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 got some serious
buzz. This one's got layers that'll make every
farmer rethink their approach to genetics and
growth strategy for the next five years. broke
ground in 2025. It really does sound like we
should be taking a victory lap. It does. But
that's the danger, isn't it? When I read through
this analysis, it didn't feel like a celebration.
It felt more like a warning flare shot across
the bow of the entire industry. Because the core
argument here is that all these wins... They're
basically built on sand. They don't actually
solve the real underlying structural problems.
Right. The piece argues that these successes
are being completely undermined by three specific
forces that are all colliding at the same time.
And they're not separate issues. That's the key.
They all interact. So you have force number one,
which is that 800 ,000 head heifer deficit. Right.
That's a biological problem you can't just throw
money at. Right. Then you have the second force,
the massive processor overcapacity driven by
that $11 billion we just mentioned. And third?
The FMMO reform. It permanently repriced what
quality milk actually is by changing those component
benchmarks. And what's really fascinating and
frankly a little scary is that the analysis says
these forces are already widening the gap between
the farms that get this and the ones that don't.
We're not talking pennies either. No, we're talking
spreads that could be over a dollar per hundredweight.
A dollar. A dollar spread day in and day out
for three years on every single hundredweight
you ship. I mean, that's the difference between
refinancing the farm and having a liquidation
sale. And the timing here is what makes it so
critical. The paper is crystal clear on this.
The window to gain leverage, to rebuild your
genetics, to lock in a good deal with your processor.
That window is narrow. It slams shut after 2027.
The second that heifer shortage corrects itself,
all that leverage just flips right back to the
processor. Exactly. So our mission today is pretty
straightforward. We're going to connect all the
forces laid out in this analysis. We'll map out
the three viable paths a farmer can take and
give you a framework to make decisions in this
really narrow window. We're taking that celebratory
industry narrative and turning it completely
inside out. We're going from press releases to
a real hard balance sheet reality check. So let's
dive in with the biggest constraint of all. The
simple fact that we don't have enough cows. Let's
do it. So this is the real choke point, isn't
it? Because you can buy steel, you can buy feed.
Capital can solve a lot of problems. But you
can't pay biology to speed up. And that $800
,000 head heifer deficit, the analysis says it
is absolutely locked in. There's no escaping
it. It's locked in because the decisions that
caused it already happened. They happened back
in 2022 and 2023. Right. That's the tough lesson
in dairy, you know. Today's shortage was baked
in by breeding decisions made two years ago.
The USDA cattle inventory report from January
25 confirmed it. Dairy replacement numbers dropped
to a shocking 3 .9 million head. I got to put
that in context. 3 .9 million. That's down almost
18 percent from 2018 levels. Yeah. That's not
just a little dip in the cycle. That is a structural
gut punch to the whole replacement pool. It is.
And Coal Bank's modeling shows that number is
going to keep shrinking or at best stay flat
for the next two years. We won't even start to
see a real rebound until late 2027. So that $800
,000 deficit isn't some forecast. It's the reality
of heifers that just weren't born. Exactly. And
what drove those decisions? It was a short -term
cash decision that honestly... Oh, it was simple
economics during a really high -cost period.
Farmers just looked at the prices. Right. They
were breeding 60, sometimes 70 percent of their
herd to beef semen because those beef on dairy
calves were bringing in a huge premium. We're
talking $1 ,200, even $1 ,800 a calf. And a straight
dairy bull calf was what, 50 bucks? 50 bucks
if you were lucky. I remember hearing guys say,
I can't afford not to breed to beef. Sure. For
a big operation, that's... Hundreds of thousands
of dollars in immediate cash flow. It is. But
those short -term choices created this long -term
hole we're all living in now. And this just slams
home that brutal timeline. Even if you switch
back to 100 % sex dairy semen today. The clock
is ticking. You have a biological reality of
27 months to first calving. Nine months gestation
plus, what, 18 to 24 months to freshen? Best
case. So the supply won't feel healthy again
until... mid to late 2028. You just can't rush
it. So let's just scale that for a second. If
you're running, say, an 800 cow herd, you need
around 280 to 300 heifer calves a year for a
normal replacement rate. Right, about 35%. If
you dropped your dairy breeding down to just
30 % of the herd because you were heavy on beef,
you might have only banked 80 or 90 dairy heifers
that year. That's a 200 heifer hole for just
one farm for one year. Now multiply that across
9 million cows nationally. You see how we got
to an 800 ,000 head deficit really fast. And
this is where it really hits home on the farm.
It's why the culling math is completely flipped
on its head. This shortage is forcing good farmers
to make, you know, what are really uneconomic
decisions. Okay, so talk to me about that marginal
cow. The one you've been meaning to ship for
six months, chronic mastitis, always a high sell
count. That cow. Right now, she's still worth
decent money as a cull cow. Maybe... $2 ,200,
$2 ,400. Which sounds pretty good. It does, but
you can't look at that number by itself. If you
ship her, her replacement is now going to cost
you over $3 ,000. Maybe $3 ,500 if you want good
component genetics. Exactly. So you ship her
and you are instantly $600 to, what, $1 ,300
in the hole just to maintain your herd size.
So you're actually paying a penalty just to try
and improve your herd's efficiency. That's why
the whole calculation changes. It's better from
a cash flow perspective to keep her for one more
marginal lactation, even if she's inefficient.
You get a little income and you save a huge capital
outlay. Short -term cash flow wins again. It
wins over long -term genetic improvement every
time. But keeping those marginal cows has to
be dragging down the whole herd's average, right?
I mean, you're suppressing turnover. Absolutely
you are. And that's the structural drag we're
talking about. The USDA slaughter data, it backs
this up completely. Dairy cow slaughter has been
trailing year -ago levels for like 94 of the
last 100 weeks. Wow. Farmers are delaying the
inevitable. And when you do that, the whole national
herd average for production, for components,
it gets dragged down by these older, less efficient
cows. And that same reality, it just blows up
the math for any kind of expansion too. Oh, completely.
If you were planning a 250 cow expansion at three
grand a head, For heifers, you now need almost
double the capital you budgeted just a few years
ago. And the lenders see that. Lenders see that
and they say, nope, the ROI isn't there. The
pencil just doesn't work. The only guys still
expanding are doing it differently. They're either
getting more milk out of the cows they already
have, you know, chasing 26 ,000 pounds, or they're
buying fresh cows, which has its own whole set
of risks. So this makes your breeding decision.
not just about farm management. It's a critical
capital allocation choice now. You can't afford
to waste a $40 straw of sex semen on a low -narrate
cow who's just going to give you a daughter that
underperforms on the new component standards.
So what's the new logic? The analysis talks about
a new breeding strategy that the really progressive
herds are using. It's all about discipline, and
it requires genomic testing. This isn't just
an idea on a spreadsheet. You need separate semen
tanks, clear protocols. It's a whole system.
Walk me through it. It's sort of a 40 -40 -20
rule. You use your high -end sex dairy semen
on the top 40 % of your herd. These are your
genomic multipliers. They're the future of your
herd's components. Then you use conventional
dairy on the middle 40%. Conception rates are
usually a bit better, so you're making sure you
hit your baseline replacement numbers. The genetics
aren't elite, but they're solid. And the beef
semen only goes on the bottom 20%. Strictly for
genetic purging. You get that cash flow bump
from the valuable calf. But you are guaranteeing
that the genetics you absolutely do not want
in your future herd are not passed on. It's a
strategic exit for those animals. So the producers
who thought this was just a temporary price spike
are now realizing that biology, it just doesn't
negotiate. Not at all. Okay, let's pivot now
to the other side of this equation, the capacity
side. This is where it gets really interesting.
Because this is where all the leverage for the
producer is right now. We just laid out a supply
problem that's locked in for 30 months. And at
the exact same time, the processing industry
built a massive, multi -billion dollar demand
problem for itself. It's the ultimate mismatch.
The irony is just staggering. By mid -2025, we
added enough capacity to process almost 20 million
more pounds of milk per day. Eleven. Billion
dollars. To put that into perspective for everyone,
that's enough new stainless steel to process
about one out of every 10 gallons of melt produced
in the entire country. The scale is just hard
to get your head around. Chobani's building that
$1 .2 billion plant in New York to handle 12
million pounds a day. Darigold opened their billion
-dollar facility in Washington for 8 million
pounds a day. It's everyone. Hillimar, California
dairies. And they were all pouring concrete based
on forecasts that are now completely, utterly
wrong. They built all this assuming that historical
milk growth, you know, that one and a half to
two percent a year would just go on forever.
But these plants, they need to run at 80, 85
percent utilization just for the investment to
make sense. And then biology, like we just said,
stepped in and just vetoed all those assumptions.
The milk pipeline is capped. And it's shrinking
until late 2027 at the earliest. So CoBank's
analysis basically confirms it. The leverage
has completely shifted. They built for growth
right when supply hit a wall. Which makes any
producer who can reliably ship quality milk.
You're not just a supplier anymore. You're a
necessity. So what does that desperation look
like on the ground? I mean, they're not going
to put out a press release saying, hey, we're
only running at 60 % capacity. No, but they signal
it with their behavior. The first sign is their
recruitment radius. Right. If a plant used to
get all its milk from, say, 100 -mile radius,
and now their field reps are making calls three,
four, even 500 miles out. That's desperation.
They're eating huge hauling costs just to keep
the lines running. And if you're the farm that's
only 50 miles away from that plant, and they're
spending all that money to get mill from 400
miles away, you are their lowest cost, lowest
risk option. That's maximum leverage. Maximum.
And the analysis points to some really tangible
signs of this. We're seeing real volume bonuses,
consistency premiums. And multi -year price floors.
That's a big one. Contracts with floors well
above the pool price. We're hearing about 20,
even 30 cents per hundredweight being built into
multi -year deals. 30 cents per hundredweight
on a 50 ,000 pound daily average. That's over
50 grand a year. That's real money. That pays
for a herdsman or your seaman bill. But the most
revolutionary thing we're seeing, and the analysis
really highlights this, is the co -financing.
Let's follow the money on that. Why on earth
would a processor finance a farmer's herd? Because
they can get capital way cheaper than a farmer
can. They're huge corporations. They can borrow
at 4 or 5 percent. And the average farmer is
looking at, what, 7, 8, 9 percent for an equipment
loan? If they're lucky. So the processor is using
their cheaper cost of capital as a tool to lock
in their milk supply. So they're basically saying,
we'll be your bank for these new heifers? Or
for that new robot, but you have to guarantee
that milk to us through 2028. Exactly. They're
offering to co -finance it, say, 5 .5%, in exchange
for a reliable multi -year commitment for high
-component milk. It solves two huge problems
at once. The processor gets their plant utilization
up from 65 % to maybe 78%, which makes their
numbers work. And the producer gets the high
-quality genetics or the automation they desperately
need at a much lower capital cost. It's a powerful
alignment. But, and this is a huge but, the analysis
warns this opportunity is temporary. Absolutely.
The second those replacement inventories start
to rebuild in late 27, early 28, one supply finally
catches up to all that new stainless steel. The
leverage pendulum just swings right back. It
swings right back. They won't need to offer 30
cent bonuses or co -financing when they've got
20 other farms knocking on their door. So the
window for producers to lock this stuff in, to
secure a real partnership and to use that cheaper
capital, It's right now. It's fleeting. And the
smart producer is using this moment to fix their
structural future. OK, so while all this supply
and demand chaos is happening, the actual economics
of what's in the tank changed permanently on
December 1st, 2025. Yeah, this is the FMMO component
factor change. And it might be the biggest structural
shift that nobody's really ready for. This wasn't
just a small tweak, was it? No, this was a permanent
repricing of milk for the entire industry. For
decades, the protein standard in the formula
was 3 .1%. And that moved up to 3 .3%. Right.
And that wasn't an arbitrary number. The old
3 .1 standard was scientifically out of date.
Modern cheese plants, which drive the Class III
price, they get their best yield and efficiency
with milk that's closer to 3 .3 % protein. So
the pricing just finally caught up with the reality
of the manufacturing process. Exactly. So if
you're shipping milk that meets or beats that
new 3 .3 standard, you're finally getting paid
more accurately for the value you're providing.
But if you're below it, say you're still at 3
.0, you're getting benchmarked against that higher
bar every single month. And the financial hit
is immediate, and it compounds. The folks at
University of Wisconsin ran the numbers. And
the spread between a low protein herd and a high
protein herd, we're talking 3 .4 or 3 .5 percent,
can easily be over a dollar per hundredweight.
That's before you even factor in butterfat. A
dollar a hundredweight on a million pounds of
milk a month. That is $10 ,000 a month you're
leaving on the table. $120 ,000 a year. Every
year. And this gets us to the trap, doesn't it?
The old mindset of our milk has always been good
enough or we're a volume operation. That mindset
is dead. For the last 20 years, you could kind
of make up for lower components with sheer volume.
Scale gave you leverage. Not anymore. If your
neighbor is running 3 .4 protein and 4 .1 fat,
they are stacking an extra $1 .25, $1 .50 per
hundredweight on every single load. They're running
fewer cows with higher efficiency per cow and
way lower overhead for every pound of component
they ship. You are structurally outcompeted and
it doesn't matter how big your barn is. Okay,
so let's talk about the timeline to fix this.
Can you fix low components with genetics? Yes,
you can. But you need a lot of patience and a
serious capital commitment. It's tough for farmers
who are used to managing on a 12 -month cycle.
And the source material is pretty sobering on
this. It lays out a four - to six -year journey.
And that's if you do everything right. It is.
So years one and two, you're just spending money,
you're buying the premium component -focused
semen, you're starting to genomic test your whole
herd, and you're just waiting for those better
daughters to be born. Years three and four, the
first wave of those heifers finally freshens.
Your herd average might start to creep up from
3 .0 to maybe 3 .15%. So you've made progress,
but you are still way behind the new... 3 .3
standard. So you won't even get close to that
new benchmark until year five or six. And that's
only if you are absolutely ruthless about your
breeding and culling strategy. Right. It's a
long -term commitment. You have to be willing
to spend the money now for a return that's way
down the road. The other option is to just buy
your way out of the problem, which is faster,
but... It requires a massive immediate pile of
cash. The high component heifers are trading
in that same 3 ,000 plus range, maybe 3 ,500,
4 ,000 for the really elite ones. So if you have
a 1 ,200 cow herd and you need to replace half
of it to fix your average, you're talking about
millions of dollars in animal purchases right
now. Which is why the analysis says the FMMO
changes didn't create the problem of poor genetics.
They just exposed it and made it financially
fatal. Which brings us to the toughest question
in the entire analysis. When does the math tell
you to just get out? I mean, if you're running
a low component herd and you realize it's going
to take you, say, mid six figures over the next
five to seven years just to get back to average.
And your break even on that investment is almost
a decade away and you're carrying a lot of term
debt. Exactly. If you're in your late 50s, maybe
early 60s, you don't have a clear successor.
Is grinding for 10 more years just to get back
to parity the smartest financial move you can
make? It's a really hard, honest conversation
you have to have. An orderly, strategic exit
right now, while land and cattle and facilities
still have good value. That might be a much better
financial decision than a prolonged high -cost
fight just to stay in the game. It's the difference
between a controlled sale and a forced liquidation.
And the new component pricing, it's forcing that
conversation to happen today. So let's talk about
the macro environment for a second. The Fed lowering
interest rates into that four, four and a quarter
percent range. That's a huge factor here. The
timing is critical. You have this cheaper money
coming in right when all these structural forces,
the need for genetics, the need for automation
are hitting their peak. So cheaper money doesn't
save a bad business, but it can really turbocharge
a smart one. Absolutely. So where does that cheaper
debt? really create an advantage. It's not in
just building a bigger barn, which we already
said is too expensive. It's in financing the
fix, the component fix and a labor fix. Right.
Financing those competitive genetics. You have
to spend, I don't know, a million dollars over
five years to get your components up to par.
The fact that you're paying 5 % interest instead
of 8%. It shortens your payback period by years.
It makes that huge investment actually. pencil
out. And this comes right back to that processor
backed capital we talked about. Exactly. Their
capital is cheap and their need for your milk
is high. If they can co -finance your automation
project or your genetics at five and a half percent.
They get their milk and you get a huge competitive
edge. It's a powerful alignment you have to exploit.
And this makes the ROI on automation look completely
different, too, especially with how tight the
labor market is. Oh, it's critical. The analysis
had some pretty grim numbers on labor. In the
Northeast, you're looking at 18, 20 bucks an
hour for a skilled milker, if you can even find
one. And in the Southwest, you're competing with
construction and the energy sector for workers.
It's just as tough. So think about the math on
a robotic milking system. Let's say it's half
a million dollars. When interest rates were at
8%, the ROI was borderline. Maybe a six or seven
year payback. But you drop that financing to
5 % and you factor in that you're eliminating
two full -time employees at 20 bucks an hour
plus benefits. That's 80 grand a year in labor
savings right there. The payback suddenly drops
to... three and a half or four years, it's a
no -brainer. You're solving your labor problem
and your capital cost problem at the same time.
The cheap money is the catalyst. Now let's pivot
to exports because this is a bit of a paradox.
We saw U .S. dairy exports hit $8 .2 billion
in 2024. The headline just screams, U .S. dairy
is strong. Okay, wait, I have to put on the farmer
hat here. The news says $8 .2 billion in exports.
How can record sales possibly be a bad thing?
Help me square that with Class III futures struggling
through 2025. That's the paradox. The fine print
shows that export strength is often just good
PR for an oversupply problem. Meaning? If your
domestic consumption is slowing down, where does
all that extra milk go? It has to be exported.
We saw U .S. milk output grow 4 % in some months,
but domestic demand only inched up 1 % or 2%.
So that extra 2 % or 3 % surplus had nowhere
else to go. You had to push it onto the world
market. At a discount, exactly. When your production
growth is consistently outpacing your domestic
demand, you're basically masking an oversupply
issue that's dragging down your domestic price.
We're selling cheap, nonfat, dry milk and whey
just to clear the shelves. So we have to understand
the difference between structural, demand -driven
exports that actually help. Right. Mexico is
the perfect example of that. They have a dairy
deficit. We have the USMCA trade deal. We have
a huge logistics advantage. They take about a
third of our exports. That's stable trade. You
can build a business plan around. Versus the
supply -driven exports that are actually a warning
sign, pushing surplus powder into places like
China or Southeast Asia. When tariffs change
or when Europe has a good year, that U .S. surplus
has to get discounted even more just to move
it. You're just acting as the world's chief supply
valve. So you focus your big capital decisions,
the $3 ,000 heifers, the half -million -dollar
robots on, optimizing for those stable structural
markets? Absolutely. The 2026 USMCA review is
way more important to your bottom line than some
temporary tariff deal in Asia. Okay, we've covered
the structure, the biology, the economics. Now
we have to talk about the wild card. The low
-probability, high -consequence event that could
just throw a wrench in everything. The New World
Screw Worm. NWS. This is a devastating disease
that can change your entire operational reality
in like 72 hours. And it's been moving north
through Mexico. The real alarm bell went off
in September of 2025 when a heifer tested positive
in Sabina, Hidalgo. That's less than 70 miles
from the Texas border. It is knocking on the
door. And if it crosses that border and gets
confirmed in a U .S. commercial herd. The consequences
for cattle movement are immediate and they are
severe. You're talking about operational paralysis.
As soon as there's a confirmation, local auctions,
feedlots, they just stop taking cattle from that
region. Feeder cattle prices in that zone would
just collapse. And within days, APHIS will set
up quarantine zones and they'll restrict or just
outright ban livestock movement. So what does
that mean in practical terms, freezing cattle
as collateral? It means if your primary source
of cash flow is those high value beef on dairy
calves and you suddenly can't move them off the
farm, that asset is frozen. And the bank that's
holding the note on your operating loan sees
that collateral as being suddenly worthless.
Your risk just skyrockets. That $1 ,200 revenue
stream can disappear overnight and you could
be without that cash for 60 or 90 days. So mitigation
here is just cheap insurance. You have to be
proactive. First, you have to map out alternative
marketing outlets for your cull cows and your
beef calves. And they have to be genuinely outside
a likely quarantine radius. And second, you have
to stress test your cash flow. Just run the numbers.
What happens if that beef calf revenue is delayed
by 90 days or cut in half? And talk to your lender
about it now. Don't wait for the crisis. Get
a temporary line of credit set up just in case.
Let's shift from the wild card to the safety
net. The DMC program got extended to 2031. Tier
1 was raised to 6 million pounds. You get a 25
% discount for long -term enrollment. It's a
crucial tool. But the analysis calls it a mirror.
It's either a weapon or it's life support. Right.
If you're a competitive operation, solid components,
good efficiency, DMC is a weapon. You max out
your Tier 1, you take the discount, and you treat
it like underpriced catastrophic insurance. In
a bad year... That indemnity payment shores up
your balance sheet and lets you stay aggressive
while your competitors are pulling back. But
if you're a marginal operation, high debt, low
components, you're relying on those DMC checks
just to stay afloat. It's life support. It's
what's paying your loan interest. So the move
is to use it, but you have to be brutally honest
with yourself about why you need it. If it's
just buying you time, you need to use that time
to either fix the structural problems we've been
talking about or to plan that orderly exit. Which
brings us to the final and most critical part
of this, the three strategic paths forward. Given
everything we've discussed, what are the three
choices farmers need to make in 2026? It really
comes down to your capital access, your risk
tolerance, and where your genetics are starting
from. Okay, path one, the internal rebuild. This
is the slowest path. It's five plus years. But
it gives you the most control and the most independence.
The goal here is to become self -sufficient on
replacements. So you stop relying on buying those
$3 ,500 heifers on the open market. Exactly.
You slash your beef on dairy breeding down to
the bottom 10 or 15 % just for purging bad genetics.
And you strategically use that expensive sex
semen on your top cows. It costs you a lot up
front in lost beef calf revenue, but it's a long
-term insurance policy. Okay. Path two. Processor
-financed growth. This is the fastest way to
expand and improve, but it's totally relationship
dependent. You have to aggressively lean into
your processor's desperation. You offer them
what they need most, guaranteed high component
volume. And in exchange, you negotiate a contract
that's locked through 2028 with premiums, price
floors, and critically, you get them to co -finance
your replacements or your automation using their
cheap capital. This only works if your processor
is really hurting for milk, but if they are,
it's a once -in -a -cycle opportunity. And finally,
path three, the hybrid approach. This is for
the producers who can't just eliminate that beef
on dairy income completely, but know they have
to improve their components. So you keep maybe
15 or 20 percent bread to beef for that cash
flow. Right. You grow enough of your own replacements
to cover your baseline needs. And then you selectively
buy a few high end heifers on the outside, maybe
with some processor help. You're balancing income,
genetics and capital. It's moderate growth. moderate
risk. The analysis makes it really clear though.
By 2028, the difference between a farm being
competitive and planning its exit will come down
to the decisions you make deliberately in 2026.
The time to pick a path is now. That window is
closing. All right. A farmer just finished milking
and is driving to the feed store. What are the
three immediate actionable things they need to
remember from today's deep dive? Okay. Takeaway
number one, get surgical on Genetics NOW. Immediate
action this week. Review your breeding protocols.
If you are still putting $40 sexed semen in your
low -merit cows, stop right now. And if you're
not doing it, start genomic testing to find out
who your top 40 % actually are. Medium -term
strategy, three to six months. You have to budget
for the higher cost of component -focused semen.
And you have to redefine your marginal cow. With
replacements this expensive, that cow has to
deliver real value in the tank or... She's a
financial drag you have to get rid of. Long -term
positioning, one to two years. You have to commit
the capital and the discipline to hitting 3 .3
% protein or higher by 2030. That is the new
minimum standard. If you're below that, you're
losing money every day. Takeaway number two,
exploit processor desperation. Immediate action,
this week. Get your data together. Know your
reliable volume. Know your component profile.
And find out where your processor is getting
your milk from. If their trucks are running 300
miles out, you have huge leverage. Medium -term
strategy. Three to six months. Get on the phone
with your field rep. Aggressively. You need to
be negotiating multi -year contracts locked through
2028 with 20 or 30 cent component premiums. And
you push hard for those co -financing options.
Use their cheap money to fix your farm. And long
-term positioning. One to two years. Lock in
those favorable terms now. Because after 2027,
when the heifer numbers start to normalize, that
leverage is gone. This window is temporary. Use
it. And takeaway number three, de -risk the wildcat.
Immediate action this week. If you're in a high
-risk region for NWS, you need to map out alternative
places to sell your cull cows and beef calves,
places outside the likely quarantine zone. Medium
-term strategy, three to six months. Stress test
your cash flow. Just assume a 90 -day delay in
your beef calf revenue. Run the numbers, and
then go talk to your banker about how you'd manage
that gap. Long -term positioning, one to two
years. build up your cash reserves a little bit,
and build up your internal dairy replacement
capacity, the less you rely on outside markets
and high -risk beef calves, the more flexible
and resilient your operation will be. That structural
reality, that $1 per hundredweight efficiency
gap, it's permanent now. The only question is
which side of that dollar you're going to land
on in 2028. This has been another Bullvine Podcast
from The Bullvine Podcast. For more straight
-talking industry analysis, head to www .thebullvine
.com. Subscribe wherever you get podcasts. We're
out with new episodes every day and upcoming
topics will be maximizing the DMC safety net
and new protocols for HPAI biosecurity. We'll
see you next time.