United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

Veterinary 

Services

National 

Animal Health 

Monitoring 

System

March 2013

Feedlot 2011

Part II: Management Practices on U.S. 

Feedlots with a Capacity of Fewer than 

1,000 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

#627.0313

Cover photograph courtesy of Geni Wren
USDA APHIS VS / i 

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 region of 

the United States. One component of Feedlot 2011 focused on small feedlots with a 

capacity of fewer than 1,000 head located in 13 States. The other component of Feedlot 

2011 focused on large feedlots (1,000 or more head capacity) in 12 States. This report 

provides estimates for feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head. Study results 

for feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head are available in “Part I: Management 

Practices on U.S. Feedlots with Capacity of 1,000 or More Head” available at http://www.

aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/feedlot/index.shtml#feedlot11.

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.

The majority of feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head (77.0 percent) placed 

only beef breed or cross-breed cattle (p 5). Most of the animals placed in these feedlots 

(76.0 percent) were less than 700 lb at placement (p 8). Less than 10 percent of animals 

placed in feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head were placed for purposes 

other than slaughter, such as for development of breeding animals (p12). Nearly half 

of the cattle placed in these feedlots (42.8 percent) were sourced from auction markets 

(p 14).

Overall, 83.4 percent of cattle placed in feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head 

were processed as a group after arrival (p 20). Over 80 percent of these cattle 

(83.8 percent) received a treatment for parasites and/or were vaccinated against 

respiratory diseases (92.6 percent) [p 23]. Relatively few of these feedlots used any feed 

additives such as ionophores, or coccidiostats in the rations of cattle placed (p 30).

Most of the cattle shipments leaving feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head 

(67.3 percent) went directly to slaughter (p 40). However, 32.2 percent of shipments went 

to a sales/auction facility.

Approximately half of operators on feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head 

(51.6 percent) were somewhat familiar or very familiar with the Beef Quality Assurance 

(BQA) program (p 43). Only 29.0 percent were not at all familiar with the BQA program. 

The perceived importance of various BQA practices was higher among feedlots more 

familiar with the program (p 48).

Items of Note
ii / Feedlot 2011

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Placement Profi le 5

1. Cattle type 5

2. Placements not intended for slaughter 11

B. Source of Cattle 13

1. Description of origin and source 13

2. Source of arriving shipments 16

3. Average distance shipments traveled to feedlot 17

4. Shipments crossing State lines 18

C. Arrival Management 19

1. Timing of initial processing 19

2. Cattle processing procedures 21

3. Modifi cation of antibiotic and vaccination procedures 24

4. Animal identifi cation 26

D. Nutrition Management 30

1. Feed additives 30

2. Use of a nutritionist 33

E. Health Management 34

1. Frequency of pen-riding or walking 34

2. Use of a veterinarian 35

3. Use of antibiotics 36

F. Outcome and Destination of Cattle 39

1. Outcome 39

2. Destination of shipments 40

3. Average distance shipments traveled to destination 41

4. Shipments crossing State lines 42

G. Quality Assurance 43

1. Familiarity with the Beef Quality Assurance program 43

2. Importance of BQA practices 46

H. Environment 53

Table of Contents
USDA APHIS VS / iii 

Section II: Methodology 55

A. Needs Assessment 55

B. Sampling and Estimation 56

C. Data Collection 57

D. Data Analysis 57

E. Sample Evaluation 58

Appendix I: Sample Profi le 59

Appendix II: Feedlots and Inventory, Fewer than 500 Head Capacity for Selected 

States, 2007 60

Appendix III: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by Capacity 61

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 62
iv / Feedlot 2011

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’d like to thank the NASS enumerators who contacted beef feedlot operators and 

collected the data. Their hard work and dedication were invaluable. We’d also like to 

thank the personnel at the USDA–APHIS–Veterinary Services’ Centers for Epidemiology 

and Animal Health for their efforts in generating and distributing this report. 

All participants are to be commended, particularly the feedlot operators whose voluntary 

efforts made the Feedlot 2011 study possible.

Larry M. Granger 

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health

Acknowledgments
USDA APHIS VS / v 

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. Feedlot 2011 “Part II: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 

Fewer than 1,000 Head.”

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

#627.0313

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 animal health and 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 the health and management practices of feedlots in the United States. 

Data were 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 those affi liated 

with the cattle-feeding industry 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 in feedlots 

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

These feedlots represented 82.1 percent of all cattle on feed on January 1, 2000, in the 

50 States.

The NAHMS Feedlot 2011 study takes an in-depth look at large U.S. feedlots (1,000 or 

more head capacity) in 12 States* and small feedlots (fewer than 1,000 head capacity) in 

13 States (see map, next page). Small feedlots accounted for 16.0 percent of the January 

1, 2011, inventory in all U.S. feedlots but 92.9 percent of all feedlots. The 13 States 

accounted for 85.4 percent of U.S. farms with fewer than 500 cattle on feed and 

90.5 percent of the inventory on farms with fewer than 500 cattle on feed (source: NASS 

2007 Census of Agriculture). Study results in this report refl ect only small feedlots, which 

were divided into two groups: those with a capacity of 1 to 499 head and those with a 

capacity of 500 to 999 head.

*See “Feedlot 2011, Part I: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More Head” at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/feedlot/index.shtml#feedlot11

Introduction
2 / Feedlot 2011

Introduction

FL

NM

DE MD

TX OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MT

WY

CO

UT

ID

AZ

NV

WA

CA

OR

KY

ME

NY

PA

MI

VT NH

MA

RI CT

VA

WV

OH IN

IL

NC

TN

SC

MS AL

AR

LA

MO

IA

MN

WI

NJ

GA

Participating States for feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head

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. Antibiotics are effective against illness caused by 

bacteria, but are ineffective against viruses.

Auction: A public sale or auction barn where livestock and other animals are sold to the 

highest bidder.

Beta-agonist: Medicated feed additive that promotes growth.

Brand: Permanent scar on an animal’s hide used to identify ownership or a unique herd 

number. It is made by applying an extremely hot or cold iron to the animal’s hide.

Breed: Animals having a common origin and distinguishing characteristics.

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

a carcass grading of “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 in 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. 

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

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

time. 

Hide: The tanned or untanned skins of animals, especially of cattle, horses, sheep, and 

goats. 

Intramuscular injection: An injection given in a muscle. 

Intravenous injection: An injection given in a vein. 

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

the fermentation pattern in the rumen. 

Terms Used in 

This Report
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 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 as (0.0). If 

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

Precondition: Preparation of 6- to 8-month-old range-reared beef calves for entry into a 

feedlot and an intensive fattening program. 

Private treaty: A sale negotiated directly between the parties or their agents, rather than 

through the auction process. 

Probiotics: Live organisms that, when administered orally to establish in the digestive 

tract, are believed to be favorable to animal health. 

Processing: A term used to describe a variety of treatment or prevention procedures 

(e.g., vaccinations, implanting, deworming), generally applied to groups of animals. 

Ration: The amount of feed an animal receives in 24 hours. 

Regions:

Central: Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas.

Other: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

and Wisconsin.

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

treatment has ceased. 

Shipment: One group of animals moved all at once, no matter how many vehicles were 

required to move the group.

Shrinkage: The weight an animal loses between feedlot and market due to transit or 

other handling processes. 

Subcutaneous injection: An injection given under the skin. 

Vaccination: An injection of a vaccine given to produce immunity or resistance to 

disease. 
USDA APHIS VS / 5 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

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.

1. Cattle type

Most feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head (77.0 percent) placed only beef 

or beef crossbreed cattle during the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. Just 

16.9 percent placed only dairy breeds. The placement profi le was not different by size 

category among feedlots. However, feedlots with fewer than 1,000 head capacity in the 

Central region were much more likely than feedlots in the Other region to place only beef 

and beef crossbreed cattle.

A.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that placed any of the following types of cattle and calves 

on feed, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef breeds 

or beef crossbreeds only76.6 (2.8) 85.5 (3.0) 98.1 (1.7) 67.9 (3.6) 77.0 (2.7)

Dairy 

breeds only 17.4 (2.6) 6.7 (1.9) 1.7 (1.7) 23.5 (3.4) 16.9 (2.5)

Beef and 

dairy breeds 6.0 (1.6) 7.8 (2.6) 0.2 (0.2) 8.6 (2.1) 6.1 (1.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Unless otherwise specifi ed, all estimates for cattle placed refer to the period of July 1, 2010, through 

June 30, 2011.

A. Placement 

Profi le

Section I: Population Estimates*
6 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

Most cattle placed on feedlots (87.9 percent) were beef breeds or beef crossbreeds. 

Virtually all cattle placed in the Central region (99.9 percent) were beef breeds or beef 

crossbreeds.

A.1.b. Percentage of cattle and calves by cattle type, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef breeds 

or beef crossbreeds86.8 (2.6) 91.0 (2.3) 99.9 (0.1) 78.5 (3.9) 87.9 (1.9)

Dairy breeds 13.2 (2.6) 9.0 (2.3) 0.1 (0.1) 21.5 (3.9) 12.1 (1.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

A higher percentage of feedlots placed cattle less than 700 lb than placed cattle 700 lb or 

more, regardless of cattle type. Very few feedlots placed any cows or bulls on feed. The 

placement profi le by gender and weight was not different by feedlot capacity or by region.
USDA APHIS VS / 7 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

A.1.c. Percentage of feedlots that placed any of the following types of cattle and calves 

on feed, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Steers less than 700 lb

Beef breeds or 

cross breeds 63.7 (4.3) 66.4 (5.6) 66.2 (10.1) 62.8 (4.0) 63.9 (4.1)

Dairy breeds 19.2 (2.6) 11.2 (2.5) 0.0 (0.0) 27.0 (3.5) 18.9 (2.5)

Any steers 

<700 lb 77.7 (3.9) 73.1 (5.5) 66.2 (10.1) 82.4 (3.2) 77.5 (3.8)

Steers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

cross breeds 18.7 (4.1) 36.7 (6.1) 22.5 (10.6) 18.3 (3.1) 19.5 (3.9)

Dairy breeds 6.8 (1.6) 5.3 (2.2) 1.9 (1.7) 8.8 (2.1) 6.8 (1.5)

Any steers

≥700 lb 24.6 (4.2) 39.0 (6.1) 24.2 (10.7) 25.7 (3.5) 25.3 (4.0)

Any steers 91.9 (2.5) 97.8 (1.2) 87.5 (6.8) 94.2 (1.9) 92.1 (2.4)

Heifers less than 700 lb

Beef breeds or 

cross breeds 39.0 (4.5) 44.8 (6.1) 47.7 (11.0) 35.6 (4.0) 39.2 (4.3)

Dairy breeds 2.9 (1.0) 2.7 (1.3) 0.0 (0.0) 4.1 (1.4) 2.9 (1.0)

Any heifers

<700 lb 40.6 (4.6) 46.5 (6.2) 47.7 (11.0) 37.9 (4.1) 40.9 (4.4)

Heifers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

cross breeds 7.9 (1.7) 17.2 (4.5) 3.8 (1.5) 10.3 (2.2) 8.4 (1.6)

Dairy breeds 0.8 (0.7) 1.9 (1.7) 0.2 (0.2) 1.1 (0.9) 0.8 (0.6)

Any heifers

≥700 lb 8.7 (1.8) 17.5 (4.5) 3.8 (1.5) 11.4 (2.3) 9.1 (1.7)

Any heifers 46.2 (4.6) 60.9 (6.0) 50.0 (11.0) 45.5 (4.2) 46.9 (4.4)

Cows

Beef breeds or 

cross breeds 2.6 (1.4) 4.9 (2.3) 6.2 (4.2) 1.2 (0.6) 2.7 (1.3)

Dairy breeds 0.7 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.9) 0.7 (0.6)

Any cows 3.3 (1.6) 4.9 (2.3) 6.2 (4.2) 2.2 (1.1) 3.4 (1.5)

Bulls

Beef breeds or 

cross breeds 0.5 (0.5) 2.6 (1.9) 1.9 (1.7) 0.1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.5)

Any bulls 0.5 (0.5) 2.6 (1.9) 1.9 (1.7) 0.1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.5)
8 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

The placement profi les by gender and weight class are similar to the percentages of 

feedlots by gender and weight class.

A.1.d. Percentage of cattle and calves by cattle type, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Steers less than 700 lb

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 39.3 (6.4) 41.6 (5.1) 42.8 (5.2) 37.7 (7.9) 39.9 (4.9)

Dairy breeds 9.6 (2.0) 7.4 (2.2) 0.0 (0.0) 16.1 (3.2) 9.0 (1.6)

Steers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 13.9 (4.3) 20.6 (4.5) 18.3 (6.7) 13.5 (3.0) 15.6 (3.4)

Dairy breeds 2.7 (0.9) 1.3 (0.8) 0.1 (0.1) 4.0 (1.3) 2.3 (0.7)

Heifers less than 700 lb

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 28.3 (4.9) 21.4 (4.5) 33.1 (4.9) 21.5 (5.4) 26.6 (3.8)

Dairy breeds 0.5 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.8 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2)

Heifers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 4.0 (1.1) 5.9 (1.9) 3.2 (1.5) 5.4 (1.3) 4.5 (1.0)

Dairy breeds 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)

Cows

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 1.1 (0.9) 1.1 (0.7) 2.2 (1.6) 0.3 (0.1) 1.1 (0.7)

Dairy breeds 0.4 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.5) 0.3 (0.3)

Bulls

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1)

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 9 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

About 8 of 10 feedlots (81.3 percent) placed steers or heifers less than 700 lb. About 3 of 

10 feedlots (28.3 percent) placed steers or heifers 700 lb or more. Feedlots in the Other 

region were more likely to place dairy breed steers or heifers compared with feedlots in 

the Central region.

A.1.e. Percentage of feedlots that placed the following types of cattle on feed, by feedlot 

capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Steers and/or heifers less than 700 lb

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 67.0 (4.4) 67.6 (5.6) 71.4 (10.7) 65.1 (3.9) 67.0 (4.2)

Dairy breeds 19.9 (2.6) 11.2 (2.5) 0.0 (0.0) 28.0 (3.5) 19.5 (2.5)

Any breed 81.6 (4.0) 74.3 (5.4) 71.4 (10.7) 85.5 (2.9) 81.3 (3.8)

Steers and/or heifers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 21.2 (4.1) 38.7 (6.1) 22.5 (10.6) 21.7 (3.3) 22.0 (4.0)

Dairy breeds 7.5 (1.7) 5.3 (2.2) 1.9 (1.7) 9.8 (2.2) 7.4 (1.6)

Any breed 27.8 (4.3) 39.9 (6.1) 24.2 (10.7) 30.1 (3.7) 28.3 (4.1)
10 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

The majority of beef cattle placed (63.2 percent) were steers, and nearly all dairy cattle 

placed (93.0 percent) were steers.

A.1.f. Percentage of beef cattle and percentage of dairy cattle, by cattle type, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head)

Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef

Steers 61.3 (5.9) 68.5 (4.9) 61.2 (5.1) 65.3 (7.2) 63.2 (4.5)

Heifers 37.2 (5.8) 30.1 (4.8) 36.3 (5.1) 34.3 (7.2) 35.3 (4.4)

Cows 1.3 (1.1) 1.2 (0.7) 2.2 (1.6) 0.4 (0.2) 1.3 (0.8)

Bulls 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dairy

Steers 92.6 (3.3) 95.1 (3.2) 92.5 (2.6) 93.0 (2.7) 93.0 (2.7)

Heifers 4.6 (1.7) 4.9 (3.2) 7.5 (2.6) 4.6 (1.5) 4.6 (1.5)

Cows 2.9 (2.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.3 (2.3) 2.3 (2.3)

Bulls 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 11 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

2. Placements not intended for slaughter

In some cases, cattle are placed in feedlots for purposes other than slaughter, such as 

backgrounding animals that will be returned to grazing prior to placement for fi nishing 

in another feedlot. Cattle—usually heifers—can also be placed in feedlots as part of 

a development program for replacing breeding animals. Only 17.5 percent of feedlots 

placed any cattle not intended for slaughter.

A.2.a. Percentage of feedlots that placed cattle and calves on feed for purposes other 

than slaughter, by placement purpose, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Placement 

purpose Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef animals 

to be used for 

breeding stock

12.1 (2.5) 8.9 (3.9) 7.6 (3.8) 13.7 (2.9) 12.0 (2.4)

Dairy animals 

to be used for 

breeding stock

2.8 (1.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 3.7 (1.6) 2.7 (1.2)

Other cattle and 

calves 4.1 (1.3) 5.3 (3.1) 1.9 (0.8) 5.0 (1.8) 4.2 (1.3)

Any 

nonslaughter 17.7 (2.8) 13.3 (4.5) 8.7 (3.9) 21.0 (3.3) 17.5 (2.7)
12 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

Overall, only 8.2 percent of cattle were placed for reasons other than slaughter. 

Approximately half of these cattle (4.1 percent) were beef animals to be used for breeding 

stock.

A.2.b. Percentage of cattle and calves placed on feed for purposes other than slaughter, 

by placement purpose, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Placement 

purpose Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef animals 

to be used for 

breeding stock

5.0 (1.7) 1.6 (0.8) 2.6 (1.3) 5.3 (2.0) 4.1 (1.3)

Dairy animals 

to be used for 

breeding stock

1.6 (0.9) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 2.1 (1.2) 1.3 (0.7)

Other cattle 

and calves 2.9 (1.4) 2.6 (1.7) 2.7 (1.9) 2.8 (1.3) 2.8 (1.1)

All nonslaughter 9.5 (2.5) 4.3 (1.9) 5.3 (2.4) 10.2 (2.8) 8.2 (1.9)

A.2.c. Of cattle and calves placed for nonslaughter purposes, percentage of cattle and 

calves by placement purpose, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef animals 

to be used for 

breeding stock

52.8 (12.5) 36.7 (18.6) 49.0 (21.0) 51.3 (13.1) 50.7 (11.2)

Dairy animals 

to be used for 

breeding stock

17.2 (8.7) 2.8 (2.9) 0.0 (0.0) 21.0 (10.1) 15.3 (7.7)

Other cattle and 

calves 30.0 (11.6) 60.4 (19.2) 51.0 (21.0) 27.8 (11.1) 34.0 (10.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 13 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

1. Description of origin and source

The majority of feedlots (56.6 percent) placed cattle that were either born on the feedlot 

or on another operation operated by the feedlot. Approximately one-fourth of feedlots 

sourced cattle from auction markets (26.7 percent) and/or by direct sale (28.8 percent). 

Only 1.5 percent of feedlots custom fed cattle for another owner.

B.1.a. Percentage of feedlots by origin of cattle, feedlot capacity, and region:

B. Source of 

Cattle

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Cattle origin Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Provided for custom 

feeding* or joint ownership 

with feedlot

1.2 (0.5) 8.6 (3.6) 1.6 (1.0) 1.4 (0.6) 1.5 (0.5)

Purchased by 

feedlot via auction 25.0 (3.2) 62.3 (5.9) 20.1 (5.2) 29.5 (3.7) 26.7 (3.1)

Purchased by feedlot via 

direct sale (cash or video, 

private treaty)

28.2 (4.3) 40.3 (5.9) 20.7 (10.8) 32.2 (3.8) 28.8 (4.1)

Born on feedlot or another 

operation operated solely 

by feedlot

57.1 (4.5) 46.0 (5.5) 67.4 (11.2) 52.0 (4.1) 56.6 (4.3)

Obtained from other 

sources 0.5 (0.3) 0.4 (0.3) 0.0 (—) 0.7 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2)

*Producer-retained ownership or investor owned.
14 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

Nearly half of cattle placed in feedlots (42.8 percent) were purchased from auction 

markets. While the majority of these feedlots (56.6 percent; table B.1.a.) placed cattle 

born on the feedlot or another operation operated solely by the feedlot, only 29.6 percent 

of cattle placed were from internal sources.

B.1.b. Percentage of cattle and calves by origin of cattle, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Cattle origin Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Provided for custom 

feeding* or joint 

ownership with feedlot

2.6 (1.8) 7.8 (3.0) 5.1 (3.1) 3.1 (1.4) 3.9 (1.5)

Purchased by 

feedlot via auction 41.4 (7.3) 46.8 (4.7) 33.3 (5.3) 50.0 (7.7) 42.8 (5.4)

Purchased by feedlot 

via direct sale (cash or 

video, private treaty)

23.1 (5.9) 23.9 (3.1) 20.0 (8.8) 25.8 (4.7) 23.3 (4.4)

Born on feedlot or 

another operation 

operated solely by 

feedlot

32.5 (6.1) 21.4 (3.9) 41.7 (9.2) 29.6 (3.9) 29.6 (4.5)

Obtained from other 

sources 0.5 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 0.6 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Producer-retained ownership or investor owned.
USDA APHIS VS / 15 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

0

20

40

60

80

Cattle

Feedlots

Percent

Percentage of feedlots and percentage of cattle and calves, by origin of cattle

Provided for

custom feeding*

or joint ownership with feedlot

Purchased by

 feedlot

via auction

Purchased by

feedlot via direct 

sale (cash or video, 

private treaty)

Born on 

feedlot or

another operation

operated solely

by feedlot

1.5

26.7 28.8

56.6

3.9

42.8

23.3

29.6

Cattle Origin

Obtained from

other sources

0.5 0.4

*Producer-retained ownership or investor owned.
16 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

2. Source of arriving shipments*

Feedlots most commonly sourced animals from other beef operations and auction 

markets (45.1 and 38.0 percent of shipments, respectively). The use of auction markets 

as a source for cattle was most common in feedlots in the Central region (86.1 percent) 

and for feedlots with a capacity of 500 to 999 head (62.5 percent).

B.2. Percentage of cattle shipments to feedlots, by source of shipments, feedlot capacity, 

and region:

Percent Shipments

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Shipment 

source Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Auction 36.1 (10.9) 62.5 (8.7) 86.1 (7.4) 30.4 (10.9) 38.0 (10.1)

Another beef 

operation 

(e.g., cow-calf 

or stocker 

operation)

46.9 (10.5) 21.9 (6.8) 12.9 (7.1) 50.2 (10.7) 45.1 (9.8)

Another feedlot 2.9 (1.9) 6.3 (5.9) 0.0 (—) 3.6 (2.1) 3.1 (1.8)

Other 14.1 (4.8) 9.3 (4.2) 1.0 (0.8) 15.8 (5.2) 13.8 (4.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*One group of animals moved all at once, no matter how many vehicles were required to move the group.
USDA APHIS VS / 17 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

3. Average distance shipments traveled to feedlot

B.3. Average distance (miles) cattle shipments traveled to feedlot, by source of shipment, 

feedlot capacity, and region: 

Average Distance per Shipment (Miles)

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Shipment source Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Auction 134 (53) 223 (53) 425 (204) 81 (13) 142 (48)

Another beef 

operation (e.g., 

cow-calf or 

stocker operation)

51 (13) 233 (41) 105 (29) 45 (7) 61 (12)

Another feedlot 68 (60) 1 1 88 (66) 88 (66)

Other 36 (10) 170 (77) 20 (22) 45 (12) 43 (11)

All2 92 (28) 237 (37) 238 (124) 67 (9) 101 (26)

1

Too few observations to report.

2

Weighted by number of shipments by source.
18 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

4. Shipments crossing State lines

B.4. Percentage of cattle shipments that crossed State lines, by source of shipments, 

feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Shipments

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Source Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Auction 54.5 (15.9) 49.9 (8.5) 40.2 (8.2) 60.0 (17.7) 54.0 (14.2)

Another beef 

feedlot (e.g., 

cow-calf or 

stocker feedlot)

6.9 (3.6) 30.1 (11.4) 31.3 (17.5) 6.8 (3.5) 7.7 (3.6)

Another feedlot 0.6 (0.7) * * 0.8 (0.9) 0.8 (0.9)

Other 11.4 (9.6) 26.7 (15.5) 45.5 (35.0) 11.8 (9.2) 12.2 (9.1)

All 24.6 (10.4) 40.2 (7.4) 39.1 (7.5) 23.5 (11.1) 25.7 (9.6)

*Too few observations to report.
USDA APHIS VS / 19 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

1. Timing of initial processing

Some feedlots apply management procedures to newly arrived cattle that include 

vaccination, deworming, or the application of a growth-promoting implant. Only half 

of feedlots (47.8 percent) processed cattle within 72 hours of arrival. When arrival 

processing was done, it was commonly done within the fi rst 24 hours. Overall, 40.0 

percent of cattle did not process cattle as a group.

C.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that initially processed cattle and calves as a group, by 

number of hours after arrival animals were processed, and by feedlot capacity and 

region:

C. Arrival 

Management

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Number of hours Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

24 or less 34.4 (4.0) 56.8 (6.4) 30.0 (7.4) 38.0 (4.4) 35.5 (3.8)

25–72 11.4 (2.4) 29.7 (6.1) 15.7 (4.7) 10.8 (2.5) 12.3 (2.3)

More than 72 19.6 (4.4) 23.0 (5.2) 22.2 (11.0) 18.7 (3.5) 19.8 (4.2)

Ever processed 58.7 (4.6) 87.5 (4.2) 65.0 (11.3) 57.9 (4.1) 60.0 (4.4)
20 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

Though 40.0 percent of feedlots did not do any initial processing of cattle (table C.1.a.), 

only 16.6 percent of cattle placed in feedlots were not processed.

C.1.b. Percentage of cattle and calves initially processed as a group, by number of hours 

after arrival animals were processed, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Number of hours Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

24 or less 26.7 (5.0) 52.9 (6.5) 30.6 (7.4) 36.1 (5.8) 33.7 (4.6)

25–72 26.2 (8.8) 18.0 (4.3) 24.4 (7.7) 23.8 (10.3) 24.0 (6.7)

More than 72 27.5 (8.5) 20.8 (4.7) 30.3 (12.8) 22.1 (4.7) 25.7 (6.5)

Not processed 19.6 (5.1) 8.3 (3.3) 14.7 (6.5) 18.0 (4.2) 16.6 (3.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 21 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

2. Cattle processing procedures

Of the 60.0 percent of feedlots that initially processed cattle and calves as a group 

(table C.1.a.), 57.7 percent processed some cattle a second time.

C.2.a. For feedlots that initially processed any cattle and calves as a group, percentage 

of feedlots that used a second processing, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

57.0 (5.6) 67.4 (6.1) 71.9 (10.2) 51.0 (5.4) 57.7 (5.2)
22 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

The two most common initial processing management practices were treatment for 

parasites (84.6 percent of feedlots) and vaccination for respiratory disease (76.7 percent). 

Overall, 42.0 percent of feedlots gave some cattle an injectable antibiotic during initial 

processing.

C.2.b. For feedlots that initially processed cattle and calves as a group, percentage of 

feedlots by procedures at initial and second processing, and by feedlot capacity and 

region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Procedure Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Initial processing

Vaccinated against 

respiratory diseases 75.6 (4.6) 92.3 (3.4) 75.4 (9.3) 77.3 (4.5) 76.7 (4.3)

Vaccinated against 

clostridial diseases 65.9 (4.8) 72.7 (5.8) 73.6 (8.1) 62.7 (5.2) 66.4 (4.5)

Given an injectable 

antibiotic 41.6 (6.1) 48.1 (6.9) 50.7 (12.9) 37.7 (5.1) 42.0 (5.7)

Implanted 41.1 (4.4) 56.6 (6.6) 43.9 (10.9) 41.2 (4.9) 42.1 (4.8)

Treated for parasites 84.4 (3.5) 88.3 (3.9) 89.9 (5.7) 82.1 (4.0) 84.6 (3.3)

Second processing

Vaccinated against 

respiratory diseases 62.6 (7.3) 72.2 (7.4) 57.3 (13.1) 66.6 (7.2) 63.4 (6.6)

Vaccinated against 

clostridial diseases 44.5 (7.9) 44.1 (8.6) 29.0 (12.4) 52.9 (8.0) 44.5 (7.2)

Given an injectable 

antibiotic 46.9 (9.7) 26.0 (7.3) 48.9 (17.3) 42.2 (8.0) 45.1 (9.0)

Implanted 31.8 (7.0) 62.3 (8.2) 24.2 (10.7) 40.8 (7.5) 34.1 (6.7)

Treated for parasites 67.2 (6.6) 54.5 (8.3) 79.2 (6.8) 59.1 (7.7) 66.0 (6.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 23 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

More than 90 percent of the cattle initially processed (92.6 percent) were vaccinated for 

respiratory disease and 83.8 percent were treated for parasites. Approximately one-third 

of the cattle initially processed (31.0 percent) received an injectable antibiotic.

C.2.c. For cattle initially processed as a group, percentage of cattle and calves by 

procedure performed at initial and second processing, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Procedure Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Initial processing

Vaccinated against 

respiratory diseases 90.6 (2.7) 97.4 (1.2) 96.5 (2.2) 89.3 (2.9) 92.6 (1.8)

Vaccinated against 

clostridial diseases 72.2 (10.3) 76.3 (5.8) 82.0 (6.4) 66.2 (11.7) 73.4 (7.6)

Given an injectable 

antibiotic 30.9 (10.3) 31.2 (5.9) 22.0 (7.2) 38.5 (11.3) 31.0 (7.5)

Implanted 52.4 (9.2) 65.9 (7.3) 71.1 (7.1) 44.4 (9.1) 56.2 (7.2)

Treated for parasites 79.9 (10.6) 93.5 (2.9) 97.3 (1.8) 72.8 (12.4) 83.8 (7.8)

Second processing

Vaccinated against 

respiratory diseases 61.7 (8.2) 67.8 (7.2) 68.3 (9.4) 59.2 (5.9) 63.9 (5.9)

Vaccinated against 

clostridial diseases 32.1 (6.4) 38.6 (9.6) 26.9 (8.5) 43.0 (4.9) 34.5 (5.3)

Given an injectable 

antibiotic 17.5 (6.4) 6.9 (2.8) 13.1 (7.6) 14.4 (2.7) 13.7 (4.3)

Implanted 33.6 (10.0) 57.8 (9.1) 47.5 (12.4) 35.4 (8.8) 41.8 (8.1)

Treated for parasites 49.1 (12.4) 47.9 (9.7) 54.6 (12.3) 42.1 (10.5) 48.6 (8.6)
24 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

3. Modifi cation of antibiotic and vaccination procedures

Overall, a relatively small percentage of feedlots modifi ed antibiotic or vaccination 

procedures based on the criteria listed in the following table (19.6 and 19.7 percent of 

feedlots, respectively). These percentages could be a refl ection of the relatively small 

number of shipments these feedlots received or may refl ect the sourcing of cattle from 

the same origins over time, resulting in little variation in the listed criteria. 

Overall, fewer than one of fi ve feedlots modifi ed their antibiotic or vaccination procedures 

for new arrivals based on any of the listed criteria. However, a higher percentage of 

feedlots with a capacity of 500 to 999 head modifi ed their antibiotic or vaccination 

procedures compared with feedlots with a capacity of 1 to 499 head. 
USDA APHIS VS / 25 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

C.3. For feedlots that processed new arrivals as a group, percentage of feedlots that 

modifi ed antibiotic or vaccination procedures for processing new arrivals during the year 

ending June 30, 2011, by criteria, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Criteria* Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Antibiotic

Arrival weight 11.6 (2.2) 15.5 (4.5) 9.8 (3.6) 12.5 (2.5) 11.8 (2.1)

Distance 

transported or 

percent shrinkage

1.3 (0.6) 7.6 (2.6) 3.1 (1.8) 0.9 (0.3) 1.5 (0.5)

Source of cattle 4.9 (1.2) 29.7 (5.1) 7.6 (2.3) 5.3 (1.3) 5.9 (1.1)

Preconditioning 8.9 (2.0) 29.0 (5.5) 10.5 (4.2) 9.4 (2.2) 9.7 (2.0)

Dairy cattle breed 

(compared with 

beef breeds)

1.0 (0.6) 2.5 (1.3) 0.0 (0.0) 1.5 (0.8) 1.1 (0.6)

History of previous 

antibiotic treatment 6.3 (1.7) 24.0 (5.1) 4.1 (1.3) 8.2 (2.2) 7.1 (1.6)

Any of the above 18.5 (2.7) 45.4 (5.9) 16.1 (5.2) 20.9 (3.0) 19.6 (2.6)

Vaccination

Arrival weight 12.9 (2.5) 23.5 (5.3) 13.2 (5.1) 13.5 (2.7) 13.4 (2.4)

Distance 

transported or 

percent shrinkage

1.8 (0.7) 12.4 (3.1) 3.5 (1.9) 1.7 (0.6) 2.2 (0.7)

Source of cattle 4.8 (1.2) 26.7 (5.0) 5.7 (2.1) 5.7 (1.4) 5.7 (1.2)

Preconditioning 8.0 (2.0) 23.0 (5.0) 8.6 (4.2) 8.6 (2.2) 8.6 (1.9)

Dairy cattle breed 

(compared with 

beef breeds)

1.0 (0.6) 1.8 (1.2) 0.0 (0.0) 1.4 (0.8) 1.0 (0.6)

History of previous 

antibiotic treatment 5.4 (1.6) 26.3 (5.1) 4.1 (1.3) 7.1 (1.9) 6.3 (1.4)

Any of the above 18.7 (2.8) 43.4 (5.6) 18.5 (5.8) 20.2 (3.0) 19.7 (2.7)

*Feedlots that did not modify procedures include those for which the factor did not apply. For example, feedlots 

that did not place dairy breeds would be classifi ed as not modifying processing procedures.
26 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

4. Animal identifi cation

Only 37.5 percent of feedlots placed any cattle that had an individual-animal identifi cation 

(ID) at arrival.

C.4.a. Percentage of feedlots that had any cattle or calves that arrived with an individualanimal ID, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

36.0 (3.8) 69.4 (6.1) 29.0 (6.8) 41.1 (4.2) 37.5 (3.6)

Overall, 40.3 percent of cattle placed arrived with an individual-animal ID.

C.4.b. Percentage of cattle and calves that had an individual-animal ID at arrival, by 

feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

36.0 (5.6) 52.5 (6.1) 39.6 (7.0) 40.8 (5.9) 40.3 (4.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 27 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

Of the 37.5 percent of feedlots that received cattle with individual-animal ID (table C.4.a.), 

10.6 percent removed the ID from at least some of the animals. Nearly one of fi ve of 

these feedlots (18.3 percent) added new individual-animal IDs to at least some animals.

C.4.c. Of feedlots that received cattle and calves with an individual-animal ID at arrival, 

percentage of feedlots that removed the existing ID or applied a new individual-animal ID, 

by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Removed 

individualanimal ID11.0 (3.5) 6.5 (3.1) 10.5 (6.3) 10.6 (3.7) 10.6 (3.2)

Added new 

individual-animal 

ID (excluding 

tagging of sick 

animals)

17.1 (4.6) 31.1 (6.9) 17.2 (7.1) 18.6 (5.2) 18.3 (4.3)

Of the 40.3 percent of cattle that arrived at feedlots with individual-animal ID (table 

C.4.b.), 8.1 percent had the ID removed; 23.1 percent had a new individual ID applied, 

either in addition to the existing ID or to replace the existing ID.

C.4.d. Of cattle and calves that had an individual-animal ID at arrival, percentage of cattle 

and calves that had existing ID removed and percentage that received a new individualanimal ID, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Individual-animal 

ID removed 8.2 (3.0) 7.9 (5.5) 7.6 (5.1) 8.5 (2.8) 8.1 (2.7)

New individualanimal ID 

applied 

(excluding 

tagging of sick 

animals)

19.2 (5.5) 30.6 (7.3) 25.7 (9.0) 21.1 (4.2) 23.1 (4.4)
28 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

Overall, 36.4 percent of feedlots tagged some cattle with an individual-animal ID 

(excluding the tagging of individual sick animals) and 17.0 percent of feedlots used some 

group/owner ID.

C.4.e. Percentage of feedlots that tagged cattle and calves with an individual-animal ID or 

group/owner ID, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Individualanimal ID 36.3 (4.5) 37.7 (6.0) 45.5 (11.1) 32.6 (4.0) 36.4 (4.3)

Group/owner ID 16.3 (2.7) 33.8 (6.0) 21.2 (5.2) 15.3 (3.0) 17.0 (2.6)

Either 43.0 (4.6) 54.2 (6.1) 55.5 (11.5) 38.5 (4.1) 43.5 (4.4)

C.4.f. Percentage of cattle and calves tagged at the feedlot with an individual-animal ID 

and percentage tagged with group/owner ID, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Individualanimal ID 27.6 (6.8) 44.6 (6.9) 32.1 (8.3) 32.0 (7.5) 32.0 (5.6)

Group/owner ID 24.5 (7.2) 33.5 (6.8) 29.0 (8.5) 25.2 (7.5) 26.8 (5.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 29 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Arrival Management

Only 10.2 percent of feedlots applied a hide brand to any cattle. Hide-branding was more 

common in the Central region than in the Other region.

C.4.g. Percentage of feedlots that hide-branded any cattle after arrival, by feedlot 

capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

9.9 (3.4) 17.3 (4.7) 33.4 (10.8) 0.6 (0.3) 10.2 (3.3)
30 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Nutrition Management

1. Feed additives

Less than 30 percent of feedlots used any of the listed nutritional management practices. 

About 3 of 10 feedlots (28.7 percent) included an ionophore in cattle diets. Only one of 

four feedlots (25.6 percent) used any distiller grains in cattle rations.

D.1.a. Percentage of feedlots by nutrition management practice used, feedlot capacity, 

and region:

D. Nutrition 

Management

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Nutrition management 

practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Gave an ionophore, 

such as Rumensin® or 

Cattlyst®

26.7 (3.1) 70.9 (6.0) 30.1 (4.9) 28.1 (3.7) 28.7 (3.0)

Gave a coccidiostat other 

than an ionophore, such 

as Corid® or Deccox®

16.1 (3.3) 36.3 (6.1) 22.7 (8.2) 14.6 (2.9) 17.1 (3.2)

Provided water that was 

treated with chlorine 8.0 (2.2) 6.4 (2.2) 12.8 (5.9) 6.0 (1.7) 7.9 (2.1)

Switched from a highgrain ration to a primarily 

hay ration at fi nish

7.3 (2.1) 7.6 (3.0) 10.5 (5.4) 6.0 (1.9) 7.3 (2.1)

Fed distiller grains as 

part of the cattle ration 23.0 (3.1) 80.6 (4.3) 35.4 (6.3) 21.4 (3.3) 25.6 (2.9)

Fasted prior to 

transportation to slaughter 11.0 (2.4) 19.1 (4.7) 10.7 (4.4) 11.6 (2.8) 11.3 (2.3)

Fed seaweed extract 

(e.g., Tasco-14®) prior to 

slaughter

0.0 (—) 0.7 (0.7) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Fed a beta-agonist, 

OptaFlexx® or 

ractopamine

3.5 (1.5) 11.0 (3.6) 4.5 (3.2) 3.6 (1.5) 3.9 (1.4)

Fed beta-agonist Zilmax® 1.5 (0.9) 2.7 (1.3) 0.3 (0.3) 2.1 (1.2) 1.6 (0.8)

Fed probiotics in feed 

(e.g., Lactobacillius 

acidophilus, Bovamine®)

8.1 (2.2) 12.2 (3.7) 14.5 (6.0) 5.7 (1.7) 8.3 (2.1)
USDA APHIS VS / 31 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Nutrition Management

Despite the low percentage of feedlots that used the listed nutrition management 

practices, 53.3 percent of cattle placed received some distiller grains and 48.9 percent 

were given an ionophore.

D.1.b. Percentage of cattle and calves by nutrition management practice used, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Nutrition 

management practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Given an ionophore, such 

as Rumensin or Cattlyst 39.8 (5.5) 75.0 (5.9) 61.4 (7.0) 39.5 (5.8) 48.9 (4.9)

Given a coccidiostat other 

than an ionophore, such 

as Corid or Deccox, by the 

feedlot

16.9 (4.1) 34.6 (6.9) 24.1 (6.3) 19.6 (4.6) 21.5 (3.8)

Provided with water 

treated with chlorine 3.9 (1.6) 5.3 (2.5) 4.7 (2.7) 4.0 (1.3) 4.3 (1.4)

Switched from a highgrain ration to a primarily 

hay ration at fi nish

15.7 (8.3) 9.2 (4.3) 10.4 (5.0) 16.6 (10.1) 14.0 (6.4)

Fed distiller grains as 

part of the ration 45.0 (8.0) 77.0 (6.0) 68.9 (8.0) 41.8 (7.4) 53.3 (6.0)

Fasted prior to 

transportation to slaughter 14.8 (4.7) 13.3 (3.9) 15.6 (7.0) 13.6 (3.5) 14.4 (3.6)

Fed seaweed extract 

(e.g., Tasco-14) prior to 

slaughter

0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Fed a beta-agonist, 

OptaFlexx or ractopamine 12.3 (8.2) 13.9 (6.1) 6.3 (3.7) 17.3 (10.0) 12.7 (6.3)

Fed beta-agonist Zilmax 9.9 (8.4) 1.1 (0.9) 1.1 (1.1) 12.4 (10.4) 7.7 (6.3)

Fed probiotics in feed 

(e.g., Lactobacillius 

acidophilus, Bovamine)

8.3 (2.8) 6.1 (2.4) 9.1 (4.3) 6.7 (1.9) 7.7 (2.1)
32 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Nutrition Management

0 20 40 60 80

Cattle and calves

Feedlots

Percentage of feedlots and percentage of cattle and calves, by nutrition management 

practice used 

Practice

Given an ionophore

Provided with water

treated with chlorine

Fed distiller grains as

part of the cattle ration

Fed seaweed extract

prior to slaughter

Fed probiotics in feed

Percent

28.7

48.9

17.1

21.5

7.9

4.3

25.6

53.3

11.3

14.4

3.9

12.7

1.6

7.7

8.3

Given a coccidiostate

other than an ionophore

Switched from a high-grain ration

to a primarily hay ration at finish

Fasted prior to transportation to slaughter

Fed a beta-agonist,

OptaFlexx or ractopamine

Fed beta-agonist Zilmax

7.3

14.0

0.0

0.0

7.7
USDA APHIS VS / 33 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Nutrition Management

2. Use of a nutritionist

Approximately one-third of feedlots (30.6 percent) used a nutritionist who was usually 

provided by a feed company (table D.2.b).

D.2.a. Percentage of feedlots that used a nutritionist, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

28.3 (3.0) 82.4 (4.6) 41.2 (6.9) 26.5 (3.0) 30.6 (2.9)

D.2.b. For feedlots that used a nutritionist, percentage of feedlots by type of nutritionist 

used, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Nutritionist Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Full-time on staff 8.8 (4.2) 7.9 (3.3) 7.5 (6.7) 9.4 (4.4) 8.7 (3.7)

Feed company 79.6 (5.0) 69.1 (6.2) 76.6 (8.3) 79.5 (5.2) 78.4 (4.5)

Other, who made 

regular or routine visits 4.1 (1.4) 18.5 (5.0) 6.9 (3.1) 5.0 (1.4) 5.7 (1.4)

Other called as needed 29.3 (5.5) 29.5 (6.2) 31.6 (9.8) 27.9 (5.2) 29.3 (4.9)
34 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management

1. Frequency of pen-riding or walking

About half of feedlots with a capacity of 1 to 499 head checked cattle by pen-riding or 

walking twice a day, while only about one-third of feedlots with a capacity of 500 to 999 

head checked cattle twice a day. Regardless of feedlot capacity, a higher percentage of 

feedlots checked new arrivals more than twice a day than checked cattle that had been 

on the feedlot more than 15 days. Less than 16 percent of all feedlots observed cattle 

pens infrequently (less often than once a day) or had no standard procedure for checking 

cattle.

E.1. Percentage of feedlots by frequency pen-riding or walking procedures were 

conducted, number of days cattle had been at the feedlot, and feedlot capacity:

E. Health 

Management

Percent Feedlots

Frequency

More than 

twice a day

Twice 

a day

Once 

a day

Less than 

once a day

No 

standard 

procedure

Number of days 

cattle at feedlot Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Feedlot capacity: 1–499 head

New arrivals (at feedlot 

less than 15 days) 18.2 (3.0) 46.1 (4.3) 20.8 (4.0) 0.1 (0.1) 14.8 (2.7) 100.0

15–29 7.9 (1.9) 51.7 (4.5) 24.5 (4.2) 0.2 (0.1) 15.7 (2.7) 100.0

30 or more 6.5 (1.7) 48.7 (4.4) 29.6 (4.2) 0.8 (0.4) 14.4 (2.6) 100.0

Feedlot capacity: 500–999 head

New arrivals (at feedlot 

less than 15 days) 26.3 (5.4) 37.6 (6.0) 29.6 (6.0) 0.4 (0.3) 6.1 (3.5) 100.0

15–29 12.9 (4.0) 35.1 (5.3) 42.1 (6.3) 3.4 (2.6) 6.5 (3.5) 100.0

30 or more 8.0 (3.3) 31.1 (5.3) 52.8 (6.2) 3.6 (2.6) 4.5 (2.7) 100.0

All feedlots

New arrivals (at feedlot 

less than 15 days) 18.6 (2.9) 45.7 (4.1) 21.2 (3.8) 0.1 (0.1) 14.4 (2.6) 100.0

15–29 8.1 (1.8) 50.9 (4.3) 25.3 (4.1) 0.4 (0.2) 15.3 (2.6) 100.0

30 or more 6.5 (1.6) 47.9 (4.2) 30.7 (4.0) 0.9 (0.4) 14.0 (2.5) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 35 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management

2. Use of a veterinarian

Overall, 58.8 percent of feedlots used the services of a veterinarian, usually a private 

veterinarian called as needed (55.0 percent of feedlots).

E.2. Percentage of feedlots that used a veterinarian, by type of veterinarian used, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Type of veterinarian Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Full-time 

veterinarian on staff 1.5 (0.7) 0.6 (0.6) 0.5 (0.3) 1.8 (1.0) 1.4 (0.7)

Private veterinarian 

who made regular or 

routine visits

3.6 (1.5) 13.9 (4.4) 7.6 (4.6) 2.6 (1.0) 4.0 (1.5)

Private veterinarian 

called as needed 54.2 (4.1) 73.8 (5.1) 58.2 (10.3) 53.8 (3.7) 55.0 (4.0)

Any veterinarian 58.0 (4.1) 77.0 (5.0) 62.0 (10.0) 57.5 (3.8) 58.8 (3.9)
36 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management

3. Use of antibiotics*

Nearly three of four feedlots (74.3 percent) did not include any antibiotics in feed as a 

health or production-management tool. Virtually no feedlots (1.5 percent) used antibiotics 

in water. The relatively low use of antibiotics in feed or water may refl ect a limited 

availability of facilities to mix the ingredients accurately and consistently.

E.3.a. Percentage of feedlots that gave an antibiotic in feed or water as a health or 

production-management tool, by percentage of cattle and calves that received the 

antibiotic, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Percent cattle 

and calves given 

antibiotics in... Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Feed

0 75.6 (3.4) 46.1 (6.5) 76.5 (6.8) 73.5 (3.6) 74.3 (3.3)

1–49 2.3 (1.0) 7.4 (2.3) 0.0 (0.0) 3.5 (1.3) 2.5 (1.0)

50–99 1.0 (0.5) 6.2 (3.2) 1.6 (1.1) 1.1 (0.5) 1.3 (0.5)

100 21.0 (3.2) 40.4 (6.4) 21.9 (6.7) 21.8 (3.5) 21.9 (3.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Water

0 98.7 (0.7) 93.7 (3.1) 98.2 (1.5) 98.6 (0.8) 98.5 (0.7)

1–49 0.1 (0.1) 6.3 (3.1) 0.4 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2)

50–99 0.9 (0.7) 0.0 (—) 1.4 (1.4) 0.7 (0.7) 0.9 (0.7)

100 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*In some cases, ionophores are included in discussions of antibiotic use. For this section, ionophores were 

excluded.
USDA APHIS VS / 37 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management

Overall, 38.2 percent of cattle received an antibiotic in feed as a health or productionmanagement tool at some point during their stay in the feedlot. Only 7.6 percent of cattle 

received an antibiotic in water. 

E.3.b. Percentage of cattle and calves that received an antibiotic in feed and/or water as 

a health or production-management tool, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Antibiotics in... Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Feed 34.8 (8.3) 48.4 (7.5) 34.8 (9.0) 40.7 (8.6) 38.2 (6.4)

Water 9.1 (5.6) 2.7 (1.8) 4.8 (3.8) 9.8 (6.9) 7.6 (4.4)
38 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management

E.3.c. For feedlots that administered any antibiotics in feed or water, percentage of 

feedlots by average number of days antibiotics were included in the feed or water, and by 

feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Average number 

of days antibiotics 

were included in... Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Feed

1–7 30.2 (6.9) 66.6 (7.7) 51.7 (19.8) 29.8 (6.3) 33.8 (6.4)

8–30 48.3 (8.4) 27.8 (7.3) 35.7 (19.6) 48.6 (8.2) 46.2 (7.6)

More than 30 21.5 (7.0) 5.7 (3.2) 12.6 (11.7) 21.6 (7.3) 20.0 (6.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Water

1–7 53.6 (27.8) 76.7 (18.3) 100.0 (—) 37.2 (23.5) 57.2 (24.3)

8–30 46.4 (27.8) 23.3 (18.3) 0.0 (0.0) 62.8 (23.5) 42.8 (24.3)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 39 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Outcome and Destination of Cattle

1. Outcome

Overall, the vast majority of cattle placed in feedlots were marketed for slaughter. Only 

1.2 percent of the animals placed died prior to being sent for slaughter.

F.1. Percentage of cattle and calves by outcome, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Outcome Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Marketed for 

slaughter 95.6 (1.4) 95.4 (2.7) 95.2 (1.8) 95.9 (1.7) 95.6 (1.2)

Died 1.2 (0.2) 1.1 (0.3) 0.9 (0.2) 1.4 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2)

Returned to grazing 2.0 (1.1) 0.3 (0.2) 1.8 (1.1) 1.5 (1.2) 1.6 (0.9)

Shipped to 

another feedlot 0.0 (—) 2.2 (1.8) 0.2 (0.2) 0.8 (0.7) 0.5 (0.4)

Sent to market 

prior to reaching 

expected slaughter 

weight

1.0 (0.7) 0.9 (0.9) 1.8 (1.2) 0.4 (0.4) 1.0 (0.6)

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

Lost for other 

reasons 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

F. Outcome and 

Destination of 

Cattle
40 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Outcome and Destination of Cattle

2. Destination of shipments*

Two-thirds of shipments leaving the feedlot (67.3 percent) went directly to slaughter, and 

one-third (32.2 percent) went to a sale or auction.

F.2. Percentage of cattle shipments that left the feedlot, by shipment destination, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Shipments

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Destination Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Direct to 

slaughter 65.1 (6.6) 93.3 (2.9) 51.7 (15.0) 71.8 (5.5) 67.3 (6.1)

Sales/auction 34.4 (6.6) 5.1 (2.1) 46.6 (15.4) 27.9 (5.5) 32.2 (6.1)

Another feedlot 0.4 (0.4) 1.1 (0.9) 1.7 (1.7) 0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.4)

Direct to another 

beef operation 

(e.g., cow-calf or 

stocker feedlot)

0.0 (—) 0.6 (0.4) 0.0 (—) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*One group of animals moved all at once, no matter how many vehicles were required to move the group.
USDA APHIS VS / 41 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Outcome and Destination of Cattle

3. Average distance shipments traveled to destination

F.3. Average distance (miles) per cattle shipment to destination, by destination, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Average Number Miles per Shipment

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Destination Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Direct to 

slaughter 81 (13) 170 (13) 109 (30) 78 (13) 87 (13)

Sales/auction 37 (3) 70 (19) 54 (7) 33 (3) 38 (3)

Another feedlot *****

Direct to another 

beef operation 

(e.g., cow-calf or 

stocker feedlot)

*****

All 67 (9) 159 (13) 90 (20) 63 (9) 71 (9)

*Too few to report.
42 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Outcome and Destination of Cattle

4. Shipments crossing State lines

F.4. Percentage of shipments that crossed State lines, by destination, feedlot capacity, 

and region:

Percent Shipments Crossing State Lines

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Destination Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Direct to 

slaughter 32.3 (10.6) 33.1 (8.8) 32.5 (10.6) 32.4 (11.3) 32.4 (9.5)

Sales/auction 20.1 (7.5) 1.7 (1.8) 36.4 (11.4) 11.7 (6.0) 19.8 (7.4)

Another feedlot *****

Direct to another 

beef operation 

(e.g., cow-calf or 

stocker feedlot)

*****

All 27.9 (7.6) 30.5 (8.1) 33.8 (7.8) 26.5 (8.8) 28.1 (7.1)

*Too few to report
USDA APHIS VS / 43 

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

1. Familiarity with the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program

The beef industry has been extensively interested in enhancing beef quality since the fi rst 

National Beef Quality Audit identifi ed areas in need of improvement. To address issues 

associated with inferior beef quality, the national BQA program was developed. Today the 

program has national leadership and coordination, and is administered through a Statebased network of resource personnel. From the implementation of routine management 

practices to appropriate use of pharmaceuticals and biologics, the BQA program provides 

guidelines for almost all aspects of production. The BQA program has been expanded to 

include steps all along the production continuum, from birth to harvest. 

Operators on approximately half of feedlots (51.6 percent) had some familiarity with the 

BQA program beyond having heard the name only. Operators on 29.0 percent of feedlots 

were not familiar with the BQA program.

G.1.a. Percentage of feedlots by level of familiarity with either the State or the National 

Cattlemen’s Beef Association BQA program, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Level of 

familiarity Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Very familiar 17.1 (2.9) 41.9 (5.9) 24.1 (7.0) 15.9 (2.8) 18.1 (2.8)

Somewhat 

familiar 33.4 (3.3) 33.8 (5.4) 20.4 (5.3) 38.3 (3.7) 33.5 (3.2)

Heard of 

name only 19.6 (2.8) 15.7 (4.6) 12.2 (4.3) 22.1 (3.3) 19.4 (2.7)

Not familiar 29.9 (3.5) 8.6 (2.5) 43.3 (8.2) 23.7 (3.1) 29.0 (3.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

G. Quality 

Assurance
44 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

G.1.b. Percentage of cattle and calves by level of feedlot operator’s familiarity with either 

the State or the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association BQA program, and by feedlot 

capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Level of 

familiarity Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Very familiar 23.3 (5.8) 38.0 (7.1) 32.4 (9.1) 23.2 (5.1) 27.1 (4.9)

Somewhat 

familiar 38.1 (8.4) 40.3 (7.3) 39.0 (11.1) 38.4 (7.6) 38.6 (6.5)

Heard of 

name only 18.9 (8.0) 12.4 (4.3) 10.2 (4.0) 22.4 (9.5) 17.2 (6.1)

Not familiar 19.7 (4.3) 9.3 (3.7) 18.3 (6.3) 16.0 (3.2) 17.0 (3.3)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 45 

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

G.1.c. Percentage of feedlots that had someone representing the feedlot attend a 

national, State, or local BQA meeting or training session during the previous 5 years, by 

feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

20.5 (3.5) 43.6 (6.5) 39.5 (9.5) 16.7 (3.2) 21.8 (3.3)

G.1.d. Percentage of feedlots that tested any cattle for antibiotic residues prior to 

shipment for slaughter, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

1.2 (0.7) 2.7 (1.6) 1.1 (0.9) 1.3 (0.8) 1.2 (0.6)
46 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

2. Importance of BQA practices

Overall, 40.4 percent of feedlot operators rated implanting strategy as either very or 

somewhat important. This relatively low percentage might be attributed to, at least in 

part, some operators not familiar with the BQA program; only 23.7 percent of operators 

unfamiliar with the BQA probram rated implanting strategy as very or somewhat important 

(table G.2.e.).

G.2.a. Percentage of feedlots by importance operator placed on the following BQA 

practices:

Percent Feedlots

Importance

Very Somewhat Not Don’t know

Practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Location used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(e.g., in neck, shoulder, 

side, or leg)

54.8 (3.8) 19.7 (2.8) 10.0 (2.0) 15.4 (3.2) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

52.5 (4.0) 18.8 (2.6) 12.7 (2.6) 16.0 (3.3) 100.0

Implanting strategy 28.1 (2.9) 12.3 (2.2) 35.9 (3.8) 23.7 (3.7) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

50.7 (4.0) 15.8 (2.6) 18.8 (3.0) 14.6 (2.5) 100.0

Residue avoidance 63.3 (3.8) 6.2 (1.5) 14.7 (2.6) 15.8 (2.8) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 47 

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

G.2.b. Percentage of cattle and calves by importance operator placed on the following 

BQA practices:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Importance

Very Somewhat Not Don’t know

Practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Location used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(e.g., in neck, shoulder, 

side, or leg)

73.0 (5.4) 13.8 (4.7) 3.4 (1.2) 9.7 (2.9) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

69.4 (5.6) 13.4 (2.9) 7.9 (4.5) 9.3 (2.9) 100.0

Implanting strategy 59.8 (5.6) 13.5 (4.3) 14.2 (2.9) 12.5 (3.2) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

68.0 (5.8) 17.8 (5.6) 6.5 (1.9) 7.6 (1.7) 100.0

Residue avoidance 74.5 (5.1) 5.5 (1.5) 12.7 (4.7) 7.4 (1.8) 100.0
48 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

G.2.c. For feedlots in which the operator was very or somewhat familiar with the BQA 

program, percentage of feedlots by importance operator placed on the following BQA 

practices:

Percent Feedlots

Importance

Very Somewhat Not Don’t know

Practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Location used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(e.g., in neck, shoulder, 

side, or leg)

69.4 (4.4) 19.7 (4.1) 8.0 (2.1) 2.9 (1.5) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

66.5 (4.4) 21.2 (3.8) 9.3 (2.8) 3.0 (1.5) 100.0

Implanting strategy 42.4 (4.6) 15.9 (3.4) 31.6 (4.2) 10.1 (2.8) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

60.8 (4.8) 16.2 (3.5) 18.2 (4.0) 4.8 (1.7) 100.0

Residue avoidance 75.3 (4.4) 5.5 (1.9) 15.9 (3.9) 3.3 (1.5) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 49 

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

G.2.d. For feedlots in which the operator was very or somewhat familiar with the BQA 

program, percentage of cattle and calves by importance operator placed on the following 

BQA practices:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Importance

Very Somewhat Not Don’t know

Practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Location used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(e.g., in neck, shoulder, 

side, or leg)

81.8 (6.8) 14.6 (6.8) 2.5 (1.3) 1.1 (0.6) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

78.3 (6.9) 12.5 (3.6) 8.2 (6.7) 1.0 (0.5) 100.0

Implanting strategy 68.7 (6.4) 15.2 (6.2) 10.2 (2.4) 5.9 (2.0) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

70.9 (7.8) 20.2 (7.9) 5.7 (2.5) 3.3 (1.2) 100.0

Residue avoidance 77.6 (6.9) 5.1 (1.9) 15.6 (6.9) 1.7 (0.7) 100.0
50 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

G.2.e. For feedlots in which the operator was not familiar with the BQA program, 

percentage of feedlots by importance operator placed on the following BQA practices:

Percent Feedlots

Importance

Very Somewhat Not Don’t know

Practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Location used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(e.g., in neck, shoulder, 

side, or leg)

42.6 (6.6) 20.8 (3.9) 12.8 (3.7) 23.8 (6.3) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

40.8 (6.7) 17.4 (3.7) 17.1 (4.6) 24.8 (6.3) 100.0

Implanting strategy 14.5 (3.5) 9.2 (2.7) 42.6 (6.6) 33.7 (6.7) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

43.0 (6.3) 16.3 (4.0) 20.7 (4.7) 20.0 (4.0) 100.0

Residue avoidance 54.3 (6.1) 7.3 (2.4) 14.4 (3.4) 24.0 (5.1) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 51 

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

G.2.f. For feedlots in which the operator was not familiar with the BQA program, 

percentage of cattle and calves by importance operator placed on the following BQA 

practices:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Importance

Very Somewhat Not Don’t know

Practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Location used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(e.g., in neck, shoulder, 

side, or leg)

57.6 (10.8) 12.7 (4.2) 5.4 (2.3) 24.3 (8.6) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

53.6 (11.3) 15.6 (5.0) 7.3 (2.9) 23.5 (8.5) 100.0

Implanting strategy 44.1 (12.1) 10.5 (3.7) 22.0 (7.5) 23.4 (8.4) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

63.9 (8.9) 13.7 (4.6) 8.4 (3.1) 14.0 (4.6) 100.0

Residue avoidance 70.2 (7.7) 6.3 (2.5) 7.2 (2.8) 16.2 (5.4) 100.0
52 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Quality Assurance

G.2.g. Percentage of feedlots in which the operator considered the following BQA 

practices very or somewhat important, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Location used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(e.g., in neck, 

shoulder, side, or 

leg)

73.8 (3.4) 89.9 (3.7) 74.9 (8.4) 74.3 (3.2) 74.5 (3.3)

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

70.4 (3.8) 91.8 (3.1) 68.6 (9.5) 72.4 (3.5) 71.3 (3.6)

Implanting strategy 38.8 (3.3) 76.3 (5.2) 35.8 (6.8) 42.2 (3.5) 40.4 (3.2)

Antibiotic selection 

to manage disease 

(e.g., type of FDAapproved antibiotic 

used or duration of 

action)

65.6 (3.8) 88.4 (3.8) 76.6 (8.0) 62.6 (3.8) 66.5 (3.6)

Residue avoidance 68.7 (3.7) 87.3 (3.9) 64.8 (9.3) 71.3 (3.5) 69.5 (3.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 53 

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Environment

Only one of fi ve feedlots (20.5 percent) had any employees in addition to the feedlot 

operator.

H.a. Percentage of feedlots with employees:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

19.3 (2.6) 48.7 (5.9) 24.6 (6.1) 18.9 (2.6) 20.5 (2.5)

H.b. For feedlots with employees other than the operator, percentage of feedlots that had 

a formal training program that included written guidelines for employees regarding the 

listed environmental issues, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Environmental 

issue training 

program Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Manure 

management 21.3 (6.4) 56.2 (8.8) 36.3 (13.8) 18.8 (5.2) 24.7 (5.9)

Dust control 9.3 (5.4) 33.0 (8.8) 27.1 (13.5) 3.8 (1.3) 11.6 (5.0)

Lagoon overfl ow 12.9 (6.0) 39.4 (7.9) 25.8 (13.4) 10.3 (4.3) 15.5 (5.5)

Other 

environmental 

training program

7.6 (4.2) 5.4 (4.7) 1.4 (1.4) 10.4 (5.5) 7.4 (3.8)

Any of the above 24.3 (6.8) 66.8 (7.6) 38.6 (13.9) 23.4 (6.2) 28.5 (6.2)

H. Environment
54 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Environment

Conducting any environmental testing was more common on feedlots with a capacity of 

500 to 999 head (64.6 percent) than on feedlots with a capacity of 1 to 499 head

(28.3 percent). Environmental testing mostly focused on ground water and nutrient 

content of manure. 

H.c. Percentage of feedlots that performed environmental tests, by feedlot capacity and 

by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1–499 500–999 Central Other All feedlots

Material tested Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Ground water* 

(i.e., well water) 20.4 (3.1) 40.9 (6.2) 20.3 (6.7) 21.6 (3.2) 21.3 (3.0)

Surface water* (e.g., 

ponds, lakes, or 

streams)

4.8 (1.9) 8.8 (3.6) 7.3 (5.1) 4.1 (1.7) 4.9 (1.8)

Nutrient content 

of manure (e.g., 

nitrogen level)

8.8 (1.8) 43.2 (6.0) 9.8 (4.1) 10.4 (1.9) 10.3 (1.8)

Air quality 1.3 (0.8) 2.0 (1.3) 0.9 (0.9) 1.5 (1.0) 1.3 (0.8)

Any of the above 28.3 (3.5) 64.6 (5.9) 30.2 (8.2) 29.9 (3.6) 30.0 (3.4)

*For feedlots with the specifi ed water source.
USDA APHIS VS / 55 

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, 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 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 indentify 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
56 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: Methodology

The NAHMS Feedlot 2011 study was divided into two components: feedlots with a 

capacity of 1,000 or more head (“large” feedlots) and feedlots with a capacity of fewer 

than 1,000 head (“small” feedlots). Large feedlots were surveyed via personal interview 

and small feedlots were surveyed by a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI).

The remainder of this section describes the methodology used for “small” feedlots (fewer 

than 1,000 head). For a description of large feedlots, see “Part I: Management Practices 

on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More Head” at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

animal_health/nahms/feedlot/index.shtml#feedlot11

1. State selection

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 

of States identifi ed 13 States with feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head that 

would meet this goal: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.

2. Feedlot selection

The list sampling frame was provided by NASS. Within each State a stratifi ed random 

sample was selected, where strata were defi ned by size. The size indicator was the list 

sampling frame number of head capacity for each feedlot. 

3. Population inferences

Inferences cover the population of feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head 

in the 13 participating States. The initial selection of States was based on the NASS 

2007 Census of Agriculture because NASS no longer publishes State-level numbers of 

feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head (last published in 2007). The Census 

of Agriculture did not include a category for feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 

head, but it was thought that the geographic distribution of feedlots with a capacity of 

fewer than 500 head would be similar to the geographic distribution of feedlots with a 

capacity of fewer than 1,000 head. Thus, the selection of the 13 States was based on a 

capacity of fewer than 500 head (Appendix II). The 13 States accounted for 85.4 percent 

of U.S. feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 500 head and 90.5 percent of the cattle 

inventory on feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 500 head. Study results showed that 

78.8 percent of the 2,500 feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000-head selected for 

the study had a capacity of fewer than 500 head.

B. Sampling and 

Estimation
USDA APHIS VS / 57 

Section II: Methodology

Data collectors and data collection period

From August 1 through 30, 2011, computer-assisted telephone interviews were 

conducted by NASS phone enumerators to administer the General Feedlot Management 

Questionnaire–CATI questionnaire.

Validation

Initial data entry and validation for the General Feedlot Management Questionnaire–CATI 

were performed in a central NASS call center. Data were entered into a SAS® data set. 

NAHMS staff performed additional data validation on the data set prior to data analysis.

C. Data 

Collection

D. Data Analysis
58 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: Methodology

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. 

A total of 2,500 feedlots were selected for the survey. Of these feedlots, 1,945 

(77.8 percent) were contacted. There were 530 feedlots that provided usable inventory 

information (21.2 percent of the total selected and 27.2 percent of those contacted). Of 

these, 495 feedlots (19.8 percent of total selected) provided “complete” information for 

the questionnaire. 

General Feedlot Management Questionnaire–CATI

Measurement Parameter

Response category

Number 

feedlots

Percent 

feedlots Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Survey complete 495 19.8 x x x

Zero cattle on feed 

during the period 

July 1, 2010, through 

June 30, 2011

35 1.4 x x

Refusal3 1,415 56.6 x

Offi ce hold (NASS 

elected not to 

contact)

24 1.0

Inaccessible 531 21.2

Total 2,500 100.0 1,945 530 495

Percent of total 

feedlots 77.8 21.2 19.8

Percent of total 

feedlots weighted4 78.1 18.3 17.0

1

Useable feedlot—respondent provided answers to inventory questions for the feedlot (either zero or positive 

number on hand).

2

Survey complete feedlot—respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions.

3

Refusals include out of scope/out of business.

4

Weighted response—the rate was calculated using the initial selection weights.

E. Sample 

Evaluation
USDA APHIS VS / 59 

Appendix I: Sample Profi le

1. Number of responding feedlots, by herd size and by region

Feedlot capacity (number head)

Region 1–499 500–999 Total

Central 54 25 79

Other 328 88 416

Total 382 113 495

Appendix I: Sample Profi le
60 / Feedlot 2011

Appendix II: Feedlots and Inventory

Region State

Number of 

feedlots Pct. of U.S.

Number cattle 

and calves Pct. of U.S.

Central Kansas2 1,033 2.22 106,666 4.15

Nebraska2 1,899 4.09 223,542 8.70

South Dakota2 1,541 3.32 174,629 6.83

Texas2 1,320 2.84 63,045 2.45

 Total 5,793 12.47 567,882 22.13

Other Illinois 3,167 6.82 162,291 6.31

Indiana 2,554 5.50 81,397 3.17

Iowa2 6,190 13.32 559,587 21.77

Michigan 2,810 6.05 104,246 4.06

Minnesota 5,336 11.49 320,841 12.48

Missouri 1,448 3.12 55,649 2.16

Ohio 3,925 8.45 128,475 5.00

Pennsylvania 2,993 6.44 108,899 4.24

Wisconsin 5,455 11.74 237,334 9.23

 Total 33,878 72.93 1,758,719 68.42

Total 13 

States 39,671 85.40 2,327,601 90.55

Total U.S. 

(50 

States)

46,458 100.00 2,570,705 100.00

1

The NAHMS Feedlot 2011 study second component included feedlots with fewer than 1,000-head capacity. 

The only published State-level numbers of feedlots in all 50 States are from the NASS 2007 Census, which 

does not include a category for fewer than 1,000 head capacity. Thus, this table shows fewer than 500-head 

capacity data.

2

These States also participated in the study’s fi rst component (large feedlots).

Source: NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture.

Appendix II: Feedlots and Inventory, Fewer than 500 Head Capacity1 for 

Selected States, 2007
USDA APHIS VS / 61 

Appendix III: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory

Number of feedlots

Feedlot capacity 20071 20082 20093 20103 20114

Fewer than 1,000 head 85,000 80,000 80,000 75,000 75,000

1,000 or more 2,160 2,170 2,170 2,140 2,120

All feedlots in 

United States 87,160 82,170 82,170 77,140 77,120

January 1 inventory (x1,000)

20081 20092 20103 20113 20114

Fewer than 1,000 head 2,734.7 2,621.7 2,659.2 2,508.9 2,260.4

1,000 or more 12,092 11,234 10,983 11,514 11,861

All feedlots in 

United States 14,826.7 13,855.7 13,642.2 14,022.9 14,121.4

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 Capacity
62 / Feedlot 2011

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

1. Describe changes in management practices and animal health 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, 

expected May 2013

• Part IV: Health and Health Management on U.S. Feedlots with Capacity of 1,000 

or More Head, expected May 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. Feedlots Processing Practices for Arriving Cattle, info sheet, October 2012

• Implant Usage, info sheet, expected spring 2013

• Respiratory Disease in Feedlot Cattle, info sheet, expected spring 2013

• Vaccination of Cattle Against Respiratory Disease Pathogens, info sheet, 

expected spring 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

• Awareness of the Beef Quality Assurance Program Among Operators of Small 

Feedlots, info sheet, April 2013

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, 

expected May 2013

• Part IV: Health and Health Management on U.S. Feedlots with Capacity of 1,000 

or More Head, expected May 2013
USDA APHIS VS / 63 

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

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, September 2012
Feedlot 2011 Part II

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Placement Profi le 5

 1. Cattle type 5

 2. Placements not intended for slaughter 11

B. Source of Cattle 13

 1. Description of origin and source 13

 2. Source of arriving shipments 16

 3. Average distance shipments traveled 

to feedlot 17

 4. Shipments crossing State lines 18

C. Arrival Management 19

 1. Timing of initial processing 19

 2. Cattle processing procedures 21

 3. Modifi cation of antibiotic and vaccination 

procedures 24

 4. Animal identifi cation 26

 D. Nutrition Management 30

 1. Feed additives 30

 2. Use of a nutritionist 33

E. Health Management 34

 1. Frequency of pen-riding or walking 34

 2. Use of a veterinarian 35

 3. Use of antibiotics 36

F. Outcome and Destination of Cattle 39

 1. Outcome 39

 2. Destination of shipments 40

 3. Average distance shipments traveled to

destination 41

 4. Shipments crossing State lines 42

G. Quality Assurance 43

 1. Familiarity with the Beef Quality Assurance 

(BQA) program 43

 2. Importance of BQA practices 46

H. Environment 53

 

Section II: Methodology 55

Appendix I: Sample Profi le 59

Appendix II: Feedlots and Inventory, Fewer than

500 Head Capacity for Selected States, 2007 60

Appendix III: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by 

Capacity 61

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related 

Outputs 62