Image
FacebookEmailTwitterRSS

Style_Bullvine
Style_Bullvine
Style_Bullvine
Slide 5
Slide 5
Slide 5
Slide 10
Slide 10
Slide 10
Slide 8
Slide 8
Slide 8
Slide 8
Slide 8
Slide 8
Slide 5
Slide 5
Slide 5
Overlays

Archive for North American dairy trends

Zero Mastitis Tubes Since March: The Protocol Change That’s Emptying Hospital Pens

Thursday, December 18th, 2025

Your antibiotics aren’t failing. The bacteria are hiding—in fortresses 1,000x stronger than the treatment you’re using. Here’s how farmers are finally winning.

You know that cow that keeps showing up in your hospital pen? The one where you treat the mastitis, she looks better for a week or two, then boom—same quarter, same problem.

We’ve all got them. And we’ve all accepted them as part of doing business.

But here’s what’s changing: More operations are reporting dramatically fewer of these chronic cases. Some, like Trevor Nutcher’s California dairy, haven’t used a mastitis tube in months since switching protocols. “We haven’t used a mastitis tube since switching to AHV,” Nutcher says, and the surprise in his voice tells you everything.

What’s happening isn’t just a matter of tweaking protocol. It’s a complete rethinking of why some cows become permanent residents in the hospital pen.

The Science Behind Those Repeat Offenders

The frustrating reality of chronic mastitis finally has a biological explanation that makes sense.

According to field trial data from AHV International’s research team, bacteria living in biofilms can be 10 to 1,000 times more resistant to antibiotics than the same bacteria floating free.

Dr. Geoff Ackaert, their technical director, puts it in terms we can all understand: “The bacteria aren’t just hanging out in the udder tissue—they’re building fortresses.”

Think about the difference between hosing fresh manure off concrete versus trying to clean it after it’s been baked on for a week. Same bacteria, completely different challenge.

Rather than developing stronger antibiotics—which only lead to more resistance—researchers are now focusing on preventing biofilms from forming in the first place. They’re disrupting a process called quorum sensing, essentially cutting the communication lines bacteria use before they can organize their defenses.

The Results Farmers Are Actually Seeing

What’s compelling about biofilm prevention isn’t the science alone—it’s what’s happening on farms that have made the switch.

Peter Smith from LT Smith & Sons saw his udder health culling drop from one-in-three to one-in-seven after implementing AHV’s biofilm prevention protocols. That’s a dramatic shift in how many cows stay productive versus getting shipped early.

“Our udder health culling went from one-in-three to one-in-seven. Come back in 5 years, and I’m extremely confident we’ll still be using these protocols.” – Peter Smith, LT Smith & Sons

From Permanent Residents to Empty Hospital Pens – Peter Smith’s 1,700-cow operation slashed udder health culling from 1-in-3 to 1-in-7 after implementing biofilm prevention protocols, adding 10-12 cows to daily production while emptying the hospital pen

And then there’s Nutcher’s experience—no mastitis tubes at all since the protocol change. His hospital pen, which used to have a rotating cast of chronic cases, now sits empty most days.

These aren’t isolated examples. Across AHV’s field trials, farms implementing biofilm prevention protocols are reporting significant reductions in chronic mastitis recurrence.

Why Farmers Are Taking Notice: The Economics

So let’s talk about what really matters—the numbers.

For a typical 100-cow operation, based on data from multiple AHV field trials, here’s how it breaks down:

MetricTraditional Antibiotic TubesBiofilm Prevention Protocol
Upfront Cost (per cow)$26.71$54.02
Milk Withdrawal4–10 days (Discarded)0 days (Saleable)
Labor RequirementHigh (Daily sorting/stripping)Low (Reduced handling)
Chronic RecurrenceCommon (“Repeat Offenders”)Rare (Fortress disrupted)
Annual Net ReturnBaseline+$26,764 per 100 cows

The “Hidden” ROI: Labor and Peace of Mind 

Beyond the milk checks, consider the labor savings that don’t always show up on a ledger: fewer hours spent hauling stubborn cows to the hospital pen, zero time spent scrubbing antibiotic residue out of lines, and the elimination of the “accidental tank spike” risk. Farmers are currently struggling with labor more than almost anything else; a protocol that keeps cows in the main line is a protocol that saves man-hours.

Based on field trial calculations from AHV’s economic analysis (assuming milk prices around $20/cwt):

  • Additional milk revenue from 5.5-pound daily gain: $20,075 annually
  • Treatment cost reductions: $5,988 saved
  • Eliminated withdrawal losses: $982 recovered
  • Improved reproductive performance: $2,450 value

Conservative total benefit: $29,495 Net return after costs: $26,764

Most farms break even within 3-4 months, with year-two returns typically exceeding 200% of the initial investment. Individual results may vary based on baseline health and the quality of implementation. Even if you’re skeptical and cut these projections in half, the math still works.

For larger operations—say 500 cows or more—the dynamics shift even more dramatically. Fixed costs get diluted while benefits compound.

The Dry-Off Question: Where Does Biofilm Prevention Fit?

We need to talk about Selective Dry Cow Therapy (SDCT).

It’s become a cornerstone of industry sustainability efforts, and deservedly so—treating only the quarters that need it at dry-off is a sensible way to reduce antibiotic use. But it’s worth examining how it fits with biofilm prevention.

The consideration worth raising: selective therapy is inherently reactive. It assumes an antibiotic treatment at dry-off will address whatever issues the cow carried through lactation.

But if bacteria are established in biofilms, the treatment may not reach them effectively. As Dr. Ackaert explains, “If you haven’t disrupted the biofilm before she hits the dry pen, that infection may persist through dry-off and re-emerge at freshening when the immune system is under pressure.”

This doesn’t mean SDCT isn’t valuable—it absolutely is. The question is sequencing. Progressive operations are finding that using biofilm disruption during lactation helps ensure the udder is truly clear, making their selective dry cow protocols significantly more effective.

It’s not either/or. It’s getting the order right.

Implementation Realities: Who Sees Results (And Who Doesn’t)

Let’s be honest here—this doesn’t work for everyone.

Based on conversations with producers who’ve made this transition, field observations suggest maybe 5 to 10 percent don’t see these dramatic improvements.

Farms that struggle typically share certain patterns:

  • Protocol costs exceed 2-3% of their milk revenue
  • They’ve got severe existing problems (over 50 mastitis cases per 100 cows)
  • Owner-operators trying to manage everything without dedicated support
  • They’re implementing during a crisis rather than preventively

Success seems most likely with:

  • Moderate baseline challenges (20-40 cases per 100 cows)
  • Systematic health monitoring is already in place
  • Accessible technical support
  • Veterinary collaboration—or at least neutrality
  • Operations of any size, but particularly those with 100+ cows, where fixed costs dilute better

What I find most telling is that it’s less about operational size than about management capacity and timing.

Regional Differences Matter More Than You Think

What works in California doesn’t automatically translate to operations in Wisconsin or Vermont.

A Wisconsin producer dealing with -20°F winters recently told me they had to adjust their protocols significantly. “Those temperature swings hit the immune system differently than California’s steady weather,” he explained. Makes sense when you think about it.

Where Prevention Works Best: Implementation Success Patterns – While success rates vary by region (65-90%), biofilm prevention protocols work across diverse climates when properly adapted. Northeast premium markets show highest adoption (90%), while Southeast operations on tighter margins require longer ROI timelines

Producers report water quality makes a real difference too—iron content and mineral profiles seem to influence protocol effectiveness, though we’re still documenting the specifics.

Northeast operations serving premium markets face entirely different economics. One Vermont producer shared that their premium contract requirements made the switch almost mandatory. Meanwhile, Southeast producers operating on tighter margins might lack the financial flexibility to make higher upfront investments, even with strong projected returns.

And if you’re export-focused in the West? Antibiotic-free certification is increasingly becoming table stakes for international contracts.

Questions Worth Asking Your Advisor

Before making any protocol changes, here’s what you need to nail down:

  • What are your actual baseline costs? Not industry averages—your specific treatment costs per case.
  • What measurable improvements would justify this investment? By month six, what would convince you it’s working?
  • Is qualified technical assistance available? How does your vet view these approaches?
  • How do these protocols compare with other improvements you’re considering?

The Real Implementation Timeline

Based on producer experiences documented in AHV case studies, here’s what to expect:

  • Months 1-2: Learning curve. Staff skepticism is normal. Document everything for true baselines.
  • Months 3-4: Early indicators emerge. Hospital pen populations might start declining. If you’re seeing nothing by month four, check your implementation.
  • Month 6: Decision time. You should see improvement in at least two metrics: mastitis rates, conception rates, and production.
  • Month 12: Full economic analysis, including hidden costs. Most producers wish they’d started earlier, though some realize their timing wasn’t right.

Why Environmental Impact Matters to Your Bottom Line

Beyond the economic considerations, a regulatory angle is emerging here as well.

Reduced antibiotic use means less runoff into watersheds. That matters increasingly for permit compliance. Consumer perception, too. Some milk buyers are already asking about antibiotic reduction protocols—and that list is growing.

Sponsored Post

Making the Decision That’s Right for You

Every operation faces unique circumstances.

For dairies with moderate mastitis challenges and reasonable financial flexibility, the documented economics appear compelling. Operations with severe problems or immediate cash flow pressures might need to address fundamentals first.

The key insight? Chronic mastitis isn’t necessarily inevitable. Understanding biofilm-protected bacteria changes how we evaluate every protocol going forward.

Looking Forward

The empty hospital pen is becoming less unusual across the industry.

Whether you’re ready for changes today or still evaluating, recognizing that some of those “permanent” problems might actually be preventable—that opens new possibilities for all of us.

You know those cows we started talking about? The repeat offenders that seem to live in the hospital pen? Maybe it’s time we stopped accepting them as inevitable. Because for a growing number of operations, they’re becoming a thing of the past.

And that’s progress worth understanding.

The Bottom Line

That cow you keep treating for mastitis—same quarter, same problem, every few weeks—isn’t incurable. You’ve just been fighting the wrong battle. Research from AHV International reveals that bacteria in biofilms are up to 1,000 times more resistant to antibiotics, explaining why chronic cases never fully heal, no matter how many tubes you use. Biofilm prevention takes a different approach: disrupting bacterial communication before these protective “fortresses” can form. The proof is in the results—Trevor Nutcher hasn’t touched a mastitis tube in months, while Peter Smith cut udder health culling from one-in-three to one-in-seven. The economics work too: protocols cost double upfront ($54 vs $27/cow), but deliver $26,764 net return per 100 cows annually, with most farms breaking even in 3-4 months. For dairies tired of accepting chronic mastitis as “part of the business,” empty hospital pens are finally within reach. Ask your technical advisor for a Biofilm Audit.

Key Takeaways

  • Why chronic cases never heal: Bacteria in biofilms are 1,000x more resistant to antibiotics—you’re not failing, you’re fighting fortresses
  • Proof it works: Trevor Nutcher hasn’t touched a mastitis tube in months; Peter Smith cut udder health culling from 1-in-3 to 1-in-7
  • The economics: Double the upfront cost ($54 vs $27/cow), but $26,764 net return per 100 cows—most farms break even in 3-4 months
  • Success factors: Works best with moderate baseline problems (20-40 cases/100 cows), systematic monitoring, and preventive implementation—not crisis response
  • The shift: Chronic mastitis isn’t inevitable. Empty hospital pens are becoming normal for farms that stop treating symptoms and start preventing biofilms

Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.

Join the Revolution!

Join over 30,000 successful dairy professionals who rely on Bullvine Weekly for their competitive edge. Delivered directly to your inbox each week, our exclusive industry insights help you make smarter decisions while saving precious hours every week. Never miss critical updates on milk production trends, breakthrough technologies, and profit-boosting strategies that top producers are already implementing. Subscribe now to transform your dairy operation’s efficiency and profitability—your future success is just one click away.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent
Categories : Management
Tags : , , , , , ,

Decide or Decline: 2025 and the Future of Mid-Size Dairies

Monday, October 27th, 2025

Decide or decline: 2025 is the year mid‑size dairies prove that clarity—not cow count—decides success.

If you’ve been milking through the last 20 years, you already know how fast the middle has lost ground. The 800‑cow herds that once anchored local supply chains are now caught between higher costs and tighter credit. It’s not a lack of effort that’s hurting these farms—it’s the system moving faster than most can react.

Rising input costs, tighter labor markets, new regulations, and rising interest rates are changing what “sustainability” means. But what’s interesting here is that the challenge isn’t purely economic. It’s directional.

According to the USDA Economic Research Service, farms milking more than 2,000 cows now produce over 50% of U.S. milk, and they do so 20–25% more efficiently than smaller commercial herds. Meanwhile, Cornell Dairy Markets data shows that smaller farms—under 500 cows—are re‑emerging through organic, grass‑fed, and local marketing models, earning 30–60% above commodity prices.

And that leaves the middle squeezed. Roughly 2,800 U.S. dairies closed in 2024, many of them right in that 700‑ to 1,200‑cow range.

So, what can farms in this category do? Choices look different for everyone—and sometimes hesitation isn’t fear, it’s fatigue. But the operations pulling ahead are finding ways to convert that fatigue into focus, using data, advice, and discipline to move forward deliberately rather than reactively.

Three Viable Paths Forward

That pressure has created three distinct strategies that are working across 2025. Each one is viable—but only with clarity, discipline, and execution.

1. Expansion with Intention

Growth still works in regions where infrastructure supports it, particularly in Idaho, Texas, and parts of the Southern Plains. The Idaho Dairymen’s Association reports milk production up 3% year‑over‑year, driven by mid‑size operations expanding to 2,500‑cow scale.

Land values in productive regions remain reasonable—$6,000–$8,000 per acre, according to USDA NASS Land Values—and processors continue adding demand to match consolidation trends.

The most successful expansions share three core strengths:

  • Debt ratios under 35%. Leverage only where cash flow already proves out.
  • Trained management teams. Family ownership paired with experienced outside managers works best.
  • Nutrient management foresight. Expansion means more scrutiny—planning here protects future flexibility.

Producers in new freestall and dry lot systems report labor efficiency gains of 25–35%, but these gains materialize only when training and system design precede construction. As one veteran Idaho producer put it recently: “Scale magnifies everything—your efficiency and your inefficiency.”

2. Right‑Sizing and Smarter Technology

For many in the Northeast, Upper Great Lakes, and Atlantic Canada, expansion isn’t realistic. The focus has shifted toward doing fewer things better—and technology is the enabler.

The University of Vermont Extension’s 2024 Robotic Dairy Study found that herds between 400 and 600 cows reduced labor costs by about 30% while maintaining or improving milk yield. Precision feeding and cow‑monitoring technology allowed smaller herds to compete through performance rather than scale.

Why 400-600 Cow Operations Are Going Robotic: The Numbers Behind the Revolution

What’s fascinating is that this same pattern holds north of the border. In Ontario and Quebec, under supply management, the economics differ, but the management philosophy doesn’t. Canadian producers are pushing robotics, automation, and stall utilization to maximize returns per kilogram of quota. As one Ontario nutritionist remarked, “Efficiency isn’t negotiable just because prices are stable. It’s the only real lever left.”

A Vermont dairy that converted to organic alongside robotic milking saw its milk price climb to $31.50 per hundredweight—right in line with national organic averages—but its bigger victory was time. Streamlined routines meant more focus on genetics, forages, and cow health.

These examples don’t make smaller easier—they make it more intentional. For the producers making it work, every investment serves a clear purpose: finding a way to manage cattle and people without burning out either one.

3. Optimization over Expansion

Across Wisconsin, Minnesota, and parts of Eastern Canada, the sweet spot has become refining economics within existing boundaries.

A benchmarking study reports farms that lifted their income over feed cost (IOFC) from $7.50 to $10 per cow per day captured roughly $820,000 more annual margin in 900‑cow herds.

That didn’t come from spectacular innovation; it came from fundamentals: tighter TMR consistency, better feed push‑up frequency, controlled parlor scheduling, and enhanced reproductive consistency.

Those farms also focused on butterfat performance above 4.0%, earning premiums of $0.50–$0.75/cwt. Meanwhile, strategic use of beef‑on‑dairy genetics added $350–$400 per calf, according to University of Wisconsin Dairy Research, 2025.

Optimization is about reliability—the daily grind of doing the same things more precisely than the week before. As one Wisconsin producer told me, ‘We stopped chasing bigger and started chasing better—the shift from production expansion to business refinement. And it’s changing how success is measured: not more cows, but more predictable profit.

The Profit Illusion: Why Size Doesn’t Always Mean Success

Scale doesn’t guarantee success—strategy does. Expansion works best for 2,000+ cow operations ($1,640/cow), while premium organic models deliver consistent returns across all sizes, and optimization shines in the 500-1,000 cow sweet spot

At first glance, most producers expect small family dairies to earn more profit per cow, while large commercial herds rely on volume to make up thinner margins. But the data — shown in the chart below — tells a more nuanced storyAt first glance, most producers expect small family dairies to earn more profit per cow, while large commercial herds rely on volume to make up thinner margins. But the data — shown in the chart below — tells a more nuanced story.This visualization, “Three Paths to Profitability: Annual Profit Per Cow by Herd Size (2025),” reveals how performance and efficiency—not size alone—shape economic outcomes across the industry. The chart compares three strategic paths mid-size dairies are following today:

  • Expansion with Intention – scaling to 2,000+ cows in strong infrastructure regions like Idaho and Texas.
  • Right-Sizing + Technology – mid-tier herds (400–600 cows) adopting automation, robotics, and precision management.
  • Optimization over Expansion – 700–1,200-cow herds refining feed, reproduction, and butterfat performance instead of adding capacity.

The higher bar for larger herds doesn’t simply mean big farms take more money home. Instead, their fixed costs — buildings, equipment, professional staff, financing — are spread over thousands of cows, so cost per unit drops while profit per cow rises modestly. Conversely, smaller farms, even when they receive premium prices for organic, grass-fed, or local milk, often operate with higher feed and labor costs per cow, which narrows daily profit margins.

But here’s the twist: while smaller dairies may show lower profit per cow, the total income is often concentrated in a single family. A 300-cow family farm might return $250,000 in annual profit that supports one household. In contrast, a 2,500-cow operation could generate $2 million in total profit — but that figure is usually divided among multiple owners, investors, lenders, and management teams.

That’s why this chart matters. It debunks the myth that a larger herd size automatically leads to better take-home profit. The true divide isn’t just scale — it’s about who captures the value. Whether driven by volume, precision, or premium branding, profitability in today’s dairy industry is still deeply personal.

Regional Realities Still Matter

The Mid-Size Squeeze Is Real: Wisconsin Alone Lost 313 Dairies in 2024

It’s tempting to think every dairy could apply the same model, but geography dictates strategy more than ever.

In the Western U.S., large‑scale operations thrive on efficiency, infrastructure, and climate.
In the Midwest and Ontario, cooperative structures and component‑based pricing reward consistency and milk quality over expansion.
In the Northeast and Quebec, sustainability and locality drive brand value, with consumers drawn to transparency and traceability.

No matter the region, the takeaway is the same: you can’t copy‑paste a business plan from across the border. The economics—and the culture—demand regional authenticity.

Lessons Learned from Those Who Tried

The $950 Bull Calf Revolution: How Genetics Turned Dairy’s Biggest Liability Into Nearly 6% of Revenue

Every evolution comes with its scars. One Midwestern family who downsized from 850 to 500 cows underestimated the adjustment period after installing robots. Production dropped nearly 15% for a year as cows and staff adapted. They built it back, but only thanks to strong lender trust and patience.

Meanwhile, in Idaho, several expansions paused midway as interest costs bit into construction financing. Those who made it through had one thing in common—extra contingency funds.

The common thread in both cases is timing. Transition phases nearly always take longer and cost more than projected.

The Habits of Survivors

The dairies still standing out—on both sides of the border—tend to have three things in common:

  1. Financial clarity. Debt ratios under 30% and three‑month operating cash reserves. Equipment and upgrades are justified only by measurable efficiency gains.
  2. Revenue diversification. Beef‑on‑dairy programs, custom forage work, or digesters providing supplemental income that stabilizes the primary enterprise.
  3. Generational transparency. Farms with succession plans already in motion make faster, cleaner business decisions.

At the 2025 Canadian Dairy XPO, one Quebec producer put it best: “You can borrow money for cows, not for uncertainty.” It’s a kind of clarity every mid‑size farm needs right now.

The Price of Standing Still

The Compeer Financial Producer Insights 2024 Report warned that dairies without defined five‑year plans lost 6–8% of equity annually due to deferred maintenance, inefficiency, and missed opportunities.

As one producer shared at a Dairy Strong conference in Wisconsin, “We thought doing nothing was the safe move. Turns out, the slow leak was killing us.”

A decade ago, waiting felt like patience. Today, it feels like pressure. Between higher interest, constant tech change, and unpredictable milk prices, even standing still costs money. Most farmers know what they need to do—it’s finding the time, cash, and confidence to do it that’s the battle.

Why 2025 Matters

When the dust settles, 2025 may be remembered less for its milk price trends and more for its management decisions. Expansion, specialization, or optimization—all three can succeed. The real test for mid‑size dairies is whether they’ll commit to one.

As one Idaho producer said, ‘The biggest gamble we took was standing still.’ Across barns and borders, you hear the same thing now: success starts when you stop waiting for the perfect signal. Nobody’s certain—but everyone who’s moving, is learning.

The Bottom Line

Whether you’re milking 200 cows in Quebec or 2,000 in Idaho, the shift facing mid‑size dairies isn’t about capacity—it’s about clarity. The farms that emerge stronger will be those that choose their lane and drive it with intent.

This year, the biggest risk isn’t expansion or automation—it’s indecision. As the market keeps changing, so does the window for action.

What steps are you taking on your operation to define your path for 2025 and beyond?

Key Takeaways

  • Decisiveness defines survival. The mid‑size dairies thriving in 2025 are those that choose a direction and commit fully.
  • Play to your region’s strengths. Expansion works out West, optimization excels in the Midwest, and value branding wins in the East and Canada.
  • Technology can level the field. Automation and precision tools make smaller herds competitive again—but only when data drives decisions.
  • Measure like a business, not a tradition. Top dairies track IOFC, butterfat, and repro weekly to stay ahead of volatility.
  • The real cost is waiting. Every season without a plan quietly drains equity, opportunity, and control.

Executive Summary:

Across the U.S. and Canada, mid-size dairies are facing a make-or-break moment. Once the steady foundation of milk production, 800–1,200 cow farms are now being squeezed between large-scale efficiencies and small-farm premiums. But what’s interesting is how the survivors are rewriting the playbook. From robotic systems in Vermont to data-driven optimization in Wisconsin and quota-smart efficiencies in Ontario, producers are proving that success doesn’t depend on herd size—it depends on clarity. The dairies making bold, informed decisions—whether to expand, modernize, or specialize—are staying strong. In 2025, waiting for perfect conditions isn’t safety anymore—it’s surrender.

Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.

Learn More:

  • Why This Dairy Market Feels Different – and What It Means for Producers – This strategic analysis provides the latest market data behind the consolidation trends mentioned in the main article. It reveals specific technology costs and ROI timelines, helping you financially plan for the necessary strategic shifts your operation needs to make now.
  • Robotic Milking Revolution: Why Modern Dairy Farms Are Choosing Automation in 2025 – For producers considering the “Right-Sizing” path, this article offers a deep dive into the real-world impact of automation. It demonstrates how robotic systems deliver measurable gains in labor efficiency, data collection, and herd health, justifying the capital investment.
  • BST Reapproval: The Key to Unlocking Dairy Sustainability – This piece offers a tactical guide for the “Optimization” strategy, focusing on a specific tool to improve feed efficiency and profitability without expansion. It provides clear protocols and data to enhance your farm’s economic and environmental performance within your current footprint.

Join the Revolution!

Join over 30,000 successful dairy professionals who rely on Bullvine Weekly for their competitive edge. Delivered directly to your inbox each week, our exclusive industry insights help you make smarter decisions while saving precious hours every week. Never miss critical updates on milk production trends, breakthrough technologies, and profit-boosting strategies that top producers are already implementing. Subscribe now to transform your dairy operation’s efficiency and profitability—your future success is just one click away.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent
Categories : Financial Managment
Tags : , , , , , ,

Feed Quality and the Hidden Economics of Beef-on-Dairy Programs

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025

The Beef-on-Dairy Paradox: Why Spending More Per Calf Can Earn You More.

You know what’s been keeping me up lately? The price spreads we’re seeing between Holstein bulls and beef-dairy crosses at sale barns across the Midwest. Market reports indicate these spreads have widened considerably, and it’s got everyone talking.

However, what’s interesting—and this is something industry observers are starting to notice—is that not everyone running beef-on-dairy programs is actually making money. Some operations are doing worse than their neighbors who’ve stuck with straight Holsteins. How’s that possible with these market premiums? That’s a question worth exploring.

Different Philosophies, Different Outcomes

The Profit Paradox: Operations investing $150+ per calf in quality nutrition and genetics generate 40-50% higher net returns than cost-cutting approaches

Examining the data that’s emerging, we’re seeing significantly different approaches out there. And honestly, the outcomes are all over the map.

Some folks are understandably focused on keeping costs as low as possible. Makes sense, right? They’re trying to capture beef premiums without spending much extra—using their regular feeding programs, choosing lower-cost genetic options, basically treating beef crosses like slightly different Holstein calves. However, available data indicate that many of these operations capture only a fraction of the available quality premiums. Their net benefit might be positive, but it is often barely so.

It reminds me of that old saying—you can’t starve a profit out of cattle. Yet when feed costs climb, we all feel that temptation, don’t we?

Then you’ve got operations taking more measured steps. They’re investing in better calf nutrition, selecting proven beef genetics, and developing basic tracking systems. Nothing fancy, just steady improvements. Industry patterns suggest that these individuals generally capture most of the available premiums and exhibit reliable positive returns. Good old-fashioned blocking and tackling.

This development suggests something counterintuitive—operations spending the most per calf often generate the highest net returns. Seems backward at first. But when you think about it… they’re the ones with comprehensive data systems, precision feeding, and systematic breeding strategies. All the information we hear about at the winter meetings, but we wonder if it’s really worth it. Turns out, sometimes it really is.

Strategic Implementation Timeline: Building Your Program

Now, I know what you’re thinking—not everyone can transform their operation overnight. Most of us can’t, frankly. So what farmers are finding is a more practical path forward, especially when timing is critical.

Industry patterns suggest successful approaches tend to be gradual. You might start with foundation work—genomic testing on your best cows. Most operations implementing this staged approach report positive cash flow within 18 to 24 months. The $50 per head testing cost typically pays for itself within the first calf crop through better breeding decisions. Select proven beef sires with documented performance records. Nothing experimental, just reliable genetics that work.

The Long Game Wins: Quality-focused beef-on-dairy programs achieve 30% grade improvements by Year 3, while cost-cutting approaches stall at 12%—creating an 18-point performance gap that compounds annually in market premiums.

Industry data shows operations following systematic approaches typically see grade improvements of 20-30% over three-year periods. Start small, keep good records, and adjust as you learn.

And here’s something crucial that dairy nutrition research consistently demonstrates: consistency in calf nutrition matters more than many of us realize. When operations upgrade nutrition for all calves—not just the crosses—it appears to create that stable environment where genetics can really express themselves. The Beef Quality Assurance program, offered through state extension services, provides free resources on this topic. Makes sense when you stop and think about it.

The timing piece is critical here. If you’re considering a more serious commitment to beef and dairy, the biological clock doesn’t wait for our decision-making process, does it? Good breeding decisions made in the coming months should produce calves that hit the market while premiums remain attractive. Every breeding opportunity missed now is one less quality calf when you need it. That’s the unforgiving math of cattle production—nine months of gestation plus feeding time means today’s decisions create opportunities almost two years in the future.

As comfort levels increase, folks scale what’s working. More beef breeding, better feeding systems, stronger market relationships. But it’s gradual. Nobody’s revolutionizing their whole operation in one season.

That three-phase approach typically spans 24-36 months, from the first genomic test to an optimized program: foundation building (6 months), scaling what works (12 months), and then optimization based on actual results (12 months). The timeline matters because breeding decisions made today affect calves that won’t hit the market for nearly two years.

Some opportunities have already passed, honestly. The earliest adoption advantages, those first-mover processor relationships—those ships have sailed. That’s just reality. But industry indicators suggest there’s still a meaningful opportunity here. Regional processors are still developing programs, seeking consistent suppliers who can meet their quality specifications.

The Feed Quality Factor Nobody Talks About

I’ve noticed that when we discuss beef-on-dairy economics, feed quality rarely comes up for discussion. We’re always focused on feed costs, right? But when corn’s relatively affordable, having consistent feed quality might matter even more than the price per ton.

Take molasses, for instance. Most of us never give it a second thought. However, research from university trials on feed quality reveals that the sugar content in generic molasses can vary significantly—documented research shows it ranging from 39.2% to 67.3% in cane molasses samples. That kind of swing can reduce starter intake by up to 18% according to controlled feeding studies. Think about that for a minute… you’re trying to get these valuable crossbred calves off to a strong start, and inconsistent molasses is working against you.

Quality feed companies, such as Kalmbach Feeds, have responded by implementing strict quality standards. Their documentation indicates that they maintain a minimum specification of  Total Sugars in their molasses, along with controlled mineral levels and consistent Brix readings. That’s not just marketing talk—it’s measurable consistency that translates to calf performance.

The research backing this is compelling. When molasses quality varies, it affects not only palatability but also other factors as well. It alters rumen fermentation patterns, volatile fatty acid production, and ultimately, how well those expensive beef genetics can be expressed. Recent rumen development research indicates that consistent, quality-controlled molasses can increase butyrate production—and butyrate is crucial for rumen papillae development in young calves.

I understand the appeal of mixing your own rations when ingredients are reasonable. Some operations do it really well. But consider everything involved—mixer maintenance, storage losses, labor time, quality testing, and yeah, that occasional batch that doesn’t turn out quite right. Operations implementing these consistency improvements often report significant performance gains—some seeing a 10-15% improvement in feed efficiency—that more than offset the investment.

Sponsored Post

Regional Differences Matter More Than You’d Think

What farmers are finding is that this beef-on-dairy opportunity plays out really differently depending on where you farm.

In Wisconsin and Minnesota, processor density helps, but those winters… crossbred calves require different management when it’s twenty degrees below zero. Extra bedding, draft protection, maybe some building modifications. Many producers report budgeting extra for winter housing adjustments—it adds up. Consider that heifers may require different housing than steers as well.

Out East—Pennsylvania, New York—it’s a different game. Fewer processors mean every relationship matters more. Programs like National Beef’s AngusLink, Tyson’s Progressive Beef initiatives, or regional programs through American Foods Group offer structured premium opportunities; however, you must consistently meet their specific requirements. The humidity, though… some practitioners report respiratory challenges seem more common with crosses during those muggy summers.

And out West? California and Idaho operations face different challenges altogether. Scale requirements can be daunting—some processors want to see serious volume before they’ll even talk to you. But year-round feeding conditions? That’s a real advantage compared to the Midwest’s weather swings. Additionally, proximity to major feedlots offers various marketing options.

Extension services and breed associations often offer free consultation on genetic selection and program development—resources that many producers don’t realize are available. Some states even offer cost-share programs for genetic improvement. Check with your local extension office about what’s available in your area.

Reading the Market Tea Leaves

Looking at adoption patterns, beef-on-dairy breeding appears to be expanding rapidly across the industry. These premiums we’re seeing will probably hold for a while. But markets being markets, they’ll likely moderate as more producers adopt the practice. Once beef crosses become common enough in the supply chain, that scarcity premium starts to soften—we’ve seen it before with other trends.

The beef cow herd will rebuild eventually—it always does when calf prices stay attractive long enough. There is apparently a new packing capacity in development that should alleviate some current bottlenecks. These things take time, though. Years, not months.

This development suggests that operations building quality-focused programs now might maintain good margins even after scarcity premiums fade. Quality differentiation, operational efficiency, and perhaps some technological advantages—these create value that doesn’t depend entirely on tight supplies.

Let’s Be Honest About Risk

We should discuss potential pitfalls, because things do go wrong in this business.

Crossbred calves may present different management needs. Some practitioners report that they may respond differently to standard protocols, although research in this area is still in its early stages of development. What works for Holsteins doesn’t always translate directly to other breeds. Your vet can provide insights on what they’re seeing locally—it seems to vary quite a bit by region. Labor requirements may also increase, particularly during the critical first 60 days.

Markets shift—we’ve all lived through cycles. If you’re borrowing to expand beef-on-dairy programs, keeping debt conservative makes sense. Financial advisors often recommend maintaining a reasonable debt-to-asset ratio when making long-term commitments.

And processor relationships can change. Plant modifications, ownership transitions, program changes—they happen. Having alternatives, even if they’re not your first choice, provides important flexibility.

Finding Your Own Path

For smaller operations with fewer than 200 cows, success often stems from excellence in basics rather than technology. Good genetics, consistent nutrition, and simple but effective tracking. Consider partnering with service providers for expertise rather than trying to develop everything internally. Operations implementing basic improvements often see meaningful returns when they focus on consistency over complexity.

Mid-sized operations (200-500 cows) often do well with staged approaches. Spreading investments over time, testing at a smaller scale before expanding, leveraging cooperative resources where available. It’s about balancing risk and opportunity, right? These operations typically see the best return on investment when they focus on gradual system improvements rather than dramatic overhauls.

Larger operations face clearer but harder choices. Partial implementation rarely seems to work well at scale. Either build comprehensive systems for long-term positioning or maintain flexibility to adjust as markets evolve.

The Bigger Picture

I’ve noticed that beef-on-dairy reflects broader patterns we’ve seen in agriculture before. When commodity markets experience structural changes, operations that build capabilities and systems often maintain advantages even after initial premiums moderate. We saw it with the adoption of rbST, again with genomic testing, and now with beef-on-dairy.

The operations struggling aren’t necessarily doing anything wrong—they’re optimizing for different constraints. If capital or management bandwidth is limited, focusing on cost control makes perfect sense. But recognizing that this approach may limit access to emerging premiums helps with realistic planning.

Industry consolidation patterns suggest market transitions create both opportunities and challenges. Operations that adapt thoughtfully, building on their strengths while addressing market needs, generally emerge in good shape. Those that either resist change entirely or chase every trend without focus… well, that tends to be harder.

Feed quality consistency—like the molasses example we discussed—genetic selection, and systematic management create value beyond market cycles. Operations investing here position themselves not just for today’s premiums but for whatever comes next.

As we make breeding decisions for calves that won’t reach market for almost two years, thinking about where the industry might be heading matters as much as reacting to today’s prices. The biological lag in cattle production means today’s decisions create tomorrow’s reality—for better or worse.

The beef-on-dairy opportunity seems real, but it’s not uniform or guaranteed. Success likely requires matching strategy to your specific resources, capabilities, and regional context. And, perhaps most importantly, it requires recognizing that in evolving markets, what works today might not work tomorrow.

That’s the challenge—and opportunity—we’re all navigating together. What’s your take on it?

FINAL KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • The Profit Paradox: The most profitable beef-on-dairy programs often have higher per-calf costs. Their success comes from strategic investment in nutrition and genetics, which generates net returns that significantly outperform low-cost, minimum-effort approaches.
  • Feed Consistency Trumps Cost: Inconsistent ingredients are a hidden profit killer. Generic molasses, for example, can vary from 39% to 67% sugar, a swing shown to cut calf starter intake by up to 18% and undermine genetic potential. Paying for quality-controlled feed delivers more predictable performance.
  • Your Strategic Roadmap: Lasting success is built over 24-36 months, not one season. Start with a strong foundation (like genomic testing your best cows), gradually scale what works for your operation, and then optimize using your own carcass data—not industry averages.
  • Biology Doesn’t Wait: Breeding decisions made today create the calves that will hit the market in late 2027. To build a program that remains profitable even after current premiums soften, the time to invest in quality and consistency is now.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

While market premiums for beef-on-dairy calves are strong, profitability varies wildly from farm to farm. The crucial difference isn’t luck; it’s strategy. Industry patterns reveal that producers who strategically invest in superior nutrition, genetics, and management consistently achieve higher net returns than neighbors focused solely on cutting costs. The hidden killer for many programs is feed inconsistency—for instance, when variable sugar content in molasses cuts starter intake by 18%, it sabotages the very genetic potential you’ve invested in. Real success requires a deliberate 24-36 month journey: building a foundation with tools like genomic testing, scaling up proven practices, and optimizing based on your own results. With today’s breeding decisions creating your 2027 market calves, the window is closing to build a quality-driven program that can thrive long-term. In this evolving market, the cost of inaction is proving far greater than the cost of strategic investment.

Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.

Learn More:

Join the Revolution!

Join over 30,000 successful dairy professionals who rely on Bullvine Weekly for their competitive edge. Delivered directly to your inbox each week, our exclusive industry insights help you make smarter decisions while saving precious hours every week. Never miss critical updates on milk production trends, breakthrough technologies, and profit-boosting strategies that top producers are already implementing. Subscribe now to transform your dairy operation’s efficiency and profitability—your future success is just one click away.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent
Categories : Beef on Dairy
Tags : , , , , , ,

Slide 10
Slide 10
Slide 10
Slide 5
Slide 5
Slide 5
Slide 5
Slide 5
Slide 5
Slide 8
Slide 8
Slide 8
Style_Bullvine
Style_Bullvine
Style_Bullvine
Slide 8
Slide 8
Slide 8
Overlays

Send this to a friend