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

Veterinary Services 

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health July 2012 (revised 9/12) 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Biosecurity on U.S. Feedlots1

 

Biosecurity is a collection of management practices 

designed to minimize the risk of disease introduction and 

spread on an operation. Such practices may include: 

isolation of new arrivals, rodent control, equipment 

cleaning, and minimizing visitor entry into pens. Because 

feedlots frequently obtain animals from more than one 

source, biosecurity practices are important in preventing 

disease introduction and spread. 

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. 

One objective of the Feedlot 2011 study was to 

describe the current biosecurity practices and 

capabilities of U.S. feedlots. Biosecurity practices are 

important in preventing the introduction and spread of 

potentially catastrophic foreign animal diseases, as well 

as managing endemic and epidemic domestic disease. 

Understanding feedlot population characteristics and 

common biosecurity practices can improve risk 

evaluations and suggest intervention strategies for 

particular diseases. Biosecurity practices examined 

included housing management, vaccination protocols 

 

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 

and disease testing, management of Mexican-origin 

cattle, contact with other animals, visitor management, 

equipment sharing and cleaning, information sources 

and contacts in case of an outbreak, proximity to other 

operations with livestock, and worker contact with 

livestock on other operations. 

Housing management 

 

Feedlots, especially those with a capacity of 8,000 

or more head, receive animals from many sources. 

Animals that leave feedlots for purposes other than 

slaughter represent a potential avenue for introducing 

pathogens to breeding herds. 

Overall, 17.1 percent of feedlots had some animals 

leave the feedlot and return to a breeding or stocker 

operation. For feedlot animals destined to return to 

breeding or grazing operations, biocontainment 

practices—primarily segregation—could be one way to 

mitigate the spread of certain pathogens. 

Of these feedlots with beef breeding cattle and 

stocker cattle, about half (49.6 and 44.1 percent, 

respectively) provided a segregated area that prevented 

breeding and stocker cattle coming into direct contact 

with cattle on feed for slaughter (see table on next 

page). The majority of feedlots that fed any breeding 

cattle (70.2 percent) and that fed any stocker cattle (59.3 

percent) housed some of these animals in pens that 

allowed nose-to-nose contact with cattle on feed for 

slaughter. There were no substantial differences in 

housing practices by feedlot capacity or by region. 

Photograph courtesy of Judy Rodriguez. 
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

Of the 17.1 percent of feedlots that fed any dairy 

breeding, beef breeding, or stocker cattle, 

percentage of feedlots by type of cattle housing1

Housing type Percent feedlots 

Dairy breeding cattle2 

Beef breeding cattle 

Segregated area with no direct contact 

with cattle on feed for slaughter 49.6 

Pens adjacent to cattle on feed for 

slaughter (nose-to-nose contact) 70.2 

Pens with cattle on feed for slaughter 

(commingled) 4.4 

Hospital pens with cattle on feed for 

slaughter for any length of time 10.0 

Stocker cattle (destined to be returned to 

grazing) 

Segregated area with no direct contact 

with cattle on feed for slaughter 44.1 

Pens adjacent to cattle on feed for 

slaughter (nose-to-nose contact) 59.3 

Pens with cattle on feed for slaughter 

(commingled) 5.6 

Hospital pens with cattle on feed for 

slaughter for any length of time 33.5 

1

From July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. 

2

Too few to report. 

Pathogen testing 

Pathogen testing can be used to determine if cattle 

returning to breeding or grazing pose a risk of 

transmitting a disease to the herd of origin. Nearly onethird of feedlots (30.6 percent) did some pathogen 

testing on beef animals destined to be returned to 

breeding. 

Management of Mexican-origin cattle 

Mexican-origin cattle in feedlots are thought to be at 

a higher risk of being infected with certain pathogens, 

such as Mycobacterium bovis. Overall, 11.4 percent of 

feedlots fed any Mexican-origin cattle. A higher 

percentage of feedlots with a capacity of more than 

8,000 head fed Mexican-origin cattle than feedlots with a 

capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (33.1 and 2.5 percent, 

respectively). 

Contact with other animals 

 

Animals other than cattle can present biosecurity 

concerns. Other animals most commonly observed on 

feedlots were cats (77.2 percent of feedlots); dogs (63.3 

percent) and horses, donkeys, mules, etc. (61.7 

percent). About 7 of 10 feedlots (72.8 percent) also 

observed raccoons, squirrels, skunks, or rabbits on at 

least a monthly basis, and about 3 of 10 (33.5 percent) 

observed wild ruminants. 

Visitor management 

Visitors can also present biosecurity concerns. The 

three most common classes of visitors included 

veterinarians, livestock haulers, and nutritionists (95.3, 

91.8, and 89.0 percent of feedlots, respectively). Overall, 

25.1 percent of feedlots displayed signage directing that 

visitors check with the office before entering the feedlot. 

Only 10.3 percent of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 

7,999 head displayed such signage, compared to 60.6 

percent of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 head or 

more. Most feedlots did not provide outer protective 

clothing or footbaths for visitors; however, 65.7 percent 

limited access to animal areas, and 59.9 percent 

restricted vehicles from animal areas. Restricting visitor 

access to animal areas was more common on feedlots 

with a capacity of 8,000 head or more (88.1 percent) 

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

(56.3 percent). 

Equipment sharing and cleaning 

Using the same equipment to handle manure and 

cattle feed can increase the risk of disease transmission. 

Pathogens can be transmitted from fecal material to 

cattle feed, and can be transferred from one pen to 

another via contaminated feed. Nearly 2 of 3 feedlots 

with a capacity of 8,000 head or more (64.8 percent) 

never used the same equipment to handle manure and 

feed (see figure on next page). In contrast, 36.8 percent 

of feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head never 

used the same equipment for handling manure and feed. 

Approximately one of three feedlots with a capacity of 

1,000 to 7,999 head (31.1 percent) routinely used the 

same equipment for handling manure and feed. For 

feedlots that did use the same equipment to handle 

manure and feed, 81.1 percent washed the equipment 

with water or steam and 6.3 percent washed and 

chemically disinfected the equipment between uses. 
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

0

20

40

60

80

All operations

8,000 or more

1,000-7,999

Routinely Rarely Never

Frequency

Percent

31.1 32.1

36.8

2.4

Percentage of feedlots by frequency the same 

equipment was used to handle manure and cattle feed, 

and by feedlot capacity

Feedlot capacity

(number head)

32.8

64.8

22.7

32.3

45.0

Information sources and contacts in an 

outbreak

In the event of a foreign animal disease outbreak 

such as foot-and-mouth disease, communication with 

and notification of the proper officials are vital. 

Understanding which information resources feedlots 

would choose in the event of such an outbreak can 

facilitate the timely delivery of important information. 

Overall, 94.3 percent of feedlots were very likely to 

contact their private veterinarian in the case of an 

outbreak of foreign animal disease. 

Proximity to another operation with livestock 

Direct contact with cattle from another operation 

poses a threat to cattle health and might increase the 

risk of disease spread. Relatively few (7.9 percent) 

feedlots shared a fence line with a neighboring feedlot. 

Labor 

Employees that have contact with livestock on more 

than one operation can be a biosecurity concern. 

Contact with other livestock outside the feedlot was 

minimal for about half of feedlots; 53.2 percent of fulltime employees who only handled cattle had no contact 

with livestock on other operations, and 

59.7 percent of employees did not own any livestock. 

_____________________________ 

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

#649.0612 

___________________________________ 

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 mentioned. Product names are 

mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide 

specific information.