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 we're diving deep into
a feature piece that's been generating some serious
buzz across the industry. We are talking about
decide or decline 2025 and the future of midsize
dairies. This is really one of those articles
that delivers the cold. hard truth. It's got
layers of data and some surprises that are probably
going to make farmers rethink their entire approach
to the coming year. Okay. Yeah. Let's unpack
this immediately. The core message is, well,
it's brutal, but pretty necessary for survival.
2025 demands absolute clarity and commitment.
And we're talking specifically about the farms
that, you know, for decades really represented
the industry standard, those 700 to 1200 cow
operations. They were kind of the benchmark,
the innovators, the stability in the middle.
But that middle has, well, it's kind of evaporated,
hasn't it? And here's where it gets really interesting
for you listening. We aren't just talking about
cost pressures, though those are huge. We're
talking about strategic direction. The sources
we looked at detail. Three viable, proven paths
forward for success. But the single biggest,
most immediate threat to this group, it's indecision.
They're telling farmers in that middle range
exactly what they need to hear and maybe more
importantly, what habits they need to stop, like
right now. Exactly. Let's set the context and
the stakes here because we really need to understand
the magnitude of this squeeze. Historically,
yeah, the midsize farm was the backbone of our
milk supply. Known for adaptability, strong family
involvement. But the ground has fundamentally
shifted, and this group is now facing, well,
probably the steepest climb of all. Yeah, the
squeeze. It's defined by a perfect storm of external
pressures. It makes the challenge directional,
you know, not just economic. Think about the
last couple of years. Rising input costs that
haven't really backed off, the chronic tightening
of the labor market, new regulations demanding
serious capital outlay, and critically, those
rising interest rates that have, what, quadrupled
the cost of servicing debt or financing new stuff.
It just changes the whole definition of sustainability
for this specific group, doesn't it? If you're
running a 900 -cow operation, you've likely inherited
a cost structure designed for a completely different
economic era. And that structure is now, frankly,
becoming fatally inefficient against the competition
at either end. And the stakes just couldn't be
higher. We're not dealing with theories here
like slow attrition or something. We have stark...
Pretty alarming data. Roughly 2 ,800 U .S. dairies
closed in 2024. And the sources confirm the overwhelming
majority of those operations fell squarely into
that squeezed 700 to 1 ,200 cow range. This is,
I mean, it sounds dramatic, but it's like an
extinction level event for the middle if they
don't fundamentally change their operational
model now. That is the reality check we all need.
But let's tease the controversy right away because
the sources didn't just study the failures, right?
They studied the survivors, the ones who successfully
navigated 2024 and are actually positioned for
2025. And they shared a common sort of non -negotiable
thread, ironclad financial clarity. That's right.
The data points specifically to successful dairies
having debt ratios under 30 percent, not 40,
not 50, under 30. This isn't just like a nice
recommendation. It's basically the entry requirement
for survival now. Yeah, I want every listener
to pause right here, maybe pull over if you have
to, and ask yourself that critical question.
Do you know your leverage point, your debt to
asset ratio specifically? Because the source
material is crystal clear. Knowing your financial
limits, especially that debt ratio, dictates
which of the three paths you're even eligible
to consider. If you're already over leveraged,
well, options like path one expansion, they're
probably off the table immediately. Absolutely.
That financial foundation is just critical because
the data clearly shows how the two extremes of
the industry are winning and why the middle is
inherently disadvantaged right now. Okay, let's
jump straight into the numbers that define the
problem. We used USDA and Cornell data to analyze
the two forces really squeezed in the middle.
So on the large end, farms milking over 2 ,000
cows now produce over 50 % of the U .S. milk
supply. But what's crucial isn't just their size,
it's their efficiency advantage. They operate,
on average, 20 -25 % more efficiently than these
mid -sized commercial herds. Wait, wait, hold
on. That 20 -25 %? that's everything isn't it
if i'm running a 900 cal operation that efficiency
gap is basically my entire potential margin gone
i am inherently starting the day almost a quarter
of the way behind the neighbor who just hit 3
000 cows that's a massive structural headwind
that just isn't going away it is brutal and it
forces that question how does that 900 cal producer
bridge that gap without you know adding 1 ,500
cows overnight because they can't just decide
to magically cut 25 % of their feed or labor
costs tomorrow. It doesn't work like that. Exactly.
You just can't compete on pure volume against
that kind of stale advantage. And that's why
the middle gets squeezed from the other side
too. Precisely. So the Cornell Dairy Markets
data shows that farms under 500 cows, they're
succeeding through rigorous specialization in
niche markets. Think organic, grass -fed, hyper
-local marketing models. They aren't focused
on volume at all. They're capturing price premiums,
often earning 30 -60 % above commodity prices
because they found a differentiated revenue stream
that commands real consumer loyalty. So the midsize
farm is really stuck in the worst possible spot,
losing on volume efficiency to the big guys and
stuck in the volatile commodity route without
the price premiums of the niche guys. It's like
they have the complexity and overhead of a large
business, but without the efficiency advantage.
And they lack the simplicity and sort of local
connection of a smaller, specialized farm. That
is the central implication. Yeah. And the data
shows how this implication differs depending
on where you sit within that midsize band. It's
not uniform. Right. Let's break that down a bit.
If you're a smaller mid -size operation, say
750 cows, and you try to just hold steady, well,
the efficiency loss is magnified because you
still carry the cost of significant infrastructure,
a decent parlor, maybe two full -time feeders,
but you don't have the cow volume to really dilute
that fixed cost properly across enough units
of production. Yeah. And conversely, if you're
a larger mid -size operation, maybe 1150 cows,
you're equally squeezed. Yeah. So. The efficiency
loss is magnified whether you choose to expand
passively or contract passively. It bites either
way if you're static. It just forces a strategic,
defined decision. The luxury of standing still,
it's just over. Which brings us nicely to the
three viable paths the source material identified
for survival and hopefully success in 2025. Okay,
path one is expansion with intention. And this
is where we really need to challenge that conventional
wisdom that just adding more cows fixes all problems.
Because it doesn't. This strategy, according
to the sources, only really works in specific
support. We're talking primarily Idaho, Texas,
parts of the southern plains, places where you
have reasonable land values, access to water,
and importantly, processors actively adding demand
and capacity. Yeah, the Idaho Dairymen's Association
reports, I think. milk production up 3 % year
over year, mostly driven by midsize operations
successfully expanding to that 2 ,000 to 2 ,500
cow scale. Now, that sounds great on paper, but
I'm skeptical. Everyone talks expansion. But
what are the real requirements beyond cheap land
and willing banks? We all know the farm down
the road that expanded too fast and, well, ended
up collapsing. Expansion can just be a faster
path to bankruptcy if the groundwork isn't laid
meticulously right. Absolutely. That's why the
sources emphasize that sentimentality just doesn't
cut it they detail three core strengths common
to successful expansion projects and they are
primarily financial and managerial not just operational
okay let's hear them the three core strengths
that differentiate success from potentially disastrous
failure in this expansion strategy first debt
ratios must be under 35 before you even think
about starting the expansion project you have
a leverage only where cash flow already proves
out the model if you're already pushing that
leverage boundary before you break ground the
price Hold on. A 35 % debt ratio? That sounds
extremely aggressive for a capital expansion
project that could easily cost millions. What
happens if interest rates move another point
or two during construction? How does the source
account for that very real risk? That's a great
point. They account for it by stressing cash
flow modeling, not just asset valuation. The
successful operators weren't just looking at
the balance sheet. They were running rigorous
stress tests, showing profitability even with
interest rates maybe 200 basis points higher
than current rates. It's about building a fortress
balance sheet first, then scaling from strength.
Okay, that's a practical and frankly necessary
distinction. resilience first. What's the second
strength? Second, trained management teams. Scaling
up from, say, 900 to 2 ,500 cows is a completely
different business model. It's not just more
of the same. The best expansions, according to
the analysis, pair dedicated family ownership
with experienced outside managers. You need that
external objective expertise to run a system
that's fundamentally different from a hands -on
900 cow farm. Your role shifts, you know, from
being the main operator to being more like a
CEO who manages managers. If you don't have that
management depth ready to go, the increased scale
will likely crush you. That's the management
paradox of expansion, isn't it? Yeah. You multiply
your challenges, your potential points of failure,
faster than your output if you don't have the
human capital in place first. And the third core
strength, which is increasingly critical, nutrient
management foresight. When you expand to that
scale, you face intense public scrutiny and much
higher regulatory thresholds. Planning for robust
nutrient management, whether that's digesters,
advanced separation, securing enough acreage
agreements, that has to happen before construction
begins. It protects your future flexibility and
prevents regulatory nightmares from derailing
the whole operation later on. probably when you're
most financially vulnerable. Right. I remember
the source brought in the magnification principle
here, and it's so critical. They quoted a veteran
Idaho producer who said, scale magnifies everything,
your efficiency and your inefficiency. Let's
talk about the inefficiency for a second. If
your protocols for, say, mastitis treatment or
parlor sanitation are a bit sloppy now at 900
cows, that same sloppy protocol. magified across
2 ,500 cows in a higher -throughput parlor. That
can easily become a quarter -million -dollar
annual loss. Just from dumped milk, wasted antibiotics,
lower throughput, little leaks become big floods.
And that's why the source notes that while you
might achieve labor efficiency gains, maybe 25,
35 percent in new systems, that only actually
materializes if the training and the cow flow
system design happen before construction. If
you build a shiny new double 30 parlor and then
try to figure out the cow flow or train the staff
on the fly, well, you've just magnified your
initial operational chaos into a massive ongoing
financial drag. Exactly. So expansion doesn't
magically create efficiency. It simply reveals
it. amplifies the efficiency where the disasters
lack thereof that was already built into your
business plan and your management discipline.
It has to be ruthless, financially disciplined
expansion, primarily viable out west. Okay, so
that's path one, focused expansion. Now let's
pivot to the rest of the industry, particularly
places like the northeast and the upper Great
Lakes, where high land values and limited resources
mean that kind of large -scale expansion just
isn't a realistic option for most. Right, that
brings us to path two. Right -sizing and smarter
technology. This is the primary alternative for
regions like the Northeast, the Upper Great Lakes,
and also Atlantic Canada. The high cost of land
and population density fundamentally limit massive
growth, so the focus shifts entirely to maximizing
performance over scale. Quality over quantity,
basically. Technology leveling the field. I like
that phrase because, you know, technology used
to be something only the really large farms could
afford to deploy effectively. What's changed
there? Well, it's shifted from primarily being
about data collection, although that's still
important, to more about labor replacement and
precision management, especially feeding and
health monitoring. And we have some compelling
data from the University of Vermont Extension's
2024 Robotic Dairy Study. They looked specifically
at herds between 400 and 600 cows, right in the
smaller end of our target group here. And they
found these herds reduced their labor costs by
about 30 % while maintaining, or in some cases,
even improving milk yield per cow. after upping
robotics okay 30 labor reduction is massive no
doubt but let's translate that in plain english
for the farmer listening who might still be milking
in a tie stall and maybe a small flat parlor
this isn't really about the job being easier
is it it's about completely re -engineering work
that 30 labor reduction means you're probably
moving a 500 from, say, five full -time employees
down to maybe two or three highly skilled technicians.
People focus purely on maintenance, repro, and
health analysis, and the capital expenditure
for robotics is huge. Does the source outline
the managerial capacity shift needed for this?
Or is it just talking tech specs? No, the source
is emphatic on the managerial shift. It points
out that path two absolutely requires the farmer
or the key manager to become a high level data
analyst and a machine supervisor. The time saved
isn't suddenly time off golfing. It's time reallocated
to analyzing the 20 plus data points per cow
per day the robots generate. This allows for
that precision feeding, timely health interventions,
the things that ultimately drive profitability
in a high cost environment. And this holds true
even where prices are. somewhat buffered, right?
Like up in Canada with their supply management
system. Does efficiency still matter as much?
Absolutely. The source confirms this strategy
holds true in Ontario and Quebec too. Producers
there are maximizing returns per kilogram of
quota, specifically using automation and robotics.
As one Ontario nutritionist apparently remarked,
efficiency isn't negotiable just because prices
are stable. It's the only real lever left. They're
optimizing the massive capital they've sunk into
their quota by maximizing productivity per unit
of that allocation. That is a phenomenal insight,
actually. You're not just relying on the commodity
price. You're maximizing the productivity of
the single most expensive asset you own your
quota or maybe your high value land base that
fundamentally changes your capital investment
logic, doesn't it? Completely. And the success
stories bear this out. There's a case study mentioned
of a Vermont dairy. They converted to organic
and installed robotic milking simultaneously.
Big move. They immediately saw their milk price
climb right in line with national organic averages,
landing around $31 .50 per hundredweight. But
the really critical part? the owner said, was
the culture shift. The streamlined routines meant
the owners and key managers could dedicate that
freed up, say, 30 % extra time directly to genetics,
maximizing forage quality, enhancing cow health
protocols, the specific levers that drive margin
in a specialty market like organic. So Path to
Success really hinges on a complete reengineering
of workflows and also the capital investment
logic. It's about becoming a precision -based
farm using technology to enable high -margin
specialization rather than just trying to be
a smaller version of a large commodity operation.
It's a different mindset. Okay, let's move to
Path 3 then. This one is gaining serious traction,
particularly in the commodity -heavy regions
like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and also parts of
eastern Canada. Path three is optimization over
expansion. This is all about refining the economics
within your existing boundaries, maximizing every
single dollar of margin before you even think
about adding a single cow or a major piece of
iron. Right. This is where we follow the money
through just ruthless attention to detail. I
know many farmers, particularly in the heartland,
who are doing this brilliantly. They aren't expanding
the footprint at all. They're expanding the margin
with extreme management discipline. Exactly.
And we have specific benchmarking data from the
sources on the impact. Farms that implemented
these strict optimization strategies, they lifted
their income over feed cost, the IOFC, from the
regional average, which was around $7 .50, up
to $10 per count per day. Whoa, hold on. A $2
.50 per cow per day increase in IOFC. Let's just
put that in perspective. In a 900 cow herd, that
captured roughly $820 ,000 more annual margin.
That's staggering. Tell me, how does that $2
.50 break down? It can't just be one magic bullet,
surely. No, it's definitely not one thing. It's
discipline applied across the board. The sources
broke down that $2 .50 increase into specific
mechanisms. And it demonstrates that these gains
didn't come from some spectacular, expensive
new innovation. They came from fundamental, frankly,
unsexy operational consistency, just doing the
basics exceptionally well. OK, give us the details.
What were they actually doing day to day? All
right. So roughly a $1 of that $2 .50 gain came
from tighter TMR consistency and feed bunk management.
That means ensuring the ration delivered is exactly
what the nutritionist designed, preventing sorting,
maximizing feed efficiency. They were measuring
TMR consistency like three times a week, not
just once a month when the nutritionist showed
up. Constant monitoring. That makes total sense.
Okay. The second biggest source of margin gain
often relates to cow comfort and access, right?
Minimizing stress. Precisely. Another $1 .75
of the gain came from enhanced cow flow and parlor
scheduling, minimizing time away from feed and
rest, and also better feed push -up frequency,
ensuring access to fresh feed 24 -7. Stress costs
you yield. Consistency pays. It's that simple,
but hard to execute day in, day out. Okay, so
that's $1 .75 accounted for. What about the rest?
Got to be repro. You nailed it. The final $1
.75 came from enhanced reproductive consistency.
Reducing days open, getting cows bred back efficiently,
using better heat detection or synchronization
protocols. This is just pure management discipline
applied ruthlessly to the basics. It's about
building predictable profit from predictable
performance, not chasing rainbows. Yeah, this
is really about making every single cow count
and making sure every input dollar is generating
the maximum possible return. It's like you said,
the professionalization of parity. It's a fundamental
shift from expansion thinking to business refinement
thinking. And their revenue stream reflected
this refined focus too. These optimized farms
focused heavily on component value. Consistent
butterfat performance above 4 .0 % was earning
them premiums of $0 .50 to $0 .75 a wheat. When
you're producing commodity milk, those seemingly
small premiums can define whether you sink or
swim in tight years. They add up fast. And we
absolutely have to talk about revenue diversification
here, specifically the strategic use of beef
on dairy genetics. This is becoming a real game
changer for midsize optimization strategies.
The University of Wisconsin Dairy Research from
2025 cited in the source shows this strategy
adding $350, $400 per calf compared to selling
a straight dairy bull calf. That's significant
cash flow. It is a significant and importantly,
a relatively reliable second stream of income
that helps stabilize the bottom line. And it
does it without the farmer having to incur the
massive capital costs of adding a new herd or
a new parlor. Plus, it allows them to be extremely
selective in their replacement heifer selection,
right? Which, over time, improves the genetic
potential and performance of the remaining dairy
herd. Win -win. So, okay, we have three distinct
successful paths identified. Ruthless scale,
precision tech specialization, or fundamentals
optimization. All three work brilliantly, according
to the data. But you absolutely have to choose
one lane and commit fully because trying to stand
between lanes, doing a bit of everything, that
seems to be fatal in this environment. And that
commitment must also be regionally authentic.
Yeah. This was a huge takeaway from the source
material. They stressed that just copy pasting
a plan from across the border or even just across
the state line is a big mistake. Geography really
dictates strategy. Yeah. Like in the West Idaho,
Texas, places like that, the climate, the vast
land availability, the infrastructure capacity,
it naturally favors path one, efficiency, scale,
throughput. If you're not built for scale out
there, you are inherently disadvantaged. It's
just the reality. Whereas in the Midwest and
Ontario, you have these established cooperative
structures, highly developed component pricing
systems. They heavily reward consistency and
quality. That makes path three optimization often
the most risk managed and rewarding option there.
play to the strengths of the system. And then
finally, you look at the Northeast and Quebec.
Locality, transparency, sustainability. These
things really drive brand value and consumer
perception there that directly supports path
to smarter technology and right sizing and allows
for those critical premium pricing models, whether
it's organic, grass fed or just a strong local
brand. The economics and the culture sort of
demand regional authenticity in your strategic
choice. You can't just import a Texas model to
Vermont and expect it to work. Okay, let's talk
about the lessons learned from the painful transition
periods. Because every successful evolution comes
with scars, right? And we need to be realistic
about the capital cushion required to get through
those transitions. Yeah, these scars are where
the practical reality really hits the theoretical
plan hard. The source material gave that stark
example of the Midwestern family who decided
to downsize from 850 cows to 500 after installing
robots. Big strategic shift. They saw their production
drop nearly 15 % for an entire year. That 15
% drop is not just a blip on the radar. That's
a potential pop flow crisis. And the drop occurred
because both the cows and the staff had to adapt
to the new, highly technical workflow. It takes
time. They recovered eventually. But that kind
of transition requires immense patience and critically
strong lender trust. They apparently had to restructure
their operating line and provide monthly stress
reports to their banker detailing exactly how
they were going to bridge that year -long revenue
gap. nerve -wracking stuff. And on the expansion
side, Path 1, the source noted that in Idaho,
several planned expansions actually paused midway
through construction. Why? Because the recent
jump in interest costs bit deeply into their
construction financing, significantly exceeding
their initial estimates. Those producers who
successfully navigated it had one key thing in
common. They went into the project with an extra
contingency fund, often 15 -20 % above the initial
hard construction cost estimate. That cushion
allowed them to absorb the higher interest That
common thread in both cases is clear. Capital
cushion and time. Transition phases nearly always
take longer and cost more than projected on paper.
If you are starting a transition, any of these
three paths, with already thin margins and high
debt, you are, frankly, setting yourself up for
an avoidable failure. You need breathing room.
Which brings us right back to the most dangerous
move of all in 2025, standing still. I hear it
all the time from producers, you know, we thought
doing nothing was the safe move. We'll just wait
until the milk market settles down or maybe rates
fall back. That sentiment, however emotionally
understandable it might be, is financially fatal
today. The Compere Financial Producer Insights
2024 report was explicit about this. It warned
that dairies without defined five -year plans,
the ones who essentially chose to wait and see,
lost, on average, 6 -8 % of their equity annually.
Yeah, and let's detail what that equity loss
actually looks like on the ground. This wasn't
just market fluctuation affecting asset values.
It was real operational decay. It was due to
deferred maintenance on equipment that then breaks
down more frequently, costing uptime and repair
bills. It was a failure to update genetics, falling
behind competitors. And maybe most damagingly,
losing high -quality, reliable staff to competitors
who did invest in better, more efficient systems
and more predictable scheduling. The slow leak.
was killing him. It's not like an acute crisis
where something blows up. It's death by a thousand
cuts when you choose to just stand still in such
a rapidly changing environment. This really is
the core paradox of 2025, isn't it? The biggest
risk today is actually indecision. Waiting today
is fundamentally different than waiting was,
say, a decade ago. We have higher structural
interest rates, much faster technology turnover
cycles, and consumer preferences shifting in
real time that favor specialized products. The
longer a farm hesitates, the more expensive adaptation
becomes, and the wider that 2025 % efficiency
gap gets compared to the leaders. As one Quebec
producer brilliant really powerfully, the 2025
Canadian Dairy XPO, they said, you can borrow
money for cows, not for uncertainty. Clarity
allows you to access capital. Uncertainty just
locks it down. Banks hate uncertainty. And that
Idaho producer who successfully navigated the
expansion, he summed up the risk perfectly, contrasting
his move with the pain some of his neighbors
were feeling. The biggest gamble we took wasn't
adding the new barn. The biggest gamble was the
three years we spent standing still before we
decided to do it. That lost time was the real
cost. wow yeah when the dust settles on 2025
we might remember it less for the milk price
swings and more for the critical management decisions
that were made or not made this year it really
is about clarity, not just capacity anymore.
All right, let's bring this all home then. Our
listener just finished morning milking. Maybe
they're driving to the feed store right now,
thinking through this challenge for their own
operation. Based on that habits of survivors
section in the analysis, what are the three definitive
actionable things they need to know from this
discussion? What are the immediate, medium, and
long -term actionable insights they should be
focusing on? Okay, insight one, immediate action.
This needs to happen like... This week, get ironclad
financial clarity and start measuring like a
business, not just a tradition. You absolutely
need to verify that debt ratio, know it precisely
and aim for under 30 percent and ensure you have
at least three months of operating cash reserves
readily available. Liquidity is king right now.
And crucially, scrutinize every single capital
expenditure. Justify all equipment and facility
upgrades only by measurable, quantifiable efficiency
gains. If it doesn't demonstrably improve your
IOFC or reduce your labor costs per hundredweight,
you should probably hold off for now. Be ruthless.
That financial rigor sets the absolutely essential
foundation. Okay, now for the medium term, say
the next three to six months, this is crucial
for strategic positioning, right? Insight two.
Choose a lane expansion, optimization, or specialization
tech and commit fully to the strategic planning
required for that lane. Don't waffle. If you
choose optimization, path three, you must implement
rigorous IOFC tracking daily, or at least weekly,
focusing relentlessly on TMR consistency and
butterfat performance. These are the marginal
gains that deliver massive, predictable results
over time. If you choose specialization with
tech, path two, you have to begin developing
a detailed capital investment logic. It needs
to specifically detail the projected labor savings,
the expected yield improvement, the payback period
before you even submit the loan application.
You need a bulletproof transition plan, not just
a purchase order for robots. Right, homework
first. And finally, the long -term positioning,
looking out over the next one to two years. How
do they build lasting stability and maybe legacy
into the operation? Insight three. Build stability
through diversification and transparency. Implement
revenue diversification. This is becoming almost
non -negotiable for stability in volatile markets.
Beef on dairy genetics is the key proven option
right now that stabilizes calf income with relatively
low capital outlay. But custom field work or
seriously exploring manure digesters, depending
on your region and resources, are others to explore.
Find a second income stream. And finally, ensure
generational transparency by starting succession
planning now, even if it feels early. The sources
showed farms with these plans already in motion
simply make faster, cleaner business decisions
because everyone has agreed on the future direction
and the acceptable level of risk. It avoids paralysis
later. That really is the ultimate takeaway,
isn't it? The shift facing mid -sized areas isn't
fundamentally about capacity. It's about achieving
clarity in the midst of all this uncertainty.
Clarity first, then action. Absolutely. This
has been another essential deep dive from the
Bullvine podcast. If this kind of rigorous, no
-nonsense analysis helps you bring clarity to
your operation, definitely head over to www .thebullvine
.com. There are more articles there that tell
you what's really happening in dairy. We really
aim to bring you that no -BS industry analysis
you need to navigate the challenging years ahead.
And seriously, subscribe wherever you get your
deep dives. We're releasing episodes twice weekly
now covering different critical topics. And trust
me, you really don't want to miss what we've
got coming next week. We're tackling the hidden
cost of heifer rearing and why industry averages
are probably lying to you. We're going deep into
the financial black hole that replacement stock
can become and how the most successful farms
are managing that cost effectively. It's a big
one. See you next time. Thank you.