Paul, it is very good to hear from you!

1) If we would have one clause about "bodily" (that is, Kedushas ha'Guf), then I would say that Kedushas ha'Guf does not go away on its own ("Lo Paka bi'Chdi") because this is a more serious issue, but I would still not know whether or not Kedushas Damim goes away on its own (see Rashi to Berachos 19b, DH Mamona, who says that monetary matters are more lenient than matters concerning what is permitted and what is forbidden).

2) Looking again at this, I should point out that there is, in fact, only one clause in the Beraisa. The Beraisa states that if someone said that the ox will be an Olah for 30 days and for the next 30 days will be a Shelamim, then indeed for the first 30 days it is an Olah and for the next 30 days it is a Shelamim. To resolve the challenge of how can bodily Kedushah go away on its own, the Gemara answers that he said "l'Damei." Rashi (ascribed), DH d'Amar l'Damei, writes that he said it in such a way that only the monetary value of the animal attained Kedushah for the first 30 days and afterwards he will redeem it and buy an Olah with the money. We learn from Rashi that only monetary Kedushah is involved in the Beraisa, according to the answer of the Gemara (d'Amar l'Damei").

3) The Ran (DH Hacha Nami) also learns that according to the answer of the Gemara only Keduhas Damim is involved in the Beraisa. The Ran states this explicitly when he writes, "d'Makdish l'Damei Askinan."

4) So the Beraisa contains only one clause, and that is monetary. However, we could not infer "bodily" from "monetary," because the Gemara in Berachos 19b states "Mamona mi'Isura Lo Yalfinan" -- we cannot learn monetary matters from matters of what is permitted and forbidden.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom