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 Bullbine Podcast,
where we cut through dairy industry noise to
get you the insights that actually matter for
your operation. We're focused squarely on actionable
intelligence for you, the producer. And today
we're diving deep into a feature piece that's
been generating some serious buzz across the
industry. This topic has layers and some genuine
surprises, actually, that are going to make smart
farmers rethink how they've been approaching
one of the most persistent and, frankly, costly
problems on the dairy, calf health. We are talking
about the long -awaited introduction of national
genomic evaluations for calf resistance. That's
right. Our mission today is, well, to decode
the hype, the science, and yeah, the skepticism
around CDCB's new genomic calf health evaluations.
These are set to launch in April 2026, so still
a ways off, but the discussion is happening now.
We are asking the $3 ,500 calf question. Will
this new technology actually save you money,
or is it just another extensive layer on top
of what should be basic management? We need to
look at the cold, hard numbers from the devastating
$350 ,000 annual economic hit that many operations
are absorbing to the wildly variable $0 to $40
,000 investment range this might require. Fascinating
here, what really jumps out is that the answer
depends entirely on the farm listening right
now. It really does. This is not a universal
fix. Not by a long shot. If your current management
protocols are broken, if your colostrum management
is, well... inconsistent or if your ventilation
is poor the best genetics in the world won't
save you a dime in fact you'll just waste thousands
on testing seriously but if you're already doing
a great job if you're an elite operator with
mortality rates consistently below four percent
this could be the free ticket to push you into
truly unprecedented performance so we have to
peel back these layers of expectation and yeah
skepticism because the crucial details especially
concerning data contribution and heritability
they're definitely in the fine print Okay, let's
unpack this then. Let's set the stage for why
this is such a critical discussion right now.
Yeah. We must start by defining our terms, just
to be clear. We're talking about the Council
on Dairy Cattle Breeding, or CDCB. That's the
organization responsible for calculating and
distributing genetic evaluations for dairy cattle
in the United States. This is the official system
we're discussing. Correct. And the context here
is... Well, it's brutal. Let's be honest. We
are talking about persistent, decades -long failure
to fully solve a core problem. The industry,
despite massive leaps in management, nutrition,
and technology, still hasn't eliminated unacceptable
levels of calf mortality. It's just a fact. If
you look at the last comprehensive USDA survey
back in 2014, okay, that's a while ago, but pair
that with recent Canadian research, which is
more current, we are still persistently losing
about 6 % of our calves before they ever reach
weaning. 6%. nationally. That is an enormous
amount of loss potential and, frankly, capital.
The 6%. And let's translate that 6 % into something
tangible for the farmer listening right now,
because the stakes here are... Astronomically
high. Replacement heifers are not cheap anymore,
are they? Not at all. The USDA market reports
are consistently putting the value of a quality
replacement heifer in the $3 ,000 to $4 ,000
range, sometimes even higher depending on location
and demand. So when you lose a calf, especially
a promising heifer calf, you are literally watching
several thousand dollars of future revenue and
capital investment just evaporate. You're highlighting
the catastrophic loss there, the direct hit.
And for a typical 1 ,000 cow operation, that
persistent 6 % loss turns into an annual financial
hit that, when you really factor in everything,
can easily exceed $350 ,000. That's why we have
to pay attention to CDCB's upcoming launch. They
are attempting to provide a tool, a genetic tool,
that reduces those losses in the most cost -effective
way possible by selecting for resistance before
the calf is even born. And crucially, they're
targeting the right culprits, right? The root
cause. We know, based on research like Erie et
al., in the Journal of Dairy Science back in
2018, that scours or diarrhea and respiratory
disease account for roughly 75 % of pre -weaning
deaths, three quarters of them. So this new genomic
evaluation, launching in April 2026, aims to
breed genetic resistance specifically to those
two most common causes of mortality. Okay, but
here's where the controversy starts, though,
and where we get into the meat of the bullvine
skepticism, maybe? Is genetics truly the silver
bullet, or is it merely going to amplify the
success of farms that already have stellar, truly
elite management? That cost variability we mentioned
is absolutely key here. We're seeing entry cost
estimates that range from $0, literally a free
trait added to existing tests if you're already
testing, to potentially $40 ,000 depending on
the producer's current practices and whether
they're already engaging in genomic testing through
their Dairy Herd Improvement Association or DHI.
Right. That disparity in entry costs, that zero
versus 40 grand, coupled with the assumption
of management excellence, that's the key challenge
here, isn't it? It really is. If a producer is
struggling with 8 % or 10 % mortality, their
investment dollars need to go toward basic infrastructure
and protocol improvement first. Things like...
Colostrum. Better colostrum quality control,
yeah. Yeah. Improved passive transfer rates,
enhanced ventilation in the calf barn, rigorous
hygiene protocols, basic blocking and tackling.
You need to invest $50 ,000 in management fixes
first, not $40 ,000 in genomic testing that will,
at best, only offer marginal help against deeply
flawed protocols. It just won't work. Exactly.
But flip that coin, if you're already sitting
at 3 % mortality, maybe 4%, and you've squeezed
all the managerial efficiency you can out of
your operation, that $0 price tag suddenly looks
very, very attractive, doesn't it? Absolutely.
This is a tool to potentially push you from 3
% mortality down into that elite enviable 1 -2
% zone. It's an efficiency amplifier for the
already efficient. Okay. Now that we've set the
context and defined the stakes, let's dive straight
into the hard math, the economics of calf mortality
and morbidity. This is where we break down exactly
how that $350 ,000 annual hit is calculated.
Okay. Let's run the numbers step by step. For
that typical 1 ,000 cow dairy, right, you account
for a 6 % pre -weaning mortality rate. Average?
Maybe even a bit conservative for some. You're
looking at losing approximately 54 calves every
single year. 54 potential replacements or sale
animals, gone. That's not just potential profit
loss. That's raw capital loss. And when we calculate
the direct loss, we factor in that replacement
value. Let's use roughly $3 ,500 per potential
heifer just as a working number. Right. That
gives you a direct replacement value loss of
around $189 ,000 annually. Poof. Gone. That's
money that has to be spent to purchase a replacement
or money lost from not selling a valuable animal
you raised. Right. But that's just the direct
loss, the obvious hit. We have to add what we
call the sunk costs. And this is often forgotten,
I think. Yeah, people overlook this. Before those
54 calves died, you had already invested labor,
feed, milk replacer, starter feed, bedding costs,
and critically, vet costs and medication. That's
another, what, $15 ,000 to $20 ,000 of investment
just disappearing into thin air. You paid for
the semen, you paid for the feed, the labor,
the vet call, and you got absolutely zero return.
Zip. And if you are using expensive hygienic
semen, which many are these days, that sunk cost
on the front end is even higher, right? Definitely.
But here is the part that truly hits farmers
harder, I think, because it's the hidden insidious
cost. The one that keeps paying penalties long
after the calf survives. We have to talk about
morbidity, the calves that survive the scours
or the respiratory infection, but are permanently
damaged by the experience. Absolutely. And this
is where the GILF research, specifically Winder
et al. back in 2022, provides. the critical data
point. It's really eye -opening. Sick survivors,
those calves that made it past weaning and eventually
entered the milting string, they produce over
700 kilograms less milk in their first lactation
compared to their counterparts who never got
sick. That is permanent biological damage expressed
as lost yield. It's baked in. 700 kilograms less
milk. That's over 1 ,500 pounds. That's not a
one -time dip. That is a ton of lost production
capacity over her lifetime, isn't it? It is.
And beyond that, those sick survivors are demonstrably
less efficient in the herd. The research shows
that they calve later. dragging down herd efficiency
and increasing the unproductive days in the string.
And crucially, they tend to leave the herd earlier,
meaning their productive longevity is permanently
hampered. They just don't last as long. They
are less productive, less fertile, and less durable,
basically. So when you synthesize all of this,
you take the $189 ,000 direct replacement loss,
the $20 ,000 in sunk costs, and then you factor
in the permanent hit on first lactation performance
and longevity from the dozens, maybe hundreds
of sick survivors. That total annual hit easily
exceeds $350 ,000 for that typical 1 ,000 cow
operation. Easily. And remember, that calculation
is based on a conservative 6 % mortality. If
you're at 8 % or 10%, you're looking at half
a million dollars walking out the door every
year. Maybe more. That's the magnitude of the
problem CDCB is trying to solve with a genomic
solution. And we must acknowledge how this immense
annual cost impacts operations differently. It's
not the same for everyone. If you are a massive
5 ,000 cow operation, you're looking at millions
in annual loss from this. Millions. If you are
a 300 cow operation, your annual loss might be
closer to $100 ,000. Still a huge chunk of change,
though. Absolutely. But the underlying necessity
remains the same. The investment. whether it's
in genomics or management, is only effective
if the foundation is strong. The necessity of
strong management is the non -negotiable prerequisite
for this technology. We have to keep hammering
this point. As we've stressed, genetics will
not salvage broken protocols. It just won't.
If your mortality rate is high, say consistently
above 5%, you have fundamental issues. colostrum
quality, hygiene, ventilation, something. You
simply cannot expect a 2 .6 % genetic resistance
trait to fix an 8 % management problem. It's
mathematically impossible. This technology is
designed to push excellent management into elite
territory, but it will never patch poor fundamentals.
Never. That brings us perfectly to the industry
reality check then. Assuming a producer is doing
a decent job managing well, let's transition
into what exactly the CDCB evaluation is measuring
and importantly, why the numbers we're seeing
are confusing people, specifically around heritability.
Yeah, it's critical to clarify the science here.
We are dealing strictly with genetic predictions
for resistance. That's all it is. We are looking
at the calf's innate inherited ability to cope
with or resist the pathogens that cause scours
and respiratory disease. The data foundation
is truly massive. Which is important to emphasize,
isn't it? This wasn't a small study. No, huge.
The CDCB researchers dug through records spanning
the last decade and were able to analyze over
200 ,000 diarrhea records and nearly 700 ,000
respiratory disease records. 700 ,000. Yeah,
the sheer volume of data tells you just how pervasive
these problems are across the U .S. dairy landscape.
It's everywhere. And this data gives us perspective
on the populations being studied, too. Holsteins
dominated, unsurprisingly, making up about 80
% of the data. Jerseys accounted for about 17%.
And the initial source material notes that Jersey
calves in this data set showed slightly higher
disease rates, 17 .8 % for scours and 23 .7 %
for respiratory disease, compared to 13 .5 %
and 14 .5 % for Holsteins in the same data set.
Now, this isn't a critique of the breed, not
at all. But it demonstrates the need for comprehensive
data across all major breeds for accurate prediction
modeling. We need representation. OK, now let's
talk about the number that made a lot of people
scratch their heads and, frankly, raise some
skepticism. Heritability, often denoted as OSHORE.
We're talking about the genetic contribution
to the observed variation in the trait. How much
is genetics versus everything else? And the resistance
numbers are shockingly low. especially compared
to the production traits we're used to selecting
for, like milk yield. We're talking 2 .6 % heritability
for diarrhea resistance and 2 .2 % for respiratory
disease resistance. Tiny numbers. Yeah, that's
the low heritability challenge. And this is where
we have to pause and really explain why that
number is what it is and why it's still potentially
meaningful. If you're used to selecting for milk
yield, which might be 30 % or 40 % heritable,
maybe even higher for some components, then 2
.6 % sounds like statistical noise, doesn't it?
It sounds like you are fighting an absolutely
massive uphill battle for a minimal genetic gain
that will just be swamped by the environment.
You're right to be skeptical, you know. Heritability
tells you that only 2 .6 % of the variation in
whether a calf gets scours or not is due to its
genetics. That's it. The other 97 .4 % is due
to the environment. Did it get enough high -quality
colostrum quickly? Was the maternity pen clean?
Was the ventilation system working right? What
was the temperature outside? Was the milk replacer
mixed correctly? All those factors, they dominate
the expression of the trait. Right. So why is
CDCB pushing this if the genetic contribution
is so small? Why bother? This is where the sheer
magnitude of the data comes into play. That's
the key. Low heritability means you need a massive
number of records to find that small, faint genetic
signal in the overwhelming environmental noise.
If CDCB had only analyzed, say, 5 ,000 records,
2 .6 % heritability would be completely meaningless.
You couldn't trust it. But because they analyzed
200 ,000 and 700 ,000 records, the statistical
power is there. They can reliably estimate that
small genetic contribution, even if it's tiny.
This allows us to deliver the bovine signature
contrarian analysis here, moving past that initial
skepticism about the low number. Dr. John Cole
from CDCB basically reassured the industry, saying
something like, don't worry too much about the
lower hair ability. It's about getting started
and making progress where we can. Why is that
statement so crucial? Because calf health. unlike
milk production, is intrinsically deeply bound
to environmental factors. So making any reliably
selectable genetic progress, even small progress,
is a win, isn't it? it is but it means we must
temper our expectations though we have to be
realistic this isn't going to magically transform
your calf barn overnight it's just not you are
not going to eliminate scours in one generation
using genetics alone forget it this is going
to be gradual multi -generational progress slow
and steady you might only chip away say 0 .5
of your mortality rate per generation through
genetics maybe less but when you compound that
0 .5 reduction over five to ten years combined
with parallel improvements in management you
have to do both that really starts to add up
to significant savings. It's an accumulation
of marginal gains over time. OK, but what gets
really interesting for me and potentially validates
the entire effort, despite the low heritability,
is the independence benefit. This is huge. The
preliminary research shows that these new calf
health traits appear to be genetically independent
from everything else we select for production,
fertility and longevity. The correlations are
hovering near zero. That is massive. That's the
point producers really need to latch on to. If
that independence holds up long term, it means
we might actually avoid the painful tradeoffs
we've seen plague genetic selection efforts in
the past. We need to clearly define that risk.
We call that an antagonistic correlation. It's
a breeder's nightmare. Yeah, let's use the analogy
suggested in our notes to make this crystal clear
for everyone listening. Think of it like balancing
a high -performing race car, right? When the
industry aggressively boosted the engine, selecting
intensely for high milk yield, We often had to
sacrifice the suspension, which was fertility
and health. Remember those days? Oh, yeah. Big
time. That was the classic antagonistic correlation.
Gaining a point in milk yield often meant losing
a point in reproductive efficiency or daughter
pregnancy rate. It was a massive headache for
decades. So if these calf health traits are truly
independent, genetically speaking, it means we
can select for healthier, more robust calves
without having to sacrifice a point of milk,
a day of reproductive efficiency, or a dolly
of productive life. That's the dream, really.
This becomes an additive benefit. We can stack
genetic improvements. in calf health on top of
existing gains in production and fertility rather
than trading one for the other. And that makes
the low heritability worthwhile because the cost
of selection in terms of sacrificing other important
traits is effectively zero if it holds true.
That makes the investment calculus much more
compelling, doesn't it? Yeah. Assuming that independence
holds. Let's follow the money now. Because this
is where the conversation gets incredibly nuanced
for the individual producer. We established the
$350 ,000 annual loss potential. Now, let's look
at the investment required to tap into this genomic
fix. It truly ranges from $0 to $40 ,000, and
your current genomic status dictates your specific
entry point. It really is the tale of two farms,
maybe even three or four farms. Let's start with
the cheapest option, the best case scenario,
which we call the free ride. This applies if
you are already genomic testing your herd, especially
your heifers. Right. The zero cost applies because
of international precedent. We've seen this happen
in Canada, Australia, and other regions when
new traits are added to the national evaluations.
They're typically rolled into existing and historical
genomic tests at no extra charge to the farmer.
It's just part of the service update. If you've
been testing your heifers for years, you could
potentially have thousands of animals automatically
evaluated for calf health resistance when this
launches in 2020. without writing a new check.
This is a huge bonus, a reward really, for those
early adopters of genomics who already pay the
cost of managing the data flow. That's the reward
for past investment commitment to data. But let's
look at the other extreme, the high cost. This
is for the producer who has never genomic tested
before and decides, OK, the $350 ,000 loss is
too much. I need to go all in immediately. That's
where the $40 ,000 figure comes from for a 1
,000 cow dairy. It's a big number. If you decide
to test the entire cow herd plus all replacement
heifers, that's roughly 1 ,000 animals, maybe
more depending on your replacement rate, at about
$40 per test. That's the bulk of it right there.
$40 a pop adds up fast. It does. And beyond the
direct testing cost, you also have to factor
in potential software upgrades to your herd management
system to handle the data. The labor required
to swab or take tissue samples, ship them, and
accurately log all those results, the data management
time, which isn't insignificant, and maybe a
premium you might pay for genetically superior
semen. Maybe $10 to $15 extra per unit to ensure
you're using the highest -ranked bulls for this
trait. $40 ,000 up front is a huge barrier to
entry for many farms. Which is why I think the
smart middle ground is what most currently untested
producers will likely look at first, or should
look at. If you've never tested, you don't necessarily
need to test the entire 1 ,000 cow milking string
right away. That's overkill to start. Start smaller,
validate the technology on your own farm, and
test only your replacement heifers. That's where
the future genetics are. Anyway, that's maybe,
what, 450 animals annually for a 1 ,000 cow herd?
Something like that. Yeah, around that number.
And that significantly reduces your testing cost,
bringing it closer to $18 ,000 annually, not
$40 ,000 up front. It's less than half the full
herd cost. And you still gain crucial information
for guiding your immediate sire selection and
shaping the genetic future of your herd. Seems
much more practical. But here's the crucial point
for farm economics, the reality check maybe.
Even if you spend $18 ,000, your first year returns
are projected to be modest. Very modest. Maybe
$12 ,000 to $15 ,000 in reduced mortality and
morbidity if things go well. So not even breaking
even year one. No, this is not a short -term
cash injection that pays for itself in six months.
It's a long play. Why is the return so slow then?
Let's break that down. Well, think about it.
You are making genetic decisions today, selecting
bulls based on this new trait. But those decisions
don't manifest as live calves for nine months.
Gestation takes time. Right. And those calves
don't enter the milking string and start generating
revenue or avoiding costs for another 24 months
after birth. Okay, gotcha. So you are not breaking
even on that $18 ,000 investment until 24 to
30 months after you start breeding for the trait.
And that's if everything goes right and your
management protocols are already top -notch.
That requires patience and a long -term strategic
view. Definitely not for the impatient. Exactly.
The models do suggest that the annual benefits
only really start to shine, really start accumulating
by year five. That's when you're milking a significant
number of daughters from your highly ranked health
bulls. By that time, projections hit annual recurring
benefits of around $60 ,000 for that 1 ,000 cow
herd. That's a significant return eventually.
But, and it's a big but, that $60 ,000 payoff
by year five Comes with the massive caveat we
already stressed, right? Always. It assumes you
are operating with solid, clean management protocols
already, meaning your mortality is already down
in the 3 -4 % range. For every percentage point
higher your mortality is, say you are consistently
at 7%, you should assume those financial projections
are dramatically inflated for your situation.
Because the genetic improvement simply won't
stick, it won't express itself fully in a poor
management environment. That's it. This technology
amplifies existing efficiency. It does not create
it from scratch. It's an elite tool for elite
operations, or at least for those mid -level
operations that are absolutely dedicated to fundamental
management improvement first, get the basics
right, then add the genetics, which leads us
nicely into case studies and smart entry strategies
because we need to talk about the existing competition
in the field, the Zoetis factor. Yes, the Zoetis
factor is critically important here because we
are not waiting in a vacuum for CDCB's launch
in April 2026. Yes. That's key. Zoetis has been
offering proprietary wellness trade evaluations
for many years, dating all the way back to 2016,
I believe. That's right. They have a nearly decade
-long head start in this specific space. Yeah,
their system, which draws from hundreds of thousands
of their own proprietary records, has been integrated
into major AI stud catalogs for years now. Farmers
using certain bull studs will already see Zoetis
Wellness trait numbers. And it works reasonably
well, particularly for those large operations,
often in the upper Midwest and California maybe,
that have been early adopters of their proprietary
testing platforms like Clarified. So why bother
with CDCB then if Zoetis is already integrated
and seems to work? That's a fair question. It
is. Well, there are several compelling reasons.
First, CDCB is drawing from a broader national
population through the DHI system. We're talking
millions of genotypes potentially from over 15
,000 herds across the country. That gives it
potentially wider applicability, maybe more relevance
to more diverse management systems. Second, the
CDCB methodology is transparent, it's peer -reviewed,
and it's standardized across the industry. Everyone
gets the same calculation. Third, and this is
big for many farms, if you're already participating
in DHI testing, there's likely no premium pricing
attached to the data retrieval for the CDCB evaluation.
It's integrated into the national evaluation
service you might already be paying for indirectly.
Okay, but there's a discrepancy that producers
absolutely must be aware of. The heritability
numbers don't match up between the two systems.
That's confusing. Zoetis reports about 4 .5 %
heritability for scours resistance in their system,
whereas the official CDCB number we discussed
is 2 .6%. That is a significant difference in
perceived genetic influence, almost double. It
is puzzling, isn't it? The source material we
looked at suggests this is likely due to different
statistical approaches, maybe different ways
they model the environmental effects. Or perhaps
Zoetis is drawing from a population, those early
adopter herds, that has managed environmental
risk in a more standardized way already, thus
allowing the genetic signal to be isolated more
clearly in their data. Could be. It's not necessarily
a contradiction, maybe, but it means they are
looking at the trait through slightly different
lenses, using different data pools and models.
Practical implication for the farmer listening
is this. Once CDCB launches in 2026, smart producers
will compare the bull rankings between the two
systems side by side. It's crucial. If they align,
meaning bull A is ranked high for calf health
by both Zoetis and CDCB Great, you have independent
validation. More confidence. But if they diverge,
where bull A is high on zoetis but just average
on CDCB or vice versa, that's when you have to
start scratching your head and figuring out which
system predicts best for your specific barn environment,
your management. This comparison is a free, powerful
validation step you absolutely should take. Speaking
of smart producers and practical steps, let's
review those four practical strategies for entering
the genomic calf health space, particularly for
those farms who have never tested before. The
goal here is risk management and on -farm validation.
Okay. We covered option one, the free ride. If
you're already testing, you're probably set.
Just confirm it. For everyone else, we really
advocate starting small and validating. So option
two is the heifer -only testing. We talked about
that $18 ,000 annual investment for a 1 ,000
cow herd. Testing your 450 or so replacement
heifers immediately gives you data on your future
milking string and allows you to use those evaluations
in your immediate breeding decisions. This is
probably the recommended entry point for most
solid mid -level farms with good management already
in place. Then there's option three, the gradual
build. This is excellent if you want to spread
the cost out and truly validate the technology
on your own farm before expanding significantly.
Maybe test just 100 to 150 animals per year,
heifers preferably. That costs maybe $4 ,000
to $6 ,000 annually, which is much more manageable
financially than $18 ,000 or $40 ,000 all at
once. Much easier cash flow. Exactly. If it works
well on those small cohorts after a couple of
years, then you can ramp up. If it doesn't show
a benefit in your system, you minimize your financial
loss. This is the most conservative risk -averse
approach. And finally, option four, the bulls
-only approach. Zero testing costs on the female
side. You simply select sires based purely on
their CDCB calf health evaluations when they
launch, assuming the AI studs publish them clearly.
While financially easy, this is definitely suboptimal
for making rapid genetic progress, isn't it?
Oh, for sure. You can bring in better genetics
through the sires, but you won't know which of
your cows are genetically better or worse for
this trait. So you can't do targeted corrective
mating to maximize the genetic gain because you
lack data on the maternal side. You're flying
half blind. Exactly. It's a cheap entry, yes,
but it leaves a massive amount of potential gain
on the table. The sweet spot, we'd argue, is
probably that heifer -only testing to get the
foundational data needed for both selection and,
crucially, validation. Okay, let's move to future
implications now, because this is the challenge
that nobody in the industry really wants to talk
about openly, and it's the critical issue of
data contribution and the risk of selection bias.
If we don't get this right, the national evaluation
risks failing a large segment of the dairy industry,
the very farms that might need it most. This
is the most serious concern for me personally,
because it directly impacts whether the prediction
model is actually relevant to the local producer
listening right now, wherever they might be.
The Canadian research by Renault et al. in 2023,
which is probably similar in the U .S., estimated
that only about 12 % of dairy farms systematically
record calf health data in a usable format. Only
12%. Think about that. 88 % of farms are essentially
invisible to the geneticists building these models.
Their data isn't in the system. And who are those
12 % that are contributing data? Let's be real.
They're typically the large, often very well
-managed operations. They have dedicated calf
managers. They use sophisticated automated record
systems like Dairy Comp 305 or PC Dart. And they
probably already have lower than average mortality
rates because they focus on it. This creates
massive selection bias. The evaluation is built
entirely on the data coming from the genetic
and managerial elite. What's fascinating and
worrying here is that the genetic evaluations
end up being optimized naturally for farms that
look exactly like the ones contributing the data.
It makes sense statistically, but it's a problem
practically. Let's break down the practical implication.
If, say, 80 % of the contributed health data
comes from large freestyle operations in Idaho
or California, where calves are housed in individual
hutches under specific, often very controlled,
temperature protocols, then the prediction model
is inherently designed to work best in that specific
environmental context. Right. So if you're a
smaller operation, With a completely different
management style, say, a seasonal grazing operation
up in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom, where calves
might be raised in small groups on pasture with
different pathogen exposure. Or a traditional
tie stall barn in rural Pennsylvania with totally
different ventilation dynamics and maybe older
facilities. The genomic prediction for a particular
bull based on data from Idaho freestalls might
simply fail to translate into better calf health
on your farm. It might not work. The genetic
merit that works in a highly controlled, high
input freestall environment might not express
itself or might not even be beneficial in a lower
input seasonal grazing environment because the
environmental stressors, the challenges are fundamentally
different. This raises the absolutely critical
need for broader data sharing. It's essential.
For the evaluations to become truly representative
and locally validated across diverse systems,
producers simply must actively authorize their
dairy records processing center, the DRPC, to
transmit their health data to CDCB. And they
need to use a specific mechanism known as Format
6 for health data. And we should probably define
what those acronyms mean for the average producer
listening because it can sound like jargon. The
DRPC is the entity that processes your official
DHI records. They're the keepers of that massive
repository of data about your cows' production,
reproduction, etc. Format 6 is simply the standardized
digital format used to transmit specific animal
health event codes, like a code for scours, often
O1, or respiratory disease, O2, from your farm
management software, like DairyComp, to the National
Genetic Database at CDCB. It is the crucial digital
bridge between your specific farm data and the
national CDCB model. Without it, your farm's
experience doesn't count. And we know, based
on conversations with DRPC folks and industry
insiders, that participation in Format 6 data
sharing is currently, well, lower than ideal
is the polite way to put it. Yeah, very low in
some areas. It's a vicious cycle, isn't it? If
you're a smaller farm or have a unique system,
you desperately need the data to be validated
in your local environment so the predictions
work for you. But if you don't contribute your
data, the system will never include your environment
in the validation pool, and the bias just persists
or gets worse. And this risk of selection bias
also ties into a wider industry gap we've unfortunately
seen develop since genomic selection really took
off back in 2009. Research consistently shows
that large herds, those over 500 cows, have progressed
genetically much faster than small herds, those
under 100 cows. The genetic merit gap between
large and small herds has widened significantly.
not narrowed over the last 15 years. And this
new calf health trait, as important as it is,
risks widening that gap even further. Why? Because
successful implementation requires two things
that aren't equally distributed. First, detailed,
rigorous, consistent record keeping, which takes
time and often technology. And second, often
that initial investment, that $18 ,000 maybe
for heifer testing, which is a bigger hurdle
for smaller operations. The massive specialized
calf raising facilities in places like the central
sands of Wisconsin or the huge automated dairies
down in Texas are simply better positions structurally
and financially to benefit more rapidly from
this. than, say, the traditional 80 -cow mixed
farms in Michigan or Ohio. Right. It's those
mid -sized operations, maybe the 300 to 800 -cow
herds. They're the ones who truly have to wrestle
with this decision the hardest, I think. They
have significant potential losses, but they also
face that real risk. Is the $18 ,000 investment
worth the risk of selection bias if my specific
environment isn't well represented in the data
model yet? They need to be extremely cautious,
ask the right questions, and they absolutely
need to implement rigorous... That transition
leads us perfectly into our contrary intake section.
How exactly do you know if this technology is
actually working for your specific farm, given
all this potential for data bias and the fundamentally
low heritability we discussed? The answer, bluntly,
is that the technology requires obsessive record
keeping, and we mean that literally. No cutting
corners. That's the first hurdle, and it's a
big one for many farms. If you want to use genetics
to drive improvement in a low heritability trait
like this, you need a quantifiable baseline,
period. You cannot manage what you don't measure.
It's an old saying, but it's absolutely true
here. That means you must document every health
event consistently, not just when a calf dies,
but every single time you treat for scours, every
diagnosed case of pneumonia, every time you use
an antibiotic for a calf issue. Log it all. And
crucially, you must also document the healthy
calves accurately to create a necessary control
baseline for comparison. You need denominators,
not just numerators. If you can't consistently
record everything accurately, you'll never be
able to reliably validate whether the genetics
are actually making a difference on your specific
operation. You'll just be guessing. OK, so assuming
you can commit to that level of record keeping,
we need concrete checkpoints. Let's outline the
necessary validation timeline that every farmer
should adopt if they decide to invest. time or
money in this technology, starting from the April
2026 launch. Right. The first critical checkpoint
comes around 12 to 18 months after you start
consistently using the top health sires. So we're
looking at late 2027 or early 2028, depending
on your calving interval and when you adopt it.
This is when you'll have enough calves born from
the genetically superior bulls to make a fair
comparison against the calves born during the
same period from your average sires or your historical
baseline if your records are good. What is the
target you should be looking for then? What's
a realistic expectation for improvement given
the low 2 -3 % heritability? You should be aiming
to see the calves from your top genetic health
sires, showing maybe 20 % to 30 % lower disease
incidence rates compared to the calves from your
average sires. Note we set the target relatively
high, a 20 -30 % reduction in... incidents, not
overall mortality, because of the huge economic
value of avoiding morbidity, the sick but survived
calves we talked about. Reducing treatments saves
money directly. If you run that comparison on
your own data, and there's no measurable difference
in scours or respiratory incidents, if the rates
are identical between the high genetic group
and the average group, then the prediction model
is likely not working effectively for your specific
barn environment, and you need to adjust your
breeding strategy immediately. Don't keep throwing
money at it. And we also need to watch for those
unexpected negative correlations at this 12 to
18 month checkpoint, right? Yeah. The unintended
consequences. Absolutely critical. Are those
genetically healthier calves perhaps growing
slower than expected? Are their birth weights
creeping up too high, leading to more calving
difficulty for the heifers? Genomic selection,
if applied narrowly or incorrectly, can create
new problems just as easily as it solves old
ones, particularly if the selection index isn't
balanced or if the trait is linked to unin...
intended metabolic pathways we don't fully understand
yet. Watch closely. Okay, the second checkpoint
is around 24 to 30 months after implementation.
This is your financial check. Time to look at
the dollars and cents. You should be approaching
that break -even point we discussed earlier,
especially if you made an initial investment
like the $18k heifer testing. You need to calculate
not just potentially reduced mortality which
is hard to prove statistically in the short term,
but more tangibly, reduce treatment costs and
reduce labor costs associated with sick calves.
Are you buying less medicine? Spending less time
treating? Unmeasurable savings. If you're still
deep in the red financially after 30 months,
it might be time to seriously consider pulling
the plug on the specific genomic investment strategy
and redirecting that capital back into core management
fixes or other technologies with faster ROI.
The return must be demonstrable within about
30 months. and the ultimate definitive test comes
later around 36 to 42 months that's three to
three and a half years out this is when those
first heifers conceived using your high health
sires actually enter the milking string this
is when you check their actual performance production
and fertility especially against their herd mates
born from average sires during the same period
Exactly. If their production is significantly
below their genetic predictions, or if their
fertility is tanking, if they're failing to breed
back on time compared to their contemporaries,
then you're seeing those dreaded antagonistic
correlations emerge in your herd. That's proof.
That means the genetic improvement you thought
you were getting in calf health came at a hidden,
economically damaging cost in another, potentially
more valuable trait like milk or reproduction.
If you see that pattern emerge, you must aggressively
adjust your sire selection index or your emphasis
on this trait because the promised independence
benefit failed to hold true in your specific
herd environment or with the bulls you chose.
So given all these risks, the low heritability,
the data bias, the need for obsessive records,
a long validation timeline, the potential negative
correlations, the practical implementation strategy
must be fundamentally conservative, shouldn't
it? You don't just jump in feet first. Absolutely
not. That would be foolish. When April 2026 rolls
around and these evaluations become available,
our advice would be use the top -ranked calf
health sires for maybe only 20 % to 30 % of your
breedings initially, not 100%. That's enough
to establish a good, statistically relevant validation
cohort on your farm without betting the entire
future genetic base of your herd on an unproven
concept in your specific environment. Furthermore,
a crucial point, stick with proven high -reliability
bulls, especially at first. Good point. This
is not the time to gamble on unproven young sires
with low reliability for this new low heritability
trait. We need reliability estimates well above
50%, preferably higher, for this new trait to
have even moderate confidence in the prediction
actually working. Use proven sires. Okay. Before
any producer commits to the $18 ,000 or $40 ,000
investment, Or frankly, even if they're getting
the evaluations for free as part of their existing
testing, they must ask their dairy records processing
center, their DRPC, these three key questions.
Get answers before 2026. Question one, and this
addresses the selection bias risk directly. Ask
them, what percentage of herds in our specific
region are actually contributing calf health
data using Format 6 right now? Be specific about
your region. If that number is really low, say
below 20 % or even 30 % in your area, you should
have major skepticism about whether the national
prediction is robust and relevant for your local
climate, housing, and management environment.
If very few local farms are contributing, the
prediction might be essentially irrelevant to
you, statistically speaking. Good question. Question
two, ask them, can you show me a side -by -side
comparison of the upcoming CDCB rankings and
the current Zoetis Wellness rankings for the
bulls we are currently using or considering?
This tells you whether the two biggest players
in the space agree or disagree on the genetic
merit for health for specific bulls. Significant
disagreement requires extreme caution and further
investigation. And question three, the practical
one. What is the actual process, the steps involved,
and the potential cost for setting up format
six health data transmission from our specific
herd management software? If you use a system
like Dairy Comp 305, it might require different
modules, different setup costs, or different
technician visits than if you use PC DART or
another system. Know your potential upgrade path
and labor costs up front to ensure you can provide
the consistent, accurate data needed for your
own validation efforts down the road. And here's
the bonus question, maybe the most important
one for those already testing. Get it in writing,
if possible, from your DRPC or DHI center. If
I'm already genomic testing my heifers, will
my historical tests automatically receive these
new CDCB calf health evaluations in April 2026
at no extra charge based on expected international
precedent? Yeah, nail that down. Get that assurance
now so you know if you are indeed getting the
free ride or if there might be unexpected fees
associated with accessing the new data on old
samples. Okay, that sets up our actionable insights
segment perfectly. Covered a ton of ground. are
listening, just finished morning chores. They're
driving to the feed store, maybe listening to
this. What are the three things they need to
take action on from this entire discussion? Immediate,
medium, and long -term actions. Okay. Immediate
action. And this is for this week, right now.
Perform an honest, rigorous, data -driven assessment
of your current pre -weaning mortality rate.
Be brutally honest. If it's consistently over
5%, your investment focus, your time and money
must be only on management fixes first. Full
stop. Colostrum quality in delivery. Ventilation,
sanitation protocols, maybe staffing or training.
Genetics are wasted money if you're above 5%.
Stop looking at the bull catalog and start looking
critically at your calf barn protocols and environment.
Second immediate action, and this is for everyone
listening, regardless of your current mortality
rate. Call your dairy records processing center
today or this week. Authorize Format 6 data transmission
for calf health records. If you haven't already,
find out how to do it. You need to start contributing
to the national data pool to help improve its
accuracy and relevance for everyone, including
yourself eventually. And you need to ensure your
own data systems are ready for the transition
if you plan to use these evaluations. This step
costs nothing but time and is vital for the industry's
future success with this. Okay, medium -term
strategy. Looking out over the next three to
six months, maybe planning for next year's budget
cycle. If your mortality is already in that sweet
spot, say 3 % to 4 % consistently, and you are
not currently genomic testing, you need to seriously
consider budgeting for that $18 ,000 heifer -only
testing option. Think of it as your validation
ticket, your entry fee to see if this works for
you. At the same time, starting now, establish
those consistent, detailed, obsessive record
-keeping protocols for all calf health events
immediately. Include healthy calves as controls.
You need a clean, consistent baseline before
the evaluations even launch. And the long -term
positioning, looking ahead to the April 2026
launch and the years beyond. When the evaluations
finally drop, integrate them cautiously and strategically.
Don't go all in. Only use top -ranked calf health
sires for maybe 20 % to 30 % of your breedings
initially. And as we said, always stick to sires
with high reliability, preferably above 50 %
or even higher for this trait, especially in
the first couple of years. Select defensively.
And maybe most importantly in the long term,
commit mentally and operationally to that 18
-month and 36 -month validation checkpoint schedule
we outlined. You have to track your own results.
You must know. based on data from your own farm,
whether the technology is actually working in
your environment and whether you are seeing that
targeted 20 -30 % reduction in disease incidence
before you expand its use further. If you don't
validate rigorously, you risk throwing thousands
of dollars year after year at a technology that
might be biased against your specific farm environment
or worse, one that may be introducing antagonistic
correlations you didn't anticipate and are hurting
your bottom line elsewhere. This has been a massive
deep dive, hasn't it, into what is arguably the
most economically impactful new genomic trait
we've seen introduced since maybe longevity or
fertility traits came online a decade or more
ago. It tackles that potential $350 ,000 problem
head on, which is huge. The technology is real.
The science seems sound. And the potential $60
,000 annual benefit by year five is certainly
compelling for well -managed herds. But its success
hinges entirely on matching the tool to the specific
farm situation and, critically, having those
robust management basics locked down first. It's
not magic. If you have questions about this,
or if you want to share your validation journey
once these traits launch in 2026, send your feedback
to us at editorial at thebullvine .com. We'd
love to hear producer experiences. And seriously,
subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We're
releasing episodes twice weekly now covering
timely topics. Head over to www .thebullvine
.com for more analysis that challenges the status
quo and provides actionable advice based on the
hard numbers, not the hype. And trust me, you
don't want to miss what we've got coming next
week. We'll be talking about the structural changes
affecting US market dairy contracts and how they
might impact your forward pricing strategy heading
into next year. We'll be breaking down the forces
shaping your milk check next time. Thanks for
joining us for another deep dive from the Bullvine
podcast. We'll see you next time.