now. And the
100 % poll designation itself, just having that
label, is becoming valuable in the livestock
markets. The article argues it absolutely is.
It's functioning kind of like a premium attribute,
similar to how other genetic certifications or
specific trait verifications can add value to
animals. It provides a clear, easily marketable
characteristic that certain buyers actively value
and may pay more for. What kind of sales streams
are we talking about? The article details several.
bread heifers, fresh cows, feeder calves, and
even service bulls. Being able to market these
animals explicitly as naturally polled, especially
homozygous polled, can create additional revenue
streams that operations still dealing with horned
animals might struggle to access, or at least
not get the same premium for. Okay, that covers
the animal sales side. What about actual milk
market premiums? Are those happening yet for
milk from polled herds? The article discusses
the trajectory towards emerging milk market premiums
for products originating specifically from naturally
polled herds. Now, it acknowledges these are
still developing, right? It's not widespread
yet. But the path seems clear, according to the
article, driven by that underlying consumer demand
for products perceived as more humanely produced.
The writing is on the wall, they suggest, that
milk from naturally hornless herds is likely
to command premiums in the future as these programs
develop. So by going 100 % polled, you're potentially
creating multiple profit centers. You're saving
significant costs from stopping dehorning, you're
potentially getting enhanced value for animals
you sell, and you're positioning yourself for
potential future premiums on your milk. Precisely.
And in an industry with historically tight margins,
like dairy, diversifying and enhancing your revenue
streams from a single genetic decision like eliminating
horns is a pretty significant advantage. It positions
your operation to capture value at multiple points
in the chain. The article also provides what
it calls a global market reality check, showing
this isn't just a North American trend or discussion.
Oh, far from it. The article presents some really
eye -opening data on the European trend. It projects
that nearly 67 percent, two -thirds of bulls
used there will be pulled by 2025. 67 percent
by next year. Wow. Yeah. Think about that. Two
-thirds of the bulls used in major European dairy
countries will be pulled very, very soon. That's
massive international momentum. And compare that
to the North American figure the article cited.
What was it? Just 13 percent pulled bull usage
back in the 2019 data they used. That's a huge,
huge difference. difference in adoption rate.
It is a massive difference. And the article used
this comparison to really show how much faster
other major dairy regions are moving on this.
It also mentions places like New Zealand, where
adoption is heavily influenced by export market
requirements that favor polled. And Australia,
where polled adoption is growing, partly for
heat stress tolerance benefits, but also for
general efficiency. So what's the main takeaway
for producers here from looking at these global
patterns? The article argues forcefully that
these global adoption trends signal pretty clearly
that pole genetics aren't just some niche market
or a passing fad. They are rapidly becoming the
industry standard worldwide. The standard, not
the exception. Exactly. And operations that recognize
this shift and embrace it early stand to gain
a significant first mover advantage. Not just
in accessing those developing premium markets
we talked about, but also in getting ahead on
the genetic development curve itself as the elite
-pulled lines continue their rapid advancement
globally. So it's not just being driven by animal
welfare concerns or avoiding a painful task anymore.
Internationally, It's clearly being seen and
adopted as a fundamental competitive advantage.
That's exactly the framing the article uses.
The international dairy community, often driven
maybe more strongly by regulatory pressures and
consumer demands than here, has already embraced
polled genetics as a key competitive advantage
for their operations moving forward. Okay, to
make all of this feel even more real and achievable,
the Bullvine article features some real -world
success stories. operations that are already
doing this leading the way. Yeah, they highlight
several farms that really demonstrate this isn't
just theory written in an article. It's a proven,
successful, long -term strategy out on actual
dairies. The first one they feature is Burkitt
Falls Farm in Pennsylvania. Burkitt Falls. What's
special about their story? They really represent
long -term commitment and viability. The article
calls them six decades of polled excellence.
They've been dedicated to breeding polled Holsteins
for over 60 years. 60 years. That's incredible
dedication. It really is. They've consistently
maintained over 90 % polled animals in their
herd, with a significant portion, around 35%,
being homozygous polled. What's been their driving
philosophy behind that long commitment? The article
includes a great quote from John Burkett outlining
their consistent philosophy over that time. He
says, we want to breed a cow that classifies
EX, produces 200 ,000 pounds and 90 ,000 kilograms
of component -rich milk, and is polled. Simple,
balanced, and includes polled right there. Exactly.
He continues, This philosophy has remained the
same for a long time. We have never pursued the
trend of the month. It just shows their focus
has always been on a balanced, highly functional,
long -lasting cow that also happens to be polled.
Poldness is just an integrated trait in their
overall pursuit of breeding excellence. And their
influence has been truly global. It's actually
remarkable. The article states that over two
-thirds, again, that two -thirds number of polled
Holsteins worldwide trace their genetics back
somehow to Burkitt Falls bloodlines. It provides
really compelling real -world proof that committed
polled breeding does not require sacrificing
longevity, production, or type excellence. They've
proven it's possible for decades. Okay, who else
do they feature as a success story? They highlight
Drew Holm Holsteins, run by Andrew Morton. His
operation serves as a great example of successfully
integrating polled genetics into already high
-performing established cow families without
disrupting that existing performance base. How
do they manage that integration? They strategically
brought in the polled gene through a specific
bowl named OCD Eraser, ZipItP, and this move,
the article explains, has led to the production
of popular high -ranking AI sires coming out
of their program while they simultaneously maintained
elite production and type within their core cow
families. What's Andrew Martin's view on this
now? He's quoted very simply but powerfully,
polled is the way of the future. Clear conviction
there. The article describes their breeding focus
as developing balanced, easy -to -handle cows
with strong udders. Again, you see that theme
of integrating polledness into a program focused
on overall functional excellence and usability.
And they use a specific cow from Drew Home as
an example, right? Drew Home's Super Shot Leisure.
Yes, she's a fantastic illustration of their
success. Drew Holm's super shot leisure is classified
EX92 with a 94 -point udder demonstrating truly
elite type and functionality. 94 udder, wow.
Yeah, and she produced over 90 ,000 kilograms,
that's nearly 200 ,000 pounds, in her lifetime,
showing excellent production and longevity. And
the key part, she is the great random of several
popular Drew Holm sires that carry the pole gene,
including homozygous pole bulls like Lehigh PP
and Logic PP. plus another popular one, Leighton
P. She really shows you can have it all. Elite
type, massive production longevity, and successfully
integrate polled genetics right into the heart
of the family. That's a powerful example. And
the final one they mentioned was North Pole Genetics.
Right. This is a more recent example, but equally
powerful in its message. It's a partnership established
just back in 2021. They made a very significant
strategic investment by acquiring five elite
polled cows, and notably... Four of those five
were daughters of the globally renowned cow,
Calvert Kingboy Miranda EX93. Oh, yeah. Miranda
was a huge deal in the show ring and genetically,
wasn't she? Absolutely huge. The article lists
some of her major accolades. She was the global
cow winner in 2021. the polled impact cow in
2022, and even runner -up red impact cow in 2022.
So acquiring her polled daughters was a bold
move that really underscores a key point the
article makes. Polled animals can and are competing
at the absolute highest levels of breed excellence,
recognition, and importantly, market value worldwide.
So these are pretty diverse examples, then. You've
got a multi -decade legacy herd and operations
strategically integrating polled into their existing
elite lines, and a newer partnership focused
specifically on acquiring top -tier polled genetics
right from the start. Exactly. And the article
points out the common threads running through
all these success stories. A clear, long -term
commitment to polled breeding, a consistent focus
on overall functional traits in production, in
addition to polledness. It's not an either. And
the strategic use of the best available genetics,
whether that means using top peepee sires or
acquiring elite polled females, they all treat
polledness as an integral, valuable part of their
overall breeding program, not just some afterthought
or something they dabble in occasionally. These
stories really do reinforce that idea that polled
isn't a compromise anymore. It's fully compatible
with elite performance and long -term operational
success. And it's being done successfully right
now by serious, profitable operations. It's not
just a theory. Let's shift gears slightly and
talk about the practical side of things. Yeah.
The role technology plays in all this and how
the Bullvine article addresses some of the potential
implementation challenges or barriers. Right.
The article argues that advanced genetic technologies
aren't just enabling this shift towards 100 %
polled. They are actually amplifying the advantages
and making the implementation much more achievable
and rapid than it ever could have been before.
And genomic testing comes back into play here
again, I assume. It seems foundational. Absolutely
foundational. The article reiterates the immense
value of genomic testing for that early, accurate
confirmation of polled status, remembering that
99 % accuracy figure for heifers. 99%. That's
huge for decision making. It's invaluable. And
this early, precise information, the article
points out, integrates perfectly with other precision
agriculture technologies that many farms are
already using, like activity monitoring systems
for heat detection and health monitoring. How
so? Well, you can confirm the polled status,
PP, BP, or PP, of a heifer calf when she's very
young using genomics. Then you can use that information
combined with her overall genomic proof for production,
health, and type, and maybe even her activity
data later on, to make highly informed, precise
breeding decisions specifically for her future
in your herd. It allows for much more targeted
management. And the article also touches on gene
editing. That still feels a bit like future tech
for most farms. It does, yeah. But the article
mentions it, I think, mainly to highlight the
future potential for even faster and more targeted
transformation down the road. It discusses technologies
like CRISPR -Cas9 and their potential to introduce
polled alleles directly into elite horned germplasm
with incredible precision. So essentially adding
the polled gene to top cow families that never
had it. That's the potential, yes. Now, the article
acknowledges that consumer acceptance and regulatory
frameworks around gene editing in livestock are
still evolving globally. It's not something you
can just go out and do widely today. But it views
these technologies as powerful long -term tools
that could allow for rapid, highly targeted genetic
changes, like introducing polledness into the
very best horned cow families almost instantly,
bypassing generations of traditional crossing.
And they reference actual research on this being
done. Yes, they briefly cite research demonstrating
that gene editing has already been used successfully
to introduce the specific polled Celtic variant
into Holstein genetics, creating naturally hornless
offspring from previously horned lines. It just
shows the technology itself is real and applicable,
even if commercial use is still down the road.
So the combination of current tools like genomic
selection and these potential future technologies
like gene editing has really, really sped up
the clock on herd transformation possibilities.
Massively. The article emphasizes that, historically,
trying to transition a dairy herd's horn status
from mostly horned to mostly polled using only
traditional breeding methods would have taken
many, many decades. Generations of work. Lifetime
project, really. Easily. But with the combination
of current genomic selection strategies, the
ability to accurately identify PP animals early,
and the increasing availability of elite PP sires,
that timeline for achieving complete herd transformation
phenotypically has been compressed dramatically
down to just single generations. But what about
the barriers to actually making the switch right
now? Are there common concerns that producers
raise that the article addresses? Like, is it
really that easy? It does directly confront the
concerns that producers might understandably
have. One major one we touched on earlier is
genetic diversity. The fear of narrowing the
gene pool by focusing only on polled lines. The
article reiterates that this is being systematically
addressed now by the increased availability of
diverse polled sires from multiple different
AI companies. You're not reliant on just one
or two polled bloodlines anymore, which significantly
reduces those potential inbreeding risks compared
to, say, 10 or 20 years ago. And the success
stories kind of back that up, showing it's possible
to integrate polled without running into diversity
problems. Yes, they do. The article points back
to breeding programs like Drew Hum Holstein's
and their success integrating polled genetics
into their elite families, like that L family
we talked about, which produced top sires like
Leia IPT and Logic PP. It demonstrates that you
can maintain strong performance and breed health
while going polled if you manage it strategically.
Okay, what about the economic barrier of the
transition itself? It might feel like a big upfront
investment, maybe buying PPC even costs more,
or there's a period where you're kind of losing
money during the switch. How does the article
frame that? The article frames the economic transition
very differently, actually. It argues that while
it certainly requires strategic planning, it
offers immediate returns, unlike many other genetic
investments. Immediate returns. How? Unlike complex
traits like, say, improving fertility or feed
efficiency, which might require multigenerational
investment before you see a tangible payoff across
the herd, the simple, dominant nature of the
pulled gene enables that rapid phenotypic change
we discussed. The payback, the article states
forcefully, is immediate. The very first calf
born without horns, because it came from a pee
-pee sire mating, represents a direct saving
of that $17 .36 in dehorning costs, plus all
the associated labor and stress you avoided.
So the ROI isn't years down the line. It literally
starts with the first pulled calf hitting the
ground from a pee -pee sire. That's the core
argument they make on the economics of transition.
And the implementation timeline itself is relatively
straightforward and quick in terms of seeing
those results spread through the herd. You commit
to using pee -pee sires across the board. Within
approximately 9 -10 months, you start seeing
your first 100 % pulled calves being born. Within
about 21 months or so, your entire calf crop
being born from that point forward will be naturally
hornless. That transition period where you might
have both horned and pulled calves needing different
handling is actually minimized compared to a
slow, gradual approach. To help producers navigate
this, the article actually provides a concrete
plan, doesn't it? A 90 -day action plan. Yes,
it lays out a very actionable, structured, step
-by -step plan to guide producers through the
process of making the switch effectively. Can
you walk us through that briefly? What are the
key steps? Sure. It breaks it down into three
30 -day chunks. Days 130. Assessment and planning.
This first month is really about getting your
house in order, both genetically and financially.
The recommendation is to genomic test your breeding
age females if you haven't already, to confirm
their polled status, especially helpful for identifying
any existing PP animals you might have, and their
overall genetic merit. Crucially, they say, you
need to calculate your actual current dehorning
costs. Use that $17 .36 baseline figure or track
your own costs even more closely and multiply
by the number of calves you typically dehorn
annually. Get that real number. Then evaluate
your current breeding program goals and start
researching the available elite PP sires that
fit your criteria. Start developing a genetic
diversity strategy by looking for distantly related
pulled bulls from different AI studs. Okay, get
the baseline data and start looking at sire options.
Makes sense. What's next? Days 31 to 60. Sire
selection and contracts. This is the decision
-making phase. Based on your research, you secure
contracts for semen orders with multiple AI companies
to ensure you have access to those diverse, distantly
related PP sires you identified. The article
even lists some examples of top options available
at the time, like Roddy PP, Algon PP, and Remover
PP, just to show they exist. Then you develop
your specific breeding protocols, which PP bulls
go on, which cows or heifers, based on their
genetics and your goals. You should also calculate
your projected return on investment, ROI, based
on your herd size and those dehorning costs you
calculated. And importantly, start training your
staff on how to identify and manage the polled
calves that will soon be arriving. So walk in
the genetics, plan the matings, project the savings,
and prep the team. Got it. And the final 30 days.
Days 61 -90. implementation and monitoring. This
is when you actually flip the switch. You begin
using the selected pp sires for all planned breedings
moving forward. No more horn sires, no more pp
sires if you want that immediate 100 % polled
result. At the same time, you establish monitoring
protocols to track conception rates and breeding
efficiency with the new pp sires, just to make
sure everything's working smoothly. You should
also document your baseline herd metrics, things
like dry matter intake, DMI, milk yield, components,
calving ease so you can track any changes, positive
or negative, after the full implementation. And
finally, plan your genomic testing schedule for
the resulting offspring, especially heifers,
to confirm their PP status and use that info
for future decisions. That's a really clear,
practical, step -by -step guide. It takes the
big abstract idea of go 100 % pulled and breaks
it down into manageable tasks over a typical
three -month planning cycle. It does. And the
article emphasizes why following a structured
plan like this is so important. It helps ensure
you capture the full benefits from the shift,
you minimize potential transition risk or hiccups,
and it helps align the whole process with your
existing breeding cycles and management routines.
You're making a calculated strategic change,
not just, you know, a hopeful leap. So the message
seems to be. The technology is here. The elite
genetics are available. The success stories prove
it works. And there's even a practical plan laid
out for you to follow right now to make this
transition happen. That's absolutely the article's
conclusion on the implementation side. The tools
are there. The path is clear. All right, let's
bring it all together then. Yeah. Let's talk
about the bottom line as the Bullvine article
presents it. We need to circle back to that initial
pretty pointed question they asked. Why are you
still paying to dehorn calves when you really
don't have to anymore? Yeah. And based on everything
we've unpacked from this article, the costs,
the genetics, the markets, the technology, the
answer, in their view, should be unequivocally
clear by now. You really shouldn't be. And the
economic case for making that immediate, complete
transformation to 100 % polled herds is presented
not just as an option, but as... overwhelming.
Absolutely overwhelming. That's the term they'd
likely use. The article summarizes the payoff
again at the end, and it's significant. You get
that immediate, guaranteed $17 .36 per head in
direct dehorning cost savings right off the bat.
Minimum savings. Minimum savings. You eliminate
those risks of treatment complications, infections,
and delayed growth associated with dehorning.
You potentially gain enhanced resale values for
your surplus livestock, heifers, bulls, even
cull cows. And you clearly position your operation
to capture future premiums in those emerging
humane -focused consumer markets. And crucially,
the article argues this is all accomplished while
maintaining or actually improving your herd's
overall genetic merit and production performance,
thanks to the quality of modern polled sires.
That's the point they hit home repeatedly. That
old argument about having to sacrifice genetics
to get polled, it's dead, according to this analysis.
Elite polled genetics are available, they're
performing at the highest levels, and they offer
this massive additional benefit. So the takeaway
for producers is that those who see this convergence
of factors, the economics, the genetics, the
market trends, and act decisively now are going
to gain a pretty significant competitive advantage.
That's the article's strong conclusion, yes.
It argues these advantages, the direct cost savings,
the potential market premiums, the ongoing genetic
progress combined with the polled trait will
compound annually. Think about it. Every year
a producer is spending that $17 .36 or more per
head dehorning. A competitor down the road who
has gone 100 % polled is pocketing that money
and potentially getting more for their animals
and avoiding all the hassle. That gap widens
every single year. And the flip side of that
coin. What about those operations who continue
on a gradual half -pulled path we talked about
or just delay making the change altogether? What's
the article's outlook for them? The article is
quite blunt, really. It says they will find themselves
increasingly disadvantaged in the marketplace.
They will continue to hemorrhage those significant
dehorning costs and deal with the associated
inefficiencies while the market increasingly
rewards operations that can demonstrate a 100
% naturally hornless herd. They'll essentially
be spending money that their competitors are
saving and missing out on potential revenue opportunities
that those same competitors are capturing. It
puts them behind the curve. And the article emphasizes
again that you don't have to wait for some future
development or try to develop this all yourself.
The tools and genetics are already available
today. That's a critical point they make right
at the end. The genetic tools are here right
now. The elite PP sires are available from multiple
sources. Genomics provides the certainty needed
for planning. The proven bloodlines exist and
are being successfully integrated, as shown by
those success stories like Burkitt Falls and
Drew Holm. And the market trends and potential
support systems from buyers are already in play.
They reiterate those genetic quality proof points
again. Elite PP sires averaging over $1 ,100
net merit. TPI scores competing with the very
best. The global sales success of bulls like
Luster P and other PP sires like Remover PP topping
industry lists. The proof is there. And the article
wraps up with a very... Direct personal call
to action for you, the listener. It does. It
really puts the numbers back squarely in your
hands. It challenges you directly to calculate
your current annual dehorning costs, use their
conservative $17 .36 per head baseline if you
don't track it precisely, or use your own number
and then multiply that annual cost by the number
of years you realistically see yourself operating
your dairy. Look at the lifetime cost. Exactly.
Look at that total number, which could easily
be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars
over the remaining course of your career. And
then ask yourself, very directly and honestly,
can you truly afford not to make this change
now, given the alternatives? That's a powerful
way to frame it. And the concrete next step they
recommend isn't complicated either. No, the article's
final recommendation is simple and immediate.
Contact your AI representative this week. Don't
put it off. Start the conversation. Discuss the
PP sires available that fit your breeding goals.
Talk about developing that structured plan we
outlined and aim to implement 100 % homozygous
polled sire usage beginning with your very next
breeding cycle. Take action now. It sounds like
the revolution, as they call it in the article,
is happening with or without individual producers
making the choice. That's really the article's
powerful concluding message, yeah. In today's
challenging dairy market, where maximizing every
single ounce of operational efficiency and capturing
every possible dollar of revenue is absolutely
critical for survival and future success. The
article argues the choice between continuously
hemorrhaging money on dehorning versus capturing
the comprehensive economic benefits and market
premiums of going 100 % polled isn't really a
choice at all anymore. The revolution in polled
genetics and its market acceptance is here. And
the fundamental question left for each producer
is whether you'll step up to lead it on your
own operation, reap those benefits early, or
if you'll watch from the sidelines while your
competitors claim the advantages and leave you
struggling with outdated costs and practices.
That really is a challenging and definitely thought
-provoking conclusion from the Bullvine article.
If, as they've laid out so comprehensively, adopting
100 % pulled genetics truly offers immediate
significant cost savings, if it unlocks enhanced
market opportunities now and in the future, and
if it can be done while maintaining or even improving
your herd's genetic progress and production,
well, what does that truly mean for the long
-term sustainability, the competitiveness, and
ultimately the profitability of operations that
decide not to make this transition? It certainly
leaves you, the listener, with something crucial
to consider about where your own farm is heading
in the future landscape of this rapidly changing
dairy industry. It really does. A decision with
compounding impacts, positive or negative, year
after year. Lots to think about there. There
you have it. The brutal economic truth about
polled genetics that most producers are missing
entirely. The choice between hemorrhaging money
on dehorning or capturing polled premiums isn't
really a choice at all. Your action step is simple.
Calculate your current annual dehorning costs
using that $17 .36 baseline, multiply by the
years remaining in your operation, and ask yourself
if you can afford not to make this change. Head
over to thebullvine .com to read the complete
analysis, including the detailed 90 -day implementation
plan and real -world case studies from operations
that have already made the transformation. You'll
also find our comprehensive comparison tables
and the specific polled sires that are dominating
global rankings. If this episode challenged your
thinking or helped clarify your breeding strategy,
share it with fellow producers who need to hear
this message. The polled revolution is happening
with or without you. The only question is whether
you'll lead it or watch your competitors capture
the advantages you could have claimed. Thanks
for joining us for the Bullvine Podcast, where
we turn industry insights into immediate profits.
Until next time, keep challenging the status
quo and keep building better herds.