Are You Selecting Bulls the Right Way?

When it comes to selecting herd bulls, U.S. beef producers rely heavily on expected progeny differences (EPDs) — but a national survey suggests old habits, including an over-reliance on actual birth weight and visual appraisal, are quietly undermining the genetic progress that EPDs are designed to deliver.

The eBEEF team, a group of beef genetics Extension specialists from seven land-grant universities, surveyed 720 beef cattle producers across 43 states to learn how selection decisions are made — and whether those decisions align with what maximizes profit. The results point to clear opportunities to fine-tune selection strategies. 83.8% of producers rated profitability as a 7 or higher (out of 10) when selecting bulls — yet survey data suggest many implemented selection practices that are suboptimal in attaining that goal.

But What About Crossbreeding?

Angus dominates American cow herds, and this survey confirms it. Three-quarters of respondents (75.4%) include Angus among their top three most prevalent breeds, and in those herds Angus cattle average 64.5% of the cow inventory (Table 1). If you combine that with Red Angus, the percentage of herds with significant Angus genetics increases to 85.5%. After Angus, Hereford, Simmental and Red Angus round out the top four breed choices.

The survey indicates that producers are only marginally concerned with implementing a sound crossbreeding system by the fact that on a 10-point scale where 1 = straightbred and 10 = major focus on heterosis, commercial producers responded with an average score of just 6.0. Given that crossbreeding is one of the most cost-effective tools available to commercial producers to improve profitability, the survey team found this disappointing. Heterosis boosts reproductive efficiency, calf survival and lifetime cow productivity in ways that no single breed can match through within-breed selection alone.

Table 1. Beef Breed Usage Reported by U.S. Survey Respondents

¹ Percentage of producers including the breed among their three most prevalent. ² Mean breed percentage in herds where it appears in the top three.

EPDs Are Being Used — But Not Alone

Good news: 89.1% of producers use EPD as either their primary (33.0%) or an important (56.1%) source of information when selecting bulls. Genomically enhanced EPDs (GE-EPDs) are valued too, scoring 7.6 out of 10 for importance when buying young bulls.

The trouble comes with how producers combine EPDs with other information. For calving ease — an economically important trait in virtually every operation — 78.8% correctly use the calving ease direct (CED) EPD to assist in bull selection. But only 9.9% rely on CED alone. The other 90% add birth weight EPD (71.1%), actual birth weight (38.4%), or other criteria alongside it.

Birth weight is an indicator of calving ease, not calving ease itself. Moreover, birth weight is used in the calculation of CED EPD along with available calving ease scores. Selecting on both CED and Birth Weight EPD or actual birth weight of the bull reduces selection accuracy, and “double counts” birth weight, compared to using CED alone. This opens the door for mistakes in selection decisions.
The same pattern shows up for growth: 81.5% use growth EPDs (weaning weight, yearling weight, carcass weight), but only 36.1% use the EPD by itself — 56.5% also factor in the bull’s own weight. Combining indicator traits with economically relevant traits dilutes accuracy and slows genetic progress.

EPDs are not the only selection tool that should be used; visual appraisal of structure, temperament and ensuring the bull has passed a breeding soundness exam are important, but for the traits that EPDs are provided, they should be the only criteria for selection.

Where Producers Place Emphasis — and Where They Should

Producers were asked to distribute 100% of their selection emphasis across specific traits. Table 2 indicates the percentage of producers that indicated they used that trait in their selection decision process and, if they used the trait, at what level emphasis they placed on the trait. For example, a producer may have responded that they place a 25% emphasis on CED, 35% on weaning weight growth, 5% on milk, 20% on stayability and 15% on marbling for a total of 100% emphasis.

Table 2. Trait Selection Emphasis

¹ Percentage of producers that include the trait in their bull selection decisions. ² Average emphasis placed on the trait of the operations that use the trait in their bull selection decisions.
* Stayability or Sustained Cow Fertility (Functional Longevity was not available at the time of the survey).

Table 3. Trait Selection Emphasis for Maximum Profit Based on iGENDEC for Herds that Retain Replacements and Sell at Weaning

* Stayability or Sustained Cow Fertility (Functional Longevity was not available at the time of the survey).

(eBEEF)

¹Average producer emphasis based on survey results. ²Recommended emphasis values from iGENDEC (Spangler et al., 2022) using survey-representative parameters.

Based on the most common management practices, most used marketing method and average herd data provided in the survey, an economic model was developed using the Beef Improvement Federation’s iGENDEC software that is designed to create economic selection indexes that are economically optimal.

This translated into a cow-calf operation managed on moderate nutritional availability, replacement heifers are retained, 15% first-calf heifers bred annually and the calves are marketed at weaning (prices based on five-year historic average). For this model, the traits that should be emphasized and the optimum level of emphasis that should be placed on each are shown in Table 3 and the comparison of three key traits are illustrated in Figure 1.

The most jarring finding: producers place very little emphasis on mature cow weight (9.8% average among the 25.1% who select for it at all), yet iGENDEC suggests mature weight should receive 48.2% of selection emphasis to maximize profitability under these conditions. As cow size has crept upward — for example, the American Angus’s genetic trends show mature weight rising 109 lb. and the trend for American Simmental 57 lb. over the past 40 years — feed costs to maintain those cows through the production year have increased as well.

Meanwhile, CED received more than triple the emphasis (26.4%) that economic modeling suggests is optimal (8.1%). After decades of Extension programming on dystocia prevention, producers may be overcorrecting.

Additionally, not all selection decisions are based on maximum profitability, other factors come into play like pulling calves at 2 a.m. in the rain. The optimal degree of emphasis depends on the unique circumstances of each herd. Herds experiencing higher levels of dystocia should place greater emphasis on CED than herds experiencing less. For many this can still be achieved with less emphasis than they are currently using. A moderate, balanced focus on calving ease — while increasing attention to growth and, especially, mature weight moderation — could meaningfully improve bottom-line returns.

What This Means for Your Operation

1. Lean on the economically relevant EPDs. Use CED for calving ease, without birth weight alongside it. EPDs are already pulling indicator traits into the calculation — let them do their job.
2. Think about cow size. If you keep replacement heifers, mature weight EPD is one of the most underutilized tools for profit. Bigger isn’t always better when she has to eat year-round.
3. Consider a selection index. Breed associations have selection indexes for various production systems and for some producers tools like iGENDEC may help. Indexes set economically defensible weights on specific EPDs that are important for your specific market endpoint and management system — taking the guesswork out of weighting traits.
4. Utilize crossbreeding. Heterosis is a proven economically effective tool. Crossbred cows wean more pounds per cow exposed and they stay in the herd longer — traits that have substantial economic importance.

— This survey was conducted in partnership with the Beef Improvement Federation and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. For more resources on bull selection and genetic tools, visit ebeef.org