Economic 

Research 

Service

Economic 

Information 

Bulletin 

Number 73

March 2011

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

William D. McBride

Kenneth Mathews, Jr.

The Diverse Structure and 

Organization of U.S. Beef 

Cow-Calf Farms
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 a part of an 

individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Cover photo: William D. McBride, USDA/ERS. 

Recommended citation format for this publication:

McBride, William D., and Kenneth Mathews, Jr. The Diverse Structure 

and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms. EIB-73. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. March 2011.

Recommended citation format for this publication:

McBride, William D., and Kenneth Mathews, Jr. The Diverse Structure

and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms. EIB-73. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. March 2011.

www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

 

www.ers.usda.gov

For paper copies of this report, call the ERS order desk at 1-800-363-2068.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Beef cow-calf production in the United States is widespread, occurring in every State. 

Nearly 765,000 farms, about 35 percent of the 2.2 million farms in the United States, had 

a beef cow inventory in 2007. Most of these were small, part-time operations. About a 

third of farms that raise beef animals had a beef cow inventory of less than 10 cows, more 

than half had fewer than 20 cows, and nearly 80 percent had fewer than 50 cows. In this 

study, ERS uses data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey for 

U.S. beef cow-calf operations to examine the structure, costs, and characteristics of beef 

cow-calf producers. Many small operations are “rural residence farms” that specialize 

in beef cow-calf production, but their income from off-farm sources exceeds that from 

the farm. Most beef cow-calf production occurs on large farms, but cow-calf production 

is not the primary enterprise on many of these farms. Findings suggest that operators of 

beef cow-calf farms have a diverse set of goals for the cattle enterprise.

Keywords: Beef cow-calf production, farm income, animal traceability, Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey (ARMS), National Animal Identifi cation System (NAIS)

Acknowledgments

Thanks go to Jim MacDonald of USDA’s Economic Research Service as well as four 

other anonymous reviewers for providing indepth reviews of an earlier draft. Thanks also 

to John Weber and Victor Phillips, Jr. for editorial and design services. Special thanks go 

to the beef cow-calf producers who participated in USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey and those who collected the data. 

William D. McBride, wmcbride@ers.usda.gov

Kenneth Mathews, Jr., kmathews@ers.usda.gov

The Diverse Structure and 

Organization of U.S. Beef 

Cow-Calf Farms

Economic 

Information 

Bulletin

Number 73

March 2011
ii

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

USDA’s Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Other Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Classifying Beef Cow-Calf Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Farm and Operator Characteristics 

by Producer Classifi cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Production Practices and Farm Finances 

by Producer Classifi cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Regional Diversity in Beef Cow-Calf 

Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Farm and Operator Characteristics 

by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Production Practices and Farm Finances 

by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Size and Costs of Beef Cow-Calf 

Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Farm and Operator Characteristics by Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Production Practices and Farm Finances 

by Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A Farm Typology of Beef 

Cow-Calf Producers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Farm and Operator Characteristics 

by Farm Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Production Practices and Farm Finances 

by Farm Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Beef Cow-Calf Production and the National Animal 

Identifi cation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Familiarity and Registration With the NAIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
iii

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

What is the issue?

Beef cow-calf farms operate in an industry characterized by large numbers 

of small farms. Many of these farms specialize in beef cattle production, 

but farm households on these operations tend to generate more income from 

off-farm sources, such as wages and salaries or retirement income, than from 

the farm businesses themselves. Large farms account for most beef cow-calf 

production in the United States, but on many of these farms, cow-calf production is not the primary enterprise. These fi ndings suggest that operators of 

beef cow-calf farms, large and small, have varying goals for their cattle 

enterprises, of which farming as a lifestyle choice is not uncommon. 

What did the study fi nd?

• About 60 percent of U.S. beef cow-calf farms produce calves that are sold 

at or shortly after weaning. These are usually small farms, and most are 

located in the Southeast and Southern Plains. Many of the farm households 

on these operations generate most of their income from off-farm sources. 

• More than a third of beef cow-calf farms retain ownership of calves after 

weaning and continue grazing, or backgrounding, the calves from 30 to 

90 days before selling. These farms are generally larger, have more beef 

cows, and are distributed throughout the United States, with many in the 

Northern Plains and West regions.

• The majority of U.S. beef cows are located in the South, including the 

Southern Plains (primarily Texas) and the Southeast. These regions have 

the advantage of a longer grazing season and less need for supplemental 

forage to support beef cattle during the winter, which results in lower feed 

costs. Despite higher feed costs in the Northern Plains, large beef cowcalf producers in this region are able to compete with those in the South 

due to production effi ciencies and economies of size. 

• Economies of size in beef cow-calf production suggest that farms have an 

incentive to become larger. However, the signifi cant land area required 

for large-scale beef cow-calf production inhibits many producers from 

expanding. In most areas of the United States, beef cow-calf production 

is the residual user of land. As the opportunity cost of pasture and range 

land increases for uses such as crop production or recreational activities, 

the size of beef cow-calf operations may be limited or fragmented into 

smaller units.

• Most farms with beef cows do not specialize in beef cow-calf production. 

In 2008, cattle production accounted for less than 40 percent of the average 

farm product value on U.S. beef cow-calf farms. Regionally, cattle production accounted for about two-thirds of farm product value on beef cow-calf 

farms in the Southern Plains and West regions but less than 40 percent in 

other regions. Specialization in cattle production increased with farm size 

and peaked at 60 percent of farm product value for operations with 250-499 

beef cows. Among the largest operations, those with 500 or more cows, less 

than 50 percent of farm product value was from cattle.
iv

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

• Operators of more than a third of beef cow-calf farms worked off-farm 

in 2008, and half of beef cow-calf farms are classifi ed as rural residence 

farms. These farms are small operations that specialize in beef cowcalf production but report off-farm earnings as the primary source of 

household income. Commercial farms with beef cow-calf enterprises are 

mostly diversifi ed farm operations on which cattle are a secondary enterprise that accounts for about a fourth of farm product value. On intermediate farms, which have annual farm sales under $250,000 and report 

farming as the main occupation, the beef cattle enterprise accounts for 

over half of farm product value. Intermediate farms are among the most 

fi nancially vulnerable to the input and output price variations of beef 

cattle production.

• In 2008, more than 80 percent of beef cow-calf producers had some type 

of animal identifi cation system in place, such as branding or ear tagging. 

But, nearly a quarter of beef cow-calf producers with 20 or more cows 

reported a lack of familiarity with the National Animal Identifi cation 

System (NAIS), and only about a quarter had their premises registered 

with the system. This lack of participation among the Nation’s nearly 

765,000 beef cow-calf producers appears to be related to concerns about 

liability and costs associated with the program. Because beef cow-calf 

production is a secondary farm enterprise and a secondary household 

income source for most farms with beef cows, there may be little incentive for these farms to risk any perceived liability or to incur program 

participation costs. This may create a challenge for Federal or State 

efforts to enhance product traceability through animal identifi cation on 

beef-cow calf farms. 

How was the study conducted?

In this report, ERS summarizes information from a 2008 survey of U.S. 

beef cow-calf producers included as part of USDA’s annual Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey, which is administered by ERS and USDA’s 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. The survey covered 22 States and 

targeted beef cow-calf producers with at least 20 beef cows on the operation 

during 2008. Data from participating producers were weighted for analysis 

such that they represent 96 percent of U.S beef cow-calf farms in the target 

population. Surveyed producers were divided into groups by type of operation (cow-calf only, cow-calf/stocker, or cow-calf/feedlot), region, size, and 

farm typology, through which structural and economic differences among 

producers in each group were statistically evaluated. Beef cow-calf producers 

were also grouped according to their familiarity and participation with the 

NAIS. Program participants were statistically contrasted with other producers 

to identify characteristics that distinguish those who participated in animal 

identifi cation and product traceability programs.
1

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

Beef cow-calf operations are located throughout the United States, typically 

on land not suited or needed for crop production. These operations depend 

on range and pasture forage conditions, which are in turn dependent upon 

variations in the average level of rainfall and temperature for an area. Beef 

cows harvest forage from grass and range lands to maintain themselves and 

raise a calf with little grain fed. Forage availability determines the stocking 

capacity of range and pasture land and can determine whether calves are sold 

at weaning or retained for additional grazing and growth (Hoder et al., 2007).

Beef cow-calf production contributes to the agricultural economy in most 

of the United States. According to the Census of Agriculture, cattle and calf 

sales generated about $61.2 billion in 2007,1 accounting for about 20 percent 

of the total market value of agricultural products sold in the United States 

during the period and ranking fi rst in sales among all commodities. Nearly 

765,000 farms, about 35 percent of the 2.2 million farms in the United States, 

had a beef cow inventory in 2007 (table 1). Most of these were small operations. About a third of farms had a beef cow inventory of less than 10 cows, 

more than half had fewer than 20 cows, and nearly 80 percent had fewer than 

50 cows (USDA, NASS, 2007).

Rapid transformation in the size, technologies used, and ownership structure 

has characterized operations in most livestock sectors during the past decade. 

For example, the number of hog and dairy farms in the United States fell by 

around 40 percent between 1997 and 2007 (table 1), while the average size of 

these operations nearly doubled. In contrast, the number of operations with 

beef cows fell only 15 percent between 1997 and 2007, and the average size 

of these farms increased from 38 to 43 head, or about 13 percent. Beef cowcalf operations are primarily tied to land suitable for grazing cattle, while hog 

and dairy operations have substituted capital for land, facilitating large-scale 

production by moving animals into confi nement facilities.

Feeder cattle prices and supplemental feed costs are important factors 

affecting the profi tability of beef cow-calf production. Feeder cattle 

prices are affected by prices paid for slaughter cattle, which in turn, are 

affected by consumer demand for beef as refl ected in retail beef prices. 

Cow-calf producers respond to high (low) feeder cattle prices by increasing 

1Includes beef and dairy cattle sales.

Type of farms

All farms

1997

2,215,876

2007

2,204,792

change

 -0.5

Farms with beef cows 899,756 764,984 -15.0

Farms with milk cows 125,041 69,890 -44.1

Farms with hogs and pigs 124,889 75,442 -39.6

Table 1

Number of U.S. farms and farms with livestock operations

 Number of farms 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using 2007 Census of Agriculture.

Percent
2

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

(decreasing) production, but biological constraints of cattle prevent producers 

from instantly responding to price. This gives rise to the cattle cycle—

cyclical increases and decreases in the cattle herd over time, determined by 

the combined effects of cattle prices; the time needed to breed, calve, and 

raise cattle to market weight; and climatic conditions (USDA, ERS, 2010b). 

Beef cow-calf production costs are sensitive to the amount of supplemental 

feed, in addition to grazing, that is required to over-winter, feed during 

drought, or otherwise maintain beef cows during the year. There is a cost 

advantage for producers in areas with a longer grazing season and milder 

winter, thus requiring less supplemental feed. Other factors shown to infl uence beef cow-calf production costs are investments in machinery and equipment, calving percentage, calf death loss, and length of the breeding season 

(Ramsey et al., 2005).

This report presents information about U.S. beef cow-calf operations, emphasizing the diverse structural and economic characteristics of the farms and 

ranches. The objective is to provide updated information about the type of 

farms, size of farms, farm production practices, and farm operator and fi nancial characteristics of the U.S. beef cow-calf industry. 

USDA’s Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey

This report summarizes data from an indepth survey of U.S. beef cowcalf producers conducted as part of USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS). ARMS is administered annually by ERS and 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Survey responses were 

collected from a cross-section of U.S. beef cow-calf operations and include 

measures of farm size, production costs, business arrangements, production 

facilities and practices, and farm operator and fi nancial characteristics. The 

sampling resulted in 1,966 usable responses from 3,600 surveyed producers 

in 22 States (fi g. 1), a survey response rate of 55 percent. Producers in the 

Northeast, Upper Midwest, and other States were not surveyed because of 

their minor share of U.S. beef cow-calf production and because of survey cost 

limitations. 

Beef cow-calf farms surveyed in the 2008 ARMS were chosen from a list of 

farm operations maintained by USDA’s NASS. The survey’s target population was farms with 20 or more beef cows on the operation at any time during 

2008. A primary purpose of the beef cow-calf survey was to collect farm 

characteristics, farm fi nancial data, and commodity costs-of-production for 

commercial beef cow-calf operations. Farms with fewer than 20 cows were 

screened out to exclude farms that raise cattle for onfarm consumption and 

other noncommercial activities, such as youth projects or hobby farming. 

Most U.S. beef cow-calf farms are small operations, and limiting the target 

population to those with fewer than 20 cows omits about 53 percent of the 

farms with beef cows reported in the 2007 Census of Agriculture. These 

smallest farms, however, accounted for only about 10 percent of the U.S. beef 

cow inventory in 2007.
3

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Each farm surveyed in ARMS represents a number of similar farms in the 

population as indicated by the survey expansion factor. The expansion factor, 

or survey weight, was determined from the farm’s selection probability and 

thereby expands the sample to represent the target population.2 Compared 

with data in the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the sample represents approximately 96 percent of U.S. beef cow-calf farms in the ARMS target population 

(20 or more cows) and 93 percent of the beef cow inventory on these farms.3

The difference is primarily due to ARMS collecting information from operators in only 22 States. Figure 2 displays data on beef cow-calf farms and beef 

cow inventories from the 2007 Census of Agriculture and the 2008 ARMS by 

farm size category. Both beef cow-calf farms and beef cow inventories in the 

ARMS sample are distributed across the size categories much like those in 

the Census of Agriculture.

2All means estimated from Agricultural Resource Management Survey 

(ARMS) data and presented in this report are weighted by the survey weights.

3The 2007 Census of Agriculture measured beef cow inventory on December 

31, 2007. The ARMS beef cow inventory used in this comparison refl ects the 

count on January 1, 2008.

Figure 1

States surveyed in the 2008 ARMS of U.S. beef cow-calf producers

Producers in the surveyed States (shaded) accounted for about 96 percent of beef cow farms with 20 or more head and 

93 percent of the beef cow inventory on these farms.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
4

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Other Data

ERS analysts relied on two other sources of data on farms with beef cows. 

Data from the 1997, 2002, and 2007 Censuses of Agriculture were used to 

measure changes in farm numbers and cow inventories that provide a context 

for the ARMS data. These data provide the most reliable estimates of the 

number of farms and beef cows.

Data from USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) 

were also used to provide context for the ARMS data. NAHMS data provide 

indications of production practices used on beef cow-calf farms. The 

NAHMS study of beef cow-calf producers was conducted for 2007 and 2008 

and provides information about the health, production, and management 

practices of beef cow-calf operations. NAHMS coverage closely aligns with, 

and can be considered complementary to, ARMS. The inference population 

for the NAHMS study is operations with 1 or more beef cows located in the 

same 22 States surveyed in ARMS, plus Idaho.

Figure 2

Survey coverage of U.S. beef cow-calf farms and inventory by size of operation, 2008

The expanded ARMS sample of farms with 20 or more beef cows and the ARMS beef cow inventory are distributed similarly 

across identical size categories of the 2007 Census of Agriculture.

.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using 2007 Census of Agriculture; and USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey 

(ARMS).

Notes: The 2007 Census of Agriculture measured beef cow inventory on December 31, 2007. The ARMS beef cow inventory is that on January 1, 

2008. Differences between the estimates are primarily due to fewer States included in ARMS, and the sampling and nonsampling error of ARMS. 

Limiting ARMS to operations with 20 or more beef cows omitted about 53 percent of farms with beef cows and 10 percent of the beef cow 

inventory reported in the 2007 Census of Agriculture.

Percent of farms

20-49

cows

50-99

cows

100-199

cows

200-499

cows

500-999

cows

1,000 or

more cows

20-49

cows

50-99

cows

100-199

cows

200-499

cows

500-999

cows

1,000 or

more cows

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent of inventory

2008 ARMS 2007 Census of Agriculture
5

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Classifying Beef Cow-Calf Producers

Commercial beef cattle production in the United States can be classifi ed 

into three phases: (1) cow-calf—cow maintenance during breeding, gestation, and calving to when calves are weaned from between 6 and 9 months 

of age, weighing 400-700 pounds; (2) stocker—addition of 200-400 pounds 

of extra weight to weaned calves over 3-8 months; and (3) feedlot—fi nishing 

of calves, usually on a combination of forage and grain, to a slaughter weight 

of 1,000-1,500 pounds (see box, “A Primer on Beef Cow-Calf Production”). 

About half of U.S. beef cattle operations specialize in the cow-calf phase 

(USDA, APHIS, 2010a), but the remainder conduct activities in two or all 

three of the phases. 

In most of the United States, beef cows are bred during the summer in order 

to calve 9 months later in late winter or early spring. This system takes 

advantage of abundant summer pasture for cattle grazing at a time when 

lactating cows have their greatest nutritional requirements. In midwinter, 

most cows are not lactating and thus have lower nutritional requirements. 

Late winter calving also fi ts into a slack labor period on most farms. 

Fall calving is used on some operations. In this system, calves are born in 

mid to late fall and marketed anywhere from late spring to early summer. 

An advantage of this system is that calves are old and large enough by spring 

and early summer to utilize grass pastures. Fall calves are typically heavier 

at weaning than spring calves, but the greater cost of feeding a lactating cow 

through the winter may offset any additional value from the heavier calf. 

Fall calving may also interfere with harvesting fi eld crops on some farms.

The ideal time of year for calving on a beef cow-calf operation depends on 

the forage and/or feed supply, available labor, and the intended marketing 

dates. Also important is a controlled, scheduled calving season (60-90 days), 

as opposed to year-round calving. With a controlled, scheduled calving 

season, such as spring or fall calving, (1) most herd management practices 

can be performed at the same time, (2) use of time and labor can be concentrated and effi cient, (3) nonbreeding cows can be more easily identifi ed, and 

(4) a more uniform calf crop can be produced. Despite these advantages, 

National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) data indicate that a 

signifi cant number of U.S. operations do not use seasonal calving. About 

46 percent of U.S. beef cow-calf operations reported year-round calving 

(USDA, APHIS, 2010b).

Calves are weaned at 400-700 pounds, at 6-9 months of age. Calves are 

either sold directly after weaning or kept on the operation in a preconditioning program, often referred to as backgrounding, before being sold. 

Keeping calves on the operation after weaning eliminates the stress of transportation and provides an opportunity to acclimate calves to eating from a 

feed bunk. NAHMS data show that about half of the calves in the United 

States are sold at weaning, and more than 80 percent are sold within 60 days 

of weaning (USDA, APHIS, 2010a).

A Primer on Beef Cow-Calf Production
6

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

It is common for beef cow-calf producers to retain calves after weaning and 

conduct the stocker phase on the same operation, often referred to as backgrounding calves (see glossary). Some cow-calf producers also purchase 

calves for backgrounding, and weaned calves may be backgrounded on 

specialized stocker operations. The decision to sell calves at weaning or to 

retain ownership or purchase calves for backgrounding is made each year 

based on cattle prices and forage availability. Cow-calf/stocker producers, 

acting as speculators, distribute the seasonal inventory of calves on the 

market across the year.

Relatively few cow-calf operations fi nish calves in farm feedlots. Instead, 

most calves are fi nished in large commercial feedlots that purchase most 

or all feed ingredients, employ nutritionists and veterinarians, and buy and 

sell cattle weekly (MacDonald and McBride, 2009). However, beef cow-calf 

producers can also retain ownership of the calves being fi nished in commercial feedlots.

NAHMS data about days that calves were held on the operation after weaning 

provide an indication of the production phases conducted on farms with 

beef cows. Half of all beef cow-calf operations in NAHMS held calves zero 

days after weaning (USDA, APHIS, 2010a). Selling calves at weaning was 

most common among small operations and those in the South Central and 

Southeast regions of the United States. Ten percent of operations retained 

calves for 123 days or more. This characteristic was more common among 

large operations and those in the West.

Beef cow-calf producers in ARMS were classifi ed according to which phases 

were conducted on the farm. Cow-calf only operations reported that all calves 

were sold at weaning. This producer classifi cation accounted for 47 percent 

of farms in ARMS and 36 percent of beef cows (table 2). Cow-calf/stocker 

operations reported that they retained calves after weaning but sold the calves 

before fi nishing. This classifi cation accounted for 44 percent of surveyed 

farms and 53 percent of beef cows. Cow-calf/feedlot operations, including 

those reporting that they retained ownership of the calves until slaughter, 

accounted for only 9 percent of farms and 10 percent of beef cows. All calves 

on the cow-calf only operations were sold at weaning, while nearly 80 percent 

of the calves weaned on cow-calf/stocker operations were retained after 

weaning, backgrounded, and sold as stockers. More than half of the calves on 

cow-calf/feedlot operations were retained after weaning, fi nished, and sold as 

slaughter cattle.4

Farm and Operator Characteristics 

by Producer Classifi cation

The average cow-calf operation surveyed in the 2008 ARMS had a peak 

inventory of 102 beef cows, had an average inventory of 79 cows, and weaned 

73 calves during 2008 (table 2). Cow-calf/stocker operations were largest 

among the different classifi cations, with a peak inventory of 123 beef cows 

and a total of 88 weaned calves in 2008, compared with 79 beef cows and 

57 weaned calves on cow-calf only farms.5 Cow-calf/feedlot operations had 

a peak inventory of 116 beef cows and weaned 82 calves over the period. 

Farm size, measured by value of total production, was largest for cow-calf/

feedlot operations at nearly $280,000 in 2008, nearly double that for cow4Results in this section exclude 

calves that were retained as replacement breeding stock.

5The differences of group means 

were statistically tested. The differences emphasized throughout this 

report are statistically signifi cant at a 

95-percent level of confi dence.
7

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 2

Farm and operator characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf farms, by producer classifi cation, 2008

Item

Cow-calf

only

(a)

Cow-calf/

stocker

(b)

Cow-calf/

feedlot

(c)

All beef

cow-calf

farms

Percent of farms/beef cows 47/36 44/53 9/10 100/100

Beef cows—peak per farm1 79bc 123a 116a 102

Beef cows—average per farm2 64bc 93a 86a 79

Beef cows calving 69bc 106a 97a 88

Calves weaned 57bc 88a 82a 73

 Weaning age (days) 210 209 210 210

 Weaning weight (lbs) 502c 499c 523ab 502

Percent of calves:

 Sold at weaning 100bc 21ac 28ab 59

 Backgrounded then sold 0 79c 15b 36

 Retained until slaughter 0 0 57 5

Total farm production value ($) 93,568bc 144,305ac 279,905ab 132,794

 Percent from cattle 36b 43ac 34b 39

Acres operated 1,007bc 1,623a 1,407a 1,316

Private pasture/range acres 792b 1,274ac 969b 1,019

 Acres per beef cow 10 11c 8b 10

Percent using private pasture/range 94b 91a 91 93

Percent using public grazing land 3bc 6a 8a 5

Crops produced (percent of farms):

 Corn 6bc 20ac 44ab 16

 Soybeans 5bc 14ac 43ab 13

 Small grains 10bc 17a 21a 14

 Hay 77 78 79 78

Location (percent of farms):

 North Central 13bc 16ac 28ab 16

 Southeast 39bc 28ac 12ab 32

 Northern Plains 9bc 21ac 31ab 16

 Southern Plains 33bc 24ac 14ab 27

 West 6bc 11a 14a 9

Operator:

 Age (years) 61bc 59ac 56ab 60

 Age (percent greater than age 65) 42bc 34ac 21ab 36

 Off-farm occupation (percent) 41bc 34ac 20ab 36

 Completed college (percent) 23b 29a 27 26

 Exit within 5 years (percent) 26bc 22a 18a 23

Notes: The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in each column. All tests are expressed at a 

95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is signifi cantly different from that in the superscript column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided with the ARMS data.

1Largest number of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm at any time during 2008.

2Average of beginning and ending inventories of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm during 2008.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
8

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

calf/stocker operations and triple that for cow-calf only operations. The 

higher product value on cow-calf/feedlot farms refl ects both the high value of 

fi nished cattle and the diversity of these farms, as many produced corn and 

soybeans. Farms with cow-calf/stocker operations were the most dependent 

on beef cattle, which accounted for 43 percent of the value of farm production 

on these operations, compared with around 35 percent on the other farm type 

classifi cations.

Nearly a third of ARMS beef cow-calf producers were located in Southeast 

States, and 27 percent were in the Southern Plains region (see fi g. 3 for 

ARMS regions). The majority of cow-calf only farms were in the Southeast 

and Southern Plains, together accounting for 72 percent. About a third 

of cow-calf/stocker farms were in the Northern Plains and West regions. 

Cow-calf/feedlot farms were concentrated in the North Central and Northern 

Plains regions, together accounting for nearly 60 percent. Cow-calf/feedlot 

farms were most often located in areas where corn and other crops are readily 

available for fi nishing cattle, while cow-calf only farms were located more 

often in areas with abundant pasture or range land.

Beef cow-calf producers averaged 60 years of age, and more than a third 

had a primary occupation off-farm (see table 2). Operators of cow-calf only 

farms were older than operators of other farm types and more often worked 

off-farm. More than 40 percent of cow-calf only farm operators were older 

Figure 3

U.S. beef cow-calf production regions

Nearly a third of ARMS cow-calf producers were located in Southeast States, and 27 percent were in the Southern Plains region.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

Southern

Plains

North

Central

Southeast

Northern

Plains

West
9

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

than age 65, compared with 34 and 21 percent on cow-calf stocker and cowcalf/feedlot farms, respectively. More than 40 percent of cow-calf only farm 

operators had a primary occupation off-farm, compared with 34 percent on 

cow-calf/stocker farms and 20 percent on cow-calf/feedlot farms. With fewer 

beef cows on cow-calf only farms, labor requirements were reduced and farm 

operators were available to work more time off-farm.

Production Practices and Farm Finances 

by Producer Classifi cation

The technologies and practices used on beef cow-calf farms were found to 

vary substantially. Cow-calf only producers were less likely than other cowcalf producers to use many beef cow-calf production practices (table 3), 

including a defi ned calving season, artifi cial insemination, growth promoting 

implants and/or ionophores, and veterinary and nutritional services. 

Information management technologies (see glossary), including onfarm 

computer recordkeeping systems and the Internet, were also used less often 

on cow-calf only operations than on cow-calf/stocker and cow-calf/feedlot 

operations. Differences in the use of management technologies may be due to 

time available for cow-calf production given that more operators of cow-calf 

only farms worked primarily off-farm (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2007).

U.S. beef cow-calf operations were generally part of diversifi ed farm operations in 2008 as average gross cash income per farm was nearly $48,000 

from crop sales and about $58,000 from cattle and other livestock sales (table 

3). Among the producer types, cow-calf/feedlot farms were the largest and 

most diversifi ed, with annual gross cash income more than $100,000 higher 

than on other farms.6 Cow-calf feedlot producers benefi tted from high prices 

for corn and soybeans in 2008 as crop sales were greatest on these farms, 

accounting for 46 percent of cash income. On cow-calf/stocker farms, cattle 

sales accounted for more than 40 percent of gross cash income. Both crop 

and cattle sales were lower (and roughly the same) on cow-calf only farms 

than on other farm types. Cow-calf/feedlot farms had the highest average net 

cash ($48,000) and farm income ($32,000), about triple that on cow-calf only 

farms. Net cash and farm income were lowest on cow-calf only farms, both 

averaging less than $15,000 for 2008. 

The amount of off-farm income earned by beef cow-calf producers in 2008 

dwarfed farm income. Average off-farm income was about $72,000 among 

all beef cow-calf farms, nearly three times higher than net cash farm income 

and $20,000 more than gross cattle sales. Off-farm income was more than 

twice gross cattle sales on cow-calf only farms and compensated for the low 

level of farm income. Off-farm income was a substantial part of household 

income for each beef cow-calf producer classifi cation. 

6Farm product value discussed in the 

previous section is the value of all farm 

products produced in 2008. Gross cash 

income is the value of products sold 

in 2008 regardless of when they were 

produced.
10

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 3

Production practices and fi nancial characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf farms, by producer 

classifi cation, 2008

Item

Cow-calf

only

(a)

Cow-calf/

stocker

(b)

Cow-calf/

feedlot

(c)

All beef

cow-calf

farms

Practices: Percent using

 Defi ned calving season 54bc 66ac 79ab 61

 Commercial seed stock 16b 13ac 20b 15

 Artifi cial insemination 4bc 11ac 19ab 8

 Calf implants and/or ionophores 9bc 17ac 25ab 14

 Regular veterinary services 17bc 26a 32a 23

 Nutritionist services 4bc 8ac 18ab 7

 Rotational grazing 59 62 56 60

 Tested forage quality 12bc 19ac 27ab 16

 Individual cow records 40bc 50a 56a 46

 Onfarm computer records 17bc 22ac 29ab 20

 Internet for cattle information 29bc 38a 42a 34

 Forward purchase inputs 5bc 10a 12a 8

 Negotiate input prices 14bc 23a 24a 19

Farm fi nances: Dollars per farm

 Gross cash income1 74,894bc 143,793ac 254,531ab 121,574

 -Cattle sales 33,613bc 62,384ac 94,180ab 51,809

 -Other livestock sales 1,269bc 10,543a 14,000a 6,525

 -Crop sales 30,620bc 51,451ac 117,514ab 47,657

 Cash expenses 59,918bc 113,200ac 206,892ab 96,740

 -Variable 46,221bc 86,250ac 158,893ab 74,077

 -Fixed 13,698bc 26,950ac 48,099ab 22,663

 Net cash farm income 14,975bc 30,594a 47,640a 24,834

 Net farm income2 11,972bc 24,292a 31,595a 19,197

Off-farm income3 69,019 77,465c 59,975b 71,947

Notes: The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in each column. All tests are expressed at a 95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is signifi cantly different from that in the superscript 

column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided with the ARMS data.

1In addition to livestock and crops sales, gross cash income includes Government payments and other farm-related income.

2Net farm income equals net cash income less depreciation and the value of noncash benefi ts for hired labor, plus the net value of commodity inventory change and nonmonetary income.

3Off-farm income includes farm household earnings from wages and salaries, earnings from another business, interest and dividend income, pensions and other retirement income, and income from other off-farm sources.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
11

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Regional Diversity in Beef Cow-Calf 

Production

Although beef cows are kept on range or pasture land throughout the year in 

much of the Nation, few producers can depend on grazing alone to furnish 

a year-round supply of forage. In parts of the country, snow cover occasionally prevents grazing during the winter. In other parts, growth and nutritive 

content of range and pasture plants limit grazing during part of the year. 

Thus, most producers—97 percent according to NAHMS—feed cows some 

harvested forage almost every year (USDA, APHIS, 2010b). These harvested 

forages are a substantial production cost for producers in some areas of the 

United States (USDA, ERS, 2010d).

Cow-calf herds are grazed not only on range and pasture lands but also on 

land primarily used for other purposes. In some areas, wheat can be grazed 

for a period during the fall and winter before being harvested for grain later 

in the year. Crop residues are also grazed in some areas for limited periods 

following the harvest of corn, grain sorghum, and other crops. Feed costs, 

including purchased feed, harvested forages, and grazing, frequently account 

for about two-thirds of the total operating costs of beef cow-calf production 

(USDA, ERS, 2010d).

Regional variation in climate and grazing conditions affects the calving 

and weaning practices of beef cow-calf producers. NAHMS data show that 

a majority of beef cow-calf farms in Southern States calved year-round.7

In Western States, nearly 80 percent used a spring calving system (USDA, 

APHIS, 2010b), as calving was scheduled to avoid severe winter weather in 

much of the West and to take advantage of forage conditions in the summer 

and on public grazing land (see glossary). More than 60 percent of cow-calf 

farms in the South sell calves at weaning, compared with 36 percent in the 

West and 26 percent in the central region (USDA, APHIS, 2010a).

Regional diversity in beef cow-calf production is examined in this report by 

summarizing farm and operator characteristics and farm production practices and fi nances for producers in the fi ve beef cow-calf production regions 

shown in fi gure 3. Among the regions, little has changed in the inventory of 

beef cows since 1997 (fi g. 4). Regions in the South—the Southern Plains and 

Southeast—have the most beef cows, and Texas, with more than 5 million 

head, has more than twice the number of beef cows as any other State. The 

North Central region has the fewest beef cows, but Missouri ranks second 

among States in the number of beef cows with more than 2 million head. 

Farm and Operator Characteristics 

by Region

Nearly 60 percent of beef cow-calf farms surveyed in ARMS were in the 

Southeast and Southern Plains regions, along with 50 percent of beef cows 

(table 4). Beef cow-calf farms in the Northern Plains and West together 

had nearly 40 percent of beef cows, despite accounting for only 25 percent 

of farms. The largest beef cow-calf operations were in the Northern Plains 

and West, averaging 129 and 213 cows per farm (at peak), respectively, and 

the smallest were in the North Central and Southeast, averaging 65 and 78 

7Year-round calving is reported if 

bulls were not removed from the herd 

for at least 30 days.
12

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

cows (at peak), respectively. About 70 percent of the calves from beef cowcalf operations in the Southeast and Southern Plains were sold at weaning, 

compared with about 50 percent or less in the other regions where weaned 

calves were more often backgrounded before being sold. This may explain 

the older weaning age and greater weaning weight of calves in the Northern 

Plains and West regions. 

Farm value of production was highest for cow-calf farms in the Northern 

Plains, at an average of more than $200,000 per farm, followed by that 

for farms in the West (table 4). Cattle production accounted for a signifi -

cantly larger part of farm product value (about two-thirds) in the West and 

Southern Plains than in other regions. Acres operated were also much larger 

in the West, averaging over 4,000 per farm, more than twice that in any 

other region. Nearly all of this acreage was private pasture and range land 

for grazing cattle. In addition to using private pasture and range land, more 

than a third of farms in the West used public grazing land. Cattle production 

accounted for 25 percent or less of farm product value on beef cow-calf farms 

in the North Central and Southeast.

More than 90 percent of farms in most regions used private pasture land for 

grazing beef cattle, although the acreage and stocking rate varied signifi -

cantly among the regions. Farms in the Northern Plains and Southern Plains 

averaged more than 2,000 and 1,400 acres in size, respectively, with much 

of this in pasture and range land for cattle. Farms in the North Central 

and Southeast had the fewest acres, 518 and 453, respectively, each having 

just over 200 acres of pasture. Still, the pasture acreage in these regions 

supported more beef cows (about 3 acres per cow) than that in other regions 

(10-20 acres per cow). More than 80 percent of farms in the North Central, 

Southeast, and Northern Plains produced hay for cattle feed, compared with 

about 60 percent in the other regions. Cow-calf producers in the Northern 

Plains more often produced small grain crops, mostly wheat, which can be 

used for cattle grazing in the fall and winter before the summer harvest.

Figure 4

Beef cow inventory by U.S. production region 

Regions in the South, Southern Plains, and Southeast had the most beef cows

each year, and the number of beef cows in each region has changed little over time.

.

Million head

Southern Plains

Southeast

Northern Plains

West

North Central

1997 2002 2007

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using 2007 Census of Agriculture.
13

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Operator age differed little among beef cow-calf farms in each region, but 

education was somewhat higher among farm operators in the Southern Plains 

and West, as a third or more of beef cow-calf producers in these regions 

completed college. More farm operators had a primary occupation off-farm in 

the North Central, Southeast, and Southern Plains than in the other regions. 

Nearly half of farm operators in the Southern Plains, 40 percent of those in 

the Southeast, and 35 percent in the North Central had a primary occupation off-farm, compared with only 18 percent in the Northern Plains and 23 

percent in the West. 

Table 4

Farm and operator characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf farms, by region, 2008

Item

North

Central

(a)

Southeast

(b)

Northern

Plains

(c)

Southern

Plains

(d)

West

(e)

Percent of farms/beef cows 16/10 32/24 16/21 27/26 9/18

Beef cows—peak per farm1 65bcde 78acde 129abde 99abce 213abcd

Beef cows—average per farm2 56cde 59cde 105abde 75abce 155abcd

Beef cows calving 61cde 63cde 118abde 82abce 186abcd

Calves weaned 51cde 51cde 103abde 68abce 154abcd

 Weaning age (days) 210ce 206ce 219abd 204ce 222abd

 Weaning weight (lbs) 501bce 480acde 543abd 493bce 538abd

Percent of calves:

 Sold at weaning 44bde 70ace 41bde 69ace 53abcd

 Backgrounded then sold 45bd 28ace 49bde 29ace 39bcd

 Retained until slaughter 11bd 2ace 10bd 2ace 8bd

Total farm production value ($) 164,037bcd 106,779acde 241,812abde 65,430abce 176,869bcd

 Percent from cattle 23cde 25cde 38abde 67abc 66abc

Acres operated 518bcde 453acde 2,019abde 1,436abce 4,186abcd

Private pasture/range acres 208bcde 246acde 1,359abe 1,272abe 4,028abcd

 Acres per beef cow 3cde 3cde 11abe 13abe 19abcd

Percent using private pasture/range 94bce 89acde 97abe 97be 82abcd

Percent using public grazing land 0 D 7de 1ce 36cde

Crops produced (percent of farms):

 Corn 37bde 8acd 38bde 2abce 7acd

 Soybeans 37bd 3ac 34bd 2ac 0

 Small grains 11bc 3acde 43abde 11bce 16bcd

 Hay 94bcde 86ade 83ade 62abc 58abc

Operator:

 Age (years) 58bd 61ace 57bd 61abe 59bd

 Age (percent greater than age 65) 34 41ce 29bd 39ce 30bd

 Completed college (percent) 18de 20de 22d 37abc 33abc

 Off-farm occupation (percent) 35cde 40cde 18abde 47abce 23abd

 Exit within 5 years (percent) 23 27d 25d 18bce 23d

Notes: D= insuffi cient data for disclosure. The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in each column. 

All tests are expressed at a 95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is signifi cantly 

different from that in the superscript column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided with the 

ARMS data.

1Largest number of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm at any time during 2008.

2Average of beginning and ending inventories of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm during 2008.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
14

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Production Practices and Farm Finances 

by Region

Beef cow-calf technologies and practices were generally used more often by 

producers in the North Central, Northern Plains, and West regions than those 

in the Southern Plains and Southeast. For example, producers in these regions 

used a defi ned calving season more often than producers in the southern 

regions (table 5). A defi ned calving season is common in the North because 

severe winter weather dictates that cows are scheduled to calve during the 

spring and calving occurs during a slack labor period for crops commonly 

grown in the North. A defi ned calving season also means that the calves are 

more uniform in size at marketing. Also, producers in the North Central and 

Northern Plains more often used such technologies as calf implants and/or 

ionophores (see glossary) than producers in other regions.

Other practices, such as regular veterinary and nutritionist services, were also 

used more often in the North Central, Northern Plains, and West regions. A 

majority of beef cow-calf producers in the Southeast and Southern Plains 

rotated grazing acres, but fewer tested forage quality than in other regions. 

Information management technologies, such as individual cow records, 

onfarm computer records, and Internet-based beef cattle information, were 

generally used less often by producers in the southern regions. For example, 

35 percent of beef cow-calf producers in the Southeast kept individual cow 

records, compared with at least 50 percent of producers in the North Central, 

Northern Plains, and West regions.

Climatic differences among the regions affect beef cow-calf feed costs. In the 

northern regions, farms may be required to purchase supplemental forage to 

sustain beef cows during the winter. In contrast, beef cows in some areas of 

the South and West regions can graze year round, so less harvested forages 

are needed to sustain cows during the winter months. Feed costs per cow in 

2008 were signifi cantly lower in the Southern Plains, Southeast, and West 

than in the North Central and Northern Plains (fi g. 5). This cost advantage 

helps account for the relatively larger shares of U.S. beef cows in these 

regions.

Gross cash income of beef cow-calf farms in 2008 was substantially lower in 

the Southeast and Southern Plains (about $70,000 per farm) than in the North 

Central (nearly $160,000 per farm) and in the other regions (over $200,000 

per farm) (table 5). Cattle sales accounted for the majority of cash income 

in the Southern Plains and West regions. Livestock and crop income were 

divided more evenly in the Northern Plains and Southeast, and North Central 

farms generated most of their gross income from crop sales. Net cash and net 

farm income were highest for beef cow-calf farms in the Northern Plains and 

North Central, as many farms in these regions benefi ted from the high prices 

received for corn and soybeans produced in 2008 (see table 4). 
15

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 5

Production practices and fi nancial characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf farms, by region, 2008

Item

North

Central

(a)

Southeast

(b)

Northern

Plains

(c)

Southern

Plains

(d)

West

(e)

Practices: Percent using

 Defi ned calving season 82bcd 45ace 92abde 42ace 85bcd

 Commercial seed stock 16c 13c 21abde 13c 15c

 Artifi cial insemination 11bcd 4acde 17abd 6abce 14bd

 Calf implants and/or ionophores 28bde 7ace 26bde 8ace 13bd

 Regular veterinary services 27bcd 12acde 41abde 18abce 32bcd

 Nutritionist services 11bd 2acde 15bde 5abce 9bcd

 Rotational grazing 54de 60e 58e 62ae 71abcd

 Tested forage quality 16bce 10acde 27abd 15bce 25abd

 Individual cow records 52bc 35acde 59abde 45bc 52bc

 Onfarm computer records 20e 13cde 23be 22be 35abcd

 Internet for cattle information 33e 29cde 38be 35be 49abcd

 Forward purchase inputs 3bcde 7ace 10abde 8ace 17abcd

 Negotiate input prices 14cde 16ce 21abe 19ae 31abcd

Farm fi nances: Dollars per farm

 Gross cash income1 157,920bcd 73,130ace 228,071abd 66,692ace 203,753bcd

 -Cattle sales 37,718bcde 27,012acde 92,407abde 43,691abce 116,223abcd

 -Other livestock sales 13,089 4,314cd 12,016bde 1,980bce 6,674de

 -Crop sales 88,526bde 30,582acd 103,011bde 11,167abce 46,419acd

 Cash expenses 112,245bcde 58,097acde 169,367abd 68,160abce 162,149abd

 -Variable 79,438bcde 47,975ace 125,594abd 54,644ace 123,197abd

 -Fixed 32,807bcd 10,122acde 43,773abd 13,516abce 38,952bde

 Net cash farm income 45,676bd 15,033acde 58,704bd -1,468abce 41,640bd

 Net farm income2 36,650bd 15,397acde 47,313bd -7,855abce 33,394bd

Off-farm income3 61,311cd 61,385cd 44,952abde 106,266abce 72,010cd

Notes: The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in each column. All tests are expressed at a 95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is signifi cantly different from that in the superscript 

column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided with the ARMS data.

1In addition to livestock and crops sales, gross cash income includes Government payments and other farm-related income.

2Net farm income equals net cash income less depreciation and the value of noncash benefi ts for hired labor, plus the net value of commodity inventory change and nonmonetary income.

3Off-farm income includes farm household earnings from wages and salaries, earnings from another business, interest and dividend income, pensions and other retirement income, and income from other off-farm sources.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
16

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Among the regions, net cash and net farm income were lowest on farms in 

the Southern Plains and Southeast, where many farm operators worked offfarm to supplement household income. At more than $100,000 per farm, 

average off-farm income was highest in the Southern Plains, refl ecting the 

high proportion of farm operators working off-farm and the relatively high 

average education level (see table 4). Beef cow-calf production accounted for 

a signifi cant share of the farm household income in the Northern Plains and 

West regions, as gross cattle sales were nearly $50,000 more than off-farm 

income. Gross cattle sales were much lower than off-farm earnings in the 

North Central, Southeast, and Southern Plains. Average off-farm earnings 

were higher than the average net income from farming in all regions except 

the Northern Plains.

Figure 5

Beef cow-calf feed costs by region, 2008

Feed costs per cow were lowest in the Southeast, Southern Plains, and West regions 

because less homegrown forages and other feeds were needed to sustain the beef 

herd through the winter.

Dollars per cow

North Central Southeast Northern

Plains

Southern

Plains

West

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource

Management Survey.

Purchased feed

Homegrown feed

Grazed feed
17

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Size and Costs of Beef Cow-Calf 

Production

The emergence of large dairy and hog farms and the continued shift in 

production to such farms is well documented (MacDonald et al., 2007; Key 

and McBride, 2007), but less is known about the economics of large-scale 

beef cow-calf production. Langemeier et al. (2004) found evidence of economies of size (decreasing costs as size of operation increases) in beef cow-calf 

production using the National Cattlemen’s Association-Integrated Resource 

Management-Standardized Performance Analysis (NCA-IRM-SPA) database. The fi ndings indicate that average economic costs per cow for operations declined with farm size up to 500-999 beef cows, but average economic 

costs per cow were 10 percent higher on operations with 1,000 or more cows 

than for those with 500-999 cows. The study used data from 206 herds in 

20 States that were part of the NCA-IRM-SPA database. Short (2001) also 

reported fi nding economies of size in beef cow-calf production using a larger 

database, but the largest size group included in the analysis was 250 or more 

cows. Economies of size in beef cow-calf production have also been documented in other studies (Ramsey et al., 2005; Boggs and Hamilton, 1997).

Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between costs of production and size of 

operation for beef cow-calf operations using data from the 2008 ARMS. 

Operating, operating plus capital, and total economic costs (see glossary) 

per cow are highest among the smallest (20-49 cows) producers and lowest 

among the largest (500 or more cows). Signifi cant economies of size are 

Figure 6

Beef cow-calf cost of production per cow by size, 2008 

Economies of size are apparent in beef cow-calf production, particularly for total 

economic costs.

Dollars per cow

20-49

cows

50-99

cows

100-249

cows

250-499

cows

Operating plus capital costs

Total economic costs

Operating costs

500 cows

or more

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Notes: Production cost estimates for operations with less than 20 beef cows are not available 

because the ARMS sample is limited to operations with 20 or more beef cows. The number of 

cows refers to the peak number on the operation at any time during 2008.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource

Management Survey (ARMS).
18

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

achieved by moving from the 20-49 cow herd size to the 50-99 cow herd 

size.8 Between the 50-99 and 200-499 herd sizes, operating and operating 

plus capital costs per cow are much the same for the three size groups. 

Total economic costs, primarily due to charges for unpaid labor, reveal 

economies of size across all size groups, and the largest farms (500 cows or 

more) have signifi cantly lower costs per cow than all other farms. Capital 

and labor costs are much lower on larger operations because they are able to 

spread fi xed units of these resources over greater production. For example, 

farms with 20-49 cows reported using 31 hours of labor per cow (29 unpaid 

hours), compared with 6 hours per cow (2.5 unpaid hours) on farms with 500 

or more cows. Even if charges for unpaid labor are omitted from production 

costs, signifi cant economies of size remain.

Despite this evidence for the existence of economies of size in beef cowcalf production, the dramatic shift to larger operations that occurred in hog 

and milk production was not evident among beef cow-calf farms. Census of 

Agriculture data reveal that the number of operations with beef cows dropped 

15 percent from 1997 to 2007, but the distribution of farms by herd size 

changed little. In 1997, 82 percent of farms with beef cows had fewer than 

50 cows, compared with 80 percent in 2007. Farms with 500 or more cows 

increased from 0.6 percent of farms with beef cows in 1997 to 0.8 percent 

in 2007. The beef cow inventory on farms with 500 or more cows increased 

from 15 percent of the U.S. total in 1997 to 16 percent in 2007 (USDA, 

NASS, 2007). 

Calving and weaning practices used on beef cow-calf operations surveyed in 

the NAHMS study varied signifi cantly by size of operation. NAHMS data 

indicate that the largest beef cow-calf operations were more likely to follow 

a defi ned calving season than smaller operations. More than three-fourths 

of farms in the largest size group (200 or more cows) used spring calving, 

compared with 38 percent of the smallest operations (1-49 cows) (USDA, 

APHIS, 2010b). The smallest operations were more likely to sell calves at 

weaning, whereas the largest were more likely to add value to the calves after 

weaning by backgrounding (USDA, APHIS, 2010a).

To evaluate the relationship between beef cow-calf farm characteristics, practices, costs, and size of operation, we divided producers surveyed in ARMS 

into size groups and measured differences in farm structural and fi nancial 

characteristics among the groups. Beef cow-calf operations were assigned 

to the following groups based on the reported peak number of beef cows on 

an operation at any time during 2008: (1) 20-49 cows, (2) 50-99 cows, (3) 

100-249 cows, (4) 250-499 cows, and (5) 500 or more cows. Of the 765,000 

U.S. beef cow farms reported in the 2007 Census of Agriculture, about 

407,000 had less than 20 cows, whereas more than 200,000 had 20-49 cows. 

Only 5,800 farms, or less than 1 percent, had 500 or more cows.

8With signifi cant economies of size 

achieved by operations with 50 or more 

cows, one would expect operations with 

1-19 cows to have much higher costs, 

especially capital and labor costs, than 

other operations.
19

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Farm and Operator Characteristics by Size

Beef cow-calf operations with less than 100 cows far outnumbered those 

with 250 or more cows during 2008 but included a disproportionately small 

share of total beef cows (table 6). Seventy-three percent of farms had less 

than 100 beef cows. These small operations accounted for about a third of 

total beef cows. The 7 percent of farms with 250 or more cows accounted for 

35 percent of total beef cows, and the 2 percent of farms with 500 or more 

cows accounted for 20 percent of beef cows. These largest operations had an 

average size of 961 cows (at peak), compared with an average of only 34 cows 

(at peak) for producers in the smallest size group.

Larger beef cow-calf operations more often backgrounded calves after 

weaning. Almost two-thirds of the calves were sold at weaning from operations with less than 100 cows, compared with 39 percent of calves from 

operations with 500 or more cows. Over half of the calves from the largest 

operations were backgrounded and then sold. The proportion of operations 

retaining ownership of the calves until slaughter was much the same regardless of size, at about 6 percent of farms in each size group.

Farm specialization in cattle production increased with farm size up to 

farms with 250-499 beef cows, and then declined among the largest operations. The proportion of farm value of production from cattle peaked at 

60 percent among operations with 250-499 beef cows and declined to less 

than 50 percent for those with 500 or more cows. The largest farm operations contained more than 15,000 acres per farm, with about 13,000 acres of 

pasture and range land; both of these measurements are nearly three times 

the average acreage on farms in the next largest size group. Also, 29 percent 

of farms with 500 or more cows, and 24 percent of those with 250-499 beef 

cows, used public grazing land, compared with 8 percent or less of farms in 

the other size groups. The largest size group included many farms in the West 

and Northern Plains, where public grazing lands are common. More than 60 

percent of farms in the smallest size group were in the Southeast and North 

Central regions (fi g. 7).

Farm operator (see glossary) characteristics differed by size among the beef 

cow-calf producers. Average farm operator age was lower for the largest 

producers (57 years) than for those with less than 100 cows (60 years), as was 

the share of farm operators older than age 65 (table 6). Thirty-eight percent 

of farm operators with less than 100 cows were older than age 65, compared 

with 22 percent of those with 500 or more cows. The share of farm operators 

with a primary occupation off-farm declined with farm size, ranging from 

47 percent among the smallest producers to 10 percent among the largest. 

Operator education, indicated by the share graduated from college, increased 

with size of operation, from 23 percent among the smallest producers to 42 

percent among the largest. 
20

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 6

Farm and operator characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf farms, by size of operation (at peak),1 2008

Item

20-49

cows

(a)

50-99

cows

(b)

100-249

cows

(c)

250-499

cows

(d)

500 or

more cows

(e)

Percent of farms/beef cows 41/13 32/21 21/31 5/15 2/20

Beef cows—peak per farm1 34bcde 68acde 147abde 332abce 961abcd

Beef cows—average per farm2 29bcde 54acde 116abde 260abce 640abcd

Beef cows calving 31bcde 60acde 128abde 292abce 746abcd

Calves weaned 26bcde 49acde 107abde 247abce 622abcd

 Weaning age (days) 208cde 209cde 213ab 218ab 214ab

 Weaning weight (lbs) 494cde 493cde 523abd 538abce 522abd

Percent of calves:

 Sold at weaning 63cde 62cde 51abe 49abe 39abcd

 Backgrounded then sold 31cde 35cde 43abe 45abe 55abcd

 Retained until slaughter 6b 3acde 6b 6b 6b

Total farm production value ($) 68,259bcde 93,473acde 198,807abde 303,144abce 931,690abcd

 Percent from cattle 24cde 32cde 43abd 60abce 47abd

Acres operated 346bcde 781acde 1,654abde 5,506abce 15,473abcd

Private pasture/range acres 196bcde 613acde 1,255abde 4,611abce 13,134abcd

 Acres per beef cow 6bcde 9ae 9ae 14a 14abc

Percent using private pasture/range 93 92 94 91 90

Percent using public grazing land 1bcde 3acde 8abde 24abc 29abc

Crops produced (percent of farms):

 Corn 15bcd 10acd 25abe 20ab 14c

 Soybeans 14bcde 9ace 18abde 9ace 3abcd

 Small grains 10cde 11cd 24ab 26ab 19a

 Hay 78 76c 81be 78 70c

Operator:

 Age (years) 60ce 61cde 58ab 58b 57ab

 Age (percent greater than age 65) 38cde 40cde 32abe 30ab 22abc

 Completed college (percent) 23cde 26de 27ade 37abc 42abc

 Off-farm occupation (percent) 47bcde 37acde 21abe 18ab 10abc

 Exit within 5 years (percent) 26cde 26cde 17abde 10abc 7abc

Notes: The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in each column. All tests are expressed at a 95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is signifi cantly different from that in the superscript 

column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided with the ARMS data.

1Largest number of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm at any time during 2008.

2Average of beginning and ending inventories of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm during 2008.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
21

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

The share of producers planning to exit beef cow-calf production in the next 

5 years declined with farm size, from 26 percent of those with less than 100 

cows to 7 percent of producers with 500 or more cows. This fi nding suggests 

that although beef cow-calf production occurs primarily on small operations, the trend is toward increasingly larger operations. However, the number 

of small operations may not decline as much as suggested if a signifi cant 

number of retirees purchase farms and begin raising cattle.

Production Practices and Farm Finances 

by Size

The largest beef cow-calf farms more often used advanced production 

technologies and practices than did smaller farms. Use of a defi ned calving 

season, artifi cial insemination, calf implants and/or ionophores, regular 

veterinary and nutritionist services, rotational grazing, and forage testing 

increased with size of operation among beef cow-calf producers (table 7). 

The use of information management technologies, such as onfarm computer 

records and Internet-based beef cattle information, also increased with size 

of operation. The largest producers were also most likely to forward purchase 

inputs and negotiate input prices. Still, the rate of use of many of these practices was below 50 percent even among the largest producers. On many of the 

largest farms, the cow-calf operation is a secondary enterprise, and this may 

account for the low rate of adoption and use of high-tech practices.

Figure 7

The smallest and largest beef cow-calf farms by region, 2008 

Southeast beef cow-calf farms were most common in the smallest size group, while 

farms in the West were most common in the largest size group.

Percent of farms

20-49 cows 500 cows or more

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Notes: The number of cows refers to the peak number on the operation at any time during 2008.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service using USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey.

North Central

Southeast

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

West
22

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 7

Production practices and fi nancial characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf farms, by size of operation

(at peak), 2008

Item

20-49

cows

(a)

50-99

cows

(b)

100-249

cows

(c)

250-499

cows

(d)

500 or

more cows

(e)

Practices: Percent using

 Defi ned calving season 55cde 57cde 73abe 78ab 82abc

 Commercial seed stock 15e 15e 15e 17e 24abcd

 Artifi cial insemination 5cde 7cde 13abde 19abce 24abcd

 Calf implants and/or ionophores 12cde 12cde 19abe 21abe 26abcd

 Regular veterinary services 16cde 20cde 34abe 41ab 43abc

 Nutritionist services 6bcde 2acde 13abde 18abc 25abc

 Rotational grazing 54bcde 62ade 66ade 75abc 71abc

 Tested forage quality 10bcde 15acde 25abe 32ab 39abc

 Individual cow records 41cd 44cd 55ab 58ab 50ab

 Onfarm computer records 12bcde 22acde 27abde 36abce 49abcd

 Internet for cattle information 27bcde 34acde 45ade 46ace 48abcd

 Forward purchase inputs 4bcde 6acde 12abde 22abce 38abcd

 Negotiate input prices 11bcde 20ade 24ade 43abc 53abc

Farm fi nances: Dollars per farm

 Gross cash income1 60,443bcde 76,775acde 185,598abde 324,910abce 883,310abcd

 -Cattle sales 16,522bcde 29,675acde 85,831abde 180,530abce 439,474abcd

 -Other livestock sales 1,525cde 4,773de 7,320ade 36,082abc 56,047abc

 -Crop sales 32,767cde 27,764cde 69,577abe 74,802abc 355,180abcd

 Cash expenses 46,924bcde 66,157acde 146,561abde 245,539abce 689,617abcd

 -Variable 34,022bcde 50,089acde 112,460abde 189,215abce 568,869abcd

 -Fixed 12,903bcde 16,067acde 34,101abde 56,325abce 120,693abcd

 Net cash farm income 13,519cde 10,619cde 39,037abde 79,370abce 193,693abcd

 Net farm income2 11,410cde 9,253cde 25,508abde 55,484abce 175,935abcd

Off-farm income3 71,487e 68,301e 70,613e 78,421e 144,619abcd

Note: The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in each column. All tests are expressed at a 95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is signifi cantly different from that in the superscript 

column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided with the ARMS data.

1In addition to livestock and crops sales, gross cash income includes Government payments and other farm-related income.

2Net farm income equals net cash income less depreciation and the value of noncash benefi ts for hired labor, plus the net value of commodity inventory change and nonmonetary income.

3Off-farm income includes farm household earnings from wages and salaries, earnings from another business, interest and dividend income, pensions and other retirement income, and income from other off-farm sources.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
23

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Gross cash income ranged from an average of just over $60,000 per farm 

on the smallest beef cow-calf operations to nearly $900,000 per farm on the 

largest. Cattle sales accounted for the largest share of gross cash income on 

farms in all size groups except the smallest. Cattle sales were most important 

among operations with 250-499 beef cows, accounting for about 56 percent 

of gross cash income. Nearly 50 percent of gross cash income on the largest 

operations was from cattle sales (table 7). The expense structure of beef cowcalf farms exhibits economies of size as fi xed cash expenses are spread over 

more units of production on the largest farms. Fixed cash expenses expressed 

as a share of total cash expenses decline across the size groups, ranging from 

38 percent for producers with 20-49 cows to 18 percent for those with 500 or 

more cows. 

Average cash and net farm income on farms with less than 250 cows are at a 

level that likely requires many farm households to supplement their income 

from other sources to reach a subsistence level. Off-farm income, averaging 

around $70,000 per farm, is likely a critical component of household wellbeing on many of these small farms. Average net farm income was highest 

for the largest farms, more than three times that of farms with 250-499 beef 

cows. Households of the largest farms’ operators also generated an average 

off-farm income that was nearly twice that of the other size groups.
24

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

A Farm Typology of Beef 

Cow-Calf Producers

ARMS data indicate that over a third (36 percent) of beef cow-calf producers 

cite some type of off-farm employment as their main occupation. This share 

is much higher than that for other types of livestock and crop producers and 

suggests that cow-calf producers have a diverse set of goals for their farm 

operations. Genter and Tanka (2002) identifi ed eight clusters, or distinct sets, 

of cattle and sheep ranchers based on their attributes and attitudes about the 

farm business. Their study found ranchers to be very heterogeneous, with 

many placing more value in ranching as a tradition and a place to raise a 

family than as a profi t-generating endeavor.

NAHMS data provide other information about the importance of beef cowcalf production to household income. Only 5 percent of farms with 50 or 

fewer cows reported that the beef cow-calf operation was a primary source of 

income (USDA, APHIS, 2008). This percentage increased with size of operation to where 65 percent of operations with 200 or more beef cows regarded 

the beef cow-calf operation as a primary source of income. Among regions, 

the West had the highest share (25 percent) of farms that considered the beef 

cow-calf operation to be a primary income source. Overall, NAHMS data 

show that only 14 percent of U.S. farms with beef cows regarded beef cowcalf production as a primary source of income.

We divided beef cow-calf producers in ARMS into three groups based on 

a farm typology that refl ects different producer characteristics and goals 

(Hoppe et al., 2000). The fi rst group is rural residence farms, those with 

annual gross sales below $250,000 and operators who consider farming to 

be a secondary activity in terms of resources invested in the farm and the 

amount of income it contributes to the farm household. Rural residence farms 

comprise three groups: (1) limited resource farms, those with sales less than 

$100,000, farm assets less than $150,000, and total household income less 

than $20,000; (2) farms whose operators report that they are retired; and (3) 

residential lifestyle farms, whose operators report a major occupation offfarm. The second typology group is intermediate farms, those with annual 

sales below $250,000 and operators who report farming as their main occupation. The fi nal group, commercial farms, consists of large family farms 

with annual sales above $250,000 and some nonfamily enterprises organized 

as cooperatives or nonfamily corporations, and farms with a hired manager.

Farm and Operator Characteristics 

by Farm Typology

Half of beef cow-calf producers were classifi ed as rural residence farms, 

and these farms were smaller than other beef cow-calf farms, accounting 

for about a third of total beef cows (table 8). Only 13 percent of beef cowcalf producers were commercial farms, and these farms accounted for 30 

percent of beef cows. Rural residence farms averaged 66 beef cows (at peak), 

compared with 101 beef cows (at peak) on intermediate farms and 244 beef 

cows (at peak) on commercials farms. Two-thirds of the calves produced on 

rural residence farms were sold at weaning, compared with 36 percent on 
25

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

commercial farms. Commercial farms were more likely to retain calves for 

backgrounding (48 percent) and for fi nishing (16 percent). 

The value of farm production and the importance of cattle on the beef cowcalf farms differed greatly among the farm typology groups. Commercial 

farms generated on average $700,000 of farm product value in 2008, 

compared with about $75,000 on intermediate farms and $32,000 on rural 

residence farms. Cattle accounted for 27 percent of the production value on 

commercial farms, compared with 57 percent on intermediate farms and 

75 percent on rural residence farms. The high share of acres in pasture and 

range land, the high share of farms producing hay, and the low share of farms 

Table 8

Farm and operator characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf farms, by farm typology, 2008

Item

Rural residence 

farms

(a)

Intermediate 

farms

(b)

Commercial 

farms

(c)

Percent of farms/beef cows 50/32 38/38 13/30

Beef cows—peak per farm1 66bc 101ac 244ab

Beef cows—average per farm2 51bc 79ac 186ab

Beef cows calving 57bc 88ac 211ab

Calves weaned 46bc 73ac 181ab

Weaning age (days) 206bc 213a 215a

Weaning weight (lbs) 491bc 511ac 523ab

Percent of calves:

 Sold at weaning 67bc 57ac 36ab

 Backgrounded then sold 31bc 37ac 48ab

 Retained until slaughter 2bc 6ac 16ab

Total farm production value ($) 31,559bc 74,561ac 708,462ab

 Percent from cattle 75bc 57ac 27ab

Acres operated 720bc 1,135ac 4,217ab

Private pasture/range acres 622bc 941ac 2,832ab

 Acres per beef cow 9 9c 12b

Percent using private pasture/range 94b 90ac 93a

Percent using public grazing land 2bc 7ac 9ab

Crops produced (percent of farms)

 Corn 6bc 16ac 55ab

 Soybeans 4bc 14ac 45ab

 Small grains 6bc 17ac 39ab

 Hay 76c 79 83a

Operator:

 Age (years) 60bc 62ac 55ab

 Age (percent greater than age 65) 36bc 43ac 19ab

 Completed college (percent) 28b 23a 27

 Off-farm occupation (percent) 71c 0 6a

 Exit within 5 years (percent) 25c 24c 14ab

Notes: The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in each column. All tests are expressed at a 95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is signifi cantly different from that in the superscript 

column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided with the ARMS data.

1Largest number of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm at any time during 2008.

2Average of beginning and ending inventories of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm during 2008.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
26

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

engaged in fi eld crop production is also indicative that intermediate and rural 

residence farms were much more specialized in cattle production than were 

commercial farms. Cattle was a secondary enterprise on most commercial 

farms, as fewer acres were in pasture and range land, and many of these 

farms produced corn, soybeans, and small grains crops.

Among beef cow-calf operations, shares of rural residence and commercial 

farms varied by region. Nearly 70 percent of rural residence farms were 

located in the Southeast and Southern Plains, with each region accounting 

for about a third (fi g. 8). In contrast, 60 percent of commercial beef cow-calf 

farms were located in the Northern Plains and West regions. Operator characteristics of beef cow-calf farms also varied signifi cantly by farm typology. 

Operators of rural residence and intermediate farms, on average, were 5-7 

years older than operators of commercial farms, and more were over age 65. 

Thirty-six percent of rural residence farm operators and 43 percent of intermediate farm operators were over age 65, compared with only 19 percent of 

commercial farm operators. By defi nition, more rural residence farm operators (71 percent) had a major occupation off-farm than operators of other 

farms. Also, about a quarter of rural residence and intermediate farm operators expected to exit cow-calf production in the next 5 years, compared with 

14 percent of commercial farm operators. 

Figure 8

Rural residence and commercial beef cow-calf farms by region, 2008 

Southeast and Southern Plains beef cow-calf farms accounted for nearly 70 percent 

of rural residence farms, while most commercial farms were in the Northern Plains 

and West.

Rural residence farms Commercial farms

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service using USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey.

North Central Southeast Northern Plains

Southern Plains West

13

33

11

35

8 9

14

32 17

28
27

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Production Practices and Farm Finances 

by Farm Typology

Commercial beef cow-calf farms were more likely than other farm types to 

use advanced technologies and practices, such as a defi ned calving season, 

calf implants and/or ionophores, veterinary and nutritionist services, and 

forage quality testing (table 9). Commercial farms were also more likely to 

use information management technologies, such as onfarm computer records 

and the Internet, and input purchasing practices, such as forward purchasing 

and negotiating discounts (see glossary).

The average gross cash income in 2008 on commercial farms was over 

$600,000, compared with $77,000 on intermediate farms and $34,000 on 

rural residence farms. The composition of gross cash income on farms in 

each typology group refl ects their relative specialization. Most of gross cash 

income on rural residence and intermediate farms was from cattle, while 

commercial farms generated most of gross cash income from crops. Net cash 

and net farm incomes in 2008 were about $174,000 and $136,000, respectively, on commercial farms. In contrast, intermediate farms earned about 

$11,000 and $7,000 in net cash and net farm income.

Average net cash and farm incomes were negative in 2008 on rural residence 

beef cow-calf farms. Operators of rural residence farms often have goals 

other than profi tability, as most work off-farm or are retired, and farming 

may be regarded as a lifestyle choice. Off-farm earnings on rural residence 

farms averaged nearly $90,000 per farm in 2008. In contrast, running a 

profi table enterprise is important to operators of commercial farms, where 

net farm income was signifi cantly higher than off-farm income. Operators of 

intermediate farms, by defi nition, cite farming as their main occupation. Low 

farm income and relatively low off-farm income on these farms suggest that 

they are more vulnerable to changing economic conditions.
28

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 9

Production practices and fi nancial characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf farms, by farm typology, 2008

Item

Rural residence 

farms

(a)

Intermediate 

farms

(b)

Commercial 

farms

(c)

Practices: Percent using

 Defi ned calving season 52bc 77ac 81ab

 Commercial seed stock 14c 14c 19ab

 Artifi cial insemination 1 3 2

 Calf implants and/or ionophores 10c 13c 33ab

 Regular veterinary services 18bc 25ac 35ab

 Nutritionist services 4bc 8ac 18ab

 Rotational grazing 60 52 59

 Tested forage quality 13bc 16ac 31ab

 Individual cow records 44c 47 51a

 Onfarm computer records 20c 18c 29ab

 Internet for cattle information 32c 33c 51ab

 Forward purchase inputs 7c 7c 17ab

 Negotiate input prices 14bc 21ac 33ab

Farm fi nances: Dollars per farm

 Gross cash income1 33,677bc 77,165ac 602,849ab

 -Cattle sales 23,720bc 42,202ac 191,789ab

 -Other livestock sales 729bc 1,299ac 45,186ab

 -Crop sales 4,618bc 18,493ac 305,683ab

 Cash expenses 36,212bc 66,142ac 428,210ab

 -Variable 26,738bc 49,555ac 335,106ab

 -Fixed 9,474bc 16,587ac 93,104ab

 Net cash farm income -2,535bc 11,023ac 174,639ab

 Net farm income2 -803bc 6,669ac 136,014ab

Off-farm income3 89,929bc 53,571a 53,991a

Notes: The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in each column. All tests are expressed at a 95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is signifi cantly different from that in the superscript 

column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided with the ARMS data.

1In addition to livestock and crops sales, gross cash income includes Government payments and other farm-related income.

2Net farm income equals net cash income less depreciation and the value of noncash benefi ts for hired labor, plus the net value of commodity inventory change and nonmonetary income.

3Off-farm income includes farm household earnings from wages and salaries, earnings from another business, interest and dividend income, pensions and other retirement income, and income from other off-farm sources.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
29

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Beef Cow-Calf Production and the National 

Animal Identifi cation System

Historically, U.S. beef cattle producers have had three primary motives for 

establishing a traceability system for live animals: (1) protect property from 

theft or loss, (2) control the spread of animal diseases, and (3) provide proof 

of credence attributes that add product value (Golan et al., 2004). During the 

past 20 years, however, protecting consumer confi dence in beef products has 

emerged as an additional motive. This led to a series of plans that resulted in 

the implementation of the National Animal Identifi cation System (NAIS) in 

2004 (see box, “Evolution of the National Animal Identifi cation System”).

The importance of having an animal identifi cation system was highlighted 

during 1986-88 when bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad 

cow disease—a fatal neurological disease—was identifi ed in cattle herds 

of the United Kingdom. Subsequent testing found BSE to be widespread 

among the UK cattle population, resulting in the slaughter of 3.7 million 

head. In 1997, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in swine in Taiwan 

caused $6.9 billion in losses and eradication costs, including the slaughter 

of 3.8 million pigs, and decimated Taiwan’s previously strong pork export 

market (Schnepf, 2010). In May 2003, Canadian offi cials announced that 

a single cow from a farm in Alberta was diagnosed as having BSE. All 

beef and cattle exports from Canada immediately stopped, devastating the 

Canadian beef industry, where approximately half of annual production is 

exported (Lawrence et al., 2003).

To ensure confi dence in the U.S. beef supply, among the initiatives USDA 

announced was the acceleration of a verifi able national animal identifi -

cation system. The U.S. Animal Identifi cation Plan (USAIP) called for 

the establishment of individual premises identifi cation by the summer of 

2004, individual animal identifi cation by 2005, and full implementation 

and compliance (all covered species and their movements—both interstate 

and intrastate) by July 2006 (Schnepf, 2010). The USAIP evolved into the 

National Animal Identifi cation System (NAIS), retaining most of its essential elements.

Participation in the NAIS was originally planned to be mandatory, but 

in response to various concerns raised by livestock producers and small 

farmers, USDA announced in August 2006 that the NAIS would be entirely 

voluntary at the Federal level. During 2006-09, USDA released a series of 

draft reports that developed the framework of the NAIS. In 2009, the U.S. 

Secretary of Agriculture undertook a series of listening sessions with stakeholders from around the country to gather feedback and help shape decisions 

about the future direction of animal identifi cation and traceability in the 

United States. In February 2010, USDA announced substantial revisions in 

its approach to achieving a national capacity for animal disease traceability. 

The NAIS was replaced with a new approach that allows individual States 

(and tribal nations) to choose their own degree of within-State animal identifi cation and traceability of livestock. USDA did require that all animals 

moving in interstate commerce have a form of identifi cation that allows 

traceability back to the originating State (Schnepf, 2010).

Evolution of the National Animal Identifi cation System
30

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

The foundation of the NAIS and the fi rst step for producer participation was 

premises registration. To register a premises, producers contacted the appropriate State (e.g., State Veterinarian’s offi ce) or tribal authority and provided 

contact information for the premises and minimal information about the 

livestock operation (USDA, APHIS, 2007). Producers who provided premises information were to be notifi ed quickly when a disease event might 

affect their area or animal species. The intention of premises registration 

was to enable animal health offi cials to quickly locate at-risk animals and 

take actions to address emergency situations, minimize hardships, and speed 

disease eradication efforts.

After registering a premises, a producer could participate in the animal identifi cation component of the NAIS. Animals of the same species that typically 

move through the production chain as a group could be identifi ed by a group 

or lot identifi cation number (GIN), determined by the animal owner using 

the premises identifi cation number and the date the group was assembled. 

Animals that move through the chain individually had to be identifi ed with 

a USDA-recognized animal identifi cation number (AIN) tag or device. Once 

producers identifi ed their animals, they could choose to report animal records 

to an animal tracking device (ATD) of their choice (USDA, APHIS, 2007).

In contrast to other U.S. livestock sectors, there was resistance to the NAIS 

among some beef cow-calf producers. A study of beef cow-calf producer 

preferences for voluntary traceability systems found that producers are sensitive to cost, the managing entity, and information requirements of the system 

(Schulz and Tonsor, 2010). Costs of the NAIS could be signifi cant for small 

operations because beef cattle have to be individually identifi ed. A USDA 

study of NAIS costs for full traceability reported that cattle industry costs 

represented 91.5 percent of the total annual costs of the NAIS for the primary 

food animal species (cattle, sheep, swine, and poultry). The study estimated 

the total cost of the NAIS for cattle producers in aggregate as $175.9 million 

annually at a 90-percent participation level (USDA, APHIS, 2009). 

The USDA study also estimated costs of full traceability for the beef cowcalf sector by size of operation and separately for those who currently tag 

animals and those that do not. Economies of size were found to exist for full 

participation in the NAIS, as costs ranged from $2.48 per cow for the largest 

operations (5,000 or more cows) currently tagging cattle to $6.16 per cow for 

the smallest operations (1-49 cows) not currently tagging cattle.9 Most economies of size were captured by operations with 50-99 cows, compared with 

those with fewer cows. For example, among operations currently tagging, 

costs declined $1.82 per cow between the 1-49 and the 50-99 cow groups and 

only an additional $0.82 between the 50-99 and 5,000 or more cow groups. 

However, the high costs faced by the smallest operations would affect most 

U.S. cow-calf producers, as nearly 80 percent have fewer than 50 cows.

Familiarity and Registration With the NAIS

Beef cow-calf producers surveyed in ARMS were asked if they were familiar 

with NAIS, and if so, were their premises registered with the NAIS.10

Producers were classifi ed into one of three groups: (1) those not familiar with 

NAIS, (2) those familiar, but not registered with NAIS, and (3) those regis9Tags and tagging costs refl ect the 

costs of offi cial identifi cation devices 

and the application of these devices to 

the cattle. It was assumed that RFID 

(radio frequency) eartags would be 

used for the identifi cation of all cattle.

10The survey questions were: Are 

you familiar with the National Animal 

Identifi cation System? If yes; Are your 

premises registered with the NAIS?
31

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 9

NAIS familiarity and registration by size, 2008 

Only 16 percent of beef cow-calf producers with 20-49 cows were registered with the 

NAIS, compared with nearly half of those with 500 cows or more.

Percent of farms

Not

familiar

Familiar,

not registered

Registered

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

NAIS = National Animal Identification System.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey.

20-49 cows

500 cows or more

tered with NAIS. Among beef cow-calf producers, 24 percent reported not 

being familiar with NAIS, 52 percent were familiar but had not registered 

their premises with NAIS, and 24 percent had registered their premises with 

NAIS (table 10). This compares with the 16 percent of beef cow-calf operations that had a unique premises registration found in the 2007 NAHMS 

study (USDA, APHIS, 2008).11

There was an association between familiarity and registration with NAIS and 

size of cow-calf operation. The 24 percent of farms registered with NAIS 

accounted for a third of beef cows, while the 24 percent not familiar with 

NAIS accounted for only 16 percent. Operations registered with NAIS had 

an average of 140 beef cows (at peak), double the average size of those not 

familiar with NAIS. Nearly a third of cow-calf operations with 20-49 beef 

cows were not familiar with the NAIS, and only 16 percent of these small 

operations were registered. In contrast, only 7 percent of operations with 500 

or more cows were not familiar with NAIS, and nearly half of these farms 

were registered (fi g. 9).

NAIS registration was associated with location, as registration rates were 

below 20 percent in many Southeast States (e.g., AL, GA, MS, FL, and KY) 

but above 40 percent in States in the West (e.g., CA and CO). Differences 

in farm operator characteristics were also signifi cant among the groups. 

Cow-calf producers not familiar with NAIS were 5 years older, on average, 

than other producers, and nearly half were over age 65 (table 10). Producers 

registered with NAIS were more educated than other producers, as a third 

had graduated from college, compared with 17 percent not familiar with 

NAIS and 27 percent familiar but not registered. Also, a higher percentage of 

cow-calf producers not familiar with NAIS planned to exit the beef cow-calf 

business within 5 years.

11Part of this difference is due to 

NAHMS targeting operations with 

any beef cows, while farms in ARMS 

had to have at least 20 cows. NAIS 

registration is lowest among the smallest operations. NAHMS indicates that 

only 11.7 percent of beef cow-calf 

operations with less than 50 cows were 

registered with NAIS (USDA, APHIS, 

2008).
32

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 10

Farm and operator characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf operations, by producer familiarity and registration 

with the NAIS, 2008

Item

Not familiar

(a)

Familiar,

not registered

(b)

Registered

(c)

Percent of farms/beef cows 24/16 52/50 24/32

Beef cows—peak per farm1 70bc 98ac 140ab

Beef cows—average per farm2 56bc 77ac 106ab

Beef cows calving 62bc 85ac 120ab

Calves weaned 51bc 71ac 101ab

 Weaning age (days) 209 211 208

 Weaning weight (lbs) 486bc 504ac 515ab

Percent of calves:

 Sold at weaning 62c 61c 52ab

 Backgrounded then sold 34c 34c 41ab

 Retained until slaughter 4c 5c 7ab

Total farm production value ($) 84,178bc 130,391ac 185,446ab

 Percent from cattle 34 39 41

Acres operated 759bc 1,242ac 1,824ab

Private pasture/range acres 565bc 962ac 1,391ab

 Acres per beef cow 8c 10 10a

Percent using private pasture/range 91 94c 91b

Percent using public grazing land 4 5 5

Crops produced (percent of farms)

 Hay 76 79 79

 Small grains 12 14 16

Location (percent of farms):

 North Central 14 18c 14b

 Southeast 37bc 30a 30a

 Northern Plains 14 17 17

 Southern Plains 29 26 29

 West 7bc 9a 10a

Operator:

 Age (years) 63bc 59a 58a

 Age (percent greater than age 65) 47bc 34a 32a

 Off-farm occupation (percent) 39 36 34

 Completed college (percent) 17bc 27ac 33ab

 Exit within 5 years (percent) 31bc 21a 20a

Notes: NAIS = National Animal Identifi cation System. The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in 

each column. All tests are expressed at a 95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is 

signifi cantly different from that in the superscript column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided 

with the ARMS data.

1Largest number of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm at any time during 2008.

2Average of beginning and ending inventories of beef cows and heifers that have calved on farm during 2008.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
33

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Cow-calf producers registered with NAIS were more likely to use advanced 

technologies and practices than other producers. Those registered were more 

likely to have a defi ned calving season, artifi cially inseminate cows, use 

growth-promoting implants and/or ionophores, use regular veterinary and 

nutritionist services, and manage forage quality by rotational grazing and 

forage testing (table 11). Differences in the use of information technologies 

were also signifi cant among beef cow-calf producers in each group. More 

than 60 percent of those registered in the NAIS kept individual cow records, 

30 percent kept onfarm computer records for beef cattle, and about half used 

the Internet to obtain beef cattle information, all much higher usage rates 

than among other cow-calf producers. More than 80 percent of beef cow-calf

Table 11 

Production practices and fi nancial characteristics of U.S. beef cow-calf operations, by producer 

familiarity and registration with the NAIS, 2008

Item

Not familiar

(a)

Familiar,

not registered

(b)

Registered

(c)

Practices: Percent using

 Defi ned calving season 50bc 63ac 70ab

 Commercial seed stock 12 16 16

 Artifi cial insemination 2bc 8ac 16ab

 Calf implants and/or ionophores 12c 12c 22ab

 Regular veterinary services 17bc 21ac 32ab

 Nutritionist services 3bc 7ac 12ab

 Rotational grazing 54bc 62a 65a

 Tested forage quality 8bc 17ac 24ab

 Individual cow records 31bc 46ac 63ab

 Onfarm computer records 10bc 20ac 32ab

 Internet for cattle information 18bc 35ac 51ab

 Forward purchase inputs 5bc 7ac 14ab

 Negotiate input prices 12bc 19ac 27ab

Farm fi nances: Dollars per farm

 Gross cash income1 70,356bc 116,965ac 180,276ab

 -Cattle sales 28,385bc 50,602ac 76,493ab

 -Livestock sales 1,712bc 4,702ac 14,466ab

 -Crop sales 28,993bc 44,925ac 72,594ab

 Cash expenses 59,222bc 90,885ac 143,872ab

 -Variable 43,977bc 68,569ac 113,447ab

 -Fixed 15,245bc 22,315ac 30,425ab

 Net cash farm income 11,134bc 26,081ac 36,404ab

 Net farm income2 7,517bc 20,407a 28,772a

Off-farm income3 66,607 73,104 72,648

Notes: NAIS = National Animal Identifi cation System. The superscripts refer to the results of statistical tests of differences between item means in 

each column. All tests are expressed at a 95-percent level of confi dence. A lettered superscript denotes that the item mean reported in a column is 

signifi cantly different from that in the superscript column. The tests were conducted using a jackknife variance estimator with 15 replicates provided 

with the ARMS data.

1In addition to livestock and crops sales, gross cash income includes Government payments and other farm-related income.

2Net farm income equals net cash income less depreciation and the value of noncash benefi ts for hired labor, plus the net value of commodity 

inventory change and nonmonetary income.

3Off-farm income includes farm household earnings from wages and salaries, earnings from another business, interest and dividend income, 

pensions and other retirement income, and income from other off-farm sources.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).
34

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

producers used some method for identifying cattle, including more than 90 

percent of those with premises registered with NAIS and nearly 70 percent of 

those not familiar with NAIS (fi g. 10). Visual ear tagging and branding were 

the most common methods used to identify beef cattle. 

The average income per farm of cow-calf producers registered with NAIS 

was much higher than those of other cow-calf producers. Net cash farm 

income and net farm income were more than three times higher than for 

those not familiar with NAIS and $8,000-$10,000 more than that for those 

familiar with but not registered (table 11). Off-farm incomes were similar 

among the groups, from about $67,000 to $73,000, all much higher than net 

farm income. 

Figure 10

Use of cattle ID by NAIS familiarity and registration, 2008

Most beef cow-calf producers used some type of cattle ID (e.g., ear tagging,

branding) regardless of NAIS participation.

Percent of farms

Not

familiar

Familiar,

not registered

Registered

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

NAIS = National Animal Identification System.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, using USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey.
35

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions

Analysis of 2008 ARMS data reveals a commercial beef cow-calf industry in 

the United States that is diverse in type, size, location, and characteristics of 

farm operators. About half of beef cow-calf farms produce calves that are sold 

at or shortly after weaning. These are usually small farms, and most are located 

in the Southeast and Southern Plains. Many of these farm households rely on 

off-farm income to supplement a low level of farm income. Most of the other 

beef cow-calf farms retain ownership of calves after weaning and continue 

grazing, or backgrounding, the calves, from 30 to 90 days before selling the 

calves to feedlots. These farms are generally larger, have more beef cows, and 

are distributed throughout the United States, with many in the Northern Plains 

and West regions. A small percentage of beef cow-calf producers retain ownership of the calves after weaning until the animals reach slaughter weight. These 

operations are primarily located in areas where corn is produced for livestock 

feed, such as the North Central and Northern Plains.

The majority of U.S. beef cows are located in the South, including the 

Southern Plains (primarily Texas) and the Southeast. These regions have the 

advantage of a longer grazing season, meaning that less supplemental forage 

is usually required to support beef cattle during the winter, resulting in lower 

feed costs. Despite higher feed costs in the Northern Plains, large beef cowcalf producers in this region have been able to compete with those in the 

South due to effi cient production methods and economies of size. 

Economies of size in beef cow-calf production suggest that farms have an 

incentive to become larger. However, land area required for large-scale beef 

cow-calf production makes it diffi cult for beef cow-calf producers to take 

advantage of economies of size. In most areas of the United States, beef cowcalf production is the residual user of land. As the opportunity cost of pasture 

and range lands increases for such uses as crop production or recreational 

activities, the size of beef cow-calf operations may be limited or fragmented 

into smaller units.

Unlike farms in other livestock industries, most farms with beef cows do not 

specialize in beef cow-calf production. For example, on hog and dairy farms, 

the average share of farm product value from hog and milk production is more 

than 70 and 80 percent, respectively (McBride and Key, 2007; Short, 2001). On 

farms with beef cows, less than 40 percent of farm product value stems from 

cattle production.12 The degree of specialization in beef cow-calf production 

varies signifi cantly by region. About two-thirds or more of farm product value 

on farms in the Southern Plains and West regions was from cattle production, 

compared with less than 40 percent of farms in other regions. Size of operation 

as measured by the number of beef cows did not necessarily indicate specialization in beef cow-calf production. Operations with 250-499 beef cows earned 

60 percent of farm product value from cattle; the share dropped to less than 50 

percent for operations with 500 or more cows.

Beef cow-calf operations also differed signifi cantly from other livestock 

operations in the extent to which farm operators have a primary occupation 

off-farm. More than a third of beef cow-calf farm operators worked off-farm, 

and half of the farms were classifi ed as rural residence-farms. Less than 

12Part of the farm product value was 

from the production of harvested forages 

that were fed to cattle. The value of 

these forages was not counted as part of 

the value of beef cow-calf production.
36

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

10 percent of hog and dairy farms are classifi ed as rural residence farms 

(McBride and Key, 2007; Short, 2001). These rural residence farms were 

small operations that specialized in beef cow-calf production (75 percent 

of farm product value from cattle), but off-farm income was their primary 

household income source. 

Commercial farms, those with annual sales of at least $250,000, with beef 

cow-calf enterprises were mostly diversifi ed operations on which beef cattle 

was a secondary enterprise, accounting for about a fourth of farm product 

value. Intermediate farms, those with annual farm sales less than $250,000 

and with operators whose main occupation is farming, depended more on the 

beef cattle enterprise as a farm income source, with more than half of farm 

product value coming from cattle. The low levels of net cash and net farm 

income generated by these intermediate farms in 2008 suggest that farms in 

this group are among the most fi nancially vulnerable to the input and output 

price variations of beef cattle production.

In 2008, more than 80 percent of beef cow-calf producers had some type of 

animal identifi cation system in place, such as branding or ear tagging. But, 

nearly a quarter of beef cow-calf producers with 20 or more cows reported a 

lack of familiarity with the NAIS, and only about a quarter had their premises registered with the system. This lack of participation among the nearly 

765,000 U.S. beef cow-calf producers appears to be related to concerns about 

liability and costs associated with the program. Since beef cow-calf production is a secondary farm enterprise and a secondary household income source 

for most farms with beef cows, there may be little incentive for these farms 

to risk any perceived liability or to incur program participation costs. This 

creates a challenge for Federal or State efforts to enhance traceability through 

animal identifi cation on beef cow-calf farms. 
37

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Glossary

Artifi cial insemination is the process by which sperm is placed in the reproductive tract of a beef cow or heifer for the purpose of impregnating the cow 

or heifer by means other than natural service from a bull.

Backgrounding is an intermediate stage sometimes used in beef cattle 

production that begins after weaning calves and ends when calves are placed 

in a feedlot to be fed to a slaughter weight. Feeding during the backgrounding 

phase relies more heavily on forages (e.g., pasture, hay, crop residues) in 

combination with grains to increase a calf’s weight by several hundred 

pounds before it enters a feedlot (see stocker calves). Backgrounding is often 

conducted on farms where calves are born, but some farms specialize in 

backgrounding cattle.

Beef cow-calf farms are represented by those selected in a targeted sample 

of beef cow-calf farms as part of USDA’s 2008 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey. Beef cow-calf farms are defi ned as farms that had a 

beef cow inventory of 20 or more head on the acres operated at any time 

during 2008. This excludes a large portion of farms with beef cows but covers 

most of the beef cows.

Commercial seed stock producers are cattle producers who specialize in the 

production and sale of high-quality breeding animals.

Defi ned calving season refers to a period, or season, each year during which 

beef cows are bred to calve. In northern areas of the United States, cows are 

most often bred to calve during the late winter or early spring to minimize 

calf loss due to severe winter weather. Some producers prefer fall calving 

so that calves will be old enough to take advantage of grazing on spring 

pastures. Year-round calving, or the lack of a calving season, is defi ned in the 

National Animal Health Monitoring System as the failure to remove a bull 

from the herd for at least 30 days (USDA, APHIS, 2010b).

Economies of size is a concept that the average cost of production per unit 

declines as the number of units produced increases. If so, large operations are 

able to take advantage of economies of size. 

Farm operator refers to the principal operator—the one most responsible for 

making the day-to-day decisions and running the farm operation.

Farm typology is a farm classifi cation that categorizes farms according to a 

measure of size, operators’ expectations from farming, stage in the life cycle, 

and dependence on agriculture. The farm typology measure used in this 

report is:

Rural residence farms are those with annual gross sales below 

$250,000, including: (1) farms with sales less than $100,000, farm assets 

less than $150,000, and total household income less than $20,000 per 

year (limited resource farms); (2) farms whose operators report that they 

are retired (retirement farms); and (3) farms whose operators report a 

major occupation off-farm (residential lifestyle farms).
38

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

Intermediate farms are those with annual sales below $250,000 and 

whose operators report farming as their major occupation.

Commercial farms consist of large family farms with annual sales 

above $250,000 and some nonfamily enterprises organized as cooperatives or nonfamily corporations, and farms with a hired manager.

Feedlot is a type of animal-feeding operation used for fi nishing cattle prior to 

slaughter. Cattle are fi nished, usually on a combination of forage and predominantly grain, to a slaughter weight of 1,000-1,500 pounds. Beef cow-calf 

producers may feed cattle in a farm feedlot or retain ownership of their cattle 

being fed off-farm in a commercial feedlot.

Forage quality testing is used to measure such forage components as dry 

matter, crude protein, and total digestible nutrients. Information from forage 

quality tests allows cattle producers to better align feed nutrients with animal 

requirements.

Growth promoting implants are hormones implanted in the ear of beef 

calves to be absorbed in the blood stream with the purpose of increasing daily 

gain and feed effi ciency. 

Information management technologies are systems or processes that 

provide the information necessary to manage operations more effectively. 

Examples used on beef cow-calf farms include individual cow records, 

onfarm computer records, and beef cattle information accessed from the 

Internet. 

Ionophores are antibiotic-like compounds that are fed to beef calves with the 

purpose of increasing daily grain and feed effi ciency.

Net cash farm income is gross cash income less cash expenses. This indicates the cash earnings realized within a calendar year from the sales of 

farm production and the conversion of assets, both inventories and capital 

consumption, into cash. Net cash income is a solvency measure representing 

the funds that are available to farm operators to meet family living expenses 

and make debt payments (USDA, ERS, 2010c). 

Net farm income is net cash farm income less charges for depreciation and 

the value of noncash benefi ts for hired labor, plus the value of commodity 

inventory changes and nonmonetary income. Net farm income is a value 

of production measure, indicating the farm operators’ share of the net 

value added to the national economy within a calendar year, independent 

of whether it is received in cash or a noncash form such as increases or 

decreases in inventories and imputed rental for the farm operator’s dwelling 

(USDA, ERS, 2010c). 

Off-farm income is the portion of farm household income derived from 

off-farm businesses, wages and salaries, interest and dividends, and other 

sources. Dividends earned by the household are from investments in equities 

such as stocks or mutual funds. Other sources of off-farm income include 

pensions, annuities, military, retirement, unemployment, Social Security, 

veterans’ benefi ts, other public retirement and public assistance programs, 
39

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

and rental income from nonfarm properties (Mishra et al., 2002). Off-farm 

income can be generated by the farm operator, the spouse, and/or other 

members of the farm household.

Operating costs of beef cow-calf production are the costs for purchased 

input items that are consumed during one production period. These are feed; 

cattle purchased for backgrounding; veterinary services; marketing; custom 

services and supplies; fuel, lubrication, and electricity; repairs; hired labor; 

and operating capital.

Ownership costs of beef cow-calf production are the costs associated with 

the ownership of depreciable assets, such as farm tractors, beef cows, and 

cattle-handling facilities. These are depreciation, interest, property taxes, and 

insurance.

Primary occupation is the occupation, farming or otherwise, in which farm 

operators of beef cow-calf operations spend the majority of their time.

Private pasture/range refers to pasture or range land that is owned or rented 

by the farm in order to graze beef cattle.

Producer classifi cation is a designation given to farms according to which 

phases of beef cattle production are conducted on the farm:

Cow-calf only producers sell all calves at or around weaning.

Cow-calf/stocker producers retain calves after weaning and background 

the calves until they are sold to a feedlot.

Cow-calf/feedlot producers retain calves after weaning and fi nish all or 

part of the calves in a feedlot until they are sold as slaughter cattle. 

Public grazing land refers to land that is owned by the public sector and 

managed by Federal, State, or tribal governments. Public grazing land is 

primarily in large tracts in Western States and is allocated for the use of 

grazing cattle by ranchers. Fees collected from ranchers for raising cattle on 

public grazing lands offset costs of range improvements.

Rotational grazing involves dividing the pasture or range into parcels and 

grazing each in sequence throughout the grazing period. Utilizing rotational 

grazing can improve livestock distribution while incorporating a rest period 

for new forage growth.

Stocker calves are young growing animals raised on pasture with very little 

other feed, with the intention of increasing animal weight and maturity before 

placing the calves in a feedlot (see backgrounding). 

Total economic costs of beef cow-calf production are the full costs of all 

resources engaged in the beef cow-calf enterprise. These include operating 

plus ownership costs, opportunity costs for unpaid labor and land, and general 

farm overhead costs.
40

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Boggs, D., and E. Hamilton. 1997. Cow/Calf Analysis: Key Indicators of 

Profi tability. Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium XV, Rapid 

City, SD. December 9-11.

Breiner, S.J., K.M. Boone, D.A. Blasi, S.A. Grau, T.C. Schroeder, B, .B. 

Barnhardt, R.M. Breiner, and A.M. Bryant. 2007. Attitudes of Cow-Calf 

Producers Toward NAIS Are Guarded. Cattleman’s Day Conference 

Paper. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. March.

Fernandez-Cornejo. 2007. Off-Farm Income, Technology Adoption, and 

Farm Economic Performance. Economic Research Report No. 36. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. January. www.

ers.usda.gov/publications/err36/

Gentner, B.J., and J.A. Tanaka. 2002. “Classifying Federal Public Land 

Grazing Permittees.” Journal of Range Management. 55:2-11. January.

Golan, E., B. Krissoff, F. Kuchler, L. Calvin, K. Nelson, and G. Price. 2004. 

Traceability in the U.S. Food Supply: Economic Theory and Industry 

Studies. Agricultural Economic Report No. 830. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. March. www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/aer830/

Hoder, N., L. Leistritz, D. Nudell, C. Clark, D. Griffi th, and T. Jensen. 2007. 

Northern Great Plains Beef Production: Production and Marketing 

Practices of Cow-Calf Producers. Agribusiness and Applied Economics 

Report No. 609. Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, 

North Dakota State University. August.

Hoppe, R.A., J.E. Perry, and D. Banker. 2000. ERS Farm Typology for a 

Diverse Agricultural Sector. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 759. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. September. 

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib759/

Key, N., and W. McBride. 2007. The Changing Economics of U.S. Hog 

Production. Economic Research Report No. 52. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, December. www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/err52/

Langemeier, M.R., J.M. McGrann, and J. Parker. 2004. Beef Cattle 

Handbook: Economies of Size in Cow-Calf Production. BCH-8100.

Lawrence, J.D., D. Strohbehn, D. Loy, and R. Clause. 2003. Lessons Learned 

from the Canadian Cattle Industry: National Animal Identifi cation and 

the Mad Cow. MATRIC Research Paper 03-MRP. Midwest. Agribusiness 

Trade Research and Information Center, Iowa State University.

MacDonald, J., and W. McBride. 2009. The Transformation of U.S. Livestock 

Agriculture: Scale, Effi ciency, and Risks. Economic Information Bulletin 

No. 43. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

January. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib43/
41

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

MacDonald, J.M., E.J. O’Donoghue, W.D. McBride, R.F. Nehring, C.L. 

Sandretto, and R. Mosheim. 2007. Profi ts, Costs, and the Changing 

Structure of Dairy Farming. Economic Research Report No. 47. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. September. 

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err47/

McBride, W.D., and N. Key. 2007. Characteristics and Production Costs 

of U.S. Hog Farms, 2004. Economic Information Bulletin No. 32. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. December. www.

ers.usda.gov/publications/eib32/

Mishra, A.K., H.S. El-Osta, M.J. Morehart, J.D. Johnson, and J.W. 

Hopkins. 2002. Income, Wealth, and the Economic Well-Being of Farm 

Households. Agricultural Economic Report No. 812. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. July. www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/aer812/

Murphy, R.G.L., D.L. Pendell, and G.C. Smith. 2009. “Lessons from 

the Canadian Cattle Industry for Developing the National Animal 

Identifi cation System.” International Food and Agribusiness Management 

Review, Vol. 12, Issue 2.

Ramsey, R.D. Doye, C. Ward, J. McGrann, L. Falconer, and S. Bevers. 

2005. “Factors Affecting Beef Cow-Herd Costs, Production, and Profi ts.” 

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 37, 1(April 2005):91-99.

Schnefp, R. 2010. Animal Identifi cation and Traceability: Overview and 

Issues. Congressional Research Service Report 7-5700. February.

Schulz L.L., and G.T. Tonsor. 2010. “Cow-Calf Producer Preferences for 

Voluntary Traceability Systems.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 

138-162.

Short, S. 2001. Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Cow-Calf 

Operations. Statistical Bulletin No. 974-3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Economic Research Service. November. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

sb974-3/

Skaggs, R., and T. Crawford. 2007. “National Animal Identifi cation and the 

Elephant in the Room.” Rangelands. April.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(USDA, APHIS). 2007. National Animal Identifi cation System (NAIS)—A 

Users Guide and Additional Resources. Version 2.0. December.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(USDA, APHIS). 2008. Beef 2007-08 Part I: Reference of Beef Cow-Calf 

Management Practices in the United States, 2007-08. October.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(USDA, APHIS). 2009. Overview Report of the Benefi t-Cost Analysis of 

the National Animal Identifi cation System. April.
42

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(USDA, APHIS). 2010a. Beef 2007-08 Part IV: Reference of Beef 

Cow-Calf Management Practices in the United States, 2007-08. February.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (USDA, APHIS). 2010b. Beef 2007-08 Part V: Reference of Beef 

Cow-Calf Management Practices in the United States, 2007-08. April.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA, ERS). 

2010a. “Farm Income: Data Files.” www.ers.usda.gov/data/farmincome/

fi nfi dmu.htm. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA, ERS). 

2010b. “Cattle Briefi ng Room.” www.ers.usda.gov/briefi ng/cattle/background.htm.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA, ERS). 

2010c. “Farm Income and Costs Briefi ng Room.” www.ers.usda.gov/

briefi ng/farmincome/glossary/glossary.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA, ERS). 

2010d. “Commodity Costs and Returns Data.” www.ers.usda.gov/data/

costsandreturns/testpick.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(USDA, NASS). 2007. Census of Agriculture. www.agcensus.usda.gov/

publications/2007/full_report/index.asp