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
give you the insights that actually matter for
your operation. We are focused today on eliminating,
well, one of the most stubborn and frustrating
costs on the balance sheet. And we are diving
deep into a feature piece about chronic mastitis,
specifically, why those repeat offenders keep
costing us time, labor, and money, and how some
producers are finally... successfully emptying
their hospital pens. That is the ultimate operational
goal, isn't it? Emptying the hospital pen. Because
let's be honest, if you're listening to this,
you know exactly who we're talking about. We're
talking about cow 417 or cow 98, the one who
looks great for two weeks, maybe even three,
after the last treatment. And then, without fail,
you walk in on a Tuesday morning and she's back.
Same quarter, same problem. Yeah, that frustration
is universal. It's been the classic example of,
well, that's just farming, you know, that's a
cost of doing business. It's just accepted as
part of the game. And that acceptance, frankly,
is costing the industry a fortune, not just in
milk loss, but in opportunity cost and labor
burnout. Absolutely. The stakes here are brutal
because the costs associated with these chronic
repeat offenders They stack up incredibly fast.
We're not just talking about the wasted antibiotics,
though that's a big financial and sustainability
concern right there. We're talking about massive
culling losses. The source material cites Peter
Smith, who was culling an unbelievable one in
three cows due to utter health issues before
making a change. One in three. I mean, think
about that for a second. That is devastating,
not only for your immediate profitability, but
for the long -term genetic progress of your herd
when you have to ship that many productive animals
early. And then there's a massive hidden cost,
which we need to quantify later, the brutal labor
requirement. Sorting, stripping, treating, hauling
the chronic cases daily. That just eats up man
hours that are already desperately scarce on
every dairy in the country. And the controversy
we're teasing out today, the big myth we need
to bust right at the start, is that the core
issue is not antibiotic failure. It's not that
the tubes don't work. It's that the bacteria
have found a way to become virtually untouchable,
hiding in what the researchers are calling protective
fortresses. A fortress that our current conventional
approach is completely failing to penetrate.
And the economics surrounding the solution are
the most compelling piece of the puzzle. I'll
admit, the upfront cost gives anyone sticker
shock. It's roughly double the price of traditional
protocols, running around $54 per cow versus
the $27 you might be used to spending. That $54
figure, though, is a smokescreen. We have to
look past the sticker shock and immediately pivot
to the return on that investment. Because based
on global field data, this specific protocol
yields a nearly $27 ,000 net return per 100 cows
annually. And that is the financial hook. The
numbers tell us that the true long -term cost
of accepting chronic mastitis as inevitable is
actually far, far greater than the upfront cost
of the preventative protocol. If the break -even
point is met in three or four months, which the
data suggests, then this isn't an expense, it's
a critical capital investment. That is the premise
of this deep dive. Let's unpack the science that
supports that radical claim. Okay, let's unpack
this with the actual science behind the frustration,
that feeling that the treatment tubes are just
failing. Because that feeling of defeat is so
widespread across the industry. And that feeling
of defeat is rooted in fundamental biology. It's
not your management failure. It's bacterial resilience
that we didn't fully understand until relatively
recently. The science points directly to the
establishment of those protective biofilms. Biofilms.
OK, we hear that term a lot in dairy, but let's
translate it into farmer English so we understand
the operational impact. What does that actually
mean for the utter tissue? It means the bacteria
aren't just floating around in the utter fluid,
you know, waiting for an antibiotic to kill them
off, which is what most treatments are designed
to handle. They're organizing themselves into
highly structured protective communities, often
encased in a self -produced sticky matrix of
sugars and proteins, those fortresses Dr. Jeff
Eckert talked about in the sources. So it's not
a solitary bacterium. It's an entire neighborhood
building defensive structures. Exactly. And once
they're established in that biofilm matrix, their
resistance level skyrockets. This is the critical
piece of information you need to internalize.
The source material states clearly that bacteria
in biofilms are 10 to 1 ,000 times more resistant
to antibiotics than their free -floating counterparts.
Wait, 1 ,000 times more resistant? 1 ,000, yes.
That is a staggering range. If my standard antibiotic
2 is designed to clear a normal infection, hitting
bacteria that are 10 or 1 ,000 times more resilient
means I'm using, I don't know, a BB gun to take
out an armored personnel carrier. Precisely.
And we can use Dr. Ackert's analogy to make this
visceral. Think about the difference between
trying to spray fresh manure off a concrete pad
right after scraping. That's easy. That's the
Frieslorden bacteria. Now try to clean that same
manure after it's been sitting there for a week,
dried out, baked on and crusty, where the organic
material is fully adhered to the surface. Right.
Same material, same concrete, but a completely
different challenge. It requires industrial level
effort, not just a hose. The existing treatment,
even if it's potent, just kind of washes over
the surface of the fortress. And realizing this
forces a fundamental shift in strategy for researchers.
For years, the approach has been to develop stronger
and stronger antibiotics, trying to bomb the
fortress harder. But what does that inevitably
do? It just fuels more overall resistance in
the long run. And here's where it gets truly
fascinating. The new focus is not on better bombs,
but on cutting the bacterial communication lines,
disrupting what scientists call quorum sensing.
That is the technical how behind the new protocols.
Quorum sensing is essentially how bacteria signal
to each other, assessing their population density.
They're saying, OK, we have enough members here.
Let's pool our resources and start building the
defense structure. By disrupting that communication,
think of it as turning on powerful static noise
on the radio channel, you prevent the biofilm
fortress from forming in the first place. Or
you destabilize the one that's already there.
Right. Forcing the bacteria to revert to a vulnerable,
free -floating state. So we're not trying to
kill an established, well -defended, organized
colony with stronger chemicals. We're using non
-antibiotic molecules, often specific peptides
or plant extracts, that prevent them from achieving
critical mass and forming their protection. It's
a proactive, sophisticated, and crucially non
-chemical approach focused on biological disruption.
But this raises a practical question. When we
talk about a $54 biofilm prevention protocol,
how is that disruptor actually delivered? Are
we talking about a multi -day injectable, a feed
additive, or still an intramammary infusion?
That is a critical question for operational flow.
In the current success stories, the protocol
is typically delivered via a combination of specific
intramammary infusions and boluses during the
lactation period. The key difference is that
the active components are focused on disrupting
the matrix and supporting the cow's immune system,
not brute force antibiotic killing. This allows
the cow's own immune system to clear the now
exposed bacteria. Okay, so that delivery route,
still intramammary, but focused on disruption,
helps explain the cost. It's a more complex,
active ingredient. But my initial pharma reaction
remains skeptical. If the bacteria are truly
hiding in a fortress that my current treatment
can't touch, why have I been told for decades
to just repeat the treatment? We've wasted massive
amounts of time and money following a protocol
that, biologically, was doomed from the start
for chronic cases. Because that was the best
science available at the time. But the operational
impact of this new reality is huge. If you internalize
that your standard tubes are likely insufficient
for chronic repeat offenders, you stop wasting
time, labor, and money chasing a failure. You
change the triage. It changes everything. You
realize that a chronic case needs a biological
intervention to disrupt the fortress first, not
just a stronger dose of the same treatment. We're
moving from a mindset of chemical intervention
to one of biological clearances. Now, if this
were just an interesting biological theory, we
wouldn't be dedicating a deep dive to it. What's
compelling here is the proof from the field.
This is not just an idea cooked up in a lab.
It's already working on working farms, challenging
that old everyone knows narrative that chronic
mastitis is an inevitable part of dairying. The
anecdotes are stunning, and we need to slow down
and appreciate the gravity of the success stories.
Let's start with Trevor Netscher. California
dairy. This represents the ultimate operational
shift. It does. He reported using zero mastitis
tubes since implementing the new prevention protocol.
Zero. That's not a slight reduction. That's a
complete operational pivot into an antibiotic
-free, utter health system for lactation treatment.
When you think about the parlor staff's mental
model, That feeling of constant reliance on tubes,
the fear of running out, the need to label and
segregate, and then removing that reliance entirely.
The shock in his voice, as the source noted,
tells you everything you need to know about how
revolutionary that feels on the ground. To run
a production dairy and not rely on those traditional
tubes for chronic cases for months on end is,
well, it's unheard of. It implies that the core
persistent reservoir of infection, the biofilm,
has been systematically removed from the herd.
And then look at the culling impact. This is
the financial line item every farm is terrified
of, and it touches on the long -term viability
of the herd. Peter Smith from L .T. Smith & Sons
saw his utter health culling drop from 1 in 3
to a much more manageable 1 in 7. that is cutting
culling losses by over 50%. Yeah, more than half.
When Peter Smith says, come back in five years,
and I'm extremely confident we will still be
using these protocols, that's not a temporary
fix. That shows deep, long -term operational
conviction. That conviction is what you're buying
into. Let's connect this back to the listener
immediately. If you can cut culling losses by
50 % or 60%, what does that mean for your herd
replacement costs? And more importantly, your
genetic leverage. Replacement heifers are expensive,
and culling a genetically superior, high -producing
cow due to a quarter issue that could have been
resolved is a massive waste. It's the real leverage
point. You're not just saving the cost of one
cow. You're preserving the time and investment
you made in her genetic history, her growth,
and her production history. It means better genetics
stay in the milking string longer, increasing
the overall quality and resilience of the whole
herd. And crucially, this isn't isolated to a
couple of superstar producers with perfect management.
The source mentions that AHV field trials globally
confirm significant reductions in chronic mastitis
recurrence. This indicates a repeatable pattern,
suggesting the science behind disrupting the
biofilm is scalable and effective across different
geographies and management styles, as long as
the protocol is followed. It forces a hard look
at conventional wisdom. When you hear the data
zero tubes, culling cut by two -thirds, you have
to seriously question the accepted wisdom that
chronic mastitis is just something we have to
live with. It suggests that if the biological
reality, the biofilm, is addressed correctly,
the problem is absolutely solvable. All right,
let's talk about the thing that makes every producer
pause and reach for their calculator. The money.
Because as soon as you say new protocol and dramatic
results, the immediate thought is, how much am
I shelling out? And we have to be upfront about
the initial barrier. The sticker shock is intense.
Traditional antibiotic tubes cost about $26 .71
per cow. These biofilm prevention protocols,
the ones biologically disrupting the bacteria
ring in at 54 .2 per pound for a medium sized
500 cow dairy, that initial cost difference is
thousands of dollars walking out the door immediately.
That's a significant cash flow consideration.
That initial investment is a huge psychological
hurdle, but we have to pivot immediately to the
annual net return. Because that is what matters.
Based on 8HV field trial data for a typical 100
cow operation, the net benefit is an astonishing
$26 ,764 annually. Wait, I need to challenge
that figure. $26 ,764 net return per 100 cows.
That seems high. Are these figures purely theoretical
based on peak milk price, or are they adjusted
for things like higher labor costs in California
or the Northeast? I need to know if this model
breaks down if my milk price drops 15 % next
quarter. That is the right question to ask. The
data is based on conservative averages, focusing
on efficiency recovery, which is less volatile
than milk price. The key fact which mitigates
that milk price risk is the break -even point.
Most farms achieve break -even in three to four
months. This rapid return means you're mostly
insulated for market volatility because the investment
is recouped so quickly. The year two returns
often exceed 200 percent of the initial outlay.
OK, that changes the perspective dramatically.
It moves from a cash flow problem to a short
term capital expenditure with incredibly rapid
return. But let's break down exactly where that
26 grand comes from, because it's not one big
check. It's a combination of efficiency gains
and avoided costs. We can break the value down
into four main buckets. The biggest chunk of
the revenue gain comes from increased milk production,
as the cow is no longer battling a chronic subclinical
infection. And the sources detail additional
revenue from a five and a half pound daily gain
on those recovered animals. Let's be critical.
Is that 5 .5 pounds sustainable or is that just
a short term bounce? The evidence suggests it's
sustainable because the root cause, the chronic
inflammation has been removed, allowing the cow
to return to her true genetic potential. That
five and a half pound gain translates to $20
,075 annually for that hundred cow operation.
Even if you only achieved half that gain, the
economics are still compelling. Agreed. So $20
,000 plus from pure production recovery. What
about the cost savings? First, there's the milk
withdrawal loss. Traditional treatments require
4 to 10 days of discarded milk. The zero -day
withdrawal period for these protocols means all
that milk is saleable. That eliminated withdrawal
loss recovers $982 annually right there. That's
immediate cash flow. And you save money on the
actual treatments you don't have to buy anymore
because you're preventing the recurrence of chronic
cases. The treatment cost reductions totaled
$5 ,988 in the analysis. This isn't just one
tube replacement. This is eliminating the need
for three or four repeat treatments on the same
chronic cow over a lactation. Finally, don't
overlook the interconnected nature of cow health.
The improved reproductive performance, valued
at $2 ,450. When a cow is healthier, when her
immune system isn't constantly taxed, her energy
balance improves, and her conception rates increase.
It's a cascading benefit. So if we conservatively
tally it up, 20 ,075 from milk gain, 59 .88 from
treatment savings, 9 .82 from recovered milk,
and 24 .50 from improved fertility. Total conservative
benefit is over 29 ,000, landing us right on
that 26 .764 net return figure. The map holds
up, even with a margin of error. But this is
where we, the practical operators, step in and
focus on the hidden ROI, the non -ledger items
that are arguably just as important as the milk
check. The labor savings are immense. We're not
just saving minutes per cow. We're freeing up
your most skilled employee from having to wrestle
with cow 417 in the hospital pen for the fifth
time. We're talking about reducing the high labor
requirement of sorting, stripping, and treating
to a manageable maintenance requirement. Those
hours can now be spent on proactive, productive
tasks. And the peace of mind. We can't put a
dollar value on that, but it is a massive factor
in staff retention and owner stress relief. It
is particularly the elimination of the accidental
tank spike risk. That is a huge hidden value.
One mistake, one treated cow slipping through
the line, and your whole load is compromised,
costing you far more than the protocol. That
possibility is eliminated when you're running
zero withdrawal protocols. And for larger operations,
those 500 cow operations that balked at the initial
$54 figure. This only gets better. Absolutely.
The fixed costs of setting up and managing a
new systematic protocol are diluted across many
more cows, while the benefits, the 5 .5 -pound
gain and the reduced culling compound dramatically.
The economics for large dairies shift even more
favorably, provided they have the management
structure in place, which is the necessary caveat.
One of the most common questions from producers
is how this new proactive approach fits with
established sustainable practices, specifically
selective dry cow therapy or SDCT. SDCT is the
cornerstone of responsible antibiotic use, and
rightly so. We should only be treating the quarters
that absolutely need it at dry off. But here's
the critical challenge we must raise. Is SDCT
sufficient if the bacteria are still hiding in
those biofilms? That's the crux of the issue.
SDCT is fundamentally reactive. It operates under
the assumption that the long -acting antibiotic
applied at dry -off will successfully clear whatever
underlying issue the cow carried through lactation.
But if the cow is a known repeat offender, and
that bacteria has established a biofilm, the
dry -off treatment, even a potent tube, may not
penetrate the fortress effectively enough to
clear the infection entirely during the dry period.
And Dr. Acker issued a very clear warning that
we need to heed. If you haven't disrupted the
biofilm before she hits the dry pen, that infection
may persist through the dry off period and critically
reemerge at freshening when the cow's immune
system is under immense metabolic pressure. That
risk. The reemergence at freshening presents
a massive operational challenge. The last thing
you want is a chronic infection that survived
dry -off reappearing right when the cow was most
vulnerable. That is a guaranteed tank spike waiting
to happen. It means we might be unwittingly wasting
the benefits of SDCT applying precious antibiotics
to cows that have underlying infections that
those antibiotics simply cannot penetrate effectively.
So the conclusion is not to abandon SDCT. That
would be counterproductive. The solution is to
refine the order of operations. It's not an either
-or situation. Correct. Progressive operations
are proving that the necessity is sequencing.
You must use the biofilm disruption protocols
during lactation to ensure the udder is truly
clear to remove the fortress before the dry period
begins. This makes the subsequent selective dry
cow protocol significantly more effective. If
you use a selective protocol, you ensure that
the antibiotic, if needed at all, is hitting
a compromised or free -floating population of
bacteria, maximizing its efficacy. It's about
getting the order right. Clear the chronic infection
and eliminate the fortress during the milking
period, then execute the sustainable dry -off
strategy. This ensures the antibiotics used are
hitting bacteria that are only one -time resistant
instead of a thousand times resistant. It's optimizing
your valuable resources. We've talked about the
incredible success stories. Zero tubes, culling
cut by two -thirds. But the Bullvine podcast
doesn't deal in hype. We have to address the
implementation realities head -on. Because based
on the data, this doesn't work for everyone.
Exactly. The source material acknowledges that
about 5 -10 % of farms implement this protocol
and don't see those dramatic improvements. And
if you're going to spend $54 per cow up front,
you need to know the recipe for failure before
you start. Let's detail that recipe for failure.
What are the common patterns found on farms that
struggle? First, they often start in too deep
of a hole. If you're starting with over 50 mastitis
cases per 100 cows, your primary problem is likely
massive environmental or housing failure. This
protocol is designed to eliminate chronic, biofilm
-related infections, but it can't solve deeply
entrenched environmental contamination. You need
to address housing and sanitation first. Secondly,
the financial calculation is often wrong. If
the protocol costs are exceeding 2 -3 % of your
total milk revenue, the financial pressure to
break even immediately is immense. Any slight
hiccup in management or dip in milk price turns
the investment into a financial crisis, leading
to early abandonment. And critically, implementation
during a crisis instead of preventively. Trying
to adopt a new, complex, and systematic protocol
when your tanks are already spiking and your
staff is overwhelmed is never going to work.
It requires focus, calm, and dedicated training,
which is impossible during a fire drill. The
final common denominator for struggle is often
owner -operators trying to manage everything
without dedicated trained support. These protocols,
while powerful, need systematic daily monitoring
and absolute staff buy -in. If the owners spread
too thin, corners get cut, maybe a cow misses
a bolus, or the infusion technique is sloppy
and the protocol fails due to human error, not
biological fault. So let's flip that. What's
the recipe for success? What farms are most likely
to see that $26 ,000 net return? Success seems
highly likely for operations with moderate baseline
challenges. That sweet spot of 20 to 40 cases
per 100 cows. They have a problem that needs
solving, but the underlying housing and environmental
conditions are fundamentally sound. They also
need systematic health monitoring already in
place. We can't stress this enough. If you don't
know your baseline SEC, your true calling rate,
and you're not logging every case and treatment,
you can't measure success. And you certainly
can't identify where implementation flaws are
happening early. And the importance of veterinary
collaboration. If your vet is actively against
this non -antibiotic approach, or if you don't
have accessible technical support from the protocol
provider, someone who can walk the parlor with
you, skepticism and confusion will quickly sabotage
the effort. What I find most telling is the source's
conclusion. Success is less about operational
size than about management capacity and timing.
You need the internal capacity to implement correctly,
and you need to choose the right non -prices
time to start. Though operations of 100 cows
or more do tend to dilute those fixed costs more
effectively, making the ROI look cleaner. Now
let's talk about regional differences, because
what works in sunny California, where Trevor
Nutscher is, often doesn't hold up in the snow
belt or the humid southeast. Climate and market
conditions are massive variables. Take Wisconsin
producers. They deal with negative 20 degree
winters and massive seasonal immune stress. They
reported having to adjust protocols because those
extreme temperature swings hit the cow's immune
system differently than, say, California's steady
climate. And water quality is an often overlooked
factor. The sources hint that iron content and
mineral profiles can influence protocol effectiveness.
High iron content, for instance, can sometimes
interfere by binding to or inhibiting the active
biological ingredients in the disruptors before
they can reach the target. Economic context matters
just as much as biology. Northeast operations,
like a Vermont producer supplying a specialized
MOOC processor, might find the switch almost
mandatory if they have premium contract requirements
that demand extremely low or zero antibiotic
usage. The market is forcing their hand toward
prevention. Contrast that with Southeast producers
operating on tighter margins. Even if the projected
ROI is fantastic, the higher upfront investment
of $54 per cow might be a bridge too far if their
cash flow is already extremely tight. They're
facing a capital constraint, not a scientific
skepticism. And globally, if you're an export
-focused operation in the West supplying international
markets, antibiotic -free certification is rapidly
becoming table stakes. If you want access to
those lucrative international contracts, demonstrating
an advanced non -antibiotic approach to utter
health is essential for long -term positioning.
So what does this all mean for the future of
herd health? We're seeing a shift driven by science,
market pressure, and increasingly, regulation.
Let's look at the regulatory and environmental
impact first because this is emerging as a huge
concern beyond simple profitability. Reduced
antibiotic use means less residual antibiotics
entering the waste stream and consequently less
runoff into local watersheds. This matters increasingly
for permit compliance. And milk buyers are already
watching this closely. The source noted that
more milk buyers are asking about antibiotic
reduction protocols, and that list is only going
to grow. Being able to demonstrate a successful,
proactive non -antibiotic approach is going to
be a competitive advantage and likely a prerequisite
for accessing certain premium markets soon. Let's
set some realistic expectations for the listener
who's ready to jump in. We've talked about the
three to four month break -even point, but...
What does the full implementation timeline actually
look like on the ground? Based on producer experiences,
the first couple of months, months one and two,
are purely the learning curve. Staff skepticism
is normal and must be addressed with dedicated
training. The critical task here is accurately
documenting everything to establish a true baseline.
Then we move into months three and four, where
you should start seeing early indicators. The
hospital pen population might actually start
declining visibly. This is a crucial checkpoint.
If you're seeing absolutely no change by month
four, something is fundamentally wrong with your
implementation. Month six is decision time. You
must see measurable improvement in at least two
key metrics, either mastitis rates declining
significantly, conception rates improving, or
verifiable production increases. If the data
isn't there after half a year, then the protocol,
the timing, or the management capacity wasn't
right for your operation at this time. And finally,
month 12. That's when you run the full economic
analysis. That's when you truly account for the
hidden labor and peace of mind value. And producer
experience overwhelmingly shows that most wish
they'd started earlier once they see the full
year ROI. Which leads us to the critical step
before making the commitment. You need to talk
to your technical advisor, but you need to ask
smart, specific questions. Here are the four
questions every listener should write down and
ask their advisor this week. First, what are
my actual baseline costs per case? Not the industry
average. What are your specific treatment costs,
labor inputs, and calling losses for chronic
cases? Second, what measurable improvements will
justify the investment by month six? Hold them
to a quantifiable metric. It must be specific.
A 25 % drop in chronic case recurrence, for example.
Third, how does the veterinary team view these
non -antibiotic approaches? You need your veterinarian
on board, or at least neutral and willing to
support the transition. And finally, how does
this compare to other investments I'm considering?
If you're also weighing a new parlor cooling
system, you need a clear economic comparison
based on return and risk. That $26 ,000 net return
per 100 cows is a fantastic ROI. See if your
other investments can truly compete. Because
the core insight here is that chronic mastitis
isn't an inevitable part of dairying anymore.
By understanding the protective biofilm, we change
how we evaluate every protocol going forward.
The empty hospital pen is now a realistic, economically
compelling goal, not just a management daydream.
All right. A listener just finished milking and
is driving to the feed store. What are the three
things they need to remember from today? Let's
start with takeaway number one, the biofilm battle.
Insight. Chronic mastitis repeat offenders are
protected by sophisticated biofilms, rendering
conventional antibiotic tubes up to 1 ,000 times
less effective. You are fighting organized bacterial
fortresses, not just vulnerable, free -floating
bacteria. Action for this week. Conduct a biofilm
audit. Identify your top five repeat offenders
right now. Review your actual baseline treatment
cost per case, ensuring you factor in labor and
discarded milk. Takeaway number two. Look beyond
the cost. Insight. Though prevention protocols
cost double upfront, around $54 per cow, the
zero -day milk withdrawal, the crucial labor
savings, and the sustainable five -and -a -half
-pound -a -day gain drive a highly compelling
ROI. That results in that verifiable $26 ,764
net return per 100 cows annually. Strategy for
the next three to six months. If your operation
falls into that success, sweet spot moderate
challenges and solid management capacity. Seriously
investigate the projected three to four month
break -even point and start planning a controlled
implementation. And takeaway number three, sequencing
is key. Insight. Biofilm disruption protocols
complement rather than replace cornerstone sustainable
practices like SDCT. You must actively clear
the biofilm during lactation to ensure the udder
is truly infection -free and ready for dry -off,
preventing costly re -emergence at freshening.
And your positioning for the next one to two
years. Aim for a full protocol shift toward proactive,
preventive... utter health. This is how you future
-proof your farm, meet increasing consumer and
regulatory demands for antibiotic reduction,
and secure your long -term position in the premium
and export markets. This has been another Bullvine
podcast from The Bullvine Podcast. For more straight
-talking industry analysis, data, and producer
interviews, head to www .thebullvine .com. Subscribe
wherever you get podcasts. We're out with new
deep dives every day, and upcoming topics will
be the true cost of genomic testing in smaller
herds and the future implications of water quality
regulations on feed efficiency. Thanks for diving
deep with us.