Breaking free from the chains of the past Where
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law
waiting on some printed page We're charting new
ground in the digital age From genomic codes
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight
we're sparking Welcome back to the Bullvine Podcast,
where we cut through dairy industry noise to
get you the insights that actually matter for
your operation. And today we're diving deep into
a feature piece about whether we've actually
captured the profit genomics promised, or if
that extra, what is it, $238 ,000 in industry
-wide return is still just stuck, sitting untouched
in your semen tank. That's it. The $238 ,000
question. And it's provocative because, I mean,
that figure represents the estimated compounded
benefit that the entire global dairy industry
has realized over what the first 15 years of
using genomics. It's a massive number. It's huge.
And it's a validating number. Genomics has been.
you know, foundational to modern dairy since
2008. It's not the new kid on the block anymore.
No, it's absolutely the undisputed standard.
But if it's a standard, then it's definitely
time we check the balance sheet. Right. We've
been running on rocket fuel. I mean, phenomenal
speed and genetic gain, absolutely doubling the
rate of improvement. But as a farmer, you know,
I have to ask, did that speed come with a hidden
cost? Are we breeding super producers that are,
I don't know, secretly fragile? That's the fear,
isn't it? Exactly. And the source material we're
digging into today, it drives right at that tension
point. Genomic selection has delivered the speed,
for sure, but it also ramped up some unintended
consequences. Like genetic concentration. Genetic
concentration, rising in breeding. That trade
-off is the real $238 ,000 problem. Are we getting
that headline profit? Or are we just quietly
losing it through higher vet bills and, well,
earlier culling? And the timing for this deep
dive is, I think, perfect because we finally
have the tools to really manage this tradeoff
effectively. You're talking about the new LPI?
Yeah, Lactonet just modernized its Lifetime Performance
Index, the LPI, back in April 2025. That gives
us a brand new, really granular dashboard to
see exactly where a bull excels and maybe more
importantly, where he's deficient. Okay, wait,
let's nail down the stakes one more time because
that money is the reason anyone pays attention.
The core claim is that genomic selection compared
to the older, decade -old genetics. The pre -2008
stuff. Right. Compared to that, it has delivered
a couple thousand dollars more lifetime profit
per cow. And that's based on ProDay, which...
for anyone listening, uses real Canadian revenue
and cost data. It's measuring expected lifetime
profit up to six years of age or, you know, disposal.
It's a serious claim. It is. And if you take
that, let's say, conservative $2 ,000 difference
and you multiply it across a 400 cow herd where
you're replacing, what, maybe 120 cows a year,
you're looking at an extra $50 ,000 to $100 ,000
per year. $100 ,000 a year. Per year. An extra
lifetime profit just rolling through your operation.
I mean, that's capital for expansion. It's debt
payment. It's a buffer against the next dip in
the commodity cycle. That's exactly why we adopted
it in the first place. Of course. But here's
the critical caveat. This is the fine print that
so often gets ignored. And the source material
really drives this point home. That entire payoff.
It's contingent on management. 100%. Genomics
is loading the gun with this incredible potential,
but your fresh tau program, your repro efficiency,
your culling strategy, that's what pulls the
trigger. So if you have a genetically elite heifer
that leaves before her third lactation, because
I know she can't handle the transition or she
blows out her feet and legs. You haven't captured
that two grand. It just, it evaporated. It's
gone. And that is what takes us to the controversy.
Because for too long. The industry has just chased
this single highest index number. The flashiest
bull in the cattle. Of a flashiest LPI or pro
bull available. Exactly. And we're going to challenge
that idea today because we're going to show you
with hard data that the most used bulls, while
they're driving incredible production gain, are
also dragging down critical functional traits.
Like fertility. Fertility, overall diversity.
all of it yeah we're talking about the difference
between breeding purely for rocket fuel genetics
which gives you that incredible speed on paper
versus breeding for workhorse genetics which
you know guarantees long -term reliability and
profit you need a mix right you absolutely need
a mix and we'll show you exactly how to use these
new genomic tools to stratify your herd and get
both okay let's unpack this and jump into the
core claim the promise of genomics And well,
where the industry even started from. Let's do
it. So let's start with the promise. The analysis
of data, I mean, across North America, Europe,
it's completely unambiguous. Genomic selection
has roughly doubled the rate of genetic gain.
Doubled. For everything that matters. No. fat,
protein, and critically health and longevity
traits compared to that old progny testing era.
And that doubling is what underpins that massive,
you know, $238 ,000 industry -wide ROI. When
Lactanet runs those pro comparisons today, comparing
a high index sire born this year to a bull proven
just 10 years ago, that gap is where you get
that couple thousand dollars more lifetime profit
per cow. And I want to stress the cumulative
nature of this. This is an exponential benefit.
If you are consistently breeding daughters with
$2 ,000 higher expected profit for five straight
years, you have dramatically changed the base
profitability of your entire operation. Which
is how you get to that $50 ,000 to $100 ,000
annual uplift we talked about. Exactly. It's
the whole reason we made the technological investment
in the first place. You know, I think to really
appreciate this, we have to pause and look at
the historical context. The time before genomics
gave us these clear, objective numbers. You mean
the banners versus bills split? That's it. The
banners versus bills split on the farm. If you
look back to, say, the late 2000s, the Goldwyn
-Buckeye -Dolman era, before 2008. The era of
the banner cows. Oh, yeah. This was a breeding
philosophy that... heavily heavily prioritized
true type confirmation the show ring cow the
kind of cow that looked absolutely stunning in
the show ring moderate yield was important sure
but the type score especially feet and legs utter
confirmation that was weighted so heavily and
that's where the clash began those aesthetics
They were expensive. Incredibly expensive. And
the research is so clear. Those visually appealing
cows, they often struggle. They struggled hard
through the transition period in a high production,
free stall environment. They needed so much intensive
management. Oh, constantly. They were the ones
prone to ketosis, DAs, persistent feet and leg
issues that just required endless intervention.
I remember running this boat sheets back then.
The goal was this beautiful balance, right? But
the commercial reality was that these cows simply
did not routinely make it to the profitable fourth
or fifth lactation. They looked great. They looked
amazing, but they often left the herd before
they even paid off their rearing costs. And that's
the entire profit paradox right there, isn't
it? We spend two years feeding and rearing her,
investing all this money in her future, only
to have her leave because of a reproductive failure
or chronic mastitis in her second lactation.
The financial clock. just stops ticking before
she even achieves true margin. It's a total loss.
And the research backs this up definitively.
I mean, whether it's University of Gulf studies
or analysis from Ag Canada, lifetime profitability
is fundamentally tied to maximizing productive
life. And optimizing days dry and minimizing
age at first calving. Reducing reproductive interventions.
All of it. If a cow leaves early, you lose that
margin. Full stop. That's why you had producers
like Don Benink, who ran that massive commercial
operation. He was a lightning rod in the industry
years ago. He was. He was arguing, and forcefully,
that the true profit drivers are high production
coupled with strong health traits and feed efficiency.
Not chasing show ribbons. He said the show ring
created a bottleneck in commercial profitability.
And he was right. Genomics didn't invent the
idea of functional profit, but it accelerated
the industry's shift away from that subjective
visual appraisal. It moved us toward objective,
functional economic traits. It gave us the tools
to select for health. longevity, efficiency,
with much higher accuracy and critically at a
much, much younger age. It was a monumental shift.
I mean, it replaced the guesswork of a pedigree
with a facts -first approach that prioritized
what actually pays the bills. It took us from
a six to 10 -year proof cycle down to immediate
data on a calf. That's the foundation of the
$238 ,000 ROI. It is. So if the foundation is
that sound, why are we even having this deep
dive about profit being left on the table? Because
the problem lies in the industry's response to
all that new speed. Right. So let's talk about
the mechanics that deliver this speed boost.
It's important to understand how the velocity
was achieved before we analyze the consequences.
Okay. Genomic evaluation allowed the sire of
sun's generation interval to be cut in half.
And that is the core metric. It's everything.
They drop from that. I mean, agonizing old six
to ten year span. Waiting forever for daughters
to calve. Waiting for them to calve, milk, and
be proven. All the way down to about two and
a half to three years. That shift is absolutely
revolutionary. It's hard to overstate. You can't.
When you cut the time between generations that
sharply and then you combine it with higher selection
intensity because you can test hundreds of bulls
instantly, genetic gain naturally just explodes.
You're cycling through improvements at three
times the rate. And we can track this explosion
so clearly using Canadian data. If you compare
the performance of the 20 most used sires in
2008 versus the top 20 in 2024, the progress
is, it's just startling. Okay, lay it on me.
All right, look at the LPI jump alone. The average
LPI of those top bulls climbed from about 1 ,985
in 2008 to roughly 3 ,531 in 2024. Wow. That's
nearly 1 ,600 LPI points in 16 years. Which means
an average gain of plus 97 LPI points per year
among the bulls that farmers were actually selecting.
And the pro swing is even more crucial, right?
Because that's the dollars. That's the dollars.
It swung from a negative average of about negative
$1 ,558 in 2008, meaning those bulls were predicted
to lose money over their daughter's lifetime.
Which is crazy to think about now. Isn't it?
It swung all the way to a highly positive average
of plus $1 ,970 in 2024. That is a total swing
of over $3 ,500 in predicted daughter lifetime
profit across the most used sires. Which translates
to a gain of, what, plus $221 per year? $221
a year. It's staggering. And production proofs
mirrored this, I assume. Completely. In 2008,
the top 20 bulls were negative for milk yield,
maybe negative 578 kilos. By 2024, they were
driving massive gains, plus 860 kilos of milk,
plus 85 kilos of fat, plus 50 kilos of protein.
So the genetics breeders chose went from being
a subtle drag to a significant forward driver.
We're adding nearly 90 kilograms of milk improvement
every single year through sire selection alone.
The data is incredible. It absolutely validates
the investment. Yeah. But. There's always a but.
There's always a but. The question is, did we
get so focused on the speed dial that we forgot
to check the dashboard for warning lights? And
here comes the red flashing light. Here it is.
The diversity question. When you select that
intensely, constantly chasing the absolute highest
index numbers, you necessarily narrow the gene
pool. This is what geneticists talk about when
they use the term effective population size or
EPS. Right. Can you give us an analogy for EPS
for the farmer listening who might not be a geneticist?
Sure. Think of it like a business investment.
If you have an EPS of 100, that's like having
your retirement money spread across 100 different
companies. If one of them fails. It's not catastrophic.
Okay, makes sense. Geneticists, like at the FAO,
suggest you want an EPS of 100 or more to maintain
long -term health and the ability to adapt to
changes like a new disease or a shift in feed
ingredients. But if you drop below 50... That's
a problem. That's like putting 90 % of your retirement
fund into one stock that's doing great right
now. If that one stock tanks, you're wiped out.
And the international data... When you look at
the genetic history of major breeds like Dutch
and Italian whole signs, it shows that EPS is
often already below 100 in the genomic era. And
the trend is still downward. Still downward.
The intense selection pressures mean everyone
is chasing the success of the same few highly
related sire lines. And the result of that is
directly visible in the accelerating inbreeding
rates. It's rising faster now, about 0 .3 to
0 .5 percentage points annually. That's 1 .5
% to 2 .5 % per generation. We are actively creating
fragility by relying on these tight families.
And the Canadian context here is highly relevant.
The 20 most used sires in 2024, the heroes of
that phenomenal LPI game we just talked about.
Their daughters have an average expected inbreeding
coefficient of 11 .5%. 11 .5. And the breed average
is already considered high at 10 .6. So the very
bulls pushing the most progress are also pushing
us further into this undesirable genetic territory.
Wait, let me just ground that 11 .5 % number.
What does high inbreeding actually look like
on the farm? Yeah, what's the practical impact?
It looks like a lack of robustness. It translates
to more fertility trouble, more flushes, more
cinch programs, more vet checks, trying to get
them bred back. They just don't bounce back as
easily from fresh cow stress or a bout of mastitis.
They are fundamentally less resilient. So you
buy the bull that's supposed to give you $2 ,000
more profit, but if that bull's daughters require
$500 more in reproductive intervention and they
leave six months early because they're fragile.
You've just funded the AI industry without capturing
any of the realized profit yourself. That's the
insidious part of this trade -off, isn't it?
It is. It doesn't show up as one catastrophic
failure. It shows up as constant small management
headaches and creeping labor costs that just
chip away at the margin until that cow is cold.
That seems like a contradiction, though. The
source material notes that while the gene pool
might be tightening at the ancestry level, producers
are actually using more unique bulls. Right.
The share of registrations from the top 20 sires
dropped. It dropped from 33 .5 % in 2008 down
to 22 .6 % in 2024. So isn't that just... paying
lip service to diversity, are we actually doing
something about it? That's a great challenge.
And it shows that producers know they shouldn't
put all their eggs in one basket. They are trying
to spread the risk. So they're buying more bulls.
They're buying more bulls. But if those different
bulls, let's say Bull A, Bull B, and Bull C all
share the same handful of great -grandparents,
the concentration risk is still high. It's the
same genetic code being recycled. under different
names. Ah, so the concentration issue isn't about
using fewer bulls. It's about using bulls who
are all too closely related at the deep genomic
level. It's the ancestry that matters. And we're
still relying on the same few successful cow
families that currently drive the top of the
LPI list. Which means we've engineered incredible
speed, but we've neglected the essential insurance
policy of genetic diversity. Leaving the overall
herd vulnerable. And that takes us to the other
hidden costs. Speaking of hidden costs, let's
talk about the hidden passengers that genomics
revealed. This is another area where farmers
are losing thousands of dollars unnecessarily.
Haplotypes and recessive defects. Exactly. These
are real, quantifiable money drains. And before
genomics, we just chalked them up to bad luck
or management failures. Oh, yeah. Now, genomics
allowed us to expose things like the six Holstein
haplotypes, HH1 through HH6, and defects like
cholesterol deficiency or CDHCD. The financial
loss comes because if a sire and a dam are both
carriers, the resulting embryo or calf is either
lethal or severely impaired. the cholesterol
deficiency story is the classic cautionary tale
right it traced back through famous highly used
lines like mufflin storm and the carriers look
completely normal often high index powerful animals
but when you bred a carrier to a carrier the
calves either died in the womb Or if they made
it to birth, they struggled with chronic diarrhea,
failed to metabolize fat properly, and they were
dead within weeks. I remember before we had reliable
CD testing, walking into the calving pen and
seeing a few of those weak calves failing to
thrive and just knowing intuitively that that
semen order had been a financial mistake. Yeah.
You lost the calf. You lost the pregnancy. You
increased your days open. You wasted the expensive
semen. On a 400 -cow herd, losing even 2 or 3
percent of pregnancies due to these lethal haplotypes.
That translates to thousands of dollars. Thousands
in wasted inputs, extra labor for breeding, longer
calving intervals. And it's not just CD. The
six haplotypes all have slightly different failure
mechanisms. HH5 is often linked to stillbirths.
HH1 might cause an earlier embryonic loss, but
the effect is the same. It's avoidable failure.
The good news is that genomics give us the tool
to find the problem, and the solution is cheap
and available. Right. Major AI studs test routinely,
carrier status is published, and mating programs
can automatically block carrier by carrier matings.
Ignoring this data in 2026 isn't bad luck. It's
economic negligence. It's like ignoring a high
somatic cell count. And preventing just a handful
of those lost pregnancies. instantly pays for
the cost of heifer testing and the software configuration.
I don't understand why anyone would skip that
step. They skip it because they're chasing the
top line index and they think managing defects
is too complicated or too expensive, which is
exactly why we need a better dashboard to manage
these tradeoffs. And this brings us right back
to that modernized LPI DAC board that Lactonet
released in April 2025. This entire push toward
better visibility is driven by the reality that
the old index structure just wasn't giving producers
enough insight into these specific functional
tradeoffs. Like reproduction and health. Precisely.
So the new framework splits it into six highly
detailed sub -indexes for Holsteins. I think
we should walk through them because this is how
you capture that full profit potential. Go for
it. Okay, number one, the production index, or
PI, is still there. Milk, yield, fat, and protein.
That's the engine. Number two, the longevity
and type index, or LTI, now bundles productive
life and confirmation together. So feet, legs,
udder. Exactly. Then you get the functional traits,
the health and welfare index, HWI, the reproduction
index, RI, the milkability index, MI, and then
the new one, the environmental impact index,
or EII. What's fascinating to me is that the
correlation with the old LPI is still really
high, like 0 .98. The strong bulls are still
strong. But now... Now you can see their Achilles
heel immediately. Immediately. If you're struggling
with open days, you can see a Bulls RI score
without having to decipher 20 separate proofs.
And that new inclusion of the Environmental Impact
Index, the EII, that's incredibly forward -looking.
That's directly selecting for traits related
to feed efficiency and methane output. Things
we couldn't even measure accurately 15 years
ago. Exactly. But these are the things that will
dictate profitability in the next five years
as processors and regulators start to reward
that efficiency. Okay, so let's apply the new
dashboard to the past. We looked at the 20 most
used Canadian sires in 2024. The heroes who drove
that $3 ,500 pro game. How do they stack up on
this new detailed six -point dashboard? the pattern
is crystal clear and it explains exactly why
that profit is being left on the table they are
universally elite for lpi pro pi and lti the
production and type stuff the stuff we've been
selecting for they're roughly breed average for
health and welfare and milkability but here's
the kicker okay they are significantly below
breed average for reproduction and environmental
impact wait say that again they're below breed
average for reproduction significantly below
that is the definition of a high performance
fragile machine right if they are significantly
the low breed average for reproduction, that
means we have consistently used bulls that generate
more milk, but whose daughters require more labor,
more hormones, and more time to get pregnant.
That's exactly it. We traded longevity and fertility
for speed in the tank. We accepted that the top
index bull might mean more open days and more
vet intervention because the overall LPI was
so high we thought we could just manage around
the deficiency. But if you keep stacking high
production, below average fertility sires, onto
your daughters who already share that same trait
profile. You're just compounding the problem
exponentially. So if the greed average RI score
is 100, where are these top 20 bulls sitting?
Many are dipping into the high 80s or low 90s.
Some are even lower. And that difference, 10
to 15 points below average, is huge. It translates
directly to extra days open or a higher culling
rate based on reproductive failure. And for the
EAI. Same story. They score low because they
weren't selected for feed efficiency. They were
selected purely for output, regardless of the
input cost. That sets the stage perfectly for
the progressive strategy. If index chasing is
creating these high maintenance cows and isn't
fully capturing the profit, we have to stop being
passive consumers of semen catalogs. We have
to actively steer the breeding bus. This is where
the truly profitable herds, the ones actually
making that full $50 ,000 to $100 ,000 ROI, are
differentiating themselves. They're not just
circling the top two index numbers. No, they're
actively using the full genomic dashboard to
protect those functional traits. So let's dive
into the four progressive strategies they're
using. Okay, strategy number one. Don't stop
at the top -line index. The LPI or PRO gets you
in the ballpark, but you absolutely have to use
the sub -indexes to fix your specific herd problems.
No two farms are the same. Okay, I'll challenge
the premise. Why shouldn't I just take the top
pro bull and focus my management time on fertility
instead of worrying about the index weights?
Because management time is labor, and labor is
the most expensive variable we have. If you can
breed a cow that requires less labor and less
vet intervention, you've created real profit.
So if your top three herd problems are, say,
lameness, poor repro, and cows leaving before
their third lactation, then you need to load
weight onto LTI, HWI, and RI first. You need
bulls that are solid on prodol but are elite
in the areas where your herd is weakest. Let's
use a real -world example, the robotic milking
barn scenario. Perfect. A robot herd's absolute
bottleneck is box throughput. If you have slow
milkers, you lose money by the hour because you
aren't cycling enough cows through the unit.
Right, time is money. So that operation is going
to prioritize the milkability index, the MI speed,
temperament. utter compatibility even ahead of
the absolute highest LPI number. A bull that's
plus 3 ,000 LPI but mediocre on MI is less profitable
for them than a bull that's plus 2 ,800 LPI but
elite on MI. Because the MI is their biggest
profit lever. It is. Or take a quota -based operation
shipping into a butterfat heavy market. They're
going to load weight onto fat percent, the reproduction
index, and that new environmental impact index.
Because they need efficiency and they get paid
for components. Exactly. They are future -proofing
against high feed costs and possible carbon regulation.
They are customizing the index to match their
revenue stream and their liabilities. The index
is a tool, not a religion. Okay, what's strategy
two? Strategy two, and this is crucial for managing
the diversity issue. Set clear inbreeding and
relationship limits. You must use your mating
software to cap expected inbreeding for any individual
mating. We already know 11 .5 % is too high.
And the common practical target cited in the
source material for maintaining robustness is
keeping expected inbreeding for any mating under
about 8%. And that 3 or 4 % reduction in expected
inbreeding is the difference between a cow that
struggles and a cow that just glides through
transition. And what about sire usage? You also
need to cap that. Don't let any single bull account
for more than, say, 5 to 10 % of your replacements
in a given year. If you rely too heavily on one
line, you risk a catastrophic, unforeseen genetic
failure, like a new lethal haplotype emerging
that could wipe out a quarter of your next generation.
Use the data to balance across different cow
families. even if they all have great indexes.
Precisely. Okay, strategy three. This one is
simple but essential. Treat haplotypes as standard
inputs. We already talked about the cost of HH1
through HH6 and cholesterol deficiency. This
is non -negotiable risk avoidance. It impacts
your bottom line directly. In 2026, skipping
this is just financial self -sabotage. You have
to genomically test all your replacement heifers
to get their carrier status. You have to ensure
your AI reports clearly mark carriers. And then
most importantly... You have to actually use
the tool. You have to turn on the block carrier
by carrier. filter in your mating programs, it
takes five minutes to configure and it saves
you lost pregnancies, wasted semen, and the labor
that goes with rebreeding. If a mating program
costs a couple hundred dollars a year and it
prevents, what, three lost pregnancies that each
cost you $300? The ROI on that decision is over
a thousand percent. It's an absolute no -brainer.
Okay, let's get to strategy four, which you said
is the most critical for capturing the full ROI.
This is it. mix rocket fuel and workhorse genetics
on purpose. So this is deliberate genetic stratification.
Deliberate. You use the very highest index rocket
fuel sires, the top LPI pro bulls, but you use
them strategically, only on your absolute best
genomic heifers and your strongest cow families.
The animals that can handle it. the ones that
will pull the genetic sealing of your herd forward
fast. They can handle the genetic stress because
they come from robust, clean lines. But then...
And use the workhorses. You use a broader group
of balanced workhorse sires, the ones that are
above average for reproduction and health and
welfare, solid for longevity and type. Maybe
they're 200 to 300 points lower on LPI than the
rocket fuel, and you use them on the rest of
the herd. Especially on the family lines that
tend to struggle with fertility or health events.
Exactly. You're shoring up the foundation. Let's
run the math on that workhorse strategy, because
this is where that $238 ,000 is truly captured
on the farm. This is where it gets real. If shifting
your sire mix means your average cow stays an
extra, say, 0 .3 to 0 .5 lactations, she survives
her rough second lactation and actually makes
it to her fourth or fifth, that's massive realized
income. It is massive. Think about the net margin
of a mature cow. After feed and overhead, each
additional lactation is worth roughly $1 ,500
to $2 ,000 in net margin. So an extra half lactation,
just because she was more robust and didn't require
that expensive vet intervention, means what?
An extra $450 to $1 ,000 in net income per cow?
Over her lifetime, yes. So if we multiply that
across a herd turnover, this trade -off... A
slightly slower climb on the paper OPI for more
cows that work longer and need less care can
easily be worth $50 ,000 to $100 ,000 plus per
year. Just on the income side, simply through
reducing culling and increasing longevity. And
that figure more than offsets the slower genetic
progress on paper, doesn't it? It absolutely
does. You're maximizing actual realized profit
by increasing longevity and reducing vet bills,
which is the whole point of breeding profitable
cows. You're actively building a deep herd that
stays. Allowing you to cull only based on low
production or age, not health failures. That
is the difference between genetic potential and
realized profit. It sounds like the secret to
maximizing the genomic ROI isn't chasing the
index. It's using the index to create a self
-managing cow. That's a perfect way to put it.
So let's look ahead. The daughters of the bulls
you choose this spring. will be freshening in
your barn around 2032. Eight years from now?
Eight years from now. We have to ensure we're
not breeding high -maintenance, fragile cows
for a future that will likely demand extreme
self -sufficiency, robust health, and feed efficiency
in the face of rising costs and potential climate
pressure. We have to move beyond just catalog
ordering. The information is now highly granular
with the new six subindex LPI, but you have to
force the conversation with your genetic advisor
or AI rep. Turn that product pitch into a strategy
discussion. A strategy discussion tailored to
your herd's performance data. Okay, for the listener
who's ready to make this shift from passive selection
to active skeering, here are the three specific
actionable questions that every farmer should
ask their AI supplier this year to cut through
the catalog noise. Okay, number one. Which bulls
in your lineup are above breed average for both
reproduction and health and welfare sub -indexes
and still strong on LPI and PRO? That question
is powerful because it instantly forces them
to look beyond the top two or three names on
the LPI list. It forces them to find the balanced,
functional sires, the workhorses. You're demanding
function alongside performance. Okay, question
two. Question two. Can you run a report showing
my herd's average expected inbreeding and carrier
status for major Holstein haplotypes and genetic
defects? That gives you an essential baseline
for both diversity risk and hidden financial
risk. If your herd's average inbreeding is already
at 11%, or if you have a high percentage of carriers
for HH5, you know exactly where you need to focus
your selection efforts today. No more guesswork.
No more guesswork. And finally, question three.
If I wanted to balance my sire lineup between
a few elite rocket fuel bulls and more workhorse
functional sires, what would that stratified
breeding plan look like for my specific herd?
That turns the whole discussion into a consultative
planning session. It's not about which bull is
highest. It's about which combination of bulls
will maximize your long -term realized profit.
By protecting functional traits while still driving
progress where you can afford the fragility.
That's how we move from passive selection, just
taking what's on top to active selection, where
you are using the full genomic dashboard to build
that four plus lactation, healthy, self -sufficient
cow you actually want in your barn eight years
from now. That is how you capture the full $238
,000 potential. Right. So a farmer just finished
milking. It's driving to the feed store right
now. They need to put this knowledge to work.
What are the three essential pillars they need
to remember from today's deep dive? The three
pillars of capturing the genomic ROI. First,
you have to protect functional traits. We've
been passive on fertility and health while we've
been chasing production. Okay, immediate action
this week. Review your current semen tank inventory
and flag any bull that is below breed average
for the reproduction and health and welfare sub
-indexes. Use that new LPI data. If they're dragging
you down on those traits, stop using them. Medium
-term strategy over the next three to six months.
Work with your genetic advisor to actively identify
three or four of those workhorse sires that are
clearly strong in those two functional areas.
Use them on your average and below average cow
families. This is how you shore up the foundation
of the herd. And the long -term positioning,
looking one to two years out. Shift your breeding
goal entirely toward those four -plus lactation,
healthy, self -sufficient cows. Start measuring
success not just by milk output, but by tracking
actual culling age and minimizing mastitis and
health events, because those are your cost centers.
Manage diversity and genetic risk. High index
balls increase inbreeding and hide lethal defects,
and we just can't afford to be naive about that
anymore. Immediate action for that. If you haven't
already, turn on the haplotype and recessive
filters in your mating program today. Block the
known carrier -by -carrier matings HH1 -6, CDHCD.
That's Risk Management 101. It's the easiest
money you'll save all year. And medium term.
Genomically test all replacement heifers. This
gives you accurate carrier status and critically
actual inbreeding data on the next generation.
It allows your mating program to be precise rather
than relying on pedigree estimates that might
underestimate relatedness. Long term. Set a hard,
herd -wide, expected inbreeding ceiling target
for all individual matings. Target under 8%.
That is the level that maintains long -term robustness
and adaptability in the face of intense selection
pressure. Okay, and the final pillar, number
three. Balance genetics for ROI. We need to capture
the speed genomics offers, but mitigate the fragility
it can introduce through stratification. Immediate
action. Make a small initial semen order, mixing
one or two of those ultra -elite rocket fuel
sires with at least one or two of those workhorse
functional sires that excel on health and reproduction.
Get that diversification started in your tank
right now. Dive deep into the new LPI subindexes
and assign your own custom weightings based on
your top three herd problems. If lameness is
killing you, Weight, longevity, and type higher
than the standard formula does because that is
your unique bottleneck. And the long -term goal?
Capture that $50 ,000 to $100 ,000 plus per year
ROI by building that deep, healthy herd that
stays longer. If they stay, you only call based
on economics, not health failure. That's the
full profit potential of genomic selection realized.
This has been another deep dive from the Bullvine
Podcast. Genomics gave us the speed, but our
breeding decisions determine whether we actually
capture that profit. The bottom line is this.
Without genomics, you couldn't reliably achieve
this kind of return. The tools are there now
in the form of these new indexes and the haplotype
data. Make sure you're steering your enterprise
in the right direction for 2032. Build a resilient
herd, not just chase the catalog leader for 2026.
For more straight -talking industry analysis,
head to www .thebullvine .com. Subscribe wherever
you get your podcasts. We're out with new episodes
every day, and upcoming topics will be around
the economics of carbon markets and the viability
of high -tech milking equipment. See you next
time.