Breaking free from the chains of the past Where
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law
waiting on some printed page We're charting new
ground in the digital age From genomic codes
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight
we're sparking Welcome to the Bullvine Podcast,
where we dig deeper into the stories shaping
dairy's future. I'm your host, and today we're
tackling something that's been hiding in plain
sight across the industry, the genetic gatekeeping
that's quietly costing dairy producers millions
while concentrating power in the hands of just
four major companies. We're diving into genetic
gatekeepers, the high -stakes gamble of dairy's
elite bloodlines, an investigation that reveals
how every 1 % increase in inbreeding is costing
you $23 per cow, and most herds don't even know
their levels. If you're a progressive producer
who wants to understand what's really driving
your breeding decisions and how to protect your
herd's future profitability, this episode is
essential listening. Let's dive in. Welcome to
the Deep Dive, brought to you by The Bullvine.
This is where we sift through the latest articles,
research, and insights to bring you the knowledge
that truly matters for dairy producers. And our
goal really is always to cut through the noise,
you know, to give you those essential nuggets
of information presented with clarity and maybe
a bit of a fresh perspective. Yeah, we want to
arm you with the insights you need to make informed
decisions for your operation. Absolutely. Today,
we're embarking on a crucial deep dive. We're
looking at a feature article from the Bullvine
that's sparked a lot of discussion across the
industry. Our mission is to dissect the incredible
gains that genomic selection has brought to dairy.
That part's undeniable. Right. Huge gains. But
maybe more importantly, we need to uncover a
less talked about yet equally profound consequence.
A rapid and frankly accelerating rate of inbreeding.
It's a huge paradox, isn't it? It really is.
And we're here to unpack what we're calling the
inbreeding tax. And it's a conversation that's
more relevant now than ever. I mean, when genomics
first hit the scene, the excitement was just
palpable. You could feel it. And for good reason.
It promised and honestly, it delivered unparalleled
genetic progress. faster than anyone really thought
possible. But, you know, as we've seen with so
many revolutions, there are often these unintended
side effects, these consequences that only really
become clear with time. Right, so it's 2020,
right? Exactly. So we'll be exploring the data,
looking at the economic impact, and perhaps most
importantly, what you, the producer listening,
can actually do about it. That's right. We're
going to dive headfirst into this powerful paradox.
How the very thing that supercharged our herds
might now be... quietly, almost silently, costing
them. So let's start by setting the scene for
those incredible games. Before, say, 2009, the
dairy industry operated in a completely different
genetic universe. For those perhaps newer to
the industry, or maybe just as a reminder for
everyone, what did that pre -genomic era, the
one defined by progeny testing, truly look like
on the ground? Well, it was a world that demanded
immense patience. And significant capital investment.
A lot of money tied up. Right. To identify a
truly superior sire back then, you basically
embarked on what felt like a multi -year gamble.
You'd breed a young, totally unproven bull to
a large number of cows. A leap of faith, really.
Absolutely. And then you'd wait and wait and
wait some more. For years! Yeah, years. You'd
wait for his daughters to be born, to grow up,
to mature, and critically, to complete at least
part of their first lactation. Only then could
you get the actual data. Only then. After all
that time, usually like five to seven years,
could you finally collect and analyze their performance
data. You know, measure their milk, their fat,
their protein, check calving ease, all of that.
Wow. Five to seven years. It was a slow, very
methodical process and incredibly expensive,
as you can imagine. So that sheer time commitment,
it naturally limited how quickly anyone Bull's
genetics could saturate the population, didn't
it? Precisely. It was inefficient, sure, if you're
looking purely at speed of progress. But it had
a side effect. Yeah, it almost served as an inherent,
albeit maybe a bit clunky, break on genetic concentration.
It just sort of kept inbreeding somewhat in check
by default. Because you couldn't flood the market
instantly. Exactly. That multi -year wait to
prove a sire naturally restricted how widely
and quickly any single bull's genetics could
spread. It was a bottleneck for sure, but maybe
think of it as a slow and relatively wide one.
Okay. Because you simply couldn't get enough
semen from one top bull. out there fast enough
to just dominate everything immediately. The
system, just by its very nature, it kind of encouraged
a broader spread of genetics, even if it wasn't
the most efficient way to get rapid progress
on paper. And then, boom, everything changed.
You mentioned 2009 as this definitive inflection
point. What were the specific scientific breakthroughs
that all came together around that time, and
what was their immediate, almost revolutionary
impact? Yeah. 2009 really did redefine dairy
genetics. And it wasn't just one single eureka
moment, actually. It was more like a rapid convergence
of incredible scientific and technological advancements
that happened in the early to mid 2000s. Laying
the groundwork. Exactly. First, back in 2004,
we saw the sequencing of the bovine genome. That
gave us the foundational genetic map, the blueprint,
if you will. Yeah, the map. Then came the high
-density single -nucleotide polymorphism chips.
We just call them SNP chips. Right. These were
the tools that allowed us to read that blueprint
quickly and crucially cost -effectively. Think
of them as incredibly advanced barcode scanners,
but for DNA. Okay, that makes sense. Illumina,
for instance, commercially released their Bovine
SNP50B chip in December 2007. These chips let
geneticists correlate specific DNA markers these
SNPs with actual performance traits. So you could
link the gene code to the milk production. Precisely.
By comparing a young animal's genomic profile,
its SNP results, to a large reference population
that's animals with known pedigrees and actual
performance data, the proven ones we could suddenly
predict its genetic merit with remarkable accuracy.
Long before it had any offspring. Long before
it had any offspring or even really matured itself.
It was a massive leap. So if I'm a producer listening,
that means I no longer have to wait five, six,
seven years for a proven bull. I can get a highly
reliable prediction on a young bull, like, almost
right away. Pretty much. It effectively made
that whole long, expensive progeny testing process
optional. That's a complete game changer. It
was a seismic shift. And when the USDA released
its first official genomic evaluations in January
2009, it really felt like the dam breaking. The
impact was immediate, transformative for the
whole industry. How so? What changed first? The
generation interval, that's the average time
between generations. It just plummeted dramatically.
We're talking about it shrinking from around
seven years for those key sire -to -bull pathways.
Seven years. Down to less than two and a half
years. Wow. Cut by more than half. Easily. And
selection accuracy on these young animals soared
at the same time. Plus, the cost and time to
identify the elite individuals, it just fell
off a cliff. So cheaper, faster, more accurate.
You got it. And producers and AI companies, naturally,
they rapidly embrace these younger, high merit
sires. Why wouldn't you? And the numbers really
tell that story, don't they? By 2021, the market
had completely flicked. Oh, absolutely. The statistics
are, frankly, quite staggering. By 2021, an incredible
71 percent, 71 percent of all AI breedings in
U .S. dairy herds were to these genomic young
sires. Bulls with no milking daughters of their
own. None. Simply because the genomic prediction
was seen as so reliable. That's just a profound
testament to the industry's confidence in this
new technology and its ability to deliver results.
That 71 % figure really jumps out. It shows how
quickly the industry adapted and, well, trusted
this new paradigm. They jumped in with both feet.
And the promise was indeed to quantify the game,
right? We saw the numbers rocket up, particularly
in net merit, NML, which is the main metric for
genetic progress here in the U .S. What did those
games actually look like in hard data? How much
faster were we really moving? The gains were
undeniable, no question, and pretty much exactly
as promised, maybe even better in some areas.
For Holstein -Sires, the average annual genetic
gain in net merit, NMR, it jumped significantly.
How significantly? Okay, so in the five years
before widespread genomic use, roughly 2005 to
2010, that gain was hovering around $40 per year.
Give or take. OK, $40 a year progress. But in
the post -genomic era, looking at, say, 2016
to 2020, that rate more than doubled. It hit
an average of $79 .20 per year. Double the speed.
Pretty much double the rate of progress for overall
profitability index. And interestingly, for some
specific fitness traits, things like fertility
and health, which are just... incredibly important
for your actual bottom line. Yeah, the things
that keep cows in the herd. Exactly. The improvement
there was even more dramatic. Right. We saw increases
of 200 % to 300 % in the rate of gain for those
traits. Two to three times faster improvement
on health and fertility. Yeah. So... In terms
of raw genetic progress, especially for those
economically vital traits, genomics absolutely
delivered. It truly did double our rate of progress,
maybe even more in key areas. Those numbers are
incredibly impressive. I mean, it's easy to see
why producers and AI companies embraced it so
wholeheartedly. Absolutely. But this brings us
right back to that powerful paradox we introduced
at the start. The unintended consequence. The
acceleration of inbreeding. The other side of
the coin. How exactly did the very mechanisms
driving this amazing accelerated gain this incredible
speed also create the perfect conditions for
accelerated inbreeding? It's such a critical
connection to grasp because they're intrinsically
linked. The same tools that propelled us forward
so quickly, those shortened generation intervals
we talked about and the intensified selection
pressure on just a handful of top ranking animals,
they inadvertently created the perfect storm
for accelerated inbreeding. how does that work
exactly well when you can identify the best genetics
so much faster and then use them so much more
widely and quickly through ai you naturally almost
inevitably concentrate those bloodlines across
the entire population makes sense everyone wants
the best right An inbreeding at its core is simply
the mating of individuals who share common ancestors.
This leads to increased homozygosity. Meaning
more identical gene pairs. Exactly. Where an
animal inherits identical gene pairs from both
its mother and its father because they share
ancestry. Now, selecting for desirable traits
does increase homozygosity for those specific
traits, which is good. That's the goal. But inbreeding
increases homozygosity indiscriminately across
the whole genome. And that raises the risk of
expressing deleterious recessive alleles, those
hidden genetic flaws that, when an animal gets
two copies, can severely harm its health, fertility,
or performance. And that's what we call inbreeding
depression. That's inbreeding depression. It's
the negative consequence of that increased homozygosity.
So the genomic era didn't change the fundamental
rules of genetics. It just, like, put them on
fast forward. That's a great way to put it. It
sounds like that slow and wide bottleneck of
the old progeny testing days was replaced by
something much faster and far, far narrower.
Precisely. We found the fast lane all right,
but it turned out to be a much more congested
one, genetically speaking. Before genomics, like
we said, the sheer time and cost involved naturally
limited how quickly and widely any single bull's
genetics could spread. But now... With genomic
evaluations, the entire global industry can identify
and converge around the same handful, literally
the top five or 10 genomic young sires within
a single evaluation run almost overnight. Wow.
That's intense concentration. It is. And there's
real world data. The Italian Holstein population
provides a really clear, measurable case study.
Researchers there observed a significant quantifiable
increase in their annual rate of inbreeding immediately
after genomic selection was widely introduced.
So it wasn't theoretical. It actually happened.
It actually happened and they measured it. The
system effectively became architected for convergence,
not necessarily for diversity. Its primary objective
was laser focused on maximizing progress as measured
by a single standardized definition of economic
merit like net. merit here in the U .S. Right.
Maximize NAO8. Exactly. There wasn't an equally
weighted built -in incentive for actively maintaining
genetic diversity alongside that push for gain.
It really became all about climbing that leaderboard.
That structural design. Focusing on maximizing
just one metric, it makes complete sense from
a purely business perspective maybe, but it clearly
has this critical side effect. Absolutely. And
this brings us to what you've termed the inbreeding
tax. Quantifying the real economic drag on profitability
that dairy producers are facing, maybe without
even realizing it. What are we talking about
here in terms of actual dollars walking out the
barn door? This is really where it hits home
for producers, because it's not some abstract
concept. It's a constant, persistent drain on
the bottom line. The core metric, which has been
consistently revealed through decades of research,
actually, it's not new then. The effect isn't
new, no. It's the rate that's accelerated. The
research shows approximately $23 to maybe $24
to maybe 24 cents per cow. in lost lifetime profit
occurs for every single 1 % increase in an animal's
inbreeding coefficient. 23 bucks per cow per
1 % inbreeding. Roughly, yeah. And that's lifetime
profit lost. It's not a one -off cost. It's consistent,
it's cumulative, and it persistently drains profitability
throughout a cow's entire productive life. It's
like paying an invisible toll for every single
cow. every year. That's a perfect analogy. An
invisible toll. So for a producer listening right
now, this translates into real money that's just
gone. Year after year. Can you give us some compelling
concrete examples? What does this inbreeding
tax look like for a typical dairy operation?
What kind of financial hit are we talking about?
Absolutely. Let's make it real. Take a 300 cow
herd. If that herd gradually increases its average
inbreeding from, say, a baseline of 5 % up to
12 % over a generation, that's a 7 % increase,
which is happening in many places. Okay, 7 %
increase. That herd is looking at a lifetime
loss accumulated across all those cows of approximately
$48 ,300. Wow. Nearly 50 grand vanished. Yeah.
Now scale it up. Imagine a larger operation,
maybe a 500 cow herd. If that herd averages 12
% inbreeding compared to a similar herd that
maybe managed to maintain, say, 5 % inbreeding.
Okay. That operation is bleeding roughly $80
,500 annually. $80 ,000 a year. Roughly. It's
the silent tax, as you called it, that just compounds
quietly year after year across every single animal
in the herd. It erodes margins without ever sending
you a bill you can easily itemize. And it's not
just hitting one specific area, is it? This inbreeding
tax isn't a single straightforward deduction.
It kind of deconstructs across several key traits
that are absolutely fundamental to a cow's performance
and profitability. Where are these costs hitting
hardest? It's truly multifaceted. It impacts
nearly every aspect of a cow's performance, unfortunately.
Let's break it down. For production traits, we
consistently see a reduction in milk, fat, and
protein yield. Less in the tank. Exactly. Research
indicates a 1 % increase in inbreeding can lead
to a decrease of somewhere between 66 .5 to maybe
82 pounds of milk, about 2 .5 pounds of fat,
and 2 .0 pounds of protein. Per lactation. Per
lactation. Per lactation. And over a cow's lifetime,
that adds up. We're talking a significant loss
of around 790 pounds of lifetime milk just from
that 1 % increase. Wow. Then there's fertility,
right? That's huge. Absolutely. Fertility and
reproduction is a cornerstone of dairy profitability.
Everyone knows that. And inbreeding demonstrably
decreases reproductive performance estimates
range from 3 % to 5 % drop per 1 % inbreeding.
That leads to longer calving intervals. Yep,
about 0 .26 days longer calving interval per
1 % inbreeding. And it means requiring more services
per conception. More straws, more time, more
hassle. Exactly. These are direct heads to your
bottom line. More time, more semen, more labor
tied up just trying to get cows pregnant. So
we're talking less milk, harder breeding, longer
open periods. And I assume it also impacts the
long -term health and, critically, the longevity
of the herd. It cuts short a cow's productive
life, which is where they really start paying
you back. Precisely. You hit the nail on the
head. For longevity and health, each 1 % increase
in inbreeding can shorten a cow's productive
life by anywhere from 6 to 13 days. You're gone.
Just gone. And this translates directly to higher
involuntary culling rates, cows leaving the herd
before you want them to, often for health or
reproductive reasons linked back to this. That
means higher replacement costs. Exactly. Increased
replacement costs because you need to raise or
buy more heifers just to maintain herd size.
And you suffer that loss of revenue from those
mature, high -producing cows who should be your
most efficient milkers. But they're leaving the
herd prematurely. You're basically losing your
prime production years from those animals. I
guess unsettling about this inbreeding tax is
how you describe it as often going unrecognized.
It kind of masquerades as other more visible
farm level problems. That's what makes it so
insidious. It's truly the silent tax, something
that's always there, but almost never gets explicitly
identified on the farm balance sheet. How does
that happen? Well, producers rarely, if ever,
receive an itemized bill that says loss due to
inbreeding. x dollars instead they see symptoms
maybe a few more open cows than expected this
year or a slight but consistent increase in calling
for reproductive failure or maybe milk production
that consistently falls just a bit short of projections
even though they feel they're doing everything
right with nutrition and management so you blame
the feed or the weather or something else exactly
these issues are logically but often incorrectly
attributed to more visible factors nutrition
programs heat stress protocols maybe even the
labor forces compliance with milking or breeding
protocols. So the financial drag from inbreeding
is systematically misdiagnosed at the operational
level. Which prevents any targeted intervention.
Precisely. It's like having a slow, persistent
leak in your pipeline that you just can't quite
pinpoint. It's constantly eroding your efficiency,
but you're busy fixing other things you can actually
see. And some recent Italian research really
underscores just how much we might be underestimating
the actual damage. It suggests that silent tacks
might be even more impactful than we previously
thought. That's a crucial point, and it highlights
the limitations of the older ways we used to
measure this. A 2023 Italian study demonstrated
something really stark. When they used genomic
data, the actual DNA, to assess inbreeding, it
revealed milk reductions of about 61 kilograms
per 1 % inbreeding. Okay, 61 kilos using genomics.
Right. But that was significantly worse than
the 44 kilograms that was predicted by just using
traditional pedigree data for the same animals.
Wow, that's a big difference. It's a huge difference.
It confirms that traditional pedigree -based
methods often underestimate the true genomic
inbreeding by 40 % or even more in some cases.
So the economic cost is actually higher. Exactly.
It means the true economic costs we're talking
about, the actual inbreeding tax you're paying
on farm, is likely even greater than previously
thought based on older pedigree estimates. We
were essentially, like you said before, flying
with a faulty altimeter, thinking the problem
was less severe than it actually was. That's
a truly sobering thought. It means the problem
is not just hidden, but potentially much deeper,
much more costly than we realized. Okay, let's
try and unpack this further. We've talked about
the genetic and economic impacts right there
on the farm, but let's shift focus a bit to the
broader industry structure. Because despite what
often appears to be a wealth of choices for producers,
lots of bulls in the catalogs, genetic diversity
seems to be shrinking overall. This brings us
to what the article calls the architecture of
concentration. The market dynamics and what you
refer to as the elite sire funnel. Yeah. And
what's truly fascinating, maybe even a little
ironic here, is how individual, perfectly rational
decisions made by producers like you, when aggregated
across an entire industry, can inadvertently
lead to a collective long term detriment for
the breed itself. How so? The elite sire funnel
is this really powerful mechanism where everyone.
quite understandably, wants the best genetics
available, right? The highest index bulls. Of
course. You want progress. Exactly. But that
collective desire, especially when it's combined
with current market dynamics, can inadvertently
create this profound concentration problem. It
just pushes us all towards the same narrow genetic
bottleneck. So let's start by laying out that
highly concentrated industry landscape. How big
is this global animal genetics market? And who
are the key players that really dominate it,
especially in dairy? Well, the global animal
genetics market is a significant economic engine.
It's valued at over $6 billion annually, and
it continues to grow pretty steadily. North America
is a major player in that, commanding over, say,
31%, 32 % of that global market share. And dairy
is a big part of that. Oh, yeah. The bovine segment
dairy and beef is the largest and most valuable
component within that market. But what's truly
striking, especially for you listening as a dairy
producer, is the intense concentration on the
supply side. Meaning who sells the semen. Exactly.
We're talking about just a handful of key players
that control the vast majority of the market.
Companies like ST Genetics, Genus Platte, which
owns ABS Global Cemex, and URUS Group LP. Those
are the most prominent names that come up again
and again. And you have some concrete data that
really illustrates this dominance, don't you?
Yeah. Especially when we look at the very top
tier of genetics, the elite bulls. everyone wants
absolutely it's quite stark when you dig into
it if you examine the genomic net merit sire
share meaning which companies bulls are topping
the lists and being used most often as of say
april 2025 data st genetics commands a staggering
53 .5 percent of that market share Just one company.
Over half the elite market. Over half. And then
if you add in Select, Sires, and Cimex to that,
you're looking at roughly 85 % of the elite genetics
market in North America being controlled by just
those three companies. Wow. 85 % from three players.
Yeah. So this isn't just about general market
share. It's a very strong signal that the elite
Cyrus stream, the one everyone is chasing for
maximum genetic gain, effectively runs through
just a few very specific gates. So it's not just
the market structure itself. It's how incentives
align within that structure that leads these
individual, perfectly rational choices to drive
this collective risk. How does value -based pricing,
for instance, play directly into this funnel
effect? It's an incredibly powerful, almost magnetic
mechanism. Value -based pricing directly ties
the cost of the semen straw to a bull's index
ranking, whether that's net merit, NM1, or TPI,
or whatever index is popular. The higher the
rank, the higher the price. Generally, yes. And
this creates an undeniable economic pressure.
Producers acting rationally to maximize their
own herd's profitability are naturally drawn
to those top -ranking bulls on the leaderboard.
I mean, why wouldn't you want the best performing
genetics for your herd, right? Makes perfect
sense on paper. But this collective gravitation
towards the same few top sires inevitably leads
to repeated use of the same genetic lines. And
as an unavoidable side effect, that tightens
pedigree overlap across the entire industry.
It's not... a malicious act by anyone. It's just
rational actors making what they perceive as
the smartest, most immediate economic decision
for their own farm. And beyond just the pricing,
there are also these exclusive contracts and
nucleus herds that further concentrate the most.
sought after genetics, effectively keeping them
within a very tight circle, right? That's another
crucial layer to this concentration puzzle. Things
like early access agreements, VIP semen contracts,
first option rights on progeny. These are pretty
common business practices among the major AI
companies. So they lock up the best stuff early.
Essentially, yes. These arrangements effectively
keep the very best, newest genetics within their
internal pipelines, primarily for those companies'
own nucleus herds. These are the elite herds
they use. to breed the next generation of bulls.
And this creates what we might call a two -speed
market. You've got the nucleus herds racing ahead
on these cutting -edge lines using the newest,
most elite genetics for their own internal genetic
progress and, importantly, to develop the next
generation of top sires they'll sell. And everyone
else. Meanwhile, the broader commercial base,
you know, the everyday producer... often gets
later waves of these genetics, sometimes after
those lines have already begun to saturate the
population somewhat. So it reinforces the dominance
of the big players. It certainly helps reinforce
their market position, yeah. And critically,
it accelerates the rate of inbreeding across
the entire system because those foundational
lines become even more widespread. So in essence,
it sounds like a classic tragedy of the commons
playing out, but this time it's for the bovine
genome itself. That's a really... Everyone's
doing what appears to be best for their own short
-term gain, but it leads to a collective long
-term risk for the entire breed. Precisely. For
an individual producer, choosing the highest
index sire seems like the most logical, profitable
decision in that moment. For an AI company, aggressively
marketing their next chart -topping role makes
perfect business sense and maximizes shareholder
value. But when every actor in the system makes
their own most rational short -term decision,
the collective long -term outcome is this rapid
narrowing of the gene pool and a dangerous increase
in systemic genetic risk. There's just no inherent
market -based incentive for any single actor
to prioritize collective genetic diversity over
their own individual index -driven gain. It's
a structural problem, like you said, not necessarily
a villain story. Exactly. It's baked into the
current system's incentives. This leads directly
to what you call the illusion. of choice. You
know, you might look at a Sire catalog with dozens,
maybe even hundreds of bowls listed from multiple
companies giving this impression of wide diversity.
But a deeper look often reveals something quite
different. Yeah, that's a really important point.
You as a producer might receive catalogs from
several different companies. They're all well
produced, showing lots of bowls, which naturally
gives the impression of a diverse and competitive
marketplace. Lots of options. Right. Looks like
plenty of choice. However. If you do a closer
pedigree analysis, really dig into the family
trees, you often find that a large percentage
of these commercially distinct bulls are actually
sons or maybe grandsons of the same few globally
dominant sires of sons. So they all trace back
to the same few ancestors. Very often, yes. So
while there appears to be commercial diversity,
different bull names, different company codes,
it can mask a severe lack of underlying genetic
diversity. You're often choosing between slight
variations within the same core genetic families
rather than truly diverse unrelated options.
And the impact of this concentration isn't just
theoretical is it? It's actually showing up in
very real regional reality checks across different
parts of the U .S. What are producers experiencing
on the ground because of this? Yeah, we're definitely
seeing clear and concerning patterns emerge in
different regions. For example, in the upper
Midwest, think places like Wisconsin, Minnesota,
you'll find large, well -managed herds, sometimes
hundreds of miles apart, that still show... eerily
similar sire stacks when you look closely at
their pedigrees, even though they might have
different nutritionists, different management
styles, maybe even different breeding advisors
telling them what to use. So it's proof that
everyone's fishing in the same small pond. It's
direct on -farm proof of how just a handful of
popular bull families can dominate selection
decisions regionally simply because everyone
is buying off the same highly concentrated list
of top index sires. Okay, what about other regions?
Well, over to California's Central Valley. Producers
there are battling extreme heat, serious water
scarcity issues, completely different environment.
And they're finding that many of the top index
bulls, the ones optimized perhaps for production
in more moderate climates or confinement systems,
simply weren't bred for their specific climate
challenges. They struggle to find good slick
coat gene options or genuinely heat tolerant
bulls or even pasture efficient outcross options
within that elite commercial stream. Because
those traits aren't weighted as heavily in the
main index. Exactly. Those specific adaptation
traits often aren't showing up high enough. on
the leaderboards to get widespread use, leaving
those producers with fewer suitable choices from
the mainstream suppliers. So those cop performing
bulls on paper aren't always translating to top
performance in every single environment. And
you're seeing dairies quietly trying different
approaches in other regions, too, because of
this disconnect. Precisely. Down in the southeast,
you know, states like Georgia, Florida, they're
dealing with. intense heat, high humidity, significant
parasite pressure. Very different challenges
again. And dairies there are increasingly and
often quite quietly experimenting with crossbreeding
or seeking out genuine outcross sires from different
populations. Because the high input, confinement
optimized, mainstream genetics that dominate
the leaderboards often just don't fit the reality
of their specific environmental challenges. They
need resilience, maybe more than that extra pound
of milk on paper. and they're finding they have
to look outside the most popular genetic lines
to find it. It really sounds like a powerful
disconnect between what's available at the very
top of the leaderboard and what's truly needed
on the ground in some of these diverse, challenging
environments. It certainly seems that way, yeah.
The system rewards one type of cow, but not all
environments suit that type. And that brings
us to a really critical point about how we even
measure this risk. You've pointed out that the
traditional ways we measure inbreeding might
actually be misleading us potentially making
the problem seem less severe than it truly is
and then tied to that we have a stark historical
example that should probably give everyone pause
a real cautionary tale from our own industry's
history. Yeah, what's fascinating here is the
science, how our understanding of measuring inbreeding
has evolved so much. For decades, we relied heavily
on pedigree -based methods, just looking at family
trees. Right. But genomic science has now shown
us a much clearer and often, frankly, much more
alarming picture of the actual genetic landscape
within our herds. And the historical example.
The historical example you're referring to, Pawnee
Farm, our Linda Chief. His story is truly the
ghost in the machine for the dairy industry.
It powerfully highlights the profound lessons
we've learned, or maybe should have learned,
about the hidden, potentially devastating risks
of extreme genetic concentration. Okay, let's
start with measuring what matters. You mentioned
the old standard pedigree -based inbreeding,
or FPED. What exactly is that, and what were
its inherent limitations? Why wasn't it giving
us the full picture? Okay, so FPED, or pedigree
inbreeding, is essentially an estimate based
entirely on the family tree, the known ancestors.
It's defined as the probability that an individual
possesses two alleles at any given gene, that's
two copies of a gene that are identical simply
because they were inherited from a common ancestor
somewhere back in the lineage. So you trace the
lines back. Exactly. You calculate it by meticulously
tracing an animal's lineage back through generations,
looking for those loops where ancestors appear
on. both the sires and dam side. While it was
the best tool we had for a long, long time, Its
accuracy depends entirely on the depth and, crucially,
the completeness of those pedigree records. If
you have missing ancestors or even small errors
in the database, it can lead to a significant
underestimation of the true relatedness between
animals. Garbage in, garbage out, basically.
Somewhat, yeah. And maybe more fundamentally,
FPD is just a statistical expectation, a probability.
It can't account for the actual random process
of Mendelian sampling, you know, how genes actually
get shuffled and passed down during reproduction.
So an animal might get more or less DNA from
an ancestor than predicted. Exactly. An individual
might actually inherit more or less of their
genome from a particular ancestor than the pedigree
-based probability suggests. So FPED is an educated
guess, a good one based on what we knew, but
it can miss a lot of what's truly happening right
there at the DNA level. So it's like trying to
figure out how related two people are just by
looking at their family tree on paper without
actually doing a DNA test. It's helpful, but
it's definitely not the full picture. That analogy
is absolutely spot on. And the new gold standard
you've said is based on genomics looking at runs
of homozygosity or FROH. How does that differ?
And why is it considered so much more robust
and accurate? Right. FROH, or runs of homozygosity,
is like doing that direct genetic scan, that
DNA test. It's a far more direct and therefore
more accurate measure of actual inbreeding. A
run of homozygosity, an ROH, is defined as a
long, continuous segment of an animal's genome
where the alleles inherited from both the sire
and the dam are identical. Okay, long, identical
stretches. Exactly. These long homozygous stretches
occur when an individual inherits the exact same
ancestral chromosome segment from both parents
because of that shared ancestry further back.
FROH is then calculated simply as the total length
of all these ROH segments in an animal's genome
divided by the total length of the genome itself.
So it's a direct measurement, not a probability.
Precisely. It's not a probability or an estimate
based on history. It's a direct empirical measurement
of the actual proportion of an animal's DNA that
is autoxygous meaning, identical by descent.
This makes it far more robust and accurate at
quantifying the true level of inbreeding because
it directly reveals those shared segments of
DNA inherited from common ancestors. And you
mentioned there's a significant measurement gap
between these two methods, FPD and FROH. This
gap has profound economic implications. right?
We were, as you so aptly put it earlier, potentially
flying with a faulty altimeter, underestimating
the real problem. That's a perfect analogy, and
it's truly unsettling when you see the numbers.
Studies consistently show that FROH values are
significantly higher, often much higher, than
the FPED values calculated for the same animals.
How much higher? Well, for example, that 2023
study of Italian Holstein cattle we talked about,
it found an average FPED of 7 % in their population.
But when they measured FROH on the same animals
using genomic data, the average was 16%. 16%.
That's more than double. More than double. And
this isn't an isolated finding. It means pedigree
-based methods often fail to capture a large
portion of the actual homozygosity, the true
inbreeding, that's present in our herds today.
And that gap has huge economic implications.
Huge. The same Italian study modeled inbreeding's
impact on milk production using both methods.
FPED suggested a 263 kilogram milk loss per lactation
for a certain shift in inbreeding percentile.
But FROH, the more accurate measure, showed a
561 kilogram loss for the exact same shift in
percentile based on genomics. Wow. More than
double the predicted loss, too. Exactly. It means
the true economic cost of inbreeding depression.
that tax we keep talking about, is far greater
than what was predicted by pedigree data alone.
We were indeed underreporting the true level
of risk, which inevitably leads to misinformed
breeding decisions. So it's not just that inbreeding
itself is increasing, but the type of inbreeding,
particularly the kind generated in the genomic
era, might be becoming more detrimental. That's
a critical distinction, isn't it? It absolutely
is, because not all inbreeding is created equal
in terms of its immediate impact. Long ROH segments,
those long stretches of identical DNA, are indicators
of recent inbreeding. Meaning the shared ancestor
is close up in the pedigree. Generally, yes.
It means there hasn't been much time, evolutionarily
speaking, for recombination, the natural shuffling
of genetic material during meiosis, to break
up those ancestral chromosome segments. Shorter
ROH segments, on the other hand, are usually
remnants of more ancient inbreeding, further
back in the lineage. And the recent stuff is
worse. Research consistently shows that these
long, recent ROH segments have a more potent
negative effect on production traits, fertility,
and overall health compared to the same amount
of homozygosity coming from shorter, older segments.
And the rapid generation turnover and intense
selection pressure that are characteristic of
the genomic era. They are perfectly designed
to create and then quickly propagate these more
harmful, long ROH segments throughout the population.
It makes the problem potentially even more acute.
than just the overall percentage might suggest.
This brings us right back to that cautionary
tale you mentioned, Pawnee Farm Arlinda Chief.
For listeners who might be unfamiliar, who was
Chief and what was his, well, almost unparalleled
influence on the Holstein breed? Chief. Well,
born back in 1962, he was truly a legend of the
dairy world, arguably one of the single most
impactful sires in the history of any livestock
breed, really. His daughters were just renowned
for their exceptional milk production. They consistently
rewrote the record books and fundamentally changed
the industry's expectations for what a Holstein
cow could produce. He set a new standard. He
absolutely did. And his genetic influence, thanks
primarily to the power of AI, spread like wildfire
across the globe. He directly produced over 16
,000 registered daughters. He sired something
like 500 ,000 granddaughters. And estimates are
over 2 million great -granddaughters. That's
staggering reach. It is. And his sons also became
hugely popular and influential sires in their
own right. Today, even now, decades later, it's
estimated that a staggering 14 -15 % of the entire
modern North American Holstein genome traces
directly back to him. One bull accounts for 15
% of the breed's DNA. Roughly, yes. His genetic
shadow is incredibly long, incredibly wide, and
almost inescapable in many Holstein pedigrees.
It's a testament to his perceived value back
then and the incredible power of AI to propagate
specific genes very quickly. So he was a production
superstar revolutionizing milk yields. But baked
into that unparalleled influence, as you mentioned,
was a hidden ticking time bomb, a genetic defect.
What was it and how did it manifest itself over
time? Yeah, that's the tragic irony of Chief's
story, isn't it? While he brought immense progress
in production, he was also, unknowingly at the
time, a carrier of a lethal recessive genetic
defect. What kind of defect? This defect was
later identified and named Holstein haplotype
1, or HH1. Specifically, it turned out to be
what's called a nonsense mutation in the APAF1
gene. Essentially, it's a critical genetic typo
that prematurely stops the production of a vital
protein. And what does that protein do? This
APAF1 protein is absolutely critical for normal
fetal development, particularly for the central
nervous system. Without it, the fetus can't develop
properly. So it's lethal. It's lethal when homozygous,
yes. Now, as a recessive condition, carriers
like Chief himself appear perfectly normal. They're
healthy, high -performing animals. The problem
only arises if two carriers happen to mate. Right,
the classic recessive inheritance pattern. Exactly.
In that scenario, there's a 25 % chance that
the resulting offspring will inherit two copies
of the mutated APAF1 gene. And that homozygous
condition is fatal. It typically leads to early
embryonic loss or spontaneous abortion, often
happening so early that the producer might not
even realize the cow was pregnant in the first
place. So for decades, this was just a mystery.
Producers would maybe experience higher pregnancy
losses in certain cow families, but it was just
written off as bad luck or maybe some environmental
factor? Pretty much, yeah. For decades, that
higher -than -average pregnancy loss observed
in some of Chief's descendants was an unsolved
puzzle. It was often attributed to various non
-genetic factors or just chalked up to the inherent
difficulties and vagaries of reproduction. It
wasn't linked back directly. Until genomics came
along. Exactly. The genomic era was absolutely
key to finally unraveling this mystery. In the
early 2010s, USDA researchers, using genomic
data from thousands of animals, identified a
specific problematic haplotype, a segment of
DNA on chromosome 5 that was clearly linked to
reduced fertility in Holsteins. They found the
statistical signal. They found the signal. And
then crucially, they painstakingly traced that
specific haplotype directly back through the
pedigrees to Pawnee Farm Arlinda Chief. He was
the source. Wow. With that critical lead, Geneticists
at UC Davis, who happen to have Chief's full
genome sequenced, were able to pinpoint the exact
APAF1 mutation within that haplotype in remarkably
about 24 hours. That's incredible speed. And
what was the estimated impact of this single
defect once they realized what was happening?
both in terms of animal loss and the economic
cost. The economic fallout was just staggering
when they calculated it. The estimated impact
included over half a million spontaneous abortions
worldwide, half a million lost pregnancies, and
approximately $420 million in global economic
losses attributed just to this single defect
carried by one bull. $420 million. That's a catastrophe
by any measure. To think, one bull's hidden genetic
flaw caused such widespread, costly devastation.
It really was. But here's the truly critical
lesson, perhaps the most challenging part of
this story, what you've termed the cultural trap.
Despite those massive quantifiable losses, the
$420 million chief's production upside, the value
he brought through milk, still made him a net
positive sire overall. This set a really dangerous
precedent, didn't it? This is arguably the most
profound and deeply unsettling lesson from the
entire chief saga. Despite causing an estimated
$420 million in direct losses due to embryonic
death, Chief's immense positive genetic contribution,
primarily through the massive milk production
gains he passed on to millions of descendants,
was valued at an estimated $30 billion. $30 billion.
$30 billion in added value versus $420 million
in losses. So on balance, looking purely at the
economics, he was overwhelmingly a net positive
sire. But that created a dangerous precedent.
It really did. It created a situation where a
selection system optimized almost exclusively
for maximizing net gain can tolerate and perhaps
even implicitly reward sires carrying significant
hidden risks. The system heavily weighted by
production traits is designed to maximize overall
net economic gain, not necessarily to preemptively
avoid potential genetic catastrophes. The upside
was just too tempting. A bull -like chief offering
truly revolutionary production potential became
almost irresistible to the industry. His immense
positive value effectively overshadowed, or excused,
the massive but largely hidden negative consequences
of the HH1B effect. It subtly taught the industry
that if the good outweighs the bad, even if the
bad is significantly bad, it's acceptable, maybe
even desirable, in the pursuit of progress. Which
highlights a deep systemic vulnerability, doesn't
it? Yeah. Extreme genetic concentration, like
what we saw happen with Chief, acts as a powerful
detonator for otherwise rare, maybe even benign,
recessive alleles to suddenly become one. Widespread,
costly epidemics. Exactly. That's the perfect
word. Detonator. Deleterious recessive alleles
exist at low frequencies in almost any large
population. Usually they're harmless, just part
of the background genetic noise because the chance
of two carriers mating is very low. But when
a single sire's genes are propagated so intensely
that they eventually account for, say, 14 % of
an entire breed's genome, like with Chief, the
frequency of his specific recessive alleles skyrockets
across that whole population. Making carrier
-to -carrier matings much more likely. Dramatically
more likely. It turns what was once a rare, maybe
theoretical risk, into a widespread, costly epidemic
that causes real economic harm on farms everywhere.
The concentration itself doesn't create the defect,
but it acts as that powerful detonator. turning
a small, localized issue into a potentially breed
-wide problem. And the article warns. Yeah, the
article strongly warns that given the current
levels of genetic concentration we see today
and the narrowing list of truly influential grandsires
in the Holstein breed right now, it's highly
likely that multiple such genetic time bombs
are being primed simultaneously within the population
as we speak. That is a truly chilling thought.
And it really underscores the urgency of this
conversation for every single producer listening
today. It absolutely does. So, okay. We've laid
out the problem, the paradox, the risks, the
history in pretty stark terms. Now let's pivot
towards solutions. What can producers actually
do on their own farms? And what valuable lessons
can we learn from different approaches being
used around the world? This brings us to Pathways
to Genetic Independence Strategies for Diversifying
Your Herd's Future. Right. And that's the crucial
next step, isn't it? Because what's encouraging
here is that the trajectory of relentlessly rising
inbreeding isn't necessarily an inevitable, unchangeable
outcome. We do have alternative blueprints out
there. Models like the Cooperative Breeding Systems
offer really valuable insights into how you can
successfully balance aggressive genetic gain
with long -term diversity and herd sustainability.
And there are things producers can do themselves.
Absolutely. And critically for you, the producer
listening, there are very proactive, practical
on -farm strategies you can implement right now
to take more control of your herd's genetic future
and mitigate some of these risks we've been talking
about. OK, let's start with those alternative
blueprints then. The cooperative model, like
Viking Genetics in Scandinavia, seems to offer
a fundamentally different set of incentives compared
to the North American proprietary model we've
largely been discussing. How does that ownership
structure actually change their whole approach?
It's a really critical distinction both in philosophy
and in practice. Viking Genetics, for instance,
is owned directly by approximately 16 ,000 dairy
farmers across Denmark, Sweden, and Finland.
Owned by the farmers themselves. Exactly. And
that ownership structure fundamentally shifts
the core incentives. Whereas a publicly traded
proprietary company is primarily obligated to
maximize shareholder return, which often translates
into aggressively marketing the few sires topping
those global indices. Right. So the winners.
A farmer -owned cooperative, on the other hand,
is primarily incentivized to maximize the long
-term, holistic profitability and sustainability
of its members' herds. The people who own the
company are the same people using the product
and living with the results. So their goals are
aligned differently. Completely. The cooperative
model naturally favors a more balanced, perhaps
more risk -averse approach because its owners
are the ones who directly bear the costs of things
like inbreeding depression, poor health outcomes,
and reduced longevity right there on their own
farms. Their success is directly tied to the
real -world, long -term success of their members'
POWs. So that fundamental difference in incentives
translates directly into their breeding goals,
which they call the Nordic Total Merit, or NTM.
How does that compare to the heavily production
-weighted North American indices like NMU that
we're so used to seeing? Yeah, the NTM is a radically
different beast, really. It explicitly emphasizes
a much broader, more balanced range of traits,
not just focusing heavily on production like
some other indices tend to do. What kind of traits?
Well, their breeding objectives are carefully
balanced across production, yes, but also health,
reproduction, conformation, and various functional
traits that contribute to longevity and ease
of management. They have a long and really robust
history of collecting extensive data on things
like hoof health, utter health, resistance to
mastitis. Things that cost farmers money. Exactly.
The things that directly impact profitability
beyond just the milk check. And critically, they
integrate these treats directly into their selection
criteria with significant weighting. And they're
looking at sustainability, too. Yeah, what's...
Truly pioneering, I think, is their inclusion
of environmental sustainability traits. They're
actively selecting for improved feed efficiency
and by extension, reduced methane emissions.
They actually treat these as heritable components
in their index. So they're breeding for greener
cows. Essentially, yes. They're building sustainability
directly into the animal's DNA, offering a powerful
pathway to making permanent reductions in the
herd's environmental footprint over time. It's
a much more holistic view, looking way beyond
just the milk pail. And it's not just about what
traits they select for. It sounds like they've
actually built structural safeguards into their
program to proactively prevent inbreeding from
getting out of control, rather than just reacting
to it after the fact. What do those safeguards
look like? Precisely. They are very intentional
about preventing those genetic bottlenecks we
discussed earlier. For instance, they have an
explicit policy to use a large and diverse group
of sires of sons each and every year. More variety
at the top. Exactly. Their Viking Jersey program,
for example, aims to use around 20 different
family lines annually just to ensure they maintain
a broad genetic base. They also enforce strict
usage limits on individual bulls. No single sire
is allowed to produce more than three sons that
go back into their own breeding program. And
a popular bull's active marketing life is typically
limited to maybe six to nine months. To keep
things turning over. Exactly. To ensure constant
genetic rotation and prevent any single bull
from becoming a bull. becoming too dominant too
quickly. Plus, they proactively monitor and manage
inbreeding rates across their populations, aiming
to keep the increase below the FAO's recommended
maximum of 1 % per generation. They even offer
proprietary mating tools, like VicMate, directly
to their farmer members to help manage inbreeding
decisions right there on the farm. It's a really
comprehensive, proactive strategy from top to
bottom. The results seem to speak for themselves,
demonstrating the effectiveness of this more
balanced approach. What does the actual data
show in terms of of their herd health, diversity,
and maybe longevity. Absolutely. The proof is
in the pudding, as they say. A 2019 analysis,
for instance, showed that Viking Jersey heifers
had a projected future inbreeding percentage
of only 4 .7%. That sounds pretty low. It is
remarkably low, especially when you compare it
to the projected 8 .1 % for U .S. Jersey sires
at that time. That significant difference is
directly attributed to the more diverse lineages
and those stringent management practices they
maintain in the Nordic populations. Beyond just
inbreeding levels, Nordic cattle consistently
demonstrate superior fertility metrics, better
overall health indicators, and significantly
improved longevity compared to many of the more
intensively selected North American populations.
They're basically building cows that last longer
and likely cost less in terms of vet bills and
replacement rates over their lifetime. OK, so
that's the cooperative model. But beyond these
types of programs, there's another alternative
pathway that you mentioned is quietly gaining
ground, and that's crossbreeding. For producers
grappling with these inbreeding concerns in their
purebred herds, what does the research say about
the potential economic advantages of strategic
crossbreeding? Yeah, crossbreeding is increasingly
emerging as a really compelling and very practical
economic alternative to sticking strictly with
purebred holstein breeding, especially for producers
who are looking to specifically improve resilience
and maybe reduce some of those input costs. What
does the research show? Research pretty consistently
shows that crossbred dairy cattle often outperform
their purebred contemporaries, particularly for
those crucial functional traits like fertility,
health, and longevity. You get that benefit of
hybrid vigor or heterosis. A comprehensive Swedish
study, for example, looked at systematic crossbreeding,
specifically using Holstein and Swedish red in
rotation, and found that it increased annual
profit margins by a significant 20 to 59 euros
per cow. Just from crossbreeding. from the crossbreeding
system. And this improvement was primarily driven
by things like enhanced fertility, getting cows
pregnant faster and easier, and notably reduced
replacement rates. The culling rate dropped from
39 % in the purebred herds down to a much more
sustainable 30 % in the rotational crossbreeding
systems. That's a huge difference in replacement
costs right there. It really is. That alone can
have a massive impact on your bottom line. And
it's not just dairy -on -dairy crossbreeding
that's gaining traction, right? Yeah. Beef -on
-dairy. seems to be exploding and becoming a
major income stream for many operations. Indeed.
Beef on dairy crossbreeding programs are definitely
seeing strong interest and often command significant
premiums. They're becoming a major profit center
for many dairies. A 2024 Purina survey actually
found that 80 % of dairy farmers reported receiving
$350 to $700 per head more for their beef dairy
cross calves compared to what they'd get for
purebred Holstein bull calves. Wow, that's serious
money. It is. And these programs also offer direct
benefits back on the dairy side, too. Things
like potentially improved conception rates when
using beef semen on certain cows, reduced calving
difficulties, lower stillbirth rates compared
to using some large frame dairy sires. And for
specific challenges like heat stress. Yeah. For
challenges like heat tolerance, crossbreeding
with genetics from naturally heat adapted breeds,
maybe some boss indicus influence or breeds selected
in hot climates can offer much more immediate
and robust solutions than solely relying on the
slower incremental process of genomic selection
for heat tolerance within a purebred population
like Holstein's. It's often a faster path to
getting resilience for that specific trait. You
get a dual benefit of the calf value and the
adaptation. All these insights are incredibly
valuable. looking at co -ops, crossbreeding.
But for the busy producer, maybe sticking with
purebreds for now, what about technology solutions
that might be on the horizon? We're awash in
data these days, but how can that data infrastructure
truly help manage this complex genetic challenge
of balancing gain and inbreeding? This is where
the future truly lies, I believe. The Council
on Dairy Cattle Breeding, or CDCB, maintains
the National Cooperator Database here in the
U .S. And that is absolutely the foundational
asset for everything we do genetically. How big
is it? It contains performance records on over
87 million animals, and it integrates something
like 10 million genotypes now. It is, without
question, the world's largest and most comprehensive
database of its kind for any livestock species.
This massive repository powers all the genetic
tools we currently use, and it's where future
solutions will come from. So what tools exist
now, maybe under the hood? Well, we actually
already have... tools within that system, such
as something called expected future inbreeding,
or EFI. The CDCB uses EFI internally right now.
It essentially measures an animal's average genetic
relationship to the current population. Okay.
And they use it to subtly adjust the published
predicted transmitting abilities, the PTAs, to
account for expected inbreeding depression in
future offspring. It effectively penalizes sires
that are highly related to the current population.
But you're saying that's hidden. Exactly. Here's
the rub. This crucial piece of information, this
EFI adjustment, is currently done behind the
scenes. It's hidden from you, the end user, the
producer, making the mating decision. You don't
see that penalty being applied when you look
at the final index number. So the next frontier
isn't just generating more data. It's about making
that existing data and maybe new calculations,
actionable, visible, and maybe even prescriptive
to the producer. What should we realistically
expect to see in the next, say, 5 to 10 years
that will really empower farmers in this area?
Precisely. Visibility and usability are key.
The goal for the near future, say 2025 to 2030,
is a fundamental shift from these hidden background
adjustments to truly actionable, breeder -facing
dashboards. What would that look like? Well,
we envision relatedness risk dashboards integrated
directly into your everyday herd management software.
These dashboards would clearly show a bull's
EFI number, sure, but also, crucially, for any
mating you propose on screen, it would calculate
and display a precise estimate of the expected
FROH, that accurate genomic inbreeding measure
for the resulting calf. So you'd see the inbreeding
consequence before you make the mating. Exactly.
It makes the tradeoff between the potential genetic
gain from that bull, and the resulting inbreeding
level completely visible right there at the exact
moment you're making the breeding decision. No
more flying blind. And the ultimate goal? The
ultimate goal, maybe a bit further out, is AI
-powered portfolio optimization. Think prescriptive,
multi -objective mating programs. You input your
herd's genomic data, your specific breeding goals,
milk, health, fertility, et cetera, and importantly,
your defined risk tolerance for inbreeding, say,
you tell the system, I don't want any calves
over 8 % ROH. The program would then analyze
all available sires and recommend an optimized
portfolio of bulls to use across your herd to
best meet your goals while staying within your
risk limits. It's a fundamental shift away from
just picking the single best bull toward strategically
engineering the optimal genetic future for your
entire herd, consciously balancing immediate
gains with that crucial long -term resilience.
That sounds like a really powerful future, putting
more control back in the hands of the producer.
Okay, so after this incredibly detailed deep
dive, for a farmer listening today, maybe feeling
a bit overwhelmed but wanting to take action,
what are the truly key takeaways? practical actionable
steps can they implement starting like tomorrow
to navigate this genomic paradox? Yeah, it absolutely
can feel like a lot, but it really boils down
to a few critical practical steps you can take
right now to start reclaiming some genetic independence
and protect your herd's long -term profitability
and resilience. You don't have to wait for future
tech. Okay, first up, it sounds like it's all
about knowing your numbers, right? You have to
calculate your herd's actual genomic inbreeding
level and then critically set a hard target for
it. Don't just let it drift. Exactly. Step one
is know where you stand. You need to leverage
the tools that are already available, likely
through your herd management software or maybe
your breed association or AI company nominator
portals, which link to the CDCB data. Use them
to actually find your herd's average genomic
inbreeding level specifically. Look for that
FROH number if it's available, as that's the
most accurate. And then quantify the cost. Yes.
Then quantify that inbreeding tax for your specific
operation. Do the math. Multiply each percentage
point your herd average is above, say, a baseline
of 5 % FROH by that. $23 figure per cow. That
gives you a real dollar estimate of your current
annual losses due to inbreeding. Seeing that
number can be very motivating. I bet. And then
set a target. And once you have that data, establish
a firm, explicit target for your herd. Maybe
that's keeping the average below 8 % FROH, or
maybe ensuring no individual mating exceeds 10
% FROH. Whatever it is, write it down and force
it at mating time. Don't let breeding decisions
be purely index -driven guesswork when it comes
to inbreeding risk. Make it data -driven. That
makes perfect sense. Okay, step two. It's about
consciously breaking free from that narrow genetic
funnel we discussed earlier. You recommend something
called portfolio breeding, a more strategic,
diversified way to select sires. Yeah, this is
about not putting all your genetic eggs in one
basket. Implement a disciplined, maybe something
like a 40 -20 breeding split as a starting point.
How does that work? 40 -40 -20? Okay, so... Allocate
maybe 40 % of your matings for what you might
call income insurance. Use those proven high
index bulls, the chart toppers, but use them
strategically on your best, most productive cows.
Maybe those in their optimal breeding windows
where you want the highest chance of a great
replacement. Okay, 40 % top index. Then dedicate
another 40 % to balanced performers. Select solid,
reliable bulls, but specifically look for ones
from less related sire families. Maybe slightly
lower index, but still good all around bulls.
This helps maintain steady progress while actively
managing and diluting the overall inbreeding
level in the herd. Right. Good solid bulls, less
related. And the last 20%. And finally, commit
to that last 20 % explicitly to diversity builders.
This means actively, intentionally choosing true
outcrossed genetics, maybe from different breeds
in a crossbreeding system, or maybe sires from
completely unrelated lines within your breed,
even if their index isn't stellar. or perhaps
engaging in strategic beef on dairy here, this
portion is your hedge against those systemic
risks, like a new genetic defect emerging or
unexpected environmental shifts down the road.
And you mentioned thinking about timing, too.
Yeah, you could even think about seasonal timing.
Maybe use more diversity builders in the spring,
test some heat -tolerant outcrosses in the summer
matings, and then blend your index leaders with
balanced performers in the fall. The point is
to build a balanced genetic portfolio over time,
just like you would with your financial investments.
Don't chase just one number. So those outcrossed
doses, the ones in that 20 % maybe, which might
not top the charts on conventional indices, they're
actually incredibly valuable in the long run.
It's about treating them like an insurance premium
for your herd's future resilience, isn't it?
Absolutely. You have to shift your mindset here.
Understand that genuine outcross sires will likely
appear 100, maybe 200 points lower on conventional
indices like NMR. And that's precisely a feature,
not a bug. of their genetic difference. That's
why they're outcrosses. Right. Recognize their
true long -term value. They pay dividends not
necessarily on this month's milk check, but when
environmental stress hits hard, when disease
pressure amounts unexpectedly, or when, heaven
forbid, a hidden recessive defect like CHEFS
HH1 suddenly surfaces in the mainstream lines.
To protect you from the unknowns. Exactly. Prioritize
those long -term savings. Remember, avoiding
just an extra 5 % inbreeding in your herd saves
you roughly $115. per cow over her lifetime.
That $150 saving often beats chasing 100 index
points that never actually make it to your milk
check anyway because of the hidden drag from
that inbreeding tax. That's a powerful calculation.
Okay, fourth point. Producers need to be more
proactive, maybe more vocal in their interactions
with their AI providers and in their overall
sourcing decisions. It's about demanding transparency
and consciously diversifying your genetic suppliers.
Yes, absolutely. Don't be a passive consumer.
Demand transparency from your AI providers. Actively
ask for genomic relationship data or expected
future inbreeding EFI information for the bulls
you're considering using. Ask about the ROH levels
if they track them. Challenge the status quo.
Yeah, challenge restrictive contracts if they
limit your genetic access or lock you into using
only certain sire lines. And importantly, look
beyond just the conventional North American catalogs
from the dominant players. Explore options from
cooperative programs, maybe European breeding
programs known for different trade emphasis,
or look for smaller, specialized AI studs that
might be focused specifically on providing genuine
outcross options. Don't be afraid to shop around.
Exactly. Don't be afraid to negotiate for diversity
bundles or to work with multiple companies to
source the different components of that 40 -40
-20 portfolio we talked about. Remember, you
are the customer, and collective demand from
producers has the power to shape the market and
encourage suppliers. to offer more reverse genetics.
Good point. Finally, number five. It's about
maybe changing what you track and value on your
own farm. Go beyond just looking at milk weights
to truly understand your herd's overall performance
and crucially, its long -term profitability.
Exactly. You need to expand your KPI dashboard
beyond just the bulk tank readings. Monitor those
key performance indicators that reflect resilience
and longevity. Things like daughter pregnancy
rate, DPR, conception rates, days open, average
productive life in the herd, and the actual incidence
rates of costly health events like mastitis,
metritis, lameness. The things that really determine
if a cow is profitable long term. Precisely.
These metrics are absolutely crucial for measuring
the true long -term profitability and the resilience
that's being generated per stall in your barn.
They tell you if your cows are not just producing
high volumes for a short time but are also staying
healthy, breeding back consistently and critically,
staying in the herd for more lactations. Because
that's ultimately where the real sustainable
profit lies in dairying. That's incredibly insightful
and really powerful practical guidance for producers
listening today. OK, if we leave our listeners
with just one final provocative thought today,
something to really mull over after they turn
this off, what would it be? It would probably
be this. The industry's current trajectory towards
ever increasing inbreeding isn't some irreversible
law of nature. It's the result of collective
choices. And those choices can be changed. Accepting
a little less index gain on paper today by consciously
baking in genetic diversity will very often pay
far greater real -world dividends in three years'
time than simply taking another lap around the
same increasingly narrow pedigrees ever will.
So the question is... So the fundamental question
for every producer listening is, is your herd's
genetic portfolio truly built just for today's
leaderboard snapshot? Or is it strategically
constructed for tomorrow's inevitable challenges
and ultimately for long -term resilience and
profitability? A very important question indeed.
Those are truly vital points for anyone in the
dairy business to consider. And this has been
a really enlightening deep dive into a critically
important topic. For more articles and insights
that matter to dairy producers, be sure to visit
the website at www .thebullvine .com. And don't
forget to follow The Bullvine on your favorite
social media platforms as well. Thanks so much
for listening. That's a wrap on today's episode
of The Bullvine Podcast. We've just explored
how the dairy industry's pursuit of genetic perfection
has created a billion -dollar hidden tax that's
bleeding operations nationwide. But more importantly,
we've shown you practical steps to fight back.
Remember, the producers building genetic independence
now, while outcross options are still available,
will have the most resilient and profitable herds
by 2030. Don't let your breeding decisions be
dictated by a system designed to concentrate
power rather than maximize your long -term success.
Make sure to subscribe to The Bullvine Podcast
wherever you listen and share this episode with
fellow dairy producers who need to hear this
message. For more cutting -edge dairy intelligence
and investigative reporting, visit us at www
.thebullvine .com. Until next time, keep questioning
the conventional wisdom and keep building the
future of dairy on your terms. This is The Bullvine,
where we never stop digging for the truth that
matters. to your outreach.