A paper by Dr. Dorian Garrick at the 2005 Animal Science Annual Meeting pointed out that some traits for which EPDs are available (e.g., calving ease and marbling score) are economically relevant traits (ERTs) that directly affect income or expenses. Other EPDs are available for traits that are correlated with these same traits but not directly economically relevant (e.g., birth wt. and intramuscular fat [% IMF]). These are known as indicator traits and are best used in multi-trait prediction of EPDs for their correlated ERTs. He cautioned that when this situation occurs, selection for the ERT and the indicator trait simultaneously will be less effective than selection for the ERT alone. Selection for the indicator trait alone will be even less effective. An example was given in the case of 50 offspring with observed birth wt. and calving ease scores. After a generation of selection on calving ease EPD, the percent of difficult calvings among bull calves born to first-calf heifers could be reduced from 20% down to 12%. The correlated reduction in birth wt. would be about 2.2 lbs. Conversely, if selection had been on reduced birth wt. EPD, it would take twice as many years for the same reduction in calving difficulty, and birth wt. would have been reduced by about 8.8 lb. Simultaneous selection for birth wt. and calving ease would only result in a response in calving ease that is intermediate to the above examples. A similar situation would occur in the case of simultaneous selection for % IMF or marbling EPD. These examples show clearly that selecting directly for the ERT can more rapidly impact profitability than either selection for the indicator trait alone or simultaneous selection for the ERT and indicator trait (Garrick. 2005. J. Anim. Sci. 83 [Suppl. 1]: 327).