United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

Veterinary 

Services

National 

Animal Health 

Monitoring 

System

July 2013

Feedlot 2011

Part III: Trends in Health and Management 

Practices on U.S. Feedlots, 1994–2011

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

#637.0713

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

Items of Note

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

broad look at animal health and management in feedlots throughout the major cattlefeeding region of the United States. The study was conducted in two parts: one focused 

on feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head (see “Part I: Reference of Management 

Practices on Feedlots in the United States, 2011”) and another focused on feedlots with 

a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head (see “Part II: Reference of Management Practices 

on Small Feedlots in the United States, 2011”). Part I and Part II reports are available at: 

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov.

The Feedlot 2011 study updates information on the U.S. cattle feedlot industry previously 

collected during the NAHMS Feedlot ’99 study and the NAHMS 1994 Cattle-on-Feed 

Evaluation (COFE). This report compares the results of the three studies over time and 

provides a summary of trends in health and management practices.

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

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

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

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

Typical feedlot stays last slightly less than 6 months.

The number of feedlots with a capacity of 32,000 head or more increased by over 

50 percent from 1996 to 2011 (p 15, National Agricultural Statistics Service). During 

the same time frame, the total number of feedlots decreased by over 30 percent. Iowa, 

Nebraska, South Dakota, and Washington reported large increases in inventory on 

feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head from 1995 and 2011 (p 16).

An increase in the overall percentage of cattle on feed owned by the feedlot continued 

from 1999 to 2011. Nearly 60 percent of cattle on feed were owned by the feedlot in 2011, 

compared with about 25 percent of cattle in 1994 (p 33).

The percentage of feedlot operators that considered pre-arrival processing practices to 

be either extremely or very effective increased from 1994 to 2011 (p 34).

In 2011, almost 9 percent of dead animals were composted and over 10 percent of 

feedlots used composting as a disposal method (p 63).

Formal training programs, including written guidelines, were implemented on a higher 

percentage of feedlots in 2011 than in 1999. More feedlots in 2011 than in 1999 provided 

formal training in quality assurance, residue avoidance, animal handling procedures, 

employee safety, manure management, dust control, and other environmental issues 

(p 65-66). 
ii / 
USDA APHIS VS / iii 

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 2

Section I: Demographics, 1994–2011 5

A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry 6

1. Cattle-on-feed inventory 6

2. Cattle placed on feed 9

3. Nonharvest disappearances 13

4. Number of feedlots 15

5. Feedlot industry changes by State 16

6. Cattle harvest 20

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates 23

A. Placement Profi le 23

1. Type of cattle, gender, and disposition 23

2. Cattle source and ownership of placements 32

B. Arrival Management and Group Processing 34

1. Perceived effectiveness of pre-arrival processing 34

2. Arrival processing 36

3. Initial processing timing 43

4. Branding and identifi cation 45

C. Nutritional Management 46

1. Feed additives 46

2. Progestagen feeding 48

D. Health Management 52

1. Pen-riding 52

2. Antibiotics 54

3. Health records maintained 56

4. Use of veterinarian and nutritionist services 58

5. Carcass disposal methods 60

6. Quality assurance 61

E. Environmental Programs 63

1. Training programs and control measures 63

2. Waste management 697

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

States 70

Appendix II: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by Size 71

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Objects 72

Table of Contents
iv / 

Acknowledgments

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

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

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

We would like to thank the NASS enumerators who contacted beef feedlot operators and 

collected the data used in this report. 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
USDA APHIS VS / v 

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. Feedlot 2011 “Part III: Trends in Health and Management Practices on U.S. 

Feedlots, 1994–2011”

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

#637.0413

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.”)
vi / 
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 health and management practices on U.S. feedlots. 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 in the 50 States on January 

1, 2000.

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

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

in 13 States. 

Small feedlots accounted for 16.0 percent of the January 1, 2011, inventory in all U.S. 

feedlots but 92.9 percent of all feedlots. The 13 States accounted for 85.4 percent of U.S. 

farms with fewer than 500 cattle on feed and 90.5 percent of the inventory on farms with 

fewer than 500 cattle on feed. (Source NASS: 2007 Census of Agriculture). 

This report, “Part III: Trends in Health and Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots, 

1994–2011,” includes only feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or more head and provides 

national estimates from all three NAHMS feedlot studies for comparison. In some cases, 

however, data were only available from two of the studies (e.g., Feedlot ’99 and Feedlot 

2011). Slight variations in how the study questions were asked from study to study are 

noted in applicable tables.

Reports from all three NAHMS feedlot studies—including the studies’ methodologies—

are available at: http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

Introduction
2 / Feedlot 2011

Introduction

Antibiotic: A chemical compound generally produced by molds that can inhibit the 

growth of or kill certain bacteria. Antibiotics are effective against illness caused by 

bacteria, but are ineffective against viruses.

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

highest bidder.

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

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

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

produce a carcass grading of “select” or better. Includes cattle fed a high-energy ration of 

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

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

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

for the slaughter market.

Coccidiostat: Drug that controls coccidia, the cause of coccidiosis.

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

Feedlot: The confi ned area where animals are fed. 

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

the fermentation pattern in the rumen. 

NA: Not applicable or not available.

Population estimates: Estimates in this report make inference to all operations in 

the target population. Data from the operations responding to the survey are weighted 

to refl ect their probability of selection during sampling and to account for any survey 

nonresponse.

Precision of 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. For example, 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 gives 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 (0.0). If 

Terms Used in 

This Report
USDA APHIS VS / 3 

Introduction

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

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

feedlot and an intensive feeding program. 

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

through the auction process. 

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

tract, are believed to be favorable to animal health. 

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

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

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

treatment has ceased. 

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

required to move them.

Shrinkage: The animal weight lost between point of origin and delivery location (such as 

feedlot and market scales) due to transit or other handling processes. 

USDA APHIS VS / 5 

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

Note: Unless otherwise specifi ed, estimates in section I refer to feedlots with a capacity of 

1,000 head or more.

The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys a sample of 

producers each year to provide national estimates of U.S. animal populations and 

food production. This section reports the demographics of the U.S. feedlot industry, 

as estimated from the NASS surveys. NASS publishes information on large feedlots 

(capacity of 1,000 or more head) in selected States monthly, and for all feedlots in 

January and July.

The following tables include selected data from NASS surveys that generally correspond 

to the range of years reported in this report (1994–2011). The tables illustrate 

changes in total inventory of cattle on feed, feedlot size, characteristics of placements, 

disappearances, number of feedlots, and slaughter numbers.

Section I: Demographics, 1994–2011
6 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

1. Cattle-on-feed inventory

From 1995 to 2011 there was a general upward trend in the total number of cattle on feed 

in the United States. NASS reported a 12.9 percent increase in the January count and 

an 8.9 percent increase in the July numbers over that period. There were relatively large 

declines in cattle-on-feed inventories in 2003 and 2009.

A.1.a. Changes in the January 1 and July 1 U.S. cattle-on-feed inventories, 1995–2011:

Cattle on Feed

January 1 July 1

Year x1,000 head Pct. of 1995 x1,000 head Pct. of 1995

1995 12,420 100.0 11,200 100.0

1996 12,958 104.3 9,800 87.5

1997 13,181 106.1 10,900 97.3

1998 13,608 109.6 11,000 98.2

1999 13,283.5 106.4 11,500 102.7

2000 14,073 112.6 12,400 109.8

2001 14,276.4 114.9 13,100 117.0

2002 14,050.3 113.1 12,500 111.6

2003 13,219.8 106.4 11,900 106.3

2004 13,912.9 112.0 12,000 107.1

2005 13,924.7 112.1 12,200 108.9

2006 14,391.9 115.9 12,800 114.3

2007 14,646.7 117.9 12,700 113.4

2008 14,826.7 119.4 12,200 108.9

2009 13,855.7 111.6 11,600 103.6

2010 13,642.2 109.8 11,900 106.3

2011 14,022.9 112.9 12,200 108.9

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service “Cattle on Feed” reports.

A. Changes in 

Cattle-on-feed 

Industry
USDA APHIS VS / 7 

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

9,000

12,000

15,000

July 1

January 1
8 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

The largest feedlots (32,000 or more head capacity) had the largest increase in January 

inventories: 3.9 million head in 1997 and 5.8 million head in 2011. 

A.1.b. Changes in the January 1 U.S. cattle-on-feed inventory by feedlot capacity, 

1997–2011:

Cattle on Feed (x1,000)

Feedlot capacity

(number of head) 1997* 1999 2011

Fewer than 1,000 2,623 2,616.5 2,508.9

1,000 or more 10,558 10,667 11,514

1,000–7,999 2,365 2,212 2,284

8,000–15,999 1,543 1,424 1,250

16,000–31,999 2,707 2,546 2,180

32,000 or more 3,943 4,485 5,800

Total 13,181 13,283.5 14,022.9

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service “Cattle on Feed” reports.

*1997 was the fi rst year NASS published “Cattle on Feed” reports.

The percentage of cattle-on-feed inventory by cattle type remained relatively stable from 

1995 to 2011. 

A.1.c. Changes in the January 1 U.S. cattle-on-feed inventory by cattle type, 1995–2011:

Number of Cattle

1995 1999 2011

Cattle type

1,000 

head

Pct. of 

total

1,000 

head

Pct. of 

total

1,000 

head

Pct. of 

total

Steers and 

steer calves 6,105 64.9 6,461 60.6 7,178 62.3

Heifers and 

heifer calves 3,260 34.7 4,153 38.9 4,259 37.0

Cows and bulls 35 0.4 53 0.5 77 0.7

Total 9,400 100.0 10,667 100.0 11,514 100.0

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service “Cattle on Feed” reports.
USDA APHIS VS / 9 

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

2. Cattle placed on feed

Lightweight cattle (less than 600 lb) and heavyweight cattle (800 lb or more) accounted 

for a higher percentage of cattle placed on feed in January 2011 than in January 1996 or 

1999. Cattle that weighed 600 to 799 lb made up the majority of January placements in 

all years. 

A.2.a. Changes in the January 1 U.S. cattle-on-feed inventory by cattle weight, 

1996–2011:

Number of Cattle

1996 1999 2011

Cattle weight 

(lb)

1,000 

head

Pct. of 

total

1,000 

head

Pct. of 

total

1,000 

head

Pct. of 

total

Less than 600 260 16.8 379 19.6 460 24.4

600–699 550 35.5 628 32.5 475 25.1

700–799 499 32.2 604 31.2 544 29.0

800 or more 240 15.5 322 16.7 410 21.7

Total 1,549 100.0 1,933 100.0 1,889 100.0

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service “Cattle on Feed” February following-year reports.

Note: Annual placements by weight group are not published by NASS.
10 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

Month-to-month changes in the number of placements were likely due to normal 

variability in production costs, cattle supply and demand, and other market variables. The 

number of placements was consistently highest from August through October, regardless 

of study year.

 A.2.b. Changes in the number of cattle placed on feed by month, 1996–2011:

Number of Cattle

Year

1996* 1999 2011

Month

1,000 

head

Pct. of 

previous 

month

1,000 

head

Pct. of 

previous 

month

1,000 

head

Pct. of 

previous 

month

January 1,549 89.6 1,933 127.8 1,899 106.1

February 1,713 110.6 1,808 93.5 1,667 87.8

March 1,948 113.7 2,031 112.3 1,914 114.8

April 1,364 70.0 1,688 83.1 1,795 93.8

May 1,557 114.1 2,049 121.4 1,810 100.8

June 1,305 83.8 1,794 87.6 1,695 93.6

July 1,746 133.8 1,812 101.0 2,133 125.8

August 2,265 129.7 2,428 134.0 2,259 105.9

September 2,653 117.1 2,759 113.6 2,469 109.3

October 3,007 113.3 3,114 112.9 2,496 101.1

November 2,348 78.1 2,170 69.7 2,035 81.5

December 1,695 72.2 1,646 75.9 1,673 82.2

Total 23,150 25,232 23,845

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service “Cattle on Feed” reports.

*First year data were published by NASS.
USDA APHIS VS / 11 

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2011

1999

1996*
12 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

A.2.c. Percentage of yearly placements by month, 1996–2011:

Percent Placements

Year

Month 1996 1999 2011

January 6.7 7.7 8.0

February 7.4 7.2 7.0

March 8.4 8.1 8.0

April 5.9 6.7 7.5

May 6.7 8.1 7.6

June 5.6 7.1 7.1

July 7.5 7.2 8.9

August 9.8 9.6 9.5

September 11.5 10.9 10.4

October 13.0 12.3 10.5

November 10.2 8.6 8.5

December 7.3 6.5 7.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service “Cattle on Feed” reports. (1995 data are available but not shown; 

used 1996 data to match other complete data for 1996.)
USDA APHIS VS / 13 

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

3. Nonharvest disappearances

Slightly less than 4 percent of all cattle placed on feed left the feedlot for nonharvest 

reasons during each of the three study years.

A.3.a. Number of cattle placed on feed that left the feedlot for nonharvest reasons, as a 

percentage of yearly placements, 1996–2011:

Year Percent placements

1996 3.9

1999 3.5

2011 3.8

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service.
14 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

The number of cattle disappearances due to death loss, feedlot-to-pasture movements, 

shipments to other feedlots, and other nonharvest movements varied from 50,000 to 

107,000 head in 1996, 52,000 to 104,000 head in 1999, and 52,000 to 102,000 head in 

2011. No consistent seasonal variations were apparent.

A.3.b. Number of cattle placed on feed that left the feedlot for nonharvest reasons by 

month, 1996–2011:

Number of Cattle

Year

1996 1999 2011

Month

x1,000 

head

Pct. of 

previous 

month

x1,000 

head

Pct. of 

previous 

month

x1,000 

head

Pct. of 

previous 

month

January 65 95.6 70 82.4 56 84.8

February 72 110.8 65 92.9 60 107.1

March 76 105.6 71 109.2 52 86.7

April 107 140.8 104 146.5 59 113.5

May 84 78.5 99 95.2 80 135.6

June 70 83.3 63 63.6 73 91.3

July 62 88.6 52 82.5 81 111.0

August 50 80.6 55 105.8 72 88.9

September 70 140.0 62 112.7 74 102.8

October 78 111.4 80 129.0 98 132.4

November 93 119.2 83 103.7 102 104.1

December 86 92.5 90 108.4 91 89.2

Total 913 894 898

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service “Cattle on Feed” reports.
USDA APHIS VS / 15 

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

4. Number of feedlots

The number of U.S. feedlots decreased from 1996 to 2011, especially the number 

feedlots with a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head, which saw a 32.0 percent decrease. 

In contrast, the number of feedlots with a capacity of 32,000 or more head increased by 

more than 50 percent from 1996–2011.

A.4. Changes in the number of U.S. feedlots by feedlot capacity, 1996–2011:

Number of Feedlots

Year

1996 1999 2011

Capacity 

(number head) No.

Pct. of 

previous 

period No.

Pct. of 

1996 No.

Pct. of 

1996

Pct. of 

1999

Fewer than 

1,000 110,000 NA 100,000 90.9 75,000 68.2 75.0

1,000–1,999 874 NA 831 95.1 770 88.1 92.7

2,000–3,999 515 NA 507 98.4 560 108.7 110.5

4,000–7,999 304 NA 336 110.5 345 113.5 102.7

8,000–15,999 187 NA 193 103.2 170 90.9 88.1

16,000–

31,999 138 NA 141 102.2 138 100.0 97.9

32,000 or 

more 91 NA 111 122.0 137 150.5 123.4

Total 112,109 NA 102,119 91.1 77,120 68.8 75.5

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (1995 data not available).
16 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

5. Feedlot industry changes by State

In 1995, 1999, and 2011, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas accounted for about 

75 percent of the total inventory of cattle on feed. Large increases in inventory were seen 

in Iowa (75-percent increase), South Dakota (63 percent), Nebraska (40 percent), and 

Washington (38 percent) over the same time period.

The total number of U.S. feedlots was similar from 1999 to 2007 (2007 was the last year 

NASS collected data on the number of U.S. feedlots). States that saw an increase in the 

number of feedlots from 1995 to 2007 included Iowa (25-percent increase), Nebraska 

(18 percent), and South Dakota (76 percent); States that saw a decrease in the number 

of feedlots included California (45-percent decrease), Colorado (23 percent), Idaho (35 

percent), and Kansas (34 percent).

A.5.a. Participation in NAHMS studies, number of cattle and calves on feed, and number 

of feedlots by State, 1994–2007:

NAHMS study 

participation

January 1 

inventory on

(x1,000) Number feedlots

State

COFE

1994

Feedlot 

‘99

Feedlot

2011 1995 1999 2011 1995 1999 2007*

Arizona Yes Yes Yes 210 272 258 10 7 6

California Yes Yes Yes 400 415 470 38 24 21

Colorado Yes Yes Yes 966 1,180 1,080 172 162 132

Idaho Yes Yes Yes 255 310 240 60 55 39

Illinois Yes No No NA NA NA NA NA NA

Iowa Yes Yes Yes 365 375 640 275 325 345

Kansas Yes Yes Yes 1,990 2,310 2,280 305 220 200

Minnesota Yes No No NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nebraska Yes Yes Yes 1,730 2,300 2,430 650 685 770

New Mexico No Yes Yes NA 116 NA NA 10 8

Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes 375 430 375 20 27 23

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes 160 194 260 100 123 176

Texas Yes Yes Yes 2,370 2,900 2,840 137 142 128

Washington Yes Yes Yes 151 228 209 20 19 12

Other States No No No NA 445 432 NA 320 300

U.S. 13 12 12 9,400 11,475 11,514 NA 2,119 2,160

*2007 State-level number of feedlots is latest available from NASS.
USDA APHIS VS / 17 

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

A.5.b. Participation in NAHMS studies, number of cattle marketings, and number of 

feedlots by State, 1994–2011:

NAHMS study 

participation

Number of cattle 

marketings 

(x1,000) Number feedlots

State

COFE

1994

Feedlot 

‘99

Feedlot

2011 1995 1999 2011 1995 1999 2007*

Arizona Yes Yes Yes 210 272 258 10 7 6

California Yes Yes Yes 400 415 470 38 24 21

Colorado Yes Yes Yes 966 1,180 1,080 172 162 132

Idaho Yes Yes Yes 255 310 240 60 55 39

Illinois Yes No No NA NA NA NA NA NA

Iowa Yes Yes Yes 365 375 640 275 325 345

Kansas Yes Yes Yes 1,990 2,310 2,280 305 220 200

Minnesota Yes No No NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nebraska Yes Yes Yes 1,730 2,300 2,430 650 685 770

New Mexico No Yes Yes NA 116 NA NA 10 8

Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes 375 430 375 20 27 23

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes 160 194 260 100 123 176

Texas Yes Yes Yes 2,370 2,900 2,840 137 142 128

Washington Yes Yes Yes 151 228 209 20 19 12

Other States No No No NA 445 432 NA 320 300

U.S. 13 12 12 9,400 11,475 11,514 NA 2,119 2,160

*2007 State-level number of feedlots is latest available from NASS.
18 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

A.5.c. Changes in the number of cattle marketings by month, 1996–2011:

Number of Cattle Marketings

Year

1996* 1999 2011

Month No.

Pct. of 

previous 

period No.

Pct. of 

1996 No.

Pct. of 

1999

January 1,930 NA 2,021 104.7 1,774 87.8

February 1,845 NA 1,832 99.3 1,791 97.8

March 1,756 NA 1,986 113.1 1,990 100.2

April 1,896 NA 1,946 102.6 1,807 92.9

May 2,045 NA 1,995 97.6 2,002 100.4

June 1,996 NA 2,153 107.9 2,092 97.2

July 1,978 NA 2,116 107.0 1,918 90.6

August 1,930 NA 2,046 106.0 2,053 100.3

September 1,573 NA 1,957 124.4 1,813 92.6

October 1,697 NA 1,835 108.1 1,787 97.4

November 1,695 NA 1,801 106.3 1,774 98.5

December 1,684 NA 1,842 109.4 1,796 97.5

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service “Cattle on Feed” reports.

*First year data were published by NASS.
USDA APHIS VS / 19 

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

1,500

2,000

2,500

2011

1999

1996
20 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

6. Cattle harvest

The relative mix of cattle slaughtered under Federal inspection was similar from 1995 to 

2011. Approximately half of all cattle slaughtered were steers, and nearly one-third were 

heifers, and approximately one-fi fth were cows.

A.6.a. Changes in the number of cattle slaughtered under Federal inspection by cattle 

type, 1995–2011:

Number of Cattle

Study Year

1995 1999 2011

Cattle type

x1,000 

head

Pct. of 

total

x1,000 

head

Pct. of 

total

x1,000 

head

Pct. of 

total

Steers 17,887.2 51.3 17,608.0 49.6 16,538.6 49.3

Heifers 10,174.6 29.2 11,648.4 32.8 9,725.8 29.0

Dairy cows 2,861.7 8.2 2,573.3 7.3 2,914.2 8.7

Other cows 3,281.1 9.4 3,029.7 8.5 3,797.6 11.3

Bulls and stags 674.4 1.9 626.9 1.8 578.7 1.7

Total 34,879.0 100.0 35,486.3 100.0 33,554.8 100.0

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service.
USDA APHIS VS / 21 

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

Cattle harvest was highest in June and August, regardless of study year. Generally, 

January, February, April, and December accounted for the lowest number of cattle 

slaughtered. Live weights trended higher from 1995 to 1999 (2.1-percent increase) and 

again from 1999 to 2011 (5.6-percent increase). 

A.6.b. Changes in the number of cattle slaughtered under Federal inspection* by month, 

1995–2011:

Number of Cattle

Year

1995 1999 2011

Month

x1,000 

head

Live 

weight/

head (lb)

x1,000 

head

Live 

weight/

head (lb)

x1,000 

head

Live 

weight/

head (lb)

January 2,802.4 1,192 2,903.5 1,224 2,687.2 1,304

February 2,529.6 1,187 2,665.2 1,225 2,580.1 1,289

March 2,900.5 1,180 2,990.2 1,220 2,913.0 1,278

April 2,601.6 1,175 2,916.4 1,204 2,677.7 1,259

May 3,076.8 1,173 2,947.2 1,191 2,777.5 1,255

June 3,199.8 1,179 3,153.9 1,197 3,058.4 1,263

July 2,890.7 1,187 3,036.8 1,208 2,728.3 1,274

August 3,175.8 1,191 3,099.3 1,208 3,053.1 1,272

September 3,034.6 1,196 3,044.9 1,213 2,830.4 1,280

October 2,999.0 1,194 3,033.2 1,217 2,803.7 1,292

November 2,914.8 1,192 2,881.5 1,220 2,739.1 1,296

December 2,753.4 1,197 2,814.2 1,228 2,706.3 1,300

Total 34,879.0 1,187 35,486.3 1,212 33,554.8 1,280

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service.

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

percent in 1999, and 98.4 percent in 2011. The components of total commercial slaughter in 2011 (34,086.6 

million head) were Federally inspected slaughter (33,554.8 million head) and other slaughter (531.8 million 

head).
22 / Feedlot 2011

Section I: Demographics–A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry

2500

3000

3500

2011

1999

1995
USDA APHIS VS / 23 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

1. Type of cattle, gender, and disposition

Note: Unless otherwise specifi ed, cattle placed or cattle on feed refer to cattle placed for 

the U.S. slaughter market.

From 1994 to 2011, beef or beef crossbred steers and heifers were placed on feed by 

approximately 75 percent of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head and by 

approximately 90 percent of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head. 

A.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that placed the following types of cattle, by feedlot capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Cattle type* Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Steers and/or heifers less than 700 lb

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 76.3 (2.1) 76.9 (2.4) 72.9 (2.6)

Dairy breeds 8.1 (1.2) 5.4 (0.9) 8.7 (1.6)

Steers and/or heifers 700 lb or more

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 77.5 (2.0) 74.3 (2.5) 73.5 (2.5)

Dairy breeds 12.6 (1.5) 7.9 (1.4) 4.9 (1.3)

Cows and bulls

Question 

variation:

Did you place any 

cows? bulls?

Did you place any 

cows? Did you place 

any bulls?

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 7.3 (1.2) 23.1 (2.2) 14.8 (2.1)

Dairy breeds 0.1 (0.0) 0.6 (0.4) 1.0 (0.5)

8,000 or more head capacity

Steers and/or heifers less than 700 lb

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 94.9 (1.1) 94.3 (1.1) 93.9 (1.6)

Dairy breeds 47.3 (2.3) 24.2 (1.9) 30.9 (3.5)

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates

A. Placement 

Profi le

*From July 1 of the previous year through June 30 of the current year.
24 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ‘99 Feedlot 2011

Cattle type* Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

Steers and/or heifers 700 lb or more

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 94.1 (1.1) 95.2 (0.8) 88.2 (2.9)

Dairy breeds 37.7 (2.4) 26.0 (2.1) 16.0 (1.6)

Cows and bulls

Question 

variation:

Did you place any 

cows? bulls?

Did you place any 

cows? Did you place 

any bulls?

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 12.4 (1.7) 40.3 (2.3) 22.8 (2.6)

Dairy breeds 1.0 (0.4) 1.9 (0.6) 4.6 (1.2)

All feedlots

Steers and/or heifers less than 700 lb

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 81.2 (1.5) 81.8 (1.8) 79.0 (1.9)

Dairy breeds 18.4 (1.1) 10.6 (0.9) 15.1 (1.6)

Steers and/or heifers 700 lb or more

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 81.9 (1.5) 80.0 (1.8) 77.8 (2.0)

Dairy breeds 19.2 (1.3) 12.9 (1.2) 8.1 (1.0)

Cows and bulls

Question 

variation:

Did you place any 

cows? bulls?

Did you place any 

cows? Did you place 

any bulls?

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 8.7 (1.0) 27.8 (1.7) 17.1 (1.6)

Dairy breeds 0.4 (0.1) 1.0 (0.3) 2.1 (0.5)

*From July 1 of the previous year through June 30 of the current year.

A.1.a. (cont’d.) Percentage of feedlots that placed the following types of cattle, by feedlot 

capacity:
USDA APHIS VS / 25 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

In each of the three study years, about 40 percent of cattle placed were beef breed or 

crossbreed steers and heifers weighing less than 700 lb, and approximately half of the 

cattle placed were beef breed or crossbreed steers and heifers that weighed 700 lb or 

more.

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

Percent Cattle

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Cattle type Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Steers and/or heifers less than 700 lb

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 39.1 (2.0) 42.7 (1.9) 43.0 (3.1)

Dairy breeds 1.6 (0.4) 0.9 (0.3) 1.7 (0.4)

Steers and/or heifers 700 lb or more

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 56.9 (2.1) 53.1 (1.9) 52.7 (3.1)

Dairy breeds 1.1 (0.2) 1.4 (0.5) 1.0 (0.5)

Cows and bulls

Question 

variation:

Percent cows or 

bulls placed?

Percent cows 

placed?Percent 

bulls placed?

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 1.3 (0.3) 1.9 (0.3) 1.6 (0.5)

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

8,000 or more head capacity

Steers and/or heifers less than 700 lb

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 44.3 (1.6) 42.1 (1.2) 41.6 (1.3)

Dairy breeds 5.9 (0.7) 1.5 (0.3) 7.7 (1.0)
26 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Cattle type Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

Steers and/or heifers 700 lb or more

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 47.5 (1.5) 53.8 (1.2) 47.9 (1.5)

Dairy breeds 2.0 (0.2) 1.2 (0.3) 0.8 (0.1)

Cows and bulls

Question 

variation:

Percent cows or 

bulls placed?

Percent cows 

placed?Percent 

bulls placed?

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 0.3 (0.1) 1.4 (0.2) 1.9 (0.4)

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

All feedlots

Steers and/or heifers less than 700 lb

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 43.4 (1.4) 42.2 (1.1) 41.8 (1.2)

Dairy breeds 5.1 (0.6) 1.5 (0.2) 6.7 (0.8)

Steers and/or heifers 700 lb or more

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 49.1 (1.3) 53.7 (1.0) 48.7 (1.4)

Dairy breeds 1.9 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 0.8 (0.1)

Cows and bulls

Question 

variation:

Percent cows or 

bulls placed?

Percent cows 

placed?Percent 

bulls placed?

Beef or beef 

crossbreeds 0.5 (0.1) 1.4 (0.1) 1.8 (0.4)

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

A.1.b. (cont’d.) Percentage of cattle, by type of cattle and by feedlot capacity:
USDA APHIS VS / 27 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

The beef cattle placement profi le on feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head held 

steady from 1994 to 2011 at just over 60 percent steers and just under 40 percent heifers. 

Dairy cattle placements were at least 90 percent steers, except in 1999 for feedlots with 

1,000 to 7,999 head capacity when nearly 20 percent of dairy cattle placements were 

heifers. This fi nding is likely due to an overall reduction in U.S. dairy cattle inventory. 

A.1.c. Percentage of beef cattle and dairy cattle, by cattle gender and by feedlot capacity:

Percent Cattle

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Cattle gender Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Beef

Steers 64.8 (1.6) 61.9 (1.6) 60.9 (2.4)

Heifers 33.9 (1.6) 36.2 (1.6) 37.4 (2.4)

Question 

variation:

Percent cows or 

bulls placed?

Percent cows 

placed? Percent 

bulls placed?

Cows and bulls 1.3 (0.4) 1.9 (0.3) 1.6 (0.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dairy

Steers 94.2 (1.5) 80.3 (6.5) 94.1 (2.5)

Heifers 5.8 (1.5) 19.6 (6.5) 4.9 (2.3)

Question 

variation:

Percent cows or 

bulls placed?

Percent cows 

placed? Percent 

bulls placed?

Cows and bulls 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 1.0 (0.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
28 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Cattle gender Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

8,000 or more head capacity

Beef

Steers 65.5 (1.0) 56.2 (1.1) 58.4 (1.4)

Heifers 34.2 (1.0) 42.4 (1.1) 39.5 (1.4)

Question 

variation:

Percent cows or 

bulls placed?

Percent cows 

placed? Percent 

bulls placed?

Cows and bulls 0.3 (0.1) 1.4 (0.2) 2.1 (0.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dairy

Steers 97.4 (1.0) 90.0 (2.5) 94.8 (1.0)

Heifers 2.6 (1.0) 9.7 (2.5) 3.3 (0.7)

Question 

variation:

Percent cows or 

bulls placed?

Percent cows 

placed? Percent 

bulls placed?

Cows and bulls 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 1.9 (0.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

All feedlots

Beef

Steers 65.4 (0.9) 57.1 (1.0) 58.8 (1.3)

Heifers 34.1 (0.9) 41.4 (1.0) 39.2 (1.2)

Question 

variation:

Percent cows or 

bulls placed?

Percent cows 

placed? Percent 

bulls placed?

Cows and bulls 0.5 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1) 2.0 (0.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dairy

Steers 97.2 (0.9) 88.7 (2.5) 94.7 (1.0)

Heifers 2.8 (0.9) 11.0 (2.5) 3.4 (0.7)

Question 

variation:

Percent cows or 

bulls placed?

Percent cows 

placed? Percent 

bulls placed?

Cows and bulls 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 1.9 (0.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

A.1.c. (cont’d.) Percentage of beef cattle and dairy cattle, by cattle gender and by feedlot 

capacity:
USDA APHIS VS / 29 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

A low percentage of feedlots placed cattle on feed for purposes other than the U.S. 

slaughter market. No substantial changes in this sector of the industry were noted over 

the course of the three studies.

A.1.d. Percentage of feedlots that placed the following types of cattle for purposes other 

than the U.S. slaughter market, by feedlot capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Cattle type* Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Beef animals to be used 

for breeding stock 5.5 (1.1) 7.2 (1.3) 8.8 (1.6)

Dairy animals to be used 

for breeding stock 0.6 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 2.3 (0.9)

Other cattle and calves 4.3 (0.9) 5.7 (1.1) 5.6 (1.3)

8,000 or more head capacity

Beef animals to be used 

for breeding stock 4.1 (0.9) 4.7 (1.1) 4.2 (1.1)

Dairy animals to be used 

for breeding stock 0.5 (0.2) 2.7 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0)

Other cattle and calves 5.1 (1.1) 3.4 (0.8) 3.4 (1.1)

All feedlots

Beef animals to be used 

for breeding stock 5.1 (0.8) 6.5 (1.0) 7.5 (1.1)

Dairy animals to be used 

for breeding stock 0.6 (0.2) 0.9 (0.2) 1.6 (0.6)

Other cattle and calves 4.5 (0.7) 5.1 (0.8) 4.9 (1.0)

*During the period July 1 of the previous year through June 30 of the current year.
30 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

Over 95 percent of cattle on all feedlots were marketed for harvest. Death loss remained 

at approximately 1 percent for all feedlots from 1994 to 2011.

A.1.e. Percentage of cattle by disposition* and by feedlot capacity:

Percent Cattle

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Disposition Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Marketed for harvest 94.4 (0.5) 94.8 (0.5) 94.9 (1.1)

Died 1.1 (0.1) 0.9 (0.0) 1.4 (0.2)

Sent to market prior to 

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

Returned to grazing 

forage 2.8 (0.4) 1.8 (0.3) 0.5 (0.1)

Shipped to another 

feedlot 1.4 (0.3) 2.0 (0.4) 2.9 (0.9)

Stolen 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (—)

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

8,000 or more head capacity

Marketed for harvest 96.1 (0.6) 97.1 (0.2) 97.3 (0.1)

Died 1.2 (0.0) 1.3 (0.1) 1.6 (0.1)

Sent to market prior to 

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

Returned to grazing 

forage 1.3 (0.3) 0.9 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1)

Shipped to another 

feedlot 1.0 (0.4) 0.4 (0.1) 0.2 (0.0)

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)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Cattle marketed or left the feedlot from July 1 of the previous year through June of the current year. Other 

cattle placed for purposes other than fi nishing for the U.S. slaughter market, such as animals being developed 

as breeding replacements, are not included as disposition.
USDA APHIS VS / 31 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

Percent Cattle

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Disposition Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

All feedlots

Marketed for harvest 95.8 (0.5) 96.7 (0.2) 96.9 (0.2)

Died 1.1 (0.0) 1.3 (0.1) 1.6 (0.1)

Sent to market prior to 

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

Returned to grazing 

forage 1.6 (0.2) 1.1 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1)

Shipped to another 

feedlot 1.1 (0.3) 0.6 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2)

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)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Cattle marketed or left the feedlot from July 1 of the previous year through June of the current year. Other 

cattle placed for purposes other than fi nishing for the U.S. slaughter market, such as animals being developed 

as breeding replacements, are not included as disposition.

A.1.e. (cont’d.) Percentage of cattle by disposition* and by feedlot capacity:
32 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

2. Cattle source and ownership of placements

From 1994 to 2011, feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head sourced the highest 

percentage of their cattle through auctions. The highest percentage of cattle in feedlots 

with a capacity of 8,000 or more head were sourced for custom feeding.

A.2.a. Percentage of cattle by source of cattle and by feedlot capacity:

Percent Cattle

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Source Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Born on this feedlot 

or another feedlot 

operated by this feedlot

2.3 (0.4) 3.1 (0.6) 3.3 (0.6)

Purchased 

via auction 45.1 (2.2) 46.9 (2.1) 37.9 (3.0)

Purchased via direct 

sale (cash or video, 

private treaty)

23.5 (1.6) 24.5 (1.9) 26.5 (2.7)

Provided for 

custom feeding 24.0 (2.3) 24.7 (2.1) 30.9 (3.5)

Other source 5.1 (1.1) 0.8 (0.2) 1.4 (0.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

8,000 or more head capacity

Born on this feedlot 

or another feedlot 

operated by this feedlot

0.6 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.7 (0.3)

Purchased 

via auction 26.5 (1.3) 31.0 (1.3) 27.0 (1.8)

Purchased via direct 

sale (cash or video, 

private treaty)

23.6 (1.8) 23.6 (1.6) 30.2 (2.1)

Provided for 

custom feeding 47.4 (2.0) 44.1 (1.8) 40.0 (2.3)

Other source 1.9 (0.9) 0.9 (0.3) 2.1 (1.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

All feedlots

Born on this feedlot 

or another feedlot 

operated by this feedlot

0.8 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2) 1.1 (0.3)

Purchased

via auction 29.7 (1.2) 33.6 (1.2) 28.8 (1.5)

Purchased via direct 

sale (cash or video, 

private treaty)

23.6 (1.5) 23.8 (1.4) 29.6 (1.8)

Provided for 

custom feeding 43.4 (1.7) 40.9 (1.6) 38.5 (2.0)

Other source 2.5 (0.8) 0.8 (0.3) 2.0 (0.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 33 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–A. Placement Profile

The percentage of cattle owned by feedlots increased substantially from 1999 to 2011. 

In 2011, about two-thirds of the cattle on feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head, 

and well over half the cattle on feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 head or more, were 

owned by the feedlot.

A.2.b. Percentage of cattle by ownership at time of placement and by feedlot capacity:

Percent Cattle

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Owner Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

This feedlot 52.5 (2.7) 52.3 (2.5) 67.7 (3.6)

Joint feedlot 

ownership with 

others

7.2 (0.9) 8.9 (1.4)

30.9* (3.6) Cattle being 

custom fed for 

others

40.3 (2.6) 38.8 (2.5)

Other NA NA 1.4 (0.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

8,000 or more head capacity

This feedlot 20.5 (1.6) 34.0 (2.2) 58.0 (2.3)

Joint feedlot 

ownership with 

others

8.5 (0.6) 8.3 (0.8)

40.0 (2.3) Cattle being 

custom fed for 

others

71.0 (1.7) 57.7 (2.2)

Other NA NA 2.0 (1.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

All feedlots

This feedlot 26.1 (1.4) 36.9 (1.8) 59.5 (2.0)

Joint feedlot 

ownership with 

others

8.2 (0.5) 8.4 (0.7)

38.5 (2.0) Cattle being 

custom fed for 

others

65.7 (1.5) 54.7 (1.8)

Other NA NA 2.0 (0.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
34 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

1. Perceived effectiveness of pre-arrival processing

In 2011, between 70 and 90 percent of feedlot operators believed that each of the prearrival practices listed in the following table was extremely or very effective in reducing 

sickness and death in the feedlot. In comparison, in 1994 only about 50 percent of 

operators believed that pre-arrival practices were extremely or very effective. 

B.1. For feedlots that placed cattle less than 700 lb, percentage of feedlots by perceived 

effectiveness of the following pre-arrival management practices for reducing sickness and 

death in the feedlot:

B. Arrival 

Management 

and Group 

Processing

Percent Feedlots

Perceived Effectiveness

Extremely Very Moderately* Not/slightly*

Does not 

apply/don’t 

know

Study Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Introduction to feed bunk

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

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

Feedlot 2011 25.7 (2.7) 55.4 (3.0) 18.8 (2.3) 0.0 (—) NA 100.0

Respiratory vaccine at least 2 weeks prior to weaning

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

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

Feedlot 2011 29.2 (3.0) 56.2 (3.2) 14.0 (2.1) 0.6 (0.5) NA 100.0

Respiratory vaccine given at weaning

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

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

Feedlot 2011 25.6 (2.8) 54.8 (3.3) 19.6 (2.7) 0.0 (—) NA 100.0

Calves weaned at least 4 weeks prior to shipping

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

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

Feedlot 2011 32.4 (3.0) 46.6 (3.3) 19.6 (2.7) 1.3 (0.8) NA 100.0

Calves castrated and dehorned prior to shipping

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

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

Feedlot 2011 33.8 (2.9) 57.9 (3.1) 7.0 (1.6) 1.4 (0.7) NA 100.0

Calves treated for internal or external parasites prior to shipping

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

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

Feedlot 2011 22.6 (2.9) 48.3 (3.4) 28.3 (3.1) 0.7 (0.7) NA 100.0

*In Feedlot 2011, these categories were “somewhat effective” and “not effective.”
USDA APHIS VS / 35 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

0

20

40

60

80

100

Feedlot 2011

Feedlot '99

COFE 1994
36 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

2. Arrival processing

For bulls placed on feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head, 63.0 percent of bulls 

were castrated by banding and vaccinated against tetanus in 2011 compared with only 

25.5 percent of bulls placed in 1999. The percentage of bulls surgically castrated and not 

vaccinated against tetanus decreased from 55.2 percent in 1999 to 10.5 percent in 2011.

Castration methods on feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head remained 

essentially unchanged from 1999 to 2011.

B.2.a. For bulls placed on feed, percentage of bulls by method of castration and by 

feedlot capacity:

Percent Bulls

NAHMS Study

Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Castration method Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Banded and vaccinated 

against tetanus 25.5 (11.1) 63.0 (12.4)

Banded and not vaccinated 

against tetanus 3.5 (1.6) 0.9 (0.9)

Testes surgically removed and 

vaccinated against tetanus 9.1 (3.8) 20.1 (9.5)

Testes surgically removed and 

not vaccinated against tetanus 55.2 (13.1) 10.5 (5.4)

Other castration method 4.0 (3.7) 0.0 (0.0)

Bulls not castrated by the feedlot 2.7 (1.6) 5.5 (3.6)

Total 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 37 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

Percent Bulls

NAHMS Study

Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Castration method Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

8,000 or more head capacity

Banded and vaccinated 

against tetanus 51.2 (9.8) 41.1 (17.1)

Banded and not vaccinated 

against tetanus 1.2 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0)

Testes surgically removed and 

vaccinated against tetanus 4.2 (2.0) 4.9 (3.1)

Testes surgically removed and 

not vaccinated against tetanus 34.8 (10.7) 47.4 (20.9)

Other castration method 3.0 (2.1) 0.0 (0.0)

Bulls not castrated by the feedlot 5.6 (2.4) 6.6 (6.1)

Total 100.0 100.0

All feedlots

Banded and vaccinated 

against tetanus 46.9 (8.0) 42.8 (16.3)

Banded and not vaccinated 

against tetanus 1.6 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1)

Testes surgically removed and 

vaccinated against tetanus 5.0 (1.7) 6.1 (3.2)

Testes surgically removed and 

not vaccinated against tetanus 38.3 (8.6) 44.3 (20.1)

Other castration method 3.1 (1.9) 0.0 (0.0)

Bulls not castrated by the feedlot 5.1 (2.0) 6.5 (5.6)

Total 100.0 100.0

B.2.a. (cont’d.) For bulls placed on feed, percentage of bulls by method of castration and 

by feedlot capacity:
38 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

From 1999 to 2011, less than 8 percent of heifers were pregnant upon arrival. Feedlots 

with a capacity of 8,000 or more head placed a higher percentage of pregnant heifers 

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

B.2.b. For heifers placed on feed, percentage of heifers pregnant at arrival, by feedlot 

capacity:

Percent Heifers

NAHMS Study

Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Feedlot capacity Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

1,000–7,999 3.5 (0.3) 2.6 (0.3)

8,000 or more 8.0 (0.6) 8.8 (0.8)

All feedlots 7.3 (0.5) 7.9 (0.7)

A substantially higher percentage of pregnant heifers placed on feed were treated to 

abort the pregnancy in 2011 versus 1999 (82.1 and 53.6 percent, respectively). This was 

largely attributable to the 28-percent increase from 1999 to 2011 in abortion treatments 

on feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head.

B.2.c. For pregnant heifers placed on feed, percentage of heifers treated to abort the 

pregnancy, by feedlot capacity:

Percent Heifers

NAHMS Study

Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Feedlot capacity Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

1,000–7,999 35.9 (3.5) 42.9 (8.3)

8,000 or more 56.1 (3.3) 84.1 (2.9)

All feedlots 53.6 (3.0) 82.1 (2.9)
USDA APHIS VS / 39 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

A lower percentage of cattle and calves placed on feed arrived with horns in 2011 than in 

1999, regardless of feedlot capacity.

B.2.d. For cattle placed on feed, percentage of cattle and calves that had horns at arrival, 

by feedlot capacity:

Percent Cattle and Calves

NAHMS Study

Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Feedlot capacity Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

1,000–7,999 10.6 (0.7) 6.5 (0.7)

8,000 or more 18.7 (1.0) 12.7 (0.8)

All feedlots 17.4 (0.8) 11.7 (0.7)

A higher percentage of cattle that arrived with horns were dehorned by the feedlot in 2011 

compared with 1999.

B.2.e. For cattle with horns placed on feed, percentage of cattle and calves dehorned by 

the feedlot, by feedlot capacity:

Percent Cattle and Calves

NAHMS Study

Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Feedlot capacity Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

1,000–7,999 11.5 (2.3) 24.2 (4.9)

8,000 or more 1.3 (0.4) 11.6 (2.1)

All feedlots 2.3 (0.4) 12.7 (1.9)
40 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

In 1999 and 2011, about two-thirds of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head 

applied individual indentifi cation (ID) and/or group/owner ID to cattle and calves placed 

on the feedlot. For feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head, over 90 percent 

applied individual ID and/or group/owner ID to cattle and calves in 1999 and 2011.

B.2.f. Percentage of feedlots that applied individual ID and/or group/owner ID to cattle 

and calves placed on feed, by feedlot capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Feedlot applied . . . Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Individual-animal ID 45.8 (2.3) 36.9 (2.8) 47.5 (3.0)

Group/owner ID 62.0 (2.2) 45.2 (2.7) 51.7 (2.8)

Individual 

and/or group ID NA 68.4 (2.7) 67.5 (2.7)

8,000 or more head capacity

Individual-animal ID 60.5 (2.4) 47.4 (2.3) 64.8 (3.0)

Group/owner ID 96.5 (0.9) 77.8 (1.9) 88.8 (2.8)

Individual 

and/or group ID NA 98.0 (0.7) 94.8 (1.5)

All feedlots

Individual-animal ID 49.6 (1.9) 39.8 (2.1) 52.6 (2.3)

Group/owner ID 71.0 (1.7) 54.2 (2.1) 62.6 (2.2)

Individual 

and/or group ID NA 76.6 (2.0) 75.6 (2.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 41 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

From 1994 to 2011, about four of fi ve cattle that weighed less than 700 lb when placed 

were given two or more growth-promoting implants. 

B.2.g. Percentage of cattle less than 700 lb when placed by number of implants given 

and by feedlot capacity:

Percent Cattle <700 lb

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Number 

implants Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

0 4.8 (0.9) 5.7 (1.3) 8.9 (3.5)

1 28.2 (2.9) 24.1 (2.8) 14.2 (3.7)

2 or more 67.0 (3.1) 70.2 (2.9) 76.9 (5.0)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

8,000 or more head capacity

0 0.7 (0.2) 1.2 (0.4) 7.6 (3.9)

1 20.0 (1.8) 17.0 (1.7) 12.1 (2.7)

2 or more 79.3 (1.8) 81.8 (1.7) 80.3 (4.8)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

All feedlots

0 1.3 (0.2) 1.9 (0.4) 7.7 (3.4)

1 21.2 (1.6) 18.1 (1.5) 12.4 (2.5)

2 or more 77.5 (1.6) 80.0 (1.6) 79.9 (4.3)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
42 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

The number of implants given to cattle weighing 700 lb or more when placed remained 

stable from 1994 to 2011. Roughly two-thirds of these cattle were given one implant and 

about one-third received two or more.

B.2.h. Percentage of cattle 700 lb or more when placed, by number of implants given and 

by feedlot capacity:

Percent Cattle ≥700 lb

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Number 

implants Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

0 3.2 (0.6) 8.4 (1.9) 6.3 (3.4)

1 64.2 (3.4) 66.0 (2.9) 60.1 (6.8)

2 or more 32.6 (3.5) 25.6 (2.6) 33.6 (6.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

8,000 or more head capacity

0 0.5 (0.2) 1.7 (0.7) 5.7 (3.8)

1 63.8 (2.5) 67.0 (2.6) 65.1 (5.0)

2 or more 35.7 (2.5) 31.3 (2.5) 29.2 (5.0)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

All feedlots

0 1.1 (0.2) 2.8 (0.7) 5.7 (3.3)

1 63.9 (2.1) 66.8 (2.2) 64.5 (4.5)

2 or more 35.0 (2.2) 30.4 (2.2) 29.8 (4.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 43 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

3. Initial processing timing

Initial processing procedures include vaccinations, dehorning, implanting, and parasite 

control. Nearly all feedlots initially processed some arriving cattle as a group from 1994 to 

2011. About half of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head, and over 80 percent 

of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head, initially processed some cattle within 

24 hours of arrival.

B.3.a. Percentage of feedlots that initially processed cattle and calves as a group, by 

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

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Number of 

hours Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

12 or less 48.7 (2.4) 39.4 (2.7)

48.7 (2.8)

13–24 59.6 (2.4) 55.8 (2.8)

25–72 38.8 (2.3) 45.4 (2.8) 52.6 (2.9)

More than 72 21.0 (2.0) 17.2 (2.1) 25.7 (2.6)

Ever processed 98.2 (0.6) 96.6 (1.1) 95.8 (1.1)

8,000 or more head capacity

12 or less 80.1 (2.0) 68.8 (2.2)

86.2 (2.4)

13–24 85.5 (1.6) 82.7 (1.7)

25–72 42.6 (2.3) 47.2 (2.3) 67.8 (3.9)

More than 72 14.5 (1.7) 11.9 (1.6) 28.5 (3.6)

Ever processed 99.4 (0.4) 100.0 (—) 99.3 (0.2)

All feedlots

12 or less 56.9 (1.8) 47.6 (2.1)

59.7 (2.1)

13–24 66.3 (1.8) 63.2 (2.1)

25–72 39.8 (1.8) 45.9 (2.1) 57.1 (2.3)

More than 72 19.3 (1.5) 15.7 (1.6) 26.5 (2.1)

Ever processed 98.5 (0.5) 97.5 (0.8) 96.8 (0.8)
44 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

From 1994 to 2011, nearly all cattle and calves placed on feed were initially processed 

as a group. The highest percentage of cattle were processed as a group within 24 hours 

of arrival. The percentage of cattle processed as a group within 25 to 72 hours increased 

from 10.3 percent in 1994, 16.6 percent in 1999, and 32.3 percent in 2011. 

B.3.b. Percentage of cattle and calves initially processed as a group, by number of hours 

after arrival animals were processed, and by feedlot capacity: 

Percent Cattle and Calves

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Number of 

hours Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

12 or less 37.5 (2.6) 29.4 (2.3)

48.9 (4.1)

13–24 36.8 (2.2) 35.1 (2.2)

25–72 17.7 (1.6) 25.5 (2.0) 35.2 (3.6)

More than 72 6.4 (0.8) 8.3 (1.3) 14.1 (2.2)

Not processed 1.6 (0.4) 1.7 (1.0) 1.8 (0.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

8,000 or more head capacity

12 or less 43.4 (2.4) 40.0 (2.4)

63.1 (2.7)

13–24 46.6 (2.2) 44.0 (2.1)

25–72 8.8 (0.8) 14.8 (1.3) 31.8 (2.5)

More than 72 1.0 (0.2) 1.2 (0.3) 5.0 (0.8)

Not processed 0.2 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

All feedlots

12 or less 42.4 (2.0) 38.3 (2.0)

60.8 (2.4)

13–24 44.9 (1.9) 42.5 (1.8)

25–72 10.3 (0.7) 16.6 (1.1) 32.3 (2.2)

More than 72 2.0 (0.2) 2.3 (0.3) 6.5 (0.8)

Not processed 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 45 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–B. Arrival Management and Group Processing

4. Branding and identifi cation

The percentage of feedlots that hide-branded cattle after arrival decreased from 

42.9 percent in 1994 to 22.5 percent in 2011. 

B.4. Percentage of feedlots that hide-branded (freeze or hot) any cattle after arrival:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Percent Std. error Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

42.9 (1.7) 38.5 (1.8) 22.5 (2.0)
46 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–C. Nutritional Management

1. Feed additives

From 1994 to 2011, more than 90 percent of feedlots added ionophores to cattle feed 

to improve feed effi ciency. In 1994, 58.6 percent of feedlots used coccidiostats to 

prevent coccidiosis compared with 46.2 and 44.7 percent of feedlots in 1999 and 2011, 

respectively. The percentage of cattle fed probiotics to improve the rumen microbial 

environment increased substantially in 2011 (53.8 percent) compared with 1999 and 1994 

(14.4 and 17.2 percent, respectively). 

C.1. Percentage of feedlots that gave any cattle a feed additive, and percentage of cattle 

given a feed additive, by additive given:

Percent Feedlots and Percent Cattle 

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Additive Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

Feedlots

Ionophore* 97.3 (0.6) 92.9 (1.3) 90.5 (1.4)

Coccidiostat* 58.6 (1.8) 46.2 (2.1) 44.7 (2.2)

Probiotic 37.3 (1.8) 27.3 (1.8) 28.5 (2.0)

Cattle 

Ionophore* 98.2 (0.5) 95.9 (0.8) 89.9 (1.4)

Coccidiostat* 35.2 (2.4) 23.1 (2.7) 20.5 (2.1)

Probiotic 17.2 (1.6) 14.4 (1.7) 53.8 (2.6)

*Ionophore such as Rumensin®, Bovatec®, or Cattlyst®; Coccidiostat other than an ionophore such as Corid® 

or Deccox®.

C. Nutritional 

Management
USDA APHIS VS / 47 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–C. Nutritional Management

0

20

40

60

80

100

Feedlot 2011

Feedlot '99

COFE 1994
48 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–C. Nutritional Management

2. Progestagen feeding

From 1994 to 2011, about two-thirds of feedlots that placed heifers fed heifers 

melengesterol acetate (MGA®) to suppress estrus and improve feed effi ciency.

C.2.a. For feedlots that placed female cattle, percentage of feedlots that fed females 

MGA:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Percent Std. error Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

63.7 (1.9) 63.2 (2.1) 67.9 (2.4)

0

20

40

60

80

Feedlot 2011

Feedlot '99

COFE 1994
USDA APHIS VS / 49 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–C. Nutritional Management

For feedlots that fed MGA, over half of feedlots fed MGA to all heifers in each of the study 

years.

C.2.b. For feedlots that placed female cattle, percentage of feedlots by percentage of 

females fed MGA:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Percent females 

fed MGA Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

0 36.3 (2.0) 36.8 (2.1) 32.1 (2.4)

1–49 8.1 (1.1) 5.2 (0.8) 2.2 (0.7)

50–99 5.4 (0.9) 6.5 (1.0) 10.7 (2.0)

100 50.2 (2.0) 51.5 (2.2) 55.0 (2.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
50 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–C. Nutritional Management

High-energy concentrate rations can cause rumen lactic acidosis, dehydration, 

scours, liver abscesses, and laminitis if cattle are not adapted to eating concentrates. 

The percentage of feedlots that fed arriving cattle rations with 75 percent or more 

concentrates increased from 1994 to 1999, but decreased in 2011. The percentage of 

feedlots that fed rations with a moderately high percentage of concentrates (36 to 74 

percent) increased in 2011 compared with 1994 and 1999.

C.2.c. Percentage of feedlots by percentage of concentrates (dry matter basis) in feed 

given to arriving cattle:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Percent 

concentrates Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

0 5.3 (0.9) 5.3 (1.1) 0.0 (—)

1–35 40.0 (1.9) 31.0 (2.1) 32.5 (2.4)

36–55 30.1 (1.7) 30.9 (1.9) 32.1 (2.5)

56–74 13.6 (1.3) 14.0 (1.5) 25.0 (2.3)

75 or more 11.0 (1.2) 18.8 (1.7) 10.4 (1.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 51 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–C. Nutritional Management

0

20

40

60

Feedlot 2011

Feedlot '99

COFE 1994
52 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

1. Pen-riding

Pen-riding or walking provides a visual evaluation of the overall well-being of cattle 

as well as early recognition of individual animals with illnesses. From 1999 to 2011, 

pen-riding occurred at least once a day on over 90 percent of feedlots for the fi rst 29 

days after arrival. The percentage of feedlots in which pen-riding occurred twice a day 

decreased from 59.5 percent in 1999 to 44.5 percent in 2011. From 1994 to 2011, the 

majority of feedlots used a once-a-day pen-riding procedure after cattle had been on feed 

30 days or more.

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

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

D. Health 

Management

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Frequency Pct.

Std.

error Frequency Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Less than 15 days after arrival

More than 

twice a day 19.3 (1.8) 20.3 (2.1)

Twice a 

day 59.5 (2.1) 44.5 (2.4)

Once a day 19.7 (1.5) 32.1 (2.1)

Less than 

once a day 0.3 (0.2) 1.1 (0.4)

No 

standard 

procedure

1.2 (0.6) 2.0 (0.7)

Total 100.0 100.0

Less than 30 days after arrival 15–29 days after arrival

More than 

once a day 73.8 (1.7)

More than 

twice a day 7.6 (1.3) 6.3 (1.3)

Twice a 

day 41.2 (2.1) 31.8 (2.2)

Once a day 25.0 (1.6) Once a day 48.8 (2.1) 56.2 (2.3)

Every other 

day 0.4 (0.3) Less than once a day 1.9 (0.7) 3.6 (0.9)

No standard 

procedure 0.8 (0.3)

No 

standard 

procedure

0.5 (0.3) 2.1 (0.7)

Total 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 53 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Frequency Pct.

Std.

error Frequency Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

30 days or more

More than 

once a day 20.1 (1.5)

More than 

twice a day 9.1 (1.2) 5.5 (1.2)

Twice a 

day 16.7 (1.7) 13.5 (1.6)

Once a day 72.5 (1.7) Once a day 68.2 (2.1) 70.2 (2.2)

Every other 

day 5.2 (0.9) Less than 

once a day 4.3 (0.8) 7.4 (1.3)

No standard 

procedure 2.2 (0.6)

No 

standard 

procedure

1.7 (0.7) 3.4 (0.9)

Total 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0

D.1. (cont’d.) Percentage of feedlots by frequency pen-riding or walking procedures were 

conducted, and by number of days cattle had been at the feedlot: 
54 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

2. Antibiotics 

The use of antibiotics in feed and water has remained consistent across study years.

D.2.a. Percentage of feedlots that used an antibiotic in feed and/or water* for health or 

production reasons, by feedlot capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Delivery method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Feed 69.4 (2.3)

85.2 (2.9)

75.5 (2.5)

Water 3.4 (0.9) 5.5 (1.3)

8,000 head or more capacity

Feed 73.1 (2.0)

77.9 (3.3)

68.5 (3.2)

Water 4.3 (1.1) 2.4 (1.3)

All feedlots

Feed 70.4 (1.8)

83.2 (2.3)

73.4 (2.0)

Water 3.6 (0.7) 4.7 (1.0)

*Feed and water combined in Feedlot ’99.
USDA APHIS VS / 55 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

Few feedlots tested any cattle for antibiotic residues prior to shipping for slaughter. The 

percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head that tested any cattle for 

antibiotic residues decreased from 26.6 percent in 1994, 18.9 percent in 1999, and 

10.0 percent in 2011.

D.2.b. Percentage of feedlots that tested any cattle for antibiotic residues prior to shipping 

for slaughter, by feedlot capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Feedlot capacity Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

1,000–7,999 3.2 (0.8) 2.9 (1.0) 4.2 (1.1)

8,000 or more 26.6 (1.9) 18.9 (2.0) 10.0 (1.6)

All feedlots 9.3 (0.8) 7.3 (0.9) 5.9 (0.9)
56 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

3. Health records maintained

The information recorded when a sick animal is treated can be valuable in tracking 

disease frequency, treatment response and outcome, and withdrawal-period compliance. 

Most record-keeping practices remained relatively unchanged in frequency of use from 

1994 to 2011. However, a higher percentage of feedlots always recorded weight at time 

of treatment in 2011 than in 1999 or 1994. With the exception of body temperature, the 

percentage of feedlots that recorded each of the information types at least sometimes 

increased from 1994 to 2011.

D.3. Percentage of feedlots by frequency that information on sick animals was recorded, 

by information recorded:

Percent Feedlots

Frequency

Always

Most of 

the time Sometimes Never

Information 

recorded Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Body temperature

COFE 1994 54.7 (1.8) 13.3 (1.3) 13.0 (1.3) 19.0 (1.5) 100.0

Feedlot ’99 42.3 (2.0) 18.5 (1.7) 16.3 (1.6) 22.9 (1.9) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 40.4 (2.3) 19.7 (1.8) 19.9 (1.9) 20.0 (1.9) 100.0

Date treated

COFE 1994 71.8 (1.6) 6.0 (0.9) 7.2 (1.0) 15.0 (1.4) 100.0

Feedlot ’99 71.8 (2.0) 9.3 (1.4) 6.0 (1.1) 12.9 (1.7) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 77.1 (1.9) 11.3 (1.6) 6.1 (1.1) 5.5 (1.1) 100.0

Weight at time of treatment

COFE 1994 23.3 (1.4) 7.3 (0.9) 13.2 (1.2) 56.2 (1.7) 100.0

Feedlot ’99 25.5 (1.7) 10.4 (1.4) 14.0 (1.4) 50.1 (2.1) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 35.7 (2.1) 7.8 (1.2) 14.6 (1.7) 41.9 (2.2) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 57 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

Percent Feedlots

Frequency

Always

Most of 

the time Sometimes Never

Information 

recorded Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Treatment given

COFE 1994 77.7 (1.6) 4.6 (0.8) 4.9 (0.9) 12.8 (1.3) 100.0

Feedlot ’99 73.5 (2.0) 10.0 (1.5) 4.1 (0.9) 12.4 (1.6) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 78.7 (1.9) 11.7 (1.5) 3.6 (0.9) 6.0 (1.1) 100.0

Treatment withdrawal period

COFE 1994 63.3 (1.8) 5.2 (0.9) 6.3 (0.9) 25.2 (1.7) 100.0

Feedlot ’99 57.6 (2.1) 7.4 (1.3) 9.3 (1.3) 25.7 (2.0) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 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.)

COFE 1994 61.7 (1.8) 7.8 (1.0) 8.5 (1.1) 22.0 (1.6) 100.0

Feedlot ’99 57.6 (2.1) 11.5 (1.5) 12.5 (1.5) 18.4 (1.8) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 62.4 (2.1) 12.8 (1.6) 10.3 (1.4) 14.5 (1.6) 100.0

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

COFE 1994 62.3 (1.8) 7.8 (1.0) 8.1 (1.1) 21.8 (1.6) 100.0

Feedlot ’99 57.0 (2.1) 9.2 (1.4) 10.1 (1.4) 23.7 (2.0) 100.0

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

D.3. (cont’d.) Percentage of feedlots by frequency that information on sick animals was 

recorded, by information recorded:
58 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

4. Use of veterinarian and nutritionist services

Nearly all feedlots used the services of a veterinarian in 1994 (99.0 percent), 1999 

(97.4 percent), and 2011 (96.6 percent). The percentages of feedlots that had a full-time 

staff veterinarian, a private veterinarian that made routine visits, or had a veterinarian that 

was called as needed did not change from 1994 to 2011.

The percentage of feedlots that used a nutritionist steadily increased from 1994 to 2011 

(87.7 and 95.2 percent, respectively). Full-time staff nutritionists were employed on 9.3 

percent of feedlots surveyed in 2011 compared with slightly less than 4 percent in 1994 

and 1999.

D.4.a. Percentage of feedlots that used the services of a veterinarian and percentage 

that used a nutritionist, by type of veterinarian and nutritionist used for the respective year 

ending June 30:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Type of 

veterinarian/

nutritionist Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Veterinarian

Full-time 

veterinarian on staff 3.6 (0.6) 3.3 (0.5) 5.2 (0.9)

Private veterinarian 

who made regular 

or routine visits

39.3 (1.6) 34.6 (1.6) 36.7 (2.0)

Professional 

veterinarian called 

as needed

72.7 (1.4) 70.9 (1.6) 69.5 (1.9)

Any veterinarian 99.0 (0.3) 97.4 (0.7) 96.6 (1.1)

Nutritionist

Full-time nutritionist 

on staff 3.9 (0.6) 3.7 (0.7) 9.3 (1.3)

Private nutritionist 

who made regular 

or routine visits

64.8 (1.7) 38.2 (1.8) 35.6 (2.0)

Professional 

nutritionist called as 

needed

33.1 (1.8) 15.8 (1.4) 11.9 (1.6)

Feed company 

nutritionist NA 56.0 (2.1) 56.2 (2.2)

Other nutritionist NA 2.1 (0.7) NA

Any nutritionist 87.7 (1.3) 91.0 (1.5) 95.2 (1.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 59 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

From 1994 to 2011, the percentage of dead cattle that had a postmortem examination 

remained relatively unchanged, regardless of feedlot capacity. Since 1994, postmortem 

examinations were conducted on about twice the percentage of dead cattle on feedlots 

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

7,999 head. 

D.4.b. Percentage of dead cattle that had postmortem examination, by feedlot capacity:

Percent Dead Cattle

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Feedlot capacity 

(number of head) Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 22.8 (2.9) 24.9 (2.1) 21.3 (6.2)

8,000 or more 52.6 (3.4) 57.7 (2.2) 53.8 (2.9)

All feedlots 45.9 (2.5) 53.9 (2.3) 48.7 (2.6)
60 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

5. Carcass disposal methods

From 1994 to 1999, more than 90 percent of feedlots used a renderer to dispose of 

carcasses. By 2011, however, just over 75 percent of feedlots used a renderer. The 

percentage of feedlots that buried carcasses on site remained at about 11 percent from 

1994 to 1999, but increased to about 19 percent in 2011.

D.5. Percentage of feedlots and percentage of dead cattle by carcass disposal method:

Percent Feedlots and Percent Dead Cattle

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Disposal method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Feedlots

Buried on site 11.8 (1.0) 10.7 (1.3) 18.9 (2.0)

Composting NA NA 11.8 (1.3)

Landfi ll 1.2 (0.4) 1.6 (0.4) 2.7 (0.8)

Renderer 94.3 (0.7) 94.4 (0.8) 76.4 (1.9)

Other 1.0* (0.4) 0.4* (0.2) 1.5 (0.8)

Dead cattle

Buried on farm 3.5 (0.8) 5.3 (1.5) 8.4 (2.4)

Composting NA NA 8.8 (1.7)

Landfi ll 0.7 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 2.5 (0.7)

Renderer 95.8 (0.9) 94.1 (1.6) 80.2 (2.6)

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Includes composting for these two study years.
USDA APHIS VS / 61 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

Percent Feedlots

Level of Importance

Very Somewhat Not Don’t know

Quality 

assurance 

practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Location used for administration of injectable product (neck, shoulder, side, or leg)

Feedlot ’99 94.9 (1.0) 3.8 (0.9) 0.3 (0.2) 1.0 (0.4) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 96.1 (0.9) 3.1 (0.8) 0.8 (0.4) 0.0 (—) 100.0

Route used for administration of injectable product (muscle, vein, or under skin)

Feedlot ’99 91.3 (1.4) 6.5 (1.3) 1.1 (0.5) 1.1 (0.4) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 92.1 (1.3) 7.2 (1.3) 0.6 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 100.0

Implanting strategy

Feedlot ’99 87.7 (1.6) 8.0 (1.4) 1.8 (0.6) 2.5 (0.8) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 89.0 (1.5) 5.6 (1.1) 2.5 (0.7) 2.9 (0.8) 100.0

Antibiotic selection (e.g., type of antibiotic used or duration of action) to manage disease

Feedlot ’99 91.9 (1.2) 6.4 (1.1) 0.1 (0.1) 1.6 (0.5) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 92.1 (1.3) 6.6 (1.3) 0.6 (0.3) 0.7 (0.4) 100.0

Residue avoidance

Feedlot ’99 93.5 (1.1) 4.1 (0.9) 0.9 (0.5) 1.5 (0.4) 100.0

Feedlot 2011 93.5 (1.3) 4.5 (1.0) 2.0 (0.8) 0.0 (—) 100.0

6. Quality assurance

All categories of quality assurance practices that were surveyed were considered very 

important on nearly all feedlots in 1999 and 2011.

D.6.a. Percentage of feedlots by importance operator placed on quality assurance 

practices:
62 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–D. Health Management

From 1999 to 2011 on feedlots with 1,000 to 7,999 head, a substantial increase occurred 

in the percentages of feedlots with formal employee training programs (including written 

guidelines) for quality assurance, residue avoidance, animal handling procedures, and 

employee safety. During the same period, feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head 

also saw an increase in the percentages of feedlots with formal training programs. 

D.6.b. Percentage of feedlots that had a formal employee training program that included 

written guidelines, by training topic and by feedlot capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Training topic Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Quality assurance 34.5 (2.4) 56.6 (3.3)

Residue avoidance 33.3 (2.4) 60.2 (3.2)

Animal handling 

procedures 34.8 (2.5) 65.9 (3.0)

Employee safety 33.0 (2.6) 64.0 (3.1)

8,000 or more head capacity

Quality assurance 76.8 (1.9) 86.4 (3.2)

Residue avoidance 82.4 (1.7) 91.5 (2.1)

Animal handling 

procedures 73.5 (2.0) 92.6 (2.0)

Employee safety 86.7 (1.6) 93.9 (2.0)

All feedlots

Quality assurance 46.3 (1.9) 67.1 (2.5)

Residue avoidance 46.9 (1.9) 71.1 (2.3)

Animal handling 

procedures 45.5 (1.9) 75.2 (2.1)

Employee safety 47.9 (1.9) 74.4 (2.2)
USDA APHIS VS / 63 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–E. Environmental Programs

1. Training programs and control measures

The percentage of feedlots that had a formal training program (including written 

guidelines) for manure management more than doubled from 1999 to 2011 (27.5 and 

60.2 percent, respectively). Formal training in dust control and other programs (including 

lagoon overfl ow) also increased substantially from 1999 to 2011.

E.1.a. Percentage of feedlots that had a formal employee training programs (including 

written guidelines) regarding environmental issues, by issue and by feedlot capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Environmental issue Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Manure management 18.5 (2.0) 57.1 (3.1)

Dust control 12.8 (1.7) 20.6 (2.7)

Lagoon 47.2 (3.1)

Any other environmental 

training program 7.6* (1.2) 9.8 (1.9)

8,000 or more head capacity

Manure management 51.2 (2.3) 66.1 (4.2)

Dust control 38.5 (2.1) 48.5 (4.1)

Lagoon 81.7 (2.7)

Any other environmental 

training program 32.7* (2.2) 8.89 (1.3)

All feedlots

Manure management 27.5 (1.6) 60.2 (2.5)

Dust control 19.9 (1.4) 30.1 (2.2)

Lagoon 58.9 (2.4)

Any other environmental 

training program 14.6* (1.1) 9.4 (1.3)

*Includes lagoon overfl ow.

E. Environmental 

Programs
64 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–E. Environmental Programs

The percentage of feedlots that tested manure for nutrient content (e.g., nitrogen) 

increased from 38.0 percent in 1994 to 75.4 percent in 2011. From 1994 to 2011, feedlots 

with a capacity of 8,000 or more head were more likely to perform environmental testing 

of any kind than feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head.

E.1.b. Percentage of feedlots that performed environmental tests, by test performed and 

by feedlot capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Tests

performed on... Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Ground water (i.e., 

well water) 35.6 (2.3) 41.3 (2.7) 52.1 (2.9)

Surface water (e.g., 

ponds, lakes, or 

streams)

NA 11.1 (1.6) 19.0 (2.9)

Nutrient content 

of manure (e.g., 

nitrogen level)

28.1 (2.2) 33.8 (2.7) 70.7 (2.7)

Air quality NA 1.9 (0.7) 4.5 (1.4)

8,000 or more head capacity

Ground water (i.e., 

well water) 71.5 (2.1) 78.5 (1.9) 79.5 (3.3)

Surface water (e.g., 

ponds, lakes, or 

streams)

NA 44.0 (2.3) 48.5 (5.0)

Nutrient content 

of manure (e.g., 

nitrogen level)

66.3 (2.2) 69.5 (2.1) 86.8 (2.8)

Air quality NA 15.4 (1.7) 11.6 (1.7)

All feedlots

Ground water (i.e., 

well water) 44.9 (1.8) 51.6 (2.1) 60.2 (2.3)

Surface water (e.g., 

ponds, lakes, or 

streams)

NA 20.2 (1.4) 28.0 (2.5)

Nutrient content 

of manure (e.g., 

nitrogen level)

38.0 (1.7) 43.7 (2.0) 75.4 (2.1)

Air quality NA 5.6 (0.7) 6.6 (1.1)
USDA APHIS VS / 65 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–E. Environmental Programs

The majority of feedlots (63.7 percent) used mechanical scrapers as a dust control 

practice in 2011. Water trucks were also a popular means of dust control, especially on 

feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head. Dust control practices remained relatively 

unchanged from 1994 to 2011, with the exception of permanent sprinkler use, which 

increased slightly in 2011 (16.6 percent of feedlots) compared with 1994 and 1999 

(9.0 and 10.7 percent of feedlots, respectively).

E.1.c. Percentage of feedlots by dust control practices performed and by feedlot capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Dust control 

practices Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Permanent 

sprinklers 6.2 (1.0) 8.0 (1.6) 14.3 (2.1)

Mobile sprinklers 

(water truck) 24.7 (1.9) 26.7 (2.2) 29.2 (2.7)

Mechanical 

scrapers 68.0 (2.1) 63.8 (2.7) 56.2 (2.8)

Increased cattle 

density NA 18.2 (1.9) 13.4 (1.9)

Other NA 3.3 (1.2) 2.9 (1.0)

8,000 or more head capacity

Permanent 

sprinklers 17.1 (1.7) 17.6 (1.8) 22.2 (3.5)

Mobile sprinklers 

(water truck) 69.7 (2.1) 69.4 (2.2) 53.9 (4.1)

Mechanical 

scrapers 86.7 (1.7) 80.9 (1.9) 81.9 (2.6)

Increased cattle 

density NA 38.7 (2.3) 27.1 (3.4)

Other NA 5.7 (1.4) 0.6 (0.5)

All feedlots

Permanent 

sprinklers 9.0 (0.9) 10.7 (1.2) 16.6 (1.8)

Mobile sprinklers 

(water truck) 36.3 (1.5) 38.5 (1.8) 36.5 (2.2)

Mechanical 

scrapers 72.9 (1.6) 68.5 (2.0) 63.7 (2.2)

Increased cattle 

density NA 23.9 (1.5) 17.5 (1.7)

Other NA 4.0 (0.9) 2.3 (1.7)
66 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–E. Environmental Programs

A higher percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head used berms to 

control water runoff in 2011 than in 1999. Feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head 

also increased their usage of lagoons to capture runoff by 10 percent from 1999 to 2011. 

Nearly all feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more used lagoons to capture runoff 

(95.0 percent in 1999 and 94.8 percent in 2011). About three-fourths of feedlots used 

berms.

E.1.d. Percentage of feedlots by practice used to manage water runoff, and by feedlot 

capacity:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Practice Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

1,000–7,999 head capacity

Lagoons to capture runoff 55.2 (2.7) 65.3 (2.5)

Berms to control runoff 54.0 (2.8) 73.7 (2.6)

Fencing landscaping to 

enhance wildlife management 

or minimize erosion

51.3 (2.8) 52.8 (2.9)

8,000 or more head capacity

Lagoons to capture runoff 95.0 (1.3) 94.8 (1.2)

Berms to control runoff 74.9 (2.0) 77.1 (3.0)

Fencing landscaping to 

enhance wildlife management 

or minimize erosion

60.1 (2.2) 47.0 (4.3)

All feedlots

Lagoons to capture runoff 66.2 (2.1) 74.1 (1.9)

Berms to control runoff 59.8 (2.1) 74.7 (2.0)

Fencing landscaping to 

enhance wildlife management 

or minimize erosion

53.7 (2.1) 51.1 (2.4)
USDA APHIS VS / 67 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–E. Environmental Programs

2. Waste management

From 1994 to 2011, the majority of feedlots disposed of manure by applying it to land 

owned or managed by the feedlot. However, the percentage of feedlots that used this 

method has decreased steadily from 1994 (88.0 percent) to 2011 (77.8 percent). An 

increase in the percentage of feedlots that sold their manure also occurred during that 

time; over one-fi fth of feedlots sold their manure in 2011.

E.2.a. Percentage of feedlots by methods used to dispose of manure:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Applied on land 

owned or managed 

by the feedlot

88.0 (1.0) 82.9 (1.1) 77.8 (1.6)

Sold 9.3 (1.0) 11.0 (0.9) 20.9 (1.6)

Given away 23.0 (1.3) 26.7 (1.4) 25.9 (1.7)

Paid someone

to take it 6.6 (0.7) 3.3 (0.4) 5.0 (1.4)

Removed by 

another method 4.1 (0.6) 3.4 (0.6) 5.2 (1.2)
68 / Feedlot 2011

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–E. Environmental Programs

0

20

40

60

80

100

Feedlot 2011

Feedlot '99

COFE 1994
USDA APHIS VS / 69 

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates–E. Environmental Programs

For feedlots that applied manure on land owned by the feedlot, 69.1 percent of feedlots in 

1994 tested the nutrient content of the soil on which they placed manure compared with 

76.1 percent in 1999 and 92.7 percent in 2011. The percentage of feedlots that tested 

soil to determine manure application ranged from 53.5 percent in 1999 to 89.3 percent in 

2011. 

E.2.b. For feedlots that applied manure on land owned by the feedlot, percentage of 

feedlots that tested the nutrient content of the soil receiving the manure, and percentage 

of feedlots that tested to determine the manure application rate:

Percent Feedlots

NAHMS Study

COFE 1994 Feedlot ’99 Feedlot 2011

Test type Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Tested soil for 

nutrient content 69.1 (1.9) 76.1 (2.0) 92.7 (1.6)

Tested soil to 

determine manure 

application rate

62.4 (2.4) 53.5 (2.5) 89.3 (1.8)
70 / Feedlot 2011

Appendix I: Feedlots and Inventory

Inventory (1,000 head)

Region State

Number of 

lots 20071

Jan. 1, 

20102

July 1, 

20103

Jan. 1, 

2011

July 1, 

2011

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) 4 (D) 5

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 363 5 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 I: Feedlots and Inventory, 1,000 or More Head Capacity for 

Selected States
USDA APHIS VS / 71 

Appendix II: Feedlots and Inventory by Size

Number of feedlots

Feedlot capacity 20071 20082 20093 20104 20114

Fewer than 1,000 

head 85,000 80,000 80,000 75,000 75,000

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

All feedlots in United 

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

January 1 inventory

20081 20092 20103 20114 20124

Fewer than 1,000 

head 2,734.7 2,621.7 2,659.2 2,499 2,260

1,000 or more 12,092 11,234 10,983 11,513 11,861

All feedlots in United 

States 14,826.7 13,855.7 13,642.2 14,012 14,121

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 II: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by Size
72 / Feedlot 2011

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

Appendix III: 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, 

June 2013

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

More Head, expected August 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, June 2013

• Types and Costs of Respiratory Disease Treatment in U.S. Feedlots, info sheet, 

April 2013

2. Describe the management practices in feedlots that impact product quality:

• Part I: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More 

Head, March 2013

• Quality Assurance on U.S. Feedlots, 2011, info sheet, July 2012

• 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, June 2013

• Salmonella 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, 

June 2013

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

More Head, expected August 2013

5. Describe biosecurity practices and capabilities in feedlots:

• Part I: Management Practices on U.S. Feedlots with a Capacity of 1,000 or More 

Head, March 2013

• Biosecurity on U.S. Feedlots, info sheet, September 2012
Feedlot 2011

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 2

Section I: Demographics 1994–2011 5

 A. Changes in Cattle-on-feed Industry 6

 1. Cattle-on-feed inventory 6

 2. Cattle placed on feed 9

 3. Nonharvest disappearances 13

 4. Number of feedlots 15

 5. Feedlot industry changes by State 16

 6. Cattle harvest 20

Section II: NAHMS Population Estimates 23

 A. Placement Profi le 23

 1. Type of cattle, gender, and disposition 23

 2. Cattle source and ownership of placements 32

 B. Arrival Management and Group Processing 34

 1. Perceived effectiveness of pre-arrival processing 34

 2. Arrival processing 36

 3. Initial processing timing 43

 4. Branding and identifi cation 45

 C. Nutritional Management 46

 1. Feed additives 46

 2. Progestagen feeding 48

 D. Health Management 52

 1. Pen-riding 52

 2. Antibiotics 54

 3. Health records maintained 56

 4. Use of veterinarian and nutritionist services 58

 5. Carcass disposal methods 60

 6. Quality assurance 61

 E. Environmental Programs 63

 1. Training programs and control measures 63

 2. Waste management 67

Appendix I: Feedlots and Inventory 70

Appendix II: U.S. Feedlots and Inventory by Size 71

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 72