United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

Veterinary 

Services

National 

Animal Health 

Monitoring 

System

September 

2013

Feedlot 2011

Part IV: Health and Health Management on 

U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More 

Head

Table of 

Contents
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) Should contact USDA’s TARGET Center 

at (202) 720–2600 

(voice and TDD).

To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Offi ce of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–

3272 (voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Mention of companies or commercial products does not 

imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA 

over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor 

warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product 

names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specifi c information. 

USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH–NAHMS

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526–8117

970.494.7000

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

#638.0913

Cover photograph courtesy of Dee Griffi n
USDA APHIS VS / i 

Items of Note

The National Animal Health Monitoring System’s (NAHMS) Feedlot 2011 study updates 

information on the U.S. cattle feedlot industry previously collected during the NAHMS 

Feedlot ’99 study: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/feedlot/index.shtml. 

As with the Feedlot ’99 study, Feedlot 2011 takes a broad look at animal health and 

management practices on feedlots throughout the major cattle feeding regions of the 

United States. 

One component of Feedlot 2011 focused on large feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 head 

or more located in 12 States. These feedlots were divided into two groups: those with a 

capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head and those with a capacity of 8,000 or more head. The 

other component of Feedlot 2011 focused on small feedlots (fewer than 1,000 head 

capacity) in 13 States. This report provides estimates for feedlots with a capacity of 

1,000 head or more. Study results for feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head 

are available in “Part II: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with Capacity of Fewer 

than 1,000 Head.”

In general, cattle feedlots receive cattle from throughout the United States. Feedlots 

typically provide cattle with high-energy diets in order to grow them to an acceptable size 

with an appropriate degree of fi nish for the slaughter market. Depending on their arrival 

weight, cattle may spend anywhere from a few months to nearly a year in the feedlot. 

Typical feedlot stays last slightly less than 6 months.

Vaccination is a cornerstone of disease prevention activities for all livestock operations, 

including feedlots. Vaccination with products targeting the pathogens most frequently 

associated with morbidity in the feedlots may lessen the numbers of animals affected as 

well as the severity of disease. More than 90 percent of feedlots vaccinated at least some 

cattle against some of the key respiratory pathogens such as bovine viral diarrhea virus 

and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus. More than 90 percent all cattle placed were 

vaccinated for these pathogens. Other vaccines were used less commonly (p 6).

For nearly all cattle given clostridial vaccines (97.5 percent) vaccinations were given 

subcutaneously in the neck region, consistent with Beef Quality Assurance guidelines 

(p 9).

Various pharmaceutical and biological products may be given by injection to cattle in 

feedlots to manage health. When products are delivered by injection there have been 

concerns for potential impacts on beef quality, including injection site blemishes and 

changes in tenderness. The Beef Quality Assurance program has devoted much effort 

to communicating guidelines for use of injections in cattle so as to minimize impacts on 

product quality. Other commonly delivered injections such as anthelmintics are nearly 

always given subcutaneously in the neck region (98.2 percent) [p 14].
ii / Feedlot 2011

Metaphylaxis is the timely mass medication of a group of animals with an antibiotic to 

eliminate or minimize an expected outbreak of disease. Producers and veterinarians use 

this tool most commonly to reduce the occurrence of respiratory disease among cattle 

that have recently arrived at feedlots. Overall, 59.3 percent of feedlots treated some 

cattle metaphylactically (p 18), resulting in approximately one of fi ve cattle placed 

(21.3 percent) being treated (p 20).

The most common illness of cattle placed in feedlots was respiratory disease; 

16.2 percent of cattle were affected with respiratory disease (p 28). Most cattle with 

respiratory disease are treated with antibiotics, resulting in 13.4 percent of cattle placed 

being treated for respiratory disease with an injectable antibiotic (p 34).

For cattle treated for respiratory disease, 81.7 percent responded to treatment 

(p 53).

Feedlot operators avail themselves of a variety of sources to inform their business 

decisions. One key decision that producers make is which antibiotics to use to restore the 

health of their animals. Veterinarians are highly infl uential in the selection of injectable 

antibiotics for the treatment of disease in cattle feedlots. 

For 87.0 percent of feedlots, veterinarians “strongly” infl uenced the selection and in 

another 12.1 percent of feedlots veterinarians “somewhat” infl uenced the selection (p 

62). Accounting for the size of feedlots, veterinarians were “strongly” infl uential in the 

selection of injectable antibiotics for disease treatment for 95.1 percent of cattle placed 

on feed (p 63).

Feedlots use medications in feed and/or water to preserve animal health and improve 

production. Ionophores act to improve production and control coccidia. Tylosin is an 

antibiotic used to help control the occurrence of liver abscesses in cattle. Overall, 

90.1 percent of cattle placed in feedlots received an ionophore in feed and 71.2 percent 

received tylosin in feed (p 68). The next most common use of antibiotics in feed was the 

use of chlortetracycline which 18.4 percent of cattle received. 
USDA APHIS VS / iii 

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Injections 5

1. Vaccines 5

2. Injections for prevention and treatment 10

3. Recorded information 16

B. Shipping Fever Prevention 18

1. Metaphylaxis 18

C. Occurrence of and Treatment for Cattle Conditions 27

1. Cattle affected 27

2. Cattle treatments 32

3. Hospital pens 41

D. Therapeutic Treatment 45

1. Treatment for respiratory disease 45

2. Retreats and repulls 53

E. Antibiotic Use in Feed and Water 66

1. All cattle 66

2. Cattle less than 700 lb when placed 69

3. Cattle 700 lb or more when placed 75

F. Implant Strategy 80

1. Steers 80

2. Heifers 83

G. General Information 87

1. Pest control 87

2. Computer record keeping 90

3. Monitoring food safety pathogens 91

Table of Contents
iv / Feedlot 2011

Section II: Methodology 92

A. Needs Assessment 92

B. Sampling and Estimation 93

1. State selection 93

2. Operation selection 93

3. Population inferences 93

C. Data Collection 94

1. Data collectors and data collection period for Phase II 94

D. Data Analysis 94

1. Validation 94

2. Estimation 94

E. Sample Evaluation 94

1. Phase I: General Feedlot Management Report 94

2. Phase II: VS Visit 96

Appendix I: Sample Profi le 97

Appendix II: Feedlots and Inventory, 1,000 or More Head Capacity for Selected 

States 98

Appendix III: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by Size 99

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 100
USDA APHIS VS / v 

Acknowledgments

This report was a cooperative effort between two U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Agencies: the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

We want to thank the NASS enumerators, State and Federal veterinary medical 

offi cers (VMOs), and animal health technicians (AHTs) who visited the operations and 

collected data for the Feedlot 2011 study. Their hard work and dedication to USDA’s 

National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) were invaluable. The roles of 

the producers, Area Veterinarians in Charge, NAHMS coordinators, VMOs, AHTs, and 

NASS enumerators were critical in providing quality data for the Feedlot 2011 reports. 

Recognition also goes to the personnel at the USDA–APHIS–Veterinary Services’ 

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health for their efforts in generating and distributing 

this and other reports from the Feedlot 2011 study.

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

made the Feedlot 2011 study possible.

Larry M. Granger 

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
vi / Feedlot 2011

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. Feedlot 2011 “Part IV: Health and Health Management on U.S. Feedlots with a 

Capacity of 1,000 or More Head”

USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH–NAHMS. Fort Collins, CO

#638.0913

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. David Dargatz (970) 494–7000

Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Abby Zehr (970) 494–7000

Feedback

Feedback, comments, and suggestions regarding Feedlot 2011 study reports are 

welcomed. You may submit feedback via online survey at: http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov 

(Click on “FEEDBACK on NAHMS reports.”)
USDA APHIS VS / 1 

Introduction

The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is a nonregulatory program of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 

NAHMS is designed to help meet the Nation’s animal health information needs and has 

collected data on management practices on U.S. feedlots via two previous studies. 

The NAHMS 1994 Cattle on Feed Evaluation (COFE) provided the fi rst national 

information on management practices in U.S. feedlots. Information was collected from 

3,214 feedlots from 13 major cattle-on-feed States, which accounted for 85.8 percent of 

the U.S. cattle-on-feed inventory on January 1, 1994. 

The NAHMS Feedlot ’99 study was designed to provide participants and other 

stakeholders with information on the Nation’s feedlot-cattle population to be used for 

education and research. For Feedlot ’99, a statistically valid sample was selected so 

that inferences could be made to 100 percent of the cattle on feed on operations with 

a capacity of 1,000 head or more on January 1, 1999, in 12 participating States. These 

operations represented 82.1 percent of all cattle on feed in the 50 States on January 1, 

2000.

The NAHMS Feedlot 2011 study takes an in-depth look at feedlots with a capacity 

of 1,000 or more head in 12 States (see map), the subject of this report, and feedlots 

with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head in 13 States (NAHMS Feedlot 2011 “Part II: 

Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with Fewer than 1,000 Head Capacity”). 

Feedlots with 1,000 head or more capacity accounted for 82.1 percent of the January 

1, 2011, inventory in all U.S. feedlots and 2.8 percent of all feedlots. The 12 States 

accounted for over 95 percent of the inventory in these feedlots. (Source NASS: Cattle on 

Feed February 18, 2011).

Introduction
2 / Feedlot 2011

Introduction

Participating States for feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head 

NM

TX OK

KS

NE

SD

CO

ID

AZ

WA

CA

IA

Region

Central

Other
USDA APHIS VS / 3 

Introduction

Antibiotic: A chemical compound generally produced by molds that has the ability to 

inhibit growth of or kill certain bacteria. They are very effective against illness caused by 

bacteria, but are ineffective against viruses.

Cattle on feed: Cattle or calves on full feed for the slaughter market and expected to 

produce a carcass grading select or better. Animals being fed a high-energy ration of 

grain, silage, hay, and/or protein supplement for the slaughter market, excluding cattle 

being “backgrounded only” for later sale as feeders or later placement in another feedlot.

Cattle placed/placement: Cattle put into a feedlot, fed a high-energy ration, and 

intended for the slaughter market.

Coccidiostat: Drug that controls coccidiosis.

Disease: Any morbid condition that impairs the full productive potential of an animal. 

Feedlot: The confi ned area where animals are fed. 

Ionophore: A drug given in feed that promotes the effi cient use of feedstuffs by altering 

the fermentation pattern in the rumen. 

Intramuscular (IM) injection: Injection given in the muscle.

Metaphylaxis: The timely administration of injectable antibiotics given to a group of 

animals to eliminate or minimize an expected disease outbreak. 

Operation: An area of land managed as a unit by an individual, partnership, or hired 

manager.

Operation capacity: Size groupings based on feedlot capacity on January 1, 2011. The 

capacity is the total number of head of cattle that could be accommodated in the feedlot 

at one time.

Percent cattle: The total number of cattle with a certain attribute divided by the total 

number of cattle on all operations (or on all operations within a certain category such as 

by operation capacity or region).

Percent operations: The number of operations with a certain attribute divided by the 

total number of operations. Percentages will sum to 100 where the attributes are mutually 

exclusive (e.g., percentage of operations located within each region). Percentages will 

not sum to 100 where the attributes are not mutually exclusive (e.g., the percentage of 

operations using treatment methods in which operations may have used more than one 

method).

Population estimates: Estimates in this report are provided with a measure of precision 

called the standard error. A 95-percent confi dence interval can be created with bounds 

equal to the estimate. plus or minus two standard errors. If the only error is sampling 

error, the confi dence intervals created in this manner will contain the true population 

Terms Used in 

This Report
4 / Feedlot 2011

Introduction

mean 95 out of 100 times. Alternatively, the 90-percent confi dence interval would be 

created by multiplying the standard error by 1.65 instead of 2. Most estimates in this 

report are rounded to the nearest tenth. If rounded to 0, the standard error was reported 

(0.0). If there were no reports of the event, no standard error was reported (—). 

Ration: The amount of feed an animal receives in a 24-hour period. 

Realized: Cattle shipped for slaughter prior to reaching normal slaughter weight.

Regions:

 Central: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Other: Arizona, California, Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington.

Repull: A feedlot animal that responded favorably to the initial course of treatment for a 

disease, was returned to a pen, and received additional treatment for the same disease 

at a later date.

Residue: The small amounts of veterinary medicines that can remain in animals after 

treatment has ceased. 

Retreat: A feedlot animal that failed to respond to the initial course of treatment for a 

disease and required a second course of treatment.

Salmonella: A genus of gram-negative, nonlactose fermenting, medium-sized, rodshaped bacteria that can be the cause of disease (diarrhea) in animals and can be a 

foodborne pathogen. 

Shrinkage: The animal weight lost between source and market scales due to transit or 

other handling processes. 

Subcutaneous (SQ) injection: An injection given under the skin. 

Vaccination: An injection of a vaccine to produce immunity or resistance to disease. 
USDA APHIS VS / 5 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

Note: Unless otherwise specifi ed, the time period for all tables is July 1, 2010, through 

June 30, 2011.

Note: Where appropriate, column totals are shown as 100.0 to aid in interpretation; 

however, estimates may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.

Throughout this report the population estimates are shown for all feedlots in the inference 

population (i.e., those with a capacity of 1,000 head or more in the 12 study States) 

as well as for subpopulations of feedlots based on size or geographic location. The 

breakouts are related in that feedlots in the Central region tended to be larger than 

feedlots in the “Other” region. Hence, in some cases differences seen between the 

breakout categories may be diffi cult to attribute to size-related factors as opposed to 

geographic location factors. Sample size issues generally preclude the possibility of full 

two-way analyses of these data.

Many different biologics (vaccines) or pharmaceutical products may be given to cattle 

in feedlots for heath management purposes. In some cases these products are used to 

prevent disease and in other cases they are used to treat existing diseases.

1. Vaccines

Most feedlots gave at least some cattle a vaccination, most commonly for respiratory 

diseases caused by bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) virus (96.6 percent of feedlots); 

infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) virus (93.7 percent of feedlots); parainfl uenza 3 

(PI3) virus (85.1 percent of feedlots); or bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) [89.5 

percent of feedlots]. Approximately two of three feedlots used vaccines that incorporated 

the two most common bacterial agents associated with respiratory disease: Hemophilus

somnus and Pasteurella1

). Only 6.5 percent of feedlots vaccinated at least some cattle 

for Salmonella, a bacterium associated with diarrhea in cattle and a potential food safety 

pathogen.

E. coli O157 has been associated with foodborne illness. The industry has implemented 

harvest and postharvest procedures to try to control the occurrence of foodborne illness 

associated with beef (primarily ground beef) due to this agent. Progress has been made 

in reducing the occurrence of ground-beef-associated illness due to E. coli O157, but 

there are efforts now to incorporate preharvest procedures to decrease the number of 

animals with E. coli O157 or the load of E. coli O157 from animals presented for harvest. 

Recently, a vaccine for E. coli O157 received a conditional license in the United States. At 

this time, 2.4 percent of feedlots are using the E. coli vaccine on at least some cattle.

1 Pasteurella haemolytica has been renamed as Mannheimia haemolytica. For the purposes of this study and 

this report Pasteurella is meant to include both Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida.

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Injections
6 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

A high percentage of feedlots (84.4 percent) vaccinated some arriving cattle against 

clostridial diseases. Historically, the use of vaccines has been associated with injectionsite lesions when administered in the muscle tissue of cattle. These lesions produce 

quality defects for beef products and have been targeted for elimination by the Beef 

Quality Assurance (BQA) program. Efforts have been made to get producers to 

administer vaccinations to subcutaneously in the neck area. 

A.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that gave cattle placed on feed the following vaccines, by 

feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Vaccine Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bovine viral diarrhea 

(BVD) 95.7 (2.2) 98.7 (0.1) 94.9 (2.6) 99.0 (0.1) 96.6 (1.6)

Injectable 

infectious bovine 

rhinotracheitis, red 

nose (IBR)

91.7 (3.0) 98.6 (1.3) 92.6 (3.0) 95.5 (3.0) 93.7 (2.2)

Intranasal IBR 52.3 (5.6) 51.5 (6.4) 46.9 (5.5) 60.0 (7.1) 52.1 (4.4)

PI3 (parainfl uenza 3) 87.6 (3.6) 79.2 (5.9) 78.6 (4.7) 95.0 (3.0) 85.1 (3.1)

Bovine respiratory 

syncytial virus 

(BRSV)

87.8 (3.6) 93.5 (1.8) 87.7 (3.6) 92.2 (3.6) 89.5 (2.6)

Hemophilus 

somnus (HS) 74.0 (4.8) 59.3 (6.6) 66.2 (5.2) 75.0 (5.9) 69.7 (3.9)

Pasteurella 66.1 (5.0) 58.2 (7.1) 68.4 (5.2) 56.8 (6.7) 63.8 (4.1)

Leptospira 

spp. (lepto) 19.6 (4.2) 27.1 (5.7) 28.6 (4.8) 11.4 (4.4) 21.8 (3.4)

Salmonella (e.g., 

Salmonella Newport 

SRP®)

4.9 (2.3) 10.1 (4.1) 8.9 (3.0) 2.8 (2.1) 6.5 (2.0)

Mycoplasma bovis 22.3 (4.6) 20.6 (5.2) 20.1 (4.4) 24.4 (6.2) 21.8 (3.6)

Autogenous vaccine 4.0 (2.1) 8.6 (3.2) 5.4 (1.9) 5.3 (3.4) 5.4 (1.8)

E. coli (e.g., 

Epitopix SRP® or 

Econiche®)

1.4 (1.3) 4.6 (4.3) 4.0 (2.6) 0.0 (—) 2.4 (1.6)

Clostridial 85.0 (3.9) 82.9 (6.0) 83.6 (4.4) 85.5 (4.9) 84.4 (3.3)

Other vaccine 7.4 (2.8) 1.9 (1.8) 4.3 (2.3) 8.0 (3.7) 5.8 (2.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 7 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

Nearly all cattle placed in feedlots received a vaccination for BVD and IBR (95.1 and 

93.2 percent of cattle, respectively). Only about one of four cattle was vaccinated for 

the more common bacterial agents associated with respiratory disease. Combined 

with the information from table A.1.a, this fi nding suggests that while nearly all cattle 

entering most feedlots were vaccinated for the viral causes of respiratory disease, only 

some cattle entering feedlots were vaccinated against the bacterial agents that cause 

respiratory disease. The vaccine choice within a feedlot is driven by the attributes of the 

arriving groups of cattle, and producers make the decision about which of these cattle 

receive vaccinations for the bacterial agents. In addition, the use of vaccines for some 

bacterial agents that cause respiratory disease was more common in feedlots with a 

capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head compared with feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more 

head. A higher percentage of cattle in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head 

were vaccinated for PI3 and BRSV (81.3 and 88.6 percent, respectively) compared with 

feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (51.7 and 57.9 percent, respectively). Only 

5.2 percent of cattle arriving in feedlots were vaccinated for Salmonella.

Overall, very few cattle (0.1 percent) received the vaccine for E. coli O157, which might 

be because the vaccine is relatively new and there has not been time for widespread 

adoption. The low level of use may also be due to the recommended three-dose regimen. 

Handling a group of cattle multiple times does not fi t into routine feedlot management 

strategies. Handling cattle multiple times also carries risk of injury to animals, impacts 

production, and adds costs for the vaccine and the labor to administer it. Overall, 

62.4 percent of cattle were given one or more clostridial vaccinations after arriving at the 

feedlot.
8 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

A.1.b. Percentage of cattle given the following vaccines, by feedlot capacity and by 

region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Vaccine Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bovine viral diarrhea 

(BVD) 94.5 (1.9) 95.1 (2.0) 96.3 (2.1) 89.5 (3.0) 95.1 (1.8)

Injectable 

infectious bovine 

rhinotracheitis, red 

nose (IBR)

96.6 (1.4) 92.7 (5.3) 91.9 (5.7) 99.1 (0.5) 93.2 (4.7)

Intranasal IBR 23.4 (4.0) 12.1 (3.6) 12.4 (3.8) 18.0 (5.4) 13.4 (3.3)

PI3 (parainfl uenza 3) 81.3 (5.2) 51.7 (6.4) 47.8 (6.1) 88.5 (3.5) 55.1 (5.7)

Bovine respiratory 

syncytial virus 

(BRSV)

88.6 (3.9) 57.9 (6.5) 55.7 (6.5) 87.7 (3.7) 61.4 (5.8)

Hemophilus 

somnus (HS) 55.0 (6.9) 24.3 (5.2) 27.2 (5.5) 30.9 (9.0) 27.8 (4.8)

Pasteurella 42.7 (5.9) 26.8 (4.3) 24.4 (4.4) 47.9 (7.0) 28.6 (3.9)

Leptospira 

spp. (lepto) 14.4 (4.2) 12.0 (3.1) 11.1 (3.3) 17.7 (5.1) 12.3 (2.8)

Salmonella (e.g., 

Salmonella Newport 

(SRP)

2.6 (1.4) 5.6 (2.2) 4.5 (2.4) 8.5 (2.5) 5.2 (2.0)

Mycoplasma bovis 14.3 (5.8) 5.1 (1.5) 6.1 (1.7) 6.2 (3.3) 6.1 (1.5)

Autogenous vaccine 2.1 (1.3) 4.0 (2.0) 4.4 (2.2) 1.1 (0.9) 3.8 (1.8)

E. coli (e.g., Epitopix 

SRP or Econiche) 1.1 (1.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.1)

Clostridial 80.6 (4.7) 60.0 (7.6) 61.4 (7.5) 66.9 (17.8) 62.4 (6.8)

Other vaccine 3.8 (1.9) 0.8 (0.7) 1.1 (0.8) 1.4 (1.0) 1.1 (0.7)
USDA APHIS VS / 9 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

Nearly all cattle given clostridial vaccines (97.5 percent) received a subcutaneous (SQ) 

vaccination in the neck region, which is consistent with BQA guidelines. No feedlots used 

the intramuscular (IM) route to administer clostridial vaccines in locations other than the 

neck.

A.1.c. For cattle given any clostridial vaccines, percentage of cattle by route and location 

of administration, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 or 

more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Route and location Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

IM in neck region 7.9 (3.4) 1.5 (0.2) 0.9 (0.5) 9.0 (2.2) 2.5 (0.6)

SQ in neck region 92.1 (3.4) 98.5 (0.2) 99.1 (0.5) 91.0 (2.2) 97.5 (0.6)

IM in other location 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Any other route 

or location 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

A.1.d. For feedlots that administered any clostridial vaccines, percentage of feedlots that 

gave cattle more than one vaccination for clostridia via injection, by feedlot capacity and 

by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999 8,000 or more Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

39.2 (5.8) 23.4 (5.7) 28.4 (5.3) 43.9 (7.8) 34.6 (4.5)
10 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

A.1.e. For cattle given any clostridial vaccines, percentage of cattle given more than one 

vaccination for clostridia via injection, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999 8,000 or more Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

21.5 (4.1) 13.7 (5.1) 15.1 (5.3) 13.8 (3.8) 14.9 (4.4)

2. Injections for prevention and treatment 

Pharmaceutical (drugs) and biological (vaccines) products are administered via injection 

to feedlot cattle for various reasons. Approximately one of two feedlots 

(54.8 percent) injected an anthelmintic to at least some cattle after arrival. Use of an 

injectable anthelmintic product was more common in feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or 

more head than in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (82.4 and 43.1 percent 

of operations, respectively).

Most feedlots (77.7 percent) placed some heifers on feed,2

 7.9 percent of which were 

pregnant on arrival. Pregnant heifers are an economic liability for feedlots in terms of 

production effi ciency and value at harvest. In addition, if the heifers calve while in the 

feedlot there are associated health risks. Approximately one-third of all feedlots 

(36.4 percent) and nearly half of feedlots that placed some heifers (44.5 percent, data 

not shown) used prostaglandin injections on some animals, presumably to cause 

them to abort. Use of prostaglandin injections was more common in feedlots with a 

capacity of 8,000 or more head than in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head 

(68.2 and 23.0 percent of operations, respectively). However, placement of any heifers 

was more common in feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (93.7 percent 

of operations) compared with feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (71.2 

percent).1 Approximately one of two feedlots (56.3 percent) injected some animals with a 

corticosteroid, in some cases as co-treatment to cause heifers to abort. 

2

See NAHMS report: “Part I: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or more head.”
USDA APHIS VS / 11 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

Nonsteroidal anti-infl ammatory drugs are sometimes used to treat respiratory disease or 

to manage pain in some animals. The use of a nonsteroidal anti-infl ammatory drug was 

more common in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head than in feedlots with a 

capacity of 8,000 or more head (70.5 and 46.4 percent of operations, respectively). 

A.2.a. Percentage of feedlots that gave the following injections as either a preventive or 

treatment measure, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Injection Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Anthelmintic 

(e.g., Ivomec®) 43.1 (5.5) 82.4 (5.8) 62.1 (5.5) 43.6 (7.0) 54.8 (4.3)

Prostaglandin 

(e.g., Lutalyse®) 23.0 (4.5) 68.2 (6.9) 48.4 (5.4) 18.2 (5.2) 36.4 (3.9)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium®)

53.9 (5.3) 62.1 (7.0) 64.1 (5.2) 44.5 (7.2) 56.3 (4.3)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory 

(e.g., Banamine®)

70.5 (4.8) 46.4 (7.3) 63.5 (5.1) 63.1 (7.0) 63.4 (4.1)

Other* 2.7 (1.8) 2.6 (2.2) 1.7 (1.5) 4.2 (2.7) 2.7 (1.4)

*Excluding vitamins, vaccines, and antibiotics.
12 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

A higher percentage of cattle in feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head 

(80.5 percent) received an anthelmintic injection compared with cattle in feedlots 

with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (39.3 percent). Few cattle overall received a 

prostaglandin or corticosteroid injection (7.5 and 3.3 percent, respectively). 

A.2.b. Percentage of cattle by injections given at the feedlot as either a preventive or 

treatment measure, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Injection Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Anthelmintic 

(e.g., Ivomec) 39.3 (6.6) 80.5 (4.2) 77.1 (4.5) 69.7 (7.8) 75.8 (3.8)

Prostaglandin 

(e.g., Lutalyse) 3.3 (0.9) 8.1 (1.5) 8.3 (1.5) 4.1 (1.9) 7.5 (1.3)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

3.4 (0.8) 3.2 (0.6) 3.7 (0.7) 1.4 (0.4) 3.3 (0.6)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory 

(e.g., Banamine)

4.3 (0.9) 1.8 (0.6) 2.1 (0.6) 2.0 (0.6) 2.1 (0.5)

Other* 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

*Excluding vitamins, vaccines, and antibiotics.

BQA guidelines encourage producers to administer all injections in the neck region to 

minimize quality defects in beef products. Nearly all feedlots used the neck region for 

injections of anthelmintics or prostaglandins (either SQ or IM) when these products 

were used. It is likely that the use of any other route or location for corticosteroids and 

nonsteroidal anti-infl ammatory drugs indicates these were being given intravenously. 
USDA APHIS VS / 13 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

A.2.c. For feedlots that gave cattle the following injections as either a preventive or 

treatment measure, percentage of feedlots by route and location of injection, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Route and location Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Anthelmintic (e.g., Ivomec)

IM in neck region 11.7 (5.2) 2.6 (2.4) 6.4 (3.4) 10.3 (6.5) 7.7 (3.1)

SQ in neck region 80.7 (6.6) 97.4 (2.4) 90.9 (4.1) 82.2 (8.7) 88.1 (3.9)

IM in other location 3.3 (3.0) 0.0 (—) 2.7 (2.5) 0.0 (—) 1.9 (1.7)

Any other route 

or location 4.2 (3.8) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 7.4 (6.4) 2.4 (2.1)

Prostaglandin (e.g., Lutalyse)

IM in neck region 64.1 (10.8) 54.7 (7.8) 59.9 (7.1) 55.8 (14.5) 59.0 (6.4)

SQ in neck region 35.9 (10.8) 43.8 (7.8) 39.1 (7.1) 44.2 (14.5) 40.2 (6.4)

IM in other location 0.0 (—) 1.5 (0.2) 1.1 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 0.8 (0.1)

Any other route 

or location 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Coricosteroids (e.g., dexamethasone, Azium)

IM in neck region 58.8 (7.5) 54.6 (9.8) 56.5 (7.2) 59.7 (11.0) 57.5 (6.0)

SQ in neck region 34.4 (7.2) 42.8 (9.9) 40.4 (7.1) 29.4 (10.1) 37.2 (5.9)

IM in other location 0.0 (—) 4.8 (2.9) 2.2 (1.3) 0.0 (—) 1.6 (0.9)

Any other route 

or location 14.6 (5.3) 0.0 (—) 7.1 (3.7) 16.3 (8.2) 9.8 (3.6)

Nonsteroidal anti-infl ammatory (e.g., Banamine)

IM in neck region 48.8 (6.7) 14.9 (6.6) 36.5 (6.8) 48.0 (9.2) 41.0 (5.5)

SQ in neck region 38.2 (6.5) 47.2 (10.7) 38.9 (7.0) 42.2 (9.4) 40.2 (5.6)

IM in other location 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Any other route 

or location 20.3 (5.1) 37.0 (10.2) 29.1 (6.2) 15.6 (6.5) 24.0 (4.6)
14 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

A.2.d. For cattle given the following injections at the feedlot as either a preventive or 

treatment measure, percentage of cattle by route and location of injection, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Route and location Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Anthelmintic (e.g., Ivomec)

IM in neck region 12.4 (6.5) 0.8 (0.8) 1.4 (1.0) 2.0 (1.5) 1.5 (0.8)

SQ in neck region 82.3 (7.7) 99.2 (0.8) 98.6 (1.0) 96.1 (2.6) 98.2 (0.9)

IM in other location 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0)

Any other route 

or location 5.2 (4.5) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 1.9 (1.8) 0.3 (0.3)

Prostaglandin (e.g., Lutalyse)

IM in neck region 63.2 (17.2) 75.8 (8.7) 78.3 (8.3) 46.6 (23.8) 75.2 (8.4)

SQ in neck region 36.8 (17.2) 21.2 (8.3) 18.6 (7.8) 53.4 (23.8) 22.0 (8.0)

IM in other location 0.0 (—) 3.0 (0.6) 3.1 (0.7) 0.0 (—) 2.8 (0.6)

Any other route 

or location 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Coricosteroids (e.g., dexamethasone, Azium)

IM in neck region 53.1 (16.7) 63.5 (15.5) 61.5 (14.9) 71.7 (18.2) 62.3 (13.8)

SQ in neck region 43.9 (17.8) 36.5 (15.5) 38.2 (14.9) 27.2 (18.2) 37.4 (13.8)

IM in other location 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Any other route 

or location 2.9 (1.6) 0.0 (—) 0.3 (0.2) 1.0 (0.8) 0.4 (0.2)

Nonsteroidal anti-infl ammatory (e.g., Banamine)

IM in neck region 56.7 (13.7) 12.6 (7.2) 21.4 (9.2) 31.0 (12.8) 23.0 (8.1)

SQ in neck region 28.3 (13.3) 52.3 (16.3) 51.5 (15.2) 21.6 (11.7) 46.6 (13.8)

IM in other location 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Any other route 

or location 15.1 (6.1) 35.1 (14.0) 27.2 (11.1) 46.7 (17.7) 30.4 (10.3)
USDA APHIS VS / 15 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

Historically, concerns have arisen about giving cattle injections of more than 10 mL in one 

site, as doing so might result in quality defects in beef products. The move to SQ injection 

routes in the neck region, however, has lessened these concerns. Only 10.9 percent of 

feedlots, representing just 0.7 percent of cattle, gave any injections of more than 10 mL in 

one site.

A.2.e. Percentage of feedlots that gave cattle an IM or SQ injection of more than 10 mL in 

one site, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

12.7 (3.6) 6.7 (3.6) 9.5 (3.2) 13.1 (4.8) 10.9 (2.7)

Very few cattle (0.7 percent) received injections of more than 10 mL in one site.

A.2.f. Percentage of cattle given an IM or SQ injection of more than 10 mL in one site, by 

feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

1.3 (0.8) 0.6 (0.5) 0.8 (0.5) 0.3 (0.2) 0.7 (0.4)
16 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

3. Recorded information

Most feedlots kept some records regarding healthy cattle that were given injectable 

compounds. More than three of four feedlots recorded the date, type, and volume 

of injections given. Recording other information was less common, which may be a 

refl ection of existing overall protocols for the treatment of all animals (e.g., route and 

location of injections). 

A.3.a. Percentage of feedlots by frequency that information on healthy cattle given 

any injectable compounds such as vaccines or vitamins was recorded, and by type of 

information recorded:

Percent Feedlots

Frequency

Always or most 

of the time

Some of the 

time Never

Type of information Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Date the injection 

was given 86.1 (3.1) 7.0 (2.4) 6.9 (2.4) 100.0

Type of injectable 

compound given 86.1 (3.1) 5.0 (2.1) 8.8 (2.6) 100.0

Amount given 75.8 (3.7) 4.0 (1.8) 20.2 (3.5) 100.0

Route of injection 

(e.g., IM or SQ) 39.4 (4.3) 6.9 (2.1) 53.8 (4.3) 100.0

Location of injection (e.g., 

neck region or shoulder) 39.4 (4.3) 7.5 (2.1) 53.1 (4.3) 100.0

Product lot number/

serial number 25.9 (3.7) 12.1 (2.6) 62.0 (4.0) 100.0

Other 3.8 (1.5) 0.0 (—) 96.2 (1.5) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 17 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Injections

Information, including date, type of injectable, and amount injected, was recorded for 

nearly all cattle that received injectable compounds.

A.3.b. Percentage of cattle by frequency that information on healthy cattle given 

any injectable compounds (e.g., vaccines or vitamins) was recorded, and by type of 

information recorded:

Percent Cattle

Frequency

Always or most 

of the time

Some of the 

time Never

Type of information Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Date the injection 

was given 98.5 (0.4) 1.0 (0.4) 0.5 (0.2) 100.0

Type of injectable 

compound given 98.6 (0.4) 0.6 (0.3) 0.8 (0.3) 100.0

Amount given 97.3 (0.6) 0.4 (0.2) 2.3 (0.6) 100.0

Route of injection 

(e.g., IM or SQ) 51.0 (7.1) 7.9 (2.2) 41.1 (7.2) 100.0

Location of injection (e.g., 

neck region or shoulder) 42.9 (6.6) 17.7 (5.7) 39.4 (7.2) 100.0

Product lot number/

serial number 40.2 (6.5) 34.8 (7.3) 25.0 (5.4) 100.0

Other 5.1 (2.5) 0.0 (—) 94.9 (2.5) 100.0
18 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Shipping Fever Prevention

Shipping fever, or bovine respiratory disease complex, is the most common morbidity 

and mortality event among feedlot cattle. Many management practices implemented in 

feedlots focus on prevention or treatment of shipping fever. The occurrence of shipping 

fever in groups of cattle is associated with various factors, including previous vaccination, 

age, nutrition status, source, and transport.

1. Metaphylaxis

When an arriving or recently arrived group of cattle exhibit signs of respiratory disease or 

are at high risk of developing shipping fever, feedlots sometimes treat all animals in the 

group with an antibiotic to stop or prevent an outbreak. Over half of feedlots 

(59.3 percent) used metaphylaxis for some cattle. For cattle less than 700 lb when 

placed, a higher percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head used 

metaphylaxis than feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (92.6 and 45.0 percent, 

respectively). Only 29.6 percent of all feedlots used metaphylaxis for some animals 

700 lb or more when placed. 

B.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that treated cattle as a group with any injectable antibiotic 

(metaphylaxis) to prevent or minimize an outbreak of shipping fever, by cattle weight, 

feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Cattle weight Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than

700 lb when placed 45.0 (5.4) 92.6 (4.5) 69.2 (5.3) 44.2 (7.2) 59.3 (4.2)

700 lb or more 

when placed 16.6 (4.3) 59.0 (6.0) 38.9 (5.1) 16.4 (5.6) 29.6 (3.7)

Any cattle 45.3 (5.4) 92.6 (4.5) 68.1 (5.2) 46.0 (7.2) 59.3 (4.2)

B. Shipping 

Fever Prevention
USDA APHIS VS / 19 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Shipping Fever Prevention

0

20

40

60

80

100

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Percent

Percentage of feedlots that mass treated with any injectable antibiotic to prevent or

reduce an outbreak of shipping fever, by feedlot capacity

Cattle less than 700 lb

when placed

Cattle 700 lb or more

when placed

Any cattle

45.0

59.3 59.0

45.3

92.6

16.6

29.6

92.6

Feedlot capacity (number head)

59.3
20 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Shipping Fever Prevention

Approximately two of fi ve animals less than 700 lb when placed (39.2 percent) were 

treated metaphylactically for shipping fever. Only 5.2 percent of cattle 700 lb or more 

when placed were treated metaphylactically. Overall, 21.3 percent of cattle placed in 

feedlots were treated metaphylactically. 

B.1.b. Percentage of cattle treated as a group with any injectable antibiotic (metaphylaxis) 

to prevent or minimize an outbreak of shipping fever, by cattle weight, feedlot capacity, 

and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Cattle weight Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than

700 lb when placed 26.7 (5.3) 40.9 (3.8) 37.8 (4.2) 45.1 (4.1) 39.2 (3.4)

700 lb or more 

when placed 4.3 (2.0) 5.3 (1.3) 4.8 (1.2) 7.0 (2.8) 5.2 (1.2)

Any cattle 15.3 (3.0) 22.1 (2.6) 20.5 (2.8) 25.1 (2.9) 21.3 (2.3)
USDA APHIS VS / 21 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Shipping Fever Prevention

0

20

40

60

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Percent

Percentage of cattle that were mass treated with any injectable antibiotic to prevent or

reduce an outbreak of shipping fever, by feedlot capacity

Cattle less than 700 lb

when placed

Cattle 700 lb or more

when placed

All cattle

26.7

39.2

5.3

15.3

40.9

4.3 5.2

22.1

Feedlot capacity (number head)

21.3
22 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Shipping Fever Prevention

Several antibiotics can be used to treat cattle metaphylactically for shipping fever. 

The three most common antibiotics used to treat an entire group of cattle to prevent 

or minimize an outbreak of shipping fever were tilmicosin (57.6 percent of feedlots), 

tulathromycin (45.3 percent), and ceftiofur (39.7 percent). Tulathromycin was more 

commonly used for metaphylactic treatment of cattle less than 700 lb at placement than 

for cattle 700 lb or more at placement (data not shown). Otherwise, the selection of 

antibiotics for metaphylactic treatments did not differ by cattle weight.

B.1.c. For feedlots that treated cattle as a group with an injectable antibiotic 

(metaphylaxis) to prevent or minimize an outbreak of shipping fever, percentage of 

feedlots by antibiotics used, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Tilmicosin (Micotil®) 54.5 (8.4) 61.2 (7.1) 65.7 (6.2) 38.5 (10.2) 57.6 (5.5)

Gamithromycin 

(Zactran®) 6.6 (4.4) 1.7 (1.5) 3.0 (1.9) 7.5 (6.8) 4.3 (2.5)

Florfenicol (Nufl or®) 8.7 (4.6) 9.7 (4.7) 8.3 (3.8) 11.3 (6.5) 9.2 (3.3)

Ceftiofur (Naxcel®, 

Excenel®, Excede®) 33.9 (8.1) 46.3 (6.7) 44.7 (6.3) 28.0 (10.0) 39.7 (5.3)

Oxytetracycline 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100TM, 

LA200®, Biomycin®)

16.1 (6.3) 19.0 (6.3) 21.8 (5.8) 7.2 (5.6) 17.4 (4.5)

Penicillin 

(e.g., Aquacillin) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject®) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Tulathromycin 

(Draxxin®) 43.4 (8.4) 47.6 (6.8) 44.3 (6.3) 47.7 (10.8) 45.3 (5.5)

Other 2.9 (2.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 5.2 (4.8) 1.5 (1.4)
USDA APHIS VS / 23 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Shipping Fever Prevention

Nearly half of the cattle treated metaphylactically for shipping fever (46.0 percent) 

were treated with tilmicosin, and nearly one-third (29.5 percent) were treated with 

tulathromycin.

B.1.d. For cattle treated as a group with an injectable antibiotic (metaphylaxis) to prevent 

or minimize an outbreak of shipping fever, percentage of cattle by antibiotic used, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Tilmicosin (Micotil) 30.3 (9.4) 47.3 (8.9) 41.0 (9.9) 64.1 (9.2) 46.0 (8.2)

Gamithromycin 

(Zactran) 1.0 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.3 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1)

Florfenicol (Nufl or) 3.3 (2.8) 6.7 (1.3) 0.9 (0.7) 26.6 (6.7) 6.4 (1.2)

Ceftiofur (Naxcel, 

Excenel®, Excede) 25.7 (8.4) 12.8 (3.5) 17.0 (4.5) 2.2 (1.3) 13.8 (3.4)

Oxytetracycline 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100, 

LA200, Biomycin)

16.2 (8.4) 2.9 (1.2) 4.2 (1.8) 3.0 (0.8) 4.0 (1.4)

Penicillin 

(e.g., Aquacillin) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Tulathromycin 

(Draxxin) 21.6 (8.4) 30.2 (8.6) 36.9 (9.6) 3.0 (1.6) 29.5 (7.9)

Other 1.8 (1.7) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.7 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
24 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Shipping Fever Prevention

0 10 20 30 40 50

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Percent

For cattle that were mass treated with an injectable antibiotic to prevent or

reduce an outbreak of shipping fever, percentage of cattle that were treated

Antibiotic

20.7 30.3

47.3

46.0

1.0

0.0

0.1

3.3

6.7

6.4

16.2

2.9

4.0

4.2 21.6

30.2

1.8

0.0

Tilmicosin

Gamithromycin

Florfenicol

Ceftiofur

Oxytetracycline

Tulathromycin

Other

Feedlot capacity 

(number head)

25.7

12.8

13.8

29.5

0.1
USDA APHIS VS / 25 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Shipping Fever Prevention

Feedlots treat cattle as a group (metaphylaxis) against shipping fever for a variety of 

reasons. The criteria most commonly cited by feedlots as very important when deciding 

to mass treat cattle with an injectable antibiotic were: a known history of a lack of 

vaccination for respiratory pathogens (74.3 percent of feedlots) and appearance of the 

cattle (74.1 percent). Since many of the following criteria were rated as very or somewhat 

important, it is apparent that feedlots base the decision to mass treat on several factors.

B.1.e. Percentage of feedlots by level of importance placed on the following criteria when 

deciding to treat cattle as a group with an injectable antibiotic (metaphylaxis) to prevent 

or minimize an outbreak of shipping fever:

Percent Feedlots

Level of Importance

Very Somewhat Not

Criterion Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Long shipping distance 

(increased stress and 

shrinkage)

56.4 (4.6) 31.2 (4.3) 12.3 (3.1) 100.0

Arrival weight 27.1 (3.8) 46.9 (4.6) 26.0 (4.2) 100.0

Appearance of

cattle at arrival 74.1 (4.2) 19.0 (3.7) 6.8 (2.6) 100.0

Shipping fever problems in 

cattle previously received 

from the same source

64.2 (4.4) 24.8 (4.0) 11.0 (3.1) 100.0

Occurrence of respiratory 

disease in some of the 

cattle from the pen/group

58.8 (4.5) 32.8 (4.3) 8.5 (2.8) 100.0

Source of cattle, such 

as a sale barn 66.7 (4.3) 25.4 (4.0) 7.9 (2.7) 100.0

Known history of lack 

of vaccination against 

respiratory pathogens

74.3 (4.1) 18.6 (3.5) 7.1 (2.4) 100.0

Season (e.g., winter vs. 

summer) 33.3 (4.2) 49.0 (4.7) 17.7 (3.6) 100.0

Other 8.4 (2.6) 0.5 (0.4) 91.1 (2.7) 100.0
26 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Shipping Fever Prevention

B.1.f. Percentage of cattle by level of importance placed on the following criteria when 

deciding to treat cattle as a group with an injectable antibiotic (metaphylaxis) to prevent 

or minimize an outbreak of shipping fever:

Percent Cattle

Level of Importance

Very Somewhat Not

Criterion Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Long shipping distance 

(increased stress and 

shrinkage)

65.3 (6.8) 33.6 (6.8) 1.2 (0.4) 100.0

Arrival weight 48.6 (7.2) 44.6 (7.2) 6.8 (2.6) 100.0

Appearance of

cattle at arrival 88.4 (2.8) 10.0 (2.5) 1.6 (1.2) 100.0

Shipping fever problems in 

cattle previously received 

from the same source

83.8 (3.2) 15.2 (3.2) 1.0 (0.3) 100.0

Occurrence of respiratory 

disease in some of the 

cattle from the pen/group

70.5 (6.6) 26.3 (6.4) 3.2 (1.6) 100.0

Source of cattle, such 

as a sale barn 88.3 (2.9) 11.3 (2.9) 0.4 (0.2) 100.0

Known history of lack 

of vaccination against 

respiratory pathogens

75.9 (5.8) 23.0 (5.8) 1.1 (0.2) 100.0

Season (e.g., winter vs. 

summer) 51.4 (7.1) 44.3 (7.2) 4.3 (2.3) 100.0

Other 10.4 (5.1) 2.3 (1.9) 87.4 (5.5) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 27 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

1. Cattle affected 

Nearly all feedlots had at least some cattle affected by shipping fever or lameness.

C.1.a. Percentage of feedlots with cattle affected by the following conditions after arrival, 

by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Condition Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Respiratory disease 

(e.g., shipping fever) 95.6 (2.3) 100.0 (0.0) 96.6 (2.1) 97.3 (2.5) 96.9 (1.6)

Acute interstitial 

pneumonia 60.9 (5.1) 97.4 (2.2) 88.2 (3.9) 46.5 (7.1) 71.8 (3.8)

Digestive problems 

(excluding 

noneaters)

58.6 (5.3) 98.9 (0.6) 82.9 (4.3) 51.7 (7.2) 70.6 (3.9)

Bullers 59.3 (5.4) 91.4 (4.9) 74.0 (5.1) 61.0 (7.1) 68.8 (4.1)

Lameness 90.2 (3.3) 99.0 (0.1) 91.6 (3.3) 94.7 (3.0) 92.8 (2.3)

Central nervous 

system problems 

(e.g., polio and 

brainers)

56.7 (5.5) 77.2 (6.2) 73.9 (5.2) 45.8 (7.3) 62.7 (4.3)

C. Occurrence 

of and Treatment 

for Cattle 

Conditions
28 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

Shipping fever was the most common illness among cattle in feedlots (16.2 percent of 

cattle placed). Feedlots in the Central region had twice the percentage of cattle affected 

with respiratory disease compared with feedlots in the Other region (17.9 and 8.8 percent 

of cattle, respectively). Less than 5 percent of cattle were affected by each of the other 

conditions listed.

C.1.b. Percentage of cattle affected by the following conditions after arrival, by feedlot 

capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Condition Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Respiratory disease 

(e.g., shipping fever) 9.0 (1.1) 17.2 (1.6) 17.9 (1.6) 8.8 (0.6) 16.2 (1.4)

Acute interstitial 

pneumonia 3.1 (0.8) 2.8 (0.4) 2.9 (0.4) 2.3 (0.4) 2.8 (0.3)

Digestive problems 

(excluding 

noneaters)

1.2 (0.3) 4.7 (1.0) 5.0 (1.0) 1.0 (0.1) 4.3 (0.9)

Bullers 0.7 (0.1) 3.0 (0.5) 3.2 (0.5) 1.0 (0.1) 2.8 (0.5)

Lameness 1.8 (0.3) 1.8 (0.2) 1.9 (0.2) 1.1 (0.1) 1.8 (0.2)

Central nervous 

system problems 

(e.g., polio and 

brainers)

0.4 (0.1) 1.1 (0.4) 1.2 (0.4) 0.2 (0.1) 1.1 (0.3)
USDA APHIS VS / 29 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

C.1.c. For feedlots with cattle affected by the following conditions after arrival, percentage 

of feedlots that treated those cattle, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Condition Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Respiratory disease 

(e.g., shipping fever) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0)

Acute interstitial 

pneumonia 97.2 (2.5) 95.3 (2.1) 96.9 (2.2) 87.7 (4.3) 95.5 (1.9)

Digestive problems 

(excluding 

noneaters)

98.5 (1.2) 93.8 (2.6) 93.7 (2.9) 96.9 (1.2) 94.2 (2.4)

Bullers 58.2 (9.7) 81.4 (5.1) 81.6 (5.2) 68.4 (12.0) 79.3 (4.7)

Lameness 99.2 (0.5) 99.0 (0.9) 98.9 (1.0) 99.6 (0.3) 99.0 (0.8)

Central nervous 

system problems 

(e.g., polio and 

brainers)

97.4 (2.6) 96.0 (3.3) 95.9 (3.2) 100.0 (—) 96.1 (3.0)
30 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

C.1.d. For cattle affected by the following conditions after arrival, percentage of cattle 

treated, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Condition Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Respiratory disease 

(e.g., shipping fever) 96.7 (1.5) 86.4 (3.4) 86.6 (3.5) 92.2 (4.6) 87.5 (3.0)

Acute interstitial 

pneumonia 94.4 (3.0) 56.8 (4.5) 55.0 (4.0) 87.7 (4.3) 60.2 (4.0)

Digestive problems 

(excluding 

noneaters)

88.2 (3.4) 50.9 (5.1) 46.3 (4.6) 92.1 (3.2) 53.9 (4.7)

Bullers 57.6 (9.7) 72.3 (5.7) 72.5 (5.9) 63.8 (12.9) 71.0 (5.3)

Lameness 94.2 (2.8) 84.4 (4.7) 84.4 (5.0) 90.6 (4.7) 85.5 (4.2)

Central nervous 

system problems 

(e.g., polio and 

brainers)

92.9 (3.5) 72.8 (4.7) 74.4 (4.6) 81.2 (3.6) 74.8 (4.3)
USDA APHIS VS / 31 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

C.1.e. For feedlots with cattle affected with the following conditions after arrival, feedlot 

average cost per treatment, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Feedlot Average Cost per Treatment (dollars)

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Condition Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Respiratory disease 

(e.g., shipping fever) 23.4 (1.2) 23.9 (2.0) 23.1 (1.4) 24.4 (1.5) 23.6 (1.1)

Acute interstitial 

pneumonia 22.4 (1.8) 20.7 (3.0) 21.8 (2.0) 21.3 (2.4) 21.7 (1.6)

Digestive problems 

(excluding 

noneaters)

11.2 (2.2) 8.0 (0.5) 8.8 (0.8) 12.7 (4.4) 9.9 (1.4)

Bullers 9.6 (3.4) 3.3 (0.5) 4.2 (1.0) 14.7 (7.0) 6.9 (2.0)

Lameness 14.4 (1.7) 11.6 (1.0) 13.7 (1.4) 12.9 (2.0) 13.4 (1.2)

Central nervous 

system problems 

(e.g., polio and 

brainers)

23.3 (3.3) 14.7 (2.3) 16.9 (1.9) 28.5 (6.5) 20.1 (2.3)
32 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

2. Cattle treatments 

Nearly all feedlots (99.0 percent) used an injectable antibiotic as part of an initial 

treatment for respiratory disease of at least some cattle. Overall, 55.9 percent of 

feedlots used a nonsteroidal anti-infl ammatory drug in the initial treatment program for 

some cattle, and 39.3 percent used a respiratory vaccination (e.g., for IBR) in the initial 

treatment of some cattle. Feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head were more 

likely to use an oral antibiotic, a nonsteroidal anti-infl ammatory drug, or a probiotic paste 

for initial treatment than feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head.

C.2.a. Percentage of feedlots by treatment usually given to cattle as part of an initial 

course of treatment for respiratory disease, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Treatment Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Injectable antibiotic 98.5 (1.3) 100.0 (0.0) 98.3 (1.6) 100.0 (—) 99.0 (0.9)

Oral antibiotic 20.2 (4.5) 2.2 (2.0) 11.9 (3.9) 19.5 (5.8) 14.9 (3.3)

Vitamin C injection 4.7 (2.5) 14.9 (5.2) 12.4 (3.8) 0.9 (0.9) 7.8 (2.3)

Vitamin B injection 21.2 (4.7) 6.1 (3.2) 17.0 (4.5) 16.6 (5.5) 16.8 (3.5)

Respiratory 

vaccination

(e.g., IBR)

34.2 (5.2) 51.2 (7.2) 45.7 (5.7) 29.6 (6.3) 39.3 (4.3)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

35.6 (5.4) 19.5 (6.1) 34.4 (5.5) 25.4 (6.2) 30.9 (4.2)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory (e.g., 

Banamine, aspirin)

64.8 (5.4) 35.0 (6.6) 50.8 (5.7) 63.4 (6.8) 55.9 (4.4)

Antihistamine 16.5 (4.1) 17.2 (6.5) 16.8 (4.7) 16.5 (5.1) 16.7 (3.5)

Anthelmintic 

(dewormer) 4.5 (2.4) 1.6 (1.4) 6.0 (2.8) 0.0 (—) 3.6 (1.7)

Probiotic paste 22.6 (4.8) 7.9 (2.8) 19.2 (4.5) 16.6 (5.5) 18.2 (3.5)

Oral electrolyte, 

fl uids, drenches 18.4 (4.3) 11.8 (3.9) 20.3 (4.5) 10.7 (4.5) 16.4 (3.2)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)
USDA APHIS VS / 33 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

Essentially, all cattle with respiratory disease received an injectable antibiotic. Nearly 

half the cattle with respiratory disease were vaccinated (e.g., for IBR) as part of their 

treatment. About one of three cattle with respiratory disease (34.1 percent) were treated 

with vitamin C. Overall, very few cattle with respiratory disease (3.0 percent) received 

oral antibiotics as a treatment.

C.2.b. For cattle treated for respiratory disease, percentage of cattle by treatment given 

as part of an initial course of treatment for respiratory disease, and by feedlot capacity 

and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Treatment Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Injectable antibiotic 99.9 (0.1) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0)

Oral antibiotic 20.7 (10.2) 1.6 (1.5) 3.1 (1.8) 1.9 (1.2) 3.0 (1.6)

Vitamin C injection 10.8 (7.7) 35.8 (11.1) 34.0 (11.4) 34.4 (21.0) 34.1 (10.5)

Vitamin B injection 35.0 (11.9) 3.1 (1.6) 5.7 (2.1) 3.0 (1.9) 5.4 (1.9)

Respiratory 

vaccination

(e.g., IBR)

48.8 (11.9) 48.5 (9.3) 47.5 (9.5) 56.2 (14.4) 48.5 (8.6)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

46.7 (12.0) 7.2 (3.2) 10.6 (3.7) 5.9 (3.2) 10.1 (3.3)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory (e.g., 

Banamine, aspirin)

58.8 (11.5) 16.6 (4.5) 19.2 (5.0) 23.6 (8.0) 19.6 (4.6)

Antihistamine 5.7 (3.0) 5.4 (2.7) 5.5 (2.8) 4.8 (2.8) 5.4 (2.5)

Anthelmintic 

(dewormer) 2.1 (1.5) 1.5 (1.4) 1.7 (1.4) 0.0 (0.0) 1.5 (1.3)

Probiotic paste 39.3 (11.7) 4.1 (1.5) 7.0 (2.1) 4.0 (2.1) 6.7 (1.8)

Oral electrolyte, 

fl uids, drenches 33.4 (12.1) 4.7 (1.8) 7.5 (2.4) 0.9 (0.5) 6.8 (2.1)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)
34 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

Overall, 13.4 percent of all cattle placed in feedlots received an injectable antibiotic as 

part of an initial treatment for respiratory disease, and only 0.4 received an oral antibiotic. 

After accounting for the number of cattle affected with respiratory disease and the 

percentage of feedlots that used different treatments for animals with respiratory disease, 

a relatively low percentage of cattle overall received any of the other treatments as part of 

an initial treatment for respiratory disease, which is the most common disease condition 

of cattle in feedlots and the most commonly treated disease condition in feedlots.

C.2.c. Percentage of all cattle by treatment given as part of an initial treatment for 

respiratory disease, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Treatment Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Injectable antibiotic 8.5 (1.1) 14.0 (1.5) 14.5 (1.5) 8.2 (0.8) 13.4 (1.3)

Oral antibiotic 1.8 (1.0) 0.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2)

Vitamin C injection 1.0 (0.7) 5.1 (1.9) 5.0 (2.1) 2.9 (1.9) 4.6 (1.7)

Vitamin B injection 3.0 (1.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.8 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2)

Respiratory 

vaccination

(e.g., IBR)

4.2 (1.3) 6.8 (1.5) 6.9 (1.7) 4.6 (1.5) 6.5 (1.4)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

4.0 (1.3) 1.0 (0.4) 1.6 (0.5) 0.5 (0.3) 1.4 (0.4)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory (e.g., 

Banamine, aspirin)

5.0 (1.1) 2.3 (0.5) 2.8 (0.6) 1.9 (0.6) 2.6 (0.5)

Antihistamine 0.5 (0.2) 0.8 (0.4) 0.8 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 0.7 (0.3)

Anthelmintic 

(dewormer) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.2)

Probiotic paste 3.3 (1.1) 0.6 (0.2) 1.0 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2) 0.9 (0.2)

Oral electrolyte, 

fl uids, drenches 2.8 (1.2) 0.7 (0.2) 1.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.0) 0.9 (0.3)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)
USDA APHIS VS / 35 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

The commonly used treatments for digestive disease in feedlot cattle included probiotics 

(35.3 percent of feedlots) and oral electrolyte, fl uids, drenches (28.4 percent of feedlots). 

C.2.d. Percentage of feedlots by treatment usually given to cattle as part of an initial 

treatment for digestive disorders, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Treatment Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Injectable antibiotic 15.2 (3.8) 26.5 (6.3) 26.2 (4.9) 7.2 (3.4) 18.9 (3.3)

Oral antibiotic 18.6 (4.4) 30.5 (7.1) 26.1 (5.3) 16.0 (5.1) 22.3 (3.8)

Vitamin C injection 1.4 (1.3) 1.3 (1.2) 0.0 (—) 3.5 (2.5) 1.4 (1.0)

Vitamin B injection 21.1 (4.7) 7.7 (3.4) 13.1 (3.9) 23.2 (6.3) 17.1 (3.4)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

7.2 (3.0) 13.5 (5.8) 10.3 (3.7) 7.4 (3.9) 9.2 (2.8)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory (e.g., 

Banamine, aspirin)

19.4 (4.3) 9.2 (4.2) 16.5 (4.1) 16.0 (5.3) 16.3 (3.3)

Antihistamine 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Anthelmintic 

(dewormer) 11.2 (3.5) 5.2 (2.3) 6.9 (2.4) 13.2 (5.1) 9.3 (2.5)

Probiotic paste 41.0 (5.8) 22.9 (5.8) 35.8 (5.6) 34.6 (7.2) 35.3 (4.4)

Oral electrolyte, 

fl uids, drenches 31.5 (5.5) 21.5 (6.1) 29.1 (5.4) 27.3 (6.7) 28.4 (4.2)

Other 3.6 (2.4) 2.4 (1.3) 2.5 (1.8) 4.4 (3.3) 3.2 (1.7)
36 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

An oral antibiotic was used for half the cattle treated for digestive disorders 

(50.6 percent). One of three cattle treated for digestive disorders received an injectable 

antibiotic or probiotic paste (29.8 and 31.2 percent, respectively). 

C.2.e. For cattle treated for digestive disorders, percentage of cattle by treatment given 

as part of an initial treatment for digestive disorders, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Treatment Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Injectable antibiotic 27.4 (12.9) 30.0 (8.5) 30.1 (8.8) 27.6 (9.3) 29.8 (7.9)

Oral antibiotic 49.3 (13.8) 50.7 (12.9) 49.2 (13.5) 63.0 (18.5) 50.6 (12.1)

Vitamin C injection 0.5 (0.5) 3.3 (3.0) 0.0 (0.0) 29.4 (19.9) 3.1 (2.8)

Vitamin B injection 19.6 (8.5) 5.7 (1.2) 6.1 (1.4) 10.8 (5.5) 6.7 (1.4)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

5.3 (5.2) 2.4 (1.6) 1.4 (0.8) 12.5 (11.0) 2.6 (1.5)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory (e.g., 

Banamine, aspirin)

29.3 (11.7) 0.9 (0.5) 3.0 (1.3) 1.6 (1.2) 2.8 (1.1)

Antihistamine 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Anthelmintic 

(dewormer) 7.0 (4.6) 7.5 (2.3) 7.2 (2.4) 9.2 (3.1) 7.4 (2.2)

Probiotic paste 56.6 (13.0) 29.3 (7.9) 31.4 (8.5) 29.5 (9.8) 31.2 (7.6)

Oral electrolyte, 

fl uids, drenches 28.6 (12.1) 7.4 (2.0) 8.2 (2.0) 14.5 (11.0) 8.9 (2.3)

Other 5.3 (4.5) 1.8 (1.6) 2.1 (1.7) 1.8 (0.8) 2.0 (1.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 37 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

As a percentage of cattle placed, relatively few cattle (generally less than 1.0 percent) 

received any of the listed treatments as part of an initial treatment for digestive disease, 

after accounting for the occurrence of digestive disease in feedlot cattle and the likelihood 

that a feedlot would treat cattle with a digestive disease.

C.2.f. Percentage of all cattle by treatment given as part of an initial treatment for 

digestive disorders, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Treatment Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Injectable antibiotic 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1)

Oral antibiotic 0.5 (0.2) 0.9 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 0.6 (0.2) 0.8 (0.3)

Vitamin C injection 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.0)

Vitamin B injection 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory (e.g., 

Banamine, aspirin)

0.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Antihistamine 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Anthelmintic 

(dewormer) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0)

Probiotic paste 0.6 (0.2) 0.5 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1)

Oral electrolyte, 

fl uids, drenches 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0)

Other 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
38 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

When lameness occurred in feedlot cattle, most feedlots (89.2 percent) used an 

injectable antibiotic as part of an initial treatment for at least some of those cattle. The 

use of the various treatments for lameness was similar by feedlot capacity.

C.2.g. Percentage of feedlots by treatment usually given to cattle as part of an initial 

treatment for lameness, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Treatment Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Injectable antibiotic 90.6 (3.4) 86.1 (4.8) 87.4 (3.7) 92.0 (4.2) 89.2 (2.8)

Oral antibiotic 17.1 (4.2) 20.6 (7.0) 22.4 (5.1) 11.4 (4.5) 18.2 (3.6)

Vitamin C injection 1.6 (1.5) 1.3 (1.2) 1.8 (1.7) 1.0 (0.9) 1.5 (1.1)

Vitamin B injection 6.0 (2.7) 6.2 (4.6) 8.4 (3.5) 2.5 (2.3) 6.1 (2.4)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

36.5 (5.3) 60.9 (7.2) 55.0 (5.8) 26.7 (6.3) 43.9 (4.4)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory (e.g., 

Banamine, aspirin)

38.3 (5.6) 47.2 (7.2) 47.0 (5.8) 32.0 (6.9) 41.0 (4.5)

Antihistamine 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Probiotic paste 6.5 (3.0) 9.1 (5.0) 6.4 (3.1) 8.8 (4.5) 7.3 (2.6)

Oral electrolyte, 

fl uids, drenches 3.3 (2.1) 7.9 (4.8) 7.7 (3.4) 0.0 (—) 4.7 (2.1)

Other 1.6 (1.4) 0.0 (—) 1.7 (1.6) 0.0 (—) 1.1 (1.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 39 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

Most cattle treated for lameness (95.3 percent) received an injectable antibiotic. Nearly 

three of four lame cattle (73.9 percent) were treated with a corticosteroid.

C.2.h. For cattle treated for lameness, percentage of cattle by treatment given as part of 

an initial treatment for lameness, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Treatment Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Injectable antibiotic 94.3 (4.1) 95.5 (2.6) 95.5 (2.6) 94.1 (4.5) 95.3 (2.4)

Oral antibiotic 17.0 (6.4) 34.1 (11.7) 33.9 (11.6) 17.4 (6.9) 31.9 (10.3)

Vitamin C injection 2.3 (2.3) 4.1 (3.7) 0.3 (0.3) 28.3 (19.4) 3.8 (3.2)

Vitamin B injection 4.1 (2.7) 2.9 (1.8) 3.5 (1.8) 0.4 (0.4) 3.1 (1.6)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

60.3 (9.7) 76.0 (8.0) 78.7 (7.3) 41.2 (13.8) 73.9 (7.1)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory (e.g., 

Banamine, aspirin)

41.3 (11.6) 49.3 (10.4) 49.4 (10.4) 41.5 (13.9) 48.3 (9.3)

Antihistamine 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Probiotic paste 7.8 (4.6) 2.1 (1.7) 2.9 (1.8) 2.6 (2.5) 2.9 (1.6)

Oral electrolyte, 

fl uids, drenches 13.0 (11.0) 4.3 (2.3) 6.2 (3.0) 0.0 (0.0) 5.4 (2.6)

Other 1.3 (1.3) 0.0 (—) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2)
40 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

Given the relatively low occurrence of lameness in feedlots, and despite the high 

likelihood that such animals would be treated, very few animals overall received any of 

the listed treatments for lameness. 

C.2.i. Percentage of all cattle by treatment given as part an initial treatment for lameness, 

and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Treatment Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Injectable antibiotic 1.5 (0.3) 1.3 (0.2) 1.4 (0.2) 1.0 (0.1) 1.4 (0.2)

Oral antibiotic 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2)

Vitamin C injection 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.0)

Vitamin B injection 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone, 

Azium)

1.0 (0.3) 1.1 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 1.0 (0.2)

Nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatory (e.g., 

Banamine, aspirin)

0.6 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2)

Antihistamine 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Probiotic paste 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Oral electrolyte, 

fl uids, drenches 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.0)

Other 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 41 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

3. Hospital pens

Half of feedlots (51.0 percent) always or usually treated sick cattle in a hospital area, and 

sick cattle remained in a hospital pen for 24 hours or more. Only 14.5 percent of feedlots 

always or usually treated sick cattle in the home pen or alley.

C.3.a. Percentage of feedlots by how often sick cattle were usually treated in the 

following locations:

Percent Feedlots

Treated. . .

Always Usually Sometimes Never

No 

hospital 

pen or 

area

Location Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Hospital area and 

left in a hospital 

pen for 24 hr or 

more

24.2 (3.8) 26.8 (3.9) 40.0 (4.5) 5.3 (2.0) 3.7 (1.7) 100.0

Hospital area and 

removed from the 

hospital pen in 

less than 24 hr

7.5 (2.3) 21.0 (3.6) 39.1 (4.2) 28.7 (4.0) 3.7 (1.7) 100.0

Home pen or alley 6.1 (2.3) 8.4 (2.6) 28.2 (3.9) 57.3 (4.5) NA 100.0
42 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

Seven of 10 sick cattle (70.1 percent) were always or usually treated in a hospital area 

and remained there for 24 hours or more. Only 5.1 percent of sick cattle were always or 

usually treated in the home pen or alley.

C.3.b. Percentage of cattle by how often sick cattle were treated in the following 

locations:

Percent Cattle

Treated . . .

Always Usually Sometimes Never

No 

hospital 

pen or 

area

Location Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Hospital area and 

left in a hospital 

pen for 24 hr or 

more

23.5 (6.1) 46.6 (7.4) 27.2 (5.4) 2.5 (1.2) 0.2 (0.1) 100.0

Hospital area and 

removed from the 

hospital pen in 

less than 24 hr

4.7 (1.4) 21.1 (5.9) 50.1 (7.1) 23.9 (6.4) 0.2 (0.1) 100.0

Home pen or 

alley 1.6 (1.2) 3.5 (1.6) 30.0 (6.3) 65.0 (6.4) NA 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 43 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

In addition to providing treatments for underlying disease, many feedlots provide other 

resources to sick cattle to support their recovery. The majority of feedlots (95.5 percent) 

provided some hay to cattle in hospital pens to stimulate appetite. In addition, nearly 9 of 

10 feedlots provided sick cattle extra space at the bunk (88.5 percent) and at the water 

trough (86.8 percent) to decrease competition for access. About 7 of 10 feedlots also 

provided wind breaks (73.5 percent), shade (65.0 percent), or additional bedding (70.7 

percent).

C.3.c. Percentage of feedlots by resources provided to cattle in hospital pens, and by 

feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Resource Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Wind breaks 84.0 (3.9) 50.5 (6.7) 65.6 (4.8) 86.7 (5.0) 73.5 (3.5)

Shade 62.4 (5.5) 70.6 (5.9) 61.8 (5.4) 70.4 (6.9) 65.0 (4.2)

Sprinklers/misters

to keep cattle cool 30.6 (5.4) 34.1 (6.5) 29.2 (5.2) 36.0 (7.2) 31.7 (4.2)

Additional bedding 

(e.g., straw, 

newspaper) 

compared to 

home pen

80.1 (4.2) 50.1 (7.3) 60.3 (5.3) 88.3 (4.5) 70.7 (3.8)

Additional hay to 

eat compared to 

home pen

94.1 (2.7) 98.5 (1.3) 95.8 (2.3) 94.9 (3.4) 95.5 (1.9)

Increased waterer 

space per animal 

compared to home 

pen

90.0 (3.3) 79.9 (6.1) 82.9 (4.2) 93.4 (3.5) 86.8 (3.0)

Increased bunk 

space per animal 

compared to home 

pen

90.7 (3.3) 83.8 (6.1) 87.1 (4.0) 90.9 (4.2) 88.5 (3.0)

Other 5.9 (2.7) 5.6 (3.1) 7.8 (3.0) 2.5 (2.3) 5.8 (2.1)
44 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle Conditions

Most cattle were placed in feedlots that provided additional hay (96.4 percent of cattle), 

increased waterer space (85.2 percent), and increased bunk space (86.8 percent) to 

cattle in hospital pens. Sprinklers/misters were a more common resource for sick cattle 

in feedlots in the Other region compared with sick cattle in feedlots in the Central region 

(74.9 and 26.4 percent, respectively).

C.3.d. Percentage of cattle by resources provided to cattle in hospital pens, and by 

feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Resource Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Wind breaks 80.4 (4.8) 34.3 (6.4) 36.9 (6.5) 51.6 (15.0) 39.4 (5.9)

Shade 62.4 (7.8) 60.0 (8.1) 54.5 (8.3) 87.6 (5.4) 60.3 (7.3)

Sprinklers/misters to 

keep cattle cool 28.6 (7.0) 35.7 (7.4) 26.4 (7.1) 74.9 (8.5) 34.9 (6.6)

Additional bedding 

(e.g., straw, 

newspaper) 

compared to 

home pen

79.1 (4.6) 43.1 (7.7) 46.0 (7.9) 52.4 (15.1) 47.2 (7.0)

Additional hay to 

eat compared to 

home pen

93.0 (3.3) 96.8 (2.7) 96.0 (2.9) 98.1 (1.4) 96.4 (2.4)

Increased waterer 

space per animal 

compared to home 

pen

82.8 (6.3) 85.4 (4.8) 85.2 (4.8) 84.8 (9.3) 85.2 (4.3)

Increased bunk 

space per animal 

compared to home 

pen

89.8 (4.3) 86.5 (5.1) 84.5 (5.5) 97.7 (1.4) 86.8 (4.5)

Other 6.0 (3.8) 2.5 (1.2) 2.5 (1.1) 4.7 (4.4) 2.8 (1.2)
USDA APHIS VS / 45 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

1. Treatment for respiratory disease

Respiratory disease is the most common type of illness experienced by cattle entering 

feedlots. While many management practices implemented in feedlots and prior to the 

cattle’s arrival are aimed at preventing respiratory disease, nearly all feedlots had at least 

some animals develop respiratory disease while in the feedlot. 

D.1.a. Percentage of feedlots with cattle affected by and treated for respiratory disease, 

by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

Affected by 

respiratory disease 

(shipping fever)

95.6 (2.3) 100.0 (0.0) 98.2 (1.7) 95.3 (3.1) 97.0 (1.6)

Treated for 

respiratory disease 95.6 (2.3) 100.0 (0.0) 98.2 (1.7) 95.3 (3.1) 97.0 (1.6)

Cattle 700 lb or more when placed

Affected by 

respiratory disease 

(shipping fever)

88.4 (3.7) 100.0 (0.0) 92.6 (3.3) 91.5 (4.1) 92.1 (2.6)

Treated for 

respiratory disease 88.4 (3.7) 100.0 (0.0) 92.6 (3.3) 91.5 (4.1) 92.1 (2.6)

D. Therapeutic 

Treatment
46 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

Although nearly all feedlots had some cattle that developed respiratory disease while in 

the feedlot, only a minority of cattle developed respiratory disease. Approximately one of 

fi ve cattle less than 700 lb when placed (21.2 percent) developed respiratory disease in 

the feedlot, and nearly all of these cattle (19.0/21.2=89.6 percent) were treated. Among 

cattle 700 lb or more when placed, 8.8 percent developed respiratory disease, and 84.1 

percent (7.4/8.8) of these cattle were treated. 

The higher incidence of respiratory disease among cattle less than 700 lb when placed 

is likely due to the lighter cattle being younger and having less mature immune systems 

than cattle 700 lb or more. The lighter, younger cattle have also been exposed to fewer 

pathogens than the heavier, older cattle. In addition, some of the lighter cattle could have 

come directly from ranch sources and may not have been weaned prior to shipment to 

the feedlot, which might induce more stress and impaired immune responses, possibly 

decreasing the cattle’s resistance to disease. 

Depending on the perceived cause of the disease, cattle with respiratory disease may 

not receive treatment. Cases of shipping fever likely involve multiple etiologic agents, 

including bacteria and viruses, and likely warrant treatment. Feedlots may elect not to 

treat respiratory disease due to other causes (allowing the disease to resolve on its own 

without treatment) or may send affected cattle to slaughter early. 

D.1.b. Percentage of cattle affected by and treated for respiratory disease, by feedlot 

capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

Affected by 

respiratory disease 

(shipping fever)

14.4 (1.7) 22.1 (2.2) 23.2 (2.2) 12.1 (0.9) 21.2 (2.0)

Treated for 

respiratory disease 13.8 (1.7) 19.7 (2.0) 20.6 (2.0) 11.9 (0.8) 19.0 (1.8)

Cattle 700 lb or more when placed

Affected by 

respiratory disease 

(shipping fever)

3.8 (0.7) 9.4 (1.0) 9.8 (1.0) 4.2 (0.9) 8.8 (0.9)

Treated for 

respiratory disease 3.7 (0.6) 7.9 (0.9) 8.2 (0.9) 4.1 (0.9) 7.4 (0.8)
USDA APHIS VS / 47 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

0 10 20 30

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Of the cattle placed on feed, percentage of cattle affected with and treated for 

respiratory disease, by weight class and by feedlot capacity

Cattle less than 700 lb and

affected with respiratory

disease (shipping fever)

Cattle less than 700 lb

and treated for

respiratory disease

Cattle 700 lb or more and

affected with respiratory

disease (shipping fever)

Cattle 700 lb or more

and treated for

respiratory disease

Percent

Feedlot capacity

(number head)

14.4

22.1

21.2

13.8

19.7

19.0

3.8

9.4

8.8

3.7

7.9

7.4
48 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

As shown in table C.2.a, nearly all feedlots treated cattle with respiratory disease using 

some type of injectable antibiotic. For cattle with respiratory illness that weighed less 

than 700 lb when placed, the highest percentages of feedlots treated these cattle with 

tulathromycin or a fl uoroquinolone (66.3 and 43.1 percent of feedlots, respectively). 

These same antibiotics were favored for treating cattle 700 lb or more with respiratory 

illness. There were no differences by feedlot capacity in the choice of antibiotic products. 

Since the percentages of feedlots using various products for treating respiratory disease 

sum to more than 100 percent, it is apparent that feedlots did not use just a single 

product for treating all cattle, even within a placement weight class. Choosing specifi c 

products might depend on the perceived etiologic cause of the disease being treated 

(e.g., which bacterial pathogen is involved). 
USDA APHIS VS / 49 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

D.1.c. For feedlots with cattle that showed signs of respiratory disease, percentage of 

feedlots by injectable antibiotic given to cattle as part of an initial treatment for respiratory 

disease, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

Tilmicosin 

(i.e., Micotil®) 27.7 (5.4) 23.1 (6.6) 23.4 (5.3) 30.4 (7.0) 26.2 (4.2)

Gamithromycin 

(e.g., Zactran®) 2.9 (1.9) 4.7 (2.3) 5.9 (2.5) 0.0 (0.0) 3.5 (1.5)

Florfenicol 

(i.e., Nufl or®) 37.1 (5.6) 30.1 (6.6) 35.1 (5.6) 34.5 (6.9) 34.8 (4.4)

Tetracyclines 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100TM, 

LA200®, Biomycin®)

26.7 (4.9) 30.9 (6.8) 32.7 (5.4) 21.3 (6.0) 28.1 (4.0)

Cephalosporins 

(e.g., Naxcel®, 

Excenel®, Excede®)

31.1 (5.4) 42.7 (6.7) 42.1 (5.7) 24.1 (6.3) 34.8 (4.3)

Penicillins (e.g., 

PenG, AquacillinTM) 7.2 (3.0) 4.7 (4.4) 5.4 (3.0) 7.8 (4.2) 6.4 (2.5)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject®) 1.7 (1.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.9 (2.8) 1.2 (1.1)

Macrolides 

(e.g., Gallimycin®, 

Tylan®200)

3.2 (2.1) 4.7 (4.4) 2.5 (2.4) 5.3 (3.6) 3.7 (2.0)

Tulathromycin 

(i.e., Draxxin®) 63.4 (5.8) 72.3 (5.0) 70.6 (5.0) 59.9 (7.5) 66.3 (4.3)

Fluoroquinolones 

(e.g., Baytril®, 

A180®)

40.5 (5.5) 48.6 (7.1) 47.0 (5.7) 37.4 (6.8) 43.1 (4.4)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)
50 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

D.1.c. (cont’d.) For feedlots with cattle that showed signs of respiratory disease, 

percentage of feedlots by injectable antibiotic given to cattle as part of an initial treatment 

for respiratory disease, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle 700 lb or more when placed

Tilmicosin 

(i.e., Micotil) 27.2 (5.6) 16.5 (5.2) 19.4 (4.9) 29.7 (7.0) 23.5 (4.1)

Gamithromycin 

(e.g., Zactran) 5.6 (3.0) 3.0 (1.9) 5.2 (2.5) 3.8 (3.6) 4.7 (2.1)

Florfenicol 

(i.e., Nufl or) 36.6 (6.0) 31.5 (6.8) 40.1 (6.0) 26.7 (7.0) 34.8 (4.6)

Tetracyclines 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100, 

LA200, Biomycin)

28.3 (5.4) 42.4 (6.4) 38.9 (5.5) 24.6 (6.5) 33.2 (4.3)

Cephalosporins 

(e.g., Naxcel, 

Excenel, Excede)

25.1 (5.4) 57.3 (6.2) 44.8 (5.8) 23.5 (6.6) 36.3 (4.4)

Penicillins (e.g., 

PenG, Aquacillin) 8.1 (3.3) 6.3 (4.5) 8.6 (3.7) 5.8 (3.8) 7.5 (2.7)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject) 1.8 (1.7) 2.2 (2.0) 3.2 (2.1) 0.0 (0.0) 1.9 (1.3)

Macrolides 

(e.g., Gallimycin, 

Tylan200)

3.5 (2.4) 4.6 (4.3) 2.7 (2.5) 5.8 (3.8) 3.9 (2.2)

Tulathromycin 

(i.e., Draxxin) 50.4 (6.3) 60.0 (6.8) 54.9 (6.0) 52.0 (7.8) 53.7 (4.8)

Fluoroquinolones 

(e.g., Baytril, A180) 39.8 (5.8) 43.9 (7.1) 41.9 (5.8) 40.2 (7.4) 41.2 (4.5)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)
USDA APHIS VS / 51 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

The highest percentage of cattle treated for respiratory disease were treated with 

tulathromycin, regardless of weight class when placed. Although fl uoroquinolones were 

the second most common antibiotic chosen by feedlots to treat respiratory disease (table 

D.1.c), only 15.8 percent of cattle less than 700 lb when placed that had subsequent 

respiratory disease received this antibiotic; 25.0 percent of these cattle were treated 

with fl orfenicol. For cattle 700 lb or more when placed that subsequently were treated for 

respiratory disease, cephalosporins were the second most common antibiotic used. 

D.1.d. For cattle treated for respiratory disease, percentage of cattle given injectable 

antibiotics as part of an initial treatment for respiratory disease, by feedlot capacity and 

by region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

Tilmicosin 

(i.e., Micotil) 7.3 (2.1) 5.2 (2.0) 4.6 (1.8) 11.8 (6.7) 5.4 (1.8)

Gamithromycin 

(e.g., Zactran) 0.6 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.0)

Florfenicol 

(i.e., Nufl or) 29.9 (8.2) 24.5 (13.2) 26.0 (13.4) 17.4 (3.6) 25.0 (12.0)

Tetracyclines 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100, 

LA200, Biomycin)

15.9 (8.7) 9.3 (4.2) 10.8 (4.4) 2.6 (0.8) 9.9 (3.9)

Cephalosporins 

(e.g., Naxcel, 

Excenel, Excede)

8.3 (2.4) 9.0 (2.6) 7.5 (2.5) 19.4 (3.9) 8.9 (2.4)

Penicillins (e.g., 

PenG, Aquacillin) 7.2 (5.2) 0.5 (0.5) 1.2 (0.8) 0.5 (0.5) 1.1 (0.7)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)

Macrolides 

(e.g., Gallimycin, 

Tylan200)

0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (0.9) 1.0 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (0.9)

Tulathromycin 

(i.e., Draxxin) 19.6 (4.8) 41.3 (9.1) 38.8 (9.1) 43.7 (9.0) 39.4 (8.1)

Fluoroquinolones 

(e.g., Baytril, A180) 16.9 (4.9) 15.7 (5.3) 14.7 (5.4) 23.9 (4.9) 15.8 (4.9)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)
52 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

D.1.d. (cont’d.) For cattle treated for respiratory disease, percentage of cattle given 

injectable antibiotics as part of an initial treatment for respiratory disease, by feedlot 

capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle 700 lb or more when placed

Tilmicosin 

(i.e., Micotil) 10.5 (4.6) 3.9 (2.1) 3.8 (2.1) 8.7 (3.2) 4.3 (1.9)

Gamithromycin 

(e.g., Zactran) 1.0 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)

Florfenicol 

(i.e., Nufl or) 24.7 (8.3) 5.7 (2.6) 6.2 (2.8) 12.6 (7.8) 6.9 (2.6)

Tetracyclines 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100, 

LA200, Biomycin)

3.7 (1.4) 10.7 (3.4) 9.6 (3.3) 15.9 (9.4) 10.3 (3.1)

Cephalosporins 

(e.g., Naxcel, 

Excenel, Excede)

14.8 (6.9) 16.9 (3.2) 17.5 (3.1) 11.0 (6.4) 16.8 (3.0)

Penicillins (e.g., 

PenG, Aquacillin) 6.0 (5.5) 1.4 (1.4) 1.9 (1.5) 0.0 (—) 1.7 (1.4)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (—) 0.2 (0.2)

Macrolides 

(e.g., Gallimycin, 

Tylan200)

0.3 (0.3) 2.6 (2.5) 2.7 (2.7) 0.2 (0.2) 2.4 (2.4)

Tulathromycin 

(i.e., Draxxin) 17.4 (5.4) 55.9 (6.1) 58.8 (5.4) 9.5 (5.3) 53.6 (5.9)

Fluoroquinolones 

(e.g., Baytril, A180) 28.5 (9.8) 9.1 (3.2) 9.3 (3.3) 18.0 (9.8) 10.2 (3.2)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)
USDA APHIS VS / 53 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

2. Retreats and repulls

For cattle less than 700 lb when placed that were treated for respiratory disease, 

81.7 percent responded to treatment. For cattle 700 lb or more that were treated for 

respiratory disease, 86.5 percent responded to treatment. When cattle treated for 

respiratory disease fail to respond within a time frame in which the treatment would be 

expected to be effective, a decision is made whether or not to retreat the cattle, usually 

with a different product. Less than 15 percent of cattle affected and treated for respiratory 

disease were treated again, regardless of weight class.

D.2.a. For cattle treated for respiratory disease, percentage of cattle by result of initial 

treatment, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle1

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

Responded 84.0 (3.4) 81.4 (1.4) 81.5 (1.5) 82.9 (0.7) 81.7 (1.3)

Died 2.8 (0.6) 4.2 (0.4) 4.2 (0.4) 2.9 (0.4) 4.0 (0.4)

Considered chronics 

and realized2 1.5 (0.4) 2.3 (0.6) 2.3 (0.6) 1.7 (0.6) 2.3 (0.5)

Treated again 

(retreats) 10.2 (2.4) 15.3 (2.1) 15.1 (2.2) 13.4 (0.5) 14.9 (2.0)

Cattle 700 lb or more when placed 

Responded 88.8 (1.7) 86.3 (0.8) 86.1 (0.8) 89.1 (1.1) 86.5 (0.7)

Died 2.1 (0.9) 3.7 (0.5) 3.9 (0.5) 1.3 (0.2) 3.6 (0.5)

Considered chronics 

and realized2 1.4 (0.5) 1.9 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) 2.4 (1.0) 1.9 (0.5)

Treated again 

(retreats) 4.7 (1.3) 12.9 (3.0) 12.9 (3.2) 8.3 (1.0) 12.4 (2.8)

1

May not add to 100 percent due to multiple responses or unspecifi ed. 2

Cattle shipped for slaughter prior to reaching normal slaughter weight.
54 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

0 20 40 60 80 100

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

For cattle treated for respiratory disease, percentage1 of cattle by result of initial 

treatment and by feedlot capacity

Cattle less than 700 lb

that responded

Cattle less than 700 lb

that died

Cattle less than 700 lb

considered chronics

and realized2

Cattle less than 700 lb

that were treated again

(retreats)

Cattle 700 lb or more

that responded

Cattle 700 lb or more

that died

Percent

84.0

4.2

2.8

1.9

3.7

4.7

81.4

4.0

2.3

86.3

3.6

12.9

81.7

1.5

10.2

86.5

2.1

12.4

Feedlot capacity (number head)

Cattle 700 lb or more

considered chronics

 and realized2

Cattle 700 lb or more

that were treated again

(retreats)

2.3

15.3

14.9

88.8

1.4

1.9

1

May not add to 100 percent due to multiple responses or unspecified.

2

Cattle shipped for slaughter prior to reaching normal slaughter weight.
USDA APHIS VS / 55 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

For cattle less than 700 lb when placed that were retreated for respiratory disease, 

63.1 percent responded to the second treatment. For cattle 700 lb or more when placed 

that were retreated for respiratory disease, 69.5 percent responded to the second 

treatment. Regardless of weight class, a lower percentage of retreated cattle responded 

to retreatment than cattle that received the initial treatment. In addition, the mortality rate 

for retreated cattle was higher than cattle that responded to the initial treatment.

D.2.b. For cattle retreated for respiratory disease, percentage of cattle by result of 

second treatment, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle1

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

Responded 63.3 (4.6) 63.1 (4.6) 63.1 (4.8) 63.0 (1.7) 63.1 (4.3)

Died 12.4 (3.6) 13.4 (3.8) 12.7 (3.9) 18.3 (3.9) 13.3 (3.6)

Considered chronics 

and realized2 9.6 (3.3) 5.9 (1.1) 6.3 (1.3) 3.9 (0.8) 6.1 (1.1)

Were treated a third 

time (retreats) 18.7 (8.1) 11.6 (2.1) 11.9 (2.3) 13.6 (2.6) 12.0 (2.1)

Cattle 700 lb or more when placed

Responded 75.6 (3.0) 69.4 (7.8) 68.9 (8.3) 77.2 (2.4) 69.5 (7.6)

Died 8.2 (2.7) 13.3 (1.6) 13.8 (1.7) 5.4 (2.6) 13.2 (1.6)

Considered chronics 

and realized2 4.8 (1.3) 8.3 (2.1) 8.7 (2.3) 2.3 (1.0) 8.2 (2.1)

Were treated a third 

time (retreats) 6.1 (2.8) 17.3 (4.3) 17.0 (4.4) 17.6 (4.2) 17.1 (4.1)

1

May not add to 100 percent due to multiple responses or unspecifi ed. 2

Cattle shipped for slaughter prior to reaching normal slaughter weight.
56 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

Most feedlots changed the antibiotic used for retreats and repulls (89.9 and 86.6 percent, 

respectively).

D.2.c. Percentage of feedlots by treatment strategies used for respiratory disease in 

retreat and repull cattle:

Percent Feedlots

Strategy

Change 

antibiotic

Use same 

antibiotic

Use treatment 

other than 

antibiotic

No retreats/

repulls

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Retreats 89.9 (2.7) 7.5 (2.4) 0.0 (—) 2.6 (1.4) 100.0

Repulls 86.6 (3.0) 8.5 (2.4) 1.1 (1.1) 3.8 (1.7) 100.0

Most cattle retreated and repulled (93.5 and 92.8 percent, respectively) received a 

different antibiotic when retreated or repulled.

D.2.d. Percentage of cattle by treatment strategies used for respiratory disease in retreat 

and repull cattle:

Percent Cattle

Strategy

Change 

antibiotic

Use same 

antibiotic

Use treatment 

other than 

antibiotic

No retreats/

repulls

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Retreats 93.5 (3.1) 5.2 (2.9) 0.0 (—) 1.3 (1.0) 100.0

Repulls 92.8 (2.8) 6.5 (2.7) 0.3 (0.3) 0.4 (0.2) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 57 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

A similar percentage of feedlots selected fl orfenicol to retreat cattle less than 700 lb 

and cattle 700 lb or more, when placed, for respiratory disease (50.3 and 46.5 percent, 

respectively). However, other injectable antibiotics were also widely used, suggesting a 

lack of consensus on any particular antibiotic for retreatments.

D.2.e. For feedlots that retreated cattle for respiratory disease, percentage of feedlots by 

class of injectable antibiotics used as part of the retreatment, and by feedlot capacity and 

by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Injectable antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

Tilmicosin 

(i.e., Micotil) 31.9 (5.6) 13.2 (5.7) 18.6 (5.0) 36.9 (7.5) 25.8 (4.2)

Gamithromycin 

(e.g., Zactran) 3.5 (2.3) 3.1 (2.0) 5.6 (2.7) 0.0 (—) 3.4 (1.7)

Florfenicol 

(i.e., Nufl or®) 49.0 (5.9) 53.0 (7.3) 55.3 (5.8) 42.6 (7.5) 50.3 (4.6)

Tetracyclines 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100, 

LA200, Biomycin)

18.5 (4.7) 32.8 (6.6) 29.8 (5.3) 13.0 (5.1) 23.1 (3.9)

Cephalosporins 

(e.g., Naxcel, 

Excenel, Excede)

23.3 (4.9) 66.5 (5.7) 46.6 (5.5) 23.1 (6.0) 37.3 (4.2)

Penicillins (e.g., 

PenG, Aquacillin) 9.1 (3.4) 6.5 (4.7) 7.8 (3.3) 8.8 (4.7) 8.2 (2.7)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject) 1.7 (1.6) 0.0 (—) 1.9 (1.7) 0.0 (—) 1.2 (1.1)

Macrolides 

(e.g., Gallimycin, 

Tyland200)

3.1 (2.1) 4.8 (4.5) 4.0 (2.7) 3.1 (3.0) 3.6 (2.0)

Tulathromycin 

(i.e., Draxxin) 38.8 (5.7) 40.9 (7.2) 35.3 (5.5) 45.8 (7.7) 39.5 (4.5)

Fluoroquinolones 

(e.g., Baytril, A180) 37.1 (5.7) 61.1 (7.3) 56.8 (6.0) 26.8 (6.7) 44.9 (4.6)

Other 1.3 (1.1) 0.0 (—) 1.4 (1.2) 0.0 (—) 0.9 (0.8)
58 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

D.2.e. (cont’d.) For feedlots that retreated cattle for respiratory disease, percentage of 

feedlots by class of injectable antibiotics used as part of the retreatment, and by feedlot 

capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Injectable antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle 700 lb or more when placed

Tilmicosin 

(i.e., Micotil) 34.1 (6.2) 8.3 (3.8) 17.0 (4.8) 36.7 (7.7) 24.9 (4.3)

Gamithromycin 

(e.g., Zactran) 2.0 (1.9) 3.1 (2.0) 4.0 (2.3) 0.0 (—) 2.4 (1.4)

Florfenicol 

(i.e., Nufl or®) 43.1 (6.3) 52.5 (7.1) 47.7 (6.1) 44.7 (7.9) 46.5 (4.8)

Tetracyclines 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100, 

LA200, Biomycin)

27.6 (5.7) 36.2 (6.5) 41.2 (5.8) 15.0 (5.5) 30.7 (4.4)

Cephalosporins 

(e.g., Naxcel, 

Excenel, Excede)

24.8 (5.4) 69.4 (5.6) 51.3 (6.0) 25.1 (6.5) 40.8 (4.6)

Penicillins (e.g., 

PenG, Aquacillin) 10.6 (3.9) 4.8 (4.4) 9.7 (3.9) 6.8 (4.5) 8.5 (3.0)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Macrolides 

(e.g., Gallimycin, 

Tyland200)

5.3 (2.9) 4.8 (4.4) 4.4 (3.0) 6.2 (4.1) 5.1 (2.4)

Tulathromycin 

(i.e., Draxxin) 33.8 (6.1) 39.4 (7.1) 32.2 (5.7) 41.3 (8.0) 35.8 (4.7)

Fluoroquinolones 

(e.g., Baytril, A180) 33.3 (5.9) 61.9 (7.2) 55.7 (6.2) 25.3 (6.5) 43.5 (4.7)

Other 1.4 (1.3) 2.2 (2.0) 2.9 (1.8) 0.0 (—) 1.7 (1.1)
USDA APHIS VS / 59 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

While many antibiotics were used to some extent for retreatment of respiratory disease, 

fl uoroquinolones were used to retreat the highest percentage of cattle less than 700 lb 

when placed (53.5 percent) and cattle 700 lb or more when placed (42.9 percent).

D.2.f. Of cattle that required retreatment for respiratory disease, percentage of cattle by 

class of injectable antibiotics used as part of the retreatment, and by feedlot capacity and 

region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Injectable antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

Tilmicosin 

(i.e., Micotil) 11.7 (4.1) 1.2 (1.0) 0.6 (0.4) 12.0 (6.3) 1.8 (1.0)

Gamithromycin 

(e.g., Zactran) 2.1 (2.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.1)

Florfenicol 

(i.e., Nufro) 28.1 (8.7) 24.0 (9.4) 20.2 (9.9) 59.3 (11.1) 24.2 (8.9)

Tetracyclines 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100, 

LA200, Biomycin)

12.7 (3.6) 9.2 (1.4) 8.4 (1.5) 18.5 (0.6) 9.4 (1.3)

Cephalosporins 

(e.g., Naxcel, 

Excenel, Excede)

14.1 (3.1) 11.6 (4.2) 10.2 (4.2) 25.5 (2.4) 11.8 (3.9)

Penicillins (e.g., 

PenG, Aquacillin) 6.2 (5.0) 0.4 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) 0.2 (0.1) 0.7 (0.5)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Macrolides 

(e.g., Gallimycin, 

Tylan®200)

4.4 (3.4) 0.8 (0.8) 1.1 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.8)

Tulathromycin 

(i.e., Draxxin) 17.0 (5.5) 11.4 (6.8) 12.5 (7.3) 4.8 (1.3) 11.7 (6.4)

Fluoroquinolones 

(e.g., Baytril, A180) 26.3 (3.4) 55.2 (12.0) 53.1 (12.8) 56.9 (9.5) 53.5 (11.4)

Other 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0)
60 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

D.2.f. (cont’d.) Of cattle that required retreatment for respiratory disease, percentage of 

cattle by class of injectable antibiotics used as part of the retreatment, and by feedlot 

capacity and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Injectable antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle 700 lb or more when placed

Tilmicosin 

(i.e., Micotil) 17.4 (8.7) 3.4 (3.1) 0.3 (0.2) 48.4 (15.7) 3.7 (3.0)

Gamithromycin 

(e.g., Zactran) 0.9 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0)

Florfenicol 

(i.e., Nufro) 22.0 (9.4) 27.7 (16.0) 28.9 (16.5) 10.6 (6.0) 27.6 (15.7)

Tetracyclines 

(e.g., Oxy-Tet100, 

LA200, Biomycin)

28.0 (9.5) 8.2 (2.7) 7.7 (2.8) 21.8 (4.4) 8.7 (2.7)

Cephalosporins 

(e.g., Naxcel, 

Excenel, Excede)

11.8 (6.2) 14.4 (4.2) 14.2 (4.4) 15.7 (3.6) 14.3 (4.1)

Penicillins (e.g., 

PenG, Aquacillin) 15.4 (9.9) 1.1 (1.1) 1.5 (1.2) 1.0 (1.0) 1.5 (1.2)

Amoxicillin 

(e.g., Amoxi-Inject) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Macrolides 

(e.g., Gallimycin, 

Tylan®200)

2.0 (1.2) 2.7 (2.6) 2.8 (2.8) 0.3 (0.3) 2.6 (2.6)

Tulathromycin 

(i.e., Draxxin) 7.0 (2.6) 8.9 (5.4) 9.4 (5.8) 1.0 (0.7) 8.8 (5.3)

Fluoroquinolones 

(e.g., Baytril, A180) 10.8 (4.2) 43.6 (11.3) 43.7 (11.7) 32.0 (19.1) 42.9 (10.9)

Other 0.1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.6) 0.6 (0.6) 0.0 (—) 0.6 (0.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 61 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

Some cattle fail to respond to the initial treatment and to the fi rst retreatment for 

respiratory disease. In these cases, a decision is made whether to pursue further 

treatment or to salvage the animal once it is safe to do so (e.g., after an appropriate 

withdrawal period to avoid antibiotic residues). The response rate to a second 

retreatment was lower for cattle less than 700 lb when placed and for cattle 700 lb 

or more when placed (37.9 and 45.2 percent, respectively) than the response rate to 

either an initial treatment (more than 80 percent) or the fi rst retreatment (from 60 and 

70 percent). Additionally, the mortality rate for cattle that required a second retreatment 

was higher for cattle less than 700 lb when placed and for cattle 700 lb or more when 

placed (30.5 and 31.4 percent, respectively). A higher mortality rate is to be expected in 

these refractory cases, perhaps because of infections with drug-resistant pathogens, or 

because the disease has progressed to a point of severity in which the animal cannot 

adequately respond to the infection or resolve the damage to the respiratory system.

D.2.g. For cattle that required a second retreatment for respiratory disease, percentage of 

cattle by outcome, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle*

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Outcome Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

Responded 31.5 (3.3) 38.5 (5.0) 34.1 (3.9) 66.3 (11.1) 37.9 (4.5)

Died 54.7 (12.4) 28.0 (4.2) 32.6 (5.2) 15.0 (5.9) 30.5 (4.7)

Were considered 

chronics and were 

realized

6.3 (4.7) 23.8 (4.2) 22.8 (4.4) 17.5 (5.0) 22.1 (3.9)

Cattle 700 lb or more when placed

Responded 47.3 (15.5) 45.2 (4.6) 41.8 (3.8) 87.5 (7.4) 45.2 (4.6)

Died 20.0 (7.6) 31.5 (3.8) 33.5 (3.4) 4.8 (3.2) 31.4 (3.7)

Were considered 

chronics and were 

realized

26.8 (9.7) 29.4 (4.0) 31.1 (3.8) 7.7 (4.1) 29.3 (3.9)

*The sum of percent cattle by outcome of retreatment may not equal 100.0 due to question interpretation.
62 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

A veterinarian’s recommendation was a strong infl uence for feedlot operators when 

selecting injectable antibiotics to treat disease in most feedlots (87.0 percent). Personal 

experiences with past response rates were also a key infl uence on the selection of 

antibiotics for treatment. While withdrawal times and cost were important considerations, 

they do not appear to be as strong infl uences as others.

D.2.h. Percentage of feedlots by extent to which the following items infl uenced the 

selection of injectable antibiotics for treatment of disease:

Percent Feedlots

Extent of Infl uence

Strongly Somewhat Little or no

Item Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Veterinarian 

recommendations 87.0 (3.0) 12.1 (2.9) 0.9 (0.8) 100.0

Other producers’ 

recommendations 11.9 (2.7) 46.6 (4.2) 41.4 (4.2) 100.0

Lab test results 24.8 (3.9) 38.3 (4.2) 36.9 (4.1) 100.0

Drug company 

advertisement or 

representative’s 

recommendation

2.1 (1.4) 41.7 (4.4) 56.2 (4.5) 100.0

Personal experience 

(past response rates) 76.2 (3.6) 19.2 (3.4) 4.6 (1.7) 100.0

Cost of antibiotic 20.3 (3.6) 54.0 (4.4) 25.8 (3.9) 100.0

Approved route by 

which antibiotic is 

to be given

32.9 (4.0) 36.2 (4.3) 30.9 (4.0) 100.0

Duration of action of 

antibiotics (e.g., the 

need to give only once)

63.2 (4.3) 31.6 (4.3) 5.1 (1.9) 100.0

Drug withdrawal time 44.5 (4.3) 43.9 (4.5) 11.6 (2.9) 100.0

Other 3.2 (1.2) 0.9 (0.8) 95.9 (1.4) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 63 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

Nearly all cattle (95.1 percent) were in facilities in which the recommendations of a 

veterinarian were a strong infl uence on the selection of antibiotics. 

D.2.i. Percentage of cattle by extent to which the following items infl uenced the selection 

of injectable antibiotics for treatment of disease:

Percent Cattle

Extent of Infl uence

Strongly Somewhat Little or no

Item Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Veterinarian 

recommendations 95.1 (1.8) 4.7 (1.8) 0.1 (0.1) 100.0

Other producers’ 

recommendations 27.1 (7.3) 26.1 (4.0) 46.9 (7.2) 100.0

Lab test results 12.7 (2.4) 44.9 (7.0) 42.4 (7.0) 100.0

Drug company 

advertisement or 

representative’s 

recommendation

0.2 (0.2) 28.0 (5.9) 71.8 (5.9) 100.0

Personal experience 

(past response rates) 59.8 (6.9) 32.5 (6.6) 7.8 (3.5) 100.0

Cost of antibiotic 36.8 (7.2) 52.0 (7.2) 11.3 (3.8) 100.0

Approved route by 

which antibiotic is 

to be given

47.2 (7.3) 38.8 (7.0) 13.9 (3.8) 100.0

Duration of action of 

antibiotics (e.g., the 

need to give only once)

76.2 (6.0) 23.0 (6.1) 0.8 (0.2) 100.0

Drug withdrawal time 58.2 (7.2) 37.7 (7.1) 4.0 (1.6) 100.0

Other 9.4 (3.0) 0.1 (0.1) 90.4 (3.0) 100.0
64 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

Fewer than 9 of 10 feedlots provided employees with some training or written guidelines 

related to disease diagnosis or the use of antibiotics. Many feedlots (more than 

50 percent) provided written guidelines along with training for some key protocols, 

including route and location of injections, adhering to label instructions, and drug residue 

avoidance. 

D.2.j. Percentage of feedlots by training provided to employees on the following topics 

related to the use of injectable antibiotics, and by training type:

Percent Feedlots

Training Type

With written 

guidelines

Without written 

guidelines No training

Training topic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Disease diagnosis 26.4 (3.7) 64.6 (4.2) 9.0 (2.6) 100.0

Appropriate antibiotic 

selection for specifi c 

disease

44.4 (4.2) 49.6 (4.3) 6.0 (2.3) 100.0

Label use of 

antibiotic agents

53.1 (4.1) 38.0 (4.1) 8.9 (2.7) 100.0

Drug residue avoidance 56.2 (4.2) 36.0 (4.1) 7.8 (2.5) 100.0

Handling/storage

 of antibiotics

35.5 (4.0) 58.5 (4.3) 6.0 (2.3) 100.0

Route and location of 

antibiotic injection 50.2 (4.2) 44.8 (4.2) 5.1 (2.1) 100.0

Other 1.6 (0.8) 0.0 (—) 98.4 (0.8) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 65 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Respiratory Disease Treatment

Very few cattle (2 percent or less) were placed in feedlots that did not provided 

employees training related to disease diagnosis or the use of injectable antibiotics. 

D.2.k. Percentage of cattle by training provided to employees on the following topics 

related to the use of injectable antibiotics, and by training type:

Percent Cattle

Training Type

With written 

guidelines

Without written 

guidelines No training

Training topic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Disease diagnosis 61.7 (6.0) 36.3 (6.0) 2.0 (0.8) 100.0

Appropriate antibiotic 

selection for specifi c 

disease

77.3 (4.8) 22.1 (4.8) 0.6 (0.3) 100.0

Label use of 

antibiotic agents 89.8 (1.7) 8.7 (1.5) 1.5 (0.7) 100.0

Drug residue avoidance 89.9 (2.2) 9.3 (2.2) 0.8 (0.4) 100.0

Handling/storage

 of antibiotics 64.0 (6.5) 35.3 (6.5) 0.6 (0.3) 100.0

Route and location of 

antibiotic injection 85.8 (3.2) 13.6 (3.1) 0.5 (0.3 100.0

Other 7.5 (4.4) 0.0 (—) 92.5 (4.4) 100.0
66 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibiotic Use in Feed and Water

Antibiotic products are incorporated into the feed and/or water of feedlot cattle for a 

variety of reasons, including disease treatment, disease prevention, and enhanced 

productivity. The use of antibiotic products in feed or water is regulated by the Food and 

Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine through labeling of the products with 

regard to appropriate indications (reasons for use) and levels of inclusion in the feed. 

Using antibiotics in feed for other reasons or at levels other than those approved on the 

label is not allowed under any circumstances. 

1. All cattle

Ionophores infl uence the fermentation patterns in the rumen of cattle and enhance 

production effi ciency. In addition, ionophores help control coccidiosis in cattle. Ionophores 

are added to feed throughout the feeding period, until shortly before harvest. More than 

90 percent of feedlots used ionophores in feed and more than 90 percent of cattle in 

feedlots received ionophores (table E.1.b). A total of 31.0 percent of feedlots used tylosin 

in feed and 71.2 percent of cattle received tylosin (table E.1.b). A higher percentage of 

feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (67.5 percent) added tylosin to cattle feed 

compared with feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (15.6 percent). Overall, 

71.7 percent of feedlots used chlortetracycline for some cattle, but only 18.4 percent of all 

cattle received chlortetracycline (table E.1.b). 

E. Antibiotic 

Use in Feed and 

Water
USDA APHIS VS / 67 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibitiotic Use in Feed and Water

E.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that added any antibiotics in cattle feed and/or water, by 

antibiotic used, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin®, 

Cattlyst®)

90.2 (3.3) 94.7 (2.2) 89.3 (3.5) 94.8 (2.7) 91.5 (2.4)

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid®, Deccox®) 32.6 (5.2) 35.2 (7.4) 29.7 (5.3) 39.0 (7.1) 33.3 (4.3)

Bacitracin (BMD®, 

Fortracin®, Albac®) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin®100, 

CTC)

76.4 (4.4) 60.7 (6.9) 66.5 (5.1) 79.7 (5.3) 71.7 (3.7)

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700®, 

MoorMan’s®, Beef 

Cattle Boost)

11.2 (3.4) 14.1 (5.8) 17.1 (4.5) 4.4 (2.9) 12.1 (3.0)

Neomycin (Biosol®, 

Neomix®325) 1.3 (1.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.3 (2.1) 0.9 (0.8)

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin®, 

TM50)

9.7 (3.3) 2.4 (2.2) 2.9 (1.9) 14.6 (5.2) 7.5 (2.4)

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon®, Sulmet®)

6.6 (2.7) 2.6 (2.1) 0.0 (0.0) 13.7 (5.0) 5.4 (2.0)

Tetracycline 

(TetrasureTM, 

T-Vet®)

1.8 (1.7) 0.0 (0.0) 2.0 (1.9) 0.0 (0.0) 1.2 (1.2)

Tylosin (Tylan®) 15.6 (3.8) 67.5 (6.9) 50.2 (5.5) 1.9 (1.1) 31.0 (3.5)

Virginiamycin 

(V Max®) 0.0 (0.0) 1.6 (1.4) 0.8 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.4)

Other 1.1 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0) 1.2 (1.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.7 (0.7)
68 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibiotic Use in Feed and Water

E.1.b. Percentage of all cattle that received antibiotics in feed and/or water, by antibiotic 

used, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin®, 

Cattlyst®)

89.7 (3.4) 90.2 (2.9) 95.3 (2.5) 67.6 (10.8) 90.1 (2.6)

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid®, Deccox®) 23.8 (6.5) 9.9 (3.4) 12.3 (3.8) 7.9 (3.1) 11.5 (3.1)

Bacitracin (BMD®, 

Fortracin®, Albac®) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin®100, 

CTC)

46.5 (6.1) 14.7 (3.7) 17.0 (3.9) 24.7 (8.4) 18.4 (3.4)

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700®, 

MoorMan’s®, Beef 

Cattle Boost)

5.0 (2.2) 1.8 (1.1) 2.4 (1.3) 1.2 (1.1) 2.2 (1.0)

Neomycin (Biosol®, 

Neomix®325) 0.9 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.5) 0.1 (0.1)

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin®, 

TM50)

4.0 (1.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 2.2 (1.1) 0.5 (0.2)

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon®, Sulmet®)

1.7 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.1 (0.7) 0.2 (0.1)

Tetracycline 

(TetrasureTM, 

T-Vet®)

1.1 (1.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)

Tylosin (Tylan®) 26.0 (7.1) 77.2 (4.7) 79.9 (4.5) 33.1 (18.0) 71.2 (4.4)

Virginiamycin 

(V Max®) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.2) 0.3 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.2)

Other 0.6 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)
USDA APHIS VS / 69 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibitiotic Use in Feed and Water

2. Cattle less than 700 lb when placed

More than 9 of 10 feedlots (90.9 percent) added ionophores to the feed of at least some 

cattle less than 700 lb when placed. Other coccidiostats were used by about one of three 

feedlots (33.5 percent). Overall, 81.1 percent (69.0 percent+12.1 percent) of feedlots 

used a chlortetracycline product in the feed and/or water of at least some cattle less than 

700 lb when placed. In many cases, the use of these products was associated with the 

treatment or prevention of disease and would, therefore, be fed for shorter periods (table 

E.2.c). Tylosin was used for some lighter placed cattle in 33.6 percent of feedlots, most 

likely to control liver abscesses. 
70 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibiotic Use in Feed and Water

E.2.a. Percentage of feedlots that added antibiotics to the feed and/or water of cattle less 

than 700 lb when placed as a health or production management tool, by antibiotic used, 

feedlot capacity, and region: (table revised 3/24/2014)

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin®, 

Cattlyst®)

90.5 (3.4) 91.7 (3.1) 90.1 (3.5) 91.9 (3.5) 90.9 (2.5)

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid®, Deccox®) 32.5 (5.5) 35.6 (7.4) 30.7 (5.6) 37.7 (7.5) 33.5 (4.5)

Bacitracin (BMD®, 

Fortracin®, Albac®) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin®100, 

CTC)

73.3 (4.9) 60.0 (7.0) 61.8 (5.5) 80.0 (5.4) 69.0 (4.0)

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700®, 

MoorMan’s®, Beef 

Cattle Boost)

11.1 (3.7) 14.2 (5.9) 16.9 (4.7) 4.9 (3.2) 12.1 (3.1)

Neomycin (Biosol®, 

Neomix®325) 1.5 (1.4) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 2.5 (2.3) 1.0 (0.9)

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin®, 

TM50)

9.5 (3.5) 2.5 (2.3) 3.2 (2.1) 13.5 (5.4) 7.3 (2.5)

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon®, Sulmet®)

7.5 (3.1) 2.6 (2.1) 0.0 (—) 15.0 (5.4) 5.9 (2.2)

Tetracycline 

(TetrasureTM, 

T-Vet®)

0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Tylosin (Tylan®) 17.8 (4.3) 67.0 (7.0) 55.0 (5.7) 1.0 (0.9) 33.6 (3.8)

Virginiamycin 

(V Max®) 0.0 (—) 1.6 (1.4) 0.9 (0.8) 0.0 (—) 0.5 (0.5)

Other 1.2 (1.1) 0.0 (—) 1.4 (1.2) 0.0 (—) 0.8 (0.7)
USDA APHIS VS / 71 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibitiotic Use in Feed and Water

More than 9 of 10 cattle less than 700 lb when placed (91.1 percent) received ionophores 

in their feed. Although 69.0 percent of feedlots used chlortetracycline in feed and/or 

water (table E.2.a), only 26.1 percent of cattle less than 700 lb received chlortetracycline. 

Cattle in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head were more likely to receive 

chlortetracycline (53.3 percent) compared with cattle in feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 

or more head (22.4 percent). Overall, 73.8 percent of cattle less than 700 lb received 

tylosin in feed. 
72 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibiotic Use in Feed and Water

E.2.b. Percentage of cattle less than 700 lb when placed that received antibiotics in 

feed and/or water as a health or production management tool, by antibiotic used, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin®, 

Cattlyst®)

92.4 (3.9) 90.9 (2.2) 97.8 (1.3) 61.6 (10.3) 91.1 (2.0)

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid®, Deccox®) 30.7 (8.8) 12.7 (5.0) 15.5 (5.5) 12.0 (5.0) 14.8 (4.6)

Bacitracin (BMD®, 

Fortracin®, Albac®) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin®100, 

CTC)

53.3 (7.7) 22.4 (4.6) 27.0 (4.6) 22.5 (7.0) 26.1 (4.0)

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700®, 

MoorMan’s®, Beef 

Cattle Boost)

8.6 (4.1) 3.9 (2.5) 5.0 (2.7) 1.8 (1.6) 4.4 (2.2)

Neomycin (Biosol®, 

Neomix®325) 1.8 (1.7) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 1.2 (1.2) 0.2 (0.2)

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin®, 

TM50)

3.3 (1.7) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) 1.5 (0.9) 0.5 (0.2)

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon®, Sulmet®)

3.5 (2.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 2.3 (1.4) 0.4 (0.2)

Tetracycline 

(TetrasureTM, 

T-Vet®)

0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Tylosin (Tylan®) 29.2 (8.3) 80.0 (4.6) 84.8 (4.7) 25.6 (17.8) 73.8 (4.6)

Virginiamycin 

(V Max®) 0.0 (—) 0.3 (0.3) 0.3 (0.3) 0.0 (—) 0.3 (0.3)

Other 1.2 (1.2) 0.0 (—) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.1)
USDA APHIS VS / 73 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibitiotic Use in Feed and Water

In general, ionophores and tylosin were included in the feed of cattle less than 

700 lb when placed throughout the feeding period, whereas other products were typically 

included for less than 20 days, on average. 

E.2.c. Feedlot average number of days cattle less than 700 lb when placed received 

antibiotics in feed and/or water, by antibiotic used, feedlot capacity, and region:

Feedlot Average Number of Days1

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin, Cattlyst) 180 (8) 176 (10) 172 (6) 190 (14) 179 (7)

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid®, Deccox) 15 (3) 24 (7) 16 (5) 21 (4) 18 (3)

Bacitracin (BMD, 

Fortracin, Albac) NA

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin100, 

CTC)

11 (2) 8 (1) 10 (1) 10 (2) 10 (1)

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700, 

MoorMan’s, Beef 

Cattle Boost)

10 (2) 9 (4) 8 (2) 17 (7) 9 (2)

Neomycin (Biosol, 

Neomix325)2

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin, 

TM50)2

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon®, Sulmet)2

Tetracycline 

(TetrasureTM, T-Vet) NA

Tylosin (Tylan) 165 (8) 168 (4) 167 (4) 145 (0) 167 (4)

Virginiamycin 

(V Max)2

Other2

1

Average number of days of feeding reported by feedlots, and not weighted by the number of cattle placed.

2

Too few to report.
74 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibiotic Use in Feed and Water

More than 8 of 10 feedlots (83.3 percent) added ionophores to the feed of cattle less 

than 700 lb for promoting growth. Other products (coccidiostats, chlortetracycline, 

chlortetracycline/sulfamethazine, tylosin) were used by a higher percentage of feedlots 

for disease prevention than disease treatment. Reasons for use were similar, regardless 

of feedlot capacity or region (data not shown).

E.2.d. For feedlots that added antibiotics in the feed and/or water of cattle less than 

700 lb when placed, percentage of feedlots by antibiotic used and by primary reason for 

using the antibiotics:

Percent Feedlots

Primary Reason

Disease 

prevention

Disease 

treatment

Growth 

promotion

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin, Cattlyst) 16.2 (3.4) 0.6 (0.5) 83.3 (3.4) 100.0

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid, Deccox) 61.4 (8.1) 35.6 (8.0) 3.0 (2.8) 100.0

Bacitracin (BMD, 

Fortracin, Albac) NA

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin100, 

CTC)

74.1 (4.9) 23.7 (4.8) 2.2 (1.5) 100.0

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700, 

MoorMan’s, Beef 

Cattle Boost)

82.0 (9.3) 18.0 (9.3) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Neomycin (Biosol, 

Neomix325)*

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin, 

TM50)*

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon, Sulmet)*

Tetracycline 

(Tetrasure, T-Vet) NA

Tylosin (Tylan) 68.0 (6.8) 3.7 (2.4) 28.3 (6.8) 100.0

Virginiamycin

(V Max)*

Other*

*Too few to report.
USDA APHIS VS / 75 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibitiotic Use in Feed and Water

3. Cattle 700 lb or more when placed

Most feedlots (90.3 percent) added ionophores to the feed of at least some cattle 

weighing 700 lb or more at placement. About 1 of 3 feedlots (30.8 percent) used tylosin in 

the feed of some of these cattle; tylosin was used by a higher percentage of feedlots with 

a capacity of 8,000 or more head (66.2 percent) compared with feedlots with a capacity 

of 1,000 to 7,999 head (14.5 percent).

E.3.a. Percentage of feedlots that added antibiotics to the feed and/or water of cattle 

700 lb or more when placed as a health or production management tool, by antibiotic 

used, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin, Cattlyst) 88.3 (3.9) 94.4 (2.3) 89.8 (3.7) 90.9 (4.1) 90.3 (2.8)

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid, Deccox) 20.6 (4.8) 29.1 (7.3) 23.7 (5.3) 22.6 (6.4) 23.2 (4.1)

Bacitracin (BMD, 

Fortracin, Albac) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin100, 

CTC)

58.9 (5.8) 46.1 (7.3) 50.7 (5.8) 61.0 (7.3) 54.9 (4.6)

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700, 

MoorMan’s, Beef 

Cattle Boost)

4.4 (2.3) 3.4 (3.2) 5.2 (2.7) 2.4 (2.3) 4.1 (1.9)

Neomycin (Biosol, 

Neomix325) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin, 

TM50)

7.9 (3.2) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 13.2 (5.3) 5.4 (2.2)

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon, Sulmet)

3.2 (2.1) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 5.3 (3.6) 2.2 (1.5)

Tetracycline 

(Tetrasure, T-Vet) 2.0 (1.9) 0.0 (—) 2.3 (2.2) 0.0 (—) 1.4 (1.3)

Tylosin (Tylan) 14.5 (4.0) 66.2 (7.2) 50.7 (5.9) 2.0 (1.2) 30.8 (3.7)

Virginiamycin

(V Max) 0.0 (—) 1.7 (1.5) 0.9 (0.8) 0.0 (—) 0.5 (0.5)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)
76 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibiotic Use in Feed and Water

As was the case with lighter placed cattle, the vast majority of cattle 700 lb or more (90.6 

percent) received ionophores in their feed, whereas a relatively small percentage of these 

cattle (11.9 percent) received a product containing chlortetracycline, indicating that while 

ionophores are used for almost all cattle in feedlots, only selected groups of cattle receive 

chlortetracycline products. The use of chlortetracycline products (alone or in combination) 

was more common in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head than in feedlots 

with a capacity of 8,000 head or more (42.0 and 7.9 percent, respectively), and the use 

of tylosin was more common in feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (75.9 

percent) compared with feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (23.2 percent).
USDA APHIS VS / 77 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibitiotic Use in Feed and Water

E.3.b. Percentage of cattle 700 lb or more when placed that received antibiotics in their 

feed and/or water as a health or production management tool, by antibiotic used, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin, Cattlyst) 88.0 (4.5) 91.0 (4.2) 94.5 (4.0) 73.7 (12.6) 90.6 (3.8)

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid, Deccox) 17.5 (6.8) 7.5 (3.5) 9.6 (4.0) 4.4 (2.2) 8.6 (3.3)

Bacitracin (BMD, 

Fortracin, Albac) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin100, 

CTC)

40.5 (7.2) 7.9 (2.6) 8.1 (2.4) 27.0 (10.7) 11.7 (2.7)

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700, 

MoorMan’s, Beef 

Cattle Boost)

1.5 (1.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.7 (0.7) 0.2 (0.1)

Neomycin (Biosol, 

Neomix325) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin, 

TM50)

4.7 (2.6) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 2.9 (1.8) 0.5 (0.3)

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon, Sulmet)

0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Tetracycline 

(Tetrasure, T-Vet) 2.3 (2.2) 0.0 (—) 0.3 (0.3) 0.0 (—) 0.3 (0.3)

Tylosin (Tylan) 23.2 (8.0) 75.9 (5.1) 76.7 (4.8) 40.2 (18.5) 69.8 (4.6)

Virginiamycin

(V Max) 0.0 (—) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (—) 0.2 (0.2)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)
78 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibiotic Use in Feed and Water

As was the case with lighter placed cattle, cattle 700 lb or more when placed received 

ionophores and tylosin throughout the feeding period, whereas the other products were 

typically used for shorter periods. Cattle 700 lb or more received ionophores and tylosin 

for shorter periods than cattle weighing less than 700 lb, probably because the heavier 

cattle did not take as long to reach harvest weight. 

E.3.c. Feedlot average number of days cattle 700 lb or more when placed received 

antibiotics in feed and/or water, by antibiotic used, feedlot capacity, and region:

Feedlot Average Number of Days

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Antibiotic Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin, Cattlyst) 152 (5) 138 (7) 140 (5) 158 (6) 147 (4)

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid, Deccox) 24 (11) 26 (8) 31 (11) 15 (3) 25 (7)

Bacitracin (BMD, 

Fortracin, Albac) NA

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin100, 

CTC)

8 (1) 8 (1) 9 (1) 6 (1) 8 (1)

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700, 

MoorMan’s, Beef 

Cattle Boost)*

Neomycin (Biosol, 

Neomix325)* NA

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin, 

TM50)*

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon, Sulmet)*

Tetracycline 

(Tetrasure, T-Vet)*

Tylosin (Tylan) 148 (3) 141 (5) 146 (4) 62 (33) 143 (4)

Virginiamycin

(V Max)*

Other NA

*Too few to report.
USDA APHIS VS / 79 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Antibitiotic Use in Feed and Water

Most operations (85.5 percent) used ionophores for cattle 700 lb or more when placed to 

promote growth. Other products were used by a higher percentage of feedlots for disease 

prevention than for disease treatment. The reasons for use of the various products were 

similar, regardless of feedlot capacity or region (data not shown).

E.3.d. For feedlots that gave the following antibiotics in feed and/or water to cattle 700 lb 

or more when placed, percentage of feedlots by primary reason for using the following 

antibiotics in feed and/or water:

Percent Feedlots

Primary Reason

Disease 

prevention

Disease 

treatment

Growth 

promotion

Antibiotic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Ionophores (e.g., 

Rumensin, Cattlyst) 14.0 (3.0) 0.6 (0.5) 85.5 (3.0) 100.0

Coccidiostats (e.g., 

Corid, Deccox) 70.3 (9.2) 29.7 (9.2) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Bacitracin (BMD, 

Fortracin, Albac) NA

Chlortetracycline 

(Aureomycin100, 

CTC)

74.9 (5.3) 24.1 (5.2) 1.0 (0.9) 100.0

Chlortetracycline/

sulfamethazine 

(Aureo S 700, 

MoorMan’s, Beef 

Cattle Boost)*

Neomycin (Biosol, 

Neomix325) NA

Oxytetracycline 

(OTC, Terramycin, 

TM50)*

Sulfamethazine/

sulfadimethoxine 

(Albon, Sulmet)*

Tetracycline 

(Tetrasure, T-Vet)*

Tylosin (Tylan) 63.7 (7.5) 3.7 (2.3) 32.6 (7.6) 100.0

Virginiamycin

(V Max)*

Other NA

*Too few to report.
80 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Implant Strategy

Growth promoting implants are typically placed under the skin of the ear and are 

associated with improvements on average daily gain and/or feed effi ciency. Since these 

implants typically contain some form of hormonal products, the selection of particular 

implant types is related to the sex of the cattle. Different growth promoting implants 

have different periods of activity; thus, the frequency of reapplication of implants during 

the feeding period depends on the choice of the implant product and the remaining 

projected days to reach harvest weight. At least 80 percent of feedlots implanted at least 

some steers or heifers with growth promoting implants at least once while they were in 

the feedlot (tables F.1.a and F.2.a). Overall, more than 90 percent of steers and heifers 

received a growth promoting implant at least once (tables F.1.b and F.2.b). The number 

of times an animal is implanted while in the feedlot depends on placement weight and 

gender (tables F.1.c and F.2.c). 

1. Steers

F.1.a. From the time of placement until marketing, percentage of feedlots that gave steers 

any implants for growth promotion, by cattle weight at placement, feedlot capacity, and 

region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Cattle weight Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 700 lb 

when placed 80.9 (4.6) 91.7 (4.7) 83.6 (4.5) 85.5 (5.4) 84.3 (3.5)

700 lb or more 

when placed 86.0 (4.0) 100.0 (—) 87.3 (4.0) 95.1 (3.2) 90.4 (2.8)

F. Implant 

Strategy
USDA APHIS VS / 81 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Implant Strategy

F.1.b. From the time of placement until marketing, percentage of steers given any 

implants for growth promotion, by cattle weight at placement, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Steers

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Cattle weight Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 700 lb 

when placed 91.9 (3.7) 91.0 (4.3) 97.4 (1.5) 71.0 (10.5) 91.2 (3.8)

700 lb or more 

when placed 94.3 (2.9) 94.1 (4.2) 93.8 (4.5) 95.3 (2.4) 94.1 (3.7)

Steers less than 700 lb when placed were most likely to receive two implants (62.7 

percent), and steers 700 lb or more when placed were most likely to receive one implant 

(77.8 percent). About one of fi ve steers less than 700 lb when placed (17.1 percent) 

received three or more implants; virtually no steers 700 lb or more when placed received 

more than two implants. 

F.1.c. For implanted steers, percentage of steers by number of implants given, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Steers

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Number of 

implants Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Steers less than 700 lb when placed

1 18.2 (5.2) 20.5 (4.4) 23.0 (5.0) 7.8 (2.2) 20.2 (3.9)

2 73.1 (6.9) 61.2 (6.1) 57.5 (6.3) 86.1 (3.7) 62.7 (5.5)

3 or more 8.6 (4.7) 18.3 (7.8) 19.6 (8.2) 6.0 (3.4) 17.1 (6.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Steers 700 lb or more when placed

1 67.7 (6.9) 79.2 (4.5) 77.2 (4.7) 80.6 (6.7) 77.8 (4.1)

2 32.3 (6.9) 20.7 (4.4) 22.7 (4.7) 19.4 (6.7) 22.1 (4.0)

3 or more 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
82 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Implant Strategy

Revalor was the product chosen by the highest percentage of feedlots for steers 

receiving a single implant and as the terminal implant for steers receiving two or more 

implants (71.7 and 57.9 percent of feedlots, respectively).

F.1.d. For feedlots that implanted any steers with just once, percentage of feedlots by 

products used, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Product Pct.

Std

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Component 24.8 (5.8) 16.1 (4.4) 23.4 (5.1) 19.3 (6.9) 21.8 (4.1)

Revalor 69.9 (6.3) 75.2 (5.3) 72.6 (5.4) 70.4 (8.0) 71.7 (4.5)

Synovex 17.2 (5.3) 17.4 (4.5) 19.2 (4.8) 14.1 (6.1) 17.2 (3.8)

Other 6.4 (3.3) 3.9 (1.8) 3.6 (1.9) 8.6 (4.9) 5.5 (2.3)

F.1.e. For feedlots that implanted any steers two or more times, percentage of feedlots 

by product used as the terminal implant, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Product Pct.

Std

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Component 13.0 (4.3) 24.5 (6.1) 19.7 (4.7) 12.7 (5.3) 17.0 (3.6)

Revalor 55.7 (6.5) 62.2 (6.8) 66.7 (5.6) 44.3 (8.4) 57.9 (4.8)

Synovex 26.1 (5.9) 18.1 (4.6) 16.2 (4.3) 34.4 (8.1) 23.3 (4.2)

Other 7.3 (3.4) 6.4 (2.9) 3.2 (1.7) 12.8 (5.5) 7.0 (2.4)
USDA APHIS VS / 83 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Implant Strategy

2. Heifers

F.2.a. From the time of placement until marketing, percentage of feedlots that gave 

heifers any implants for growth promotion, by cattle weight at placement, feedlot capacity, 

and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Cattle weight Pct.

Std

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 700 lb 

when placed 74.0 (5.3) 94.1 (2.9) 82.4 (4.5) 77.9 (6.8) 80.8 (3.8)

700 lb or more 

when placed 85.2 (4.5) 97.4 (1.8) 87.3 (4.1) 93.3 (3.9) 89.5 (3.0)

F.2.b. From the time of placement until marketing, percentage of heifers given any 

implants for growth promotion, by cattle weight at placement, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Heifers

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Cattle weight Pct.

Std

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 700 lb 

when placed 89.5 (4.6) 94.8 (3.3) 99.0 (0.6) 52.1 (15.0) 94.3 (3.0)

700 lb or more 

when placed 92.4 (5.3) 94.9 (3.6) 95.4 (3.9) 91.1 (3.7) 94.7 (3.3)
84 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Implant Strategy

Almost all heifers less than 700 lb when placed (95.8 percent) received two implants, 

while about half of heifers 700 lb or more when placed received one or two implants 

(48.8 and 51.2 percent, respectively). A low percentage of the lighter heifers 

(2.7 percent) received three or more implants; none of the heavier heifers received more 

than two implants.

F.2.c. For implanted heifers, percentage of heifers by number of implants given, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Heifers

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Number of 

implants Pct.

Std

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Heifers less than 700 lb when placed

1 10.0 (4.4) 0.4 (0.3) 0.8 (0.4) 12.6 (6.5) 1.4 (0.6)

2 87.0 (4.9) 96.9 (1.2) 96.6 (1.2) 82.4 (7.5) 95.8 (1.3)

3 or more 3.0 (2.1) 2.7 (1.1) 2.6 (1.0) 5.0 (4.0) 2.7 (1.0)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Heifers 700 lb or more when placed

1 55.7 (12.2) 48.0 (5.4) 42.7 (4.1) 80.2 (10.1) 48.8 (4.9)

2 44.3 (12.2) 52.0 (5.4) 57.3 (4.1) 19.8 (10.1) 51.2 (4.9)

3 or more 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 85 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Implant Strategy

Revalor was the product chosen by the highest percentage of feedlots for heifers that 

received a single implant and as the terminal implant for heifers receiving two implants 

(48.3 and 47.6 percent, respectively) [table F.2.e].

F.2.d. For feedlots that implanted any heifers just once, percentage of feedlots by 

products used, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Product Pct.

Std

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Component 25.4 (7.0) 31.0 (6.2) 30.7 (6.0) 21.7 (8.7) 27.5 (5.0)

Revalor 54.0 (8.2) 38.3 (7.1) 46.7 (7.0) 51.2 (10.7) 48.3 (5.9)

Synovex 20.1 (6.6) 26.1 (7.0) 20.0 (5.8) 26.3 (9.1) 22.3 (4.9)

Other 15.4 (5.7) 7.6 (3.8) 7.4 (3.5) 21.7 (8.8) 12.6 (3.9)
86 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Implant Strategy

F.2.e. For feedlots that implanted any heifers two or more times, percentage of feedlots 

by product used as the terminal implant, by feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Product Pct.

Std

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Component 16.8 (5.3) 29.4 (6.2) 28.1 (5.2) 9.1 (5.8) 22.2 (4.0)

Revalor 51.4 (7.8) 42.5 (7.5) 48.6 (6.5) 45.6 (10.3) 47.6 (5.5)

Synovex 23.1 (6.5) 27.0 (6.7) 20.0 (5.3) 35.2 (9.6) 24.8 (4.7)

Other 13.9 (5.5) 8.1 (3.6) 8.1 (3.4) 19.0 (8.1) 11.5 (3.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 87 

Section I: Population Estimates–G. General Information

1. Pest control

Feedlots have a range of products available to control internal and external parasites. 

Nearly all feedlots (99.8 percent) used some product to control parasites on at least 

some cattle. Avermectins were the most common type of product used (89.6 percent of 

feedlots) for some animals. 

G.1.a. Percentage of feedlots by parasiticides (dewormers and/or insecticides) used as 

a treatment or preventive for internal or external parasites, and by feedlot capacity and 

region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Pesticide Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Avermectins (e.g., 

Ivomec®, Eprinex®, 

Dectomax®, 

Cydectin®)

86.7 (3.8) 96.3 (1.3) 88.6 (3.6) 91.1 (3.9) 89.6 (2.7)

Avermectin/

Clorsulon 

combination 

(Ivomec® Plus)

5.0 (2.3) 15.9 (4.9) 10.4 (3.3) 4.8 (2.3) 8.2 (2.2)

Levamisole 

(e.g., Totalon®, 

Tramisol®, 

ProhibitTM)

1.5 (1.4) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 2.7 (2.5) 1.1 (1.0)

Permethrins (e.g., 

PermectrinTM, 

CyLenceTM, 

Ectiban®)

12.5 (3.6) 24.4 (6.7) 23.2 (5.0) 5.1 (2.8) 16.0 (3.3)

Organophosphates 

(Co-Ral®, Spotton, 

Tiguvon, Warbex)

0.0 (—) 2.2 (2.0) 1.1 (1.0) 0.0 (—) 0.6 (0.6)

Other 0.0 (—) 2.9 (2.7) 0.0 (—) 2.2 (2.0) 0.9 (0.8)

Any 100.0 (—) 99.4 (0.1) 100.0 (—) 99.5 (0.0) 99.8 (0.0)

G. General 

Information
88 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–G. General Information

Overall, 87.1 percent of cattle were treated with an avermectin product to control internal 

or external parasites. Relatively few animals received other parasiticides. Less than 

1 percent of cattle did not receive any treatment for parasites.

G.1.b. Percentage of cattle by parasiticides (dewormers and/or insecticides) used as a 

treatment or preventive for internal or external parasites, and by feedlot capacity and 

region:

Percent Cattle

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Pesticide Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Avermectins (e.g., 

Ivomec®, Eprinex®, 

Dectomax®, 

Cydectin®)

80.9 (6.8) 87.9 (5.5) 88.0 (5.9) 83.1 (5.0) 87.1 (4.9)

Avermectin/

Clorsulon 

combination 

(Ivomec® Plus)

3.2 (1.9) 8.5 (4.0) 6.7 (4.3) 13.1 (4.1) 7.8 (3.6)

Levamisole 

(e.g., Totalon®, 

Tramisol®, 

ProhibitTM)

0.9 (0.9) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.6 (0.6) 0.1 (0.1)

Permethrins (e.g., 

PermectrinTM, 

CyLenceTM, 

Ectiban®)

9.5 (4.0) 10.9 (3.7) 10.4 (3.8) 12.2 (6.2) 10.8 (3.3)

Organophosphates 

(Co-Ral®, Spotton, 

Tiguvon, Warbex)

0.0 (—) 0.3 (0.3) 0.4 (0.3) 0.0 (—) 0.3 (0.3)

Other 0.0 (—) 0.6 (0.6) 0.0 (—) 3.0 (2.9) 0.5 (0.5)

Any 99.8 (0.2) 99.6 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 97.9 (0.6) 99.6 (0.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 89 

Section I: Population Estimates–G. General Information

Fly control is a concern for feedlots for many reasons, including the fl ies’ impact on cattle 

and the annoyance they bring to neighboring facilities. There is no universally effective 

program for fl y control; feedlots typically use a combination of approaches aimed at the 

fl ies or their habitat. Removing manure helps control fl y habitats. Most feedlots 

(96.4 percent) removed manure as part of their fl y control program. Over half of feedlots 

used either environmental sprays (54.0 percent) or granular fl y bait (57.5 percent) to 

control fl y populations. The use of biologic controls such as predatory insects and the use 

of granular fl y baits were more common in feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head 

than in feedlots with 1,000 to 7,999 head.

G.1.c. Percentage of feedlots by method used to control fl ies on the feedlot, and by 

feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Manure removal 95.6 (2.3) 98.4 (1.4) 94.1 (2.8) 100.0 (—) 96.4 (1.7)

Biological control 

(predatory insects) 20.6 (4.5) 54.1 (7.3) 33.4 (5.0) 26.1 (6.1) 30.5 (3.8)

Ear tags containing 

insecticides 6.2 (2.9) 3.2 (1.9) 3.4 (1.9) 8.2 (4.4) 5.3 (2.1)

Environmental 

sprays 53.0 (5.4) 56.4 (6.3) 61.1 (5.1) 43.2 (7.2) 54.0 (4.3)

Pour-ons, dusting 

powder, or animal 

sprays 

(e.g., Co-Ral®)

27.8 (4.8) 18.0 (5.8) 34.3 (5.3) 10.6 (4.4) 24.9 (3.8)

Feed additives 

that kill larva (e.g., 

phenothiazine, 

runnel)

4.6 (2.4) 0.0 (—) 5.4 (2.8) 0.0 (—) 3.3 (1.7)

Sticky tape or 

other fl y traps 17.7 (4.1) 28.8 (6.6) 28.7 (5.1) 9.3 (4.1) 21.0 (3.5)

Granular fl y bait 

(e.g., Goldern 

Mairin®)

45.8 (5.3) 85.3 (4.4) 72.9 (4.9) 34.0 (6.8) 57.5 (4.1)

Other 0.0 (—) 1.4 (1.3) 0.7 (0.6) 0.0 (—) 0.4 (0.4)
90 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–G. General Information

2. Computer record keeping

All feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (100.0 percent) and 7 of 10 feedlots 

with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (70.4 percent) used computerized record-keeping 

systems. More than 9 of 10 feedlots considered computer record-keeping systems to 

be very or somewhat important for tracking economic records (100.0 percent), tracking 

production (98.8 percent), and comparing feedlot information over time (96.4 percent).

G.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that used computer record-keeping systems to store 

production and/or animal health-related information, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999 8,000 or more Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

70.4 (5.1) 100.0 (—) 85.1 (4.1) 70.0 (6.9) 79.1 (3.7)

G.2.b. For feedlots that used computer record-keeping systems, percentage of feedlots 

by importance of computer record-keeping systems for the following purposes:

Percent Feedlots

Level of Importance

Very Somewhat Not

Purpose Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Comparing feedlot 

with other feedlots 51.9 (4.9) 31.4 (4.4) 16.7 (3.5) 100.0

Comparing current 

information with historical 

information 

for this feedlot

72.0 (4.4) 24.4 (4.2) 3.6 (1.8) 100.0

Tracking withdrawal 

times 65.1 (4.4) 22.1 (4.0) 12.8 (3.1) 100.0

Tracking production 93.0 (2.6) 5.8 (2.4) 1.3 (1.2) 100.0

Tracking economic 

records 90.9 (2.9) 9.1 (2.9) 0.0 (—) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 91 

Section I: Population Estimates–G. General Information

3. Monitoring food safety pathogens

A low percentage of all feedlots monitored for either E. coli O157 (8.0 percent) or 

Salmonella (6.9 percent). 

G.3. Percentage of feedlots by food safety pathogens monitored, feedlot capacity, and 

region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Food safety 

pathogen Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

E. coli O157 5.9 (2.6) 13.2 (4.5) 9.3 (3.1) 6.1 (3.3) 8.0 (2.3)

Salmonella 5.3 (2.4) 10.7 (3.9) 8.1 (2.9) 5.1 (2.8) 6.9 (2.1)
92 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: Methodology

NAHMS develops study objectives by exploring existing literature and contacting 

stakeholders about their informational needs and priorities during a needs assessment 

phase. Stakeholders for NAHMS studies include industry members, allied industry 

representatives, other government agencies, animal health offi cials, and many others. 

The objective of the needs assessment for the NAHMS Feedlot 2011 study was to 

collect information about the most important animal health and production management 

productivity issues of beef feedlots. A driving force for the needs assessment was the 

desire of NAHMS to receive as much input as possible from a variety of producers, as 

well as from industry experts and representatives, veterinarians, extension specialists, 

universities, and beef organizations. Information was collected via interviews with key 

industry fi gures and through a needs assessment survey.

The needs assessment survey was designed to collect the most critical information 

gaps regarding animal health, and health and production management from producers, 

veterinarians, extension personnel, university researchers, and allied industry groups. 

The survey, created in SurveyMonkey, was available online from September 20, 2010, 

through February 14, 2011. The survey was promoted via electronic newsletters, 

magazines, and Web sites. Organizations/magazines promoting the study included 

“Beef Business Bulletin,” “Beef Magazine,” “Bovine Veterinarian,” “Cattle Network,” 

“Drovers,” “Farm Industry News,” “Farm Press,” “Feedlot Magazine,” “Feedstuffs,” “Iowa 

Farmer Today,” “Progressive Farmer,” “The National Cattleman,” and “Weekly Livestock 

Reporter.” Email messages identifying the online site and asking for input were also sent 

to State extension personnel as well as State and Federal animal health offi cials. There 

were 134 responses to the SurveyMonkey needs assessment survey. Stakeholders 

represented in the respondents included Federal government personnel, university 

and extension personnel, service providers for the beef industry (e.g., veterinarians, 

nutritionists), and beef producers or producer organizations. 

Objectives for the Feedlot 2011 study, using input from interviews, literature searches, 

and the online survey, were drafted and circulated to stakeholder groups. Following this 

review, fi ve fi nal study objectives were identifi ed:

1. Describe changes in management practices and animal health in feedlots.

2. Describe the management practices in feedlots that impact product quality.

3. Identify factors associated with shedding of potential foodborne pathogens or 

commensal organisms by feedlot cattle.

4. Describe antimicrobial usage in feedlots.

5. Describe biosecurity practices and capabilities in feedlots.

A. Needs 

Assessment

Section II: Methodology
USDA APHIS VS / 93 

Section II: Methodology

1. State selection

The preliminary selection of States to be included in the NAHMS Feedlot 2011 study was 

done using the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) “Cattle on Feed” reports. A 

goal for NAHMS national studies is to include States that account for at least 70 percent 

of the animals and producer population in the United States. The initial review identifi ed 

12 major States with feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head, and 13 States with 

feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head. The States with large-capacity feedlots 

were: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. States with small-capacity feedlots 

were: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.

2. Operation selection

For Phase I of the study, 995 operations with a capacity of 1,000 head or more were 

selected in the 12 States from a sampling frame provided by NASS. Within each State, a 

stratifi ed random sample was selected, in which strata were defi ned by feedlot capacity 

(number of head). Phase I of the study was administered by NASS via the General 

Feedlot Management Questionnaire. Producers who completed Phase I were eligible to 

continue on to Phase II (VS collection). Of the 403 operations that completed Phase I, 

192 consented to be contacted for further participation in Phase II of the study.

3. Population inferences

Inferences cover the population of feedlots with at least 1,000-head capacity in the 12 

participating States. As of January 1, 2011, these States accounted for 96.2 percent of 

cattle on feed in the United States. According to the latest State-level published number 

of feedlots (NASS Census of Agriculture 2007), the 12 States accounted for 86.1 percent 

of feedlots in the United States. (See Appendix II for respective data on individual States.) 

All respondent data were statistically weighted to refl ect the population from which they 

were selected. The inverse of the probability of selection for each operation was the 

initial selection weight. This selection weight was adjusted for nonresponse within each 

State and size group to allow for inferences back to the original population from which the 

sample was selected. Phase II data were re-weighted to allow for inference back to the 

original population.

B. Sampling and 

Estimation
94 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: Methodology

1. Data collectors and data collection period for Phase II

From October 10 through December 16, 2011, VS enumerators administered the feedlot 

health and management questionnaire. The interview took an average of 1.25 hr.

1. Validation 

After completing the feedlot health and management questionnaire, data collectors sent 

them to their respective State NAHMS Coordinators, who reviewed the questionnaire 

responses for accuracy. Data entry and validation were completed by CEAH staff using 

SAS.

2. Estimation

All estimates were generated using SUDAAN® software (Research Triangle Institute) to 

account for the stratifi ed survey design. Data were weighted to refl ect the population from 

which the initial Phase I sample was selected.

The purpose of this section is to provide various performance measurement parameters. 

Historically, the term “response rate” was used as a catch-all parameter, but there 

are many ways to defi ne and calculate response rates. Therefore, the following table 

presents an evaluation based upon a number of measurement parameters, which are 

defi ned with an “x” in categories that contribute to the measurement. 

C. Data 

Collection

D. Data Analysis

E. Sample 

Evaluation
USDA APHIS VS / 95 

Section II: Methodology

1. Phase I: General Feedlot Management Report

A total of 995 operations were selected for Phase I of the survey. Of these operations, 

871 (87.5 percent) were contacted. There were 517 operations that provided usable 

inventory information (52.0 percent of the total selected and 59.4 percent of those 

contacted). In addition, there were 403 operations (40.5 percent of total selected) that 

provided “complete” information for the questionnaire. Of operations that provided 

complete information, 192 (47.6 percent) consented to be contacted for consideration/

discussion about further participation in Phase II (VS collection) of the study.

Measurement Parameter

Response category

Number 

operations

Percent 

operations Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Survey complete and 

VMO consent 192 19.3 x x x

Survey complete, 

refused VMO consent 211 21.2 x x x

No cattle on feed on 

July 1, 2011 107 10.8 x x

Out of business 7 0.7 x x

Out of scope 33 3.3

Refusal of GFMQ 354 35.6 x

Offi ce hold (NASS 

elected not to contact) 44 4.4

Inaccessible 47 4.7

Total 995 100.0 871 517 403

Percent of total 

operations 87.5 52.0 40.5

Percent of total 

operations weighted3 87.1 51.2 37.5

1

Usable operation–respondent provided answers to inventory questions for the operation (either zero or 

positive number on hand).

2

Survey complete operation–respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions.

3

Weighted responsethe rate was calculated using the initial selection weights.
96 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: Methodology

2. Phase II: VS Visit

There were 192 operations that consented during Phase I to be contacted by a VS 

enumerator for Phase II. Of these 125 (65.1 percent) agreed to continue in Phase II of 

the study and completed the feedlot health and management questionnaire; 56 

(29.2 percent) refused to participate. Approximately 5 percent of the 192 operations were 

not contacted, and 0.5 percent were ineligible because they had no cattle on feed at the 

time they were contacted by the VS enumerator during Phase II.

Measurement Parameter

Response category

Number 

operations

Percent 

operations Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Survey complete 125 65.1 x x x

Survey refused 56 29.2 x

Not contacted 10 5.2

Ineligible3

 1 0.5 x x

Total 192 100.0 182 126 125

Percent of total 

operations 94.8 65.6 65.1

Percent of total 

operations weighted4 93.9 66.1 65.4

1

Usable operation–respondent provided answers to inventory questions for the operation (either zero or 

positive number on hand).

2

Survey complete operation–respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions.

3

Ineligible–no cattle on feed at time of interview, which occurred from October 10 through December 16, 

2011.

4

Weighted response–the rate was calculated using the turnover weights.
USDA APHIS VS / 97 

Appendix I: Sample Profi le

1. Number of responding operations, by herd size

Phase I: General 

Feedlot Management 

Report

Phase II: VS Initial 

Visit

Herd size (total inventory) Number of responding operations

1,000–7,999 237 73

8,000 or more 166 52

Total 403 125

2. Number of responding operations, by region

Phase I: General Beef 

Management Report

Phase II: VS Initial 

Visit

Region Number of responding operations

Central 266 78

Other 137 47

Total 403 125

*Regions were combined for VS portion of study

Appendix I: Sample Profi le

A. Responding 

Operations
98 / Feedlot 2011

Appendix II: Feedlots and Inventory, 1,000 or More Head Capacity for Selected States

Appendix II: Feedlots and Inventory, 1,000 or More Head Capacity for 

Selected States

Inventory (1,000 head)

Region State

Number of 

lots 20071 Jan. 1, 2010 July 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 20112

July 1, 

20113

Central CO 132 1,010 920 1,080 1,000

KS 200 2,250 2,010 2,280 2,030

NE 770 2,360 2,000 2,430 2,020

OK 23 365 350 375 350

TX 128 2,680 2,590 2,840 2,700

Total 1,253 8,665 7,870 9,005 8,100

Other AZ 6 287 255 258 287

CA 21 440 430 470 470

ID 39 215 200 240 215

IA 345 570 570 640 590

NM 8 (D) (D) (D) (D)

SD 176 235 215 260 210

WA 12 166 168 209 200

Total 607 1,913 1,838 2,077 1,972

Total 

12 States 1,860 10,578 9,708 11,082 10,072

Other 

States 300 4054 3635 4324 3795

Total U.S. 

(50 States) 2,160 10,983 10,071 11,514 10,451

(D)=Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.

1

Latest State-level published lots available.

2

February 18, 2011, NASS Cattle on Feed.

3

July 22, 2011, NASS Cattle on Feed.

4

New Mexico inventory unpublished beginning July 2009. Other Region total used New Mexico published inventory for 

January 2009 of 164,000 head.

5

New Mexico inventory unpublished beginning July 2009. Other Region total used New Mexico published inventory for 

June 2009 of 105,000 head.
USDA APHIS VS / 99 

Appendix III: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by Size

Number of feedlots

Feedlot capacity 20071 20082 20093 20104 20114

Fewer than 1,000 85,000 80,000 80,000 75,000 75,000

1,000 or more 2,160 2,170 2,170 2,140 2,120

1,000–7,999 1,713 1,730 1,725 1,685 1,675

8,000 or more 447 440 445 455 445

All feedlots in 

United States 87,160 82,170 82,170 77,140 77,120

January 1 inventory (x1,000 head)

20081 20092 20103 20114 20124

Fewer than 1,000 2,734.7 2,621.7 2,659.2 2,499 2,260

1,000 or more 12,092 11,234 10,983 11,513 11,861

1,000–7,999 2,413 1,850 2,243 2,283 2,256

8,000 or more 9,679 9,384 8,740 9,230 9,605

All feedlots in 

United States 14,826.7 13,855.7 13,642.2 14,012 14,121

Marketings (x1,000 head)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fewer than 1,000 4,285 4,045 3,914 4,032 3,170

1,000 or more 22,461 22,404 21,692 22,078 22,577

1,000–7,999 4,149 4,139 3,932 3,938 3,957

8,000 or more 18,312 18,265 17,760 18,140 18,620

All feedlots 26,746 26,449 25,606 26,110 25,747

1

February 20, 2009, NASS “Cattle on Feed.”

2

February 19, 2010, NASS “Cattle on Feed.”

3

February 18, 2011, NASS “Cattle on Feed.”

4

February 24, 2012, NASS “Cattle on Feed.”

Appendix III: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by Size
100 / Feedlot 2011

Appendix IV: Study Ojective and Related Outputs

1. Describe changes in management practices and animal health in feedlots:

Part I: Management PracƟ ces on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More 

Head, March 2013

Part II: Management PracƟ ces on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of Fewer than 

1,000 Head, March 2013

 Part III: Health and Management Practice Trends for U.S. Feedlots, 1994–2011, 

July 2013

 Part IV: Health and Health Management on U.S. Feedlots with Capacity of 1,000 

or More Head, September 2013

 Importance of Pre-arrival Management Practices to Operators of U.S. Feedlots, 

info sheet, July 2012

 Emergency Preparedness and Management on U.S. Feedlots, info sheet, 

September 2012

 U.S. Feedlot Processing Practices for Arriving Cattle, info sheet, October 2012

 Implant Usage, info sheet, October 2012

 Types and Costs of Respiratory Disease Treatment in U.S. Feedlots, info sheet, 

April 2013

 Vaccine Usage in U.S. Feedlots, info sheet, April 2013

2. Describe the management practices in feedlots that impact product quality:

 Part I: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More 

Head, March 2013

 Quality Assurance on U.S. Feedlots, 2011, info sheet, July 2012

3. Identify factors associated with shedding of potential foodborne pathogens or 

commensal organisms by feedlot cattle:

 Management Strategies Used to Control Food Safety Pathogens in Feedlot 

Cattle, info sheet, expected spring 2013

 Salmonella Prevalence and Resistance, info sheet, expected summer 2013

 Campylobacter Prevalence and Resistance, info sheet, expected summer 2013

4. Describe antimicrobial usage in feedlots:

 Part I: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More 

Head, March 2013

 Part II: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of Fewer than 

1,000 Head, March 2013

 Part III: Health and Management Practice Trends for U.S. Feedlots, 1994–2011, 

July 2013

 Part IV: Health and Health Management on U.S. Feedlots with Capacity of 1,000 

or More Head, September 2013

5. Describe biosecurity practices and capabilities in feedlots:

 Part I: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More 

Head, March 2013

 Biosecurity on U.S. Feedlots, info sheet, July 2012

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs
Feedlot Part IV

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Injections 5

 1. Vaccines 5

 2. Injections for prevention and treatment 10

 3. Recorded information 16

B. Shipping Fever Prevention 18

 1. Metaphylaxis 18

C. Occurrence of and Treatment of Cattle 

Conditions 27

 1. Cattle affected 27

 2. Cattle treatments 32

 3. Hospital pens 41

 D. Respiratory Disease Treatment 45

 1. Treatment for respiratory disease 45

 2. Retreats and repulls 53

 E. Antibiotic Use in Feed and Water 66

 1. All cattle 66

 2. Cattle less than 700 lb when placed 69

 3. Cattle 700 lb or more when placed 75

F. Implant Strategy 80

 1. Steers 80

 2. Heifers 83

G. General Information 87

 1. Pest control 87

 2. Computer record keeping 90

 3. Monitoring food safety pathogens 91

Section II: Methodology 92

A. Needs Assessment 92

B. Sampling Estimates 93

1. State selection 93

2. Operation selection 93

3. Population inferences 93

C. Data Collection 94

1. Data collectors and data collection period 94

D. Data Analysis 94

1. Validation 94

 2. Estimation 94

E. Sample Evaluation 94

1. Phase I 94

 2. Phase II 96

Appendix I: Sample Profi le 97

Appendix II: Feedlots and Inventory, 1,000 or More 

Head Capacity for Selected States 98

Appendix III: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by Size 99

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 

100