Breaking free from the chains of the past Where
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law
waiting on some printed page We're charting new
ground in the digital age From genomic codes
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight
we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast,
the show that turns fresh dairy data into practical
barn floor wins. I'm your host, and in this episode,
we're busting open the real cost of a sick calf
and the 2025 nutrition moves that flip those
losses into profit. From $3 ,000 replacement
heifer shocks to the hidden ROI inside a $35
supplement, we've got the numbers and the game
plan. Grab a coffee, step into the parlor, and
let's get profitable. Welcome back to The Bullvine,
your trusted source for the deep dive that truly
digs deep into the topics that matter to dairy
producers. That's right. Today we're tackling
a really interesting feature article from The
Bullvine that's got everyone talking in the industry.
It's a piece titled The $35 CAF question. What
three years of digging actually shows? We're
going to unpack this thoroughly and see what
insights it offers. You know, for a while now,
we've all been hearing this figure tossed around.
You hear it at industry meetups, conferences.
The idea that a strategic, maybe $35 investment
per CAF can yield a significant return. We're
talking about potentially preventing a sick CAF
that could, you know. end up costing you over
$1 ,000. Treatment, labor, lost productivity,
it adds up. Yeah, it really does. It sounds almost
too good to be true, doesn't it? Yeah. Our author
for this piece, well, they're a self -proclaimed
skeptical farmer and they felt exactly the same
way. Understandably so. Yeah. Tired of the marketing
hype, they decided to really dig into the numbers,
look beyond the glossy brochures. Right. Get
past the sales pitch. Exactly. And look into
real farm data spanning three years. Absolutely.
And what's truly crucial here, I think, is that
this isn't just about finding some kind of magic
bullet supplement. You know, throw money at it
and poof, calf problem's gone. If only it were
that simple. Right. It's about exploring a systematic
approach. Calf health. Growth. The article delves
into this with impressive rigor. So let's unpack
this $35 CAF question and see what three years
of dedicated digging actually reveals for your
operation. Yeah, our mission today is to cut
through the noise, give you clear, actionable
insights straight from the data in this article.
Okay, so let's set the stage. Let's dive into
the current market realities that really frame
this whole $35 question. Good place to start.
The author immediately highlights something we
all feel acutely in our wallets, replacement
huffers. They are incredibly expensive right
now. Oh boy, are they ever. It's a cost that
can really weigh on a producer's mind. What are
the latest numbers looking like? And how do they
underscore the importance of this discussion?
Well, one of the most striking things the article
points out is just the sheer scale of that cost.
Right. The USDA AMS National Weekly Replacement
Dairy Cattle Report. This is from July 15th,
2025. It put bread heifers at an eye -watering
$3 ,010 per head. $3 ,000. Wow. And no, that's
not a typo. When you really think about that
number, it profoundly underscores the immense
financial blow. I mean, losing a calf or having
one fail to thrive. Yeah. it instantly makes
any investment in preventative care look incredibly
valuable. Because the alternative, having to
buy a replacement. The article calls it financially
crippling. Crippling. That's a strong word, but
probably accurate for many. It completely reframes
the whole discussion. Upfront investment becomes
critical cost avoidance, not just another expense
line. Right. Every calf isn't just an animal.
It's a potential $3 ,000 asset. Exactly. Protecting
that asset becomes paramount. And that perspective,
it truly puts things into focus, especially when
we compare it to current milk prices. The article
mentions milk prices are hovering around, what,
$18 .93 per hundredweight? That was August 2025,
USDA NASS. Yeah, around there. While not terrible,
the author very candidly states there's no fat
in these margins anymore. That's putting it bluntly.
For a producer on the ground, what does that...
Blunt assessment really mean when you're trying
to navigate these soaring costs and, you know,
regulatory changes. It means exactly what it
sounds like. Yeah. I mean, in the most direct
sense possible. There's just no wiggle room.
No cushion. Zero financial cushion for error
or unexpected expenses. Think about it. A bread
heifer costs over three grand. Your milk check
is OK, but not huge profit margins. Right. Any
inefficiency, any unforeseen cost, it just eats
directly and deeply into your bottom line. It
demands a hyper -focus on efficiency, cost control.
Especially in calf rearing. Absolutely. That's
where a small issue can just balloon into a massive
profit eroding expense. This tight margin environment,
it just intensifies the importance of prevention.
Because reacting after the fact costs more. Almost
invariably. Vet costs, meds, labor for treatments,
and the long -term productivity hits we haven't
even gotten to yet. It's about optimizing every
single dollar spent. Make sure it delivers maximum
return. But here's where it gets truly significant.
And this is a critical industry -wide shift.
It's fundamentally changed the game for everyone
in dairy since June 2023. Yeah, this is huge.
The FDA classified all medically important antimicrobials
as prescription only. This isn't just a minor
tweak, is it? It's a whole new ballgame. It really
brings up a pivotal question. What does this
mean for our traditional management strategies,
especially calf health? Right. You're absolutely
right. It's far from minor. It's a seismic shift.
It demands a complete reevaluation of how we
manage disease prevention and treatment. So no
more just reaching for antibiotics easily. Exactly.
The article perfectly puts it. The days of metaphylactic
treatments as a management crutch, they're effectively
over. And just to clarify, metaphylactic is treating
the whole group before they show symptoms, right?
Right. Based on risk. Correct. Treating a group
preemptively. Because you anticipate exposure
or stress. That easy, broad brush, reactive approach.
Where we can maybe just treat problems away.
It's gone. This regulatory change inherently
forces a much more proactive, strategic approach
to calf health. No more reactive. You have to
prevent it. Every producer must now prioritize
prevention, robust health protocols, optimizing
immunity. That old safety net of readily available
antimicrobials. It's been significantly tightened.
Which pushes us towards these preventative strategies.
It makes an upfront investment like this potential
$35 program. Not just a good idea, but increasingly...
well, a necessity for maintaining calf health
and crucially profitability in this new landscape.
It's about building resilience from the inside
out. That's a great way to put it. So connecting
this to the big picture, this new regulatory
environment, it drastically changes the economics
of sickness prevention. Totally. It positions
those upfront investments in calf health in a
completely different light. It's not just about
potentially saving a bit of money anymore. No,
it's about navigating a future where the old
ways just aren't viable. Or economically prudent.
It's about future -proofing your operation. Precisely.
This regulatory shift elevates the discussion
from, you know, an optional expense to an integral
part of risk management. Because the penalty
for getting it wrong is higher now. Exponentially
higher. Without easy access to broad -spectrum
antimicrobials, the cost of a sick calf, or worse,
a herd outbreak, it skyrockets. Labor costs alone.
Oh yeah. Daily treatments. potential chronic
issues, the direct loss if an animal dies. Therefore,
any investment that reduces disease incidence
strengthens natural defenses. Like colostrum
targeted nutrition. Exactly. It becomes a highly
strategic move. Build resilience from the ground
up rather than relying on treatments as your
main defense after the fact. It forces a fundamental
rethink of calf care. Proactive intervention
is key. So with those market realities and regulatory
shifts in mind, let's dive into the science.
The article points to some foundational research
that still holds significant weight. Yeah, some
classic stuff. What did that Cornell work from
Soberon and Van Amburg back in 2013 find? And
why is it still so relevant today for every dairy
producer listening? Ah, the Cornell study. It
really is a cornerstone of modern calf rearing
science. Its findings remain profoundly relevant
even over a decade later. So what was the big
takeaway? What they uncovered was quite compelling.
It's widely cited. For every kilogram of extra
pre -weaning average, daily gain ADG, you know,
weight gain per day before weaning, you could
expect an impressive 1 ,000 kilograms more milk
in that animal's first lactation. Wow, 1 ,000
kilos more milk just from... better early growth.
Yep. And it's not just correlation. Research
consistently shows optimizing pre -weaning growth
directly influences mammary gland tissue development.
You're basically programming that animal for
future productivity. Exactly. It provides a clear,
tangible, powerful economic incentive to maximize
calf growth during that critical early window.
It's a foundational science. That sounds like
an absolute dream scenario. What you do early
on has such a profound impact later. It does.
However... The author adds that really important
caveat. This was controlled university research
and, quote, your mileage will definitely vary
on your own farm. Crucial point. Why is it so
critical for our listeners to remember that distinction
between the lab and the real world? It's crucial
because university settings, well, by nature,
they strive for highly controlled environments.
They minimize external variables, right, to isolate
the impact of what they're studying, like a specific
feed or supplement. Makes sense. But in the real
world, on your farm, you're grappling with countless
dynamic variables, fluctuating weather. Heat,
stress, cold snaps. Exactly. Varying feed quality,
batch to batch, different genetics, unpredictable
disease challenges, labor availability, consistency.
It's complex. So the potential is there, but
achieving it isn't guaranteed. Right. The Cornell
research establishes the potential. The principle,
early growth impacts future milk. But hitting
those exact numbers on a commercial farm, it
requires meticulous, adaptable management and
a deep understanding of your own specific farm's
conditions. So the positive impact is real, but
the exact amount might differ based on your farm.
Precisely. It's a goal to strive for, but your
path to get there will be unique. Okay, but beyond
the long -term benefits, what about the immediate
costs of sickness? The article highlights Dubrovsky's
2020 work, Journal of Dairy Science, on BRD treatment
costs, bovine respiratory disease. Yes, BRD.
A major headache for many. And this cost range
isn't small or fixed, is it? It seems to fluctuate
wildly. It must be incredibly frustrating for
producers trying to budget. Oh, absolutely. One
of the most eye -opening things about this research
is that sheer variability you mentioned. Dubrovsky's
study found BRD treatment costs ranging from
a low of, get this, $42 to a high of $395 per
case. Two to almost 400. That's a massive difference.
Huge. A real chasm between what you might call
a manageable expense for a mild case and a profit
killer for a severe, complicated one. What drives
that variability? Factors like speed of diagnosis.
Was it caught early? The specific bug involved.
Was it susceptible to the first treatment? Did
it escalate to full pneumonia, needing aggressive,
repeated, costly interventions? Multiple drugs,
longer withdrawals, more labor. Exactly. This
wide range makes it crystal clear. Preventing
even one severe BRD case can mean significant
savings. It really strengthens the argument for
upfront prevention. Definitely. It forces you
to ask, are you willing to gamble on being at
the low end of that range? Or would you rather
invest strategically to avoid the problem altogether?
Makes sense. And what about probiotics and prebiotics?
The article mentions research on biotics, probiotics
being the live good bugs, prebiotics being food
for them is becoming more nuanced. Right. This
might surprise some who've heard mixed messages.
Sometimes they're a miracle cure, sometimes a
waste of money. Indeed. The traditional view
has sometimes been, let's say, oversimplified.
That leads to those mixed messages. But what's
compelling from the new robust data on both pro
and prebiotics is that it consistently shows
advantages in daily gain and overall animal health.
So they do work. Well, this new understanding
positions them not as standalone. miracle cures,
right? They won't magically solve everything.
Instead, they're becoming recognized as integral
components within a comprehensive, well -structured
calf management system. Part of the bigger picture.
Exactly. They won't fix poor colostrum, bad housing,
inconsistent feeding, but they work by bolstering
the calf's gut microbiome, fortifying immune
defenses. Improving nutrient absorption, building
resilience. Precisely. So you integrate them
into a broader strategy to proactively support
health and growth, moving beyond just reacting
to disease after it happens. So a valuable piece
of the puzzle, but not the whole solution. You
got it. They optimize an already good foundation.
Okay, now for the math. If you're seriously considering
that $35 per calf nutrition investment, the article
meticulously breaks it down. Potential returns.
The part everyone wants to hear. Exactly. What
are we looking at? Revenue? Cost savings? At
least on paper. Does it truly pencil out? On
paper, the numbers are indeed very impressive.
And they're designed to grab your attention for
good reason. Based on that Cornell research linking
early ADG to future milk and factoring in current
milk prices, you're looking at a potential milk
revenue gain of around $485 per cow, first lactation.
Nearly $500 extra milk revenue? Okay. That's
significant, attributed mainly to optimizing
that early growth. Then there's disease cost
reduction. Which we know is highly variable.
Super variable. Could be zero on a really well
-managed farm or easily $100 or more if BRD has
been a persistent, costly issue for you. Right.
And don't forget feed efficiency improvements,
estimated at another $15 to $20 in savings over
that critical pre -weaning period. So you add
it all up. More milk, less disease cost, better
feed efficiency. The total potential return looks
very promising on the surface. Makes that $35
investment seem like, well, a no -brainer. Paints
a very compelling picture. And this is a critical,
but the author emphasizes, they've seen operations
where this pencils out beautifully, delivers
on the promise, and others where it makes absolutely
no difference whatsoever. The million -dollar
question. This highlights that simply spending
the $35 isn't enough. How it's done matters just
as much, maybe more. This brings up that crucial
question. Why such a stark difference in results?
For what seems like a straightforward investment.
Yeah, why? It's the critical distinction between
just throwing money at a problem hoping it goes
away versus strategically investing in a solution
that's integrated into a well -managed system.
Ah, the system again. The operation's reporting
great returns. They aren't just buying a product.
They're integrating it into a comprehensive,
holistic system of calf care. So the $35 isn't
a magic wand? Not at all. It's a component. If
your foundational management colostrum quality
and delivery, proper ventilation, clean housing,
consistent feeding protocols, if those aren't
up to par. That $35 investment just disappears.
Pretty much, without a trace. The underlying
issues are too big for a supplement alone to
overcome. It really underscores that the context
of the farm's overall management, the quality
of those basics, It's paramount to realizing
any return. Build on a solid foundation. Don't
use supplements to paper over cracks. Exactly.
Will said. That leads us perfectly to the real
talk from real farms. The article shares some
invaluable anonymous insights. Yeah, the boots
on the ground perspective. Like that mid -sized
Wisconsin operation. They saw their average daily
game improve from a respectable 1 .4 pounds per
day to an impressive 1 .8. That's a huge jump.
Huge jump. What was their secret? And what was
their honest take on where that improvement really
came from? Yeah, this Wisconsin story is compelling.
And what's fascinating is their pragmatic, holistic
approach. And critically, their honesty. They
weren't just throwing supplements at problems
in isolation. They implemented a truly systematic
approach. There's that word again. It keeps coming
up. Yes, targeted nutrition, likely including
some of those $35 type investments, but simultaneously.
They significantly upgraded colostrum protocols,
ensuring optimal quality, quantity, timing. The
improved hutch ventilation, massive for reducing
respiratory issues. And they started consistently
tracking growth data, monitoring progress, making
timely adjustments. So what was their honest
take? Where did the gain come from? Their honest
take. They couldn't tell you exactly how much
of that jump, 1 .4 to 1 .8 pounds day ADG, came
specifically from the $35 nutrition program versus
all the other management improvements. Interesting.
And the kicker, they didn't care. Huh. Why? Because
the entire system got better. This suggests that
$35 investment is often a catalyst within a holistic
strategy. It helps optimize a system that's already
being improved across multiple fronts. Not a
standalone fix. Right. It's about cumulative
positive changes. Every piece of the puzzle contributes.
This systematic approach brings us to a key point
the article emphasizes repeatedly. Implementation
is everything. Absolutely everything. What did
the article highlight about... quality, strain
specificity, and timing for these nutritional
tools? Because it sounds like just buying any
old probiotic off the shelf isn't going to cut
it. No, definitely not. And this raises that
critical question. Why do some operations spend
good money on generic stuff and not get those
research trial results? Yeah, why? The article
makes it crystal clear. Quality matters. Strain
specificity matters immensely. And timing is
paramount. It's not just what you use, but how
you use it. Give me an example. Okay, probiotics.
Different strains are effective for different
purposes, right, in different environments. A
generic one might not have the specific strains
proven for calves. Or it might not be made or
delivered in a way that ensures the live cultures
are actually viable when they reach the gut.
Dead bugs don't do much good. Exactly. And timing
is critical. Giving a gut health supplement when
the calf's already got a raging infection, often
too late for prevention. So understand the specific
product, ensure quality, integrate it precisely.
That's it. Without proper implementation, even
a great product can be a wasted investment. Leaves
producers frustrated, skeptical. And a calf nutritionist
quoted in the article sums it up perfectly. A
guiding principle for you, the listener. Supplements
are fine -tuning tools, not foundation fixes.
Get the basics right first. Colostrum, housing,
feeding consistency, then talk about additives.
This seems fundamental, almost a prerequisite.
It absolutely is fundamental. Perhaps one of
the most important takeaways from this whole
deep dive. Like building a house. Exactly like
building a house. You wouldn't put expensive
wallpaper on crumbling walls, right? Or install
fancy climate control with a leaky roof and drafty
windows? No, you fix the foundation first. Right.
Ensure the foundation's solid, framing strong,
roof is sound. Then you focus on the enhancements,
the sophisticated systems. So in calf rearing,
the basics are the foundation. Colostrum, ventilation,
housing, consistent feeding. That's your essential,
non -negotiable foundation. If those aren't meticulously
dialed in. Investing in expensive supplements
is pointless. It's like trying to fine -tune
an engine that's missing spark plugs. It might
make a tiny difference, maybe, but you're not
addressing the root cause of poor performance
or health issues. Supplements optimize a good
system, push it to great. Or great to exceptional.
Yeah. They don't salvage a failing system or
compensate for glaring deficiencies. It's an
investment in efficiency, not a bailout for neglect.
It's also important to acknowledge that what
works brilliantly in one place doesn't always
translate perfectly elsewhere. Oh, definitely
not. The article wisely touches on geography
and scale. Reality checks. How do these factors
significantly influence the effectiveness, even
the type of these programs? Excellent point.
It's remarkable how much external factors can
alter success and even what kind of investment
makes sense. Climate stress, local disease pressure,
feed costs. They vary immensely region to region.
So what works in Vermont might not work in Texas.
Exactly. Vermont might focus on winter respiratory
issues. Yeah. Texas. Extreme heat stress, humidity,
different digestive challenges become bigger
factors. The article gives examples. Yeah, good
ones. Upper Midwest, respiratory challenges are
common. So pathogen binding strategies or immune
boosters. Targeting respiratory health makes
sense. Down south, focus might shift to additives
for heat stress, rehydration, digestive efficiency
to combat heat impacts on appetite and absorption.
And California is different again? California's
Central Valley unique environment, dust, often
large -scale, high -density operations. Different
challenges than Wisconsin's smaller, more traditional
setups. So you have to tailor the strategy to
your specific geography. Absolutely. A one -size
-fits -all approach. rarely optimal. And scale
also plays a significant role. The 1 ,000 cow
dairies versus the sub -300 ones. Fundamentally
different realities and resources. How does that
impact their approach to this $35 investment?
Scale absolutely matters. It dictates feasibility
and implementation. Fewer than 300 cows often
means different economics, labor constraints,
logistics. Compared to the big guys. Right. The
larger operations, they often have the capital
for automated feeding systems. That allows for
incredibly precise, consistent delivery of nutrition
and supplements. Plus, sophisticated monitoring.
So they can maximize the return better. Potentially,
yes. Because you ensure the product is delivered
exactly as intended, every time. Smaller operations
might need simpler, robust, highly effective
protocols without huge tech investments. Simpler
daily doses, maybe fewer interventions, but high
-impact ones. Exactly. Find what fits your operation's
size, labor, infrastructure, and ability to execute
consistently. A blanket recommendation just doesn't
work. Finally, the article courageously presents
some uncomfortable truths. Yeah, the tough love
section. the candid realities farmers need to
confront when evaluating these programs what
are these hard -hitting insights well one of
the most impactful parts is this brutal honesty
every farmer needs to assess this critically
maybe with their vet or nutritionist first uncomfortable
truth some farms simply should not be spending
extra on calf nutrition supplements if their
fundamental management is lacking harsh but necessary
absolutely if your calf mortality is consistently
high due to basic glaring issues Poor colostrum,
draftier, unsanitary housing, bad ventilation
leading to constant respiratory problems. Supplements
won't fix that? Nope. You'd be treating symptoms,
not causes. That $35. Far, far better invested
in fixing those core foundational practices first.
Like pouring premium fuel in an engine with a
cracked block. Perfect analogy. Won't make it
run better, just wasting resources. Fix the fundamentals
first. Always. And this brings up another equally
important uncomfortable truth. Okay. Not every
calf responds the same way. Expecting uniform
results across the whole herd. It's unrealistic.
Right. That's critical expectation management
for you, the listener. Totally. Genetics matter
hugely. Some calves are just predisposed to better
growth or health. Birth weight matters. Health
status at birth is paramount. So a weak calf
at birth might not show the same gains. Even
with the best program, maybe not the same dramatic
results as a vigorous calf that hits the ground
running. So you optimize for the herd average,
aim for overall improvement. But accept some
variability. Right. Understand that variability,
manage frustration, appreciate the overall positive
impact, even if some individuals lag. It's about
collective improvement. So after all that incredibly
detailed analysis, those candid realities, what's
the key takeaway for a farmer listening today?
Yeah, let's bring it home. The article gives
a clear Monday morning action list, crucial bottom
lines we can all use. Where should listeners
focus their efforts to really get the most out
of their CAF program now? Great question. This
isn't just theory. It's practical application
you can start tomorrow morning. First and foremost,
track those calf weights religiously. Why is
that number one? Because calves gaining 1 .8
pounds or more daily before weaning are demonstrably
set up for that extra 1 ,100 pounds of milk.
versus lactation. Which translates to? About
$500 more revenue per cow at today's prices.
NAHMS benchmark data clearly shows hitting 1
.5 to 1 .8 pounds a day, ADG, separates the good
from the mediocre. If you're not tracking, you're
guessing. And potentially leaving significant
money on the table. Invest in scales, invest
in consistency, measure it. That measurable data
is crucial. Okay, what's number two on the action
list? Second, get smart about your disease costs
and not just meds. Everything involved. Document
everything. Document every single BRD case or
other major illness. Associated costs, antibiotic
price, yes, but also syringes, needles, labor
hours, pulling and treating, potential future
productivity impact, cost of disposal if you
lose one. You can't improve what you don't measure.
Exactly. The article highlights strategic colostrum
and targeted supplements done right can cut treatment
bills in half. Half. That's huge. Think what
that means. Money saved, yes, but also. Precious
labor hours. Less time treating sick calves equals
more time on profitable work. Or maybe just more
rest. That time saving is huge, especially now.
What about feed efficiency? Absolutely. Third,
actively seek to boost feed efficiency. The article
points to proven tools like specific probiotics,
MOS, those man and oligosaccharides that bind
bad bacteria. These can lead to a 10 % improvement
in feed efficiency. What's that mean in dollars?
Over $180 in savings per calf during that critical
pre -weaning phase. $180 saved per calf just
from better feed use. Stays right in your pocket.
Helping calves extract more nutrients, less waste,
better use of costly inputs, optimize every bite.
And in this market with those crazy replacement
costs. Which brings us to number four. Every
calf you save matters more now than ever before.
That $3 ,010 heifer costs again. Precisely. Plus,
scarce expensive labor. Preventing death loss
isn't just good animal care anymore, though that's
always paramount. It's smart economics, business
survival. A dead calf is a massive financial
drain. Huge drain. Lost animal, setback to future
herd productivity, direct loss of a revenue stream
two years in the making. Preventing that loss
is a direct investment in your farm's financial
future. And finally, number five. You simply
have to adapt to the new reality. The FDA restrictions,
labor costs. Those FDA antibiotic rules, soaring
labor, tight margins. Proactive nutrition and
robust health programs aren't just nice -to -haves
anymore. They're survival tools. The article
makes it abundantly clear. They're survival tools
for 2025 and beyond. The landscape has fundamentally
changed. Successful operations will strategically
invest in prevention, build resilience from the
ground up. Not rely on reactive treatments that
are harder to access and more expensive now.
Exactly. Build a robust system that thrives despite
these new challenges. So the ultimate bottom
line here for every producer listening, it's
strategic. Is there a $35 advantage? Well. Yes.
On some farms, absolutely. The data shows incredible
returns are possible. But on others, that money
might actually generate better returns fixing
basic management first. Honest assessment is
key. Absolutely. An honest, self -critical assessment
of where your operation truly stands. If you're
already consistently hitting 1 .8 plus pounds
of ADG, minimal health issues, excellent foundational
care, frankly, nutrition supplements probably
aren't your highest priority right now. Focus
elsewhere first. Maybe fix labor efficiency.
improve breeding, optimize feed bunk management,
but... and this is crucial if you're struggling,
consistently dealing with respiratory disease,
calves showing poor growth below benchmarks.
The targeted nutrition can pay off. And pay off,
but only if implemented as part of systematic
improvement, not a standalone magic bullet. Never
a magic bullet. The real value isn't in any specific
$35 supplement itself. It's in the time you take
to objectively analyze your farm's data, understand
your unique challenges, and figure out exactly
what your calves truly need to thrive. That's
what separates the operations thriving in 2025.
From those that will struggle. This isn't just
feel good farming. It's dollars and cents strategy
backed by science, real world data. Your calves
are either a calculated strategic investment.
Or they're an unmanaged recurring expense. Which
camp are you in? Powerful final thoughts. And
that's probably all the time we have for today's
deep dive. For more articles, in -depth analyses,
crucial insights like these, be sure to visit
www .thebullvine .com. And don't forget to subscribe
and follow us wherever you get your deep dives.
We appreciate you tuning in. Thanks for listening.