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) 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Management on U.S. Feedlots1

When an animal health emergency occurs, an 

immediate response is necessary to protect animals and 

people and to minimize the economic, animal, and public 

health impacts of the emergency. The U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) and State veterinarians are 

responsible for controlling a specific set of regulated 

diseases, such as (but not limited to) tuberculosis, 

brucellosis, and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). 

However, animal health emergencies are not limited to 

disease outbreaks. They also include any adverse event 

or disaster that could affect livestock and poultry health 

and production. Such events include weather-related 

emergencies, threats from terrorist activities, natural 

disasters, and utility outages. 

A comprehensive plan for how to respond in any 

type of emergency would benefit feedlot operations by 

helping to minimize the emergency’s impact on animal 

health, food safety, food supply, and the profitability of 

the operation. 

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. 

 

1

 For 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 

One objective of the Feedlot 2011 study was to 

describe current management practices on U.S. 

feedlots, including practices designed to help feedlots 

respond effectively to emergency events that could 

jeopardize food production and quality, and animal wellbeing. 

Written plans, training and relationships 

One essential part of emergency preparedness is to 

have a written plan in place that addresses the basic 

needs for a continuous supply of power, clean water, 

and safe feed. Such a plan can reduce confusion during 

an emergency and help ensure a better outcome for the 

operation. Overall, about one-third of feedlots (34.1 

percent) had a written emergency-procedure plan. A 

higher percentage of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or 

more head (65.8 percent) had such a plan compared 

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

(21.0 percent). Nearly half of all feedlots (46.3 percent) 

had a contingency plan for feeding and watering 

livestock in the event of a utility outage; 67.1 percent of 

feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head and 37.8 

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

head had a written contingency plan for utility outages 

(table 1). 

Table 1. Percentage of feedlots that had a written 

emergency-procedure plan and percentage that had 

a contingency plan for feeding and watering 

livestock in case of a utility* outage, by feedlot 

capacity 

 Percent Feedlots 

 Feedlot capacity 

(number head)

Plan type 

1,000–

7,999 

8,000 or 

more 

All 

feedlots 

Emergency 

procedure 21.0 65.8 34.1 

Contingency plan 37.8 67.1 46.3 

*Electricity, natural gas, domestic water supply, etc. 
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

Training workers in food security, terrorism threats, 

or recognizing potential terrorist activities, as well as 

maintaining an active working relationship with local 

emergency management officials are other important 

components of emergency preparedness. Overall, 

during the previous 3 years nearly half of feedlots 

(48.2 percent) had someone from the operation attend 

an educational meeting regarding food security, 

terrorism threats, or the recognition of potential terrorist 

activities and actions. A higher percentage of feedlots 

with a capacity of 8,000 or more head (64.3 percent) 

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

(41.5 percent) had someone attend such educational 

meetings. Nearly all feedlots (88.5 percent) encouraged 

employees or others to report what they considered 

unusual circumstances or activities, and about half of 

operations (48.4 percent) had active working 

relationships with local county or regional emergency 

management officials. Feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 

or more head were more likely to have such 

relationships than feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 

7,999 head (70.3 and 39.3 percent, of operations 

respectively). 

Table 2. Percentage of feedlots by type of 

training/relationships for handling emergency 

situations, and by feedlot capacity 

 Percent Feedlots 

 Feedlot capacity 

(number head)

Training/relationships 1,000–

7,999 

8,000 or 

more 

All 

operations

Attended 

educational meeting 41.5 64.3 48.2 

Reporting unusual 

activities 85.1 96.6 88.5 

Working relationship 

with local officials 39.3 70.3 48.4 

Sustainability 

A contingency feed supply is another important 

component of an emergency management plan. This 

supply should be adequate enough to ensure that cattle 

get basic nutrition for an extended period in case 

acquiring additional feed is not possible. Overall, nearly 

half of feedlots (44.4 percent) had an average of 60 or 

more days of feed available for basic nutrition, while 

more than a third (35.8 percent) had an average supply 

of less than 15 days. Five of 10 feedlots with a capacity 

of 1,000 to 7,999 head (52.6 percent) had a feed supply 

that would last 60 days or more, while only 24.3 percent 

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

had a supply that would last 60 days or more (figure 1). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

60 or more

30-59

15-29

Less than 15

1,000-7,999 8,000 or more

Feedlot capicity (number head)

Average number

of days 

Figure 1. Percentage of feedlots by average number of days 

feed on the premises would provide cattle basic nutrition if 

acquiring additional feed was not possible, and by operation 

capacity

Percent

52.6

24.3

14.9

4.1

28.4

53.8

4.1

17.8

All feedlots

44.4

15.7

4.1

35.8

Similarly, it is important to have a backup power 

source to maintain critical operations, such as pumping 

water, for an extended period of time during a utility 

outage or lack of fuel availability. Overall, nearly twothirds of feedlots (60.1 percent) had a power-generation 

capacity of 15 or more days on average; feedlots with a 

capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head were more likely to have 

15 days or more of power-generation capacity 

(67.3 percent) than feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or 

more head (42.3 percent) [figure 2]. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

15 or more

8-14

3-7

Less than 3

1,000-7,999 8,000 or more

Feedlot capacity (number head)

Average number

of days 

Figure 2. Percentage of feedlots by average number of days 

facility could generate enough power to maintain critical operations 

such as water and feed delivery, and by feedlot capacity

Percent

67.3

42.3

16.3

12.9

3.5

13.3

27.1

17.3

All feedlots

60.1

16.6

17.0

6.3
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

Vaccinating animals in the event of an outbreak of 

foreign animal disease such as FMD could be an 

effective way to prevent disease spread. Feedlot 

operations could benefit from being prepared to process 

and vaccinate a large number of animals in a short 

period of time. Nearly half of feedlots with a capacity of 

8,000 or more head (49.7 percent) and nearly a third of 

feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (29.2 

percent) had the ability to process an average of 100 

animals or more per hour using only existing staff, 

should vaccination be required. About a third of feedlots 

with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head (31.5 percent) 

had the ability to process fewer than 75 animals per 

hour. 

Summary 

A written emergency-procedure plan is an essential 

part of emergency preparedness and helps to ensure 

that an operation can provide basic needs such as 

power, clean water, and feed during an emergency 

event or utility outage. Less than one of four feedlots 

with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head had an 

emergency-procedure plan in place, while about twothirds of feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head 

did. Feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 7,999 head 

were also less likely than feedlots with a capacity of 

8,000 or more head to have active relationships with 

local emergency management officials or to be able to 

vaccinate a large number of animals in a short period of 

time. Conversely, feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 to 

7,999 head were better prepared to supply feed for basic 

nutrition and backup power for an extended period of 

time than feedlots with a capacity of 8,000 or more head, 

which could be a reflection of the higher expense and 

larger storage space required for feed and fuel on the 

larger feedlots. In a prolonged emergency, larger 

operations will be challenged to maintain operations, 

though it appears that they are more likely to have 

prepared to address some of these challenges. More 

information about emergency preparedness is available 

in following resources. 

Guidance on emergency plan development for farms: 

Iowa State University All Hazards Farm Emergency 

Preparedness Planning 

 Iowa State University Center for Food Security 

and Public Health. 

http://www.prep4agthreats.org/All-HazardPreparedness/farm-emergency-preparednessplan. 

The University of Vermont Emergency Preparedness – 

Disaster Planning for Livestock 

 The University of Vermont. 

http://www.uvm.edu/~ascibios/?Page=Emergenc

y/Disaster_Planning_for_Livestock.html&SM=su

bmenuemergency.html. 

Michigan State University Extension – Emergency 

Planning for the Farm 

 http://www.animalagteam.msu.edu/uploads/files/

20/E2575.pdf

USDA Emergency Preparedness and Response 

resources: 

 http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

?navid=DISASTER_SAFETY. 

State Offices and Agencies of Emergency Management. 

 

http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/statedr.shtm. 

FEMA resources and online emergency preparedness 

training 

 FEMA, Emergency Management Institute. 

http://training.fema.gov/EMI/. 

 FEMA, Emergency Management Institute online 

training. Animals in Disasters: Awareness and 

Preparedness. 

http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/IS10a.asp. 

 FEMA, Emergency Management Institute online 

training. Animals in Disasters: Community 

Planning. 

http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/IS11a.asp. 

 FEMA, National Response Framework (NRF). 

http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/. 

 FEMA, NRF, Emergency Support Function #11 

– Agriculture and Natural Resources. 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-esf11.pdf. 

______________________________ 

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

#650.0612 

___________________________________ 

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.