United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

November 2006

Equine 2005

Part I: Baseline Reference of Equine Health

and Management, 2005
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

specific information.

USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

#N451.1006

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.

Cover photo courtesy of

Agricultural Research Service
USDA APHIS VS / i

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 visited equine operations

and collected the data for this study. Their hard work and dedication were

invaluable. Thanks also to the personnel at the USDA–APHIS: Veterinary

Services’ Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health for their efforts in

generating and distributing this report, and to our reviewers for providing valuable

expertise and guidance through their comments.

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

efforts made this report possible.

Larry Granger

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
ii / Equine 2005

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2006. Equine 2005, Part I: Baseline Reference of Equine Health and

Management, 2005

USDA:APHIS:VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO #N451-1006

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on the Equine 2005 study methods or requests for

additional data analysis: Ms. Anne Berry (970) 494-7000

Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Anne Berry (970) 494-7000

E-mail NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used In This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. General 5

1. Equid distribution 5

2. Primary function of operations 6

3. Primary use of equids 8

4. Type of equid 11

5. Age of resident equids 15

6. Identification method 16

7. Familiarity with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) 17

B. Health and Health Management 20

1. Primary method of recording equine information 20

2. Testing 22

3. Familiarity with equine infectious anemia (EIA) 23

4. EIA testing 25

5. Vaccinations 35

6. Foal health 48

7. Equid health 58

8. Births 63

9. Foal deaths 64

10. Equid deaths 67

11. Nonambulatory equids 70

C. Biosecurity 77

1. Nonresident equids 77

2. Additions 81

3. Visitors 91

4. Isolation for infection control 96

5. Contact with other animals 98

D. Equid Movement 102

1. Distance traveled 102

2. Vehicle transportation 106

3. Destination 108

4. Direct contact with outside equids during trips 111

5. Presentation of equine health papers 118

E. General Management 121

1. Feed source 121

2. Drinking water 124

3. Insect control 126

4. Manure management 128
iv / Equine 2005

Section II: Methodology 131

A. Identifying Industry Needs 131

B. Sampling and Estimation 131

1. State selection 131

2. Sample selection 131

3. Population inferences 132

C. Data Collection 133

D. Data Analysis 133

1. Validation and estimation 133

2. Response rates 133

Appendix I: Sample Profile 135

A. Responding Operations 135

1. Type of operation 135

2. Region 135

3. Equids on hand July 1, 2005 135

4. Resident equids (whether or not present) as of July 1, 2005 136

Appendix II: U.S. Equine Populations 137

Appendix III: 2002 Census—Number of Farms Reporting Equids 138

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 139
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

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

division of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) designed to help

meet the Nation’s animal-health information needs.

Equine ’98 was NAHMS’ first national study on equine baseline health and

management. Equine ’98 provided participants, industry, and animal-health

officials with information on the Nation’s equine population for education and

research.

Equine 2005 is NAHMS’ second study of the U.S. equine industry. Like its

predecessor, Equine 2005 was designed to provide participants, industry, and

animal-health officials with information on the Nation’s equine population that will

serve as a basis for education, service, and research related to equine infectious

disease control.

Study objectives for Equine 2005 were developed by exploring existing literature,

attending equine industry meetings to learn about information gaps, and with

input regarding priorities for equine health from animal-health officials. The

objectives of the study focused on describing health-management factors that

could impact the occurrence of equine infectious diseases. Infectious diseases

can result in lost use of the animals and in some cases death. There are many

potential control points for preventing or minimizing the impact of infectious

disease outbreaks. These include early identification of outbreaks, reducing

exposure to infectious agents, and optimizing resistance to disease through

vaccination.

The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collaborated with VS

to select a statistically representative sample such that inferences could be made

to the population of operations with 5 or more equids and equids on operations

with 5 or more equids in the 28 States participating in the study (see map). The

sample provided 3,349 participating operations. The 28-State target population

represents 78.0 percent of the equids and 78.6 percent of operations with 5 or

more equids in the United States* (See Section II Methodology and Appendices II

and III.)

*

NASS, 2002 Census of Agriculture
Introduction

2 / Equine 2005

Equine 2005 Particpating States

CA

WA

OR

NV

ID

UT

NM

AZ

WY

MT

CO

ND

SD

NE

KS

OK TX

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

WI

IL

TN

KY

MS

IN

MI

OH

AL

FL

GA SC

NC

VA

WV

PA

MD DE

NY RI

VT

NH

ME

MA

CT

NJ

Shaded States = Participating States

Part I: Baseline Reference of Equine Health and Management, 2005 is the first

report that describes results from the NAHMS Equine 2005 study. NASS

enumerators collected data for this report via questionnaires administered on-site

from July 18 through August 12, 2005. Results of the Equine 2005 study and

other NAHMS studies are accessible at <http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov>.

For questions about this report or additional copies contact:

USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. B, MS 2E7

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000
USDA APHIS VS / 3

Introduction

Terms Used In

This Report

Equid: Animal of the family Equidae. Only domestic horses, miniature horses,

ponies, mules, donkeys/burros, and zedonks (zebra-donkey cross) were

included.

Foal: Equid less than 6 months of age.

Horse: Domestic equid generally more than 14 hands (56 inches) high at the

shoulder (near the last hairs of the mane). An equid less than 14 hands high may

also be considered a horse if its breed registry defines it as such (other than

miniature horse). Horses include light breeds (e.g., Arabian, Quarter Horse,

Appaloosa, Morgan, Trakehner, etc.) and draft horses (e.g., Clydesdale, Belgian,

and Percheron).

N/A: Not applicable.

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

hired manager.

Operator: The person responsible for the day-to-day decisions on the operation.

Operation average: A single value for each operation is summed over all

operations reporting and divided by the number of operations reporting.

Perceived cause (of illness or death): Causes of illnesses or deaths were

derived from observations of clinical signs reported by participants and not

necessarily confirmed by a veterinarian or laboratory testing.

Percent equids: The total number of equids with a certain attribute, divided by

the total number of equids.

Primary function of operation: The main purpose of the operation, i.e.,

boarding/training, breeding farm, farm/ranch, and residence with equids for

personal use.

Primary use of equids: What the majority of horses on the operation are used

for, i.e., pleasure, lessons/school, show/competition, breeding, racing, farm/

ranch work.
Introduction

4 / Equine 2005

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

precision called the standard error. A 95-percent confidence interval can be

created with bounds equal to the estimate, plus or minus two standard errors. If

the only error is sampling error, the confidence intervals created in this manner

will contain the true population mean 95 out of 100 times. In the example to the

left, 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). The second

estimate of 3.4 shows a standard error of 0.3 and results in limits of 2.8 and 4.0.

Alternatively, the 90-percent confidence interval would be created by multiplying

the standard error by 1.65 instead of 2. Most estimates in this report are rounded

to the nearest tenth. If rounded to 0, the standard error was reported (0.0). If

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

Regions

• South: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma,

Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia

• Northeast: New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

• West: California, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and

Wyoming

• Central: Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and

Wisconsin

Resident equid: An equid that spent or was expected to spend more time at the

operation than at any other operation, whether or not it was present at the time of

the interview. The operation was its home base.

Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the operations from

which Equine 2005 data were collected.

Size of operation: Size groupings were based on number of equids present on

July 1, 2005. Size of operation was categorized as small (5-9), medium (10-19),

and large (20 or more). For the purpose of this report, small operations include

operations that had five or more equids per the NASS list frame (primarily

comprised of equine information from the 2002 Census of Agriculture) but had

fewer than five equids on July 1, 2005; approximately 70 percent of these

operations had three to four equids on July 1, 2005.

Standard Errors

(1.0)

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 (0.3)

Examples of a 95% Confidence Interval

95% Confidence 

Intervals
Section I: Population Estimates

USDA APHIS VS / 5

Section I: Population Estimates

A. General 1. Equid distribution

Nine of 10 operations (92.2 percent) had 19 or fewer equids present on the

operation on July 1, 2005. These operations accounted for 70.8 percent of

resident equids and 70.3 percent of all equids. Resident equids are defined as

equids that spent more time at the operation than at any other operation

(whether or not present on July 1, 2005). Although large operations represented

only 7.8 percent of all operations, they accounted for 29.2 percent of resident

equids and 29.7 percent of all equids.

a. Percentage of operations, percentage of resident equids, and percentage of all

equids, by size of operation:

Percent 

Operations 

Percent 

Resident Equids 

Percent 

All Equids* 

Size of 

Operation 

(Number of 

Equids) Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Small 

(5 to 9)** 66.1 (0.8) 36.6 (0.8) 36.1 (0.8) 

Medium 

(10 to 19) 26.1 (0.8) 34.2 (1.0) 34.2 (1.0) 

Large 

(20 or more) 7.8 (0.3) 29.2 (1.1) 29.7 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*All equids present on operation whether or not residents of the operation. 

**Operations that had five or more equids per the NASS list frame (primarily comprised of equine 

information from the 2002 Census of Agriculture) but fewer than five equids on July 1, 2005, were 

included in this category. 
Section I: Population Estimates

6 / Equine 2005

2. Primary function of operations

Operations with a primary function of farm/ranch and residence with equids for

personal use accounted for over three-fourths of all operations (77.3 percent),

followed by equine breeding farms (14.4 percent). The percentages of operations

by primary function were similar across regions. The “other” category included

riding stable, guest ranch, motion picture, party service, sanctuary, and carriage

service operations.

a. Percentage of operations by primary function and by region:

 Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Primary 

Function Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Boarding/ 

training 5.4 (0.6) 9.2 (1.4) 4.9 (0.9) 5.9 (0.9) 5.9 (0.4) 

Breeding farm 15.1 (1.0) 12.1 (1.8) 15.7 (1.6) 13.4 (1.3) 14.4 (0.7) 

Farm/ranch 38.4 (1.6) 40.7 (2.9) 45.3 (2.2) 39.3 (2.1) 40.3 (1.0) 

Residence with 

equids for 

personal use 38.9 (1.6) 35.5 (2.8) 31.6 (2.1) 38.6 (2.1) 37.0 (1.0) 

Other 2.2 (0.4) 2.5 (0.8) 2.5 (0.6) 2.8 (0.7) 2.4 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Section I: Population Estimates

As operation size increased, the percentage of operations that reported their

primary function as residence with equids for personal use decreased. In

contrast, as the size of operation increased so did the percentage of equine

breeding farm and equine boarding stable/training operations. A higher

percentage of small and medium operations reported farm/ranch as a primary

function (40.3 percent and 42.5 percent, respectively), compared to large

operations (32.3 percent).

b. Percentage of operations by primary function and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Primary Function Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Boarding/training 2.8 (0.5) 10.4 (1.1) 17.2 (1.5) 

Breeding farm 9.2 (0.8) 21.8 (1.5) 34.1 (2.0) 

Farm/ranch 40.3 (1.4) 42.5 (1.8) 32.3 (1.9) 

Residence with 

equids for personal use 46.0 (1.4) 22.2 (1.5) 10.4 (1.3) 

Other 1.7 (0.3) 3.1 (0.6) 6.0 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

8 / Equine 2005

3. Primary use of equids

A higher percentage of operations in the West region used equids primarily for

farm/ranch work (33.2 percent) compared to operations in the South and Central

regions (21.3 percent and 21.7 percent, respectively). The percentages of

operations reporting the primary use of equids as pleasure, breeding, racing,

and “other” were similar across regions. Other primary uses included carriage

rides, buy and sell or horse trader, transportation, outfitting or hunting, party

service, pony rides, advertising for business, and used to make motion pictures.

a. Percentage of operations by primary use of equids and by region:

 Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Primary 

Use Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Pleasure 46.8 (1.6) 42.5 (2.8) 39.4 (2.2) 50.7 (2.1) 45.7 (1.0) 

Lessons/ 

school 0.9 (0.3) 2.0 (0.6) 1.6 (0.5) 1.9 (0.5) 1.4 (0.2) 

Show/ 

competition 11.5 (1.0) 9.0 (1.7) 7.0 (1.1) 8.6 (1.2) 9.6 (0.6) 

Breeding 17.2 (1.1) 13.9 (1.9) 16.2 (1.6) 14.7 (1.3) 15.9 (0.7) 

Racing 1.4 (0.4) 1.4 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) 0.8 (0.4) 1.4 (0.2) 

Farm/ 

ranch work 21.3 (1.3) 29.0 (2.6) 33.2 (2.0) 21.7 (1.7) 24.8 (0.9) 

Other 0.9 (0.3) 2.2 (0.8) 0.8 (0.3) 1.6 (0.5) 1.2 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Population Estimates

APHIS photo by Charles Kerlee
Section I: Population Estimates

10 / Equine 2005

The percentage of operations that used equids primarily for pleasure decreased

as operation size increased. In contrast, the percentage of operations that used

equids primarily for breeding increased as operation size increased. A higher

percentage of large operations used equids primarily for showing/

competition (15.7 percent) compared to medium and small operations (9.5

percent and 8.8 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by primary use of equids and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9) 

Medium 

(10-19) 

Large 

(20 or More) 

Primary Use Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Pleasure 53.7 (1.3) 33.0 (1.7) 20.1 (1.6) 

Lessons/ 

school 0.9 (0.2) 2.1 (0.5) 4.1 (0.8) 

Show/ 

competition 8.8 (0.8) 9.5 (1.1) 15.7 (1.5) 

Breeding 10.6 (0.8) 23.7 (1.5) 36.3 (2.0) 

Racing 1.2 (0.3) 1.3 (0.4) 2.7 (0.7) 

Farm/ranch 

work 23.7 (1.1) 29.2 (1.6) 19.2 (1.6) 

Other 1.1 (0.3) 1.2 (0.4) 1.9 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Population Estimates

4. Type of equid

More than 9 of 10 operations (95.6 percent) had horses (full-size, including draft

horses). One of three operations (34.8 percent) had domestic equids other than

full-size horses. A higher percentage of operations in the South region (17.2

percent) had donkeys or burros compared to operations in the Northeast, West,

and Central regions (9.5 percent, 8.8 percent, and 7.7 percent, respectively).

Operations in the Northeast and Central regions had a higher percentage of

ponies (26.6 percent and 21.3 percent, respectively) compared to operations in

the South and West regions (12.4 percent and 9.0 percent, respectively).

Percentages of operations with mules, miniature horses, and full-size horses

were similar across regions. “Other” equids included zebra and zedonk (zebradonkey cross).

a. Percentage of operations by type of equids present on July 1, 2005, and by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Type of Equid Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Donkeys 

or burros 17.2 (1.2) 9.5 (1.7) 8.8 (1.2) 7.7 (1.1) 12.2 (0.7) 

Mules 6.9 (0.7) 10.2 (1.7) 11.0 (1.4) 6.1 (1.0) 7.9 (0.5) 

Ponies 12.4 (1.0) 26.6 (2.6) 9.0 (1.1) 21.3 (1.7) 15.7 (0.7) 

Miniature 

horses 8.0 (0.8) 10.3 (1.8) 6.3 (1.0) 6.2 (0.9) 7.5 (0.5) 

Horses 

(excluding 

miniature 

horses but 

including draft 

horses) 94.3 (0.7) 95.0 (1.2) 96.7 (0.8) 97.4 (0.7) 95.6 (0.4) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 0.4 (0.3) 0.5 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 

Any equid 

other than 

full-size horse 36.1 (1.5) 44.3 (2.9) 28.3 (1.9) 32.9 (2.0) 34.8 (1.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates

12 / Equine 2005

0

10

20

30

40

Ponies

Donkeys/Burros

Percentage of Operations by Presence of Donkeys/Burros and Ponies on July 1,

2005, and by Region

Percent

Region

South Northeast West Central All Operations

17.2

9.5 8.8 7.7

12.4 12.2

26.6

9.0

21.3

15.7
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Population Estimates

Full-size horses accounted for the highest percentage of equids across all

regions (86.6 percent of the overall equine population). Donkeys or burros

accounted for a higher percentage of the overall equine population on operations

in the South region than on operations in the other three regions. Overall,

donkeys or burros and mules accounted for 6.0 percent of the domestic equine

population while ponies and miniature horses accounted for 7.3 percent of the

overall domestic equine population.

b. Percentage of equids by type of equids present on July 1, 2005, and by region:

 Percent Equids 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Type of Equid Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Donkeys 

or burros 5.8 (0.6) 3.0 (0.7) 2.0 (0.3) 1.6 (0.3) 3.7 (0.3) 

Mules 1.7 (0.2) 4.8 (0.9) 2.8 (0.4) 1.8 (0.4) 2.3 (0.2) 

Ponies 2.5 (0.3) 6.4 (0.8) 1.6 (0.3) 5.3 (0.5) 3.4 (0.2) 

Miniature 

horses 4.6 (0.7) 3.7 (0.7) 3.8 (0.8) 2.7 (0.5) 3.9 (0.4) 

Horses 

(excluding 

miniature 

horses but 

including draft 

horses) 85.3 (1.0) 82.1 (1.5) 89.7 (1.1) 88.6 (0.9) 86.6 (0.5) 

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

14 / Equine 2005

The percentage of resident equids by type of equid paralleled the type of equids

in the overall equine inventory, as depicted in table b. A resident equid was

defined as an equid that spent more of its time at the operation during the

previous 12 months than at any other operation (whether or not present on the

day of the interview).

c. Percentage of resident equids on July 1, 2005, by type of equid and by region:

 Percent Resident Equids 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Type of Equid Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Donkeys 

or burros 6.1 (0.6) 3.0 (0.8) 2.1 (0.4) 1.6 (0.3) 3.8 (0.3) 

Mules 1.7 (0.2) 4.8 (1.0) 3.0 (0.5) 1.9 (0.4) 2.4 (0.2) 

Ponies 2.4 (0.3) 6.3 (0.8) 1.6 (0.3) 5.4 (0.5) 3.4 (0.2) 

Miniature 

horses 4.2 (0.6) 3.5 (0.7) 4.0 (0.8) 2.2 (0.5) 3.6 (0.3) 

Horses 

(excluding 

miniature 

horses but 

including draft 

horses) 85.5 (0.9) 82.3 (1.5) 89.3 (1.1) 88.9 (0.9) 86.7 (0.5) 

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Population Estimates

5. Age of resident equids

The majority of resident equids (56.7 percent) were 5 years to less than 20 years

of age. Just 7.6 percent of resident equids were 20 years or older. Since the

reference date regarding age of resident equids was July 1, the majority of foals

were reported to be 31 days but less than 6 months of age.

a. Percentage of resident equids on July 1, 2005, by age:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage of Resident Equids on July 1, 2005, by Age

Percent

Age

0.8

7.4

27.5

56.7

6.9

0.7

Birth to

30 days

31 days to

less than

6 months

6 months to

 less than

5 years

5 years to

less than

20 years

20 years to

less than

30 years

30 years

or older

Age 

Percent 

Resident Equids 

Standard 

Error 

Birth to 30 days 0.8 (0.1) 

31 days to less 

than 6 months 7.4 (0.3) 

6 months to less than 5 years 27.5 (0.5) 

5 years to less than 20 years 56.7 (0.5) 

20 years to less than 30 years 6.9 (0.3) 

30 years or older 0.7 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

16 / Equine 2005

6. Identification method

Nearly half of operations (49.3 percent) had no unique identification (ID) for at

least one of their resident equids, and 19.2 percent of operations had no unique

ID for any of their equids. Nearly one of three equids (28.7 percent) had no

unique ID. The form of unique ID was not mutually exclusive, so that more than

one form of ID could have been used for a given equid. The most common forms

of unique ID reported were registration papers and Coggins test papers. Only 3.1

percent of operations used a microchip as a form of unique ID, with only 1.5

percent of equids identified by a microchip method. DNA or blood testing were

commonly specified “other” forms of unique ID.

a. Percentage of operations and percentage of resident equids that used the

following unique ID methods for resident equids (each equid has a different ID;

no two equids have the same ID), by ID method:

Percent Operations 

Percent 

Resident Equids 

ID Method Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Hot-iron brand 12.2 (0.6) 4.6 (0.4) 

Freeze brand 13.8 (0.7) 5.2 (0.5) 

Microchip 3.1 (0.3) 1.5 (0.2) 

Tattoo 11.7 (0.6) 4.0 (0.3) 

Permanent brand 

inspection (card with 

markings indicated or 

sketch) 7.5 (0.5) 4.0 (0.3) 

Registration papers 61.7 (1.0) 47.8 (1.0) 

Coggins test papers 

(laboratory test 

results) 40.0 (1.0) 27.2 (0.8) 

Halters or collars with 

name or number 4.1 (0.4) 3.6 (0.4) 

Passport 1.1 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 

Other unique ID 3.9 (0.4) 2.3 (0.3) 

At least one equid 

with no unique ID 49.3 (1.0) 

No unique ID 

for any equids 19.2 (0.8) 

 28.7* (0.8) 

*Percentage of all resident equids without unique ID. 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Population Estimates

7. Familiarity with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

Overall, 41.7 percent of operations had not heard of the NAIS. Only 14.4 percent

of operations were knowledgeable about the NAIS. A higher percentage of

operations in the South region (16.9 percent) were knowledgeable about the

NAIS compared to operations in the Northeast region (9.0 percent). A higher

percentage of operations in the Northeast region (47.4 percent) had not heard of

the NAIS compared to operations in the West region (37.0 percent).

a. Percentage of operations by familiarity with the NAIS and by region:

 Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Familiarity Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Had not 

heard of 40.7 (1.6) 47.4 (2.9) 37.0 (2.1) 44.1 (2.1) 41.7 (1.0) 

Recognized 

name, not 

much else 21.4 (1.3) 24.4 (2.5) 23.7 (1.9) 23.4 (1.8) 22.7 (0.9) 

Knew some 

basics 21.0 (1.3) 19.2 (2.3) 25.9 (1.9) 18.7 (1.6) 21.2 (0.8) 

Knowledgeable 16.9 (1.2) 9.0 (1.7) 13.4 (1.5) 13.8 (1.5) 14.4 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

18 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of large operations (20.3 percent) were knowledgeable

about the NAIS compared to small operations (13.2 percent).

b. Percentage of operations by familiarity with the NAIS and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Familiarity Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Had not heard of 42.8 (1.4) 40.4 (1.7) 36.8 (2.0) 

Recognized name, 

not much else 23.0 (1.2) 23.1 (1.5) 19.0 (1.6) 

Knew some basics 21.0 (1.1) 20.7 (1.4) 23.9 (1.8) 

Knowledgeable 13.2 (0.9) 15.8 (1.3) 20.3 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

There was not a significant difference across primary function-of-operation

categories in the percentages of operations that had not heard of the NAIS.

c. Percentage of operations by familiarity with the NAIS and by primary function

of operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for 

Personal 

Use Other 

Familiarity Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Had not 

heard of 45.3 (3.7) 37.8 (2.5) 37.4 (1.6) 46.4 (1.8) 52.4 (6.2) 

Recognized 

name, not 

much else 19.7 (3.0) 22.7 (2.1) 25.2 (1.5) 21.0 (1.5) 16.6 (4.6) 

Knew 

some basics 19.9 (3.1) 24.4 (2.2) 22.3 (1.4) 19.4 (1.4) 15.5 (4.2) 

Knowledgeable 15.1 (2.7) 15.1 (1.7) 15.1 (1.2) 13.2 (1.2) 15.5 (4.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Population Estimates

A higher percentage of operations that used equids primarily for pleasure or

racing had never heard of the NAIS compared to operations that used equids

primarily for farm/ranch work.

d. Percentage of operations by familiarity with the NAIS and by primary use of

equids:

 Percent Operations 

 Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Familiarity Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Had not 

heard of 47.0 (1.6) 44.3 (7.7) 40.7 (3.3) 37.2 (2.3) 55.4 (8.2) 33.8 (2.0) 48.4 (9.0)

Recognized the 

name, not 

much else 21.0 (1.3) 20.9 (6.6) 20.8 (2.7) 21.6 (1.9) 18.9 (6.7) 27.5 (1.9) 29.1 (8.4)

Knew 

some basics 18.7 (1.2) 22.4 (6.1) 24.6 (2.9) 25.6 (2.1) 12.4 (4.7) 22.4 (1.7) 13.9 (6.6)

Knowledgeable 13.3 (1.1) 12.4 (4.9) 13.9 (2.2) 15.6 (1.7) 13.3 (5.5) 16.3 (1.6) 8.6 (3.8)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

20 / Equine 2005

B. Health and Health

Management

1. Primary method of recording equine information

Nearly half of operations (48.5 percent) used hand-written notes in a designated

log or on a calendar or check book as primary methods of recording equine

health information. A higher percentage of large operations (32.5 percent) used a

designated logbook or health card to record health information compared to

small operations (21.0 percent). On 20.2 percent of all operations, equine health

information was maintained by a veterinarian. A higher percentage of small

operations (22.0 percent) relied on a veterinarian to maintain equine health

records compared to large operations (12.2 percent). Large operations were

more likely to use computerized health records maintained on the operation

compared to medium and small operations.

a. Percentage of operations by primary method of recording equine health

information and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

All 

Operations 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Computerized health 

records maintained on 

the operation 6.2 (0.7) 9.1 (1.0) 17.5 (1.6) 7.8 (0.5) 

Hand-written in 

designated log (e.g., 

health card, logbook) 21.0 (1.1) 25.0 (1.5) 32.5 (1.9) 22.9 (0.9) 

Hand-written notes (e.g., 

calendar, checkbook) 25.0 (1.2) 27.5 (1.6) 24.1 (1.7) 25.6 (0.9) 

Operation records 

maintained by 

veterinarian 22.0 (1.2) 17.9 (1.4) 12.2 (1.3) 20.2 (0.9) 

No written or 

computerized records 25.8 (1.2) 20.5 (1.5) 13.7 (1.4) 23.5 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Population Estimates

Operations with primary functions of farm/ranch and residence with equids for

personal use were less likely to use computerized health records as a primary

method of recording equine health information than boarding/training and

breeding farm operations. Farm/ranch operations were most likely to have no

written or computerized equine health records when compared to other

categories of primary operation function. Boarding/training and breeding farm

operations were more likely to have some method of recording health information

than farm/ranch or residence-with-equids-for-personal-use operations.

b. Percentage of operations by primary method of recording equine health

information and by primary function of operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with 

Equids for 

Personal 

Use Other 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Computerized 

health records 

maintained on 

the operation 14.8 (2.4) 17.8 (1.9) 4.2 (0.7) 6.3 (0.9) 13.9 (4.3) 

Hand-written in 

designated log 

(e.g., health 

card, logbook) 30.3 (3.4) 37.4 (2.4) 16.3 (1.2) 22.6 (1.5) 30.9 (5.9) 

Hand-written 

notes (e.g., 

calendar, 

checkbook) 16.5 (2.6) 25.7 (2.2) 27.0 (1.5) 25.8 (1.6) 21.1 (4.7) 

Operation 

records 

maintained by 

veterinarian 29.7 (3.6) 16.0 (1.9) 17.6 (1.3) 22.9 (1.5) 26.3 (5.5) 

No written or 

computerized 

records 8.7 (2.2) 3.1 (0.7) 34.9 (1.6) 22.4 (1.5) 7.8 (2.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

22 / Equine 2005

2. Testing

A higher percentage of operations in the Northeast region (19.0 percent)

performed fecal testing for parasites on resident equids during the previous 12

months compared to operations in the West and Central regions (10.6 percent

and 10.3 percent, respectively). A higher percentage of operations in the South

region (10.6 percent) performed feed or pasture analysis during the previous 12

months compared to operations in the Central region (5.1 percent). A higher

percentage of operations in the Northeast region performed a water analysis

during the previous 12 months compared to the other regions. Overall, less than

15 percent of operations performed fecal tests for parasites, feed or pasture

analysis, or water analysis during the previous 12 months.

a. Percentage of operations by testing performed during the previous 12 months

and by region:

As the size of operation increased so did the percentage of operations that

performed fecal testing for parasites, feed or pasture analysis, or water analysis.

b. Percentage of operations by testing performed during the previous 12 months

and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Test Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fecal test for parasites 11.9 (0.9) 14.9 (1.3) 23.2 (1.7) 

Feed or pasture analysis 6.2 (0.7) 9.3 (1.0) 20.3 (1.6) 

Water analysis 7.0 (0.7) 8.8 (1.0) 11.2 (1.3) 

 Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Test Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fecal test 

for parasites 15.1 (1.1) 19.0 (2.2) 10.6 (1.3) 10.3 (1.2) 13.5 (0.7) 

Feed or 

pasture 

analysis 10.6 (0.9) 7.7 (1.4) 6.7 (1.1) 5.1 (0.9) 8.1 (0.5) 

Water analysis 6.3 (0.8) 13.8 (2.0) 7.4 (1.2) 7.6 (1.1) 7.8 (0.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Population Estimates

3. Familiarity with equine infectious anemia (EIA)

Overall, 45.6 percent of operations were knowledgeable about EIA, a disease

often diagnosed via the Coggins test. Only 9.8 percent of operations had never

heard of EIA. A higher percentage of operations in the South region (54.3

percent) were knowledgeable about EIA compared to operations in the

Northeast, West, and Central regions (39.5 percent, 29.9 percent, and 46.5

percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations by familiarity with EIA and by region:

 Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Familiarity Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Had not heard 

of it before 9.1 (0.9) 14.4 (2.1) 12.6 (1.5) 6.4 (1.1) 9.8 (0.6) 

Recognized the 

name, not much 

else 13.8 (1.1) 24.8 (2.5) 27.0 (2.0) 17.3 (1.7) 18.7 (0.8) 

Knew some 

basics 22.8 (1.4) 21.3 (2.4) 30.5 (2.1) 29.8 (2.0) 25.9 (0.9) 

Knowledgeable 54.3 (1.6) 39.5 (2.8) 29.9 (2.0) 46.5 (2.1) 45.6 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

24 / Equine 2005

0

20

40

60

80

Knowledgeable

Knew some basics

Recognized name, not much else

Had not heard of

Percent

Region

Percentage of Operations by Familiarity with EIA and by Region

South Northeast West Central All Operations

9.1

13.8

22.8

54.3

14.4

24.8

21.3

39.5

12.6

27.0

30.5 29.9

6.4

17.3

29.8

46.5

9.8

18.7

25.9

45.6

Familiarity

A higher percentage of boarding/training and breeding farm operations were

knowledgeable about EIA compared to farm/ranch or residence-with-equids-forpersonal-use operations.

b. Percentage of operations by familiarity with EIA and by primary function of the

operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with 

Equids for 

Personal 

Use Other 

Familiarity Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Had not heard of 4.0 (1.7) 5.6 (1.2) 13.5 (1.1) 8.7 (1.0) 5.7 (3.0) 

Recognized 

name, not 

much else 8.0 (1.9) 9.0 (1.5) 24.6 (1.4) 18.1 (1.4) 14.2 (4.4) 

Knew 

some basics 18.4 (2.9) 26.3 (2.2) 23.2 (1.4) 29.4 (1.6) 31.6 (5.8) 

Knowledgeable 69.6 (3.5) 59.1 (2.5) 38.7 (1.6) 43.8 (1.8) 48.5 (6.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Population Estimates

In general, familiarity with EIA increased as size of operation increased. For large

operations, 63.3 percent were knowledgeable about EIA and only 4.5 percent

had never heard of EIA.

c. Percentage of operations by familiarity with EIA and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Familiarity Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Had not heard of 10.7 (0.9) 9.0 (1.1) 4.5 (0.8) 

Recognized name, not 

much else 20.1 (1.1) 17.8 (1.4) 10.6 (1.2) 

Knew some basics 26.3 (1.2) 26.3 (1.6) 21.6 (1.7) 

Knowledgeable 42.9 (1.3) 46.9 (1.8) 63.3 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

4. EIA testing

Operations in the West region were least likely to have tested at least one equid

for EIA during the previous 12 months compared to operations in the other

regions. Operations in the South region were most likely to have tested at least

one equid for EIA during the previous 12 months compared to operations in the

other regions. The percentages of operations that tested for EIA were similar on

operations in the Northeast and Central regions.

a. Percentage of operations that performed at least one Coggins or other test for

EIA during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

66.2 (1.5) 49.7 (2.8) 29.6 (1.9) 55.6 (2.1) 54.1 (1.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates

26 / Equine 2005

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Region

Percentage of Operations that Performed at Least One Coggins or Other Test for

EIA During the Previous 12 Months, by Region

South Northeast West Central

66.2

49.7

29.6

55.6

The percentage of operations that tested at least one equid for EIA during the

previous 12 months increased as the size of operation increased: 75.4 percent of

large operations tested at least one equid for EIA compared to 62.7 percent of

medium operations and 48.3 percent of small operations.

b. Percentage of operations that performed at least one Coggins or other test for

EIA during the previous 12 months, by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids) 

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

48.3 (1.3) 62.7 (1.7) 75.4 (1.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Population Estimates

At least 44 percent of each operation type (primary function) tested at least one

equid for EIA during the previous 12 months. Boarding/training, breeding farm,

and “other” operations were more likely to have tested at least one equid for EIA

during the previous 12 months than farm/ranch or residence-with-equids-forpersonal-use operations.

c. Percentage of operations that had performed at least one Coggins or other

test for EIA during the previous 12 months, by primary function of operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function 

Boarding/ 

Training Breeding Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence with 

Equids for 

Personal Use Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

81.9 (3.0) 69.9 (2.4) 44.8 (1.6) 52.2 (1.8) 76.9 (5.2) 

A lower percentage of operations where the primary use of equids was pleasure

or farm/ranch work had tested at least one equid for EIA during the previous 12

months compared to operations where the primary use of equids was lessons/

school, show/competition, breeding, or racing.

d. Percentage of operations that had performed at least one Coggins or other

test for EIA during the previous 12 months, by primary use of equids:

Percent Operations 

Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

49.5 (1.6) 80.1 (6.5) 85.4 (2.4) 68.5 (2.3) 83.7 (6.3) 37.7 (2.0) 63.7 (8.6) 
Section I: Population Estimates

28 / Equine 2005

Compared to the West region, the South region tested a higher percentage of

equids for EIA. Operations in the Central and Northeast regions tested

approximately the same percentage of equids for EIA.

e. Percentage of resident equids tested for EIA during the previous 12 months,

by region:

Percent Resident Equids 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

50.1 (1.4) 35.3 (2.2) 14.7 (1.5) 37.8 (1.6) 37.6 (0.8) 

0

20

40

60

South Northeast West Central

Percent

Region

Percentage of Resident Equids Tested for EIA During the Previous 12

months, by Region

All Operations

50.1

35.3

14.7

37.8 37.6
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Population Estimates

Nearly two-thirds of equids on operations where the primary use of equids was

show/competition (62.2 percent) were tested for EIA during the previous 12

months, while only 20.1 percent of equids on operations with a primary use of

farm/ranch work were tested.

f. Percentage of resident equids tested for EIA during the previous 12 months, by

primary use of equids:

On operations that tested at least one equid for EIA, 59.1 percent of resident

equids were tested for EIA.

g. For operations that tested for EIA, percentage of resident equids tested, by

region:

Percent Resident Equids 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

67.4 (1.3) 60.6 (2.5) 33.4 (2.7) 57.5 (1.8) 59.1 (1.0) 

 Percent Equids 

 Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

36.6 (1.3) 55.7 (6.4) 62.2 (2.4) 40.2 (1.9) 56.3 (6.9) 20.1 (1.4) 72.3 (13.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates

30 / Equine 2005

Overall, the average cost of an EIA test on operations that tested at least one

equid for EIA during the previous 12 months was $27.33 per test. The cost was

higher in the Northeast and West regions than in the South and Central regions.

h. For operations that tested for EIA, average cost per test (including call fee or

cost of transportation), by region:

Average Cost Per Test 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

$24.76 (0.81) $34.01 (1.72) $37.31 (1.91) $27.19 (0.84) $27.33 (0.59) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Dollars

Region

For Operations that Tested for EIA, Average Cost per Test (Including Call Fee

or Cost of Transportation), by Region

South Northeast West Central All Operations

$24.76

$34.01

$37.31

$27.19 $27.33
USDA APHIS VS / 31

Section I: Population Estimates

The average cost of an EIA test was similar across operation sizes.

i. For operations that tested for EIA, average cost per test (including call fee or

cost of transportation), by size of operation:

Average Cost Per Test 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids) 

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error 

$29.13 (0.79) $26.95 (0.77) $25.72 (1.38) 
Section I: Population Estimates

32 / Equine 2005

Operations that tested one or more equids for EIA during the previous 12 months

were asked to identify their reasons for EIA testing and then select the primary

reason for testing. The highest percentage of operations indicated EIA testing for

show or event requirement within the State, interstate movement, and personal

knowledge, followed by change of ownership and facility requirement within the

State. Reasons listed in the “other” category included State or Federal park

requirement, registration requirement, to do trail ride (not part of an event), State

law, transportation purposes with no specification of where, USDA requirement,

and it is the law with no specification of which law. Other responses of preventive

or part of an annual veterinary examination were reclassified into the personal

knowledge category.

j. For operations that tested for EIA, percentage of operations by reason for

testing and by primary reason for testing:

 Percent Operations 

 Reason Primary Reason 

Reason Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Change of 

ownership 

within State 24.0 (1.1) 8.2 (0.7) 

Show or event 

requirement 

within State 56.1 (1.4) 38.0 (1.3) 

Facility (e.g., 

boarding, breeding) 

requirement 

within State 21.7 (1.1) 11.1 (0.8) 

Interstate 

movement 

(between two or 

more States) 38.3 (1.3) 19.2 (1.1) 

International 

movement 2.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.1) 

Personal 

knowledge 33.2 (1.3) 18.8 (1.1) 

Suspicion of 

equine illness 2.5 (0.4) 1.0 (0.3) 

Other 4.4 (0.6) 3.4 (0.5) 

Total N/A 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section I: Population Estimates

0 10 20 30 40

Change of ownership

within State

Show or event

requirement within State

Facility requirement

within State

Interstate

movement

Personal

knowledge

Suspicion of

equine illness

Other

Percent

Primary Reason

For Operations that Tested for EIA, Percentage of Operations by Primary Reason

for Testing

8.2

38.0

11.1

19.2

18.8

1.0

3.4

International

movement

0.3
Section I: Population Estimates

34 / Equine 2005

Change of ownership was more likely to be a primary reason for EIA testing on

operations in the Northeast and Central regions than on operations in the South

region. Show or event requirement within State was less likely to be a primary

reason for EIA testing on operations in the West region than on operations in the

other regions. Interstate movement was more likely to be a primary reason for

EIA testing on operations in the West region than on operations in the other

regions. International movement was an uncommon primary reason for EIA

testing on operations in all regions. Personal knowledge was more likely a

primary reason for EIA testing on operations in the South region than on

operations in the other regions. Suspicion of illness and international movement

were uncommon primary reasons for testing.

k. For operations that tested for EIA, percentage of operations by primary reason

for testing and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

South Northeast West Central 

Primary Reason 

for Testing Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Change of 

ownership within State 5.5 (0.8) 12.4 (2.4) 8.6 (1.9) 11.4 (1.7) 

Show or event 

requirement 

within State 36.5 (1.9) 42.9 (4.0) 22.0 (3.2) 45.7 (2.7) 

Facility (e.g., boarding, 

breeding) requirement 

within State 12.7 (1.2) 9.8 (2.3) 5.6 (1.9) 10.7 (1.6) 

Interstate movement 

(between two or 

more States) 12.2 (1.3) 20.1 (3.3) 56.3 (3.8) 17.3 (2.0) 

International movement 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 1.3 (0.9) 0.3 (0.2) 

Personal knowledge 26.7 (1.8) 13.3 (2.8) 4.9 (1.7) 11.1 (1.8) 

Suspicion of 

equine illness 1.4 (0.5) 0.9 (0.9) 0.4 (0.3) 0.6 (0.5) 

Other 4.9 (0.9) 0.6 (0.3) 0.9 (0.7) 2.9 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section I: Population Estimates

5. Vaccinations

Overall, 75.9 percent of operations had given at least some type of vaccine to

resident equids during the previous 12 months. A higher percentage of

operations in the West region (83.8 percent) had given at least some vaccines to

resident equids compared to operations in the South and Northeast regions (72.3

percent and 72.0 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids

during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

72.3 (1.4) 72.0 (2.6) 83.8 (1.6) 77.4 (1.8) 75.9 (0.9) 

A higher percentage of large operations (87.2 percent) administered at least

some vaccines to resident equids during the previous 12 months compared to

medium and small operations (78.0 percent and 73.6 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids

during the previous 12 months, by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids) 

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

73.6 (1.2) 78.0 (1.5) 87.2 (1.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates

36 / Equine 2005

Operations with a primary function of farm/ranch and residence with equids for

personal use were less likely to have administered any vaccine to resident

equids during the previous 12 months than operations with a primary function of

boarding/training, breeding farm, and “other.”

c. Percentage of operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids

during the previous 12 months, by primary function of operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training Breeding Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for Personal 

Use Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

96.8 (1.4) 89.7 (1.6) 67.8 (1.5) 74.9 (1.5) 91.2 (3.2) 

Overall, a veterinarian was the primary source of vaccines for operations that

administered any vaccine to resident equids during the previous 12 months.

Operations in the Northeast region (82.7 percent) were more likely to obtain

vaccines from a veterinarian than operations in the West or Central regions (71.4

percent and 74.2 percent, respectively) and less likely to obtain vaccines from a

feed store or veterinary supply store (8.9 percent) than operations in the West

region (20.1 percent). “Other” specified sources of vaccines included a friend,

other equine owner, neighbor, and whatever is cheapest.

d. For operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by primary source of vaccines and

by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Primary 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Veterinarian 77.7 (1.5) 82.7 (2.5) 71.4 (2.2) 74.2 (2.1) 76.0 (1.0) 

Feed store or 

veterinary 

supply store 15.1 (1.3) 8.9 (1.9) 20.1 (2.0) 15.4 (1.7) 15.6 (0.9) 

Catalog/ 

Internet 6.4 (0.8) 7.8 (1.7) 5.9 (1.1) 10.1 (1.4) 7.4 (0.6) 

Other 0.8 (0.3) 0.6 (0.6) 2.6 (0.9) 0.3 (0.3) 1.0 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section I: Population Estimates

APHIS photo by Charles Kerlee

For operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids during the

previous 12 months, a higher percentage of small operations (77.9 percent) used

a veterinarian as the primary source of vaccines compared to large operations

(70.5 percent). The percentage of operations that used catalog/Internet as the

primary source of vaccines increased as operation size increased.

e. For operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by primary source of vaccines and

by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Primary Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Veterinarian 77.9 (1.3) 73.2 (1.8) 70.5 (2.0) 

Feed store or 

veterinary supply store 15.2 (1.2) 16.9 (1.5) 14.0 (1.5) 

Catalog/Internet 5.6 (0.7) 9.5 (1.2) 14.3 (1.5) 

Other 1.3 (0.4) 0.4 (0.3) 1.2 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

38 / Equine 2005

The percentage of operations that used catalog/Internet as the primary source of

vaccines ranged from 5.2 percent of farm/ranch operations to 13.4 percent of

breeding farms.

f. For operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by primary source of vaccines and

by primary function of operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for 

Personal 

Use Other 

Primary 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Veterinarian 80.5 (3.1) 68.0 (2.4) 78.1 (1.6) 77.2 (1.7) 71.4 (5.9)

Feed store or 

veterinary 

supply store 11.4 (2.6) 17.5 (2.0) 15.5 (1.4) 15.3 (1.5) 19.0 (5.3)

Catalog/ 

Internet 7.8 (1.9) 13.4 (1.6) 5.2 (0.9) 6.5 (1.0) 9.6 (3.5) 

Other 0.3 (0.3) 1.1 (0.6) 1.2 (0.5) 1.0 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section I: Population Estimates

The percentage of operations that used a veterinarian to administer the majority

of vaccines to resident equids ranged from 69.5 percent in the Northeast region

to 35.1 percent in the West region. In the West region, the operator or equine

owner administered the majority of vaccines to resident equids on 64.5 percent

of operations compared to only 29.5 percent of the operations in the Northeast

region. “Other” specified persons administering vaccines were family member or

veterinary technician.

g. For operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by person who administered the

majority of vaccines and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Person Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Veterinarian 57.4 (1.8) 69.5 (3.0) 35.1 (2.3) 42.9 (2.4) 50.3 (1.2) 

Operation 

personnel 

(including 

operator) 27.1 (1.6) 24.5 (2.8) 46.4 (2.4) 35.9 (2.3) 33.3 (1.1) 

Equid owner 

(not operator) 15.4 (1.4) 5.0 (1.4) 18.1 (1.9) 21.0 (1.9) 16.1 (0.9) 

Other 0.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.7) 0.4 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

40 / Equine 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

Other

Equid owner

Operation personnel

Veterinarian

Percent

Region

Person

For Operations that Administered Any Vaccine to Resident Equids During the

Previous 12 Months, Percentage of Operations by Person Who Administered

the Majority of Vaccines and by Region

57.4

27.1

15.4

0.1

69.5

24.5

5.0

1.0

35.1

46.4

18.1

0.4

42.9

35.9

21.0

0.2

50.3

33.3

16.1

0.3

South Northeast West Central All Operations
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section I: Population Estimates

As operation size increased so did the percentage of operations that used

operation personnel to administer the majority of vaccines. Slightly more than

half of small operations (54.1 percent) used a veterinarian to administer the

majority of vaccines.

h. For operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by person who administered the

majority of vaccines and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Person Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Veterinarian 54.1 (1.6) 44.4 (2.0) 39.2 (2.1) 

Operation personnel 

(including operator) 29.6 (1.5) 39.1 (2.0) 43.4 (2.2) 

Equid owner 

(not operator) 15.8 (1.2) 16.4 (1.5) 17.4 (1.7) 

Other 0.5 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

42 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of boarding/training operations used a veterinarian to

administer the majority of vaccines compared to operations with a primary

function of breeding farm, farm/ranch, or residence with equids for personal use.

A higher percentage of breeding farm and farm/ranch operations used operation

personnel to administer the majority of vaccines compared to boarding/training

and residence-with-equids-for-personal-use operations.

i. For operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by person who administered the

majority of vaccines and by primary function of operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for 

Personal 

Use Other 

Person Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Veterinarian 68.4 (3.6) 42.7 (2.6) 44.3 (2.0) 55.9 (2.0) 49.9 (6.4) 

Operation 

personnel 

(including 

operator) 21.3 (3.2) 38.9 (2.5) 38.5 (1.9) 27.5 (1.8) 40.3 (6.3) 

Equid owner 

(not operator) 9.6 (2.3) 18.4 (2.0) 16.7 (1.4) 16.3 (1.5) 9.8 (3.6) 

Other 0.7 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 0.5 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Operators on over 9 of 10 operations (94.4 percent) knew what type of vaccines

were administered to equids during the previous 12 months.

j. For operations that administered any vaccine to resident equids during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations where the operator knew which

diseases equids were vaccinated against, by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More) All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

94.2 (0.8) 94.3 (0.9) 96.3 (0.8) 94.4 (0.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section I: Population Estimates

The highest percentage of operations vaccinated resident equids against West

Nile virus (WNV), tetanus, eastern and western equine encephalitis (EEE/WEE),

flu, and rhinopneumonitis (herpesvirus). The frequency of use for common

vaccines such as tetanus may be underestimated and the use of vaccines given

less commonly may be overestimated because operations that did not know

which vaccines they gave but did vaccinate were not included in these estimates.

k. Percentage of operations that administered vaccines for the following

diseases to one or more equids during the previous 12 months:

 Percent Operations 

Disease Percent Standard Error 

Flu (influenza) 54.1 (1.0) 

Strangles (Strep equi) 26.8 (0.9) 

Rhinopneumonitis (herpesvirus) 47.5 (1.0) 

Rabies 33.1 (1.0) 

West Nile virus 63.8 (1.0) 

Eastern and western equine 

encephalitis (sleeping sickness) 56.4 (1.0) 

Tetanus 60.7 (1.0) 

Equine viral arteritis (EVA) 11.7 (0.7) 

Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) 17.9 (0.8) 

Clostridium perfringens (C&D) 2.5 (0.3) 

Potomac horse fever (PHF) 10.6 (0.6) 

Rotavirus 4.2 (0.4) 

Anthrax 1.8 (0.3) 

Equine protozoal myelitis (EPM) 3.6 (0.4) 

Other 0.5 (0.1) 
Section I: Population Estimates

44 / Equine 2005

For operations that vaccinated any resident horses during the previous 12

months and knew which vaccines were given, the highest percentage (85.3

percent) had vaccinated all or some types of resident horses against WNV. Over

70 percent of operations had vaccinated some or all resident horses against flu,

WNV, EEE/WEE, and tetanus. Approximately 45 percent of operations had

vaccinated some or all resident horses against rabies, and approximately 36

percent had vaccinated some or all resident horses against strangles. For

operations that vaccinated at least one horse and had horses younger than 1

year of age, a lower percentage had vaccinated some or all of these horses for

most of the listed diseases compared to operations with horses 1 year or more of

age. Some owners may have waited until foals were older before vaccinating

them to avoid interfering with maternally acquired antibodies. Vaccines used

uncommonly included Clostridium perfringens (not a licensed vaccine for use in

horses; the only product on the market is for other livestock such as cattle and

small ruminants), rotavirus, EPM, and anthrax.
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section I: Population Estimates

Percent Operations 

Age Class/Type 

Resident 

Horses Less 

Than 1 Year Broodmares 

Other Resident 

Horses Over 

1 Year 

Any Resident 

Horse 

Disease Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Flu (influenza) 58.2 (2.2) 77.3 (1.4) 72.3 (1.1) 72.5 (1.1) 

Strangles 

(Strep equi) 26.7 (1.9) 35.6 (1.6) 35.7 (1.2) 36.1 (1.2) 

Rhinopneumonitis 

(herpesvirus) 51.2 (2.2) 69.7 (1.6) 61.5 (1.2) 63.7 (1.2) 

Rabies 33.0 (2.1) 41.6 (1.6) 44.6 (1.2) 44.5 (1.2) 

West Nile virus 65.5 (2.1) 83.1 (1.2) 85.6 (0.9) 85.3 (0.8) 

Eastern and 

western equine 

encephalitis 

(sleeping sickness) 59.0 (2.2) 79.2 (1.4) 76.0 (1.1) 75.6 (1.0) 

Tetanus 73.7 (2.0) 83.0 (1.3) 79.6 (1.0) 81.3 (1.0) 

Equine viral arteritis 12.0 (1.4) 16.6 (1.3) 15.7 (0.9) 16.0 (0.9) 

Venezuelan equine 

encephalitis 21.5 (1.8) 26.2 (1.5) 24.8 (1.1) 24.5 (1.1) 

Clostridium 

perfringens (C&D) 3.8 (0.9) 4.0 (0.7) 3.3 (0.5) 3.5 (0.5) 

Potomac 

horse fever 10.6 (1.3) 12.9 (1.1) 14.3 (0.8) 14.5 (0.8) 

Rotavirus 4.1 (0.8) 6.7 (0.9) 5.4 (0.6) 5.8 (0.6) 

Anthrax 2.6 (0.7) 2.5 (0.6) 2.3 (0.4) 2.4 (0.4) 

Equine 

protozoal myelitis 3.4 (0.8) 4.7 (0.7) 4.7 (0.6) 4.9 (0.5) 

Other 0.8 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 

l. For operations that vaccinated and knew which diseases their horses were

vaccinated against during the previous 12 months, and that had resident horses

of the specified age class/type, percentage of operations that vaccinated all or

some resident horses against the following diseases, by age class/type:
Section I: Population Estimates

46 / Equine 2005

For operations that did not give a selected vaccine to equids, the highest

percentage indicated that little risk of disease exposure was the primary reason

for not vaccinating for each of the listed diseases. Not recommended by a

veterinarian and effort and cost outweighed benefit were the next most frequently

listed reasons for not vaccinating. Nearly 10 percent of operations that did not

vaccinate against WNV reported concern of adverse reaction or vaccine

ineffective as the primary reasons for not vaccinating, and 11.0 percent thought it

was important but did not get around to it. The percentage of operations that did

not vaccinate because the vaccine was not recommended by veterinarian was

highest for EVA vaccine and lowest for WNV vaccine.

m. For operations that did not give specific vaccines to resident equids during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by primary reason for not giving

vaccine:

 Percent Operations* 

 Vaccination 

Influenza Strangles 

Rhino. 

(herpesvirus) Rabies WNV 

EEE/ 

WEE Tetanus EVA 

Primary 

Reason For 

Not Vaccinating Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Concern of adverse 

reaction to vaccine 2.7 (0.5) 4.2 (0.5) 2.7 (0.5) 1.7 (0.3) 5.0 (0.7) 2.0 (0.4) 2.2 (0.5) 1.7 (0.3) 

Vaccine considered 

ineffective 2.0 (0.5) 2.7 (0.4) 1.3 (0.3) 1.2 (0.3) 4.4 (0.7) 1.7 (0.4) 1.7 (0.5) 1.2 (0.3) 

Little risk of disease 

exposure 61.3 (1.6) 56.2 (1.3) 59.5 (1.5) 60.8 (1.3) 53.1 (1.8) 60.4 (1.6) 59.3 (1.7) 52.1 (1.1) 

Not 

recommended by 

veterinarian 9.8 (1.0) 16.9 (1.0) 13.1 (1.0) 14.9 (0.9) 4.8 (0.8) 10.0 (1.0) 9.8 (1.1) 23.4 (1.0) 

Financial 

constraints 

on horse 

expenditures 4.8 (0.7) 3.5 (0.5) 4.8 (0.7) 4.1 (0.5) 6.7 (0.9) 4.6 (0.7) 4.6 (0.8) 3.4 (0.4) 

Thought important 

but did not get 

around to it 6.6 (0.8) 4.7 (0.6) 5.7 (0.7) 5.7 (0.6) 11.0 (1.2) 8.0 (0.9) 9.0 (1.0) 4.1 (0.5) 

Effort and cost 

of vaccination 

outweighed 

financial and other 

benefits of 

vaccination 11.8 (1.0) 9.5 (0.7) 11.3 (0.9) 9.7 (0.8) 13.3 (1.2) 11.9 (1.1) 12.0 (1.1) 8.5 (0.6) 

Other 1.0 (0.3) 2.3 (0.4) 1.6 (0.4) 1.9 (0.4) 1.7 (0.5) 1.4 (0.4) 1.4 (0.4) 5.6 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Includes responses from operations that gave no vaccines to their resident equids during the previous 12 months as well as 

operations that gave some vaccine but not vaccines listed in the table. 
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section I: Population Estimates

For operations that gave any vaccines but did not vaccinate for WNV, 10.9

percent listed the primary reason for not vaccinating as concern about adverse

reactions, and 7.3 percent felt the vaccine was considered ineffective; these

percentages were higher than the percentages for any other vaccine listed. In

addition, 9.0 percent of operations listed their primary reason for not giving WNV

vaccine as not recommended by veterinarian; this percentage was lower than the

percentage for any other vaccine listed. Three of 10 operations (31.8 percent)

listed the reason they did not give EVA vaccine as not recommended by

veterinarian; this percentage was higher than the percentage of any other

vaccine listed. Approximately 50 percent of operations indicated that the primary

reason for not giving all vaccines except WNV was little risk of disease

exposure.

n. For operations that gave any vaccines to resident equids during the previous

12 months, percentage of operations by primary reason for not giving specific

vaccines:

 Percent Operations* 

 Vaccination 

Influenza Strangles 

 Rhino. 

(herpesvirus) Rabies WNV 

EEE/ 

WEE Tetanus EVA 

Primary 

Reason For 

Not Vaccinating Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Concern of 

adverse reaction to 

vaccine 3.0 (0.9) 5.3 (0.7) 2.9 (0.7) 1.5 (0.4) 10.9 (1.8) 1.8 (0.7) 2.2 (0.9) 1.5 (0.3) 

Vaccine 

considered 

ineffective 1.3 (0.5) 2.6 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.2) 7.3 (1.7) 0.9 (0.4) 0.8 (0.6) 0.7 (0.2) 

Little risk of 

disease exposure 57.2 (2.3) 51.9 (1.5) 54.9 (2.1) 58.5 (1.6) 39.9 (3.1) 55.7 (2.5) 53.5 (2.9) 46.8 (1.3) 

Not 

recommended by 

veterinarian 18.2 (1.8) 24.0 (1.3) 22.6 (1.8) 22.2 (1.4) 9.0 (1.8) 19.8 (2.0) 22.0 (2.4) 31.8 (1.3) 

Financial 

constraints 

on horse 

expenditures 4.3 (0.9) 2.6 (0.5) 4.1 (0.8) 3.4 (0.6) 8.7 (1.6) 3.6 (0.9) 3.2 (1.0) 2.5 (0.4) 

Thought important 

but did not get 

around to it 4.3 (1.0) 2.8 (0.5) 3.0 (0.7) 3.8 (0.6) 8.3 (1.8) 6.0 (1.2) 6.5 (1.4) 2.7 (0.5) 

Effort and cost 

of vaccination 

outweighed 

financial and other 

benefits of 

vaccination 11.2 (1.5) 8.1 (0.8) 10.2 (1.2) 7.9 (0.9) 13.3 (2.1) 10.5 (1.6) 10.9 (1.8) 7.0 (0.7) 

Other 0.5 (0.3) 2.7 (0.5) 1.8 (0.6) 2.1 (0.5) 2.6 (1.0) 1.7 (0.6) 0.9 (0.5) 7.0 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*For operations that gave any vaccines but not the specified vaccine. 
Section I: Population Estimates

48 / Equine 2005

6. Foal health

Overall, 35.6 percent of operations had one or more foals less than 6 months of

age as part of their resident equids during the previous 12 months. The

percentages of operations with resident foal(s) were similar across regions.

a. Percentage of operations that had any resident foals less than 6 months of

age during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

36.5 (1.4) 34.4 (2.7) 35.4 (2.0) 34.9 (2.0) 35.6 (0.9) 

The percentage of operations that had one or more resident foals during the

previous 12 months increased as size of operation increased. Approximately

three-fourths of large operations (74.1 percent) had one or more resident foals

during the previous 12 months compared to less than one-fourth of small

operations (22.2 percent).

b. Percentage of operations that had any resident foals less than 6 months of

age during the previous 12 months, by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids) 

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

22.2 (1.1) 57.9 (1.8) 74.1 (1.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 49

Section I: Population Estimates

APHIS photo by Charles Kerlee
Section I: Population Estimates

50 / Equine 2005

Approximately 14 percent of operations with foals had one or more foals with

injury/wounds/trauma, which was more than twice as high as any other condition.

Respiratory problems and digestive problems other than colic were the next most

frequent conditions reported. Injury/wounds/trauma affected the highest

percentage of foals, followed by digestive problems other than colic. “Other”

conditions included mare sick and foal sick, did not know, weak, albino,

complication of castration, and hernia. For estimates in the following table,

operators with one or more foals were asked to report the number of resident

foals that developed various conditions during the previous 12 months. It is

possible that operators were more likely to remember and report more serious or

recent conditions and not recall conditions that were self-resolving, caused only

minor illness, or occurred many months prior to the interview. In addition, some

operators may have reported only conditions that resulted in treatment rather

than conditions that did not require treatment, because the question regarding

the number of foals with the listed conditions preceded a question regarding the

number of foals treated with an antibiotic for that condition.
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section I: Population Estimates

Percent 

Operations 

Percent Foals 

Affected 

Condition Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Colic 2.8 (0.5) 4.2 (2.5) 

Other digestive problems 

(e.g., diarrhea) 5.7 (0.7) 6.3 (0.9) 

Respiratory problems (e.g., 

pneumonia, strangles, 

Rhodococcus equi, etc.) 5.2 (0.7) 4.3 (0.6) 

Eye problems 1.4 (0.3) 1.0 (0.2) 

Skin problems 1.2 (0.3) 0.8 (0.3) 

Reproductive tract problems 

(e.g., hermaphrodite, cryptorchid) 0.5 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 

Behavioral problems 

(e.g., unusual behavior 

that affects use or safety) 0.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 

Injury/wounds/trauma 13.9 (1.1) 9.2 (0.8) 

Lameness, leg, or hoof problems 

(could not be used for intended 

purpose without treatment) 3.6 (0.6) 2.6 (0.4) 

Neurologic problems 0.4 (0.2) 5.7 (5.1) 

Infectious disease unrelated to 

specific body system 

(septicemia, blood infection) 1.6 (0.4) 1.0 (0.3) 

Chronic weight loss 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 

Overweight/obese 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 

Failure to get milk or 

colostrum from mare/dam 3.6 (0.6) 2.0 (0.3) 

Complications from 

birthing/dystocia 1.2 (0.2) 1.0 (0.2) 

Fever of undetermined origin 1.2 (0.3) 0.8 (0.2) 

Other 1.3 (0.4) 0.8 (0.2) 

c. For operations that had any resident foals less than 6 months of age during

the previous 12 months, percentage of operations where foals became affected

with the following conditions and percentage of foals affected:
Section I: Population Estimates

52 / Equine 2005

Overall, 1.7 percent of operations with resident foals less than 6 months of age

had one or more foals diagnosed with Rhodococcus equi, ranging from 0.5

percent of operations in the Northeast region to 2.4 percent in the South region;

however, the difference was not statistically significant at the 95-percent

confidence level. The overall percentage of foals diagnosed with Rhodocccus

equi infection was 1.2 percent. A higher percentage of foals in the South region

(1.9 percent) were diagnosed with Rhodocccus equi infection compared to foals

in the Northeast region (0.3 percent). However, it is possible that some operators

had foals with this disease but did not report cases because they did not know

the technical term for the causative agent or because a specific cause of disease

was not pursued.

d. For operations that had any resident foals less than 6 months of age during

the previous 12 months, percentage of operations where any resident foal was

diagnosed with Rhodococcus equi infection and percentage of foals affected, by

region:

Percent 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

operations 2.4 (0.6) 0.5 (0.3) 1.1 (0.5) 1.5 (0.8) 1.7 (0.4) 

Percent foals 1.9 (0.6) 0.3 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.8 (0.4) 1.2 (0.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section I: Population Estimates

The percentage of operations with resident foals that had a foal diagnosed with

Rhodococcus equi infection during the previous 12 months ranged from 1.0

percent of small operations to 3.4 percent of large operations; however, when

taking into account the 95-percent confidence interval these estimates are not

significantly different. The percentages of foals diagnosed with Rhodococcus

equi infection were similar across operation sizes.

e. For operations that had any resident foals less than 6 months of age during

the previous 12 months, percentage of operations where any resident foal was

diagnosed with Rhodococcus equi infection and percentage of foals affected, by

size of operation:

 Percent 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent operations 1.0 (0.5) 1.8 (0.6) 3.4 (0.8) 

Percent foals 1.1 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 1.4 (0.5) 

The estimated case fatality rate for foals diagnosed with Rhodococcus equi was

9.0 percent.

f. For foals diagnosed with Rhodococcus equi infection, percentage of foals that

died (including euthanasia):

Percent Foals Standard Error 

9.0 (4.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates

54 / Equine 2005

Overall, 27.5 percent of operations with resident foals had treated one or more

foals with an antibiotic during the previous 12 months, and 25.7 percent of foals

were treated at least once with an antibiotic during the previous 12 months.

Although it appears that a higher percentage of foals were treated with an

antibiotic in the South and Northeast regions, the estimates were not significantly

different statistically at the 95-percent confidence level from those in the West

and Central regions. It is possible that operators may have reported a treatment

other than an antibiotic, thinking it was an antibiotic when indeed it was a

different type of drug, as the name of the drug(s) given was not requested.

f. For operations that had any resident foals less than 6 months of age,

percentage of operations that treated any foals with an antibiotic at least once

during the previous 12 months and percentage foals treated, by region:

Percent 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

operations 27.1 (2.0) 26.6 (4.2) 28.4 (3.1) 28.1 (3.0) 27.5 (1.4) 

Percent foals 31.1 (4.2) 31.5 (5.6) 19.6 (2.3) 18.4 (2.3) 25.7 (2.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 55

Section I: Population Estimates

A higher percentage of large operations with resident foals (38.3 percent) had

treated at least one foal with an antibiotic during the previous 12 months

compared to small operations with resident foals (21.7 percent). The differences

could be a reflection of large operations having more foals than small operations,

which makes it more likely that large operations would have at least one foal in

need of treatment. The percentages of foals treated on the operation did not vary

by size of operation.

g. For operations that had any resident foals less than 6 months of age,

percentage of operations that treated any foals with an antibiotic at least once

during the previous 12 months and percentage of foals treated, by size of

operation:

 Percent 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent operations 21.7 (2.4) 29.2 (2.2) 38.3 (2.3) 

Percent foals 29.7 (3.9) 22.9 (2.0) 26.2 (4.1) 

Only 4.6 percent of operations with resident foals had treated at least one foal

with an antibiotic to prevent disease, and 7.0 percent of foals were given an

antibiotic to prevent disease during the previous 12 months.

h. For operations that had any resident foals less than 6 months of age,

percentage of operations that treated any foals with an antibiotic to prevent

disease (no condition present) and percentage foals treated:

Percent 

Operations Standard Error 

Percent 

Foals Standard Error 

4.6 (0.6) 7.0 (1.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates

56 / Equine 2005

Overall, 7.2 percent of all foals received an antibiotic for injury/wound/trauma.

The next most common conditions for which foals received antibiotics were

digestive problems other than colic and respiratory problems (4.6 percent and

4.1 percent of foals, respectively). Foals included in these estimates could have

been the same foals treated for different conditions, but not multiple times for the

same condition. “Other” conditions included hernia due to castration, mare sick,

and foal sick.

i. Percentage of all foals that received an antibiotic for the following conditions

during the previous 12 months:

Condition 

Percent 

Foals* 

Standard 

Error 

Colic 1.2 (0.2) 

Other digestive problems (e.g., diarrhea) 4.6 (0.8) 

Respiratory problems (e.g., pneumonia, 

strangles, Rhodococcus equi, etc.) 4.1 (0.6) 

Eye problems 0.7 (0.2) 

Skin problems 0.4 (0.2) 

Reproductive tract problems 

(e.g., hermaphrodite, cryptorchid) 0.2 (0.1) 

Behavioral problems 

(e.g., unusual, affects use or safety) 0.0 (0.0) 

Injury/wounds/trauma 7.2 (0.6) 

Lameness, leg, or hoof problems (could not be 

used for intended purpose without treatment) 1.6 (0.3) 

Neurologic problems 0.1 (0.0) 

Infectious disease unrelated to specific 

body system (septicemia, blood infection) 0.9 (0.3) 

Chronic weight loss 0.0 (0.0) 

Overweight/obese 0.0 (--) 

Failure to get milk or colostrum from mare/dam 1.5 (0.3) 

Complications from birthing/dystocia 0.6 (0.2) 

Fever of undetermined origin 0.7 (0.2) 

Other 0.5 (0.2) 

*(Foals receiving an antibiotic for condition) x 100/foal inventory 
USDA APHIS VS / 57

Section I: Population Estimates

0

2

4

6

8

10

Digestive

problems

other than

colic

Injury,

wounds,

or trauma

Respiratory

problems

Prevent disease

(no condition)

7.2

4.6

4.1

7.0

Condition

Percent

Percentage of All Foals that Received an Antibiotic for the Following

Conditions During the Previous 12 Months*

*From tables 6.h and 6.i
Section I: Population Estimates

58 / Equine 2005

7. Equid health

The highest percentage of operations had at least one resident equid with a

wound/injury/trauma, followed by lameness, colic, and respiratory problems.

Over 5 percent of operations had at least one equid with an eye, dental, or skin

condition. Wounds/injury/trauma occurred in 4.7 percent of resident equids 6

months of age or older, followed by lameness (2.8 percent of resident equids).

Colic and respiratory problems each affected 1.9 percent of resident equids 6

months of age or older. It is possible that operators were more likely to

remember and report more serious or recent conditions and less likely to recall

conditions that were self-resolving, caused only minor illness, or occurred many

months prior to the interview. In addition, some operators may have reported only

conditions that resulted in treatment rather than conditions that did not require

treatment, because the question regarding the number of equids with the listed

conditions preceded a question regarding the number of equids treated with an

antibiotic for that condition.
USDA APHIS VS / 59

Section I: Population Estimates

a. For operations that had any resident equids 6 months of age or older during

the previous 12 months, percentage of operations where equids became

affected with the following conditions and percentage of equids affected:

Percent 

Operations 

Percent Equids 

Affected 

Condition Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Colic 10.4 (0.6) 1.9 (0.1) 

Other digestive problems 

(e.g., diarrhea) 2.4 (0.3) 0.5 (0.1) 

Dental problems 5.3 (0.5) 1.6 (0.2) 

Respiratory problems 9.1 (0.6) 1.9 (0.1) 

Eye problems 6.5 (0.5) 1.0 (0.1) 

Skin problems 5.4 (0.5) 1.1 (0.1) 

Reproductive problems 

(e.g., infertility, dystocia) 3.3 (0.4) 0.6 (0.1) 

Behavioral problems 

(e.g., unusual, affects 

use or safety) 1.0 (0.2) 0.2 (0.0) 

Injury/wounds/trauma 25.7 (0.9) 4.7 (0.2) 

Lameness, leg, or hoof 

problems (could not be 

used for intended purpose 

without treatment) 15.5 (0.8) 2.8 (0.2) 

Neurologic problems (e.g., 

spinal problem, wobblers, 

seizure, WNV, EPM) 0.9 (0.2) 0.2 (0.0) 

Infectious disease 

unrelated to specific 

body system (septicemia, 

blood infections) 1.6 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 

Chronic weight loss 1.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.0) 

Overweight/obese 3.4 (0.4) 0.9 (0.1) 

Liver or kidney disease 0.5 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 

Cancer 1.1 (0.2) 0.1 (0.0) 

Other 1.8 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 
Section I: Population Estimates

60 / Equine 2005

Overall, 39.9 percent of operations had treated at least one resident equid 6

months of age or older with an antibiotic during the previous 12 months, and 10.1

percent of equids were treated with an antibiotic during the previous 12 months.

The percentages of operations that had treated at least one resident equid were

similar across regions, as were the percentages of equids treated. Equids

included in these estimates could have been the same animals treated for

different conditions, but not for recurrence of the same condition. It is possible

that operators may have reported a treatment other than an antibiotic, thinking it

was an antibiotic when indeed it was a different type of drug, as the name of the

drug(s) given was not requested.

b. For operations that had any resident equids 6 months of age or older,

percentage of operations that treated any resident equid with an antibiotic at

least once during the previous 12 months and percentage of equids treated, by

region:

Percent 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

operations 38.6 (1.6) 46.0 (2.9) 40.7 (2.1) 38.3 (2.1) 39.9 (1.0) 

Percent 

equids 10.7 (0.6) 10.6 (0.8) 9.5 (0.7) 9.4 (0.7) 10.1 (0.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section I: Population Estimates

The percentage of operations that treated at least one resident equid with an

antibiotic during the previous 12 months increased as operation size increased.

As size of operation increased so did the number of equids at risk for illness or

injury, making the need for treatment on large operations more likely. The

percentages of resident equids treated were similar across operation sizes.

c. For operations that had any resident equids 6 months of age or older,

percentage of operations that treated any resident equid with an antibiotic at

least once during the previous 12 months and percentage of equids treated, by

size of operation:

 Percent 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

operations 33.0 (1.3) 50.7 (1.8) 61.8 (2.0) 

Percent equids 11.0 (0.6) 9.4 (0.5) 9.7 (0.8) 

Overall, 2.1 percent of operations treated one or more resident equids 6 months

of age or older with an antibiotic during the previous 12 months to prevent

disease, and 1.1 percent of equids were treated with an antibiotic in the previous

12 months to prevent disease. Some operations that reported preventive use of

antibiotics indicated treatment was given perioperatively, such as for castration.

d. For operations that had any resident equids 6 months of age or older,

percentage of operations that treated any resident equid with an antibiotic to

prevent disease (no condition present) during the previous 12 months and

percentage equids treated:

Percent 

Operations Standard Error 

Percent 

Equids Standard Error 

2.1 (0.3) 1.1 (0.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates

62 / Equine 2005

Overall, 3.9 percent of resident equids 6 months of age or older received an

antibiotic for injury/wounds/trauma during the previous 12 months. The next most

common conditions for which an antibiotic was given to resident equids 6 months

of age or older were respiratory problems and lameness. The same equid could

have been included in this estimate more than once if the antibiotic was given for

a single event that resulted in the condition, such as a wound that also resulted

in lameness. However, treatment of the same equid for recurrence of the same

condition was to have been reported only once. The route of administration of the

antibiotic was not requested, so in some instances the antibiotic could have been

applied topically, such as for eye or wound problems.

e. For operations that had any resident equids 6 months of age or older,

percentage of equids that received an antibiotic for the following conditions:

Condition 

Percent 

Equids* 

Standard 

Error 

Colic 0.8 (0.1) 

Other digestive problems (e.g., diarrhea) 0.2 (0.0) 

Dental problems 0.3 (0.1) 

Respiratory problems 1.6 (0.1) 

Eye problems 0.7 (0.1) 

Skin problems 0.4 (0.1) 

Reproductive tract problems 

(e.g., infertility, dystocia) 0.5 (0.1) 

Behavioral problems 

(e.g., unusual, affects use or safety) 0.1 (0.0) 

Injury/wounds/trauma 3.9 (0.2) 

Lameness, leg, or hoof problems (could not be 

used for intended purpose without treatment) 1.4 (0.1) 

Neurologic problems (e.g., spinal problem, 

wobblers, seizure, WNV, EPM) 0.1 (0.0) 

Infectious disease unrelated to specific body 

system (septicemia, blood infections) 0.3 (0.1) 

Chronic weight loss 0.1 (0.0) 

Overweight/obese 0.1 (0.0) 

Liver or kidney disease 0.0 (0.0) 

Cancer 0.1 (0.0) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 

*(Resident equids over 6 months of age receiving an antibiotic for condition) x 100/inventory for 

resident equid over 6 months of age 
USDA APHIS VS / 63

Section I: Population Estimates

8. Births

Overall, 33.6 percent of operations had an equine birth on the operation during

the previous 12 months. The percentages of operations with at least one equine

birth were similar across regions.

a. Percentage of operations that had any equine births on the operation during

the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

34.5 (1.4) 30.1 (2.6) 33.9 (2.0) 33.7 (1.9) 33.6 (0.9) 

The percentage of operations that had at least one equine birth increased as

operation size increased; 72.7 percent of large operations had at least one

equine birth during the previous 12 months compared to 20.4 percent of small

operations.

b. Percentage of operations that had any equine births on the operation during

the previous 12 months, by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids) 

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

20.4 (1.1) 55.8 (1.8) 72.7 (1.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates

64 / Equine 2005

Overall, 93.5 percent of foals were born alive and 6.5 percent were born dead or

were aborted during the previous 12 months.

c. Percentage of foals by birth outcome during the previous 12 months:

Birth Outcome Percent Foals Standard Error 

Born alive 93.5 (0.5) 

Born dead or aborted 6.5 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 

9. Foal deaths

Overall, 4.9 percent of foals born alive died in the first 30 days. The percentage

of foals that died in the first 2 days and the percentage that died in the

subsequent 28 days (age 3 to 30 days) were similar (2.6 percent and 2.3

percent, respectively); thus the likelihood of a foal dying based on days at risk

was higher in the early neonatal period, i.e., birth to 2 days of age. The mortality

rates in foals less than or equal to 30 days of age were similar across regions.

a. For foals born alive, percentage of foals that died in the first 30 days of life

(including born on or moved onto the operation) during the previous 12 months,

by age at death (in days) and by region:

Percent Foals 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Age at 

Death (Days) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

2 or less 2.5 (0.4) 2.5 (0.8) 1.7 (0.4) 3.8 (0.8) 2.6 (0.3) 

3 to 30 2.3 (0.4) 3.3 (1.1) 2.4 (0.6) 1.6 (0.5) 2.3 (0.3) 

Total 4.8 (0.6) 5.8 (1.3) 4.1 (0.8) 5.4 (1.0) 4.9 (0.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 65

Section I: Population Estimates

For foals that were born alive but died in the first 30 days, 18.6 percent died due

to injury/wounds/trauma (not related to birth), 17.9 percent died from unknown

causes, and 14.9 percent died because they failed to get colostrum or milk from

the mare. Dystocia, trauma, or complications at birth; birth defects; and other

digestive problems were also frequently reported causes of death. “Other”

causes of death included predator attacks and adverse environmental

conditions.

b. For foals born alive, percentage of foals that died during the first 30 days, by

cause of death:

Cause of Death 

Percent Foal 

Deaths 

Standard 

Error 

Colic 1.5 (1.2) 

Other digestive 

problems (e.g., diarrhea) 6.4 (1.9) 

Respiratory problems 

(e.g., pneumonia, strangles, 

Rhodococcus equi, etc.) 3.6 (1.3) 

Neurologic problems (e.g., spinal 

problem, wobblers, seizure, EPM, 

WNV, sleeping sickness, 

maladjustment syndrome) 0.5 (0.4) 

Dystocia, trauma, 

or complications at birth 10.7 (2.6) 

Birth defects 8.9 (2.1) 

Injury/wounds/trauma 

unrelated to birth 18.6 (3.3) 

Infectious disease unrelated to 

specific body system, blood 

infection (septicemia) 3.3 (1.7) 

Failed to get colostrum 

or milk from mare 14.9 (3.5) 

Other 13.7 (3.0) 

Unknown 17.9 (3.1) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

66 / Equine 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent

Cause of Death

For Foals Born Alive, Percentage of Foals that Died During the First 30 Days,

by Cause of Death

Digestive

problems

other than

colic

Dystocia,

trauma, or

complications

at birth

Birth

defects

Injury,

wounds,

or trauma

unrelated

to birth

Failed to

get colostrum

or milk from

mare

All other

causes

6.4

10.7

8.9

18.6

14.9

17.9

22.6

Unknown
USDA APHIS VS / 67

Section I: Population Estimates

10. Equid deaths

Total deaths ranged from 2.8 percent in the Northeast region to 1.6 percent in the

South region during the previous 12 months. The overall mortality rate for

resident equids more than 30 days of age was 1.8 percent. The mortality rates

for equids more than 30 days of age to less than 20 years of age were similar. As

expected, the highest mortality rates among resident equids more than 30 days

of age occurred in equids 30 years or older followed by equids 20 to less than 30

years of age.

a. Percentage of resident equids more than 30 days of age that died or were

euthanized during the previous 12 months, by age and by region:

Percent Resident Equids*

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Age Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

More than 30 

days but less 

than 6 months 1.1 (0.3) 1.0 (0.6) 1.9 (0.6) 0.8 (0.3) 1.2 (0.2) 

6 months to 

less than 

5 years 0.8 (0.1) 2.3 (0.6) 1.0 (0.2) 1.2 (0.3) 1.1 (0.1) 

5 years to less 

than 20 years 1.1 (0.2) 1.7 (0.3) 0.9 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 1.2 (0.1) 

20 years to 

less than 

30 years 6.8 (1.2) 6.9 (1.7) 5.6 (1.0) 7.7 (1.5) 6.7 (0.7) 

30 years 

or older 38.0 (9.5) 73.8 (23.2) 58.0 (15.4) 25.3 (9.9) 45.7 (6.7) 

Total deaths of 

equids more 

than 30 days 

of age 1.6 (0.1) 2.8 (0.3) 1.8 (0.2) 1.8 (0.2) 1.8 (0.1) 

*(Number of resident equids that died or were euthanized) x 100/age class of resident equine 

inventory 
Section I: Population Estimates

68 / Equine 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

1.2 1.1 1.2

6.7

45.7

1.8

More than 30

days but less

than 6 months

6 months

to less than

5 years

5 years to

less than

20 years

20 years to

less than

30 years

30 years

or older

Percent

Age

Percentage of Resident Equids More Than 30 Days of Age That Died or Were

Euthanized During the Previous 12 Months, by Age

For equids more than 30 days to less than 6 months of age, the leading causes

of death were injury/wounds/trauma and unknown causes. “Other” causes of

death for equids more than 30 days to less than 6 months of age included insect

bite and predation. As expected, old age was the leading cause of death in

equids 6 months of age or older. The next two leading causes of death were

injury/wounds/trauma and colic. Other causes of death for equids 6 months of

age or older included heart attack, snake bite, stroke, ruptured vessel, endocrine

disease, heat stroke, and pigeon fever. These are owner-reported causes of

death and may or may not have been confirmed by a veterinarian.
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Section I: Population Estimates

b. Percentage of equid deaths (including euthanasia) by cause of death and by

age:

Percent Equid Deaths 

Age 

More than 30 

Days to Less 

Than 6 Months 

6 Months 

or Older All 

Cause of Death Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

Colic 3.4 (2.0) 15.2 (1.8) 14.6 (1.7) 

Other digestive 

problems 

(e.g., diarrhea) 8.3 (4.3) 3.0 (0.9) 3.3 (0.9) 

Strangles 1.9 (1.9) 0.7 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) 

Other 

respiratory problems 5.4 (3.1) 2.0 (0.6) 2.2 (0.5) 

Neurologic problems 

(e.g., spinal problem, 

wobblers, seizure, 

WNV, EPM) 0.0 (--) 3.3 (0.8) 3.2 (0.7) 

Dystocia or birthing 

complications 0.0 (--) 2.3 (0.6) 2.2 (0.6) 

Reproductive problems 

other than dystocia 1.6 (1.6) 0.9 (0.4) 0.9 (0.4) 

Injury/wounds/ 

trauma 23.9 (7.9) 16.0 (1.7) 16.3 (1.6) 

Lameness, leg, or hoof 

problems (animal 

could not be used for 

intended purpose 

without treatment) 8.5 (3.5) 7.7 (1.3) 7.7 (1.2) 

Old age N/A N/A 30.4 (2.4) 28.9 (2.3) 

Cancer 0.0 (--) 2.7 (0.7) 2.6 (0.7) 

Liver or kidney disease 1.1 (1.1) 1.9 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) 

Fire, lightning strike, 

flood, or other storm 7.9 (6.2) 2.1 (0.9) 2.4 (1.0) 

Poisoning/toxicity 

(suspected or 

confirmed) 0.0 (--) 0.3 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 

Other 14.6 (6.5) 5.8 (1.1) 6.2 (1.1) 

Unknown 23.4 (8.1) 5.7 (1.0) 6.6 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

70 / Equine 2005

All other/unknown

Old age

Lameness, leg, or hoof

problems

Injury/wounds/trauma

Colic

14.6%

16.3%

7.7%

28.9%

32.5%

 Cause of Death

Percentage of Equid Deaths (Including Euthanasia) for Equids Aged More than

30 Days, by Cause of Death

11. Nonambulatory equids

Overall, 5.2 percent of operations had one or more resident equids become

nonambulatory during the previous 12 months. The percentages of operations

where any resident equid became nonambulatory were similar across regions.

a. Percentage of operations where any resident equid became nonambulatory*

during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

4.9 (0.6) 8.3 (1.6) 4.2 (0.7) 5.2 (0.9) 5.2 (0.4) 

*Unable to stand or rise on its own, i.e., without assistance, for any length of time, or can stand but 

not walk. 
USDA APHIS VS / 71

Section I: Population Estimates

The percentage of operations where one or more resident equids became

nonambulatory during the previous 12 months increased as operation size

increased. Higher numbers of resident equids on large operations provide more

opportunities for the occurrence of health events that result in nonambulatory

equids.

b. Percentage of operations where any resident equids became nonambulatory*

during the previous 12 months, by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids) 

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More) 

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

3.8 (0.5) 7.2 (0.9) 10.5 (1.2) 

*Unable to stand or rise on its own, i.e., without assistance, for any length of time, or can stand but 

not walk. 

Overall, 0.6 percent of all resident equids became nonambulatory during the

previous 12 months, while 0.2 percent of donkeys or burros and miniature horses

became nonambulatory.

c. Percentage of resident equids that became nonambulatory* during the

previous 12 months, by type of equid:

Percent Resident Equids 

All Operations 

Type of Equid Percent Standard Error 

Donkeys or burros 0.2 (0.1) 

Mules 0.6 (0.3) 

Ponies 0.5 (0.2) 

Miniature horses 0.2 (0.2) 

Horses (excluding 

miniature horses) 0.6 (0.1) 

All equids 0.6 (0.1) 

*Unable to stand or rise on its own, i.e., without assistance, for any length of time, or can stand but 

not walk. 
Section I: Population Estimates

72 / Equine 2005

Similar percentages of equids from birth to less than 20 years of age became

nonambulatory during the previous 12 months. The highest percentage of equids

that became nonambulatory during the previous 12 months (10.4 percent) were

30 years of age or older.

d. Percentage of resident equids that became nonambulatory* during the

previous 12 months, by age:

Age 

Percent 

Resident Equids Standard Error 

Birth to 30 days 0.2 (0.1) 

More than 30 days but 

less than 6 months 0.3 (0.1) 

6 months to less than 5 years 0.4 (0.1) 

5 years to less than 20 years 0.5 (0.1) 

20 years to less than 30 years 1.8 (0.3) 

30 years or older 10.4 (2.9) 

*Unable to stand or rise on its own, i.e., without assistance, for any length of time, or can stand but 

not walk. 
USDA APHIS VS / 73

Section I: Population Estimates

For resident equids 6 months of age or more, the highest percentages became

nonambulatory due to lameness or injury/wounds/trauma, which combined

accounted for 52.1 percent of nonambulatory equids in this age category. Old

age was the most common other cause of nonambulatory resident equids 6

months of age or older. Heart problem, toxicity/poisoning, and heat stroke were

also included in the “other” category. Note: standard errors in the following

table are large due to the infrequent occurrence of nonambulatory equids

and the relatively large number of categories.

e. For resident equids that became nonambulatory* during the previous 12

months, percentage of equids by primary cause of nonambulatory condition and

by age:

 Percent Resident Equids 

 Age 

Birth to 

30 Days 

More Than 30 

Days to Less 

Than 6 Months 

6 Months 

or More 

Cause Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Colic or other 

digestive problems 

(e.g., diarrhea) 0.0 (--) 21.6 (12.7) 5.8 (1.8) 

Respiratory 

problems 0.0 (--) 17.5 (11.7) 1.7 (0.9) 

Reproductive 

problems (e.g., 

dystocia or 

birthing problems) 27.7 (15.8) 5.1 (5.1) 2.7 (1.2) 

Injury/wounds/ 

trauma 42.8 (17.9) 32.0 (16.8) 21.5 (3.3) 

Lameness, leg, or 

hoof problems 

(animal could not be 

used for intended 

purpose without 

treatment) 6.8 (6.3) 3.7 (3.6) 30.6 (3.9) 

Neurologic problems 

(e.g., spinal 

problem, wobblers, 

seizure, EPM, WNV, 

sleeping sickness) 12.1 (8.3) 20.1 (17.0) 4.6 (1.5) 

Other 5.8 (5.9) 0.0 (--) 25.6 (3.7) 

Unknown 4.8 (4.9) 0.0 (--) 7.5 (2.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Unable to stand or rise on its own, i.e., without assistance, for any length of time, or can stand but 

not walk. 
Section I: Population Estimates

74 / Equine 2005

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Colic or

other digestive

problems

Respiratory

problems

Reproductive

problems

Injury/wounds/

trauma

*Lameness,

leg, or hoof

problems

Neurologic

problems

Other

Unknown

Cause

Percent

For Resident Equids 6 Months of Age or More that Became Nonambulatory

During the Previous 12 Months, Percentage of Equids by Primary Cause of

Nonambulatory Condition

5.8

1.7

2.7

21.5

30.6

4.6

25.6

7.5

*Animal could not be used for

 intended purpose without treatment.
USDA APHIS VS / 75

Section I: Population Estimates

On nearly half of operations where any resident equids became nonambulatory

(47.3 percent), the cause of the nonambulatory condition was diagnosed by a

veterinary examination after the animal became nonambulatory. Nearly one in

five operations (19.0 percent) did not perform any diagnostics on at least one

nonambulatory equid. The majority of the “other” category was owner-diagnosed.

f. For operations where any resident equids became nonambulatory* during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by methods used to diagnose the

nonambulatory condition:

Method Percent Operations Standard Error 

Veterinary exam before 

animal became nonambulatory 23.6 (3.5) 

Veterinary exam after animal 

became nonambulatory 47.3 (4.2) 

Postmortem veterinary exam 

(necropsy or autopsy) 2.0 (0.8) 

Other 17.3 (3.2) 

No diagnostics 19.0 (3.3) 

*Unable to stand or rise on its own, i.e., without assistance, for any length of time, or can stand but 

not walk. 
Section I: Population Estimates

76 / Equine 2005

Nearly one in five nonambulatory equids (17.6 percent) recovered to full function

and remained on the operation, while 7.4 percent recovered partially and

remained on the operation. Nearly three of four nonambulatory equids (71.6

percent) died or were euthanized, 24.7 percent died (not euthanized), and 46.9

percent were euthanized.

g. For resident equids that became nonambulatory* during the previous 12

months, percentage of nonambulatory equids by outcome:

Outcome Percent Equids Standard Error 

Died (not euthanized) 24.7 (3.6) 

Euthanized 46.9 (4.2) 

Recovered to full function 

and remained on operation 17.6 (3.4) 

Recovered to full function 

and sold or moved off operation 1.4 (0.9) 

Recovered to partial function 

and remained on operation 7.4 (2.5) 

Recovered to partial function 

and sold or moved off operation 0.1 (0.1) 

Moved off operation 

while nonambulatory 0.0 (--) 

Other 1.9 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 

*Unable to stand or rise on its own, i.e., without assistance, for any length of time, or can stand but 

not walk. 
USDA APHIS VS / 77

Section I: Population Estimates

C. Biosecurity 1. Nonresident equids

Overall, 19.0 percent of operations had nonresident equids that stayed on the

operation for fewer than 30 consecutive days. A total of 16.5 percent of

operations in the South region and 24.3 percent in the Northeast region had

nonresident equids. A higher percentage of operations in the Northeast region

(8.2 percent) had 10 or more nonresident equids than operations in the South or

West regions (3.2 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations by number of nonresident equids that stayed on the

operation for fewer than 30 consecutive days during the previous 12 months, and

by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Number 

Nonresident 

Equids Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 83.5 (1.1) 75.7 (2.4) 78.4 (1.7) 81.5 (1.5) 81.0 (0.8) 

1 to 9 13.3 (1.1) 16.1 (2.1) 17.7 (1.7) 14.0 (1.4) 14.7 (0.7) 

10 or more 3.2 (0.5) 8.2 (1.6) 3.9 (0.7) 4.5 (0.8) 4.3 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

78 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of large operations had nonresident equids compared to

small operations. As size of operation increased the percentage of operations

with 10 or more nonresident equids increased.

b. Percentage of operations by number of nonresident equids that stayed for

fewer than 30 consecutive days during the previous 12 months, and by size of

operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Number 

Nonresident Equids Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 86.3 (0.9) 73.2 (1.6) 61.6 (2.0) 

1 to 9 11.5 (0.9) 20.1 (1.4) 24.0 (1.7) 

10 or more 2.2 (0.4) 6.7 (0.9) 14.4 (1.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 79

Section I: Population Estimates

A lower percentage of operations with a primary function of farm/ranch and

residence with equids for personal use had nonresident equids that stayed for

less than 30 days than operations with a primary function of boarding/training,

breeding farm, and “other.” Operations with a primary function of boarding/

training had the highest percentage of operations with 10 or more nonresident

equids during the previous 12 months. Some operations that reported no

nonresident equids during the previous 12 months may have had nonresident

equids that stayed 30 days or more and therefore are not included in these

estimates.

c. Percentage of operations by number of nonresident equids that stayed for

fewer than 30 consecutive days during the previous 12 months, and by primary

function of the operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for Personal 

Use Other 

Number 

Nonresident 

Equids Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

0 60.2 (3.7) 72.0 (2.2) 83.1 (1.2) 86.3 (1.2) 68.0 (5.6)

1 to 9 28.4 (3.4) 23.3 (2.1) 12.1 (1.0) 11.6 (1.1) 22.5 (5.2)

10 or 

more 11.4 (2.1) 4.7 (0.9) 4.8 (0.7) 2.1 (0.5) 9.5 (2.8)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

80 / Equine 2005

The most common health requirements for nonresident equids were EIA test,

vaccination, and deworming within the past year. Overall, 24.8 percent of

operations with nonresident equids during the previous 12 months required a

Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) (also known as an official health

certificate), and 18.4 percent required a veterinary examination other than an

official health certificate (CVI). Quarantine prior to contact with resident equids

and screening test for strangles or history of no occurrence in the previous 6

months were not often required. “Other” health requirements included personal

inspection of nonresident equids by the operator, breeding history and/or uterine

culture, knowledge of the horse by the operator, signed release, and requirement

to pay bills. Operations could have had more than one type of health requirement

for nonresident equids and the choices were not mutually exclusive.

d. For operations with nonresident equids that stayed for fewer than 30

consecutive days during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by

frequency that the following health requirements were implemented for the

majority of nonresident equids:

 Percent Operations 

 Frequency 

 Always Sometimes Never 

Health Requirement Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Official health 

certificate (CVI) 18.0 (1.6) 6.8 (1.1) 75.2 (1.9) 100.0 

Veterinary examination 

other than CVI 12.8 (1.5) 5.6 (1.0) 81.6 (1.7) 100.0 

Coggins test (EIA test, 

swamp fever test) 42.1 (2.1) 3.2 (0.7) 54.7 (2.2) 100.0 

Vaccination 

within past year 32.2 (2.0) 4.1 (0.8) 63.7 (2.1) 100.0 

Deworming within past year 29.9 (2.0) 3.7 (0.7) 66.4 (2.1) 100.0 

Screening test for strangles 

or history of no occurrence 

in past 6 months 7.1 (1.1) 2.6 (0.6) 90.3 (1.2) 100.0 

Other past medical 

history from owner 15.6 (1.5) 6.2 (1.0) 78.2 (1.7) 100.0 

Quarantine prior to contact 

with resident equids 12.6 (1.4) 4.6 (0.8) 82.8 (1.5) 100.0 

Other 2.6 (0.7) 1.2 (0.5) 96.2 (0.8) 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 81

Section I: Population Estimates

2. Additions

Overall, 21.5 percent of operations added new resident equids during the

previous 12 months. A higher percentage of operations in the Northeast region

(30.1 percent) added new resident equids than operations in the South and West

regions (18.0 percent and 21.7 percent, respectively). Overall, 6.3 percent of

resident equids (as a percentage of total resident inventory on July 1, 2005) were

newly added during the previous 12 months. The percentage of new resident

equids added to the operation during the previous 12 months was higher in the

Northeast region than in the West region.

a. Percentage of operations that added new resident equids during the previous

12 months and percentage of equids added, including foals not born to a

resident mare (excluding births), by region:

Percent 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

operations 18.0 (1.2) 30.1 (2.6) 21.7 (1.7) 23.0 (1.7) 21.5 (0.8) 

Percent 

resident equids* 6.4 (1.1) 8.1 (0.8) 4.7 (0.4) 6.5 (0.6) 6.3 (0.5) 

*Total number of equids added to resident equine population x 100/total resident equine inventory. 
Section I: Population Estimates

82 / Equine 2005

The percentage of operations that added resident equids increased as the size

of operation increased. Only 16.0 percent of small operations added any resident

equids during the previous 12 months compared to 38.2 percent of large

operations. The percentage of the resident equine population represented by

newly added equids was higher for large operations than for small operations.

b. Percentage of operations that added new resident equids during the previous

12 months and percentage of equids added, including foals not born to a

resident mare (excluding births), by size of operation:

 Percent 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent operations 16.0 (1.0) 30.7 (1.6) 38.2 (2.0) 

Percent resident equids* 4.6 (0.4) 6.9 (1.0) 7.6 (1.1) 

* Total number of equids added to resident equine population x 100/total resident equine inventory. 

A higher percentage of operations (and a higher percentage of equids added)

where the primary function was boarding/training and “other” added one or more

resident equids compared to operations with a primary function of breeding farm,

farm/ranch, and residence with equids for personal use. The “other” category

included riding stable, guest ranch, motion picture, party service, sanctuary, and

carriage service operations.

c. Percentage of operations that added any new resident equids during the

previous 12 months and percentage of equids added, including foals not born to

a resident mare (excluding births), by primary function of operation:

Percent 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for Personal 

Use Other 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

operations 42.0 (3.6) 25.8 (2.2) 20.2 (1.3) 16.0 (1.3) 52.5 (6.1) 

Percent 

resident 

equids* 15.5 (3.5) 5.0 (0.5) 4.7 (0.4) 4.1 (0.4) 21.0 (7.3) 

*Total number of equids added to resident equine population x 100/total resident equine inventory. 
USDA APHIS VS / 83

Section I: Population Estimates

Overall, the highest percentage of newly added resident equids (70.7 percent)

were obtained from within State. Only 0.3 percent of operations obtained newly

added resident equids outside North America, and only 0.4 percent of newly

added resident equids originated outside of North America.

d. For operations that added new resident equids during the previous 12 months,

percentage of operations and percentage of new additions, by source location of

added equids:

 Operations Equids 

Source Percent Std. Error Percent* Std. Error 

Within State 81.6 (1.6) 70.7 (3.2) 

Outside State, 

within United States 29.9 (1.9) 25.7 (3.0) 

Canada 1.1 (0.3) 2.2 (1.4) 

Mexico 0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.3) 

Outside North America 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.3) 

Unknown location 1.0 (0.5) 0.5 (0.3) 

Total N/A 100.0 

*Number of equids added to resident equine population from various sources x 100/total new 

additions from all sources. 
Section I: Population Estimates

84 / Equine 2005

Estimates in the following table represent health requirements for newly added

resident equids on operations that added new equids to the resident equine

population during the previous 12 months. Operations could have had more than

one type of health requirement for newly added resident equids, and the choices

were not mutually exclusive. Overall, 34.6 percent of operations that added new

equids during the previous 12 months sometimes or always required an official

health certificate (CVI), and 29.2 percent required a veterinary examination other

than a CVI. The most frequent requirement for new resident equids was a test

for EIA, with 61.8 percent of operations requiring this test for newly added

resident equids. Other common requirements were vaccination and deworming

in the previous 12 months. Approximately 3 of 10 operations (32.0 percent)

sometimes or always required quarantine of new resident equids prior to contact

with resident equids, and 36.3 percent sometimes or always required past

medical history. Only 14.2 percent of operations required a screening test for or

history of no occurrence of strangles in the previous 6 months for new resident

equids. “Other” requirements included know previous owner or know of horse

personally, registration papers, castration, liability release, copy of veterinary

records, or brand inspection. Nearly 7 of 10 operations (65.4 percent) never

required a CVI for new additions, and approximately half of operations never

required deworming or vaccination (51.1 percent and 50.8 percent, respectively).

Seven of 10 operations (68.0 percent) never required quarantine of new

additions, and 63.7 percent of operations never required past medical history.
USDA APHIS VS / 85

Section I: Population Estimates

e. For operations that added new resident equids during the previous 12 months,

percentage of operations by frequency that the following health requirements

were implemented for new additions:

 Percent Operations 

 Frequency 

 Always Sometimes Never 

Health Requirement Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Official health 

certificate (CVI) 27.4 (1.9) 7.2 (1.1) 65.4 (2.0) 100.0 

Veterinary examination 

other than CVI 21.4 (1.8) 7.8 (1.1) 70.8 (1.9) 100.0 

Coggins test (EIA test, 

swamp fever test) 58.6 (2.0) 3.2 (0.7) 38.2 (2.0) 100.0 

Vaccination within 

past year 45.1 (2.1) 4.1 (0.8) 50.8 (2.1) 100.0 

Deworming 

within past year 46.5 (2.1) 2.4 (0.6) 51.1 (2.1) 100.0 

Screening test for 

strangles or history of 

no occurrence in 

past 6 months 9.4 (1.2) 4.8 (0.9) 85.8 (1.4) 100.0 

Other past medical 

history from owner 28.7 (1.9) 7.6 (1.1) 63.7 (2.0) 100.0 

Quarantine prior to contact 

with resident equids 26.7 (1.9) 5.3 (0.9) 68.0 (2.0) 100.0 

Other 3.8 (0.8) 1.2 (0.5) 95.0 (0.9) 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

86 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of operations in the South and Central regions (76.4 percent

and 72.9 percent, respectively) required an EIA test for newly added resident

equids than operations in the Northeast and West regions (51.7 percent and 30.5

percent, respectively). Other than EIA testing, health requirements were similar

across regions. “Other” requirements included knowing previous owner or the

horse personally, registration papers, castration, liability release, copy of

veterinary records, or brand inspection.

f. For operations that added new resident equids during the previous 12 months,

percentage of operations that always or sometimes implemented the following

health requirements for new additions, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Health 

Requirement Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Official health 

certificate 

(CVI) 39.3 (3.5) 24.7 (3.9) 31.7 (4.1) 37.1 (4.0) 34.6 (2.0) 

Veterinary 

examination 

other than CVI 34.0 (3.4) 26.9 (4.3) 25.4 (4.0) 27.0 (3.8) 29.2 (1.9) 

Coggins test 

(EIA test, 

swamp fever 

test) 76.4 (3.1) 51.7 (4.9) 30.5 (4.0) 72.9 (3.7) 61.8 (2.0) 

Vaccination 

within past 

year 50.5 (3.6) 42.3 (4.8) 44.0 (4.5) 56.4 (4.1) 49.2 (2.1) 

Deworming 

within past 

year 50.6 (3.6) 43.5 (4.8) 43.1 (4.5) 54.7 (4.2) 48.9 (2.1) 

Screening test 

for strangles 

or no 

occurrence in 

past 6 months 12.7 (2.2) 17.9 (3.7) 10.9 (2.6) 16.3 (3.2) 14.2 (1.4) 

Other past 

medical 

history from 

owner 40.6 (3.6) 31.4 (4.4) 33.6 (4.3) 36.2 (4.0) 36.3 (2.0) 

Quarantine 

prior to contact 

with resident 

equids 32.0 (3.4) 25.6 (4.2) 31.6 (4.3) 36.7 (4.1) 32.0 (2.0) 

Other 5.4 (1.6) 4.2 (1.8) 8.1 (2.7) 2.7 (1.5) 5.0 (0.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 87

Section I: Population Estimates

A higher percentage of large operations always or sometimes required an official

health certificate (CVI) and an EIA test for newly added equids than did medium

and small operations. The percentages of operations that implemented the other

listed health requirements were similar across operations sizes.

g. For operations that added new resident equids during the previous 12 months,

percentage of operations that always or sometimes implemented the following

health requirements, by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Health Requirement Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Official health 

certificate (CVI) 32.3 (3.2) 30.9 (3.0) 52.4 (3.3) 

Veterinary examination 

other than for official 

health certificate 31.1 (3.2) 24.8 (2.8) 34.2 (3.1) 

Coggins test (EIA test, 

swamp fever test) 57.4 (3.3) 62.6 (3.2) 75.5 (2.8) 

Vaccination within 

past year 49.2 (3.4) 47.1 (3.3) 54.9 (3.3) 

Deworming within 

past year 51.9 (3.4) 43.2 (3.3) 53.1 (3.3) 

Screening test for 

strangles or no 

occurrence in past 6 

months 15.3 (2.4) 11.0 (2.0) 19.4 (2.6) 

Other past medical 

history from owner 35.4 (3.3) 34.2 (3.1) 45.8 (3.3) 

Quarantine prior to 

contact with resident 

equids 32.3 (3.2) 28.8 (3.0) 39.5 (3.1) 

Other 5.0 (1.5) 5.5 (1.5) 3.8 (1.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates

88 / Equine 2005

Compared to operations with a primary function of farm/ranch and residence with

equids for personal use, a higher percentage of boarding/training facilities

required vaccination and/or deworming within the last year. Boarding/training

facilities were also more likely than the farm/ranch operations to require an

official health certificate (CVI), EIA test, and screening test for strangles or no

occurrence in past 6 months. Operations with a primary function of farm/ranch

were least likely to require a quarantine of new resident equids.

h. For operations that added new resident equids during the previous 12 months,

percentage of operations that always or sometimes implemented the following

health requirements for new additions, by primary function of operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with 

Equids for 

Personal 

Use Other 

Health 

Requirement Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Official health 

certificate (CVI) 49.1 (5.3) 42.4 (4.7) 27.2 (3.1) 33.0 (4.1) 37.7 (7.9) 

Veterinary 

examination 

other than CVI 32.9 (4.9) 38.6 (4.7) 25.0 (3.1) 25.9 (3.9) 36.2 (8.3) 

Coggins test 

(EIA test, 

swamp fever 

test) 78.2 (4.9) 62.1 (4.7) 54.9 (3.5) 62.9 (4.2) 68.3 (8.1) 

Vaccination 

within past year 77.2 (4.5) 56.1 (4.8) 35.3 (3.4) 48.6 (4.4) 67.1 (7.5) 

Deworming 

within past year 69.9 (5.0) 54.1 (4.8) 35.9 (3.4) 50.5 (4.4) 68.5 (7.4) 

Screening test 

for strangles or 

no occurrence 

in past 6 

months 21.1 (4.2) 19.4 (3.7) 8.3 (2.0) 13.8 (2.9) 25.7 (7.6) 

Other past 

medical history 

from owner 56.1 (5.3) 46.7 (4.8) 24.2 (3.0) 35.3 (4.2) 51.1 (8.4) 

Quarantine 

prior to contact 

with resident 

equids 40.8 (5.3) 36.5 (4.5) 22.3 (3.0) 36.1 (4.3) 45.6 (8.4) 

Other 3.1 (1.6) 4.6 (2.2) 5.1 (1.6) 5.2 (2.0) 8.6 (4.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 89

Section I: Population Estimates

A higher percentage of operations with a primary use of equids of show/

competition or racing required an official health certificate (CVI) for new additions

than did operations where the primary use of equids was pleasure and farm/

ranch work. Compared to operations with equids for farm/ranch work, a higher

percentage of operations where the primary use of equids was pleasure, show/

competition, breeding, or racing required an EIA test.

i. For operations that added new resident equids during the previous 12 months,

percentage of operations that always or sometimes implemented the following

health requirements for new additions, by primary use of equids:

 Percent Operations 

 Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Health 

Requirement Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Official health 

certificate (CVI) 32.0 (3.4) 37.1 (10.7) 53.0 (5.5) 42.2 (4.4) 61.9 (14.2) 20.5 (3.6) 21.0 (12.1)

Veterinary 

examination 

other than for 

official health 

certificate 29.8 (3.4) 25.5 (9.6) 35.8 (5.3) 38.2 (4.4) 56.5 (14.5) 17.2 (3.4) 16.9 (12.0)

Coggins test 

(EIA test, 

swamp fever 

test) 66.1 (3.5) 75.7 (10.1) 75.7 (4.9) 64.2 (4.4) 91.8 (6.0) 42.8 (4.3) 53.8 (14.5)

Vaccination 

within past year 54.0 (3.7) 71.3 (11.0) 66.5 (5.3) 47.8 (4.5) 88.3 (7.0) 28.5 (4.1) 48.1 (14.9)

Deworming 

within past year 53.9 (3.7) 60.5 (11.5) 67.1 (5.2) 46.6 (4.5) 88.3 (7.0) 28.5 (4.1) 54.1 (14.4)

Screening test 

for strangles or 

no occurrence 

in past 6 

months 13.9 (2.5) 43.5 (11.4) 17.4 (4.0) 16.1 (3.2) 34.5 (14.3) 6.7 (2.4) 15.1 (12.0)

Other past 

medical history 

from owner 38.9 (3.6) 58.7 (11.5) 50.3 (5.5) 38.1 (4.4) 68.1 (13.1) 18.5 (3.5) 37.9 (14.8)

Quarantine prior 

to contact with 

resident equids 36.4 (3.6) 65.3 (11.2) 35.0 (5.3) 34.0 (4.2) 34.5 (14.3) 19.9 (3.6) 16.2 (11.9)

Other 6.2 (1.8) 7.2 (5.0) 0.9 (0.6) 4.9 (2.2) 15.6 (12.0) 5.5 (2.0) 0.0 (--)
Section I: Population Estimates

90 / Equine 2005

Photo: USDA photo library
USDA APHIS VS / 91

Section I: Population Estimates

3. Visitors

Overall, about one-quarter of equine operations (23.3 percent) required people

(visitor, veterinarian, farrier, etc.) coming onto the equine facility to take at least

some infection-control precautions. The percentage of operations that, in

general, required the various precautions listed in the following table ranged from

30.7 percent of operations in the Northeast region to 18.8 percent of operations

in the South region.

a. Percentage of operations that ever required people (visitor, veterinarian,

farrier, etc.) coming onto the equine facility to take the following infection-control

precautions, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Precaution Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Use separate 

or disinfected 

equipment 9.5 (0.9) 19.0 (2.3) 16.6 (1.6) 16.8 (1.6) 14.0 (0.7) 

Change 

clothes or 

wear clean 

coveralls 3.4 (0.5) 10.9 (1.8) 8.5 (1.2) 8.6 (1.2) 6.7 (0.5) 

Disinfect or 

change boots 4.6 (0.6) 18.7 (2.3) 8.3 (1.2) 13.2 (1.4) 9.2 (0.6) 

Clean and 

disinfect 

hands 11.7 (1.0) 23.9 (2.5) 16.1 (1.6) 18.8 (1.7) 15.9 (0.7) 

Park vehicles 

away from 

animal area 9.7 (0.9) 14.5 (2.0) 11.9 (1.4) 13.5 (1.5) 11.7 (0.7) 

Other 0.2 (0.1) 1.3 (0.7) 1.2 (0.5) 2.6 (0.7) 1.1 (0.2) 

Any of 

the above 18.8 (1.2) 30.7 (2.6) 23.2 (1.8) 27.5 (1.9) 23.3 (0.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates

92 / Equine 2005

14.0

6.7

9.2

15.9

11.7

1.1

23.3

Use separate

or disinfected

equipment

Change

clothes or wear

clean coveralls

0 10 20 30

Disinfect or

change boots

Clean and

disinfect hands

Park vehicles

away from

animal area

Other

Any of

above

Percent

Precaution

Percentage of Operations that Ever Required People (Visitor,

Veterinarian, Farrier, etc.) Coming onto the Equine Facility to Take

the Following Infection-Control Precautions
USDA APHIS VS / 93

Section I: Population Estimates

A higher percentage of large and medium operations (29.6 percent and 26.6

percent, respectively) required people coming onto the equine facility to take

precautions to prevent spread of infectious diseases compared to small

operations (21.2 percent). In general, a higher percentage of large operations

required each of the infection-control precautions than small operations. The

precaution used most commonly by any size operation was clean and disinfect

hands, followed by use separate or disinfected equipment.

b. Percentage of operations that ever required people (visitor, veterinarian,

farrier, etc.) coming onto the equine facility to take the following infection-control

precautions, by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Precaution Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Use separate or 

disinfected equipment 12.9 (0.9) 15.5 (1.3) 17.1 (1.5) 

Change clothes or 

wear clean coveralls 5.9 (0.6) 7.6 (0.9) 8.8 (1.1) 

Disinfect or change boots 8.4 (0.8) 10.8 (1.1) 10.5 (1.2) 

Clean and 

disinfect hands 15.0 (1.0) 16.4 (1.3) 21.6 (1.7) 

Park vehicles away 

from animal area 10.9 (0.9) 12.4 (1.2) 16.2 (1.5) 

Other 0.8 (0.3) 1.9 (0.5) 0.9 (0.4) 

Any of the above 21.2 (1.1) 26.6 (1.6) 29.6 (1.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates

94 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of operations where the primary use of equids was lessons/

school, show/competition, and breeding (42.3, 34.4, and 33.2 percent,

respectively) required infection-control precautions for people coming onto the

equine facility compared to operations where the primary use of equids was

farm/ranch work and pleasure (16.0 and 21.1 percent, respectively).

c. Percentage of operations that ever required people (visitor, veterinarian,

farrier, etc.) coming onto the equine facility to take the following infection-control

precautions, by primary use of equids:

 Percent Operations 

 Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Control Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Use 

separate or 

disinfected 

equipment 12.3 (1.0) 20.7 (6.0) 23.9 (2.8) 20.2 (1.9) 7.7 (3.5) 9.4 (1.2) 7.1 (3.3) 

Change 

clothes or 

wear clean 

coveralls 5.4 (0.7) 15.4 (5.5) 10.6 (2.0) 10.0 (1.4) 0.6 (0.6) 5.3 (0.9) 1.0 (1.0) 

Disinfect or 

change 

boots 8.5 (0.9) 25.7 (6.9) 14.2 (2.3) 10.4 (1.4) 2.9 (2.3) 7.5 (1.1) 3.1 (2.3) 

Clean and 

disinfect 

hands 14.4 (1.1) 28.9 (6.7) 24.6 (2.8) 22.5 (2.0) 20.2 (6.5) 10.2 (1.3) 12.5 (5.0) 

Park 

vehicles 

away from 

animal area 10.9 (1.0) 29.2 (6.6) 19.7 (2.7) 16.3 (1.8) 12.5 (5.7) 6.3 (1.0) 9.4 (5.7) 

Other 1.2 (0.3) 1.3 (1.2) 1.4 (0.8) 2.0 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 

Any of the 

above 21.1 (1.3) 42.3 (7.5) 34.4 (3.1) 33.2 (2.3) 21.9 (6.6) 16.0 (1.5) 18.3 (6.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 95

Section I: Population Estimates

0 10 20 30 40

12.3

8.5

14.4

10.9

20.7

25.7

28.9

29.2

23.9

14.2

24.6

19.7

20.2

10.4

22.5

16.3

7.7

2.9

20.2

12.5

9.4

7.5

10.2

6.3

Precaution

Separate equipment

Disinfect boots

Clean hands

Park vehicles away

Primary Use

Pleasure

Lessons/

school

Show/

competition

Breeding

Racing

Farm/

ranch work

Percentage of Operations that Ever Required People Coming Onto the Equine

Facility to Take the Following Infection-Control Precautions, by Primary

Use of Equids

Percent
Section I: Population Estimates

96 / Equine 2005

4. Isolation for infection control

A higher percentage of large operations (75.8 percent) separated animals for

isolation or infection control compared to medium and small operations (68.0

percent and 62.6 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations that separated animals for isolation or infection

control, by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operations (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More) All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

62.6 (1.3) 68.0 (1.7) 75.8 (1.7) 65.1 (1.0) 

More than three of four operations where the primary use of equids was breeding

and lessons/school separated animals for isolation or infection control.

b. Percentage of operations that separated animals for isolation or infection

control, by primary use of equids:

Percent Operations 

Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

59.4 (1.6) 78.1 (6.1) 71.8 (3.0) 75.6 (2.1) 68.2 (7.9) 66.0 (2.0) 42.9 (8.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 97

Section I: Population Estimates

Of operations that separated animals for isolation or infection control, 27.8

percent restricted movement of personnel working with the separated animals. A

higher percentage of large operations (37.5 percent) restricted movement of

personnel working with separated animals compared to small operations (24.9

percent).

c. For operations that separated animals for isolation or infection control,

percentage of operations that restricted movement of personnel working with

separated animals, by size of operation:

For operations that separated animals for isolation or infection control, 60.3

percent where the primary use of equids was lessons/school restricted

movement of personnel working with separated animals, whereas only 18.2

percent of operations where the primary use of equids was farm/ranch work

did so.

d. For operations that separated animals for isolation and infection control,

percentage of operations that restricted movement of personnel working with

separated animals, by primary use of equids:

Percent Operations 

Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

25.9 (1.8) 60.3 (8.8) 32.1 (3.6) 39.6 (2.7) 38.5 (9.7) 18.2 (2.1) 11.9 (6.2) 

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More) All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

24.9 (1.5) 31.6 (2.0) 37.5 (2.3) 27.8 (1.1) 
Section I: Population Estimates

98 / Equine 2005

0

20

40

60

80

25.9

60.3

32.1

39.6 38.5

18.2

11.9

Pleasure Lessons/

School

Show/

competition

Breeding Racing Farm/

ranch work

Other

Percent

Primary Use of Equids

For Operations that Separated Animals for Isolation or Infection Control,

Percentage of Operations that Restricted Movement of Personnel Working

with Separated Animals, by Primary Use of Equids

5. Contact with other animals

On approximately three of four operations (76.9 percent), dogs had physical

contact with resident equids or their feed. The percentage of operations where

cattle had physical contact with equids or their feed ranged from 54.0 percent of

operations in the West region to 32.6 percent of operations in the Northeast

region. Overall, cattle had physical contact with equids or their feed on 43.2

percent of operations. Poultry had physical contact with equids or their feed on

18.6 percent of all operations. The Northeast region reported a higher

percentage of operations (24.7 percent) where poultry had physical contact with

equids than the South and West regions (16.1 percent and 16.2 percent,

respectively). Among wildlife species, raccoons had physical contact with equids

or their feed on almost half of operations. Skunks and bats had physical contact

with equids or their feed on 41.7 percent and 28.6 percent, respectively, of all

operations. Opossums had contact with equids or their feed on over 30 percent

of operations in all regions except the West, where they had contact on only 13.1

percent of operations. About one-fifth of all operations reported that other

animals had contact with equids or their feed; the animals reported most

commonly included typical wildlife, such as deer, coyotes, foxes, and wild

turkeys.
USDA APHIS VS / 99

Section I: Population Estimates

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Animal Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Poultry 16.1 (1.2) 24.7 (2.5) 16.2 (1.6) 21.8 (1.7) 18.6 (0.8) 

Pigs 3.5 (0.6) 4.9 (1.3) 6.1 (1.1) 5.6 (1.0) 4.7 (0.4) 

Cattle 42.3 (1.6) 32.6 (2.7) 54.0 (2.2) 41.3 (2.1) 43.2 (1.0) 

Sheep/goats 14.3 (1.1) 10.9 (1.7) 17.8 (1.7) 11.7 (1.3) 13.9 (0.7) 

Llamas/alpacas 2.2 (0.4) 1.4 (0.6) 3.9 (0.8) 2.1 (0.5) 2.4 (0.3) 

Emus/ostriches 1.3 (0.3) 1.2 (0.6) 1.2 (0.5) 1.2 (0.4) 1.2 (0.2) 

Dogs 72.3 (1.4) 76.6 (2.4) 84.5 (1.6) 78.8 (1.8) 76.9 (0.9) 

Cats 57.1 (1.6) 76.2 (2.5) 69.5 (2.1) 74.8 (1.9) 66.4 (1.0) 

Skunks 44.0 (1.5) 29.2 (2.7) 46.6 (2.2) 40.1 (2.0) 41.7 (1.0) 

Opossums 47.4 (1.5) 30.6 (2.7) 13.1 (1.5) 43.4 (2.0) 37.4 (0.9) 

Bats 25.5 (1.3) 28.8 (2.6) 32.1 (2.1) 31.1 (2.0) 28.6 (0.9) 

Raccoons 47.7 (1.5) 34.3 (2.8) 45.4 (2.2) 51.5 (2.1) 46.4 (1.0) 

Other 16.2 (1.1) 23.7 (2.5) 29.0 (2.0) 18.3 (1.6) 20.2 (0.8) 

a. Percentage of operations where the following animals had physical contact

with resident equids or their feed, by region:
Section I: Population Estimates

100 / Equine 2005

A higher percentage of large operations reported that poultry and sheep/goats

had contact with equids or their feed than did small operations. Cats had contact

with equids or their feed on a higher percentage of large operations (72.4

percent) compared to small operations (64.0 percent). Raccoons had contact

with resident equids or their feed on almost half of all operations, regardless of

operation size. The percentages of operations where skunks, opossums, and

bats had contact with resident equids or their feed were similar across operation

sizes.

b. Percentage of operations where the following animals had physical contact

with resident equids or their feed, by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Animal Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Poultry 16.4 (1.0) 22.9 (1.5) 22.5 (1.7) 

Pigs 3.8 (0.5) 7.0 (0.9) 5.5 (1.0) 

Cattle 41.8 (1.3) 45.7 (1.8) 46.1 (2.0) 

Sheep/goats 12.3 (0.9) 16.6 (1.3) 18.6 (1.6) 

Llamas/alpacas 1.7 (0.3) 3.5 (0.7) 5.2 (0.9) 

Emus/ostriches 1.0 (0.3) 1.4 (0.4) 2.2 (0.6) 

Dogs 75.7 (1.2) 79.4 (1.4) 78.6 (1.7) 

Cats 64.0 (1.3) 70.4 (1.6) 72.4 (1.9) 

Skunks 42.3 (1.3) 39.7 (1.7) 43.6 (2.0) 

Opossums 38.0 (1.3) 36.1 (1.7) 37.4 (1.9) 

Bats 27.8 (1.2) 30.4 (1.6) 29.5 (1.8) 

Raccoons 46.6 (1.4) 45.6 (1.8) 47.9 (2.0) 

Other 19.8 (1.1) 20.7 (1.4) 22.6 (1.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 101

Section I: Population Estimates

Exposure of animals to equids or their feed did not vary greatly by the primary

function of the operation, with the exception of cattle. On about two-thirds of

farm/ranch operations, cattle had physical contact with equids or their feed.

c. Percentage of operations where the following animals had physical contact

with resident equids or their feed, by primary function of operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for 

Personal 

Use Other 

Animal Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Poultry 13.2 (2.6) 18.1 (1.9) 21.9 (1.3) 15.2 (1.3) 31.5 (6.0) 

Pigs 3.0 (1.3) 3.1 (0.9) 6.2 (0.8) 4.0 (0.7) 5.7 (2.9) 

Cattle 22.0 (3.3) 24.5 (2.1) 64.0 (1.6) 32.3 (1.7) 26.8 (5.3) 

Sheep/goats 12.9 (2.6) 12.2 (1.6) 17.3 (1.2) 10.5 (1.1) 21.2 (5.0) 

Llamas/ 

alpacas 2.2 (1.0) 2.4 (0.7) 2.5 (0.5) 2.3 (0.5) 4.0 (2.0) 

Emus/ 

ostriches 0.8 (0.6) 0.3 (0.2) 0.9 (0.3) 1.9 (0.5) 2.0 (2.0) 

Dogs 77.7 (3.1) 75.2 (2.2) 80.0 (1.3) 74.1 (1.6) 77.7 (5.0) 

Cats 74.0 (3.3) 70.8 (2.3) 66.5 (1.5) 63.4 (1.7) 64.9 (5.9) 

Skunks 35.1 (3.6) 39.6 (2.5) 45.3 (1.6) 39.7 (1.7) 40.2 (6.1) 

Opossums 34.9 (3.5) 36.0 (2.4) 37.7 (1.6) 38.0 (1.7) 38.0 (6.2) 

Bats 30.5 (3.4) 28.2 (2.3) 28.1 (1.5) 28.4 (1.6) 37.8 (6.0) 

Raccoons 42.9 (3.7) 45.3 (2.5) 49.6 (1.7) 43.6 (1.8) 52.2 (6.1) 

Other 20.4 (3.0) 22.4 (2.1) 18.5 (1.2) 21.3 (1.5) 19.9 (4.7) 
Section I: Population Estimates

102 / Equine 2005

D. Equid Movement 1. Distance traveled

Overall, 36.6 percent of operations had no movement of resident equids off the

operation and back during the previous 12 months. A higher percentage of

operations in the South region (41.1 percent) had no movement of resident

equids off the operation and back compared to operations in the Northeast and

West regions (28.4 percent and 33.0 percent, respectively). Overall,

approximately one of three operations reported a maximum one-way distance of

between 1 and 99 miles for resident equids that traveled off the operation and

back. Only 8.3 percent of operations reported a maximum one-way distance of

500 miles or more for resident equids that traveled off the operation and back.

The percentage of operations that had resident equids that traveled a maximum

one-way distance of 1,000 miles or more ranged from 4.6 percent of operations

in the West region to 1.6 percent of operations in the Central region.

a. Percentage of operations by maximum one-way distance resident equids

traveled and returned during the previous 12 months (whether or not by vehicle,

farthest away animal got from home operation), and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Distance 

(Miles) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 41.1 (1.6) 28.4 (2.7) 33.0 (2.1) 35.9 (2.1) 36.6 (1.0) 

1 to 9 4.1 (0.7) 7.7 (1.6) 4.7 (1.0) 5.5 (1.0) 5.0 (0.5) 

10 to 49 16.1 (1.2) 32.4 (2.8) 14.6 (1.6) 20.5 (1.8) 19.0 (0.8) 

50 to 99 7.4 (0.8) 10.4 (1.8) 10.5 (1.4) 9.2 (1.2) 8.9 (0.6) 

100 to 499 21.9 (1.3) 15.2 (2.1) 26.7 (1.9) 22.7 (1.7) 22.2 (0.9) 

500 to 999 6.5 (0.8) 2.7 (0.9) 5.9 (1.0) 4.6 (0.9) 5.4 (0.4) 

1,000 or 

more 2.9 (0.5) 3.2 (1.0) 4.6 (0.8) 1.6 (0.4) 2.9 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 103

Section I: Population Estimates

0

10

20

30

40

Percent

Distance (Miles)

Percentage of Operations by Maximum One-Way Distance Resident Equids

Traveled and Returned During the Previous 12 Months

36.6

5.0

19.0

8.9

22.2

5.4

2.9

0 1 to 9 10 to 49 50 to 99 100 to

499

500 to

999

1,000 or

More
Section I: Population Estimates

104 / Equine 2005

Approximately 4 of 10 small operations (41.8 percent) reported no resident

equids moved off the operation. Over half of large operations reported a

maximum one-way distance of 100 miles or more for resident equids that

traveled off the operation and returned.

b. Percentage of operations by maximum one-way distance resident equids

traveled and returned during the previous 12 months (whether or not by vehicle,

farthest away animal got from home operation), and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Distance (Miles) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 41.8 (1.4) 27.5 (1.6) 20.6 (1.7) 

1 to 9 5.1 (0.6) 5.6 (0.9) 2.5 (0.7) 

10 to 49 19.5 (1.1) 20.5 (1.5) 10.0 (1.2) 

50 to 99 8.4 (0.8) 9.8 (1.0) 10.0 (1.3) 

100 to 499 19.4 (1.1) 26.2 (1.6) 33.3 (2.0) 

500 to 999 4.1 (0.6) 6.5 (0.9) 12.7 (1.4) 

1,000 or more 1.7 (0.4) 3.9 (0.7) 10.9 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 105

Section I: Population Estimates

The percentage of operations that reported no movement of resident equids

during the previous 12 months ranged from 47.6 percent of operations where the

primary use of equids was pleasure to 7.1 percent of operations where the

primary use of equids was racing. Approximately one of four operations where

the primary use of equids was show/competition and racing reported a maximum

one-way distance of 500 miles or more (27.6 percent and 21.4 percent,

respectively).

c. Percentage of operations by maximum one-way distance resident equids

traveled and returned during the previous 12 months (whether or not by vehicle,

farthest away animal got from home operation), and by primary use of equids:

 Percent Operations 

 Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Distance 

(Miles) Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

0 47.6 (1.6) 12.7 (5.2) 8.6 (1.9) 31.7 (2.3) 7.1 (4.6) 34.5 (2.0) 9.5 (4.7) 

1 to 9 5.5 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 1.5 (0.7) 3.7 (0.9) 0.0 (--) 6.9 (1.1) 8.0 (4.7) 

10 to 49 15.4 (1.2) 14.9 (5.5) 11.8 (2.3) 14.0 (1.7) 4.7 (3.3) 31.7 (2.0) 40.5 (9.0) 

50 to 99 8.3 (0.9) 8.5 (3.4) 11.7 (2.2) 11.2 (1.5) 20.6 (7.2) 7.0 (1.0) 0.8 (0.8) 

100 to 

499 18.2 (1.2) 59.4 (7.4) 38.8 (3.3) 28.8 (2.2) 46.2 (8.3) 14.8 (1.4) 34.5 (8.7) 

500 to 

999 3.7 (0.6) 3.2 (2.1) 17.2 (2.4) 5.9 (1.1) 13.4 (5.0) 3.4 (0.7) 3.4 (2.0) 

1,000 or 

more 1.3 (0.3) 1.3 (0.9) 10.4 (1.8) 4.7 (1.0) 8.0 (4.3) 1.7 (0.5) 3.3 (2.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

106 / Equine 2005

2. Vehicle transportation

Overall, 58.4 percent of operations had transported any resident equids by

vehicle off the home operation and returned the equids during the previous 12

months. The percentage of operations that had transported resident equids off

the operation and returned the equids ranged from 56.3 percent of operations in

the Northeast region to 64.9 percent of operations in the West region.

a. Percentage of operations that transported any resident equids by vehicle off

the home operation for any purpose and returned the equids to the operation

during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

57.0 (1.6) 56.3 (2.9) 64.9 (2.1) 56.4 (2.1) 58.4 (1.0) 

As size of operation increased so did the percentage of operations that had

transported any resident equids by vehicle off the home operation for any

purpose and returned the equids during the previous 12 months.

b. Percentage of operations that transported any resident equids off the home

operation by vehicle for any purpose and returned the equids during the previous

12 months, by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids) 

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

53.1 (1.4) 66.3 (1.7) 77.0 (1.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 107

Section I: Population Estimates

Approximately 9 of 10 operations where the primary use of equids was lessons/

school, show/competition, or racing had transported any resident equids by

vehicle off the home operation and returned the equids, compared to about half

the operations where the primary use of the equids was pleasure or farm/ranch

work.

c. Percentage of operations that transported any resident equids by vehicle off

the home operation for any purpose and returned the equids during the previous

12 months, by primary use of equids:

Percent Operations 

Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

49.4 (1.6) 87.4 (5.1) 91.2 (1.9) 67.7 (2.3) 92.9 (4.6) 52.5 (2.1) 58.8 (9.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates

108 / Equine 2005

3. Destination

Operations that had any resident equids leave the operation by vehicle and

return during the previous 12 months reported the destination of the equids.

Some equids may have had multiple destinations. More than 9 of 10 operations

(94.8 percent) that had any resident equids leave the home operation by vehicle

transported equids within their respective State. Approximately 3 of 10 operations

(34.3 percent) transported equids to an adjacent State, and 1 of 10 operations

(11.9 percent) transported equids farther than the adjacent State but within the

United States. Overall, 0.7 percent of operations had transported equids to

Canada and returned them during the previous 12 months, ranging from 2.0

percent of operations in the West region to 0.1 percent in the South region.

a. For operations that transported resident equids by vehicle off the home

operation and returned during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations

by destination and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Destination Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Within State 93.1 (1.1) 96.6 (1.2) 96.6 (0.9) 94.9 (1.2) 94.8 (0.6) 

To adjacent 

State 37.6 (2.0) 32.4 (3.5) 26.5 (2.3) 36.9 (2.6) 34.3 (1.2) 

Beyond 

adjacent 

States* 12.7 (1.3) 12.0 (2.4) 10.3 (1.5) 11.9 (1.7) 11.9 (0.8) 

Canada 0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.4) 2.0 (0.7) 0.7 (0.4) 0.7 (0.2) 

Mexico 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.5) 0.3 (0.2) 

Outside 

North America 0.2 (0.2) 1.0 (0.8) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.1) 

*Including Alaska and Hawaii 
USDA APHIS VS / 109

Section I: Population Estimates

A higher percentage of operations where the primary use of equids was show/

competition transported resident equids to an adjacent State compared to

operations where the primary use of equids was pleasure, lessons/school,

breeding, racing, and farm/ranch work. A higher percentage of operations where

the primary use of equids was show/competition transported resident equids

outside the State beyond the adjacent States compared to operations where the

primary use of equids was pleasure, breeding, farm/ranch work, and “other.”

b. For operations that transported resident equids by vehicle off the home

operation and returned during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations

by destination and by primary use of equids:

 Percent Operations 

 Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Destination Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Within State 95.9 (0.9) 92.4 (4.9) 96.1 (1.4) 92.0 (1.6) 84.1 (6.6) 95.3 (1.1) 97.4 (2.6) 

To adjacent 

State 28.8 (2.0) 32.2 (7.4) 59.2 (3.5) 38.1 (2.7) 34.7 (7.7) 23.7 (2.4) 44.2 (11.8) 

Beyond 

adjacent 

States* 9.8 (1.3) 9.8 (4.8) 24.5 (2.9) 12.1 (1.7) 13.0 (5.1) 7.4 (1.4) 5.2 (3.2) 

Canada 0.3 (0.2) 3.9 (3.8) 0.7 (0.3) 1.3 (0.6) 0.9 (0.9) 0.7 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 

Mexico 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 1.5 (1.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 1.1 (1.1) 

Outside 

North 

America 0.5 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.1) 0.7 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

*Including Alaska and Hawaii 
Section I: Population Estimates

110 / Equine 2005

Operations may have transported resident equids to multiple destinations, e.g.,

within State, adjacent States, and farther than adjacent States. For operations

that transported any resident equids from the home operation during the

previous 12 months, 53.1 percent made 1 to 9 trips within State and 37.7 percent

made 10 to 99 trips within State. In addition, 65.7 percent had not made trips to

adjacent States, while 26.8 percent had made 1 to 9 trips to adjacent States.

c. For operations that transported resident equids by vehicle off the home

operation and returned during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations

by number of trips and by destination:

 Percent Operations 

 Destination 

Within 

State 

Adjacent 

State 

Other 

State Canada Mexico 

Outside 

North 

America 

Number 

Trips Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 5.2 (0.6) 65.7 (1.2) 88.1 (0.8) 99.3 (0.2) 99.8* (0.2) 99.8 (0.1) 

1 to 9 53.1 (1.3) 26.8 (1.2) 10.9 (0.8) 0.7 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 

10 to 99 37.7 (1.3) 7.2 (0.6) 0.9 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 

100 or 

more 4.0 (0.5) 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*This table shows that 99.8 percent of operations did not travel to Mexico with a resident equid, while 

table a. shows that 0.3 percent of operations did; these numbers do not add to 100.0 due to 

rounding. 
USDA APHIS VS / 111

Section I: Population Estimates

4. Direct contact with outside equids during trips

Overall, approximately one-quarter of operations reported that resident equids

never left the home operation (as a general practice). A lower percentage of

operations in the South region (70.7 percent) had resident equids that left the

home operation and returned after direct contact with outside equids compared

to operations in the Northeast or Central regions (81.0 percent and 78.4 percent,

respectively).

a. Percentage of operations that had resident equids that left the home operation

and returned after direct contact with outside equids, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

70.7 (1.5) 81.0 (2.4) 76.5 (1.9) 78.4 (1.8) 75.1 (0.9) 

A lower percentage of small operations (70.2 percent) had resident equids that

left the operation and returned after direct contact with outside equids than

medium and large operations (84.0 percent and 86.5 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations that had resident equids that left the home operation

and returned after direct contact with outside equids, by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Equids) 

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

70.2 (1.3) 84.0 (1.3) 86.5 (1.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates

112 / Equine 2005

Operations with a primary function of boarding/training and breeding farm were

more likely to have resident equids that left the operation and returned after

direct contact with outside equids than operations with a primary function of farm/

ranch and residence with equids for personal use.

c. Percentage of operations that had resident equids that left the operation and

returned after direct contact with outside equids, by primary function of operation:

On operations where the primary use of equids was show/competition, 95.8

percent had resident equids that left the home operation and returned after direct

contact with outside equids. This percentage is higher than the percentages of

operations where the primary use of equids was pleasure, breeding, and farm/

ranch work (65.9 percent, 81.7 percent, and 76.8 percent, respectively).

Operations where equids were used primarily for pleasure were less likely than

all operation types to have resident equids that left the home operation and

returned after direct contact with outside equids.

d. Percentage of operations that had resident equids that left the home operation

and returned after direct contact with outside equids, by primary use of equids:

Percent Operations 

Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

65.9 (1.5) 91.8 (4.5) 95.8 (1.3) 81.7 (1.9) 91.7 (5.5) 76.8 (1.8) 93.7 (3.9) 

Percent Operations 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training Breeding Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for Personal 

Use Other 

Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

89.3 (2.3) 84.1 (1.9) 72.5 (1.5) 71.2 (1.6) 87.4 (3.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 113

Section I: Population Estimates

For operations that had resident equids that left the home operation and returned

after direct contact with outside equids (approximately 75 percent of operations),

6 of 10 operations (60.6 percent) never isolated returning equids, which means

these operations did not prevent nose-to-nose contact with other equids on the

home operation or prevent sharing of feed, drinking water, or equipment (e.g.,

brushes, combs, hoof picks, or buckets). Overall, 10.6 percent of operations

routinely isolated returning equids, and 26.0 percent isolated equids for a cause

such as disease or exposure to disease. A small percentage of operations overall

(2.8 percent) quarantined equids before they arrived at the home operation.

There were no major regional differences with regard to infection-control

practices used for resident equids returning to the operation after having direct

contact with outside equids.

e. For operations that had resident equids that left the home operation and

returned after direct contact with outside equids, percentage of operations by

infection-control practice used for returning equids, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Routinely isolate 

returning equids 10.0 (1.1) 9.7 (1.8) 11.1 (1.6) 11.6 (1.4) 10.6 (0.7) 

Only isolate 

returning equids for 

a cause such as 

disease or exposure 

to disease 23.6 (1.6) 23.3 (2.6) 28.5 (2.3) 29.2 (2.2) 26.0 (1.0) 

Quarantine before 

arrival at home 

operation 2.3 (0.6) 3.3 (1.1) 3.6 (0.9) 2.5 (0.7) 2.8 (0.4) 

Never isolate 

returning equids 64.1 (1.8) 63.7 (3.0) 56.8 (2.4) 56.7 (2.3) 60.6 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

114 / Equine 2005

For operations that had resident equids that left the home operation and returned

after direct contact with outside equids, the percentage of operations that used

infection-control practices for returning equids increased as operation size

increased. Compared to small operations, large operations had more resident

equids leave and return to the home operation after direct contact with outside

equine (table b.) and more often isolated or quarantined returning equids. More

than half of large operations isolated or quarantined returning resident equids—

either routinely or due to disease or exposure to disease—compared to less than

one-third of small operations.

f. For operations that had resident equids that left the home operation and

returned after direct contact with outside equids, percentage of operations by

infection-control practice used for returning equids, and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Routinely isolate 

returning equids 9.6 (1.0) 11.5 (1.2) 14.5 (1.6) 

Only isolate returning 

equids for a cause such 

as disease or exposure 

to disease 22.4 (1.4) 30.5 (1.8) 35.9 (2.2) 

Quarantine before 

arrival at home operation 2.3 (0.5) 2.9 (0.7) 5.2 (1.0) 

Never isolate 

returning equids 65.7 (1.6) 55.1 (1.9) 44.4 (2.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 115

Section I: Population Estimates

Photo: USDA photo library

0

20

40

60

80

100

Never isolate returning equids

Quarantine before arrival at home operation

Only isolate returning equids for cause

Routinely isolate returning equids

Percent Practice

Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

For Operations that had Resident Equids that Left the Home Operation and

Returned After Direct Contact with Outside Equids, Percentage of Operations by

Infection-Control Practice Used for Returning Equids, and by Size of Operation

9.6

22.4

2.3

65.7

11.5

30.5

2.9

55.1

14.5

35.9

5.2

44.4

Small (5 to 9) Medium (10 to 19) Large (20 or more)
Section I: Population Estimates

116 / Equine 2005

In general, operations with a primary function of breeding farm that had resident

equids that left the home operation and returned after direct contact with outside

equids were more likely to use isolation as an infection-control practice for

returning resident equids than operations with a primary function of farm/ranch

and residence with equids for personal use. Farm/ranch and residences-withequids-for-personal-use operations were more likely to never isolate returning

equids than operations with a primary function of boarding/training and breeding

farm.

g. For operations that had resident equids that left the home operation and

returned after direct contact with outside equids, percentage of operations by

infection-control practice used for returning equids, and by primary function of

operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for 

Personal 

Use Other 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Routinely 

isolate returning 

equids 12.4 (2.7) 19.3 (2.0) 8.4 (1.1) 8.7 (1.2) 9.7 (3.8) 

Only isolate 

returning equids 

for a cause 

such as disease 

or exposure 

to disease 35.7 (3.7) 35.3 (2.6) 21.2 (1.6) 24.1 (1.8) 37.0 (6.4) 

Quarantine 

before arrival at 

home operation 6.0 (2.1) 3.7 (1.0) 2.5 (0.6) 2.2 (0.6) 0.8 (0.8) 

Never isolate 

returning equids 45.9 (3.9) 41.7 (2.7) 67.9 (1.8) 65.0 (2.0) 52.5 (6.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 117

Section I: Population Estimates

In general, a small percentage of operations, regardless of primary use of

equids, quarantined equids before their return. Operations where the primary use

of equids was farm/ranch work or pleasure were more likely to never isolate

returning equids compared to operations where the primary use of equids was

lessons/school, show/competition, breeding, and racing.

h. For operations that had resident equids that left the home operation and

returned after direct contact with outside equids, percentage of operations by

infection-control practice used for returning equids, and by primary use of equids:

 Percent Operations 

 Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Routinely 

isolate 

returning 

equids 8.3 (1.1) 20.7 (7.1) 13.4 (2.2) 18.6 (2.0) 13.0 (5.3) 7.0 (1.2) 2.8 (2.1) 

Only isolate 

returning 

equids for a 

cause such 

as disease or 

exposure to 

disease 24.0 (1.6) 45.5 (8.0) 28.0 (3.0) 34.1 (2.5) 44.7 (8.4) 20.5 (1.9) 18.0 (7.5) 

Quarantine 

before arrival 

at home 

operation 2.4 (0.6) 5.7 (4.4) 3.8 (1.2) 3.1 (0.8) 2.5 (1.9) 2.6 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 

Never isolate 

returning 

equids 65.3 (1.8) 28.1 (6.6) 54.8 (3.3) 44.2 (2.6) 39.8 (8.4) 69.9 (2.2) 79.2 (7.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates

118 / Equine 2005

5. Presentation of equine health papers

Overall, 63.0 percent of operations where equids ever left the home operation

had been asked to present equine health papers (health certificate, Coggins test)

sometime during the previous 5 years. The reasons for being asked to present

equine health papers were not mutually exclusive. For example, an operator

could have been asked for equine health papers at a sale and at a private farm

during the past 5 years. A higher percentage of operations in the South and

Central regions had been asked to present equine health papers compared to

operations in the Northeast and West regions. The highest percentage of

operations (44.0 percent) were asked to show equine health papers at a show/

event, followed by at a sale (27.2 percent).

0 20 40 60 80 100

Never isolate

Quarantine before

arrival

Only isolate for

cause

Routinely isolate

For Operations that had Resident Equids that Left the Home Operation

and Returned After Direct Contact with Outside Equids, Percentage of

Operations by Infection-Control Practice Used for Returning Equids,

and by Primary Use of Equids

Pleasure

Lessons/

school

Show/

competition

Breeding

Racing

Farm/

ranch work

Other

Primary Use

Practice

Percent

8.3

24.0

2.4

65.3

20.7

45.5

5.7

28.1

13.4

28.0

3.8

54.8

18.6

34.1

3.1

44.2

13.0

44.7

2.5

39.8

7.0

20.5

2.6

69.9

2.8

18.0

0.0

79.2
USDA APHIS VS / 119

Section I: Population Estimates

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Reason Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

At a State 

border/entry 

point 20.4 (1.4) 8.6 (1.6) 21.7 (2.0) 10.6 (1.4) 16.5 (0.8) 

For 

international 

transport 1.6 (0.4) 2.7 (0.9) 4.1 (0.9) 1.3 (0.4) 2.2 (0.3) 

At a 

show/event 52.4 (1.9) 39.6 (3.1) 26.5 (2.2) 47.4 (2.3) 44.0 (1.2) 

At a sale 28.4 (1.6) 22.7 (2.5) 19.0 (1.8) 34.2 (2.2) 27.2 (1.0) 

At a private 

farm/facility 20.5 (1.5) 12.1 (1.9) 7.4 (1.3) 18.3 (1.8) 16.1 (0.8) 

At a race track 5.2 (0.8) 4.9 (1.2) 3.7 (0.9) 3.4 (0.8) 4.4 (0.4) 

Other 4.7 (0.8) 4.0 (1.4) 1.7 (0.6) 3.0 (0.8) 3.5 (0.4) 

Any of above 70.7 (1.8) 54.9 (3.2) 47.5 (2.5) 67.8 (2.3) 63.0 (1.1) 

Only a small percentage of operations (2.2 percent) had been asked to present

equine health papers for international transport, which likely reflects the relative

infrequency of international transport rather than owners not being asked for

health papers when transporting equids internationally. The same reasoning

likely pertains to why so few operators were asked for equine health papers at a

racetrack; i.e., a relatively small number of operators went to race tracks with

equids. “Other” reasons for being asked for equine health papers included riding

in State or Federal park or National Forest land, while transporting on highway in

State, weigh station within the State, at a campground, when cattle were having

regulatory testing performed, annual municipal check, and at the veterinary clinic.

a. For operations where resident equids ever left the home operation, percentage

of operations that had been asked to present equine health papers (health

certificate, Coggins test) during the previous 5 years, by reason and by region:
Section I: Population Estimates

120 / Equine 2005

One-quarter of operations (26.6 percent) where the primary use of equids was

racing had not been asked for their equine health papers at a racetrack during

the previous 5 years. Either these operations had not taken horses to a race

track, despite that being the primary use of their equids, or they were not asked

for their papers when going to a racetrack.

b. For operations where resident equids ever left the home operation, percentage

of operations that had been asked to present equine health papers (health

certificate, Coggins test) during the previous 5 years, by reason and by primary

use of equids:

 Percent Operations 

 Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Reason Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

At a State 

border/entry 

point 12.3 (1.2) 22.4 (6.8) 33.0 (3.1) 21.3 (2.0) 46.4 (8.4) 9.6 (1.3) 15.1 (6.7) 

For 

international 

transport 0.5 (0.2) 8.3 (5.0) 6.2 (1.4) 4.0 (1.0) 3.3 (2.1) 0.9 (0.4) 6.4 (3.1) 

At a 

show/event 40.9 (1.9) 73.1 (6.9) 83.3 (2.6) 54.1 (2.6) 35.8 (8.0) 22.9 (2.0) 23.9 (7.8) 

At a sale 18.5 (1.5) 23.1 (6.6) 34.5 (3.1) 50.0 (2.6) 28.6 (7.1) 20.5 (1.9) 49.0 (9.3) 

At a private 

farm/facility 13.6 (1.3) 32.1 (7.5) 20.4 (2.7) 28.0 (2.3) 28.1 (7.1) 8.6 (1.3) 4.6 (2.4) 

At a race 

track 2.0 (0.5) 0.0 (--) 2.9 (0.9) 9.9 (1.5) 73.4 (7.7) 1.0 (0.4) 1.5 (1.2) 

Other 4.7 (0.8) 0.0 (--) 4.9 (1.5) 3.5 (1.0) 0.0 (--) 1.3 (0.5) 8.1 (5.3) 

Any of above 57.7 (1.9) 87.6 (4.8) 89.9 (2.2) 79.9 (2.2) 89.0 (5.2) 43.2 (2.3) 66.4 (8.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 121

Section I: Population Estimates

E. General Management 1. Feed source

Overall, 90.1 percent of operations fed grain concentrate/energy source beyond

hay or pasture. A higher percentage of operations in the South and Northeast

regions (91.2 percent and 96.3 percent, respectively) fed a grain concentrate or

other energy source beyond hay or pasture forage than operations in the West

region (84.4 percent).

a. Percentage of operations that fed grain concentrate/energy source (beyond

hay or pasture forage) during the previous 12 months, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

South Northeast West Central All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

91.2 (0.9) 96.3 (1.1) 84.4 (1.7) 89.7 (1.3) 90.1 (0.6) 

Photo: USDA photo library
Section I: Population Estimates

122 / Equine 2005

For operations that fed grain concentrate/energy source during the previous 12

months, the reported percentage of grain/concentrate by source was averaged

over all operations. The average percentage purchased in bags was 79.1

percent, followed by bulk delivery from retail source (9.6 percent) and homegrown (7.9 percent). A higher average percentage of grain/concentrate was bulkdelivered from a retail source or home-grown in the Northeast and Central

regions compared to the South and West regions.

b. For operations that fed grain concentrate/energy source (beyond hay or

pasture forage) during the previous 12 months, operation average percentage of

grain/concentrate fed, by source and by region:

Operation Average Percent of Grain/Concentrate 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Purchased in 

bags (retail 

source) 87.4 (1.0) 66.8 (2.6) 85.0 (1.6) 66.9 (2.0) 79.1 (0.8) 

Bulk delivery 

from retail 

source 5.7 (0.7) 18.4 (2.2) 5.5 (1.0) 14.7 (1.4) 9.6 (0.6) 

Bulk delivery 

from nonretail 

source 1.9 (0.4) 3.9 (1.0) 3.7 (0.9) 3.9 (0.8) 3.0 (0.3) 

Home-grown 4.4 (0.6) 10.8 (1.7) 5.7 (1.0) 14.0 (1.4) 7.9 (0.5) 

Other 0.6 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.5 (0.3) 0.4 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 123

Section I: Population Estimates

For operations that fed grain concentrate/energy source during the previous 12

months, more than 8 of 10 operations prevented contamination of the grain by

other animals or their feces. In general the percentages of operations that

prevented contamination of stored grain were similar across regions.

c. For operations that fed grain concentrate/energy source (beyond hay or

pasture forage) during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations that

stored grain/concentrate in a manner that prevents contamination by the

following animals or their feces, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Animal Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Mice or rats 87.7 (1.1) 80.6 (2.3) 85.4 (1.6) 82.2 (1.7) 85.0 (0.8) 

Domestic or 

wild birds 

including 

poultry 87.6 (1.1) 86.7 (1.9) 86.2 (1.7) 85.0 (1.6) 86.6 (0.7) 

Domestic 

livestock, 

including 

equine 89.2 (1.1) 87.5 (1.9) 87.9 (1.6) 87.4 (1.5) 88.3 (0.7) 

Dogs or 

cats 88.7 (1.1) 83.7 (2.2) 86.0 (1.7) 85.6 (1.6) 86.7 (0.7) 

Other 

wildlife 87.2 (1.1) 84.7 (2.0) 83.2 (1.8) 85.5 (1.6) 85.7 (0.8) 
Section I: Population Estimates

124 / Equine 2005

2. Drinking water

On 57.5 percent of all operations, well water was the predominant source of

drinking water for resident equids during the previous 12 months. A higher

percentage of operations in the South region used public/municipal water supply

as the predominant water source for resident equids compared to operations in

the other regions. A lower percentage of operations in the South region used well

water as the predominant water source compared to operations in the other

regions. A higher percentage of operations in the Northeast region used a spring

as the predominant water source than operations in the other regions.

a. Percentage of operations by predominant source of drinking water for resident

equids during the previous 12 months and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Well 43.8 (1.4) 66.0 (2.8) 61.9 (2.1) 73.1 (1.7) 57.5 (0.9) 

Public/ 

municipal 

water supply 29.2 (1.4) 10.0 (1.7) 12.5 (1.5) 11.1 (1.2) 18.9 (0.8) 

Spring 3.2 (0.6) 15.9 (2.2) 7.3 (1.2) 2.3 (0.6) 5.4 (0.5) 

Surface water 

(pond, stream, 

river, or 

cistern) 23.8 (1.4) 8.1 (1.7) 18.2 (1.7) 13.4 (1.4) 18.1 (0.8) 

Other 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 125

Section I: Population Estimates

The predominant source of drinking water for resident equids during the previous

12 months did not vary by size of operation.

b. Percentage of operations by predominant source of drinking water for resident

equids during the previous 12 months, and by size of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Well 56.5 (1.3) 58.1 (1.7) 63.4 (1.9) 

Public/municipal 

water supply 18.8 (1.0) 19.8 (1.4) 16.9 (1.5) 

Spring 5.4 (0.6) 6.1 (0.9) 4.1 (0.8) 

Surface water (pond, 

stream, river, or cistern) 19.3 (1.1) 15.9 (1.3) 15.4 (1.5) 

Other 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

0

20

40

60

80

Central

West

Northeast

South

43.8

66.0

61.9

73.1

29.2

10.0

12.5 11.1

3.2

15.9

7.3

2.3

23.8

8.1

18.2

13.4

Region

Percent

Well Public/municipal

water supply

Spring Surface water

(pond, stream,

river, or cistern)

Source

Percentage of Operations by Predominant Source of Drinking Water for

Resident Equids During the Previous 12 Months and by Region
Section I: Population Estimates

126 / Equine 2005

A lower percentage of operations with a primary function of farm/ranch used

municipal water as the predominant source of water for resident equids

compared to operations with any other primary function. However, a higher

percentage of operations with a primary function of farm/ranch used surface

water (pond, stream, cistern, or river) as the predominant source of drinking

water for resident equids than operations with any other primary function.

c. Percentage of operations by predominant source of drinking water for resident

equids during the previous 12 months, and by primary function of operation:

Percent Operations 

Primary Function of Operation 

Boarding/ 

Training 

Breeding 

Farm 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Residence 

with Equids 

for Personal 

Use Other 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Well 66.8 (3.5) 64.1 (2.4) 54.1 (1.6) 56.8 (1.7) 60.8 (9.8) 

Public/ 

municipal water 

supply 28.0 (3.4) 22.6 (2.1) 12.5 (1.1) 22.9 (1.5) 23.4 (5.0) 

Spring 1.8 (1.0) 3.4 (0.9) 7.6 (0.9) 4.4 (0.7) 5.6 (2.9) 

Surface water 

(pond, stream, 

river, or cistern) 3.4 (1.4) 9.8 (1.5) 25.8 (1.4) 15.8 (1.3) 10.2 (3.1) 

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

3. Insect control

Overall, 88.9 percent of operations used some form of insect control. The

percentage of operations that used any method of insect control ranged from

95.5 percent of operations in the Northeast region to 86.7 percent of operations

in the South region. The insect-control methods used on the highest percentages

of all operations were repellents applied to equids, replacement of water in water

containers at least weekly, frequent removal of weeds and manure from

premises, and application of insecticides in or near equine housing areas. A

higher percentage of operations in the South region applied insecticide in or near

equine housing areas or to pasture areas than operations in other regions. Other

methods of insect control included fly traps, fish in water containers, garlic in

feed, and birds and bats.
USDA APHIS VS / 127

Section I: Population Estimates

a. Percentage of operations where the following insect-control methods were

used during summer 2005, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Repellents 

applied to equids 69.1 (1.5) 78.1 (2.4) 77.6 (1.9) 73.7 (1.9) 73.1 (0.9) 

Insecticides applied in or 

near equine housing area 41.8 (1.6) 31.9 (2.7) 32.1 (2.0) 31.4 (2.0) 36.0 (1.0) 

Insecticides applied 

to pasture areas 7.8 (0.8) 1.9 (0.7) 5.5 (1.0) 3.2 (0.8) 5.5 (0.5) 

Regional control program, 

such as aerial spraying 4.1 (0.6) 1.9 (0.8) 6.9 (1.1) 2.9 (0.7) 4.1 (0.4) 

Sticky tape 19.6 (1.3) 26.9 (2.4) 21.8 (1.8) 19.4 (1.7) 20.9 (0.8) 

Bug zapper 8.2 (0.9) 5.2 (1.2) 13.0 (1.5) 6.9 (1.0) 8.4 (0.6) 

Parasitic wasps 

specifically brought 

onto operation 2.5 (0.4) 2.8 (0.7) 6.4 (1.1) 1.7 (0.6) 3.1 (0.3) 

Face mask on equid 19.7 (1.2) 39.6 (2.8) 33.6 (2.0) 28.2 (1.9) 27.2 (0.9) 

Fly tags attached 

to equine halters 4.8 (0.7) 2.4 (0.9) 3.7 (0.8) 3.9 (0.8) 4.1 (0.4) 

Fly sheets on equid 5.6 (0.7) 10.0 (1.6) 9.4 (1.2) 7.1 (1.0) 7.3 (0.5) 

Insect control product 

in feed, such as using 

Equitrol® 5.5 (0.7) 3.6 (1.1) 4.2 (0.9) 7.9 (1.2) 5.6 (0.5) 

Mosquito treatment 

in drinking water 

(mosquito dunks) 6.4 (0.8) 2.4 (0.8) 11.1 (1.4) 4.0 (0.8) 6.3 (0.5) 

Water container emptied 

and refilled with fresh 

water at least weekly 55.9 (1.6) 67.6 (2.7) 56.6 (2.2) 59.8 (2.1) 58.5 (1.0) 

Frequent removal of 

weeds and manure 

from premises 45.9 (1.6) 62.4 (2.7) 53.2 (2.2) 53.1 (2.1) 51.3 (1.0) 

Screened-in stalls 1.9 (0.4) 4.2 (1.0) 2.2 (0.6) 2.6 (0.7) 2.4 (0.3) 

Other 4.0 (0.6) 7.6 (1.6) 8.6 (1.3) 5.9 (1.0) 5.9 (0.5) 

Any method 86.7 (1.1) 95.5 (1.2) 91.2 (1.3) 87.5 (1.5) 88.9 (0.7) 
Section I: Population Estimates

128 / Equine 2005

4. Manure management

Among all regions, the highest percentages of operations disposed of manure or

waste bedding by applying it to fields on the operation where no livestock graze,

applying it to fields on the operation where livestock graze, and allowing it to

accumulate or leaving it to nature. In the Northeast and Central regions, the

highest percentage of operations disposed of manure and waste bedding by

applying it to fields on the operation where no livestock graze (this category

included all land where livestock did not graze, such as gardens and flower

beds). In the South region, the disposal methods used on the highest

percentages of operations were allowing the waste to accumulate or leaving it to

nature and applying it to fields on the operation where any livestock graze. In all

regions, a very low percentage of operations disposed of manure by routine

garbage pickup or deposition in a landfill.

a. Percentage of operations by method of manure (including composted manure)

and/or waste bedding disposal used during the previous 12 months, and by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 South Northeast West Central 

All 

Operations 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Routine 

garbage pickup 2.4 (0.5) 3.1 (0.9) 4.8 (1.0) 0.7 (0.3) 2.6 (0.3) 

Hauled to 

landfill (not 

routine garbage 

pickup) 1.7 (0.4) 1.3 (0.6) 2.7 (0.8) 0.3 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2) 

Hauled away, 

other than to 

landfill 8.9 (0.9) 8.3 (1.5) 18.5 (1.7) 9.5 (1.2) 10.9 (0.6) 

Applied on 

fields on the 

operation 

where any 

livestock 

(including 

equids) graze 37.6 (1.6) 34.7 (2.7) 38.9 (2.1) 36.3 (2.0) 37.2 (1.0) 

Applied on 

fields on the 

operation 

where no 

livestock graze 25.5 (1.4) 72.9 (2.6) 34.2 (2.1) 60.8 (2.0) 42.0 (0.9) 

Manure/waste 

bedding 

allowed to 

accumulate or 

left to nature 38.7 (1.6) 21.0 (2.3) 32.2 (2.1) 27.8 (1.9) 32.4 (1.0) 

Sold or 

gave away 12.6 (1.0) 21.3 (2.3) 17.8 (1.7) 21.4 (1.7) 16.9 (0.7) 

Other 1.5 (0.4) 1.7 (0.8) 4.1 (0.9) 2.6 (0.7) 2.3 (0.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 129

Section I: Population Estimates

A higher percentage of large and medium operations sold or gave away manure

and/or waste bedding than small operations. Compared to large operations, a

higher percentage of small operations allowed manure and/or waste bedding to

accumulate or be left to nature, and a lower percentage of small operations had

waste material hauled to a site other than a landfill.

b. Percentage of operations by method of manure (including composted manure)

and/or waste bedding disposal used during the previous 12 months, and by size

of operation:

 Percent Operations 

 Size of Operation (Number of Equids)

Small 

(5-9)

Medium 

(10-19)

Large 

(20 or More)

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Routine garbage pickup 2.4 (0.4) 2.4 (0.6) 4.3 (0.8) 

Hauled to landfill (not 

routine garbage pickup) 1.4 (0.3) 1.6 (0.4) 2.7 (0.7) 

Hauled away, other 

than to landfill 9.7 (0.8) 12.2 (1.1) 16.9 (1.5) 

Applied on fields on the 

operation where any 

livestock (including 

equids) graze 35.5 (1.3) 39.6 (1.8) 42.3 (2.0) 

Applied on fields on 

the operation where 

no livestock graze 40.0 (1.3) 46.2 (1.7) 45.0 (2.0) 

Manure/waste bedding 

allowed to accumulate 

or left to nature 33.7 (1.3) 31.2 (1.7) 26.3 (1.8) 

Sold or gave away 14.6 (1.0) 21.0 (1.5) 23.1 (1.7) 

Other 2.2 (0.4) 3.1 (0.6) 1.3 (0.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates

130 / Equine 2005

On operations where the primary use of equids was for farm/ranch work, the

highest percentage of operations disposed of manure and/or waste bedding by

applying it to fields on the operation where livestock graze.

c. Percentage of operations by method of manure (including composted manure)

and/or waste bedding disposal used during the previous 12 months, and by

primary use of equids:

 Percent Operations 

 Primary Use of Equids 

Pleasure 

Lessons/ 

School 

Show/ 

Competition Breeding Racing 

Farm/ 

Ranch 

Work Other 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. Pct. 

Std. 

Err. 

Routine 

garbage pickup 2.4 (0.5) 1.0 (1.0) 4.4 (1.2) 3.4 (0.9) 8.3 (4.6) 1.3 (0.5) 5.5 (4.7) 

Hauled to 

landfill (not 

routine 

garbage 

pickup) 1.3 (0.4) 1.8 (1.8) 2.7 (1.0) 1.9 (0.7) 2.8 (2.3) 1.2 (0.5) 0.0 (--) 

Hauled away, 

other than to a 

landfill 9.9 (0.9) 16.9 (5.4) 17.0 (2.4) 13.7 (1.6) 21.8 (6.2) 8.0 (1.1) 6.6 (3.7) 

Applied on 

fields on the 

operation 

where any 

livestock 

(including 

equids) graze 32.7 (1.5) 31.3 (7.4) 36.9 (3.2) 35.3 (2.3) 31.5 (7.9) 47.8 (2.1) 27.2 (7.3) 

Applied on 

fields on the 

operation 

where no 

livestock graze 41.7 (1.5) 60.8 (7.6) 44.6 (3.3) 45.0 (2.4) 44.9 (8.2) 37.5 (2.0) 58.8 (8.8) 

Manure/ waste 

bedding 

allowed to 

accumulate or 

left to nature 33.7 (1.5) 21.5 (6.7) 21.8 (2.8) 31.9 (2.2) 23.1 (6.8) 36.3 (2.0) 22.6 (7.8) 

Sold or 

gave away 16.8 (1.2) 52.5 (7.8) 23.0 (2.6) 24.7 (2.0) 21.7 (6.4) 7.9 (1.1) 6.6 (3.1) 

Other 2.8 (0.5) 7.2 (4.2) 1.6 (0.8) 3.2 (0.8) 3.7 (2.9) 0.6 (0.3) 5.1 (3.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 131

Section II: Methodology

Section II: Methodology

A. Identifying

Industry Needs

Preparation for Equine 2005 began with a review of existing sources of

information for monitoring equine health, including “A Catalog of Opportunities for

Equine Health Monitoring,” which was compiled for Equine ’98. Second, informal

discussions were undertaken to identify industry needs, followed by the

development of five basic objectives for Equine 2005 (see Appendix IV).

B. Sampling and

Estimation

1. State selection

The benefits of being able to compare summary data from the same States

included in the Equine ’98 study led to the inclusion of those previously used 28

States. A goal for all NAHMS national studies is to include States that account for

at least 70 percent of the animal and producer/owner populations in the United

States. Budget constraints beyond this level of coverage were an important

consideration. The most recent equine data available on which to base the

selection of States to be included in the Equine 2005 study were found in the

2002 Census of Agriculture. Use of these data is limited because only equids on

farms are represented. For the purpose of the Census, a farm was defined as

any place with $1,000 or more sales of agriculture products during the year or

having at least five horses.

A review of the rationale for including States in the previous study (Equine ’98) is

described here. Each State’s contribution to the U.S. total for number of horses

and ponies and number of farms reporting horses or ponies was calculated. The

animal contribution was given a weight of 0.6 and the number of farms a weight

of 0.4. This weighted contribution (single number for percentage of total) was a

key determinant in selecting the States. Every State that accounted for 2 percent

or more of the U.S. total horses and ponies was included in the study except

Iowa and Idaho, which were excluded due to expected resource conflicts with a

then-proposed NAHMS cattle-on-feed study. Thus, 21 States were initially

selected based on this criterion. In addition, seven States were included that

individually contributed less than 2 percent of the U.S. total horses and ponies.

Georgia, Maryland, and New Jersey were included due to a high level of State

equine industry interest, and Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Wyoming

were included to improve geographic representation. A total of 28 States were

eventually included in the Equine ’98 study. A review of the State-level 2002

Census of Agriculture, as well as the NASS 1999 estimates, was performed.

Some changes were noted. For the 2002 Census of Agriculture, the 28 States

accounted for 78.2 percent of all equids and 78.9 percent of farms with equids.

2. Sample selection

The NASS list frame is primarily comprised of equine information from the 2002

Census of Agriculture. A total of 4,002 operations were selected based upon a

stratified random selection within each State’s list sampling frame. Stratification

was based upon number of equids.
Section II: Methodology

132 / Equine 2005

3. Population inferences

The inverse of the probability of selection was used as the initial weight and then

adjusted for nonresponse within State and size strata. The reference population

is the NASS list frame of places/operations with 5 or more equids that met the

NASS definition of a farm for the 28 States. If a place has five or more equids it

is classified as a farm via the Census of Agriculture definition (any place with

$1,000 or more sales of agriculture products during the year or having at least

five equids).

Published inventory numbers for equids and the number of places with equids

are lacking for the United States compared to the Nation’s other livestock

commodities. Therefore, to quantify the reference population the best information

available is the 2002 Census of Agriculture report. Shown below are the totals for

the 28 States compared to the U.S. total. The Equine 2005 reference population

is farms with 5 or more equids in the 28 participating States. This population

represented 78.0 percent of equids and 78.6 percent of operations with five or

more equids in the United States. Operations with 5 or more equids accounted

for 82.3 percent of all equids in the 28 States. Similar information is provided in

Appendices II and III by State and by size of farm.

a. Equine inventory on-farm, number of farms with equids on all operations, and

operations with five or more equids:

 2002 Census of Agriculture 

Equine Inventory 

 All 5 or More Equids 

 Number 

Head 

Pct. 

of Total 

Number 

Head 

Pct. 

of Total 

Pct. 

of All 

Equids 

28 States 2,930,566 78.2 *2,411,033 *78.0 *82.3 

Non-28 States 819,070 21.8 681,948 22.0 83.3 

United States 3,749,636 100.0 3,092,981 100.0 82.5 

Farms 

All 5 or More Equids 

Number 

Pct. 

of Total Number 

Pct. 

of Total 

Pct. 

of All 

Farms 

28 States 436,170 78.9 *219,059 *78.6 *50.2 

Non-28 States 116,747 21.1 59,569 21.4 51.0 

United States 552,917 100.0 278,628 100.0 50.4 

*Reference population 
USDA APHIS VS / 133

Section II: Methodology

b. NASS equine inventory estimates on-farm and nonfarm:

NASS—Equine 

Jan. 1, 1998 

(million head) 

Jan. 1, 1999 

(million head) 

Farm 3.20 -- 

Nonfarm 2.05 -- 

Total 5.25 5.32 

C. Data Collection Approximately 200 NASS-trained enumerators collected data for the baseline

health descriptive reports via personal interviews from July 18 through August

12, 2005.

D. Data Analysis 1. Validation and estimation

Initial data entry and screening for outliers and data errors were performed in

each individual NASS State office. NAHMS personnel performed additional data

validation on the entire data set after data from all States were combined.

2. Response rates

a. Response categories are shown below. These data were collected by NASS

enumerators from July 18 through August 12, 2005:

Category Number Percent 

1—out of business 238 5.9 

2—refusal 328 8.2 

3—complete 2,874 71.8 

4—partial refusal 

(refused part of questionnaire) 19 0.5 

5—inaccessible 

(unable to contact) 311 7.8 

6—out of scope, nontypical (e.g., 

prison farm, university farm) 14 0.4 

7—no resident equids 218 5.4 

Total 4,002 100.0 
Section II: Methodology

134 / Equine 2005

The numerator for the response-rate calculation includes the 2,874 complete

questionnaires, 19 partial responses, 238 responses out-of-business, and 218

responses with no resident equids for a total of 3,349 good responses. The

denominator includes all but the out-of-scope samples, for a total of 3,988. The

response rate was therefore 84.0 percent. There were 2,893 questionnaires with

equine health and management data, 72.3 percent of the total sample.

b. Response rate by region:

See also Appendix I: Sample Profile for responding operations by type of

operation, region, and number of equids on hand.

Percent 

South Northeast West Central All 

Operations 

87.0 82.4 82.2 81.6 84.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 135

Appendix I: Sample Profile

Appendix I: Sample Profile

A. Responding

Operations

1. Type of operation

Primary Function of Operation Number Responding Operations 

Equine boarding stable/training 257 

Riding stable 49 

Race track 30 

Equine breeding farm 533 

Guest ranch 22 

Farm or ranch 1,095 

Residence with equids for personal use 884 

Other 23 

Total 2,893 

2. Region

Region Number Responding Operations 

South 1,201 

Northeast 367 

West 646 

Central 679 

Total 2,893 

3. Equids on hand July 1, 2005

Number Number Responding Operations 

Fewer than 5* 405 

5 to 9 980 

10 to 19 844 

20 or more 661 

Total 2,890 

*Operations that had five or more equids per the NASS list frame (primarily comprised of equine 

information from the 2002 Census of Agriculture) but fewer than five equids on July 1, 2005, were 

included in this category. 
Appendix I: Sample Profile

136 / Equine 2005

4. Resident equids (whether or not present) as of July 1, 2005

Number Number Responding Operations 

Fewer than 5* 426 

5 to 9 987 

10 to 19 840 

20 or more 636 

Total 2,889 

*Operations that had five or more equids per the NASS list frame (primarily comprised of equine 

information from the 2002 Census of Agriculture) but fewer than five equids on July 1, 2005, were 

included in this category. 
USDA APHIS VS / 137

Appendix II: U.S. Equine Populations

Appendix II: U.S. Equine Populations

 

Jan. 1, 

1998, All 

Equids 

2002 Census: Number of Equids* on Farms 

Region State 

 (1,000 

Head**) All 5-9 10-19 

20 or 

More 

5 or 

More*** 

Central Illinois 99.0 61,346 16,371 17,264 16,359 49,994 

 Indiana 140.0 100,513 35,076 34,520 15,678 85,274 

 Kansas 104.0 68,913 19,632 16,077 16,339 52,048 

 Michigan 130.0 106,625 33,162 33,470 23,669 90,301 

 Minnesota 155.0 94,046 29,168 29,046 18,500 76,714 

 Missouri 140.0 146,029 44,941 43,114 27,720 115,775 

 Wisconsin 115.0 104,123 32,642 35,338 16,685 84,665 

 Total 883.0 681,595 210,992 208,829 134,950 554,771 

Northeast New Jersey 45.0 27,403 6,519 7,161 10,614 24,294 

 New York 157.0 76,666 22,437 23,778 18,106 64,321 

 Ohio 155.0 138,052 45,015 47,209 24,185 116,409 

 Pennsylvania 165.0 117,115 37,522 38,517 22,489 98,528 

 Total 522.0 359,236 111,493 116,665 75,394 303,552 

South Alabama 130.0 69,119 21,826 19,086 15,479 56,391 

 Florida 170.0 101,521 28,330 29,313 30,486 88,129 

 Georgia 69.0 76,751 25,991 24,941 12,958 63,890 

 Kentucky 150.0 153,603 40,304 38,283 50,654 129,241 

 Louisiana 65.0 48,913 14,808 12,950 12,542 40,300 

 Maryland 45.0 26,383 7,491 7,026 8,667 23,184 

 Oklahoma 165.0 154,429 44,731 40,172 35,133 120,036 

 Tennessee 185.0 155,025 53,112 43,107 29,405 125,624 

 Texas 595.0 395,085 111,697 97,657 97,741 307,095 

 Virginia 145.0 83,871 25,418 25,579 18,139 69,136 

 Total 1,719.0 1,264,700 373,708 338,114 311,204 1,023,026 

West California 235.0 134,447 38,130 36,379 43,156 117,665 

 Colorado 140.0 109,040 28,973 28,742 34,785 92,500 

 Montana 130.0 97,581 24,548 22,829 34,880 82,257 

 New Mexico 64.0 47,530 13,336 11,034 13,367 37,737 

 Oregon 120.0 95,237 30,177 24,601 22,078 76,856 

 Washington 155.0 77,462 25,781 21,887 17,323 64,991 

 Wyoming 61.0 63,738 13,168 15,509 29,001 57,678 

 Total 905.0 625,035 174,113 160,981 194,590 529,684 

Total 28 

States 4,029.0 2,930,566 870,306 824,589 716,138 2,411,033 

28 States 

as a % of 

50 States 

 76.7 78.2 78.6 79.4 75.6 78.0 

Total 

U.S. 5,250.4 3,749,636 1,107,128 1,038,767 947,086 3,092,981 

*Equids and farms reporting equids. Source: Census of Agriculture 2002. 

**NASS: Number of equids all locations January 1, 1998. 

***Reference population. 
Appendix III: 2002—Number of Farms Reporting Equids

138 / Equine 2005

Appendix III: 2002 Census—Number of Farms Reporting Equids

 2002 Census: Number Farms Reporting Equids* 

Region State All 5-9 10-19 20 or More 

5 or 

More** 

Central Illinois 9,162 2,555 1,341 474 4,370 

 Indiana 14,694 5,444 2,700 545 8,689 

 Kansas 12,335 3,100 1,250 487 4,837 

 Michigan 15,120 5,162 2,592 746 7,500 

 Minnesota 14,417 4,515 2,258 599 7,372 

 Missouri 24,093 6,965 3,353 866 11,184 

 Wisconsin 16,482 5,003 2,781 551 8,335 

 Total 106,303 32,744 16,275 4,268 53,287 

Northeast New Jersey 3,092 1,023 560 260 1,843 

 New York 11,009 3,481 1,822 521 5,824 

 Ohio 20,304 6,895 3,678 755 11,328 

 Pennsylvania 17,091 5,572 3,027 666 9,265 

 Total 51,496 16,971 9,087 2,202 28,260 

South Alabama 10,763 3,444 1,500 490 5,434 

 Florida 12,937 4,464 2,267 672 7,403 

 Georgia 11,834 4,083 1,924 427 6,434 

 Kentucky 20,507 6,229 2,986 1,070 10,285 

 Louisiana 7,265 2,317 1,015 351 3,683 

 Maryland 3,221 1,152 546 223 1,921 

 Oklahoma 26,165 7,000 3,139 977 11,116 

 Tennessee 24,873 8,340 3,368 897 12,605 

 Texas 65,656 17,527 7,625 2,571 27,723 

 Virginia 12,575 3,962 1,976 523 6,461 

 Total 195,796 58,518 26,346 8,201 93,065 

West California 16,595 5,908 2,836 1,013 9,757 

 Colorado 14,040 4,481 2,218 874 7,573 

 Montana 12,557 3,873 1,783 872 6,528 

 New Mexico 7,270 2,115 888 287 3,290 

 Oregon 14,661 4,717 1,895 578 7,190 

 Washington 11,320 4,025 1,737 474 6,236 

 Wyoming 6,132 2,023 1,185 665 3,873 

 Total 82,575 27,142 12,542 4,763 44,447 

Total 28 

States 436,170 135,375 64,250 19,434 219,059 

28 States 

as a % of 

50 States 

 78.9 78.5 79.3 77.1 78.6 

Total U.S. 552,917 172,405 81,029 25,194 278,628 

*Equids and farms reporting equids. Source: Census of Agriculture 2002. 

**Reference population. 
USDA APHIS VS / 139

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

Appendix IV: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

1. Focus on health practices that could impact the occurrence of equine

infectious diseases.

 • Part I: Baseline Reference of Equine Health and Management, 2005,

 November 2006

 • Info sheets, expected fall 2006

2. Determine health-management factors related to the control of equine

infectious diseases, as implemented on-farm in the 28 participating States.

 • Equine Biosecurity and Biocontainment Practices on U.S. Equine Operations

 info sheet, expected fall 2006

3. Compare relevant data collected in 2005 to data collected during the NAHMS

Equine ’98 study.

 • Part II: Changes in the U.S. Equine Industry, 1998-2005, expected fall 2006

 • Info sheets, expected fall 2006

4. Help identify trends in equine health management related to the control of

equine infectious diseases.

 • Part II: Changes in the U.S. Equine Industry, 1998-2005, expected fall 2006

 • Info sheets, expected fall 2006

5. Gather data specific to equine vaccination.

 • Part I: Baseline Reference of Equine Health and Management, 2005,

 October 2006

 • Vaccination info sheets, expected fall 2006