United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

Veterinary 

Services

National Animal 

Health 

Monitoring 

System

March 2013

Feedlot 2011

Part I: Management Practices 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

#626.0313

Cover photograph courtesy of John Nienaber, USDA Agricultural 

Research Service.
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://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/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 or 

more head 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 or more head. 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” 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.

Pre-arrival management practices can help improve cattle health and thereby reduce 

death loss and sickness in feedlots. Implementing these practices in the early stages 

of the production process can help improve cattle’s resistance to infectious disease 

before they arrive in feedlots. Feedlot operators recognize the value of these practices. 

For example, more than 70 percent of feedlot operators on feedlots with a capacity of 

1,000 head or more believed that pre-arrival processing practices were very or extremely 

effective in reducing cattle sickness and death loss in feedlots (p 28). There was also 

consensus among these operators that castrating and dehorning calves at least 4 weeks 

prior to arrival, giving vaccinations for respiratory disease, and introducing cattle to a 

feed bunk before being placed on the feedlot were critical. Despite the perception of 

importance of these pre-arrival practices and the feedlots’ inclination to use information 

about these practices to manage cattle after their arrival, such information is not 

necessarily available. Only 34.7 percent of feedlots reported that such information was 

always available and 58.2 percent reported that it was sometimes available (p 30). 

Normally, cattle receive some arrival processing when placed on the feedlot to help 

ensure their health and productivity. Nearly all feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more 

head (96.8 percent) processed arriving cattle as a group at least once (p 35). The most 

frequent management practices used as part of an initial processing were vaccination for 

Items of Note
ii / Feedlot 2011

respiratory disease (96.0 percent of those processing) and treatment for parasites 

(94.5 percent of those processing) [p 37]. 

Overall, 73.4 percent of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head used some 

antibiotics in feed for some of their animals (p 72). On 55.9 percent of these feedlots 

(41.6 percent of all feedlots) all cattle and calves received an antibiotic in feed as a health 

or production management tool (p 72). For 66.9 percent of feedlots, the average period of 

inclusion of antibiotics in feed was from 1 to 7 days (p 75).

Familiarity with the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program was prevalent among feedlots 

with a capacity of 1,000 or more head; 93.8 percent indicated they were very familiar or 

somewhat familiar with the program (p 82). Over 98 percent of cattle placed in feedlots 

with a capacity of 1,000 or more head were placed in feedlots that were very familiar or 

somewhat familiar with the BQA program (p 85). Nearly two of three feedlots 

(65.5 percent) had someone representing their feedlot attend a BQA meeting in the 

previous 5 years (p 85).
USDA APHIS VS / iii 

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 7

A. Inventory—Primary Use 7

1. Cattle type 7

2. Placements not intended for slaughter 13

3. Mexican-origin cattle 16

B. Source of Cattle 18

1. Description of origin and source 18

2. Source of arriving shipments 22

3. Average distance shipments traveled to feedlot 24

4. Shipments crossing State lines 25

5. Information provided to cattle sources 26

C. Pre-arrival Processing 27

1. Effectiveness of pre-arrival processing 27

2. Availability of pre-arrival processing information 30

3. Importance of pre-arrival processing information 32

4. Use of pre-arrival processing information 34

D. Arrival Management 35

1. Initial processing timing 35

2. Cattle processing procedures 36

3. Modifi cation of antibiotic and vaccination procedures 41

4. Handling pregnant heifers 43

5. Handling cattle with horns 44

6. Animal identifi cation 46

E. Nutrition 50

1. Nutrition management 50

2. Use of heat suppressant for heifers 53

3. Level of concentrates 55

4. Feed storage 56

5. Water source 59

6. Use of a nutritionist 59

Table of Contents
iv / Feedlot 2011

F. Health Management 62

1. Frequency of pen-riding or walking 62

2. Training for drug and medication treatments 64

3. Sick-animal records 65

4. Use of a veterinarian 67

5. Postmortems performed 70

6. Use of antibiotics 71

7. Carcass disposal 76

G. Outcome and Destination of Cattle 78

1. Outcome 78

2. Destination of shipments 79

3. Average distance shipments traveled to destination 80

4. Shipments crossing State lines 81

H. Quality Assurance 82

1. Familiarity with Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program 82

2. Importance of BQA practices 87

3. Training provided for BQA practices 94

I. Biosecurity 98

1. Housing management 98

2. Vaccination protocols and testing 100

3. Management of Mexican-origin cattle 101

4. Presence of other animals 103

5. Visitor management 106

6. Equipment sharing and cleaning 112

7. Information sources and contacts during an outbreak 114

8. Feedlot size, animal density, and proximity to another feedlot 

with livestock 118

9. Labor 120

J. Emergency Preparedness 123

1. Written plans, training, and relationships 123

2. Emergency resources 125

K. Environment 127

1. Training and testing 127

2. Manure management 129

3. Water management and dust control 132
USDA APHIS VS / v 

Section II: Methodology 135

A. Needs Assessment 135

B. Sampling and Estimation 136

C. Data Collection 136

D. Data Analysis 137

E. Sample Evaluation 137

Appendix I: Sample Profi le 139

Appendix II: Number of and Inventory for Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More 

Head in Selected States 140

Appendix III: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory, by Capacity 141

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 142
vi / 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 / vii 

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

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

1,000 or More Head.” 

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

#626.0313

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 

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

capacity) in 13 States.* Large feedlots accounted for 82.1 percent of the January 1, 2011, 

inventory in all U.S. feedlots but only 2.8 percent of all feedlots. The 12 participating 

States accounted for over 95 percent of the inventory in large feedlots (NASS, “Cattle 

on Feed” February 18, 2011). Study results presented in this report refl ect only large 

feedlots, which 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. 

*See “Feedlot 2011, Part II: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of Fewer than 1,000 Head” 

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

Introduction
2 / Feedlot 2011

Introduction

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

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 the growth of or kill certain bacteria. They are very 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 additives that promote growth. These compounds are 

“repartitioning agents,” shifting nutrients away from fat deposition and toward lean 

muscle growth. Currently, two beta-agonists are available to cattle feeders: ractopamine 

hydrochloride (Optafl exx®) and zilpaterol hydrochloride (Zilmax®).

Biocontainment: Actions taken to minimize the risk of spreading disease agents among 

groups of animals on an operation.

Biosecurity: Actions taken to minimize the risk of introducing disease agents to an 

operation. 

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: A strain of animal with identifi able characteristics—usually preserved by 

controlled mating or propagation—that distinguish it from other members of its species.

Castration: The removal of testicles or other action that makes a male incapable of 

producing semen. A band around the scrotum and the Burdizzo (a clamp-like device that 

crushes the arteries and veins) both work to stop the blood fl ow to the testicles. Once the 

blood supply to the testicles is lost, testicular necrosis occurs, and the testicles shrink, 

soften, and eventually deteriorate completely. 

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 or calves put in a feedlot, fed a high-energy ration, and 

intended for the slaughter market.

Coccidiostat: Drug which controls coccidiosis.

Concentrates: Cereal grains or their byproducts typically fed for their energy content. 

Custom feeding: Cattle being housed and fed in the feedlot are partly or wholly owned 

by someone other than the feedlot operator.

Terms Used in 

This Report
4 / Feedlot 2011

Introduction

Dehorn: To remove the horns of livestock by cutting, burning, or applying an acid paste 

to the horn area. The method used depends on the stage of horn development. 

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

Dry matter basis: The dry portion of the feed (i.e., excluding the water content). 

Feed bunk (bunk feeder): A long trough used to feed livestock. Feed may be distributed 

with an elevator or auger running the length of the feeder or by driving a feed truck or 

wagon along the feeder. 

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. 

Heat suppressant: A compound given to female cattle to delay or prevent estrus (heat). 

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

goats. 

Horns tipped: Removal of the terminal 1 to 2 inches of horns of cattle. 

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

the fermentation pattern in the rumen. 

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

animals to eliminate or minimize an expected disease outbreak. 

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. An estimate of 7.5 with a standard error of 1.0 results in limits of 5.5 to 

9.5 (two times the standard error above and below the estimate). An estimate of 3.4 with 

a standard error of 0.3 and results in limits of 2.8 and 4.0. 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 (—). 

Postmortem: Performed or occurring after death, usually an examination. 
USDA APHIS VS / 5 

Introduction

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 the health of the animal. 

Processing: A term used to describe a variety of procedures (e.g., vaccinations, 

implanting, deworming), generally applied to groups of animals. 

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

Regions:

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

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

Residue: Compounds that remain in animals after treatment has ceased. 

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

required to move them.

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

other handling processes. 

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

Wean: To separate nursing young from their mothers so they can no longer nurse.
6 / Feedlot 2011
USDA APHIS VS / 7 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

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, population estimates are shown for all feedlots in the inference 

population (i.e., those with a capacity of 1,000 or more head 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 factors related to geographic location. Sample-size issues generally preclude the 

possibility of full two-way analyses of these data.

1. Cattle type

Most feedlots (80.2 percent) placed beef breeds or beef crossbreeds only, regardless 

of region or feedlot capacity. Overall, 2.3 percent of feedlots placed dairy breeds only. 

Feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head were more likely to place some cattle 

of both beef and dairy breeds (38.5 percent) compared with feedlots with a capacity of 

1,000 to 7,999 head (9.0 percent).

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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds only 88.2 (1.8) 60.6 (3.4) 79.1 (2.2) 81.9 (2.6) 80.2 (1.7)

Dairy 

breeds only 2.8 (0.9) 0.9 (0.4) 1.0 (0.5) 4.2 (1.4) 2.3 (0.6)

Beef and 

dairy breeds 9.0 (1.6) 38.5 (3.4) 19.9 (2.2) 13.9 (2.3) 17.5 (1.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

A. Inventory—

Primary Use

Section I: Population Estimates1

1

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

June 30, 2011.
8 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

Most cattle placed in feedlots (91.5 percent) were beef breeds or beef crossbreeds. Only 

8.5 percent of cattle were dairy breeds. Feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head 

placed a higher percentage of dairy cattle (9.6 percent) compared with feedlots with a 

capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (2.8 percent). Feedlots in the Central region placed a 

lower percentage of dairy cattle (5.8 percent) than feedlots in the Other region 

(21.3 percent).

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

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 97.2 (0.7) 90.4 (1.0) 94.2 (1.0) 78.7 (2.0) 91.5 (0.9)

Dairy breeds 2.8 (0.7) 9.6 (1.0) 5.8 (1.0) 21.3 (2.0) 8.5 (0.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Overall, 72.9 percent of feedlots placed some beef breed or crossbreed steers less than 

700 pounds from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011; 91.2 percent of feedlots with a 

capacity of 8,000 or more head placed some beef breed or crossbreed steers less than 

700 pounds during the same period. Similar percentages of feedlots placed beef breed or 

crossbreed steers 700 pounds or more. A low percentage of feedlots (6.3 percent) placed 

any beef breed or crossbreed cows, and 14.2 percent of feedlots placed some beef breed 

or crossbreed bulls. Some of these bulls were later castrated at the feedlot (table D.2.d).
USDA APHIS VS / 9 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 65.4 (2.8) 91.2 (1.7) 76.5 (2.4) 67.2 (3.8) 72.9 (2.1)

Dairy breeds 8.3 (1.6) 29.3 (3.5) 15.1 (2.1) 13.2 (2.3) 14.4 (1.6)

Any steers 

<700 lb 68.0 (2.8) 95.1 (1.4) 78.9 (2.3) 71.1 (3.7) 75.8 (2.0)

Steers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 64.6 (2.7) 87.4 (2.9) 74.5 (2.6) 66.0 (3.6) 71.2 (2.1)

Dairy breeds 4.9 (1.3) 14.6 (1.5) 7.3 (1.0) 8.2 (2.0) 7.7 (1.0)

Any steers

≥700 lb 67.4 (2.6) 87.4 (2.9) 75.6 (2.6) 69.5 (3.4) 73.2 (2.1)

Any steers 91.6 (1.6) 100.0 (—) 94.4 (1.4) 93.5 (1.9) 94.0 (1.1)

Heifers less than 700 lb

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 54.0 (2.9) 88.3 (2.0) 71.2 (2.6) 52.8 (3.9) 63.9 (2.2)

Dairy breeds 2.1 (0.7) 7.4 (1.5) 3.9 (0.8) 3.2 (1.1) 3.6 (0.7)

Any heifers

<700 lb 54.9 (2.9) 88.5 (2.0) 72.2 (2.6) 52.9 (3.9) 64.6 (2.2)

Heifers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 47.3 (2.9) 80.2 (3.3) 64.6 (2.8) 44.9 (4.1) 56.8 (2.3)

Dairy breeds 1.2 (0.6) 6.4 (1.1) 3.6 (0.7) 1.4 (0.8) 2.7 (0.5)

Any heifers

≥700 lb 47.8 (2.9) 80.2 (3.3) 64.6 (2.8) 45.8 (4.1) 57.1 (2.3)

Any heifers 71.2 (2.6) 93.7 (1.4) 84.8 (2.1) 66.9 (3.7) 77.7 (1.9)

Cows

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 5.3 (1.4) 8.8 (1.8) 6.1 (1.2) 6.6 (2.1) 6.3 (1.1)

Dairy breeds 0.0 (0.0) 1.9 (0.6) 0.9 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.2)

Any cows 5.3 (1.4) 9.3 (1.8) 6.3 (1.2) 6.6 (2.1) 6.4 (1.1)

Bulls

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 12.3 (1.9) 18.7 (2.3) 18.7 (2.0) 7.2 (2.1) 14.2 (1.5)

Dairy breeds 1.0 (0.5) 3.2 (1.0) 1.9 (0.6) 1.2 (0.7) 1.6 (0.5)

Any bulls 12.8 (1.9) 19.9 (2.3) 19.9 (2.1) 7.2 (2.1) 14.8 (1.5)
10 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

Overall, 54.4 percent of cattle placed in feedlots were beef breed or crossbreed steers 

of any weight, and 36.1 percent were beef breed or crossbreed heifers of any weight. 

These percentages were similar across feedlot capacity and region. Overall, 1.1 percent 

of animals placed were cows and 0.9 percent were bulls.

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

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 25.2 (1.9) 22.6 (1.0) 23.4 (1.0) 21.2 (1.9) 23.1 (0.9)

Dairy breeds 1.6 (0.4) 7.6 (0.9) 4.0 (0.9) 19.3 (1.9) 6.6 (0.8)

Steers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 34.1 (2.8) 30.7 (1.3) 32.3 (1.3) 26.3 (2.5) 31.3 (1.2)

Dairy breeds 1.0 (0.5) 0.7 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 1.5 (0.5) 0.7 (0.1)

Heifers less than 700 lb

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 17.8 (1.8) 18.9 (0.9) 19.6 (0.9) 14.5 (1.7) 18.7 (0.8)

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

Heifers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 18.6 (2.1) 17.2 (0.9) 18.3 (1.0) 13.3 (1.6) 17.4 (0.8)

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

Cows

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 0.8 (0.4) 1.0 (0.4) 0.5 (0.1) 3.3 (1.9) 1.0 (0.3)

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

Bulls

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 0.8 (0.2) 0.9 (0.1) 1.0 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.9 (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 / 11 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

Feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head were more likely to place dairy breeds, 

regardless of weight, than feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head. In each of the 

two regions, a similar percentage of feedlots placed dairy breeds, regardless of weight.

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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 72.9 (2.6) 93.9 (1.6) 83.4 (2.2) 72.2 (3.6) 79.0 (1.9)

Dairy breeds 8.7 (1.6) 30.9 (3.5) 15.9 (2.2) 14.0 (2.3) 15.1 (1.6)

Any breed 75.5 (2.6) 97.1 (1.2) 85.4 (2.1) 76.1 (3.5) 81.7 (1.9)

Steers and/or heifers 700 lb or more

Beef breeds or 

crossbreeds 73.5 (2.5) 88.2 (2.9) 80.8 (2.4) 73.1 (3.4) 77.8 (2.0)

Dairy breeds 4.9 (1.3) 16.0 (1.6) 8.0 (1.0) 8.2 (2.0) 8.1 (1.0)

Any breed 76.0 (2.4) 88.2 (2.9) 81.5 (2.4) 76.5 (3.2) 79.5 (1.9)
12 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

The relative mix of cattle types placed in feedlots was similar by feedlot capacity and by 

region. Nearly 60 percent of the beef breed or crossbreed cattle placed in feedlots 

(58.8 percent) were steers, whereas almost all of the dairy breed cattle placed in feedlots 

(94.7 percent) were steers.

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

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef breed or crossbreed

Steers 60.9 (2.4) 58.4 (1.4) 58.6 (1.4) 60.3 (2.5) 58.8 (1.3)

Heifers 37.4 (2.4) 39.5 (1.4) 39.9 (1.4) 35.2 (2.3) 39.2 (1.2)

Cows 0.9 (0.4) 1.1 (0.4) 0.5 (0.1) 4.2 (2.4) 1.1 (0.4)

Bulls 0.8 (0.2) 1.0 (0.1) 1.0 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.9 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dairy breed

Steers 94.1 (2.5) 94.8 (1.0) 91.9 (2.2) 97.9 (0.5) 94.7 (1.0)

Heifers 4.9 (2.3) 3.3 (0.7) 4.7 (1.4) 1.9 (0.5) 3.4 (0.7)

Cows 0.0 (0.0) 1.5 (0.6) 2.7 (1.2) 0.0 (0.0) 1.4 (0.6)

Bulls 1.0 (0.7) 0.4 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 13 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

2. Placements not intended for slaughter

While most cattle placed in feedlots are fed for the slaughter market, some are fed for 

other purposes. For example, feedlots sometimes grow and develop breeding cattle 

that are returned to breeding operations, and cattle are sometimes backgrounded or 

grown temporarily on the feedlot then returned to grazing prior to being fed for slaughter. 

Overall, 12.2 percent of feedlots placed some cattle for purposes other than slaughter, 

most commonly beef animals to be used for breeding stock (7.5 percent of feedlots). A 

lower percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (6.9 percent) placed 

any cattle for purposes other than slaughter compared with feedlots with a capacity of 

1,000 to 7,999 head (14.5 percent).

A.2.a. Percentage of feedlots that placed cattle on feed for purposes other than slaughter, 

by placement purpose, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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

8.8 (1.6) 4.2 (1.1) 9.1 (1.6) 5.0 (1.6) 7.5 (1.1)

Dairy animals 

to be used for 

breeding stock

2.3 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0) 1.2 (0.6) 2.3 (1.4) 1.6 (0.6)

Other cattle and 

calves (e.g., to 

be returned to 

grazing)

5.6 (1.3) 3.4 (1.1) 6.9 (1.5) 2.0 (0.9) 4.9 (1.0)

Any 

nonslaughter 14.5 (2.0) 6.9 (1.3) 15.0 (2.0) 8.1 (2.1) 12.2 (1.5)
14 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

Overall, only 1.3 percent of cattle were placed for purposes other than slaughter. 

Feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head had a higher percentage of cattle placed 

for nonslaughter purposes (6.5 percent) compared with feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 

or more head (0.2 percent). 

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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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

1.0 (0.4) 0.1 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1)

Dairy animals 

to be used for 

breeding stock

0.7 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.3) 0.1 (0.0)

Other cattle and 

calves (e.g., to 

be returned to 

grazing)

4.8 (1.9) 0.1 (0.0) 1.0 (0.4) 0.5 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3)

Any 

nonslaughter 6.5 (2.1) 0.2 (0.1) 1.3 (0.5) 1.2 (0.4) 1.3 (0.4)
USDA APHIS VS / 15 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

Of cattle placed for nonslaughter purposes, 71.5 percent were intended to return to 

grazing. 

A.2.c. Of cattle 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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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

15.5 (4.0) 43.4 (9.8) 20.8 (4.9) 12.8 (4.9) 19.5 (4.0)

Dairy animals 

to be used for 

breeding stock

10.5 (5.2) 0.0 (0.0) 2.1 (1.2) 43.8 (16.9) 9.0 (4.2)

Other cattle and 

calves (e.g., to 

be returned to 

grazing)

74.0 (6.8) 56.6 (9.8) 77.1 (5.4) 43.4 (16.4) 71.5 (6.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
16 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

3. Mexican-origin cattle

The possibility of Mexican-origin cattle being infected with Mycobacterium bovis, the 

agent associated with bovine tuberculosis, or ticks infected with Babesia, the agent 

associated with Texas cattle fever, has been of concern for many years. As a result, State 

and Federal regulations have been put in place that address import requirements and 

subsequent management of these cattle. 

Overall, 11.4 percent of feedlots placed some cattle of Mexican origin during the year. 

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

Mexican-origin cattle compared feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (33.1 and 

2.5 percent, respectively). Similarly, a higher percentage of feedlots in the Central region 

than in the Other region placed Mexican-origin cattle (15.8 and 4.9 percent, respectively).

A.3.a. Percentage of feedlots that placed Mexican-origin cattle and calves on feed for 

slaughter, 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

2.5 (0.8) 33.1 (2.7) 15.8 (1.3) 4.9 (1.3) 11.4 (0.9)

Less than 5 percent of cattle placed in feedlots were of Mexican origin, and virtually all of 

those were beef cattle and calves.

A.3.b. Percentage of cattle and calves that were of Mexican origin, by cattle type, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef cattle 

and calves 1.1 (0.5) 5.1 (0.6) 4.4 (0.6) 4.7 (0.7) 4.4 (0.5)

Dairy cattle 

and calves 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0)

Any 1.1 (0.5) 5.1 (0.6) 4.4 (0.6) 4.7 (0.7) 4.5 (0.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 17 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Inventory-Primary Use

A.3.c. Of Mexican-origin cattle, percentage of cattle and calves by cattle type, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Beef cattle 

and calves 100.0 (—) 99.2 (0.1) 99.0 (0.1) 100.0 (—) 99.2 (0.1)

Dairy cattle 

and calves 0.0 (—) 0.8 (0.1) 1.0 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 0.8 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
18 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

1. Description of origin and source

Cattle in feedlots might be owned by the feedlot or be custom fed for another owner. 

Other owners might be investors or producers that retain ownership of their cattle. 

Retained ownership programs allow producers to capture some of the extra value 

associated with high-quality cattle, and access production information through the entire 

beef production chain.

Nearly two of three feedlots (64.2 percent) purchased some cattle by auction. 

Approximately one of two feedlots (50.2 percent) custom fed some cattle for other 

owners. Custom feeding was much more common on feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 

or more head compared with feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (79.9 and 

38.0 percent of feedlots, respectively). Similarly, a higher percentage of feedlots in the 

Central region than in the Other region custom fed some cattle (62.0 and 31.8 percent, 

respectively). A relatively low percentage of feedlots (14.4 percent) fed cattle produced 

on their own feedlot or another operation owned by the feedlot. A lower percentage of 

feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (2.6 percent) fed cattle born on their own 

feedlot or another operation owned by the feedlot compared with feedlots with a capacity 

of 1,000 to 7,999 head (19.2 percent).

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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 38.0 (2.6) 79.9 (3.5) 62.0 (2.9) 31.8 (3.3) 50.2 (2.2)

Purchased by 

feedlot via auction 62.4 (2.8) 68.6 (4.2) 67.0 (2.9) 59.8 (3.8) 64.2 (2.3)

Purchased by feedlot via 

direct sale (cash or video, 

private treaty)

52.6 (2.9) 65.7 (3.7) 57.8 (2.8) 54.2 (4.0) 56.4 (2.3)

Born on feedlot or another 

operation operated solely by 

feedlot

19.2 (2.2) 2.6 (1.0) 12.9 (1.9) 16.7 (2.7) 14.4 (1.6)

Obtained from other sources 3.8 (1.1) 6.3 (2.3) 4.9 (1.4) 4.1 (1.3) 4.6 (1.0)

*Producer-retained ownership or investor owned.
USDA APHIS VS / 19 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

0 20 40 60 80 100

All operations

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Percentage of feedlots by origin of cattle and by feedlot capacity 

Cattle origin

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

Obtained from

 other sources

Percent

Feedlot capacity

(number head)

38.0

79.9

50.2

62.4

68.6

64.2

52.6

65.7

56.4

19.2

2.6

14.4

3.8

6.3

4.6

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

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

0 20 40 60 80

Other

Central

Percentage of feedlots by origin of cattle and by region 

Cattle origin

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

Obtained from

 other sources

Percent

Region

62.0

31.8

67.0

59.8

57.8

54.2

12.9

16.7

4.9

4.1

*Producer-retained ownership or investor owned.
USDA APHIS VS / 21 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

Nearly all cattle placed in feedlots were placed for custom feeding or joint ownership with 

the feedlot, purchased by feedlot via auction, or purchased by feedlot via direct sale. 

While 14.4 percent of feedlots fed some cattle born on the feedlot or another operation 

owned by the feedlot (table B.1.a.), these animals accounted for only 1.1 percent of cattle 

placed on feed.

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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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

30.9 (3.5) 40.0 (2.3) 40.7 (2.2) 27.8 (4.0) 38.5 (2.0)

Purchased by 

feedlot via auction 37.9 (3.0) 27.0 (1.8) 27.8 (1.5) 33.4 (5.2) 28.8 (1.5)

Purchased by feedlot 

via direct sale (cash 

or video, private 

treaty)

26.5 (2.7) 30.2 (2.1) 28.2 (2.0) 36.5 (5.1) 29.6 (1.8)

Born on feedlot or 

another operation 

operated solely by 

feedlot

3.3 (0.6) 0.7 (0.3) 1.1 (0.3) 1.5 (0.4) 1.1 (0.3)

Obtained from other 

sources 1.4 (0.6) 2.1 (1.1) 2.2 (1.1) 0.8 (0.3) 2.0 (0.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

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

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

2. Source of arriving shipments

Most cattle shipments2 arriving at feedlots (67.0 percent) came from an auction facility. 

Approximately one of four shipments (25.1 percent) came directly from another beef 

operation. Only 1.6 percent of shipments came from other feedlots.

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

and region:

Percent Shipments

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Shipment 

source Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Auction 64.5 (3.2) 67.6 (3.4) 61.4 (4.6) 78.8 (3.6) 67.0 (2.9)

Another beef 

operation 

(e.g., cow-calf or 

stocker feedlot)

24.5 (3.0) 25.2 (3.0) 29.3 (3.7) 16.3 (3.7) 25.1 (2.5)

Another feedlot 1.5 (0.4) 1.6 (0.3) 1.9 (0.4) 1.0 (0.3) 1.6 (0.3)

Other 9.5 (1.7) 5.6 (1.2) 7.4 (1.6) 3.9 (0.7) 6.3 (1.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2One group of cattle moved all at once, no matter how many vehicles were required to move the cattle.
USDA APHIS VS / 23 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

Other

Another feedlot

Another beef operation

Auction

Shipment source

67.0

25.1

1.6

6.3

Percentage of cattle shipments to feedlots, by source of shipments
24 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

3. Average distance shipments traveled to feedlot

Overall, the average distance cattle shipments traveled to the feedlot was 339 miles. The 

average shipment distance was similar for all sources, with the exception of shipments 

from another feedlot, which averaged 159 miles.

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

feedlot capacity, and region:

Average Number of Miles per Shipment

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All

feedlots

Shipment 

source Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Auction 280 (16) 356 (37) 288 (21) 323 (24) 302 (16)

Another beef 

operation (e.g., 

cow-calf or 

stocker feedlot)

334 (25) 370 (27) 293 (22) 442 (36) 346 (19)

Another feedlot 160 (40) 158 (29) 135 (19) 201 (57) 159 (25)

Other 351 (46) 518 (58) 366 (42) 500 (75) 411 (38)

All* 319 (16) 394 (26) 306 (17) 386 (24) 339 (14)

*Weighted by number of shipments by source.
USDA APHIS VS / 25 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

4. Shipments crossing State lines

Overall, 55.3 percent of shipments crossed State lines. Shipments from another feedlot 

accounted for the lowest percentage of shipments that crossed State lines, which is 

probably a refl ection of the lower average distance these shipments traveled to the 

feedlot (table B.3.).

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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Shipment 

source Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Auction 51.9 (4.2) 56.2 (5.8) 71.6 (5.3) 29.5 (1.3) 55.5 (5.0)

Another beef 

operation (e.g., 

cow-calf or

stocker feedlot)

60.0 (5.1) 52.1 (3.1) 48.1 (2.4) 73.7 (4.1) 53.4 (2.7)

Another feedlot 36.5 (11.3) 29.5 (6.6) 23.5 (5.7) 57.8 (13.6) 30.6 (5.9)

Other 56.7 (8.6) 69.3 (6.8) 64.4 (7.0) 73.3 (7.1) 66.2 (5.7)

All 54.1 (3.3) 55.5 (4.1) 63.3 (4.3) 38.6 (2.3) 55.3 (3.5)
26 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Source of Cattle

5. Information provided to cattle sources

Providing information to cattle sources about the disease occurrence, performance, 

carcass quality, and other characteristics of the cattle sent to the feedlot is a way of 

sending signals back along the beef production chain. Integrating the segments of 

the beef industry can allow more effi cient progress in providing high-quality products. 

However, giving information to those supplying cattle to the feedlot is not generally a 

routine practice. Only 25.3 percent of feedlots always or most of the time provided cattle 

suppliers with information about the cattle placed. This relatively low percentage might 

be a function of the way cattle are sourced by the feedlot. For example, when a shipment 

consists of cattle sourced through an auction market, the shipment might include animals 

from many different sources, making it diffi cult to provide information unless the original 

owners contact the feedlot for the information. Promoting the fl ow of information to cattle 

sources may help the beef industry achieve a higher degree of production effi ciency, 

while also ensuring product quality and consumer acceptance.

B.5. Percentage of feedlots by frequency that feedlots provided any information to cattle 

sources about cattle placed on feed, 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

Frequency Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Always or most 

of the time 20.0 (2.3) 38.2 (4.2) 29.5 (2.8) 19.0 (3.0) 25.3 (2.1)

Sometimes 35.8 (2.8) 48.9 (4.1) 40.5 (2.9) 38.3 (3.7) 39.6 (2.3)

Never or 

almost never 44.1 (2.9) 12.9 (2.7) 30.0 (2.6) 42.7 (4.0) 35.1 (2.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 27 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Pre-arrival Processing

1. Effectiveness of pre-arrival processing

More than 80 percent of feedlot operators believed that pre-arrival processing can 

reduce sickness and death loss in the feedlot. There were no differences by region in 

the percentages of feedlots by pre-arrival practices for incoming cattle less than 700 lb. 

A higher percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head always or some 

of the time received calves that had been weaned at least 4 weeks prior to shipment 

compared with feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (91.6 and 77.2 percent, 

respectively). For the rest of the listed pre-arrival practices, the percentages of feedlots 

were similar by capacity and by region. 

C.1.a. Of feedlots that received steers or heifers less than 700 lb, percentage of feedlots 

in which the following pre-arrival practices were performed some or all of the time to 

reduce sickness and death in the feedlot, by feedlot capacity and by region:

C. Pre-arrival 

Processing

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Pre-arrival practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Introduction to feed bunk 85.6 (2.5) 93.6 (1.8) 91.3 (1.8) 83.6 (3.6) 88.4 (1.8)

Respiratory vaccinations 

given to calves at least 

2 weeks prior to weaning

88.9 (2.1) 90.9 (1.9) 88.9 (1.9) 90.8 (2.6) 89.6 (1.6)

Respiratory vaccinations 

given to calves at weaning 89.0 (2.2) 93.0 (1.7) 92.5 (1.6) 86.5 (3.4) 90.4 (1.6)

Calves weaned at least 

4 weeks prior to shipping 77.2 (3.2) 91.6 (2.1) 84.2 (2.4) 78.5 (4.4) 82.1 (2.2)

Calves castrated and 

dehorned at least 4 weeks 

prior to shipping

85.2 (2.5) 86.1 (4.4) 84.5 (2.9) 87.2 (3.2) 85.5 (2.2)

Calves treated for external 

or internal parasites prior 

to shipping

78.0 (3.0) 86.6 (2.7) 80.8 (2.6) 80.7 (4.1) 80.8 (2.2)
28 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Pre-arrival Processing

At least 70 percent of feedlot operators felt that each of the listed pre-arrival practices 

was either very effective or extremely effective in reducing health problems in cattle. 

C.1.b. Of feedlots that received steers or heifers less than 700 lb, percentage of feedlots 

by perceived level of effectiveness of the following pre-arrival management practices for 

reducing sickness and death in the feedlot:

Percent Feedlots*

Level of Effectiveness

Extremely 

effective

Very 

effective

Somewhat 

effective

Not 

effective

Pre-arrival practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Introduction to feed bunk 25.7 (2.7) 55.4 (3.0) 18.8 (2.3) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Respiratory vaccinations 

given to calves at least 

2 weeks prior to weaning 29.2 (3.0) 56.2 (3.2) 14.0 (2.1) 0.6 (0.5) 100.0

Respiratory vaccinations 

given to calves at weaning 25.6 (2.8) 54.8 (3.3) 19.6 (2.7) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Calves weaned at least 

4 weeks prior to shipping 32.4 (3.0) 46.6 (3.3) 19.6 (2.7) 1.3 (0.8) 100.0

Calves castrated and 

dehorned at least 4 weeks 

prior to shipping 33.8 (2.9) 57.9 (3.1) 7.0 (1.6) 1.4 (0.7) 100.0

Calves treated for external 

or internal parasites prior to 

shipping 22.6 (2.9) 48.3 (3.4) 28.3 (3.1) 0.7 (0.7) 100.0

*For feedlots using the practice all or some of the time.
USDA APHIS VS / 29 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Pre-arrival Processing

C.1.c. Of feedlots that received steers and heifers less than 700 lb, percentage of 

feedlots in which the operator believed that the following pre-arrival management 

practices were very or extremely effective in reducing sickness and death in the feedlot, 

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

Pre-arrival practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Introduction to feed bunk 79.8 (3.2) 83.6 (2.5) 84.3 (2.2) 75.3 (4.8) 81.2 (2.3)

Respiratory vaccinations 

given to calves at least 

2 weeks prior to weaning

85.2 (2.9) 85.9 (3.1) 88.6 (2.2) 79.9 (4.4) 85.4 (2.2)

Respiratory vaccinations 

given to calves at weaning 82.2 (3.0) 76.9 (5.4) 81.5 (3.4) 78.2 (4.6) 80.4 (2.7)

Calves weaned at least 

4 weeks prior to shipping 80.4 (3.3) 76.8 (4.9) 81.6 (3.5) 74.3 (4.8) 79.1 (2.8)

Calves castrated and 

dehorned at least 4 weeks 

prior to shipping

92.1 (2.3) 90.6 (2.2) 91.6 (2.0) 91.8 (3.1) 91.6 (1.7)

Calves treated for external 

or internal parasites prior 

to shipping

72.6 (3.9) 67.9 (5.4) 73.8 (3.9) 66.3 (5.3) 71.0 (3.2)

*For feedlots using the practice all or some of the time.
30 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Pre-arrival Processing

2. Availability of pre-arrival processing information

While feedlot operators clearly believe that pre-arrival processing practices can impact 

animal health in the feedlot, the availability of pre-arrival processing information is limited. 

Only 34.7 percent of feedlots always had access to pre-arrival processing information, 

and 58.2 percent sometimes had access to the information. Limitations on information 

about cattle placed on feedlots might be a refl ection of the marketing channels through 

which the cattle come to the feedlots and the logistics of moving data/information with the 

cattle, particularly those that might be aggregated from many smaller groups. These are 

probably many of the same hurdles feedlots face in providing cattle sources information 

on animal performance.

C.2. Percentage of feedlots by frequency that information on pre-arrival processing (e.g., 

vaccinations, implants, deworming history, or mineral supplements) was available for 

cattle placed on feed, 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

Frequency Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Always 38.4 (2.8) 25.9 (3.6) 31.4 (2.8) 39.8 (3.7) 34.7 (2.2)

Sometimes 53.2 (2.8) 70.1 (3.6) 61.4 (2.9) 53.2 (3.7) 58.2 (2.3)

Never 8.4 (1.5) 4.0 (0.9) 7.2 (1.3) 7.0 (1.9) 7.1 (1.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 31 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Pre-arrival Processing

Never

Sometimes

Always

Frequency

34.7

58.2

7.1

Percentage of feedlots by frequency that information on pre-arrival processing

(e.g., vaccinations, implants, deworming history, or mineral supplements) was

available for cattle placed on feed
32 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Pre-arrival Processing

3. Importance of pre-arrival processing information

Operators on 69.3 percent of feedlots believed that pre-arrival processing information 

was very important, which coincides with the belief that these practices support animal 

health in the feedlot. This view was consistent, regardless of feedlot capacity or region.

C.3. Percentage of feedlots by importance of information on pre-arrival processing (e.g., 

vaccinations, implants, deworming history, or mineral supplementation), 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

Level of 

importance Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Very 67.6 (2.8) 73.3 (2.9) 72.2 (2.4) 65.1 (3.8) 69.3 (2.1)

Somewhat 24.6 (2.6) 22.0 (2.7) 21.3 (2.2) 27.3 (3.6) 23.8 (2.0)

Not 7.8 (1.6) 4.7 (1.2) 6.5 (1.3) 7.6 (2.0) 6.9 (1.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 33 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Pre-arrival Processing

Very

Somewhat

Not

Level of importance

Percentage of feedlots by importance of information on pre-arrival processing 

(e.g., vaccinations, implants, deworming history, or mineral supplementation)

69.3

23.8

6.9

23.8
34 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Pre-arrival Processing

4. Use of pre-arrival processing information

When pre-arrival processing information was available, 51.3 percent of feedlots always 

used the information to determine management or processing practices. Another 

35.7 percent sometimes made use of the information. The relatively high level of use 

of available information supports the views expressed by feedlot operators on the 

importance and effectiveness of pre-arrival practices.

C.4. For feedlots that always or sometimes had pre-arrival processing information 

available, percentage of feedlots by frequency management or processing procedures 

were based on pre-arrival processing information, 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

Frequency Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Always 49.6 (2.9) 55.3 (3.7) 55.4 (2.9) 45.3 (3.9) 51.3 (2.3)

Sometimes 34.6 (2.9) 38.3 (3.7) 35.6 (2.8) 35.7 (4.0) 35.7 (2.3)

Never 15.8 (2.2) 6.4 (1.4) 9.0 (1.5) 18.9 (3.2) 13.0 (1.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 35 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

1. Initial processing timing

Most feedlots (96.8 percent) initially processed arriving cattle as a group. Processing 

consists of vaccination, parasite control, application of growth promoting implants, or 

other activities. On 59.7 percent of feedlots, some cattle were processed within 24 hours 

after arrival. Processing some cattle within 24 hours after arrival 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 (86.2 and 48.7 percent of feedlots, respectively) and was more common in 

the Central region than the Other region (68.7 and 46.2 percent, respectively). Only 

26.5 percent of feedlots delayed processing some cattle more than 72 hours after arrival. 

Feedlots might choose to delay processing of some cattle based on their condition at 

arrival, weather, or the availability of labor.

D.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that initially processed any cattle and calves as a group, 

by number of hours after arrival animals were processed, 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

Number of 

hours Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

24 or less 48.7 (2.8) 86.2 (2.4) 68.7 (2.6) 46.2 (3.7) 59.7 (2.1)

25–72 52.6 (2.9) 67.8 (3.9) 63.9 (2.8) 46.8 (3.9) 57.1 (2.3)

More than 72 25.7 (2.6) 28.5 (3.6) 25.9 (2.6) 27.4 (3.6) 26.5 (2.1)

Ever processed 95.8 (1.1) 99.3 (0.2) 98.7 (0.6) 94.0 (1.8) 96.8 (0.8)

D. Arrival 

Management
36 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

Nearly two-thirds of the cattle placed in feedlots (60.8 percent) were processed in 

24 hours after arrival. Only 0.4 percent of cattle were not processed as a group after 

arrival at the feedlot, and only 6.5 percent of cattle were processed more than 72 hours 

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

head were processed more than 72 hours after arrival than cattle on feedlots with a 

capacity of 8,000 or more head (14.1 and 5.0 percent of cattle, respectively).

D.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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 48.9 (4.1) 63.1 (2.7) 61.5 (2.7) 57.4 (5.4) 60.8 (2.4)

25–72 35.2 (3.6) 31.8 (2.5) 32.3 (2.5) 32.3 (4.8) 32.3 (2.2)

More than 72 14.1 (2.2) 5.0 (0.8) 6.0 (0.9) 8.7 (1.7) 6.5 (0.8)

Not processed 1.8 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 1.6 (0.7) 0.4 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2. Cattle processing procedures

A higher percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (78.7 percent) 

used a second processing of cattle as a group compared with feedlots with a capacity of 

1,000 to 7,999 head (59.5 percent).

D.2.a. Of feedlots that initially processed cattle and calves as a group, percentage that 

used a second processing, 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

59.5 (2.8) 78.7 (3.8) 67.9 (2.8) 60.8 (3.8) 65.2 (2.3)
USDA APHIS VS / 37 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

The two most common initial processing management practices were vaccination for 

respiratory disease (96.0 percent of feedlots) and treatment for parasites (94.5 percent 

of feedlots). About half of feedlots (50.4 percent) gave an antibiotic injection as part 

of the initial processing procedure for any cattle. Use of an antibiotic injection at initial 

processing for some cattle was more common in feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or 

more head (75.1 percent) than in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head 

(39.8 percent). This practice was more common in the Central region than in the Other 

region (57.8 and 39.0 percent of feedlots, respectively).

The most common practices used at a second group-processing event were implanting 

(80.1 percent of feedlots) and another vaccination for respiratory disease (74.9 percent). 

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

of feedlots by procedures performed at initial and second processing, 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

Procedure Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Initial processing

Vaccinated against 

respiratory diseases 94.6 (1.4) 99.2 (0.3) 96.4 (1.2) 95.2 (1.6) 96.0 (1.0)

Vaccinated against 

clostridial diseases 77.9 (2.5) 75.9 (3.7) 76.1 (2.7) 79.3 (3.4) 77.3 (2.1)

Gave an injectable 

antibiotic 39.8 (2.9) 75.1 (3.7) 57.8 (3.0) 39.0 (4.0) 50.4 (2.4)

Implanted 73.9 (2.7) 89.8 (3.4) 83.5 (2.5) 71.3 (3.8) 78.7 (2.1)

Treated for parasites 94.2 (1.4) 95.1 (1.3) 94.6 (1.4) 94.3 (1.6) 94.5 (1.2)

Second processing

Vaccinated against 

respiratory diseases 75.6 (3.4) 73.7 (4.9) 80.2 (3.3) 65.5 (5.3) 74.9 (2.8)

Vaccinated against 

clostridial diseases 48.5 (4.0) 30.5 (5.2) 36.3 (3.8) 52.5 (5.3) 42.1 (3.1)

Gave an injectable 

antibiotic 15.4 (3.0) 27.4 (4.2) 22.3 (3.1) 14.8 (3.8) 19.6 (2.4)

Implanted 78.2 (3.2) 83.6 (2.6) 78.4 (2.8) 83.1 (3.8) 80.1 (2.2)

Treated for parasites 38.6 (4.0) 20.6 (3.4) 30.0 (3.3) 36.1 (5.6) 32.2 (2.9)
38 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

Most cattle initially processed as a group (96.0 percent) received a vaccination for 

respiratory disease. The common use of this vaccination is a refl ection that respiratory 

disease is the predominant health issue encountered with arriving animals. Even though 

50.4 percent of feedlots used an antibiotic as part of initial processing for some cattle 

(table D.2.b), only 26.0 percent of cattle initially processed as a group received an 

injectable antibiotic. Over 9 of 10 cattle processed as a group (91.4 percent) were treated 

for parasites, and over 4 of 5 cattle (84.4 percent) received a growth promoting implant. 

Overall, 71.6 percent of cattle processed as a group were vaccinated for one or more of 

the clostridial diseases.

D.2.c. For cattle and calves 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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 95.1 (1.8) 96.2 (1.7) 98.8 (0.4) 83.1 (7.2) 96.0 (1.5)

Vaccinated against 

clostridial diseases 71.0 (4.5) 71.7 (3.3) 72.1 (3.1) 69.5 (7.2) 71.6 (2.9)

Given an injectable 

antibiotic 20.1 (3.2) 27.2 (2.3) 25.5 (2.3) 28.6 (4.1) 26.0 (2.0)

Implanted 73.7 (4.4) 86.5 (2.2) 89.7 (1.7) 60.3 (6.8) 84.4 (2.0)

Treated for parasites 95.8 (1.8) 90.5 (2.0) 93.7 (1.4) 80.6 (6.7) 91.4 (1.7)

Second processing

Vaccinated against 

respiratory diseases 66.6 (4.6) 67.0 (3.1) 67.4 (2.9) 64.3 (7.4) 67.0 (2.7)

Vaccinated against 

clostridial diseases 46.1 (5.5) 15.4 (2.6) 15.7 (2.4) 45.2 (7.4) 19.8 (2.4)

Given an injectable 

antibiotic 8.5 (3.1) 4.5 (1.3) 5.5 (1.4) 2.6 (0.9) 5.1 (1.2)

Implanted 63.1 (4.4) 72.5 (2.8) 70.2 (2.8) 76.8 (4.1) 71.2 (2.5)

Treated for parasites 36.9 (6.6) 9.3 (2.3) 12.4 (2.4) 18.6 (6.6) 13.2 (2.2)
USDA APHIS VS / 39 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

As shown in table A.1.c., 14.8 percent of feedlots placed any bulls on feed during the 

year. Of these feedlots, 91.2 percent castrated at least some of these animals. Nearly 

two-thirds of feedlots that placed any bulls (64.3 percent) used bands to castrate some 

bulls and vaccinated them against tetanus. Approximately one of fi ve feedlots 

(19.2 percent) surgically removed the testicles of some bulls and vaccinated them for 

tetanus. A similar percentage of feedlots (19.9 percent) surgically removed the testicles of 

some bulls without vaccinating them for tetanus.

D.2.d. For feedlots that placed bulls on feed, percentage of feedlots by method of 

castration, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Castration method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Banded and vaccinated 

against tetanus 58.2 (7.7) 73.9 (6.3) 62.3 (5.7) 72.8 (12.0) 64.3 (5.3)

Banded and not 

vaccinated against 

tetanus

3.3 (2.9) 5.9 (5.0) 5.4 (3.2) 0.0 (—) 4.3 (2.6)

Testes surgically 

removed and 

vaccinated against 

tetanus

22.3 (6.5) 14.3 (3.3) 23.7 (5.0) 0.0 (—) 19.2 (4.2)

Testes surgically 

removed and not 

vaccinated against 

tetanus

19.1 (6.1) 21.2 (6.1) 17.4 (4.6) 30.6 (13.0) 19.9 (4.4)

Any method 90.2 (4.0) 92.9 (4.3) 90.8 (3.4) 93.1 (4.6) 91.2 (2.9)
40 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

Of bulls placed on feed, only 6.5 percent were not castrated while in the feedlot. Overall, 

the percentage of bulls castrated by banding and given a vaccine against tetanus was 

similar to the percentage of bulls castrated surgically and not vaccinated against tetanus 

(42.8 and 44.3 percent, respectively).

D.2.e. For bulls placed on feed, percentage of bulls by method of castration, and by 

feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Bulls

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Castration method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Banded and 

vaccinated against 

tetanus

63.0 (12.4) 41.1 (17.1) 42.2 (16.6) 62.7 (10.5) 42.8 (16.3)

Banded and not 

vaccinated against 

tetanus

0.9 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)

Testes surgically 

removed and 

vaccinated against 

tetanus

20.1 (9.5) 4.9 (3.1) 6.4 (3.3) 0.0 (0.0) 6.1 (3.2)

Testes surgically 

removed and not 

vaccinated against 

tetanus

10.5 (5.4) 47.4 (20.9) 44.9 (20.7) 28.6 (10.6) 44.3 (20.1)

Other 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Bulls not castrated 

by this feedlot 5.5 (3.6) 6.6 (6.1) 6.4 (5.8) 8.7 (8.0) 6.5 (5.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 41 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

3. Modifi cation of antibiotic and vaccination procedures

Overall, 96.8 percent of feedlots processed arriving animals as a group (table D.1.a.). 

New-arrival processing can include one or more of many management strategies 

designed to ease the transition of the animals into the feedlot environment and ensure 

their subsequent health and productivity. For 50.4 percent of feedlots, initial processing 

procedures for some animals included use of an antibiotic (metaphylaxis) [table D.2.b.]. 

Metaphylaxis was used on 26.0 percent of animals during initial processing (table 

D.2.c.). The choices of when to apply metaphylaxis and what product to use can be 

based on many factors related either to the current state of the animals or to the animals’ 

management history. 

Approximately one of two feedlots that processed animals initially as a group 

(56.4 percent) modifi ed their metaphylaxis procedures based on one of the criteria listed 

in the following table. All of the listed criteria were used by some feedlots, and apparently 

no single criterion was used by all feedlots that modifi ed their procedures. The most 

commonly used criteria were arrival weight, source of cattle, history of preconditioning, 

and previous history of antibiotic treatment. Feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more 

head were much more likely to make changes to the metaphylaxis program based on the 

listed criteria than feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head.

Overall, 54.1 percent of feedlots changed vaccination practices at initial processing 

based on one or more of the listed criteria. Again, there was no single factor that all or 

most of the feedlots used to decide how to modify the vaccination program; different 

feedlots used a variety of criteria combinations during their decision-making process. 

Feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head were more likely to make changes to 

the vaccination protocols based on animal or animal history criteria than feedlots with a 

capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head.
42 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

D.3. Of feedlots that processed new arrivals as a group, percentage 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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Criteria* Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Antibiotic

Arrival weight 33.3 (2.6) 65.5 (4.0) 49.4 (3.0) 32.8 (3.6) 42.7 (2.3)

Distance transported 

or percent shrinkage 19.2 (2.3) 41.8 (4.3) 30.8 (2.8) 18.6 (3.1) 25.9 (2.1)

Source of cattle 31.6 (2.7) 68.3 (3.9) 50.6 (2.9) 30.1 (3.5) 42.3 (2.3)

Preconditioning 29.3 (2.6) 52.1 (4.2) 42.5 (3.0) 26.3 (3.4) 36.0 (2.3)

Dairy cattle breed 

(compared to beef 

breeds)

3.2 (0.9) 19.2 (3.6) 9.6 (1.9) 5.3 (1.5) 7.9 (1.3)

History of previous 

antibiotic treatment 24.3 (2.6) 43.4 (3.8) 34.9 (2.8) 22.5 (3.6) 29.9 (2.2)

Any of the above 48.1 (2.9) 76.5 (3.7) 63.8 (3.0) 45.6 (4.1) 56.4 (2.4)

Vaccination

Arrival weight 29.9 (2.6) 50.5 (4.3) 40.8 (3.1) 28.4 (3.5) 35.8 (2.3)

Distance transported 

or percent shrinkage 17.2 (2.1) 34.8 (4.5) 28.3 (2.9) 13.4 (2.6) 22.2 (2.1)

Source of cattle 31.8 (2.7) 59.1 (4.2) 48.6 (3.0) 26.5 (3.4) 39.6 (2.3)

Preconditioning 31.4 (2.7) 57.7 (4.4) 47.1 (3.1) 27.0 (3.5) 39.0 (2.3)

Dairy cattle breed 

(compared to beef 

breeds)

4.1 (1.1) 23.0 (3.6) 11.5 (2.0) 6.6 (1.7) 9.5 (1.4)

History of previous 

antibiotic treatment 21.7 (2.5) 36.4 (3.8) 29.3 (2.7) 21.1 (3.5) 26.0 (2.1)

Any of the above 45.6 (3.0) 75.0 (3.6) 60.4 (3.0) 44.8 (4.0) 54.1 (2.4)

*Feedlots that did not modify procedures include those for which the factor did not apply.
USDA APHIS VS / 43 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

4. Handling pregnant heifers

Most feedlots (77.7 percent, table A.1.c.) placed some heifers on feed during the year. 

Pregnant heifers represent a liability to the feedlot. For example, depending on the stage 

of pregnancy, a signifi cant amount of nutrients consumed can be diverted to support the 

fetus rather than adding condition to the heifer. At slaughter, the combined weight of the 

fetus and associated uterus and fl uids represent a loss for the beef production system. In 

addition, heifers that calve in the feedlot require more labor and sometimes need medical 

and surgical intervention. The ideal situation would be that no pregnant heifers be placed 

in the feedlot. Overall, 7.9 percent of heifers were pregnant at arrival. The percentage 

of pregnant heifers in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head was lower than 

the percentage of heifers in feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (2.6 and 8.8 

percent, respectively). 

D.4.a. Percentage of all heifers that were pregnant at arrival, by feedlot capacity and by 

region:

Percent Heifers

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

2.6 (0.3) 8.8 (0.8) 8.5 (0.8) 3.8 (0.9) 7.9 (0.7)

Most pregnant heifers (82.1 percent) were treated to abort. This practice was more 

common in feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (84.1 percent of pregnant 

heifers) than in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (42.9 percent of pregnant 

heifers).

D.4.b. [0142] Percentage of pregnant heifers that were treated to abort, by feedlot 

capacity and by region:

Percent Pregnant Heifers

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. err 

or Pct.

Std. 

error

42.9 (8.3) 84.1 (2.9) 82.7 (3.0) 73.7 (12.1) 82.1 (2.9)
44 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

5. Handling cattle with horns

In groups of cattle, animals with horns can cause bruising during the handling process, 

resulting in compromised beef quality. The Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program 

recommends early removal of horns from all nonpolled cattle (those with horns) intended 

for the slaughter market. Still, 71.9 percent of feedlots placed some horned cattle on 

feed. More than 8 of 10 feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (86.0 percent) and 

more than 6 of 10 feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (65.9 percent) placed 

some horned cattle.

D.5.a. Percentage of feedlots that placed any cattle or calves with horns, 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

65.9 (2.7) 86.0 (3.7) 79.1 (2.7) 60.9 (3.6) 71.9 (2.1)

Despite the fact that 71.9 percent of feedlots placed some horned cattle, only 

11.7 percent of cattle placed had horns. This relatively small percentage suggests that 

many producers are following the BQA guidelines and removing the horns of cattle 

intended for slaughter prior to their arrival at the feedlot. 

D.5.b. Percentage of cattle and calves that had horns at arrival, by feedlot capacity and 

by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

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

6.5 (0.7) 12.7 (0.8) 12.5 (0.7) 7.6 (1.3) 11.7 (0.7)
USDA APHIS VS / 45 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

When horned cattle are placed on the feedlot, operators might do nothing with the horns 

or might remove or tip the horns. Most feedlots with some horned cattle (74.6 percent) 

tipped or removed the horns. Tipping horns entails the removal of the outer few inches of 

the horn and was more common than dehorning; 55.5 percent of feedlots tipped horns 

and 27.7 percent removed horns. Feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head were 

equally likely to tip or remove horns.

D.5.c. For feedlots that had cattle and calves with horns, percentage of feedlots by 

management practices used for horned cattle, 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

Management 

practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Tipped horns 42.1 (3.5) 79.9 (3.9) 64.6 (3.1) 37.7 (4.8) 55.5 (2.6)

Dehorned cattle 32.2 (3.3) 19.4 (3.5) 25.7 (2.9) 31.5 (4.8) 27.7 (2.5)

Tipped and/or 

dehorned 70.1 (3.2) 82.8 (3.9) 79.9 (2.8) 64.1 (4.7) 74.6 (2.4)

Overall, 77.0 percent of horned cattle either had their horns tipped or were dehorned, 

which leaves 23.0 percent of these cattle with horns intact, increasing the possibility 

of beef quality issues caused by the bruising of animals during handling and transport. 

There were no differences by feedlot capacity or by region in the percentages of horned 

cattle that had horns tipped or removed. 

D.5.d. Of cattle and calves with horns, percentage that underwent the following 

management practices for horned cattle, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Management 

practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Tipped horns 54.9 (7.7) 65.2 (3.4) 67.0 (3.2) 43.8 (7.6) 64.3 (3.1)

Dehorned cattle 24.2 (4.9) 11.6 (2.1) 11.7 (1.9) 20.9 (7.3) 12.7 (1.9)

Tipped and/or 

dehorned 79.2 (4.5) 76.8 (3.6) 78.6 (3.2) 64.7 (13.0) 77.0 (3.3)
46 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

6. Animal identifi cation

Identifi cation (ID) of animals is important for traceability, disease control purposes, and 

for managing animal performance. How ID is managed as cattle move from one segment 

of the production chain to the next is an important consideration in disease control and 

emergency management scenarios. Most feedlots (75.6 percent) had some cattle that 

arrived with an individual-animal ID. There was no difference by feedlot capacity or by 

region in the percentage of feedlots that received animals with individual ID. 

D.6.a. Percentage of feedlots that had any cattle or calves that arrived with individualanimal ID, 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

72.6 (2.7) 82.7 (2.5) 77.5 (2.4) 72.7 (3.7) 75.6 (2.1)

Despite the high percentage of feedlots that received some cattle that had individual 

ID, most of the animals received (71.3 percent) were not individually identifi ed. The 

percentage of animals that arrived with individual ID was slightly lower in the Central 

region (26.5 percent) than in the Other region (39.2 percent).

D.6.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

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

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

30.7 (2.8) 28.3 (1.8) 26.5 (1.9) 39.2 (3.1) 28.7 (1.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 47 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

Of feedlots that received cattle with an individual-animal ID, 23.8 percent removed the 

ID when the animals were processed (IDs may or may not have been removed from all 

animals). About half of feedlots (48.1 percent) applied a new ID to animals that arrived 

with individual ID. These new IDs exclude those typically applied to animals that receive 

treatment for disease. 

D.6.c. Of feedlots that received cattle or calves with individual-animal ID, percentage 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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Individualanimal ID removed 26.5 (3.1) 18.1 (3.0) 23.1 (2.8) 24.8 (4.0) 23.8 (2.3)

New individualanimal ID applied 

(excluding tagging 

of sick animals)

45.4 (3.5) 53.5 (4.9) 48.3 (3.6) 47.7 (4.8) 48.1 (2.9)

Overall, 28.7 percent of cattle arrived at the feedlot with an individual ID (table D.6.b.). Of 

these, 18.9 percent had the ID removed at the feedlot.

D.6.d. Of cattle and calves that had individual-animal ID at arrival, percentage that had 

existing IDs removed, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

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

20.9 (4.8) 18.5 (3.9) 21.6 (4.1) 10.4 (3.3) 18.9 (3.3)
48 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

Approximately half of all feedlots (52.6 percent) applied individual-animal ID to at least 

some cattle, while 62.6 percent applied a group/owner ID; 75.6 percent of feedlots tagged 

cattle with one or the other form of ID.

D.6.e. Percentage of feedlots that tagged any cattle and calves with an individual-animal 

ID and/or a group/owner ID, 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

Tagged with . . . Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Individualanimal ID 47.5 (3.0) 64.8 (3.0) 56.7 (2.7) 46.5 (4.1) 52.6 (2.3)

Group/owner ID 51.7 (2.8) 88.8 (2.8) 69.6 (2.7) 52.1 (3.7) 62.6 (2.2)

Individual and/or 

group ID 67.5 (2.7) 94.8 (1.5) 82.2 (2.2) 65.6 (3.8) 75.6 (2.0)

The majority of cattle (85.5 percent) received a group/owner ID, while 45.0 percent 

received an individual-animal ID. Some cattle received both forms of ID.

D.6.f. Percentage of cattle and calves tagged at the feedlot with an individual-animal ID 

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

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Tagged with . . . Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Individualanimal ID 47.1 (4.4) 44.6 (3.0) 45.3 (3.0) 43.8 (5.1) 45.0 (2.6)

Group/owner ID 58.1 (3.5) 90.8 (1.8) 87.2 (1.9) 77.9 (3.2) 85.5 (1.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 49 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Arrival Management

D.6.g. Percentage of feedlots that hide-branded any cattle after arrival, by feedlot 

capacity and by region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

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

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

20.3 (2.2) 27.6 (3.9) 28.8 (2.7) 13.0 (2.7) 22.5 (2.0)
50 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

1. Nutrition management

Feedlots can incorporate a variety of products in animal diets to improve production 

effi ciency, reduce the cost of gain, or support food safety objectives. In some cases, 

combinations of ration ingredients are controlled by the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA).

Nine of 10 feedlots (90.5 percent)—regardless of capacity or region—included an 

ionophore in cattle diets, and 90.5 percent included distiller grains in rations. Overall, 

44.7 percent of feedlots fed a coccidiostat other than an ionophore to some cattle. About 

one of three feedlots (36.9 percent) fed a beta-agonist other than Zilmax® to improve 

growth. Slightly more than one of four feedlots (28.5 percent) incorporated probiotics in 

rations. A much higher percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head 

(56.7 percent) fed probiotics compared with feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 

7,999 head (16.8 percent). Some probiotics are fed, in part, as an effort to reduce the 

occurrence of shiga toxin-producing E. coli in animals, although probiotics do not have a 

label claim for this use. 

E. Nutrition
USDA APHIS VS / 51 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

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

and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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® 

90.9 (1.6) 89.4 (2.7) 90.0 (1.7) 91.3 (2.4) 90.5 (1.4)

Gave a coccidiostat 

other than an 

ionophore, such as 

Corid® or Deccox®

39.7 (2.8) 56.6 (3.2) 45.9 (2.7) 42.8 (3.8) 44.7 (2.2)

Provided water treated 

with chlorine 10.3 (1.7) 3.2 (2.0) 3.3 (1.2) 15.6 (2.9) 8.2 (1.4)

Switched from a 

high grain ration to a 

primarily hay ration at 

fi nish

3.6 (1.3) 2.5 (1.1) 3.3 (1.1) 3.2 (1.8) 3.3 (1.0)

Fed distiller grains as 

part of the ration 90.8 (1.8) 89.9 (1.7) 89.3 (1.5) 92.3 (2.5) 90.5 (1.3)

Fasted prior to 

transportation to 

slaughter

18.2 (2.2) 10.5 (2.8) 17.7 (2.4) 13.3 (2.7) 15.9 (1.8)

Fed seaweed extract 

(e.g., Tasco-14®) prior 

to slaughter

0.4 (0.4) 1.0 (0.9) 1.0 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.6 (0.4)

Fed a beta-agonist, 

OptaFlexx® or 

ractopamine

29.1 (2.7) 55.9 (3.9) 41.6 (2.6) 30.0 (3.8) 36.9 (2.1)

Fed a beta-agonist

Zilmax® 5.7 (1.3) 22.5 (2.6) 12.4 (1.4) 8.0 (2.1) 10.6 (1.2)

Fed probiotics in feed 

(e.g., Lactobacillius 

acidophilus, 

Bovamine®)

16.8 (2.2) 56.7 (4.0) 34.3 (2.6) 19.8 (3.1) 28.5 (2.0)
52 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

Approximately 9 of 10 cattle were in feedlots that fed an ionophore and/or distiller grains 

(89.9 and 87.8 percent, respectively). Approximately half of cattle (53.8 percent) were in 

feedlots that administered a probiotic in feed.

E.1.b. Percentage of cattle and calves by nutrition management practice used at the 

feedlot, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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

93.3 (1.6) 89.3 (1.6) 90.4 (1.5) 87.8 (3.2) 89.9 (1.4)

Gave a coccidiostat 

other than an 

ionophore, such as 

Corid or Deccox

18.8 (2.8) 20.8 (2.5) 21.4 (2.5) 16.0 (3.5) 20.5 (2.1)

Provided water treated 

with chlorine 12.3 (3.9) 3.6 (1.9) 3.9 (1.9) 10.0 (3.7) 5.0 (1.7)

Switched from a 

high grain ration to a 

primarily hay ration at 

fi nish

3.4 (2.2) 0.9 (0.3) 1.0 (0.3) 2.3 (2.0) 1.3 (0.4)

Fed distiller grains as 

part of the ration 90.4 (2.2) 87.2 (1.8) 89.2 (1.6) 81.0 (4.9) 87.8 (1.6)

Fasted prior to 

transportation to 

slaughter

15.8 (3.1) 4.4 (1.1) 6.1 (1.1) 7.1 (2.6) 6.2 (1.0)

Fed seaweed extract 

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

slaughter

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

Fed a beta-agonist, 

OptaFlexx or 

ractopamine

23.3 (3.3) 48.7 (3.0) 47.9 (2.9) 28.9 (5.3) 44.6 (2.6)

Fed a beta-agonist 

Zilmax 2.9 (1.1) 14.7 (2.0) 14.0 (1.9) 7.2 (3.7) 12.8 (1.7)

Fed probiotics in feed 

(e.g., Lactobacillius 

acidophilus, Bovamine)

18.9 (3.3) 60.5 (3.0) 56.5 (2.9) 40.7 (6.7) 53.8 (2.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 53 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

2. Use of heat suppressant for heifers

Overall, 77.7 percent of feedlots placed some heifers on feed (table A.1.c.). Heifers 

in estrus can result in mounting and general unrest in the pen, which may be 

counterproductive to effi cient weight gain. Orally administered heat-suppressing 

compounds can be fed to heifers to prevent them from cycling. Approximately two of 

three of feedlots that placed any heifers on feed (67.9 percent) used melengestrol acetate 

to suppress heat. This practice 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.

E.2.a. For feedlots that placed heifers on feed, percentage of feedlots that fed 

melengestrol acetate (e.g., MGA® or Heifermax®) to suppress heat in heifers, 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

56.9 (3.3) 88.6 (2.1) 72.1 (2.6) 59.8 (4.7) 67.9 (2.4)
54 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

When melengestrol acetate was used to suppress heat in heifers it was generally used 

for all heifers. Overall, 67.9 percent of feedlots that placed heifers used any melengestrol 

acetate. Among those feedlots, 81.0 percent (55.0/67.9) used melengestrol acetate on 

100.0 percent of heifers.

E.2.b. For feedlots that placed heifers on feed, percentage of feedlots by percentage of 

heifers fed melengestrol acetate (e.g., MGA or Heifermax) to suppress heat, 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

Percent heifers Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

0 43.2 (3.3) 11.4 (2.1) 27.9 (2.6) 40.2 (4.7) 32.1 (2.4)

1–49 2.1 (0.9) 2.3 (1.2) 2.2 (0.9) 2.0 (1.2) 2.2 (0.7)

50–99 4.1 (1.5) 23.1 (4.7) 11.4 (2.7) 9.4 (3.0) 10.7 (2.0)

100 50.6 (3.4) 63.2 (4.6) 58.5 (3.3) 48.4 (4.8) 55.0 (2.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

More than 8 of 10 heifers (85.1 percent) were treated with melengestrol acetate.

E.2.c. Percentage of heifers that were fed melengestrol acetate (e.g., MGA or Heifermax) 

to suppress heat, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Heifers

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

63.2 (4.8) 89.0 (1.9) 87.2 (1.9) 72.5 (6.2) 85.1 (1.8)
USDA APHIS VS / 55 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

3. Level of concentrates

Cattle placed in feedlots come from many sources, so the dietary history of these cattle 

can be quite varied. Some cattle may have never received any concentrates (usually 

grain products), whereas others may have been adapted to feed bunks and received 

varying levels of concentrates. In most cases, the goal of the feedlot is to provide an 

energy-dense diet to cattle to achieve a high rate of gain and various quality endpoints. 

To provide high-energy diets to cattle, a high percentage of concentrates is usually 

incorporated in the diet. The transition from high-roughage and low-concentrate diets 

to those that are more energy dense has to be managed with care. A transition that is 

too abrupt can result in digestive upsets, impacting health and gain or, in severe cases, 

causing death.

E.3. Percentage of cattle and calves by average percentage of concentrates (dry matter 

basis) fed upon arrival and in fi nishing rations, and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Percent 

concentrates fed Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Upon arrival

1–25 28.8 (4.3) 13.3 (3.0) 16.0 (3.1) 14.7 (4.0) 15.7 (2.6)

26–50 27.3 (4.3) 26.6 (2.4) 27.6 (2.4) 22.3 (4.7) 26.7 (2.2)

51–75 36.7 (5.3) 52.5 (3.8) 48.9 (3.8) 55.3 (6.9) 50.0 (3.4)

76 or more 7.2 (2.2) 7.7 (1.6) 7.5 (1.6) 7.8 (2.0) 7.6 (1.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

In fi nishing rations

1–25 6.5 (2.1) 1.7 (0.6) 2.2 (0.5) 3.3 (2.1) 2.4 (0.6)

26–50 21.7 (3.7) 13.5 (3.0) 14.6 (2.9) 15.2 (5.0) 14.7 (2.6)

51–75 43.5 (5.3) 33.5 (3.2) 32.4 (3.0) 48.2 (7.4) 35.1 (2.9)

76 or more 28.3 (4.3) 51.3 (3.7) 50.8 (3.6) 33.3 (6.3) 47.8 (3.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
56 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

4. Feed storage

Feed-storage methods have been proposed as an important biosecurity consideration 

for livestock feedlots. However, the sheer volume of feedstuffs that must be stored 

and handled by feedlots presents challenges with regard to protecting the feed from 

inadvertent or intentional contamination. Still, understanding how feed is stored can 

help those tasked with investigating issues that result from contaminated feed. For most 

feedlots, regardless of capacity or region, the majority of feed ingredients are stored 

in relatively open storage systems, especially the bulky commodities such as hay and 

silage.

E.4.a. Percentage of feedlots by feedlot capacity and by primary method of storing feeds 

and feed supplements:

Percent Feedlots

Storage Method

Bags

Sealed 

containers 

(silo, tanks, 

bins, drums)

Uncovered 

piles, 

bunks, pits

Covered 

piles, 

bunks, 

pits, and 

sheds

Does 

not apply

Feedlot capacity Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

1,000–7,999 head

Mineral 

supplements 

(stored prior to 

micromachine)

30.5 (2.7) 38.5 (2.8) 1.9 (0.8) 10.6 (1.7) 18.5 (2.2) 100.0

Protein 

supplements 1.4 (0.8) 72.1 (2.6) 6.6 (1.4) 12.6 (1.8) 7.3 (1.5) 100.0

Fat supplements 0.4 (0.4) 16.1 (2.2) 3.3 (1.1) 2.5 (0.9) 77.7 (2.5) 100.0

Feed additives 

(e.g., ionophores, 

etc.)

17.4 (2.2) 53.4 (2.9) 2.4 (0.9) 10.2 (1.7) 16.6 (2.1) 100.0

Corn 1.3 (0.6) 48.2 (2.8) 13.6 (2.1) 36.9 (2.8) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0

Co-products from 

ethanol production 0.0 (—) 6.4 (1.6) 61.0 (2.9) 25.8 (2.4) 6.8 (1.4) 100.0

Hay 0.0 (—) 0.4 (0.4) 64.2 (2.8) 32.1 (2.6) 3.3 (1.2) 100.0

Silage 2.5 (1.0) 5.2 (1.2) 35.4 (2.8) 30.1 (2.5) 26.8 (2.5) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 57 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

E.4.a. (continued)

Percent Feedlots

Storage Method

Bags

Sealed 

containers 

(silo, tanks, 

bins, drums)

Uncovered 

piles, 

bunks, pits

Covered 

piles, 

bunks, pits, 

and sheds

Does 

not apply

Feedlot capacity Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

8,000 or more head

Mineral 

supplements 

(stored prior to 

micromachine)

51.3 (4.1) 23.4 (3.2) 0.9 (0.4) 3.9 (1.3) 20.5 (3.1) 100.0

Protein 

supplements 5.4 (2.1) 74.8 (3.4) 4.9 (1.3) 11.7 (2.1) 3.2 (0.8) 100.0

Fat supplements 0.5 (0.4) 54.3 (4.0) 1.2 (0.5) 2.8 (1.0) 41.2 (4.1) 100.0

Feed additives 

(e.g., ionophores, 

etc.)

51.0 (4.1) 26.9 (3.0) 0.5 (0.2) 6.5 (1.8) 15.1 (3.4) 100.0

Corn 0.7 (0.2) 65.0 (3.9) 8.5 (2.1) 24.3 (3.6) 1.5 (1.0) 100.0

Co-products 

from ethanol 

production

0.0 (—) 17.5 (2.0) 49.2 (3.7) 22.1 (3.2) 11.2 (3.5) 100.0

Hay 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 61.0 (4.2) 31.5 (3.6) 7.5 (3.8) 100.0

Silage 0.8 (0.3) 1.6 (0.8) 31.3 (3.8) 32.7 (3.4) 33.6 (4.0) 100.0

All feedlots

Mineral 

supplements 

(stored prior to 

micromachine)

36.7 (2.3) 34.1 (2.2) 1.5 (0.6) 8.6 (1.3) 19.1 (1.8) 100.0

Protein 

supplements 2.6 (0.8) 72.9 (2.1) 6.1 (1.1) 12.3 (1.4) 6.1 (1.1) 100.0

Fat supplements 0.5 (0.3) 27.4 (1.9) 2.7 (0.8) 2.6 (0.7) 66.8 (2.1) 100.0

Feed additives 

(e.g., ionophores, 

etc.)

27.3 (2.0) 45.6 (2.3) 1.8 (0.6) 9.1 (1.3) 16.2 (1.8) 100.0

Corn 1.1 (0.4) 53.2 (2.3) 12.1 (1.6) 33.1 (2.3) 0.5 (0.3) 100.0

Co-products from 

ethanol production 0.0 (—) 9.7 (1.3) 57.5 (2.3) 24.7 (2.0) 8.1 (1.4) 100.0

Hay 0.0 (—) 0.3 (0.3) 63.3 (2.3) 31.9 (2.1) 4.5 (1.4) 100.0

Silage 2.0 (0.7) 4.1 (0.9) 34.3 (2.2) 30.8 (2.1) 28.8 (2.1) 100.0
58 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

E.4.b. Percentage of feedlots by region and by primary method of storing feeds and feed 

supplements:

Percent Feedlots

Storage Method

Bags

Sealed 

containers 

(silo, tanks, 

bins, drums)

Uncovered 

piles, 

bunks, pits

Covered 

piles, 

bunks, 

pits, and 

sheds

Does 

not apply

Region Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Central

Mineral 

supplements 

(stored prior to 

micromachine)

43.7 (3.0) 28.6 (2.6) 0.8 (0.5) 6.8 (1.4) 20.1 (2.4) 100.0

Protein 

supplements 2.9 (1.1) 72.9 (2.6) 5.5 (1.3) 14.0 (1.8) 4.7 (1.2) 100.0

Fat supplements 0.8 (0.5) 33.6 (2.5) 2.2 (0.9) 1.9 (0.7) 61.5 (2.7) 100.0

Feed additives 

(e.g., ionophores, 

etc.)

31.8 (2.7) 40.2 (2.7) 1.1 (0.7) 8.7 (1.6) 18.2 (2.4) 100.0

Corn 0.8 (0.5) 59.3 (2.9) 10.6 (1.9) 28.5 (2.7) 0.8 (0.5) 100.0

Co-products from 

ethanol production 0.0 (—) 11.9 (1.6) 57.1 (2.9) 20.1 (2.3) 10.9 (2.1) 100.0

Hay 0.0 (—) 0.5 (0.5) 66.5 (2.8) 29.2 (2.6) 3.8 (1.8) 100.0

Silage 1.4 (0.6) 1.7 (0.7) 39.8 (2.9) 26.5 (2.5) 30.6 (2.8) 100.0

Other

Mineral 

supplements 

(stored prior to 

micromachine)

25.7 (3.4) 42.5 (3.9) 2.8 (1.2) 11.4 (2.4) 17.6 (2.6) 100.0

Protein 

supplements 2.1 (1.3) 72.8 (3.4) 7.0 (1.9) 9.9 (2.2) 8.2 (2.0) 100.0

Fat supplements 0.0 (—) 17.9 (3.0) 3.4 (1.4) 3.6 (1.3) 75.1 (3.4) 100.0

Feed additives 

(e.g., ionophores, 

etc.)

20.6 (3.2) 53.9 (3.9) 2.8 (1.2) 9.6 (2.2) 13.1 (2.7) 100.0

Corn 1.5 (0.9) 43.7 (3.8) 14.6 (2.8) 40.2 (3.9) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0

Co-products from 

ethanol production 0.0 (—) 6.3 (2.1) 58.1 (3.9) 31.7 (3.4) 3.9 (1.7) 100.0

Hay 0.0 (—) 0.0 (0.0) 58.5 (3.9) 36.0 (3.6) 5.5 (2.4) 100.0

Silage 2.9 (1.5) 7.7 (1.9) 25.9 (3.4) 37.4 (3.6) 26.1 (3.4) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 59 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

5. Water source

Most feedlots (91.9 percent) obtained water for cattle from a well. Only 11.2 percent 

of feedlots used a municipal water supply, although this water source was used more 

commonly in the Other region and in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head. 

Surface water was rarely used as a water supply for cattle.

E.5. Percentage of feedlots by water source used for cattle, 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

Water source Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Ground water (well) 90.2 (1.7) 95.8 (1.0) 96.8 (1.0) 84.5 (2.8) 91.9 (1.3)

Surface water 

(ponds,lakes, streams) 4.4 (1.3) 7.7 (1.5) 3.6 (1.0) 8.1 (1.9) 5.4 (1.0)

Municipal water supply 13.8 (1.9) 4.9 (1.7) 4.9 (1.3) 20.5 (3.1) 11.2 (1.5)

6. Use of a nutritionist

Meeting the nutritional needs of cattle is key to preserving animal health and growth. 

Furthermore, the cost of gain for cattle in feedlots is highly dependent on the cost and 

combination of ingredients in the diet. A nutritionist can help determine the optimum, 

least-cost rations needed to support growth and fi nishing objectives for a particular group 

of cattle. The vast majority of feedlots (95.2 percent) used a nutritionist at some level, 

regardless of capacity or region. 

E.6.a. Percentage of feedlots that used a nutritionist, 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

93.3 (1.4) 100.0 (—) 96.3 (1.1) 93.6 (1.8) 95.2 (1.0)
60 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

The majority of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (64.8 percent) used a 

nutritionist from a feed company, whereas the majority of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 

or more head (54.3 percent) used a consulting nutritionist who made regular visits to the 

feedlot. Some feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (21.1 percent) had a fulltime nutritionist on staff. In some cases, feedlots used more than one type of nutritionist.

E.6.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

1,000–7,999

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 4.3 (1.2) 21.1 (3.3) 9.9 (1.5) 8.3 (2.4) 9.3 (1.3)

Feed company 64.8 (2.6) 35.4 (4.3) 45.7 (2.9) 71.9 (3.3) 56.2 (2.2)

Other, who made 

regular or routine 

visits

27.8 (2.5) 54.3 (3.7) 45.6 (2.7) 20.6 (3.1) 35.6 (2.0)

Other, called as 

needed 13.5 (2.1) 8.0 (1.6) 9.9 (1.7) 14.9 (3.0) 11.9 (1.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 61 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Nutrition

0

20

40

60

80

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

For feedlots that used a nutritionist, percentage of feedlots by type of

nutritionist used and by feedlot capacity

Percent

Nutritionist

Full-time on staff Feed company Other, who made

regular or routine visits

Other, called

as needed

4.3

21.1

9.3

64.8

35.4

56.2

27.8

54.3

35.6

13.5

8.0

11.9

Feedlot capacity

(number head)
62 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

1. Frequency of pen-riding or walking

Most sickness in feedlots occurs early in the feeding period. Animals arriving at the 

feedlot must transition from their home environment to that of the feedlot. This transition 

frequently involves transport, sometimes over long distances; mixing with or exposure 

to animals from other sources; diet changes; and handling during processing. The 

transition can be stressful and result in exposure to pathogens the cattle are not immune 

to. Feedlots typically observe cattle (via pen-riding or walking) for signs of illness on a 

regular basis in order to provide timely treatment. Since the highest risk period for illness 

or nonadaptation to the feedlot environment occurs soon after arrival, some feedlots use 

protocols for observing animals early in the feeding period that differ from those used 

later in the feeding period. 

F. Health 

Management
USDA APHIS VS / 63 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

Nearly all feedlots (96.9 percent) observed animals at least once a day during the cattle’s 

fi rst 14 days in the feedlot. One of fi ve feedlots (20.3 percent) observed new animals 

more than twice a day. For animals that had been in the feedlot at least 30 days, the 

usual observation frequency on 70.2 percent of feedlots was once a day. 

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

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

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: 1,000–7,999 head

Less than 15 20.4 (2.3) 49.1 (2.9) 26.7 (2.6) 1.2 (0.6) 2.6 (0.9) 100.0

15–29 6.1 (1.3) 34.8 (2.8) 51.1 (2.9) 5.0 (1.3) 3.0 (1.0) 100.0

30 or more 4.9 (1.2) 18.1 (2.2) 61.8 (2.8) 10.4 (1.8) 4.8 (1.2) 100.0

Feedlot capacity: 8,000 or more head

Less than 15 20.0 (4.4) 33.6 (3.9) 44.9 (3.5) 0.9 (0.4) 0.6 (0.5) 100.0

15–29 6.9 (3.0) 24.7 (3.8) 68.4 (3.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0

30 or more 7.1 (3.0) 2.5 (1.0) 90.4 (3.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0

All feedlots

Less than 15 20.3 (2.1) 44.5 (2.4) 32.1 (2.1) 1.1 (0.4) 2.0 (0.7) 100.0

15–29 6.3 (1.3) 31.8 (2.2) 56.2 (2.3) 3.6 (0.9) 2.1 (0.7) 100.0

30 or more 5.5 (1.2) 13.5 (1.6) 70.2 (2.2) 7.4 (1.3) 3.4 (0.9) 100.0
64 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

2. Training for drug and medication treatments

Most feedlots (84.7 percent) had employees that helped treat sick cattle. All feedlots with 

a capacity of 8,000 or more head had employees that treated sick cattle. 

F.2.a. Percentage of feedlots in which employees helped treat sick 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

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

78.3 (2.3) 100.0 (—) 89.5 (1.8) 77.4 (3.1) 84.7 (1.6)

Most feedlots in which employees treated cattle provided the employees with either 

some training and/or written guidelines (89.1 percent of feedlots). Nearly all feedlots 

with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (97.6 percent) provided employees with training 

and/or written guidelines. In some cases, feedlots might not have provided training and/

or written guidelines because they had highly experienced employees in charge of 

treatments. Written guidelines were less 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. The difference might 

be a refl ection of the number of employees involved in animal treatment or the smaller 

number of animals requiring treatment on the smaller feedlots.

F.2.b. For feedlots in which employees helped treat sick cattle, percentage of feedlots that 

provided employees with training and/or written guidelines on what drugs or medications 

to use when treating cattle for 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

Training 80.8 (2.5) 97.0 (1.3) 91.6 (1.7) 77.5 (3.5) 86.4 (1.7)

Written guidelines 50.3 (3.2) 82.0 (3.3) 68.1 (2.8) 49.5 (4.4) 61.3 (2.4)

Training and/or 

written guidlines 84.6 (2.2) 97.6 (1.2) 95.8 (1.3) 77.5 (3.5) 89.1 (1.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 65 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

3. Sick-animal records

Record-keeping systems in feedlots may take a variety of forms, ranging from paperbased systems on index cards or in logbooks to sophisticated electronic systems. A 

variety of parameters can be recorded for sick animals at the time of treatment. Some 

parameters were less frequently recorded (e.g., weight at time of treatment), but that 

does not mean that those parameters were not used in determining the appropriate 

course of treatment. Some parameters (e.g., date treated and treatment given) were 

always recorded on a high percentage of feedlots because they can affect the required 

withdrawal time before the animals can be slaughtered.

F.3.a. Percentage of feedlots by frequency that the following parameters for sick animals 

were recorded:

Percent Feedlots

Frequency

Always

Most of 

the time Sometimes Never

Parameter Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Body temperature 40.4 (2.3) 19.7 (1.8) 19.9 (1.9) 20.0 (1.9) 100.0

Date treated 77.1 (1.9) 11.3 (1.6) 6.1 (1.1) 5.5 (1.1) 100.0

Weight at time of 

treatment 35.7 (2.1) 7.8 (1.2) 14.6 (1.7) 41.9 (2.2) 100.0

Treatment given 78.7 (1.9) 11.7 (1.5) 3.6 (0.9) 6.0 (1.1) 100.0

Treatment withdrawal 

period 67.9 (2.2) 6.4 (1.1) 8.1 (1.3) 17.6 (1.8) 100.0

Disease condition 

(shipping fever, 

lameness, pneumonia, 

etc.)

62.4 (2.1) 12.8 (1.6) 10.3 (1.4) 14.5 (1.6) 100.0

Outcome of treatment 

(returned to pen, died, 

culled, etc.)

63.8 (2.1) 8.6 (1.3) 13.6 (1.7) 14.0 (1.6) 100.0
66 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

In general, recording information and treatments given 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.

F.3.b. Percentage of feedlots that always or most of the time recorded the following 

parameters for sick animals, 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

Information Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Body temperature 52.2 (2.8) 79.0 (3.1) 69.4 (2.6) 46.1 (3.8) 60.1 (2.2)

Date treated 84.4 (2.0) 98.0 (0.7) 92.8 (1.5) 81.8 (2.9) 88.4 (1.5)

Weight at time of 

treatment 29.3 (2.6) 77.6 (2.5) 53.2 (2.7) 28.8 (3.6) 43.5 (2.1)

Treatment given 86.8 (1.9) 98.9 (0.4) 93.2 (1.5) 86.1 (2.6) 90.4 (1.4)

Treatment withdrawal 

period 65.4 (2.7) 95.8 (2.1) 78.5 (2.5) 68.1 (3.6) 74.3 (2.1)

Disease condition 

(shipping fever, 

lameness, 

pneumonia, etc.)

66.0 (2.6) 97.3 (0.9) 82.6 (2.2) 64.0 (3.6) 75.2 (1.9)

Outcome of treatment 

(returned to pen, 

died, culled, etc.)

62.7 (2.7) 96.0 (2.1) 77.0 (2.4) 65.6 (3.6) 72.4 (2.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 67 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

4. Use of a veterinarian

Only 5.2 percent of feedlots employed a veterinarian full time. Nearly all feedlots 

(96.6 percent), however, used the services of a veterinarian in some way to ensure the 

health of their cattle. The type of veterinarian used differed by capacity: feedlots with 

a capacity of 8,000 or more head were likely to have a full-time veterinarian or private 

veterinarian who made regular visits, while feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 

head were more likely to use a veterinarian on an as-needed basis.

F.4. Percentage of feedlots that used a veterinarian, by type of veterinarian used, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 2.1 (0.8) 12.9 (2.5) 7.2 (1.4) 2.4 (0.9) 5.2 (0.9)

Private veterinarian 

who made regular or 

routine visits

20.4 (2.2) 75.9 (3.5) 50.0 (2.7) 16.8 (2.8) 36.7 (2.0)

Private veterinarian 

called as needed 84.7 (2.0) 32.7 (4.3) 59.6 (2.6) 84.4 (2.9) 69.5 (1.9)

Any veterinarian 96.1 (1.3) 97.7 (2.1) 98.5 (0.7) 93.6 (2.5) 96.6 (1.1)
68 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

0

20

40

60

80

100

All operations

8,000 or more

1,000–7,999

Percentage of feedlots that used a veterinarian, by type of veterinarian used 

and by feedlot capacity

Percent

Full-time 

veterinarian on staff

Private veterinarian

who made regular or

routine visits

Private veterinarian

called as needed

Any veterinarian

2.1

12.9

5.2

20.4

75.9

36.7

84.7

32.7

69.5

96.1 97.7 Feedlot capacity 96.6

(number head)

Type of veterinarian
USDA APHIS VS / 69 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

0

20

40

60

80

100

Other

Central

Percentage of feedlots that used a veterinarian, by type of veterinarian used 

and by region

Percent

Full-time 

veterinarian on staff

Private veterinarian

who made regular or

routine visits

Private veterinarian

called as needed

Any veterinarian

2.1

7.2

2.4

50.0

59.6

84.4

98.5

93.6

Region

16.8

Type of veterinarian
70 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

5. Postmortems performed

F.5.a. Death loss percentage,* by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

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

1.4 (0.2) 1.6 (0.1) 1.6 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1) 1.6 (0.1)

*Number of deaths as a percentage of number of cattle and calves placed on feed for slaughter.

Postmortem examinations are a useful aid in diagnosing disease, monitoring disease 

occurrence, and assessing treatment effi cacy. Approximately two of three feedlots 

(67.2 percent) had postmortem examinations done on some or all mortalities. Four of 

10 feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (41.6 percent) did not perform any 

postmortems, which might be a refl ection of a lack of mortalities, a lack of training in how 

to do postmortem examinations and interpret the results, or a perception that postmortem 

examinations have no value.

F.5.b. Percentage of feedlots by whether postmortem examinations were performed on 

cattle that died, 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

Postmortem 

performed 

on . . . Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

No dead 

cattle 41.6 (2.8) 12.1 (2.7) 26.1 (2.4) 43.1 (4.0) 32.8 (2.2)

Some dead 

cattle 55.8 (2.9) 77.3 (2.9) 68.5 (2.5) 52.6 (4.0) 62.2 (2.2)

All dead 

cattle 2.6 (0.9) 10.6 (1.5) 5.4 (0.8) 4.2 (1.5) 5.0 (0.8)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 71 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

Because postmortem examinations were more common in feedlots with a capacity of 

8,000 or more head, nearly half of all animals that died (48.7 percent) had a postmortem 

examination. Only about one of fi ve animals that died in feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 

to 7,999 head (21.3 percent) had a postmortem examination.

F.5.c. Percentage of dead cattle and calves that had a postmortem examination, by 

feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

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

21.3 (6.2) 53.8 (2.9) 50.7 (2.8) 38.6 (6.8) 48.7 (2.6)

6. Use of antibiotics3

Antibiotics used for animals in food production are evaluated and approved by the FDA. 

Antibiotics can be given to food-production animals for a variety of reasons, including 

disease treatment, disease prevention, or growth promotion. Regardless of the reason for 

administration, antibiotics can be given orally or by injection to individual animals, or they 

may be incorporated in the feed or water of groups of animals. 

Overall, 26.6 percent of feedlots did not give antibiotics in feed for health or production 

reasons. When antibiotics were provided in feed, feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 

7,999 head most often gave them to all animals fed, whereas feedlots with a capacity of 

8,000 or more head were more likely to give antibiotics to selected groups of animals. 

Only 4.7 percent of feedlots provided antibiotics in water to any animals.

3

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

excluded.
72 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

F.6.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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 24.5 (2.5) 31.5 (3.2) 28.6 (2.4) 23.6 (3.4) 26.6 (2.0)

1–49 13.9 (1.9) 26.3 (3.6) 23.8 (2.4) 8.1 (2.2) 17.6 (1.7)

50–99 13.0 (1.9) 17.4 (3.5) 15.6 (2.4) 12.2 (2.4) 14.2 (1.7)

100 48.6 (2.9) 24.8 (3.3) 32.0 (2.7) 56.1 (4.0) 41.6 (2.3)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Water

0 94.5 (1.3) 97.6 (1.3) 96.3 (1.2) 94.1 (1.8) 95.3 (1.0)

1–49 4.3 (1.2) 2.4 (1.3) 3.2 (1.1) 4.5 (1.6) 3.8 (0.9)

50–99 0.4 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.3)

100 0.8 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.4 (0.9) 0.6 (0.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 73 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

0

20

40

60

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Percentage of feedlots that gave an antibiotic in feed as a health- or

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

the antibiotic, and by feedlot capacity

Percent 

feedlots

0 1–49 50–99 100

24.5

31.5

26.6

13.9 13.0

17.6 17.4

14.2

48.6

24.8

41.6

Feedlot capacity

(number head)

Percent cattle and calves 

26.3
74 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

0

20

40

60

Other

Central

Percentage of feedlots that gave an antibiotic in feed as a health- or

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

the antibiotic, and by region

Percent

Feedlots

0 1–49 50–99 100

28.6

23.6

13.9

8.1

15.6

12.2

32.0

Region 56.1

Percent cattle and calves 

23.8
USDA APHIS VS / 75 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

F.6.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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Antibiotics in... Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Feed 51.2 (3.8) 47.7 (3.0) 45.5 (2.8) 61.4 (5.7) 48.3 (2.6)

Water 0.8 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1)

When antibiotics are approved for use in feed or water, the duration and level of inclusion 

are regulated by the FDA. These levels and duration vary by type of product and the 

reason for use. For two-thirds of feedlots (66.9 percent) the average duration of antibiotic 

inclusion was 7 days or less. In only 6.4 percent of feedlots was the average duration 

longer than 30 days. Average duration of use was similar regardless of feedlot capacity or 

region.

F.6.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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 71.2 (3.1) 55.5 (5.6) 69.1 (3.6) 63.7 (4.4) 66.9 (2.8)

8–30 25.2 (3.0) 30.7 (5.8) 24.8 (3.6) 29.5 (4.2) 26.7 (2.7)

More than 30 3.6 (1.7) 13.7 (2.1) 6.1 (1.2) 6.8 (2.8) 6.4 (1.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Water*

*Too few to report.
76 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

7. Carcass disposal

Carcass disposal can present biosecurity and environmental concerns. Three-fourths of 

feedlots (76.4 percent) used a renderer to dispose of some carcasses. While 

18.9 percent of feedlots buried some animals on-site, only a low percentage of carcasses 

were disposed of in this way (table F.7.b). Only 2.7 percent of feedlots took any 

carcasses to a landfi ll. Overall, composting was the disposal method used on 

11.8 percent of feedlots. 

F.7.a. Percentage of feedlots by method of carcass disposal, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Disposal method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Renderer 74.9 (2.3) 79.9 (3.7) 83.2 (2.1) 65.9 (3.7) 76.4 (1.9)

Buried on the 

feedlot 20.6 (2.5) 15.0 (3.5) 19.1 (2.5) 18.6 (3.4) 18.9 (2.0)

Landfi ll 2.9 (1.1) 2.2 (1.1) 1.8 (0.8) 4.1 (1.8) 2.7 (0.8)

Composting 13.1 (1.8) 8.9 (1.6) 5.7 (1.0) 21.3 (3.0) 11.8 (1.3)

Other 1.2 (0.6) 2.3 (2.1) 0.5 (0.4) 3.1 (1.8) 1.5 (0.8)
USDA APHIS VS / 77 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Health Management

The majority of cattle carcasses (80.2 percent) were disposed of by rendering. A higher 

percentage of carcasses on feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head were 

rendered compared with carcasses on feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head. 

F.7.b. Percentage of cattle carcasses by method of disposal, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Carcasses

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Disposal method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Renderer 60.9 (5.5) 83.7 (2.9) 82.4 (3.0) 69.0 (5.8) 80.2 (2.6)

Buried on the 

feedlot 13.6 (3.9) 7.4 (2.7) 8.2 (2.8) 9.1 (2.6) 8.4 (2.4)

Landfi ll 2.8 (2.0) 2.5 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 15.3 (4.3) 2.5 (0.7)

Composting 22.5 (7.3) 6.3 (1.4) 9.4 (2.0) 5.9 (1.3) 8.8 (1.7)

Other 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.8 (0.5) 0.1 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
78 / Feedlot 2011

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

1. Outcome

The vast majority of cattle placed on feed reached the intended outcome and were 

marketed for slaughter at their expected slaughter weight. Only 1.6 percent of cattle died 

in the feedlot, and very few were lost or removed for other reasons. The percentages of 

cattle by outcome were not different by feedlot capacity or region. 

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

Percent Cattle and Calves

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

Marketed for 

slaughter 94.9 (1.1) 97.3 (0.1) 97.2 (0.2) 95.5 (0.8) 96.9 (0.2)

Died 1.4 (0.2) 1.6 (0.1) 1.6 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1) 1.6 (0.1)

Returned to grazing 0.5 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1)

Shipped to 

another feedlot 2.9 (0.9) 0.2 (0.0) 0.5 (0.2) 1.6 (0.7) 0.7 (0.2)

Sent to market 

prior to reaching 

expected slaughter 

weight

0.4 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 (0.0) 0.7 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1)

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

Lost for other 

reasons 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

G. Outcome and 

Destination of 

Cattle
USDA APHIS VS / 79 

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

2. Destination of shipments

As expected, nearly all cattle shipments leaving the feedlot (98.1 percent) went directly 

to slaughter rather than to another beef feedlot or other interim handling facility. Since 

handling and transportation present injury risks as well as weight loss for animals, 

expedited delivery to the slaughter facility is expected.

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

capacity, and region:

Percent Shipments*

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Shipment 

destination Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Direct to 

slaughter 93.2 (1.4) 98.7 (0.4) 98.1 (0.5) 98.1 (0.6) 98.1 (0.4)

Sales/auction 3.4 (0.9) 0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 1.3 (0.5) 0.5 (0.1)

Another feedlot 3.2 (1.0) 1.1 (0.5) 1.5 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 1.3 (0.4)

Direct to another 

beef operation 

(e.g., cow-calf or 

stocker feedlot)

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*One group of cattle moved all at once, no matter how many vehicles were required to move them.
80 / Feedlot 2011

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

3. Average distance shipments traveled to destination

Cattle feeding and slaughter facilities tend to be regionally co-located in order to allow 

expedited delivery for slaughter and minimum transport time and stress for cattle. The 

average distance for shipments moving directly to slaughter was 166 miles and was 

only slightly less for feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (119 miles) than for 

feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (184 miles).

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

capacity, and region:

Average Number of Miles per Shipment*

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Destination Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Direct to 

slaughter 184 (12) 119 (7) 120 (6) 232 (19) 166 (9)

Sales/auction 74 (15) 79 (31) 85 (21) 60 (10) 76 (14)

Another feedlot 177 (26) 152 (26) 148 (24) 200 (32) 171 (21)

Direct to another 

beef operation 

(e.g., cow-calf or 

stocker feedlot)

38 (18) 56 (10) 52 (14) 40 (0) 48 (10)

All 173 (10) 118 (7) 119 (6) 214 (16) 158 (8)

*Weighted by number of shipments.
USDA APHIS VS / 81 

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

4. Shipments crossing State lines

Approximately one of four shipments leaving feedlots to any destination (27.3 percent) 

crossed State lines.

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

and region:

Percent Shipments

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Destination Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Direct to 

slaughter 46.3 (3.8) 25.7 (2.2) 14.3 (1.6) 82.9 (3.2) 27.7 (2.1)

Sales/auction 21.9 (9.7) 0.2 (0.1) 28.2 (13.4) 6.6 (5.0) 16.3 (7.4)

Another feedlot 8.8 (5.0) 0.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 27.1 (11.6) 2.4 (1.5)

Direct to another 

beef operation 

(e.g., cow-calf or 

stocker feedlot)

0.0 (0.0) 6.3 (3.1) 4.9 (3.1) 3.5 (2.5) 4.4 (2.2)

Any 44.2 (3.7) 25.4 (2.2) 14.1 (1.6) 81.5 (3.2) 27.3 (2.1)
82 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

1. Familiarity with Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program

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

National Beef Quality Audit identifi ed areas for improvement. A national BQA program 

was developed and refi ned to address issues associated with inferior beef quality. Today, 

the BQA program has national leadership and coordination and is administered through 

a State-based 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 continuum, from birth to harvest. 

Overall, 96.6 percent of feedlot operators had heard of the BQA program. Operators on 

almost all feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (99.7 percent) had heard of the 

name or were familiar with the program.

H.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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Level of 

familiarity Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Very familiar 52.4 (2.9) 69.4 (3.9) 59.4 (2.9) 54.3 (3.8) 57.3 (2.3)

Somewhat 

familiar 39.5 (2.8) 29.2 (4.0) 37.4 (2.9) 35.1 (3.8) 36.5 (2.3)

Heard of name 

only 3.5 (1.0) 1.1 (1.0) 0.9 (0.5) 5.7 (1.7) 2.8 (0.8)

Not familiar 4.6 (1.2) 0.3 (0.2) 2.3 (0.9) 4.9 (1.6) 3.4 (0.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

H. Quality 

Assurance
USDA APHIS VS / 83 

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

0

20

40

60

80

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Percentage of feedlots by level of familiarity with either the State or the 

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

Percent

Very familiar Somewhat familiar Heard of name only Not familiar

52.4

69.4

57.3

39.5

3.5

36.5

1.1 2.8 4.6

0.3

3.4

Feedlot capacity

(number head)

Level of familiarity

29.2
84 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

0

20

40

60

80

Other

Central

Percentage of feedlots by level of familiarity with either the State or the 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association BQA program, and by region

Percent

Very familiar Somewhat familiar Heard of name only Not familiar

59.4

54.3

37.4 35.1

0.9

5.7

2.3 4.9

Region

Level of familiarity

8.1
USDA APHIS VS / 85 

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

Nearly all cattle placed on feedlots with 1,000 head or more capacity (98.1 percent) were 

in feedlots in which the operator was very familiar or somewhat familiar with the BQA 

program.

 H.1.b. Percentage of cattle and calves by operator’s familiarity with the BQA program, 

and by feedlot capacity and region:

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other

All 

feedlots

Level of familiarity Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Very familiar 55.9 (4.5) 76.2 (2.6) 72.9 (2.7) 72.8 (4.9) 72.9 (2.4)

Somewhat familiar 38.2 (4.5) 22.7 (2.6) 25.6 (2.6) 23.5 (5.0) 25.2 (2.3)

Heard of name only 3.0 (1.3) 0.2 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 2.5 (1.2) 0.7 (0.3)

Not familiar 2.9 (1.1) 0.9 (0.5) 1.2 (0.5) 1.3 (0.5) 1.2 (0.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nearly two of three feedlots (65.5 percent) had someone attend a BQA meeting within 

the past 5 years. A higher percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head 

sent someone to a BQA meeting compared with feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 

head (82.0 and 58.4 percent, respectively).

H.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

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

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

58.4 (2.9) 82.0 (3.3) 66.8 (2.7) 63.5 (3.8) 65.5 (2.2)
86 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

One component of the BQA program is avoiding antibiotic residues. Feedlots address 

residue avoidance largely through record keeping and projecting adequate withdrawal 

periods before treated animals are presented for harvest. In addition, 5.9 percent of 

feedlots tested some cattle for antibiotic residues before shipment for slaughter.

H.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

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

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

4.2 (1.1) 10.0 (1.6) 6.4 (1.1) 5.2 (1.6) 5.9 (0.9)
USDA APHIS VS / 87 

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

2. Importance of BQA practices

About 9 of 10 feedlot operators rated the following BQA practices as very important, 

regardless of feedlot capacity or region. While in general operators that were very 

or somewhat familiar with the BQA program (table H.2.b.) ranked the practices more 

important than operators not familiar with the program, even operators not familiar with 

the program ranked the practices as having relatively high importance (table H.2.d.).

H.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)

96.1 (0.9) 3.1 (0.8) 0.8 (0.4) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

92.1 (1.3) 7.2 (1.3) 0.6 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 100.0

Implanting strategy 89.0 (1.5) 5.6 (1.1) 2.5 (0.7) 2.9 (0.8) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

92.1 (1.3) 6.6 (1.3) 0.6 (0.3) 0.7 (0.4) 100.0

Residue avoidance 93.5 (1.3) 4.5 (1.0) 2.0 (0.8) 0.0 (—) 100.0
88 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

H.2.b. 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)

97.1 (0.8) 2.6 (0.7) 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

93.5 (1.3) 6.1 (1.2) 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Implanting strategy 90.4 (1.5) 5.1 (1.2) 1.7 (0.6) 2.7 (0.8) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

92.6 (1.4) 6.3 (1.3) 0.3 (0.2) 0.7 (0.5) 100.0

Residue avoidance 93.7 (1.3) 4.5 (1.0) 1.8 (0.8) 0.0 (—) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 89 

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

H.2.c. 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)

95.8 (1.6) 4.0 (1.6) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

95.3 (1.6) 4.5 (1.6) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Implanting strategy 94.7 (1.5) 4.4 (1.5) 0.3 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

95.5 (1.5) 4.3 (1.5) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0

Residue avoidance 94.7 (1.7) 2.3 (0.7) 3.0 (1.6) 0.0 (—) 100.0
90 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

H.2.d. 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)

81.4 (7.3) 10.0 (5.9) 8.6 (5.0) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

68.2 (8.9) 24.3 (8.3) 5.4 (4.7) 2.1 (1.1) 100.0

Implanting strategy 66.9 (9.0) 12.1 (6.0) 15.5 (7.2) 5.4 (4.7) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

84.1 (7.3) 10.5 (6.2) 5.4 (4.7) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Residue avoidance 89.2 (6.3) 5.4 (4.7) 5.4 (4.7) 0.0 (—) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 91 

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

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

of cattle and calves by importance operator placed on the following of 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)

94.5 (2.9) 2.2 (1.5) 3.3 (2.4) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

80.5 (9.9) 14.2 (9.2) 0.9 (0.8) 4.4 (3.8) 100.0

Implanting strategy 81.2 (9.0) 6.6 (4.2) 11.3 (8.0) 1.0 (0.9) 100.0

Antibiotic selection to 

manage disease (e.g., 

type of FDA-approved 

antibiotic used or 

duration of action)

87.3 (9.1) 11.8 (9.1) 0.9 (0.8) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Residue avoidance 98.0 (1.4) 1.2 (1.1) 0.9 (0.8) 0.0 (—) 100.0
92 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

H.2.f. Percentage of feedlots in which the operator considered the following BQA 

practices somewhat or very important, 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

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)

99.0 (0.5) 99.6 (0.2) 99.8 (0.1) 98.2 (0.9) 99.2 (0.4)

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

99.1 (0.5) 99.6 (0.2) 99.8 (0.1) 98.4 (0.8) 99.2 (0.3)

Implanting strategy 93.1 (1.4) 98.1 (1.0) 97.7 (0.9) 89.8 (2.3) 94.6 (1.1)

Antibiotic selection 

to manage disease 

(e.g., type of FDAapproved antibiotic 

used or duration of 

action)

98.3 (0.7) 99.6 (0.2) 99.2 (0.5) 97.9 (1.1) 98.7 (0.5)

Residue avoidance 99.1 (0.5) 95.2 (2.4) 98.2 (1.1) 97.6 (1.2) 98.0 (0.8)
USDA APHIS VS / 93 

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

H.2.g. Percentage of cattle and calves in feedlots in which the operator considered the 

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

Percent Cattle and Calves

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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)

99.6 (0.3) 99.8 (0.1) 99.8 (0.1) 99.6 (0.3) 99.8 (0.1)

Route used for 

administration of 

injectable products 

(intramuscular, 

intravenous, 

subcutaneous)

99.4 (0.5) 99.8 (0.2) 99.8 (0.1) 99.4 (0.4) 99.7 (0.1)

Implanting strategy 97.1 (0.8) 99.3 (0.3) 97.7 (0.1) 95.2 (1.6) 98.9 (0.3)

Antibiotic selection 

to manage disease 

(e.g., type of FDAapproved antibiotic 

used or duration of 

action)

99.7 (0.2) 99.8 (0.1) 99.8 (0.1) 99.7 (0.1) 99.8 (0.1)

Residue avoidance 97.5 (1.7) 95.1 (4.1) 98.2 (1.1) 97.6 (1.2) 97.1 (1.6)
94 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

3. Training provided for BQA practices

Almost all feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (96.1 percent) had a formal 

employee training program on one or more of the listed BQA areas of emphasis, 

compared with 70.1 percent of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head. The 

difference might be related to the fewer number of employees on feedlots with a capacity 

of 1,000 to 7,999 head or the lack of a perceived need for a formal training program on 

these feedlots.

H.3.a. Percentage of feedlots that had a formal employee training program for BQA areas 

of emphasis, by training topic, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots*

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Training topic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Quality 

assurance 56.6 (3.3) 86.4 (3.2) 75.0 (2.8) 53.5 (4.7) 67.1 (2.5)

Residue 

avoidance 60.2 (3.2) 91.5 (2.1) 77.5 (2.5) 60.2 (4.5) 71.1 (2.3)

Animal handling 

procedures 65.9 (3.0) 92.6 (2.0) 79.7 (2.5) 67.6 (4.1) 75.2 (2.1)

Employee safety 64.0 (3.1) 93.9 (2.0) 79.3 (2.5) 66.1 (4.2) 74.4 (2.2)

Any 70.1 (3.0) 96.1 (1.4) 83.8 (2.3) 71.4 (4.0) 79.2 (2.0)

*Of feedlots with employees.
USDA APHIS VS / 95 

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

0

20

40

60

80

100

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Percentage of feedlots* that had a formal employee training program for BQA areas of emphasis, 

by training topic and by feedlot capacity 

Percent

Quality 

assurance

Residue 

avoidance

Animal handling

procedures

Employee 

safety

56.6

86.4

67.1

75.2

65.9 64.0

93.9

74.4

70.1

96.1

Feedlot capacity

(number head)

Training topic

71.1

Any

60.2

91.5 92.6

79.2

*Of feedlots with employees.
96 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

In addition to formal training programs, feedlots are encouraged to have written 

guidelines on BQA practices. Most feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head 

(83.9 percent) had written guidelines for employees on one or more of the BQA areas of 

emphasis, compared with 38.4 percent of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head.

H.3.b. Percentage of feedlots that had a formal employee training program that included 

written guidelines on BQA areas of emphasis, by training topic, feedlot capacity, and 

region:

Percent Feedlots*

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Training topic Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Quality 

assurance 26.9 (2.8) 72.1 (3.6) 49.9 (3.1) 30.2 (4.0) 42.7 (2.4)

Residue 

avoidance 30.7 (2.9) 74.4 (3.6) 53.1 (3.1) 33.5 (4.2) 45.9 (2.5)

Animal handling 

procedures 28.3 (3.0) 68.2 (3.7) 47.6 (3.1) 33.0 (4.3) 42.2 (2.5)

Employee safety 31.7 (3.0) 81.1 (3.4) 58.0 (3.1) 33.4 (4.1) 49.0 (2.5)

Any 38.4 (3.1) 83.9 (3.3) 62.3 (3.0) 40.5 (4.4) 54.2 (2.5)

*Of feedlots with employees.
USDA APHIS VS / 97 

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Quality Assurance

0

20

40

60

80

100

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Percentage of feedlots* that had a formal employee training program that 

included written guidelines on BQA areas of emphasis, by training topic and 

by feedlot capacity

Percent

Quality 

assurance

Residue 

avoidance

Animal handling

procedures

Employee 

safety

26.9

72.1

42.7 42.2

28.3

31.7

81.1

49.0

38.4

83.9

Feedlot capacity

(number head)

Training topic

45.9

Any

30.7

74.4

68.2

54.2

*Of operations with employees.
98 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

1. Housing management

Biosecurity has become a topic of increased interest and importance, as the beef 

industry continues to deal with a variety of endemic diseases and the potential threat of 

catastrophic foreign animal diseases. Understanding the demographics of the population 

in various livestock sectors can inform risk evaluators and suggest optimum control or 

intervention strategies and resource requirements for a particular incident response.

Since feedlots aggregate animals from many sources, and since there is limited 

biocontainment within feedlots, animals exiting feedlots for purposes other than slaughter 

represent a potential avenue for introducing pathogens to another herd. For example, in 

some cases replacement heifers are brought to the feedlot to be grown to a certain size, 

bred, and returned to a breeding herd when confi rmed pregnant. These animals present 

a risk of introducing pathogens acquired at the feedlot to the breeding herd. Overall, 

12.2 percent of feedlots had some animals leave the feedlot and return to a breeding 

herd or to grazing (stocker cattle).

I.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that fed any dairy breeding cattle, beef breeding cattle, or 

cattle returned to grazing (stocker 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

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

14.5 (2.0) 6.9 (1.3) 15.0 (2.0) 8.1 (2.1) 12.2 (1.5)

I. Biosecurity
USDA APHIS VS / 99 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

Biocontainment practices, primarily segregation, could mitigate pathogen exposure 

to animals destined to return to breeding or grazing operations. In most cases, cattle 

destined to return to breeding or grazing were housed adjacent to animals on feed for 

slaughter.

I.1.b. Of feedlots that fed any dairy breeding cattle, beef breeding cattle, or cattle returned 

to grazing (stocker cattle), percentage of feedlots by type of housing:

Housing type Percent feedlots Std. error

Dairy breeding cattle*

Beef breeding cattle

Segregated area with no direct contact with cattle 

on feed for slaughter 49.6 (8.4)

Pens adjacent to cattle on feed for slaughter (noseto-nose contact) 70.2 (7.2)

Pens with cattle on feed for slaughter (commingled) 4.4 (2.1)

Hospital pens with cattle on feed for slaughter for 

any length of time 10.0 (4.1)

Returned to grazing (stocker cattle)

Segregated area with no direct contact with cattle 

on feed for slaughter 44.1 (9.8)

Pens adjacent to cattle on feed for slaughter (noseto-nose contact) 59.3 (8.4)

Pens with cattle on feed for slaughter (commingled) 5.6 (2.9)

Hospital pens with cattle on feed for slaughter for 

any length of time 33.5 (9.7)

*Too few to report.

I.1.c. For feedlots that fed any dairy breeding cattle, beef breeding cattle, or cattle 

returned to grazing (stocker cattle), percentage of feedlots that fed these cattle leftover 

feed from bunk cleaning:

Percent Feedlots Std. error

0.0 (—)
100 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

2. Vaccination protocols and testing

Vaccination is another potential biocontainment practice for feedlots that house animals 

destined to return to breeding. Approximately half of feedlots (53.4 percent) modifi ed 

vaccination protocols for beef breeding cattle leaving the feedlot.

I.2.a. Of feedlots that fed any dairy breeding or beef breeding cattle, percentage of 

feedlots that modifi ed or implemented vaccination protocols for these cattle, by cattle 

type, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Dairy breeding* 

Beef breeding 50.8 (9.6) 70.3 (10.3) 59.7 (9.3) 36.1 (17.6) 53.4 (8.5)

*Too few to report.

In some cases, cattle can be tested to determine if they pose a risk for carrying 

pathogens when leaving the feedlot. Typically, these testing protocols focus on specifi c 

pathogens of interest. Nearly one of three feedlots (30.6 percent) did some testing for 

pathogens in beef breeding cattle destined to be returned to breeding.

I.2.b. Of feedlots that fed any dairy breeding cattle or beef breeding cattle, percentage of 

feedlots that tested these cattle for disease (e.g., bovine viral diarrhea) before cattle left 

the feedlot, by cattle type, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Cattle type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Dairy breeding*

Beef breeding 27.8 (8.6) 49.6 (11.8) 30.5 (8.5) 30.8 (16.0) 30.6 (7.6)

*Too few to report.
USDA APHIS VS / 101 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

3. Management of Mexican-origin cattle

Historically, Mexican-origin cattle in feedlots have been a concern, because some of 

these cattle are perceived to be at greater risk of being infected with certain pathogens 

such as Mycobacterium bovis. In response to these concerns, some States have 

implemented programs that require feedlots to obtain a permit to feed animals of Mexican 

origin. Overall, 11.4 percent of feedlots fed some cattle of Mexican origin. A higher 

percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (33.1 percent) had cattle 

of Mexican origin than feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (2.5 percent). A 

higher percentage of feedlots in the Central region than in the Other region had cattle of 

Mexican origin (15.8 and 4.9 percent, respectively). 

I.3.a. Percentage of feedlots that fed any Mexican-origin 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

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

2.5 (0.8) 33.1 (2.7) 15.8 (1.3) 4.9 (1.3) 11.4 (0.9)

I.3.b. Percentage of feedlots that fed Mexican-origin cattle and cattle destined to be 

returned to breeding or grazing, 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

1.5 (0.8) 3.3 (0.7) 2.3 (0.6) 1.6 (1.3) 2.0 (0.6)
102 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

Biocontainment practices in feedlots that had cattle of Mexican origin and cattle destined 

to return to breeding or grazing were similar to those used in feedlots without cattle of 

Mexican origin (table I.1.b). Overall, 2.0 percent of feedlots fed both types of cattle 

(table I.3.b.) and, of those, 55.8 percent housed them in adjacent pens some of the time.

I.3.c. For feedlots that fed Mexican-origin cattle and any breeding or stocker cattle, 

percentage of feedlots by housing for breeding or stocker cattle:

Housing for breeding or stocker cattle Percent feedlots Std. error

Segregated area with no direct contact with 

Mexican-origin cattle on feed for slaughter 36.1 (13.5)

Pens adjacent to Mexican-origin cattle on feed 

for slaughter (nose-to-nose contact) 55.8 (14.5)

Pens with Mexican-origin cattle on feed for 

slaughter (commingled) 0.0 (—)

Hospital pens with Mexican-origin cattle on feed 

for slaughter for any length of time 21.3 (10.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 103 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

4. Presence of other animals

Animals other than cattle in the feedlot can present biosecurity or biocontainment 

concerns. Rarely were animals other than dogs, cats, or equids present in the feedlot 

facility.

I.4.a. Percentage of feedlots by type of animals at the feedlot other than feedlot cattle, 

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

Animal type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Dogs 73.6 (2.4) 38.5 (4.3) 58.3 (2.8) 70.7 (3.3) 63.3 (2.1)

Cats 82.7 (2.1) 64.2 (3.8) 76.9 (2.3) 77.8 (3.1) 77.2 (1.8)

Horses, 

donkeys, mules, 

etc.

49.9 (2.7) 90.2 (2.0) 75.2 (2.5) 41.6 (3.6) 61.7 (2.1)

Sheep 2.1 (0.8) 2.1 (1.3) 1.6 (0.8) 3.0 (1.3) 2.1 (0.7)

Goats 2.6 (0.9) 0.8 (0.3) 2.1 (0.8) 2.0 (1.0) 2.1 (0.6)

Feral pigs 1.7 (0.4) 4.3 (0.9) 4.1 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 2.4 (0.4)

Domestic pigs 8.7 (1.7) 0.0 (0.0) 4.0 (1.2) 9.3 (2.3) 6.1 (1.2)

Chickens or 

other poultry 8.5 (1.6) 3.9 (1.2) 5.2 (1.2) 10.0 (2.4) 7.1 (1.2)

Captive deer or 

elk 1.7 (0.8) 0.4 (0.2) 1.7 (0.7) 0.8 (0.7) 1.3 (0.5)

Llamas, alpacas 0.0 (0.0) 2.3 (2.1) 0.0 (0.0) 1.7 (1.5) 0.7 (0.6)

Bison 0.4 (0.4) 1.6 (1.1) 1.1 (0.7) 0.4 (0.3) 0.8 (0.4)
104 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

Feedlots are relatively open environments, usually without substantial perimeter fencing. 

It is not uncommon to see wildlife or evidence of wildlife (e.g., scat, tracks) within the 

feedlot facility. Many feedlots see evidence of coyotes, foxes, and stray dogs 

(41.8 percent) and small animals (72.8 percent) on at least a monthly basis.

I.4.b. Percentage of feedlots by frequency wild animals and/or signs of wild animals 

(e.g., scat, tracks) were observed in 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

Frequency Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Wild ruminants (e.g., deer and elk)

Monthly 41.7 (2.7) 13.9 (2.5) 24.5 (2.5) 46.9 (3.6) 33.5 (2.1)

Less than 

monthly 30.3 (2.6) 34.9 (4.2) 36.0 (2.9) 25.1 (3.4) 31.6 (2.2)

Never 28.0 (2.5) 51.2 (3.9) 39.5 (2.8) 28.0 (3.0) 34.9 (2.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Coyotes, foxes, and stray dogs

Monthly 43.5 (2.8) 37.9 (3.7) 45.5 (2.8) 36.3 (3.7) 41.8 (2.3)

Less than 

monthly 38.7 (2.8) 52.4 (3.7) 41.5 (2.7) 44.7 (3.9) 42.8 (2.2)

Never 17.8 (2.2) 9.7 (1.8) 13.0 (1.9) 19.0 (2.9) 15.4 (1.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Feral swine

Monthly 2.0 (0.6) 4.2 (1.0) 4.2 (0.9) 0.3 (0.2) 2.7 (0.5)

Less than 

monthly 0.7 (0.4) 3.3 (1.0) 2.4 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 1.4 (0.4)

Never 97.3 (0.6) 92.5 (1.1) 93.4 (0.9) 99.7 (0.2) 95.9 (0.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Small animals (e.g., raccoons, squirrels, skunks, rabbits)

Monthly 75.9 (2.5) 65.5 (3.1) 70.2 (2.5) 76.7 (3.2) 72.8 (2.0)

Less than 

monthly 17.8 (2.2) 28.1 (2.9) 24.3 (2.3) 15.6 (2.7) 20.9 (1.8)

Never 6.3 (1.4) 6.4 (1.5) 5.5 (1.2) 7.7 (1.9) 6.3 (1.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 105 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

I.4.c. For feedlots that observed wild ruminants or signs of wild ruminants in the feedlot, 

percentage of feedlots by frequency wild ruminants were observed in feed storage areas, 

bunks, or lots, 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

Frequency Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Monthly 57.7 (3.2) 60.3 (5.8) 64.5 (3.7) 50.4 (4.4) 58.2 (2.8)

Less than 

monthly 22.7 (3.0) 22.5 (5.1) 20.4 (3.2) 25.6 (4.3) 22.7 (2.6)

Never 19.6 (2.8) 17.2 (4.2) 15.1 (2.7) 24.0 (4.2) 19.1 (2.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Birds in feedlots consume feed intended for cattle and are a potential vector for disease 

agents. Feedlots use various control strategies that lessen the impact birds have on 

profi tability and mitigate the risk of disease transmission. The most common method of 

control is shooting some of the birds (25.4 percent of feedlots). 

I.4.d. Percentage of feedlots by control strategies used for birds, 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

Control 

strategy Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Chemical 

repellents 6.4 (1.4) 16.9 (3.5) 11.1 (1.9) 7.0 (2.2) 9.5 (1.4)

Shooting 27.7 (2.6) 19.7 (4.2) 20.1 (2.7) 33.2 (3.9) 25.4 (2.2)

Trapping/

capture devices 5.2 (1.3) 6.3 (2.4) 6.2 (1.6) 4.5 (1.6) 5.5 (1.1)

Visual or noise 

deterrents 6.6 (1.4) 10.1 (2.6) 7.0 (1.6) 8.6 (2.0) 7.7 (1.2)

Any 34.0 (2.8) 38.7 (4.2) 30.6 (2.9) 42.6 (4.0) 35.4 (2.3)
106 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

5. Visitor management

Visitors to feedlots can represent a security threat, a biosecurity concern, and a potential 

hazard. Despite these concerns, only 25.1 percent of feedlots had signage directing all 

visitors to the feedlot offi ce prior to entry.

I.5.a. Percentage of feedlots that had signage posted directing all visitors to the offi ce 

facility prior to entering the feedlot, 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

10.3 (1.6) 60.6 (4.1) 33.3 (2.6) 12.7 (2.2) 25.1 (1.8)
USDA APHIS VS / 107 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

Feedlots in both capacity catergories were visited by a number of individuals for a 

variety of purposes. Understanding patterns of visitation can help operators develop a 

biosecurity or emergency response plan.

I.5.b. Percentage of feedlots in which visitors had contact with cattle on feed, by type of 

visitor, feedlot capacity, and region:

Percent Feedlots

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Visitor type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Veterinarian 94.8 (1.4) 96.6 (2.3) 97.1 (1.0) 92.8 (2.6) 95.3 (1.2)

Nutritionist 85.4 (2.1) 97.8 (0.9) 93.6 (1.4) 82.2 (3.1) 89.0 (1.5)

University/

extension 

personnel

15.9 (2.1) 28.3 (3.7) 20.6 (2.4) 18.1 (3.1) 19.6 (1.9)

Livestock hauler 91.1 (1.6) 93.4 (1.4) 89.7 (1.7) 94.9 (1.6) 91.8 (1.2)

Renderer 68.5 (2.6) 73.6 (3.6) 77.2 (2.3) 59.2 (3.9) 70.0 (2.1)

4-H group/FFA 14.4 (2.2) 28.8 (3.0) 16.7 (1.8) 21.6 (3.5) 18.7 (1.8)

Contract 

vaccine/

processing 

crews

4.5 (1.3) 34.7 (4.0) 18.6 (2.3) 5.5 (1.9) 13.4 (1.6)

Contract penriders or animal 

checkers

1.2 (0.8) 12.2 (1.8) 6.0 (0.9) 2.0 (1.3) 4.4 (0.8)

Government 

offi cials 38.5 (2.7) 72.0 (3.5) 57.2 (2.8) 35.0 (3.8) 48.4 (2.3)

Other 8.3 (1.6) 13.7 (2.9) 13.4 (2.1) 4.5 (1.3) 9.9 (1.4)
108 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

I.5.c. For feedlots in which visitors had contact with cattle on feed, average number of 

visits per month, by type of visitor, feedlot capacity, and region:

Average Number of Visits per Month

Feedlot capacity

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 or 

more Central Other All feedlots

Visitor type Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Veterinarian 2.6 (0.9) 2.9 (0.3) 2.2 (0.2) 3.6 (1.6) 2.7 (0.6)

Nutritionist 2.6 (0.6) 1.8 (0.2) 1.7 (0.1) 3.4 (1.1) 2.3 (0.4)

University/

extension 

personnel

0.2 (0.0) 1.1 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.6 (0.0)

Livestock hauler 5.7 (0.8) 70.5 (7.0) 30.9 (2.7) 15.8 (3.5) 24.7 (2.1)

Renderer 3.5 (0.7) 19.3 (1.2) 10.0 (0.7) 5.6 (1.3) 8.6 (0.6)

4-H group/FFA 1.0 (0.5) 2.0 (0.6) 1.3 (0.4) 1.6 (0.7) 1.5 (0.4)

Contract 

vaccine/

processing 

crews

4.0 (2.6) 16.4 (2.6) 12.6 (1.4) 15.7 (9.7) 13.2 (2.1)

Contract penriders or animal 

checkers

11.0 (8.9) 21.5 (2.4) 22.2 (2.3) 0.0 (0.0) 19.4 (3.0)

Government 

offi cials 1.6 (0.9) 1.2 (0.1) 1.6 (0.7) 1.0 (0.6) 1.4 (0.5)

Other 1.3 (0.3) 12.3 (2.9) 6.5 (1.4) 2.4 (1.0) 5.8 (1.2)
USDA APHIS VS / 109 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

I.5.d. For feedlots in which visitors had contact with cattle on feed, percentage of feedlots 

by type of visitor and by frequency of visits:

Percent Feedlots

Frequency

Daily Weekly Monthly

Semiannually Annually

Visitor type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Veterinarian 1.2 (0.4) 11.8 (1.2) 51.1 (2.3) 19.5 (1.9) 16.3 (1.7) 100.0

Nutritionist 0.3 (0.2) 10.6 (1.5) 66.1 (2.3) 8.0 (1.3) 15.0 (1.8) 100.0

University/

extension 

personnel

0.4 (0.0) 0.0 (—) 6.8 (2.2) 22.8 (5.5) 70.0 (5.5) 100.0

Livestock 

hauler 19.6 (1.8) 35.6 (2.3) 27.5 (2.0) 4.7 (1.1) 12.6 (1.7) 100.0

Renderer 21.6 (1.9) 19.2 (2.1) 39.0 (2.7) 4.1 (1.2) 16.1 (2.1) 100.0

4-H group/FFA 3.1 (1.0) 1.0 (0.7) 3.8 (1.5) 21.6 (3.8) 70.6 (4.2) 100.0

Contract 

vaccine/

processing 

crews

24.4 (3.8) 39.5 (6.6) 16.1 (7.3) 12.2 (5.2) 7.8 (3.0) 100.0

Contract penriders or animal 

checkers

66.4 (7.2) 20.1 (5.7) 2.8 (1.4) 8.1 (4.6) 2.6 (1.5) 100.0

Government 

offi cials 1.7 (0.7) 0.8 (0.4) 11.3 (2.4) 26.1 (2.9) 60.2 (3.2) 100.0

Other 6.5 (1.9) 20.9 (6.0) 30.1 (7.1) 5.2 (2.9) 37.2 (7.2) 100.0
110 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

While most feedlots did not provide footbaths or clean boots for visitors, many did limit 

access to animal areas (65.7 percent) or restrict vehicles from animal areas 

(59.9 percent). Generally, access restrictions were more common in feedlots with a 

capacity of 8,000 or more head.

I.5.e. Percentage of feedlots by biosecurity management practices generally used for 

visitors, 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

Practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Access control for 

visitors entering 

animal areas

56.3 (2.7) 88.1 (2.8) 72.6 (2.7) 55.2 (3.6) 65.7 (2.1)

Restrictions on 

vehicles entering 

animal area

51.6 (2.9) 79.8 (3.7) 67.4 (2.8) 48.6 (3.8) 59.9 (2.3)

Disposable or clean 

boots for visitors 

entering animal 

areas

12.6 (1.8) 8.3 (1.6) 10.2 (1.6) 13.0 (2.5) 11.3 (1.4)

Footbaths for visitors 

entering animal 

areas

1.7 (0.7) 6.2 (1.4) 3.4 (0.7) 2.4 (1.2) 3.0 (0.7)
USDA APHIS VS / 111 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

I.5.f. Percentage of feedlots by other biosecurity management practices generally used, 

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

Practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Restrict movement 

of horses onto the 

feedlot premises

18.4 (2.1) 65.7 (3.9) 43.6 (2.8) 15.4 (2.5) 32.4 (2.0)

Insect control 

(e.g., sprays, 

foggers, treated 

ear tags, products 

administered to 

animal [topical/oral], 

etc.)

68.1 (2.7) 91.4 (1.4) 82.8 (2.1) 63.1 (3.8) 74.9 (2.0)

Rodent control (e.g., 

cats, traps, chemical/

bait, etc.)

83.5 (2.2) 92.7 (2.3) 88.9 (1.8) 82.1 (3.2) 86.2 (1.7)
112 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

6. Equipment sharing and cleaning

Using the same equipment to handle manure and cattle feed can facilitate transmission 

of pathogens. Nearly two-thirds of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head 

(64.8 percent) never used the same equipment to handle manure and cattle feed, and 

32.8 percent rarely used the same equipment to handle manure and cattle feed. For 

feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head, 36.8 percent never used the same 

equipment to handle manure and cattle feed, and 32.1 percent rarely did so. 

I.6.a. Percentage of feedlots by frequency that the same equipment was used to handle 

manure and cattle feed, 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

Frequency Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Routinely 31.1 (2.6) 2.4 (0.6) 19.4 (2.1) 27.6 (3.4) 22.7 (1.9)

Rarely 32.1 (2.8) 32.8 (3.9) 33.3 (2.8) 30.9 (3.8) 32.3 (2.3)

Never 36.8 (2.9) 64.8 (4.0) 47.3 (3.0) 41.5 (4.0) 45.0 (2.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 113 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

Most feedlots that rarely or routinely used the same equipment to handle manure and 

cattle feed took some rudimentary precautions to clean the equipment between uses. 

Cleaning equipment with water or steam only was the most common method used 

(81.1 percent of feedlots). About one of four feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more 

head (23.1 percent) cleaned and chemically disinfected equipment between uses.

I.6.b. For feedlots that rarely or routinely used the same equipment to handle manure and 

cattle feed, percentage of feedlots by cleaning procedures usually used on equipment 

after handling manure and prior to handling feed, 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

Cleaning procedure Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Wash equipment with 

water or steam only 84.8 (2.5) 64.8 (6.9) 79.6 (3.4) 83.1 (3.5) 81.1 (2.5)

Chemically 

disinfect only 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—) 0.0 (—)

Wash equipment and 

chemically disinfect 2.5 (1.1) 23.1 (4.7) 7.7 (1.8) 4.6 (1.6) 6.3 (1.2)

Other 8.5 (1.9) 10.8 (6.0) 9.2 (2.8) 8.5 (2.6) 8.9 (1.9)

No procedures done 4.2 (1.5) 1.3 (0.8) 3.5 (1.5) 3.8 (1.9) 3.7 (1.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
114 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

7. Information sources and contacts during an outbreak

Knowing where feedlot operators are likely to seek information in the event of an 

outbreak of a foreign animal disease (e.g., foot-and-mouth disease) can facilitate 

the timely development and delivery of information and producer confi dence in the 

information received. The highest percentage of feedlot operators would seek information 

from a private veterinarian.

I.7.a. Percentage of feedlots by likelihood that the operator would use the following 

information sources in the event of an outbreak of a foreign animal disease (e.g., footand-mouth disease):

Percent Feedlots

Likelihood of Using Source

Very Somewhat Not

Information source Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Other beef producers 57.9 (2.4) 28.4 (2.0) 13.7 (1.7) 100.0

Private veterinarian 94.3 (1.1) 4.7 (1.1) 0.9 (0.7) 100.0

University/extension 

personnel 50.9 (2.4) 33.9 (2.3) 15.2 (1.8) 100.0

Beef organization or 

cooperative 57.3 (2.3) 27.3 (2.1) 15.4 (1.9) 100.0

Magazine 23.4 (1.9) 38.0 (2.3) 38.6 (2.3) 100.0

Internet 52.5 (2.5) 29.0 (2.3) 18.5 (1.9) 100.0

State Veterinarian’s offi ce 61.7 (2.3) 24.8 (2.2) 13.5 (1.6) 100.0

U.S. Department of Agriculture 51.9 (2.4) 28.8 (2.3) 19.4 (1.8) 100.0

Television/newspaper 34.6 (2.2) 32.1 (2.2) 33.3 (2.2) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 115 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

0

20

40

60

80

100 Very likely Somewhat likely

Percent

Percentage of feedlots by likelihood that the operator would use the following 

information sources in the event of an outbreak of a foreign animal disease 

(e.g., foot-and-mouth disease)

Other

beef

producers

Private

veterinarian

University/

extension

personnel

Beef

organization

or

cooperative

Magazine Internet State

Veterinarian’s

office

USDA Television/

newspaper

Information source

28.4

57.9

4.7

94.3

33.9

50.9

27.3

57.3

23.4

38.0

29.0

52.5

24.8

61.7

28.8

51.9

32.1

34.6
116 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

I.7.b. Percentage of feedlots that were very likely or somewhat likely to use the 

following information sources in the event of an outbreak of a foreign animal disease 

(e.g., foot-and-mouth 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

Information source Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Other beef producers 87.4 (2.0) 83.7 (3.2) 86.5 (2.1) 85.9 (2.9) 86.3 (1.7)

Private veterinarian 99.0 (0.9) 99.2 (0.3) 99.6 (0.2) 98.3 (1.6) 99.1 (0.7)

University/extension 

personnel 85.9 (2.1) 82.2 (3.5) 85.9 (2.1) 83.1 (3.2) 84.8 (1.8)

Beef organization 

or cooperative 82.9 (2.2) 88.7 (3.3) 88.0 (2.0) 79.6 (3.4) 84.6 (1.9)

Magazine 63.6 (2.8) 56.3 (4.1) 60.0 (2.9) 63.6 (4.0) 61.4 (2.3)

Internet 79.7 (2.5) 86.0 (2.9) 85.8 (2.0) 75.1 (3.8) 81.5 (1.9)

State Veterinarian’s 

offi ce 82.3 (2.2) 96.7 (0.9) 92.3 (1.5) 77.7 (3.2) 86.5 (1.6)

U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 76.3 (2.4) 91.1 (2.6) 84.6 (2.1) 74.6 (3.4) 80.6 (1.8)

Television/newspapers 67.1 (2.8) 65.7 (3.7) 67.8 (2.6) 65.0 (4.0) 66.7 (2.2)
USDA APHIS VS / 117 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

Operators on nearly all feedlots, regardless of feedlot capacity or region, would contact a 

private veterinarian if they suspected the presence of a foreign animal disease (e.g., footand-mouth disease). Support in terms of disease awareness, recognition, and reporting 

protocols could enhance the timeliness of disease recognition and response in the event 

of an outbreak.

I.7.c. Percentage of feedlots in which the operator would contact the following information 

resources if they suspected an animal on their feedlot had a foreign animal disease (e.g., 

foot-and-mouth 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

Information 

resource Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Private veterinarian 99.1 (0.5) 98.0 (0.8) 99.0 (0.4) 98.5 (1.0) 98.8 (0.4)

University/extension 

personnel 32.8 (2.8) 15.1 (2.4) 24.5 (2.4) 32.3 (3.9) 27.6 (2.1)

State Veterinarian’s 

offi ce 51.1 (3.0) 63.0 (4.4) 56.5 (3.0) 51.7 (4.1) 54.6 (2.4)

U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 37.6 (2.8) 41.7 (3.8) 41.5 (2.8) 34.6 (3.8) 38.8 (2.2)
118 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

8. Feedlot size, animal density, and proximity to another feedlot with livestock 

A good understanding of feedlot size, animal density, and the proximity to other feedlots 

can help with planning for emergencies. Such data are useful in modeling efforts for 

evaluating the potential for animal disease spread and what strategies might be useful in 

disease control efforts.

I.8.a. Percentage of feedlots by proximity to another feedlot with livestock, 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

Proximity Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Shared fence line 4.6 (1.2) 15.8 (2.8) 9.0 (1.4) 6.3 (2.1) 7.9 (1.2)

Less than 0.25 mi 11.6 (1.8) 11.4 (2.0) 11.0 (1.7) 12.3 (2.4) 11.5 (1.4)

0.25 to less than 1 mi 29.2 (2.6) 15.2 (3.7) 21.4 (2.6) 30.6 (3.6) 25.1 (2.1)

1 mi to less than 5 mi 45.9 (2.9) 33.7 (3.9) 41.0 (2.9) 44.3 (3.9) 42.3 (2.4)

5 mi or more 8.7 (1.6) 23.9 (3.4) 17.6 (2.2) 6.5 (1.8) 13.2 (1.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 119 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

I.8.b. Percentage of feedlots by number of acres occupied by 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

Number of acres Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 20 43.6 (2.7) 1.0 (0.5) 21.5 (2.3) 45.2 (3.6) 31.0 (2.0)

20–49 35.0 (2.9) 6.6 (2.1) 24.5 (2.5) 29.8 (3.8) 26.6 (2.2)

50–99 14.6 (2.1) 14.6 (2.5) 16.5 (2.1) 11.8 (2.7) 14.6 (1.6)

100 or more 6.8 (1.5) 77.9 (2.7) 37.5 (2.2) 13.2 (2.5) 27.8 (1.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Including feed mill storage facilities directly related to the feedlot and pens, but excluding cropland, pasture, 

etc.

I.8.c. Feedlot average number of head on feed for slaughter per acre, July 1, 2011:

Average Number of Head on Feed* (per acre)

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

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

Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

85.7 (6.9) 99.3 (7.6) 77.1 (4.9) 108.4 (11.0) 89.7 (5.3)

*Based on July 1, 2011, inventory.
120 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

9. Labor

Feedlots are effi cient with regard to labor, especially feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or 

more head in which an average of 1.4 employees per 1,000 head of cattle accomplished 

all clerical and animal-care tasks. The ratio of people to cattle in feedlots with a capacity 

of 1,000 to 7,999 head was higher (4.2 per 1,000 head). For both feedlot sizes, about half 

the personnel were involved in handling cattle in some fashion.

I.9.a. Feedlot average number of paid or unpaid full-time employees per 1,000 head of 

cattle on July 1, 2011, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Feedlot Average Number of Employees*

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Employee category Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

All employees, 

including clerical 

and managerial 

personnel and those 

who handled cattle

4.2 (1.0) 1.4 (0.1) 4.2 (1.1) 2.0 (0.2) 3.3 (0.7)

Employees who only 

handled cattle (e.g., 

pen-riders, doctoring 

crew, processors)

2.3 (0.8) 0.7 (0.1) 2.7 (0.9) 0.5 (0.1) 1.8 (0.6)

*Per 1,000 head of cattle on July 1, 2011.
USDA APHIS VS / 121 

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

In general, full-time employees with animal-handling responsibilities had little contact 

with animals on other operations or had no livestock of their own. For 53.2 percent of 

feedlots, no employees had contact with animals on another feedlot, and for 59.7 percent 

of feedlots, no employees had livestock of their own.

I.9.b. Of full-time employees on June 30, 2011, who only handled cattle, percentage of 

feedlots by percentage of employees who had contact with livestock on other operations 

or who owned livestock at another location, 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

Percent full-time 

cattle-handling 

employees who. . . Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Had contact with livestock on other operations

0 56.8 (4.2) 48.5 (4.5) 54.6 (3.5) 49.2 (6.6) 53.2 (3.1)

1–19 0.9 (0.8) 6.3 (2.0) 4.2 (1.3) 0.5 (0.0) 3.2 (1.0)

20–49 8.1 (2.4) 14.5 (3.2) 9.9 (2.0) 13.6 (4.8) 10.9 (2.0)

50 or more 34.2 (4.1) 30.7 (4.2) 31.3 (3.2) 36.7 (6.5) 32.7 (2.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Owned livestock at another location

0 64.5 (4.1) 53.5 (4.3) 61.4 (3.4) 54.9 (6.4) 59.7 (3.0)

1–19 1.8 (1.1) 11.2 (2.2) 6.9 (1.5) 3.1 (1.6) 5.9 (1.2)

20–49 10.8 (2.8) 16.0 (3.3) 12.2 (2.2) 15.5 (5.1) 13.0 (2.1)

50 or more 22.9 (3.5) 19.3 (3.7) 19.5 (2.9) 26.5 (5.5) 21.4 (2.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
122 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Biosecurity

I.9.c. Of full-time employees on June 30, 2011, who only handled cattle, percentage of 

employees who had contact with livestock on other operations or who owned livestock at 

another location, by feedlot capacity and by region:

Percent Employees

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Percent full-time 

cattle-handling 

employees who . . . Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Had contact with 

livestock on other 

feedlots

31.1 (4.0) 28.0 (2.4) 28.6 (2.2) 30.2 (5.5) 28.9 (2.1)

Owned livestock at 

another location 23.3 (3.1) 16.9 (1.4) 17.8 (1.4) 22.3 (3.7) 18.7 (1.3)

I.9.d. Feedlot average number of paid or unpaid full-time employees per 1,000 head 

of cattle on July 1, 2011, who left their jobs for any reason (e.g., retired, quit, fi red, 

or injured) from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, by employee category, feedlot 

capacity, and region:

Feedlot Average Number of Employees*

Feedlot capacity 

(number head) Region

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more Central Other All feedlots

Employee category Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

All employees, 

including clerical 

and managerial 

personnel and those 

who handled cattle

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

Employees who only 

handled cattle (e.g., 

pen-riders, doctoring 

crew, processors)

0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1)

*Per 1,000 head of cattle on July 1, 2011.
USDA APHIS VS / 123 

Section I: Population Estimates–J. Emergency Preparedness

1. Written plans, training, and relationships

Having thought about and developed a plan for an emergency situation can reduce 

confusion and ensure a better outcome. Overall, only 34.1 percent of feedlots had any 

written emergency procedure; however, 65.8 percent of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 

or more head had such a plan.

J.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that had a written emergency procedure plan, 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

21.0 (2.3) 65.8 (4.1) 43.6 (2.8) 19.9 (3.0) 34.1 (2.1)

J.1.b. Percentage of feedlots that had a written contingency plan for feeding and watering 

livestock should the facility be impacted by a utility outage (electricity, natural gas, 

domestic water supply, etc.), 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

37.8 (2.8) 67.1 (4.5) 49.1 (2.9) 42.2 (3.9) 46.3 (2.3)

J.1.c. Percentage of feedlots that had someone from the feedlot attend an educational 

meeting during the previous 3 years regarding food security, terrorism threats, or the 

recognition of potential terrorist activities and actions, 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

41.5 (2.9) 64.3 (4.0) 55.6 (2.9) 37.1 (3.8) 48.2 (2.4)

J. Emergency 

Preparedness
124 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–J. Emergency Preparedness

J.1.d. Percentage of feedlots that encouraged employees or others to report what they 

would consider unusual circumstance or activities, 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

85.1 (2.1) 96.6 (2.0) 93.0 (1.7) 81.8 (3.2) 88.5 (1.6)

J.1.e. Percentage of feedlots that had developed an active working relationship with local 

county or regional emergency management offi cials, 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

39.3 (2.9) 70.3 (4.2) 57.0 (3.0) 35.5 (3.9) 48.4 (2.4)
USDA APHIS VS / 125 

Section I: Population Estimates–J. Emergency Preparedness

2. Emergency resources

Knowing the ability of feedlots to continue to provide for the basic feed and water needs 

of animals in their care is helpful to emergency management planners to ensure the 

welfare of the animals if an event were to interrupt normal transportation routines. 

J.2.a. Percentage of feedlots by average number of days of feed that would be available 

on premises to provide basic nutrition should it not be possible to bring in additional 

supplies, 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

Average number 

of days of feed Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 15 28.4 (2.6) 53.8 (4.1) 37.9 (2.9) 32.5 (3.5) 35.8 (2.2)

15–29 4.1 (1.1) 4.1 (1.0) 5.7 (1.3) 1.6 (0.7) 4.1 (0.8)

30–59 14.9 (2.1) 17.8 (3.2) 17.7 (2.3) 12.9 (2.6) 15.7 (1.7)

60 or more 52.6 (2.8) 24.3 (3.6) 38.7 (2.9) 53.0 (3.7) 44.4 (2.3)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
126 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–J. Emergency Preparedness

J.2.b. Percentage of feedlots by average number of days the facility would have 

the capability to generate backup power (fuel on hand) suffi cient to maintain critical 

operations such as water and feed delivery, 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

Average number 

of days of powergeneration capacity Pct.Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 3 3.5 (0.9) 13.3 (1.8) 6.0 (1.0) 6.8 (1.5) 6.3 (0.8)

3–7 12.9 (1.9) 27.1 (3.7) 18.8 (2.2) 14.3 (2.7) 17.0 (1.7)

8–14 16.3 (2.2) 17.3 (2.5) 16.7 (2.0) 16.5 (3.0) 16.6 (1.7)

15 or more 67.3 (2.7) 42.3 (4.3) 58.5 (2.8) 62.4 (3.7) 60.1 (2.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

J.2.c. Percentage of feedlots by number of animals per hour that could be processed for 

vaccination using only feedlot staff should all animals in the facility need to be vaccinated, 

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

Average number of 

animals per hour Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 75 31.5 (2.6) 6.7 (1.5) 22.6 (2.4) 26.7 (3.2) 24.2 (1.9)

76–100 39.3 (2.9) 43.6 (4.3) 37.7 (3.0) 44.8 (4.0) 40.6 (2.4)

More than 100 29.2 (2.6) 49.7 (4.1) 39.7 (2.8) 28.5 (3.6) 35.2 (2.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 127 

Section I: Population Estimates–K. Environment

1. Training and testing

Environmental issues are a concern for feedlot operators. In some cases, feedlots that 

meet certain criteria are required to have permits that address environmental quality 

issues, including manure management and dust control. Overall, 69.4 percent of feedlots 

had a training program and written guidelines for employees regarding one or more of the 

listed environmental issues; 15.3 percent of feedlots had no employees.

K.1.a. 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

1,000–7,999

8,000 

or more 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 57.1 (3.1) 66.1 (4.2) 58.6 (3.2) 62.7 (4.1) 60.2 (2.5)

Dust control 20.6 (2.7) 48.5 (4.1) 36.0 (2.9) 20.3 (3.6) 30.1 (2.2)

Lagoon overfl ow 47.2 (3.1) 81.7 (2.7) 68.8 (2.8) 42.4 (4.4) 58.9 (2.4)

Other environmental 

training program 9.8 (1.9) 8.8 (1.3) 13.2 (1.9) 3.3 (1.5) 9.4 (1.3)

Any of the above 59.9 (3.1) 88.3 (2.2) 71.8 (2.7) 65.5 (4.0) 69.4 (2.3)

No employees 21.7 (2.3) 0.0 (0.0) 10.5 (1.8) 22.6 (3.1) 15.3 (1.6)

K. Environment
128 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–K. Environment

More than 9 of 10 feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (93.6 percent), and 

more than 8 of 10 feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (84.2 percent), 

conducted some environmental tests to ensure environmental quality.

K.1.b. Percentage of feedlots that performed environmental tests, 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

Material tested Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Ground water* 

(i.e., well water) 52.1 (2.9) 79.5 (3.3) 66.6 (2.6) 49.8 (4.2) 60.2 (2.3)

Surface water* (e.g., 

ponds, lakes, or 

streams)

19.0 (2.9) 48.5 (5.0) 34.0 (3.1) 17.7 (4.0) 28.0 (2.5)

Nutrient content 

of manure (e.g., 

nitrogen level)

70.7 (2.7) 86.8 (2.8) 80.7 (2.3) 67.6 (3.8) 75.4 (2.1)

Air quality 4.5 (1.4) 11.6 (1.7) 6.8 (1.2) 6.3 (2.0) 6.6 (1.1)

Any of the above 84.2 (2.3) 93.6 (2.5) 89.8 (1.8) 82.7 (3.5) 87.0 (1.8)

*For feedlots with the specifi ed water source
USDA APHIS VS / 129 

Section I: Population Estimates–K. Environment

2. Manure management

K.2.a. Percentage of feedlots that used the following manure disposal methods, 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

Disposal method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Applied on land 

owned or managed 

by this feedlot

91.0 (1.6) 46.2 (4.1) 69.5 (2.4) 90.3 (1.9) 77.8 (1.6)

Sold 10.2 (1.5) 46.2 (4.0) 28.4 (2.4) 9.4 (1.8) 20.9 (1.6)

Given away 15.2 (1.9) 51.7 (3.7) 32.5 (2.3) 16.0 (2.7) 25.9 (1.7)

Removed by paying 

someone to take it 1.6 (0.9) 13.1 (4.0) 4.6 (2.0) 5.6 (1.9) 5.0 (1.4)

Removed by another 

method 6.1 (1.6) 3.1 (1.4) 3.8 (1.1) 7.5 (2.5) 5.2 (1.2)
130 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–K. Environment

0

20

40

60

80

100

All feedlots

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Percentage of feedlots that used the following manure disposal methods,

by feedlot capacity

Percent

Applied on land

owned or managed

by this feedlot

Sold Given away Removed by 

paying 

someone 

to take it

91.0

46.2

77.8

46.2

51.7

15.2

25.9

1.6

6.1 3.1 5.2

Feedlot capacity

(number head)

Disposal method

20.9

Removed by

another method

10.2

13.1

5.0
USDA APHIS VS / 131 

Section I: Population Estimates–K. Environment

0

20

40

60

80

100

Other

Central

Percentage of feedlots that used the following manure disposal methods,

by region

Percent

Applied on land

owned or managed

by this feedlot

Sold Given away Removed by 

paying 

someone 

to take it

69.5

90.3

28.4

32.5

16.0

3.8

7.5

Region

Disposal method

9.4

Removed by

another method

10.2

4.6 5.6
132 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–K. Environment

K.2.b. For feedlots that applied manure on land owned or managed by the feedlot, 

percentage of feedlots that tested the nutrient content of soil where manure was applied, 

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

93.7 (1.6) 88.3 (5.0) 92.2 (1.9) 93.3 (2.7) 92.7 (1.6)

K.2.c. For feedlots that tested the nutrient content of soil where manure was applied, 

percentage of feedlots that tested the soil to determine the manure application rate, 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

89.3 (1.9) 88.9 (5.0) 88.1 (2.6) 90.7 (2.5) 89.3 (1.8)

3. Water management and dust control

Concentrated animal feeding operations have been a concern with regard to waste 

management and air quality. Data on how feedlots dispose of waste and address dust 

control can be helpful to regulators and the public as they seek to ensure that best 

policies are in place to minimize untoward impacts of feedlots on environmental quality. 

K.3.a. Percentage of feedlots that applied waste water on land owned or managed by the 

feedlot, 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

43.4 (2.7) 61.3 (3.9) 56.0 (2.8) 37.5 (3.7) 48.7 (2.2)
USDA APHIS VS / 133 

Section I: Population Estimates–K. Environment

K.3.b. For feedlots that applied waste water on land owned or managed by the feedlot, 

percentage of feedlots that tested the nutrient content of the soil to determine the waste 

water application rate, 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

91.7 (2.4) 90.1 (3.7) 89.5 (2.6) 94.8 (2.7) 91.1 (2.0)

K.3.c. Percentage of feedlots that used the following runoff/erosion control measures, 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

Control measure Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Lagoons to capture 

runoff 65.3 (2.5) 94.8 (1.2) 83.8 (2.0) 59.2 (3.7) 74.1 (1.9)

Berms to control 

runoff 73.7 (2.6) 77.1 (3.0) 74.4 (2.4) 75.2 (3.6) 74.7 (2.0)

Fencing/landscaping 

to enhance wildlife 

management or 

minimize erosion

52.8 (2.9) 47.0 (4.3) 49.0 (3.0) 54.2 (3.9) 51.1 (2.4)

Any 91.3 (1.7) 97.1 (0.8) 93.0 (1.4) 92.9 (2.3) 93.0 (1.2)
134 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–K. Environment

K.3.d. Percentage of feedlots that used the following practices to control dust in any pens 

or on the feedlot, 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

Dust control 

practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Permanent sprinklers 14.3 (2.1) 22.2 (3.5) 16.6 (2.2) 16.7 (3.0) 16.6 (1.8)

Mobile sprinklers 

(water truck) 29.2 (2.7) 53.9 (4.1) 41.5 (2.8) 29.0 (3.6) 36.5 (2.2)

Mechanical scrapers 56.2 (2.8) 81.9 (2.6) 71.8 (2.6) 51.5 (3.9) 63.7 (2.2)

Increased cattle 

density 13.4 (1.9) 27.1 (3.4) 21.8 (2.4) 10.8 (2.2) 17.5 (1.7)

Other 2.9 (1.0) 0.6 (0.5) 2.4 (0.9) 2.1 (1.1) 2.3 (0.7)

Any dust control 66.8 (2.7) 92.3 (1.8) 82.9 (2.2) 61.2 (3.8) 74.3 (2.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 135 

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 

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 identify 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
136 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: Methodology

1. State selection

The preliminary selection of States to be included in the 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 animal and producer populations in the United States. The initial review of States 

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 

feedlots were: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. 

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 at least 1,000 head in the 

12 participating States. As of January 1, 2011, these States accounted for 96.2 percent 

of cattle on feed in feedlots with a capacity of at least 1,000 head. According to the 

latest State-level published number of feedlots (NASS Census of Agriculture 2007), the 

12 States accounted for 86.1 percent of U.S. feedlots with a capacity of at least 1,000 

head (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 feedlot 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.

1. Data collectors and data collection period

From August 1 through 30, 2011, NASS enumerators administered the General Feedlot 

Management questionnaire. The interview took slightly over 1 hour.

B. Sampling and 

Estimation

C. Data 

Collection
USDA APHIS VS / 137 

Section II: Methodology

1. Validation 

Initial data entry and validation for the General Feedlot Management questionnaire were 

performed in individual NASS State offi ces. Data were entered into a SAS® data set. 

NAHMS national staff performed additional data validation on the entire data set after 

data from all States were combined.

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. 

D. Data Analysis

E. Sample 

Evaluation
138 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: Methodology

A total of 995 feedlots were selected for the survey. Of these feedlots, 871 (87.5 percent) 

were contacted. There were 517 feedlots that provided usable inventory information 

(52.0 percent of the total selected and 59.4 percent of those contacted). In addition, there 

were 403 feedlots (40.5 percent of total selected) that provided “complete” information 

for the questionnaire. Of feedlots that provided complete information, 195 (48.4 percent) 

consented to be contacted for consideration/discussion about further participation in 

Phase II (VS collection) of the study.

Phase I: General Feedlot Management Questionnaire

Measurement Parameter

Response category

Number 

feedlots

Percent 

feedlots Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Survey complete and 

VMO consent 195 19.6 x x x

Survey complete, 

refused VMO 

consent

208 20.9 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 

feedlots 87.5 52.0 40.5

Percent of total 

feedlots weighted3 87.1 51.2 37.5

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

Weighted response—the rate was calculated using the initial selection weights.
USDA APHIS VS / 139 

Appendix I: Sample Profi le

1. Number of responding feedlots, by feedlot capacity and by region

Feedlot Capacity

Region 1,000–7,999 8,000 or more Total

Central 121 145 266

Other 116 21 137

Total 237 166 403

Appendix I: Sample Profi le
140 / Feedlot 2011

Appendix II: Number of and Inventory for Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More Head

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 feedlots.

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.

Appendix II: Number of and Inventory for Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 

or More Head in Selected States
USDA APHIS VS / 141 

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

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 11,514 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 U.S. feedlots 14,826.7 13,855.7 13,642.2 14,012 14,121

Marketings (x1,000 head)

20071 20082 20093 20104 20114

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 U.S. 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 Capacity
142 / Feedlot 2011

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

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs
USDA APHIS VS / 143 

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
Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 7

A. Inventory––Primary Use 7

 1. Cattle type 7

 2. Placements not intended for slaughter 13

 3. Mexican-origin cattle 16

B. Source of Cattle 18

 1. Description of origin and source 18

 2. Source of arriving shipments 22

 3. Average distance shipments traveled to feedlot 24

 4. Shipments crossing State lines 25

 5. Information provided to cattle sources 26

C. Pre-arrival Processing 27

 1. Effectiveness of pre-arrival processing 27

 2. Availability of pre-arrival processing information 30

 3. Importance of pre-arrival processing information 32

 4. Use of pre-arrival processing information 34

 D. Arrival Management 35

 1. Initial processing timing 35

 2. Cattle processing procedures 36

 3. Modifi cation of antibiotic and vaccination 

procedures 41

 4. Handling pregnant heifers 43

 5. Handling cattle with horns 44

 6. Animal identifi cation 46

 E. Nutrition 50

 1. Nutrition management 50

 2. Use of heat suppressant for heifers 53

 3. Level of concentrates 55

 4. Feed storage 56

 5. Water source 59

 6. Use of a nutritionist 59

F. Health Management 62

 1. Frequency of pen-riding or walking 62

 2. Training for drug and medication treatments 64

 3. Sick-animal records 65

 4. Use of a veterinarian 67

 5. Postmortems performed 70

 6. Use of antibiotics 71

 7. Carcass disposal 76

G. Outcome and Destination of Cattle 78

 1. Outcome 78

 2. Destination of shipments 79

 3. Average distance shipments traveled 80

 4. Shipments crossing State lines 81

H. Quality Assurance 82

 1. Familiarity with Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) 

program 82

 2. Importance of BQA practices 87

 3. Training provided for BQA practices 94

I. Biosecurity 98

 1. Housing management 98

 2. Vaccination protocols and testing 100

 3. Management of Mexican-origin cattle 101

 4. Presence of other animals 103

 5. Visitor management 106

 6. Equipment sharing and cleaning 112

 7. Information sources/contacts during an 

outbreak 114

 8. Feedlot size, animal density, and proximity to 

another feedlot with livestock 118

 9. Labor 120

J. Emergency Preparedness 123

 1. Written plans, training, and relationships 123

 2. Emergency resources 125

K. Environment 127

 1. Training and testing 127

 2. Manure management 129

 3. Water management and dust control 132

Section II: Methodology 135

Appendix I: Sample Profi le 139

Appendix II: Number and Inventory for Feedlots with a 

Capacity of 1,000 or More Head in Selected States 140

Appendix III: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by Size 141

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 142

Feedlot 2011 Part I

Table of Contents