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

Veterinary Services 

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health July 2012 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Importance of Pre-arrival 

Management Practices to 

Operators of U.S. Feedlots1

Pre-arrival management practices can help reduce death 

loss and cattle sickness in feedlots. Implementing these 

practices in the early stages of the production process 

can help improve the resistance of cattle to infectious 

disease before they arrive in feedlots. By identifying 

which pre-arrival practices are most important to feedlot 

operators, suppliers and other industry stakeholders can 

focus on the practices that are most beneficial and that 

might be financially rewarding. In addition, when feedlot 

cattle suppliers are aware of feedlot operators’ priorities, 

the health of the animals during the feeding phase and 

their subsequent growth can be optimized. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National 

Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) conducted 

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

feedlots (1,000 head or more capacity) in 12 States2

 

and small feedlots (fewer than 1,000 head capacity) in 

13 States.3

Large feedlots accounted for 82.1 percent of the 

January 1, 2011, inventory of feedlot cattle in all U.S. 

feedlots but only 2.8 percent of all feedlots. The 12 

participating States accounted for over 95 percent of the 

inventory of cattle in large feedlots (NASS, “Cattle on 

Feed” February 18, 2011). Small feedlots accounted for 

16.0 percent of the inventory on all U.S. feedlots and 

92.9 percent of all U.S. farms with cattle on feed. The 13 

participating States accounted for 85.4 percent of U.S. 

farms with fewer than 500 cattle on feed and 90.5 

percent of the inventory on farms with fewer than 500 

cattle on feed (NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture). 

Study results presented in this information sheet reflect 

only large feedlots,4

 which were divided into two groups: 

those with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head and those 

with a capacity of 8,000 or more head. 

As part of the NAHMS Feedlot 2011 study, 

operators were asked to assess a list of six pre-arrival 

management practices as extremely effective, very 

effective, somewhat effective, or not effective for 

reducing sickness or death loss. All six listed pre-arrival 

management practices were deemed to be extremely or 

 

1

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

2

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

Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Washington. 

3

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

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

4

 Information on small feedlots is available at: 

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

very effective by at least 71.0 percent of feedlots 

(figure 1). 

The practice perceived by feedlot operators to be 

the most effective was castrating and dehorning calves 

at least 4 weeks prior to shipping (91.6 percent of 

feedlots). Treating calves for external or internal 

parasites prior to shipping was believed to be extremely 

or very effective by the lowest percentage of feedlots 

(71.0 percent). These results show that all listed prearrival practices have perceived importance, but some 

are thought to be more important than others. 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Introduction

to feed bunk

Respiratory vaccinations

given 2 wk prior to weaning

Respiratory vaccinations

given at weaning

Calves weaned 4 wk

prior to shipping

Calves castrated/dehorned

4 wk prior to shipping

Calves treated for 

parasites prior to shipping

Percent

Practice

Figure 1. Percentage of feedlots in which the feedlot 

operator believed that the following pre-arrival

management practices were extremely or very effective 

81.2

85.4

80.4

79.1

91.6

71.0

The majority of feedlot operators sometimes 

received pre-arrival information on incoming cattle; 

however, a substantial percentage still lacked access to 

such information (figure 2). Operators on a higher 

percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 

head (38.4 percent) reported always having access to 

pre-arrival information compared with 25.9 percent of 

operators on feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more 

head. Overall, operators on 53.2 percent of feedlots with 

a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head and 70.1 percent of 

feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head were 

sometimes given information on pre-arrival practices. 

From these data, it is apparent that limitations still exist 

when attempting to pass information on pre-arrival 

practices to feedlots, especially for feedlots with a 

capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head. 
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

0

20

40

60

80

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Feedlot capacity

(number head)

Percent

Frequency

Always Sometimes Never

Figure 2. Percentage of feedlots by frequency that

pre-arrival information for cattle placed on feed 

was available, and by feedlot capacity

38.4

25.9

53.2

70.1

8.4

4.0

Operators on 69.3 percent of all feedlots believed 

that pre-arrival processing information was very 

important (figure 3). These findings are consistent with 

the belief that these pre-arrival practices help to support 

the health and well-being of feedlot cattle through 

decreased sickness and death loss at the feedlot. 

Operators on an additional 23.8 percent of all feedlots 

believed that information on pre-arrival processing was 

somewhat important. From these data, it is apparent that 

feedlot operators find great value in pre-arrival 

information. 

Not

Somewhat

Very

Level of

importance

23.8 69.3

6.9

Figure 3. Percentage of feedlots by level of 

importance feedlot operator placed on pre-arrival 

proccessing information 

Summary 

Operators on feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or 

more head believed that pre-arrival processing was 

extremely or very effective in reducing sickness and 

death loss of cattle in feedlots. Castrating and dehorning 

calves at least 4 weeks prior to shipping was deemed by 

91.6 percent of feedlot operators as a very or extremely 

effective pre-arrival practice. 

 Although feedlot operators believed that pre-arrival 

management practices were crucial to the health of 

animals, information on pre-arrival processing was not 

always available to operators. Operators on only 34.7 

percent of all feedlots always had pre-arrival information 

available. This finding might reflect the challenge of 

moving data/information with shipped cattle, especially 

when many smaller groups of cattle are involved. 

Furthermore, the cost of transmitting data with the 

animals may be higher than the cost differential between 

those with and without data on pre-arrival management. 

Improving the percentage of feedlots that always 

have pre-arrival information available should be an area 

of focus. Working with the different groups involved in 

the marketing channels to improve communication and 

consistency is one way that improvements can be made. 

In addition, developing a more systematic method of 

transferring data when the ownership of cattle is 

transferred from the supplier to the feedlot might help to 

increase the availability of pre-arrival processing 

information, which could improve the health of feedlot 

cattle in feedlots, a major concern for owners and 

consumers. 

______________________________ 

For more information, contact: 

USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH 

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7 

2150 Centre Avenue 

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117 

970.494.7000 

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

#652.0612 

____________________________ 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in 

all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

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

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, 

write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

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

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer. 

Mention of companies or commercial products does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor 

warrants the standard of any product.