United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

Veterinary Services 

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health April 2013 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Injection Practices in U.S. Cattle 

Feedlots1

The Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program is a 

State and national industry-led effort that provides 

guidelines for the production of quality beef. The goal of 

the program is to raise consumer confidence in beef 

quality through recommended management techniques 

and a commitment to quality within segments of the 

beef industry, including feedlots. Guidelines included in 

a BQA program focus on issues such as feedstuffs, feed 

additives and medications, processing and treatment 

records, injectable animal health products, care and 

husbandry practices, and guidelines for the general care 

and handling of cattle. Participating in the BQA program 

can help ensure that quality beef reaches consumers 

through safe handling, feeding, and care of cattle. In 

addition, the BQA program helps to improve food safety 

and supports animal welfare and well-being, 

major concerns of consumers. Using the BQA 

program can positively impact all that are involved, 

including cattle, feedlot operators, and consumers. 

Injection-site blemishes in beef products were the 

catalyst behind the development of the BQA program. 

These blemishes were unsightly and resulted in loss of 

value for the affected beef products. Many products 

injected into the muscle can cause blemishes at the 

injection site and loss of tenderness near the injection 

site. Because of these findings, the BQA program 

recommends administering injections subcutaneously 

(SQ) in the neck region whenever feasible. When the SQ 

route is not feasible and an intramuscular (IM) injection 

must be made, the recommended location is the neck 

region, which will spare the higher value cuts of meat. 

While nearly all injectable products can adversely affect 

beef quality, vaccines for clostridial diseases were of 

particular concern because of severe reactions seen 

with these products. The Feedlot 2011 study collected 

data on clostridial vaccine use, route and location of 

injections, and the use of injections greater than 10 mL. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) 

conducted the Feedlot 2011 study, an in-depth look at 

large feedlots (1,000 head or more capacity) in 12 

States2

 and small feedlots (fewer than 1,000 head 

capacity) in 13 States.3

 Large feedlots accounted for 

 

1

 Feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 head or more. 

2

 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Washington. 

3

 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

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

82.1 percent of the January 1, 2011, inventory of feedlot 

cattle 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 of cattle in large feedlots 

(NASS Cattle on Feed report, February 18, 2011). Study 

results presented in this information sheet reflect 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.4

Objectives of the Feedlot 2011 study included 

assessing producers’ familiarity with the BQA program, 

their perceptions about the effectiveness of various 

management practices used to help ensure beef quality, 

and their use of BQA management strategies. 

Producers’ familiarity and perceptions about the BQA 

program have been reported in another information 

sheet from the study (Quality Assurance in U.S. 

Feedlots, 2011; 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/feedlot/

downloads/feedlot2011/Feed11_is_Quality.pdf). This 

information sheet discusses injection practices on 

U.S. feedlots. 

 

Clostridial vaccine use 

Overall, 84.4 percent of feedlots used clostridial 

vaccines on at least some of their cattle, resulting in the 

vaccination of 62.4 percent of all cattle. (For more 

information see the “Vaccine Usage in U.S. Feedlots” 

info sheet at: http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov). Of 

vaccinated cattle, 97.5 percent received the vaccine SQ 

in the neck region. The remaining cattle were vaccinated 

IM in the neck region. Less than one of five cattle (14.9 

percent) received more than one clostridial vaccination 

while in the feedlot. There were no differences in 

clostridial vaccine use by feedlot capacity or by 

geographic location. 

Other injection management 

While in the feedlot, cattle may receive a variety of 

other injections based on health status and other factors 

(table 1). 

 

4

 Information on small feedlots is available at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/feedlot/index.shtml
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

Table 1. Percentage of feedlots and percentage of 

cattle by injections given at the feedlot as either a 

preventive or treatment measure 

Injection 

Percent 

feedlots 

Percent 

cattle 

Anthelmintic 

(e.g., Ivomec®) 54.8 75.8 

Prostaglandin 

(e.g., Lutalyse®) 36.4 7.5 

Corticosteroid (e.g., 

dexamethasone) 56.3 3.3 

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory 

(e.g., Banamine®) 

63.4 2.1 

Other* 2.7 0.0 

*Excluding vitamins, vaccines, and antibiotics. 

For all injectable products listed below, the majority 

were given either SQ in the neck region or IM in the neck 

region (table 2). 

 

Table 2. For feedlots that gave cattle the following 

injections as either a preventive or treatment 

measure, percentage of feedlots by route and 

location of injection

Route and location 

Percent 

feedlots 

Percent 

cattle 

Anthelmintic (e.g., Ivomec) 

IM in neck region 7.7 1.5 

SQ in neck region 88.1 98.2 

IM in other location 1.9 0.0 

Any other route 

or location 2.4 0.3 

Prostaglandin (e.g., Lutalyse) 

IM in neck region 59.0 75.2 

SQ in neck region 40.2 22.0 

IM in other location 0.8 2.8 

Any other route 

or location 0.0 0.0 

Corticosteroids (e.g., dexamethasone) 

IM in neck region 57.5 62.3 

SQ in neck region 37.2 37.4 

IM in other location 1.6 0.0 

Any other route 

or location 9.8 0.4 

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (e.g., Banamine) 

IM in neck region 41.0 23.0 

SQ in neck region 40.2 46.6 

IM in other location 0.0 0.0 

Any other route 

or location 24.0 30.4 

Historically, concerns have arisen about delivering 

more than 10 mL of product in a single injection site, 

because of the potential effects on beef quality. 

Consequently, recommendations were made to limit the 

volume of injections per site, and to partially withdraw 

and redirect needles before additional product is 

injected. With more injections delivered SQ in the neck 

region, however, the potential impact of large-volume 

injections on beef quality has lessened. Still, only 10.9 

percent of feedlots gave injections of more than 10 mL 

per site to any cattle, and only 0.7 percent of cattle 

received such injections. 

Summary 

The beef industry has focused a great deal of 

research and education—especially through the BQA 

program—on injection-site blemishes. At the same time, 

the pharmaceutical industry has pursued label-change 

approvals to allow the injection of products SQ rather 

than IM. Regulators have approved such label changes 

based on data submitted by the product sponsors, which 

show the efficacy of products using alternate delivery 

methods. The issue of injection-site blemishes in beef 

products has all but disappeared. It appears that 

research, education, and collaboration have resulted in 

improved product quality. ______________________________ 

For more information, contact: 

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

#670.0513

______________________________ 

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 file a complaint of discrimination, 

write to USDA, Director, Office 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 U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 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 

specific information.