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 back to the Bullvine Podcast,
where we cut through dairy industry noise to
get you the insights that actually matter for
your operation. And today, oh boy, we're diving
deep into a feature piece that's been generating
some serious buzz. It's all about beef on dairy
or BXD programs. This one's got layers and some
surprising financial analysis that's really going
to make farmers rethink how they've been approaching
crossbreeding for premium market access. That's
right. And the context here is just, well, it's
crucial right now. We are seeing market reports
confirm what we all feel in the barns and, frankly,
in the sale ring. Those price spreads between
straight Holsteins and quality beef dairy crosses,
they've widened considerably, especially across
the Midwest. Oh, yeah. Everyone is chasing that
premium. Absolutely. And the demand from packers
for consistent, high -quality BXD product, it's
higher than it's been in years. Exactly. The
potential money is clearly there. But look, this
is where the source material we looked at gets
kind of provocative. The critical question it
raises is this. Why are so many operations failing
to capture the full profit potential even with
these attractive market premiums? And the answer,
well, it fundamentally challenges that basic
ingrained assumption in dairy farming that lowest
input cost automatically guarantees the highest
net profit. It's just not that simple. That's
the core of the dilemma, isn't it? We're going
to unpack what we're calling the beef on dairy
profit paradox. It's this counterintuitive idea
that operations spending the most per calf are
often actually generating the highest net returns,
not just the highest gross, the highest net.
We'll show you the specific data points that
back this finding up. We'll look at why that
low -cost philosophy is, well, actively sabotaging
performance, and critically, how you can avoid
those pitfalls. So if you are participating in
BXD or even just thinking about starting, you
really need to hear the specific details on consistency,
genetics, and timing we're about to cover. Yeah,
stick around for this one. It's important stuff.
Okay, let's unpack this paradox. Let's really
identify the central failure point here. A lot
of operations, they jumped into BXD with a fundamentally
low -cost philosophy. almost treating it like
a side hustle. Right. They treated the resulting
beef crosses like, I don't know, slightly different
Holstein calves. Yeah, maybe a bit beefier, but
handled the same. Exactly. So that means using
standard, sometimes repurposed feeding programs,
standard calf management protocols too. Maybe
worst of all, choosing lower cost beef genetics.
Maybe just using whatever sire was closest or,
you know, the cheapest semen available. Look,
that low cost mindset is totally understandable.
I get it. When you're looking at input margins,
especially with milk prices, every penny saved
seems like a penny earned. But the source material
we dug into notes that this approach is based
on a misunderstanding of what actually drives
the premium. It kind of assumes the premium is
automatic just because the calf has some beef
blood in it. Like magic. It is definitely not
automatic. And the data here is, well, it's pretty
brutal. These low cost operations, they capture
only a tiny fraction of the quality premiums
that are out there. The cattle just don't grade
out. They're not hitting that high choice or
prime range necessary for the big payoff. The
result is that their net benefit after you account
for the increased labor. The semen cost, maybe
some slight management adjustments. It's often
barely positive. Hold on. Let me just translate
that into, you know, farm level economics for
a second. Yeah. We are talking about the difference
between maybe making, say. $40 net per calf on
a marginal low -cost BXD program versus the $200
to even $250 net per calf that these optimized
systems are currently capturing. That's a huge
difference. Massive. So if you're going through
all the hassle of breeding beef, the separate
ID, the marketing challenges, maybe different
housing, and your net return is only marginally
better than sticking with straight Holsteins
and just selling a bobcalf, what's the actual
point of all that extra effort? You've risked
your replacement heifer pool. maybe use semen
on cows that should have stayed dairy, all for
a fragile, low -margin side business. It doesn't
make sense. It doesn't. And that fragility you
mentioned, that's what limits scalability too.
If your net return is marginal, you simply cannot
commit significant capital or labor to expanding
the program. The ROI just isn't reliable. Right.
The source material noted that small and mid
-sized operations relying purely on cost cutting,
they miss the opportunity for reliable, substantial,
positive returns. Returns that are being reliably
captured by their neighbors, making what the
source called... Measured steps. Measured steps.
OK, what does that mean exactly? We're talking
huge tech investments? Not necessarily. Measured
steps, as they defined it, means they aren't
always investing in the most expensive, shiny
new technology. But they are focused intensely
on consistency. Wow, consistency. OK. Better
nutrition right from day one. Good. Utilizing
proven performance track genetics, not just any
beef bowl, and implementing basic systematic
tracking, knowing what works and what doesn't
in their own system. OK, so that's the difference
then. It's the difference between just sort of
hoping the market stays high enough to float
a lower quality animal and building a system
that reliably produces a premium grading animal
almost regardless of minor market fluctuations.
You're building resilience. Precisely. Building
a system, not just chasing a premium. Now, this
leads us straight into what the research highlights
as the, well. the true hidden killer of performance.
And it's not just about cheap genetics, although
that's part of it. It's a total lack of consistency
in the calf's early life nutrition. OK, hold
on. We always focus on feed costs, right? How
much per ton? Yeah, that's the first number everyone
looks at. But the research in this feature piece
shows feed quality consistency matters far, far
more, especially right now when corn and other
major inputs are, relatively speaking, affordable.
I have to push back just a little bit on this,
though. I mean, most farmers I know, they use
established nutritionists. We mix rations based
on standard protein and energy content derived
from feed assays. So what does consistency really
mean here, beyond hitting those basic nutritional
targets on paper? Are we just talking about like
day to day mixing variation? Is that it? That's
definitely part of it, Jake. Yeah. Mixing errors
happen. But the deeper dive here shows the inconsistency
often starts way earlier at the ingredient level
itself. Look at the specific example they really
hammered on. Molasses. OK, yeah. Staple ingredient,
palatability energy binder. Right. And most farmers,
let's be honest, buy the cheapest bulk molasses
they can find. Makes sense on the surface. Standard
practice. But the research cited in the source
material, it revealed that the total sugar content
in generic unbranded cane molasses can vary.
Well, wildly. They documented a range from a
low of thirty nine point two percent total sugars
all the way up to a whopping sixty seven point
three percent in samples taken just across the
Midwest. Oh, wait. Thirty nine percent to six.
67%. Yeah. That's not variability. That's like
there's two completely different products being
sold into the same name. Exactly. How are you
supposed to manage delicate rumen development
in a young calf when the key energy input is
swinging that wildly batch to batch? You can't.
And that kind of huge, unexpected swing in sugar
and likely minerals, too, it just sabotages performance.
The study they cited showed that this inconsistency
in feed quality, these sudden drops or spikes
in key ingredients like sugar, it has been shown
in controlled calf studies to reduce calf starter
intake by up to 18%. 18%. An 18 % reduction in
starter intake. So think about that. You just
invested maybe, say, $100 in high -performance
beef semen. And you've basically sabotaged the
expression of that genetic potential before the
calf is even 60 days old. Yeah. All because your
cheap molasses wasn't. consistent week to week.
Wow. But here's what they're not telling you,
right? And this is the crucial biological nuance,
I think. This isn't just a palatability problem
where the calf maybe doesn't like to taste one
day. It's deeper. Much deeper. The inconsistent
quality fundamentally alters those crucial early
rumen fermentation patterns. And, critically,
the volatile fatty acid. VFA production. Exactly.
Let's get technical just for a moment because
this really is the root of this whole profit
paradox. VFAs, they're the primary energy source
for ruminants, right? And the mix of those VFAs
matters enormously for development. Right. Acetate,
propionate, butyrate. And specifically, quality
controlled consistent molasses increases butyrate
production. Now, why is butyrate so critical
in those first two months of life? Butyrate,
yeah. Because butyrate is the key signal. molecule,
the main driver for the development of the rumen
papillae. Bingo. Think of papillae like little
fingers or like the shag carpet lining the rumen
wall. Good analogy. A calf needs those papillae
to grow long, thick, and fully functional so
they can absorb nutrients efficiently later on,
especially when they transition fully to solid
feed. So if the starter intake is inconsistent
because your molasses quality is all over the
place, the butyrate signal is weak or erratic.
The papillae don't develop fully. Yeah. And that
calf is now essentially permanently hobbled in
terms of its future feed efficiency potential.
Precisely. You are literally losing future feed
efficiency and conversion rate that should happen
way down the line in the finishing lot. The high
-end beef genetics you paid good money for, they
simply cannot express their superior gain potential
if the basic rumen infrastructure, the absorption
surface area is underdeveloped from the start.
Which means? That calf is going to cost more
to finish, take longer, and is less likely to
grade high choice, or prime, double whammy. And
this, I suppose, is where the quality feed companies,
like callback feeds that was mentioned in the
source material, this is where they earn their
money. Absolutely. They maintain strict specifications.
We're talking guaranteed minimum coal sugars,
controlled mineral levels, maybe ash content,
and highly consistent BRICS readings batch after
batch. Right. And for those maybe unfamiliar,
a Brix reading, it's essentially a measure of
the soluble solids content, which is largely
sugar, in the molasses. It's a quick check for
consistency. Consistent Brex readings ensure
consistent energy delivery. So by paying a bit
more for a guaranteed specification, you are
essentially paying for reliability. Predictability.
Exactly. And that reliability translates directly
into stable room and development and predictable
starter intake during the most critical growth
phase. Okay. Okay. Let's translate this back
into farmer language then. Mixing your own rations
or always buying the cheapest bulk ingredient,
it seems cost effective on the invoice. On paper,
yeah. But when you actually factor in the hidden
costs, things like storage losses, your labor,
mixer wagon maintenance, the occasional bad batch
that throws a whole pen off feed. Yeah. And most
critically, that potentially lost performance
due to an 18 % starter intake drop in that key
early development phase. Yeah. The investment
in consistent, quality -controlled calf feed,
even if it's a few dollars more per bag, it can
likely be recouped pretty easily through just
10 -15 % improvements in feed efficiency down
the road. Or better grading. Or better grading,
exactly. You are literally buying a more reliable,
more valuable final product by starting right.
Okay, so that consistency argument, it moves
us squarely into the realm of strategic investment,
doesn't it? Because that $50 you thought you
saved on cheap molasses might have just cost
you $200, maybe more, in lost carcass value later
on. Right. Pennywise, pound foolish, as they
say. Exactly. The source material makes it clear.
The most profitable farms are not the ones cutting
corners everywhere. They are the ones with, and
I'm quoting here, comprehensive data systems,
precision feeding, and systematic breeding strategies.
Okay, but here's the rub. How does a typical
operation, maybe not a mega dairy, justify that
kind of upfront cost? It sounds expensive. It
can be, but the source material is actually compelling
here because it focuses on investments that can
pay for themselves relatively quickly. It's not
all about massive capital outlay. Take genomic
testing for your dairy herd, for example. Okay.
Standard practice for many now, but how does
it fit BXD strategy? We're talking maybe a $50
per head genomic testing cost for your best cows
or maybe even just the heifers. That investment,
the data shows, typically pays for itself within
the first calf crop generated after testing.
Within the first calf crop. How? Because it's
foundational work. It gives you certainty, takes
out the guesswork. You identify with high reliability
your top performing cows or heifers, the ones
with superior genetics for health, fertility,
production traits. Those get bred to a... Okay,
makes sense. Maximize genetic gain where it counts
for the dairy. Exactly. But just as crucially,
you reliably identify the lower -end cows or
heifers. Those with mediocre genetics, maybe
some minor recurring health issues, the ones
you don't want replacements from, those animals
should be instantly and confidently bred to high
-quality, high carcass value beef semen. Okay,
so it eliminates guessing. It minimizes wasted,
expensive beef semen on cows that really should
have produced a replacement heifer. Right. And
it optimizes your future heifer inventory, potentially
letting you keep fewer, better replacements.
Precisely. You spend $50 on a test to make a
far better, maybe $250 or $300 breeding decision
with much higher confidence. It's not just about
one decision either, is it? It's a commitment
to building a more reliable system overall. That's
the key. Strategic investment like this allows
operations to see real grade improvements, meaning
significantly more choice and prime carcasses
coming out of the feedlot. Improvements of maybe
20, 30 percent over a three year period, according
to the analysis. Wow. 20, 30 percent increase
in quality grades. That's significant money.
Huge. And that kind of improvement positions
them for guaranteed success, even when the current
really high scarcity premiums inevitably soften
a bit. Because they've built a reputation, a
track record, for consistent quality that packers
will continue to pay a premium for long term.
They become preferred suppliers. Right. And here's
a really critical point from the research that's
often missed, I think. The nutrition upgrade
focusing on that consistency we talked about
really must apply to all calves on the dairy.
not just the beef crosses. Ah, okay. Not running
two separate programs? No. The source material
really emphasizes that upgrading the entire calf
program creates the stable, high -performance
environment necessary for those expensive beef
genetics to actually express themselves optimally.
Right. You need a consistently high plane of
nutrition for everything. You don't want to try
and manage two separate tiered calf programs.
You manage one excellent calf program, period.
That makes sense. And farmers should absolutely
check out resources from their state. extension
services, too. Things like the Beef Quality Assurance
Program, BQA. Good point. A lot of those resources
are free and can really help standardize protocols
and audit processes to ensure that consistency.
Okay. This logically moves us from the investment
decision itself to the strategic timeline. And
this is where the math gets really unforgiving
in cattle production, isn't it? Because of that
biological lag involved. Yeah. You can't speed
up gestation or growth rates much. Biology sets
the pace. Exactly. Success in the BXD space,
real success. It's built over a deliberate 24
to 36 month timeline. It does not happen overnight.
And you have to be strategic about the phases
within that timeline, right? You can't just jump
in and expect top results immediately. Precisely.
The source material laid out a kind of roadmap.
Phase one is foundation building. That's roughly
the first six months. Okay, what's in that phase?
That's doing the genomic testing we just talked
about. Selecting those proven beef sires with
high carcass value EPDs, not just calving ease.
And critically, auditing and upgrading that calf
nutrition consistency. Getting the molasses right.
Getting the starter right. Got it. Laying the
groundwork. Then comes phase two. Scaling what
works. That's maybe the next 12 months. Here,
you gradually increase the percentage of the
herd bred to beef. But based on reliable data
and confidence gained from phase one, you know
your system can handle it. Makes sense. Don't
go all in until you've proven the basics. And
finally, phase three is optimization. That could
be another 12 months or ongoing. This is where
you're refining your protocols based on actual
feedlot performance data and packer feedback
from those first groups of calves, fine -tuning
the system. Wait, wait, can we just pause on
that biological lag again for a second? Because
this is so critical. Yeah, please do. This is
what makes inaction today so incredibly expensive
down the road. If you're sitting there listening,
maybe on the fence today, debating whether to
spend that $50 on genomic testing or upgrade
to that quality -controlled starter feed, remember
this. The breeding decisions you make today,
right now, they create the calves that will actually
hit the market ready for harvest in late 2027.
Scary thought, isn't it? It is. So if you delay
implementing these quality controls or wait to
select better genetics, you are... actively guaranteeing
that you will miss the window for maximum premium
potential two years from now. The train might
have already left the station. It's a powerful
point. The market opportunity is definitely dynamic.
Now, OK, the very earliest adoption advantages,
those first mover processor relationships established
maybe five, six years ago. Yeah, those are probably
gone. Right. The low hanging fruit. But the opportunity
is still immense. Regional processors are still
actively right now seeking consistent suppliers
who can meet quality specifications reliably
week after week. They crave predictability. They
absolutely crave predictable product, which means
you have to build a predictable system now to
supply it. And building that system, it requires
acknowledging that, you know, regional challenges
really dictate different management strategies,
too. The BXD opportunity plays out very differently
depending on where your farm is located. Yeah,
let's definitely touch on those regional differences.
Let's start in the heart of dairy, the Midwest,
Wisconsin, Minnesota. Processor density there
is generally a huge advantage, right? You often
have multiple marketing options, which gives
you some leverage. True. But the big challenge
there is the weather, specifically the extreme
cold in winter. Crossbred calves, especially
depending on the beef breed used, might require
different management in the cold than straight
Holsteins, which tend to tolerate a wider temperature
range. How so? What kind of adjustments? Well,
you really have to budget for winter housing
adjustments. We're potentially talking about
needing extra bedding for greater nesting scores
in calf hutches or barns. Critical draft protection
becomes even more important. Holsteins often
run a bit hotter metabolically than some beef
crosses. For crossbreds, you might need to adjust
your calf jacket protocols. Maybe keeping them
on longer? or using heavier grades depending
on the breed, and perhaps even investing in some
building modifications like better windbreaks
or improved air exchange controls in those early
calf facilities. It's all about mitigating respiratory
risk associated with cold stress and drafts.
So not huge costs necessarily, but they are necessary
strategic investments to protect the expensive
genetics you just paid for. You don't want to
lose them to pneumonia. Exactly. Pennywise, pound
foolish you get if you skip there. Okay, let's
move out east. Pennsylvania, New York, different
picture there, right? Generally fewer processors,
less density. Yeah, much less density. Which
means those individualized relationships with
structured, source -verified programs become
absolutely crucial. Things like National Beef's
Angus Link program or Tyson's Progressive Beef.
You need to consistently meet their specific,
often rigorous requirements to secure stable
pricing. Which implies rigorous documentation
and tracking on the farm. Absolutely. And environmentally,
the challenge out east shifts from extreme cold
to often those really muggy, humid summers. Right.
Bad for respiratory health. Can be brutal. That
high humidity significantly increases respiratory
challenges in all cabs, but maybe especially
in certain crosses. Some of the Black Angus crosses,
for example, can be less heat tolerant than Holstein's.
So what's the management adaptation there? Producers
really need to factor in enhanced summer health
protocols, maybe more aggressive fly control,
which carries disease, certainly excellent ventilation
to manage heat and humidity stress, especially
during that critical first 60 days. So again,
it's an investment in labor, maybe preventative
medicine, maybe facility upgrades for airflow?
Correct. Different climate, different necessary
investments. Okay, then let's look west. California,
Idaho, big dairy states. Big advantage there
is often the year -round feeding conditions.
Generally more moderate climate, which is a major
plus for consistent growth and getting cattle
to market weight efficiently. Less environmental
stress. Right. The challenge out west, though,
is often scale. Some of the major processors
there require just serious volume to even get
in the door with a supply agreement. Which can
sometimes lock out smaller, more specialized
dairy operations from direct packer access. It
can. However, the flip side is the advantage
of proximity to major Western feedlots, huge
efficient feedlots. That offers different marketing
options beyond just selling direct to the packing
plant. You can potentially sell uniform truckloads
of high quality feeder calves directly into these
large scale finishing operations. So a different
economic model potentially, but still heavily
reliant on producing consistent high -quality
calves that those feedlots want. Quality always
matters. And the common management caveat, really
across all regions that came through in the source
material, is this. Crossbred calves, regardless
of breed, may respond differently to your standard
Holstein health and nutrition protocols, especially
during that critical first 60 days. Which translates
directly to potentially increased labor, more
vigilance, and maybe different treatment strategies
needed. It's not just business as usual. Nope.
Definitely requires adaptation. Okay, that brings
us back maybe to the biggest challenge a producer
faces, especially a mid -sized one. Let's say
a 200 -cow operator listening right now. Is it
really realistic for them to invest in these
comprehensive data systems that the source material
claims are required for top tier success? Isn't
that advice just for the 5 ,000 cow mega dairies?
That's a really great question, because if the
answer is yes, only for mega dairies, then this
whole high premium BXD thing becomes inaccessible
to the vast majority of producers. But the source
material actually emphasizes that comprehensive
data system doesn't necessarily mean you have
to go out and build some expensive proprietary.
database from scratch it means using the tools
that are available strategically leveraging what's
out there okay so what are those strategic tools
for say that smaller operator under 200 cows
for a smaller operator the key phrase from the
analysis was partnering for expertise focus on
excellence and the basics consistency over complexity
and leverage external resources effectively Like
what? That means maybe utilizing cooperative
nutritionists who manage feed consistency protocols
for multiple farms, using readily available third
-party tracking apps on a phone or tablet instead
of building custom software, and really relying
on reputable semen companies that provide detailed,
reliable carcass data EPDs on their sires rather
than just picking the lowest cost bowl off the
list. So using external expertise and data to
guarantee consistency and informed decisions.
Exactly. They don't have to invent it all themselves.
Okay, what about mid -sized operations, say 200
to 500 cows? For them, that staged approach we
talked about earlier is probably crucial. They
can often leverage existing dairy cooperatives
for marketing power and maybe even data aggregation.
And they can look at farm management software
that integrates their existing parlor and breeding
records, but allows them to specifically track
BXD performance metrics, conception rates by
sire, maybe early health events, weaning weights.
Focusing on gradual system improvements, adding
capabilities as they go, rather than a massive
disruptive overhaul all at once. Right. Bite
-sized chunks. And then for the large operations,
over 500 cows. Yeah, for them, the source material
was pretty clear. To get those top -tier net
returns consistently, you probably must build
or invest in truly comprehensive systems, whether
that's sophisticated in -house tracking or adopting
enterprise -level software platforms. Why the
difference at scale? Because... Partial implementation,
like only focusing on genetics but ignoring nutrition
consistency, or vice versa, rarely works well
when you're dealing with large numbers. The inefficiencies
get magnified. To realize those $200, $250 net
returns per calf reliably, They need commitment
and system integration across the board from
breeding decisions through calf rearing, grower
phase, finishing data feedback, all the way through
marketing agreements. So the operations that
are maybe struggling to capture the full premium,
they aren't necessarily doing anything fundamentally
wrong. No, not necessarily. They might just be
optimizing for different constraints, giving
low capital availability or labor shortages,
which unfortunately limits their access to these
emerging highest value quality driven premiums
right now. OK. Let's shift gears slightly and
talk about the future. Because this current high
premium environment, well, it likely won't last
forever at these levels. We can't just react
to today's prices. No, you got to look ahead.
Market cycle, always have, always will. The premiums
are great right now, yeah. And they will likely
hold. Reasonably strong for a while yet, based
on current beef herd numbers, but markets will
moderate eventually. Absolutely. As more and
more producers adopt BXD successfully, that scarcity
premium, the part driven just by lack of supply,
it naturally starts to soften. And the beef cow
herd, while rebuilding slowly, will rebuild eventually.
Plus, there's new packing capacity development
in the works. Right. Those new plants, while
they take years, not months, to come online,
they should eventually alleviate some of the
bottlenecks we've seen in the last few years.
Which likely compresses packer margins and eventually
premiums paid back to the farm. It's the logical
outcome. So the long -term strategy here for
anyone really serious about making BXDE a core
part of their dairy business is to focus relentlessly
on quality differentiation, operational efficiency,
and maybe leveraging technological advantages
where you can. Those are the things that maintain
margins after the easy scarcity premiums fade
away. Exactly. Investing now in feed quality
consistency, in systematic management, improving
your quality through data that creates durable
value that transcends simple market cycles. You're
not just chasing a temporary trend. You're building
a long term, specialized, value added business
line within your dairy. Well put. And alongside
that strategic focus, we have to be. you know,
brutally honest about the risks associated with
this kind of expansion or specialization too.
Good point. What are the key risks? Well, we
talked about the potential for increased labor,
especially during that critical first 60 days
for crossbred calves. That's a real quantifiable
cost you have to budget for. If you're borrowing
capital to expand facilities, maybe you buy new
equipment for precision feeding or data tracking,
you need to keep that debt level conservative.
Financial advisors always recommend maintaining
a reasonable debt -to -asset ratio, especially
in a sector as historically volatile as dairy.
Don't overextend based on today's peak premiums.
Sound advice. What else? And the final, really
critical risk, processor relationships change.
They just do. Yeah, that's a constant worry.
Plant modifications happen. Ownership transitions
occur. Program requirements get tweaked, sometimes
with very little warning. So you need options.
Always have alternatives. Always have a plan
B, maybe even a plan C for marketing your cattle,
even if those alternatives aren't currently your
first choice processor or program. Flexibility
in marketing is just survival in this sector.
OK, so maybe think of it like a quick risk checklist
before diving deeper or expanding. Yeah, exactly.
Like, have I realistically budgeted for the increased
labor? Have I actually checked and verified the
consistency of my calf starter feed ingredients
recently? Do I have at least two viable marketing
channels for these calves? And if you can confidently
answer yes to those, you're much better prepared
for the inevitable market moderation ahead. Right.
But if you're just relying on cheap inputs, guesswork
on genetics, and baking everything on one process
or relationship staying exactly the same forever...
Well, you're building on a fragile foundation.
All right, let's wrap this up then. Let's distill
it down. Our farmer, maybe they just finished
morning milking. Perhaps they are driving to
the feed store right now, feeling the weight
of that biological lag we talked about, maybe
questioning the real cost of inconsistency in
their current program. What are the three absolute
must -know things from this deep dive that they
can actually act on? Okay, insight number one
for immediate action, like this week or this
month, you need to audit your calf nutrition
program specifically for consistency, not just
for the lowest cost per ton. Stop buying those
critical ingredients like molasses or maybe key
protein supplements solely based on the cheapest
bulk price tag. You need to demand and actually
check the consistency documentation. Ask your
supplier for those bricks readings on molasses.
Ask for the guaranteed minimum total sugars.
Ask about sourcing consistency. Ensure you aren't
unknowingly compromising that vital early starter
intake by maybe 10, 15, even 18 percent due to
variable quality you didn't even know about.
That directly sabotages your high value BXD program
before it starts. So pay for the quality controlled
feed, that extra $5 difference per bag or whatever
it is. View it as an investment in predictable
performance, not just an added cost. Absolutely.
OK, insight number two. Insight number two. This
is a medium term strategy. Think next three to
six months. Build a strategic data driven foundation
for your BXD program now. This means actually
starting that 24 to 36 month roadmap today. Don't
wait. Invest that $50 or so per head in genomic
testing for your best cows and heifers to make.
truly informed replacement versus beef decisions.
And simultaneously, select proven beef sires
with documented, reliable, high carcass value
EPDs, not just calving ease. Look at marbling,
ribeye area potential. And the source material
was just unequivocal on this. This upfront investment
in data and genetics pays off quickly through
much better, more profitable breeding decisions
down the line. This is really the difference
between just sort of hoping for a high value
calf and purposefully, systematically creating
one. All said. Okay. And the third insight. And
finally, insight number three. This is the long
-term positioning looking out over the next one
to two years. Position your operation for durable
quality differentiation and efficiency. not just
riding the wave of current scarcity premiums.
Understand that today's really strong premiums
will moderate as BXD adoption increases and the
national beef herd eventually rebuilds. That's
just market economics. So build those systematic
management processes now. Start tracking BXD
-specific data points. Look into implementing
precision feeding where feasible. Document your
health protocols rigorously. Do that so your
future margins depend more on your own operational
efficiency. and your proven ability to deliver
consistent quality and less on just hoping for
tight market supplies forever. And remember that
biological lag. The breeding, feeding, and management
decisions you make this week are literally creating
your farm's market reality in late 2027. You
just can't afford to wait if you want to capture
that value consistently. Well, this has been
another deep dive from the Bullvine podcast.
Look, if this kind of impartial analysis and
frankly, financial reality check helps your operation
succeed in navigating these big structural changes
in the BXD market, then head over to www .thebullvine
.com. We've got more articles there that really
try to tell you what's actually happening in
the dairy industry beyond the headlines. And
seriously, subscribe wherever you get your content,
Spotify, Apple Podcasts, wherever. We're actually
releasing these deep dives twice weekly now because
there's so much changing. And trust me, you really
don't want to miss what we've got coming up next
week. We're going to be focusing specifically
on those new packing capacity developments, the
proposed plants actually coming online, and digging
into what they could mean for regional pricing
differences, especially as some of those older
established processor relationships inevitably
start to shift. It's going to be interesting.