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. You know, the ones that don't
just sound good on paper. Exactly. The ones that
fundamentally change your bottom line in the
barn. And today, we're diving deep into a feature
piece we published about what we've branded the
$3 ,000 system cow. And this isn't just a fun
name. No, it's a complete economic declaration.
We're talking about an animal that will likely
never win a show ring banner, but she absolutely
needs to be the reason your balance sheet stays
positive through the next few years. Yeah, the
sources we're dissecting today are just brutally
honest. This deep dive isn't about, you know,
breed aesthetics or chasing the latest genomic
trend just because it's high on a list. Not at
all. This is pure, unadulterated economics, and
the timing couldn't be more critical. Why the
system tau now? Well, because the era of the
disposable cow, it's over. The one you could
afford to call just because she sneezed, that's
gone. Absolutely. The cost of entry has just
gone ballistic. And that's the driving force.
We are routinely seeing replacement heifers hitting
$3 ,000 US or more. And in those high demand
markets like California, Idaho, the upper Midwest.
Top breeding lots are pushing $4 ,000 for verified
pregnancies. We saw that mid -2025 co -bank data.
And frankly, those figures set the stage for
a total industry change. It has to. It changes
every management decision you make when you have
to budget three grand, sometimes more, just to
get a fresh heifer into the milking string. Oh,
yeah. I mean, think about the risk you're taking
with that investment. The stakes are incredibly
high. Which means the mission of this entire
deep dive can be distilled down to one single
massive goal. Right. Saving roughly $180 ,000
annually in a typical 1 ,000 cow herd. And that's
just by getting cows to stick around for one
or two more lactations. It's that simple. And
that's the reality check we need to start with.
We have to recalibrate our thinking. We do. The
most profitable animal on your farm is no longer
the flashiest or the one with the highest index
score in the catalog. No. She is the one that
stays out of trouble, requires minimal special
handling, and most importantly, pays off her
enormous rearing cost before she's gone. She
is the utility vehicle of your barn. Not the
race car. Exactly. We are definitely going to
challenge some sacred cows here. Literally. I
was going to say. We have to address the elephant
in the room that has dominated our genetics programs
for decades. The show ring ideal, that classic
dairy triangle. We're going to look at hard data
that suggests that tall, angular cow, the one
we've admired and selected for, might actually
be the single most expensive cull risk on your
operation today. We will. And we also have to
expose where the most hidden profit is leaking.
And that's lameness. A huge one. We'll talk about
why one lameness incident is costing you upwards
of $300. And that's a conservative estimate per
case. But here's the kicker. Yeah, the staggering
statistic is that you, the farmer, are probably
only catching one out of every four clinical
cases in your herd. One in four. That detection
gap is a six -figure blind spot we have to address.
OK, let's unpack this financial pressure. We
have to start with the core issue, replacement
costs and supply scarcity. Right. We've been
hearing about tight numbers for a while, but
the sources confirm this is hitting an absolute
peak. And it's not just market volatility. No,
it's structural. The national average is settled
firmly between, you know, twenty eight hundred
and three thousand dollars. But the real headline
from CoBank isn't the price today. It's the forecast.
It's the forecast. They are predicting. These
values won't meaningfully recover, won't drop
back to a more sustainable pre -2022 level until
2027. That's two more years of budgeting for
astronomical heifer prices. And that timeline
is what fundamentally forces us to change our
culling philosophy. You just can't. You can't
budget for a disposable animal and the replacement
costs this much and for this long. So why is
2027 the magic number? It's not just a guess,
right? No, it's the time lag from the cow side.
I mean, remember three or four years ago, the
dairy markets weren't as strong. And we started
seeing that massive acceleration in the use of
beef on dairy genetics. Right. Everyone was trying
to find a better terminal value for a straight
Holstein bull calf. So we started breeding 50,
60, sometimes 70 percent of the herd to beef
bulls. Which was smart cash flow management at
the time. It was brilliant cash flow management.
But now, four years later, that decision has
cycled through. And the bills come due. It has.
High ground dairy's January 2025 data showed
the lowest expected heifer calvings since they
even started tracking the numbers. Wow. This
is a direct, I mean, it's an unavoidable consequence
of that heavy beef on dairy use and the lower
heifer retention the industry adopted. we are
now paying the price literally for the efficiency
gains we made a few years ago. We manufactured
this shortage. And that, of course, ties directly
into the operational reality of scale and labor.
Oh, yeah. In a smaller, older tie stall operation,
you might know every cow's personality and you
catch that subtle, fresh cow issue on day five
because you're looking at her udder ten times
a day. Sure, you're right there. But... That's
simply not the reality for the vast majority
of our listeners. No, not at all. When you're
running a freestall operation with 700 cows or
especially a massive 3 ,000 cow dairy, you are
entirely limited by your labor pool. Not your
desire to manage every single animal individually.
Right. Staff turnover is high and the quality
of observation is just inherently limited. So
a cow that requires special... fresh cow management,
or repeated treatments or extra handling, even
if she's potentially a great producer, is harder
and harder to justify. You're asking your staff
to divert resources to save one animal when they
should be focused on the transition group or
the breeding group. Exactly. The subtle, high
-maintenance animal becomes a burden. The system
cow has to be inherently durable, low -maintenance,
stay out of trouble. Because the system can't
save her. The modern high throughput system itself
does not have the bandwidth to save a high maintenance
animal. If she needs three extra days in the
hospital pen because she's sensitive to the stall
mat, that's labor cost you can't get back. Which
brings us directly to the longevity gap. If that
cow costs three grand just to get her into the
milking string, she has to stick around long
enough to pay that back and then some. And then
generate profit. We're not talking about a quick
flip anymore. No. And this is where the academic
data meets the farm reality. Dr. Al DeVries'
research at the University of Florida is so critical
here. Okay. Based on purely economic modeling
factoring in rearing costs, milk curves, coal
values, he suggested it is ambitious because
the reality is dismal. Most commercial operations
still average only 2 .5 to 3 .5 lactations. So
we're way off. The dairy herd data from 2018
put the average productive life at just 35 .3
months. That is the longevity gap right there.
Wow. We are consistently culling cows, usually
for transition failure, fertility issues, or
lameness, before they ever hit their economic
stride. You are taking a loss on the heifer -rearing
investment on every single animal that leaves
prematurely? Every one. So the $3 ,000 heifer
cost is forcing us to immediately look at how
we close that gap between the 35 months we average
and the five years we optimally need. It's no
longer just a breeding philosophy debate. No,
it's a non -negotiable risk management strategy
driven by inventory expense. Let's follow the
money trail now because this is where the theory
becomes cold, hard, six -figure cash. Right.
Break down that rearing cost hurdle and why it's
the anchor dragging down profitability. It is
the silent killer on the balance sheet. That
total rearing cost from birth through weaning,
feeding, housing to first calving. It consistently
runs between $2 ,000 and $2 ,800. Okay. We can
use the University of Nebraska -Lincoln's 2024
analysis benchmark of $2 ,500. So that's $2 ,500
of capital sitting in the barn waiting to be
paid off. Yep. And if she leaves early, that
capital is largely wasted. Precisely. Every cow
that leaves before she's finished her second
lactation, or certainly her third, hasn't fully
amortized that initial $2 ,500 investment. let
alone started generating profit in earnest. It's
like a loan. It is. If you repay the principal
but you default before you start seeing true
interest gains, you failed. Longevity is the
interest gain. And that's a tragedy because you're
also losing out on the best, most efficient milk
she'll ever make. Oh, yeah. The data is absolutely
clear. Maturity pays off massively in the parlor.
It does. We're talking about third lactation
plus cows producing significantly more milk and
components than first calvers. And not just a
little more. No, the consensus across multiple
studies shows 20 to 25 percent higher mature
equivalent yields. This isn't just because they
are older. It's physiological. Talk about the
why for a minute. Why the massive bump in the
third lactation? It's a combination of metabolic
capacity and utter maturity. Yeah. A first calver
is still growing. She's dedicating nutritional
energy to skeletal frame development. Right.
A third lactation cow is a fully mature machine.
Her rumen capacity is maximized, her heart girth
is wider, she handles the high forage rations
better, and crucially, her utter tissue is fully
mature. So you get better components. You get
more stable butterfat performance, and she's
better able to handle the metabolic stress of
early lactation. You get an investment return
and a 25 % production bump simultaneously. So
culling a cow early isn't just about losing the
animal and the $2 ,500 rearing cost. No. It's
losing 25 % of the potential output she could
have given you during her peak performance years.
That's the core of the argument for the system
cow. She's built to hit that peak and stay there.
And this brings us to the $180 ,000 calculation.
This is the figure that should fundamentally
change how every listener views their breeding
program. Let's run the numbers slowly for that
typical 1 ,000 cow herd. Okay, grab that pen,
listeners. This is real money. If you are operating
at a fairly typical and, frankly, too high replacement
rate of 35%, that means 350 cows are leaving
your farm every year. Multiply that by a conservative
heifer cost of, say, $2 ,660. Okay. You are spending
$931 ,000 annually. Just on replacement heifers.
Nearly a million dollars just to keep the seats
filled. Just to stand still. And that assumes
perfect health, perfect pregnancies, and no issues
in the transition pen. Which we know isn't true.
Never true. Right. Now, if you implement the
system cow philosophy breeding for durability,
minimizing risks, optimizing management, and
you drop that replacement rate down to a very
achievable 28%. Okay. You now only need 280 replacements.
That costs you roughly $745 ,000. The annual
difference is huge. We're talking $186 ,000 in
immediate cash flow savings. Which we round to
$180 ,000. That's not theoretical. No, that's
real cash that doesn't leave your bank account
simply by keeping 70 cows one extra lactation.
That is the definition of a six -figure savings
opportunity. But let's pause and acknowledge
the elephant in the genomic room. I was just
about to ask, we have to address the contrarian
view. We do. Aren't we telling people to ignore
the foundational principle of genetic progress?
That's the argument. If you are a high -end seed
stock operation or run an elite genomic program,
you might argue that faster turnover gets you
1 -2 % higher genetic gain per year by shortening
the generation interval. And that's the gospel
for a lot of people in genetics. And that model
absolutely makes sense for that small percentage
of the industry. Right, if your business is selling
genetics. If your core business is selling genetics
embryos, semen, top -end bull contracts, your
incentive is to chase the top 1 % and turn your
generations as fast as you possibly can. But
for the vast majority of commodity herds milking
into a bulk tank, does that 1 % theoretical genetic
bump seven years from now outweigh the immediate,
tangible cash flow benefit of saving $180 ,000
this year? No, it absolutely does not. In this
commodity market, cash flow stability beats maximizing
theoretical genetic progress every single time.
It's about surviving and paying the bills. And
there are other costs. Plus, high turnover itself
creates compounding costs. You have a constant
influx of first lactation animals, which means
your herd has higher variability, requires more
intense and careful transition cow management,
and demands specialized labor for that constantly
cycling group. That's a great point. High replacement
rates force you to run a higher percentage of
the most fragile group, the first calvers, all
the time. Right. The durable cow stabilizes your
herd and reduces your risk exposure. Okay, so
this overwhelming shift in economics translates
directly into a physical shift in what we should
be selecting for. It has to. Let's get visual.
We've always been taught the dairy triangle ideal.
Define that for us and then tell us what the
power rectangle looks like and why it's better.
The dairy triangle is the classic show cow. Extremely
tall, highly angular, possessing sharp dairy
character, and a refined, almost delicate bone
structure. An athlete. She looks like she can
convert every gram of feed into milk, and she's
impressive on the move. She looks like a high
-performance athlete. She looks like she could
float on air, but maybe break if she lands wrong.
Precisely. The power rectangle is totally different.
She is moderate, and frame critical word there,
moderate. She has a wide chest, a strong heart
girth, and plenty of barrel capacity. She looks
less angular, maybe even a little more robust.
She's built for durability, not finesse. So she's
the heavy -duty utility vehicle of the barn.
That's it. She's got the torque and capacity
to handle the workload, unlike the race car dairy
triangle, which might look flashy but breaks
down on rough terrain. And this isn't just, you
know, personal preference or some old wives tale.
There's solid genetic evidence supporting this
shift away from extreme stature. There is. I
saw the study cited the Czech Journal of Animal
Science and the 2021 Review and Frontiers in
Genetics. What did that data show? What's fascinating
is the negative genetic correlation they found
between stature and functional longevity traits.
In plain English. In plain English, the selection
pressure we placed on making cows taller made
them less likely to stay in the herd. Wow. They
might look impressive, but the research suggests
they are simply harder to keep in the system
because their frame size is working against the
environment we put them in. But why? Why does
the power rectangle work better in a high throughput,
free stall environment? Give us the practical
fit in the facility. comes down to physics and
logistics, and specifically the free stall dimensions.
Okay. That moderate -framed cow lies down and
rises up far more comfortably in standard stall
sizes. If she's too tall, her hocks and knees
are constantly scraping the concrete or the curb
when she tries to reposition herself. Which radically
increases her injury risk. And leads directly
to lameness. So you're saying a cow built like
a brick outhouse just fits the typical barn dimensions
better than one built like a skyscraper. That's
exactly it. The freestall is designed for the
rectangle, not the triangle. And what about feed?
Furthermore, the power rectangle has the capacity...
wider barrel and chest to handle the high forage
rations we're pushing today because she literally
has more room and capacity and lung room. More
internal space. We're asking cows to process
massive amounts of feed. She needs the internal
space to do that efficiently, which reduces the
metabolic stress that leads to early culling.
Let's talk about that European experience you
mentioned. Did European operations formally pull
back from extreme stature? Or did farmers just
realize the problem? It was absolutely an engineering
realization that drove the genetic change. As
they modernized and standardized freestalls,
the tallest cows were overrepresented on the
cull list. For what reasons? for foot and leg
issues, calving difficulty, and metabolic problems.
They weren't abandoning type, but they recognized
that the cow had outgrown the standard housing.
So they were forced to shift. They were forced
to shift their selection to a balanced cow that
fit their cubicles and their transition programs
because they couldn't afford to rebuild every
barn just to accommodate an elite two -inch gain
in height. That is the ultimate lesson in breeding
for your barn, not for the banner. If your cow
is constantly fighting the environment you put
her in, you are guaranteeing higher costs in
injury and labor. The power rectangle is simply
engineered for the modern facility constraints.
She is the cow of longevity. Speaking of high
costs, we have to talk about the silent epidemic
in the dairy industry. Lameness. This is not
just a secondary welfare issue. It's an absolute
black hole for profitability. If the $3 ,000
heifer is the cost of entry, lameness is the
cost of failure. Dr. Jan Shearer, the go -to
expert in this field, rightly calls lameness
the single most important welfare and economic
issue affecting dairy cattle. And the cost figures
are chilling. They are. Penn State's analysis
put the comprehensive cost per case at $336 .91.
And the University of Calgary model came in right
around that. At $330. Yeah. Let's break down
where that $330 goes, because it's not just the
cost of a block or a wrap. No, it's everything.
The cost includes the initial treatment and supplies,
the loss in milk production. Which starts before
you even see it. Right, before the cow is clinically
visible. It includes the massive negative reproductive
impact. A laying cow is too uncomfortable to
stand properly for insemination and often takes
longer to breed back. And the culling risk. And
the increased likelihood that this cow will be
culled prematurely, forcing you to buy another
$3 ,000 replacement. It's compounding loss. But
the real crisis isn't the cost per case, it's
the detection gap. This is the hidden profit
league that should keep managers up at night.
It should. What's the common farmer estimate
for lameness prevalence? Most farmers I talk
to, and historically I'm guilty of this too,
estimate their lameness prevalence in the comfortable
single digits. Maybe 5%, 8%. You only count the
ones you're actively treating. Exactly. And the
reality, when trained observers perform formal
locomotion scoring. The reality is that trained
observers find 20 to 30 % of cows are clinically
lame. The industry average is widely accepted
as 20 to 25 percent. And here is the terrifying
statistic. Farmers relying on casual observation
during milking or feeding catch only about one
in four lame cows compared to systematic scoring.
Wait, one in four? That German study cited in
our sources showed farmers catching only 24 to
45 percent of cases. And the Australian study
was even worse. Farmers estimating 5 % when the
trained systematic scoring showed 19%. We are
essentially flying blind on three quarters of
our lame herd. And this is the real chronic drain
on your profit. The most expensive cows are not
the obvious three -legged score four or five
cows you're already treating. Because at least
they're identified. Right. They're receiving
care. The most expensive cows are the undetected
ones. The locomotion score two or three animals.
Let's define that jargon for the listener. What
is a locomotion score two or three? So score
one is perfectly normal. Score five is non -weight
-bearing. Score two is the subtle one, slightly
uneven, hesitant, or reluctant to fully bear
weight on one limb, especially on a turn. But
not obvious on a straightaway. Not obvious. Score
three is clearly lame but still walking, usually
with an arched back when standing. These animals
are the problem because they're just off enough
to drastically change their behavior. How so?
They eat fewer meals, they spend less time at
the bunk, they take longer to breed back because
they're uncomfortable, and they silently drain
staff time without being obviously flagged for
intervention. So we're feeding and housing a
cow that is operating at 80 % efficiency and
we don't even know she needs help. Which delays
treatment and compounds the injury. Exactly.
And that compounds the labor burden, which is
already stretched thin. It's a massive cost of
personnel. Every time you have to fetch a cow,
or handle her carefully in the trim chute, or
go back for repeated NSA fee checks. Talk about
NSAids for a second. Yeah, non -steroidal, anti
-inflammatory drugs. They're essential for pain
relief and recovery, but they take staff time.
A lot of it. They do. In a large herd, managing
the records and the follow -up for every NSAV
protocol takes dedicated time. If a thousand
cow herd manages to reduce its lameness incidence
from 25 % down to 18%. Which is entirely achievable.
Entirely achievable by breeding for better durability
and better floors. That's 70 fewer cases per
year. 70 fewer cases means fewer hospital pen
days, fewer after -hours treatments, and crucially,
less burnout for your best staff. It's a quality
of life improvement for your people, directly
tied back to the type of genetics you select.
The durable cow simplifies management. So we
know we need to breed for longevity, durability,
and low maintenance. The power rectangle. Right.
Where does that leave our classic genetic indexes?
Are we throwing out net merit and TPI? No. Absolutely
not. The indexes are tools, not rules, and they
are encouragingly adapting to this new economic
reality. They are following the money trail we
just laid out. Okay, let's look at the Net Merit
2025 updates from the USDA ARS. How are they
adapting to the $3 ,000 cow? They are still weighting
milk, fat, and protein heavily because production
is still the core revenue stream. Of course.
But now they include feed saved as an economic
trait, and critically, they apply a negative
weight on body weight composite. A negative weight
on body weight composite. That is the genetic
community saying officially the big, tall cow
might not be the most profitable cow anymore.
It's a fundamental shift in philosophy. It is.
They are acknowledging that the bigger the animal,
the more feed she requires for maintenance, and
the higher the risk of fitting poorly into standardized
freestalls. This negative weighting nudges selection
toward a more moderate size. Confirming that
the durability focus is now institutionalized
in our top index. And TPI is also adapting, balancing
production with those functional traits like
feet and legs, daughter fertility, and productive
life. But the real insight comes in how successful
farmers are using these tools. It's not just
running down a top NM list anymore. No, not at
all. I see three layers of application in the
most successful large -scale herds. Okay, layer
one. First, they use net merit or TPI as the
initial. broad profitability filter. Is this
bold genetically sound and economically viable?
And the second layer. They layer on a commercial
health or wellness index. These indexes bundle
traits like resistance to mastitis, metritis,
ketosis, DA, and lameness. So you're trying to
avoid the problems from the start? You're identifying
animals likely to incur lower lifetime health
costs. especially given that $300 plus lameness
figure we talked about. They want the cow that
is genetically predisposed to not end up in the
hospital pen. And the third layer is what you
call the no knockout traits rule, which I love
because it's so practical. That's the farm filter
and it's non -negotiable. Even if a bull ranks
high on the overall index, if he is extreme for
stature, or if he is negative on daughter fertility,
or if he is weak on feet and legs, he comes off
the list. full stop so you have to tailor the
index to your specific operational constraints
if you have older free stalls you need better
feet and legs than the national average regardless
of that bull's overall nm score you were breeding
for your facility not the industry ideal. And
for the very largest herds, that customization
goes even deeper. Yeah, they actually build custom
indexes based specifically on their own farm's
cost structure, their feed costs, their call
values, and their unique labor structure. It's
a complete shift from index rank is everything
to indexes are tools we adapt to our system.
It is the ultimate farmer -first approach to
genetics. But being that selective requires capital
up front, usually for sexed semen or genomic
testing. Which brings us to the financial engine
of this durability shift. The highly intentional
use of beef on dairy. Here's where it gets really
interesting. Beef on dairy is no longer a trendy
side hustle. No, it's the dedicated funding mechanism
for generating better dairy genetics. Let's talk
about the premium they're commanding. It's substantial.
And stable. We are seeing dairy beef crossbred
calves commanding around $15 per pound. versus
maybe $10 for straight Holstein bull calves.
That's a 50 % premium. Industry analysis confirms
it results in a premium of $350 to $500 more
per calf. The beef market is turning what was
traditionally a liability into a profitable terminal
product. So how are the system herds strategically
using this tool to breed the power rectangle?
It's precision breeding, pure and simple. They're
using sex Holstein semen on only the top 30 to
40 percent of their best cows and heifers. The
ones with the best traits already. The ones with
the best productive life, fertility and structural
traits to generate the next wave of replacements.
They are only breeding replacements from the
cows that are proven to stay out of trouble.
So the selection is hyper -focused on the best
of the best to create those $3 ,000 heifers that
will actually last five years. Exactly. And the
beef semen goes on the rest, the later lactation
cows, the animals with poor reproductive performance,
or those whose daughters have historically been
harder to keep. And that beef check funds the
whole program. $50 to $500 beef check you get
nine months from now is the capital funding needed
to buy the highly selective genetics and the
sexed semen that create the durable heifer. It
is a brilliant self -funding cycle for durability.
All right, we've covered a ton of ground, from
the horrifying cost of replacements and the two
-year price forecast to the quiet financial drain
of lameness. Let's make this actionable. Let's
do it. A farmer just finished milking and is
driving to the feed store. What are the three
most critical things they need to remember from
today? Okay, takeaway one. Longevity is a front
seat economic driver. It's not a secondary trait.
It's the primary way to save six figures annually.
So immediate action this week. Calculate your
current early lacation call rate. How many cows
are leaving before 60 or 100 days in milk? That
metric tells you exactly where your transition
problems are most acute. This is your largest
capital risk. Medium -term strategy, say three
to six months. Start periodic locomotion scoring,
even if it's informal at first, to track lameness
prevalence. Remember, the data says you're only
catching one in four right now. Closing that
detection gap is the fastest way to save $330
per incident. And long -term positioning, one
to two years out. Set a realistic, sustainable
target for your replacement rate. That mid -20s
range, say 24 to 26 percent, is entirely achievable
with system fit breeding. And that's the range
that immediately generates that $180 ,000 savings
opportunity. Great. Takeaway two. Breed for your
barn, not the banner. This is the power rectangle
concept in action. Yeah, the core concept is
the ideal cow is moderate, sound, and low maintenance.
She's built to stay in your stalls, not to impress
the judge. Immediate action this week. Review
your current sire list and eliminate any sires
that are extreme for stature or weak on feet
and legs, regardless of how high their overall
index rank is. Apply that no -knockout traits
rule immediately based on your specific barn.
And medium term? Three to six months. When you
talk to your genetic supplier, ask very specific
questions. Which bulls offer the best mix of
productive life, daughter fertility, and health
traits at a size that specifically fits my freestalls?
Avoiding that negative body weight composite.
Make them prove the fit for your environment.
Long -term positioning for that. Shift your selection
emphasis. Don't rely solely on net merit or TPI.
Combine them strategically with commercial health
or wellness indices. You need to institutionalize
the idea that longevity is now a six -figure
savings opportunity and your breeding program
needs to reflect that priority. Okay, last one.
Takeaway three. Fund durability with beef. Use
specialized breeding tools intentionally. Immediate
action this week. Pull your last three years
of culling reasons. Identify your top three causes
of death or forced culls. Which genetic levers
feet, futility, or utter health will reduce the
most expensive exits? Focus your breeding effort
there first. Medium -term strategy. Based on
your current pregnancy rate and replacement needs,
establish a clear percentage split for your semen
inventory. How much sex dairy, conventional dairy,
and beef semen? Start using sexed semen only
on your top 30 to 40 % of best animals to concentrate
those durability genes. And long -term, one to
two years. View that beef on dairy premium, that
$350 to $500 per crossbred calf, as the dedicated
capital funding needed for more selective, longevity
-focused dairy genetics three years down the
road. You're using the beef market to pay for
the durability of your future dairy herd. That's
powerful. Instead of asking, what's the most
impressive cow I can breed and put on a banner?
We should be asking, what kind of cow is physically
engineered to thrive in my specific barns, on
my ration, with the people I realistically have
running the show? Because that cow, the durable,
low -maintenance system cow, is the one who pays
the bills. This has been another Bullvine podcast
from The Bullvine Podcast. For more straight
-talking industry analysis and to read the original
feature article about the rise of the system
cow, head to www .thebullvine .com. Subscribe
wherever you get podcasts. We're out with new
episodes every day and upcoming topics will be
diving deep into the true ROI of robotic milking
systems and navigating the complexity of carbon
accounting on the modern dairy. We'll see you
next time.