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 --> 00:01:02.359 we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast, 00:01:02.820 --> 00:01:05.560 where we tackle the dairy industry's most controversial 00:01:05.560 --> 00:01:08.680 topics with the data and insights you won't hear 00:01:08.680 --> 00:01:12.000 anywhere else. I'm your host, bringing you the 00:01:12.000 --> 00:01:14.719 bold analysis that's made the Bullvine the dairy 00:01:14.719 --> 00:01:18.000 industry's most provocative publication, read 00:01:18.000 --> 00:01:21.879 by over 400 ,000 producers worldwide who aren't 00:01:21.879 --> 00:01:25.560 afraid to challenge conventional wisdom. Today, 00:01:25.700 --> 00:01:28.420 we're exposing what might be the industry's biggest 00:01:28.420 --> 00:01:31.549 financial scam. feed additives for methane reduction. 00:01:32.129 --> 00:01:34.709 While big feed companies are convincing producers 00:01:34.709 --> 00:01:38.730 to spend up to $150 per cow annually on temporary 00:01:38.730 --> 00:01:40.730 solutions that actually reduce profitability, 00:01:41.230 --> 00:01:44.569 a genetic revolution is quietly building permanent 00:01:44.569 --> 00:01:47.609 wealth for early adopters. We're talking about 00:01:47.609 --> 00:01:49.989 Journal of Dairy Science research showing three 00:01:49.989 --> 00:01:53.769 no -pea additives decrease income by $128 ,000 00:01:53.769 --> 00:01:57.500 annually for a thousand cow operation. while 00:01:57.500 --> 00:02:00.959 genetic selection redirects 4 to 12 % of wasted 00:02:00.959 --> 00:02:03.920 feed energy into milk production, permanently. 00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:07.459 Canada's already implementing national genetic 00:02:07.459 --> 00:02:11.379 evaluations, Europe's investing $27 million in 00:02:11.379 --> 00:02:14.580 genetic consortiums, and American producers are 00:02:14.580 --> 00:02:17.280 getting left behind in expensive additive cycles. 00:02:18.409 --> 00:02:20.710 If you've ever wondered why your extension specialist 00:02:20.710 --> 00:02:23.129 isn't warning you about the economics of feed 00:02:23.129 --> 00:02:26.050 additives, or why genetic suppliers aren't aggressively 00:02:26.050 --> 00:02:29.610 promoting methane -efficient breeding, this episode 00:02:29.610 --> 00:02:32.129 will open your eyes to the uncomfortable truths 00:02:32.129 --> 00:02:35.370 the industry doesn't want you to discover. Let's 00:02:35.370 --> 00:02:38.490 dive in. Welcome to the Deep Dive, the show that, 00:02:38.569 --> 00:02:40.509 well, cuts through the noise and gets straight 00:02:40.509 --> 00:02:43.469 to the insights you really need. Today, we're 00:02:43.469 --> 00:02:47.030 tackling a big one, methane emissions in dairy. 00:02:47.599 --> 00:02:50.240 Now, it's often framed purely as an environmental 00:02:50.240 --> 00:02:52.780 thing, right? Something for climate talks or 00:02:52.780 --> 00:02:55.750 regulations, maybe just a PR issue. But what 00:02:55.750 --> 00:02:57.550 if it's more than that? What if there's a hidden 00:02:57.550 --> 00:03:00.389 financial cost, one that's directly hitting your 00:03:00.389 --> 00:03:03.569 farm's bottom line, maybe costing you serious 00:03:03.569 --> 00:03:06.310 money right now? We're diving deep into how this 00:03:06.310 --> 00:03:08.550 affects your profitability, your sustainability. 00:03:08.789 --> 00:03:11.650 And honestly, we're going to uncover some pretty 00:03:11.650 --> 00:03:14.069 uncomfortable, maybe even surprising truths today. 00:03:14.289 --> 00:03:16.210 Definitely. It's a topic that needs a closer 00:03:16.210 --> 00:03:18.710 look beyond just the headlines. Our mission today 00:03:18.710 --> 00:03:20.349 is a really critical look at methane reduction 00:03:20.349 --> 00:03:22.569 strategies. We're focusing on the huge difference 00:03:22.569 --> 00:03:25.729 between two main approaches. feed additives versus 00:03:25.729 --> 00:03:27.689 genetic solutions. And the source we're digging 00:03:27.689 --> 00:03:30.389 into is the Bullvine article called Genetics, 00:03:30.490 --> 00:03:32.770 Dairy's Permanent Methane Reduction Goldmine. 00:03:32.889 --> 00:03:34.729 Just the title tells you something, doesn't it? 00:03:34.789 --> 00:03:36.770 It certainly catches the eye, suggests a hidden 00:03:36.770 --> 00:03:39.270 value there. Yeah, it promises some really compelling 00:03:39.270 --> 00:03:42.509 stuff, challenges the usual thinking, and reveals 00:03:42.509 --> 00:03:44.870 some things that, well, maybe Big Feed doesn't 00:03:44.870 --> 00:03:47.280 want you to know. That's a quote from the article, 00:03:47.340 --> 00:03:49.879 by the way. Our goal is to pull out the key nuggets, 00:03:50.060 --> 00:03:52.960 the surprising facts from this analysis, give 00:03:52.960 --> 00:03:55.240 you, our listener, a shortcut to being really 00:03:55.240 --> 00:03:57.840 informed on this. We want you walking away with 00:03:57.840 --> 00:03:59.840 actionable insights, things that can directly 00:03:59.840 --> 00:04:03.240 impact your dairy's profitability and its future. 00:04:03.379 --> 00:04:05.159 Sounds like a plan. Let's get into it. OK, so 00:04:05.159 --> 00:04:07.580 let's start by really hammering home this financial 00:04:07.580 --> 00:04:09.699 side of methane. Forget the environmental talk 00:04:09.699 --> 00:04:11.699 for just a second. Let's talk dollars and cents 00:04:11.699 --> 00:04:15.310 leaving your farm silently. Almost invisibly, 00:04:15.389 --> 00:04:18.430 the bull vine article is crystal clear. Methane 00:04:18.430 --> 00:04:21.550 isn't just a greenhouse gas. It's lost feed energy. 00:04:22.410 --> 00:04:24.949 Valuable energy. Think about your feed bill. 00:04:25.029 --> 00:04:27.810 Now imagine a chunk of that just poof, gone. 00:04:28.149 --> 00:04:31.310 That's such a critical way to reframe it. Usually 00:04:31.310 --> 00:04:33.550 it's all about global warming potential, which 00:04:33.550 --> 00:04:36.829 feels abstract, distant. But for you, the producer, 00:04:37.069 --> 00:04:39.970 the immediate thing is wasted energy. Every bit 00:04:39.970 --> 00:04:42.069 of methane exhaled is fuel that didn't do its 00:04:42.069 --> 00:04:45.379 job. Our source points to research, solid stuff 00:04:45.379 --> 00:04:47.920 in the Journal of Dairy Science, indicating methane 00:04:47.920 --> 00:04:51.600 is anywhere from 4 % to, get this, 12 % of a 00:04:51.600 --> 00:04:54.420 cow's gross energy intake. 4 to 12%, that's a 00:04:54.420 --> 00:04:57.180 lot. It really is. And gross energy intake, just 00:04:57.180 --> 00:04:59.019 so we're clear, that's the total energy the cow 00:04:59.019 --> 00:05:00.980 gets from her feed. It's the fuel for everything, 00:05:01.100 --> 00:05:04.600 staying alive, growing, making milk, especially 00:05:04.600 --> 00:05:07.810 the good stuff like fat and protein. So when 00:05:07.810 --> 00:05:10.550 a big chunk of that energy, 4 % to 12%, is lost 00:05:10.550 --> 00:05:13.170 as methane, it means that energy isn't making 00:05:13.170 --> 00:05:15.589 you milk. It's not making components. It's literally 00:05:15.589 --> 00:05:18.370 being breathed out. It's a biological inefficiency 00:05:18.370 --> 00:05:21.029 you're paying for day in, day out. And the Bullvine 00:05:21.029 --> 00:05:22.810 article puts a number on it that really hits 00:05:22.810 --> 00:05:25.649 home. It says each pal is literally torching 00:05:25.649 --> 00:05:28.850 $300 worth of feed energy annually. Sure. $300 00:05:28.850 --> 00:05:31.790 per cow per year. Yeah. That's not pocket change, 00:05:31.889 --> 00:05:34.129 is it? Right. Especially when you multiply it 00:05:34.129 --> 00:05:37.139 out. And it's constant. An ongoing drain. Absolutely 00:05:37.139 --> 00:05:39.540 not theoretical. It's a direct hit to your profit. 00:05:39.639 --> 00:05:42.439 Just think about the cumulative impact. A modest 00:05:42.439 --> 00:05:47.579 herd, say 100 cows, that $300 per cow means $30 00:05:47.579 --> 00:05:51.660 ,000 a year. Gone. $30 ,000. Yeah. Or a bigger 00:05:51.660 --> 00:05:54.660 farm, maybe 500 cows. You're looking at $150 00:05:54.660 --> 00:05:57.870 ,000 annually just vanishing into thin air. This 00:05:57.870 --> 00:06:00.310 isn't some environmental tax someone else imposes. 00:06:00.310 --> 00:06:02.170 It's baked into your operation right now. It's 00:06:02.170 --> 00:06:05.490 a direct operational expense. Wow. That $30 ,000 00:06:05.490 --> 00:06:09.189 or $150 ,000 that could be fixing things, expanding, 00:06:09.209 --> 00:06:11.829 or just, you know, profit, it's revenue that 00:06:11.829 --> 00:06:13.449 never shows up because the feed you carefully 00:06:13.449 --> 00:06:15.629 buy and pay for isn't working as hard as it could. 00:06:15.670 --> 00:06:17.550 It means every feed dollar is underperforming. 00:06:17.790 --> 00:06:20.610 So yeah, methane is a very real, very tangible 00:06:20.610 --> 00:06:22.829 operational expense. It just doesn't show up 00:06:22.829 --> 00:06:24.490 as a neat line item on the bill, which is maybe 00:06:24.490 --> 00:06:26.509 why it's often ignored. It's an invisible leak, 00:06:26.589 --> 00:06:29.670 basically. A huge one. Okay, so if it's that 00:06:29.670 --> 00:06:32.589 big a financial drain, a direct tossed bleeding 00:06:32.589 --> 00:06:35.490 profits, why do the solutions we keep hearing 00:06:35.490 --> 00:06:39.310 about seem to totally ignore that economic reality 00:06:39.310 --> 00:06:41.910 for the farmer? That's the million -dollar question, 00:06:42.009 --> 00:06:43.529 isn't it? Yeah, it feels like we're constantly 00:06:43.529 --> 00:06:46.509 being sold expensive Band -Aids instead of fixing 00:06:46.509 --> 00:06:49.269 the leak itself. Which leads us right into the 00:06:49.269 --> 00:06:52.000 first big part of our dive. These heavily marketed 00:06:52.000 --> 00:06:54.500 solutions and what the Bullvine article suggests 00:06:54.500 --> 00:06:58.100 is a pretty uncomfortable truth about them. The 00:06:58.100 --> 00:07:00.579 Bullvine article, well, it really doesn't pull 00:07:00.579 --> 00:07:03.379 any punches on feed additives, uses some incredibly 00:07:03.379 --> 00:07:05.720 strong language, suggests some popular ones are, 00:07:05.819 --> 00:07:08.220 and I quote, the industry's biggest scam. Strong 00:07:08.220 --> 00:07:10.519 words. Very. And that they make producers less 00:07:10.519 --> 00:07:12.540 money while pretending to help the environment. 00:07:12.740 --> 00:07:15.699 That's a shocking claim. But, you know, the analysis 00:07:15.699 --> 00:07:17.740 seems to back it up with numbers that every producer 00:07:17.740 --> 00:07:20.560 really needs to look at. It does. Let's dig into 00:07:20.560 --> 00:07:22.620 the specific financial realities, the hidden 00:07:22.620 --> 00:07:25.600 costs of these additives. Let's start with 3 00:07:25.600 --> 00:07:29.040 -nitroxypropanol, usually just called 3 -NOP. 00:07:29.220 --> 00:07:31.699 Now, got to be fair up front. Scientifically, 00:07:31.860 --> 00:07:34.620 3 -NOP does work. It reduces methane. The article 00:07:34.620 --> 00:07:36.839 acknowledges it gets about a 30 % reduction in 00:07:36.839 --> 00:07:39.180 dairy cattle. That's backed by research. Okay, 00:07:39.240 --> 00:07:40.839 so it cuts methane. That's the promise. That's 00:07:40.839 --> 00:07:43.240 the promise. But here's the uncomfortable truth 00:07:43.240 --> 00:07:45.990 the article jumps straight to. the economic impact 00:07:45.990 --> 00:07:49.089 on your farm there's comprehensive research again 00:07:49.089 --> 00:07:50.670 in the journal of dairy science that found while 00:07:50.670 --> 00:07:54.470 3nop cut methane by about 28 it also decreased 00:07:54.470 --> 00:07:57.990 income over feed costs by about 0 .35 cents per 00:07:57.990 --> 00:08:01.750 cow daily wait hang on decreased income yes decrease 00:08:01.750 --> 00:08:04.870 so you pay for this stuff it reduces methane 00:08:04.870 --> 00:08:07.209 but it makes you less money overall how does 00:08:07.209 --> 00:08:09.370 that even compute it seems counterintuitive doesn't 00:08:09.370 --> 00:08:11.230 it it's astonishing the article spells it out 00:08:11.709 --> 00:08:15.209 For a 1 ,000 -cow operation, that 35 cents a 00:08:15.209 --> 00:08:17.829 day translates to an annual shortfall of $120 00:08:17.829 --> 00:08:21.949 ,320. A shortfall. You are literally paying money 00:08:21.949 --> 00:08:23.870 to make less money. What kind of business sense 00:08:23.870 --> 00:08:25.670 does that make? Not at all. It's a paradox. It 00:08:25.670 --> 00:08:28.009 should make producers furious, frankly. And it's 00:08:28.009 --> 00:08:30.009 critical to grasp that you're not just paying 00:08:30.009 --> 00:08:32.090 for the additive itself, which has its own price 00:08:32.090 --> 00:08:35.210 tag. You're also losing money on your core business, 00:08:35.529 --> 00:08:38.889 making milk. This is where the article talks 00:08:38.889 --> 00:08:42.330 about the recurring cost nightmare. Research 00:08:42.330 --> 00:08:46.970 from MDPI Animals says 3NOP costs roughly $150 00:08:46.970 --> 00:08:50.330 per cow per year, and that's every single year. 00:08:50.509 --> 00:08:52.590 It's a subscription service for methane reduction. 00:08:52.950 --> 00:08:55.309 Pretty much. It's a perpetual revenue stream 00:08:55.309 --> 00:08:57.750 for the manufacturers and a perpetual expense 00:08:57.750 --> 00:09:00.370 for you. The article calls it a rental solution, 00:09:00.690 --> 00:09:03.529 uses a great analogy, like leasing a tractor 00:09:03.529 --> 00:09:05.330 that disappears the moment you miss a payment. 00:09:05.629 --> 00:09:08.129 Oh, that's good. Stop feeding it and boom, methane 00:09:08.129 --> 00:09:10.250 goes right back up. So this model, it's fundamentally 00:09:10.250 --> 00:09:13.269 flawed for long -term farm profit. It never actually 00:09:13.269 --> 00:09:15.870 fixes the inefficiency. Yeah. It just puts a 00:09:15.870 --> 00:09:18.269 temporary, very expensive patch on it, like holding 00:09:18.269 --> 00:09:20.850 a bucket under a leaky roof forever and paying 00:09:20.850 --> 00:09:22.710 someone for the bucket. And the production hit. 00:09:22.789 --> 00:09:25.029 That makes it even worse, doesn't it? The Journal 00:09:25.029 --> 00:09:27.049 of Dairy Science Research, the article points 00:09:27.049 --> 00:09:30.409 out, showed cows on three NOP ate less feed. 00:09:30.649 --> 00:09:32.929 About half a kilo less per day. And produced 00:09:32.929 --> 00:09:37.299 less milk. 0 .7 kilos less milk per day. So let 00:09:37.299 --> 00:09:39.519 me get this straight. You pay for the additive, 00:09:39.779 --> 00:09:43.399 your cows eat less but are less efficient, and 00:09:43.399 --> 00:09:45.200 you get less milk to sell. That's like a triple 00:09:45.200 --> 00:09:47.320 whammy against your bottom line. Exactly. It's 00:09:47.320 --> 00:09:50.159 the combined impact. Less milk to sell, potentially 00:09:50.159 --> 00:09:52.740 a higher feed cost per unit of milk because of 00:09:52.740 --> 00:09:55.220 the inefficiency, plus the cost of the additive 00:09:55.220 --> 00:09:58.320 itself. It just decimates profitability. It's 00:09:58.320 --> 00:10:00.179 like buying premium gas that makes your truck 00:10:00.179 --> 00:10:02.549 slower and you use more fuel. Where's the logic? 00:10:02.669 --> 00:10:04.509 There isn't any. From the farmer's perspective, 00:10:04.750 --> 00:10:06.409 it's money you're simply not earning because 00:10:06.409 --> 00:10:08.389 your cows are less productive while you're paying 00:10:08.389 --> 00:10:11.570 for this fix. And if 3 -NOP sounds, you know, 00:10:11.570 --> 00:10:14.870 financially dubious, let's talk about asparagopsis 00:10:14.870 --> 00:10:17.330 seaweed supplements. Red seaweed, the Bullvine 00:10:17.330 --> 00:10:20.710 article calls this one. The $500 per cow delusion 00:10:20.710 --> 00:10:24.889 extension won't challenge. $500 per cow annually. 00:10:25.090 --> 00:10:27.950 That's insane. That makes 3 -NOP look cheap. 00:10:28.299 --> 00:10:30.700 It really does make 3 -NRP look like a bargain, 00:10:30.840 --> 00:10:33.679 as the article says. And yes, the bromoform compounds 00:10:33.679 --> 00:10:36.720 in some red seaweed can slash methane maybe up 00:10:36.720 --> 00:10:40.360 to 71%, according to MDPI Animals Research. Huge 00:10:40.360 --> 00:10:43.580 reduction. But the cost is just astronomical. 00:10:43.899 --> 00:10:47.370 The article pegs it at $300 - $500 per cow. per 00:10:47.370 --> 00:10:49.509 year. That's not just expensive. That's completely 00:10:49.509 --> 00:10:52.389 unviable for most farms. It's more than the potential 00:10:52.389 --> 00:10:55.529 energy savings value. It makes casino gambling 00:10:55.529 --> 00:10:57.909 look conservative, as the article puts it. And 00:10:57.909 --> 00:11:00.710 if 3NOP, which costs you money, looks like a 00:11:00.710 --> 00:11:03.370 bargain compared to this, yeah, that should tell 00:11:03.370 --> 00:11:05.190 you everything about where this industry is heading. 00:11:05.409 --> 00:11:07.789 Pushing solutions that are either bad deals or 00:11:07.789 --> 00:11:10.029 just plain unaffordable. But here's where it 00:11:10.029 --> 00:11:12.269 gets really uncomfortable. Something the Bullvine 00:11:12.269 --> 00:11:15.090 article tackles head on. Why aren't the institutions 00:11:15.090 --> 00:11:17.769 we trust, like university extension services, 00:11:18.090 --> 00:11:20.830 screaming this from the rooftops, warning us 00:11:20.830 --> 00:11:22.970 about the financial hit? That's a huge point 00:11:22.970 --> 00:11:26.049 of concern raised in the article. It states pretty 00:11:26.049 --> 00:11:28.830 bluntly that university extension services across 00:11:28.830 --> 00:11:32.570 the country promote three NOP and similar additives 00:11:32.570 --> 00:11:35.710 without doing the basic economic analysis that 00:11:35.710 --> 00:11:38.649 every farm accountant would flag as problematic. 00:11:39.129 --> 00:11:41.669 So they're promoting the methane reduction numbers. 00:11:42.600 --> 00:11:45.200 but not the income reduction numbers. That seems 00:11:45.200 --> 00:11:48.240 to be the implication. The article pushes us 00:11:48.240 --> 00:11:51.519 to think critically. Why aren't extension specialists 00:11:51.519 --> 00:11:54.399 highlighting these production losses? Why aren't 00:11:54.399 --> 00:11:56.779 they calculating the real ROI for the farmer? 00:11:56.940 --> 00:11:59.240 The silence on these crucial economic details 00:11:59.240 --> 00:12:01.899 is, well, noticeable. It really makes you wonder, 00:12:01.940 --> 00:12:03.980 doesn't it? The data is out there. Peer -reviewed 00:12:03.980 --> 00:12:06.539 journals. Showing a financial negative for farmers. 00:12:07.039 --> 00:12:08.659 Why isn't that the headline from our trusted 00:12:08.659 --> 00:12:11.159 advisors? The article does speculate on the why. 00:12:11.340 --> 00:12:13.860 It alludes to the possibility of industry -funded 00:12:13.860 --> 00:12:15.600 research without questioning whether it actually 00:12:15.600 --> 00:12:18.120 benefits farmers' bottom lines. Right. Follow 00:12:18.120 --> 00:12:20.399 the money, perhaps. It raises that question. 00:12:20.500 --> 00:12:22.779 It's about systemic pressures, maybe. Not necessarily 00:12:22.779 --> 00:12:26.120 individual intent. But it does force a hard question 00:12:26.120 --> 00:12:28.179 about the independence of the advice producers 00:12:28.179 --> 00:12:30.500 are getting when there might be financial ties 00:12:30.500 --> 00:12:32.879 involved. So if these heavily -pronoted fixes 00:12:32.879 --> 00:12:35.879 are actually financial drains... Yeah. What's 00:12:35.879 --> 00:12:38.620 the real alternative? The one that offers a permanent, 00:12:38.740 --> 00:12:42.000 maybe even profitable way forward? Well, that's 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:43.659 where the article makes its strongest pivot. 00:12:43.919 --> 00:12:46.279 Right. If the additives are, let's be blunt, 00:12:46.460 --> 00:12:48.899 potentially a bad deal, what is the answer? The 00:12:48.899 --> 00:12:51.679 Bolvine article makes a powerful case. The real 00:12:51.679 --> 00:12:53.779 solution has been hiding in your breeding program 00:12:53.779 --> 00:12:57.440 all along. And this is why it argues feed additive 00:12:57.440 --> 00:12:59.539 companies are terrified of genetic solutions. 00:13:00.100 --> 00:13:02.980 Because, well, genetics doesn't require a monthly 00:13:02.980 --> 00:13:06.179 subscription fee, does it? Exactly. It eliminates 00:13:06.179 --> 00:13:08.779 those recurring revenue streams that make additives 00:13:08.779 --> 00:13:11.360 so profitable for the manufacturers but costly 00:13:11.360 --> 00:13:14.519 for the producer. Genetics offers a permanent 00:13:14.519 --> 00:13:17.200 superior path. And the science here is solid. 00:13:17.240 --> 00:13:19.879 It's not wishful thinking. The Journal of Dairy 00:13:19.879 --> 00:13:22.100 Science, as the article points out, clearly states 00:13:22.100 --> 00:13:24.960 that enteric methane emissions demonstrate consistent 00:13:24.960 --> 00:13:27.980 heritability across multiple studies. Heritability. 00:13:28.139 --> 00:13:30.019 OK, so that means it's genetic. It can be passed 00:13:30.019 --> 00:13:33.019 down. Precisely. It's a biological fact. And 00:13:33.019 --> 00:13:36.019 research from just this year, 2024, shows average 00:13:36.019 --> 00:13:39.700 heritability between 0 .24 and 0 .45 for six 00:13:39.700 --> 00:13:41.799 different methane traits. Now, what that means 00:13:41.799 --> 00:13:44.399 for you practically is that a good chunk, 24 00:13:44.399 --> 00:13:46.860 % to 45 % of the difference in methane output 00:13:46.860 --> 00:13:49.159 between cows is due to their genes, which means 00:13:49.159 --> 00:13:51.360 you can select for lower emissions and make real 00:13:51.360 --> 00:13:53.919 progress through breeding. So it's not just random 00:13:53.919 --> 00:13:56.409 chance. You can actually influence it. Definitely. 00:13:56.509 --> 00:13:58.889 And the article also mentions genetic correlations 00:13:58.889 --> 00:14:02.149 between these traits, ranging from N - .15 to 00:14:02.149 --> 00:14:05.330 most 777. That's important because it suggests 00:14:05.330 --> 00:14:08.370 improving one methane trait might improve others, 00:14:08.429 --> 00:14:10.929 or at least won't mess up things like milk yield, 00:14:11.049 --> 00:14:13.210 fat, or protein. You're not trading one problem 00:14:13.210 --> 00:14:15.370 for another. Okay, so it's heritable, you can 00:14:15.370 --> 00:14:17.929 select for it, and those gains build up over 00:14:17.929 --> 00:14:20.840 time, generation after generation. The article 00:14:20.840 --> 00:14:23.320 says this provides the foundation for permanent 00:14:23.320 --> 00:14:25.580 genetic improvements that compound, something 00:14:25.580 --> 00:14:28.679 no feed additive can ever claim. That's the core 00:14:28.679 --> 00:14:30.860 advantage, permanence and compounding effects. 00:14:31.179 --> 00:14:33.460 And that's the goldmine aspect, right? Redirecting 00:14:33.460 --> 00:14:35.460 wasted energy. making cows fundamentally more 00:14:35.460 --> 00:14:38.200 efficient. Exactly. That's the key finding from 00:14:38.200 --> 00:14:40.559 CEMEX research cited in the article. When you 00:14:40.559 --> 00:14:42.700 select for low -methane genetics, you're essentially 00:14:42.700 --> 00:14:45.419 recovering valuable metabolizable energy that 00:14:45.419 --> 00:14:48.720 was being wasted. Remember that 4 -12 % of energy 00:14:48.720 --> 00:14:51.419 lost as methane. Genetics lets you reclaim that. 00:14:51.559 --> 00:14:54.139 The trait they're working with is about 23 % 00:14:54.139 --> 00:14:57.360 heritable, with good reliability 70 -80 % in 00:14:57.360 --> 00:14:59.379 the genetic predictions. So you can trust the 00:14:59.379 --> 00:15:01.700 numbers. And the kicker. The real kicker. The 00:15:01.700 --> 00:15:04.929 game changer. It has no negative impact on yield, 00:15:05.110 --> 00:15:08.029 fat, and protein levels. Wow. Okay. So unlike 00:15:08.029 --> 00:15:09.909 the additives that cost you milk. Right. With 00:15:09.909 --> 00:15:11.730 genetics, you're not sacrificing productivity 00:15:11.730 --> 00:15:14.570 for sustainability. You're enhancing both. It's 00:15:14.570 --> 00:15:17.090 a total shift from the additive model, which 00:15:17.090 --> 00:15:20.149 often penalizes production. That is incredibly 00:15:20.149 --> 00:15:24.529 powerful. Converting a loss into a gain. Permanently. 00:15:24.710 --> 00:15:28.049 No recurring costs. Making cows more efficient 00:15:28.049 --> 00:15:31.919 from the genes up. That is a goldmine. But this 00:15:31.919 --> 00:15:33.960 isn't just theory, is it? The article points 00:15:33.960 --> 00:15:36.379 to real -world programs actually doing this now. 00:15:36.500 --> 00:15:38.600 Things that maybe some extension folks aren't 00:15:38.600 --> 00:15:40.580 talking about enough. Absolutely. This is happening. 00:15:40.679 --> 00:15:43.039 Look at Canada. Yeah, the article really praises 00:15:43.039 --> 00:15:45.279 Canada's leadership. Calls it game -changing 00:15:45.279 --> 00:15:47.179 leadership that should embarrass U .S. extension 00:15:47.179 --> 00:15:50.559 services. Strong stuff. It is strong, but maybe 00:15:50.559 --> 00:15:53.059 warranted. Because Canada is the first country 00:15:53.059 --> 00:15:55.480 to implement national genetic evaluations for 00:15:55.480 --> 00:15:58.460 methane emissions. Not a pilot study. A national 00:15:58.460 --> 00:16:01.480 system. Running now. How are they doing it? It's 00:16:01.480 --> 00:16:03.559 a really smart collaboration. University of Gulf, 00:16:03.720 --> 00:16:08.159 Lactonet Canada, Cemex, academia, industry, producers 00:16:08.159 --> 00:16:10.980 working together. And the method is ingenious 00:16:10.980 --> 00:16:14.200 and scalable. They use mid -infrared reflectance 00:16:14.200 --> 00:16:17.240 spectroscopy, MIRS, on routine milk samples. 00:16:17.299 --> 00:16:19.259 On milk samples, so stuff that's already being 00:16:19.259 --> 00:16:21.600 collected. Exactly, the same samples you send 00:16:21.600 --> 00:16:24.059 for fat and protein tests. MIRS reads the light 00:16:24.059 --> 00:16:26.120 bouncing off the milk, and that fingerprint can 00:16:26.120 --> 00:16:28.320 actually predict how much methane the cow produces. 00:16:29.049 --> 00:16:31.490 It's efficient. No extra work on the farm. That's 00:16:31.490 --> 00:16:34.529 brilliant. And the scale is massive. Lactanet 00:16:34.529 --> 00:16:37.110 collected over 13 million MIRS records over five 00:16:37.110 --> 00:16:39.710 years, analyzed 700 ,000 of them, and the accuracy. 00:16:40.009 --> 00:16:43.049 They found an 85 % correlation between collected 00:16:43.049 --> 00:16:45.289 methane and predicted methane. That's really 00:16:45.289 --> 00:16:47.929 high. It validates the method. So it works, and 00:16:47.929 --> 00:16:50.330 it's being used. Commercially, yes. CEMEX started 00:16:50.330 --> 00:16:52.669 marketing low -methane semen in 80 countries 00:16:52.669 --> 00:16:55.250 back in 2023. This is available now, globally. 00:16:55.570 --> 00:16:59.070 And again, 23 % heritable, 70 -80 % reliability, 00:16:59.309 --> 00:17:01.909 and no hit to milk, fat, or protein. It's a win 00:17:01.909 --> 00:17:04.230 -win -win. So Canada's really leading the charge, 00:17:04.390 --> 00:17:06.670 making it happen at scale. But they're not alone, 00:17:06.890 --> 00:17:09.430 right? The Netherlands is also making big moves. 00:17:09.589 --> 00:17:11.569 Definitely. The Netherlands shows incredible 00:17:11.569 --> 00:17:14.789 strategic thinking. Wageningen University heads 00:17:14.789 --> 00:17:18.029 up a huge international group, 50 partners, 25 00:17:18.029 --> 00:17:21.150 countries. Wow. Big money behind it too, $27 00:17:21.150 --> 00:17:24.930 .4 million from the Bezos Earth Fund and Global 00:17:24.930 --> 00:17:28.230 Methane Hub. And their goal is ambitious but 00:17:28.230 --> 00:17:31.420 clear. Reduce methane emissions from cows and 00:17:31.420 --> 00:17:35.119 sheep by 25 % in 25 years using genomics and 00:17:35.119 --> 00:17:37.779 breeding programs. 25 % in 25 years. That sounds 00:17:37.779 --> 00:17:40.299 like steady progress. It is. The article highlights 00:17:40.299 --> 00:17:43.480 the cumulative effect. They estimate a 1 % decrease 00:17:43.480 --> 00:17:46.319 in Dutch dairy emissions every single year, stacking 00:17:46.319 --> 00:17:49.910 up over time. Permanent. That's fundamentally 00:17:49.910 --> 00:17:51.970 different from an additive, isn't it? Building 00:17:51.970 --> 00:17:54.150 it in generation by generation versus just renting 00:17:54.150 --> 00:17:57.230 a temporary fix. Precisely. It's long -term strategic 00:17:57.230 --> 00:17:59.529 thinking versus short -term expensive fixes. 00:17:59.809 --> 00:18:02.190 These examples should be a massive wake -up call. 00:18:02.289 --> 00:18:04.549 It's about building a permanent advantage. And 00:18:04.549 --> 00:18:06.230 these examples aren't just science projects. 00:18:06.470 --> 00:18:09.109 They're tied into policy and market opportunities, 00:18:09.390 --> 00:18:11.650 which brings us to another crucial point. Yeah, 00:18:11.690 --> 00:18:14.630 the whole regulatory landscape. Right. This leads 00:18:14.630 --> 00:18:17.900 to a really interesting, maybe worrying... part 00:18:17.900 --> 00:18:21.099 of the puzzle. The global regulatory differences 00:18:21.099 --> 00:18:24.500 and this new carbon market reality that's changing 00:18:24.500 --> 00:18:27.420 the game. The Bullvine article asks bluntly, 00:18:27.460 --> 00:18:29.980 are American producers getting left behind here? 00:18:30.200 --> 00:18:33.319 It's a critical question with huge long -term 00:18:33.319 --> 00:18:36.220 competitive implications. Look at Europe. The 00:18:36.220 --> 00:18:38.460 article cites Danone's methane report on the 00:18:38.460 --> 00:18:42.720 EU's goal. Cut greenhouse gases by 55 % by 2030. 00:18:43.289 --> 00:18:46.089 And crucially, they specifically name genetic 00:18:46.089 --> 00:18:48.690 selection for feed efficiency as a key strategy. 00:18:48.950 --> 00:18:51.190 It's not just a suggestion. It's core policy. 00:18:51.329 --> 00:18:52.990 So they're baking it into their plans. They are. 00:18:53.089 --> 00:18:55.269 Look at Denmark. The article mentions their climate 00:18:55.269 --> 00:18:58.269 strategy requires farms over 50 cows to use methane 00:18:58.269 --> 00:19:00.170 reduction strategies. And they're bringing in 00:19:00.170 --> 00:19:02.970 an agricultural emissions tax in 2030. A tax. 00:19:03.170 --> 00:19:05.269 OK, that's a serious push. It creates a clear 00:19:05.269 --> 00:19:07.490 regulatory drive towards sustainable practices, 00:19:07.849 --> 00:19:10.269 especially permanent ones like genetics. They're 00:19:10.269 --> 00:19:12.910 legislating for it, supporting it. So European 00:19:12.910 --> 00:19:15.789 producers are actively building these permanent 00:19:15.789 --> 00:19:18.650 genetic advantages through coordinated policy 00:19:18.650 --> 00:19:21.849 frameworks. It's a strategic environment favoring 00:19:21.849 --> 00:19:24.549 long term fixes. What about the U .S.? Well, 00:19:24.609 --> 00:19:26.589 the article points out that U .S. federal methane 00:19:26.589 --> 00:19:30.089 fees currently exclude agriculture. Which sounds 00:19:30.089 --> 00:19:32.109 good on the surface, maybe. No immediate fees. 00:19:32.269 --> 00:19:34.950 Right. Seems like a relief. But the article argues 00:19:34.950 --> 00:19:38.049 this creates a false sense of security. It suggests 00:19:38.049 --> 00:19:40.789 U .S. producers are being left unprepared for 00:19:40.789 --> 00:19:42.910 inevitable regulatory changes that are almost 00:19:42.910 --> 00:19:45.710 certainly coming. While Europe integrates genetics 00:19:45.710 --> 00:19:48.210 into policy, the U .S., by default, encourages 00:19:48.210 --> 00:19:51.369 reliance on these expensive additive cycles because 00:19:51.369 --> 00:19:53.849 the immediate pressure isn't the same. This puts 00:19:53.849 --> 00:19:55.990 U .S. producers at a huge disadvantage down the 00:19:55.990 --> 00:19:58.289 road. They'll be playing catch -up. And it's 00:19:58.289 --> 00:19:59.829 not just regulations to worry about. There's 00:19:59.829 --> 00:20:02.009 this whole carbon market thing creating new ways 00:20:02.009 --> 00:20:04.420 to make money. If you're ready for it. Absolutely. 00:20:04.599 --> 00:20:07.579 This is reshaping competition. The article mentions 00:20:07.579 --> 00:20:10.440 Wageningen's global genetics initiative screening 00:20:10.440 --> 00:20:14.000 100 ,000 animals. They aim to create standardized 00:20:14.000 --> 00:20:16.740 genetic improvements that, the article says boldly, 00:20:16.819 --> 00:20:20.000 will dominate export markets for decades. Dominate 00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:22.579 export markets. Okay, that's serious. It is because 00:20:22.579 --> 00:20:25.279 it creates new profit centers. First, carbon 00:20:25.279 --> 00:20:28.140 credit markets. The article notes methane reduction 00:20:28.140 --> 00:20:32.660 credits trade for $1 to $15 per ton of CO2 equivalent. 00:20:32.759 --> 00:20:36.259 Think about it. A 500 -cow dairy reducing, say, 00:20:36.500 --> 00:20:39.579 2 ,000 tons of CO2 a year through genetics could 00:20:39.579 --> 00:20:42.529 earn... up to $30 ,000 per year selling those 00:20:42.529 --> 00:20:44.369 credits, that's new money coming to the farm. 00:20:44.509 --> 00:20:46.430 30 grand a year just for being more efficient 00:20:46.430 --> 00:20:49.450 genetically. Potentially, yes. Second, processor 00:20:49.450 --> 00:20:51.910 premiums. The article mentions Denone cutting 00:20:51.910 --> 00:20:54.930 methane 25 % in their supply chain, and groups 00:20:54.930 --> 00:20:57.250 like the Dairy Methane Action Alliance include 00:20:57.250 --> 00:20:59.809 big companies offering financial incentives favoring 00:20:59.809 --> 00:21:03.490 permanent genetic fixes. Lactalis USA is specifically 00:21:03.490 --> 00:21:07.049 named as paying farms... $40 per metric ton of 00:21:07.049 --> 00:21:09.910 CO2e reduction. Processors are paying for sustainability. 00:21:10.289 --> 00:21:12.269 So your milk itself could be worth more if it's 00:21:12.269 --> 00:21:15.109 low methane. Exactly. And third, market access 00:21:15.109 --> 00:21:17.930 advantages. Global buyers, retailers, consumers, 00:21:18.170 --> 00:21:19.970 they increasingly want sustainable products. 00:21:20.369 --> 00:21:22.549 Producers with verified low methane genetics 00:21:22.549 --> 00:21:24.450 gain preferential access to premium markets. 00:21:24.710 --> 00:21:27.029 It's about securing your future sales. This is 00:21:27.029 --> 00:21:29.150 where it gets, as the article says, terrifying 00:21:29.150 --> 00:21:32.029 for U .S. dairy groups not seeing this shift. 00:21:32.400 --> 00:21:34.880 While U .S. producers might be burning cash on 00:21:34.880 --> 00:21:37.160 additives. European competitors are building 00:21:37.160 --> 00:21:40.259 permanent genetic advantages. Advantages that 00:21:40.259 --> 00:21:43.180 will dominate export markets for premium, low 00:21:43.180 --> 00:21:45.579 -carbon dairy products. This isn't just about 00:21:45.579 --> 00:21:48.019 being green. It's about who wins globally. Who 00:21:48.019 --> 00:21:50.539 gets the best prices. It's pure competitive strategy. 00:21:51.000 --> 00:21:53.460 These new revenue streams, these market advantages, 00:21:53.740 --> 00:21:56.460 they really highlight the need for a strategic 00:21:56.460 --> 00:22:00.339 shift. Which brings us right to the cold, hard 00:22:00.339 --> 00:22:04.029 numbers. The economics. Yeah, the direct comparison. 00:22:04.390 --> 00:22:06.190 This is where we get down to brass tacks at the 00:22:06.190 --> 00:22:08.289 bottom line. The Bullvine article challenges 00:22:08.289 --> 00:22:11.029 you, the listener, to look at the hard numbers 00:22:11.029 --> 00:22:13.170 from Verified Journal of Dairy Science Research 00:22:13.170 --> 00:22:15.410 that your nutritionist probably hasn't shown 00:22:15.410 --> 00:22:17.730 you. This isn't just comparing. It's a side -by 00:22:17.730 --> 00:22:20.029 -side economic demolition of the additive argument 00:22:20.029 --> 00:22:23.410 versus genetics. It really is. Let's walk through 00:22:23.410 --> 00:22:25.910 the real ROI comparison table from the article. 00:22:26.089 --> 00:22:28.619 The numbers are stark. We're comparing three 00:22:28.619 --> 00:22:31.559 NOP additive against genetic selection, looking 00:22:31.559 --> 00:22:35.119 at 100 cow herd over 10 years. Okay, first category, 00:22:35.359 --> 00:22:39.059 initial investment. Feed additives. Seemingly 00:22:39.059 --> 00:22:42.859 zero up front. Just start buying. Genetics. The 00:22:42.859 --> 00:22:46.440 article estimates $10 ,000 for superior genetics 00:22:46.440 --> 00:22:49.240 like semen or embryos. So additives look free 00:22:49.240 --> 00:22:50.859 to start. That's the hook, right? That's the 00:22:50.859 --> 00:22:53.319 hook, but it's a trap. Genetics has a one -time 00:22:53.319 --> 00:22:55.279 upfront cost, yeah, but it's relatively small 00:22:55.279 --> 00:22:56.859 compared to other farm investments, especially 00:22:56.859 --> 00:22:58.839 given the payoff. It's the classic no -money 00:22:58.839 --> 00:23:01.119 -down deal that costs you way more later. Exactly. 00:23:01.319 --> 00:23:04.140 Now, annual operating costs for 100 cows, additives, 00:23:04.299 --> 00:23:07.119 a hefty $10 ,000, $15 ,000 every single year, 00:23:07.160 --> 00:23:09.599 that's the perpetual expense. Genetics, once 00:23:09.599 --> 00:23:11.099 you've made that initial investment in breeding, 00:23:11.279 --> 00:23:13.380 the additional annual cost for methane reduction 00:23:13.380 --> 00:23:16.279 is basically zero. The benefit is baked in. $10 00:23:16.279 --> 00:23:19.660 ,000 to $15 ,000 a year versus zero. It's a fundamental 00:23:19.660 --> 00:23:22.359 difference. One drains cash continuously. The 00:23:22.359 --> 00:23:24.339 other is a one -time investment. Now, extend 00:23:24.339 --> 00:23:27.559 that out. 10 -year total cost. Additives. $100 00:23:27.559 --> 00:23:31.700 ,000 to $150 ,000 over a decade for just 100 00:23:31.700 --> 00:23:34.519 cows. Just hemorrhaging cash. Genetics, still 00:23:34.519 --> 00:23:38.180 just that initial $5 ,000, $10 ,000. Wow. The 00:23:38.180 --> 00:23:40.380 difference is potentially over $140 ,000 for 00:23:40.380 --> 00:23:42.680 a small herd. That's unbelievable. That should 00:23:42.680 --> 00:23:44.680 be a wake -up call. It absolutely should. Then 00:23:44.680 --> 00:23:47.299 there's permanence. Additives. Temporary. Stop 00:23:47.299 --> 00:23:49.200 feeding. Benefit stops, like that disappearing 00:23:49.200 --> 00:23:51.539 tractor. Genetics. Permanent and cumulative. 00:23:51.920 --> 00:23:54.579 Each generation gets better, building on the 00:23:54.579 --> 00:23:56.400 last. That's strategic value. Building wealth. 00:23:56.680 --> 00:23:58.680 Building real, lasting efficiency. And maybe 00:23:58.680 --> 00:24:01.200 the most crucial point for profit. Energy recovery. 00:24:01.539 --> 00:24:04.099 Additives, like 3 -NOP. The article states the 00:24:04.099 --> 00:24:07.640 impact is negative. It reduces milk by 0 .7 kilogree 00:24:07.640 --> 00:24:10.109 today. You pay for it, and you lose milk income. 00:24:10.289 --> 00:24:12.250 Double loss. Double loss. Genetics. It leads 00:24:12.250 --> 00:24:14.710 to a 4 -12 % improvement in feed efficiency. 00:24:15.029 --> 00:24:17.549 You're redirecting that wasted methane energy 00:24:17.549 --> 00:24:19.910 back into making milk, making cows inherently 00:24:19.910 --> 00:24:22.369 better converters. Okay, this is the core difference. 00:24:22.990 --> 00:24:25.230 Additives actively reduce productivity and income. 00:24:25.730 --> 00:24:28.289 Genetics improves efficiency and redirects energy 00:24:28.289 --> 00:24:31.089 into milk. One's a cost center, maybe even a 00:24:31.089 --> 00:24:33.490 loss center. The other's a profit center. Precisely, 00:24:33.490 --> 00:24:35.589 which leads to the overall financial impact. 00:24:36.190 --> 00:24:38.789 Additives. That Journal of Dairy Science Research 00:24:38.789 --> 00:24:43.529 pointed to an annual shortfall of $128 ,320 for 00:24:43.529 --> 00:24:46.650 a 1 ,000 cow operation. A huge net negative. 00:24:46.930 --> 00:24:50.430 Genetics. Positive energy redirection leading 00:24:50.430 --> 00:24:52.930 to immediate and lasting profitability improvements. 00:24:53.589 --> 00:24:56.589 Converting waste into profit. The math just... 00:24:56.910 --> 00:24:58.890 That demolishes the additive argument, doesn't 00:24:58.890 --> 00:25:00.450 it? As the article says, it's not even close. 00:25:00.549 --> 00:25:02.650 Not really. Genetic solutions, small upfront 00:25:02.650 --> 00:25:05.150 costs, deliver permanent compounding benefits 00:25:05.150 --> 00:25:06.730 that make your current breeding program look 00:25:06.730 --> 00:25:08.890 antiquated. If your advisors aren't showing you 00:25:08.890 --> 00:25:11.109 these numbers, you got to ask why. Demand answers. 00:25:11.490 --> 00:25:14.329 Absolutely. But OK, beyond the economics of the 00:25:14.329 --> 00:25:16.750 fix itself, there's this question of how we even 00:25:16.750 --> 00:25:18.930 measure methane. Is that being steered towards 00:25:18.930 --> 00:25:21.089 expensive stuff, too? That's another critical 00:25:21.089 --> 00:25:23.970 piece the article tackles. Right. Let's hit this 00:25:23.970 --> 00:25:27.049 idea that you need. Super complex, super expensive 00:25:27.049 --> 00:25:29.730 measurement systems just to start. The Bullvine 00:25:29.730 --> 00:25:33.049 article calls this measurement mythology. Is 00:25:33.049 --> 00:25:35.769 it necessary? Or maybe another way to drain cash? 00:25:36.150 --> 00:25:38.690 It's a fair question. Yes, climate -controlled 00:25:38.690 --> 00:25:40.869 respiration chambers give accurate readings. 00:25:41.109 --> 00:25:43.609 The article calls this the gold standard reality 00:25:43.609 --> 00:25:48.109 check. They're precise. But their cost $50 ,000 00:25:48.109 --> 00:25:51.150 plus, and the fact they can only handle a few 00:25:51.150 --> 00:25:54.319 animals at a time, it makes them... Utterly impractical 00:25:54.319 --> 00:25:56.420 for commercial applications. Imagine trying to 00:25:56.420 --> 00:25:58.339 run your herd through one. Yeah, impossible. 00:25:58.599 --> 00:26:01.740 A lab tool, not a farm tool. Exactly. The article 00:26:01.740 --> 00:26:03.900 quotes research highlighting their limited accessibility 00:26:03.900 --> 00:26:06.720 and throughput and high cost of use and labor. 00:26:06.940 --> 00:26:09.200 Great for research, useless for day -to -day 00:26:09.200 --> 00:26:11.099 farming. And here's that really sharp question 00:26:11.099 --> 00:26:13.700 from the article again. The same research institutions 00:26:13.700 --> 00:26:16.259 promoting expensive measurement systems often 00:26:16.259 --> 00:26:18.819 have financial relationships with equipment manufacturers. 00:26:19.319 --> 00:26:21.759 Where's the independent economic analysis showing 00:26:21.759 --> 00:26:24.240 these systems pay for themselves? Right. It asks 00:26:24.240 --> 00:26:26.779 about transparency. If the folks advising you 00:26:26.779 --> 00:26:29.779 are linked to the $50k plus machines they recommend? 00:26:31.309 --> 00:26:33.710 Is it about your profit or selling machines? 00:26:34.670 --> 00:26:37.130 Where's a proof your farm benefits financially 00:26:37.130 --> 00:26:39.630 from buying one? It challenges you to demand 00:26:39.630 --> 00:26:42.430 that proof. But the good news, the article emphasizes, 00:26:42.690 --> 00:26:45.410 is there are practical alternatives that actually 00:26:45.410 --> 00:26:48.869 work. These are validated technologies recognized 00:26:48.869 --> 00:26:50.990 by ICART, that's the International Committee 00:26:50.990 --> 00:26:54.470 for Animal Recording, a big global standard setter, 00:26:54.490 --> 00:26:56.829 cost -effective solutions ready for farm use. 00:26:57.009 --> 00:26:59.190 Okay, so what are they? Well, they're green feed 00:26:59.190 --> 00:27:01.880 systems. Portable feeding stations cows visit 00:27:01.880 --> 00:27:04.700 voluntarily. Sensors measure methane while they 00:27:04.700 --> 00:27:07.180 eat. Widely used in research used in Canada's 00:27:07.180 --> 00:27:09.359 system. Okay, practical. What else? Infrared 00:27:09.359 --> 00:27:12.220 sensors in automatic milking systems. Farmers 00:27:12.220 --> 00:27:14.559 Weekly reported on these. They capture data while 00:27:14.559 --> 00:27:16.779 cows are being milked. Seamless integration. 00:27:17.220 --> 00:27:20.259 Nice. Using existing routines. Then there's mid 00:27:20.259 --> 00:27:22.460 -infrared reflectance spectroscopy. The Canadian 00:27:22.460 --> 00:27:25.039 approach uses routine milk samples. You're already 00:27:25.039 --> 00:27:26.720 collecting the sample, just need the analysis. 00:27:27.039 --> 00:27:29.180 Very efficient. You talked about that. Very smart. 00:27:29.519 --> 00:27:32.980 And finally, laser methane detectors. ICAR protocols 00:27:32.980 --> 00:27:35.880 show they're effective, offer another practical, 00:27:35.960 --> 00:27:38.660 non -invasive option, like a handheld scanner. 00:27:38.900 --> 00:27:40.900 So plenty of practical, cost -effective ways 00:27:40.900 --> 00:27:43.839 to measure methane on -farm exist. Validated. 00:27:44.099 --> 00:27:46.480 Available. Absolutely. They totally challenge 00:27:46.480 --> 00:27:49.119 the idea that only the super -expensive lab chambers 00:27:49.119 --> 00:27:50.960 are good enough. Which brings us back to the 00:27:50.960 --> 00:27:54.359 question. If these work, why aren't extension 00:27:54.359 --> 00:27:57.000 folks universally pushing these practical options 00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:00.240 instead of or alongside the expensive ones? It's 00:28:00.240 --> 00:28:02.680 a question worth asking. Okay, so all this info, 00:28:02.819 --> 00:28:04.920 the hidden cost, the misleading additive solutions, 00:28:05.160 --> 00:28:07.799 the powerful genetic path, the practical ways 00:28:07.799 --> 00:28:10.680 to measure it all, leads to a big strategic decision 00:28:10.680 --> 00:28:13.940 facing every dairy producer right now. Crunch 00:28:13.940 --> 00:28:16.970 time, really. Yeah. We've laid it all out. Exposed 00:28:16.970 --> 00:28:19.009 the additive pitfalls, unveiled the permanent 00:28:19.009 --> 00:28:20.970 genetic solution, questioned the measurement 00:28:20.970 --> 00:28:24.190 hype. Now, the actionable conclusion, the urgency. 00:28:24.390 --> 00:28:26.829 The Bullvine article puts it bluntly. How much 00:28:26.829 --> 00:28:28.809 longer would you let feed additive salespeople 00:28:28.809 --> 00:28:31.210 drain your cash flow while genetic leaders build 00:28:31.210 --> 00:28:33.890 permanent wealth? The financial reality laid 00:28:33.890 --> 00:28:36.700 bare in the article and backed by research. it 00:28:36.700 --> 00:28:39.099 really should change everything genetics delivers 00:28:39.099 --> 00:28:41.900 equivalent or superior methane reduction at a 00:28:41.900 --> 00:28:44.559 fraction of the cost while also improving feed 00:28:44.559 --> 00:28:46.619 efficiency and productivity it's not a trade 00:28:46.619 --> 00:28:49.079 -off it's a win -win better environment better 00:28:49.079 --> 00:28:51.980 bottom line and the key profit driver is that 00:28:51.980 --> 00:28:55.700 energy recovery gold mine that four twelve percent 00:28:55.700 --> 00:28:58.839 of feed energy currently lost as methane genetics 00:28:58.839 --> 00:29:01.400 redirects it into milk production you're turning 00:29:01.400 --> 00:29:04.740 waste lost energy into an asset More milk or 00:29:04.740 --> 00:29:07.559 same milk with less feed. That means immediate 00:29:07.559 --> 00:29:10.019 and lasting profitability improvements. Pure 00:29:10.019 --> 00:29:11.819 and simple. And this isn't some future dream. 00:29:12.019 --> 00:29:15.799 It's happening now, globally, at scale. The Bolivine 00:29:15.799 --> 00:29:17.759 article stresses, the window is closing while 00:29:17.759 --> 00:29:19.839 you read this. Those international programs, 00:29:20.059 --> 00:29:21.940 Canada's national system, the Netherlands' huge 00:29:21.940 --> 00:29:24.440 consortium, initiatives in 25 countries, they 00:29:24.440 --> 00:29:26.700 prove first mover advantages are real and significant. 00:29:27.240 --> 00:29:29.460 Genetic selection is moving from labs to commercial 00:29:29.460 --> 00:29:32.660 reality fast. The competitive pressure is real. 00:29:33.099 --> 00:29:35.160 Every month you wait, others are building genetic 00:29:35.160 --> 00:29:38.319 advantages, securing premium markets, developing 00:29:38.319 --> 00:29:40.900 better lines. It gets harder and harder to catch 00:29:40.900 --> 00:29:43.200 up. Delay isn't standing still. It's falling 00:29:43.200 --> 00:29:46.059 behind. So what are the leaders, the proactive 00:29:46.059 --> 00:29:48.720 farms, actually doing right now? The article 00:29:48.720 --> 00:29:52.339 lists concrete strategies. First, genomic testing 00:29:52.339 --> 00:29:55.059 for methane efficiency traits, using validated 00:29:55.059 --> 00:29:58.440 methods, data, not guesswork. Identifying the 00:29:58.440 --> 00:30:01.079 best animals genetically. Second, integrating 00:30:01.079 --> 00:30:03.579 this into their breeding program. Focusing on 00:30:03.579 --> 00:30:06.619 feed efficiency, methane reduction, making deliberate 00:30:06.619 --> 00:30:09.019 choices based on CEMEX research, international 00:30:09.019 --> 00:30:12.380 findings, shaping their herd's future profitability. 00:30:12.799 --> 00:30:15.519 Selecting the right bulls, the right cows, building 00:30:15.519 --> 00:30:18.160 that genetic base. Third, processor partnerships. 00:30:18.519 --> 00:30:21.359 Capturing those sustainability premiums, like 00:30:21.359 --> 00:30:24.099 Danone rewarding lower methane or Lactalis paying 00:30:24.099 --> 00:30:27.039 per ton reduced. Monetizing sustainability. Turning 00:30:27.039 --> 00:30:29.970 green into greenbacks. And fourth. Carbon credit 00:30:29.970 --> 00:30:32.009 participation. Tapping into those new markets 00:30:32.009 --> 00:30:34.369 that pay for methane reduction. Another direct 00:30:34.369 --> 00:30:37.029 revenue stream. These aren't just ideas. They're 00:30:37.029 --> 00:30:39.309 real strategies making farms more money right 00:30:39.309 --> 00:30:41.690 now. So the final question. What's your next 00:30:41.690 --> 00:30:44.930 move? Before your competitors lock up those advantages, 00:30:45.150 --> 00:30:47.410 the Bullvine article is super direct. Action 00:30:47.410 --> 00:30:50.789 one. Contact your genetic supplier this week. 00:30:50.869 --> 00:30:53.730 Cone wave. Action two. Demand specific information 00:30:53.730 --> 00:30:56.349 about methane efficiency breeding values in their 00:30:56.349 --> 00:31:00.450 bulls. Be specific. Don't accept vague, green 00:31:00.450 --> 00:31:03.450 talk. Know what to ask for. Action 3. Ask the 00:31:03.450 --> 00:31:06.990 tough questions. Demand proof. Ask for. Genetic 00:31:06.990 --> 00:31:09.630 evaluations for methane traits validated by Journal 00:31:09.630 --> 00:31:12.609 of Dairy Science research protocols. See the 00:31:12.609 --> 00:31:15.809 science. Ask for. Expected progeny differences 00:31:15.809 --> 00:31:18.549 for feed efficiency based on documented heritability 00:31:18.549 --> 00:31:20.990 from peer -reviewed sources. Know what the offspring 00:31:20.990 --> 00:31:24.130 will actually do. Ask for. Case studies of herds 00:31:24.130 --> 00:31:26.130 using low -methane genetics with verified results. 00:31:37.020 --> 00:31:40.259 Because the research proves, as the article powerfully 00:31:40.259 --> 00:31:42.259 concludes, this conversation, this decision you 00:31:42.259 --> 00:31:44.579 make now, it really could determine whether environmental 00:31:44.579 --> 00:31:47.380 compliance becomes your biggest expense or your 00:31:47.380 --> 00:31:50.099 most profitable investment. The stakes for your 00:31:50.099 --> 00:31:53.569 farm's future are just that high. So this deep 00:31:53.569 --> 00:31:56.029 dive, it's laid out a pretty undeniable conclusion, 00:31:56.289 --> 00:31:58.910 hasn't it? Genetic selection offers a permanent, 00:31:59.049 --> 00:32:01.789 profitable, scientifically solid solution for 00:32:01.789 --> 00:32:05.470 methane. It stands in stark contrast to the costly, 00:32:05.670 --> 00:32:08.849 temporary, often counterproductive feed additives. 00:32:08.930 --> 00:32:11.029 Hear a difference. It's that rare dual benefit. 00:32:11.369 --> 00:32:13.549 Helps the environment and boosts your farm's 00:32:13.549 --> 00:32:16.250 profitability. Driven by good science, smart 00:32:16.250 --> 00:32:19.069 breeding, the choice, and that genetic advantage. 00:32:19.609 --> 00:32:21.890 It's yours to grab. But remember, that first 00:32:21.890 --> 00:32:25.069 mover window, it's closing. You need to act before 00:32:25.069 --> 00:32:26.650 your competitors figure out what you've just 00:32:26.650 --> 00:32:29.130 heard. We really encourage you, go find the Bullvine 00:32:29.130 --> 00:32:31.950 article, read it yourself, dig deeper, and start 00:32:31.950 --> 00:32:33.829 integrating these insights into your farm strategy 00:32:33.829 --> 00:32:36.569 now. Thanks for diving deep with us today. Catch 00:32:36.569 --> 00:32:38.630 you on the next one. That's a wrap on today's 00:32:38.630 --> 00:32:42.009 explosive episode of the Bullvine Podcast. If 00:32:42.009 --> 00:32:43.910 this analysis opened your eyes to the genetic 00:32:43.910 --> 00:32:46.130 goldmine hiding in your breeding program while 00:32:46.130 --> 00:32:48.589 exposing the feed additive trap bleeding producers 00:32:48.589 --> 00:32:52.410 dry, you're not alone. The evidence is overwhelming. 00:32:52.690 --> 00:32:55.410 Genetic solutions deliver permanent methane reduction 00:32:55.410 --> 00:32:58.269 at a fraction of the cost while building compound 00:32:58.269 --> 00:33:02.390 wealth across generations. Feed additives create 00:33:02.390 --> 00:33:05.049 perpetual expenses while reducing profitability. 00:33:05.630 --> 00:33:08.349 The choice shouldn't be difficult, but the window 00:33:08.349 --> 00:33:11.690 for first mover advantage is closing fast. Here's 00:33:11.690 --> 00:33:14.210 your homework. Contact your genetic supplier 00:33:14.210 --> 00:33:17.309 this week. Demand specific information about 00:33:17.309 --> 00:33:19.650 methane efficiency, breeding values in their 00:33:19.650 --> 00:33:22.730 bulls. Ask for genetic evaluations, expected 00:33:22.730 --> 00:33:25.390 progeny differences for feed efficiency, and 00:33:25.390 --> 00:33:27.630 case studies of herds using low -methane genetics. 00:33:28.390 --> 00:33:32.009 Don't accept vague responses. Every month you 00:33:32.009 --> 00:33:34.650 delay gives genetic leaders more time to build 00:33:34.650 --> 00:33:37.009 advantages that will be impossible to overcome. 00:33:38.269 --> 00:33:40.130 The conversation you have today could determine 00:33:40.130 --> 00:33:42.309 whether environmental compliance becomes your 00:33:42.309 --> 00:33:45.049 biggest expense or your most profitable investment. 00:33:45.829 --> 00:33:50.190 Visit www .thebullvine .com to read the full 00:33:50.190 --> 00:33:53.009 analysis with all supporting research and subscribe 00:33:53.009 --> 00:33:55.470 to our newsletter to stay ahead of industry trends 00:33:55.470 --> 00:33:58.990 that others discover too late. Share this episode 00:33:58.990 --> 00:34:01.190 with fellow producers who deserve to know the 00:34:01.190 --> 00:34:03.150 uncomfortable truths about methane reduction 00:34:03.150 --> 00:34:07.200 economics. Until next time. Keep challenging 00:34:07.200 --> 00:34:09.960 conventional wisdom and building genetic advantages. 00:34:10.360 --> 00:34:13.300 This is the Bullvine Podcast, where the most 00:34:13.300 --> 00:34:16.400 important conversations in dairy happen first.