\n
![](\"https:\/\/images.squarespace-cdn.com\/content\/v1\/5da3f3cd64169331e9219d64\/1758002270574-6CLPF0CVWD878HZ6Q0R6\/511576585_18495336826066828_6205406736355750179_n.jpg?format=1500w\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
It is also worth addressing the suggestion that EBVs make breeding \u201ceasier.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s advance.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n