Recently I was sent a newsletter item featuring letter to the editor where the writer raised concerns about the industry’s reliance on Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs). The central argument was that EBVs focus too heavily on growth and muscle traits, that they risk eroding the femininity and efficiency of the cow herd, and that they reduce the role of traditional observation, what many call cattlemanship. The suggestion was that breeding is an art rather than a science, and that the cow should always be the focus, with steers seen as little more than a by-product. These views echo conversations that have surfaced many times in the beef industry over the last few decades. However, to suggest that EBVs are undermining herd quality or replacing breeder skill is to misunderstand both the intent and the application of genetic evaluation.
However, to suggest that EBVs are undermining herd quality or replacing breeder skill is to misunderstand both the intent and the application of genetic evaluation.
First, it is important to recognise that EBVs do not exist in isolation. They are part of a broader system of measurement and recording that captures performance across multiple traits. While it is true that growth and carcase indices are prominent, EBVs today also include female fertility, maternal calving ease, milk, longevity, and even traits such as net feed intake. These are not marginal or “nice-to-have” figures; they are central to how modern breeding programs make progress. Days to Calving EBVs, for example, directly quantify reproductive efficiency, something that is almost impossible to assess accurately by visual observation alone. Far from neglecting the cow herd, EBVs bring hard data to the very traits that underpin female function and herd profitability.
The claim that EBVs reduce predictability in progeny is also misplaced. In fact, EBVs are specifically designed to improve predictability by drawing on large datasets, across-herd comparisons, and now genomic information. The essence of breeding is to make the next generation better than the last, but without measurement this process is left to chance. Observation can identify the obvious, the sleek coat, the good udder, the strong topline, but it cannot tell us how many daughters a bull’s heifers will calve down early, or whether they will consistently rejoin in tight intervals. EBVs do not replace the breeder’s eye; they extend it across thousands of animals and multiple environments. The idea that “like begets like” is more reliable when supported by heritable, measurable data rather than appearance alone.
It is also worth addressing the suggestion that EBVs make breeding “easier.” Reading a set of numbers may look simple, but those figures are the product of decades of research, millions of performance records, and highly sophisticated statistical models. They are not shortcuts,they are summaries of information that no individual breeder could possibly collect or process on their own. The most skilled breeders use EBVs in combination with their own stock sense. They walk among their cattle, they note temperament, structure, and adaptability, and they apply EBVs to ensure that what they see is backed by evidence. The two approaches are not competitors; they are complementary. The breeder who ignores either is working with half the toolkit.
The reader also raised concerns about profitability being skewed towards steers at the expense of cows. This argument underestimates the way EBVs integrate maternal productivity into breeding objectives. A balanced selection index, for instance, weights both cow herd efficiency and steer growth to market specifications. If the focus were truly on steers alone, traits like fertility and maternal calving ease would not feature so prominently in national evaluations. The reality is that producers require both: the cow herd to drive efficiency, and the steers to underpin revenue and cash flow. The best breeding objectives recognise this interdependence, not one at the expense of the other.
Perhaps the most significant risk of dismissing EBVs is the lost opportunity for long-term genetic gain. Countries such as the United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have integrated genomic EBVs deeply into their beef industries, and the rate of progress in traits such as fertility, carcase quality, and feed efficiency is accelerating. Australia has been a leader in this space through BREEDPLAN and BreedObject, but that position is not guaranteed. If breeders choose to rely solely on visual assessment, they will inevitably fall behind counterparts who are marrying observation with robust data. Genetic progress is cumulative; every missed opportunity to select on the best available information slows the entire industry’s advance.
None of this is to say that the art of breeding should be dismissed. Cattlemanship is still vital. The best breeders have a finely tuned ability to observe, to recognise subtle signs of structure, temperament, or maternal instinct that no dataset can capture. They are also able to apply their knowledge to local conditions in ways that a set of EBVs cannot fully anticipate. But to position EBVs and cattlemanship as an either-or choice is to create a false dichotomy. The future of the beef industry depends on integrating the two: using EBVs to provide objective, validated information across traits, and applying breeder skill to interpret that information in the context of the herd and environment.
Breeding cattle has always been both art and science. What has changed is the range of tools available to support decision-making. EBVs are not a replacement for stock sense but a reinforcement of it, ensuring that visual impressions are backed by measurable evidence. A well-balanced breeding program will always value the cow herd, but it will also use every tool available to ensure that both cows and steers contribute to profitability. As markets evolve, as climate pressures intensify, and as consumer demands sharpen, the industry cannot afford to rely on observation alone. Progress will come from the breeders who embrace both the numbers and the art, who understand that consistency and efficiency are achieved not by rejecting science but by harnessing it.
In conclusion, EBVs are not the enemy of cattlemanship. They are its ally. They allow breeders to see beyond what the eye can catch, to capture traits that matter but are invisible, and to make choices that build herds that are profitable, predictable, and sustainable. To ignore them is to walk into the future with one eye closed.