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.
It's our big 2025 year in review deep dive. We
are peeling back the layers on the data, the
disruptive decisions, and honestly, some of the
absolute disasters that define this year in the
dairy world. This is all about identifying who
survived and, well, who became a statistic. And
we're not pulling any punches today. We are breaking
down the critical stories that separated the
survivors from the statistics in 2025. And a
fair warning, if you found 2025 to be a struggle,
some of this analysis on structural failures
and delayed consequences consequences, is going
to be uncomfortable listening. It has to be.
We have to look at the huge celebratory wins,
the immediate cash flows, and then immediately
pivot to the quiet structural issues that are
going to cost producers dearly in 2026 and beyond.
And we have to start right there with the anchor
statistic that should frankly be echoing in every
single barn in North America. Hit us with it.
The high -end estimate is that Holstein inbreeding
has already cost U .S. dairies a colossal $6
.7 billion. 6 .7. This isn't a theory about margin
fluctuation. This is a measurable financial hit.
This is money that was left on the table because
of breeding decisions or failures to make crucial
decisions that started years ago. That is the
core problem that nobody seems to be paying enough
strategic attention to right now. Right. Especially
because the entire year of 2025 was dominated
by this incredible tension. On one hand, you
had this massive, almost universal celebration
of immediate verified cash flow from beef on
dairy premiums. It was the financial lifeline
of the year for so many operations. You got that
$800, maybe $1 ,000 for a crossbred calf on day
three. Immediate cash. Immediate cash, zero rearing
costs, minimal death loss risk on the farm. That
felt like a huge strategic win for short -term
survival. It absolutely was a win. But while
everyone was busy counting those $1 ,000 checks,
something insidious was happening in the background,
quiet. eating away at future profitability. You
look at the USDA data from November 2025. Replacement
heifer costs quietly hit a national average of
$2 ,870 per head. And that's just the average.
If you're running a large operation in high demand
areas like California or Texas or certain pockets
of the Midwest, you are regularly exceeding $3
,200. Oh, easily. You are literally watching
the industry celebrate a $1 ,000 gain today while
simultaneously signing up for a $3 ,000 liability
in the next two years. It's the classic failure
of vision. You fix today's cash problem by trading
away tomorrow's equity. Yep. And while this was
happening, the industry spent the entire year
debating TPI rankings. Which bull was up? Which
bull was down? But the underlying genetic foundation
was decaying. At an accelerating rate. Inbreeding
has jumped 168 % since 2010. That's not a gradual
slope. That's a structural cliff we are accelerating
toward. And the $6 .7 billion figure is the price
tag of that decay. So if you were one of the
survivors this year, the one who navigated the
feed price volatility and the unpredictable milk
checks, you weren't just lucky, you were strategic,
often making decisions contrary to the prevailing
hype cycle. And that's why this deep dive matters.
We need to define that strategy for you. Our
mission today is to distill the playbook of those
survivors. We've synthesized our 16 most read
articles from The Bullvine this year, and they
coalesce into three critical threads that define
2025 and must inform your 2026 plans. Okay, let's
hear them. First, we're looking at the architects,
the people who redefine success, often by challenging
industry orthodoxy. Second, we'll analyze the
bloodline's legendary genetics that survived
and outlasted the evaluation systems that once
dismissed them. Good stuff. And finally, we're
hitting the battlefield, the relentless market
forces like beef on dairy and industry consolidation
that are demanding an immediate calculated response
from every producer. Okay, let's unpack this.
The architects, the winners. Right, let's get
into it. The winners in 2025 weren't necessarily
the ones who simply bought the highest -ranked
genomic sires. The true survivors built unique,
disciplined systems. They fundamentally challenged
the assumption that you have to chase TPI to
succeed. And it's crucial we look at the scale
of these successes immediately. That tells you
whether the lesson is replicable for your 500
cow dairy, or if it's just a fascinating profile
piece about people operating in a different universe
entirely. A perfect place to start then is with
Juan Moreno and ST Genetics. This is a story
about fundamental infrastructure change. Moreno
didn't just found a successful company. He fundamentally
rewired the global plumbing of dairy genetics.
We're talking about an operation with 1 ,800
employees spanning 16 countries. The scale is
huge. And the impact is staggering. ST Genetics
pioneered sex -sorted technology that is now
responsible for roughly 30 % of all semen sold
globally. 30 %? Think about what that number
implies. That means ST genetics has become the
air supply for a third of the world's dairy breeding
programs. When you control a technology like
that, you dramatically reduce the genetic waste
in the industry, forcing producers to be more
efficient with their breeding decisions because
they know precisely what they're getting. That's
market power. What I found most fascinating,
given their technological dominance, was Moreno's
disciplined restraint regarding genetic modification.
He drew a hard line, stating, and I quote, If
they don't want to go any further with genetic
modification, why on earth would we get involved
with it as an industry? We're playing with fire
by doing that. That's interesting. So he's prioritizing
commercial viability and farmer trust over chasing,
you know, maximum hype or scientific headlines.
Precisely. He was named World Dairy Expo's 2025
International Person of the Year because he delivered
products that work, not just products that generate
academic curiosity. That discipline restraint
is a huge lesson. It's about building a sustainable
business on proven results, not on theoretical
future technologies. Now let's pivot from technology
dominance to scale dominance with the McCarty
family, who were named the 2025 Dairy Producer
of the Year. This is the definition of scaling
success beyond traditional farming models. Oh
yeah, their numbers are just staggering. They
run 15 ,000 cows across four Kansas sites, plus
another 4 ,000 at MVP Dairy in Ohio, which, for
context, is the largest registered Holstein herd
globally. The scale is astronomical. But as you
said, the cow count isn't the winning factor.
Not at all. The winning factor is the partnership
with Danone. They aren't just shipping milk to
a co -op. They control what happens to that milk
afterward. They are vertically integrated from
feed to fermentation. Vertical integration is
the architecture of survival in the modern market.
And the McCourty's are the proof point. It allows
them to manage milk. price volatility, control
quality from the ground up, and essentially operate
outside the crush of the volatile commodity market
that destroys margins for most conventional producers.
Wait, hold up. This is where I have to step in
with the 300 cow farmers perspective. Go for
it. The McCarty model requires resources and
access most farms will never have. We're talking
about needing Danone's direct line and the capital
for $50 million worth of processing and logistics
infrastructure. Of course. So is this genuinely
a lesson we can apply? Or is it just watching
the Yankees win the World Series and hoping their
playbook helps your local softball team? That's
the critical distinction, and we have to be clear.
The lesson isn't replication, it's recognition.
Okay. The McCartys are showing you that controlling
the value chain is winning. If you can't replicate
it at 15 ,000 cows, you need to understand the
principles and apply them at your scale. So how
does that principle translate to the guy running
300 cows who's worried about his bank manager?
The small farm playbook is collaboration or niche
positioning. If you can't own the processing
plant, you have to find a co -op or group of
farms that pools resources to negotiate specialized
contracts. You need to control more of the value
beyond the bulk tank, whether that's guaranteed
component pricing or securing a contract for
specialized milk like A2A2 or organic. That collective
value control is the small -scale version of
vertical integration. That idea of collaboration
being a structural solution leads us perfectly
to the Genesaur story. It does. If the McCartys
are the outlier success story, Genesaurus is
the accessible success story. Absolutely. Genesaurus
is the ultimate countermodel to consolidation.
We talked about eight Iowa farming families who
pooled resources and knowledge back in 2014.
They didn't have Danone backing. They had a shared
goal and a collective investment in high -end
genetics. And the result was Genesaurus Captain.
I mean, you have to talk about why his success
was so unprecedented. Genesaurus Captain was
unbelievable because he held the number one TPI
for... seven consecutive proof runs. Let's just
pause on that. Seven consecutive proof runs.
In the genomic era where genetic turnover is
so rapid that the top bull today is often obsolete
by tomorrow, achieving that kind of consistency
is almost unheard of. He peaked at plus 3 ,441
TPI. That longevity proves two things. First,
that their initial genomic evaluation was incredibly
accurate. And second, that there were deep functional
traits ensuring he didn't crash once his daughters
actually started milking. The key scalable lesson
for the 300 -cow farmer is right there. Collective
investment produces results that none of those
individual breeders could have achieved alone.
In an era where AI companies dominate, Collaboration
is not weakness. It is the accessible survival
architecture. And speaking of challenging the
orthodoxy, let's bring in David Diamond in AG3
because his philosophy ties directly into the
dangers of the genomic hype cycle. Right. Diamond's
model, while large, is built on a philosophy
of consistency over unpredictability. He actively
invests in cow families with proven, multi -generational
longevity and functional purpose. He's deliberately
avoiding the animals that rank highest purely
on paper but lack maternal history. He's the
one betting on the cow, not the algorithm. And
his quote resonates deeply with the $6 .7 billion
cost of inbreeding. Genomics without performance
verification is speculation compounded by more
speculation. He's arguing that we get so caught
up in the predictive power of a TPI number on
a newborn calf that we forget the crucial check.
Does the lineage actually produce cows that last
through six lactations and handle stress? That's
the part that gets me. We use genomics to find
new blood, which is fantastic. But the speed
and high rankings encourage us to overuse those
elite bloodlines, which inevitably leads to that
massive inbreeding spike you detailed earlier.
Diamond is forcing himself to maintain maternal
line diversity as insurance. The practical takeaway
here is that the most profitable long -term herds
blend both strategies. Use genomics for direction,
finding the right new low -inbreeding blood to
infuse, but maintain maternal line depth, verifying
those cows actually perform. Don't put your entire
herd's future on paper numbers from an animal
that is still being raised in a hutch. Okay,
so let's flip that coin. We've talked about the
winners. What about the failures? Right, segment
two. We need to look at the failures that taught
us more than the soaring successes. This is all
about when ego beats judgment and how historical
financial speculation is repeating itself today.
You can't talk about genetic speculation in the
U .S. without talking about the Jack Stuckey
saga. No, you can't. That collapse still serves
as the gold standard for how not to run a dairy
business. The Stuckey Empire was built on quicksand.
It was constructed not on productive fundamentals,
not on high milk checks or efficient feed conversion,
but on financial maneuvering, speculation, and
crucial tax incentives. We're specifically talking
about the massive influence of Section 46. For
listeners who might not be familiar with that
history, what exactly was Section 46 and why
did it matter so much? Section 46 was a tax provision,
part of the investment tax credit back then,
which allowed for rapid, sometimes immediate
depreciation of capital assets. When the IRS
designated high value registered cattle as capital
assets, it created the investor era in dairy
cattle breeding. So suddenly these high end registered
cattle weren't just milk machines. They were
massive tax shelters for high net worth individuals,
doctors, lawyers, Wall Street guys. who needed
huge write -offs. Precisely. It fundamentally
decoupled the paper value of a cow from her actual
productive value in the barn. Investors were
incentivized to buy the most expensive animal
possible based purely on a pedigree and hype
because the tax savings were immediate. Corruption
was secondary. Completely. When the tax incentives
dried up and the financial reality hit, the entire
speculative house of cards collapsed spectacularly,
leaving creditors, neighbors, and many honest
breeders bankrupt. And the ultimate lesson there,
which is ignored every generation, is that business
models built solely on speculation always fail.
You cannot sustain a productive farming enterprise
on short -term financial maneuvering. The deep
irony, which we'll cover in a moment, is that
the genetics often outlimit the financial folly.
The Stuckey -Elm Park, Black Rose cow family
survived the bankruptcy. The genetics were sound.
The business model was rotten to the core. But
the tragedy for 2025 is that the Stuckey mentality
The belief that paper value and hype can replace
actual productive performance is still rampant.
It is. We saw multiple verified reports this
year about genomic heifers selling for figures
we haven't seen since the height of the investor
era, easily reaching and sometimes exceeding
six figures. $100 ,000 or more. For a calf. Yeah.
And what were these sales based on? High GTPI
genomic total performance index and a high net
merit score. Purely paper numbers, often from
an animal just a few weeks old. They had absolutely
zero milking records, no longevity data, no production
verification. The farmer is buying a high -tech
lottery ticket. And what's your gut reaction
when you see these sales happening today? Honestly,
it's disbelief mixed with frustration. We are
still doing this. The Stuckey collapse was based
on gambling on paper pedigrees and tax write
-offs. Today, we're gambling on algorithms and
tax write -offs. The specific technological packaging
changed, but the speculative psychology is identical.
That's exactly our conclusion in the bullvine
analysis. The packaging changed. The gamble didn't.
The influence of the investor era and the Section
46 mentality is still driving decision -making,
encouraging some breeders to prioritize paper
hype and the potential for a quick six -figure
flip over the functional, durable cow families
that keep the milk checks coming for years. And
the risk isn't just that the calf buyer loses
money. The risk is that the attention, the capital,
and the genetic focus shift away from the functional
animals that actually pay the bills, further
accelerating that trend toward genetic uniformity
and inbreeding. That brings us perfectly to segment
three, genetics that outlasted everything. Ah,
the matriarchs. The matriarch's cows who were
often dismissed by consensus because they didn't
meet the current scorecard, but whose dynasties
defied multiple evaluation systems. This is the
ultimate lesson in trusting your eye over the
room's opinion. This is truly the heart of dairy
breeding. This proves that sometimes the collective
wisdom of the room is just flat out wrong. And
the only thing that matters is the genetic power
packed into that animal. The ultimate example
is Westwood HC Rudy Missy. We covered her $8
,100 phone call back in 2003. Just think about
the professional failure here. A sales ring full
of professional cattle people experts who dedicated
their lives to this walked away from her. And
why? The consensus reason for dismissal. An unbalanced
rump. An unbalanced rump. If you applied that
level of scrutiny to most cows today, half the
barns in America would be empty. That is how
narrow the focus was back then. Matt Steiner
made the contrarian bet. He didn't even see the
cow in person. He bought her by phone for $8
,100. Just incredible. That seemingly small,
slightly flawed purchase produced Seagull Bay
Super Sire and Mountfield SSI DC Mogul. That
lineage not only led to the 2014 Global Cow of
the Year, but generated hundreds of millions
in global semen sale. Hundreds of millions of
dollars, all from a cow rejected for a minor
physical imperfection. The lesson for every breeder
sitting on the fence is this. How many missies
are culled every year because they don't quite
fit the rigid conventional scorecard? Exactly.
Because their udder angle is five degrees off
or their frame isn't exactly the type the judges
want, Steiner demonstrated the necessity of independent
judgment. And the story of Stooky Elm Park Black
Rose is even more dramatic because she was literally
salvaged from that financial wreckage we just
discussed. She was purchased during the fire
sale, right? Yes. Black Rose was a distressed
sale heifer purchased by Louis Prange during
the absolute height of Jack Stuckey's catastrophic
financial collapse. She cost a measly $4 ,500.
Imagine the scene creditors milling about, the
urgency, the chaos, and someone having the clarity
to spot the genetics in the middle of a business
crisis. She became the foundation of a massive
red and white dynasty, producing modern show
winners like Lady Rose Caught Your Eye. That
$4 ,500 purchase, made in the middle of an institutional
collapse, yielded generational wealth. That is
the ultimate second -chance story. It proves
that sometimes the best genetics need a crisis
to reveal their true value. They need someone
paying attention when everyone else is focused
on the financial panic. The genetic quality endures,
even when the business model around it is disintegrating.
Then you have comma star Lori Sheik. Her legacy
isn't about being safe from disaster, but about
sheer, unstoppable durability across multiple
eras. She built an empire that produced four
different millionaire bulls. Four. A staggering
number that speaks to a level of consistent functional
transmission rarely seen. And the timeline is
the key proof point. Descendants of Laurie Sheik
were still winning Holstein Canada's Cow of the
Year Award 27 years after she herself won the
inaugural honor back in 1995. 27 years. That
kind of generational consistency is not luck.
It transcends fluctuating indices, changing breed
preferences, and the entire shift from traditional
linear scoring to genomics. That is intentional
breeding focused on deep functional traits. You
know, fertility, productive life, components
that ensure a cow lasts. And we must briefly
mention the two sires who define this genetic
tension. Pawnee Farm, our Linda chief from the
60s and 70s, who created those massive production
gains by contributing nearly 15 % of the breed's
modern genome. He's the source of both the production
gains and the inbreeding concentration we're
dealing with today. He is the root of the $6
.7 billion problem we started with. Contrast
that historical figure with Genosaurus Captain
in the 2020s. Captain, with his seven consecutive
number one TPI runs, became the proving ground
for whether the modern genomic selection systems
can actually deliver on their promises of predictability.
So we're dealing with the lingering consequences
of the 1970s while desperately trying to prove
out the technology of the 2020s, all in the same
herd. It's an insane juggling act. Which transitions
us perfectly to part three. The battlefield.
We need to talk about the relentless market forces
that are demanding an immediate calculated response
from every operation. And nothing defined 2025
quite like the beef on dairy reckoning. This
is the intersection where immediate cash flow
for survival collided head on with long term
genetic viability. It's the tightest margin decision
a producer has to make right now. The adoption
explosion is absolutely undeniable and it happened
fast. American Farm Bureau data showed that 72
% of U .S. dairy farms now use beef genetics.
72%, up from basically zero a decade ago. CattleFax
confirmed that crossbred calf production exploded
from 50 ,000 head in 2014 to 3 .2 million in
2024, with projections hitting 6 million by 2026.
This isn't a trend. It's a structural industry
shift. The economics are too compelling to ignore.
That three -day -old crossbred calf delivers
$800 to $1 ,000 cash flow immediately. You eliminate
the cost of milk powder, the feed, the labor,
the death loss risk, and that two -year wait.
It is the ultimate survival mechanism in a tight
margin environment. It lets you monetize the
bottom end of your herd instantly. But here is
the problem that ties back to the $6 .7 billion
figure. You are effectively trading your genetic
future for today's cash. And the market is shouting
the long -term cost at us. We cited the USDA
number earlier. Replacement effort prices hit
that national average of... $2 ,870. And pushing
past $3 ,200 in certain regions. This historic
high is directly driven by the success of the
beef on dairy strategy because suddenly everyone
is short on quality of dairy replacements. The
hard math is in the replacement ratio, which
is the amount of seed corn you have left. The
dairy herds ratio dropped to a critically low
27 dairy heifers expected to calve for every
100 cows. 27 to 100. That is a dangerously thin
ratio. We are, quite literally, eating our seed
corn. We are consuming the future equity of the
herd for immediate calories today. But I have
to play the devil's advocate here. If I'm a farmer
who had a tough Q3, With unexpected feed price
spikes, that $800 to $1 ,000 calf check is absolutely
real money today. It pays the vet bill. It keeps
the bank from calling. For a significant portion
of producers, this isn't a long -term strategic
decision. It's a short -term survival decision
to make it to the next quarter. And that reality
is completely valid. But we need to help you,
the listener, distinguish between strategic use
and reflexive use. Strategic use is disciplined.
You use beef genetics on your bottom 20 to 30
% of cows. And critically, that bottom 20 % must
be genomically verified as poor performers. Precisely.
You're not guessing. You're confirming which
animals have low predicted transmitting abilities.
Low PL, low DPR, poor health traits. You're monetizing
the verified genetic tail of your herd while
protecting your core. That protects your genetic
engine. Reflexive use, however, is breeding beef
on anything that moves just because the cash
feels good this month. That guarantees you're
going to be short replacements later. You will
either have to pay $3 ,000 plus per head to buy
someone else's genetics, or you'll be unable
to expand when the market finally rewards growth.
So the answer isn't don't use beef on dairy.
The answer is use it like a scalpel. not a sledgehammer,
and verify that bottom tier immediately. Okay,
let's now talk about the silent killer in the
genetics conversation, what we've called the
hidden inbreeding tax. This is the underlying
mechanism that underpins the entire $6 .7 billion
figure we opened with. It's silent because it
doesn't show up as a line item on your monthly
income statement, but you feel it every single
time you have to call the vet out for a difficult
freshening or a cow that just won't breed back.
The soaring rate is staggering and frighteningly
fast. Holstein inbreeding in US herds climbed
from a manageable 5 .7 % in 2010 to a critical
15 .2 % by 2020. That is a geometric explosion
in lack of diversity fueled by the overuse of
a few elite sires. And we're not slowing down.
Industry projections show we're heading toward
18 to 22 percent by 2030. Let's put that in perspective.
The established threshold where inbreeding depression
becomes economically significant is 6 .25 percent.
We are approaching triple that level industry
-wide. We are sacrificing viability for temporary
predictability. And the financial hit is real
and quantifiable, thanks to the data coming out
of the USDA ARS on net merit revisions. The analysis
shows that each 1 % increase in inbreeding costs
roughly $23 to $25 off a cow's lifetime net merit
value. That is a direct, measurable tax. Yeah.
But what does that $23 mean for me in the barn?
It translates directly into measurable hits on
the traits that keep cows in the parlor. Reduced
fertility, lower productive life, and higher
susceptibility to disease. Your fresh cows are
sicker because their immune system lacks diversity.
Your breed backlights are lower because fertility
is one of the first traits to suffer. So that
is why my fresh cow problems are getting worse.
That's why I'm seeing more early culling pressure,
even on my best -looking heifers. My herd's infertility
issues are compounding, despite better management
and expensive protocols. It's not necessarily
your management. It's the compromised genetic
resilience you're inheriting. Inbreeding reduces
the cow's overall robustness. She needs perfect
management and high inputs just to reach an average
performance, and she's still more likely to fail.
So if the tax is real, what is the value of reducing
it? Does the data back up the pain of searching
for diverse genetics? It absolutely does, and
this is the good news. We saw documented case
studies extension programs tracking 500 cow herds
that consciously reduced inbreeding from 13 %
down to 8 % over three years. And the result?
Those herds saw $75 ,000 to $94 ,000 in improved
lifetime cow value across the herd. Wow. If you
take the high end of that, that's $188 per cow.
That is a massive return on investment for simply
managing genetics intelligently. That's a bigger
check than you'd get from most premium contracts,
and it's completely internal. This should be
your single most urgent, actionable threshold
this week. You must look at your inbreeding coefficients.
If you are not looking at them, really looking
at the relationship coefficient on your reports,
start immediately. You need to stop maximizing
the TPI score and start maximizing diversity.
What is the practical target? I'm looking at
the projected inbreeding of a bull on my herd.
What number is my hard stop? Set your sire search
filters to a 6 % max projected inbreeding or
lower. That 6 % is your non -negotiable threshold
because it keeps you below that economically
significant depression point. If your current
genetics provider cannot easily give you that
data and help you filter, that is a massive structural
problem you need to solve this week. You need
diversity and you need transparency. Speaking
of structural problems and transparency, we have
to address the elephant in the room that changed
the future of supply in 2025. Industry consolidation.
Oh, yeah. Specifically, the pending combination
of select sires and ST genetics. This is segment
six. This merger is a seismic event. It fundamentally
alters the landscape of semen supply in North
America and globally. When you combine the largest
farmer -owned co -op with one of the most technologically
dominant private companies, you create an entity
with unprecedented market power. Think about
the resulting market control. When this combination
is finalized, just three companies will control
roughly 70 % of the genetics flowing into North
American herds. 70%. That is historic. And the
argument for consolidation is always efficiency
and accelerated innovation. They say it allows
them to invest more in R &D and bring better
genetics to market faster. Which is true, in
theory. That's the spin. The reality is that
consolidation concentrates genetic control precisely
when genetic diversity is most needed. Right
when we were fighting the $6 .7 billion inbreeding
tax. When three entities control that much of
the market, they control the direction of the
breed. You mean they decide which traits are
emphasized? If they decide to chase pure volume
and let fertility slide, my options for finding
a bull that prioritizes fertility for my struggling
herd just dried up. My analysis is stark here.
When three companies control 70 % of the market,
you are no longer a customer. You are a captive
market. If they prioritize milk volume over productive
life, you have extremely few alternatives for
diversifying that risk or maintaining leverage.
That's terrifying, because if I wait until the
ink is dry on the merger documents, my options
are completely gone. So, what's the tactical
response? How does a producer regain options
and leverage? You nailed it. The window for action
is closing now. Producers need to diversify suppliers
immediately. I don't mean buying one bowl from
a different catalog. I mean establishing genuine,
strong working relationships with multiple genetic
suppliers. The big ones and the smaller niche
outfits that specialize in outcrossed genetics.
That ensures genetic breadth, giving you access
to non -mainstream bloodlines to fight the inbreeding
tax. But it also gives you crucial negotiating
leverage. If you rely on one company for 90 %
of your semen, you are entirely at their mercy
when it comes to pricing and product availability.
Diversification is your hedge against becoming
a captive buyer. And while we're talking about
massive forces, we should probably touch on the
political context. That endless U .S.-Canadian
trade situation. President Trump has been beating
the same drum on Canadian dairy and their supply
management system since 2018. And frankly, the
political argument is tiring. It is because regardless
of your political stance, the economic outcome
of the Canadian system is undeniable. Supply
management creates stability. Full stop. Production
quotas match demand, minimum prices are guaranteed,
and high import tariffs stabilize their domestic
market. And that stability means Canadian dairy
farm debt -to -asset ratios have remained substantially
more stable over the past decade than those in
the U .S., where producers are subjected to constant
wild swings and margin crises. So the lesson
for the American producer isn't about the moral
superiority of free markets or supply management.
It's about the structural vulnerability inherent
in your system. My take, and I stand by this,
American producers need to analyze why their
system creates such vulnerability rather than
just arguing about the fairness of the Canadian
system. Stop expecting trade negotiations to
solve the structural problems in your mill check.
Budget for volatility. Lock in your prices and
feed costs when you can. And don't assume the
government is going to solve the problem of market
instability for you. That's the only way to be
a survivor. All right, let's wrap this entire
deep dive into 2025 with the most critical part,
the actionable takeaways. A farmer is heading
into 2026 planning right now. Three things. High
impact, non -negotiable instructions from this.
3 things you can implement this week that cost
almost nothing but will save you tens of thousands
of dollars and significantly improve herd longevity
down the road. Today, not next month, pull those
inbreeding coefficients on your genetic reports.
The data shows that the difference between 13
% and 8 % inbreeding is a direct $150 to $188
per cow in lifetime value. Set your sire search
filters to a 6 % max projected inbreeding. Make
that non -negotiable. Number two, and this is
crucial for protecting your core herd while still
monetizing beef on dairy. Before spring breeding,
you need to identify your bottom 20 -30 % for
beef cross. This selection must be genomically
verified. Do not make this selection based on
type or intuition. Protect your genetic core
by only breeding beef to your verified, low -merit,
poor -performing animals. And finally, number
three. This year, establish working relationships
with multiple genetic suppliers. Do it now, before
the ink dries on the select Sires genetics combination.
The consolidation window is closing, and once
those three companies own 70 % of the market,
you lose all leverage. Diversification is survival
architecture. That's our 2025 wrap -up. Honestly,
if you only read one Bullvine article or listen
to one deep dive before you start making those
critical spring breeding decisions, make it this
one. It ties together the failures, the successes,
and the catastrophic costs of delayed action
on inbreeding and consolidation. All 16 source
stories, from Juan Moreno's rise to the explanation
of the Section 46 collapse to the $4 ,500 Black
Rose purchase, are linked for you at www .thebullvine
.com. Go there, read the source material, and
implement these three changes today. Subscribe
for daily deep dives. Next up, we're covering
the potential impact of ongoing margin crises
on the demand for specialized feed efficiency
genetics and whether that will replace TPI as
the primary ranking system in 2026. Don't wait
for the shifting ground to settle. Move with
it. Thanks for joining us for The Deep Dive.