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 the dairy industry noise
to get you the insights that actually matter
for your operation. And today, we're diving deep
into a feature piece. It's called Precision Transition,
the new economics of ketosis management. Honestly,
looking at the research pile we have for this
one, this isn't just a gentle nudge to tweak
a protocol. No. This is going to ruffle some
serious feathers. We are taking a hard look at
that sacred cow of fresh cow protocols, the 1
.2 BHB cut point. Yeah, ruffle feathers is probably
putting it mildly. For years, for decades really,
the golden rule in that fresh pen has been so
simple. It's automatic. It's total muscle memory
for most of us producers. You see a fresh cow,
you prick her ear, the meter says 1 .2 or higher,
and bam, you reach for the drench gun. She gets
the propylene glycol. Every time. Yeah. It's
just, it's what you do. And now you're telling
me that this article and the data behind it is
suggesting we just stop. That we rethink it,
yeah. Because to me, honestly, that sounds like
a recipe for a complete train wreck. It sounds
totally counterintuitive, right? It feels like
walking a tightrope without a net. But here's
the thing. The data is suggesting that the blanket
rule that treat everyone over 1 .2 rule is actually
costing you more money than the propylene glycol
itself. More how? We aren't saying ignore ketosis.
We are not saying it isn't real. What we're saying
is that treating every single cow that hits that
number is outdated. It's expensive. Okay. And
it is potentially harming your operation's efficiency.
Harming efficiency. Now, that's the part I'm
struggling with. I thought treating them was
saving money. I thought we were catching them
before they crashed. Right. The whole point of
the fresh cow protocol is prevention, isn't it?
You know, we catch the smoke before the fire.
That is the hook. That is the assumption we all
operate on. But when you actually run the numbers.
Okay. And I mean, really dig into the economic
modeling. In a standard 500 cow Holstein freestall,
sticking to that old blanket rule is likely leaking
anywhere from $25 ,000 to $35 ,000 a year. Wait,
hold on. $25 ,000 to $35 ,000. Just from following
the standard protocol. The one everybody recommends.
Just from that one decision point. I mean, that's
the price of a decent used pickup truck. That's
a whole lot of semen. It's real money. And it's
from the leak. That is what we need to unpack
today. Because the latest data says we are systematically
overdosing healthy cows and, ironically, potentially
undermanaging the sick ones because we're too
busy chasing numbers. So we're focused on the
wrong thing. Exactly. The controversy here is
that the number 1 .2 isn't a diagnosis. It's
just a risk marker. And treating a risk marker
like a confirmed disease is where the money starts
disappearing. Okay, that is a bold claim. Leaking
30 grand is enough to get my attention, and I'm
sure everyone listening just turned the volume
up. It should have. So let's get into it. Walk
me through this. How in the world do we get to
that number? Well, let's start with the morning
routine. You know it well. Paint the picture
for me. What does that look like on your place?
Oh, absolutely. It's, what, 5, 1 point a .m.?
Coffee is still hot in the travel mug. You're
in the fresh pen. Right. You've got your lockups
full. You go down the line with that ketone meter.
You prick the ear. Beep. 1 .3. Drench. Boom.
She gets drenched. Next one. Beep. 1 .1. Okay.
She's safe. Move on. Next one. Beep. 1 .4. Drench
again. Drench again. It's binary. It's totally
black and white. You don't really think about
it. You just do it. Because that's the protocol.
Because that's what the VET protocol says. It's
efficient, or at least, you know, it feels efficient.
It feels efficient because it's decisive. You
feel like you're doing something, but that binary
approach is the problem. Let's look at the economic
reality of what a case of subclinical ketosis,
or SCK, actually costs. Right. Because it's not
just the five bucks for the glycol or the labor
to drench her. Right, right. It's the lost milk,
the breeding issues down the road. It's all the
invisible stuff. Correct. So there was a major
Canadian model. This came out of the University
of Guelph back in 2016. I think I remember hearing
about that one. They looked at real herd data,
thousands of cows, and they pegged the cost of
a single SEK case at about $203 Canadian dollars.
So 200 bucks, basically. Roughly. And that includes
the lost milk, the increased risk of other diseases
like metritis, the fertility hits. Like extra
days open and that kind of thing. Exactly. And
the risk of her being cold early. OK, so roughly
200 bucks a cow if she's subclinical. That hurts.
But I mean, it feels manageable. It does. But
then if you look at the U .S. model, this one
was developed by a team, including Dr. Christopher
McCart at Cornell. A big name in this space.
A very big name. Their model for early lactation
hyperketonemia, which is just the fancy term
for high BHB in the first couple weeks, they
put the cost at around $289 U .S. dollars per
case. Wow. Okay, so almost $300. Why is the U
.S. number so much higher? Is that just the currency
exchange, or are they counting something the
Canadians missed? It's not just exchange rates.
The U .S. model, it explicitly includes the downstream
costs of metritis and displaced abomasum DAs.
Ah, so they're connecting the dots. Exactly.
They factor in the probability that a cow with
high ketones is way more likely to end up with
a twisted stomach or a uterine infection. So,
you know, whether you use the Canadian math or
the American math, you are looking at a massive
cost per case. A huge cost. Now, do the prevalence
math with me. Okay, I've got my mental calculator
out. Go ahead. Global surveys, and we're talking
nearly 9 ,000 cows across 12 different countries.
So these are big data sets. They show that the
average SCK prevalence using that 1 .2 cut point,
it's about 24 .1%. So basically one in four fresh
cows. Roughly. In a 500 cow herd, that's 125
cows a year. Okay, so let me do that math. 125
cows times. Yeah. Let's be conservative. Say
200 bucks. That's $25 ,000 right there. If you
use that Cornell number, the almost 300, you're
pushing $36 ,000. Exactly. That is the money
you are losing to this disease complex. That
is real money walking out of the checkbook. Okay.
Let me play devil's advocate here for a second.
If one in four cows has it and the global average
is 24%, isn't that just normal? Ah, the normal
question. I mean, seriously, maybe that's just
what high producing Holsteins do. Maybe that's
the tax we pay for making 100 pounds of milk
a day. It is common, but it absolutely shouldn't
be accepted as normal. That mindset is the leak.
How so? Because if you can cut that prevalence
from 25 % down to say... 15%, which is very,
very doable. Okay. You are saving $10 ,000 to
$15 ,000 immediately. That is pure profit you
are leaving on the table by just shrugging your
shoulders and accepting 25 % is just what happens.
Okay. I see where you're going. You're saying
we're too comfortable with the prevalence, but
how does changing the 1 .2 rule help lower that?
That's the key question. I mean, isn't testing
and treating how we manage it? If I stop treating
the cows over 1 .2, aren't I just ignoring the
problem and letting it get worse? Testing and
treating is how you put a bandaid on it. It doesn't
stop the leak. And more importantly, the 1 .2
line itself is completely misunderstood. We need
to do a reality check on where that number even
came from. Yeah, where did it come from? It feels
like it just appeared on a stone tablet one day.
It really does, but it came from smart people
in white coats at universities. You're right
about that. Okay. Over the last two decades,
researchers linked blood BHB levels to the things
we hate. right da's retained placentas all the
fresh cow disasters all of them and they found
that these cut points Somewhere in the 1 .2 to
1 .4 range were a solid tripwire. They correlated
really well with herd level risk. Right. So if
the whole herd is running high, you've got a
systemic problem. The alarm bill is going off.
Precisely. It was designed to describe herd level
risk. It acts like a smoke alarm. If 30 or 40
percent of your fresh cows are over 1 .2, your
transition program is on fire. Right. But it
was never intended to dictate that every single
individual cow who touches 1 .2 is sick and needs
help. But wait a minute. If she's over 1 .2,
she is physiologically under stress, isn't she?
I mean, her body is mobilizing fat. That's what
ketones are, right? A byproduct of burning fat.
She is mobilizing fat, yes. But here is where
the physiology update comes in. The 2024 reviews
and these multiomics papers where they look at
every single metabolite in the blood. Wow, okay.
They show that truly, clinically, ketotic cows
have a distinct fingerprint. They have high nifer,
non -asperified fatty acids. They have high liver
fat, and they have high inflammation markers.
Okay, so their whole system is chemically a mess.
They're on fire internally. Right, but, and this
is the absolute key, a cow can hit 1 .3 on the
meter without having that full toxic fingerprint.
The number 1 .2 means something completely different
depending on the cow's context. Context. Okay,
that's a word consultants love to use. Give me
a real world example. What do you mean by context?
Because when I'm in the barn at 5 a .m., a number
is a number. Let's play a game then. I'm going
to give you two cows. We'll call it the tale
of two cows. All right, hit me. I'm ready. Both
of them this morning read exactly 1 .3 millimolel
on your meter. You have the drench gun in your
hand. You tell me if you treat them. Okay, 1
.3. Got it. Cow A. She is day five in milk, fourth
lactation. Oof. Okay, red flag number one. The
old ones. She calved heavy. Let's say she was
a body condition score of 3 .75 or even a 4 .0.
Ugh, a fat cow. Red flag number two. And she
has a history. She had a DA in her last lactation.
Okay, that's three strikes. You look at her.
Her rumen looks flat, kind of empty. She's hanging
back at the bunk while the fresh feed is being
dropped. The meter says 1 .3. What do you do?
Oh, she gets the drench. Immediately. No question.
Honestly, I might be calling the vet too. She
looks like a walking disaster. Tell me why. What
specifically worries you? Because day five is
the danger zone. That's when everything goes
wrong. She's old. She's fat, which means she's
just melting that fat off rapidly because she
has no appetite and she's not eating. That 1
.3 is just the start. It's the tip of the iceberg.
Exactly. She's going to be the 3 .0 or higher
by tomorrow if I don't do something. She's crashing.
And that number is my first warning sign. Bingo.
You nailed it. For cow A, that 1 .3 is just the
smoke. Neat the surface. She likely has fatty
liver, oxidative stress, the whole nine yards.
She's spiraling. Yeah. Immediate intervention
is absolutely the right call. You save that cow.
Okay. So the rule works for her. I'm with you
so far. What's cow B? Cow B, she's day 15 in
milk. Okay. So she's past that initial danger
zone. Right. Second lactation. She calved at
a perfect BCS, maybe a 3 .0 or a 3 .25. Clean
history, no issues last year. It's like a good
cow. You look at her, and she is aggressively
eating. She's pushing other cows out of the way
to get to the fresh feed. She is milking 95 pounds,
and her components are sky -high lots of butterfat.
She sounds like a moneymaker. The cow I want
a whole herd of. But the meter says 1 .3, the
protocol says drench. What do you do? Yeah, strictly
speaking, the binder on the wall says I'm supposed
to drench her. Yep. But my gut... My eyes, everything
about being a cowman tells me she's fine. She's
just working hard. Your gut is right. She is
what the researchers call a high output adapter.
A high output adapter. I like that. That 1 .3
isn't a sign of sickness. It's just metabolic
dust. She's driving a Ferrari engine. She is
processing a massive amount of energy to make
that 95 pounds of milk. The ketones are just
a byproduct of high performance, not a sign of
system failure. So if I grab her, wrestle her
into the headlock. And force a drench down her.
You're wasting your time, you're wasting money
on the glycol, and you're disrupting a cow that
is busy eating and making you milk. You are literally
fixing a cow that isn't broken. And stressing
her out for no reason. For no reason at all.
So that's the leak you're talking about. The
labor, the stress of locking her up, the cost
of the product, and the fact that I'm spending
five minutes on her when I should be spending
ten minutes on Coway. Exactly. You hit it. Treating
Calbee is a waste of resources. Treating Coway
is a rescue mission. But the 1 .2 blanket rule
treats them exactly the same. That's a massive
distinction. But is there actual data to back
up that Calbee is fine? Because I can hear some
people listening right now saying, better safe
than sorry. Of course. You know, what if Calbee
is just about to crash and I miss it? There is
data, and some of it is pretty surprising, actually.
There was a big study out of Derry and Zee in
New Zealand. Okay, pasture -based, right? It
was a pasture study, yeah. So we have to translate
a bit for our team our words, but the underlying
physiology holds up. They followed nearly a thousand
cows. A good -sized group. What did they find?
They found that the cows with at least one test
over 1 .2 millimole actually produced 4 % more
milk solids in the first 15 weeks than the cows
that stayed low the whole time. Wait, back up.
Did you just say the ketotic cows made more milk?
The moderate ketotic cows, yes. The ones in that
1 .2 to 2 .9 range. That makes no sense. How
is that possible? Because think about it from
a biological standpoint. Ketones are fuel. They
are energy. In a healthy, high -producing cow,
seeing some ketones means she is successfully
mobilizing her body tissue to support high milk
production. It's an expected part of the process.
So we've been demonizing a fuel source. We've
been treating the gas in the tank like it's water
in the oil. To an extent, for some cows, yes.
The study also showed that when they took these
moderate healthy cows, just showing some numbers
on the meter, and they treated them with propylene
glycol, they saw no consistent improvement in
milk or reproduction. None. So drenching them
did absolutely nothing for performance. It lowered
the ketones, sure. The number on the meter went
down, so you felt like you fixed it. Right. You
get the satisfaction of seeing the number change.
But it didn't make them give more milk, and it
didn't make them get pregnant any faster. So
from an economic standpoint, the treatment had
zero ROI. That is the literal definition of burning
money. You're paying to fix a number on a screen,
not to improve the actual cow. Precisely. Ketones
are signaling molecules, not just toxins. In
a healthy eating cow, especially one past day,
10 moderate ketones, often just means she is
working her tail off for you. Okay, so I'm sold
on the concept. The biology makes sense. But
practically speaking, I can't have my herdsman
doing a full physical exam and checking a history
chart on every single fresh cow at 5 a .m. Of
course not. We need a system. Protocol drift
is a real thing. How do we make this actionable
without needing a Ph .D. in every pen? It comes
down to two main things. Timing and creating
risk lists. Let's talk about what we can call
the new playbook. All right, lay it out for me.
How do we rewrite the protocol so it's simple
enough to follow? First... The timing pivot.
You mentioned day five versus day 15 earlier.
That is absolutely crucial. Let's define days
three through nine as the danger zone. Yeah,
that tracks with what I see. That's when the
DAs happen. That's when the metritis hits. That's
when the cows just look sad. Right. Most of the
fatty liver and DAs get their start in that first
week. So a 1 .2 or 1 .4 reading in that day three
to nine window is serious. You should react to
that. Okay. But once you cross day 10, the risk
drops off a cliff. A mild elevation. say 1 .2
to 1 .7 legend and a healthy looking cow at day
12 is often just noise. Okay, so the rule is
tighten the screws and be more aggressive in
the first week, but then relax a bit in the second
week. Exactly. Focus your energy and your resources
where the fire is most likely to start. Makes
sense. What's the second part? The second part
is building a risk list. You asked how to do
this without a supercomputer. It's actually pretty
simple. You identify the cows before they even
calve who are the most likely to crash. So we're
flagging the troublemakers ahead of time. Who
are they? Who makes the list? The criteria are
very straightforward. Number one, third lactation
or older. The grandmas. Always the grandmas.
Exactly. Number two, a BCS greater than 3 .75
at calving. The fat cows are metabolic time bombs.
Always. They have no appetite and way too much
fat to burn. It's a bad combination. And number
three, a history of DA or a clinical ketosis.
If she had it last time, she's got a much higher
chance of having it again. Okay, so I've got
my watch list. Old, fat, or a history of trouble.
I can pull that from my herd management software
in about five minutes. Right. So here's the strategy.
Watch these cows like hawks. Test them frequently,
maybe every other day in that first week. Be
aggressive with treatment. If one of these cows
hits 1 .2, you shoot. You treat. No questions
asked. And everyone else. The heifers. The perfect
looking second lactation cows with a good BCS.
That's your low -risk group. Test them once,
maybe on day 7 or day 10, just as an audit for
the whole herd. But you only treat them if they
show clinical signs. If a heifer is eating, looks
bright, and is milking well, put the drench gun
down. That actually saves a tremendous amount
of work. Because the heifers are always the hardest
ones to lock up and treat anyway. They fight
you, they jump, it's a complete rodeo. And they
are the ones least likely to need it. We spend
so much energy wrestling heifers who are just
trying to eat solely because a number on a meter
said 1 .2. This brings up an interesting point
about technology. Because a lot of farms, mine
included, are putting rumination collars on everything.
Or we have robots testing milk. How does that
fit into this new playbook? Great question. Is
the robot going to replace the herdsman here?
The rule should be... Tech is a spotter, not
a shooter. I like that. A spotter, not a shooter.
Explain what you mean. Take those rumination
callers, SCR, Allflex, Cow Manager, whichever
brand you have. The studies are very clear that
they detect drops in rumination often a full
24 hours before clinical signs appear. Yeah,
I've seen that. You'll see the graft tank a day
before she actually looks sick. The caller knows
before I do. Right. So don't let the robot or
the caller decide the treatment. Let them generate
the to checklist. Instead of bleeding every single
cow, you only check the cows the callers have
flagged for you. The tech says, hey, cow 405
dropped her rumination by 20 % last night. You
go find her. Then you use your eyes and maybe
your meter to make an informed decision. So it
filters the work. Instead of walking 100 fresh
cows, I'm just checking the 10 that the system
flagged plus my pre -made high -risk list. Exactly.
That could save hours every single morning. It
makes you incredibly efficient. And there's other
tech coming too with MIR that's mid -infrared
spectroscopy. From the milk test. Right. Using
your routine milk recording samples to predict
hyperketonemia. The algorithms are getting better
and better at predicting which cows are at risk
based on their milk components. And what about
genetics? I've heard rumblings about that. Can
we just breed our way out of this problem? Slowly,
yes. We are starting to see ketosis resilience
as a selectable trait. It turns out some bloodlines
are just genetically prone to high BHB and poor
fertility. They're the fragile ones. Over time,
you can absolutely breed away from that. That's
the long game for sure. Yeah. Let's talk about
the root cause. Let's do it. Because if I'm being
honest, even if I have a risk list, if I have
40 % of my cows hitting 1 .2, I'm still running
around like a headless chicken. At some point,
filtering doesn't matter if the whole herd is
sick. 100%. If your prevalence is high, no amount
of targeted treatment or fancy technology will
save you. You can't drench your way out of a
management problem. So if I want to stop drenching
altogether, or at least get it down to a bare
minimum, what do I do? How do I stop the fire
from ever starting? The 60 days before she calves.
The boring stuff. The profitable stuff. The single
biggest lever you can pull is body condition
score. We talked about the fat cows. You have
to be religious about keeping calving cows between
a 3 .0 and a 3 .5. A cow calving at 3 .75 or
4 .0 has a suppressed appetite. She physically
cannot eat enough to support her milk, so she's
forced to burn fat. It's just physics. We all
know we shouldn't have fat, dry cows, but man,
they can sneak up on you. What else is on that
list? Stocking density. This is the one everyone
hates hearing because it often involves concrete
and capital investment. Your fresh pen and your
close -up pen must be under 100 % capacity, preferably
closer to 80. 100%. Come on, be real. In the
spring flush, when all the heifers calve at once,
we're running 120, 130 % easy. It gets tight.
And that is exactly where your $35 ,000 is going.
When you overcrowd the fresh pen, the shy cows,
the heifers, the sick ones, they don't eat. They
just stand and wait. And every hour they wait,
It's an hour they are mobilizing fat and making
ketones. And bunk space. Minimum 24 inches per
cow, ideally 30. If they have to fight for a
spot at the dinner table, the vulnerable ones
always lose. Always. And finally, heat stress.
Cooling your dry cows is probably the single
highest ROI investment you can make on a dairy.
If a cow is heat stressed when she's dry, she
enters lactation with a damaged immune system
and a lower drive to eat. So basically, if you
treat them like queens before they calve, they
won't need the drench after. That's pretty much
it. Prevention is boring, but treatment is expensive.
All right. We've covered a ton of ground here.
We've busted the 1 .2 myth. We've looked at the
staggering cost of being normal. And we built
a whole new playbook. Let's bring this home for
everyone listening. Let's do it. A farmer is
listening to this in the tractor right now or
driving to the feed store. What are the three
concrete things they need to take away from this
deep dive? OK, let's break it down. Immediate,
medium term and long term. Start with this week.
What can they do tomorrow? Immediate. Immediate.
The audit. Tomorrow morning, go out and grab
10 to 12 clinically normal fresh cows. I'm talking
cows between day three and day 14. Just a random
sample of normal looking cows and test their
BHB. OK. And what am I looking for in those numbers?
If one or two of them are high, so over 1 .2,
you're probably okay. That's in the mid -teens
for prevalence. You're doing fine. But if three
or more are high. So 30 % or more of my sample
group. Exactly. Then you have a greater than
20 % prevalence problem. Your transition program
is leaking and you need to know that number.
That's step one. Okay, that's easy enough. The
audit. Now, medium term. The next three to six
months. Implement the risk list. Sit down with
your vet and your team and literally rewrite
the fresh cow protocol. Stop the treat everyone
rule. Set up your software to automatically flag
the high risk cows for you old fat history of
DA. And then you tell the team, these are the
cows we worry about. The others, we just watch.
Precisely. Shift your labor and your focus to
the cows that actually need it. And finally,
long term. What's the one to two year plan? Fix
the pen. You have to address the physical environment.
Go out there with a tape measure. Check the bunk
space. Count the stalls and count the cows. If
your fresh pen is constantly at 115 % stocking
density, that is your $25 ,000 loss right there.
No amount of propylene glycol or fancy supplements
fixes a lack of bunk space. And maybe start paying
closer attention to those genetic indices for
ketosis resilience when you're picking bulls.
Absolutely. Start building a herd that doesn't
want to get sick in the first place. It sounds
so simple when you lay it all out like that,
but I know it takes a lot of discipline to change
a protocol that's been in place for 10 or 15
years. It does. It's a mindset shift. But looking
at these costs, almost $300 a case, it's just
money we can't afford to keep losing. Especially
not with today's feed prices. It is. And remember,
the goal isn't just to be better at finding ketosis.
The goal is to have cows that don't get it. Amen
to that. Well, this has been another Bullvine
podcast from The Bullvine Podcast. For more straight
-talking industry analysis, head to www .thebullvine
.com. And make sure to subscribe wherever you
get your podcasts. We're out with new episodes
every day. And next time, we're going to be looking
at why your heifer raising costs might be lying
to you. Ooh, that's another can of worms. You
won't want to miss that one. See you then. Bye
for now.