It would be fair to say that the industry's demand for SimGenetics can be largely attributed the power of ASA's genetic evaluation and our members willingness to use it.

Approximately a year and a half ago, ASA integrated DNA technology into our genetic evaluation. The integration was the result of an ongoing, widespread collaboration that evolved over several years. Though the technology can provide a leg‐up in evaluating lower accuracy animals, it is new and constantly evolving.

Approximately three weeks ago, Iowa State University performed an analysis to "upgrade" the equations used to turn DNA test results into genetic predictions. The analysis was performed to take advantage of the new genotypes that have been collected since the first analysis (approximately 1,500 new genotypes). The results of the analysis showed a marked improvement in predictive ability over the original analysis, e.g., the progeny equivalents for stayability increased from 9 to 28 daughters, marbling improved from four to eight offspring and yearling weight went from three to nine progeny.

Upon incorporating the results of the new analysis there were large EPD movements. This was expected, as the new analysis delivered more information; however, what wasn't anticipated was the direction of the movements. In theory, each animal's EPDs should have an equal chance of increasing vs. decreasing when DNA is added to their genetic profile; however, with the new analysis there was a strong tendency for animals with better EPDs to get even better and vice versa on animals with poorer numbers.

Over the last few weeks, we have consulted with Iowa State and have painstakingly studied the situation. After publishing DNA enhance EPDs with the results of Iowa State's new analysis and subsequently retracting them and republishing what we thought to be a fix, ASA has decided to publish EPDs without DNA enhancement until Iowa State can determine what is causing the unexpected trend we are seeing.

Once the issue is rectified, and we have complete confidence it will be, we will reintroduce DNA into our EPDs. Unfortunately, at this point we cannot provide a time frame for this to happen. Rest assured that we will do everything we can to get to the bottom of the problem.

We realize this situation may cause some to feel our system lacks credibility. That opinion is unfortunate and unjustified. When integrating new and evolving technology, speed bumps are the rule rather than the exception. It was that way when traditional EPDs were first introduced 30 years ago and it will be that way with DNA‐enhanced EPDs (you shouldn't be surprised if there are more speed bumps ahead).

The point is that these are only bumps. We have navigated them and prevailed in the past and will do so in the future. Each bump we put behind us only makes our system better. When it comes to credibility, after 30 years and countless bumps we can objectively say that our system has evolved into the industry's premier multi‐breed evaluation — and we are fully committed to keeping it that way.

—Dr. Wade Shafer is the executive vice president of the American Simmental Association.