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 --> 00:01:02.969 we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast, 00:01:03.530 --> 00:01:06.310 your source for honest and insightful stories 00:01:06.310 --> 00:01:09.329 from the dairy world. I'm your host. In today's 00:01:09.329 --> 00:01:12.069 episode, we explore the challenge of ethics and 00:01:12.069 --> 00:01:14.870 authenticity in dairy photography, uncovering 00:01:14.870 --> 00:01:17.290 the truth behind the images shaping our industry. 00:01:17.609 --> 00:01:20.010 Stay tuned for an eye -opening conversation. 00:01:21.109 --> 00:01:23.530 Welcome back to the Bullvine podcast, the show 00:01:23.530 --> 00:01:25.829 that digs deep into the topics that matter to 00:01:25.829 --> 00:01:28.670 dairy producers. That's right. Today we're tackling 00:01:28.670 --> 00:01:30.969 a really interesting feature article from the 00:01:30.969 --> 00:01:33.900 Bullvine that's... Got everyone talking. We're 00:01:33.900 --> 00:01:35.900 going to break it all down. Absolutely. For this 00:01:35.900 --> 00:01:37.939 deep dive, we're plunging into an article titled 00:01:37.939 --> 00:01:40.900 Photography's Deception, The Crisis of Trust 00:01:40.900 --> 00:01:43.980 in Dairy Genetics. And I think what makes this 00:01:43.980 --> 00:01:46.700 piece so compelling, for me anyway, is that it's 00:01:46.700 --> 00:01:48.319 written by a photographer, someone from within 00:01:48.319 --> 00:01:50.819 the industry. You know, this isn't an outsider 00:01:50.819 --> 00:01:53.519 looking in and throwing stones. This is a real 00:01:53.519 --> 00:01:56.459 insider's perspective on what they see as a critical 00:01:56.459 --> 00:01:59.159 issue, something directly impacting all of us 00:01:59.159 --> 00:02:01.239 in the berry world. And our mission for this 00:02:01.239 --> 00:02:03.290 deep dive, it's pretty clear. We want to unpack 00:02:03.290 --> 00:02:07.769 the complexities of digital manipulation in dairy 00:02:07.769 --> 00:02:09.770 cattle photography. We really need to understand 00:02:09.770 --> 00:02:12.889 its profound implications, not just for the photographers 00:02:12.889 --> 00:02:16.430 creating these images, but crucially for you, 00:02:16.569 --> 00:02:19.770 the breeders and the buyers out there who rely 00:02:19.770 --> 00:02:22.430 on them to make pretty significant decisions. 00:02:23.120 --> 00:02:24.860 Ultimately, we'll explore some potential paths 00:02:24.860 --> 00:02:28.139 forward because this is all about restoring and, 00:02:28.180 --> 00:02:30.580 well, maintaining integrity, especially in an 00:02:30.580 --> 00:02:33.780 industry where images influence really high stakes 00:02:33.780 --> 00:02:36.819 financial commitments. It's about getting to 00:02:36.819 --> 00:02:40.599 the truth, you know, the truth behind those images 00:02:40.599 --> 00:02:42.259 so you can actually trust what you're seeing. 00:02:42.419 --> 00:02:44.319 Okay, let's unpack this then. The article kicks 00:02:44.319 --> 00:02:46.280 off with a really powerful statement from the 00:02:46.280 --> 00:02:48.900 photographer. It says, every photo tells a story, 00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:51.900 but what if it's a lie? I mean, that immediately 00:02:51.900 --> 00:02:54.000 sets the stage for a critical look at what we're 00:02:54.000 --> 00:02:57.400 actually seeing. So what exactly is this crisis 00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:00.159 of trust the author is highlighting? And what 00:03:00.159 --> 00:03:02.659 are the specific practices that raise a red flag 00:03:02.659 --> 00:03:04.840 for them? Well, what's fascinating here is the 00:03:04.840 --> 00:03:07.419 distinction the author tries to draw right from 00:03:07.419 --> 00:03:10.479 the get -go between enhancement and deception. 00:03:10.819 --> 00:03:13.699 They acknowledge that modern software gets incredibly 00:03:13.699 --> 00:03:15.800 powerful. It can make images stunning, absolutely 00:03:15.800 --> 00:03:18.439 flawless, no question. But then they immediately 00:03:18.439 --> 00:03:21.990 raise that, That haunting question, which I think 00:03:21.990 --> 00:03:23.449 probably resonates with so many of us in the 00:03:23.449 --> 00:03:26.509 industry. When did we allow our tools to cross 00:03:26.509 --> 00:03:28.770 that line? The author, like you said, is a photographer 00:03:28.770 --> 00:03:31.370 themselves. They're speaking from deep firsthand 00:03:31.370 --> 00:03:35.349 experience. And you can feel a real sense of 00:03:35.349 --> 00:03:38.210 lament here, almost a sadness, as they observe 00:03:38.210 --> 00:03:41.590 how images have become almost too perfect. Almost 00:03:41.590 --> 00:03:44.210 too perfect. That phrase itself, it hints that 00:03:44.210 --> 00:03:46.490 something's fundamentally off, right? Like a 00:03:46.490 --> 00:03:49.610 kind of digital uncanny valley where... Perfection 00:03:49.610 --> 00:03:51.770 just doesn't feel like reality anymore. It feels, 00:03:51.849 --> 00:03:53.849 I don't know, constructed. And it's those almost 00:03:53.849 --> 00:03:56.849 too perfect images that become the problem because 00:03:56.849 --> 00:03:59.490 the author then gets into very specific examples. 00:03:59.689 --> 00:04:02.550 It's not just a vague feeling. They detail practices 00:04:02.550 --> 00:04:04.669 that are crossing that line. They even bring 00:04:04.669 --> 00:04:07.210 up another photographer, Brad Cullen, who has 00:04:07.210 --> 00:04:09.189 been willing to speak out. And the article quotes 00:04:09.189 --> 00:04:12.610 him directly saying, do we change backgrounds? 00:04:12.830 --> 00:04:15.610 Yes. Do we remove scars, smudge marks, dirt and 00:04:15.610 --> 00:04:17.769 blemishes? Yes. Do we fill in top lines? Yes. 00:04:18.439 --> 00:04:20.360 Putting cattle on a board can alter the natural 00:04:20.360 --> 00:04:23.319 shape of their spine. Now, this is where the 00:04:23.319 --> 00:04:25.079 author of our article draws a very clear line. 00:04:25.220 --> 00:04:28.620 While they respect Cullen's openness, they pinpoint 00:04:28.620 --> 00:04:31.480 specific edits that they believe are manipulative 00:04:31.480 --> 00:04:33.660 that go beyond just, you know, simple cleanup. 00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:36.319 You're right. The author is incredibly precise 00:04:36.319 --> 00:04:38.079 about where they draw that line. For instance, 00:04:38.259 --> 00:04:41.920 when it comes to top lines, they quote Cullen. 00:04:41.980 --> 00:04:45.189 Sure. But then. immediately respond with their 00:04:45.189 --> 00:04:48.170 own very firm stance. They say, when you're digitally 00:04:48.170 --> 00:04:51.290 adding inches of hair to transform a weak -loined 00:04:51.290 --> 00:04:53.569 heifer into something that looks championship 00:04:53.569 --> 00:04:57.189 caliber, that is manipulating confirmation. And 00:04:57.189 --> 00:05:00.240 we need to call it what it is. pretty strong 00:05:00.240 --> 00:05:03.720 statement because a strong top line well it isn't 00:05:03.720 --> 00:05:06.459 just cosmetic for a dairy cow is it it's crucial 00:05:06.459 --> 00:05:08.720 for her structure her integrity yeah it affects 00:05:08.720 --> 00:05:10.680 everything from how she moves to how long she 00:05:10.680 --> 00:05:12.920 lasts in the herd so manipulating that a photo 00:05:12.920 --> 00:05:15.680 means you might be unknowingly buying into a 00:05:15.680 --> 00:05:18.259 structural weakness one that could impact your 00:05:18.259 --> 00:05:21.339 farm for years it truly is about more than just 00:05:21.339 --> 00:05:23.300 well looking good and it's not just top lines 00:05:23.300 --> 00:05:25.639 either the article mentions other specific things 00:05:25.639 --> 00:05:28.519 like enhancing contrast on udders to make veins 00:05:28.519 --> 00:05:31.540 pop out, or adjusting the shine to highlight 00:05:31.540 --> 00:05:34.860 rib structures. Now, for those of us who spend 00:05:34.860 --> 00:05:37.600 time around these animals, we know prominent 00:05:37.600 --> 00:05:40.660 vein and clear ribs, those are indicators of 00:05:40.660 --> 00:05:43.480 strong dairy character, good production potential. 00:05:43.819 --> 00:05:46.160 Sure, classic signs. But when these features 00:05:46.160 --> 00:05:49.339 are digitally exaggerated, or maybe even created, 00:05:50.360 --> 00:05:53.000 it presents an animal as having superior genetics 00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:55.740 that well they just aren't there in reality and 00:05:55.740 --> 00:05:58.240 the author's internal conflict you can really 00:05:58.240 --> 00:06:01.720 feel it here can't you they explicitly say this 00:06:01.720 --> 00:06:03.879 isn't coming from some outsider throwing stones 00:06:03.879 --> 00:06:06.639 this is me grappling with a problem from within 00:06:06.639 --> 00:06:09.120 our own profession they're not trying to shame 00:06:09.120 --> 00:06:11.579 individuals they're addressing a systemic issue 00:06:11.579 --> 00:06:14.899 one they're part of which i think lends incredible 00:06:14.899 --> 00:06:17.589 credibility to their critique That internal conflict, 00:06:17.670 --> 00:06:19.370 it makes the article so powerful. It's coming 00:06:19.370 --> 00:06:22.810 from genuine concern, you know, not malice or 00:06:22.810 --> 00:06:25.189 accusation. And it highlights that the line between 00:06:25.189 --> 00:06:27.430 artistry like making an animal look its best, 00:06:27.550 --> 00:06:29.790 maybe correcting for bad light or a weird angle 00:06:29.790 --> 00:06:32.189 and outright deception, well, it can be really 00:06:32.189 --> 00:06:34.490 blurry. Even with good intentions, the tools 00:06:34.490 --> 00:06:37.529 can just be pushed too far. The author actually 00:06:37.529 --> 00:06:41.529 hesitates to fully endorse any individual, even 00:06:41.529 --> 00:06:43.870 while commending Brad Cullen's willingness to 00:06:43.870 --> 00:06:46.730 openly discuss these practices. Which they note 00:06:46.730 --> 00:06:49.589 is more than most are doing. Right. So this isn't 00:06:49.589 --> 00:06:51.810 about pointing fingers at specific photographers. 00:06:52.050 --> 00:06:54.610 It's about acknowledging a shared industry challenge 00:06:54.610 --> 00:06:57.910 where even well -intentioned actions can contribute 00:06:57.910 --> 00:07:00.250 to this larger problem of trust. And you can 00:07:00.250 --> 00:07:02.449 feel that challenge directly, especially when 00:07:02.449 --> 00:07:04.329 the author shares that really powerful story, 00:07:04.470 --> 00:07:07.290 the anecdote about the unrecognizable animal. 00:07:07.470 --> 00:07:09.720 Oh, yeah. They talk about seeing an animal in 00:07:09.720 --> 00:07:11.819 the showing, you know, in person, and then later 00:07:11.819 --> 00:07:14.819 seeing its highly manipulated photo and barely 00:07:14.819 --> 00:07:17.860 recognizing its top line. That experience, that 00:07:17.860 --> 00:07:20.500 kind of gut -wrenching disconnect, it forces 00:07:20.500 --> 00:07:23.120 a crucial question, doesn't it? Are we marketing 00:07:23.120 --> 00:07:26.300 real genetics or showcasing digital artistry? 00:07:26.420 --> 00:07:29.500 For me, that's a key aha moment for you, our 00:07:29.500 --> 00:07:32.220 listener. Imagine that feeling, seeing what you 00:07:32.220 --> 00:07:34.120 thought you were getting, only to realize the 00:07:34.120 --> 00:07:37.569 image was, well, a digital mirage. It's about 00:07:37.569 --> 00:07:41.149 that shock when what you see online or in a flyer 00:07:41.149 --> 00:07:43.610 just isn't the truth of the animal standing right 00:07:43.610 --> 00:07:45.850 there in the barn. It perfectly encapsulates 00:07:45.850 --> 00:07:48.550 the crisis of trust, doesn't it? When your own 00:07:48.550 --> 00:07:52.129 eyes, your direct observation clashes so dramatically 00:07:52.129 --> 00:07:56.490 with the promotional picture, it just breeds 00:07:56.490 --> 00:07:59.589 deep suspicion. Yeah. And for you, the buyer, 00:07:59.730 --> 00:08:02.129 this translates directly into a lack of confidence. 00:08:02.730 --> 00:08:05.089 In the industry's visual marketing. Totally. 00:08:05.269 --> 00:08:06.990 I mean, if you can't trust the images, how can 00:08:06.990 --> 00:08:09.050 you make informed decisions? Decisions about 00:08:09.050 --> 00:08:10.889 genetics that are going to impact your herd for 00:08:10.889 --> 00:08:13.990 years, maybe even generations. This initial deception, 00:08:14.149 --> 00:08:16.329 it isn't just a minor visual tweak. It directly 00:08:16.329 --> 00:08:18.610 hits your confidence, your peace of mind, and 00:08:18.610 --> 00:08:20.769 ultimately your financial investment. You might 00:08:20.769 --> 00:08:22.550 find yourself second -guessing every photo you 00:08:22.550 --> 00:08:25.029 see, right? Instinctively looking for signs it's 00:08:25.029 --> 00:08:27.009 been manipulated instead of focusing on the animal's 00:08:27.009 --> 00:08:29.649 real potential. Which leads us perfectly into 00:08:29.649 --> 00:08:33.269 the next big point, the driving forces, the financial 00:08:33.269 --> 00:08:35.190 pressures behind all this. We've seen what manipulation 00:08:35.190 --> 00:08:38.789 looks like, but the real question is, why? What's 00:08:38.789 --> 00:08:42.110 driving this quiet crisis behind the camera lens? 00:08:43.039 --> 00:08:45.679 The article really digs into why this manipulation 00:08:45.679 --> 00:08:48.679 has become so prevalent. It's not just individuals 00:08:48.679 --> 00:08:52.000 making bad choices, right? It's about huge financial 00:08:52.000 --> 00:08:54.600 pressures within the industry. So how do these 00:08:54.600 --> 00:08:57.460 market forces actually contribute to this ethical 00:08:57.460 --> 00:08:59.659 blurring we're talking about? Well, what's fascinating 00:08:59.659 --> 00:09:02.200 here is the clear cause and effect the author 00:09:02.200 --> 00:09:04.559 draws. They don't shy away from saying the stakes 00:09:04.559 --> 00:09:07.240 are impossibly high. And just think about it 00:09:07.240 --> 00:09:09.440 for a second. When someone's making, say, a $15 00:09:09.440 --> 00:09:12.340 ,000 genetics purchase, Based on your photograph. 00:09:12.580 --> 00:09:14.539 Yeah. There's enormous pressure to make that 00:09:14.539 --> 00:09:16.480 animal look perfect. There's not a casual snapshot. 00:09:16.620 --> 00:09:18.340 These are critical financial decisions. Yeah. 00:09:18.440 --> 00:09:20.879 They can shape a farm's entire future. Huge decision. 00:09:21.059 --> 00:09:24.679 And it's not just individual sales. When AI companies 00:09:24.679 --> 00:09:28.179 are expecting these images to help sell semen 00:09:28.179 --> 00:09:30.720 globally, you know, across continents, different 00:09:30.720 --> 00:09:34.279 cultures. The pressure to present an ideal, a 00:09:34.279 --> 00:09:36.940 flawless animal, it becomes immense. It's not 00:09:36.940 --> 00:09:39.240 just about a local sale anymore. It's a global 00:09:39.240 --> 00:09:42.340 marketplace where the visual appeal can literally 00:09:42.340 --> 00:09:45.840 make or break a multimillion dollar deal. So 00:09:45.840 --> 00:09:47.559 the investment in marketing and photography, 00:09:47.740 --> 00:09:50.570 it becomes a competitive necessity. And that 00:09:50.570 --> 00:09:53.009 necessity, well, unfortunately, can start to 00:09:53.009 --> 00:09:55.429 overshadow the ethical side of things. And here's 00:09:55.429 --> 00:09:57.590 where it gets really interesting, because the 00:09:57.590 --> 00:09:59.350 article points out that these incredible stakes 00:09:59.350 --> 00:10:01.929 are actually pushing photographers and even breeders 00:10:01.929 --> 00:10:05.070 to rationalize these practices. It suggests that 00:10:05.070 --> 00:10:07.480 technology and market forces have kind of. evolved 00:10:07.480 --> 00:10:09.759 faster than our professional ethics could keep 00:10:09.759 --> 00:10:12.080 up. It's not really about finding villains, but 00:10:12.080 --> 00:10:14.440 understanding this complex system where everyone's 00:10:14.440 --> 00:10:16.840 kind of caught in this web of pressure. So what 00:10:16.840 --> 00:10:18.779 kind of justifications do they use? How do they 00:10:18.779 --> 00:10:21.399 rationalize these practices? Well, it's a classic 00:10:21.399 --> 00:10:24.240 example, isn't it? How a system can incentivize 00:10:24.240 --> 00:10:27.360 behavior that maybe in isolation you'd consider 00:10:27.360 --> 00:10:30.100 unethical. The author describes photographers 00:10:30.100 --> 00:10:33.259 they know and respect who feel pushed to enhance 00:10:33.259 --> 00:10:35.299 more than they're comfortable with. Right. Why? 00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:38.440 Because they're worried. Worried they'll lose 00:10:38.440 --> 00:10:41.000 clients to competitors who will create whatever 00:10:41.000 --> 00:10:44.200 idealized reality the client wants. It's almost 00:10:44.200 --> 00:10:46.279 like a race to the bottom where those who fight 00:10:46.279 --> 00:10:48.379 hard to maintain standards, well, their work 00:10:48.379 --> 00:10:51.759 might look less impressive next to the heavily 00:10:51.759 --> 00:10:53.759 manipulated stuff. Makes it hard to compete. 00:10:54.059 --> 00:10:56.039 Exactly. Makes it harder for them to compete. 00:10:56.120 --> 00:10:58.899 Imagine the dilemma. You know what's right ethically, 00:10:58.960 --> 00:11:01.200 but if you don't play by these unwritten rules, 00:11:01.440 --> 00:11:04.230 your business suffers. It creates a really difficult 00:11:04.230 --> 00:11:06.529 situation for professionals who genuinely care 00:11:06.529 --> 00:11:08.990 about integrity, but also, you know, need to 00:11:08.990 --> 00:11:11.389 earn a living, especially when the very perception 00:11:11.389 --> 00:11:14.230 of perfect has been so skewed by manipulation. 00:11:14.649 --> 00:11:16.470 And what's really striking is that this isn't 00:11:16.470 --> 00:11:18.830 exactly a new conversation, is it? No, not at 00:11:18.830 --> 00:11:21.350 all. The bullvine itself has documented these 00:11:21.350 --> 00:11:24.809 practices for, what, over a decade through its 00:11:24.809 --> 00:11:27.830 dairy marketing code of conduct. The article 00:11:27.830 --> 00:11:30.830 reminds us that way back in 2013, photographers 00:11:30.830 --> 00:11:33.610 would quietly admit to adding hair to top lines 00:11:33.610 --> 00:11:36.870 or enhancing utter texture. But it was always 00:11:36.870 --> 00:11:39.370 followed by that familiar refrain, everyone's 00:11:39.370 --> 00:11:41.509 doing it, or if I don't do it, breeders won't 00:11:41.509 --> 00:11:44.070 call me anymore. Yeah, that whole excuse. And 00:11:44.070 --> 00:11:46.009 the article points out, rather depressingly, 00:11:46.110 --> 00:11:48.610 that 12 years later, the profit motive continues 00:11:48.610 --> 00:11:52.340 to override ethical reform. That just shows you 00:11:52.340 --> 00:11:55.179 how deep -seated this problem is, how entrenched 00:11:55.179 --> 00:11:56.960 these practices have become, and how powerful 00:11:56.960 --> 00:11:59.679 those financial incentives really are in shaping 00:11:59.679 --> 00:12:01.779 industry norms. It really does. Makes you wonder 00:12:01.779 --> 00:12:03.899 what it will actually take for real change if 00:12:03.899 --> 00:12:06.690 a decade hasn't done it. It highlights the stickiness 00:12:06.690 --> 00:12:09.129 of the problem? Absolutely. And then you get 00:12:09.129 --> 00:12:12.629 into the internal justifications, the shifting 00:12:12.629 --> 00:12:14.909 line of self -deception that happens in the editing 00:12:14.909 --> 00:12:17.529 rooms. The author is incredibly honest here. 00:12:17.669 --> 00:12:19.990 They describe thoughts like, oh, this isn't really 00:12:19.990 --> 00:12:22.629 changing the animal, just correcting for the 00:12:22.629 --> 00:12:25.730 photography setup. Right, minimizing it. Or what's 00:12:25.730 --> 00:12:28.110 the harm in improving a top line digitally? It's 00:12:28.110 --> 00:12:30.620 not like we're changing her genetics. These are 00:12:30.620 --> 00:12:32.580 the mental gymnastics, right, that we all engage 00:12:32.580 --> 00:12:34.679 in sometimes when we're trying to rationalize 00:12:34.679 --> 00:12:36.840 something that feels a little off, trying to 00:12:36.840 --> 00:12:39.179 convince ourselves that a slight tweak isn't 00:12:39.179 --> 00:12:41.820 really a lie. But the author admits the line 00:12:41.820 --> 00:12:44.200 keeps moving and suddenly you're creating an 00:12:44.200 --> 00:12:47.379 animal that exists only on screen. It's such 00:12:47.379 --> 00:12:50.460 a powerful admission of how these subtle, seemingly 00:12:50.460 --> 00:12:53.320 minor adjustments, all driven by these pervasive 00:12:53.320 --> 00:12:55.879 pressures, can lead to a completely fabricated 00:12:55.879 --> 00:12:59.100 image, one that has no true real -world counterpart. 00:12:59.610 --> 00:13:02.090 And the real world impact on you, the breeder, 00:13:02.190 --> 00:13:05.250 listening to this. It's just devastating. The 00:13:05.250 --> 00:13:07.129 article highlights the hardest part isn't the 00:13:07.129 --> 00:13:10.210 technology itself, but watching breeders make 00:13:10.210 --> 00:13:13.690 $50 ,000 breeding decisions based on images where 00:13:13.690 --> 00:13:16.470 the top line was digitally created. The utter 00:13:16.470 --> 00:13:19.049 attachment was enhanced and the overall capacity 00:13:19.049 --> 00:13:22.769 was artificially inflated. Just think about that 00:13:22.769 --> 00:13:24.730 for a moment. You're making choices that will 00:13:24.730 --> 00:13:26.830 affect your herds for generations, impacting 00:13:26.830 --> 00:13:29.600 genetic progress, production, herd life. based 00:13:29.600 --> 00:13:32.700 on animals that, in that specific perfect form, 00:13:32.820 --> 00:13:35.320 they don't actually exist outside of a digital 00:13:35.320 --> 00:13:39.360 file. That's a profound betrayal of trust. And 00:13:39.360 --> 00:13:41.639 it means your carefully planned breeding program 00:13:41.639 --> 00:13:45.360 could be built on, well... An illusion. It is. 00:13:45.460 --> 00:13:48.100 And it has massive long -term implications for 00:13:48.100 --> 00:13:50.360 the whole industry. And what's particularly worrying 00:13:50.360 --> 00:13:52.580 is the trend of training the next generation. 00:13:52.919 --> 00:13:55.659 The article states that young photographers entering 00:13:55.659 --> 00:13:58.059 our field are being trained to enhance a standard 00:13:58.059 --> 00:14:01.500 practice. Oh, that's not good. No. It normalizes 00:14:01.500 --> 00:14:03.379 the very behavior that's causing the crisis. 00:14:03.580 --> 00:14:06.320 It cements it as the expected way of doing business, 00:14:06.360 --> 00:14:08.980 not an ethical gray area. Meanwhile, you've got 00:14:08.980 --> 00:14:10.940 veteran photographers trying to maintain authentic 00:14:10.940 --> 00:14:13.559 standard, maybe taking immense pride in capturing 00:14:13.559 --> 00:14:15.759 the true essence of an animal. And they find 00:14:15.759 --> 00:14:18.080 themselves losing work to those willing to create 00:14:18.080 --> 00:14:20.440 this digital perfection. It creates this self 00:14:20.440 --> 00:14:23.039 -perpetuating cycle of deception, where the pressure 00:14:23.039 --> 00:14:25.600 for photographic perfection just keeps overriding 00:14:25.600 --> 00:14:29.279 genuine representation. So, okay, if these practices 00:14:29.279 --> 00:14:32.940 are so widespread, what's the ultimate cost to 00:14:32.940 --> 00:14:35.750 the industry? What are the ripples of this deception? 00:14:36.049 --> 00:14:38.509 The article uses that really striking phrase, 00:14:38.730 --> 00:14:41.970 when authentic looks wrong. What does that even 00:14:41.970 --> 00:14:44.429 mean for how we perceive dairy cattle images 00:14:44.429 --> 00:14:46.529 now? And what are the broader market implications 00:14:46.529 --> 00:14:49.049 when entire industry starts to lose faith in 00:14:49.049 --> 00:14:51.649 its own marketing? This raises such an important 00:14:51.649 --> 00:14:54.669 question. How has our collective perception actually 00:14:54.669 --> 00:14:57.750 been warped? The article suggests we've developed 00:14:57.750 --> 00:14:59.750 a kind of collective amnesia about what real 00:14:59.750 --> 00:15:01.710 cattle photography used to look like. Collective 00:15:01.710 --> 00:15:03.870 amnesia, yeah. We've become so accustomed to 00:15:03.870 --> 00:15:05.970 perfection, right, to that digitally enhanced, 00:15:06.190 --> 00:15:09.470 flawless image, that when we see an authentic 00:15:09.470 --> 00:15:11.730 photo, one that hasn't been heavily manipulated, 00:15:12.029 --> 00:15:14.529 it actually seems unprofessional or poorly executed. 00:15:14.789 --> 00:15:17.049 Wow. It's a profound shift, almost insidious 00:15:17.049 --> 00:15:19.250 in what we expect. We're literally being trained 00:15:19.250 --> 00:15:21.720 to see what's false is the ideal. And anything 00:15:21.720 --> 00:15:24.039 less than that artificial ideal could be subconsciously 00:15:24.039 --> 00:15:26.639 dismissed as just poor quality, which creates 00:15:26.639 --> 00:15:28.480 a huge challenge for anyone genuinely trying 00:15:28.480 --> 00:15:30.460 to market an animal honestly. That's a truly 00:15:30.460 --> 00:15:32.919 insidious consequence, isn't it? It means that 00:15:32.919 --> 00:15:36.279 genuine, honest photography now has to fight 00:15:36.279 --> 00:15:38.720 against this artificially set standard. It's 00:15:38.720 --> 00:15:41.279 like we've collectively forgotten what a real, 00:15:41.299 --> 00:15:43.919 unretouched cow actually looks like in a professional 00:15:43.919 --> 00:15:47.320 photo. Pretty much. And this distortion, it traps 00:15:47.320 --> 00:15:49.899 the genetics companies themselves. The article 00:15:49.899 --> 00:15:52.039 points out they are caught in their own trap. 00:15:52.200 --> 00:15:55.220 They've trained customers, you included, to expect 00:15:55.220 --> 00:15:58.080 perfection in every single image, constantly 00:15:58.080 --> 00:16:00.899 pushing the boundaries of what's possible. So 00:16:00.899 --> 00:16:04.220 now they can't step back without admitting they've 00:16:04.220 --> 00:16:07.190 been misleading buyers for years. And that's 00:16:07.190 --> 00:16:09.370 a massive hurdle for any company to overcome. 00:16:09.610 --> 00:16:12.110 Right. The difficulty, the potential hit to their 00:16:12.110 --> 00:16:14.570 reputation if they admit past transgressions 00:16:14.570 --> 00:16:17.370 to the very difficult position. But, well, it's 00:16:17.370 --> 00:16:19.370 one of their own making. And the most significant, 00:16:19.570 --> 00:16:21.710 the most devastating consequence of all of this 00:16:21.710 --> 00:16:25.049 is the breakdown of trust. The author relays 00:16:25.049 --> 00:16:27.490 that heartbreaking observation. When experienced 00:16:27.490 --> 00:16:29.789 breeders tell me they pretty much ignore promotional 00:16:29.789 --> 00:16:32.730 photos entirely now, that's not just sad. It's 00:16:32.730 --> 00:16:34.850 a market failure that affects all of us. Yeah, 00:16:34.909 --> 00:16:37.019 that hits hard. Think about that. If the very 00:16:37.019 --> 00:16:40.120 people who rely on these images the most, the 00:16:40.120 --> 00:16:42.799 seasoned, experienced breeders, if they've lost 00:16:42.799 --> 00:16:45.860 all faith, then the industry has essentially 00:16:45.860 --> 00:16:49.679 broken trust in our own visual marketing. It's 00:16:49.679 --> 00:16:51.820 a fundamental collapse of a critical communication 00:16:51.820 --> 00:16:55.240 tool within the market. It leads to wasted marketing 00:16:55.240 --> 00:16:58.480 dollars, massive buyer skepticism, and ultimately 00:16:58.480 --> 00:17:01.639 it can even stifle innovation if producers aren't 00:17:01.639 --> 00:17:03.860 confident in what they're seeing. It really highlights 00:17:03.860 --> 00:17:06.359 how pervasive the problem has become and the 00:17:06.359 --> 00:17:08.619 level of skepticism that buyers like you now 00:17:08.619 --> 00:17:10.920 have to operate under. And there's a stark, almost 00:17:10.920 --> 00:17:13.500 shocking indicator of this crisis. Insurance 00:17:13.500 --> 00:17:15.799 policies. Right. The insurance. The article mentions 00:17:15.799 --> 00:17:17.740 that insurance companies are now offering genetics 00:17:17.740 --> 00:17:19.700 purchase. protection policies and what do these 00:17:19.700 --> 00:17:22.799 cover, losses from misrepresented animals. This 00:17:22.799 --> 00:17:25.359 isn't just a casual observation, it's a clear 00:17:25.359 --> 00:17:28.680 market response, a reaction to a systemic problem. 00:17:28.960 --> 00:17:31.480 The fact that an entirely new type of insurance 00:17:31.480 --> 00:17:33.759 has popped up tells you everything you need to 00:17:33.759 --> 00:17:35.839 know about how common these disputes must be 00:17:35.839 --> 00:17:38.259 and the substantial financial risk for buyers 00:17:38.259 --> 00:17:41.299 like you who might unknowingly buy genetics based 00:17:41.299 --> 00:17:43.970 on a manipulated image. It's a very tangible 00:17:43.970 --> 00:17:46.750 sign of distress, isn't it? If you are an experienced 00:17:46.750 --> 00:17:49.450 breeder listening, I imagine you found yourself 00:17:49.450 --> 00:17:52.150 in a similar position, instinctively distrusting 00:17:52.150 --> 00:17:54.869 promotional images. Maybe you're scrutinizing 00:17:54.869 --> 00:17:58.210 every angle, zooming way in, looking for inconsistencies. 00:17:58.759 --> 00:18:01.059 Or maybe just dismissing them out of hand. Yeah. 00:18:01.200 --> 00:18:02.880 Perhaps you're relying more on word of mouth 00:18:02.880 --> 00:18:05.839 now or traveling further to see animals in person 00:18:05.839 --> 00:18:07.619 just because the visual marketing has become 00:18:07.619 --> 00:18:10.599 so unreliable. And this lack of trust, it has 00:18:10.599 --> 00:18:12.759 a direct chilling effect on your purchasing decisions. 00:18:13.119 --> 00:18:15.480 It could lead you to miss out on genuinely good 00:18:15.480 --> 00:18:17.960 genetics simply because you can no longer tell 00:18:17.960 --> 00:18:20.359 truth from fiction in the marketing. It's a burden 00:18:20.359 --> 00:18:22.220 that really shouldn't fall squarely on the buyer. 00:18:22.480 --> 00:18:25.559 But despite this, well, rather bleak picture, 00:18:25.819 --> 00:18:28.680 the article does offer a ray of hope. It looks 00:18:28.680 --> 00:18:31.299 at current technological solutions. And what's 00:18:31.299 --> 00:18:33.240 fascinating here is that the author points out 00:18:33.240 --> 00:18:35.500 that the technology exists to solve this problem 00:18:35.500 --> 00:18:39.119 completely. Right. So if that's the case, why 00:18:39.119 --> 00:18:41.359 aren't we using it? What's the disconnect? Well, 00:18:41.460 --> 00:18:43.759 it's almost ironic, isn't it, the situation we're 00:18:43.759 --> 00:18:46.279 in? The author clearly states the technology 00:18:46.279 --> 00:18:50.119 exists to solve this problem completely. They 00:18:50.119 --> 00:18:53.420 point to AI -powered systems. Systems that can 00:18:53.420 --> 00:18:56.019 detect photo manipulation with, get this, over 00:18:56.019 --> 00:19:00.160 95 % accuracy. Wow, 95%. Think about that for 00:19:00.160 --> 00:19:02.700 a second. We have the tools to essentially police 00:19:02.700 --> 00:19:05.430 these images. to tell us with high certainty 00:19:05.430 --> 00:19:07.450 if they've been altered beyond acceptable norms. 00:19:07.630 --> 00:19:09.569 And beyond that, they mention blockchain verification, 00:19:10.029 --> 00:19:12.450 which can create tamper -proof records of image 00:19:12.450 --> 00:19:15.049 authenticity. Okay, blockchain, like for crypto? 00:19:15.170 --> 00:19:18.569 Sort of, but applied differently. Imagine a digital 00:19:18.569 --> 00:19:21.109 fingerprint for every photo logged the moment 00:19:21.109 --> 00:19:23.569 it's taken, impossible to secretly alter later. 00:19:24.299 --> 00:19:26.759 So we're not talking about some futuristic fantasy 00:19:26.759 --> 00:19:30.359 here. These are real proven technologies already 00:19:30.359 --> 00:19:33.160 in use in other industries. The obvious question 00:19:33.160 --> 00:19:35.099 then becomes, right, if the solution is sitting 00:19:35.099 --> 00:19:37.539 right there, why isn't the dairy industry embracing 00:19:37.539 --> 00:19:39.960 it? OK, let's unpack that. The answer the article 00:19:39.960 --> 00:19:41.859 suggests seems pretty straightforward, doesn't 00:19:41.859 --> 00:19:44.420 it? It does. It's because. Admitting there's 00:19:44.420 --> 00:19:46.539 a problem would require acknowledging how much 00:19:46.539 --> 00:19:49.079 of our current marketing relies on enhanced imagery. 00:19:49.759 --> 00:19:52.240 That's a tough pill for an entire industry to 00:19:52.240 --> 00:19:55.299 swallow, especially when so much money, so much 00:19:55.299 --> 00:19:57.259 capital has been invested in marketing based 00:19:57.259 --> 00:20:00.259 on these very images. It implies a kind of collective 00:20:00.259 --> 00:20:03.500 denial, maybe. But what specific technologies 00:20:03.500 --> 00:20:05.680 could actually bring about this change? And what 00:20:05.680 --> 00:20:07.539 would it really take for the industry to adopt 00:20:07.539 --> 00:20:10.230 them? Indeed. The article drives home the point 00:20:10.230 --> 00:20:12.609 that the barriers, they aren't technical, they're 00:20:12.609 --> 00:20:15.650 psychological, organizational. We're talking 00:20:15.650 --> 00:20:18.170 about AI detection that works by learning patterns 00:20:18.170 --> 00:20:21.430 in authentic images, right? And spotting the 00:20:21.430 --> 00:20:24.069 subtle telltale digital fingerprints that appear 00:20:24.069 --> 00:20:26.930 when an image is manipulated. Think of it like 00:20:26.930 --> 00:20:30.339 a super detective. but for pixels. And blockchain, 00:20:30.519 --> 00:20:32.240 as I mentioned, it's not just for crypto. It's 00:20:32.240 --> 00:20:35.039 a distributed, unchangeable ledger. It can record 00:20:35.039 --> 00:20:38.079 the metadata of an image right at capture, creating 00:20:38.079 --> 00:20:40.960 this unchangeable audit trail. The author even 00:20:40.960 --> 00:20:43.440 provides external examples. The European Union 00:20:43.440 --> 00:20:45.859 already includes livestock marketing photos under 00:20:45.859 --> 00:20:48.119 authenticity requirements. They're essentially 00:20:48.119 --> 00:20:50.319 regulating what we're debating here. Oh, interesting. 00:20:50.599 --> 00:20:52.359 And blockchain verification is already being 00:20:52.359 --> 00:20:55.180 used in dairy supply chains for product authenticity, 00:20:55.319 --> 00:20:58.000 tracking milk from farm to table. So the technology 00:20:58.000 --> 00:21:00.700 is real and available. It's even familiar within 00:21:00.700 --> 00:21:02.799 our broader industry context. It's not some huge 00:21:02.799 --> 00:21:05.180 leap into the unknown. It's really just a step 00:21:05.180 --> 00:21:08.539 towards transparency. So the tech is there. The 00:21:08.539 --> 00:21:11.740 need is clear. But the core reason for inaction, 00:21:11.799 --> 00:21:15.559 as you said, is this reluctance, this reluctance 00:21:15.559 --> 00:21:18.599 to acknowledge past misleading practices. Yeah. 00:21:18.720 --> 00:21:20.799 It's a difficult truth for many stakeholders 00:21:20.799 --> 00:21:23.799 to confront. But the author firmly believes that 00:21:24.250 --> 00:21:26.509 The companies and photographers who embrace authenticity 00:21:26.509 --> 00:21:29.549 first will eventually have a significant competitive 00:21:29.549 --> 00:21:32.089 advantage. Now, that's interesting. It's not 00:21:32.089 --> 00:21:34.569 just a moral plea. It's framed as a strategic 00:21:34.569 --> 00:21:37.769 one. Exactly. It's a call for proactive leadership. 00:21:38.609 --> 00:21:40.809 Don't wait until you're forced into change when 00:21:40.809 --> 00:21:43.250 customers finally get fed up and demand it. Imagine 00:21:43.250 --> 00:21:45.309 a genetics company marketing their animals with 00:21:45.309 --> 00:21:48.420 like. A blockchain verified seal of authenticity. 00:21:48.500 --> 00:21:50.440 That would build immediate trust, wouldn't it? 00:21:50.539 --> 00:21:52.740 Absolutely. And that brings us to the crucial 00:21:52.740 --> 00:21:55.140 point. What we're missing is industry leadership 00:21:55.140 --> 00:21:57.559 willing to prioritize long -term credibility 00:21:57.559 --> 00:22:01.019 over short -term profits. This isn't something 00:22:01.019 --> 00:22:03.500 one individual or one company can solve in isolation. 00:22:03.900 --> 00:22:06.660 It implies a deep need for a collective industry 00:22:06.660 --> 00:22:09.759 effort. It needs organizations, breeders, photographers, 00:22:10.279 --> 00:22:13.539 buyers. all coming together to establish new 00:22:13.539 --> 00:22:17.619 norms, new standards, it requires a unified decision 00:22:17.619 --> 00:22:20.480 to rebuild that trust, which has been eroded 00:22:20.480 --> 00:22:24.150 over, well, more than a decade now. True leadership 00:22:24.150 --> 00:22:26.450 here would involve setting industry -wide guidelines, 00:22:26.769 --> 00:22:29.549 maybe even a certification system that ensures 00:22:29.549 --> 00:22:32.069 transparency and penalizes overt manipulation, 00:22:32.529 --> 00:22:35.470 creating a level playing field for everyone committed 00:22:35.470 --> 00:22:37.569 to integrity. And I think the author's personal 00:22:37.569 --> 00:22:39.710 stand on all their tools highlighted in their 00:22:39.710 --> 00:22:42.490 author's note on technology and ethics is incredibly 00:22:42.490 --> 00:22:46.069 insightful here. They acknowledge using AI in 00:22:46.069 --> 00:22:48.150 their own writing and research, which might seem, 00:22:48.250 --> 00:22:49.950 I don't know, contradictory to some critics, 00:22:49.970 --> 00:22:52.069 given this article's focus on authenticity and 00:22:52.069 --> 00:22:54.980 images. But they clarify that the principle is 00:22:54.980 --> 00:22:58.019 exactly the same. The morality isn't inherent 00:22:58.019 --> 00:23:00.599 in the software, but rather in the user's intent. 00:23:00.980 --> 00:23:03.599 Yes. And this provides such a powerful analogy 00:23:03.599 --> 00:23:06.400 for you, our listener, to grasp the broader ethical 00:23:06.400 --> 00:23:08.460 framework. It's not about demonizing a tool, 00:23:08.559 --> 00:23:10.440 but how it's actually used. How does that apply 00:23:10.440 --> 00:23:12.900 here? It's a brilliant way to frame it because 00:23:12.900 --> 00:23:15.380 it moves the conversation beyond just the tech 00:23:15.380 --> 00:23:18.740 itself. They explain that just as AI can be used 00:23:18.740 --> 00:23:21.319 to organize complex research, refine language, 00:23:21.480 --> 00:23:24.000 which is, you know, an enhancement for clarity, 00:23:24.059 --> 00:23:26.920 for efficiency, it can also be used to generate 00:23:26.920 --> 00:23:29.940 fake facts or completely fabricated narratives. 00:23:30.180 --> 00:23:32.259 Right. Big difference. Same applies to Photoshop. 00:23:32.799 --> 00:23:35.259 It can correct for harsh lighting, maybe present 00:23:35.259 --> 00:23:37.720 a more accurate, clearer image of an animal that 00:23:37.720 --> 00:23:40.019 was taken in suboptimal conditions. That's about 00:23:40.019 --> 00:23:42.920 accuracy, genuine representation. But it can 00:23:42.920 --> 00:23:44.920 also be used to construct a top line that doesn't 00:23:44.920 --> 00:23:47.619 exist naturally or add inches of hair where there 00:23:47.619 --> 00:23:51.759 are none. And that clearly is deception. So their 00:23:51.759 --> 00:23:53.680 core message, which I believe really should be 00:23:53.680 --> 00:23:56.299 the industry's commitment, is this. My commitment 00:23:56.299 --> 00:23:58.839 in every aspect of my work is to use technology 00:23:58.839 --> 00:24:02.309 to serve the truth, not to distort it. It's about 00:24:02.309 --> 00:24:04.430 leveraging technology for honest communication, 00:24:04.670 --> 00:24:07.650 not for creating illusions. Exactly. It's about 00:24:07.650 --> 00:24:09.869 drawing that line, not against the tool itself, 00:24:09.990 --> 00:24:13.730 but against its misuse. For you, as a buyer or 00:24:13.730 --> 00:24:17.069 producer, just imagine the peace of mind if every 00:24:17.069 --> 00:24:20.670 image you saw was, say, blockchain verified as 00:24:20.670 --> 00:24:23.509 authentic. With a transparent history of its 00:24:23.509 --> 00:24:25.630 creation. That would be huge. You'd have confidence 00:24:25.630 --> 00:24:27.490 that what you're seeing is what you're truly 00:24:27.490 --> 00:24:29.809 getting. How could you demand this transparency 00:24:29.809 --> 00:24:32.470 from suppliers? How could you as a collective, 00:24:32.589 --> 00:24:35.230 you know, as buyers and producers, push for this 00:24:35.230 --> 00:24:38.329 crucial change? It's a powerful vision of what 00:24:38.329 --> 00:24:40.390 the industry could be if it chooses integrity 00:24:40.390 --> 00:24:43.369 over illusion. Ensuring that the valuable genetics 00:24:43.369 --> 00:24:45.329 you're investing in are accurately represented 00:24:45.329 --> 00:24:48.279 from the very first glance. So after everything 00:24:48.279 --> 00:24:49.740 we've talked about today, if you're a farmer 00:24:49.740 --> 00:24:51.619 listening right now, what's the one thing you 00:24:51.619 --> 00:24:53.339 should take away? Or perhaps what are the few 00:24:53.339 --> 00:24:55.700 concrete steps you can consider? Well, there 00:24:55.700 --> 00:24:57.720 are definitely several actionable insights we 00:24:57.720 --> 00:25:00.160 can pull from this deep dive. First and foremost, 00:25:00.299 --> 00:25:02.460 for you as a buyer, it really comes down to demanding 00:25:02.460 --> 00:25:05.259 transparency. Be critically aware of promotional 00:25:05.259 --> 00:25:07.940 photos. If you're making a significant genetics 00:25:07.940 --> 00:25:12.559 purchase, don't hesitate. Ask for raw, unedited 00:25:12.559 --> 00:25:15.819 images. maybe even unedited videos. Understand 00:25:15.819 --> 00:25:19.259 that if an animal looks too perfect, if it seems 00:25:19.259 --> 00:25:21.579 like some flawless digital sculpture, that should 00:25:21.579 --> 00:25:24.079 be your immediate red flag. Question what you're 00:25:24.079 --> 00:25:26.400 seeing and push for more authentic representation. 00:25:27.059 --> 00:25:29.720 The second point is to support ethical practitioners. 00:25:30.119 --> 00:25:33.440 If you're a breeder, a photographer, any industry 00:25:33.440 --> 00:25:36.230 professional. Actively advocate for and support 00:25:36.230 --> 00:25:38.109 those who commit to authentic representation. 00:25:38.609 --> 00:25:40.849 Seek out photographers who prioritize integrity 00:25:40.849 --> 00:25:42.869 in their work, even if their images might not 00:25:42.869 --> 00:25:45.970 have that airbrushed perfection. Your choices 00:25:45.970 --> 00:25:48.029 as a client, as a consumer, they can influence 00:25:48.029 --> 00:25:51.269 market behavior. Reward honesty. Disincentivize 00:25:51.269 --> 00:25:55.369 deception. Third, engage with technology. Be 00:25:55.369 --> 00:25:58.990 aware of and push for the adoption of these verification 00:25:58.990 --> 00:26:02.099 technologies we talked about. like AI detection 00:26:02.099 --> 00:26:04.359 and blockchain for image authenticity in the 00:26:04.359 --> 00:26:06.859 dairy industry. The tools already exist, as we 00:26:06.859 --> 00:26:09.720 discussed. What's missing is the industry's willingness 00:26:09.720 --> 00:26:12.599 to implement them. Demand these standards from 00:26:12.599 --> 00:26:14.599 the companies you work with. Let your voice be 00:26:14.599 --> 00:26:16.920 heard in industry associations. The more people 00:26:16.920 --> 00:26:19.099 ask for it, the faster it's likely to become 00:26:19.099 --> 00:26:21.640 standard. Right, power in numbers. And finally, 00:26:21.759 --> 00:26:24.599 and maybe this is the most important one, prioritize 00:26:24.599 --> 00:26:27.660 long -term trust. Recognize that while there 00:26:27.660 --> 00:26:29.940 might be perceived short -term gains from manipulating 00:26:29.940 --> 00:26:33.009 images, The long -term health, the reputation, 00:26:33.230 --> 00:26:35.210 the credibility of the entire dairy genetics 00:26:35.210 --> 00:26:37.549 industry fundamentally depends on rebuilding 00:26:37.549 --> 00:26:40.230 trust. And this affects absolutely everyone in 00:26:40.230 --> 00:26:42.250 the chain, from the smallest farm to the largest 00:26:42.250 --> 00:26:44.750 AI company. The future of dairy genetics and 00:26:44.750 --> 00:26:46.349 the confidence with which you make your breeding 00:26:46.349 --> 00:26:48.829 decisions, it truly depends on the industry embracing 00:26:48.829 --> 00:26:50.910 this shift towards undeniable truth in its visual 00:26:50.910 --> 00:26:53.609 market. And that's all the time we have for today's 00:26:53.609 --> 00:26:55.950 Deep Dive. For more articles and insights, be 00:26:55.950 --> 00:26:59.880 sure to visit www .thebullvine .com. Don't forget 00:26:59.880 --> 00:27:01.940 to subscribe wherever you get your deep dives. 00:27:02.000 --> 00:27:03.980 Thanks for listening. Thank you for listening 00:27:03.980 --> 00:27:06.819 to the Bullvine Podcast. We hope today's episode 00:27:06.819 --> 00:27:09.799 inspired you to value integrity in every picture 00:27:09.799 --> 00:27:12.799 of our dairy animals. Please subscribe, leave 00:27:12.799 --> 00:27:15.480 a review, and share this episode with fellow 00:27:15.480 --> 00:27:18.539 enthusiasts. For more information and show notes, 00:27:18.700 --> 00:27:22.319 visit bullvine .com. Until next time, keep promoting 00:27:22.319 --> 00:27:23.900 transparency and trust.