Breaking free from the chains of the past Where
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law
waiting on some printed page We're charting new
ground in the digital age From genomic codes
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight
we're sparking Welcome back to the Bullvine Podcast,
where we cut through dairy industry noise to
get you the insights that actually matter for
your operation. And today, we're looking at the
big ones. The Editor's Choice 2025. Ten articles
your competitors already read twice. That's a
bold title. Are we really saying a story from
1926 helps me breed cows in 2026? I mean, my
parlor was built in 1995, not 1926. I'm really
struggling to see how TB McCauley's decisions
a century ago are going to influence my next
semen purchase. I found that tension fascinating,
and it's exactly the core mission of this deep
dive, because the genetic decisions you're making
right now, the ones that will define your herd's
profitability for the next five years, they're
all built on foundations laid 100 years ago.
If you ignore that history, you risk this genetic
concentration that could absolutely hurt you
tomorrow. We're using history as a strategic
framework, not just a bedtime story. Okay, okay,
you're the analytical lead here, so convince
me. Let's establish the stakes of this deep dive.
What are we really talking about? Right. So we
published over 300 feature articles this year,
everything from, you know, sire spotlights, donor
cow bios, to these deep dive investigations into
policy and tech. But our editorial mission wasn't
just to chase the flashiest clicks. It was to
find the 10 articles that readers genuinely internalized,
the ones they bookmarked, shared with their herd
managers, and, crucially, were actually referenced
in breeding meetings and investment meetings.
These 10 pieces are the strategic frameworks
people are using right now. And the feedback
really validates that. The engagement on these.
Yeah. It was just off the charts. You mentioned
the article on Elevation of the Foundation Bull.
That piece sparked, what, 340 comments? It was
shared almost 3 ,000 times. 2 ,800 times, yeah.
That's not just passing interest. That's a serious
strategic debate happening in real time on our
platform. But it's the practical application
that really stood out for me, though. The piece
on the Black Rose Cow family dynasty, which we'll
get into. That prompted eight separate emails
from readers. Eight people. So they were completely
reconsidering how they approach dispersal auctions.
They admitted they were overlooking a second
chance goal because they only focused on perfect
sales. And that's a big deal. Yeah. But maybe
even more strategically. That article challenging
the scale obsession death of get big, that one
was shared with lenders by at least a dozen producers,
right? To justify securing automation financing
instead of more expansion debt. Exactly. That
last point is crucial because it speaks to the
central financial hook. This is why we need to
look at this history now. Financially, we're
talking about the difference between these foundational
genetics and modern genomic progress. And that
gap is... It's just massive. If you want a number
that translates history into cold, hard cash
on your bottom line, it's this. The $2 ,117 swing
in net merit value. That number is the price
of progress. Okay, so let's unpack that for the
listener because that figure, that's the key
tension in this whole deep dive. What exactly
is that 21 -17 difference built on structurally?
I mean, in the CDCB model. It's the chasm between
two completely different eras of dairy breeding.
We took Round Oak Rag, Apple Elevation. the bull
who basically built the modern breed in the 60s
and 70s, and measured him against Genisaurus
Retrospect ET. Retrospect is sitting as the number
one net merit bowl in the December 2025 proofs
at a massive plus 1296 NM. Elevation, when you
evaluate him against the population he created,
scores a shocking negative $821 net merit. You
subtract one from the other, you get that $2
,117 swing. So that's six decades of exponential
targeted genetic improvement, all represented
in one single dollar figure. But we need to explain
why he scores negative today. I mean, in his
era, he was the absolute gold standard for production
and type. Oh, he was. But net merit, the modern
comprehensive lifetime profitability index, it
places so much more weight on health and fitness
traits than just pure production. Elevation was
bred primarily from milk yield and incredible
type. When you run him through the modern net
merit engine, he gets these severe negative penalties
in the components that matter most today. daughter
pregnancy rate so fertility health traits health
traits like mastitis resistance and most notably
utter depth which is now strongly penalized if
it's too deep so the very utter confirmation
that made him a legend and you know added what
the article said was sixty five hundred dollars
in longevity profit back in the 70s yeah is now
being penalized because we've tightened the definition
of a perfect utter to reduce injury risk and
labor costs in modern parlors exactly The genetic
definition of profitability has completely changed.
That 21 -17 isn't just a historical footnote.
It's the financial imperative to constantly shift
your breeding strategy away from yesterday's
gold standard and toward today's definition of
fitness. And that's why we have to look back
at the visionaries, the people who gambled massive
amounts of money and reputation, because they
set the terms of the debate we're still having
today. Let's jump right into theme one then.
The visionaries and the cost of concentration.
We analyzed four distinct breeding philosophies
established by the Breeze foundational figures.
And understanding which philosophy guides you
is key to managing your biases. We have to start
with the man who treated genetics like an equation.
T .B. Macaulay. Macaulay's math. It sounds so
clinical for a business that feels so much like...
Like art and gut instinct, right? Well, he was
an actuarial scientist. He didn't come from the
world of cattle. He came from the world of risk
assessment, mortality tables, and long -term
projection for life insurance. And he applied
that same cold, hard math to genetics. In 1926,
he made a move that was universally derided.
It was financially shocking. He purchased Johanna
Ragg Apple Pabst. Yeah, I remember the figure
from the article. $15 ,000 in 1926. What does
that even mean? What did that look like to the
average farmer standing at the fence line? The
article cites Bank of Canada inflation calculations.
That purchase represents roughly $260 ,000 in
today's money. $260 ,000 for one animal. For
one animal. And think about the context. This
was post -World War I. Farmers were not just
struggling. They were struggling through a deep
agricultural depression. And Macaulay spends
a quarter of a million dollars on one bull, the
critics. They thought he'd completely lost his
mind, that he'd wasted the resources of his successful
farm. It was a massive financial gamble based
purely on a conviction about data. So what was
he seeing that everyone else was missing? What
data did he even have back then? He wasn't relying
on the show ring, he was relying on raw numbers.
He was doing systematic progeny testing evaluating
bulls by the actual records of their daughters
compared to their dams decades before the Holstein
Association formalized it in the 30s. So this
was... What, contemporaneous comparison? Exactly.
He was quantifying expected return over replacement
rate. He was essentially running a giant genetic
life insurance model. He believed data was the
ultimate arbiter of value. And that conviction
paid off. Holstein Canada pedigree records confirm
that, I mean, virtually every registered Holstein
walking the planet today carries that bull's
blood. His gamble set a whole new standard. And
that's the strategic framework for the listener.
The article argues that every breeder today needs
to identify their core philosophy. Are you a
Macaulay? Data first. Looking strictly at indexes.
Trusting the numbers even when they're ugly.
Or are you a Stephen Roman? Marketing first.
Building an empire on reputation and branding.
Maybe a Roy Ormiston. Cow family first. Patient
development. Or are you like the Hanover Hill
Partnership, always looking for that paradigm
-shifting, high -risk, high -reward mating? And
understanding those biases is critical when your
semen rep shows up. If you're a Macaulay data
person, you might blindly select the highest
net merit bull without thinking about the structural
type or the cow family quality in Ormiston Prioritized.
If you're a Roman focusing purely on the big
established names, you might miss the subtle
genomic flaws, the haplotypes that Macaulay's
math would have flagged immediately. Your blind
spots are where your competitors find their advantage.
Which brings us directly to the consequences
of that success. The genetic monoliths. Elevation
and Chief. The article didn't just celebrate
them, it really interrogated their legacy and
the concentration risk they created. Round Oak
Rag Apple Elevation. The article described him
perfectly. an unassuming calf born in 1965 on
a small Virginia farm from what they called a
questionable mating. But he became the single
most significant genetic influencer in the history
of the breed. His daughters, for their era, they
were just production spectacles, averaging 29
,500 pounds of milk, beating their contemporaries
by a full 15%. But as you pointed out earlier,
the real money wasn't just the milk. It was the
longevity and the type. The article highlighted
Charlie Will's description of those udders, high
and wide with exceptional shape and symmetry.
They just... They just lasted. They lasted two
to three lactations longer than average for the
time. When we adjusted that 1970s profit figure
for inflation, today's costs, that translates
to roughly $6 ,500 extra profit per cow today,
just from the enhanced productive lifespan he
gave them. That is why he is a foundation of
dairy profitability. Okay, now let's revisit
that paradox because this is what makes it required
reading. His current CDCB net merit is negative
$821. If he generated $6 ,500 in longevity profit,
how can he be negative today? Doesn't that contradict
itself? No, it just illustrates the exponential
speed of progress. The article explains it perfectly.
He is being measured against a modern population
that he's single -handedly created. His genetics
are the baseline. What was excellent structure
in 1975 is simply average or even detrimental
in the context of today's net merit, which places
a heavy financial penalty on things like utter
depth and low fertility rates. Both weaknesses
that later emerged in his dominant line. Exactly.
So we can't delete the foundation of the skyscraper
and expect it to stand, but we have to acknowledge
the concentration risk that comes with that success.
That's the true challenge. And this is where
the article shifts from history to immediate
risk management for today. Elevation's DNA still
runs through an estimated 14 .5 % of active proven
Holstein sires. That's massive. It's huge. And
when you bring in Pawnee Farm or Linda Chief,
the other genetic behemoth, he contributed nearly
15 % to the entire Holstein genome. So together
they dominate 99 % of AI bulls born after 2010.
We have achieved genetic dominance, but... At
what cost to diversity? The cost is concentration
reality. The article document the steadily rising
inbreeding coefficients and, more subtly, these
haplotype frequency changes that affect fertility.
It's the silent genetic squeeze. And this is
the immediate risk for every commercial listener.
Wait, okay, let's slow down and explain that
practical application. For the farmer at the
feed store, what does a rising inbreeding coefficient
or negative haplotype actually mean for their
bottom line? It's more than just a technical
term, right? Oh, it means real tangible losses.
A negative haplotype, especially one linked to
reduced fertility, that results in more services
per conception, higher semen costs, higher vet
bills for repro management, higher involuntary
culling. If your entire herd is 15 % chief, and
chief is known for passing on less than ideal
udder structure, that's not just a type problem,
it's increased somatic cell counts and potentially
more premature culls. The silent squeeze is this
insidious pressure that just quietly erodes your
profitability through these persistent, low -level
inefficiencies. So the immediate reader action
item is unavoidable. You have to manage the concentration
you don't measure. Absolutely. Before your next
mating batch, you have to review CDCB's relationship
tools or call your genetic rep and ask for a
detailed relationship analysis on your top cow
families. You need to understand exactly how
heavily your current herd relies on elevation
and chief genetics. If you are highly concentrated,
you have to make deliberate outcross decisions,
even if it means sacrificing a few GTPI points
on paper. That's the perfect transition to theme
two, finding gold in the gritty. Because often...
The genetics we need to mitigate that risk, the
necessary outcrosses and corrective lines, they
don't come from clean, planned programs. They
come from chaos. Right. We're talking about the
Black Rose story. This piece was fascinating
because it really embraced the gritty, high -stakes
reality of the mid-'80s dairy crisis. You've
got this large -scale breeder, Jack Stuckey,
facing financial ruin and bankruptcy. His entire
life's work is sitting in this legal quagmire.
The article called it legal limbo. The environment
was just brutal. The article painted a very dark
picture of bull calves being sent to slaughter
just to keep the lights on. It was total desperation.
And when a farm reaches that point, the quality
of the cows is often completely divorced from
the seller's financial situation. And that's
where the visionary Louis Prange stepped in.
He didn't just show up to the discursal auction
with a check. He saw the disaster as a unique
strategic opportunity. He worked this complex,
high -risk deal with a bankruptcy trustee. He
would lease the best cows, flush embryos, and
then split the proceeds three ways with the farm
and the trustee. So he leveraged a financial
crisis into a strategic genetic partnership.
Yeah, it gave him immediate access to lines that
very few others could touch. And his genetic
vision was the key to it all. He wasn't just
buying famous cows. He was performing a very
deliberate corrective cost. He mated the high
-profile, red -and -white champion Nendette T
.T. Speckle, who had the look and the type, with
Tamar Blackstar, a major production powerhouse
who badly needed structural help. He used the
chaos to create genetic balance. And the result
was born on March 24, 1990, Stooky Elm Park Black
Rose. Her initial sale price was a pretty modest
$4 ,500, which, adjusted to today, is about $10
,400. So reasonable, but not, you know, not an
astronomical price for a top -end calf. Right.
But she grew into an absolute genetic giant.
EX96, over 42 ,000 pounds of milk, and she accomplished
something few U .S. cows ever manage, winning
Grand Champion at the Royal Winter Fair in 1995.
But the lasting impact is the dynasty she founded.
This wasn't a flash in the pan. Her lineage includes
Lavender Ruby Red Rose Red, who became the first
red and white cow ever named Supreme Champion
at World Dairy Expo in 2005. And that dynasty
continues to dominate, extending right into the
2020s with Lady Rose Caught Your Eye winning
World Dairy Expo three consecutive years, from
21 through 23. Think about that longevity. From
a bankruptcy sale in the mid -80s to dominating
the show ring almost 40 years later, it proves
that the foundation can be found in the most
uncomfortable places. The takeaway here for the
listener is clear. And it's the second major
action item. Financial distress creates unique
buying opportunities. If you're running a purely
commercial herd focused on production, you might
think dispersal auctions are only for type breeders.
But the Black Rose story proves that second -chance
genetics that well -funded operations overlook,
maybe because the seller's books are messy or
the genetics are temporarily out of vogue, can
be the foundation of your next profitable, structurally
sound cow family. And often, those troubled sales
offer genetic diversity that acts as the perfect
outcross to the chief and elevation concentration
problem we just discussed. It's a way to find
fresh blood, often at a discount. That brings
us naturally to another crucial human element
captured in the editor's choice, the Shore Dynasty.
If Black Rose came out of disaster, the Shore
family represents a century of relentless pursuit
of genetic excellence and the massive emotional
cost it takes. Yeah, the story spanned four generations,
starting with William H. Shore in 1910. He made
this calculated leap into purebreds when general,
mixed farming was the safe, predictable path
in western Ontario. And that's the relevant parallel
for us today. The article pointed out that Williams'
decision to pivot away from the safety of general
farming to the riskier world of purebreds. It
mirrors the decisions producers are making right
now. Whether to invest heavily in robotics, whether
to chase carbon neutral certifications or specialize
in high component milk, it's the same psychological
and financial leap. And their genetic legacy
is profound, built on consistency. The article
traced the line from Hardy Sr.'s twin bulls,
Rockwood Rag, Apple Romulus, and Remus, straight
through to Fairly Royal Mark, who was described
as possibly the best bull to come out of Western
Ontario in his time. And that line, those decisions
made in the 1940s, led directly to Braidale Goldwyn,
a bull who defined the breed in the 2000s, often
called the gold standard of modern type. It just
shows the incredible generational power of consistent
strategic breeding. But the article offered crucial
intellectual honesty. by addressing the human
angle, the personal struggles of Hardy Jr. The
piece noted that the same creative fire and relentless
focus that produced Breakthrough Genetics also
fueled personal demons and mental health difficulties
few understood. The industry celebrated his contributions
while acknowledging his profound difficulties.
This isn't just about Milk Records. It's about
the intense psychological pressure of running
a high -stakes generational business. And that's
why those human stories, like the Shore profile
and the Hearts of the Heartland piece about 4
-H networks, made the list. They capture the
emotional core of why people stay in this demanding
business, even when the spreadsheets tell them
to leave. They provide the necessary emotional
resilience framework that complements the genetic
and financial ones. Okay, let's shift gears now
to theme three, the segment that got shared with
more lenders than any other, the mid -size fight
or challenging the orthodoxy of death of get
big or get out. This is the argument I hear about
the most at the coffee shop and the feed store.
For 50 years, the economic orthodoxy has been
clear. Scale is king. USDA data reinforces that
larger operations in aggregate achieve lower
per unit costs. It's a very difficult conventional
wisdom to argue against. It is, but the article
didn't dispute that scale offers advantages.
It provided the critical nuance that changes
the strategic decision for the medium -sized
operator. It found that technology adoption intensity
and management focus could successfully substitute
for those scale advantages. The argument is...
Compete on precision, not just scale. So what
did the data actually show? Did they find some
unicorn dairy? They documented specific 500 cow
operations in the upper Midwest that were using
a complete automation suite. This went beyond
just robotic milking. It included real -time
component monitoring, automated calf feeding,
and highly precise nutritional delivery systems.
These farms were achieving component yields and
margin per hundredweight figures that were completely
competitive with operations several times their
size. That's the key. Margin per druddy. Not
just total profit, but efficiency per unit. They
were outmanaging the inherent advantages of scale
by using real -time data to optimize every single
cow. Like, the article detailed how one producer
used component monitoring on the robots to adjust
the TMR for individual cow groups within 24 hours
of detecting a dip. A large -scale, batch -fed
operation simply cannot do that quickly or cost
-effectively. This is the practical application
for the midsize farmer feeling that consolidation
pressure. You don't have to take on a massive
debt load to compete with the 5 ,000 cow operation
down the road. You can compete on component yield
and efficiency. And the article gave financial
proof of concept that banks couldn't ignore.
The story of the Wisconsin producer was a powerful,
real -world example of that leverage. They credited
the article with helping secure $180 ,000 in
automation financing, a manageable, targeted
investment, instead of a debt -heavy $2 .4 million
expansion loan. 180K versus $2 .4 million. It's
exactly an expansion loan that would have stretched
the operation thin for a decade, risking everything.
That's the strategic value of this reporting.
It gave a data -backed defense for staying at
500 cows but upgrading the infrastructure. And
to inject that necessary intellectual honesty
that the bullvine is known for, we have to mention
the Robot Truth Near Miss article. It found that
while 86 % of robotic adopters reported high
satisfaction with their lifestyle change, only
28 % achieved their projected profitability targets
on time. That is critical context. Technology
isn't magic. It's a tool. It gives you the capability
to compete on precision. But if your management
intensity doesn't match the investment. If you
aren't maximizing the data coming out of that
$180 ,000 investment, you won't hit those margin
targets. So it's not just about installing the
robot. It's about becoming a better, more responsive,
data -driven manager. Right. The robot eliminates
some labor, but it demands more management focus.
That's the tradeoff. Okay. Let's turn now to
the contrarian takes. The uncomfortable questions
these articles force the industry to ask itself.
Let's start with policy. The Canadian system
article. It forced the critical question. Is
our trade policy discussion, you know, Canadian
versus U .S. actually about the cows or is it
just politics? It's almost always politics. But
the article forced readers to look past the political
talking points and analyze the system's function.
It connected Canada's supply management system
quota. guaranteed pricing, enforced stability,
to the extreme price volatility faced by U .S.
free market producers. And it examined the evidence
honestly. It acknowledged the legitimate criticisms
the U .S. often levels, that supply management
distorts markets, can be slow to react to consumer
demand, and potentially punishes hyper -efficiency.
But here's the crucial counterpoint the article
raised. It highlighted the genuine long -term
stability Canadian producers enjoy. That stability
allows them to focus on generational planning
and long -term capital investments like updating
their 1995 parlors, rather than dealing with
brutal boom and bust price cycles that define
survival for many American operations. And the
reader response showed how polarized the issue
is. Some argued passionately for free markets.
seeing intervention as distortion. Others, particularly
those struggling in the recent U .S. volatility,
pointed to the stability. The value of the article
wasn't telling you which side was right. It was
giving you the framework to ask better questions.
When someone starts talking about Canadian protectionism
or American freedom, you can now ask, yes, but
what is the stability cost? And how do we mitigate
the price risk the supply management addresses
in a U .S. free market system? It shifts the
conversation from partisan talking points to
genuine risk assessment. Now let's turn to the
genetics side again, focusing on Chief's legacy.
The article asks the most provocative, uncomfortable
question of all. If Pawnee Farm or Linda Chief
were born today with our modern genomic tools,
would we have even used him? That is an essential
question. It highlights the incredible power
and the inherent danger of modern data. Chief
transmitted massive breed -defining production,
yes. But the article details how he also transmitted
known, utter confirmation challenges and, crucially,
specific haplotypes that reduce fertility. Flaws
that took decades and immense effort to manage
out of the population. And the article cites
CDCB data showing Chief contributed 15 % to the
entire Holstein genome. His influence was nearly
unavoidable because in the pre -genomic era,
we had to wait for progeny proofs. We had to
wait years for data to accumulate to fully discover
those flaws. By then, the genetic damage was
done. His influence was cemented. But today...
Our genomic tools expose those hidden flaws immediately.
The negative haplotypes, the concentration risks,
the weaknesses lurking beneath the massive production
index. So if we had known Chi's genetic weaknesses
immediately, if his predicted net merit was plus
500, but his predicted type was terrible, and
we knew he carried a major fertility haplotype,
would the industry have managed his influence
differently? I think the answer is a resounding
yes. And that's the strategic lesson. It highlights
the value of critical use of modern genomic data.
Genomics isn't just about finding the next plus
2 ,000 GTPI mole. It's about avoiding the next
catastrophic mistake that could dominate your
herd for 30 years and cost you real money through
that silent genetic squeeze. It's using history
to prevent repeating the structural mistakes
that massive concentration risks create. We can
identify the chief level concentration risk before
the semen even leaves the tank. Alright, we've
covered everything from $260 ,000 gambles in
1926 to $2 ,000 genomic swings today. A farmer
just finished milking and is driving to the feed
store. What are the three concrete, actionable
things they need to take from this 2025 review?
This is the feed store summary. Let's keep them
clear and immediately applicable. Takeaway number
one is immediate. Check your foundation concentration.
We talked about the concentration risk. What's
the specific action here? Before your next mating
batch, review your herd's concentration on elevation
in chief. You need to know that that 14 .5 %
DNA concentration isn't an abstract number. It's
the potential for the silent squeeze. Reduce
fertility, higher vet bills in your own herd.
Call your genetic representative. Ask for a detailed
relationship analysis on your top cow families.
You can't manage concentration you don't measure.
Okay, takeaway number two for the next three
to six months. Redefine dispersal value. The
Blackwood story is the model here. Look at dispersal
and bankruptcy sales not just for cows, but for
second -chance genetics that well -funded operations
might be overlooking because the seller's books
are messy. So instead of seeing a financial disaster,
you see a corrective cross -opportunity. Perenge's
$4 ,500 initial purchase led to a supreme champion
dynasty. You're looking for those structurally
sound, outcrossed lines that can mitigate the
weaknesses of your highly concentrated production
bulls. Exactly. The genetic quality is often
completely separate from the temporary financial
state of the operation. And finally, takeaway
number three, long term. Invest in precision,
not just scale. Stop measuring your success by
scale and start measuring it by precision and
technology adoption intensity. The pressure to
get big or get out is still real, but this shows
there's a viable, profitable alternative. And
the financial proof is the core of this. The
Wisconsin producer's $180 ,000 automation financing
versus a $2 .4 million expansion loan. Precision
Tech lets the 500 -cow operation compete on margin
per hundredweight against the mega farms. If
you can't get bigger, get smarter. That's the
strategic framework these 10 articles provided
in 2025. They're not just stories. They are models
for survival and profitability in 2026. This
has been another Bullvine podcast from The Bullvine
Podcast. For more straight -talking industry
analysis, head to www .thebullvine .com. Subscribe
wherever you get podcasts. We're out with new
episodes every day. And upcoming, we're diving
into the December 2025 proof run and why three
bulls everyone's hyped about might be a total
bust when you look past the GTPI and into the
fitness treats. See you then.