WEBVTT 00:00:11.720 --> 00:00:15.060 Breaking free from the chains of the past Where 00:00:15.060 --> 00:00:18.820 truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law 00:00:18.820 --> 00:00:21.660 waiting on some printed page We're charting new 00:00:21.660 --> 00:00:25.300 ground in the digital age From genomic codes 00:00:25.300 --> 00:00:29.120 to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold 00:00:29.280 --> 00:00:32.460 them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight 00:00:32.460 --> 00:01:03.329 we're sparking Welcome back to the Bullvine Podcast, 00:01:03.549 --> 00:01:05.530 where we cut through dairy industry noise to 00:01:05.530 --> 00:01:07.510 get you the insights that actually matter for 00:01:07.510 --> 00:01:10.930 your operation. And today we're diving deep into 00:01:10.930 --> 00:01:15.629 a feature piece about a topic with a pretty wild 00:01:15.629 --> 00:01:17.790 headline. It's an article covering what they 00:01:17.790 --> 00:01:22.129 call the 1 ,113 kilogram question. Yeah, it's 00:01:22.129 --> 00:01:24.349 quite the hook. When I first saw that number, 00:01:24.430 --> 00:01:26.790 I honestly thought it was a typo. Right. It sounds 00:01:26.790 --> 00:01:30.170 like total clickbait, frankly. I mean, 1 ,113 00:01:30.170 --> 00:01:35.090 kilograms. That is roughly, what, 2 ,450 pounds 00:01:35.090 --> 00:01:37.450 of milk? Almost exactly, yeah. And the claim 00:01:37.450 --> 00:01:39.930 in this deep dive is that this massive amount 00:01:39.930 --> 00:01:43.349 of milk in the first lactation hinges on, wait 00:01:43.349 --> 00:01:45.870 for it, calf starter. Calf starter. Which is 00:01:45.870 --> 00:01:48.209 just, I mean, come on, 2 ,500 pounds of milk 00:01:48.209 --> 00:01:50.469 from just feeding a different calf starter. I 00:01:50.469 --> 00:01:52.870 read that and immediately put my skeptic hat 00:01:52.870 --> 00:01:55.030 on. You should. We both should. That's what we 00:01:55.030 --> 00:01:59.069 do here. Okay. But here's the thing. The number 00:01:59.069 --> 00:02:01.530 is actually real. It's not marketing fluff. It 00:02:01.530 --> 00:02:04.430 is not marketing fluff. It comes directly from 00:02:04.430 --> 00:02:08.250 Cornell University research. But the real story 00:02:08.250 --> 00:02:11.229 here and what we're going to unpack today isn't 00:02:11.229 --> 00:02:13.509 just about dumping more grain in a bucket. Right, 00:02:13.590 --> 00:02:16.590 because it's never that simple. Exactly. It is 00:02:16.590 --> 00:02:18.830 a much more nuanced conversation about consistency, 00:02:19.270 --> 00:02:22.090 about biology, and what we're actually feeding 00:02:22.090 --> 00:02:24.969 those rumen bugs in the very first 60 days of 00:02:24.969 --> 00:02:27.210 life. So we are essentially talking about whether 00:02:27.210 --> 00:02:29.979 the... The good enough approach is actually costing 00:02:29.979 --> 00:02:31.919 us thousands of pounds of milk down the road. 00:02:32.199 --> 00:02:35.340 Precisely. And for decades, I feel like the industry 00:02:35.340 --> 00:02:39.520 view on calf starter has been pretty utilitarian. 00:02:39.560 --> 00:02:41.800 Oh, 100%. It's viewed as a bridge. It's just 00:02:41.800 --> 00:02:45.340 necessary but unremarkable. You know, you call 00:02:45.340 --> 00:02:47.419 the mill, you ask for the 18 or 20 % starter, 00:02:47.520 --> 00:02:49.780 you ask what the price is, and if it meets the 00:02:49.780 --> 00:02:51.699 tag minimums, you just buy it. You don't really 00:02:51.699 --> 00:02:54.169 think about it as a strategic lever. No, you 00:02:54.169 --> 00:02:55.629 really don't. You're just trying to get them 00:02:55.629 --> 00:02:57.449 off milk replacer without them going backward. 00:02:57.610 --> 00:02:59.849 You're looking at the input cost for that specific 00:02:59.849 --> 00:03:03.330 month. But that mindset is shifting. Producers 00:03:03.330 --> 00:03:05.430 are realizing that early nutrition isn't just 00:03:05.430 --> 00:03:08.189 about keeping the calf alive or hitting a weaning 00:03:08.189 --> 00:03:11.409 weight. It's about, and I love this analogy from 00:03:11.409 --> 00:03:14.750 the piece, it's about laying concrete for the 00:03:14.750 --> 00:03:17.900 cow's future structure. Laying concrete. I like 00:03:17.900 --> 00:03:20.219 that visual. Because if you pour a bad foundation, 00:03:20.479 --> 00:03:22.620 it honestly doesn't matter how nice the framing 00:03:22.620 --> 00:03:25.340 is later on. The house is going to crack. Exactly. 00:03:25.500 --> 00:03:27.919 The stakes are massive here. Let's go back to 00:03:27.919 --> 00:03:29.860 that big number because we need to set the table 00:03:29.860 --> 00:03:32.199 for why you should even care about this. Let's 00:03:32.199 --> 00:03:34.300 do it. The core statistic from the research out 00:03:34.300 --> 00:03:37.599 of Cornell found that one single kilogram of 00:03:37.599 --> 00:03:40.639 pre -weaning average daily gain, just one extra 00:03:40.639 --> 00:03:47.139 kilo of ADG, correlates to 1 ,113 kilograms of 00:03:47.139 --> 00:03:49.979 additional milk in the very first lactation. 00:03:50.120 --> 00:03:51.719 Okay, let me play the practical farmer for a 00:03:51.719 --> 00:03:53.669 second because I'm looking at my feed bill. You 00:03:53.669 --> 00:03:55.590 are telling me that if I get my calves to grow 00:03:55.590 --> 00:03:57.590 just a little bit faster right now, I get 2 ,500 00:03:57.590 --> 00:03:59.330 pounds of free milk two years from now. Well, 00:03:59.330 --> 00:04:01.909 it's not free. And it's definitely not magic. 00:04:02.090 --> 00:04:05.550 It is straight biology. And it is not just one 00:04:05.550 --> 00:04:08.900 study anymore. The piece... highlights a 2025 00:04:08.900 --> 00:04:12.379 meta -analysis. They looked at 18 different studies 00:04:12.379 --> 00:04:15.240 and confirmed this relationship completely holds 00:04:15.240 --> 00:04:18.100 up. 18 studies. So this is a highly repeatable 00:04:18.100 --> 00:04:20.120 result. Highly repeatable. And the Cornell data 00:04:20.120 --> 00:04:22.560 tracks this even further, showing that the benefits 00:04:22.560 --> 00:04:24.639 persist into the second and third lactations. 00:04:24.759 --> 00:04:27.720 It carries over that far. Yes. We are talking 00:04:27.720 --> 00:04:31.600 about nearly 1 ,300 kilograms of extra milk. 00:04:32.120 --> 00:04:35.660 across three lactations for every single kilo 00:04:35.660 --> 00:04:38.240 of pre -weaning game. So the stakes are essentially 00:04:38.240 --> 00:04:40.560 lifetime production versus saving a few bucks 00:04:40.560 --> 00:04:43.199 on a bag of feed today. That is the exact trade 00:04:43.199 --> 00:04:45.079 -off. But this is where the friction comes in, 00:04:45.120 --> 00:04:47.879 because there is a massive battle of philosophies 00:04:47.879 --> 00:04:50.300 happening at the feed mill. The least cost formulation 00:04:50.300 --> 00:04:53.060 versus the fixed formulation. Yes, the least 00:04:53.060 --> 00:04:55.639 cost trap. Yeah. Let's dig into our first segment 00:04:55.639 --> 00:04:58.180 here and really identify the problem. I think 00:04:58.180 --> 00:04:59.800 this is where we need to unpack the controversy. 00:05:00.379 --> 00:05:03.160 Because most farmers, myself included, we are 00:05:03.160 --> 00:05:05.899 trained to look at the feed tag. If the tag says 00:05:05.899 --> 00:05:09.160 20 % protein and 4 % fat and the price works 00:05:09.160 --> 00:05:12.300 for my budget, I assume the product is consistent. 00:05:12.620 --> 00:05:15.759 I assume bag A is exactly the same as bag B. 00:05:15.899 --> 00:05:18.339 And that right there is the dangerous assumption. 00:05:18.949 --> 00:05:21.649 How so? Because while the nutrient profile on 00:05:21.649 --> 00:05:23.829 the tag might look exactly the same from month 00:05:23.829 --> 00:05:26.389 to month, the actual ingredients used to hit 00:05:26.389 --> 00:05:28.829 those numbers might be changing every single 00:05:28.829 --> 00:05:32.110 time the commodity markets shift. OK, so one 00:05:32.110 --> 00:05:34.790 week the mill is using soybean meal to hit that 00:05:34.790 --> 00:05:37.529 20 percent. And then the next week soy gets expensive. 00:05:37.529 --> 00:05:40.610 So they swap in canola meal. Exactly. Maybe they 00:05:40.610 --> 00:05:42.670 throw in some distillers grains if the price 00:05:42.670 --> 00:05:46.019 drops on a local rail car. Spot on. And that 00:05:46.019 --> 00:05:49.399 is where the 1 ,113 kilogram question really 00:05:49.399 --> 00:05:51.860 lives. It's not just about the protein level. 00:05:51.939 --> 00:05:53.699 It's about the consistency of the ingredients 00:05:53.699 --> 00:05:56.100 themselves. Because the industry standard of 00:05:56.100 --> 00:05:58.639 chasing the cheapest commodity to meet a protein 00:05:58.639 --> 00:06:01.379 target might actually be secretly sabotaging 00:06:01.379 --> 00:06:03.480 the room in development. It is. But we have to 00:06:03.480 --> 00:06:05.920 be fair here. The research on feed consistency 00:06:05.920 --> 00:06:09.639 specifically is framed as subjective in the source 00:06:09.639 --> 00:06:11.939 material, right? Right. It's not definitive proof. 00:06:12.120 --> 00:06:14.899 It's not a 10 ,000 cow randomized trial. No, 00:06:14.920 --> 00:06:18.180 it's not. But we have incredible biological data 00:06:18.180 --> 00:06:20.660 on how the rumen works, and we have producer 00:06:20.660 --> 00:06:22.860 case studies that are just really hard to ignore. 00:06:23.040 --> 00:06:26.110 Okay, so walk me through the biology then. Why 00:06:26.110 --> 00:06:29.050 do my cows care if the protein comes from soy 00:06:29.050 --> 00:06:31.769 or canola as long as they get the protein? It 00:06:31.769 --> 00:06:33.529 all comes down to the microbiome. We talk all 00:06:33.529 --> 00:06:35.629 the time about feeding the calf, but we are really 00:06:35.629 --> 00:06:37.790 feeding the bugs and the rumen. The rumen bugs. 00:06:38.230 --> 00:06:40.350 The bugs. The rumen microbiome is establishing 00:06:40.350 --> 00:06:42.670 itself during those first critical weeks. It's 00:06:42.670 --> 00:06:45.910 an entire colonization process. And there's this 00:06:45.910 --> 00:06:48.310 fascinating research by Sharon and colleagues 00:06:48.310 --> 00:06:52.819 published in Frontiers in Microbiology. It shows 00:06:52.819 --> 00:06:55.579 that rumen bugs are incredibly sensitive to change. 00:06:55.800 --> 00:06:57.920 How sensitive? They take anywhere from a few 00:06:57.920 --> 00:07:00.220 days to get this, three full weeks to adapt to 00:07:00.220 --> 00:07:02.540 a new diet. Three weeks. Three plus weeks. So 00:07:02.540 --> 00:07:05.259 if I am buying a least cost formulated starter, 00:07:05.459 --> 00:07:08.579 and the local mill changes the formula every 00:07:08.579 --> 00:07:10.660 time they get a new delivery of cheaper ingredients. 00:07:10.720 --> 00:07:13.040 And your Kaz rumens are in a constant state of 00:07:13.040 --> 00:07:16.180 adaptation stress. Just as the bugs finally figure 00:07:16.180 --> 00:07:19.980 out how to digest the current mix, the mix changes 00:07:19.980 --> 00:07:23.050 again. It's like... Okay, imagine switching a 00:07:23.050 --> 00:07:25.550 construction crew's lunch menu every single day. 00:07:25.610 --> 00:07:28.750 One day you feed them heavy burgers. The next 00:07:28.750 --> 00:07:31.129 day it's strictly vegan salad. The next day it's 00:07:31.129 --> 00:07:33.769 raw fish. That sounds like a terrible idea. Right. 00:07:33.850 --> 00:07:35.750 And then you expect them to go back out on the 00:07:35.750 --> 00:07:37.829 site and lay bricks at peak efficiency immediately. 00:07:38.389 --> 00:07:41.230 You would have a lot of upset stomachs and a 00:07:41.230 --> 00:07:44.009 whole lot less bricklaying. That is a... Perfect 00:07:44.009 --> 00:07:46.129 analogy. They'd be spending all their time just 00:07:46.129 --> 00:07:48.149 trying to process the fuel instead of doing the 00:07:48.149 --> 00:07:51.069 work. Exactly. And the consequence on the farm 00:07:51.069 --> 00:07:55.389 is very real. Feed efficiency drops because the 00:07:55.389 --> 00:07:57.649 bugs just aren't optimized for the substrate 00:07:57.649 --> 00:07:59.970 they're trying to break down. So the risk of 00:07:59.970 --> 00:08:02.949 digestive upset rises. Substantially. The rumen 00:08:02.949 --> 00:08:05.110 never actually stabilizes. And we see this in 00:08:05.110 --> 00:08:07.149 the hutches, don't we? We see the scours. We 00:08:07.149 --> 00:08:09.610 see those stallouts where a calf just stops growing 00:08:09.610 --> 00:08:11.889 for a wink and looks a little rough. Yes. And 00:08:11.889 --> 00:08:13.930 what do we usually blame it on? Oh, we blame 00:08:13.930 --> 00:08:16.709 the weather. We blame a draft in the barn. Or 00:08:16.709 --> 00:08:19.029 we think some random virus just blew through 00:08:19.029 --> 00:08:22.110 the operation. But the data suggests it could 00:08:22.110 --> 00:08:24.569 literally just be that the feed changed. That 00:08:24.569 --> 00:08:27.009 is a major variable that we almost completely 00:08:27.009 --> 00:08:29.709 ignore. We assume the feed is a constant because 00:08:29.709 --> 00:08:33.490 the physical bag looks the exact same. But biologically, 00:08:33.690 --> 00:08:35.730 it might be presenting a completely different 00:08:35.730 --> 00:08:37.750 challenge for that calf to break down. Okay, 00:08:37.789 --> 00:08:40.250 so... Biologically speaking, consistency makes 00:08:40.250 --> 00:08:43.110 a ton of sense. Room instability is good. But 00:08:43.110 --> 00:08:45.490 let's look at the industry reality check here 00:08:45.490 --> 00:08:47.950 in segment two. Let's do it. Are we actually 00:08:47.950 --> 00:08:50.330 doing a bad job right now? Because I feel like 00:08:50.330 --> 00:08:52.190 generally speaking, calf health has gotten a 00:08:52.190 --> 00:08:54.809 lot better over the last 20 years. It has. We 00:08:54.809 --> 00:08:57.009 absolutely have to give credit where it is due. 00:08:57.529 --> 00:09:00.549 The deep dive highlights data from the USDA's 00:09:00.549 --> 00:09:03.230 National Animal Health Monitoring System, the 00:09:03.230 --> 00:09:07.210 NAHMS data. Right. Back in 1992, calf mortality 00:09:07.210 --> 00:09:10.629 was sitting at 8 .4%. Which is rough. Very rough. 00:09:10.769 --> 00:09:14.129 But by the 2014 study, it was down to 5 .0%. 00:09:14.129 --> 00:09:16.690 So it almost cut in half. That is significant 00:09:16.690 --> 00:09:19.509 progress across the industry. It is great progress. 00:09:19.690 --> 00:09:22.070 Better housing, better colostrum management, 00:09:22.289 --> 00:09:25.529 better vaccination protocols. But. There is always 00:09:25.529 --> 00:09:29.379 a but. There was always a but. The 2014 NAHMS 00:09:29.379 --> 00:09:34.679 study also showed that 33 .8 % of pre -weaned 00:09:34.679 --> 00:09:37.620 heifers experienced at least one bout of illness. 00:09:37.960 --> 00:09:42.399 Wait, almost 34 %? Yes. Morbidity is nearly 34%. 00:09:42.399 --> 00:09:44.580 So a third of the replacement herd is getting 00:09:44.580 --> 00:09:47.960 sick? A third. And digestive problems specifically 00:09:47.960 --> 00:09:51.929 account for half of that number. That... Wow, 00:09:52.549 --> 00:09:53.929 when you actually say it out loud like that. 00:09:54.009 --> 00:09:57.370 33 .8%, it's sobering. If you have 100 calves, 00:09:57.669 --> 00:10:00.690 34 of them require treatment. That is a massive 00:10:00.690 --> 00:10:02.850 amount of labor tying up your crew. Massive. 00:10:02.850 --> 00:10:05.149 That is a massive amount of drug cost and a massive 00:10:05.149 --> 00:10:07.350 amount of lost structural growth. Now compare 00:10:07.350 --> 00:10:09.649 that reality to the Dairy Calf and Heifer Association 00:10:09.649 --> 00:10:12.929 gold standards. The DCHA targets. What are their 00:10:12.929 --> 00:10:15.090 targets? Their target for scours is less than 00:10:15.090 --> 00:10:18.169 10%. Okay. And their target for survival is greater 00:10:18.169 --> 00:10:21.879 than 97%. So we are sitting at an industry average 00:10:21.879 --> 00:10:26.059 of 33 % morbidity, and the gold standard is under 00:10:26.059 --> 00:10:29.620 10 % for scours. Exactly. There is a massive 00:10:29.620 --> 00:10:32.320 gap there. A huge gap. And that gap represents 00:10:32.320 --> 00:10:35.220 pure money left on the table. Which brings us 00:10:35.220 --> 00:10:38.279 perfectly to segment three, following the money. 00:10:38.440 --> 00:10:41.200 Because we can sit here and talk about microbiome 00:10:41.200 --> 00:10:44.899 biology and DCHA standards all day, but if the 00:10:44.899 --> 00:10:46.440 bank account doesn't balance at the end of the 00:10:46.440 --> 00:10:49.610 month, None of this matters. Right. So let's 00:10:49.610 --> 00:10:52.149 talk about the cost of consistency. If you go 00:10:52.149 --> 00:10:54.610 to your feed rep tomorrow and say, I want a fixed 00:10:54.610 --> 00:10:57.129 formulation. I want the exact same ingredients, 00:10:57.250 --> 00:11:00.149 the same ratios, every single load, no matter 00:11:00.149 --> 00:11:02.669 what the commodity market does. They're going 00:11:02.669 --> 00:11:04.470 to charge you for taking on that risk. Oh, absolutely. 00:11:04.690 --> 00:11:06.350 They have to hedge that. The source material 00:11:06.350 --> 00:11:09.149 estimates the premium for fixed formulation starters 00:11:09.149 --> 00:11:12.919 is typically around $20 to $40 per ton. OK, $40 00:11:12.919 --> 00:11:15.159 a ton. That sounds pretty steep when you're staring 00:11:15.159 --> 00:11:17.679 at the monthly invoice. It does. But let's break 00:11:17.679 --> 00:11:20.019 down the farmer math here. Let's take a standard 00:11:20.019 --> 00:11:23.720 scenario of a 400 calf operation. OK, 400 calves. 00:11:23.960 --> 00:11:27.080 They use roughly 60 tons of starter annually. 00:11:27.399 --> 00:11:30.779 60 tons. So at a $40 premium, that is an extra 00:11:30.779 --> 00:11:35.220 $2 ,400 a year. Exactly. $1 ,200 to $2 ,400 per 00:11:35.220 --> 00:11:37.279 year, depending on the premium spread in your 00:11:37.279 --> 00:11:40.259 area. All right, $2 ,400. That is not nothing. 00:11:40.799 --> 00:11:43.240 But in the grand scheme of a 400 -cow dairy plaque, 00:11:43.539 --> 00:11:46.139 that's the cost of, what, a couple of dead calves. 00:11:46.419 --> 00:11:49.480 Less than that if you factor in the genetic potential 00:11:49.480 --> 00:11:51.980 you're losing. And this is where the return on 00:11:51.980 --> 00:11:54.000 investment potential gets really interesting. 00:11:54.299 --> 00:11:57.080 Walk me through the ROI. If you gain just five 00:11:57.080 --> 00:12:00.519 extra kilograms in weaning weight... Because 00:12:00.519 --> 00:12:02.399 your calves aren't stalling out every time the 00:12:02.399 --> 00:12:04.779 diet changes. And we apply that Cornell multiplier. 00:12:05.159 --> 00:12:09.779 The 1 ,113 kilogram rule. Yes. The extra milk 00:12:09.779 --> 00:12:13.259 on your check in two years covers that $2 ,400 00:12:13.259 --> 00:12:16.600 feed premium very, very quickly. And that's not 00:12:16.600 --> 00:12:18.720 even counting the immediate savings in the calf 00:12:18.720 --> 00:12:21.000 barn. Right. Because treating a sick calf isn't 00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:23.360 cheap. You have the antibiotics, you have the 00:12:23.360 --> 00:12:25.779 electrolytes, the oral rehydration therapies, 00:12:25.879 --> 00:12:28.120 and the sheer time it takes your calf manager 00:12:28.120 --> 00:12:30.820 to tend to them. It adds up fast. If I can cut 00:12:30.820 --> 00:12:34.659 my scours rate from 30 % down to 10 % just by 00:12:34.659 --> 00:12:37.440 stabilizing the feed, that is real cash in my 00:12:37.440 --> 00:12:39.820 pocket today, not just milk money in two years. 00:12:39.919 --> 00:12:42.679 Absolutely. The hidden savings in reduced treatment 00:12:42.679 --> 00:12:46.360 costs alone often justify the premium. But I 00:12:46.360 --> 00:12:48.480 know you have a strong counterpoint here based 00:12:48.480 --> 00:12:51.440 on farm realities. I do. Because I really do 00:12:51.440 --> 00:12:52.960 not want listeners to think this is some sort 00:12:52.960 --> 00:12:54.919 of magic powder you can just buy your way into. 00:12:55.139 --> 00:12:57.259 It never is. If your housing is essentially a 00:12:57.259 --> 00:13:00.080 swamp, if your ventilation is terrible and the 00:13:00.080 --> 00:13:03.039 air is heavy with ammonia, if your colostrum 00:13:03.039 --> 00:13:05.600 harvesting and delivery program is weak, then 00:13:05.600 --> 00:13:08.480 spending $40 extra a ton on fancy consistent 00:13:08.480 --> 00:13:11.039 feed is useless. You are just lighting money 00:13:11.039 --> 00:13:13.659 on fire at that point. If the calf is breathing 00:13:13.659 --> 00:13:16.080 bad air and swimming in mud, the consistency 00:13:16.080 --> 00:13:18.700 of the starch source in their grain is the least 00:13:18.700 --> 00:13:21.480 of their problem. 100%. You simply cannot feed 00:13:21.480 --> 00:13:23.840 your way out of bad management. Right. But the 00:13:23.840 --> 00:13:26.440 consensus from the experts is clear. The math 00:13:26.440 --> 00:13:29.340 heavily favors the premium feed if you have those 00:13:29.340 --> 00:13:32.080 management basics covered. If you are already 00:13:32.080 --> 00:13:34.240 running a tight ship, this is the very next lever 00:13:34.240 --> 00:13:36.100 you need to pull. So let's look at an operation 00:13:36.100 --> 00:13:38.799 that actually pulled that lever. Moving into 00:13:38.799 --> 00:13:41.500 segment four, we have a fantastic case study 00:13:41.500 --> 00:13:43.879 from California. I love real world examples. 00:13:44.100 --> 00:13:46.960 What did they do? It's a large operation and 00:13:46.960 --> 00:13:49.639 the calf manager decided she was done chasing 00:13:49.639 --> 00:13:52.940 the cheapest feed option every month. She locked 00:13:52.940 --> 00:13:56.000 in a fixed formulation. She locked it in, same 00:13:56.000 --> 00:13:58.740 ingredients, same ratios. And what were the actual 00:13:58.740 --> 00:14:02.960 results? Her scours rate dropped to 6%. 6%. So 00:14:02.960 --> 00:14:05.779 she actually beat the DCHA gold standard of 10%. 00:14:05.779 --> 00:14:09.179 She crushed it. But here's the metric that I 00:14:09.179 --> 00:14:12.139 found most fascinating from her data. She tracked 00:14:12.139 --> 00:14:14.179 something called the coefficient of variation, 00:14:14.559 --> 00:14:17.879 the CV. Okay, break that down for us. What is 00:14:17.879 --> 00:14:20.940 the CV in this context? It is a statistical measure 00:14:20.940 --> 00:14:23.580 of consistency. It's the standard deviation divided 00:14:23.580 --> 00:14:26.220 by the mean. In plain English. In plain English, 00:14:26.279 --> 00:14:28.559 it tells you how wide the spread of your weaning 00:14:28.559 --> 00:14:31.440 weights is across a group of calves. Okay, so 00:14:31.440 --> 00:14:33.700 are they all weaning at a similar weight or are 00:14:33.700 --> 00:14:36.389 they all over the board? Exactly. Before the 00:14:36.389 --> 00:14:40.909 switch to fixed feed, her CV was 14%, which is 00:14:40.909 --> 00:14:44.070 pretty widespread. Within four months of implementing 00:14:44.070 --> 00:14:47.029 the consistent feed program, that CV dropped 00:14:47.029 --> 00:14:50.269 to under 9%. That is a massive tightening of 00:14:50.269 --> 00:14:52.149 the group. Why does that matter so much to the 00:14:52.149 --> 00:14:54.750 bottom line? Because uniform calves are vastly 00:14:54.750 --> 00:14:57.309 easier to manage. Of course. If you have a pen 00:14:57.309 --> 00:15:00.590 where some heifers are weaning at 150 pounds 00:15:00.590 --> 00:15:03.750 and others are pushing 200 pounds, breeding them 00:15:03.750 --> 00:15:06.509 on a schedule becomes a nightmare. Grouping them 00:15:06.509 --> 00:15:08.990 is a nightmare. Transitioning them is a headache. 00:15:09.730 --> 00:15:12.090 Uniformity equals efficiency. And there is another 00:15:12.090 --> 00:15:14.129 point in this case study that I really gravitate 00:15:14.129 --> 00:15:17.070 toward, the noise factor. Yes, the diagnostic 00:15:17.070 --> 00:15:19.570 noise. Manager mentioned that when the feed was 00:15:19.570 --> 00:15:21.899 finally consistent... She could actually see 00:15:21.899 --> 00:15:24.059 the other problems on the dairy. Because the 00:15:24.059 --> 00:15:26.539 variable feed was masking everything else. Right. 00:15:26.639 --> 00:15:29.299 Once the feed was a constant known entity, she 00:15:29.299 --> 00:15:31.360 realized, oh, we actually have a ventilation 00:15:31.360 --> 00:15:34.259 dead spot in this specific row of hutches. Or 00:15:34.259 --> 00:15:36.559 we have a weekend shift that isn't mixing the 00:15:36.559 --> 00:15:39.299 colostrum correctly. It removes the confounding 00:15:39.299 --> 00:15:42.440 variable completely. It does. If the feed changes 00:15:42.440 --> 00:15:45.429 every two weeks and a calf gets sick. You have 00:15:45.429 --> 00:15:47.730 no idea what cost it. Was it the new soy batch? 00:15:47.950 --> 00:15:50.549 Was it the weather swing? Was it bad bedding? 00:15:50.629 --> 00:15:54.090 But if the feed is rock solid and never changes 00:15:54.090 --> 00:15:56.990 and a calf gets sick, you know, for a fact you 00:15:56.990 --> 00:15:59.350 have a management or environmental issue to hunt 00:15:59.350 --> 00:16:02.330 down. That diagnostic clarity alone is worth 00:16:02.330 --> 00:16:04.960 the extra money. it stops you from chasing ghosts. 00:16:05.240 --> 00:16:07.120 Okay, so let's put ourselves in the listener's 00:16:07.120 --> 00:16:09.200 shoes. They are driving the feed truck right 00:16:09.200 --> 00:16:11.679 now, nodding along, thinking, okay, I want this 00:16:11.679 --> 00:16:13.879 consistent feed. They're sold on the concept. 00:16:14.179 --> 00:16:16.159 But how do they actually know if they're getting 00:16:16.159 --> 00:16:18.759 it? Because let's be honest, every single feed 00:16:18.759 --> 00:16:21.100 salesman is going to stand in your driveway and 00:16:21.100 --> 00:16:23.179 say their product is high quality and consistent. 00:16:23.720 --> 00:16:26.940 Which brings us to segment five, future implications 00:16:26.940 --> 00:16:30.419 and supplier relations. You absolutely have to 00:16:30.419 --> 00:16:32.480 audit your supplier. You cannot just take the 00:16:32.480 --> 00:16:34.299 rep's word for it. So what are the questions 00:16:34.299 --> 00:16:36.379 I need to ask? Because just looking at them and 00:16:36.379 --> 00:16:39.279 saying, are you lying to me? Probably isn't going 00:16:39.279 --> 00:16:41.919 to get a straight answer. No, probably not. You 00:16:41.919 --> 00:16:44.799 need to ask these three specific questions. Number 00:16:44.799 --> 00:16:47.379 one, ask them, can you show me the batch records 00:16:47.379 --> 00:16:50.169 for the last 12 months? Batch records. Yes. If 00:16:50.169 --> 00:16:52.629 they are actually running a consistent fixed 00:16:52.629 --> 00:16:55.789 formulation, they will have detailed batch records 00:16:55.789 --> 00:16:58.629 showing that the ingredient inclusion rates stayed 00:16:58.629 --> 00:17:01.309 exactly the same. And if they hem and haw about 00:17:01.309 --> 00:17:04.049 it. If they can't show you or they make excuses 00:17:04.049 --> 00:17:06.890 about proprietary formulas, they're not tracking 00:17:06.890 --> 00:17:09.589 consistency, period. That's a great litmus test. 00:17:09.690 --> 00:17:11.990 Show me the receipts. Question number two to 00:17:11.990 --> 00:17:14.529 ask your rep. What percentage of your ingredients 00:17:14.529 --> 00:17:17.910 are from fixed suppliers versus the spot market? 00:17:18.250 --> 00:17:20.829 Meaning, do you buy your protein from the same 00:17:20.829 --> 00:17:22.950 reliable processor every single time, or are 00:17:22.950 --> 00:17:25.009 you just buying whatever is cheapest on the commodity 00:17:25.009 --> 00:17:27.609 rail car that week? Exactly. The source of the 00:17:27.609 --> 00:17:29.549 ingredient matters just as much as the ingredient 00:17:29.549 --> 00:17:32.569 itself. And question number three, do you test 00:17:32.569 --> 00:17:35.869 your incoming ingredients with NIR spectroscopy? 00:17:35.950 --> 00:17:39.049 Near -infrared spectroscopy. Yes. It is a scanning 00:17:39.049 --> 00:17:41.910 technology used to verify the actual nutrient 00:17:41.910 --> 00:17:44.410 profile of the raw ingredients before they ever 00:17:44.410 --> 00:17:46.500 get dumped into the mixer. So it proves they 00:17:46.500 --> 00:17:49.980 are actively testing the inputs, not just slapping 00:17:49.980 --> 00:17:52.299 a label on the final output. Right. It shows 00:17:52.299 --> 00:17:54.900 a commitment to actual quality control at the 00:17:54.900 --> 00:17:57.960 mill level. Okay. Those are three highly actionable 00:17:57.960 --> 00:18:00.960 questions. Now let's manage some expectations 00:18:00.960 --> 00:18:03.819 here. We need to. Because biology takes time, 00:18:03.859 --> 00:18:07.240 as we established. If I go out and switch my 00:18:07.240 --> 00:18:10.339 herd to a fixed formula tomorrow, are my calves 00:18:10.339 --> 00:18:12.559 going to look absolutely perfect by this Friday? 00:18:12.799 --> 00:18:15.690 Definitely not. And in fact, they might actually 00:18:15.690 --> 00:18:17.450 look a little bit worse for a few days. This 00:18:17.450 --> 00:18:19.369 is what you call the wobble, right? A wobble, 00:18:19.369 --> 00:18:21.869 yes. The source material warns farmers not to 00:18:21.869 --> 00:18:24.670 panic during the initial switch. Weeks one through 00:18:24.670 --> 00:18:26.910 three are the wobble period. What happens during 00:18:26.910 --> 00:18:29.349 the wobble? The rumen bugs are adapting to the 00:18:29.349 --> 00:18:31.950 new feed. Even though it's a better consistent 00:18:31.950 --> 00:18:35.019 feed, it is still new to them. So you might see 00:18:35.019 --> 00:18:37.380 fecal consistency change. The manure might get 00:18:37.380 --> 00:18:39.599 a little loose. And that right there is the exact 00:18:39.599 --> 00:18:42.660 moment the farmer usually panics. Oh, yeah. They 00:18:42.660 --> 00:18:44.400 get on the phone call with the nutritionist and 00:18:44.400 --> 00:18:47.619 start screaming that this expensive premium feed 00:18:47.619 --> 00:18:50.960 is giving all their calves scours. And that is 00:18:50.960 --> 00:18:53.720 the absolute worst thing you can do. You have 00:18:53.720 --> 00:18:56.299 to ride out the adaptation phase. Do not fire 00:18:56.299 --> 00:18:58.480 the nutritionist on day three. Do not fire them. 00:18:58.559 --> 00:19:00.880 Hold the line. Because in weeks three through 00:19:00.880 --> 00:19:04.420 six, that is when intake smooths out and you 00:19:04.420 --> 00:19:06.579 see treatments start to aggressively decline. 00:19:06.859 --> 00:19:08.900 And then by week six through eight. By week six 00:19:08.900 --> 00:19:10.900 through eight, you start seeing that weaning 00:19:10.900 --> 00:19:13.640 weight distribution tighten up. That coefficient 00:19:13.640 --> 00:19:17.039 of variation drops. So you really have to commit 00:19:17.039 --> 00:19:20.299 to at least a solid two -month trial to even 00:19:20.299 --> 00:19:22.559 begin to see the true biological results. At 00:19:22.559 --> 00:19:24.819 least two months. You cannot rush the microbiome. 00:19:24.920 --> 00:19:26.599 Okay, we are getting towards the final stretch 00:19:26.599 --> 00:19:28.279 here and we need to do our signature segment. 00:19:28.720 --> 00:19:31.599 Segment six, the contrarian takes. The bovine 00:19:31.599 --> 00:19:34.019 perspective. Right, because we have painted a 00:19:34.019 --> 00:19:36.059 pretty rosy picture so far. Pay more money, get 00:19:36.059 --> 00:19:38.799 more milk. But we have to be honest about the 00:19:38.799 --> 00:19:40.759 limitations of the data we're looking at. We 00:19:40.759 --> 00:19:43.759 do. There is currently limited controlled research 00:19:43.759 --> 00:19:47.339 specifically comparing variable versus fixed 00:19:47.339 --> 00:19:49.980 feed formulas directly against each other in 00:19:49.980 --> 00:19:52.809 massive trials. Right. We have the Cornell data 00:19:52.809 --> 00:19:56.190 showing the link between early growth and first 00:19:56.190 --> 00:19:59.609 lactation milk. Yes. And we have the microbiology 00:19:59.609 --> 00:20:02.009 data showing how long the rumen takes to adapt 00:20:02.009 --> 00:20:05.150 to diet changes. Correct. But the direct hard 00:20:05.150 --> 00:20:08.109 link saying fixed feed equals more milk is still 00:20:08.109 --> 00:20:10.990 largely based on combining those biological principles 00:20:10.990 --> 00:20:14.849 with producer experience. It is suggestive evidence. 00:20:15.069 --> 00:20:18.009 It is very strong logical evidence, but it is 00:20:18.009 --> 00:20:21.730 not. absolute irrefutable proof from a 10 ,000 00:20:21.730 --> 00:20:24.650 cow randomized control trial. And here's my no 00:20:24.650 --> 00:20:26.569 -nonsense view on this whole thing. The strategy 00:20:26.569 --> 00:20:28.789 isn't for everyone. Explain what you mean by 00:20:28.789 --> 00:20:31.380 that. It comes back to prioritization. If you 00:20:31.380 --> 00:20:33.400 are a dairy and you have dirty water buckets, 00:20:33.519 --> 00:20:36.259 inconsistent feeding times and poor ventilation, 00:20:36.400 --> 00:20:38.779 fixing those management failures costs you zero 00:20:38.779 --> 00:20:40.839 dollars in feed premiums. You have to fix the 00:20:40.839 --> 00:20:43.319 free stuff first. Exactly. Nutritionists will 00:20:43.319 --> 00:20:45.859 be the first to admit this. What works as a marginal 00:20:45.859 --> 00:20:48.240 gain for one high performing farm might be a 00:20:48.240 --> 00:20:50.200 complete waste of money for a farm that is struggling 00:20:50.200 --> 00:20:52.940 with the basics. If you are losing 10 percent 00:20:52.940 --> 00:20:55.240 of your calves to pneumonia because your barn 00:20:55.240 --> 00:20:57.880 is closed up. too tight in the winter do not 00:20:57.880 --> 00:21:00.720 worry about the amino acid profile of your starter 00:21:00.720 --> 00:21:03.480 grain go open the curtains exactly yeah but i 00:21:03.480 --> 00:21:05.380 will add this layer of nuance from the research 00:21:06.610 --> 00:21:09.470 operations that have high genomic selection for 00:21:09.470 --> 00:21:12.750 feed efficiency seem to see the absolute biggest 00:21:12.750 --> 00:21:15.190 bang for their buck with fixed feeds. Well, that 00:21:15.190 --> 00:21:17.509 makes total sense. If you are spending big money 00:21:17.509 --> 00:21:20.789 buying high merit genetics or aggressively breeding 00:21:20.789 --> 00:21:23.470 for high feed efficiency, those calves are basically 00:21:23.470 --> 00:21:27.289 finely tuned Ferraris. And if you put low octane, 00:21:27.289 --> 00:21:31.160 dirty variable fuel into a Ferrari, it is going 00:21:31.160 --> 00:21:33.900 to sputter. It will underperform. High merit 00:21:33.900 --> 00:21:37.180 calves biologically respond better to optimize 00:21:37.180 --> 00:21:39.480 stable nutrition. So if you are investing heavily 00:21:39.480 --> 00:21:42.119 on the genetic side of the ledger, you almost 00:21:42.119 --> 00:21:44.200 have to invest in the nutrition side to actually 00:21:44.200 --> 00:21:46.299 unlock it. Otherwise, you are just wasting that 00:21:46.299 --> 00:21:48.519 genetic premium entirely. All right, let's bring 00:21:48.519 --> 00:21:50.440 this all home for the listener. A farmer just 00:21:50.440 --> 00:21:52.920 finished milking. They are driving the skid steer 00:21:52.920 --> 00:21:55.240 pushing up feed right now. What are the three 00:21:55.240 --> 00:21:57.160 concrete things they need to take away and do? 00:21:57.440 --> 00:22:00.440 Okay, here are your actionable insights. Let's 00:22:00.440 --> 00:22:02.920 break it down by timeline. Number one is your 00:22:02.920 --> 00:22:04.900 immediate action for this week. What are we doing 00:22:04.900 --> 00:22:07.480 this week? Benchmark your baseline. Pull your 00:22:07.480 --> 00:22:10.200 weaning weight data for the last three calf cohorts. 00:22:10.440 --> 00:22:13.180 Do the math and calculate your coefficient of 00:22:13.180 --> 00:22:16.059 variation. The standard deviation divided by 00:22:16.059 --> 00:22:20.319 the mean. Yes. If your CV is over 10 % or if 00:22:20.319 --> 00:22:22.619 your herd morbidity is anywhere near that NA 00:22:22.619 --> 00:22:26.359 HMS average of 33%, you have a clear problem. 00:22:26.970 --> 00:22:28.710 You have to know your starting point before you 00:22:28.710 --> 00:22:30.170 change anything. All right, what is number two? 00:22:30.650 --> 00:22:33.210 The medium -term strategy for the next three 00:22:33.210 --> 00:22:36.269 to six months. The supplier audit. Sit down with 00:22:36.269 --> 00:22:38.809 your feed rep and ask the hard questions. Fixed 00:22:38.809 --> 00:22:41.029 versus least cost. Show me the batch records. 00:22:41.230 --> 00:22:43.930 Are you using NIR? And look closely at the price 00:22:43.930 --> 00:22:46.990 difference. Take that $20 to $40 a ton and run 00:22:46.990 --> 00:22:49.329 the actual math for your specific herd size. 00:22:49.670 --> 00:22:51.910 And if the math looks viable, consider running 00:22:51.910 --> 00:22:54.630 a pilot program. Put one cohort of calves on 00:22:54.630 --> 00:22:56.630 the fixed feed while maintaining your old program 00:22:56.630 --> 00:22:58.869 for the others. Track the difference in treatments 00:22:58.869 --> 00:23:01.069 and growth. Let the calves tell you if it works. 00:23:01.390 --> 00:23:03.670 And number three, the long -term positioning 00:23:03.670 --> 00:23:07.349 for the next one to two years. Structure for 00:23:07.349 --> 00:23:10.829 lifetime yield. You have to mentally view calf 00:23:10.829 --> 00:23:13.809 raising as a long -term investment, not a short 00:23:13.809 --> 00:23:17.150 -term cost center. Aim for those DCHA gold standards. 00:23:17.970 --> 00:23:22.410 97 % survival and less than 10 % scours. And 00:23:22.410 --> 00:23:25.069 most importantly, monitor the first lactation 00:23:25.069 --> 00:23:27.190 milk yields of those pilot calves that were on 00:23:27.190 --> 00:23:29.630 the consistent feed. Validate that Cornell 1 00:23:29.630 --> 00:23:34.589 ,113 kilogram statistic on your own farm using 00:23:34.589 --> 00:23:36.990 your own parlor data. That is the ultimate test. 00:23:37.130 --> 00:23:39.250 Do not just trust the university study. Trust 00:23:39.250 --> 00:23:42.369 your own bulk tank. Exactly. What if we completely 00:23:42.369 --> 00:23:45.589 stopped viewing calf starter as just a feed and 00:23:45.589 --> 00:23:47.609 started viewing it as a genetic expression tool? 00:23:47.920 --> 00:23:49.940 That is a phenomenal way to look at it. It really 00:23:49.940 --> 00:23:52.279 changes the way you look at a simple bag of grain. 00:23:52.460 --> 00:23:54.400 It's not just about the price printed on the 00:23:54.400 --> 00:23:56.539 tag. It is fundamentally about what the bugs 00:23:56.539 --> 00:23:58.500 in the rumen are doing with that feed. And realizing 00:23:58.500 --> 00:24:00.819 that a lack of consistency might be the hidden 00:24:00.819 --> 00:24:03.200 variable that is holding back your entire herd's 00:24:03.200 --> 00:24:05.940 potential. Absolutely. So to everyone listening. 00:24:06.440 --> 00:24:09.460 Do your own math. Generic ROI claims are trash. 00:24:09.720 --> 00:24:12.019 Use your own numbers. This has been another Bullvine 00:24:12.019 --> 00:24:14.519 podcast from The Bullvine Podcast. For more straight 00:24:14.519 --> 00:24:16.799 -talking industry analysis, head over to www 00:24:16.799 --> 00:24:20.079 .thebullvine .com. Subscribe wherever you get 00:24:20.079 --> 00:24:22.079 your podcasts. We're out with new episodes every 00:24:22.079 --> 00:24:23.900 day, and upcoming topics will be diving into 00:24:23.900 --> 00:24:26.279 robotic rotary efficiency. Thanks for listening.