United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

Veterinary 

Services

National 

Animal Health 

Monitoring 

System

December 2012

Sheep 2011

Part II: Reference of Marketing and Death 

Loss on U.S. Sheep Operations
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) Should contact USDA’s TARGET Center 

at (202) 720–2600 

(voice and TDD).

To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Offi ce of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–

3272 (voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Mention of companies or commercial products does not 

imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA 

over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor 

warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product 

names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specifi c information. 

USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH–NAHMS

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526–8117

970.494.7000

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

#632.1212

Cover photograph courtesy of Camilla Kristensen.
USDA APHIS VS / i 

Items of Note

Lamb marketing 

The largest marketing component of the sheep industry is the sale of lambs. Overall, 

the majority of sheep operations with 20 or more ewes (52.5 percent) sold their lambs at 

auction markets or sale barns. Large operations (500 or more ewes) are the exception. 

Marketing on large operations is more diverse compared with the other operation sizes. 

For example, a relatively equal percentage of large operations sold lambs directly to 

slaughter (24.4 percent), directly to feedlots (20.8 percent), at auction or sale barns 

(29.6 percent), or directly to buyer/dealers (29.0 percent). Marketing characteristics also 

varied by region. In the Central and East regions the majority of operations sold lambs 

at auction or sale barns (58.0 and 52.0 percent, respectively), while in the West region 

similar percentages of operations sold lambs directly to consumers (25.1 percent), 

directly to another operation (21.3 percent), at auction or sale barn (22.5 percent), and 

directly to buyer/dealers (23.2 percent). Not surprisingly, lamb marketing also varied by 

fl ock type. The majority of fenced-range (59.4 percent), pasture (51.3 percent), and dry 

lot/feedlot (51.8 percent) operations sold lambs at auctions or sale barns, while similar 

percentages of herded/open-range operations sold lambs directly to slaughter 

(22.9 percent), directly to feedlots (27.2 percent), and directly to buyer/dealers 

(25.3 percent). 

Overall, 75.3 percent of lambs were sold in the United States during 2010. Of those, 

27.3 percent were sold at auction/sale barn, 24.9 percent were sold directly to slaughter, 

and 17.3 percent were sold directly to buyer/dealers. For all operations, the majority of 

cull sheep sold (60.4 percent) were sold at auction markets or sale barns. The majority 

of breeding and “other” sheep (51.7 percent) were sold directly to another operation. The 

primary reason for culling rams and ewes was old age. The average age at which rams 

and ewes were culled was 4.9 and 6.3 years, respectively. Rams and ewes on large 

operations were slightly older when culled than those on smaller operations. 

Death losses

Predator losses have a substantial economic impact on U.S. sheep operations. Overall, 

coyotes caused the highest percentage of predator losses (51.8 percent), but predator 

predominance varies by geographic location, fl ock size, and fl ock type. For example, 

mountain lions, cougars, or pumas were a cause of sheep loss on 26.8 percent of 

operations in the West region but on only 1.3 percent of operations in the East region. 

Dogs were a cause of sheep loss on 39.3 percent of very small operations (fewer than 

20 ewes), while only 4.1 percent of large operations reported predation due to dogs. 
ii / Sheep 2011

Death-loss evaluations in 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2009 have shown lamb death loss 

ranged from 9.5 to 10.8 percent of lambs born. In 2010, lamb death loss for all operations 

was 11.2 percent of lambs born. In 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2009, sheep death loss ranged 

from 5.6 to 6.5 percent. In 2010, sheep death loss for all operations was 5.0 percent of 

adult sheep inventory on January 1, 2011. 

Predator losses were highest in the Central region, where 37.9 percent of operations 

lost lambs and 22.5 percent lost sheep due to predation in 2010. Nonpredator losses 

accounted for 3.8 percent of sheep lost on 47.2 percent of all operations during 2010.

Veterinary use

Almost one-fourth of operations (23.9 percent) had a private veterinarian visit for any 

sheep-related reason during 2010. For operations that did not use a veterinarian during 

2010, 68.9 percent indicated they had no health-related problems; 5.1 percent reported 

there was no veterinarian with sheep experience available; and 11.8 percent claimed 

veterinarian visits were too expensive. 

Sheep shearing

Overall, 80.2 percent of operations with 20 or more ewes sheared lambs and sheep 

during 2010. A hired individual was used to shear sheep on 50.9 percent of these 

operations, while 29.2 percent contracted with a shearing crew, and 26.2 percent used 

employees or the sheep owner to shear.
USDA APHIS VS / iii 

 

 

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Marketing 5

1. Operations that sold or moved lambs or sheep 6

2. Lambs sold or moved directly to feedlot 11

3. Lamb ownership 14

4. Marketing channels for lambs 15

5. Marketing channels for breeding and other sheep 21

6. Marketing channels for cull sheep 26

7. Cull rams and ewes 34

8. Reasons for culling rams and ewes 39

B. Lamb and Sheep Deaths and Losses 41

1. Lamb and sheep losses 41

2. Predator and nonpredator losses 45

3. Sheep predator losses 53

4. Lamb predator losses (before and after docking) 59

5. Nonpredator sheep losses 67

6. Nonpredator lamb losses (before and after docking) 71

7. Carcass disposal methods 79

C. Sheep and Lambs on Feed 93

1. Sheep and lambs on a high-energy diet 93

2. Weight of market lambs 96

D. Biosecurity 100

1. Flock management 100

2. Flock additions 103

3. Contact with other animal species 113

E. Health Management Practices 116

1. External parasite treatment 116

2. Professional consultant visitors 118

3. Use of private veterinarian 121

F. Shearing 128

1. Shearing management 128

2. Wool management and marketing 135

Table of Contents
iv / Sheep 2011

Section II: Methodology 140

A. Needs Assessment 140

B. Sampling and Estimation 141

1. State selection 141

2. Operation selection 142

3. Population inferences 142

C. Data Collection 143

1. Data collectors and data collection period 143

D. Data Analysis 143

1. Phase I: Validation—General Sheep Management Questionnaire 143

E. Sample Evaluation 144

1. Phase Ia: General Sheep Management Questionnaire—fewer than 20 ewes 

144

2. Phase Ib: General Sheep Management Questionnaire—20 or more ewes 

144

Appendix I: Sample Profi le 145

Appendix II: U.S. Ewes Population and Farms 146

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 151
USDA APHIS VS / v 

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

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

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

We’d like to thank the NASS enumerators who contacted sheep producers and collected 

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

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

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

Additional biological sampling and testing for the Sheep 2011 study were afforded by the 

generous contributions of collaborators, including:

• IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., Westbrook, ME

• Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine

• University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine

• USDA–APHIS–VS National Veterinary Services Laboratories, Ames, IA

• USDA–ARS, Animal Parasitic Disease Laboratory, Beltsville, MD

• USDA–ARS, Bacterial Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Resistance Research 

Unit, Athens, GA

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

made the Sheep 2011 study possible.

Larry M. Granger 

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health

Acknowledgements
vi / Sheep 2011

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2012. Sheep 2011, Part II: Reference of Marketing and Death Loss

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

#632.1112

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Katherine Marshall (970) 494–7000

Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Abby Zehr (970) 494–7000

Feedback

Feedback, comments, and suggestions regarding Sheep 2011 study reports are 

welcomed. You may submit feedback via online survey at: http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov 

(Click on “FEEDBACK on NAHMS reports.”)
USDA APHIS VS / 1 

Introduction

The purpose of the USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring Service (NAHMS) program 

is to collect and analyze animal health data to provide scientifi cally sound and current 

information on the health status of U.S. livestock and poultry. NAHMS has collected data 

on sheep health and management practices through two previous studies. 

The NAHMS 1996 National Sheep Survey was developed through collaboration with 

the Research and Education Division of the American Sheep Industry Association and 

focused on identifying health and productivity issues affecting the U.S. sheep industry. 

Study results provided an overview of sheep health, productivity, and management on 

5,174 U.S. sheep operations. 

The NAHMS Sheep 2001 study was designed to provide both participants and the 

industry with information about the U.S. sheep fl ock on operations with one or more 

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

VS to select a producer sample statistically designed to provide inferences to the 

Nation’s sheep population in 22 participating States. These 22 States accounted for 87.4 

percent of the U.S. sheep inventory on January 1, 2001, and 72.3 percent of U.S. sheep 

operations in 2000. 

The NAHMS Sheep 2011 study was conducted in 22 of the Nation’s major sheepproducing States (see map on next page). The study provides participants, stakeholders, 

and the industry with valuable information representing 70.1 percent of U.S. farms with 

ewes and 85.5 percent of the U.S. ewe inventory (NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture). 

“Part II: Reference of Sheep Management Practices in the United States, 2011” is the 

second report containing national information from the NAHMS Sheep 2011 study. 

Data for this report were collected from two samples totaling 4,920 sheep operations. 

Producers on operations with 20 or more ewes were personally interviewed by NASS 

enumerators on-site from January 1 to February 11, 2011, to complete the full version of 

the study questionnaire. Producers on operations with fewer than 20 ewes completed a 

shorter version of the questionnaire by telephone.

The methods used and number of respondents in the study can be found in Section II 

and Appendix I of this report, respectively.

Introduction
2 / Sheep 2011

Introduction

Sheep 2011 Participating States

F L

N M

D E M D

T X O K

K S

N E

S D

N D

M T

W Y

C O

U T

ID

A Z

N V

W A

C A

O R

K Y

M E

N Y

P A

M I

V T N H

M A

R I C T

V A

W V

O H IN

IL

N C

T N

S C

M S A L

A R

L A

M O

IA

M N

W I

N J

G A

Regions

Central

West

East
USDA APHIS VS / 3 

Introduction

Terms Used in 

This Report

Backgrounder: Someone who takes animals after they are weaned and grows them in 

preparation for market.

Being on back: Sheep that have rolled onto their backs (sometimes referred to as “cast” 

sheep). These sheep often need assistance in standing or they will die. Heavily pregnant 

ewes are most susceptible, but other sheep types might also be vulnerable, including 

those with full fl eeces, stocky builds, or those that have rolled over into a soft spot of 

ground.

Flock size: Flock sizes are based on the number of ewes for each operation on the 

NASS list sampling frame on January 1, 2011. Size breakouts are: very small (fewer than 

20); small (20–99); medium (100–499); large (500 or more) [see Section II.B, p 141].

Flock type: The following fl ock types represent only fl ocks with 20 or more ewes. The 

majority of operations managed their sheep on more than one land type.

Herded/open range—any unfenced acreage, even if it was a few acres surrounded 

by residential areas.

Fenced range—any fenced area not specifi cally cultivated to raise forage or browse.

Pasture—any fenced area specifi cally cultivated to raise forage or browse.

Dry lot/feedlot—This study enrolled only operations with ewes. It does not include 

any typical sheep feedlot operations and is not meant to represent the sheep feedlot 

industry. Rather, the dry lot/feedlot category represents operations that fed ewes in 

dry lots or in “feedlot situations.” In many ways, these operations managed, fed, and 

marketed their sheep and lambs similarly to the other fl ock types. Over two-thirds of 

these operations also kept their sheep on fenced range or pasture.

Greasy basis: Wool as it has been shorn from the sheep and therefore not yet washed

or cleaned. It contains lanolin, a thick, yellow, greasy substance in wool, secreted by the 

sheep’s skin.

Lamb: Sheep less than 1 year old.

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

reporting and divided by number of operations reporting.

PIGA: Public, industrial, and grazing association land.

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

called the standard error. A 95-percent confi dence interval can be created with bounds 

equal to the estimate, plus or minus two standard errors. If the only error is sampling 

error, the confi dence intervals created in this manner will contain the true population 

mean 95 out of 100 times. An estimate of 7.5 with a standard error of 1.0 results in limits 

of 5.5 to 9.5 (two times the standard error above and below the estimate). Alternatively, 
4 / Sheep 2011

Introduction

the 90-percent confi dence interval would be created by multiplying the standard error 

by 1.65 instead of 2. Most estimates in this report are rounded to the nearest tenth. If 

rounded to 0, the standard error was reported (0.0). If there were no reports of the event, 

no standard error was reported (—).

Regions:

West: California, Oregon, Washington

Central: Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 

Wyoming

East: Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia, Wisconsin

Sheep: Animal 1 year old and older.
USDA APHIS VS / 5 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Note: Where appropriate, column totals are shown as 100.0 to aid in interpretation. 

However, estimates may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.

Most sheep operations derive the majority of their income through the sale of lambs 

or lamb meat. Sheep products are marketed directly to consumers (e.g., at farmers’ 

markets) and through more common channels such as auctions, broker/buyers, 

wholesalers, feedlots, etc. This section refers to animals that were sold or otherwise 

permanently removed from the operation (while alive) and marketed through these 

various channels. Animals that were slaughtered for home consumption are also 

included. Note that animals sold and slaughtered on the operation by the buyer or the 

producer might have been included in the “sold directly to consumer or ethnic market” 

category of this report. This category captures on-farm sales and meat sold at farmers’ 

markets. It is estimated that approximately one-third of the U.S. lamb crop is sold in these 

nontraditional markets.1

To keep U.S. lamb meat in the Nation’s large grocery store chains, traditional markets 

must be adequately supplied. Over the last few decades, the sheep and lamb inventory 

in the United States has declined for a variety of reasons, and there is concern across 

the U.S. sheep industry that there is not enough supply to meet demand. As a result, the 

American Sheep Industry Association is now encouraging producers to grow their fl ocks 

through a new program called “Let’s Grow with twoPLUS”.2 The program’s objective is to 

increase sheep numbers, thereby ensuring that there is enough lamb meat and wool to 

sustain the industry.

1

Shifl ett J. 2010. Nontraditional marketing in the United States: characteristics and marketing strategies, Juniper 

Economic Consulting, Inc. 

2

 http://www.sheepusa.org/Rebuild_the_U.S._Sheep_Industry

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Marketing
6 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

1. Operations that sold or moved lambs or sheep

Overall, 84.6 percent of all sheep operations sold, moved, or permanently removed 

lambs or sheep during 2010. The percentage of operations that sold lambs was lower for 

very small operations (67.4 percent) compared with small (94.2 percent), medium 

(97.8 percent), and large (99.6 percent) operations. The very small operations accounted 

for the reduced percentage of lambs sold by all operations with one or more ewes 

(82.4 percent) compared with operations with 20 or more ewes (95.3 percent). This same 

trend extends to the cull sheep and breeding or other sheep categories. 

A.1.a. Percentage of operations that sold, moved, or permanently removed any sheep or 

lambs during 2010, by sheep type and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20

or more

Sheep type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Lambs 67.4 (1.8) 94.2 (0.7) 97.8 (0.5) 99.6 (0.2) 82.4 (0.9) 95.3 (0.5)

Cull sheep 24.8 (1.6) 62.8 (1.5) 80.7 (1.4) 87.3 (1.2) 48.2 (0.9) 68.0 (1.1)

Breeding or 

other sheep 13.0 (1.2) 25.2 (1.3) 23.9 (1.5) 26.5 (1.6) 19.5 (0.8) 25.0 (1.0)

Any 71.3 (1.7) 94.9 (0.7) 98.2 (0.5) 98.0 (0.5) 84.6 (0.8) 95.8 (0.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 7 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A lower percentage of operations in the West region (79.1 percent) sold, moved, or 

permanently removed any sheep or lambs in 2010 compared with operations in East 

region (86.7 percent). This regional difference was also seen for cull sheep. 

A.1.b. Percentage of operations that sold, moved, or permanently removed any sheep or 

lambs during 2010, by sheep type and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Sheep type Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Lambs 77.5 (2.0) 83.1 (1.4) 83.8 (1.3)

Cull sheep 37.6 (2.1) 46.7 (1.4) 53.1 (1.5)

Breeding or other sheep 17.9 (1.8) 20.0 (1.3) 19.7 (1.2)

Any 79.1 (2.0) 84.4 (1.4) 86.7 (1.2)
8 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Over three-fourths of dry lot/feedlot operations culled sheep. While dry lot/feedlot 

management was their primary fl ock type, two-thirds of these operations also managed 

their sheep on fenced range or pasture. All of these operations also had ewes and, 

therefore, do not represent the sheep feedlot industry. A lower percentage of herded/

open range operations (84.0 percent) sold, moved, or permanently removed any 

sheep compared with fenced range and pasture operations (96.4 and 96.5 percent, 

respectively).

A.1.c. Percentage of operations that sold, moved, or permanently removed any sheep or 

lambs during 2010, by sheep type and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Sheep type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Lambs 83.8 (5.4) 95.1 (1.0) 95.6 (0.7) 97.8 (0.5)

Cull sheep 71.6 (5.6) 63.0 (2.2) 68.7 (1.5) 78.0 (3.7)

Breeding or 

other sheep 20.6 (3.6) 21.5 (1.8) 26.3 (1.4) 27.8 (3.8)

Any 84.0 (5.3) 96.4 (0.9) 96.5 (0.6) 92.1 (2.7)
USDA APHIS VS / 9 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Collectively, 75.3 percent of lambs were moved, sold, or permanently removed during 

2010. A higher percentage of lambs were moved from large operations (78.2 percent) 

compared with very small operations (66.0 percent). Only 11.5 percent of sheep were 

culled, and 6.5 percent of sheep were sold for breeding or other reasons during 2010.

A.1.d. Percentage of sheep and/or lambs sold, moved, or permanently removed during 

2010, by sheep type and by fl ock size:

Percent Sheep and Lambs* 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Sheep type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Lambs 66.0 (1.9) 72.4 (1.5) 75.7 (1.3) 78.2 (3.3) 75.3 (1.5) 76.0 (1.6)

Cull sheep 9.3 (1.7) 11.0 (0.5) 17.2 (4.3) 9.4 (0.4) 11.5 (1.1) 11.7 (1.1)

Breeding or 

other sheep 6.0 (1.1) 7.3 (1.0) 8.2 (2.2) 5.5 (0.6) 6.5 (0.6) 6.6 (0.7)

Any 42.8 (2.0) 49.8 (1.0) 53.8 (1.2) 50.3 (1.5) 50.5 (0.8) 51.1 (0.9)

*Percentage of sheep inventory on January 1, 2011, and/or lambs born during 2010.
10 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A.1.e. Percentage of sheep and/or lambs sold, moved, or permanently removed during 

2010, by sheep type and by region:

Percent Sheep and Lambs* (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Sheep type Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Lambs 80.0 (2.7) 74.6 (2.6) 74.2 (1.3)

Cull sheep 9.2 (0.5) 11.9 (1.7) 12.1 (0.6)

Breeding or other sheep 5.0 (1.3) 7.2 (1.0) 5.7 (0.5)

Any 48.7 (1.7) 50.2 (1.3) 52.4 (0.8)

*Percentage of sheep inventory on January 1, 2011, and/or lambs born during 2010.

A.1.f. Percentage of sheep and/or lambs sold, moved, or permanently removed during 

2010, by sheep type and by fl ock type:

Percent Sheep and Lambs* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Sheep type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Lambs 71.7 (1.9) 79.3 (4.9) 76.1 (1.3) 67.2 (9.3)

Cull sheep 13.3 (4.3) 10.5 (0.5) 11.3 (0.4) 14.3 (1.3)

Breeding or 

other sheep 6.9 (2.2) 5.9 (0.7) 6.9 (0.8) 6.9 (1.5)

Any 49.2 (1.6) 51.2 (2.1) 52.1 (0.9) 35.3 (6.5)

*Percentage of sheep inventory on January 1, 2011, and/or lambs born during 2010.
USDA APHIS VS / 11 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

2. Lambs sold or moved directly to feedlot 

Of operations that sold, moved, or permanently removed lambs during 2010, only 

20.1 percent moved lambs directly to a feedlot separate from their operation. A higher 

percentage of large operations (37.0 percent) moved lambs directly to feedlots compared 

with small and medium operations (18.4 and 21.3 percent, respectively). 

Overall, 33.7 percent of the lambs sold, moved, or permanently removed were sent 

directly to a feedlot separate from the operation. A higher percentage of lambs were sent 

directly to feedlots separate from the operation on medium (21.5 percent) and large 

(49.5 percent) operations compared with small operations (16.0 percent).

A.2.a. Of operations that sold, moved, or permanently removed lambs during 2010, 

percentage that moved lambs directly to a feedlot separate from the operation and 

percentage of lambs sold, moved, or permanently removed, by fl ock size: 

Percent

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Measure Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Operations 18.4 (1.2) 21.3 (1.3) 37.0 (1.8) 20.1 (0.9)

Lambs 16.0 (1.4) 21.5 (1.7) 49.5 (3.1) 33.7 (1.8)
12 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A higher percentage of operations in the Central region (24.8 percent) moved lambs 

directly to a feedlot separate from their operation compared with operations in the 

East region (15.9 percent). Operations in the West and Central regions sent a higher 

percentage of lambs (35.3 and 43.2 percent, respectively) directly to a feedlot compared 

with operations in the East region (12.8 percent).

A.2.b. Of operations that sold, moved, or permanently removed lambs during 2010, 

percentage that moved lambs directly to a feedlot separate from the operation and 

percentage of lambs sold, moved, or permanently removed, by region:

Percent (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Measure Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Operations 20.7 (2.6) 24.8 (1.4) 15.9 (1.4)

Lambs 35.3 (3.6) 43.2 (2.6) 12.8 (1.3)

A higher percentage of herded/open range operations (51.2 percent) sold lambs directly 

to a feedlot compared with fenced range (22.3 percent), pasture (17.9 percent), and dry 

lot/feedlot (18.8 percent) operations. Herded/open range operations moved 

65.9 percent of their lambs directly to a feedlot separate from their operation. A much 

higher percentage of lambs were moved from herded/open range operations 

(65.9 percent) than from fenced range (32.2 percent), pasture (19.2 percent), and dry lot/

feedlot operations (13.5 percent). 

A.2.c. Of operations that sold, moved, or permanently removed lambs during 2010, 

percentage that moved lambs directly to a feedlot separate from the operation and 

percentage of lambs sold, moved, or permanently removed, by fl ock type:

Percent (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot

Measure Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Operations 51.2 (5.1) 22.3 (1.8) 17.9 (1.2) 18.8 (3.7)

Lambs 65.9 (4.5) 32.2 (4.1) 19.2 (1.3) 13.5 (3.3)
USDA APHIS VS / 13 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

0

20

40

60

80

Lambs

Operations

Percent

Of operations with 20 or more ewes that sold, moved, or permanently removed lambs 

during 2010, percentage that moved lambs directly to a feedlot separate from the 

operation and percentage of lambs sold, moved, or permanently removed, by flock type

Herded/

open range

Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot

Flock type

51.2

22.3

17.9 18.8

65.9

32.2

19.2

13.5
14 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

3. Lamb ownership

Of the 95.3 percent of operations with 20 or more ewes that sold, moved, or permanently 

removed lambs (table A.1.a), 94.6 percent retained no ownership of the lambs. Another 

5.0 percent retained complete ownership of the lambs, and just 0.4 percent retained 

partial ownership.

A higher percentage of large operations (10.3 percent) retained complete ownership of 

lambs compared with medium and small operations (6.2 and 4.2 percent, respectively), 

which is comparable to a lower percentage of large operations (88.6 percent) retaining 

no ownership of lambs compared with small operations (95.4 percent). There were no 

differences in lamb ownership by region or fl ock type.

A.3. For operations that sold or moved lambs during 2010, percentage of operations by 

ownership of the majority of lambs sold or moved, and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Lamb 

ownership Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Retained 

complete 

ownership

4.2 (0.7) 6.2 (0.9) 10.3 (1.2) 5.0 (0.5)

Retained partial 

ownership 0.4 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 1.1 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2)

Retained no 

ownership 95.4 (0.7) 93.7 (0.9) 88.6 (1.2) 94.6 (0.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 15 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

4. Marketing channels for lambs

Of operations that sold or permanently removed lambs in 2010, the highest percentage 

of all operations (1 or more ewes) and operations with 20 or more ewes sold lambs at an 

auction market or sale barn (49.0 and 52.5 percent respectively). Only 29.6 percent of 

large operations, however, sold lambs through an auction market or sale barn. 

A higher percentage of large operations (29.0 percent) sold lambs directly to buyer/

dealers compared with very small (12.5 percent), small (14.9 percent), and medium 

(19.9 percent) operations. Only 4.2 percent of large operations slaughtered lambs for 

personal use/euthanized compared with 11.6, 9.6, and 7.8 percent of very small, small, or 

medium operations, respectively. A higher percentage of very small and small operations 

(15.0 and 11.8 percent, respectively) sold directly to another operation compared with 

large operations (5.5 percent). 

A.4.a. For operations that sold or permanently removed lambs in 2010, percentage of 

operations by marketing channel used and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Marketing 

channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 14.6 (1.6) 17.1 (1.2) 23.7 (1.4) 24.4 (1.6) 17.3 (0.8) 19.0 (0.9)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 3.5 (0.7) 4.2 (0.6) 6.4 (0.7) 20.8 (1.4) 4.8 (0.4) 5.6 (0.5)

Sold directly to 

backgrounder 1.2 (0.5) 1.9 (0.4) 2.2 (0.4) 4.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.3) 2.2 (0.3)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

18.0 (1.8) 19.7 (1.2) 12.1 (1.1) 4.5 (0.8) 17.5 (0.9) 17.2 (0.9)

Sold directly 

to another 

operation

15.0 (1.6) 11.8 (1.0) 8.1 (1.0) 5.5 (0.8) 12.3 (0.8) 10.7 (0.8)

Sold at auction 

market/sale 

barn

43.2 (2.2) 54.6 (1.5) 51.8 (1.5) 29.6 (1.6) 49.0 (1.1) 52.5 (1.1)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 12.5 (1.4) 14.9 (1.1) 19.9 (1.3) 29.0 (1.7) 15.2 (0.8) 16.8 (0.9)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

11.6 (1.4) 9.6 (1.0) 7.8 (1.0) 4.2 (0.8) 9.9 (0.7) 8.9 (0.7)

Other 6.7 (1.1) 8.5 (0.9) 5.4 (0.9) 3.7 (0.7) 7.2 (0.6) 7.5 (0.6)
16 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Of operations in the Central and East regions that sold or permanently removed lambs in 

2010, the highest percentage marketed lambs at an auction market/sale barn (58.0 and 

52.0 percent, respectively). In the West region, similar percentages of operations sold 

their lambs directly to the consumer or ethnic market (25.1 percent), directly to another 

operation (21.3 percent), at an auction market or sale barn (22.5 percent), or directly to a 

buyer or dealer (23.2 percent). 

A.4.b. For operations that sold or permanently removed lambs in 2010, percentage of 

operations by marketing channel used and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Marketing channel Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Sold directly to slaughter 15.6 (1.9) 11.2 (1.0) 22.1 (1.4)

Sold directly to feedlot 3.7 (0.9) 6.4 (0.6) 4.2 (0.6)

Sold directly to backgrounder 4.0 (0.9) 1.8 (0.4) 1.0 (0.4)

Sold directly to consumer 

or ethnic market 25.1 (2.4) 11.0 (1.2) 19.2 (1.4)

Sold directly 

to another operation 21.3 (2.3) 9.6 (1.1) 11.0 (1.1)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 22.5 (2.4) 58.0 (1.6) 52.0 (1.7)

Sold directly to buyer/dealer 23.2 (2.3) 15.2 (1.1) 12.4 (1.1)

Slaughtered for personal 

use/euthanized 18.3 (2.2) 7.6 (1.0) 8.6 (1.0)

Other 5.9 (1.3) 7.1 (0.8) 7.8 (0.9)
USDA APHIS VS / 17 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

The highest percentage of fenced range, pasture, and dry lot/feedlot operations that sold 

or permanently removed lambs in 2010 sold their lambs at an auction market/sale barn 

(59.4, 51.3, and 51.8 percent, respectively). Similar percentages of herded/open range 

operations sold their lambs directly to slaughter (22.9 percent), a buyer/dealer 

(25.3 percent), or to a feedlot (27.2 percent). 

A.4.c. For operations that sold or permanently removed lambs in 2010, percentage of 

operations by marketing channel used and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Marketing channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 22.9 (4.0) 11.9 (1.4) 21.0 (1.3) 25.6 (3.9)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 27.2 (3.9) 5.8 (0.8) 4.9 (0.6) 3.5 (1.8)

Sold directly 

to backgrounder 8.2 (2.0) 1.5 (0.5) 2.3 (0.4) 1.8 (1.3)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

3.8 (2.1) 11.0 (1.5) 19.9 (1.3) 21.8 (4.0)

Sold directly 

to another operation 3.1 (0.8) 7.7 (1.3) 12.2 (1.1) 11.0 (3.0)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 14.7 (4.3) 59.4 (2.1) 51.3 (1.5) 51.8 (4.5)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 25.3 (4.1) 17.0 (1.6) 16.7 (1.2) 13.3 (2.8)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

9.3 (3.0) 6.4 (1.2) 9.4 (1.0) 13.6 (3.2)

Other 2.2 (0.7) 5.4 (1.1) 8.2 (0.9) 10.6 (3.0)
18 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Of lambs sold or permanently removed in 2010 on all operations (1 or more ewes), 

24.9 percent were sold directly to slaughter and 27.3 percent were sold at an auction 

market/sale barn. These two marketing channels were also used to sell 25.5 and 

26.5 percent of lambs sold on operations with 20 or more ewes. More than half of lambs 

sold by large operations were sold either directly to slaughter (28.1 percent of lambs) or 

directly to a feedlot (26.0 percent of lambs). Almost two-thirds of lambs sold from medium 

operations were sold directly to slaughter (30.2 percent) or at the auction market/sale 

barn (34.3 percent). 

A.4.d. For lambs sold or permanently removed in 2010, percentage of lambs by 

marketing channel used and by fl ock size:

Percent Lambs 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Marketing 

channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 13.9 (2.4) 15.1 (1.5) 30.2 (2.5) 28.1 (3.3) 24.9 (1.7) 25.5 (1.8)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 4.1 (1.1) 3.3 (0.6) 6.2 (0.8) 26.0 (2.9) 14.5 (1.4) 15.1 (1.4)

Sold directly 

to backgrounder 1.3 (0.6) 1.4 (0.4) 2.4 (0.5) 6.0 (1.2) 3.8 (0.6) 3.9 (0.6)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

14.1 (2.4) 8.3 (0.8) 5.8 (0.8) 0.7 (0.2) 4.5 (0.3) 3.9 (0.3)

Sold directly 

to another 

operation

10.4 (2.0) 5.6 (0.7) 3.6 (0.6) 2.1 (0.5) 3.7 (0.3) 3.4 (0.3)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 41.4 (2.8) 48.4 (2.0) 34.3 (1.8) 11.3 (1.6) 27.3 (1.1) 26.5 (1.2)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 9.6 (1.4) 12.4 (1.2) 15.3 (1.3) 21.7 (2.1) 17.3 (1.0) 17.7 (1.1)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

2.1 (0.4) 0.8 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1)

Other 3.0 (1.1) 4.7 (0.7) 2.0 (0.4) 3.8 (1.2) 3.5 (0.6) 3.5 (0.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 19 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Of lambs sold or permanently removed in 2010, a lower percentage in the East region 

(3.4 percent) were sold directly to feedlots compared with operations in the Central and 

West regions (19.3 and 17.9 percent, respectively). The highest percentages of lambs 

in the East region were sold at auction markets/sale barns (37.4 percent) and directly to 

slaughter (31.1 percent). The highest percentages of lambs sold in the West region were 

sold directly to slaughter (30.9 percent), directly to buyers/dealers (21.8 percent), and 

directly to feedlots (17.9 percent). 

A.4.e. For lambs sold or permanently removed in 2010, percentage of lambs by 

marketing channel used and by region:

Percent Lambs (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Marketing channel Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Sold directly to slaughter 30.9 (3.4) 20.1 (2.8) 31.1 (2.2)

Sold directly to feedlot 17.9 (3.4) 19.3 (2.2) 3.4 (0.6)

Sold directly to 

backgrounder 8.5 (1.8) 4.1 (0.9) 0.5 (0.2)

Sold directly to consumer 

or ethnic market 6.3 (0.8) 2.0 (0.4) 8.3 (0.8)

Sold directly 

to another operation 6.0 (0.9) 2.8 (0.4) 4.2 (0.6)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 5.9 (1.2) 28.1 (1.7) 37.4 (1.8)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 21.8 (3.2) 19.4 (1.5) 10.8 (1.1)

Slaughtered for personal 

use/ euthanized 0.7 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1)

Other 1.9 (0.5) 3.8 (1.0) 3.8 (0.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
20 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Of lambs sold or permanently removed from herded/open-range operations in 2010, the 

highest percentage (38.1 percent) were sold directly to a feedlot. Nearly half the lambs 

sold on dry lot/feedlot operations (49.2 percent) were sold directly to slaughter, possibly 

because a higher percentage of these operations also fed a high-energy diet. Just 

1.1 percent of lambs from these operations were sold directly to a feedlot for fi nishing. 

A.4.f. For lambs sold or permanently removed in 2010, percentage of lambs by marketing 

channel used and by fl ock type:

Percent Lambs (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Marketing channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 24.3 (3.6) 20.1 (4.7) 26.4 (1.6) 49.2 (7.4)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 38.1 (5.0) 11.7 (1.5) 6.4 (0.9) 1.1 (0.6)

Sold directly 

to backgrounder 8.2 (2.2) 2.4 (0.6) 2.9 (0.5) 2.2 (1.0)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

0.5 (0.3) 3.6 (0.7) 6.4 (0.6) 3.4 (1.0)

Sold directly 

to another operation 1.5 (0.7) 3.3 (0.6) 4.7 (0.5) 2.3 (0.9)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 4.9 (2.8) 33.5 (2.4) 33.4 (1.6) 29.5 (5.4)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 16.6 (2.7) 22.5 (2.1) 16.1 (1.4) 9.9 (2.6)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

0.4 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1)

Other 5.4 (2.4) 2.7 (0.5) 3.3 (0.5) 2.1 (0.8)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 21 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

5. Marketing channels for breeding and other sheep 

The highest percentage of operations with one or more ewes sold breeding and other 

sheep directly to another operation (43.4 percent of operations). 

A.5.a. For operations that sold or permanently removed breeding and other sheep in 

2010, percentage of operations by marketing channel used and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Marketing 

channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 5.5 (2.4) 4.6 (1.3) 3.7 (1.2) 6.4 (2.0) 4.8 (1.0) 4.5 (1.0)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (0.6) 0.5 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.3) 0.7 (0.4)

Sold directly 

to backgrounder 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (0.7) 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

11.5 (3.5) 8.2 (1.7) 2.8 (1.0) 2.1 (0.8) 8.2 (1.4) 6.7 (1.3)

Sold directly 

to another 

operation

28.2 (4.7) 49.5 (3.1) 53.7 (3.5) 45.8 (3.8) 43.4 (2.2) 50.1 (2.4)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 33.1 (4.6) 20.9 (2.4) 27.5 (3.3) 31.5 (3.3) 26.0 (1.9) 22.8 (1.9)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 12.7 (3.3) 12.7 (2.1) 12.4 (2.4) 16.6 (2.9) 12.8 (1.5) 12.9 (1.6)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

7.7 (2.7) 4.1 (1.2) 0.9 (0.6) 3.8 (1.6) 4.7 (1.1) 3.4 (0.9)

Other 4.8 (2.5) 4.2 (1.2) 2.7 (1.0) 2.6 (0.8) 4.1 (1.0) 3.8 (0.9)
22 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A higher percentage of operations in the West region (20.1 percent) sold their breeding 

and other sheep directly to a buyer/dealer compared with operations in the Central and 

East regions (10.5 and 12.0 percent, respectively).

A.5.b. For operations that sold or permanently removed breeding and other sheep in 

2010, percentage of operations by marketing channel used and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Marketing channel Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Sold directly to slaughter 2.9 (2.0) 3.0 (1.2) 6.7 (1.7)

Sold directly to feedlot 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.6)

Sold directly to backgrounder 1.4 (1.4) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)

Sold directly to consumer 

or ethnic market 11.1 (3.7) 10.2 (2.4) 5.8 (1.9)

Sold directly 

to another operation 40.0 (5.6) 35.7 (3.3) 50.0 (3.4)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 16.7 (4.3) 37.9 (3.3) 20.8 (2.7)

Sold directly to buyer/dealer 20.1 (4.7) 10.5 (1.8) 12.0 (2.3)

Slaughtered for personal 

use/euthanized 8.9 (3.4) 2.7 (0.9) 4.7 (1.7)

Other 4.8 (2.6) 5.7 (1.9) 2.7 (1.2)
USDA APHIS VS / 23 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A.5.c. For operations that sold or permanently removed breeding and other sheep in 

2010, percentage of operations by marketing channel used and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Marketing channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 2.9 (1.4) 4.8 (2.2) 4.0 (1.2) 6.0 (3.7)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0)

Sold directly 

to backgrounder 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

3.5 (1.9) 5.6 (2.3) 6.8 (1.6) 11.5 (5.1)

Sold directly 

to another operation 60.9 (8.6) 39.4 (4.7) 52.9 (3.1) 58.7 (7.9)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 22.4 (7.3) 37.8 (4.5) 18.5 (2.3) 15.9 (5.5)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 8.9 (3.8) 15.2 (3.5) 12.5 (2.0) 11.8 (5.5)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

4.0 (2.2) 1.0 (0.8) 4.0 (1.3) 1.9 (1.8)

Other 1.3 (0.8) 3.6 (1.4) 3.8 (1.2) 5.1 (3.9)
24 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Over half of all breeding and other sheep sold or permanently removed from operations 

with 1 or more ewes (51.7 percent) were sold directly to another operation. 

A.5.d. For breeding and other sheep sold or permanently removed in 2010, percentage of 

sheep by marketing channel used and by fl ock size:

Percent Breeding and Other Sheep 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Marketing 

channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 5.3 (3.0) 4.0 (1.5) 1.2 (0.6) 2.9 (1.2) 2.8 (0.7) 2.6 (0.7)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)

Sold directly to 

backgrounder 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

14.2 (6.4) 18.0 (9.4) 0.8 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 5.3 (2.6) 4.7 (2.8)

Sold directly 

to another 

operation

38.6 (9.6) 42.6 (6.4) 67.8 (9.4) 47.4 (6.3) 51.7 (5.0) 52.5 (5.3)

Sold at auction 

market/sale 

barn

26.1 (6.1) 20.1 (4.6) 17.1 (5.8) 38.1 (6.3) 27.1 (3.8) 27.2 (4.0)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 11.7 (4.5) 9.2 (2.4) 11.8 (4.2) 9.6 (2.5) 10.3 (1.7) 10.2 (1.7)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

1.7 (0.7) 1.7 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.6 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2)

Other 2.5 (1.6) 3.9 (1.6) 1.2 (0.7) 1.7 (0.7) 2.1 (0.6) 2.1 (0.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 25 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A.5.e. Of breeding and other sheep sold or permanently removed in 2010, percentage 

sold or removed using the following marketing channels, by region:

Percent Breeding and Other Sheep (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Marketing channel Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Sold directly to slaughter 1.7 (1.6) 2.1 (0.8) 5.8 (1.7)

Sold directly to feedlot 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.6 (0.4)

Sold directly to backgrounder 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)

Sold directly to consumer 

or ethnic market 25.0 (17.0) 2.0 (0.7) 4.8 (2.0)

Sold directly 

to another operation 53.9 (13.5) 49.3 (7.1) 58.2 (4.7)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 8.5 (3.5) 33.5 (5.7) 16.7 (4.1)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 9.0 (3.9) 10.0 (2.2) 11.8 (2.9)

Slaughtered for personal 

use/euthanized 1.4 (0.9) 0.3 (0.2) 0.8 (0.4)

Other 0.5 (0.3) 2.7 (0.8) 1.2 (0.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
26 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

6. Marketing channels for cull sheep 

For operations that sold or permanently removed cull sheep in 2010, 60.4 percent of all 

operations (one or more ewes) sold the cull sheep at an auction market/sale barn and 

16.5 percent sold them directly to slaughter. A higher percentage of very small operations 

(12.4 percent) marketed cull sheep directly to the consumer or ethnic market compared 

with medium and large operations (3.4 and 2.8 percent, respectively). 

A.6.a. For operations that sold or permanently removed cull sheep in 2010, percentage of 

operations by marketing channel used and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Marketing 

channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 18.5 (2.9) 16.2 (1.4) 15.6 (1.3) 13.8 (1.3) 16.5 (1.0) 15.9 (1.0)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 2.3 (1.0) 1.5 (0.5) 1.6 (0.4) 4.4 (0.8) 1.9 (0.3) 1.7 (0.3)

Sold directly 

to backgrounder 0.6 (0.5) 0.2 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 0.9 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

12.4 (2.6) 6.6 (1.0) 3.4 (0.7) 2.8 (0.6) 7.1 (0.8) 5.5 (0.7)

Sold directly 

to another 

operation

4.1 (1.3) 2.4 (0.6) 1.7 (0.5) 4.4 (0.7) 2.8 (0.5) 2.4 (0.4)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 50.6 (3.7) 63.9 (1.8) 65.3 (1.7) 51.8 (1.8) 60.4 (1.3) 63.4 (1.3)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 5.9 (1.7) 9.6 (1.1) 11.8 (1.2) 25.0 (1.6) 10.0 (0.7) 11.3 (0.8)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

6.9 (2.0) 2.6 (0.6) 2.4 (0.7) 1.5 (0.4) 3.5 (0.6) 2.5 (0.5)

Other 1.1 (0.7) 0.7 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3) 0.7 (0.3) 0.8 (0.3) 0.7 (0.3)
USDA APHIS VS / 27 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

0 20 40 60 80

Cull sheep

Breeding and other sheep

Lambs

Percent

For all operations (1 or more ewes) that sold or permanently removed sheep or lambs

in 2010, percentage of operations by marketing channel used and by sheep type 

Sold directly

to slaughter

Sold directly

to feedlot

Sold directly

to backgrounder

Sold directly to

consumer or

ethnic market

Sold directly to

another operation

Sold at auction

market/sale barn

Sold directly

to buyer/dealer

Slaughtered for

personal use/

euthanized

Other

Marketing

channel

17.3

4.8

1.8

17.5

12.3

49.0

15.2

9.9

7.2

1.9

Sheep type

4.8

16.5

0.5

0.3

0.4

8.2

7.1

43.4

2.8

26.0

60.4

12.8

10.0

4.7

3.5

4.1

0.8
28 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Across regions, the single highest percentage of operations sold their cull sheep at an 

auction market or sale barn. A higher percentage of operations in the West region sold 

their cull sheep directly to a buyer/dealer or to consumer or ethnic markets compared 

with operations in the Central and East regions. 

A.6.b. For operations that sold or permanently removed cull sheep in 2010, percentage of 

operations by marketing channel used and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Marketing channel Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Sold directly to slaughter 14.9 (2.6) 9.5 (1.1) 21.1 (1.7)

Sold directly to feedlot 3.6 (1.5) 2.4 (0.5) 1.1 (0.4)

Sold directly to backgrounder 1.6 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2)

Sold directly to consumer 

or ethnic market 14.2 (2.7) 5.6 (1.2) 6.2 (1.1)

Sold directly to 

another operation 4.5 (1.6) 3.1 (0.7) 2.1 (0.6)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 38.1 (3.7) 69.2 (1.8) 60.9 (2.0)

Sold directly to buyer/dealer 19.5 (2.9) 10.2 (0.9) 7.4 (1.0)

Slaughtered for personal 

use/euthanized 6.4 (2.0) 2.9 (0.7) 3.1 (0.9)

Other 2.8 (1.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.7 (0.4)
USDA APHIS VS / 29 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

The highest percentage of fenced-range (71.5 percent), pasture (63.0 percent), and dry 

lot/feedlot (57.6 percent) operations sold their cull sheep at an auction market/sale barn. 

Similar percentages of herded/open-range operations sold their cull sheep at an auction 

market/sale barn (27.5 percent) or directly to a buyer/dealer (25.8 percent). 

A.6.c. For operations that sold or permanently removed cull sheep in 2010, percentage of 

operations by marketing channel used and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Marketing channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 16.3 (2.9) 12.7 (1.8) 16.2 (1.3) 20.9 (4.0)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 14.1 (4.7) 2.0 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 1.5 (1.4)

Sold directly 

to backgrounder 1.1 (0.6) 0.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 1.5 (1.4)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

5.1 (2.3) 3.5 (1.0) 6.7 (1.0) 3.5 (2.0)

Sold directly 

to another operation 6.6 (2.4) 2.8 (1.0) 2.0 (0.5) 2.6 (1.7)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 27.5 (4.9) 71.5 (2.4) 63.0 (1.7) 57.6 (4.9)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 25.8 (3.4) 8.7 (1.3) 11.4 (1.1) 11.9 (3.1)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

9.8 (4.5) 1.9 (0.7) 2.3 (0.6) 2.9 (1.7)

Other 1.8 (0.9) 0.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.4) 0.4 (0.4)
30 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

On all operations (1 or more ewes) nearly half of cull sheep (46.6 percent) sold or 

permanently removed were marketed at an auction market/sale barn. Large and medium 

operations marketed nearly one-fourth of their cull sheep (24.4 percent each) directly to a 

buyer/dealer. Medium operations also marketed about one-fourth of their cull sheep 

(26.5 percent) directly to slaughter. 

A.6.d. Of cull sheep sold or permanently removed in 2010, percentage sold or removed 

using the following marketing channels, by fl ock size:

Percent Cull Sheep 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Marketing 

channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 13.9 (3.9) 16.8 (2.1) 26.5 (6.3) 18.0 (2.7) 20.5 (3.0) 20.8 (3.1)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 2.2 (1.7) 1.6 (0.7) 0.9 (0.4) 8.5 (2.5) 4.1 (1.1) 4.2 (1.2)

Sold directly 

to backgrounder 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.7 (0.4) 1.6 (0.7) 0.9 (0.3) 1.0 (0.4)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

16.2 (8.3) 4.4 (0.9) 1.2 (0.4) 1.0 (0.2) 2.5 (0.6) 1.8 (0.3)

Sold directly 

to another 

operation

8.5 (4.1) 2.5 (0.8) 2.4 (1.3) 4.5 (1.1) 3.6 (0.7) 3.3 (0.7)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 51.8 (7.1) 65.6 (2.5) 42.8 (11.3) 39.6 (3.0) 46.6 (4.5) 46.3 (4.7)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 4.2 (1.6) 7.6 (1.1) 24.4 (6.8) 24.4 (2.5) 20.0 (2.9) 20.8 (3.0)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

2.7 (1.0) 0.9 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 0.9 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2)

Other 0.3 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 1.5 (0.9) 0.9 (0.4) 1.0 (0.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 31 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Cull sheep

Breeding and other sheep

Lambs

Percent

Of lambs, breeding or other sheep, and cull sheep sold or permanently removed in 2010, 

percentage sold or removed using the following marketing channels 

Sold directly

to slaughter

Sold directly

to feedlot

Sold directly

to backgrounder

Sold directly to

consumer or

ethnic market

Sold directly to

another operation

Sold at auction

market/sale barn

Sold directly

to buyer/dealer

Slaughtered for

personal use/

euthanized

Other

Marketing

channel

24.9

2.8

20.5

3.8

0.1

14.5

4.5

4.1

0.1

0.9

5.3

2.5

3.6

3.7

27.3

3.5

27.1

51.7

46.6

17.3

20.0

10.3

0.6

0.9

0.4

2.1

0.9
32 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A lower percentage of cull sheep on operations in the West region (24.3 percent) were 

sold to an auction market/sale barn compared with cull sheep on operations in the 

Central or East regions (46.5 and 57.8 percent, respectively). In the West region, similar 

percentages of cull sheep sold were sold directly to slaughter (28.8 percent), at an 

auction market/sale barn (24.3 percent), and directly to buyer/dealer (28.2 percent). 

A.6.e. Of cull sheep sold or permanently removed in 2010, percentage sold or removed 

using the following by marketing channels, by region:

Percent Cull Sheep (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Marketing channel Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Sold directly to slaughter 28.8 (4.3) 16.6 (5.0) 26.2 (2.8)

Sold directly to feedlot 1.0 (0.5) 6.0 (1.8) 1.1 (0.4)

Sold directly to backgrounder 4.3 (2.0) 0.7 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0)

Sold directly to 

consumer or ethnic market 4.9 (1.2) 1.9 (0.8) 3.1 (0.6)

Sold directly to 

another operation 5.1 (1.3) 3.8 (1.1) 2.1 (1.0)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 24.3 (3.3) 46.5 (7.0) 57.8 (2.7)

Sold directly to buyer/dealer 28.2 (3.7) 22.9 (4.2) 8.7 (1.3)

Slaughtered for personal 

use/euthanized 0.7 (0.2) 0.9 (0.3) 0.8 (0.2)

Other 2.6 (0.9) 0.9 (0.6) 0.2 (0.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 33 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A higher percentage of cull sheep on herded/open range operations were marketed 

directly to buyer/dealers (38.9 percent) compared with cull sheep from other fl ock types. 

The highest percentage of cull sheep sold or permanently removed from the other fl ock 

types were marketed at an auction market or sale barn. A lower percentage of herded/

open range operations sold or permanently removed cull sheep at auction market/sale 

barn compared with the other fl ock types.

A.6.f. For operations that sold or permanently removed cull sheep in 2010, percentage of 

cull sheep sold or removed using the following marketing channels, by fl ock type:

Percent Cull Sheep (1 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Marketing channel Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sold directly 

to slaughter 31.4 (6.7) 9.7 (1.9) 19.4 (1.8) 28.4 (6.5)

Sold directly 

to feedlot 10.1 (4.8) 3.3 (1.0) 0.7 (0.2) 0.3 (0.3)

Sold directly 

to backgrounder 1.3 (0.9) 1.4 (0.8) 0.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.5)

Sold directly 

to consumer or 

ethnic market

0.5 (0.2) 1.3 (0.3) 3.6 (0.6) 0.5 (0.4)

Sold directly 

to another operation 3.7 (1.8) 3.8 (1.4) 3.0 (0.7) 0.8 (0.6)

Sold at auction 

market/sale barn 10.2 (3.9) 66.7 (2.8) 57.8 (2.4) 54.4 (6.2)

Sold directly 

to buyer/dealer 38.9 (4.8) 13.3 (1.9) 14.0 (1.5) 13.7 (3.6)

Slaughtered for 

personal use/ 

euthanized

1.7 (0.8) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 1.1 (0.7)

Other 2.3 (1.5) 0.2 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
34 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

7. Cull rams and ewes

Overall, 16.2 percent of rams and 14.0 percent of ewes were culled during 2010 (as 

a percentage of ram and ewe inventory on January 1, 2011). A higher percentage of 

rams and ewes on small operations (21.6 and 16.6 percent, respectively) were culled 

compared with rams and ewes on large operations (12.2 and 10.1 percent, respectively).

A.7.a. Of cull sheep sold or permanently removed during 2010, percentage of cull sheep 

by gender and by fl ock size : 

A.7.b. Of cull sheep sold or permanently removed during 2010, percentage of cull sheep 

by gender and by region: 

Percent Cull Sheep* (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Gender Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

Rams 15.1 (1.8) 15.3 (1.1) 19.6 (1.6)

Ewes 11.2 (0.6) 14.6 (2.2) 14.2 (0.5)

*Number of culled rams and ewes sold or permanently removed as a percentage of the January 1, 2011, inventory, respectively.

Percent Cull Sheep* 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Gender Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Rams 21.6 (2.0) 19.7 (1.8) 12.2 (0.8) 16.2 (0.8)

Ewes 16.6 (0.6) 21.5 (5.6) 10.1 (0.4) 14.0 (1.4)

*Number of culled rams and ewes sold or permanently removed as a percentage of the January 1, 2011, inventory, 

respectively.
USDA APHIS VS / 35 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A.7.c. Of cull sheep sold or permanently removed during 2010, percentage of cull sheep 

by gender and by fl ock type:

Percent Cull Sheep* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Gender Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Rams 15.8 (1.9) 12.6 (0.9) 21.0 (1.5) 17.4 (3.5)

Ewes 14.2 (4.7) 13.3 (0.6) 14.2 (0.5) 17.3 (1.5)

*Number of culled rams and ewes sold or permanently removed as a percentage of the January 1, 2011, inventory, respectively.

A.7.d. For operations that sold or permanently removed cull sheep during 2010, 

percentage of operations by quarter cull sheep were sold or removed, and by gender:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Gender

Rams Ewes

Quarter Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

January–March 14.0 (1.6) 15.4 (1.0)

April–June 27.1 (2.1) 40.2 (1.4)

July–September 34.1 (2.2) 36.7 (1.4)

October–December 33.6 (2.2) 29.6 (1.3)
36 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

The fi rst quarter of 2010 (January-March) had the lowest percentage of cull rams or ewes 

sold or permanently removed (13.2 and 9.5 percent, respectively).

A.7.e. Of cull sheep sold or permanently removed during 2010, percentage of cull sheep 

by quarter sheep were sold or removed, and by gender:

Percent Cull Rams and Ewes

Gender

Rams Ewes

Quarter Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

January–March 13.2 (1.5) 9.5 (1.3)

April–June 23.1 (1.8) 28.5 (1.2)

July–September 29.7 (2.2) 30.2 (1.5)

October–December 34.0 (2.6) 31.9 (1.4)

Total 100.0 100.0

Overall, rams were culled at a younger average age (4.9 years) than ewes (6.3 years). 

Rams on large operations were culled at a slightly older average age than rams on small 

operations (5.5 and 4.6 years, respectively).

A.7.f. Operation average age (in years) of cull sheep at culling, by gender and by fl ock 

size:

Operation Average Age (years)

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Gender Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Rams 4.6 (0.2) 5.2 (0.1) 5.5 (0.1) 4.9 (0.1)

Ewes 6.2 (0.1) 6.3 (0.1) 6.8 (0.2) 6.3 (0.1)
USDA APHIS VS / 37 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A.7.g. Operation average age (in years) of cull sheep at culling, by gender and by fl ock 

type:

Operation Average Age (years) (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Gender Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Rams 5.6 (0.3) 5.4 (0.2) 4.6 (0.1) 5.0 (0.3)

Ewes 6.7 (0.3) 6.4 (0.1) 6.3 (0.1) 5.9 (0.2)

Of operations that culled at least one ewe during 2010, 80.9 percent had any cull ewes 

that had fl ock identifi cation when they left the operation. A higher percentage of large 

operations (90.1 percent) than small operations (78.5 percent) had any cull ewes that had 

fl ock identifi cation when they left the operation. 

A.7.h. For operations that culled at least one ewe during 2010, percentage of operations 

in which any cull ewes had fl ock identifi cation when they left the operation, by fl ock size:

A.7.i. For operations that culled at least one ewe during 2010, percentage of operations 

in which any ewes had fl ock identifi cation when they left the operation, by region:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

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

77.4 (3.3) 81.1 (1.8) 81.9 (1.7)

Percent Operations

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or more)

All

operations

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

78.5 (1.7) 84.9 (1.4) 90.1 (1.2) 80.9 (1.2)
38 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

A.7.j. For operations that culled at least one ewe during 2010, percentage of operations 

in which any ewes had fl ock identifi cation when they left the operation, by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

79.9 (5.4) 76.4 (2.5) 81.6 (1.5) 90.1 (2.9)
USDA APHIS VS / 39 

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

8. Reasons for culling rams and ewes

Over half of operations that culled rams (54.7 percent) and over two-thirds of operations 

that culled ewes (69.7 percent) culled them because of old age. The next most common 

reasons for culling ewes were hard-bag syndrome (24.1 percent), poor mothering 

(22.3 percent), failure to lamb (22.0 percent), and mastitis (20.9 percent). The majority of 

“other” reasons for culling rams were related to genetics and the potential for inbreeding.

A.8.a. For operations that culled any sheep during 2010, percentage of operations by 

primary reason for culling and by gender:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Gender

Rams Ewes

Primary reason for culling Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

Old age 54.7 (2.4) 69.7 (1.3)

Teeth problems 1.8 (0.4) 8.0 (0.6)

Poor mothering 22.3 (1.2)

Hard-bag syndrome 24.1 (1.1)

Mastitis 20.9 (1.1)

Failure to lamb 

(open or aborted) 22.0 (1.1)

Single lamb births 3.9 (0.5)

Ram breeding soundness 20.0 (1.8)

Other reproductive problems 2.9 (0.8) 3.3 (0.5)

Chronic weight loss 2.2 (0.6) 3.6 (0.5)

Other illness 1.3 (0.5) 2.4 (0.4)

Economic issues (e.g., 

drought, fl ock reduction, 

market conditions) 

6.4 (1.2) 2.8 (0.5)

Other 20.8 (2.0) 7.6 (0.8)
40 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Marketing

Of the rams and ewes culled in 2010, 49.3 percent of rams and 55.6 percent of ewes 

were culled because of old age. Breeding-soundness issues accounted for the second 

highest percentage of rams culled (17.0 percent).

A.8.b. Of sheep culled in 2010, percentage cull sheep by primary reason for culling and 

by gender:

Percent Rams and Ewes (20 or more ewes)

Gender

Rams Ewes

Primary reason for culling Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

Old age 49.3 (2.5) 55.6 (1.4)

Teeth problems 3.0 (0.9) 7.6 (1.3)

Poor mothering 4.7 (0.3)

Hard bag syndrome 7.1 (0.8)

Mastitis 6.7 (0.5)

Failure to lamb 

(open or aborted) 7.7 (0.5)

Single lamb births 1.1 (0.2)

Ram breeding soundness 17.0 (2.3)

Other reproductive problems 3.1 (1.4) 0.9 (0.3)

Chronic weight loss 1.2 (0.3) 2.1 (0.6)

Other illness 1.9 (0.6) 1.2 (0.4)

Economic issues (e.g., 

drought, fl ock reduction, 

market conditions) 

10.2 (2.2) 1.7 (0.4)

Other 14.3 (1.7) 3.7 (0.6)

Total 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 41 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Death and loss of sheep and lambs must be minimized for an operation to stay viable. 

Usually the most vulnerable sheep are newborn lambs. Often, large range operations 

in the West do not visualize or count lambs until the fl ock is processed and the lambs 

are docked, marked, or branded. As a result, it is diffi cult to estimate true lamb losses 

in some Western States. While some operations were not able to measure lamb losses 

prior to docking, those that could were asked to provide the number lost and the cause of 

loss. 

1. Lamb and sheep losses

As fl ock size increased so did the percentage of operations that lost lambs and adult 

sheep. Over half of all operations with one or more ewes (53.8 percent) had adult sheep 

that died or were lost during 2010. Nearly half of all operations (49.2 percent) had 

lambs that died or were lost before being marked, docked, or branded. Over one-third 

of all operations (36.8 percent) lost lambs after marking, docking, or branding. A higher 

percentage of all operations lost lambs than lost adult sheep (65.1 and 53.8 percent, 

respectively).

B.1.a. Percentage of operations that lost lambs and/or sheep during 2010 from all 

causes, by age group and by fl ock size:

B. Lamb and 

Sheep Deaths 

and Losses

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Age group Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Lambs before 

marked, 

docked or 

branded

33.2 (1.7) 58.5 (1.5) 73.0 (1.6) 84.1 (1.4) 49.2 (1.0) 62.9 (1.2)

Lambs after 

marked, 

docked, or 

branded

16.8 (1.4) 45.8 (1.5) 72.5 (1.5) 90.3 (1.2) 36.8 (0.9) 53.8 (1.2)

Any lambs 45.9 (1.9) 77.9 (1.3) 92.1 (1.0) 98.1 (0.5) 65.1 (1.0) 82.0 (1.0)

Adult sheep 31.8 (1.8) 67.1 (1.5) 85.7 (1.3) 94.4 (0.9) 53.8 (1.0) 72.5 (1.1)

Any sheep 

or lambs 58.5 (1.9) 88.1 (1.0) 95.4 (0.8) 98.7 (0.4) 75.6 (1.0) 90.2 (0.8)
42 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

A higher percentage of operations in the Central region lost lambs and sheep from all age 

groups compared with operations in the West or East regions. 

B.1.b. Percentage of operations that lost sheep and/or lambs to all causes during 2010, 

by age group and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Age group Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Lambs before marked, 

docked or branded 37.9 (2.2) 58.7 (1.6) 47.0 (1.6)

Lambs after marked, 

docked, or branded 34.8 (2.1) 43.0 (1.4) 33.2 (1.4)

Total lambs 56.8 (2.3) 72.7 (1.5) 63.1 (1.6)

Adult sheep 49.6 (2.3) 61.3 (1.7) 50.1 (1.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 43 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Death-loss evaluations in 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2009 have shown lamb death loss 

ranged from 9.5 to 10.8 percent of lambs born. In 2010, lamb death loss for all operations 

was 11.2 percent of lambs born. In 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2009, sheep death loss ranged 

from 5.6 to 6.5 percent. In 2010, sheep death loss for all operations was 5.0 percent of 

adult sheep inventory on January 1, 2011. Overall, 6.3 percent of lambs were lost before 

they were marked, docked, or branded. Large operations lost the highest percentage 

of lambs (7.2 percent) before they were marked, docked, or branded. Overall, sheep 

operations with 20 or more ewes lost 4.9 percent of adult sheep in 2010.

B.1.c. Percentage of sheep and lambs lost to all causes during 2010, by age group and 

by fl ock size:

Percent Sheep1 and Lambs2 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Age group Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Lambs before 

marked, 

docked or 

branded

6.6 (0.5) 5.4 (0.3) 5.4 (0.3) 7.2 (0.5) 6.3 (0.2) 6.3 (0.3)

Lambs after 

marked, 

docked, or 

branded

3.8 (0.6) 4.3 (0.4) 5.0 (0.3) 5.4 (0.3) 4.9 (0.2) 5.0 (0.2)

Total lambs 10.4 (0.7) 9.7 (0.5) 10.4 (0.3) 12.6 (0.6) 11.2 (0.3) 11.2 (0.3)

Adult sheep 6.3 (0.7) 6.0 (0.4) 5.0 (0.2) 4.4 (0.2) 5.0 (0.2) 4.9 (0.2)

1

Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

2

Percentage of lambs born alive or dead in 2010.
44 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

The Central region lost the highest percentage of lambs (7.6 percent) before they were 

marked, docked, or branded compared with operations in the West or East regions 

(4.4 and 4.7 percent, respectively).

B.1.d. Percentage of sheep and lambs lost to all causes during 2010, by age group and 

by region:

Percent Sheep1 and Lambs2 (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Age group Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Lambs before marked, 

docked or branded 4.4 (0.3) 7.6 (0.4) 4.7 (0.3)

Lambs after marked, 

docked, or branded 4.5 (0.4) 5.5 (0.3) 4.0 (0.2)

Total lambs 8.9 (0.6) 13.1 (0.5) 8.7 (0.3)

Adult sheep 4.9 (0.3) 4.9 (0.2) 5.2 (0.3)

1

Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

2

Percentage of lambs born alive or dead in 2010.

Herded/open-range fl ocks lost the highest percentage of lambs (8.7 percent) before they 

were marked, docked, or branded. 

B.1.e. Percentage of sheep and lambs lost to all causes during 2010, by age group and 

by fl ock type:

Percent Sheep1 and Lambs2 (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Age group Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Lambs before 

marked, docked or 

branded

8.7 (0.8) 6.3 (0.3) 4.8 (0.2) 5.6 (2.2)

Lambs after 

marked, docked, or 

branded

5.2 (0.3) 5.7 (0.4) 4.5 (0.2) 1.0 (0.9)

Total lambs 13.9 (0.9) 12.0 (0.5) 9.3 (0.3) 6.6 (0.3)

Adult sheep 5.0 (0.3) 4.0 (0.2) 5.5 (0.3) 6.5 (0.6)

1

Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

2

Percentage of lambs born alive or dead in 2010.
USDA APHIS VS / 45 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

2. Predator and nonpredator losses

As fl ock size increased so did the percentage of operations that lost sheep to predator 

and nonpredator causes. Only 7.4 percent of very small operations lost sheep to 

predators during 2010 while 52.7 percent of large operations lost sheep to predators. 

While 25.8 percent of very small operations lost sheep to nonpredator causes, 

85.7 percent of large operations did so. Overall, a higher percentage of operations 

(47.2 percent) lost sheep to nonpredator causes compared with 13.2 percent of all 

operations that lost sheep to predators. 

B.2.a. Percentage of operations that lost sheep during 2010, by cause of loss and by 

fl ock size:

A higher percentage of operations in the Central region (22.5 percent) lost sheep 

to predators than operations in the West and East regions (13.9 and 6.6 percent, 

respectively) 

B.2.b. Percentage of operations that lost sheep during 2010, by cause of loss and by 

region:

Percent Operations*(1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Cause of loss Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

Predator 13.9 (1.5) 22.5 (1.4) 6.6 (0.7)

Nonpredator 42.2 (2.3) 49.7 (1.5) 47.3 (1.5)

*Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

Percent Operations

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Cause of loss Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Predator 7.4 (1.0) 13.4 (1.0) 26.4 (1.5) 52.7 (1.8) 13.2 (0.6) 18.3 (0.8)

Nonpredator 25.8 (1.6) 60.3 (1.5) 78.4 (1.4) 85.7 (1.3) 47.2 (1.0) 65.5 (1.2)
46 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

A higher percentage of dry lot/feedlot operations (79.4 percent) lost sheep to nonpredator 

causes than herded/open-range (60.5 percent), fenced-range (62.1 percent), and pasture 

(65.4 percent) operations. Conversely, a lower percentage of dry lot/feedlot operations 

(11.4 percent) lost sheep to predators compared with herded/open-range (57.0 percent) 

and fenced-range (23.6 percent) operations. As expected, herded/open range fl ocks had 

the highest percentage of operations that lost sheep to predators.

B.2.c. Percentage of operations that lost sheep during 2010, by cause of loss and by 

fl ock type:

Percent Operations* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Cause of loss Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Predator 57.0 (5.4) 23.6 (1.8) 15.0 (1.0) 11.4 (2.6)

Nonpredator 60.5 (5.5) 62.1 (2.3) 65.4 (1.5) 79.4 (3.7)

*Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.
USDA APHIS VS / 47 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nonpredator

Predator

Percent

Percentage of operations* that lost sheep during 2010, by cause of loss 

and by flock type

Herded/

open range

Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot

Flock type

57.0

23.6

15.0

11.4

60.5 62.1 65.4

79.4

Cause of loss

*Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.
48 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

On very small operations, 2.3 percent of sheep were lost to predators during 2010 

compared with 1.2 percent of sheep on large operations. Overall, 1.2 and 3.8 percent of 

sheep were lost to predator and nonpredator causes, respectively.

B.2.d. Percentage of sheep lost during 2010, by cause of loss and by fl ock size:

Compared with the other regions, the East region lost the highest percentage of sheep to 

nonpredator causes and the lowest percentage to predator causes.

B.2.e. Percentage of sheep lost during 2010, by cause of loss and by region:

Percent Sheep*(1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Cause of loss Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

Predator 1.2 (0.2) 1.4 (0.1) 0.7 (0.1)

Nonpredator 3.7 (0.2) 3.5 (0.2) 4.6 (0.2)

*Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

Percent Sheep*

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Cause of loss Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Predator 2.3 (0.6) 1.2 (0.1) 1.0 (0.1) 1.2 (0.1) 1.2 (0.1) 1.1 (0.1)

Nonpredator 3.9 (0.3) 4.9 (0.4) 4.1 (0.2) 3.2 (0.2) 3.8 (0.1) 3.8 (0.1)

*Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.
USDA APHIS VS / 49 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

B.2.f. Percentage of sheep lost during 2010, by cause of loss and by fl ock type:

Percent Sheep* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Cause of loss Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Predator 1.5 (0.1) 1.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.1) 0.8 (0.2)

Nonpredator 3.5 (0.3) 2.9 (0.1) 4.5 (0.3) 5.7 (0.6)

*Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

Lamb losses include all deaths of lambs born alive. Typically, large operations under 

report lamb losses because they do not see lambs for days or weeks after the lambs are 

born. Nearly three-fourths of large operations (71.8 percent) lost lambs to nonpredator 

causes and 85.7 percent lost lambs to predators during 2010. As expected, a higher 

percentage of large and medium operations lost lambs due to nonpredator and predator 

causes compared with small and very small operations.

B.2.g. Percentage of operations that lost lambs during 2010, by cause of loss and by 

fl ock size:

Percent Operations

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Cause of loss Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Predator 10.6 (1.2) 26.9 (1.3) 49.1 (1.6) 85.7 (1.4) 23.6 (0.8) 34.7 (1.0)

Nonpredator 37.4 (1.8) 63.6 (1.5) 76.0 (1.4) 71.8 (1.5) 53.2 (1.0) 66.7 (1.1)
50 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nonpredator

Predator

Percent

Percentage of operations that lost lambs during 2010, by cause of loss and by flock size 

Very small

(fewer than 20)

Small

(20–99)

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or more)

All operations

(1 or more)

Operations with

20 or more

Flock size

(number of ewes) Cause of loss

10.6

37.4

26.9

63.6

49.1

76.0

85.7

71.8

23.6

53.2

34.7

66.7
USDA APHIS VS / 51 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Overall, 4.9 percent of lambs born in 2010 were lost to predators and 6.3 percent were 

lost to nonpredator causes. 

B.2.h. Percentage of lambs born and lost during 2010, by cause of loss and by fl ock size:

A higher percentage of operations in the Central region (37.9 percent) lost lambs to 

predators compared with operations in the West and East regions (27.6 and 

12.3 percent, respectively). A lower percentage of operations in the West region lost 

lambs to nonpredator causes than operations in the Central and East regions.

B.2.i. Percentage of operations that lost lambs during 2010, by cause of loss and by 

region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Cause of loss Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

Predator 27.6 (2.0) 37.9 (1.5) 12.3 (1.0)

Nonpredator 40.8 (2.3) 52.8 (1.6) 58.1 (1.6)

Percent Lambs*

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Cause of loss Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Predator 3.3 (0.6) 3.9 (0.4) 4.4 (0.3) 6.0 (0.3) 4.9 (0.2) 5.0 (0.2)

Nonpredator 7.1 (0.5) 5.8 (0.3) 6.0 (0.2) 6.6 (0.5) 6.3 (0.3) 6.2 (0.2)

*Percentage of lambs born alive for most recent lamb crop.
52 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

B.2.j. Percentage of lambs born alive and lost during 2010, by cause of loss and by 

region:

Percent Lambs*(1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Cause of loss Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error Pct. Std. error

Predator 4.8 (0.5) 6.6 (0.3) 1.8 (0.3)

Nonpredator 4.1 (0.3) 6.6 (0.4) 6.9 (0.3)

*Percentage of lambs born alive for most recent lamb crop.

A higher percentage of herded/open-range operations (78.5 percent) lost lambs to 

predators compared with fenced-range (54.8 percent), pasture (26.0 percent), and dry lot/

feedlot (19.1 percent) operations.

B.2.k. Percentage of operations that lost lambs during 2010, by cause of loss and by 

fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Cause of loss Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Predator 78.5 (5.4) 54.8 (2.3) 26.0 (1.3) 19.1 (3.5)

Nonpredator 62.4 (5.6) 53.9 (2.2) 71.0 (1.5) 77.3 (4.0)

B.2.l. Percentage of lambs born alive lost during 2010, by cause of loss and by fl ock type:

Percent Lambs* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot

Cause of loss Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Predator 6.1 (0.5) 7.0 (0.4) 3.2 (0.3) 4.4 (2.0)

Nonpredator 7.8 (0.7) 4.9 (0.3) 6.2 (0.2) 2.3 (1.1)

*Percentage of lambs born alive for most recent lamb crop.
USDA APHIS VS / 53 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

3. Sheep predator losses 

In total, 13.2 percent of operations lost sheep to predators during 2010 (table B.2.a.). Of 

those, 59.7 percent lost sheep to coyotes. While 23.8 percent of all operations lost sheep 

to dogs during 2010, a higher percentage of very small and small operations (32.4 and 

27.1 percent, respectively) lost sheep to dog predation than medium or large operations 

(15.1 and 10.0 percent, respectively). This fi nding could be due to the closer proximity 

of small and very small operations to neighborhoods, which creates a greater chance of 

sheep coming into contact with domestic dogs unfamiliar with farm animals.

B.3.a. Of operations that lost sheep to predators during 2010, percentage that lost sheep 

to the following predators, by fl ock size: 

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 2.7 (1.9) 2.9 (1.4) 6.1 (1.5) 26.0 (1.9) 6.2 (0.9) 7.5 (0.9)

Bobcats or lynx 0.0 (0.0) 1.9 (1.3) 3.4 (1.1) 7.2 (1.4) 2.3 (0.6) 3.2 (0.8)

Coyotes 47.9 (7.6) 57.5 (4.2) 68.8 (3.1) 75.4 (2.2) 59.7 (2.7) 63.7 (2.5)

Dogs 32.4 (6.9) 27.1 (3.8) 15.1 (2.3) 10.0 (1.7) 23.8 (2.4) 20.8 (2.2)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or 

pumas

15.2 (5.4) 10.7 (2.6) 7.2 (1.5) 19.5 (1.9) 12.1 (1.8) 11.0 (1.5)

Foxes 0.0 (0.0) 2.2 (1.5) 0.0 (0.0) 2.8 (0.9) 1.2 (0.6) 1.6 (0.8)

Wolves 1.6 (1.1) 1.0 (0.7) 1.5 (0.7) 5.1 (0.9) 1.8 (0.4) 1.8 (0.5)

Eagles 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.4 (1.1) 3.0 (0.9) 0.9 (0.3) 1.2 (0.4)

Other predators 3.9 (2.6) 0.0 (0.0) 3.4 (1.3) 7.1 (1.5) 2.6 (0.8) 2.1 (0.5)

Unknown 

predators 10.2 (4.9) 12.7 (2.9) 6.9 (1.5) 5.2 (1.0) 9.9 (1.7) 9.7 (1.6)
54 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

In the Central and East regions, wolves accounted for losses on 2.1 and 2.4 percent of 

operations, respectively, that lost sheep to predators; there were no losses due to wolves 

in the West region in 2010, probably because there were very few wolves present in the 

eastern counties of the States that make up the West region (California, Oregon, and 

Washington).

For operations with predator losses during 2010, a higher percentage of operations in the 

West and Central regions (26.8 and 11.7 percent, respectively) lost sheep to mountain 

lions (cougars, pumas) than operations in the East region (1.3 percent). 

B.3.b. Of operations that lost sheep to predators during 2010, percentage that lost sheep 

to the following predators, by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std.

 error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 5.7 (2.8) 7.0 (0.8) 5.0 (2.2)

Bobcats or lynx 2.6 (1.7) 3.1 (0.9) 0.3 (0.3)

Coyotes 59.0 (5.9) 57.6 (3.7) 64.9 (5.4)

Dogs 19.0 (4.6) 25.9 (3.4) 22.5 (4.8)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or pumas 26.8 (5.2) 11.7 (2.5) 1.3 (1.3)

Foxes 0.0 (0.0) 2.1 (1.1) 0.0 (0.0)

Wolves 0.0 (0.0) 2.1 (0.6) 2.4 (1.2)

Eagles 1.7 (1.2) 0.8 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3)

Other predators 2.9 (2.3) 1.7 (0.4) 4.4 (2.4)

Unknown predators 10.1 (3.6) 11.5 (2.6) 5.8 (2.7)
USDA APHIS VS / 55 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

For operations with predator losses during 2010, a higher percentage of herded/openrange operations (5.4 percent) lost sheep to wolves compared with fenced range 

(1.4 percent) and pasture (1.0 percent) operations. The dry lot/feedlot operations that lost 

sheep to wolves also managed their sheep on pasture. Over one-third of herded/openrange operations lost sheep to bears.

B.3.c. Of operations that lost sheep to predators during 2010, percentage that lost sheep 

to the following predators, by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 34.9 (4.7) 4.8 (0.9) 4.6 (1.6) 2.6 (2.3)

Bobcats or lynx 1.7 (1.1) 5.8 (1.9) 1.9 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0)

Coyotes 65.1 (7.0) 63.0 (4.3) 63.7 (3.6) 65.6 (11.2)

Dogs 18.8 (6.9) 12.7 (3.2) 27.0 (3.4) 17.8 (7.5)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or pumas 19.9 (3.3) 11.1 (2.7) 10.2 (2.2) 0.0 (0.0)

Foxes 1.0 (0.4) 3.8 (2.3) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0)

Wolves 5.4 (1.3) 1.4 (0.5) 1.0 (0.6) 6.2 (5.7)

Eagles 0.6 (0.4) 2.0 (0.6) 0.9 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0)

Other predators 1.2 (1.1) 3.1 (0.7) 1.6 (0.8) 2.7 (2.4)

Unknown predators 11.3 (5.0) 10.0 (2.9) 8.2 (2.0) 22.5 (12.9)
56 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Overall, 1.2 percent of sheep were lost to predators during 2010 (table B.2.d.). Over half 

of these sheep (51.8 percent) were lost to coyotes. Only 13.0 percent of sheep lost during 

2010 were lost to dog predation; however, 39.3 percent of sheep on very small operations 

and 19.8 percent of sheep on small operations were lost to dog predation. Small fl ocks 

are often housed close to urban areas and thus are more likely to have contact with dogs, 

especially dogs that do not commonly interact with sheep and lambs. Likewise, larger 

fl ocks are more likely to be located in areas where large predators (bears, bobcats or 

lynx, and mountain lions) reside. A higher percentage of sheep on large operations 

(14.7 percent) were lost to bear predation compared with sheep on very small 

(2.2 percent), small (1.7 percent), or medium (7.2 percent) operations. 

B.3.d. Of sheep lost to predators during 2010, percentage lost to the following predators, 

by fl ock size:

Percent Sheep*

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 2.2 (1.5) 1.7 (0.9) 7.2 (3.0) 14.7 (1.7) 9.1 (1.1) 10.0 (1.2)

Bobcats or lynx 0.0 (0.0) 2.8 (2.4) 6.5 (4.8) 3.4 (1.1) 3.4 (1.2) 3.9 (1.3)

Coyotes 33.2 (7.7) 57.4 (5.5) 61.0 (5.0) 50.6 (3.0) 51.8 (2.4) 54.4 (2.4)

Dogs 39.3 (10.1) 19.8 (4.0) 11.2 (2.4) 4.1 (1.0) 13.0 (2.0) 9.3 (1.2)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or 

pumas

6.7 (2.9) 6.3 (1.8) 2.9 (0.8) 8.2 (1.1) 6.7 (0.8) 6.7 (0.8)

Foxes 0.0 (0.0) 3.0 (2.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.6 (0.2) 0.9 (0.4) 1.0 (0.5)

Wolves 3.9 (2.8) 0.4 (0.3) 1.4 (1.1) 2.5 (0.7) 2.1 (0.5) 1.8 (0.4)

Eagles 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.1 (0.7) 1.1 (0.4) 0.7 (0.2) 0.8 (0.3)

Other predators 0.9 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 2.5 (0.9) 7.9 (2.9) 4.4 (1.5) 4.9 (1.7)

Unknown 

predators 13.7 (9.2) 8.7 (2.7) 6.1 (1.9) 6.9 (1.6) 8.0 (1.6) 7.2 (1.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total sheep predator loss.
USDA APHIS VS / 57 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Across regions, over half of sheep lost to predators during 2010 were lost to coyotes: 

56.8 percent in the West region, 50.5 percent in the Central region, and 52.6 percent in 

the East region. In the East region, nearly one-third of sheep predator losses 

(32.0 percent) were due to dogs.

B.3.e. For sheep lost to predators during 2010, percentage lost to the following predators, 

by region:

Percent Sheep* (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 3.0 (1.0) 10.9 (1.3) 6.2 (4.1)

Bobcats or lynx 0.8 (0.5) 4.6 (1.6) 0.2 (0.2)

Coyotes 56.8 (5.5) 50.5 (2.7) 52.6 (8.3)

Dogs 14.5 (4.2) 9.2 (1.6) 32.0 (9.6)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or pumas 12.8 (2.7) 6.5 (0.9) 0.3 (0.3)

Foxes 0.0 (0.0) 1.2 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0)

Wolves 0.0 (0.0) 2.7 (0.7) 0.7 (0.4)

Eagles 0.3 (0.2) 0.9 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1)

Other predators 0.7 (0.4) 5.4 (2.0) 3.1 (1.4)

Unknown predators 11.2 (3.4) 7.9 (2.0) 4.8 (2.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total sheep predator loss.
58 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

A higher percentage of sheep were lost to bears in herded/open-range operations 

(23.1 percent) than in fenced-range (3.4 percent), pasture (4.5 percent), or dry lot/feedlot 

(0.9 percent) operations. Pasture operations had the highest percentage of sheep lost to 

dogs. 

B.3.f. Percentage of sheep lost during 2010 to the following predators, by fl ock type:

Percent Sheep* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 23.1 (2.4) 3.4 (0.8) 4.5 (2.2) 0.9 (0.8)

Bobcats or lynx 0.1 (0.1) 8.3 (3.4) 3.2 (1.8) 0.0 (0.0)

Coyotes 53.9 (3.6) 53.3 (4.6) 54.3 (4.3) 74.1 (10.0)

Dogs 2.1 (0.8) 7.0 (1.5) 20.3 (3.3) 5.8 (2.9)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or pumas 8.2 (1.2) 6.2 (1.4) 6.1 (1.4) 0.0 (0.0)

Foxes 0.3 (0.2) 2.4 (1.4) 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0)

Wolves 3.5 (1.1) 1.5 (0.7) 0.3 (0.2) 1.0 (1.0)

Eagles 0.0 (0.0) 2.2 (0.8) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)

Other predators 0.3 (0.3) 10.4 (4.2) 3.7 (2.0) 1.3 (1.2)

Unknown predators 8.3 (2.2) 5.4 (1.4) 7.2 (2.1) 16.9 (11.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total sheep predator loss.
USDA APHIS VS / 59 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

4. Lamb predator losses (before and after docking)

In total, 23.6 percent of operations lost lambs to predators during 2010 (table B.2.g.).Of 

these operations, 71.6 percent lost lambs to coyotes; 84.9 percent of large operations lost 

lambs to coyotes. Bears accounted for lamb losses on 17.3 percent of large operations, 

but on only 3.5 percent of all operations that lost lambs to predation. 

B.4.a. Of operations that lost lambs to predators during 2010, percentage that lost lambs 

to the following predators, by fl ock size: 

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 1.9 (1.8) 1.4 (0.7) 2.9 (0.5) 17.3 (1.2) 3.5 (0.5) 3.9 (0.5)

Bobcats or lynx 0.0 (0.0) 7.0 (1.7) 12.5 (1.5) 28.1 (1.6) 9.1 (0.9) 11.5 (1.1)

Coyotes 57.6 (5.7) 69.4 (2.9) 82.0 (1.8) 84.9 (1.4) 71.6 (1.8) 75.2 (1.7)

Dogs 28.6 (5.3) 20.5 (2.6) 10.2 (1.5) 10.1 (1.3) 18.6 (1.7) 16.0 (1.5)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or 

pumas

7.2 (2.6) 4.8 (1.3) 6.0 (0.9) 15.2 (1.3) 6.7 (0.8) 6.5 (0.8)

Foxes 4.2 (2.5) 8.8 (1.8) 11.3 (1.3) 19.7 (1.5) 9.6 (1.1) 11.0 (1.1)

Wolves 3.2 (1.7) 1.2 (0.7) 0.2 (0.2) 3.8 (0.6) 1.7 (0.5) 1.2 (0.4)

Eagles 2.7 (1.5) 6.7 (1.6) 14.1 (1.6) 26.9 (1.7) 9.8 (0.9) 11.6 (1.0)

Other predators 5.0 (2.8) 4.9 (1.4) 7.0 (1.2) 12.7 (1.4) 6.2 (0.9) 6.6 (0.9)

Unknown 

predators 6.3 (3.1) 8.9 (1.8) 7.4 (1.1) 9.3 (1.1) 8.1 (1.1) 8.5 (1.1)
60 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 20 40 60 80

Lambs

Sheep

Percent

Of operations that lost sheep or lambs to predators during 2010, percentage that lost 

sheep or lambs to the following predators

Bears

Bobcats or lynx

Coyotes

Dogs

Mountain lions,

cougars, or pumas

Foxes

Wolves

Eagles

Other predators

Predator

6.2

3.5

59.7

9.1

2.3

23.8

71.6

18.6

12.1

6.7

6.2

1.2

1.7

9.6

1.8

9.8

0.9

8.1

Unknown

predators

2.6

9.9
USDA APHIS VS / 61 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Of operations that lost lambs to predators during 2010, a higher percentage of 

operations in the West region (16.5 percent) lost lambs to mountain lions (cougars, 

pumas) compared with operations in the Central or East regions (5.5 and 1.0 percent, 

respectively). Foxes accounted for lamb losses on 13.7 percent of operations in the 

Central region and on 4.1 and 5.6 percent of operations in the West and East regions, 

respectively.

B.4.b. Of operations that lost lambs to predators during 2010, percentage that lost lambs 

to the following predators, by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 1.0 (0.2) 4.8 (0.5) 2.8 (1.7)

Bobcats or lynx 3.1 (1.2) 15.5 (1.6) 0.5 (0.3)

Coyotes 66.1 (4.2) 74.6 (2.3) 69.9 (4.1)

Dogs 18.4 (3.4) 20.4 (2.3) 15.1 (3.3)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or pumas 16.5 (3.1) 5.5 (0.8) 1.0 (0.7)

Foxes 4.1 (1.3) 13.7 (1.7) 5.6 (1.8)

Wolves 0.0 (0.0) 2.3 (0.7) 1.8 (1.0)

Eagles 12.8 (2.6) 10.9 (1.1) 4.7 (1.6)

Other predators 2.9 (1.2) 6.7 (1.1) 8.0 (2.5)

Unknown predators 4.8 (1.8) 11.8 (1.7) 2.8 (1.4)
62 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Of operations that lost lambs to predators during 2010, a higher percentage of herded/

open-range operations lost lambs to bears, mountain lions, eagles, and wolves than 

fenced-range, pasture, and dry lot/feedlot operations. However, a higher percentage of 

fenced-range operations (21.0 percent) lost lambs to bobcats or lynx than herded/openrange (10.2 percent), pasture (3.8 percent), or dry lot/feedlot (0.0 percent) operations. 

B.4.c. Of operations that lost lambs to predators during 2010, percentage that lost lambs 

to the following predators, by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 33.3 (4.4) 2.6 (0.6) 1.1 (0.5) 0.0 (—)

Bobcats or lynx 10.2 (2.1) 21.0 (2.2) 3.8 (1.1) 0.0 (—)

Coyotes 85.3 (5.0) 74.2 (2.7) 74.7 (2.6) 74.5 (8.3)

Dogs 16.9 (5.0) 14.4 (2.4) 17.8 (2.3) 11.1 (4.7)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or pumas 23.6 (3.9) 6.6 (1.3) 4.6 (1.1) 0.0 (—)

Foxes 17.9 (3.8) 14.2 (2.0) 6.9 (1.4) 13.7 (8.3)

Wolves 5.3 (1.1) 1.0 (0.5) 1.0 (0.7) 0.0 (—)

Eagles 27.6 (4.1) 12.3 (1.4) 8.5 (1.6) 12.6 (7.6)

Other predators 6.7 (1.5) 7.7 (1.4) 6.1 (1.4) 0.0 (—)

Unknown predators 11.2 (3.3) 10.5 (1.9) 6.2 (1.4) 9.2 (5.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 63 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Coyotes accounted for about 60 percent of lambs lost to predators during 2010. Dogs 

accounted for 27.4 percent of predator lamb losses on very small operations, but on only 

1.4 percent on large operations.

B.4.d. Percentage of lambs lost to the following predators during 2010, by fl ock size:

Percent Lambs*

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 0.4 (0.4) 1.0 (0.5) 1.6 (0.4) 4.8 (0.6) 3.3 (0.4) 3.4 (0.4)

Bobcats or lynx 0.0 (0.0) 5.2 (1.9) 8.3 (1.5) 9.9 (1.0) 8.3 (0.8) 8.7 (0.8)

Coyotes 55.8 (7.9) 63.2 (3.3) 68.3 (2.6) 57.4 (1.7) 60.8 (1.3) 61.0 (1.3)

Dogs 27.4 (8.1) 12.9 (3.0) 2.5 (0.5) 1.4 (0.4) 4.7 (0.7) 3.8 (0.6)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or 

pumas

7.1 (3.0) 1.8 (0.6) 1.6 (0.3) 3.2 (0.5) 2.7 (0.3) 2.6 (0.3)

Foxes 0.8 (0.5) 4.6 (1.4) 3.5 (0.6) 4.0 (0.5) 3.9 (0.4) 4.0 (0.4)

Wolves 2.3 (1.1) 0.9 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 1.1 (0.3) 0.9 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2)

Eagles 1.6 (0.9) 4.6 (1.5) 4.8 (0.7) 6.9 (0.6) 5.8 (0.5) 6.0 (0.5)

Other predators 2.0 (1.3) 1.7 (0.6) 4.1 (1.0) 6.1 (1.2) 4.7 (0.7) 4.8 (0.7)

Unknown 

predators 2.7 (1.7) 4.1 (1.5) 5.2 (1.2) 5.1 (1.2) 4.9 (0.8) 5.0 (0.8)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total lamb predator loss.
64 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 20 40 60 80

Lambs

Sheep

Percent

Percentage of sheep and lambs lost to the following predators during 2010 on 

operations with one or more ewes

Bears

Bobcats or lynx

Coyotes

Dogs

Mountain lions,

cougars, or

pumas

Foxes

Wolves

Eagles

Other predators

Predator

Unknown

predators

9.1

3.4

51.8

13.0

6.7

0.9

2.1

0.7

4.4

8.0

3.3

8.3

60.8

4.7

2.7

3.9

0.9

5.8

4.7

4.9
USDA APHIS VS / 65 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

About three-fourths of the predator lamb losses in the West and East regions were due to 

coyotes. 

B.4.e. Percentage of lambs lost to the following predators during 2010, by region:

Percent Lambs* (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 1.0 (0.2) 4.0 (0.5) 0.9 (0.6)

Bobcats or lynx 1.0 (0.3) 10.8 (1.0) 0.1 (0.1)

Coyotes 70.0 (3.4) 56.8 (1.4) 77.9 (4.1)

Dogs 7.8 (3.3) 3.6 (0.6) 9.3 (3.5)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or pumas 5.2 (0.9) 2.6 (0.4) 0.3 (0.2)

Foxes 1.6 (0.4) 4.3 (0.4) 3.8 (1.8)

Wolves 0.0 (0.0) 1.1 (0.3) 0.5 (0.3)

Eagles 8.1 (1.9) 5.8 (0.5) 2.8 (0.9)

Other predators 1.6 (0.4) 5.5 (0.9) 3.3 (1.6)

Unknown predators 3.6 (0.9) 5.6 (1.0) 1.2 (0.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total lamb predator loss.
66 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

B.4.f. Percentage of lambs lost to the following predators during 2010, by fl ock type:

Percent Lambs Lost* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Predator Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Bears 9.3 (1.0) 1.2 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0)

Bobcats or lynx 3.0 (0.6) 16.1 (1.5) 3.3 (1.1) 0.0 (0.0)

Coyotes 58.8 (2.2) 55.1 (2.1) 72.5 (2.2) 77.1 (5.9)

Dogs 1.3 (0.6) 4.0 (1.2) 6.2 (1.2) 6.0 (3.1)

Mountain lions, 

cougars, or pumas 4.6 (0.9) 1.9 (0.3) 1.5 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0)

Foxes 3.7 (0.6) 4.6 (0.7) 3.4 (0.9) 3.1 (1.8)

Wolves 1.8 (0.5) 0.4 (0.1) 0.6 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0)

Eagles 7.3 (0.9) 5.7 (0.7) 4.8 (1.1) 8.3 (4.0)

Other predators 2.5 (0.6) 7.4 (1.5) 3.3 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0)

Unknown predators 7.6 (2.1) 3.7 (0.7) 3.8 (1.1) 5.4 (3.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 67 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

5. Nonpredator sheep losses 

For the 47.2 percent of operations with 1 or more ewes that lost sheep to nonpredator 

causes (table B.2.a.), the highest percentages of operations lost sheep due to old age 

(36.7 percent), lambing problems (24.0 percent), and unknown nonpredator causes 

(19.1 percent). A higher percentage of large operations (40.2 percent) lost sheep to 

lambing problems than very small (17.8 percent), small (23.4 percent), and medium 

(29.4 percent) operations. 

B.5.a. For operations that lost sheep to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of 

operations by cause of loss and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Nonpredator 

cause Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Enterotoxemia 

(overeating) 3.2 (1.3) 3.6 (0.7) 5.2 (0.9) 6.9 (1.1) 4.0 (0.5) 4.2 (0.6)

Internal 

parasites 6.0 (1.8) 13.9 (1.4) 18.7 (1.4) 20.0 (1.7) 13.1 (0.9) 15.5 (1.0)

Other digestive 

problems 5.8 (1.5) 7.0 (1.0) 8.0 (1.0) 14.1 (1.4) 7.3 (0.7) 7.8 (0.7)

Respiratory 

problems 4.5 (1.3) 10.5 (1.2) 16.7 (1.4) 20.4 (1.6) 10.7 (0.8) 12.8 (0.9)

Metabolic 

problems 1.2 (0.6) 2.1 (0.6) 3.9 (0.8) 3.2 (0.7) 2.3 (0.4) 2.7 (0.4)

Other disease 

problems 2.3 (0.8) 6.1 (0.9) 12.0 (1.1) 22.5 (1.7) 7.1 (0.6) 8.7 (0.7)

Weatherrelated causes 2.9 (1.0) 4.4 (0.8) 8.1 (1.0) 21.9 (1.7) 5.7 (0.5) 6.6 (0.6)

Lambing 

problems 17.8 (2.8) 23.4 (1.7) 29.4 (1.7) 40.2 (2.0) 24.0 (1.2) 26.1 (1.2)

Old age 36.8 (3.5) 32.6 (1.9) 44.5 (1.9) 47.5 (2.0) 36.7 (1.3) 36.7 (1.3)

Being on back 4.9 (1.4) 4.0 (0.7) 13.3 (1.3) 27.0 (1.7) 7.2 (0.6) 8.0 (0.6)

Poisoning 1.1 (0.6) 2.6 (0.7) 4.1 (0.8) 18.9 (1.4) 3.4 (0.4) 4.1 (0.5)

Theft 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 2.2 (0.6) 0.5 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2)

Other 

nonpredator 

causes 

9.5 (2.1) 11.3 (1.3) 7.7 (1.0) 7.6 (1.1) 10.0 (0.9) 10.2 (0.9)

Unknown 

nonpredator 

causes

22.9 (3.1) 16.1 (1.5) 21.3 (1.6) 22.1 (1.6) 19.1 (1.1) 17.8 (1.1)
68 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Of operations with 20 or more ewes that lost sheep to nonpredator causes (table B.2.a.), 

a higher percentage of herded/open-range operations (25.9 percent) lost sheep to 

weather-related causes compared with fenced-range (9.4 percent), pasture (4.8 percent), 

and dry lot/feedlot (5.5 percent) operations. A higher percentage of herded/open-range 

operations (25.6 percent) also lost sheep due to sheep being on their backs compared 

with the other fl ock types. Internal parasites caused sheep losses on a higher percentage 

of fenced-range and pasture operations (15.9 and 16.9 percent, respectively) compared 

with herded/open-range and dry lot/feedlot operations (5.0 and 6.6 percent, respectively). 

B.5.b. For operations that lost sheep to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of 

operations by cause of loss and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Nonpredator

cause Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Enterotoxemia 

(overeating) 6.5 (3.7) 3.2 (1.0) 4.2 (0.7) 6.2 (2.3)

Internal parasites 5.0 (2.7) 15.9 (2.0) 16.9 (1.4) 6.6 (2.4)

Other digestive 

problems 13.5 (2.4) 5.9 (1.1) 7.8 (1.0) 11.9 (3.1)

Respiratory 

problems 16.8 (3.7) 9.0 (1.4) 13.6 (1.2) 15.9 (3.2)

Metabolic problems 1.2 (0.7) 1.5 (0.6) 3.0 (0.6) 4.2 (1.9)

Other disease 

problems 19.5 (3.0) 11.6 (1.5) 7.2 (0.8) 7.5 (2.2)

Weather-related 

causes 25.9 (4.6) 9.4 (1.3) 4.8 (0.8) 5.5 (2.0)

Lambing problems 33.6 (4.2) 23.4 (2.2) 26.7 (1.6) 28.9 (4.4)

Old age 48.0 (5.2) 39.5 (2.6) 35.5 (1.8) 33.3 (4.5)

Being on back 25.6 (3.5) 8.7 (1.0) 7.6 (0.8) 4.1 (1.8)

Poisoning 25.7 (3.4) 5.9 (1.1) 2.7 (0.6) 2.8 (1.7)

Theft 3.3 (1.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 1.9 (1.8)

Other nonpredator 

causes 5.0 (1.2) 9.3 (1.6) 10.4 (1.2) 12.0 (3.2)

Unknown 

nonpredator causes 24.7 (3.7) 21.8 (2.3) 15.2 (1.3) 24.8 (4.2)
USDA APHIS VS / 69 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

The top four known causes of nonpredator sheep loss on all operations were old age 

(22.1 percent of sheep), lambing problems (13.6 percent), internal parasites 

(9.6 percent), and weather-related causes (8.5 percent). 

B.5.c. For sheep lost to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of sheep by cause 

of loss and by fl ock size:

Percent Sheep Lost* 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Nonpredator 

cause Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Enterotoxemia 

(overeating) 2.7 (1.2) 2.4 (0.7) 2.4 (0.7) 1.8 (0.5) 2.2 (0.3) 2.1 (0.3)

Internal 

parasites 3.5 (1.0) 14.4 (2.7) 12.6 (1.4) 5.4 (1.0) 9.6 (0.9) 10.0 (1.0)

Other digestive 

problems 7.1 (2.4) 4.3 (1.1) 4.8 (1.3) 3.8 (0.6) 4.4 (0.5) 4.2 (0.5)

Respiratory 

problems 6.3 (1.9) 6.0 (1.2) 7.5 (0.9) 5.2 (0.7) 6.1 (0.5) 6.1 (0.5)

Metabolic 

problems 1.0 (0.5) 1.0 (0.3) 1.2 (0.2) 1.3 (0.8) 1.2 (0.3) 1.2 (0.4)

Other disease 

problems 2.6 (1.1) 4.0 (1.2) 4.2 (0.5) 10.1 (1.6) 6.4 (0.8) 6.7 (0.9)

Weatherrelated causes 4.0 (1.8) 4.5 (1.8) 5.6 (1.0) 13.7 (2.3) 8.5 (1.1) 8.8 (1.2)

Lambing 

problems 11.7 (2.0) 11.9 (1.7) 13.5 (1.1) 15.2 (1.6) 13.6 (0.9) 13.8 (0.9)

Old age 30.9 (3.4) 23.0 (2.6) 27.7 (1.7) 16.6 (1.3) 22.1 (1.0) 21.5 (1.1)

Being on back 3.3 (1.0) 1.3 (0.3) 3.5 (0.4) 3.5 (0.3) 2.9 (0.2) 2.9 (0.2)

Poisoning 0.7 (0.4) 2.4 (0.9) 1.2 (0.2) 4.9 (0.6) 3.0 (0.3) 3.1 (0.4)

Theft 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.2) 2.5 (1.1) 2.0 (1.0) 1.5 (0.5) 1.6 (0.5)

Other 

nonpredator 

causes 

6.9 (2.2) 7.4 (1.6) 3.3 (0.6) 2.8 (0.7) 4.5 (0.6) 4.3 (0.6)

Unknown 

nonpredator 

causes

19.4 (3.0) 17.0 (6.0) 10.3 (1.1) 13.6 (2.0) 14.1 (1.9) 13.7 (2.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total sheep nonpredator loss.
70 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Internal parasites were a leading cause of nonpredator sheep losses on fenced-range 

and pasture operations (11.9 and 15.3 percent of lost sheep, respectively), but not 

for herded/open-range or dry lot/feedlot operations (0.4 and 4.6 percent of sheep, 

respectively). Lambing problems, weather-related causes, old age, and other disease 

problems accounted for the highest percentages of nonpredator sheep losses on herded/

open-range operations. Old age was the leading nonpredator cause of sheep losses on 

fenced-range, pasture, and dry lot/feedlot operations. 

B.5.d. For sheep lost to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of sheep by cause 

of loss and by fl ock type:

Percent Sheep Lost* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Nonpredator 

cause Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Enterotoxemia 

(overeating) 1.1 (0.6) 2.4 (0.8) 2.2 (0.4) 4.6 (2.6)

Internal parasites 0.4 (0.1) 11.9 (1.7) 15.3 (2.0) 4.6 (1.6)

Other digestive 

problems 4.9 (1.0) 2.7 (0.6) 4.7 (1.1) 6.1 (2.3)

Respiratory 

problems 4.1 (1.0) 5.4 (0.9) 7.2 (0.9) 9.2 (2.5)

Metabolic problems 0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 2.1 (0.8)

Other disease 

problems 10.2 (1.8) 4.3 (0.6) 5.9 (1.6) 4.6 (1.5)

Weather-related 

causes 16.9 (3.7) 12.3 (2.5) 3.2 (0.6) 3.7 (1.5)

Lambing problems 17.5 (2.7) 10.3 (1.1) 13.5 (1.3) 13.1 (2.7)

Old age 12.8 (1.6) 25.0 (1.8) 22.8 (1.8) 29.0 (5.1)

Being on back 3.0 (0.4) 3.2 (0.4) 3.0 (0.4) 0.9 (0.3)

Poisoning 5.9 (0.9) 4.1 (0.9) 1.4 (0.3) 1.7 (1.1)

Theft 3.1 (1.8) 0.4 (0.2) 1.8 (0.7) 0.3 (0.3)

Other nonpredator 

causes 2.2 (0.9) 4.4 (1.1) 5.6 (1.1) 4.0 (1.1)

Unknown 

nonpredator causes 17.7 (3.4) 13.0 (1.5) 12.3 (4.4) 16.0 (3.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total sheep nonpredator loss.
USDA APHIS VS / 71 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

6. Nonpredator lamb losses (before and after docking) 

For the 53.2 percent of operations that lost lambs to nonpredator causes during 2010 

(table B.2.g.), 25.6 percent lost lambs to lambing problems. Respiratory causes of lamb 

loss were seen by 22.7 percent of all operations with losses. A higher percentage of 

medium and large operations lost lambs to respiratory problems than very small and 

small operations. A higher percentage of large operations lost lambs to poisoning and 

theft compared with the other operation sizes.

B.6.a. For operations that lost lambs to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of 

operations by cause of loss and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Nonpredator 

cause Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Enterotoxemia 

(overeating) 4.4 (1.3) 13.6 (1.3) 25.8 (1.6) 31.9 (2.0) 13.3 (0.8) 17.6 (1.0)

Internal 

parasites 6.2 (1.6) 15.2 (1.4) 20.0 (1.6) 16.8 (1.8) 13.1 (0.9) 16.4 (1.1)

Other digestive 

problems 6.2 (1.3) 15.3 (1.3) 25.0 (1.6) 24.6 (1.9) 14.3 (0.8) 18.2 (1.0)

Respiratory 

problems 9.6 (1.6) 25.8 (1.6) 35.5 (1.8) 40.3 (2.1) 22.7 (1.0) 29.0 (1.2)

Metabolic 

problems 1.8 (0.9) 3.8 (0.8) 6.0 (0.9) 4.8 (1.0) 3.6 (0.5) 4.4 (0.6)

Other disease 

problems 0.9 (0.5) 4.5 (0.8) 5.8 (0.9) 6.5 (1.0) 3.5 (0.4) 4.9 (0.6)

Weatherrelated causes 19.7 (2.3) 20.1 (1.5) 36.1 (1.8) 58.8 (2.1) 24.1 (1.1) 26.2 (1.2)

Lambing 

problems 23.8 (2.5) 25.1 (1.6) 28.0 (1.6) 36.6 (2.0) 25.6 (1.2) 26.5 (1.2)

Being on back 1.2 (0.6) 1.1 (0.4) 1.8 (0.5) 2.8 (0.8) 1.3 (0.3) 1.3 (0.3)

Poisoning 0.9 (0.6) 1.9 (0.5) 1.6 (0.3) 16.1 (1.5) 2.1 (0.3) 2.6 (0.4)

Theft 0.2 (0.1) 0.6 (0.3) 1.0 (0.3) 4.2 (1.0) 0.7 (0.2) 0.9 (0.2)

Other 

nonpredator 

causes 

17.9 (2.3) 19.1 (1.5) 15.3 (1.4) 18.7 (1.7) 18.1 (1.1) 18.2 (1.1)

Unknown 

nonpredator 

causes

26.3 (2.7) 23.1 (1.6) 26.4 (1.7) 32.8 (2.0) 25.0 (1.2) 24.4 (1.2)
72 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Of operations that lost lambs to nonpredator causes during 2010 (table B.2.g.), a higher 

percentage in the Central region lost lambs to weather-related causes and enterotoxemia 

compared with operations in the West and East regions.

B.6.b. For operations that lost lambs to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of 

operations by cause of loss and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Nonpredator cause Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Enterotoxemia (overeating) 9.1 (2.0) 18.1 (1.4) 11.5 (1.1)

Internal parasites 7.2 (1.7) 7.5 (1.0) 18.1 (1.4)

Other digestive problems 7.0 (1.7) 13.7 (1.1) 16.5 (1.3)

Respiratory problems 21.1 (2.8) 19.1 (1.3) 25.3 (1.6)

Metabolic problems 2.7 (1.2) 1.7 (0.5) 4.9 (0.8)

Other disease problems 4.0 (1.4) 4.7 (0.8) 2.9 (0.5)

Weather-related causes 15.5 (2.4) 32.9 (1.8) 20.9 (1.5)

Lambing problems 27.1 (3.3) 24.6 (1.5) 25.8 (1.8)

Being on back 0.7 (0.6) 1.3 (0.3) 1.5 (0.5)

Poisoning 0.4 (0.1) 3.2 (0.4) 1.9 (0.5)

Theft 0.7 (0.6) 1.0 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2)

Other nonpredator causes 19.4 (2.9) 17.9 (1.7) 17.8 (1.5)

Unknown 

nonpredator causes 34.2 (3.6) 29.2 (2.0) 20.1 (1.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 73 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Of operations with 20 or more ewes that lost lambs due to nonpredator causes during 

2010 (table B.2.g.), a higher percentage of herded/open-range operations lost lambs 

to weather-related causes and poisoning compared with fenced-range and pasture 

fl ock types. Respiratory problems and enterotoxemia caused lamb losses for a higher 

percentage of dry lot/feedlot operations (42.4 and 32.3 percent, respectively) than for the 

other fl ock types. 

B.6.c. For operations that lost lambs to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of 

operations by cause of loss and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Nonpredator 

cause Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Enterotoxemia 

(overeating) 19.4 (4.4) 15.3 (1.8) 16.7 (1.2) 32.3 (4.3)

Internal parasites 5.2 (2.7) 11.2 (1.8) 19.7 (1.4) 6.4 (2.4)

Other digestive 

problems 20.5 (3.6) 15.1 (1.8) 18.0 (1.3) 27.5 (4.3)

Respiratory 

problems 28.3 (4.3) 20.1 (2.1) 30.1 (1.6) 42.4 (4.3)

Metabolic problems 4.1 (2.6) 3.2 (1.0) 4.7 (0.7) 3.5 (1.5)

Other disease 

problems 10.2 (3.1) 5.3 (1.3) 4.9 (0.7) 2.6 (1.6)

Weather-related 

causes 54.4 (5.3) 35.8 (2.6) 22.4 (1.4) 23.3 (3.9)

Lambing problems 33.6 (4.5) 27.0 (2.4) 25.9 (1.6) 26.8 (4.1)

Being on back 2.7 (0.9) 1.1 (0.4) 1.5 (0.4) 0.4 (0.3)

Poisoning 24.0 (3.7) 3.5 (0.8) 1.6 (0.5) 1.3 (0.9)

Theft 7.0 (2.9) 1.4 (0.6) 0.6 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0)

Other nonpredator 

causes 13.2 (4.1) 14.5 (1.9) 18.8 (1.4) 21.4 (3.9)

Unknown 

nonpredator causes 31.7 (4.5) 30.3 (2.7) 22.8 (1.5) 21.3 (3.8)
74 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

For the 6.3 percent of lambs lost to nonpredator causes (table B.2.h.), weather-related 

causes accounted for the highest percentage of nonpredator lamb losses, especially on 

large operations where 37.5 percent of nonpredator lamb losses were due to weatherrelated causes.

B.6.d. For lambs lost to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of lambs by cause 

of loss and by fl ock size:

Percent Lambs* 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Nonpredator

cause Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Enterotoxemia 

(overeating) 4.0 (1.3) 6.1 (0.8) 7.2 (0.7) 6.1 (1.3) 6.2 (0.6) 6.4 (0.7)

Internal 

parasites 5.0 (1.5) 12.7 (1.6) 10.0 (1.3) 3.6 (0.7) 7.4 (0.6) 7.5 (0.7)

Other digestive 

problems 3.2 (0.8) 6.9 (1.0) 9.8 (1.1) 4.3 (0.6) 6.2 (0.5) 6.4 (0.5)

Respiratory 

problems 10.0 (2.2) 14.0 (1.2) 15.5 (1.2) 9.4 (1.0) 12.0 (0.7) 12.1 (0.7)

Metabolic 

problems 0.7 (0.3) 1.8 (0.4) 1.7 (0.3) 0.7 (0.3) 1.2 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2)

Other disease 

problems 0.9 (0.6) 2.7 (0.6) 2.3 (0.6) 1.8 (0.4) 2.1 (0.3) 2.1 (0.3)

Weatherrelated causes 16.8 (2.3) 13.8 (1.5) 23.8 (1.8) 37.5 (2.1) 27.3 (1.3) 28.1 (1.4)

Lambing 

problems 19.7 (2.6) 14.4 (1.2) 11.1 (0.8) 11.5 (1.5) 12.6 (0.8) 12.1 (0.8)

Being on back 0.6 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.0) 0.2 (0.0)

Poisoning 0.7 (0.4) 1.4 (0.8) 0.8 (0.2) 3.1 (0.5) 2.0 (0.3) 2.1 (0.3)

Theft 0.1 (0.1) 1.5 (1.0) 0.6 (0.2) 1.3 (0.5) 1.1 (0.3) 1.2 (0.4)

Other 

nonpredator 

causes 

12.5 (2.3) 8.2 (0.9) 6.1 (0.9) 5.2 (0.8) 6.6 (0.5) 6.2 (0.5)

Unknown 

nonpredator 

causes

25.8 (4.3) 16.2 (1.7) 11.0 (1.1) 15.3 (2.5) 15.2 (1.3) 14.4 (1.3)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total lamb nonpredator loss.
USDA APHIS VS / 75 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

For lambs lost to nonpredator causes (table B.2.h.), the percentage of lamb losses due to 

weather-related causes were higher in the Central region (35.5 percent) compared with 

the West and East regions (16.8 and 15.5 percent, respectively). However, respiratory 

problems caused a lower percentage of lamb losses in the Central region (8.3 percent) 

than in the West and the East regions (19.7 and 16.4 percent, respectively). A higher 

percentage of lamb losses in the East region (14.2 percent) were due to internal parasites 

compared with the West and Central regions (3.7 and 4.2 percent, respectively).

B.6.e. For lambs lost to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of lambs by cause 

of loss and by region:

Percent Lambs* (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Nonpredator cause Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Enterotoxemia (overeating) 4.5 (1.3) 6.4 (1.0) 6.4 (0.6)

Internal parasites 3.7 (1.1) 4.2 (0.8) 14.2 (1.2)

Other digestive problems 4.9 (1.0) 5.4 (0.6) 8.0 (0.8)

Respiratory problems 19.7 (2.5) 8.3 (0.7) 16.4 (1.2)

Metabolic problems 0.8 (0.3) 0.4 (0.1) 2.8 (0.6)

Other disease problems 2.7 (1.0) 2.0 (0.4) 1.9 (0.5)

Weather-related causes 16.8 (2.0) 35.5 (1.8) 15.5 (1.4)

Lambing problems 12.3 (1.5) 12.5 (1.2) 13.0 (1.0)

Being on back 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1)

Poisoning 0.4 (0.2) 2.7 (0.4) 1.1 (0.6)

Theft 3.9 (2.5) 0.8 (0.2) 0.8 (0.7)

Other nonpredator causes 8.2 (1.3) 5.6 (0.7) 7.9 (0.9)

Unknown 

nonpredator causes 22.0 (2.8) 15.9 (2.0) 11.8 (1.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total lamb nonpredator loss.
76 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 10 20 30 40

East

Central

West

Region

Percent lambs 

For lambs lost to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of lambs by cause 

of loss, and by region

Enterotoxemia

(overeating)

Internal

parasites

Other digestive

problems

Respiratory

problems

Metabolic

problems

Weatherrelated causes

Lambing

problems

Theft

Unknown

nonpredator

causes

Nonpredator

cause

Other

nonpredator

causes

4.5

6.4

6.4

3.7

4.2

14.2

4.9

5.4

8.0

19.7

8.3

16.4

0.8

0.4

2.8

16.8

35.5

15.5

12.3

12.5

13.0

3.9

0.8

0.8

8.2

5.6

7.9

22.0

15.9

11.8
USDA APHIS VS / 77 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Lambs

Sheep

Percent lambs 

For sheep and lambs lost to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of sheep 

and lambs on operations with one or more ewes, by cause of loss 

Enterotoxemia

(overeating)

Internal

parasites

Other digestive

problems

Respiratory

problems

Metabolic

problems

Weatherrelated causes

Lambing

problems

Theft

Unknown

nonpredator

causes

Nonpredator

cause

Other

nonpredator

causes

2.2

6.2

9.6

4.4

6.1

12.0

1.2

5.7

1.2

27.3

13.6

1.1

4.5

14.1

7.4

6.2

12.6

6.6

15.2

8.5

1.5
78 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

For lambs lost to nonpredator causes on operations with 20 or more ewes (table B.2.g.), 

respiratory problems accounted for a higher percentage of nonpredator lamb losses 

on pasture and dry lot/feedlot operations (15.4 and 23.6 percent, respectively) than on 

herded/open-range and fenced-range operations (6.9 and 9.4 percent, respectively). 

B.6.f. For lambs lost to nonpredator causes during 2010, percentage of lambs by cause 

of loss and by fl ock type:

Percent Lambs* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Nonpredator 

cause Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Enterotoxemia 

(overeating) 4.4 (1.9) 6.2 (1.4) 6.8 (0.5) 14.2 (2.2)

Internal parasites 0.6 (0.3) 8.2 (1.8) 13.3 (1.1) 3.7 (1.5)

Other digestive 

problems 4.4 (0.9) 4.8 (0.6) 8.2 (0.9) 10.4 (1.9)

Respiratory 

problems 6.9 (1.2) 9.4 (1.4) 15.4 (0.9) 23.6 (3.6)

Metabolic problems 0.2 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 1.7 (0.3) 1.9 (0.8)

Other disease 

problems 2.1 (0.6) 1.8 (0.4) 2.6 (0.5) 0.2 (0.1)

Weather-related 

causes 42.8 (2.9) 33.1 (2.3) 17.1 (1.3) 13.0 (2.6)

Lambing problems 12.3 (2.4) 10.9 (1.0) 12.6 (0.9) 13.1 (2.9)

Being on back 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)

Poisoning 3.8 (0.7) 2.1 (0.5) 0.9 (0.5) 0.9 (0.6)

Theft 0.5 (0.2) 1.8 (0.6) 1.5 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0)

Other nonpredator 

causes 4.6 (1.1) 6.0 (0.8) 7.3 (0.8) 6.0 (1.5)

Unknown 

nonpredator causes 17.2 (3.9) 14.7 (1.6) 12.3 (1.2) 12.8 (3.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Percentage of total lamb nonpredator loss.
USDA APHIS VS / 79 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

7. Carcass disposal methods

Carcass disposal can be a challenge to producers and depends on local, county, and 

State laws regarding carcass disposal; a producer’s skill/knowledge of disposal methods 

(e.g., incinerations and composting); and equipment availability (e.g., for burying and 

rendering). The cost of different carcass- disposal methods also infl uences a producer’s 

decision. 

 Burial and leaving for scavengers were the most common methods used to dispose 

of carcasses on 38.5 and 27.1 percent of operations that had any losses, respectively. 

Almost half of all lamb carcasses (49.1 percent) were left for scavengers (table B.7.g.), 

and 21.9 percent were buried (table B.7.g.). The difference between disposal methods 

by operation percentage and by sheep/lamb percentage is likely due to larger operations 

having a greater number of carcasses for disposal. 
80 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Of operations that had any sheep deaths during 2010 (table B.1.a.), 38.5 percent buried 

at least one sheep carcass. A higher percentage of very small operations (50.7 percent) 

buried sheep carcasses compared with small (36.0 percent), medium (30.0 percent), and 

large (27.4 percent) operations. A higher percentage of large operations (65.5 percent) 

left sheep carcasses for scavengers compared with very small (19.1 percent), small 

(25.3 percent), and medium operations (32.9 percent). The majority of “other” methods of 

disposal included putting the carcasses in a bone pile or feeding to dogs.

B.7.a. For operations that had any sheep deaths during 2010, percentage of operations 

by carcass disposal method used and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Carcass 

disposal 

method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Landfi ll 8.2 (1.7) 8.5 (1.0) 7.2 (0.9) 6.8 (0.9) 8.1 (0.7) 8.1 (0.7)

Incineration 7.3 (1.5) 10.9 (1.2) 11.3 (1.2) 5.7 (0.9) 9.7 (0.7) 10.7 (0.9)

Burial 50.7 (3.3) 36.0 (1.8) 30.0 (1.7) 27.4 (1.6) 38.5 (1.3) 33.9 (1.3)

Rendering 1.3 (0.8) 0.9 (0.3) 1.0 (0.3) 1.2 (0.4) 1.0 (0.3) 1.0 (0.2)

Composting 11.1 (2.2) 19.2 (1.4) 22.1 (1.4) 9.7 (1.2) 17.0 (1.0) 19.2 (1.0)

Leaving for 

scavengers 19.1 (2.6) 25.3 (1.6) 32.9 (1.6) 65.5 (1.7) 27.1 (1.1) 30.0 (1.2)

Other 5.1 (1.6) 3.5 (0.7) 4.2 (0.8) 4.6 (0.8) 4.1 (0.6) 3.8 (0.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 81 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 20 40 60 80

All operations (1 or more)

Large (500 or more)

Very small (fewer than 20)

Flock size (number of ewes)

Percent

For operations that had any sheep deaths during 2010, percentage of operations 

by carcass disposal method used and by flock size

Landfill

Incineration

Burial

Rendering

Composting

Leaving for

scavengers

Other

Carcass

disposal

method

8.2

6.8

8.1

7.3

5.7

9.7

50.7

27.4

38.5

1.3

1.2

1.0

11.1

9.7

17.0

19.1

65.5

27.1

5.1

4.6

4.1
82 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Of operations that had any sheep deaths during 2010 (table B.1.a.) a lower percentage 

in the Central region (30.3 percent) buried sheep carcasses than operations in the East 

region (44.5 percent). Conversely, a higher percentage of operations in the Central region 

(44.1 percent) left carcasses for scavengers compared with operations in the West and 

East regions (29.9 and 11.6 percent, respectively). A higher percentage of operations in 

the East region (29.1 percent) composted sheep carcasses compared with operations in 

the West and Central regions (9.5 and 6.0 percent, respectively). 

B.7.b. For operations that had any sheep deaths during 2010, percentage of operations 

by carcass disposal method and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Carcass

disposal method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Landfi ll 12.3 (2.2) 12.5 (1.3) 2.9 (0.7)

Incineration 6.6 (1.5) 7.3 (1.0) 13.0 (1.3)

Burial 40.7 (3.3) 30.3 (1.8) 44.5 (2.1)

Rendering 0.9 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 1.7 (0.6)

Composting 9.5 (1.9) 6.0 (1.0) 29.1 (1.8)

Leaving for scavengers 29.9 (3.1) 44.1 (2.0) 11.6 (1.2)

Other 5.7 (1.6) 6.1 (1.1) 2.0 (0.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 83 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Overall, 40.1 percent of sheep that died during 2010 were left for scavengers. On large 

operations, a higher percentage of sheep carcasses were left for scavengers 

(54.6 percent) than on very small operations (19.4 percent). On very small operations, 

35.9 percent of sheep carcasses were buried. 

B.7.c. Of sheep that died during 2010, percentage of dead sheep by carcass disposal 

method used and by fl ock size:

Percent Dead Sheep (1 or more ewes)

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Carcass 

disposal 

method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Landfi ll 7.8 (2.0) 6.5 (1.1) 7.0 (1.1) 4.4 (1.2) 5.8 (0.7) 5.6 (0.7)

Incineration 10.2 (3.7) 12.8 (2.8) 10.0 (1.3) 4.6 (1.3) 8.5 (1.0) 8.3 (1.1)

Burial 35.9 (4.5) 29.3 (3.0) 23.1 (1.8) 23.3 (2.5) 25.8 (1.4) 25.0 (1.5)

Rendering 0.7 (0.4) 0.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) 1.6 (0.9) 1.0 (0.4) 1.0 (0.4)

Composting 22.7 (6.7) 17.0 (2.2) 23.7 (2.3) 8.2 (2.4) 15.3 (1.4) 14.6 (1.4)

Leaving for 

scavengers 19.4 (4.2) 30.4 (4.6) 31.4 (2.1) 54.6 (3.1) 40.1 (1.8) 41.9 (1.9)

Other 3.4 (1.4) 3.6 (1.1) 4.2 (1.0) 3.2 (0.7) 4.0 (0.5) 3.6 (0.5)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
84 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 20 40 60

All operations (1 or more)

Large (500 or more)

Very small (fewer than 20)

Flock size (number of ewes)

Percent 

Of sheep that died during 2010, percentage of dead sheep by carcass disposal 

method used and by flock size

Landfill

Incineration

Burial

Rendering

Composting

Leaving for

scavengers

Other

Carcass

disposal

method

7.8

4.4

5.8

10.2

4.6

8.5

35.9

23.3

25.8

0.7

1.6

1.0

22.7

8.2

15.3

19.4

54.6

40.1

3.4

3.2

4.0
USDA APHIS VS / 85 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

The method of carcass disposal used is largely a factor of locale. In the Central region, 

the highest percentage of sheep carcasses (55.8 percent) were left for scavengers, 

while in the East region, the highest percentage of sheep carcasses (41.6 percent) were 

composted. In the West region, the highest percentage of sheep carcasses were either 

by buried (29.5 percent) or by left for scavengers (24.8 percent). 

B.7.d. Of sheep that died during 2010, percentage of dead sheep by carcass disposal 

method used and by region:

Percent Dead Sheep (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Carcass 

disposal method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Landfi ll 12.8 (3.1) 5.2 (0.6) 3.1 (0.8)

Incineration 9.7 (3.3) 7.1 (1.3) 11.1 (1.7)

Burial 29.5 (3.3) 23.5 (1.9) 29.2 (2.3)

Rendering 4.3 (2.4) 0.1 (0.0) 1.1 (0.3)

Composting 14.0 (2.9) 4.5 (1.0) 41.6 (3.4)

Leaving for scavengers 24.8 (2.8) 55.8 (2.5) 12.0 (1.7)

Other 4.9 (1.4) 3.9 (0.7) 2.0 (0.8)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
86 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Of the 65.1 percent of operations which had lamb losses (very few operations lost lambs 

only to theft and therefore would not have had a carcass) [table B.1.a.), about half of 

very small operations that had any lamb deaths during 2010 (50.2 percent) buried lamb 

carcasses, while over two-thirds of large operations (68.6 percent) left lamb carcasses for 

scavengers.

B.7.e. For operations that had any lambs deaths during 2010, percentage of operations 

by carcass disposal method used and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Carcass 

disposal 

method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Landfi ll 12.4 (1.7) 9.5 (1.0) 7.3 (0.9) 7.0 (0.9) 10.0 (0.7) 8.8 (0.7)

Incineration 8.9 (1.5) 12.1 (1.1) 13.4 (1.2) 5.5 (0.9) 11.0 (0.7) 12.0 (0.8)

Burial 50.2 (2.7) 36.1 (1.7) 30.4 (1.6) 26.9 (1.6) 39.3 (1.2) 34.2 (1.2)

Rendering 0.7 (0.4) 0.8 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2) 0.9 (0.3) 0.7 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2)

Composting 9.5 (1.6) 19.3 (1.3) 23.2 (1.3) 11.0 (1.2) 16.4 (0.9) 19.7 (1.0)

Leaving for 

scavengers 17.1 (2.0) 25.6 (1.5) 33.8 (1.5) 68.6 (1.7) 26.1 (1.0) 30.3 (1.1)

Other 3.8 (1.1) 3.6 (0.7) 3.0 (0.7) 4.7 (0.8) 3.6 (0.5) 3.5 (0.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 87 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 20 40 60 80

All operations (1 or more)

Large (500 or more)

Very small (fewer than 20)

Flock size (number of ewes)

Percent

For operations that had any lambs deaths during 2010, percentage of operations 

by carcass disposal method used and by flock size

Landfill

Incineration

Burial

Rendering

Composting

Leaving for

scavengers

Other

Carcass

disposal

method

12.4

7.0

10.0

8.9

5.5

11.0

50.2

26.9

39.3

0.7

0.9

0.7

9.5

11.0

16.4

17.1

68.6

26.1

3.8

4.7

3.6
88 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 10 20 30 40

Lambs

Sheep

Percent

For operations that had any sheep or lamb deaths during 2010, percentage of 

operations by carcass disposal method used

Landfill

Incineration

Burial

Rendering

Composting

Leaving for

scavengers

Other

Carcass

disposal

method

8.1

10.0

11.0

9.7

39.3

0.7

1.0

38.5

27.1

17.0

16.4

26.1

4.1

3.6
USDA APHIS VS / 89 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

B.7.f. For operations that had any lamb deaths during 2010, percentage of operations by 

carcass disposal method used and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Carcass 

disposal method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Landfi ll 13.5 (2.2) 13.9 (1.2) 5.7 (1.0)

Incineration 7.0 (1.6) 10.0 (1.2) 13.1 (1.2)

Burial 39.7 (3.1) 32.7 (1.7) 44.4 (1.9)

Rendering 1.0 (0.6) 0.2 (0.1) 1.1 (0.3)

Composting 9.9 (1.8) 5.3 (0.7) 27.4 (1.6)

Leaving for scavengers 32.3 (2.9) 41.2 (1.8) 12.1 (1.2)

Other 4.5 (1.3) 4.9 (0.9) 2.3 (0.6)
90 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

Nearly half of lamb carcasses (49.1 percent) were left for scavengers during 2010. A 

higher percentage of lamb carcasses on large operations (65.3 percent) were left for 

scavengers compared with lamb carcasses on very small (22.3 percent), small 

(30.9 percent), and medium (36.7 percent) operations. A higher percentage of lamb 

carcasses on very small operations were buried (41.5 percent) compared with small 

(28.7 percent), medium (22.3 percent), and large (16.8 percent) operations. 

B.7.g. Of lambs that died during 2010, percentage of dead lambs by carcass disposal 

method used and by fl ock size:

Percent Dead Lambs 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Carcass 

disposal 

method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Landfi ll 11.2 (2.1) 6.2 (0.9) 5.5 (0.8) 2.5 (0.4) 4.4 (0.4) 4.0 (0.4)

Incineration 8.2 (1.7) 10.9 (1.5) 9.5 (1.3) 5.0 (1.5) 7.5 (0.9) 7.4 (0.9)

Burial 41.5 (3.8) 28.7 (2.1) 22.3 (1.6) 16.8 (1.8) 21.9 (1.1) 20.8 (1.1)

Rendering 0.6 (0.4) 0.9 (0.4) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1)

Composting 11.8 (3.5) 18.8 (2.3) 23.2 (1.9) 7.5 (1.2) 13.8 (1.0) 13.9 (1.0)

Leaving for 

scavengers 22.3 (3.8) 30.9 (2.8) 36.7 (2.4) 65.3 (2.3) 49.1 (1.6) 50.6 (1.7)

Other 4.5 (2.3) 3.7 (1.0) 2.7 (0.8) 2.6 (0.7) 3.0 (0.5) 2.9 (0.4)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 91 

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

0 20 40 60 80

All operations (1 or more)

Large (500 or more)

Very small (fewer than 20)

Flock size (number of ewes)

Percent

Of lambs that died during 2010, percentage of dead lambs by carcass disposal 

method used and by flock size

Landfill

Incineration

Burial

Rendering

Composting

Leaving for

scavengers

Other

Carcass

disposal

method

11.2

2.5

4.4

8.2

5.0

7.5

41.5

16.8

21.9

0.6

0.3

0.4

11.8

7.5

13.8

22.3

65.3

49.1

4.5

2.6

3.0
92 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Lambs and Sheep Deaths and Losses

The majority of lamb carcasses in the Central region (62.7 percent) were left for 

scavengers, while only 38.0 percent of lamb carcasses in the West region and 

14.7 percent in the East region were left for scavengers. Nearly 4 of 10 lamb carcasses in 

the East region (39.1 percent) were composted.

B.7.h. Of lambs that died during 2010, percentage of dead lambs by carcass disposal 

method used and by region:

Percent Dead Lambs (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Carcass 

disposal method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Landfi ll 7.6 (1.5) 4.4 (0.5) 2.9 (0.6)

Incineration 5.8 (1.6) 6.5 (1.2) 11.2 (1.3)

Burial 25.3 (2.6) 19.0 (1.4) 28.6 (2.0)

Rendering 1.4 (0.6) 0.1 (0.1) 0.9 (0.3)

Composting 17.4 (3.8) 4.4 (0.7) 39.1 (2.5)

Leaving for scavengers 38.0 (3.5) 62.7 (1.9) 14.7 (2.5)

Other 4.6 (1.4) 2.8 (0.5) 2.6 (0.8)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 93 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Sheep and Lambs on Feed

1. Sheep and lambs on a high-energy diet

The NAHMS Sheep 2011 study included only operations with ewes and, therefore, was 

not meant to characterize the sheep feedlot industry. As was found in this study, many 

operations feed high-energy diets to sheep or lambs to fi nish them but also have a 

regular ewe/lamb operation.

Overall, 31.4 percent of operations fed a high-energy diet to sheep or lambs to fi nish 

them for slaughter during 2010. A higher percentage of small and medium operations 

(31.1 and 34.4 percent, respectively) fed a high-energy diet compared with large 

operations (23.4 percent). 

C.1.a. Percentage of operations that fed a high-energy diet to sheep or lambs to fi nish 

them for slaughter during 2010, by fl ock size:

A higher percentage of operations in the East region (47.2 percent) fed a high-energy diet 

to sheep or lambs to fi nish them for slaughter compared with operations in the West or 

Central regions (18.7 and 18.3 percent, respectively).

C.1.b. Percentage of operations that fed a high-energy diet to sheep or lambs to fi nish 

them for slaughter during 2010, by region:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

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

18.7 (2.5) 18.3 (1.2) 47.2 (1.8)

C. Sheep and 

Lambs on Feed

Percent Operations

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or more)

All

operations

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

31.1 (1.3) 34.4 (1.5) 23.4 (1.6) 31.4 (1.0)
94 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Sheep and Lambs on Feed

Compared with the other fl ock types, a higher percentage of dry lot/feedlot operations fed 

a high-energy diet to sheep or lambs to fi nish them for slaughter; however, only about 

half of the dry lot/feedlot operations (52.4 percent) fed a high-energy diet to fi nish sheep 

and lambs, which is indicative of the many operations in this category that are primarily 

dry lots rather than primarily feedlots. 

C.1.c. Percentage of operations that fed a high-energy diet to sheep or lambs to fi nish 

them for slaughter during 2010, by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

8.1 (1.5) 20.3 (1.7) 35.0 (1.4) 52.4 (4.4)

Overall, 27.3 percent of lambs were fed a high-energy diet to fi nish them for slaughter 

during 2010 compared with only 1.0 percent of sheep. 

C.1.d. Percentage of sheep and lambs fed a high-energy diet to fi nish them for slaughter 

during 2010, by fl ock size:

Percent Sheep1 and Lambs2

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sheep 1.1 (0.3) 2.0 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 1.0 (0.2)

Lambs 25.2 (1.8) 40.9 (9.6) 20.9 (3.7) 27.3 (3.2)

1

Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

2

Percentage of lambs weaned in 2010.
USDA APHIS VS / 95 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Sheep and Lambs on Feed

On operations in the East region, 44.7 percent of lambs were fed a high-energy diet 

compared with 13.9 and 23.3 percent of lambs in the West and Central regions, 

respectively. 

C.1.e. Percentage of sheep and lambs fed a high-energy diet to fi nish them for slaughter 

in 2010, by region:

Percent Sheep1 and Lambs2 (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

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

Sheep 0.7 (0.3) 0.7 (0.2) 2.3 (0.6)

Lambs 13.9 (2.5) 23.3 (5.3) 44.7 (2.1)

1

Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

2

Percentage of lambs weaned in 2010.

C.1.f. Percentage of sheep and lambs fed a high-energy diet to fi nish them for slaughter 

in 2010, by fl ock type:

Percent Sheep1 and Lambs2 (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Sheep 0.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.3) 1.6 (0.4) 2.5 (0.9)

Lambs 24.2 (10.8) 20.9 (5.1) 34.0 (1.8) 25.8 (9.9)

1

Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

2

Percentage of lambs weaned in 2010.
96 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Sheep and Lambs on Feed

2. Weight of market lambs

Overall, 43.7 percent of market lambs fed a high-energy diet weighed less than 65 lb 

when placed on feed. A higher percentage of market lambs from large operations 

(28.5 percent) weighed more than 105 lb when placed on feed compared with market 

lambs from small and medium operations (14.4 and 11.1 percent, respectively). 

C.2.a. For market lambs fed a high-energy diet in 2010, percentage of lambs by weight 

when placed on feed and by fl ock size: 

Percent Lambs 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Weight (lb) Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 65 52.8 (4.3) 47.9 (8.5) 32.6 (4.7) 43.7 (3.6)

65–84 24.0 (3.7) 17.9 (2.5) 22.7 (5.1) 21.1 (2.4)

85–105 8.8 (1.6) 23.1 (9.8) 16.1 (4.8) 17.2 (4.8)

More than 105 14.4 (2.6) 11.1 (1.7) 28.5 (6.7) 18.0 (2.3)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 97 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Sheep and Lambs on Feed

Of market lambs fed a high-energy diet, 62.9 percent in the East region were less than 

65 lb when placed on feed. In the West region, 41.9 percent of lambs weighed more than 

105 lb when placed on feed. 

C.2.b. For market lambs fed a high-energy diet in 2010, percentage of lambs by weight 

when placed on feed and by region:

Percent Lambs (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Weight (lb) Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Less than 65 8.8 (3.0) 32.7 (5.4) 62.9 (3.3)

65–84 19.2 (11.3) 22.3 (3.9) 20.1 (2.6)

85–105 30.1 (14.4) 24.3 (8.6) 6.9 (1.0)

More than 105 41.9 (12.4) 20.7 (4.4) 10.0 (1.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

For market lambs fed a high-energy diet on dry lot/feedlot operations in 2010, nearly 

two thirds (61.4 percent) weighed less than 65 lb when placed on feed, while more than 

three-fourths of market lambs on herded/open range operations (76.6 percent) weighed 

85 lb or more when placed on feed. 

C.2.c. For market lambs fed a high-energy diet in 2010, percentage of lambs by weight 

when placed on feed and by fl ock type:

Percent Lambs (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Weight (lb) Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Less than 65 4.7 (2.4) 45.4 (4.0) 53.7 (3.6) 61.4 (9.2)

65–84 18.7 (7.7) 27.3 (4.5) 20.0 (2.3) 18.1 (6.2)

85–105 42.2 (13.3) 12.7 (2.0) 11.8 (3.2) 7.8 (4.5)

More than 105 34.4 (12.6) 14.5 (5.4) 14.5 (2.3) 12.7 (5.3)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
98 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Sheep and Lambs on Feed

For operations that fed market lambs a high-energy diet in 2010, the average weight of 

market lambs when sent to slaughter was 123.6 lb. The average weight of market lambs 

from small fl ocks was lighter (111.6 lb) than the market lambs from large operations when 

sent to slaughter (130.1 lb). 

C.2.d. For operations that fed market lambs a high-energy diet in 2010, average weight of 

market lambs when sent to slaughter, by fl ock size:

C.2.e. For operations that fed market lambs a high-energy diet in 2010, average weight of 

market lambs when sent to slaughter, by region:

Average Weight (lb) (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Average Std. error Average Std. error Average Std. error

129.5 (8.6) 129.2 (3.9) 116.6 (1.4)

Average Weight (lb)

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or more)

All

operations

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

111.6 (1.9) 124.5 (4.9) 130.1 (3.0) 123.6 (2.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 99 

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Sheep and Lambs on Feed

Market lambs on herded/open range operations that were fed a high-energy diet in 2010 

weighed an average of 18.7 lb more when sent to slaughter than market lambs from dry 

lot/feedlot operations and an average of 28.7 lb more than market lambs from pasture 

operations. 

C.2.f. For operations that fed market lambs a high-energy diet in 2010, average weight of 

market lambs when sent to slaughter, by fl ock type:

Average Weight (lb) (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std.

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

144.2 (2.0) 122.0 (5.0) 115.5 (2.1) 125.5 (2.9)
100 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

Biosecurity is a system of management practices designed to prevent the introduction of 

disease to an operation or to animals in a fl ock or herd. Biosecurity practices that reduce 

an operation’s risk for disease introduction include prohibiting the introduction of new 

animals to the operation and isolating any animals that leave the operation and return. 

Some diseases such as tuberculosis, Johne’s, and salmonellosis can be spread from 

one species to another; thus, sheep or lambs exposed to other domestic animals or to 

wildlife can introduce disease to the fl ock. 

1. Flock management

The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service manage grazing on 

public lands with the objective of maximizing public land health and productivity. Public 

land grazing permits and leases are given to livestock owners for a fee, once they 

meet certain requirements. There has been a gradual decline in the amount of grazing 

that takes place on public lands. Other grazing options are available through grazing 

association land, leased private land, and harvested fi elds (often referred to as crop 

aftermath). 

A higher percentage of large operations grazed sheep or lambs on each of the land types 

listed compared with small and medium operations. Overall, leased, private land was the 

land type used for grazing sheep or lambs by the highest percentage of operations 

(26.3 percent); only 3.9 percent of operations grazed any sheep or lambs on public land 

during 2010. The percentage of operations that did graze on public lands increased as 

the size of the operation increased; 37.3 percent of large operations grazed their sheep 

on public lands in 2010 compared with 5.3 percent of medium operations and 1.0 percent 

of small operations. 

D. Biosecurity
USDA APHIS VS / 101 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

D.1.a. Percentage of operations that grazed any sheep or lambs on the following types of 

land, and by fl ock size:

D.1.b. Percentage of operations that grazed any sheep or lambs on the following types of 

land, and by region:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Land type Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Public land 1.7 (0.3) 8.8 (0.6) 0.5 (0.3)

Grazing association 0.8 (0.6) 1.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2)

Leased, private land 23.6 (2.5) 35.2 (1.6) 19.7 (1.4)

Harvested fi elds 13.8 (1.9) 28.6 (1.4) 17.2 (1.3)

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Land type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Public land 1.0 (0.3) 5.3 (0.6) 37.3 (1.4) 3.9 (0.3)

Grazing 

association 0.2 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 8.1 (0.9) 0.8 (0.1)

Leased, 

private land 21.7 (1.3) 32.8 (1.5) 62.7 (1.7) 26.3 (1.0)

Harvested 

fi elds 15.7 (1.1) 32.4 (1.5) 48.9 (1.6) 21.1 (0.9)
102 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

About 5 of 10 herded/open range operations (52.2 percent) grazed sheep on public land 

and about 6 of 10 (63.0 percent) grazed sheep or lambs on leased, private land. Less 

than 1 of 10 fenced-range operations (6.5 percent) grazed sheep or lambs on public land 

and about 3 of 10 (28.4 percent) leased private land for grazing. 

D.1.c. Percentage of operations that grazed any sheep or lambs on the following types of 

land, and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Land type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Public land 52.2 (5.1) 6.5 (0.7) 0.8 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2)

Grazing 

association 10.0 (1.6) 0.7 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0)

Leased, 

private land 63.0 (5.5) 28.4 (1.9) 23.9 (1.3) 23.6 (3.6)

Harvested fi elds 47.0 (4.9) 16.7 (1.3) 22.7 (1.2) 12.3 (2.4)
USDA APHIS VS / 103 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

2. Flock additions

Keeping a closed fl ock is one of the best ways to maintain a healthy fl ock, as introducing 

new animals poses one of the greatest threats to biosecurity. In a closed fl ock, 

replacement females are selected from within the fl ock, and genetic improvements are 

made through artifi cial insemination. Artifi cial insemination is economically unfeasible for 

most U.S. sheep operations. 

Each age group introduced to the fl ock poses its own biosecurity risks. Bred ewes 

can harbor reproductive pathogens that are detectible only when ewes abort or lamb. 

Replacement lambs can introduce new strains of respiratory and enteric pathogens to 

other lambs. Overall, 28.6 percent of operations added new sheep or lambs (other than 

those born of the operation) to the fl ock during 2010, with the percentage increasing as 

fl ock size increased. 

D.2.a. Percentage of operations that added any sheep or lambs during 2010, by type of 

sheep added and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Sheep type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Replacement 

ewe lambs less 

than 1 year old

7.7 (1.0) 9.0 (0.9) 9.0 (0.9) 11.9 (1.3) 8.5 (0.6) 9.2 (0.7)

Replacement 

ewes 1 year or 

older

7.5 (1.0) 9.5 (0.9) 11.9 (1.1) 15.7 (1.4) 9.0 (0.6) 10.3 (0.7)

Replacement 

ram lambs less 

than 1 year old

5.6 (0.9) 11.3 (1.0) 15.4 (1.2) 17.7 (1.4) 9.4 (0.6) 12.5 (0.8)

Replacement 

rams 1 year 

and older

6.7 (0.9) 12.3 (1.0) 18.1 (1.3) 29.8 (1.7) 10.9 (0.6) 14.5 (0.8)

All other sheep 

and lambs 1.4 (0.4) 2.2 (0.4) 2.7 (0.5) 4.6 (0.7) 1.9 (0.3) 2.4 (0.3)

Any sheep or 

lambs 22.4 (1.5) 31.5 (1.4) 38.5 (1.6) 48.4 (1.8) 28.6 (0.9) 33.9 (1.1)
104 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

D.2.b. For operations that added sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of sheep and 

lambs by type of sheep added to inventory, and by fl ock size:

Percent Sheep and Lambs* 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Sheep type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Replacement 

ewe lambs less 

than 1 year old

4.9 (1.1) 2.0 (0.3) 1.7 (0.3) 4.4 (0.7) 3.4 (0.4) 3.3 (0.4)

Replacement 

ewes 1 year 

or older

15.0 (6.2) 4.5 (0.9) 4.1 (0.5) 3.9 (0.5) 4.6 (0.5) 4.1 (0.4)

Replacement 

ram lambs less 

than 1 year old

1.0 (0.2) 0.6 (0.1) 0.3 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0)

Replacement 

rams 1 year 

and older

2.1 (0.9) 0.7 (0.1) 0.4 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0) 0.5 (0.0) 0.4 (0.0)

All other 8.6 (6.5) 14.5 (4.8) 13.2 (5.3) 5.5 (1.3) 8.8 (1.7) 8.8 (1.7)

*Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.
USDA APHIS VS / 105 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

D.2.c. For operations that added sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of sheep and 

lambs by type of sheep added to inventory, and by fl ock type:

Percent Sheep and Lambs* (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Sheep type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Replacement 

ewe lambs less than 

1 year old

3.4 (0.6) 5.1 (1.3) 1.9 (0.3) 2.2 (0.9)

Replacement ewes 

1 year or older 4.6 (0.9) 3.2 (0.5) 4.1 (0.4) 6.7 (2.6)

Replacement 

ram lambs less 

than 1 year old

0.2 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.0) 0.5 (0.1)

Replacement rams 1 

year and older 0.4 (0.0) 0.4 (0.0) 0.4 (0.0) 0.4 (0.1)

All other 1.6 (0.6) 2.6 (1.8) 13.6 (3.1) 52.9 (23.3)

*Percentage of January 1, 2011, inventory.

Many outwardly healthy animals carry infectious organisms that can affect fl ock 

productivity. For this reason, quarantining new additions is always recommended. 

Quarantining animals provides an opportunity to detect diseases in the new additions 

without risking disease introduction and transmission to the rest of the fl ock. For the 

purpose of this report, quarantine is defi ned as the physical separation of an animal or 

group of animals from other sheep on the operation. 

General recommendations for the minimum length of quarantine vary from 14 to 28 days. 

Quarantining should provide suffi cient time for the incubation and detection of infectious 

diseases. Diseases for which quarantining is most effective have incubation periods 

shorter than the quarantine period; thus, animals will show signs of infection prior to 

introduction to the fl ock. Quarantining is not effective for diseases with long incubation 

periods or for diseases in which animals can be silent carriers. Diseases for which 

quarantine is not effective include Johne’s, scrapie, sore mouth, and others. For these 

diseases, it is especially important to purchase new additions from known, disease-free 

fl ocks. These are likely to be closed fl ocks which have not brought new animals into the 

fl ock for a number of years.
106 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

Quarantine areas should be separate from other housing and should be far enough away 

from resident sheep to prevent airborne disease transmission. Quarantined animals 

should have no physical contact with other animals; therefore, producers should ensure 

that quarantined animals do not share fence lines, waterers, or feeders, all of which allow 

disease transmission. 

D.2.d. For operations that added any sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of 

operations that quarantined any sheep or lamb additions, by fl ock size:

D.2.e. For operations that added any sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of 

operations that quarantined any sheep or lamb additions, by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

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

38.7 (4.6) 30.3 (2.5) 46.8 (2.8)

Percent Operations

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or more)

All

operations

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

26.5 (3.4) 50.2 (2.8) 47.4 (2.7) 29.9 (2.4) 40.2 (1.8) 47.9 (2.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 107 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

D.2.f. For operations that added any sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of 

operations that quarantined any sheep or lamb additions, by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

29.5 (4.1) 37.6 (3.9) 51.3 (2.6) 54.1 (6.7)

Collectively, 27.9 percent of sheep and lambs added in 2010 were quarantined. A higher 

percentage of added sheep and lambs were quarantined on small operations compared 

with sheep and lambs added to any other size operation.

D.2.g. Percentage of sheep or lamb additions quarantined during 2010, by sheep type 

and by fl ock size:

Percent Sheep or Lambs* 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Sheep type Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Replacement 

ewe lambs less 

than 1 year old

30.4 (8.1) 38.6 (8.3) 44.9 (8.2) 15.7 (5.4) 22.1 (4.4) 21.5 (4.7)

Replacement 

ewes 1 year 

or older

7.4 (4.3) 41.7 (10.1) 39.3 (6.3) 11.9 (3.2) 21.6 (3.3) 24.0 (3.5)

Replacement 

ram lambs less 

than 1 year old

38.3 (8.1) 50.0 (5.0) 47.4 (4.8) 23.4 (7.0) 37.0 (4.5) 36.8 (5.0)

Replacement 

rams 1 year or 

older

15.3 (7.9) 41.0 (7.0) 39.8 (5.0) 18.2 (3.2) 27.2 (3.3) 30.1 (2.9)

All other added 

sheep and 

lambs

1.1 (1.0) 88.8 (6.6) 8.9 (6.4) 28.2 (9.1) 33.4 (8.0) 35.0 (8.5)

Any added 

sheep 

or lambs

10.7 (4.0) 69.1 (7.5) 19.5 (6.5) 19.7 (4.2) 27.9 (4.2) 29.5 (4.6)

*As a percentage of sheep or lambs added during 2010.
108 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

D.2.h. Percentage of sheep or lamb additions quarantined during 2010, by sheep type 

and by region:

Percent Sheep or Lambs* (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Sheep type Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Replacement ewe lambs 

less than 1 year old 23.1 (10.1) 12.9 (5.0) 53.1 (7.7)

Replacement ewes 

1 year or older 25.3 (6.6) 11.5 (2.6) 44.8 (8.6)

Replacement ram lambs 

less than 1 year old 46.0 (7.0) 24.7 (6.0) 51.3 (4.4)

Replacement rams 

1 year and older 28.1 (6.0) 18.4 (3.5) 48.2 (7.8)

All other added 

sheep and lambs 39.5 (12.3) 13.2 (8.1) 42.3 (18.0)

Any added sheep or lambs 34.5 (8.7) 13.0 (3.0) 44.5 (11.7)

*As a percentage of sheep or lambs added during 2010.
USDA APHIS VS / 109 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

Large operations quarantined replacement ewes longer (average of 38.9 days) than very 

small operations (average of 19.5 days). In aggregate, the operation average number of 

days replacement ewes were quarantined was 25.6 days.

D.2.i. For operations that added sheep or lambs during 2010 and quarantined the new 

arrivals, operation average number of days sheep and lambs were quarantined, by sheep 

type and by fl ock size:

Operation Average Number Days

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Sheep type Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Replacement 

ewe lambs less 

than 1 year old

27.3 (3.7) 29.0 (4.4) 28.9 (2.7) 31.3 (4.3) 28.5 (2.5) 29.0 (3.2)

Replacement 

ewes 1 year or 

older

19.5 (2.4) 26.9 (4.2) 27.7 (2.8) 38.9 (4.5) 25.6 (2.4) 27.6 (3.1)

Replacement 

ram lambs less 

than 1 year old

43.2 (11.8) 37.8 (4.0) 35.3 (3.1) 27.1 (3.1) 38.0 (3.3) 36.6 (2.9)

Replacement 

rams 1 year 

and older

23.7 (3.8) 21.3 (2.0) 30.3 (3.1) 24.8 (2.0) 23.9 (1.5) 24.0 (1.6)

All other sheep 

and lambs 6.0 (2.8) 77.3 (17.0) 14.7 (4.4) 47.5 (7.8) 57.0 (12.8) 65.4 (13.6)
110 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

D.2.j. For operations that added sheep or lambs during 2010 and quarantined the new 

arrivals, operation average number of days sheep and lambs were quarantined, by sheep 

type by fl ock type:

Operation Average Number of Days (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot

Sheep type Avg.

Std.

error Avg.

Std.

error Avg.

Std.

error Avg.

Std.

error

Replacement ewe 

lambs less than 

1 year old

34.1 (9.4) 22.2 (2.6) 29.3 (4.1) 35.7 (7.3)

Replacement ewes 

1 year or older 51.2 (9.1) 22.3 (4.0) 29.0 (4.3) 28.3 (6.0)

Replacement ram 

lambs less than 

1 year old

25.6 (3.2) 27.5 (4.3) 38.2 (3.7) 37.4 (6.5)

Replacement rams 

1 year and older 27.4 (2.8) 20.3 (3.5) 24.9 (2.0) 25.9 (6.0)

All other sheep and 

lambs 40.0 (13.0) 20.2 (3.8) 67.5 (17.3) 50.6 (30.9)
USDA APHIS VS / 111 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

Over half of operations had all new additions vaccinated and dewormed prior to their 

arrival (58.4 and 56.0 percent of operations, respectively). About one-third of operations 

(31.4 percent) had all new additions genotyped for scrapie susceptibility. Overall, 

84.4 percent of operations had at least one health-related management practice 

performed on new additions prior to arrival.

D.2.k. For operations that added sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of operations 

that performed the following health management practices on all, some, or none of the 

sheep or lambs—before they arrived at the operation:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

All sheep Some sheep No sheep

Health management 

practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Any vaccinations 58.4 (2.2) 9.0 (1.2) 32.6 (2.1) 100.0

Shearing 37.9 (2.0) 7.0 (1.0) 55.1 (2.0) 100.0

Foot trim 30.4 (2.0) 4.0 (0.7) 65.6 (2.1) 100.0

Medicated footbath 7.9 (1.2) 1.4 (0.5) 90.7 (1.2) 100.0

Deworm 56.0 (2.2) 5.2 (1.0) 38.8 (2.2) 100.0

External parasite 

treatment 23.5 (1.9) 2.6 (0.7) 73.9 (2.0) 100.0

OPP testing 5.8 (1.0) 0.5 (0.3) 93.7 (1.1) 100.0

Johne’s testing 5.6 (0.9) 0.8 (0.4) 93.6 (1.0) 100.0

Scrapie susceptibility 

testing (genotyping) 31.4 (2.0) 4.1 (0.8) 64.6 (2.0) 100.0

Other 3.8 (0.9) 1.0 (0.5) 95.2 (1.0) 100.0

Any practice 84.4 (1.6) 15.6 (1.6) 100.0
112 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

If not done before animals arrive at the operation, vaccinating, shearing, deworming, and 

testing new additions should be done during the quarantine period, before introduction 

to the fl ock. In addition, feet should be trimmed, examined, and soaked in a footbath to 

reduce the risk for introducing footrot to the operation. 

A lower percentage of operations (73.7 percent) had at least one health-related 

management practice performed on some or all new additions after arrival compared to 

the percentage of operations that had one performed prior to arrival (84.4 percent) [table 

D.2.k.]. Deworming was performed on over one-half of the operations (58.6 percent).

D.2.l. For operations that added sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of operations 

that performed the following health management practices on all, some, or none of the 

sheep or lambs—after they arrived at the operation:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

All sheep Some sheep No sheep

Health 

management 

practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Any vaccinations 34.2 (1.9) 6.7 (1.0) 59.1 (1.9) 100.0

Shearing 26.2 (1.7) 5.8 (1.0) 67.9 (1.8) 100.0

Foot trim 30.1 (1.9) 6.2 (0.8) 63.7 (1.9) 100.0

Medicated footbath 12.3 (1.3) 1.5 (0.4) 86.2 (1.3) 100.0

Deworm 58.6 (2.0) 4.0 (0.8) 37.4 (1.9) 100.0

External parasite 

treatment 22.9 (1.7) 2.2 (0.4) 74.9 (1.7) 100.0

OPP testing 1.6 (0.6) 0.6 (0.3) 97.8 (0.6) 100.0

Johne’s testing 1.4 (0.6) 0.3 (0.2) 98.3 (0.6) 100.0

Scrapie 

susceptibility 

testing (genotyping)

5.9 (0.9) 2.5 (0.5) 91.6 (1.1) 100.0

Other 2.2 (0.7) 0.8 (0.3) 97.0 (0.8) 100.0

Any practice 73.7 (1.8) 26.3 (1.8) 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 113 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

3. Contact with other animal species

On the majority of operations, a dog or cat had access to sheep or lamb areas (69.1 and 

63.5 percent, respectively), and on almost one-fourth of operations, goats had access to 

sheep or lamb areas (23.3 percent). 

D.3.a. Percentage of operations by type of animals that had access to sheep or lamb 

areas (i.e., grazing areas, sheds, holding pens, food, or water) during 2010, and by type 

of access:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Type of Access

On operation Fence-line access

Animal type Percent Std. error Percent Std. error

Domestic goats 23.3 (0.9) 4.4 (0.5)

Wild goats 0.6 (0.1) 1.2 (0.2)

Cattle 39.5 (1.0) 16.9 (1.0)

Horses, donkeys 37.3 (1.0) 12.4 (0.9)

Llamas, alpacas 16.4 (0.7) 2.7 (0.4)

Pigs 7.4 (0.5) 2.7 (0.4)

Poultry (chickens, turkeys, etc.) 26.5 (0.9) 4.0 (0.5)

Dogs 69.1 (1.0) 14.1 (1.5)

Cats 63.5 (1.0) 9.6 (1.1)

Any of the above 89.1 (0.7) 20.4 (0.8)
114 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

Deer, elk, moose, or antelope were observed at least monthly on 58.8 percent of 

operations, and wild pigs were observed on 5.2 percent of operations.

D.3.b. Percentage of operations by frequency that the following wild animals and/or signs 

of wild animals (scat, tracks, etc.) were observed on the operation:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Frequency

Never

Less than 

monthly

At least 

monthly

Animal Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Total

Bighorn sheep 98.6 (0.3) 0.6 (0.1) 0.8 (0.2) 100.0

Deer, elk, moose, 

antelope 21.8 (1.0) 19.4 (1.0) 58.8 (1.1) 100.0

Wild pigs 92.1 (0.6) 2.7 (0.4) 5.2 (0.5) 100.0

Any of the above 21.4 (1.0) 78.6 (1.0) 100.0

D.3.c. Percentage of operations on which the following wild animals and/or signs of wild 

animals (scat, tracks, etc.) were observed at least once during 2010, by region:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East All operations

Animal Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Bighorn sheep 0.1 (0.1) 2.6 (0.6) 0.2 (0.2) 1.1 (0.2)

Deer, elk, 

moose, antelope 60.5 (2.9) 80.7 (1.4) 82.2 (1.4) 78.2 (1.0)

Wild pigs 5.5 (1.3) 16.8 (1.4) 1.2 (0.3) 7.9 (0.6)

Any of the above 60.8 (2.9) 81.8 (1.4) 82.2 (1.4) 78.6 (1.0)
USDA APHIS VS / 115 

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Biosecurity

Bighorn sheep or their signs were observed on 10.2 percent of herded/open range 

operations in 2010. Regardless of fl ock type, the majority of operations observed deer, 

elk, moose, or antelope (or their signs) during 2010.

D.3.d. Percentage of operations on which the following wild animals or signs of wild 

animals (scat, tracks, etc.) were observed at least once during 2010, by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot

Animal Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Bighorn sheep 10.2 (3.6) 2.0 (0.6) 0.9 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0)

Deer, elk, 

moose, antelope 74.6 (5.5) 85.4 (1.7) 76.7 (1.3) 67.0 (4.1)

Wild pigs 6.2 (2.8) 18.3 (1.8) 4.0 (0.6) 3.4 (2.0)

Any of the above 75.1 (5.5) 85.7 (1.7) 77.3 (1.3) 67.0 (4.1)
116 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

1. External parasite treatment

External parasites live on or within the skin of their hosts, are usually more problematic 

in the winter due to closer living conditions, and may cause fi nancial loss and welfare 

concerns. External parasites on sheep include ticks, keds, fl y larvae, and mites. Topical 

treatments are usually more effective and easier to apply on shorn animals and often 

includes the use of pesticides or anthelmintics.

Overall, 33.8 percent of operations treated their sheep for external parasites during 2010. 

As operation size increased, the percentage of operations that treated their sheep for 

external parasite increased. Just over one-fourth of very small operations (25.6 percent) 

treated their sheep for external parasites compared with 64.9 percent of large operations.

E.1.a. Percentage of operations that treated any sheep for external parasites (keds, ticks, 

lice, etc.) during 2010, by fl ock size:

E. Health 

Management 

Practices

Percent Operations

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or more)

All

operations

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 or 

more

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

25.6 (1.6) 37.2 (1.5) 46.6 (1.6) 64.9 (1.6) 33.8 (1.0) 40.7 (1.1)
USDA APHIS VS / 117 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

A higher percentage of operations (43.3 percent) in the Central region treated their sheep 

for external parasites compared with operations in the West or East regions (28.9 and 

29.1 percent, respectively).

E.1.b. Percentage of operations that treated any sheep for external parasites (keds, ticks, 

lice, etc.) during 2010, by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

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

28.9 (2.1) 43.3 (1.6) 29.1 (1.5)

E.1.c. Percentage of operations that treated any sheep for external parasites (keds, ticks, 

lice, etc.) during 2010, by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

69.0 (5.5) 38.3 (2.1) 40.9 (1.5) 39.5 (4.2)
118 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

2. Professional consultant visitors

Almost one-fourth of operations (23.9 percent) had a private veterinarian visit for any 

sheep-related reason during 2010. As expected, a higher percentage of large operations 

(31.7 percent) than very small operations (18.8 percent) were visited by a private 

veterinarian. A higher percentage of medium and large operations were visited by a 

nutritionist compared with operations in other size categories. 

E.2.a. Percentage of operations that were visited by the following types of visitors for any 

sheep-related reason during 2010, and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Visitor Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Private 

veterinarian 18.8 (1.4) 27.7 (1.3) 29.0 (1.5) 31.7 (1.7) 23.9 (0.9) 28.2 (1.0)

Federal/State 

veterinarian 3.0 (0.6) 5.8 (0.7) 5.2 (0.7) 5.3 (0.9) 4.4 (0.4) 5.6 (0.5)

Extension 

agent 2.7 (0.6) 4.9 (0.7) 7.2 (0.9) 9.1 (1.1) 4.3 (0.4) 5.6 (0.5)

Nutritionist 1.7 (0.5) 4.1 (0.6) 8.1 (0.9) 8.8 (1.1) 3.6 (0.4) 5.2 (0.5)

Any of the 

above 22.5 (1.5) 33.6 (1.4) 37.3 (1.6) 39.7 (1.8) 29.1 (0.9) 34.8 (1.1)
USDA APHIS VS / 119 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

A higher percentage of operations in the East region (30.4 percent) were visited by a 

private veterinarian compared with operations in the West and Central regions (16.3 and 

18.5 percent, respectively). 

E.2.b. Percentage of operations that were visited by the following types of visitors for any 

sheep-related reason during 2010, by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Visitor Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Private veterinarian 16.3 (1.7) 18.5 (1.2) 30.4 (1.4)

Federal/State 

veterinarian 3.6 (0.9) 5.3 (0.7) 4.2 (0.6)

Extension agent 1.6 (0.5) 6.3 (0.8) 3.8 (0.6)

Nutritionist 1.8 (0.6) 3.1 (0.6) 4.6 (0.5)

Any of the above 19.1 (1.8) 24.8 (1.4) 35.8 (1.5)

A lower percentage of fenced-range operations were visited by a private veterinarian 

compared with the other fl ock types.

E.2.c. Percentage of operations that were visited by the following types of visitors for any 

sheep-related reason during 2010, by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Visitor Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Private 

veterinarian 30.5 (4.6) 17.8 (1.6) 31.8 (1.4) 33.1 (4.1)

Federal/State 

veterinarian 8.1 (3.1) 3.2 (0.8) 6.4 (0.7) 7.3 (2.1)

Extension agent 10.0 (3.6) 4.8 (1.0) 5.9 (0.7) 5.3 (1.7)

Nutritionist 5.7 (2.6) 3.1 (0.6) 5.5 (0.7) 11.1 (2.5)

Any of the above 38.8 (5.0) 22.8 (1.8) 38.4 (1.5) 44.6 (4.3)
120 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

Large operations were visited more often during 2010 by nutritionists than by private 

veterinarians, Federal/State veterinarians, or extension agents. Collectively, sheep 

operations were visited an average of 5.7 times by a private veterinarian in 2010.

E.2.d. For operations that were visited by the following types of visitors during 2010, 

average number of visits in 2010, by fl ock size:

Average Number of Visits 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Professional Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Private 

veterinarian 4.6 (2.6) 6.6 (2.2) 5.9 (1.4) 3.9 (0.2) 5.7 (1.4) 6.3 (1.6)

Federal/State 

veterinarian 1.4 (0.2) 1.4 (0.1) 1.9 (0.2) 1.4 (0.2) 1.5 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1)

Extension 

agent 2.4 (0.4) 2.4 (0.6) 2.8 (0.4) 3.3 (0.5) 2.5 (0.3) 2.6 (0.4)

Nutritionist 3.7 (1.2) 3.5 (0.8) 3.0 (0.3) 8.8 (0.7) 3.8 (0.5) 3.8 (0.5)
USDA APHIS VS / 121 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

Pasture operations were visited more frequently (7.5 times) by a veterinarian during 2010 

than herded/fenced range operations (2.2 times).

E.2.e For operations that were visited by the following types of visitors during 2010, 

average number of visits in 2010, by fl ock type:

Average Number of Visits (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Visitor Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error Avg.

Std. 

error

Private 

veterinarian 2.2 (0.2) 3.6 (0.4) 7.5 (2.3) 3.5 (0.5)

Federal/

State 

veterinarian

2.1 (0.4) 1.7 (0.3) 1.4 (0.1) 1.4 (0.2)

Extension agent 1.9 (0.4) 3.2 (0.7) 2.5 (0.5) 1.3 (0.2)

Nutritionist 2.6 (0.2) 5.6 (0.7) 3.6 (0.7) 2.9 (0.4)

3. Use of private veterinarian

Although only 23.9 percent of operations were visited by a veterinarian during 2010 (table 

E.2.a.), 42.2 percent consulted with a veterinarian. A lower percentage of very small 

operations consulted with a veterinarian compared with operations with 20 or more ewes. 

E.3.a. [0573] Percentage of operations that consulted with a private veterinarian during 

2010, by fl ock size:

Percent Operations

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or more)

All

operations

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

30.9 (1.7) 50.3 (1.5) 55.7 (1.6) 56.9 (1.8) 42.2 (1.0) 51.8 (1.2)
122 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

A higher percentage of operations in the East region (47.8 percent) consulted with a 

veterinarian with operations in the West and Central regions (34.2 and 38.6 percent, 

respectively).

E.3.b. Percentage of operations that used a private veterinarian during 2010, by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

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

34.2 (2.3) 38.6 (1.5) 47.8 (1.5)

A higher percentage of pasture and dry lot operations (57.1 and 57.8 percent, 

respectively) used a private veterinarian compared with fenced-range operations 

(38.4 percent).

E.3.c. Percentage of operations that used a private veterinarian during 2010, by fl ock 

type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

47.2 (5.1) 38.4 (2.1) 57.1 (1.5) 57.8 (4.3)
USDA APHIS VS / 123 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

The two most common reasons for consulting a veterinarian were for disease diagnosis 

and disease prevention (42.8 and 41.9 percent of operations, respectively). Nearly onethird of operations consulted a private veterinarian for lambing problems and over onefi fth consulted a veterinarian for an interstate health certifi cate.

E.3.d. For operations that consulted a private veterinarian during 2010, percentage of 

operations by reason for consultation and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Reason for 

consultation Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Disease 

diagnosis 34.7 (3.1) 45.0 (2.1) 51.9 (2.3) 51.2 (2.5) 42.8 (1.5) 46.9 (1.6)

Disease 

prevention 35.2 (3.2) 44.4 (2.1) 45.8 (2.3) 53.6 (2.5) 41.9 (1.5) 45.3 (1.6)

Interstate 

health 

certifi cate

16.1 (2.4) 24.7 (1.8) 24.3 (1.9) 36.9 (2.2) 22.2 (1.2) 25.3 (1.4)

Nutrition 

information 9.5 (1.9) 10.3 (1.3) 17.0 (1.8) 17.4 (1.8) 11.3 (0.9) 12.3 (1.0)

Production 

management 

practices

8.8 (1.9) 11.8 (1.3) 12.6 (1.5) 19.6 (1.9) 11.2 (0.9) 12.4 (1.0)

Lambing 

problems 25.9 (2.8) 35.8 (2.0) 34.4 (2.2) 23.2 (2.1) 31.8 (1.4) 34.7 (1.5)

Breeding 

soundness 

exam (rams)

4.0 (1.1) 13.2 (1.4) 14.3 (1.5) 28.4 (2.2) 10.9 (0.8) 14.4 (1.1)

Pregnancy 

check 4.6 (1.5) 5.9 (1.0) 8.1 (1.2) 14.5 (1.8) 6.1 (0.7) 6.9 (0.8)

Lameness 8.7 (1.8) 9.1 (1.2) 9.5 (1.3) 7.4 (1.1) 9.0 (0.9) 9.1 (0.9)

Other 12.7 (2.2) 6.3 (1.1) 4.3 (1.0) 3.3 (0.8) 8.0 (0.9) 5.6 (0.8)
124 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

E.3.e. For operations that consulted a private veterinarian during 2010, percentage of 

operations by reason for consultation and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Reason for consultation Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Disease diagnosis 44.7 (4.1) 46.8 (2.5) 40.1 (2.1)

Disease prevention 40.8 (4.0) 44.5 (2.4) 40.7 (2.2)

Interstate health certifi cate 21.7 (3.3) 23.6 (1.7) 21.6 (1.8)

Nutrition information 11.6 (2.4) 13.8 (1.7) 9.9 (1.2)

Production 

management practices 9.4 (2.2) 10.3 (1.4) 12.2 (1.4)

Lambing problems 23.6 (3.5) 28.5 (1.9) 35.7 (2.0)

Breeding soundness 

exam (rams) 11.8 (2.5) 18.0 (1.6) 6.7 (1.0)

Pregnancy check 4.5 (1.5) 7.4 (1.2) 5.9 (1.0)

Lameness 8.0 (2.2) 10.1 (1.6) 8.4 (1.1)

Other 10.6 (2.6) 9.0 (1.7) 6.8 (1.2)
USDA APHIS VS / 125 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

For the 42.2 percent of operations that consulted a private veterinarian (table E.3.a.), 

a higher percentage of pasture and dry lot/feedlot operations (37.9 and 40.2 percent, 

respectively) consulted a veterinarian for lambing problems compared with herded/openrange and fenced-range operations (17.2 and 23.7 percent, respectively). However, 

a higher percentage of herded/open-range operations (28.5 percent) consulted a 

veterinarian for rams’ breeding soundness exams compared with pasture operations 

(13.5 percent).

E.3.f. For operations that consulted a private veterinarian during 2010, percentage of 

operations by reason for consultation and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Reason for 

consultation Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Disease diagnosis 42.1 (6.3) 43.5 (3.4) 48.0 (2.0) 49.1 (5.7)

Disease prevention 53.1 (6.4) 43.3 (3.3) 46.3 (2.0) 42.5 (5.6)

Interstate 

health certifi cate 36.5 (5.4) 23.9 (2.7) 23.3 (1.7) 40.6 (5.7)

Nutrition 

information 18.2 (3.5) 11.9 (2.2) 12.4 (1.3) 9.3 (3.2)

Production 

management 

practices

20.1 (5.2) 9.9 (1.7) 12.9 (1.3) 10.3 (3.4)

Lambing problems 17.2 (3.4) 23.7 (2.8) 37.9 (1.9) 40.2 (5.5)

Breeding 

soundness exam 

(rams)

28.5 (4.4) 15.6 (2.1) 13.5 (1.3) 13.4 (3.7)

Pregnancy check 7.0 (2.0) 10.0 (2.0) 5.8 (0.9) 8.8 (3.1)

Lameness 4.9 (1.4) 8.3 (2.0) 9.7 (1.2) 6.4 (2.5)

Other 3.7 (1.0) 7.1 (2.1) 5.2 (1.0) 5.3 (2.4)
126 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

Of operations that did not use a veterinarian in 2010, 68.9 percent had no health-related 

problems and 11.8 percent thought veterinarians were too expensive. Another 

14.2 percent listed “other” as a reason for not using a veterinarian, with the majority of 

these operations indicating they did not use a veterinarian because they had experience 

and could do the work themselves.

E.3.g. For operations that did not use a private veterinarian during 2010, percentage of 

operations by reason and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Reason for not 

consulting a 

veterinarian Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

No healthrelated problems 77.7 (1.9) 58.5 (2.2) 57.2 (2.5) 55.4 (2.9) 68.9 (1.3) 58.1 (1.8)

No veterinarian 

with sheep 

experience 

available

2.7 (0.8) 7.5 (1.2) 10.7 (1.5) 7.1 (1.5) 5.1 (0.6) 8.1 (0.9)

Too expensive 6.2 (1.1) 19.6 (1.8) 16.2 (1.8) 16.3 (2.2) 11.8 (0.9) 18.8 (1.4)

Other 13.5 (1.6) 14.4 (1.5) 15.9 (1.9) 21.1 (2.3) 14.2 (1.1) 15.0 (1.2)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 127 

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Health Management Practices

E.3.h. For operations that did not use a private veterinarian during 2010, percentage of 

operations by reason and by region:

Percent Operations (1 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Reason for not 

consulting a veterinarian Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

No health-related problems 77.5 (2.5) 66.0 (2.2) 67.2 (2.2)

No veterinarian with sheep 

experience available 2.8 (0.9) 5.6 (1.1) 5.9 (0.9)

Too expensive 6.7 (1.4) 14.1 (1.5) 12.3 (1.4)

Other 13.0 (2.1) 14.3 (1.7) 14.6 (1.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

E.3.i. For operations that did not use a private veterinarian during 2010, percentage of 

operations by reason and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot

Reason for not 

consulting a 

veterinarian Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

No health-related 

problems 52.9 (8.2) 60.6 (3.0) 57.3 (2.4) 55.1 (6.8)

No veterinarian with 

sheep experience 

available

11.2 (5.5) 5.1 (1.3) 9.5 (1.4) 11.3 (4.1)

Too expensive 15.0 (6.6) 23.1 (2.7) 17.3 (1.9) 11.2 (3.7)

Other 20.9 (6.4) 11.3 (1.8) 15.9 (1.7) 22.4 (5.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
128 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

Until recently, the U.S. sheep population was experiencing a decades-long decline in 

numbers. These declines were accompanied by reduced wool marketing entities and 

related infrastructure, which resulted in diffi cult marketing schemes with fewer domestic 

wool buyers, distance-to-market challenges, and fewer selling systems. The declining 

sheep numbers also discouraged individuals in the United States from becoming 

shearers, and the industry has for years relied on international shearers from New 

Zealand, Australia, and other countries. A worldwide shortage of shearers has magnifi ed 

this problem for U.S. sheep producers and limited their abilities to increase their sheep 

numbers.3 A combination of low wool prices and the diffi culty of fi nding shearers have 

sometimes made producing wool a liability. As a result, more producers have focused on 

raising hair sheep, which do not need to be sheared. 

Shearing is typically performed with electric shears or shearing machines, but some 

producers shear their own sheep and may use manual clippers. 

1. Shearing management

Overall, 80.2 percent of operations with 20 or more ewes sheared lambs and sheep 

during 2010. A lower percentage of small operations (77.3 percent) sheared lambs 

and sheep during 2010 compared with medium (86.7 percent) or large (93.0 percent) 

operations. 

F.1.a. Percentage of operations that sheared sheep and lambs during 2010, by fl ock size: 

3 Committee on the Economic Development and Current Status of the Sheep Industry in the United States and 

National Research Council. 2008. Changes in the Sheep Industry in the United States: Making the Transition 

from Tradition.

F. Shearing

Percent Operations

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or more)

All

operations

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 or 

more

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

77.3 (1.2) 86.7 (1.2) 93.0 (1.0) 80.2 (0.9)
USDA APHIS VS / 129 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

A lower percentage of operations in the Central region (75.4 percent) sheared lambs and 

sheep compared with operations in the West and East regions (83.2 and 83.2 percent, 

respectively). 

F.1.b. Percentage of operations that sheared sheep and lambs during 2010, by region:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

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

83.2 (2.5) 75.4 (1.5) 83.2 (1.3)

A lower percentage of fenced-range operations (73.8 percent) sheared lambs and sheep 

during 2010 compared with herded/open-range (89.8 percent), pasture (82.0 percent), 

and dry lot/feedlot (85.9 percent) operations. 

F.1.c. Percentage of operations that sheared sheep and lambs during 2010, by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes) 

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

89.8 (4.4) 73.8 (2.1) 82.0 (1.2) 85.9 (3.4)
130 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

Overall, 55.8 percent of sheep and lambs on operations with 20 or more ewes were 

shorn. A lower percentage of sheep and lambs on small operations (44.0 percent) were 

sheared compared with sheep and lambs on medium and large operations (54.9 and 

61.5 percent, respectively). 

F.1.d. Percentage of sheep and lambs shorn during 2010, by fl ock size:

A lower percentage of sheep and lambs in the East region (49.8 percent) were shorn in 

2010 compared with sheep and lambs in the West region (61.8 percent).

F.1.e. Percentage of sheep and lambs shorn during 2010, by region:

Percent Lambs and Sheep Shorn (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

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

61.8 (2.3) 56.5 (2.0) 49.8 (1.4)

F.1.f. Percentage of sheep and lambs shorn during 2010, by fl ock type:

Percent Lambs and Sheep Shorn (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

64.3 (4.1) 54.4 (1.7) 51.7 (1.2) 38.8 (14.7)

Percent Lambs and Sheep Shorn

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or more)

All

operations

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

44.0 (1.5) 54.9 (4.0) 61.5 (1.4) 55.8 (1.3)
USDA APHIS VS / 131 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

Many States offer shearing schools, and State fairs offer shearing demonstrations, so 

some producers choose to shear their own sheep. Overall, 50.9 percent of operations 

with 20 or more ewes used a hired individual to shear their sheep, while 29.2 percent 

contracted with a shearing crew, and 26.2 percent used employees or the sheep owner to 

shear. There were some variations by size of operation, with over half of small operations 

(56.9 percent) hiring individuals to shear compared with just 13.1 percent of large 

operations. Nearly 9 of 10 large operations (86.4 percent) used a contracted shearing 

crew compared with just 18.5 percent of small operations. 

F.1.g. For operations that sheared sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of operations 

by type of shearer used and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Type of 

shearer Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Employees 

(including 

owner)

29.0 (1.6) 21.6 (1.5) 11.6 (1.2) 26.2 (1.2)

Contracted 

shearing crew 18.5 (1.3) 46.0 (1.6) 86.4 (1.3) 29.2 (1.0)

Hired individual 56.9 (1.7) 43.2 (1.7) 13.1 (1.3) 50.9 (1.3)

Other 2.1 (0.5) 1.0 (0.4) 0.6 (0.2) 1.7 (0.4)
132 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

Over half of operations in the Central region (54.4 percent) contracted with shearing 

crews compared with just 14.8 percent of operations in West region and 14.6 percent in 

the East region. 

F.1.h. For operations that sheared sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of operations 

by type of shearer used and by region:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Type of shearer Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Employees (including owner) 38.3 (3.3) 15.9 (1.4) 29.9 (1.9)

Contracted shearing crew 14.8 (1.9) 54.4 (1.7) 14.6 (1.4)

Hired individual 59.5 (3.4) 35.3 (1.7) 60.0 (2.0)

Other 2.0 (1.1) 1.7 (0.6) 1.6 (0.5)

A higher percentage of herded/open-range operations (67.4 percent) contracted shearing 

crews compared with fenced-range (49.6 percent), pasture (20.8 percent), and dry lot/

feedlot (15.0 percent) operations. 

F.1.i. For operations that sheared sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of operations 

by type of shearer used and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Type of shearer Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Employees 

(including owner) 15.2 (4.0) 20.0 (2.1) 28.2 (1.5) 34.4 (4.4)

Contracted 

shearing crew 67.4 (5.5) 49.6 (2.3) 20.8 (1.2) 15.0 (3.1)

Hired individual 18.3 (4.7) 37.2 (2.4) 57.7 (1.7) 54.6 (4.6)

Other 8.6 (4.4) 1.3 (0.5) 1.4 (0.4) 2.5 (1.7)
USDA APHIS VS / 133 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

Disinfecting shears between sheep can reduce the likelihood of transmitting disease from 

one sheep to another. One disease in particular (caseous lymphadenitis) is likely to be 

transmitted from sheep to sheep when skin is broken or cut by contaminated shearing 

equipment. Shears should always be disinfected between fl ocks and, ideally, should 

be disinfected between sheep. A higher percentage of small operations (10.0 percent) 

than medium (4.6 percent) or large (4.6 percent) operations disinfected shears between 

sheep. 

Over half of operations (54.0 percent) never disinfected shears between sheep, while 

15.3 percent sometimes disinfected shears between sheep.

F.1.j. For operations that sheared sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of operations 

by frequency shears were disinfected between individual sheep, and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Frequency Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Always 10.0 (1.1) 4.6 (0.7) 4.6 (0.9) 8.4 (0.8)

Sometimes 15.9 (1.3) 15.1 (1.3) 9.4 (1.2) 15.3 (1.0)

Never 52.6 (1.7) 57.5 (1.8) 58.0 (1.8) 54.0 (1.3)

Do not know 21.5 (1.4) 22.8 (1.5) 27.9 (1.6) 22.2 (1.1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
134 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

Shearing sheep in order from the youngest to the oldest is one method of reducing the 

risk of transmitting disease between sheep. A lower percentage of small operations 

(3.4 percent) sheared sheep from youngest to oldest compared with large operations 

(7.2 percent). Overall, 91.6 percent of operations with 20 or more ewes sheared sheep in 

no particular order.

F.1.k. For operations that sheared sheep or lambs during 2010, percentage of operations 

by shearing practice and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Shearing 

practice Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

From youngest 

to oldest 3.4 (0.6) 4.1 (0.7) 7.2 (0.9) 3.8 (0.5)

From oldest 

to youngest 3.7 (0.7) 5.2 (0.8) 11.1 (1.1) 4.5 (0.5)

In no particular 

order 92.9 (0.9) 90.6 (1.0) 81.7 (1.4) 91.6 (0.7)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 135 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

2. Wool management and marketing

Wool is easily stored, and some producers bag and store their wool until market 

conditions improve. Other producers, especially those with smaller operations, have 

developed niche markets and sell their wool to hand-spinners and weavers. 

Over half of operations (61.5 percent) sold wool on a greasy basis. Nearly half of 

operations (48.8 percent) stored wool in bags. Overall, 11.3 percent of operations that 

sheared sheep had their wool analyzed by a laboratory; 62.3 of large operations had 

their wool analyzed. A small percentage of small operations (4.7 percent) had their wool 

analyzed by a laboratory. Wool can be used in many ways for a variety of things. For 

example, 3.3 percent of operations used at least some wool for animal bedding; 

5.8 percent used at least some wool for mulch; and 3.2 percent used wool for insulation. 

More than one of fi ve small operations (21.8 percent) threw their wool away.

F.2.a. For operations that sheared lambs or sheep during 2010, percentage of operations 

by wool management method and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Wool 

management 

method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Analyzed by a 

laboratory 4.7 (0.7) 17.4 (1.2) 62.3 (1.8) 11.3 (0.6)

Sold on a clean 

basis 11.2 (1.1) 17.4 (1.3) 42.6 (1.8) 14.6 (0.8)

Sold on a 

greasy basis 58.7 (1.7) 70.4 (1.6) 59.9 (1.8) 61.5 (1.3)

Given away 16.6 (1.3) 10.4 (1.2) 4.7 (0.8) 14.4 (1.0)

Spun (on this 

operation or 

elsewhere)

10.1 (1.0) 6.7 (1.0) 5.2 (0.9) 9.0 (0.8)

Used for animal 

bedding 3.4 (0.6) 3.3 (0.6) 1.7 (0.5) 3.3 (0.5)

Used for mulch 5.7 (0.8) 6.8 (0.9) 3.0 (0.6) 5.8 (0.6)

Used for 

insulation 3.1 (0.6) 4.2 (0.8) 1.1 (0.3) 3.2 (0.5)

Stored in bags 47.4 (1.7) 51.0 (1.8) 56.0 (1.8) 48.8 (1.3)

Thrown away 21.8 (1.4) 14.0 (1.2) 5.4 (0.8) 18.9 (1.0)

Other 3.4 (0.6) 3.3 (0.8) 1.7 (0.6) 3.3 (0.5)
136 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

A higher percentage of operations in the West region gave or threw away their wool 

compared with operations in the Central or East regions. A higher percentage of 

operations in the Central region (24.8 percent) had their wool analyzed by a laboratory 

compared with operations in the West and East regions (7.6 and 2.2 percent, 

respectively). 

F.2.b. For operations that sheared lambs or sheep during 2010, percentage of operations 

by wool management method used and by region:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Wool management method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Analyzed by a laboratory 7.6 (1.5) 24.8 (1.2) 2.2 (0.6)

Sold on a clean basis 8.7 (1.9) 22.6 (1.4) 10.4 (1.2)

Sold on a greasy basis 53.7 (3.5) 60.1 (1.8) 65.2 (1.9)

Given away 25.6 (3.1) 9.8 (1.2) 14.0 (1.4)

Spun (on this operation 

or elsewhere) 13.3 (2.4) 5.8 (0.8) 10.0 (1.2)

Used for animal bedding 5.7 (1.7) 1.8 (0.5) 3.5 (0.7)

Used for mulch 12.9 (2.3) 2.7 (0.5) 5.7 (0.9)

Used for insulation 5.1 (1.5) 2.1 (0.5) 3.5 (0.7)

Stored in bags 45.3 (3.5) 55.0 (1.8) 45.1 (2.0)

Thrown away 34.1 (3.3) 11.8 (1.2) 19.2 (1.6)

Other 7.9 (2.1) 2.0 (0.6) 2.7 (0.6)
USDA APHIS VS / 137 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

A higher percentage of herded/open-range and fenced-range operations (30.2 and 

21.2 percent, respectively) sold their wool on a clean basis compared with pasture 

(11.5 percent) and dry lot/feedlot (11.3 percent) operations. 

F.2.c. For operations that sheared lambs or sheep during 2010, percentage of operations 

by wool management method used and by fl ock type:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Flock Type

Herded/

open range Fenced range Pasture Dry lot/feedlot 

Wool management 

method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Analyzed by 

a laboratory 43.1 (4.4) 24.0 (1.6) 5.7 (0.7) 2.1 (1.2)

Sold on a clean basis 30.2 (4.0) 21.2 (1.7) 11.5 (1.0) 11.3 (2.8)

Sold on a greasy 

basis 63.0 (4.9) 55.4 (2.4) 64.3 (1.6) 57.2 (4.6)

Given away 9.7 (3.2) 13.0 (1.7) 15.7 (1.3) 10.4 (3.0)

Spun (on this 

operation or 

elsewhere)

9.5 (3.1) 3.9 (0.8) 10.8 (1.1) 10.5 (3.0)

Used for 

animal bedding 2.7 (1.3) 2.0 (0.6) 3.6 (0.6) 4.9 (2.2)

Used for mulch 2.5 (1.1) 3.9 (0.9) 6.5 (0.8) 7.5 (2.5)

Used for insulation 1.1 (0.5) 1.7 (0.5) 4.0 (0.7) 3.0 (1.4)

Stored in bags 38.2 (4.4) 46.2 (2.4) 50.9 (1.7) 44.6 (4.6)

Thrown away 6.3 (2.0) 15.2 (1.8) 20.1 (1.4) 26.9 (4.1)

Other 6.9 (4.0) 2.8 (0.9) 3.5 (0.6) 1.9 (1.3)
138 / Sheep 2011

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

Wool in the United States is usually marketed by one of four methods: marketing 

cooperatives, pools, warehouses, and private treaties. For this study, marketing 

cooperatives and pools were placed in the “cooperative pools” category, since pools are 

another marketing channel cooperative. Cooperative pools were used by the second 

highest percentage of operations for marketing wool; direct sales were used by the 

highest percentage of operations. A higher percentage of small operations (38.7 percent) 

sold wool using cooperative pools compared with medium and large operations (28.4 and 

12.9 percent, respectively). Over half of large operations (53.3percent) used warehouses 

to market their wool compared with only 15.5 and 30.3 percent of small and medium 

operations, respectively. 

F.2.d. For operations that sold any wool during 2010, percentage of operations by primary 

method used to market wool and by fl ock size:

Percent Operations 

Flock Size (number of ewes)

Very small

(fewer 

than 20)

Small

(20–99) 

Medium

(100–499)

Large

(500 or 

more)

All

operations 

(1 or more)

Operations 

with 20 

or more

Primary wool 

marketing 

method Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error Pct.

Std. 

error

Cooperative 

pools 38.7 (2.0) 28.4 (1.7) 12.9 (1.3) 33.8 (1.4)

Direct sales 41.7 (2.1) 38.8 (1.8) 31.3 (1.7) 40.0 (1.4)

Warehouses 15.5 (1.5) 30.3 (1.6) 53.3 (1.9) 22.7 (1.1)

Other 4.1 (0.8) 2.5 (0.6) 2.5 (0.7) 3.5 (0.6)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
USDA APHIS VS / 139 

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Shearing

For operations that sold any wool during 2010, 46.1 percent in the Central region 

marketed wool to warehouses compared with only 12.5 and 6.0 percent of operations in 

the West and East regions, respectively.

F.2.e. For operations that sold any wool during 2010, percentage of operations by primary 

method used to market wool and by region:

Percent Operations (20 or more ewes)

Region

West Central East

Primary wool 

marketing method Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error Pct.

Std.

error

Cooperative pools 39.3 (4.4) 20.0 (1.5) 43.7 (2.2)

Direct sales 44.4 (4.5) 31.1 (1.8) 46.3 (2.2)

Warehouses 12.5 (2.9) 46.1 (2.0) 6.0 (1.0)

Other 3.9 (1.9) 2.7 (0.8) 4.1 (0.9)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
140 / Sheep 2011

Section II: Methodology

NAHMS develops study objectives by exploring existing literature and contacting industry 

members about their informational needs and priorities during a needs assessment 

phase. The needs assessment for the NAHMS Sheep 2011 study collected information 

from U.S. sheep producers and other goat specialists about what they perceived to be 

the most important sheep health and productivity issues. A driving force of the needs 

assessment was the desire of NAHMS to receive as much input as possible from a 

variety of producers, industry experts and representatives, veterinarians, extension 

specialists, universities, and industry organizations. Information was collected through 

a Needs Assessment Survey, and top issues were prioritized by teleconferences with 

representatives of the sheep industry, along with extension agents and other university 

affi liates. 

To develop the objectives for the NAHMS Sheep 2011 study, a needs assessment 

was conducted from December 2009 through February 2010 to determine the current 

issues facing the U.S. sheep industry. A total of 275 stakeholders completed the needs 

assessment questionnaire. In addition, an advisory group of producers, researchers, 

extension veterinarians, and clinicians helped develop the study objectives. 

Of those, 37 percent were meat producers, 14 percent wool producers, 0.8 percent milk 

producers, 8.0 participated in 4-H or club lamb participants, 1.9 percent veterinarians, 

21.8 percent Federal or State government, 5.3 percent university or extension agents, 

0.8 percent were allied industry, and 10.3 percent classifi ed themselves as “other,” which 

included mostly producers of meat and wool, hair sheep, or seed stock. The number of 

sheep raised by producers was between 1 and 5,000. Of the respondents, 49.25 percent 

were from the Eastern time zone, 34.9 percent from the Central time zone, 7.0 percent 

from the Mountain time zone, and 8.9 percent from the Pacifi c time zone. 

Ewe health/management was the most important management issue, with 40 percent of 

respondents ranking health/management as their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most important issue. For 

those producers who indicated ewe health as a priority, their specifi c areas of interest 

include: mastitis, Q fever, OPP, Johne’s, abortion prevention, parasites, nutrition, and 

proactive information for ewe health. 

Internal parasites were the most important disease issue for survey respondents. Overall, 

65.7 percent of respondents ranked internal parasites as one of their top three disease 

issues. This top ranking held true for producer respondents and veterinary and university 

extension agents. The next most important disease issues were scrapie (22.0 percent of 

operations), abortions (19.8 percent), and lameness (19.8 percent). 

Federal and State veterinarians made up nearly 22 percent of respondents. The following 

describes their responses to the survey: The majority are in the Eastern time zone 

(61.0 percent) followed by the Central (25.0 percent), Mountain (7.4 percent), and Pacifi c 

Section II: Methodology

A. Needs 

Assessment
USDA APHIS VS / 141 

Section II: Methodology

(5.6 percent) time zones. The top three management issues were: identifi cation 

(15.9 percent), infectious disease (15.2 percent), and disease prevalence (13.4 percent). 

The top three disease-specifi c issues were: scrapie (18.1 percent), internal parasites 

(13.6 percent), and Johne’s (10.6 percent).

Once the most important issues were identifi ed, the study objectives were created 

by prioritizing the needs during discussions with producers, veterinarians, university 

extension agents, and government personnel. 

Objectives for NAHMS Sheep 2011 study were

 Describe trends in sheep health and management practices from 1996 to 

2011.

 Describe management and biosecurity practices used to control common 

infectious diseases, including scrapie, ovine progressive pneumonia, Johne’s 

disease, and caseous lymphadenitis. 

 Estimate the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites and anthelmintic resistance.

 Estimate the prevalence of Mycoplasma ovipneumonie in domestic sheep 

fl ocks. Relate presence of the organism in blood and nasal secretions to 

clinical signs and demographic and management factors. 

 Facilitate the collection of information and samples regarding causes of abortion storms in sheep

 Determine producer awareness of the zoonotic potential of contagious ecthyma (soremouth) and the management practices used to prevent transmission of the disease.

 Provide sera to include in the serological bank for future research. 

1. State selection

The preliminary selection of States to be included in the study was done from January 

through April 2010, using the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 2007 Census 

of Agriculture and the January 29, 2010, Sheep and Goat Report. A goal for NAHMS 

national studies is to include States that account for at least 70 percent of both animals 

and producer population in the United States. The initial review of States identifi ed 

20 major States representing 84.3 percent of the U.S. 2007 Census of Agriculture ewe 

inventory and 68.9 percent of the farms with ewes. Sampling discussions were held 

with NASS statisticians and subsequently Arizona was dropped and Kentucky, Kansas, 

and New York were added. The 22 States recommended for inclusion in the study were 

California, Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, 

Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. These States, according to the 

2007 Census of Agriculture, represented 85.5 percent of the ewe inventory and 

B. Sampling and 

Estimation
142 / Sheep 2011

Section II: Methodology

70.1 percent of farms with ewes. In addition, the States included 84.6 percent of the 

January 1, 2010, ewe inventory.

A memo identifying these 22 States was provided in July 2010 to the USDA–APHIS–VS–

CEAH Director and, in turn, the VS Regional Directors. Each Regional Director sought 

input from the respective States about being included or excluded from the study. The 

22 States were included in the study. 

2. Operation selection

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

sample was selected. The size stratum was the number of sheep and lambs for each 

operation on the list sampling frame at the time of sample selection. These procedures 

were used to select the sample for the NASS January 2010 Sheep survey. Sampling 

effi ciencies were gained by drawing a subsample of respondents to this survey. This 

procedure eliminated a large number of out-of-business and zero-inventory reports. The 

sample was selected from those producers who reported one or more ewes on hand 

January 1, 2010. The sample of sheep producers was selected in each State. Among 

producers reporting fewer than 20 ewes, 1,401 operations were selected for Phase Ia. 

For operations reporting 20 or more ewes, a total of 3,542 operations were selected 

for contact during Phase Ib. Therefore a total of 4,943 operations were selected for the 

study.

3. Population inferences

a. Phases Ia and Ib: General Sheep Management Questionnaire

Inferences cover the population of sheep producers with at least 1 ewe on hand January 

1, 2010, in the 22 participating States. As of December 31, 2007 (2007 Census of 

Agriculture), these States accounted for 85.5 percent of all ewes in the United States 

(3,005,813 head out of 3,516,409) and 70.1 percent of farms with ewes (47,855 out of 

68,222). In addition, these States accounted for 84.6 percent of the January 1, 2010, ewe 

inventory in the United States or 2,824,000 head out of 3,340,000 head. (See Appendix 

II for respective data on individual States.) All respondent data were statistically weighted 

to refl ect the population from which they were selected. The inverse of the probability of 

selection for each operation was the initial selection weight. This selection weight was 

adjusted for nonresponse within each State and size group from the NASS survey as well 

as adjusted for subsampling and again for nonresponse to this study. These adjustments 

and weighting allow for inferences back to the original population from which the sample 

was selected.
USDA APHIS VS / 143 

Section II: Methodology

1. Data collectors and data collection period

a. Phases Ia and 1b: General Sheep Management Questionnaire

All data were collected from January 1 to February 11, 2011. Producers with fewer than 

20 ewes were contacted via telephone interviewers who administered the questionnaire 

which averaged approximately 30 minutes. NASS enumerators administered the General 

Sheep Management Questionnaire to producers with 20 or more ewes via an in-person 

interview which took approximately 1 hour. 

1. Phase I: Validation—General Sheep Management Questionnaire

Telephone interviews were conducted via computer-assisted telephone interview 

software at each individual State NASS offi ce and edited. For the in-person administered 

questionnaire, initial data entry and validation for the General Sheep Management 

Questionnaire were also performed in the individual NASS State offi ces. Data were 

entered into a SAS data set and edited. Individual State data fi les were then combined 

and sent to NAHMS national staff, which performed additional data validation on the 

entire data set. 

C. Data 

Collection

D. Data Analysis
144 / Sheep 2011

Section II: Methodology

The purpose of this section is to provide various performance measurement parameters. 

Historically, the term response rate was used as a catchall parameter, but there are many 

ways to defi ne and calculate response rates. Therefore, the following table presents 

an evaluation based upon a number of response measurement parameters, which are 

defi ned with an x in categories that contribute to the measurement.

1. Phase Ia: General Sheep Management Questionnaire—fewer than 20 ewes 

A total of 1,381 operations were selected for the survey. Of these operations, 64.2 percent completed the questionnaire. 

Measurement parameter

Response category

Number 

operations

Percent 

operations Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Refused GSM 

questionnaire or 

inaccessible

494 35.8 x x

Complete 887 64.2

Total 1,381 100.0 887 887

Percent of total 

operations 64.2 64.2

Percent of total 

operations weighted3 60.6 60.6

1

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

positive number on hand).

2

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

3

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

E. Sample 

Evaluation
USDA APHIS VS / 145 

Section II: Methodology

2. Phase Ib: General Sheep Management Questionnaire—20 or more ewes 

A total of 3,539 operations were selected for the survey. Of these operations, 3,191 

(90.2 percent) were contacted. There were 2,661 operations that provided usable 

inventory information (75.2 percent of the total selected and 83.4 percent of those 

contacted). In addition, there were 2,369 operations (66.9 percent) that provided 

“complete” information for the questionnaire. 

Measurement parameter

Response category

Number 

operations

Percent 

operations Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Zero sheep on 

January 1, 2011 211 5.9 x x

Out of business 81 2.3 x x

Refused GSMQ 

questionnaire 530 15.0 x

Complete VMO 

consent signed 1,241 35.1 x x x

Complete VMO 

consent refused 1,025 29.0 x x x

Complete,

ineligible for VMO 103 2.9 x x x

Out of scope 17 0.5

Offi ce hold (NASS 

elected not to contact) 69 1.9

Inaccessible 262 7.4

Total 3,539 100.0 3,191 2,661 2,369

Percent of total 

operations 90.2 75.2 66.9

Percent of total 

operations weighted4 90.9 77.9 68.5

1

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

positive number on hand).

2

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

3

Weighted response—the rate was calculated using the initial selection weights.
146 / Sheep 2011

Appendix I: Sample Profi le

1. Number of responding operations, by herd size

Phase Ia: General Sheep 

Management Questionnaire—fewer than 19 

ewes

Phase Ib: General 

Sheep Management 

Questionnaire—20 or 

more ewes

Herds 

(number of ewes) Number of responding operations

Fewer than 20 887

20 to 99 1,049

100 to 999 859

1,000 or more 461

Total 887 2,369

2. Number of responding operations, by region

Phase Ia: General 

Sheep Management Questionnaire—fewer than 

20 ewes

Phase Ib: 

General Sheep 

Management 

Questionnaire—20 or 

more ewes

Region Number of responding operations

West 175 325

Central 348 1,208

East 364 836

Total 887 2,369

Appendix I: Sample Profi le

A. Responding 

Operations
USDA APHIS VS / 147 

Appendix II: U.S. Ewes Population and Farms

A. Number of Ewes—State, Region, and United States

Appendix II: U.S. Ewes Population and Farms

Number of Ewes* Number of Farms*

Region State

Ewes on 

farms with 

1 or more 

head

Ewes on 

farms with 

20 or more 

head

Pct. of 

total

Farms with 

1 or more 

head

Farms with 

20 or more 

head

Pct. of 

total

West CA 286,544 269,021 93.9 3,413 946 27.7

OR 119,356 104,842 87.8 2,802 804 28.7

WA 35,138 (D) 1,977 367 18.6

 Total 441,038 (D) 8,192 2,117 25.8

Central CO 200,269 194,698 97.2 1,265 493 39.0

ID 161,935 (D) 1,047 367 35.1

KS 52,614 48,143 91.5 1,011 450 44.5

MT 184,087 (D) 1,375 859 62.5

NM 87,131 78,150 89.7 2,152 756 35.1

SD 210,005 (D) 1,580 1,231 77.9

TX 580,861 550,346 94.7 6,814 2,694 39.5

UT 210,388 203,621 96.8 1,430 514 35.9

WY 258,096 255,618 99.0 817 495 60.6

 Total 1,945,386 (D) 17,491 7,859 44.9

East IA 128,518 113,364 88.2 3,168 1,606 50.7

KY 22,225 15,880 71.5 1,171 309 26.4

MI 48,398 38,932 80.4 1,969 582 29.6

MN 85,049 75,343 88.6 2,225 1,038 46.7

MO 51,328 41,933 81.7 1,911 718 37.6

NY 42,321 35,260 83.3 1,523 497 32.6

OH 74,331 59,700 80.3 2,929 1,103 37.7

PA 62,828 46,728 74.4 3,067 837 27.3

VA 48,219 38,991 80.9 1,796 691 38.5

WI 56,172 44,057 78.4 2,413 780 32.3

 Total 619,389 510,188 82.4 22,172 8,161 36.8

Total (22 States) 3,005,813 (D) 47,855 18,137 37.9

Percent of U.S. 85.5 70.1 74.5

Total U.S. (50 States) 3,516,409 3,193,721 90.8 68,222 24,346 35.7

*Source: NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture.

Comparable number of ewes by size (1 or more and 20 or more):

West

Central

East

Total (22 States)

405,900

1,389,359

619,389

2,414,648

373,863

1,330,576

510,188

2,214,627

92.1

95.8

82.4

91.7

(Published totals for ewes on all farms and ewes on farms with 20 or more head by State.
148 / Sheep 2011

Appendix II: U.S. Ewes Population and Farms

B. Ewes, Size Distribution—State, Region, and United States* 

Flock Size

1–19 20–99 100–499 500 or more

Region State Farms Head Farms Head Farms Head Farms Head

West CA 2,467 17,523 737 28,185 129 24,906 80 215,930

OR 1,998 14,514 633 24,712 133 27,549 38 52,581

WA 1,610 (D) 347 (D) 15 (D) 5 (D)

 Total 6,075 (D) 1,717 (D) 277 (D) 123 (D)

Central CO 772 5,571 347 14,083 88 18,594 58 162,021

ID 680 5,029 276 10,663 50 9,498 41 136,745

KS 561 4,471 353 14,825 76 (D) 21 (D)

MT 516 (D) 486 (D) 277 59,288 96 (D)

NM 1,396 8,981 674 23,660 52 (D) 30 (D)

SD 349 (D) 724 (D) 410 81,396 97 (D)

TX 4,120 30,515 1,762 73,910 666 13,7602 266 338,834

UT 916 6,767 344 14,137 85 15,843 85 173,641

WY 322 2,478 298 13,032 96 21,418 101 221,168

 Total 9,632 (D) 5,264 (D) 1,800 368,680 795 1,284,513

East IA 1,562 15,154 1,357 55,777 236 40,053 13 17,534

KY 862 6,345 277 9,786 30 (D) 2 (D)

MI 1,387 9,466 504 20,852 71 12,595 7 5,485

MN 1,187 9,706 848 33,723 177 32,280 13 9,340

MO 1,193 9,395 626 23,980 87 14,503 5 3,450

NY 1,026 7,061 418 16,213 74 15,064 5 3,983

OH 1,826 14,631 995 38,956 103 17,205 5 3,539

PA 2,230 16,100 740 28,103 90 13,962 7 4,663

VA 1,105 9,228 607 23,140 82 (D) 2 (D)

WI 1,633 12,115 682 26,719 97 (D) 1 (D)

 Total 14,011 109,201 7,054 277,249 1,047 (D) 60 (D)

Total (22 States) 29,718 (D) 14,035 (D) 3,124 604,820 978 1,613,763

Percent of U.S. 67.7 71.7 83.2 84.7 95.0 94.2

Total U.S. (50 States) 43,876 322,688 19,563 767,044 3,753 714,448 1,030 1,712,229

*Source: NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture.
USDA APHIS VS / 149 

Appendix II: U.S. Ewes Population and Farms

 C. U.S. Sheep and Lamb Population, January 1, 2011, Inventory

Region State

Ewes

(x1,000 head)

Rams

(x1,000 head)

Replacement 

lambs

(x1,000 head)

Total breeding 

sheep and 

lambs

(x1,000 head)

All sheep and 

lambs

(x1,000 head)

West CA 283 12 45 340 610

OR 118 7 23 148 215

WA 36 3 7 46 56

 Total 437 22 75 534 881

Central CO 142 5 28 175 370

ID 153 6 26 185 235

KS 33 2 8 43 70

MT 170 7 38 215 230

NM 77 5 15 97 110

SD 176 7 32 215 275

TX 525 40 125 690 880

UT 211 9 35 255 280

WY 220 8 47 275 365

 Total 1,707 89 354 2,150 2,815

East IA 106 5 19 130 200

KY 22 1.5 4.5 28 34

MI 44 3 11 58 74

MN 77 4 14 95 130

MO 57 3 13 73 81

NY 43 3 10 56 70

OH 81 6 16 103 129

PA 62 6 16 84 98

VA 55 3 9 67 90

WI 59 3 14 76 90

 Total 606 37.5 126.5 770 996

Total (22 States) 2,750 148.5 555.5 3,454 4,692

Percent of U.S. 84.5 78.2 82.9 83.9 84.8

Total U.S. (50 States) 3,255 190 670 4,115 5,530

Source: NASS Sheep and Goats report, January 28, 2011.
150 / Sheep 2011

Appendix II: U.S. Ewes Population and Farms

D. Breeding Sheep: Survey Percent by Size Group, United States 2008–09

1–99 head 200–499 head 500–4,999 head 5,000+ head

2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009

Operations 92.5 93.7 6.2 5.2 1.2 1.0 0.1 0.1

Inventory 32.6 36.2 22.7 20.8 30.2 31.3 14.5 11.7

Source: NASS Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations, 2009 Summary, February 2010.
USDA APHIS VS / 151 

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

develop the objectives for the NAHMS Sheep 2011 study, a needs assessment was 

conducted from December 2009 through February 2010 to determine the current 

issues facing the U.S. sheep industry. A total of 278 stakeholders completed the needs 

assessment questionnaire. In addition, an advisory group of producers, researchers, 

extension veterinarians, and clinicians helped develop the study objectives. 

Objectives for NAHMS Sheep 2011 study 

1. Describe trends in sheep health and management practices from 1996 to 2011.

 Part I: Reference of Sheep Management Practices in the United States, 2011, 

May 2012

 Part II: Reference of Sheep Marketing and Biosecurity Practices in the United 

States, 2011, December 2012

 Part III: Changes in the Sheep Industry, 1996–2011, expected winter 2013

 Part IV: Reference of Sheep Health and Health Management in the United 

States, 2011, expected spring 2013

 Vaccination Practices on U.S. Sheep Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected 

spring 2013

 Sheep and Lamb Losses on U.S. Sheep Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected 

spring 2013

 Lambing Management on U.S. Sheep Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected 

spring 2013

2. Describe management and biosecurity practices used to control common infectious 

diseases, including scrapie, ovine progressive pneumonia, Johne’s disease, and caseous 

lymphadenitis. 

 Biosecurity Practices on U.S. Sheep Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected 

winter 2013

 Parasite Control on U.S. Sheep Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected winter 

2013

 Producer Disease Awareness, 2011, info sheet, expected spring 2013

 Antimicrobial Drug Use on U.S. Sheep Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected 

spring 2013

3. Estimate the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites and anthelmintic resistance.

 Gastrointestinal Parasites and Anthelmintic Resistance, 2011, info sheet, 

expected spring 2013

 Gastrointestinal Parasites and Anthelmintic Resistance on U.S. Sheep 

Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected spring 2013

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs
152 / Sheep 2011

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

4. Estimate the prevalence of Mycoplasma ovipneumonia in domestic sheep fl ocks. 

Relate presence of the organism in blood and nasal secretions to clinical signs and 

demographic and management factors. 

 Mycoplasma ovipneumonia in Domestic Sheep Flocks, 2011, info sheet, 

expected spring 2013

5. Facilitate the collection of information and samples regarding causes of abortion 

storms in sheep.

 Toxoplasmosis in Lambs in U.S. Sheep Flocks, 2011, info sheet, expected spring 

2013

 Q Fever in Sheep in the United States, 2011, info sheet, expected spring 2013

 Campylobacter on U.S. Sheep Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected spring 

2013

 Salmonella on U.S. Sheep Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected spring 2013

6. Determine producer awareness of the zoonotic potential of contagious ecthyma (sore 

mouth) and the management practices used to prevent transmission of the disease.

 Sore Mouth on U.S. Sheep Operations, 2011, info sheet, expected spring 2013