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

Veterinary Services 

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health December 2009 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Injection Practices on U.S. Beef 

Cow-calf Operations, 2007–08 

The U.S. beef industry has engaged in efforts to 

ensure the quality of beef products for many years. 

One such effort, the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) 

program, was built on the model of the Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP). The 

HACCP approach addresses a variety of issues 

ranging from antibiotic residues and food safety 

pathogens to injection blemishes in finished 

product. 

Based on the findings of the first National Beef 

Quality Audit in 1991, injection-site blemishes were 

identified as an issue of great concern to 

processors and purveyors of beef products. To 

address this issue, the industry facilitated a number 

of research efforts to define the cause (products or 

product types) of these blemishes and to identify 

effects on product quality other than appearance 

(e.g., tenderness, residues). In addition, the 

industry developed BQA-program components to 

eliminate injection blemishes to the extent possible. 

At the producer level, the BQA program 

encouraged use of subcutaneous injections in lieu 

of intramuscular injections whenever possible and 

also suggested that all injections should be given in 

the neck region. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National 

Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) 

conducted the Beef 2007–08 study, which focused 

on beef cow-calf health and management practices 

in 24 States.* These States represented 79.6 

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

percent of U.S. beef cows. 

One objective of the Beef 2007–08 study was to 

describe current injection practices on cow-calf 

operations and to compare those with injection 

practices reported from the previous NAHMS study 

of cow-calf operations conducted in 1997 

(Beef ’97). 

 

*States: 

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming. 

 

Injections given by operators and 

veterinarians 

The percentage of operations in which the 

operator or any unpaid or hired worker gave 

injections to any beef cattle during the previous 12 

months, and the percentage of cows that resided 

on these operations, increased from 1997 to 2007 

(table 1). 

Table 1. Percentage of Operations, and Percentage 

of Cows on These Operations, in which the Operator 

or Any Unpaid or Hired Worker Gave Injections to 

Beef Cattle During the Previous 12 Months 

 Beef ’971,2

Beef 

2007-083

Percent Percent 

Question 

variation 

Injections to 

any beef 

cattle 

Injections to any beef 

cows or unweaned 

calves 

Operations 66.9 81.5 

Cows 84.3 89.3 

1

Population: all cow-calf operations in 23 States. 

2

Data collected in Beef ’97 were for injections given in 1996. 

3

Population: all cow-calf operations in 24 States. 

 

There was no substantial change from 1997 to 

2007 in the percentage of operations in which a 

veterinarian gave injections to beef cattle during the 

previous 12 months, while the percentage of cows 

that resided on these operations decreased from 

1997 to 2007 (table 2). 
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

Table 2. Percentage of Operations, and Percentage 

of Cows on These Operations, in which a 

Veterinarian Gave Injections to Beef Cattle During 

the Previous 12 Months 

 Beef ’971,2

Beef 

2007-083

Percent Percent 

Question 

variation 

Injections to 

any beef 

cattle 

Injections to any beef 

cows or unweaned 

calves 

Operations 36.2 35.0 

Cows 48.4 38.5 

1

Population: all cow-calf operations in 23 States. 

2

Data collected in Beef ’97 were for injections given in 1996. 

3

Population: all cow-calf operations in 24 States. 

Route of injections 

From 1997 to 2007, the percentage of 

operations in which the operator or any unpaid or 

hired worker gave injections by the intramuscular 

route during the previous 12 months decreased and 

the percentage that gave injections by the 

subcutaneous route increased (figure 1). These 

changes may be due to BQA educational efforts 

and/or the increased availability of products labeled 

for subcutaneous use. 

0

20

40

60

80

Beef 2007-08

Beef '97 1, 2, 3

Figure 1. For Operations in which the Operator or Any 

Unpaid or Hired Worker Gave Injections to Beef Cattle

During the Previous 12 Months, Percentage of 

Operations that Gave One or More Injections, by Route 

of Injection

Percent

71.3

50.9

67.8

76.3

3

Route

Intramuscular Other Subcutaneous

0.3 0.4

Population: all cow-calf operations in 23 States. 1

Data collected in Beef '97 were for injections given in 1996. 2

Question variation: For 1997, injections given to any beef cattle; 

for 2007, injections given to any beef cows or unweaned calves.

3

The percentage of operations in which a 

veterinarian gave injections intramuscularly during 

the previous 12 months decreased from 1997 to 

2007, while the percentage of operations in which a 

veterinarian gave injections subcutaneously 

increased from 1997 to 2007 (figure 2). These 

changes may be due to BQA educational efforts 

and/or the increased availability of products 

(biologics or pharmaceuticals) labeled for 

subcutaneous use. 

0

20

40

60

80

Beef 2007-08

Beef '971, 2, 3

Figure 2. For Operations in which a Veterinarian Gave 

Injections to Beef Cattle During the Previous 12 

Months, Percentage of Operations that Gave One or More 

Injections, by Route of Injection

Percent

3

Route

Intramuscular Other Subcutaneous

Population: all cow-calf operations in 23 States. 1

Data collected in Beef '97 were for injections given in 1996. 2

Question variation: For 1997, injections given to any beef cattle; 

for 2007, injections given to any beef cows or unweaned calves.

3

72.5

53.1 53.7

66.0

1.1 0.3

Location and route of injections 

Importantly, the Beef 2007–08 study showed 

that when injections were given intramuscularly

by the operator or any unpaid or hired worker, the 

neck was the primary location used, a dramatic 

change from the intramuscular injection practices 

reported in the Beef ’97 study. The percentage of 

operations in which the operator or any unpaid or 

hired worker gave intramuscular injections in the 

neck region nearly doubled from 1997 to 2007. The 

percentages of operations by usual location for 

subcutaneous injections given by the operator or 

any unpaid or hired worker were similar in 1997 

and 2007 (table 3). 
United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture 

Table 3. For Operations in which the Operator or Any 

Unpaid or Hired Worker Gave Injections to Beef 

Cattle During the Previous 12 Months, Percentage of 

Operations by Usual Location and Route of Injection

 

 Beef ’971,2

Beef 

2007-083

 Percent Percent 

Question 

variation 

Injections to 

any beef 

cattle 

Injections to any beef 

cows or unweaned 

calves 

 Route Route 

Location IM SQ IM SQ 

Neck 35.2 78.1 64.7 84.4 

Shoulder 17.1 13.3 13.5 11.4 

Upper rear 

leg/hip 42.8 4.6 19.9 3.1 

Lower 

rear leg 4.6 1.7 1.8 0.2 

1

Population: all cow-calf operations in 23 States. 

2

Data collected in Beef ’97 were for injections given in 1996. 

3

Population: all cow-calf operations in 24 States. 

The percentage of operations in which a 

veterinarian usually gave intramuscular injections in 

the neck increased from 1997 to 2007, while the 

percentage of operations in which intramuscular 

injections were given in the upper rear leg 

decreased. For each injection location category, the 

percentages of operations by usual location for 

subcutaneous injections given by a veterinarian 

were similar for both studies (table 4). 

Table 4. For Operations in which a Veterinarian Gave 

Injections to Beef Cattle During the Previous 12 

Months, Percentage of Operations by Usual Location 

and Route of Injection 

 Beef ’971,2

Beef 

2007-083

 Percent Percent 

Question 

variation 

Injections to 

any beef 

cattle 

Injections to any beef 

cows or unweaned 

calves 

 Route Route 

Location IM SQ IM SQ 

Neck 49.8 82.2 76.8 87.0 

Shoulder 12.9 10.5 11.2 10.1 

Upper rear 

leg/hip 34.8 5.7 10.3 2.0 

Lower 

rear leg 2.1 0.8 1.7 0.0 

Summary 

The percentage of operations in which the 

operator or any unpaid or hired worker gave 

injections to any beef cattle during the previous 12 

months, and the percentage of cows that resided 

on these operations, increased from 1997 to 2007. 

There was no change from 1997 to 2007 in the 

percentage of operations in which a veterinarian 

gave injections to any beef cattle during the 

previous 12 months, while the percentage of cows 

that resided on these operations decreased from 

1997 to 2007. 

The percentage of operations in which the 

intramuscular route was used for injections given 

by the operator or a veterinarian decreased 

between 1997 and 2007. When the intramuscular 

route of injection was used by the operators or 

veterinarians in 2007, the majority of operations 

used the neck as the usual location for these 

injections. The same was true for the injections 

delivered by the subcutaneous route. Both the 

decreased use of the intramuscular route of 

injection and the shift to the neck as the primary 

site of injection for intramuscular and subcutaneous 

injections are in agreement with the BQA guidelines 

developed by the industry to enhance the quality 

and marketability of beef products. 

More information on injection practices is 

available in NAHMS’ “Beef 2007–08 Part III: 

Changes in the U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Industry, 1993–

2008” report, available at: http://nahms.usda.gov. 

____________________ 

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 

#N553.1209 

____________________________________ 

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.