Written by: Matt Woolfolk, ASA Director of Performance Programs

Hopefully, by the time this issue reaches your inbox, you have seen the changes to our selection index offering implemented in Digital Beef. If it’s your prerogative, you’ve taken the time to study how the changes to the $Feedlot formula are reflected in your herd, as well as the addition of the Cow Productivity Index (CPI). As the new index on the page, there’s undoubtedly questions about how it works. This article will walk through some of that aiming to give you a better understanding of CPI.

Let’s start with the breeding objective that defines CPI and, thus, the traits that get included in the model. This index mirrors the production scenario in which Shorthorn genetics are going to be most often utilized in the commercial sector: to produce own replacement heifers and steers that are a payday for their producer as feeder calves. As seedstock producers, we have been told over and over that the commercial cattleman wants cattle that don’t cause them problems, most recently by panel members Brian McCulloh, Dale Stith, and Jim Akers at Summer Symposium. Either that mantra is truly so important that it must be repeated, or we aren’t doing a very good job of it, so they must keep telling us. The goal of CPI is to help identify those genetics that we might classify as less apt to cause problems: calve on their own, raise a good calf to the weaning pen, keep doing it year after year without getting bigger cows than a rancher might want.

With that in mind, the traits that fit this index according to the economic model are described below:

Calving Ease Direct (CED) – It’s no secret that the first key to having a profitable calf is getting it into this world safe and alive. The CED EPD is a prioritized part of CPI for that reason. We don’t want calving issues, and neither do our customers.

Weaning Weight (WW) – The end marketing point utilized in the building of CPI is selling calves by the pound as weaned feeders. Obviously, that makes weaning growth genetics a significant component of CPI.

Yearling Weight (YW) – The YW EPD is included in CPI as the indicator trait of mature cow size and is weighted negatively in the index. While a genetic tool for cow weight is in the works at IGS (our genetic evaluation service provider), it is not available for use in our evaluations yet. Genetic studies have shown the correlation between yearling weight and mature weight to range from 75 to 85%. Of note, our BMI formulation has been put together in this same way since its inception, with YW being a negatively weighted part of that index as an indicator for moderating mature cow size as well.

Milk – Cows need to be able to produce enough milk to raise a healthy calf. While our hardest EPD to track, MILK is an important EPD in maternal selection. Too little MILK can leave you disappointed in your cows’ production. We also know that too much MILK can be an issue if you do not have the environmental resources to support heavier milking cows. The MILK EPD is included in a positive weighting in CPI.

Calving Ease Maternal (CEM) – If the goal is producing daughters that can go to work as productive cows, then they need to be able to have their first calf with no troubles. With that in mind, CEM is a part of CPI, albeit the least emphasized of the incorporated traits.

Stayability (STAY) – Longevity is a key to profitability for a cow. The longer she produces, the better chance she becomes a moneymaker for you. STAY is our genetic measure of the likelihood of staying in production longer, meaning a higher STAY EPD is predicting a higher chance of hanging around the herd. The STAY EPD is a significant component to CPI’s formulation.

Several times, I have been asked about why specific traits were not included in CPI or weren’t weighted differently. I reference a chat I had with Dr. Troy Rowan as he performed a third-party analysis of CPI where we talked about a “desired gains” index: putting things into an index to make the outcome what we want it to be, without it necessarily fitting the economic models geneticists use to build the index. Instead, Dr. Rowan advocates for selecting for specific EPDs that might not fit into the index alongside of index selection to make genetic progress. If you want to improve marbling or ribeye or any trait with an EPD while still looking at CPI, you can certainly do that by studying that data in conjunction with the CPI index.

A presentation from Dr. Matt Spangler of University of Nebraska during this summer’s BIF Symposium analyzed this topic well, and I encourage you to look it up on www.beefimprovement.org if you are one of those folks who is lucky enough to have free time. His topic was discussing the challenges of selection indexes for producers who don’t market cattle on a carcass quality grid (many indexes utilize this as an endpoint in the index models). In his presentation, Spangler laid out two scenarios and created indexes for them, with the objective in both of keeping replacement females: a “sell steers at weaning index” with EPD selection thresholds for carcass traits (EPDs not included in the index), and a “sell steers on the grid” index with no extra selection pressure for carcass (carcass EPDs were included in index).

The results of his trial were that the index that marketed cattle on the grid pointed him in the right direction for maternally oriented cattle but referred to it as “sub-optimal”. His test was better able to identify them via his sell at weaning index with selection pressures on carcass traits to. With my curiosity now peaked, I applied some of his tactics to our test population of sires for CPI. The chart to the right shows the average CPI for the top 50 bulls that also meet an EPD selection threshold. So, the top left value in the chart would be the average CPI of the top 50 CPI bulls in our test group that also are average or better for their MARB EPD. The top right box makes a stricter selection, cutting the MARB candidates to the top 25%. The same process is carried out for the other 3 EPDs on the table.

As expected, the more intense we make our selection criteria, we potentially sacrifice genetic merit as valued by the index. However, if we are willing to give up a little to apply that selection pressure on other traits, bulls that excel for CPI, carcass, and/or growth are out there to use.

There’s a lot to unpack any time that a new selection tool is introduced, and CPI is no different. Educating yourself on the available tools will always be important. Knowledge is power, and with knowledge of the tools that best suit your operation, your power to breed and improve Shorthorn cattle increases.

written by Matt Woolfolk, ASA Director of Performance Programs

“When the winds of change blow, some people build walls. Others build windmills.” -Chinese proverb

The winds of change are blowing in the realm of Shorthorn genetic evaluation. Our selection index lineup has remained constant for over a decade. Anyone who has paid attention to the beef cattle industry knows that there has been massive change in all segments over that timeframe. Our genetic offerings will do the same. These updates are the most significant changes to our genetic evaluation since the implementation of weekly runs and single-step calculation methods from IGS in 2018. This isn’t a decision that was made hastily or taken lightly. Rather, the staff has been in the works on this process for close to three years. When this project began, I had zero kids and less gray hair! One of our 2022 Strategic Plan Core Strategies states that we will “Invest in research and development to enable breed improvement.” These decisions were made with that core premise in mind, to enable improvement of Shorthorn genetics.

A staff-led evaluation of our current index offerings and other tools used in the industry led to initial trials of building new selection tools and attempts to modify current ones. After working through this for about a year, a proposal was taken to the board for the creation of a new index and modifications to an index already in the lineup. We all felt it would be beneficial to get breeder feedback in a test period, so late 2023 a trial run was done with a dozen herds with breeders providing feedback to help us improve the product. I think it is important to note that only staff, our consulting geneticists, and DigitalBeef support staff have ever seen the index formulas. NO BREEDER OR BOARD MEMBER has ever seen the index formulas. That misinformation is out there and is 100% incorrect.

As we entered 2024, breeder feedback was compiled and carefully considered as we moved into another round of modifications. I can’t say that all feedback was reflected in this round, because in some instances we got opposite opinions on matters, making it impossible to include both. In the spring, we wanted to bring in an expert from industry to dissect and offer insights to improve our near finished product. Enter Dr. Troy Rowan from the University of Tennessee to get an outside set of eyes on our work and give valuable feedback that brought us to the final product after a couple more rounds of slight changes. That final version is what we are excited to publish for the first time in the genetic evaluation run that will be released the week of August 19.

For those of you that may not know, our indexes (and all others in the seedstock industry) are created using computer models and programs to simulate breeding cattle with certain objectives. All these indexes are built using parameters to define the breeding goals and economic considerations to mirror the current state of the industry. There is commonality between all our indexes: utilizing Shorthorn genetics on British-based cattle in a crossbreeding system is the primary breeding objectives. From there, the differences come into effect as we select cattle that for different marketing and production purposes.

Now that the background is established, let’s look at what is different in our selection index landscape. One index ($Calving Ease) will see no changes moving forward.

Changes to the $Feedlot Calculation :: Since the inception of $Feedlot, the fed cattle marketing sector has seen shifts towards premiums for high-quality product. In recent years, we have also seen an uptick in harvest weights of cattle. This combination of traits continues to place pressure on high-growth, high-marbling genetics to collect top dollar on the rail. Our $Feedlot index adds a new EPD to the formulation’s growth component: Carcass Weight. When the original $F was created, the breed did not have a CW EPD published. Now, thanks to our involvement in the IGS multi-breed eval, that is available, and we can incorporate it into the index alongside WW and YW (the previous growth traits drivers in $F).

If you are aware of market conditions in quality grid-based marketing, you know that Prime premiums and the spread between Choice and Select are as significant now as they have been in some time. The market is paying for a premium product. Taking that into account, you will see an increased value of the MARB EPD in the index, to mirror the increased market premiums noticed for high marbling cattle. The final modification to $F was a slight decrease in the weighting of CED in the index to maintain the formulation balance when changing the other traits currently mentioned. Calving ease has always been included in $F at a small portion to apply pressure against dystocia in a performance-driven index. The $F index is a strictly terminal index: the computer models used to calculate it assume all calves are fed out and harvested on a quality-based grid (not retaining replacement heifers).

BMI: Balanced Merit Index :: During the dive into these indexes, two realizations hit home: that $BMI has indeed been a force in the improvement of Shorthorn cattle over the last decade, and that it is not truly a maternally oriented index as the name indicates. The conversation then pivoted to the utility of the index in its current form. It is not perfect, but it is a useful tool. We did not want to remove the tool from the toolbox, so the decision was made to re-brand the index to better describe what it accomplishes. With $BMI containing a calving ease, growth, maternal, and carcass component, the new name Balanced Merit Index surfaced. The calculations for $BMI remain unchanged. It remains an index where the breeding simulation is designed to retain replacement heifers, while taking cull heifers and the steer crop through the feedyard to market on a quality grid.

There has been a lot of talk about simply adding a trait to BMI and that being a satisfactory move to appease breeders. We studied this intensely and talked to others about the approach of tacking a new trait on to BMI. It was decided that approach wasn’t the most effective route after getting outside opinions. I will discuss this more in a later article.

The New Cow Productivity Index :: Shorthorn breeders mention often that this is a maternally oriented breed of cattle. Thus, the move to include a maternally focused selection tool brought the Cow Productivity Index to the offering. This index emphasizes the traits that breeders and their customers expect of their most successful cows: calving ease, performance to weaning, moderate mature size, milk production, and longevity. You should see the bulls that are cow makers excel, and the cow lines that stand the test of time rise. The models used to build this index include retaining replacement females from the herd, while selling steer calves and cull females by the pound as weaned calves.

With a new index, I know there are lots of questions, and I will attempt to cover many of the questions and commentary around the new CPI in depth in future issues of the Shorthorn Country. For now, the takeaway message is that this index is designed to closely resemble the mode of operation of most commercial Shorthorn bull customers. With many buyers coming to the breed looking for a new piece to make a productive crossbred female with, identifying those genetics that can help them make those selections is as important as ever. You can find numerous studies that highlight the worth of a crossbred female over her straightbred counterpart. When America’s First enters that crossbreeding conversation with the ranchers, it solidifies the value of the purebred Shorthorn.

Wrapping Up & Moving Forward :: First, I want to thank everyone that I worked with during this journey: staff, the ASA board, the breeders who provided feedback, and our consultants, Patrick Wall at Iowa State and Dr. Troy Rowan at Tennessee. Eric Grant and his team at Grant Co. were also beneficial as we named and re-branded these indexes. It was a team effort to get this to fruition. In our discussions with Dr. Rowan, he provided commentary that I believe is worthwhile sharing with you. Troy mentioned that selection indexes are designed with the purpose of making genetic selection easier for our commercial customers. He also relayed his belief that as breeders and seedstock producers, our breeding programs should be fine-tuned via precise selection for individual EPDs to reach our goals. Can indexes be helpful in that? Absolutely they can! But we must be careful using any one index to push our genetics forward. I have yet to find a single number anywhere in the industry that you can count on to accomplish all your selection goals with. “Balance” is a buzzword in the seedstock business right now, and it probably should have been for the last two decades. It’s become one again because many of us forgot to keep it in mind when breeding our cattle, and the customer is seeing the consequences.

Even with the time and effort aimed to help as many breeders as possible, we will not be able to create tools to fit every breeding program to a T. That is why it becomes important for you as a breeder of livestock to study what tools are out there and determine if they work for you or not. You’re not going to offend your staff or leadership if you choose other options to guide the future of your program (if you are respectful going about it). As a breeder, I can tell you that the associations for the breeds of cattle roaming our pastures have genetic tools that we do not utilize because they just don’t fit for the type of cattle we are trying to breed. It’s part of being a responsible, educated breeder to know what works for you and utilize it as best as you can.

In the coming months, there will be more articles and information on CPI and the other indexes as we move into a new era of Shorthorn genetic improvement. This series will continue with a deeper dive on CPI starting next month, and I look forward to seeing some of you build windmills and making efforts to use the best tools for your operation to enable Shorthorn breed improvement.

Watch for a Part 2: A Further Evaluation of Cow Productivity Index in the September Shorthorn Country and online next week! 

Charles Rosson of Quaker Hill Farms discusses Shorthorn carcass quality.

Charles Rosson of Quaker Hill Farms explains ShorthornPlus Popularity.

Georgia native Josh White has lived and breathed the beef industry his entire life. Described as “cattle crazy” by his family, Josh now leads efforts at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s as Senior Executive Director of Producer Education and Sustainability, overseeing programs like the Beef Quality Assurance program. Learn more as he outlines the many opportunities for producers to learn about connecting with beef consumers — a skill needed for the survivability of the industry.

To view all the podcasts visit YouTube and search ShorthornASA or on shorthorn.org under News > Shorthorn Bull Pen Podcast