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

Veterinary Services 

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health March 2011 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Record-keeping Practices on 

U.S. Beef Cow-calf Operations 

Maximizing production efficiency—and operation 

profitability—requires that beef producers be able to 

evaluate the effects that changes in management 

practices have on herd productivity. To establish 

accurate benchmarks for measuring the effects of 

management changes, producers need to maintain 

detailed records on herd health and production, natural 

resources, and finances. The information producers 

gain by tracking changes will enable them to make 

logical management decisions and take full advantage of 

advances in health management and breeding practices. 

For example, producers can evaluate the impact that 

altering the vaccination protocol for pregnant cows has 

on calf survival; however, to really understand the 

difference, they should also have records on other 

factors that could affect calf survival, such as weather 

events, sire, etc. 

In 2007–08, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) 

studied beef cow-calf health and management practices. 

The Beef 2007–08 study was conducted in 24 States, 

grouped into 4 regions,* representing 79.6 percent of 

U.S. operations with beef cows and 87.8 percent of U.S. 

beef cows. Herds were grouped into 4 size categories: 

1 to 49, 50 to 99, 100 to 199, or 200 or more cows.** 

One goal of the Beef 2007–08 study was to examine 

record-keeping practices on cow-calf operations, as 

reported by the producers. 

General record-keeping practices 

Collection of detailed management data is facilitated 

by a good record-keeping system, whether it be handwritten notes or a computer program. According to 

NAHMS Beef 2007-08, the majority of operations 

(83.3 percent) kept some form of records, and more than 

90 percent of operations with 100 or more cows kept 

 

* Regions/States: 

West: California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, 

Wyoming 

Central: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 

Dakota 

South Central: Oklahoma, Texas 

East: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia 

** If no cows were present on Oct. 1, 2007, then July 1, 2007, 

inventory was used.

records (table 1). Across herd sizes, more than threefourths of operations kept hand-written records. The 

percentage of operations that kept records on a 

computer located on the operation ranged from 

13.3 percent of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows to 

37.4 percent of operations with 200 or more beef cows. 

A higher percentage of operations with 200 or more beef 

cows kept records on a computer located off the 

operation than operations in any other size category. 

(Examples of records kept on a computer located off the 

operation include performance records maintained by a 

beef improvement association and production records 

maintained by a private firm.) 

Table 1. Percentage of Operations by Recordkeeping System Used, and by Herd Size: 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

Recordkeeping 

System 1-49 50-99 

100- 

199 

200 or 

More 

All 

Ops. 

Hand-written 

records (e.g., 

ledger, 

notebook, 

pocket diary) 76.2 80.8 89.1 88.5 78.6 

Computer 

on operation 13.3 24.5 21.8 37.4 17.0 

Computer 

off operation 2.0 4.2 3.7 10.8 2.9 

Any of above 80.5 87.0 93.6 95.0 83.3 

Hand-written records (such as ledgers, notebooks, 

or pocket diaries) were used on a higher percentage of 

operations in the Central region (86.2 percent) compared 

with operations in the South Central and East regions 

(77.1 and 73.3 and percent, respectively) [table 2]. Onsite computer records were used on a higher percentage 

of operations in the West region (28.7 percent) than 

operations in the South Central or East regions 

(14.7 and 13.5 percent, respectively). 
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

Table 2. Percentage of Operations by Recordkeeping System Used, by Region: 

Percent Operations 

Region

Recordkeeping 

System West Central

South 

Central East 

Hand-written 

records 82.3 86.2 77.1 73.3 

Computer 

on operation 28.7 20.3 14.7 13.5 

Computer 

off operation 5.2 2.7 4.0 1.6 

Any of above 88.2 90.6 82.2 77.6 

In three NAHMS beef studies conducted from 1992 

to 2007, the percentage of operations that kept handwritten records increased from 1992 to 1997 but was 

similar for the 1997 and 2007 studies (table 3). The 

percentage of operations that used an on-site computer 

for record keeping increased from 1992 to 2007 (4.7 to 

17.0 percent). Despite this increase, less than one of five 

operations used an on-site computer for record keeping 

in 2007. The use of any record-keeping system was 

similar for the 1997 and 2007 studies. 

Table 3. Percentage of Operations by Recordkeeping System Used, 1993–2007: 

 Percent Operations 

Recordkeeping 

System 

1992/93 

CHAPA1,2

Beef ’97 

Comparable2,5Beef 

’973

Beef 

2007-084

Hand-written 

records 65.2 80.0 79.1 78.6 

Computer 

on operation 4.7 9.5 10.2 17.0 

Computer 

off operation 3.8 3.3 3.5 2.9 

Computer 

on or off 

operation 7.7 12.3 13.0 18.9 

Any of 

above 66.8 82.3 81.3 83.3 1

Cow/calf Health and Productivity Audit. 

2

Population: spring calving operations with 5 or more cows in 18 

States. 

3

Population: all cow-calf operations in 23 States. 

4

Population: all cow-calf operations in 24 States. 

 5For its first trends report (published May 1998) NAHMS reanalyzed 

the Beef ’97 data to provide estimates for the same subset of 

operations covered by the 1992/93 CHAPA study (i.e., spring calving 

operations with five or more cows). 

Animal identification records 

 To accurately assess the effects of changes in 

breeding and other management practices, producers 

should be able to identify individual animals to monitor 

resulting changes over time. For example, to compare 

the weight gain in calves from different sires, producers 

need to be able to identify the calves from those sires. 

Nearly two-thirds of operations (66.1 percent) used 

some form of individual animal identification (ID) on at 

least some cows, and 79.1 percent of cows had some 

form of individual ID (table 4). Plastic ear tags were the 

most common type of individual cow ID for operations 

and individual cows (50.4 and 57.5 percent, 

respectively). 

Table 4. Percentage of Operations and Percentage of 

Cows, by Type of Individual Animal ID Used on at 

Least Some Cows:

Individual ID Type 

Percent 

Operations 

Percent 

Cows* 

Hot-iron brand 12.2 20.5 

Freeze brand 2.4 3.9 

Ear notch 4.8 9.8 

Electronic ID or 

microchip responder 0.8 1.2 

Brucellosis vaccination 

ear tag (Bang’s tag) 24.2 38.1 

Other metal ear tag 1.6 2.1 

Plastic ear tag 50.4 57.5 

Ear tattoo (other than for 

brucellosis vaccination) 8.1 7.7 

Other method 0.7 0.9 

Any identification 66.1 79.1 

*Percentage of all beef cows in the 24 States studied. 

 The percentage of operations that used any form of 

individual animal ID on at least some cows ranged from 

59.3 percent of operations with 1 to 49 cows to 89.1 

percent of operations with 200 or more beef cows. 

Plastic ear tags were the most common type of 

individual animal ID across all herd sizes. 

 Nearly half of operations (46.7 percent) used some 

form of individual animal ID on at least some calves, and 

64.8 percent of calves had some form of individual ID. 

The most common type of individual ID for calves was a 

plastic ear tag; 37.7 percent of operations used this form 

of ID and 50.2 percent of calves had plastic ear tags. 

For more information from the NAHMS Beef 2007-08 

study about animal identification practices, see “Cattle 

Identification Practices on U.S. Beef Cow-calf 

Operations.”1

Natural resources records 

An important part of maximizing a cow-calf 

operation’s efficiency is tracking the role of natural 

resources in production outcomes. A producer who has 

records that document the operation’s natural resource 

conditions will be positioned to evaluate the effects of 
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

changing conditions on herd productivity and assess the 

needs for alternative strategies in managing natural 

resources. Failure to track and recognize the potential 

for declining pasture quality could have long-term 

negative effects on production. 

A higher percentage of operations with 200 or more 

cows kept records of natural resource conditions 

compared with smaller operations (table 5). 

Table 5. Percentage of Operations that Kept Written, 

Computer, or Pictorial Records of Natural Resource 

Conditions, and by Herd Size: 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

1-49 50-99 100-199 

200 or 

More 

All 

Ops. 

4.4 9.4 4.4 17.9 5.9 

A higher percentage of operations in the West 

region (17.7 percent) kept records of natural resource 

conditions compared with operations in all other regions 

(table 6). 

Table 6. Percentage of Operations that Kept Written, 

Computer, or Pictorial Records of Natural Resource 

Conditions, by Region: 

Percent Operations 

Region

West Central 

South 

Central East 

17.7 7.1 4.5 3.1 

Use of standardized performance analysis

 One potential use of detailed production and 

financial records is Standardized Performance Analysis 

(SPA), a management approach sponsored by the 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the 

USDA Extension Service to help cow-calf producers 

calculate financial and productivity parameters.2

 SPA 

enables producers to compare operation performance 

across years and with other operations to help identify 

management changes that could increase operation 

profitability. For example, through use of production and 

financial records, SPA can help producers establish 

benchmarks related to reproduction, grazing and raised 

feed, and financial performance, such as rate of return 

on assets, net income per cow, pounds weaned per 

exposed cow, and grazing and feed costs per cow. 

 Less than 1 of 25 operations (3.5 percent) used SPA 

to determine the profitability of producing beef calves 

(table 7). The percentages of operations that used SPA 

were similar for all herd sizes.

Table 7. Percentage of Operations that Used 

Standardized Performance Analysis to Determine 

the Profitability of Producing Beef Calves, and by 

Herd Size: 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

1-49 50-99 100-199 

200 or 

More 

All 

Ops. 

3.0 3.9 5.8 6.0 3.5 

Across all regions, a similar percentage of 

operations used SPA to determine the profitability of 

producing beef calves; percentages ranged from 2.0 in 

the Central region to 5.2 in the East region. 

Summary 

A record-keeping system provides producers with 

many important capabilities, such as furnishing buyers 

with records for individual animals, tracking and 

maximizing use of natural resources, and calculating 

vaccination and feed costs per cow. The data must be 

gathered in a consistent manner and on a regular basis, 

however, so that meaningful comparisons can be made. 

Producers should determine which management 

practices they would like to improve and then collect the 

data necessary to provide appropriate benchmarks. 

They must then evaluate the data and incorporate the 

findings into their management plans. By basing 

management decisions on carefully collected and 

evaluated data, producers can measure the differences 

associated with management changes and maximize the 

operation’s profitability. 

References 

1. National Animal Health Monitoring System, “Cattle 

Identification Practices on U.S. Beef Cow-calf 

Operations,” #537.0209, February 2009; 

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/beefcowcalf/beef0708/

Beef0708_is_CattleID.pdf 

2. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association website, 

http://www.beefusa.org/prodstandardperformancean

alysis_spa_.aspx 

____________________________ 

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 

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov 

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

#611.0411 
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

____________________________________ 

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 USDA over others not 

mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any 

product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report 

factually on available data and to provide specific information.