Change

s

Changes

Changes in the U.S.

Feedlot Industry: 1994-1999 

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Changes

Change s

NAHMS August 2000

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services
Ac knowl edg ments

This report has been prepared from material received and analyzed by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary

Services (VS) during a nationwide study of management and animal health on feedlot

operations.

The Feedlot ‘99 study was a cooperative effort between State and Federal agricultural

statisticians, animal health officials, university researchers, extension personnel, and feedlot

owners and operators. We want to thank the hundreds of industry members who helped

determine the direction and objectives of this study by participating in focus groups. 

Thanks to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) enumerators and State and

Federal Veterinary Medical Officers (VMO’s) and Animal Health Technician’s (AHT’s) who

visited the operations and collected the data for their hard work and dedication to the National

Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). The roles of the producer, Area Veterinarian

in Charge (AVIC), NAHMS Coordinator, VMO, AHT, and NASS enumerator were critical in 

providing quality data for Feedlot ‘99 reports. Special recognition goes to Dr. Guy Loneragan

from the Integrated Livestock Management program at Colorado State University for his

contribution to the design and implementation of the Feedlot ‘99 study and analysis and

interpretation of these data. Thanks also to the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH)

for their efforts in generating and distributing timely reports from Feedlot ‘99 data.

All participants are to be commended for their efforts, particularly the producers whose voluntary

efforts made the Feedlot ‘99 study possible.

_________________________________________

Thomas E. Walton

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2000. Changes in the U.S. Feedlot Industry, 1994-1999. USDA:APHIS:VS, CEAH,

National Animal Health Monitoring System. Fort Collins, CO. #N327.0800

Con tacts for fur ther in for ma tion:

Ques tions or com ments on Feed lot ‘99 study meth od ol ogy or data analy sis: Dr. David Dar gatz.

In for ma tion on re prints or other NAHMS re ports: Ms. Nina Stan ton.

 Tele phone: (970) 490- 8000 E- mail: NAHMSweb@usda.gov 
Ta ble of Con tents

In tro duc tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Terms Used in This Re port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995- 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A. Changes in Cat tle on Feed Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Cat tle on feed in ven tory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Cat tle placed on feed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. “Other” (non- harvest) dis ap pear ances from the feedlot . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4. Num ber of feed lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5. Feed lot in dus try changes by state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6. Cat tle harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

7. All cat tle and calves (beef and dairy) pro duc tion, dis po si tion, and in come,

1994- 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8. Mis cel la ne ous in for ma tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

9. NAHMS sen ti nel feed lot moni tor ing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

A. Place ment Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Type of cat tle, gen der, and disposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. Cat tle source and own er ship of placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

B. Ar ri val Man age ment and Group Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1. Ef fec tive ness of pre- arrival processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2. Ini tial proc ess ing timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3. Brand ing and identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

C. Nu tri tional Man age ment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1. Implants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2. Feed addi tives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

D. Health Man age ment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1. Health rec ords maintained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2. Use of vet eri nar ian and nu tri tion ist services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3. Car cass dis posal meth ods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

E. En vi ron men tal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. Waste management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Ap pen dix I: Sam ple Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

A. Re spond ing Op era tions - 1,000 Head or More Ca pac ity Feedlots . . . . . . . . . . . 36

In tro duc tion

In 1983, pro mot ers of the con cept that would be come the US DA’s Na tional Ani mal Health Moni tor ing Sys tem

(NAHMS) en vi sioned a pro gram that would moni tor changes and trends in na tional ani mal health and

man age ment. They hoped to pro vide pe ri odic snap shots of U.S. ani mal in dus tries. With these over views,

industry mem bers could iden tify op por tu ni ties for im prove ment, pro vide chang ing foun da tions for re search and

spe cial stud ies, and de tect emerg ing prob lems.

Sec tion I of this re port shows demo graphic changes of the United States feed lot in dus try from a his tori cal

per spec tive pri mar ily from data pro vided by the USDA’s Na tional Ag ri cul tural Sta tis tics Serv ice (NASS).

Re sults of two NAHMS na tional stud ies in Sec tion II provide additional information on changes in the U.S.

feed lot in dus try dur ing the 5-year pe riod from 1995 to 2000.

NAHMS’ first na tional study of the U.S. feed lot in dus try, the 1994/95 Cat tle On Feed Evalua tion (COFE),

pro vided a snap shot of ani mal health and man age ment that would serve as a base line from which to meas ure

in dus try changes in ani mal health and man age ment. Com ple tion of the NAHMS’ Feed lot ’99 study al lows an

as sess ment of change over time, and thus, has be gun to ful fill the

early vi sion of the pro gram for the feed lot in dus try.

COFE Phase I in cluded data col lected from 1,411 feed lots in 13

ma jor cat tle on feed states.

1

 Data were collected via tele phone

from 913 pro duc ers with less than 1,000 head one- time feed lot

ca pac ity and via per sonal in ter view from 498 pro duc ers with

1,000 head or more ca pac ity from August 1 through Sep tem ber

16, 1994. State and Fed eral Vet eri nary Medi cal Of fi cers

con ducted sub se quent data col lec tion on 453 op era tions with

1,000 head or more ca pac ity from Oc to ber 3 through De cem ber

21, 1994. These states ac counted for 85.8 per cent of the U.S.

cat tle on feed in ven tory as of Janu ary 1, 1994.

The Feed lot ’99 study fo cused on health and health man age ment data col lec tion on those feed lots with 1,000 head

or more ca pac ity in 12 ma jor cat tle on feed states (see map).2 Data were col lected on 520 feed lot op era tions via

per sonal in ter view from August 16 through Sep tem ber 22, 1999. These states ac counted for 95.8 per cent of the

cat tle on feed in lots with 1,000 head or more ca pac ity in the U.S. as of Janu ary 1, 1999.

In gen eral, ques tions for COFE and Feed lot ’99 re ferred to management prac tices for cat tle placed dur ing a

12- month pe riod from July 1 of the pre vi ous year through June 30 of the cur rent year.

Re sults of the feed lot and other stud ies are ac ces si ble on the World Wide Web at

www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm (see Beef Feed lot). For ques tions about this re port or ad di tional Feed lot ‘99

and NAHMS re sults, please con tact:

Cen ters for Epi de mi ol ogy and Ani mal Health

USDA:APHIS:VS, attn. NAHMS

555 South Howes; Fort Col lins, CO 80521

(970) 490- 8000; NAHMSweb@usda.gov

www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm

*Iden ti fi ca tion num bers are as signed to each graph in this re port for pub lic ref er ence.

USDA:APHIS:VS 1 Feedlot ‘99

States that Participated in the NAHMS 1994 COFE

and Feedlot '99 Study

Shaded states =

participating states.

#4261*

1994 COFE Feedlot '99 Both studies

1 Arizona, Calfiornia, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington.

2 Arizona, Calfiornia, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington.
Terms Used in This Re port

Cat tle placed/place ment: Cat tle placed in a feed lot, fed a high- energy ra tion and in tended for the

slaugh ter mar ket.

Cat tle on feed: Ani mals be ing fed a high- energy ra tion of grain, si lage, hay, and/or pro tein

sup ple ment for the slaugh ter mar ket, ex clud ing cat tle be ing “back grounded only” for later sale as

feed ers or later place ment in an other feed lot and animals grown for breeding.

MGA

®

: melengesterol acetate, a heat suppressant for females.

N/A: Not ap pli ca ble.

N/AV: Not available.

Op era tion: An area of land man aged as a unit by an in di vid ual, part ner ship, or hired man ager.

Per cent cat tle: The to tal number of cat tle with a cer tain at trib ute di vided by the to tal number of cat tle

on all op era tions (or on all op era tions within a cer tain cate gory such as by op era tion ca pac ity or

re gion).

Per cent op era tions: The number of op era tions with a cer tain at trib ute di vided by the to tal number of

op era tions. Per cent ages will sum to 100 where the at trib utes are mu tu ally ex clu sive (i.e., per cent age

of op era tions lo cated within each re gion). Per cent ages will not sum to 100 where the at trib utes are

not mu tu ally ex clu sive (i.e., the per cent age of op era tions us ing treat ment meth ods where op era tions

may have used more than one method).

Popu la tion es ti mates: Av er ages and pro por tions weighted to rep re sent the

popu la tion. For this re port, the ref er ence popu la tion was all op era tions with 

1,000 head or more ca pac ity in the se lected states. Es ti mates in this re port

are pro vided with a meas ure of pre ci sion called the stan dard er ror. A

con fi dence in ter val can be cre ated with bounds equal to the es ti mate plus or

mi nus two stan dard er rors. If the only er ror is sam pling er ror, then

con fi dence in ter vals cre ated in this man ner will con tain the true popu la tion

mean 95 out of 100 times. In the ex am ple at right, an es ti mate of 7.5 with a

stan dard er ror of 1.0 re sults in a confidence interval of 5.5 to 9.5 (two times

the stan dard er ror above and be low the es ti mate). The sec ond es ti mate of

3.4 shows a stan dard er ror of 0.3 and re sults in a confidence interval of 2.8

and 4.0. Al ter na tively, the 90 per cent con fi dence in ter val would be cre ated

by mul ti ply ing the stan dard er ror by 1.65 in stead of two. Most es ti mates in

this re port are rounded to the near est tenth. If rounded to 0, the stan dard er ror was re ported as (0.0). 

If there were no re ports of the event, no stan dard er ror was re ported (--).

Sam ple pro file: In for ma tion that de scribes char ac ter is tics of the op era tions from which data were

col lected.

Op era tion ca pac ity: Size group ings based on feed lot ca pac ity. The ca pac ity is the to tal number of

head of cat tle that could be ac com mo dated in the feed lot at one time.

Feedlot ‘99 2 USDA:APHIS:VS

Examples of a 

95% Confidence Interval

(1.0) (0.3)

Standard Errors

0

2

4

6

8

10

#2360

95% 

Confidence

Intervals
Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000

A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry

1. Cattle on Feed Inventory

Throughout each year, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys a

random sample of producers to provide national estimates of animal populations and food production.

This section reports NASS’ demographics of the U.S. feedlot industry as estimated from their

surveys. In January and July of each year, both feedlots of less than 1,000 head capacity and those of

1,000 head or more capacity are surveyed to provide the U.S. estimate of cattle on feed. Thereafter

on a monthly basis, only the large feedlots are surveyed.

The following tables show changes over the previous 5 years in total inventory of cattle on feed, size

of feedlots, characteristics of placements, disappearance, and number of feedlots. The period of

January 1, 1995, through January 1, 2000, is characterized by a general increase in the total number of

cattle on feed with a decline only from 1998 to 1999. January 1, 2000, shows a 12.6 percent increase

over January 1, 1995. 

a. Number of cattle on feed in the U.S., January and July 1995 and 2000:

January 1 July 1

Year 1,000 Head

Percent

Previous Year

Percent of

1995 1,000 Head

Percent

Previous Year

Percent of

1995

1995

12,420 95.4 100.0 11,200 106.7 100.0

1996

12,958 104.3 104.3 9,800 87.5 87.5

1997

13,181 101.7 106.1 10,900 111.2 97.3

1998

13,608 103.2 109.6 11,000 100.9 98.2

1999

13,219 97.1 106.4 11,500 104.5 102.7

2000

13,983 105.8 112.6 12,300 107.0 109.8 

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS).

USDA:APHIS:VS 3 Feedlot ‘99

A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000

Number of Cattle on Feed in the U.S.,

January 1995 - 2000

12,420 12,958 13,181 13,608 13,219

13,983

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

0

5

10

15

Number Head (Thousands)

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). #4289
The increase in number on feed clearly occurs in feedlots with 1,000 head or more capacity. 

b. Number of cattle on feed in the U.S. on small vs. large feedlots, January 1, 1995 - 2000:

Feedlots Less than 1,000 Head Capacity Feedlots 1,000 Head or More Capacity

Year 1,000 Head

Percent

Previous Year Percent of 1995 1,000 Head

Percent Previous

Year Percent of 1995

1995 3,020 N/AV 100.0 9,400 N/AV 100.0

1996

2,612 86.5 86.5 10,346 110.1 110.1

1997 2,623 100.4 86.9 10,558 102.0 112.3

1998 2,453 93.5 81.2 11,155 105.7 118.7

1999 2,552 104.0 84.5 10,667 95.6 113.5

2000 2,508 98.3 83.0 11,475 107.6 122.1

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS).

Feedlot ‘99 4 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000 A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry

Cattle on Feed in the U.S. on Feedlots as a Percent of

1995 by Operation Capacity, January 1, 1995 - 2000

100

110.1

112.3

118.7

113.5

122.1

100

86.5 86.9

81.2

84.5 83

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

75

100

125

Percent Cattle

Less than 1,000 Head Capacity

1,000 Head or More Capacity

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) #4262.
Feedlots with 32,000 head or more capacity show a steady 2 percent increase per year in their

contribution to the total number of cattle on feed and accounted for over one-third (35.9 percent) of

all cattle on feed on January 1, 2000.

c. Number of cattle on feed in the U.S. by feedlot capacity, January 1, 1995 - 2000:

Less than 1,000

Head 1,000 - 7,999 Head 8,000 - 15,999 Head 16,000 - 31,999 Head 32,000 Head or More

Year

1,000

Head

Percent

of Total

1,000

Head

Percent

of Total

1,000

Head

Percent

of Total

1,000

Head

Percent

of Total

1,000

Head

Percent

of Total

1995 3,020 24.3 N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV

1996 2,612 20.2 N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV

1997 2,623 19.9 2,365 18.0 1,543 11.7 2,707 20.5 3,943 29.9

1998 2,453 18.0 2,433 17.9 1,596 11.7 2,797 20.6 4,329 31.8

1999 2,552 19.3 2,212 16.7 1,424 10.8 2,546 19.3 4,485 33.9

2000 2,508 17.9 2,389 17.1 1,556 11.1 2,512 18.0 5,018 35.9

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS).

The inventory mix of steers and heifers changed from 65 to 60 percent steers and 35 to 40 percent

heifers from 1995 to 2000.

d. Number of steers, heifers, cows, and bulls on feed in 1,000 head or more capacity feedlots,

January 1, 1995 - 2000:

Steers & Steer Calves Heifers & Heifer Calves Cows & Bulls

Year 1,000 Head

Percent

of Total 1,000 Head

Percent

of Total 1,000 Head

Percent

of Total

1995 6,105 64.9 3,260 34.7 35 0.4

1996 6,635 64.1 3,627 35.1 84 0.8

1997 6,398 60.6 4,069 38.5 91 0.9

1998 6,796 60.9 4,300 38.6 59 0.5

1999 6,461 60.6 4,153 38.9 53 0.5

2000 6,840 59.6 4,574 39.9 61 0.5

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS).

USDA:APHIS:VS 5 Feedlot ‘99

A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000
2. Cattle Placed on Feed

There are no clear trends in the number of cattle placed by weight group, although the proportion of

cattle placed at 800 lbs. or more each January seems to have increased slightly to 17.1 percent of the

total placed during January 2000. Proportions placed in the other size groups vary, suggesting

changing conditions, such as availability, pasture conditions, may have more of an impact than a

trend in placement weight.

a. Number of cattle placed on feed during January by weight group in 1,000 head or more capacity feedlots, January 1,

1995 - 2000:

Year

Less than 600 lbs. 600 - 699 lbs. 700 - 799 lbs. 800 or more lbs.

1,000 Head

Percent

of Total 1,000 Head

Percent

of Total 1,000 Head

Percent

of Total 1,000 Head

Percent

of Total

1995 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1996

260 16.8 550 35.5 499 32.2 240 15.5

1997

409 21.7 657 34.8 522 27.7 299 15.8

1998

317 18.4 560 32.4 550 31.9 299 17.3

1999

379 19.6 628 32.5 604 31.2 322 16.7

2000

494 22.2 696 31.3 654 29.4 382 17.1

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS).

Feedlot ‘99 6 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000 A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry

Percent of Cattle by Month in Feedlots with

1,000 Head or More Capacity, 1999

7.7

7.2

8.1

6.7

8.1

7.1 7.2

9.6

10.9

12.3

8.6

6.5

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0

5

10

15

Percent Placements

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). #4290
The number of cattle placed by month over the 4-year period, 1996-1999, consistently shows the

largest number placed during October, the next largest in September, followed by August or

November.

b. Number of cattle placed on feed by month in 1,000 head or more capacity feedlots, January 1996 - 1999:

Month

1996 1997 1998 1999

1,000 Head

Percent of

Previous

Month 1,000 Head

Percent of

Previous

Month 1,000 Head

Percent of

Previous

Month 1,000 Head

Percent of

Previous

Month

January 1,549 89.6 1,887 111.3 1,726 111.2 1,933 127.8

February

1,713 110.6 1,797 95.2 1,496 86.7 1,808 93.5

March 1,948 113.7 1,966 109.4 1,709 114.2 2,031 112.3

April

1,364 70.0 1,548 78.7 1,584 92.7 1,688 83.1

May

1,557 114.1 1,864 120.4 2,033 128.3 2,049 121.4

June

1,305 83.8 1,444 77.5 1,564 76.9 1,794 87.6

July

1,746 133.8 1,995 138.2 1,937 123.8 1,812 101.0

August

2,265 129.7 2,429 121.8 2,063 106.5 2,428 134.0

September

2,653 117.1 2,711 111.6 2,660 128.9 2,759 113.6

October

3,007 113.3 2,916 107.6 2,830 106.4 3,114 112.9

November

2,348 78.1 2,207 75.7 2,065 73.0 2,170 69.7

December

1,695 72.2 1,552 70.3 1,512 73.2 1,646 75.9

 Total

23,150 24,316 23,179 23,183

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS). (1995 data are available but not shown.)

c. Percent of yearly placements by month and year in feedlots with 1,000 head or more capacity, 1996 - 1999:

Month

Percent Placements

1996 1997 1998 1999

January

6.7 7.7 7.4 7.7

February

7.4 7.4 6.5 7.2

March 8.4 8.1 7.4 8.1

April

5.9 6.4 6.8 6.7

May

6.7 7.7 8.8 8.1

June

5.6 5.9 6.7 7.1

July

7.5 8.2 8.4 7.2

August

9.8 10.0 8.9 9.6

September

11.5 11.1 11.5 10.9

October

13.0 12.0 12.2 12.3

November

10.2 9.1 8.9 8.6

December

7.3 6.4 6.5 6.5

 Total

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS). (1995 data are available but not shown.)

USDA:APHIS:VS 7 Feedlot ‘99

A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000
3. “Other” (Non-harvest) Disappearances from the Feedlot 

The table below provides monthly estimates of cattle departures from feedlots for reasons other than

harvest. This disappearance includes not only death loss, but return of cattle to pasture and placement 

in another feedlot. This number varied from roughly 50,000 to 100,000 head each month.

a. Number of cattle placed on feed for the slaughter market that left the feedlot for non-harvest reasons, such as death loss,

movement from feedlots to pasture, and shipments to other feedlots by month, January 1996 - 1999, in 1,000 head or more

capacity feedlots:

Month

1996 1997 1998 1999

1,000 Head

Percent of

Previous

Month 1,000 Head

Percent of

Previous

Month 1,000 Head

Percent of

Previous

Month 1,000 Head

Percent of

Previous

Month

January 65 95.6 92 107.0 99 116.5 70 82.4

February

72 110.8 61 66.3 69 69.7 65 92.9

March 76 105.6 86 141.0 94 136.2 71 109.2

April

107 140.8 98 114.0 92 97.9 104 146.5

May

84 78.5 117 119.4 93 101.1 99 95.2

June

70 83.3 60 51.3 72 77.4 63 63.6

July

62 88.6 57 95.0 50 69.4 52 82.5

August

50 80.6 45 78.9 52 104.0 55 105.8

September

70 140.0 53 117.8 61 117.3 62 112.7

October

78 111.4 91 171.7 52 85.2 80 129.0

November

93 119.2 85 93.4 78 150.0 83 103.7

December

86 92.5 85 100.0 85 109.0 90 108.4

 Total

913 -- 930 -- 897 -- 894 --

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS). (1995 data are available but not shown.)

Cattle departures from feedlots for reasons other than harvest appears relatively constant over time.

b. Number of cattle placed on feed for the slaughter market that left the feedlot for non-harvest

reasons, such as death loss, movement from feedlots to pasture, and shipments to other feedlots,

as a percent of yearly placements in 1,000 head or more capacity feedlots:

Year Percent

1996

3.94

1997

3.82

1998

3.87

1999

3.86

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS). (1995 data are available but not shown.)

Feedlot ‘99 8 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000 A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry
4. Number of Feedlots

The total number of feedlots declined steadily over the 4 years from 1996 through 1999. Total

feedlots in 1999 was 9 percent less than in 1996. The decline was predominantly in feedlots with a

capacity of fewer than 1,000 head, while the number of feedlots for most large size groups increased.

a. Number of feedlots in the U.S. by operation capacity, January 1996 - 1999:

Capacity

(Number Head)

1996 1997 1998 1999

Number

Percent of

Previous

Year Number

Percent of

Previous

Year Number

Percent of

Previous

Year Number

Percent of

Previous

Year

Less than 1,000

110,000 N/AV 104,000 94.5 102,000 98.1 100,000 98.0

1,000-1,999 874 N/AV 842 96.3 834 99.0 831 99.6

2,000 - 3,999 515 N/AV 504 97.9 491 97.4 507 103.3

4,000-7,999 304 N/AV 308 101.3 313 101.6 336 107.3

8,000-15,999 187 N/AV 191 102.1 184 96.3 193 104.9

16,000-31,999 138 N/AV 137 99.3 143 104.4 141 98.6

32,000 or more

91 N/AV 93 102.2 107 115.1 111 103.7

Total

112,109 N/AV 106,075 94.6 104,072 98.1 102,119 98.1

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS). (1995 not available).

USDA:APHIS:VS 9 Feedlot ‘99

A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000

Number of Feedlots in the U.S.,

1996 - 1999

112

106 104 102

1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number Feedlots (Thousands)

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). #4263
5. Feedlot Industry Changes by State

The following table describes U.S. feedlot industry changes by state between January 1, 1995, and

January 1, 2000, based on NASS data. 

States that historically have fed the majority of feedlot cattle have continued to increase their share of

the U.S. feedlot industry. Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas accounted for 67 percent of

the total U.S. cattle on feed on January 1, 1995. On January 1, 2000, the proportion of cattle on feed

in these states had risen to 72 percent. Of the remaining states, most western states (namely Arizona,

California, and Washington) were feeding more cattle, while mid-western states (Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, and Ohio) were feeding fewer.

Note: Eleven states were in both the NAHMS 1994 Cattle on Feed Evaluation (COFE) and Feedlot

‘99 study.

Feedlot ‘99 10 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000 A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry
a. Changes in number cattle/calves on feed and number feedlots by state (NASS data), 1995 and 2000:

State

 On-farm Participation

# of Cattle/Calves on Feed (Thousand Head) Number Feedlots

1,000+ Capacity Feedlots All Feedlots <1,000 Capacity 1,000+ Capacity

COFE ‘94 Feedlot ‘99 1/1/95 1/1/00 1/1/95 1/1/00 1994 1999 1994 1999

Alabama 8 4

Alaska * *

Arizona Yes Yes 210 272 210 272 10 7

Arkansas 13 11

California Yes Yes 400 415 400 415 38 24

Colorado Yes Yes 966 1,180 990 1,200 172 162

Connecticut * *

Delaware * *

Florida * *

Georgia 15 3

Hawaii * *

Idaho Yes Yes 255 310 270 315 60 55

Illinois Yes 280 230 7,150 6,300

Indiana 200 120 N/AV 5,800

Iowa Yes Yes 365 375 910 1,100 14,725 12,000 275 325

Kansas Yes Yes 1,990 2,310 2,040 2,350 305 220

Kentucky 40 15

Louisiana 5 *

Maine * *

Maryland 20 17

Massachusetts * *

Michigan 210 200 N/AV 4,000

Minnesota Yes 300 285 7,950 7,400

Mississippi 4 *

Missouri 70 100 N/AV 3,900

Montana 100 70

Nebraska Yes Yes 1,730 2,300 1,940 2,440 5,050 4,335 650 685

Nevada 25 21

New Hampshire * *

New Jersey 4 3

New Mexico Yes N/AV 116 155 116 N/AV 10

New York 25 30

North Carolina 15 5

North Dakota 100 70 N/AV 1,600

Ohio 225 190 N/AV 7,400

Oklahoma Yes Yes 375 430 380 435 20 27

Oregon 100 50

Pennsylvania 80 75 N/AV 5,100

Rhode Island * *

South Carolina 7 6

South Dakota Yes Yes 160 194 340 350 3,700 3,200 100 123

Tennessee 27 10

Texas Yes Yes 2,370 2,900 2,380 2,910 137 142

Utah 60 35

Vermont * *

Virginia 40 27

Washington Yes Yes 151 228 156 235 20 19

West Virginia 10 7

Wisconsin 150 160 N/AV 7,400

Wyoming 100 90

* Other states N/AV 445 16 11 N/AV 31,565 N/AV 320

 U.S. 13 12 9,400 11,475 12,420 13,983 N/AV 100,000 N/AV 2,119

USDA:APHIS:VS 11 Feedlot ‘99

A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000
6. Cattle Harvest 

The total federally inspected slaughter from 1995 to 2000 shows a decreasing contribution from steers 

and a higher contribution from heifers. This same relationship was seen when comparing the January

1 steer and heifer inventories on feed (see table I.A.1.d).

a. Cattle slaughtered under Federal Inspection, 1995 and 1999:

Classification

1995 1999

Number Head

(Thousand Head) Percent of Total

Number Head

(Thousand Head) Percent of Total Percent of 1995

Steers

17,887.2 51.3 17,608.0 49.6 98.4

Heifers

10,174.6 29.2 11,648.4 32.8 114.5

Dairy cows

2,861.7 8.2 2,573.3 7.3 89.9

Other cows

3,281.1 9.4 3,029.7 8.5 92.3

Bulls and stags

674.4 1.9 626.9 1.8 93.0

 Total

34,879.0 100.0 35,486.3 100.0 101.7

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS).

June was the peak fed-cattle harvest month for both 1995 and 1999. Finished market weights for

each month in 1999 were heavier compared to 1995, ranging from 17 lbs. higher in August and

September up to 40 lbs. higher in March.

b. Cattle slaughtered under Federal Inspection* by month, 1995 and 1999:

Month

1995 1999 Change in

Average Live Weight

(1999-1995)

(In Pounds)

Number Head

(in Thousands)

Live

Weight/Head

(in Pounds)

Number Head

(in Thousands)

Live

Weight/Head

(in Pounds)

January 2,802.4 1,192 2,903.5 1,224 +32

February 2,529.6 1,187 2,665.2 1,225 +38

March 2,900.5 1,180 2,990.2 1,220 +40

April

2,601.6 1,175 2,916.4 1,204 +29

May

3,076.8 1,173 2,947.2 1,191 +18

June

3,199.8 1,179 3,153.9 1,197 +18

July 2,890.7 1,187 3,036.8 1,208 +21

August

3,175.8 1,191 3,099.3 1,208 +17

September

3,034.6 1,196 3,044.9 1,213 +17

October

2,999.0 1,194 3,033.2 1,217 +23

November

2,914.8 1,192 2,881.5 1,220 +28

December

2,753.4 1,197 2,814.2 1,228 +31

 Total

34,879.0 1,187 35,486.3 1,212 +25

* Federally inspected cattle slaughter accounted for 97.9 percent of the total commercial slaughter in 1995 and 98.2 percent in

1999. The components of total commercial slaughter in 1999 (36.2 million head) were federally inspected slaughter (35.5

million and head) and other slaughter (0.7 million head).

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS).

Feedlot ‘99 12 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000 A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry
7. All Cattle and Calves (Beef and Dairy) Production, Disposition, and Income,

1994-2000 

a. Change by year:

Year

Number (Thousand Head)

Gross Income

(in Billion

Dollars)

January 1

All Cattle

Inventory

Total

Calf Crop

Marketings Deaths

Cattle Calves Cattle Calves

1994

100,973.6 40,104.5 46,499.1 9,571.2 1,589.0 2,681.3 $36.6

1995

102,785.2 40,263.7 48,741.0 9,656.1 1,644.7 2,738.8 $34.3

1996

103,548.2 39,823.0 48,721.9 10,295.1 1,761.3 2,810.6 $31.3

1997

101,655.7 38,960.9 49,646.7 10,154.4 1,847.1 2,828.6 $36.3

1998

99,744.0 38,812.1 47,226.7 9,729.1 1,668.0 2,541.5 $33.7

1999

99,115.0 38,710.4 48,386.2 9,856.4 1,659.0 2,454.8 $36.8

2000

98,048.0 N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS).

USDA:APHIS:VS 13 Feedlot ‘99

A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000

Gross Income from Cattle in the U.S.,

1994 - 1999

$36.6

$34.3

$31.3

$36.3

$33.7

$36.8

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

Billion Dollars

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). #4292

All Cattle Inventory in the U.S.,

January 1, 1994 - 2000

100,974 102,785 103,548 101,656 99,744 99,115 98,048

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

0

25

50

75

100

125

Number Head (Thousands)

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). #4291
8. Miscellaneous Information

a. Cattle whole carcass condemnations, 1993 - 1999 (thousand head):

Year

Number

Slaughtered

Number

Condemned

Percent

Condemned

1993 32,441 159.9 0.49

1994 33,121 164.5 0.50

1995 34,640 174.1 0.50

1996 35,714 181.5 0.51

1997 35,576 176.2 0.50

1998 34,911 157.1 0.44

1999 N/AV N/AV N/AV

Source: Condemnations include ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection.

Under Federal Inspection fiscal year ending September 30, reported by the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), USDA.

Iowa Ag Stats, 515-284-4340.

b. Weighted average choice fed steer cattle prices

by year, 1994 - 1999*:

Year

Price

(in Dollars/cwt)

1994

$69.29

1995

$66.57

1996

$65.00

1997

$66.09

1998

$61.73

1999

$65.65

* Cattle-Fax, P.O. Box 3947, Englewood, CO 80155.

Feedlot ‘99 14 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000 A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry
9. NAHMS Sentinel Feedlot Monitoring

The Sentinel Feedlot Monitoring program was developed to identify changes in disease occurrence in

cattle on U.S. feedlots. Since data collection was initiated in 1993, NAHMS has gathered data from

an increasing number of feedlots (via consulting veterinarians). Participation in this program is

voluntary and confidential. Data for the tables below were from 57 feedlots (six veterinarians) in

1994 and 94 feedlots (nine veterinarians) in 1999.

Feedlot data are submitted monthly through veterinary consultants to maintain confidentiality. Cause

of death is attributed by feedlot personnel under the supervision of the consulting veterinarian. In

return for sharing data on cattle health, the veterinarians receive monthly reports which summarize

and compare data from their client feedlots with those from all feedlots submitted that month. Data

from all participating feedlots* and those feedlots** that had supplied at least 10 months of data each

year from January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1999, are presented below.

Results differed little between all participating feedlots and those that had contributed at least 10

months of data each year since 1994. The increase in death loss as a percent of cattle may have

resulted from: 

 1) a change in type of animal placed over time, 

 2) changes in health management of cattle in the feedlots,

 3) reduced numbers of cattle sold prior to slaughter weight for health reasons so that they

 were more likely to have died from their disease at the feedlot, or

 4) changes in nutritional management of the cattle at the feedlot.

a. Number of cattle and calves that died as a percent of the number placed during the calendar year by year:

Year

Percent of Cattle

All Sentinel

Feedlots*

Sentinel Subgroup:

24 Feedlots**

1994 1.0 1.0

1995 1.2 1.2

1996 1.1 1.1

1997 1.4 1.3

1998 1.3 1.3

1999 1.4 1.4

*All feedlots participating in the Sentinel Feedlot Monitoring program from January 1, 1994, through December 31,

1999.

**Those sentinel feedlots that had submitted at least 10 months of data each year from January 1, 1994, through

December 31, 1999.

USDA:APHIS:VS 15 Feedlot ‘99

A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000
The proportion of cattle deaths attributed to respiratory causes appears to have increased, whereas the

proportion of deaths attributed to digestive causes decreased.

b. Percent of total death loss by attributed cause of loss and summarization category:

Year

Percent Death Loss

Respiratory Digestive Other Total

All Sentinel Feedlots**

1994

52.1 27.2 20.7 100.0

1995

55.4 24.8 19.8 100.0

1996

55.4 24.0 20.6 100.0

1997

59.6 21.4 19.0 100.0

1998

57.0 23.2 19.8 100.0

1999

61.5 19.5 19.0 100.0

Sentinel Subgroup: 24 Feedlots**

1994

52.2 28.8 19.0 100.0

1995

54.4 28.0 17.6 100.0

1996

53.5 28.3 18.2 100.0

1997

58.2 24.7 17.1 100.0

1998

56.8 26.0 17.2 100.0

1999

61.2 21.9 16.9 100.0

*All feedlots participating in the Sentinel Feedlot Monitoring program from January 1, 1994, through December 31,

1999.

**Those sentinel feedlots that had submitted at least 10 months of data each year from January 1, 1994, through

December 31, 1999.

Feedlot ‘99 16 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion I: Demo graph ics, 1995-2000 A. Changes in Cattle on Feed Industry
Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

The time frame for ques tions re gard ing place ments and pro ce dures per formed on cat tle is for the years end ing

June 30 in 1994 (COFE) and 1999 (Feed lot ‘99 study).

A. Placement Profile

1. Type of Cattle, Gender, and Disposition

The percentage of feedlots that placed beef steers and heifers changed little from 1994 to 1999.

Although feedlots that placed dairy steers and heifers were in the minority, data suggest a decreased

percentage of feedlots placed these classes of dairy cattle in 1999.

 a. Percent of operations that placed the following types of cattle for the U.S. slaughter market by operation capacity, 1994 -

 1999:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

Type of Cattle Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand.

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error

Steers and heifers less than 700 lbs.

Beef or beef crossbreeds 76.3 (2.1) 94.9 (1.1) 81.2 (1.5) 76.9 (2.4) 94.3 (1.1) 81.8 (1.8)

Dairy breeds 8.1 (1.2) 47.3 (2.3) 18.4 (1.1) 5.4 (0.9) 24.2 (1.9) 10.6 (0.9)

Steers and heifers 700 lbs. or more

Beef or beef crossbreeds 77.5 (2.0) 94.1 (1.1) 81.9 (1.5) 74.3 (2.5) 95.2 (0.8) 80.0 (1.8)

Dairy breeds 12.6 (1.5) 37.7 (2.4) 19.2 (1.3) 7.9 (1.4) 26.0 (2.1) 12.9 (1.2)

Cows and bulls

Question variation: Did you place any cows? bulls? Did you place any cows? Did you place any bulls?

Beef or beef crossbreeds 7.3 (1.2) 12.4 (1.7) 8.7 (1.0) 23.1 (2.2) 40.3 (2.3) 27.8 (1.7)

Dairy breeds 0.1 (0.0) 1.0 (0.4) 0.4 (0.1) 0.6 (0.4) 1.9 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3)

* During the period July 1 of the previous year through June 30th of the current year.

USDA:APHIS:VS 17 Feedlot ‘99

A. Placement Profile Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

Percent of Operations that Placed the Following Types of 

Cattle for the U.S. Slaughter Market, 1994 and 1999

10.6 12.9

1

18.4 19.2

0.4

Steers/heifers<700 lbs. Steers/heifers 700 lbs. + Cows/bulls*

0

25

50

75

100

Percent Operations

#4264

81.8 80

27.8

81.2 81.9

8.7

Steers/heifers<700 lbs. Steers/heifers 700 lbs. + Cows/bulls*

0

25

50

75

100

Percent Operations

COFE Feedlot '99

Beef or Beef Crossbreeds

Dairy Breeds

* Questions relating to the cows/bulls category varied slightly between the two studies.
For all operations, the percentages of dairy breed placements weighing less than 700 lbs declined

from 1994 to 1999 (5.1 percent compared to 1.5, respectively). There was a smaller decrease in dairy 

breed placements weighing 700 lbs. or more (1.9 percent compared to 1.2 percent, respectively).

With regard to beef breeds and beef crossbreeds, small feedlots tended to increase the percentage of

placements weighing less that 700 lbs. Conversely, large feedlots increased the number of

placements weighing 700 lbs. or more.

b. Percent of cattle placed for the U.S. slaughter market by type of cattle and by operation capacity:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

Type of Cattle Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error

Steers and heifers less than 700 lbs.

Beef or beef crossbreeds 39.1 (2.0) 44.3 (1.6) 43.4 (1.4) 42.7 (1.9) 42.1 (1.2) 42.2 (1.1)

Dairy breeds 1.6 (0.4) 5.9 (0.7) 5.1 (0.6) 0.9 (0.3) 1.5 (0.3) 1.5 (0.2)

Steers and heifers 700 lbs. or more

Beef or beef crossbreeds 56.9 (2.1) 47.5 (1.5) 49.1 (1.3) 53.1 (1.9) 53.8 (1.2) 53.7 (1.0)

Dairy breeds 1.1 (0.2) 2.0 (0.2) 1.9 (0.2) 1.4 (0.5) 1.2 (0.3) 1.2 (0.2)

Cows and bulls

Question variation: Percent cows or bulls placed? Percent cows placed? Percent bulls placed?

Beef or beef crossbreeds 1.3 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1) 1.9 (0.3) 1.4 (0.2) 1.4 (0.1)

Dairy breeds 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

The profile of animals that were placed on feed for the U.S. beef harvest market clearly changed. In

both large and small feedlots, the percentage of steers placed decreased while the percentage of

heifers increased. These changes are greatest for those feedlots with 8,000-head or greater capacity

and were consistent across beef and dairy types. In the 1994 COFE, 65.4 percent of beef placements

were steers, whereas 57.1 percent were steers in the Feedlot ‘99 study. The proportional increase in

heifers may be due in part to decrease in U.S. cattle inventory, i.e., ranchers retained fewer heifers for 

breeding purposes.

c. Percent of beef cattle (and percent of dairy cattle) placed for the U.S. slaughter market by gender of cattle and by

operation capacity:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

Gender of Cattle Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error Percent

Stan.

Error

Beef

Steers 64.8 (1.6) 65.5 (1.0) 65.4 (0.9) 61.9 (1.6) 56.2 (1.1) 57.1 (1.0)

Heifers 33.9 (1.6) 34.2 (1.0) 34.1 (0.9) 36.2 (1.6) 42.4 (1.1) 41.4 (1.0)

Question variation: Percent cows or bulls placed? Percent cows placed? Percent bulls placed?

Cows and bulls 1.3 (0.4) 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1) 1.9 (0.3) 1.4 (0.2) 1.5 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dairy

Steers 94.2 (1.5) 97.4 (1.0) 97.2 (0.9) 80.3 6.5 90.0 (2.5) 88.7 (2.5)

Heifers 5.8 (1.5) 2.6 (1.0) 2.8 (0.9) 19.6 6.5 9.7 (2.5) 11.0 (2.5)

Question variation: Percent cows or bulls placed? Percent cows placed? Percent bulls placed?

Cows and bulls 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 18 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates A. Placement Profile
The percentages of cattle by final disposition were similar in the two study years. The percentages of

placements that were returned to grazing forage and shipped to another feedlot decreased in 1999

compared to 1994. Theft apparently remains no problem for U.S. feedlots.

d. Percent of cattle by disposition category

1

 and by operation capacity:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

Category Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error

Marketed for harvest 94.4 (0.5) 96.1 (0.6) 95.8 (0.5) 94.8 (0.5) 97.1 (0.2) 96.7 (0.2)

Died 1.1 (0.1) 1.2 (0.0) 1.1 (0.0) 0.9 (0.0) 1.3 (0.1) 1.3 (0.1)

Sent to market prior to

slaughter weight 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 0.3 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0)

Returned to grazing

forage 2.8 (0.4) 1.3 (0.3) 1.6 (0.2) 1.8 (0.3) 0.9 (0.1) 1.1 (0.1)

Shipped to another

feedlot 1.4 (0.3) 1.0 (0.4) 1.1 (0.3) 2.0 (0.4) 0.4 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1)

Stolen 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Lost for other reasons 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

USDA:APHIS:VS 19 Feedlot ‘99

A. Placement Profile Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

1 Cattle marketed or left the operation from July 1 of the previous year through June of the current year. Other cattle placed in the

feedlot for the purposes other than being finished for the U.S. slaughter market such as animals being developed as breeding replacements

are not included as disposition.
2. Cattle Source and Ownership of Placements

The percentages of animals placed by feedlots from various sources were similar for the two studies.

Somewhat more of the cattle placed in each year were provided for custom feeding than were

purchased at auction, although approximately one-third of the animals were purchased via auction.

Small feedlots placed a larger percentage of cattle from auctions than large feedlots.

a. Percent of cattle placed for the U.S. slaughter market by source of cattle and by operation capacity:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

Source Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error

Born on this operation

or another operation

operated by this feedlot 2.3 (0.4) 0.6 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) 3.1 (0.6) 0.4 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2)

Purchased via auction 45.1 (2.2) 26.5 (1.3) 29.7 (1.2) 46.9 (2.1) 31.0 (1.3) 33.6 (1.2)

Purchased via direct sale

(cash or video, private

treaty) 23.5 (1.6) 23.6 (1.8) 23.6 (1.5) 24.5 (1.9) 23.6 (1.6) 23.8 (1.4)

Provided for custom

feeding 24.0 (2.3) 47.4 (2.0) 43.4 (1.7) 24.7 (2.1) 44.1 (1.8) 40.9 (1.6)

Other source 5.1 (1.1) 1.9 (0.9) 2.5 (0.8) 0.8 (0.2) 0.9 (0.3) 0.8 (0.3)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 20 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates A. Placement Profile
The percentage of cattle placed on feed that were owned by large feedlots increased (20.5 percent

compared to 34.0 percent of cattle placed). Overall, 26.1 percent of placements were owned by

feedlots in 1994 compared to 36.9 percent in 1999. Percentages of cattle owned by others decreased

in large feedlots in 1999 compared to 1994.

 b. Percent of cattle placed on feed for the U.S. slaughter market by type of owner at time of placement and by operation

 capacity:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

Owner Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error

This feedlot 52.5 (2.7) 20.5 (1.6) 26.1 (1.4) 52.3 (2.5) 34.0 (2.2) 36.9 (1.8)

Joint feedlot

ownership with others 7.2 (0.9) 8.5 (0.6) 8.2 (0.5) 8.9 (1.4) 8.3 (0.8) 8.4 (0.7)

Others (cattle being

custom fed for others) 40.3 (2.6) 71.0 (1.7) 65.7 (1.5) 38.8 (2.5) 57.7 (2.2) 54.7 (1.8)

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

USDA:APHIS:VS 21 Feedlot ‘99

A. Placement Profile Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

Percent of Cattle Placed on Feed for the U.S. Slaughter

Market by Type of Owner at the Time of Placement and 

by Operation Capacity, 1994 and 1999

#4266

52.3

8.9

38.8

52.5

7.2

40.3

This feedlot

Joint feedlot ownership

Cattle fed for others

0

25

50

75

100

Percent Cattle

1994 COFE

Feedlot '99

1,000-7,999 Head Capacity

34

8.3

57.7

20.5

8.5

71

This feedlot

Joint feedlot ownership

Cattle fed for others

0

25

50

75

100

Percent Cattle

1994 COFE

Feedlot '99

8,000 or More Head Capacity
B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

1. Effectiveness of Pre-arrival Processing

Procedures performed on cattle prior to feedlot arrival have been called preconditioning.

Preconditioning has been shown to be effective in decreasing health problems in feedlot cattle,

particularly in those animals weighing less than 700 lbs at placement. 

A higher percentage of

operations reported that each

of the pre-arrival procedures

listed below were extremely or

very effective in reducing

sickness and death loss in

cattle placed at less than 700

lbs in 1999 compared to 1994.

It appears that most of this

increase may be from feedlots

that responded does not

apply/don’t know in 1994

which may indicate that

producers have become more

knowledgeable about the

effectiveness of pre-arrival

processing.

a. For operations that placed cattle less than 700 lbs., percent of operations by perceived effectiveness of pre-arrival

management practices on cattle less than 700 lbs. placed in reducing sickness and death loss:

Study

Extremely 

Effective

Stand. 

Error

Very

Effective

Stand. 

Error

Moderately 

Effective

Stand. 

Error

Not/Slightly

Effective

Stand.

Error

Does Not

Apply/

Don’t Know

Stand.

Error Total

Introduction of feed bunk

1994 COFE 12.4 (1.3) 31.0 (1.7) 16.1 (1.3) 1.8 (0.5) 38.7 (1.9) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 22.6 (1.7) 42.2 (2.2) 17.4 (1.8) 3.4 (0.9) 14.4 (1.9) 100.0

Respiratory vaccine at least 2 weeks prior to weaning

1994 COFE 23.0 (1.6) 26.6 (1.6) 8.9 (0.9) 1.4 (0.4) 40.1 (1.8) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 27.0 (2.0) 38.8 (2.2) 11.8 (1.6) 0.7 (0.3) 21.7 (2.0) 100.0

Respiratory vaccine given at weaning

1994 COFE 12.5 (1.2) 23.3 (1.6) 16.6 (1.4) 3.7 (0.7) 43.9 (1.8) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 18.7 (1.6) 32.5 (2.1) 21.7 (1.9) 1.6 (0.4) 25.5 (2.0) 100.0

Calves weaned at least 4 weeks prior to shipping

1994 COFE 25.1 (1.6) 21.2 (1.5) 9.4 (1.2) 2.2 (0.5) 42.1 (1.8) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 32.4 (2.0) 34.8 (2.1) 9.9 (1.5) 1.0 (0.3) 21.9 (2.0) 100.0

Calves castrated and dehorned prior to shipping

1994 COFE 25.7 (1.6) 26.5 (1.6) 8.1 (1.0) 2.7 (0.7) 37.0 (1.8) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 31.7 (2.1) 33.5 (2.1) 9.1 (1.2) 1.2 (0.4) 24.5 (2.2) 100.0

Calves treated for internal or external parasites prior to shipping

1994 COFE 6.4 (0.9) 17.1 (1.4) 22.6 (1.5) 8.8 (1.1) 45.1 (1.9) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 8.0 (1.0) 28.6 (2.1) 27.9 (1.9) 5.4 (0.9) 30.1 (2.2) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 22 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

#4275

Percent of Operations* that Perceived Pre-arrival Management

Practices on Cattle <700 lbs. to Be Extremely or Very Effective

in Reducing Sickness and Death Loss, 1994 and 1999

64.8

65.8

51.2

43.4

49.6

35.8

0 25 50 75 100

Percent Operations

1994 COFE Feedlot '99

Introduction to feed bunk

Respiratory vaccine at least 2 wks prior to weaning

Respiratory vaccine given at weanimg

*For operations that placed cattle less than 700 lbs.

Calves weaned at least 4 wks prior to shipping

Calves castrated & dehorned prior to shipping

Calves treated for internal/external parasites prior to shipping

67.2

65.2

36.6

46.3

52.2

23.5

0 25 50 75 100

Percent Operations
2. Initial Processing Timing

Processing cattle soon after arrival may be advantageous in reducing morbidity and mortality.

Virtually all feedlots processed some cattle as a group in each study year. Most feedlots processed

some cattle in the first 24 hours after arrival. In each study year, the percentage of feedlots

processing in the first 24 hours was greater for larger feedlots. Time categories in the table below are

not mutually exclusive.

a. Percent of operations initially processing some cattle as a group during the following time periods after arrival by

operation capacity:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

Time After Arrival Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error

12 hours or less 48.7 (2.4) 80.1 (2.0) 56.9 (1.8) 39.4 (2.7) 68.8 (2.2) 47.6 (2.1)

13-24 hours 59.6 (2.4) 85.5 (1.6) 66.3 (1.8) 55.8 (2.8) 82.7 (1.7) 63.2 (2.1)

25-72 hours 38.8 (2.3) 42.6 (2.3) 39.8 (1.8) 45.4 (2.8) 47.2 (2.3) 45.9 (2.1)

More than 72 hours 21.0 (2.0) 14.5 (1.7) 19.3 (1.5) 17.2 (2.1) 11.9 (1.6) 15.7 (1.6)

Any processing 98.2 (0.6) 99.4 (0.4) 98.5 (0.5) 96.6 (1.1) 100.0 -- 97.5 (0.8)

USDA:APHIS:VS 23 Feedlot ‘99

B. Arrival Management and Group Processing Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

Percent of Operations Initially Processing Some 

Cattle as a Group During the Following Time

Periods* After Arrival, 1994 and 1999

47.6

63.2

45.9

15.7

56.9

66.3

39.8

19.3

12 hours or less

13-24 hours

25-72 hours

More than 72 hours

Time After Arrival*

0

25

50

75

100

Percent Operations

1994 COFE

Feedlot '99

* Time periods are not mutually exclusive. #6468
The majority of cattle placed in each study year (87.3 percent in 1994 and 80.8 percent in 1999) were

processed within 24 hours after arrival. In both 1994 and 1999, a small percentage of placements

were not processed following arrival (0.4 and 0.3, respectively).

b. Percent of cattle initially processed as a group during the following time periods after arrival by operation capacity:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

Time After Arrival Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error

12 hours or less 37.5 (2.6) 43.4 (2.4) 42.4 (2.0) 29.4 (2.3) 40.0 (2.4) 38.3 (2.0)

13-24 hours 36.8 (2.2) 46.6 (2.2) 44.9 (1.9) 35.1 (2.2) 44.0 (2.1) 42.5 (1.8)

25-72 hours 17.7 (1.6) 8.8 (0.8) 10.3 (0.7) 25.5 (2.0) 14.8 (1.3) 16.6 (1.1)

More than 72 hours 6.4 (0.8) 1.0 (0.2) 2.0 (0.2) 8.3 (1.3) 1.2 (0.3) 2.3 (0.3)

Not processed 1.6 (0.4) 0.2 (0.0) 0.4 (0.1) 1.7 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

More feedlots appear to be

adjusting processing procedures

based on animal and

transportation factors than

previously. The largest changes

in the percentage of operations

that adjusted their procedures

were for animal arrival weight

and sex of the animal. Alteration

of processing procedures was

more common for larger feedlots

across all animal and

transportation categories.

c. For operations that processed new arrivals, percent of operations that changed any processing procedures for new

arrivals based on each of the following factors and by operation capacity:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

1,000 - 7,999

Head

8,000 Head or

More All Operations

Factor Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand. 

Error Percent

Stand.

Error

Arrival weight 32.8 (2.3) 58.6 (2.4) 39.5 (1.8) 53.7 (2.8) 63.5 (2.2) 56.5 (2.1)

Distance transported

or percent shrinkage 27.7 (2.2) 47.8 (2.4) 32.9 (1.7) 28.3 (2.5) 39.1 (2.2) 31.3 (1.9)

Source of cattle N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV 44.3 (2.8) 61.6 (2.3) 49.2 (2.1)

Point of origin 30.7 (2.2) 59.8 (2.3) 38.3 (1.8) N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV

Marketing channel 23.2 (2.0) 47.8 (2.4) 29.6 (1.7) N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV N/AV

Preconditioning 31.7 (2.2) 55.7 (2.4) 37.9 (1.8) 36.6 (2.7) 48.3 (2.3) 39.9 (2.0)

Sex 13.2 (1.6) 37.3 (2.4) 19.5 (1.3) 31.9 (2.6) 50.3 (2.3) 37.1 (2.0)

Breed 6.2 (1.1) 21.1 (2.0) 10.1 (1.0) 10.5 (1.5) 21.6 (2.0) 13.7 (1.3)

Any of the above 51.4 (2.4) 72.9 (2.2) 57.0 (1.9) 66.1 (2.7) 72.7 (2.1) 68.0 (2.0)

Feedlot ‘99 24 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

Percent of Operations* that Changed Any

Processing Procedures for New Arrivals Based on

Each of the Following Factors, 1994 and 1999

56.5

31.3

49.2

39.9

32.1

37.1

68

39.5

32.9

38.3

37.9

27.3

19.5

57

Arrival weight

Distance or % shrinkage

Cattle source/point of origin

Preconditioning

Breed

Sex

Any of the above

Factor

0 25 50 75 100

Percent Operations*

1994 COFE Feedlot '99

* For operations that processed new arrivals. Categories are not mutually exclusive. #4269
The percentages of operations providing additional pen, waterer, and bunk space for newly arrived

cattle were similar in the two study years.

d. Percent of operations that provided new arrivals with additional pen space, water space, and bunk space

(compared to cattle on feed for more than 30 days) by frequency:

Study Always

Standard

Error

Most of

the Time

Standard

Error Sometimes

Standard 

Error Never

Standard

Error Total

Additional Pen Space

1994 COFE 14.4 (1.3) 17.0 (1.4) 29.9 (1.7) 38.7 (1.8) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 19.9 (1.7) 20.7 (1.7) 26.4 (1.8) 33.0 (2.1) 100.0

Additional Waterer Space

1994 COFE 14.6 (1.3) 14.5 (1.3) 30.1 (1.7) 40.8 (1.9) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 19.0 (1.7) 18.7 (1.6) 23.4 (1.8) 38.9 (2.1) 100.0

Additional Bunk Space

1994 COFE 18.6 (1.5) 19.3 (1.4) 28.2 (1.7) 33.9 (1.8) 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 24.5 (1.9) 22.9 (1.8) 21.5 (1.6) 31.1 (2.0) 100.0

Cattle are reprocessed within 30 days of arrival for many reasons including administration of initial or

further vaccinations against respiratory disease, metaphylaxis (mass-treatment) with an antimicrobial

to decrease morbidity and mortality, and delayed implantation to help control the buller steer

syndrome.

Similar percentages of feedlots reprocessed and similar percentages of cattle were reprocessed within

30 days of arrival in 1994 and 1999. Approximately two-thirds of feedlots reprocessed at least some

cattle, while one-quarter of total placements were reprocessed for various reasons.

e. For operations that initially processed cattle/calves as a group within 30 days of arrival, percent of

operations processing cattle (and percent of cattle being processed) a second time within 30 days after arrival:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Measure Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

Operations 65.1 (1.8) 63.8 (2.0)

Cattle 24.4 (1.4) 24.6 (1.3)

In 1999, approximately three-quarters (78.9 percent) of all feedlots used the same pens for receiving

and shipping cattle, a higher percentage than for 1994 (66.1 percent).

f. Percent of operations that used the same

holding pens for receiving and shipping cattle:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

66.1 (1.8) 78.9 (1.7)

USDA:APHIS:VS 25 Feedlot ‘99

B. Arrival Management and Group Processing Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates
3. Branding and Identification

Branding is a visually obvious and permanent form of identification, although it can result in

substantial hide damage and subsequent economic loss. In 1994, a surprisingly large percentage of

feedlots hide branded cattle after arrival

(42.9 percent of feedlots), and one in five

cattle (20.2 percent) were hide branded.

In 1999, 38.5 percent of feedlots hide

branded and 29.1 percent of all cattle

were hide branded. 

Data gathered in the Feedlot ‘99 study

indicated that there was not one main

reason that feedlots hide branded cattle

(presented in Part I: Baseline Reference

of Feedlots Management Practices,

1999). Therefore, efforts to decrease

economic losses due to hide branding

must account for the variety of reasons

that motivate branding.

a. Percent of operations (and percent of cattle) that hide

branded (freeze or hot) cattle after arrival:

Measure

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

i. Operations 42.9 (1.7) 38.5 (1.8)

ii. Cattle 20.2 (1.6) 29.1 (2.2)

The percentage of feedlots branding any cattle at one or more of the following locations decreased

over time. There is some evidence that the greatest decrease in branding site use was for the head,

neck, or shoulder. 

b. Percent of all operations (and percent of cattle) that hide branded (freeze or hot) at one or more of the

following sites:

Site

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

Operations

Head, neck, or shoulder 9.5 (1.1) 6.3 (0.7)

Side or rib 10.1 (1.1) 8.0 (1.0)

Lower rear leg, upper rear leg, or hip 36.6 (1.7) 34.5 (1.8)

Cattle Branded

Head, neck, or shoulder 2.2 (0.3) 2.3 (0.4)

Side or rib 1.6 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3)

Lower rear leg, upper rear leg, or hip 16.4 (1.5) 25.5 (2.1)

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

Feedlot ‘99 26 USDA:APHIS:VS

Percent of Operations that Hide Branded 

(Freeze or Hot) Cattle and Percent of Cattle

Branded After Arrival, 1994 and 1999

38.5

29.1

42.9

20.2

Operations Cattle

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

1994 COFE Feedlot '99

#4270
C. Nu tri tional Man age ment

1. Implants

Implants are a cost-effective method of increasing cattle performance, feed efficiency, and lean

muscle mass. Much research has been focused on developing appropriate implant strategies to

enhance their economic benefit. The greatest benefits of implants are realized when cattle are

exposed to active implants throughout the feeding period.

There was little change in the number of times cattle less than 700 lbs at placement were implanted

from 1994 to 1999.

a. For steers and heifers less than 700 lbs. when placed, percent implanted by number of times implanted:

Number of Times

1994 COFE Question Variation Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

0 1.3 (0.2) 1.9 (0.4)

1 21.1 (1.6) 18.1 (1.5)

2 or more 77.6 (1.6)

2 74.0 (1.7)

3 or more 6.0 (0.9)

Total 100.0 100.0

For cattle 700 lbs or more at placement, the percentage that were not implanted increased in 1999 (2.8 

percent) compared to 1994 (1.1 percent). The percentage that were implanted two or more times

decreased over the period (from 35.0 percent to 30.4 percent).

b. For steers and heifers 700 lbs. or more when placed, percent of calves implanted by number of times

implanted:

Number of Times

1994 COFE Question Variation Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

0 1.1 (0.2) 2.8 (0.7)

1 63.9 (2.1) 66.8 (2.2)

2 or more 35.0 (2.2)

2 30.0 (2.1)

3 or more 0.4 (0.2)

Total 100.0 100.0

C. Nu tri tional Man age ment Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

USDA:APHIS:VS 27 Feedlot ‘99
2. Feed Additives

 Ionophores are rumen microbial modifiers that improve feed efficiency (decrease feed-to-gain ratio)

through enhancement of rumen microbial metabolism and also provide some control of coccidiosis.

Coccidiostats are anticoccidial drugs that may be used to treat or prevent coccidiosis. The primary

coccidial parasites of feedlot cattle are Eimeria bovis and E. zurnii. Probiotics are combinations of

rumen microbes that usually include Lactobacillus spp. and are thought to enhance the development

of a healthy rumen microbial environment.

From 1994 to 1999, there was a small shift downward in the percentages of feedlots using, and

placements that were fed, ionophores, coccidiostats, and probiotics. Greater than 90 percent of

feedlots used an ionophore in 1999, and greater than 95 percent of cattle received an ionophore.

a. Per cent of op era tions that fed (and per cent of cat tle placed that were fed) the fol low ing ad di tives:

Additive

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

i. Operations

Ionophore* 97.3 (0.6) 92.9 (1.3)

Coccidiostat* 58.6 (1.8) 46.2 (2.1)

Probiotic 37.3 (1.8) 27.3 (1.8)

ii. Cattle placed

Ionophore* 98.2 (0.5) 95.9 (0.8)

Coccidiostat* 35.2 (2.4) 23.1 (2.7)

Probiotic 17.2 (1.6) 14.4 (1.7)

* Ionophore such as Rumensin

®

, Bovatec

®

, or Cattlyst

®

.

 Coccidiostat other than an ionophore such as Corid

®

 or Deccox

®

.

Feedlot ‘99 28 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates C. Nu tri tional Man age ment

Percent of Operations that Fed

(and Percent of Cattle Placed that Were Fed)

the Following Additives, 1994 and 1999

#4271

92.9

46.2

27.3

95.9

23.1

14.4

97.3

58.6

37.3

98.2

35.2

17.2

Ionophore*

Coccidiostat*

Probiotic Ionophore*

Coccidiostat*

Probiotic

0

25

50

75

100

Percent

1994 COFE Feedlot '99

Operations Cattle Placed

* Ionophore such as Rumensin®, Bovatec®, or Cattlyst®.

 Coccidiostat other than an ionophore such as Corid® or Deccox®.
3. Other

Heifers in which estrus is not controlled may have erratic feed intake and health problems.

Melengesterol acetate (MGA

®

) is a progestin used as a feed additive to suppress ovarian activity in

intact heifers. Additionally, decreasing the stress associated with estrus increases average daily gains

and gain-to-feed ratio.

Almost identical percentages of feedlots in 1994 and 1999 fed MGA® to at least some heifers. These

operations represent approximately two-thirds of operations that placed female cattle on feed.

a. For operations that placed female cattle on

feed, percent of operations feeding MGA

®:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

63.7 (1.9) 63.2 (2.1)

A majority of the operations that fed any female cattle MGA

®

 fed it to all female cattle.

b. For operations that placed female cattle on feed, percent of

operations by percent of females fed MGA

®

:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent Females Fed

MGA

® Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

0 36.3 (2.0) 36.8 (2.1)

1 - 49 8.1 (1.1) 5.2 (0.8)

50 - 99 5.4 (0.9) 6.5 (1.0)

100 50.2 (2.0) 51.5 (2.2)

Total 100.0 100.0

USDA:APHIS:VS 29 Feedlot ‘99

C. Nu tri tional Man age ment Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

Percent of Operations* by Percent of Females

Fed Melengesterol Acetate (MGA®), 1994 and

1999

36.8

5.2 6.5

51.5

36.3

8.1 5.4

50.2

0 1 - 49 50 - 99 100

Percent Females Fed MGA®

0

25

50

75

100

Percent

1994 COFE Feedlot '99

#4272

* For operations that placed female cattle on feed.
Cattle require a period of adaptation to high-energy concentrate (non-structural carbohydrate) rations

to minimize the occurrence of lactic acidosis. Cattle that are maladapted to rations containing high

concentrations of readily fermentable carbohydrates will likely suffer from rumen lactic acidosis and

related diseases. Such diseases include, but are not limited to, dehydration, scours, liver abscessation, 

and laminitis (founder).

The percentage of feedlots that fed new arrivals a ration containing 1-35 percent energy concentrate

(such as corn, wheat, or barley) decreased from 1994 to 1999. Over the same period, the percentage

of feedlots that fed a ration containing 75 percent or more energy concentrate to new arrivals

increased.

c. Percent of operations that fed the following average levels of concentrates (dry matter

basis) to cattle in rations on arrival:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent Concentrate Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

0 5.3 (0.9) 5.3 (1.1)

1 - 35 40.0 (1.9) 31.0 (2.1)

36 - 55 30.1 (1.7) 30.9 (1.9)

56 - 74 13.6 (1.3) 14.0 (1.5)

75 or more 11.0 (1.2) 18.8 (1.7)

Total 100.0 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 30 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates C. Nu tri tional Man age ment

Percent of Operations that Fed the Following

Average Levels of Concentrates (Dry Matter Basis)

to Cattle in Rations on Arrival, 1994 and 1999

5.3

31 30.9

14 18.8

5.3

40

30.1

13.6 11

0 1 - 35 36 - 55 56 - 74 75 or more

Percent Concentrates

0

25

50

75

100

Percent 1994 COFE Feedlot '99

#4273
D. Health Management

1. Health Records Maintained

Disease conditions may be confused when basing a diagnosis solely on clinical signs. Different

diseases may result in similar manifestations such as drooped ears, lowered head appearance, and

unresponsiveness. Recording various animal and treatment information can provide data to monitor

disease occurrence and treatment success and can be used for training purposes. Some examples of

simple, yet valuable information include body temperature to help differentiate an infectious

condition from a non-infectious condition, treatment date or expected withdrawal period (to avoid

violative residues), disease diagnosis, and response to therapy. Further, day-to-day variations in an

animal’s weight may be a sensitive indicator of either treatment success or the need to implement a

secondary treatment regimen.

The percentage of feedlots recording the

following information changed little from

1994 to 1999. There was a slight decrease

in the percentage of feedlots that recorded

body temperature always or most of the

time (68.0 percent in 1994 compared to

60.8 percent in 1999). The percentage of

feedlots that measured and recorded weight

at time of treatment always or most of the

time appears to have increased (30.3

percent compared to 35.9 percent).

a. Percent of operations by frequency of recording the following for sick animals:

Study Always

Standard

Error

Most of

the Time

Standard

Error Sometimes

Standard 

Error Never

Standard

Error

Body temperature

1994 COFE 54.7 (1.8) 13.3 (1.3) 13.0 (1.3) 19.0 (1.5)

Feedlot ‘99 42.3 (2.0) 18.5 (1.7) 16.3 (1.6) 22.9 (1.9)

Date treated

1994 COFE 71.8 (1.6) 6.0 (0.9) 7.2 (1.0) 15.0 (1.4)

Feedlot ‘99 71.8 (2.0) 9.3 (1.4) 6.0 (1.1) 12.9 (1.7)

Weight at time of treatment

1994 COFE 23.3 (1.4) 7.3 (0.9) 13.2 (1.2) 56.2 (1.7)

Feedlot ‘99 25.5 (1.7) 10.4 (1.4) 14.0 (1.4) 50.1 (2.1)

Treatment given

1994 COFE 77.7 (1.6) 4.6 (0.8) 4.9 (0.9) 12.8 (1.3)

Feedlot ‘99 73.5 (2.0) 10.0 (1.5) 4.1 (0.9) 12.4 (1.6)

Treatment withdrawal period

1994 COFE 63.3 (1.8) 5.2 (0.9) 6.3 (0.9) 25.2 (1.7)

Feedlot ‘99 57.6 (2.1) 7.4 (1.3) 9.3 (1.3) 25.7 (2.0)

Disease condition (shipping fever, lameness, pneumonia, etc.)

1994 COFE 61.7 (1.8) 7.8 (1.0) 8.5 (1.1) 22.0 (1.6)

Feedlot ‘99 57.6 (2.1) 11.5 (1.5) 12.5 (1.5) 18.4 (1.8)

Outcome of treatment (return to pen, died, or culled)

1994 COFE 62.3 (1.8) 7.8 (1.0) 8.1 (1.1) 21.8 (1.6)

Feedlot ‘99 57.0 (2.1) 9.2 (1.4) 10.1 (1.4) 23.7 (2.0)

USDA:APHIS:VS 31 Feedlot ‘99

D. Health Management Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

Percent of Operations that Recorded the Following for Sick

Animals Always or Most of the Time, 1994 and 1999

60.8

81.1

35.9

83.5

65

69.1

66.2

68

77.8

30.6

82.3

68.5

69.5

70.1

Body temperature

Date treated

Weight: time of treatment

Treatment given

Treatment withdrawal

Disease condition

Outcome of treatment

0 25 50 75 100

Percent Operations

1994 COFE Feedlot '99

#4274
2. Use of Veterinarian and Nutritionist Services

Almost all feedlots (97.4 percent) used the services of a veterinarian in 1999, while many (91.0

percent) feedlots used the services of a nutritionist. Approximately one-third of feedlots had a

veterinarian and/or nutritionist that made regular visits in 1999.

a. Percent of operations that used the services of the following types of consultants during the respective year

ending June 30:

Service

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

Veterinarian

Full-time veterinarian on staff 3.6 (0.6) 3.3 (0.5)

Private veterinarian who made regular or routine visits 39.3 (1.6) 34.6 (1.6)

Professional veterinarian called as needed 72.7 (1.4) 70.9 (1.6)

Any veterinarian 99.0 (0.3) 97.4 (0.7)

Nutritionist

Full-time nutritionist on staff 3.9 (0.6) 3.7 (0.7)

Private nutritionist who made regular or routine visits 64.8 (1.7) 38.2 (1.8)

Professional nutritionist called as needed 33.1 (1.8) 15.8 (1.4)

Feed company nutritionist N/AV N/AV 56.0 (2.1)

Other nutritionist N/AV N/AV 2.1 (0.7)

Any nutritionist 87.7 (1.3) 91.0 (1.5)

Feedlot ‘99 32 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates D. Health Management

3.7

38.2

15.8

91

3.9

64.8

33.1

87.7

Full-time staff

Private:regular/routine

Professional:called

Any

0

25

50

75

100

Percent

1994 COFE

Feedlot '99

Percent of Operations that Used the Services of

Veterinarians and Nutritionists, 1994 and 1999

#4275

3.3

34.6

70.9

97.4

3.6

39.3

72.7

99

Full-time staff

Private:regular/routine

Professional:called

Any

0

25

50

75

100

Percent

1994 COFE

Feedlot '99

Veterinarian Nutritionist
The best way to categorize cause of death in a feedlot animal is via a postmortem examination

(autopsy/necropsy). Postmortems can be effectively performed by veterinarians or trained feedlot

personnel. Failure to do postmortems will likely result in some misclassification of animal deaths and

may lead to the inability to identify trends in cattle health such as treatment failure, misdiagnosis of

live animals, or seasonal peaks in the incidence of diseases such as acute interstitial pneumonia.

There was a substantial increase in the percentage of dead cattle that had a postmortem examination

from 1994 (45.9 percent) to 1999 (53.9 percent). This increase was primarily from postmortems by

non-veterinarians.

b. Percent of dead cattle where a postmortem examination was done during the year by:

Examiner

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

A veterinarian 15.5 (1.5) 13.2 (0.7)

A nonveterinarian 30.4 (2.4) 40.7 (2.1)

No postmortem performed 54.1 (2.5) 46.1 (2.3)

Total 100.0 100.0

USDA:APHIS:VS 33 Feedlot ‘99

D. Health Management Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

Percent of Dead Cattle Where a Postmortem

Examination Was Done by Examiner, 1994 and 1999

Vet.

15.5%

Nonvet.

30.4%

None performed

54.1%

1994 COFE

Vet.

13.2%

Nonvet.

40.7%

None performed

46.1%

Feedlot '99

#4276
3. Carcass Disposal Methods

The percentages of feedlots that used various dead animal disposal methods (and the percentages of

dead animals disposed of) changed little from 1994 to 1999. Operations may have used more than

one method of dead animal disposal.

a. Percent of operations (and percent of dead animals) by dead animal disposal method:

Disposal Method

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

Operations

Buried on farm 11.8 (1.0) 10.7 (1.3)

Landfill 1.2 (0.4) 1.6 (0.4)

Renderer 94.3 (0.7) 94.4 (0.8)

Other 1.0 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2)

Dead Animals

Buried on farm 3.5 (0.8) 5.3 (1.5)

Landfill 0.7 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2)

Renderer 95.8 (0.9) 94.1 (1.6)

Other 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0

Feedlot ‘99 34 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates D. Health Management
E. Environmental Programs

1. Waste Management

Manure disposal may pose problems

for some feedlots, whereas others are

able to capitalize on manure as a

valuable, high quality fertilizer. 

Feedlot operators used multiple

means to dispose of manure from

their operations. The majority of

feedlots applied manure to land

owned or managed by the feedlot,

although this proportion of feedlots

decreased slightly from 1994 to

1999. Interestingly, there was a

slight increase in the percentage of

feedlots that sold manure and a

decrease in those that paid someone

to take it.

a. Percent of operations that used the following manure disposal methods:

Method

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

Applied on land owned or managed by the feedlot 88.0 (1.0) 82.9 (1.1)

Sold 9.3 (1.0) 11.0 (0.9)

Given away 23.0 (1.3) 26.7 (1.4)

Paid someone to take it 6.6 (0.7) 3.3 (0.4)

Removed by another method 4.1 (0.6) 3.4 (0.6)

The percentage of feedlots that applied manure to land owned or managed by the feedlot that tested

the nutrient content of soil increased in 1999 compared to 1994. Approximately three-quarters (76.1

percent) of the feedlots in this category tested the soil where the manure was being applied. It is

unclear why a greater proportion tested soil if it were not to determine the application rate. Testing

may have been part of a management plan to monitor phosphorous concentration in the soil.

b. For operations that applied manure on land owned by the feedlot, percent of operations that tested the

nutrient content of the soil receiving the manure (and percent testing to determine the manure application rate)

by operation capacity:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Test Type Percent

Standard

Error Percent

Standard

Error

Tested 69.1 (1.9) 76.1 (2.0)

Tested to determine manure application rate 62.4 (2.4) 53.5 (2.5)

USDA:APHIS:VS 35 Feedlot ‘99

E. Environmental Programs Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates

Percent of Operations that Used the Following

Manure Disposal Methods, 1994 and 1999

82.9

11

26.7

3.3 3.4

88

9.3

23

6.6 4.1

Applied on owned/managed land

Sold

Given away

Paid someone

Other method

0

25

50

75

100

Percent Operations 1994 COFE Feedlot '99

#4277
Appendix I: Sample Profile

A. Responding Operations - 1,000 Head or More Capacity Feedlots

a. Number of operations by number placed during the

year July 1 through June 30:

1994 COFE Feedlot ‘99

Phase I Phase II

Number Placed Number Number Number

1 - 2,499 161 135 134

2,500 - 9,999 143 131 160

10,000 - 39,999 118 116 133

40,000 or more 76 71 93

Total 498 453 520

Feedlot ‘99 36 USDA:APHIS:VS

Sec tion II: NAHMS Popu la tion Es ti mates Appendix I: Sample Profile
NAHMS FEED LOT ‘99 STUDY:

Com pleted and Ex pected Out puts

and Re lated Study Ob jec tives

1. De scribe changes in man age ment prac tices and ani mal health in feed lots from 1994 to 1999.

• Changes in the U.S. Feedlot Industry, 1994-1999, August 2000

2. De scribe the man age ment in feed lots that im pacts prod uct qual ity.

• Part I: Baseline Reference of Feedlot Management Practices, 1999, May 2000

• Part II: Baseline Reference of Feedlot Health and Health Management Practices, 1999, expected October 2000

• Part III: Health Management and Biosecurity in U.S. Feedlots, 1999, expected December 2000

• Quality assurance (interpretive report), expected 2001

• Water quality (info sheet), expected fall 2000

• Feed quality (info sheet), expected fall 2000

• Implants (info sheet), May 2000

• Vaccination practices (info sheet), expected fall 2000

• Injections (info sheet), expected fall 2000

3. Iden tify fac tors as so ci ated with shed ding by feed lot cattle of speci fied patho gens, such as E. coli 0157,

Sal mo nel lae spp., and Cam py lo bac ter spp.

• E. coli 0157:H7 (info sheet), expected 2001

• Sal mo nella (info sheet), ex pected 2001

• Campylobacter (info sheet), expected 2001

4. De scribe an ti mi cro bial us age in feed lots.

• Part I: Baseline Reference of Feedlot Management Practices, 1999, May 2000

• Part II: Baseline Reference of Feedlot Health and Health Management Practices, 1999, expected October 2000

• Part III: Health Management and Biosecurity in U.S. Feedlots, 1999, expected December 2000

• Antimicrobial usage in feedlots, expected fall 2001

5. Iden tify pri or ity ar eas for pre- arrival proc ess ing of cat tle and calves.

• Part I: Baseline Reference of Feedlot Management Practices, 1999, May 2000

• Part II: Baseline Reference of Feedlot Health and Health Management Practices, 1999, expected October 2000

• Implants (info sheet), May 2000

• Pre-arrival processing (info sheet), expected fall 2000
Cen ters for Epi de mi ol ogy and Ani mal Health

USDA:APHIS:VS, Attn. NAHMS

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. B, MS 2E7 

Fort Col lins, CO 80526-8117

(970) 494-7000

NAHMSweb@usda.gov

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm

#N332.0800