University of Missouri Extension

G2034, Reviewed October 1993

Using Performance Data in Judging Classes

John Massey
Department of Animal Sciences

Judging contests are an important educational tool. Someday young cattle producers will be faced with selection decisions that affect the profitability of their operations. They should be prepared to use all information available to them, including performance data. Therefore, to better educate future cattle producers, performance data should be included in livestock judging classes and in all judging competitions. The combination of evaluation through performance records and visual appraisal better prepares students for realistic selection decisions.

Judging contests have long been used to exercise the decision-making abilities of young producers. Contestants must make logical decisions as to the relative worth of each animal in a class. Often, the only knowledge about the class comes from visual appraisal. Contestants can visually appraise and estimate general size, weight and composition (lean to fat ratio), but they could increase their accuracy if they could consider performance information. Factors such as weight, rate of gain, frame score, backfat and scrotal circumference are easily measured, and contestants can make more accurate decisions by evaluating them. Estimated Breeding Values (EBV), ratios, accuracies and Expected Progeny Differences (EPD), which are easily obtained from most beef breed associations and progressive breeders, can help determine differences between individuals more accurately than visual appraisals alone.

This guide can be used to train youth interested in modern beef selection practices. A cattle producer using performance information while making selections is like any successful businessperson who uses the most accurate inputs possible to make economically sound decisions. This guide provides some examples of judging situations that include performance records. The possible types of classes are as numerous as the selection decisions producers must face every year. Before any judging exercise, contest or otherwise, you must define the class of cattle, obtain the appropriate performance data, and make and justify decisions to meet the defined needs.

Defining the class

Any selection exercise involves determining which animal comes closest to fulfilling a defined need. Before a sensible choice can be made, the judge should provide the answers to three questions:

The class purpose, situation, and priorities can be very simply stated, such as for this class of Shorthorn heifers:

These selection criteria can be stated more elaborately depending upon the advanced level of the student or contestant or upon what concepts the instructor wishes to teach. Consider the following description for a class of Angus bulls:

A realistic situation is the key to giving the class a real life, applied meaning. It is not necessary to use actual data; hypothetical situations and data can be applied to a class in a realistic manner. The educational value of the exercise is the critical issue.

Other examples of selection situations are:

Angus heifers

Simmental bulls

Polled Hereford bulls

A statement of selection priorities should not imply that they are the only criteria to consider. Certainly, if a bull has a severe structural problem or clearly lacks testicular development, he should not be chosen even though soundness or fertility was not listed as a selection priority. The instructor may even choose to omit selection priorities from the class description. This would encourage the student or contestant to individually develop priorities based upon the selection situation and then make corresponding selection decisions.

Considering performance data

Besides what students can see, what other factors should they consider? Any student wishing to excel in beef cattle judging should be prepared to use the following performance information:

All of these records will not be available for every class. Some classes may have nothing more than birth dates and weaning weights.

Students should be trained to understand each factor and to optimize use of whatever information is available. It is impossible to describe every combination of class description and performance data set. However, many will be related to commercial production. Table 1 provides some guidelines to consider when making bull selections.

Table 1
Commercial bull selection criteria

Trait Standards
Maternal sire Terminal sire
Scrotal circumference (cm)
(minimum at 1 year)
34+ 32+
Calving ease score Unassisted Minor assist accepted
Birth weight (pounds) 65 to 85 80 to 110
Birth weight EBV1 102+ 95+
Structural soundness Excellent Adequate
Milk Production
Maternal EBV 102+ Not important
Weaning weight EBV 98 to 104 104+
Yearling weight EBV 98 to 104 104+
Market Acceptance
Frame score (1 year) 4 to 6 5 to 7
Hip height (inches) (1 year) 47.0 to 51.0 49.0 to 53.0
Fat thickness (1,100 pounds) 0.2 to 0.4 <0.2
1In most cases, higher EBVs are associated with lower birth weights. However, for some associations the opposite is true. The instructor should clarify.

When both EBVs and actual data are presented, give emphasis to the EBVs even if the accuracies provided are somewhat low. However, if EBVs are not provided, a minimum of actual weights and within contemporary group ratios should be provided, and students should seriously consider them.

Simmental bulls — example

Decisions are not always simple, regardless of whether data are provided or not. To illustrate, let's look at a pair of Simmental bulls. The performance data are provided in Table 2. Two different possible class descriptions follow.

Table 2
Example — Simmental bull data

  Bull 1 Bull 2
Birth weight 104 87
Birth weight EBV 99 101
Weaning weight EBV 109 100
Yearling weight EBV 105 100
Maternal weaning weight EBV 100 110
Scrotal circumference (cm) 36 32
Class description Situation A Situation B
Purpose Terminal cross sire Sire in three-breed rotational system
Situation Midwest cash corn and crop cow/calf operation (15 percent of herd — first-calf heifers) Low feed resource, in western range conditions
850 to 1,000 pounds average mature weight Minimum labor available
Feeder calves sold at weaning 1,000 to 1,100+ pounds average mature weight average
Priorities Growth Limit mature cow size
Fertility Maternal ability
Calving ease  

For situation A, the judge may decide that Bull 1 is a more logical choice than Bull 2. This decision can be justified (perhaps through oral reasons) by stating that: "1 has greater weaning and yearling weight EBVs than 2. Thus, if 1 and 2 were bred to comparable cow groups, 1 should sire faster-growing calves that are heavier at weaning. Furthermore, 1 has a greater scrotal circumference than 2. Although 2 has a smaller actual birth weight than 1, their birth weight EBVs are nearly equal, so similar occurrences of dystocia are expected from either bull on the average.

"Situation B presents a different need to be met by the bulls. A judge may prefer Bull 2 over Bull 1 in this case and would justify this because 2 is expected to contribute greater maternal ability to the rotational system as he was estimated with a much greater maternal breeding value than 1.

"Also, 2 has a lower (near average) growth EBV than 1. Thus, with low feed resources available, replacement heifers sired by 2 should be of more moderate weight than those sired by 1. Finally, 2 has a slightly superior EBV for birth weight than 1. However, 2 is to be faulted for having only a minimum required yearling scrotal circumference."

Remember that there are no clear guidelines on placing classes even though performance records are included. In fact, including weights and breeding values can create more ways to justify alternate decisions. The records may even be contradictory to the results of visual appraisal alone. However, these contradictions can provide a marvelous opportunity to discuss various producer goals and how alternative selection practices can be used to reach them.

Combining performance data with visual appraisal

At one time, cattle were selected by visual appraisal alone because no better method was available. Fortunately, evaluation techniques have improved and visual appraisal can now be used as an aid to the more accurate performance selection. Difference in composition, frame size, muscle expression, structure and abnormalities can be determined visually after the main decisions have been made on performance data.

It is important, especially in reason classes, that performance information be made available to logically combine visual traits with performance data. The following are a few examples of combined visual and performance traits:

As in any judging situation, it is impossible to make a clear-cut choice that cannot be argued. Students should not be discouraged if someone else has a different opinion on how two individuals may best fulfill a given need. These decisions are always controversial. The ultimate goal is to make a sound, defensible decision based on fact and to learn from the judging exercise how to improve cattle production through better selection practices.
Adapted from a Beef Improvement Federation Fact Sheet prepared by Carla Nichols, University of Kentucky; Brad Skaar, Iowa State University; John Crouch, American Angus Association; and Steve Radakovich, Iowa Angus and Hereford Breeder. Reviewed by Brad Huffines, Iowa State University; Harlan Ritchie, Michigan State University; Jim Gibb, American Polled Hereford Association; and Ken Ellis, University of California. Edited by Daryl Strohbehn, extension beef specialist, and Gene Hettel, extension communications specialist, Iowa State University.
G2034 Using Performance Data in Judging Classes: BIF Fact Sheet | University of Missouri Extension

Order publications online at or call toll-free 800-292-0969.

University of Missouri Extension - print indicia