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 --> 00:01:03.539 we're sparking Hey there, farmers and dairy enthusiasts. 00:01:03.939 --> 00:01:06.799 Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast, your go -to 00:01:06.799 --> 00:01:08.980 source for straight talk on dairy profitability 00:01:08.980 --> 00:01:12.340 and management. In today's episode, we're unmasking 00:01:12.340 --> 00:01:14.700 the hidden leaks in your dairy financials caused 00:01:14.700 --> 00:01:18.159 by common feed cost miscalculations. These aren't 00:01:18.159 --> 00:01:20.700 small errors. They're costing you serious cash. 00:01:20.959 --> 00:01:23.719 We'll break down what's happening, why it matters, 00:01:23.900 --> 00:01:27.099 and how you can stop the bleeding. So grab your 00:01:27.099 --> 00:01:29.709 coffee and let's dig in. Welcome back to the 00:01:29.709 --> 00:01:32.230 Bullvine Podcast, the show that digs deep into 00:01:32.230 --> 00:01:34.750 the topics that matter to dairy producers. That's 00:01:34.750 --> 00:01:37.329 right. Today, we're tackling a really interesting 00:01:37.329 --> 00:01:39.569 feature article from the Bullvine that's got 00:01:39.569 --> 00:01:41.750 everyone talking. We're going to break it all 00:01:41.750 --> 00:01:44.129 down. Yeah, really unpack its nuances and, you 00:01:44.129 --> 00:01:46.150 know, show you why it's so critical for your 00:01:46.150 --> 00:01:49.730 farm's future. We are indeed. Today, our deep 00:01:49.730 --> 00:01:52.250 dive is into an article titled, The True Cost 00:01:52.250 --> 00:01:55.010 of Dairy Feed. now for anyone running a dairy 00:01:55.010 --> 00:01:57.989 operation you already know feed is your single 00:01:57.989 --> 00:02:01.209 largest expense it's often uh the first line 00:02:01.209 --> 00:02:03.390 item on your budget that makes you wince a little 00:02:03.390 --> 00:02:06.609 right but this piece it truly pulls back the 00:02:06.609 --> 00:02:08.550 curtain on something even more uncomfortable 00:02:09.719 --> 00:02:12.360 How many operations are fundamentally misunderstanding, 00:02:12.840 --> 00:02:16.080 or frankly, severely underestimating, just how 00:02:16.080 --> 00:02:18.159 much they're truly spending on feed? Yeah, it's 00:02:18.159 --> 00:02:19.879 not just about the price per ton you pay, is 00:02:19.879 --> 00:02:22.340 it? No, it's about a cascade of hidden expenses, 00:02:22.800 --> 00:02:25.080 the subtle blind spots that accumulate silently, 00:02:25.340 --> 00:02:27.539 and frankly, to siphon away your profits without 00:02:27.539 --> 00:02:30.479 you even realizing it. And this isn't just about... 00:02:30.750 --> 00:02:33.150 better accounting for the sake of it. The article 00:02:33.150 --> 00:02:35.030 really hammers home that this isn't just some 00:02:35.030 --> 00:02:38.509 spreadsheet exercise. It's about the very survival 00:02:38.509 --> 00:02:41.389 and strategic decision -making capacity of your 00:02:41.389 --> 00:02:43.710 dairy. Especially in a marketplace that's becoming, 00:02:43.849 --> 00:02:47.189 well, increasingly unforgiving. Absolutely. In 00:02:47.189 --> 00:02:50.009 a market as volatile as dairy is right now, where 00:02:50.009 --> 00:02:52.870 margins are razor thin and milk prices can swing 00:02:52.870 --> 00:02:56.469 wildly by double -digit dollars, knowing your 00:02:56.469 --> 00:02:58.810 true cost of production, especially your feed 00:02:58.810 --> 00:03:03.580 costs, is just So our mission today is to illuminate 00:03:03.580 --> 00:03:06.400 these often overlooked financial leaks and, more 00:03:06.400 --> 00:03:09.099 importantly, offer you clear, actionable strategies 00:03:09.099 --> 00:03:12.240 to plug them. Exactly. This deep dive is designed 00:03:12.240 --> 00:03:14.539 to give you the insights to make more strategic, 00:03:14.699 --> 00:03:16.819 more resilient, and ultimately more profitable 00:03:16.819 --> 00:03:19.560 decisions for your farm. Okay, let's unpack this 00:03:19.560 --> 00:03:21.580 because the article starts right off the bat 00:03:21.580 --> 00:03:23.400 with a statement that probably gets home for 00:03:23.400 --> 00:03:25.819 a lot of producers. It talks about that gut feeling 00:03:25.819 --> 00:03:27.840 you get when you're walking past the feed bunk. 00:03:28.219 --> 00:03:30.719 watching the TMR get pushed up, and it just doesn't 00:03:30.719 --> 00:03:33.560 quite sit right. Like there's money walking out 00:03:33.560 --> 00:03:35.360 the barn door that somehow never shows up on 00:03:35.360 --> 00:03:37.199 your milk check. Yeah, that feeling. And then 00:03:37.199 --> 00:03:39.620 it drops the bomb, and it states, if you're calculating 00:03:39.620 --> 00:03:42.659 feed costs the way most juries do, you're probably 00:03:42.659 --> 00:03:45.199 underestimating your true costs by more than 00:03:45.199 --> 00:03:50.439 $3 .50 per hundredweight. Wow. $3 .50. Now, that's 00:03:50.439 --> 00:03:52.680 not a rounding error, is it? Not by any stretch 00:03:52.680 --> 00:03:54.759 of the imagination. When you start to break down 00:03:54.759 --> 00:03:57.120 the sheer magnitude of that underestimation, 00:03:57.120 --> 00:03:59.580 it quickly becomes alarming. Almost catastrophic, 00:03:59.960 --> 00:04:02.620 really. Think about it. For a medium -sized dairy, 00:04:02.800 --> 00:04:05.919 let's say a 200 -cow operation, averaging about 00:04:05.919 --> 00:04:09.520 85 tons of milk per cow daily, that seemingly 00:04:09.520 --> 00:04:13.819 abstract $3 .50 per 100 -weight error translates 00:04:13.819 --> 00:04:17.620 to over $50 ,000 annually. $50 ,000. In misprofit 00:04:17.620 --> 00:04:19.560 or hidden losses. Imagine that for a moment. 00:04:19.680 --> 00:04:22.540 $50 ,000. What could that mean for your farm? 00:04:22.639 --> 00:04:24.480 Is it new parlor equipment that would make life 00:04:24.480 --> 00:04:27.339 easier? Paying down debt? Or just having a healthier 00:04:27.339 --> 00:04:29.839 bottom line when prices dip. Right. That peace 00:04:29.839 --> 00:04:33.060 of mind. Exactly. This isn't a small accounting 00:04:33.060 --> 00:04:35.139 glitch. The article calls them systematic blind 00:04:35.139 --> 00:04:38.519 spots. So deeply ingrained in traditional dairy 00:04:38.519 --> 00:04:40.980 accounting that producers might not even realize 00:04:40.980 --> 00:04:44.560 they're bleeding cash this way. It's like having 00:04:44.560 --> 00:04:47.639 a slow, invisible leak in your financial pipeline. 00:04:47.819 --> 00:04:50.259 And the article powerfully points out how market 00:04:50.259 --> 00:04:53.319 volatility just amplifies these errors exponentially. 00:04:54.079 --> 00:04:58.029 Absolutely. It really gets me. Fired up, as the 00:04:58.029 --> 00:05:00.129 author puts it, thinking about that staggering 00:05:00.129 --> 00:05:03.490 $12 .05 per hundredweight swing in income over 00:05:03.490 --> 00:05:07.009 feed costs from the lows of 2023 to early 2024. 00:05:07.509 --> 00:05:10.149 It's a wild ride. It is. But if your baseline 00:05:10.149 --> 00:05:12.750 numbers are already off, if you're flying blind, 00:05:12.910 --> 00:05:15.470 as the article describes it, those market swings 00:05:15.470 --> 00:05:17.430 don't just rock your farm. They can absolutely 00:05:17.430 --> 00:05:19.870 hammer it twice as hard. Right. You're losing 00:05:19.870 --> 00:05:23.420 money on two fronts. The market downturn and 00:05:23.420 --> 00:05:25.459 your inaccurate cost accounting. It's like trying 00:05:25.459 --> 00:05:27.660 to navigate a ship through a storm with a faulty 00:05:27.660 --> 00:05:30.300 compass. You're already battling the elements, 00:05:30.339 --> 00:05:32.259 but your internal guidance system is just giving 00:05:32.259 --> 00:05:34.839 you bad directions. Leading you further astray. 00:05:35.439 --> 00:05:38.279 What's truly fascinating here, and the article 00:05:38.279 --> 00:05:42.620 emphasizes this, is the concept of feed as the 00:05:42.620 --> 00:05:45.430 ultimate financial lever. Right. It's not just 00:05:45.430 --> 00:05:47.649 a cost, it's the cost. For most dairy operations, 00:05:48.129 --> 00:05:51.810 feed accounts for a massive 50 -60 % of total 00:05:51.810 --> 00:05:55.449 production costs, sometimes even over 70%. When 00:05:55.449 --> 00:05:57.870 you look at numbers like Illinois farms reporting 00:05:57.870 --> 00:06:01.449 nearly $3 ,000 per cow annually just on feed. 00:06:01.649 --> 00:06:04.899 $3 ,000 per cow. It quickly becomes clear why 00:06:04.899 --> 00:06:07.860 even a small error here is so devastating. Yeah, 00:06:07.920 --> 00:06:10.899 if feed is 60 % of your total expenses and you're 00:06:10.899 --> 00:06:14.079 off by just 5 % in your calculation. Just 5%. 00:06:14.079 --> 00:06:16.720 That seemingly small error can effectively wipe 00:06:16.720 --> 00:06:19.279 out your entire profit for the year. It's a concept 00:06:19.279 --> 00:06:21.680 the article calls an accounting illusion. An 00:06:21.680 --> 00:06:24.600 illusion, yeah. Operations that appeared profitable 00:06:24.600 --> 00:06:26.480 on paper running what they thought were healthy 00:06:26.480 --> 00:06:28.379 margins. Were actually operating at a significant 00:06:28.379 --> 00:06:30.800 loss once their feed costing methodology was 00:06:30.800 --> 00:06:32.680 corrected and all these blind spots were revealed. 00:06:32.939 --> 00:06:34.839 That's the brutal math, isn't it? It forces you 00:06:34.839 --> 00:06:36.800 to question the very foundation of your business 00:06:36.800 --> 00:06:38.660 planning. So what does this all mean for your 00:06:38.660 --> 00:06:40.879 operation? If you're not fully accounting for 00:06:40.879 --> 00:06:43.329 this largest, most impactful expense. How can 00:06:43.329 --> 00:06:45.430 you truly know if you're profitable? How can 00:06:45.430 --> 00:06:48.790 you make sound strategic decisions about expanding, 00:06:49.009 --> 00:06:51.009 investing, or even just confidently continuing? 00:06:51.470 --> 00:06:54.110 This strategic blindness, as the article calls 00:06:54.110 --> 00:06:56.889 it, can lead to monumental decisions being made 00:06:56.889 --> 00:06:59.790 based on profoundly flawed profitability data. 00:07:00.029 --> 00:07:02.410 It's a risk most producers simply can't afford 00:07:02.410 --> 00:07:04.810 to take, not in today's environment. Absolutely 00:07:04.810 --> 00:07:07.209 not. It's about your farm's long -term viability. 00:07:07.550 --> 00:07:10.129 Okay, so the stakes are incredibly high, which 00:07:10.129 --> 00:07:13.509 leads us to the critical question. What are these 00:07:13.509 --> 00:07:16.230 specific calculation traps having such a devastating 00:07:16.230 --> 00:07:18.829 impact? Right. The article zeroes in on a core 00:07:18.829 --> 00:07:21.449 issue right away, the as -fed trap. The as -fed 00:07:21.449 --> 00:07:24.350 trap seems so simple, almost too obvious. Exactly. 00:07:24.550 --> 00:07:27.629 Yet it's costing dairies a fortune. The example 00:07:27.629 --> 00:07:31.069 given is brilliant in its clarity. Imagine two 00:07:31.069 --> 00:07:34.110 loads of corn silage arriving at your farm, both 00:07:34.110 --> 00:07:37.329 quoted at $60 per ton as -fed. Okay, 60 bucks 00:07:37.329 --> 00:07:39.730 a ton sounds the same. You'd think they're essentially 00:07:39.730 --> 00:07:42.379 the same product, same value, right? But then 00:07:42.379 --> 00:07:45.000 you look at the dry matter percentages. One load 00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:48.560 is 30 % dry matter. The other is 40%. Ah, okay. 00:07:48.699 --> 00:07:52.000 Big difference. Huge. And this is where the simple 00:07:52.000 --> 00:07:54.759 math really hits you. If you break it down to 00:07:54.759 --> 00:07:57.439 the actual cost per ton of nutrients, which is 00:07:57.439 --> 00:07:59.439 what you're truly buying. Right, not just tonnage. 00:07:59.620 --> 00:08:03.300 That first load at 30 % dry matter is actually 00:08:03.300 --> 00:08:06.050 costing you... $200 per ton of nutrients. So 00:08:06.050 --> 00:08:09.009 $100. But the second load, at 40 % dry matter, 00:08:09.170 --> 00:08:12.689 only costs you $150 per ton of nutrients. Wow, 00:08:12.810 --> 00:08:16.730 that's a 33 % difference in value. 33%. For what 00:08:16.730 --> 00:08:19.730 looks like the exact same product, same price 00:08:19.730 --> 00:08:22.230 per ton. As New Mexico State Extension bluntly 00:08:22.230 --> 00:08:25.310 puts it, the water component contains no nutrients. 00:08:25.550 --> 00:08:28.680 Right. Yet when you buy as -fed... without accounting 00:08:28.680 --> 00:08:31.800 for dry matter, you're basically paying for water 00:08:31.800 --> 00:08:34.340 as if it were valuable feed. It's astonishing 00:08:34.340 --> 00:08:36.779 how often this happens. And the article shares 00:08:36.779 --> 00:08:39.480 a really impactful anecdote about a central Wisconsin 00:08:39.480 --> 00:08:42.759 farm. They were consistently overpaying for wet 00:08:42.759 --> 00:08:45.559 distillers grains, precisely because they weren't 00:08:45.559 --> 00:08:48.039 converting to a dry matter basis, just paying 00:08:48.039 --> 00:08:51.100 per wet ton. So they started testing. Once they 00:08:51.100 --> 00:08:53.559 implemented a simple dry matter testing protocol 00:08:53.559 --> 00:08:56.419 and adjusted their purchasing, they saved over 00:08:56.419 --> 00:09:00.299 $15 ,000. in just four months. 15 grand in four 00:09:00.299 --> 00:09:02.779 months just by changing how they calculated the 00:09:02.779 --> 00:09:05.139 value. Exactly. Not even changing the supplier 00:09:05.139 --> 00:09:08.000 or the price per ton. It directly connects to 00:09:08.000 --> 00:09:11.000 profitability. You're literally paying for water 00:09:11.000 --> 00:09:13.860 instead of nutrients. And that $15 ,000 savings 00:09:13.860 --> 00:09:16.940 was real cash staying in their pocket. For a 00:09:16.940 --> 00:09:20.220 200 -cow dairy, that's already a huge chunk of 00:09:20.220 --> 00:09:22.340 that $50 ,000 annual blind spot we mentioned. 00:09:22.559 --> 00:09:24.720 And that's just one blind spot. The next one 00:09:24.720 --> 00:09:27.590 is equally insidious. Treating free forage as 00:09:27.590 --> 00:09:30.129 if it truly costs nothing. Or maybe pricing it 00:09:30.129 --> 00:09:31.889 based on last year's production costs, right? 00:09:31.990 --> 00:09:34.149 Yeah, maybe worse. This is where the psychology 00:09:34.149 --> 00:09:36.889 of farming often clashes directly with economic 00:09:36.889 --> 00:09:39.190 reality. Because you grew it, you chopped it, 00:09:39.230 --> 00:09:40.909 stored it, you put in the work, paid for the 00:09:40.909 --> 00:09:43.250 inputs. It feels like once it's in the bunk, 00:09:43.409 --> 00:09:46.830 it's free to your cows. A sunk cost. Exactly. 00:09:46.870 --> 00:09:49.529 But economically, that's just not the case. The 00:09:49.529 --> 00:09:52.590 USDA Economic Research Service recommends pricing 00:09:52.590 --> 00:09:55.799 homegrown feeds at current market values. And 00:09:55.799 --> 00:09:59.000 for a very good reason. Every ton of homegrown 00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:02.840 silage, haylage, or hay you feed is a ton. You're 00:10:02.840 --> 00:10:04.980 not selling on the open market. That's its opportunity 00:10:04.980 --> 00:10:07.580 cost. Right. You're choosing to use it yourself, 00:10:07.779 --> 00:10:10.379 which is fine, but you need to account for what 00:10:10.379 --> 00:10:12.379 you could have gained by selling it. Otherwise, 00:10:12.419 --> 00:10:14.759 you're subsidizing your dairy enterprise with 00:10:14.759 --> 00:10:17.080 your crop enterprise without even realizing it. 00:10:17.139 --> 00:10:19.299 The article gives a really clear example of this. 00:10:19.360 --> 00:10:21.779 A southern Minnesota farm. Yeah, this one was 00:10:21.779 --> 00:10:24.230 truly devastating. The owner genuinely thought 00:10:24.230 --> 00:10:27.029 his dairy was highly profitable. Production was 00:10:27.029 --> 00:10:29.950 good, cows healthy, cash flow looked positive 00:10:29.950 --> 00:10:32.269 on paper. But then when they worked with a consultant 00:10:32.269 --> 00:10:35.090 and repriced his homegrown feeds at current market 00:10:35.090 --> 00:10:37.889 rates... Everything changed. What they discovered 00:10:37.889 --> 00:10:40.549 was his crop enterprise was actually subsidizing 00:10:40.549 --> 00:10:43.950 a dairy operation that was, well, marginally 00:10:43.950 --> 00:10:46.070 profitable at best. Maybe even operating at a 00:10:46.070 --> 00:10:49.710 loss. Potentially. This meant he was strategically 00:10:49.710 --> 00:10:53.340 blind to the true performance of his dairy. He 00:10:53.340 --> 00:10:55.080 couldn't make informed decisions about expansion, 00:10:55.200 --> 00:10:57.360 land use, or even if he should stay in dairy 00:10:57.360 --> 00:11:00.220 versus maybe shifting to cash crops. That's not 00:11:00.220 --> 00:11:02.399 just bad accounting. It's a fundamental lack 00:11:02.399 --> 00:11:04.600 of clarity about your entire business model. 00:11:04.960 --> 00:11:07.759 So I have to ask you, the listener, are you falling 00:11:07.759 --> 00:11:10.100 into this trap thinking because you grew it, 00:11:10.120 --> 00:11:13.139 it's truly free and potentially masking deeper 00:11:13.139 --> 00:11:16.299 issues? That's a powerful question. It forces 00:11:16.299 --> 00:11:18.200 you to look at your whole operation through a 00:11:18.200 --> 00:11:20.980 clearer, more realistic lens. And then we have 00:11:20.980 --> 00:11:23.240 the invisible herd. Yes, the invisible herd. 00:11:23.379 --> 00:11:25.440 Another one that trips up even sharp managers. 00:11:26.329 --> 00:11:28.850 calculating feed costs only for the milking string, 00:11:29.049 --> 00:11:31.730 and completely ignoring dry cows and, crucially, 00:11:31.889 --> 00:11:33.769 replacement heifers. I think it's obvious to 00:11:33.769 --> 00:11:35.610 include them, right? They're eating. Yeah. But 00:11:35.610 --> 00:11:37.529 the article points out how often this vital segment 00:11:37.529 --> 00:11:40.649 is just overlooked. This omission is massive. 00:11:40.929 --> 00:11:43.370 Its impact on your true cost per hundredweight 00:11:43.370 --> 00:11:46.629 is startling. Industry analysis, cited in the 00:11:46.629 --> 00:11:48.590 article, shows that by only counting the milkers, 00:11:48.669 --> 00:11:51.590 you underestimate true feed costs by about 38%. 00:11:51.590 --> 00:11:55.879 38%. Think about that number. That translates 00:11:55.879 --> 00:12:00.139 to a staggering $3 .16 per hundredweight error, 00:12:00.299 --> 00:12:02.840 just from the scope of your calculation. Let's 00:12:02.840 --> 00:12:06.440 put numbers to it. 200 milking cows. Okay. You're 00:12:06.440 --> 00:12:09.460 realistically feeding another 40, 50 dry cows, 00:12:09.539 --> 00:12:13.860 plus maybe 180, 200 replacement animals, calves, 00:12:14.200 --> 00:12:17.399 heifers. None producing milk that hits the bulk 00:12:17.399 --> 00:12:20.580 tank today. Exactly. Their feed costs are a very 00:12:20.580 --> 00:12:22.659 real part of your overall cost of production 00:12:22.659 --> 00:12:25.659 for every hundred weight of milk that does get 00:12:25.659 --> 00:12:27.860 sold. It's a jarring disconnect, as the article 00:12:27.860 --> 00:12:30.669 puts it. Farms are investing heavily in genomics, 00:12:30.830 --> 00:12:33.590 precision breeding, cutting -edge genetics. Spending 00:12:33.590 --> 00:12:35.970 thousands to optimize the future potential of 00:12:35.970 --> 00:12:37.970 their herd. Yet when it comes to a fundamental 00:12:37.970 --> 00:12:41.110 financial metric like feed costs, they're calculating 00:12:41.110 --> 00:12:44.450 like it's 1985, ignoring a huge chunk of their 00:12:44.450 --> 00:12:46.669 biological inventory. It's like building a high 00:12:46.669 --> 00:12:48.490 -tech race car with all the latest engineering, 00:12:48.730 --> 00:12:50.970 but putting cheap, under -inflated tires on it 00:12:50.970 --> 00:12:52.929 and wondering why it's not performing optimally. 00:12:53.070 --> 00:12:55.860 Great analogy. You simply can't reach your full 00:12:55.860 --> 00:12:58.519 potential if a fundamental component of your 00:12:58.519 --> 00:13:02.240 cost structure is so wildly inaccurate it blinds 00:13:02.240 --> 00:13:04.720 you to the full picture. If those animals aren't 00:13:04.720 --> 00:13:07.779 contributing to current milk revenue, their feed 00:13:07.779 --> 00:13:10.460 costs absolutely need to be factored into your 00:13:10.460 --> 00:13:12.899 overall cost per hundredweight of milk sold. 00:13:13.320 --> 00:13:15.940 Otherwise, you create this artificial sense of 00:13:15.940 --> 00:13:18.759 profitability. Which isn't sustainable and leads 00:13:18.759 --> 00:13:21.460 to misinformed decisions. Yeah. Then there's 00:13:21.460 --> 00:13:24.450 feed shrink. The silent profit killer. Ah, shrink. 00:13:24.929 --> 00:13:28.909 The feed you paid for, hauled, stored, but never 00:13:28.909 --> 00:13:31.409 actually makes it to the cow's mouth. Spoilage, 00:13:31.669 --> 00:13:35.289 spillage, pests like birds or rodents, improper 00:13:35.289 --> 00:13:37.889 storage and handling. The article really dives 00:13:37.889 --> 00:13:39.690 into this, and the numbers are truly eye -opening. 00:13:39.809 --> 00:13:41.830 It's a huge problem that often flies completely 00:13:41.830 --> 00:13:44.169 under the radar. It's not a direct invoice, right? 00:13:44.230 --> 00:13:46.350 Exactly. Research from Hubbard Feeds indicates 00:13:46.350 --> 00:13:49.570 an average shrinkage of 5 .42 % for purchased 00:13:49.570 --> 00:13:51.789 feeds across the industry. Five and a half percent. 00:13:51.870 --> 00:13:54.610 That's already significant and often unacknowledged. 00:13:54.690 --> 00:13:57.809 But it gets worse. Losses can routinely hit 8 00:13:57.809 --> 00:14:00.889 .06 % for commodities in open storage exposed 00:14:00.889 --> 00:14:03.529 to the elements. 8%. And the article notes shrink 00:14:03.529 --> 00:14:07.429 rates can even exceed 12 % on farms with inadequate 00:14:07.429 --> 00:14:11.009 protocols. 12%. Imagine paying for 100 tons of 00:14:11.009 --> 00:14:13.649 feed and only 88 tons actually getting consumed. 00:14:13.769 --> 00:14:15.889 That's a massive amount of money just vanishing. 00:14:16.070 --> 00:14:18.990 It is. The article gives a vivid example. A 1 00:14:18.990 --> 00:14:21.509 ,000 cow operation tracked its shrink losses, 00:14:21.809 --> 00:14:26.350 found it was losing $5 ,733 over just 47 days. 00:14:26.590 --> 00:14:29.720 Whoa. So annually, that's... Nearly $45 ,000 00:14:29.720 --> 00:14:32.519 just vanishing into thin air, or as the author 00:14:32.519 --> 00:14:34.740 says, into bird bellies and blowing away with 00:14:34.740 --> 00:14:37.610 the wind. And the economics are staggering when 00:14:37.610 --> 00:14:40.049 you consider the potential savings from fixing 00:14:40.049 --> 00:14:42.370 it. Absolutely. Moving from an open commodity 00:14:42.370 --> 00:14:45.250 shed to proper enclosed storage for that same 00:14:45.250 --> 00:14:48.230 1 ,000 cow dairy could lead to potential savings 00:14:48.230 --> 00:14:51.629 of over $135 ,000 annually. That kind of saving 00:14:51.629 --> 00:14:53.590 can often pay for the new building itself within 00:14:53.590 --> 00:14:55.309 a few years. It's an investment that pays for 00:14:55.309 --> 00:14:57.250 itself. Definitely. But what's really concerning 00:14:57.250 --> 00:14:59.169 about shrinkage, beyond just the volume loss, 00:14:59.330 --> 00:15:02.029 is the double impact it has. Double impact. How 00:15:02.029 --> 00:15:05.279 so? You're not just losing volume. You're often 00:15:05.279 --> 00:15:07.340 losing the most valuable parts of the feed first. 00:15:07.860 --> 00:15:10.360 The lightest, most nutrient -dense particles. 00:15:11.100 --> 00:15:14.100 The expensive stuff often blow away or get picked 00:15:14.100 --> 00:15:16.139 out first. Ah, okay, so you're paying twice. 00:15:16.620 --> 00:15:19.620 Exactly. Once for the lost feed, and again because 00:15:19.620 --> 00:15:22.659 the remaining feed in your bunk is now an imbalanced 00:15:22.659 --> 00:15:25.000 ration compared to what your nutritionist formulated. 00:15:25.360 --> 00:15:28.899 Which then hits cow health, production, feed 00:15:28.899 --> 00:15:32.559 efficiency. A cascading problem undermines the 00:15:32.559 --> 00:15:35.000 nutritionist's work. It's like buying premium 00:15:35.000 --> 00:15:37.200 fuel and having half evaporate before it reaches 00:15:37.200 --> 00:15:39.379 the engine. And even when costs are calculated 00:15:39.379 --> 00:15:42.080 correctly, the article warns that good metrics 00:15:42.080 --> 00:15:45.580 go bad when feed efficiency is misapplied. Yes, 00:15:45.639 --> 00:15:47.960 this is something I see a lot. The classic mistake 00:15:47.960 --> 00:15:50.120 of using average feed conversion rates instead 00:15:50.120 --> 00:15:52.320 of focusing on marginal response. This is where 00:15:52.320 --> 00:15:54.279 it gets really interesting because it's subtle 00:15:54.279 --> 00:15:57.299 but crucial. It is. And it's where truly precise 00:15:57.299 --> 00:16:00.399 management shines. Average feed conversion tells 00:16:00.399 --> 00:16:03.259 you, broadly, how many pounds of milk per pound 00:16:03.259 --> 00:16:05.840 of feed across the whole herd. Useful benchmark. 00:16:06.259 --> 00:16:09.320 Marginal response, however, asks, What additional 00:16:09.320 --> 00:16:11.840 milk do I get from the next additional pound 00:16:11.840 --> 00:16:14.659 of feed I give a cow? It's about the return on 00:16:14.659 --> 00:16:17.340 the very last unit of feed. Which is what matters 00:16:17.340 --> 00:16:19.580 when you're considering pushing for more production. 00:16:19.980 --> 00:16:22.240 Right. The article gives the example of a producer 00:16:22.240 --> 00:16:24.600 who thought adding two pounds of concentrate 00:16:24.600 --> 00:16:27.889 would yield six additional pounds of milk. based 00:16:27.889 --> 00:16:31.509 on his average rate. 3 .1 looked great. But in 00:16:31.509 --> 00:16:34.490 reality, from that extra two pounds, he only 00:16:34.490 --> 00:16:37.149 got maybe two extra pounds of milk. Precisely. 00:16:37.210 --> 00:16:39.649 His marginal feed rate for that increment was 00:16:39.649 --> 00:16:42.990 now 1 .1, tripling his marginal feed cost per 00:16:42.990 --> 00:16:45.289 pound of milk. So instead of a profitable margin, 00:16:45.409 --> 00:16:48.350 he was barely breaking even, maybe even losing 00:16:48.350 --> 00:16:50.850 money. He was making decisions based on incomplete 00:16:50.850 --> 00:16:53.929 or misleading data, thinking he was gaining efficiency 00:16:53.929 --> 00:16:56.190 when he was just increasing costs with minimal 00:16:56.190 --> 00:16:58.649 return. That's where profitability is won or 00:16:58.649 --> 00:17:01.190 lost at the bunk. And some operations, chasing 00:17:01.190 --> 00:17:03.830 impressive average numbers, push this even further. 00:17:04.089 --> 00:17:05.869 Yeah, without considering the broader economics 00:17:05.869 --> 00:17:08.769 or animal welfare, the article highlights the 00:17:08.769 --> 00:17:10.970 danger of pushing cows so hard they start milking 00:17:10.970 --> 00:17:13.289 off their backs. Sacrificing body condition, 00:17:13.589 --> 00:17:16.970 energy reserves, future fertility for short -term, 00:17:17.009 --> 00:17:19.309 potentially misleading gains. It's a critical 00:17:19.309 --> 00:17:22.849 point. True profitability isn't just maximizing 00:17:22.849 --> 00:17:26.170 one metric in isolation. It's optimizing the 00:17:26.170 --> 00:17:28.789 whole system for long -term health and resilient 00:17:28.789 --> 00:17:30.730 returns. It's the difference between a sprint 00:17:30.730 --> 00:17:34.150 and a marathon for your herd. Exactly. So when 00:17:34.150 --> 00:17:37.349 you combine all these errors as fed pricing, 00:17:37.609 --> 00:17:41.049 free forage, incomplete herd costing, unaccounted 00:17:41.049 --> 00:17:43.670 shrink. All of it together. The article calculates 00:17:43.670 --> 00:17:46.970 a staggering miscalculation of over $1 ,200 per 00:17:46.970 --> 00:17:51.039 cow annually. $1 ,200 per cow on a 200 -cow dairy. 00:17:51.180 --> 00:17:54.259 That's a quarter million dollar blind spot. It's 00:17:54.259 --> 00:17:56.099 truly shocking when you see it laid out. But 00:17:56.099 --> 00:17:58.599 here's the crucial part. The core message is 00:17:58.599 --> 00:18:01.140 that every one of these errors is fixable. Okay, 00:18:01.160 --> 00:18:03.079 good. It's not just doom and gloom. Not at all. 00:18:03.119 --> 00:18:05.140 This isn't a doomsday scenario. It's a roadmap 00:18:05.140 --> 00:18:07.559 to reclaiming significant profitability. And 00:18:07.559 --> 00:18:09.940 the article details the dramatic returns documented 00:18:09.940 --> 00:18:12.099 when these issues are corrected. For instance, 00:18:12.279 --> 00:18:14.460 strategic nutritional grouping. Right. Moving 00:18:14.460 --> 00:18:17.420 from a single TMR to distinct diets for high, 00:18:17.539 --> 00:18:21.680 mid, low producers can save over $400 per cow 00:18:21.680 --> 00:18:25.500 annually. $400 per cow. That's huge. It's a big 00:18:25.500 --> 00:18:27.900 operational change, yes, but a massive tangible 00:18:27.900 --> 00:18:31.019 return. Beyond that, feed center upgrades, reducing 00:18:31.019 --> 00:18:35.049 shrink from, say, 8 % down to 3%. Direct savings. 00:18:35.289 --> 00:18:37.210 And then there's precision feeding implementation 00:18:37.210 --> 00:18:41.329 using tech like AI -driven optimization. Documented 00:18:41.329 --> 00:18:44.170 to save $31 per cow annually through improved 00:18:44.170 --> 00:18:46.049 efficiency. Yeah. These aren't just theoretical 00:18:46.049 --> 00:18:48.579 savings. They're real impacts. Which brings us 00:18:48.579 --> 00:18:50.539 to a really crucial point the article highlights, 00:18:50.799 --> 00:18:53.980 how technology is creating these two distinct 00:18:53.980 --> 00:18:56.359 dairy industries. Yeah, this is important. On 00:18:56.359 --> 00:18:58.720 one side, you have progressive operations embracing 00:18:58.720 --> 00:19:01.799 AI -driven feed optimization, real -time monitoring, 00:19:02.039 --> 00:19:03.740 precision feeding. And they're seeing what, like 00:19:03.740 --> 00:19:07.000 7 -12 % reductions in feed costs? Exactly. While 00:19:07.000 --> 00:19:09.359 often improving production and health. That $31 00:19:09.359 --> 00:19:12.420 per cow saving from AI is a powerful example 00:19:12.420 --> 00:19:14.900 of fine -tuning that, frankly, human management 00:19:14.900 --> 00:19:17.319 alone can't achieve at scale. But the key here, 00:19:17.460 --> 00:19:19.339 and the article is direct about it, is that this 00:19:19.339 --> 00:19:22.000 technology isn't cheap. It needs investment and 00:19:22.000 --> 00:19:24.839 expertise. Expertise that many smaller operations 00:19:24.839 --> 00:19:28.579 might lack. This creates a widening gap. Larger 00:19:28.579 --> 00:19:30.500 farms capture these efficiencies, lower their 00:19:30.500 --> 00:19:33.440 costs, while smaller operations struggle with 00:19:33.440 --> 00:19:35.859 higher cost structures. Making it exponentially 00:19:35.859 --> 00:19:38.579 harder to compete. It's presented as a question 00:19:38.579 --> 00:19:41.799 of pure survival. So if you're not leveraging 00:19:41.799 --> 00:19:45.549 these tools or finding alternatives, What does 00:19:45.549 --> 00:19:48.470 this mean for your scale? Are you being left 00:19:48.470 --> 00:19:51.170 behind? It's a critical strategic challenge for 00:19:51.170 --> 00:19:54.069 the entire industry, regardless of size. A make 00:19:54.069 --> 00:19:56.130 or break consideration for many. And the article 00:19:56.130 --> 00:19:58.109 then broadens the scope to the global context. 00:19:58.190 --> 00:20:00.329 We can't ignore what's happening internationally. 00:20:00.970 --> 00:20:03.509 Right. China's rapidly expanding dairy industry, 00:20:03.630 --> 00:20:05.650 for instance, is fundamentally altering global 00:20:05.650 --> 00:20:08.849 feed demand and prices. Feed is what, 64 % of 00:20:08.849 --> 00:20:11.470 their costs? 64%. So their buying strategies 00:20:11.470 --> 00:20:13.910 have a direct impact on global commodity markets. 00:20:14.009 --> 00:20:15.910 Right back to our local feed bill. Absolutely. 00:20:16.089 --> 00:20:19.059 And it's not just China. European producers are 00:20:19.059 --> 00:20:21.240 grappling with significant environmental regulations. 00:20:21.500 --> 00:20:23.720 Pushing them towards highly efficient waste -reducing 00:20:23.720 --> 00:20:26.400 feed management. Their focus on precision feeding, 00:20:26.559 --> 00:20:30.160 nutrient management. It's not just about costs. 00:20:30.240 --> 00:20:33.140 It's increasingly about compliance. And the article 00:20:33.140 --> 00:20:35.000 makes the point that these pressures are coming 00:20:35.000 --> 00:20:37.839 to North America. Early discussions about carbon 00:20:37.839 --> 00:20:40.160 pricing, environmental compliance. It's already 00:20:40.160 --> 00:20:42.589 happening. This connects directly to why accurate 00:20:42.589 --> 00:20:44.930 feed costing isn't just about immediate profitability. 00:20:45.329 --> 00:20:48.349 It's about global competitiveness and preparing 00:20:48.349 --> 00:20:51.009 for future regulations. You can't be compliant 00:20:51.009 --> 00:20:53.230 if you don't know your numbers. Okay, so with 00:20:53.230 --> 00:20:55.390 all these challenges and opportunities laid out, 00:20:55.470 --> 00:20:58.869 the article provides a really actionable 90 -day 00:20:58.869 --> 00:21:01.609 implementation roadmap. Yes, this isn't just 00:21:01.609 --> 00:21:04.009 theory. It's a step -by -step practical guide 00:21:04.009 --> 00:21:06.369 for you to start fixing these errors, broken 00:21:06.369 --> 00:21:09.250 into three phases. Phase one, the first 30 days. 00:21:09.759 --> 00:21:11.539 Foundation building. What does that involve? 00:21:11.859 --> 00:21:14.180 Start by auditing your current method. Compare 00:21:14.180 --> 00:21:16.960 lactating -only costs to a recalculation, including 00:21:16.960 --> 00:21:19.859 the entire herd dry cows, heifers, plus shrink 00:21:19.859 --> 00:21:22.380 adjustments. You can do this with existing software 00:21:22.380 --> 00:21:24.480 or even just a spreadsheet, right? Absolutely. 00:21:24.700 --> 00:21:27.349 The goal is just to see the difference. Then, 00:21:27.410 --> 00:21:30.009 implement weekly dry matter testing for forages 00:21:30.009 --> 00:21:33.150 and wet byproducts. Get a tester or work with 00:21:33.150 --> 00:21:35.549 your nutritionist. And crucially, price homegrown 00:21:35.549 --> 00:21:37.869 feeds at current market rates. Check local elevator 00:21:37.869 --> 00:21:40.670 prices, commodity reports. And finally, start 00:21:40.670 --> 00:21:44.650 simple. Measure actual shrink. Track deliveries 00:21:44.650 --> 00:21:47.589 versus consumption. Even visual assessment helps. 00:21:47.710 --> 00:21:49.950 These are foundational steps for an accurate 00:21:49.950 --> 00:21:52.470 baseline. Okay, so that's month one, then days 00:21:52.470 --> 00:21:55.690 31, 60, system integration. Right. Move beyond 00:21:55.690 --> 00:21:57.589 auditing and integrate the new comprehensive 00:21:57.589 --> 00:22:00.450 costing into regular financial reporting. All 00:22:00.450 --> 00:22:03.750 animals, all shrink in your cost per hundredweight 00:22:03.750 --> 00:22:06.730 calcs. Then benchmark. Compare your numbers to 00:22:06.730 --> 00:22:09.230 industry standards, like that University of Minnesota 00:22:09.230 --> 00:22:12.890 FinBIN data, $10 .38 per hundredweight average 00:22:12.890 --> 00:22:15.720 for 2023. See where you stand. At this stage, 00:22:15.819 --> 00:22:18.619 evaluate technology needs too. Does your scale 00:22:18.619 --> 00:22:20.900 justify feed management software? And critically, 00:22:21.119 --> 00:22:23.779 train your team. Everyone involved needs to understand 00:22:23.779 --> 00:22:26.119 the new methods, why they're vital. It's a team 00:22:26.119 --> 00:22:27.940 effort, not just an accounting change. Makes 00:22:27.940 --> 00:22:31.940 sense. And finally, days 61 -90. Strategic optimization. 00:22:32.519 --> 00:22:34.640 This is where you leverage that accurate data 00:22:34.640 --> 00:22:37.259 for strategic decisions. Implement precision 00:22:37.259 --> 00:22:40.400 feeding where feasible, maybe nutritional grouping 00:22:40.400 --> 00:22:43.170 if herd size warrants. Splitting the herd into 00:22:43.170 --> 00:22:45.789 groups based on production. Exactly. Assess infrastructure 00:22:45.789 --> 00:22:49.109 needs, calculate ROI for feed center improvements, 00:22:49.390 --> 00:22:52.309 maybe an enclosed shed, better storage. Develop 00:22:52.309 --> 00:22:54.750 robust risk management strategies using those 00:22:54.750 --> 00:22:57.130 accurate cost baselines for forward contracting 00:22:57.130 --> 00:22:59.769 or DRP decisions. When you know your true break 00:22:59.769 --> 00:23:02.720 -if, these tools become genuinely powerful. and 00:23:02.720 --> 00:23:05.140 establish monitoring protocols, regular reviews, 00:23:05.420 --> 00:23:07.819 adjustment procedures, make it an ongoing practice. 00:23:07.980 --> 00:23:09.759 Continuous improvement. So it's not just a one 00:23:09.759 --> 00:23:12.220 -time fix. Definitely not. And the article closes 00:23:12.220 --> 00:23:15.420 with the uncomfortable questions every producer 00:23:15.420 --> 00:23:17.220 needs to ask themselves. Okay, what are they? 00:23:17.299 --> 00:23:20.079 First, when was the last time your feed cost 00:23:20.079 --> 00:23:23.000 calculations were really audited? Not just math 00:23:23.000 --> 00:23:25.819 errors, but the methodology, scope, assumptions. 00:23:26.119 --> 00:23:27.779 The fundamental method, not just the numbers. 00:23:27.859 --> 00:23:30.400 Exactly. Second, are you making major business 00:23:30.400 --> 00:23:33.630 decisions? expansion equipment, land based on 00:23:33.630 --> 00:23:36.490 incomplete or inaccurate cost data. Because if 00:23:36.490 --> 00:23:38.849 the foundation is shaky, those big plans are 00:23:38.849 --> 00:23:42.670 built on sand. Precisely. And third, how do your 00:23:42.670 --> 00:23:45.289 feed costs truly compare to industry benchmarks 00:23:45.289 --> 00:23:49.750 like that Finbin $10 .38? If you're way higher, 00:23:49.950 --> 00:23:52.630 these errors might be why. Not just bad luck. 00:23:52.930 --> 00:23:55.890 Progressive operations, the ones thriving, treat 00:23:55.890 --> 00:23:58.839 feed costs like... genetic evaluation data -driven, 00:23:58.940 --> 00:24:01.480 regularly updated fundamental. They invest in 00:24:01.480 --> 00:24:03.839 accurate measurement, understand income over 00:24:03.839 --> 00:24:06.859 feed cost, not just minimizing expense. And they 00:24:06.859 --> 00:24:09.099 benchmark religiously. Know where they stand, 00:24:09.279 --> 00:24:11.660 always striving for improvement. This highlights 00:24:11.660 --> 00:24:14.359 that fundamental split developing. The old approach 00:24:14.359 --> 00:24:16.559 of close enough just doesn't cut it anymore. 00:24:16.819 --> 00:24:19.299 Not with thin margins and volatility. Plus, climate 00:24:19.299 --> 00:24:21.680 change adds complexity. Variable forage quality 00:24:21.680 --> 00:24:24.589 makes accurate costing even more critical. And 00:24:24.589 --> 00:24:27.089 regulatory pressure is only increasing. Environmental 00:24:27.089 --> 00:24:29.569 compliance will likely demand more detailed tracking. 00:24:30.190 --> 00:24:32.349 Sophisticated cost management becomes essential. 00:24:32.589 --> 00:24:35.190 The bottom line reality check is stark. This 00:24:35.190 --> 00:24:37.329 isn't just better accounting. It's about survival 00:24:37.329 --> 00:24:40.319 and sustainability. Farms that nail feed costing 00:24:40.319 --> 00:24:42.519 have accurate baselines for risk management, 00:24:42.720 --> 00:24:45.599 reliable data for decisions, a solid foundation. 00:24:45.960 --> 00:24:48.319 The ones that don't. They're getting squeezed 00:24:48.319 --> 00:24:51.160 out when markets turn tough, often without understanding 00:24:51.160 --> 00:24:53.700 why their seemingly profitable enterprise suddenly 00:24:53.700 --> 00:24:55.700 can't pay the bills. They're left guessing in 00:24:55.700 --> 00:24:59.019 the dark. So here's the articles challenge, direct 00:24:59.019 --> 00:25:01.839 to you, the listener. Calculate your feed costs 00:25:01.839 --> 00:25:05.119 using the comprehensive method. Whole herd shrink. 00:25:05.630 --> 00:25:08.170 Dry matter basis, market rates for homegrown. 00:25:08.309 --> 00:25:09.950 Then compare that number to what you've been 00:25:09.950 --> 00:25:12.190 traditionally using. The author bets the difference 00:25:12.190 --> 00:25:14.809 will shock you. More importantly, it gives you 00:25:14.809 --> 00:25:17.130 the accurate baseline needed to build a truly 00:25:17.130 --> 00:25:20.109 resilient operation. The question isn't whether 00:25:20.109 --> 00:25:22.470 you can afford to make these changes. It's whether 00:25:22.470 --> 00:25:24.970 you can afford not to. While you're debating, 00:25:25.250 --> 00:25:27.549 your competitors are capturing the profits you're 00:25:27.549 --> 00:25:30.170 leaving on the table. Will you act decisively 00:25:30.170 --> 00:25:32.970 or let market forces decide your farm's fate? 00:25:33.519 --> 00:25:36.460 So after all that, what's the absolute key takeaway 00:25:36.460 --> 00:25:39.700 for a farmer listening today for immediate application? 00:25:40.279 --> 00:25:42.740 Okay, immediate application. You could pocket 00:25:42.740 --> 00:25:46.740 an extra $444 per cow annually just by switching 00:25:46.740 --> 00:25:51.200 to strategic nutritional grouping. $444, separating 00:25:51.200 --> 00:25:53.720 high producers from low producers, feeding them 00:25:53.720 --> 00:25:55.900 more precisely. Exactly. It's a direct saving 00:25:55.900 --> 00:25:58.799 that really adds up. And you can slash feed shrink 00:25:58.799 --> 00:26:01.700 losses from that 8 % average down to maybe 3 00:26:01.700 --> 00:26:04.500 % through... Better storage and handling? Right. 00:26:04.579 --> 00:26:08.019 That one farm saved over $100 ,000 yearly just 00:26:08.019 --> 00:26:09.859 by upgrading their feed center and management. 00:26:10.079 --> 00:26:13.059 Real ROI there. It's significant money. Plus, 00:26:13.059 --> 00:26:16.000 boosting cost accuracy by 40 % just by switching 00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:18.500 to dry matter basis for all feeds and including 00:26:18.500 --> 00:26:21.700 the entire herd, dry cows, heifers, they count. 00:26:21.880 --> 00:26:23.980 Eliminates those profitability illusions. Gives 00:26:23.980 --> 00:26:26.009 you an honest picture. Fundamental. And looking 00:26:26.009 --> 00:26:28.509 ahead, leveraging AI -powered feed management 00:26:28.509 --> 00:26:31.829 can squeeze out another 3 -5 % efficiency gain. 00:26:32.009 --> 00:26:34.349 Constant optimization. In today's market, that 00:26:34.349 --> 00:26:36.690 3 -5 % can be the difference between thriving 00:26:36.690 --> 00:26:38.910 and just surviving. It's an investment with a 00:26:38.910 --> 00:26:41.670 proven payoff. Finally, and critically, use that 00:26:41.670 --> 00:26:43.569 accurate baseline for smart risk management. 00:26:43.930 --> 00:26:47.289 Know your true break -even. Then tools like DRP 00:26:47.289 --> 00:26:49.990 and forward contracting become genuinely effective 00:26:49.990 --> 00:26:53.410 strategic instruments, not just gambling, empowering 00:26:53.410 --> 00:26:55.769 your decisions with real data. Great points. 00:26:56.009 --> 00:26:58.130 And that's all the time we have for today's Deep 00:26:58.130 --> 00:27:00.309 Dive. For more articles and insights, be sure 00:27:00.309 --> 00:27:04.029 to visit www .thebullvine .com. Don't forget 00:27:04.029 --> 00:27:05.930 to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. 00:27:06.329 --> 00:27:08.410 Thanks for listening. Thanks for tuning in to 00:27:08.410 --> 00:27:11.049 The Bullvine Podcast. If you're ready to stop 00:27:11.049 --> 00:27:13.769 leaving money on the table, start mastering your 00:27:13.769 --> 00:27:17.309 feed cost calculations today. Share this episode 00:27:17.309 --> 00:27:19.710 with your fellow farmers, visit our website for 00:27:19.710 --> 00:27:21.990 resources, and join the conversation online. 00:27:22.809 --> 00:27:25.900 Until next time. Keep those cows happy and those 00:27:25.900 --> 00:27:26.779 profits growing.