United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

October 2008

Beef 2007-08

Part I: Reference of Beef Cow-calf Management

Practices in the United States, 2007–08
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.

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

#N512-1008

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.

Cover photo courtesy of Peggy Greb, Agricultural Research

Service
USDA APHIS VS / i

Acknowledgments

This report was a cooperative effort between two U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Agencies: the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Thanks to the NASS enumerators who contacted beef producers and collected

the data. Their hard work and dedication were invaluable. Thanks also to the

personnel at the USDA–APHIS–Veterinary Services’ Centers for Epidemiology

and Animal Health for their efforts in generating and distributing this report.

All participants are to be commended, particularly the producers whose voluntary

efforts made the Beef 2007-08 study possible.

Larry M. Granger

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
ii / Beef 2007-08

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2008. Beef 2007-08, Part I: Reference of Beef Cow-calf Management

Practices in the United States, 2007-08

USDA-APHIS-VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO

#N512-1008

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. David Dargatz (970) 494-7000

Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Kathy Snover (970) 494-7000

E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

Feedback

Feedback, comments, and suggestions regarding Beef 2007–08 study reports

are welcomed. Please forward correspondence via e-mail at:

NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov, or you may submit feedback via online survey at:

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov (Click on “FEEDBACK on NAHMS reports.”)
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Terms Used in This Report 3

Section I: Population Estimates 5

A. Management Practices 5

1. Marketing channels 5

2. Record-keeping systems 8

3. Information sources 10

4. Individual animal identification for cows 13

5. Individual animal identification for calves 17

6. Herd identification 21

7. National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and

 U.S. Animal Identification Number (AIN) 27

8. Contributions to income and labor input 29

9. Dehorning 32

10. Castration 37

11. Source of female replacements 41

B. Nutrition Management 42

1. Source of nutrition information 42

2. Implanting practices 44

3. Creep feeding 51

C. Productivity and Marketing 52

1. Weaning weight 52

2. Weaning age 53

3. Factors determining when to wean calves 55

4. Type of calves weaned 57

5. Information provided to buyers 57

6. Forward pricing 60

D. Beef Quality Assurance Program 62

1. Familiarity 62

2. Management practices 64

3. Certification 65

4. Standardized performance analysis 67

E. General Management 69

1. Water sources 69

2. Grazing 73

3. Fly and rodent control 76

4. Manure disposal 77

5. Equipment cleaning and sharing 78

6. Natural resource management 81
iv / Beef 2007-08

Section II: Methodology 83

A. Needs Assessment 83

B. Sampling and Estimation 84

1. State selection 84

2. Operation selection 84

3. Population inferences 84

C. Data Collection 85

1. Data collectors and data collection period 85

D. Data Analysis 85

1. Phase I: Validation—General Beef Management Report 85

E. Sample Evaluation 86

Appendix I: Sample Profile 87

Responding Operations 87

1. Total beef cow inventory, by herd size 87

2. Number of responding operations, by region 87

Appendix II: U.S. Beef Cow Population and Operations 88

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs 89
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is a nonregulatory

program of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service. NAHMS is designed to help meet the Nation’s

animal-health information needs and has collected data on cattle health and

management practices on cow-calf operations through two previous studies.

The NAHMS 1992-93 Cow-calf Health and Productivity Audit (CHAPA) provided

the first national information on the health and management of cattle on cow-calf

operations in the United States. While the study was in progress the media

began to report on “Mystery Calf Disease” throughout the United States. These

media reports stimulated requests from stakeholders for information on the

occurrence of this “new” disease—later referred to as weak calf syndrome. The

CHAPA study became one vehicle that provided estimates of the frequency of

occurrence and geographic distribution of the disease.

Information from the NAHMS Beef ‘97 study helped the U.S. beef industry

identify educational needs and prioritize research efforts on such timely topics as

antibiotic usage and Johne’s disease, as well as potential foodborne pathogens,

including Salmonella. Data from the Beef ’97 study were also critical in designing

the enhanced surveillance plan for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

The Beef 2007-08 study was conducted in 24 States (see map, next page) with

the largest beef cow populations and provides participants, stakeholders, and the

industry as a whole with valuable information representing 79.6 percent of U.S.

cow-calf operations and 87.8 percent of U.S. beef cows. Part I: Reference of

Beef Cow-calf Management Practices in the United States, 2007–08 is the first in

a series of reports containing national information from the NAHMS Beef 2007-

08 study. This report contains information collected from 2,872 cow-calf

operations.
Introduction

2 / Beef 2007-08
Introduction

USDA APHIS VS / 3

Terms Used in

This Report

Animal average: The average value for all animals; the single reported value for

each operation multiplied by the number of animals on that operation is summed

over all operations and divided by the number of animals on all operations. This

way, the result is adjusted for the number of animals on each operation. For an

example, see average age calves were dehorned on p 35.

Beef cow: Female bovine that has calved at least once.

Beef heifer: Female bovine that has not yet calved.

Born alive: Calves born alive and surviving at least 2 hours after birth.

Calf crop percentage: Number of cows and heifers calving divided by number

of cows and heifers exposed. The number exposed was adjusted by subtracting

the number of cows or heifers exposed or artificially inseminated and that died,

were sold, or moved off the operation before calving, and adding the number of

cows or heifers exposed or artificially inseminated that were brought onto the

operation for calving in 2007.

Creep feed: Supplementation of unweaned calves with a feed source not

available to mother cows. Supplement may be high energy and/or high protein,

free choice, or limit fed.

Forward pricing: A way for cattle sellers and buyers to contract for a price on

their livestock ahead of an expected sale date. When used properly, forward

pricing can reduce price risk. A forward pricing contract is a legal, binding

commitment between a buyer and a seller. The contract guarantees a price for a

specified amount and quality of product to be delivered at a certain time to a

place specified in the contract.

Herd size: Herd size is based on October 1, 2007, cow inventory. If there were

no cows on October 1, 2007, then July 1, 2007 cow inventory was used.

Operation: Premises with at least one beef cow on October 1, 2007, or July 1,

2007.

Operation average: The average value for all operations; a single value for each

operation is summed over all operations reporting divided by the number of

operations reporting. For example, operation average age that calves were

dehorned (shown on p 35) is calculated by summing reported average age over

all operations divided by the number of operations.
Introduction

4 / Beef 2007-08

Population estimates: Estimates in this report are provided with a measure of

precision called the standard error. A 95-percent confidence interval can be

created with bounds equal to the estimate, plus or minus two standard errors. If

the only error is sampling error, the confidence intervals created in this manner

will contain the true population mean 95 out of 100 times. In the example to the

left, an estimate of 7.5 with a standard error of 1.0 results in limits of 5.5 to 9.5

(two times the standard error above and below the estimate). The second

estimate of 3.4 shows a standard error of 0.3 and results in limits of 2.8 and 4.0.

Alternatively, the 90-percent confidence interval would be created by multiplying

the standard error by 1.65 instead of 2. Most estimates in this report are rounded

to the nearest tenth. If rounded to 0, the standard error was reported (0.0). If

there were no reports of the event, no standard error was reported (—).

Regions:

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

Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the operations from

which Beef 2007-08 data were collected.

Standard Errors

(1.0)

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 (0.3)

Examples of a 95% Confidence Interval

95% Confidence

Intervals
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

USDA APHIS VS / 5

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Management

Practices

1. Marketing channels

Producers were asked to report whether they used specific production practices

to target marketing channels for calves. Overall, the highest percentage of

operations used specific management practices to target conventional markets

followed by natural market channels. A higher percentage of operations with 200

or more beef cows utilized specific production practices to target a breedinfluenced program compared with operations in the other size categories. Only

5.2 percent of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows used age-and-source

verification markets, while 29.0 percent of operations with 200 or more beef cows

did so. Similar percentages of operations with 50 to 99 and 100 to 199 cows

used specific management practices to target age-and-source verification

markets (11.7 and 14.9 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations that used specific production practices to target the

following marketing channels for calves produced, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Marketing 

Channel Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Breedinfluenced 

program 11.7 (1.2) 15.9 (2.1) 16.1 (2.0) 28.6 (2.6) 13.6 (1.0) 

Age-and-source 

verification 

program 5.2 (0.8) 11.7 (1.8) 14.9 (1.8) 29.0 (2.3) 8.2 (0.7) 

Conventional 60.5 (1.8) 68.7 (2.6) 68.4 (2.7) 67.8 (2.4) 62.8 (1.4) 

Natural 28.8 (1.7) 25.3 (2.6) 24.4 (2.4) 30.8 (2.5) 28.0 (1.3) 

Certified 

organic* 1.2 (0.4) 0.2 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 1.3 (0.5) 1.0 (0.3) 

Other 1.4 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) 2.6 (0.9) 2.3 (0.7) 1.5 (0.3) 

*Operation certified by USDA. 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

6 / Beef 2007-08
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

A lower percentage of operations in the South Central and East regions (5.9 and

5.6 percent, respectively) used age-and-source verification programs than

operations in the West and Central regions (16.3 and 11.5 percent, respectively).

About 7 of 10 operations in the Central region (73.8 percent) used specific

management practices to target conventional marketing channels. A higher

percentage of operations in the West region used specific management

practices to target natural markets than operations in the East region (36.9 and

23.7 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations that used specific production practices to target the

following marketing channels for calves produced, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Marketing 

Channel Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Breed-influenced 

program 23.0 (3.3) 16.1 (1.9) 11.5 (1.8) 11.0 (1.5) 

Age-and-source 

verification 

program 16.3 (2.5) 11.5 (1.5) 5.9 (1.3) 5.6 (1.0) 

Conventional 56.7 (3.9) 73.8 (2.2) 57.7 (2.9) 60.9 (2.3) 

Natural 36.9 (3.9) 24.9 (2.3) 32.6 (2.7) 23.7 (2.0) 

Certified organic* 2.8 (1.3) 0.7 (0.5) 1.3 (0.7) 0.4 (0.3) 

Other 2.0 (1.1) 2.4 (0.7) 1.3 (0.7) 0.7 (0.4) 

*Operation certified by USDA.
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

8 / Beef 2007-08

2. Record-keeping systems

The majority of operations (83.3 percent) kept some form of records, and over

90 percent of operations with 100 or more cows kept records. Across herd sizes,

over three-fourths 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. 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.

a. Percentage of operations by record-keeping system used and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Recordkeeping 

System Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hand-written 

records (e.g., 

ledger, 

notebook, 

pocket diary) 76.2 (1.6) 80.8 (2.4) 89.1 (1.7) 88.5 (1.7) 78.6 (1.2) 

Computer 

on operation 13.3 (1.3) 24.5 (2.6) 21.8 (2.3) 37.4 (2.5) 17.0 (1.0) 

Computer 

off operation 2.0 (0.5) 4.2 (1.2) 3.7 (1.0) 10.8 (1.4) 2.9 (0.4) 

Any of above 80.5 (1.5) 87.0 (2.0) 93.6 (1.2) 95.0 (1.2) 83.3 (1.1) 
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

Hand-written records 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). Operations in the West

region reported a higher percentage use of on-farm computer records (28.7

percent) than operations in the South Central or East regions (14.7 and 13.5

percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations by record-keeping system used and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Recordkeeping 

System Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hand-written 

records (e.g., 

ledger, 

notebook, 

pocket diary) 82.3 (3.5) 86.2 (1.9) 77.1 (2.5) 73.3 (2.1) 

Computer on 

operation 28.7 (3.6) 20.3 (2.0) 14.7 (2.0) 13.5 (1.6) 

Computer 

off operation 5.2 (1.7) 2.7 (0.7) 4.0 (1.0) 1.6 (0.5) 

Any of above 88.2 (3.1) 90.6 (1.6) 82.2 (2.3) 77.6 (2.0) 

Photo courtesy of Dr. Dave Dargatz
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

10 / Beef 2007-08

3. Information sources

Producers were asked about the sources they used for general information and

for breeding and genetics information. More operations considered veterinarians

a very important source for both general information and breeding and genetics

information (53.1 and 45.2 percent, respectively) than any other information

source. Only 4.9 percent of operations considered consultants a very important

source of general information, and only 6.9 percent considered Internet sources

as very important sources of general information.

a. Percentage of operations by importance of the following information sources

to operating the cow-calf operation, and by type of information:

Percent Operations 

Type of Information 

General Information Breeding and Genetics Information 

Not 

Important 

Somewhat 

Important 

Very 

Important 

 Not 

Important 

Somewhat 

Important 

Very 

Important 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Extension 

service, 

university, or 

VoAg 

instructors 35.8 (1.4) 43.5 (1.4) 20.7 (1.1) 100.0 44.7 (1.4) 38.0 (1.4) 17.3 (1.1) 100.0 

Veterinarians 15.2 (1.1) 31.7 (1.3) 53.1 (1.4) 100.0 22.5 (1.2) 32.3 (1.3) 45.2 (1.4) 100.0 

Beef 

magazines, 

agricultural 

journals, or 

publications 36.5 (1.4) 47.2 (1.4) 16.3 (1.0) 100.0 40.2 (1.4) 44.3 (1.4) 15.5 (1.0) 100.0 

Producer/breed 

associations 55.7 (1.4) 31.1 (1.3) 13.2 (0.9) 100.0 55.5 (1.4) 29.3 (1.3) 15.2 (1.0) 100.0 

Other 

producers 31.1 (1.4) 45.2 (1.4) 23.7 (1.2) 100.0 33.4 (1.4) 44.2 (1.4) 22.4 (1.2) 100.0 

Salespersons 

or company 

representatives 56.8 (1.4) 31.5 (1.3) 11.7 (0.9) 100.0 59.0 (1.4) 30.0 (1.3) 11.0 (0.9) 100.0 

Consultants 82.9 (1.1) 12.2 (0.9) 4.9 (0.6) 100.0 83.3 (1.0) 12.5 (0.9) 4.2 (0.6) 100.0 

Radio, TV, or 

newspaper 67.9 (1.3) 26.3 (1.2) 5.8 (0.7) 100.0 70.3 (1.3) 24.1 (1.2) 5.6 (0.7) 100.0 

Internet 73.3 (1.2) 19.8 (1.1) 6.9 (0.7) 100.0 74.3 (1.2) 19.1 (1.1) 6.6 (0.7) 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

12 / Beef 2007-08

Of all operations, the majority (54.3 percent) considered veterinarians very

important sources for either general or breeding and genetics information. The

lowest percentage of operations considered consultants (5.1 percent), radio, TV,

or newspaper (6.3 percent), and Internet sources (7.5 percent) very important

sources of either general or breeding and genetics information.

b. Percentage of operations in which the following sources were very important

to operating the cow-calf operation for either general or breeding and genetics

information, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Extension 

service, 

university, or 

VoAg instructors 21.1 (1.5) 26.6 (2.6) 23.6 (2.5) 20.6 (2.1) 22.1 (1.2) 

Veterinarians 52.0 (1.9) 57.4 (2.9) 63.7 (2.7) 63.4 (2.6) 54.3 (1.4) 

Beef magazines, 

agricultural 

journals, or 

publications 15.6 (1.4) 23.5 (2.4) 21.3 (2.4) 21.6 (2.2) 17.6 (1.1) 

Producer/breed 

associations 13.3 (1.2) 20.4 (2.3) 25.7 (2.6) 23.9 (2.4) 15.9 (1.0) 

Other producers 25.3 (1.6) 23.0 (2.4) 25.2 (2.5) 25.8 (2.6) 25.0 (1.2) 

Salespersons or 

company 

representatives 11.7 (1.2) 14.0 (2.0) 19.1 (2.2) 15.8 (1.8) 12.8 (0.9) 

Consultants 4.8 (0.8) 6.0 (1.4) 4.2 (1.0) 6.8 (1.2) 5.1 (0.6) 

Radio, TV, or 

newspaper 6.3 (0.9) 6.7 (1.3) 7.0 (1.4) 4.8 (1.0) 6.3 (0.7) 

Internet 7.4 (1.0) 7.5 (1.6) 9.5 (1.7) 7.3 (1.2) 7.5 (0.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

4. Individual animal identification for cows

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. Plastic ear tags were the most common single type of

individual cow ID for operations and individual cows (50.4 and 57.5 percent,

respectively). Electronic ID or microchips were used on only 0.8 percent of

operations and 1.2 percent of individual cows.

a. Percentage of operations by type of individual animal ID used on at least

some cows, and percentage of cows by type of individual animal ID used:

Individual ID Type 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 12.2 (0.8) 20.5 (1.1) 

Freeze brand 2.4 (0.4) 3.9 (0.6) 

Ear notch 4.8 (0.5) 9.8 (0.9) 

Electronic ID or microchip 

responder 0.8 (0.2) 1.2 (0.3) 

Brucellosis vaccination 

ear tag (Bang’s tag) 24.2 (1.1) 38.1 (1.2) 

Other metal ear tag 1.6 (0.3) 2.1 (0.4) 

Plastic ear tag 50.4 (1.4) 57.5 (1.3) 

Ear tattoo (other than for 

brucellosis vaccination) 8.1 (0.7) 7.7 (0.6) 

Other method 0.7 (0.2) 0.9 (0.2) 

Any ID 66.1 (1.4) 79.1 (1.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

14 / Beef 2007-08
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

The percentage of operations that used any form of individual animal ID ranged

from 59.3 percent of operations with 1 to 49 cows to 89.1 percent of operations

with 200 or more. Plastic ear tags were the most common type of individual

animal ID across all herd sizes.

b. Percentage of operations by type of individual animal ID used on at least

some cows, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

Individual 

ID Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 9.1 (1.1) 16.8 (2.1) 21.6 (2.4) 27.7 (2.2) 

Freeze brand 1.1 (0.4) 4.5 (1.1) 6.8 (1.3) 8.3 (1.3) 

Ear notch 2.9 (0.6) 7.8 (1.6) 10.2 (1.8) 14.1 (1.7) 

Electronic ID 

or microchip 

responder 0.3 (0.2) 2.0 (0.9) 2.1 (0.8) 2.4 (0.8) 

Brucellosis 

vaccination ear 

tag (Bang’s 

tag) 18.4 (1.4) 31.0 (2.6) 41.4 (2.8) 56.7 (2.5) 

Other metal 

ear tag 1.3 (0.4) 2.1 (0.8) 2.9 (1.0) 3.1 (0.8) 

Plastic ear tag 44.3 (1.8) 65.4 (2.8) 67.5 (2.7) 64.2 (2.5) 

Ear tattoo 

(other than for 

brucellosis 

vaccination) 7.1 (0.9) 11.1 (1.9) 8.3 (1.5) 12.4 (1.6) 

Other method 0.5 (0.3) 0.8 (0.4) 1.5 (0.6) 1.5 (0.6) 

Any ID 59.3 (1.8) 80.4 (2.3) 85.0 (2.0) 89.1 (1.6) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

16 / Beef 2007-08

On operations with 200 or more beef cows, nearly 9 of 10 cows (88.8 percent)

had individual ID of any type, compared with about 6 of 10 cows (60.5 percent)

on operations with 1 to 49 beef cows. Plastic ear tag was the type of individual

animal ID used on the highest percentage of cows across herd sizes.

c. Percentage of cows by type of individual animal ID used, and by herd size:

Percent Cows 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

Individual 

ID Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 9.5 (1.2) 15.0 (2.0) 20.9 (2.5) 30.2 (2.4) 

Freeze brand 0.4 (0.2) 1.1 (0.3) 4.2 (1.0) 7.4 (1.4) 

Ear notch 2.2 (0.6) 7.2 (1.4) 10.4 (2.0) 15.8 (1.9) 

Electronic ID 

or microchip 

responder 0.2 (0.1) 0.7 (0.4) 1.3 (0.5) 2.2 (0.8) 

Brucellosis 

vaccination ear 

tag (Bang’s 

tag) 18.6 (1.6) 28.7 (2.4) 38.6 (2.6) 55.4 (2.5) 

Other metal 

ear tag 0.9 (0.3) 1.6 (0.6) 1.7 (0.6) 3.3 (0.8) 

Plastic ear tag 46.1 (2.1) 62.9 (2.7) 65.1 (2.8) 58.8 (2.5) 

Ear tattoo 

(other than for 

brucellosis 

vaccination) 6.0 (1.0) 6.9 (1.3) 5.1 (1.1) 10.6 (1.4) 

Other method 0.5 (0.3) 0.7 (0.4) 0.6 (0.3) 1.4 (0.5) 

Any ID 60.5 (2.0) 78.9 (2.2) 84.7 (1.9) 88.8 (1.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

Individual ID Type 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Calves 

Standard 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 5.4 (0.6) 11.8 (1.1) 

Freeze brand 0.7 (0.2) 1.1 (0.4) 

Ear notch 5.6 (0.6) 11.2 (1.0) 

Electronic ID or 

microchip responder 0.7 (0.2) 2.9 (0.7) 

Brucellosis vaccination 

ear tag (Bang’s tag) 8.5 (0.7) 12.3 (1.0) 

Other metal ear tag 1.1 (0.3) 2.0 (0.5) 

Plastic ear tag 37.7 (1.3) 50.2 (1.4) 

Ear tattoo (other than for 

brucellosis vaccination) 5.2 (0.6) 5.6 (0.7) 

Other method 0.3 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 

Any ID 46.7 (1.4) 64.8 (1.3) 

5. Individual animal identification for calves

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 calf ID was a plastic ear tag for

operations (37.7 percent) and individual calves (50.2 percent). Electronic ID or

microchip responder were used for calves on only 0.7 percent of operations and

2.9 percent of individual calves.

b. Percentage of operations by type of individual animal ID used on at least

some calves, and percentage of calves by type of individual animal ID used:

(Table was revised post-production—01/30/09)
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

18 / Beef 2007-08
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

About 4 of 10 operations with 1 to 49 cows (39.1 percent) used individual animal

ID on at least some calves, compared with about 6 to 7 of 10 operations in the

other herd-size categories. Use of a hot-iron brand as a type of individual animal

ID ranged from 3.7 percent of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows to 15.7 percent

of operations with 200 or more.

b. Percentage of operations by type of individual animal ID used on at least

some calves, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

Individual 

ID Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 3.7 (0.7) 7.5 (1.5) 10.3 (1.9) 15.7 (1.7) 

Freeze brand 0.6 (0.3) 0.7 (0.4) 1.0 (0.5) 1.9 (0.6) 

Ear notch 3.1 (0.7) 9.8 (1.8) 10.9 (1.8) 18.7 (1.9) 

Electronic ID 

or microchip 

responder 0.1 (0.1) 1.7 (0.8) 1.9 (0.7) 3.7 (0.9) 

Brucellosis 

vaccination ear 

tag (Bang’s 

tag) 6.1 (0.9) 12.6 (1.9) 15.3 (2.1) 19.3 (2.3) 

Other metal 

ear tag 0.7 (0.3) 1.4 (0.7) 2.4 (0.9) 2.3 (0.7) 

Plastic ear tag 31.8 (1.7) 51.2 (2.9) 57.0 (2.9) 49.8 (2.6) 

Ear tattoo 

(other than for 

brucellosis 

vaccination) 4.8 (0.8) 6.3 (1.4) 5.4 (1.3) 7.8 (1.3) 

Other method 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.3) 0.5 (0.3) 

Any ID 39.1 (1.8) 62.3 (2.8) 68.3 (2.7) 71.4 (2.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

20 / Beef 2007-08

As with cows, a plastic ear tag was the most common type of individual animal

ID for calves across all herd sizes.

d. Percentage of calves by type of individual animal ID used on at least some

calves, and by herd size: (Table was revised post-production—1/30/2009)

Percent Calves 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

Individual 

ID Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 4.1 (0.9) 7.8 (1.7) 10.9 (2.4) 18.8 (2.2) 

Freeze brand 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3) 2.3 (1.0) 

Ear notch 3.5 (0.9) 9.1 (1.8) 10.3 (2.2) 17.2 (2.0) 

Electronic ID 

or microchip 

responder 0.0 (0.0) 1.7 (0.7) 2.2 (0.9) 5.5 (1.6) 

Brucellosis 

vaccination ear 

tag (Bang’s 

tag) 5.6 (1.0) 10.7 (1.9) 13.3 (1.9) 16.5 (2.0) 

Other metal 

ear tag 0.9 (0.4) 1.2 (0.8) 2.6 (1.0) 2.7 (1.0) 

Plastic ear tag 36.2 (2.2) 52.7 (3.1) 59.1 (3.0) 53.1 (2.7) 

Ear tattoo 

(other than for 

brucellosis 

vaccination) 4.6 (0.9) 3.4 (0.9) 4.2 (1.1) 7.9 (1.4) 

Other method 0.4 (0.3) 0.4 (0.4) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 

Any ID 44.4 (2.3) 63.7 (2.9) 71.9 (2.7) 74.2 (2.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

6. Herd identification

A herd ID is the same identification applied to all the cattle and calves in the

herd. Branding all animals in the herd with the same brand registered to the

operation is an example of herd ID. Only 40.4 percent of operations used some

form of herd ID, and 61.3 percent of cattle and calves had some form of herd ID.

Hot-iron branding and plastic ear tag were the most common types of herd ID for

operations (23.8 and 20.4 percent of operations, respectively). Similarly, hot-iron

branding was the most common type of herd ID for cattle and calves followed by

plastic ear tag (44.8 and 27.6 percent of cattle and calves, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations and percentage of cattle and calves on October 1,

2007, by type of herd ID used (all animals have the same ID):

Herd ID Type 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cattle and 

Calves 

Standard 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 23.8 (1.1) 44.8 (1.5) 

Freeze brand 1.1 (0.3) 1.0 (0.2) 

Ear notch 7.8 (0.7) 16.2 (1.6) 

Electronic ID or microchip 

responder 0.2 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 

Metal ear tag other 

than Bang’s tag 1.0 (0.3) 1.1 (0.3) 

Plastic ear tag 20.4 (1.1) 27.6 (1.6) 

Ear tattoo (other than for 

brucellosis vaccination) 2.6 (0.4) 3.2 (0.5) 

Other method 0.2 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 

Any ID 40.4 (1.3) 61.3 (1.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

22 / Beef 2007-08
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

The percentage of operations that used any form of herd ID increased as herd

size increased, as did the percentage that used a hot-iron brand for herd ID. The

percentage of operations that used plastic ear tags for herd ID ranged from

16.4 percent of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows to 33.1 percent of operations

with 200 or more.

b. Percentage of operations by type of herd ID used (all animals have the same

ID), and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

Herd ID Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 16.5 (1.3) 33.2 (2.7) 46.9 (2.8) 62.0 (2.4) 

Freeze brand 0.7 (0.3) 1.8 (0.7) 1.4 (0.6) 3.6 (1.2) 

Ear notch 4.9 (0.8) 11.4 (1.9) 17.7 (2.3) 20.9 (1.9) 

Electronic ID 

or microchip 

responder 0.0 (--) 0.6 (0.4) 0.6 (0.4) 1.8 (1.0) 

Metal ear tag 

other than 

Bang’s tag 1.0 (0.4) 0.8 (0.5) 1.6 (0.7) 1.1 (0.4) 

Plastic ear tag 16.4 (1.4) 28.7 (2.6) 31.8 (2.7) 33.1 (2.6) 

Ear tattoo 

(other than for 

brucellosis 

vaccination) 1.9 (0.5) 4.7 (1.2) 2.7 (1.0) 6.2 (1.4) 

Other method 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 1.3 (0.6) 0.6 (0.3) 

Any ID 31.4 (1.7) 54.7 (2.8) 69.3 (2.6) 77.8 (2.1) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

24 / Beef 2007-08

The percentage of cattle and calves that had any form of herd ID increased as

operation size increased, ranging from 34.8 percent on operations with 1 to 49

beef cows to 77.8 percent on operations with 200 or more. The percentages of

cattle and calves that had plastic ear tags were similar across herd sizes, but use

of hot-iron branding for herd ID increased as herd size increased.

c. Percentage of cattle and calves on October 1, 2007, by type of herd ID used

(all animals have the same ID), and by herd size:

Percent Cattle and Calves 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

Herd ID Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 21.1 (4.5) 35.7 (2.9) 48.0 (3.0) 64.1 (2.5) 

Freeze brand 0.4 (0.2) 1.1 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3) 1.6 (0.5) 

Ear notch 9.9 (4.9) 12.2 (2.2) 15.4 (2.2) 22.9 (2.2) 

Electronic ID 

or microchip 

responder 0.0 (--) 0.6 (0.4) 0.3 (0.2) 1.1 (0.6) 

Metal ear tag 

other than 

Bang’s tag 0.9 (0.4) 0.4 (0.3) 1.6 (0.7) 1.3 (0.5) 

Plastic ear tag 20.7 (4.5) 27.8 (2.7) 32.5 (3.0) 29.9 (2.5) 

Ear tattoo 

(other than for 

brucellosis 

vaccination) 1.6 (0.5) 3.7 (1.1) 2.0 (0.7) 4.5 (1.0) 

Other method 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 0.9 (0.5) 0.5 (0.3) 

Any ID 34.8 (4.1) 55.8 (3.0) 70.5 (2.8) 77.8 (2.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

Overall, a higher percentage of operations in the West region used any type of

herd ID compared with the other regions. Hot-iron brand was used by

71.4 percent of operations in the West region compared with 22.8, 34.0 and

2.8 percent of operations in the Central, South Central, and East regions,

respectively.

d. Percentage of operations by type of herd ID used (all animals have the same

ID), and by region:

Percent Operations

Region

West Central South Central East 

Herd ID Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 71.4 (3.7) 22.8 (1.7) 34.0 (2.7) 2.8 (0.7) 

Freeze brand 1.9 (1.1) 1.9 (0.6) 1.2 (0.6) 0.2 (0.1) 

Ear notch 18.1 (2.9) 4.9 (0.9) 12.7 (1.8) 2.6 (0.6) 

Electronic ID or 

microchip 

responder 0.2 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.2) 

Metal ear tag 

other than 

Bang’s tag 1.4 (0.7) 0.8 (0.5) 1.6 (0.7) 0.5 (0.3) 

Plastic ear tag 25.6 (3.3) 24.6 (2.1) 18.5 (2.2) 17.6 (1.7) 

Ear tattoo 

(other than for 

brucellosis 

vaccination) 4.4 (1.4) 3.9 (1.0) 1.9 (0.7) 1.9 (0.6) 

Other method 0.6 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.3) 

Any ID 74.3 (3.7) 42.5 (2.3) 49.5 (2.9) 21.7 (1.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

26 / Beef 2007-08

The West region had the highest percentage of cattle and calves with any form

of herd ID (84.8 percent) and the East region had the lowest percentage

(33.1 percent). The percentage of cattle and calves with any form of herd ID was

similar in the Central region and the South Central region (61.5 and 65.7 percent,

respectively). Hot-iron branding as a method of herd ID was most common in the

West region and least common in the East region (82.8 and 9.0 percent of cattle

and calves, respectively).

e. Percentage of cattle and calves on October 1, 2007, by type of herd ID used

(all animals have the same ID), and by region:

Percent Cattle and Calves 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Herd ID Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Hot-iron brand 82.8 (4.7) 39.9 (2.2) 50.9 (2.8) 9.0 (1.6) 

Freeze brand 0.4 (0.3) 1.8 (0.5) 0.8 (0.4) 0.6 (0.4) 

Ear notch 33.1 (5.6) 7.5 (1.3) 23.6 (2.8) 5.8 (1.1) 

Electronic ID 

or microchip 

responder 0.5 (0.4) 0.7 (0.6) 0.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.4) 

Metal ear tag 

other than 

Bang’s tag 1.9 (0.9) 0.9 (0.4) 1.0 (0.4) 0.6 (0.3) 

Plastic ear tag 32.2 (5.7) 32.0 (2.4) 20.5 (2.2) 23.6 (2.1) 

Ear tattoo 

(other than for 

brucellosis 

vaccination) 2.8 (1.0) 4.5 (1.1) 1.8 (0.6) 2.8 (0.7) 

Other method 0.6 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.4) 0.4 (0.3) 

Any ID 84.8 (4.7) 61.5 (2.3) 65.7 (2.6) 33.1 (2.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

7. National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and U.S. Animal

Identification Number (AIN)

NAIS is a voluntary program that facilitates the collection of information about all

livestock operations, regardless of livestock species. This information is stored in

a database for use during animal disease events. NAIS is designed to allow

animal tracking during disease outbreaks so that sick or exposed animals can be

quickly located to help contain the disease. Although the program was designed

by USDA, each State is responsible for its implementation. A unique premises ID

is assigned by each State’s Department of Agriculture to all operations enrolled in

NAIS.

The smallest herd size (fewer than 50 beef cows) had the lowest percentage of

operations with a unique NAIS premises ID (11.7 percent) compared with

operations with 50 or more beef cows. The percentages of operations with a

unique NAIS premises ID were similar for all herd sizes with 50 or more cows.

a. Percentage of operations with a unique NAIS premises ID assigned by their

State Department of Agriculture, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

11.7 (1.2) 25.1 (2.6) 27.5 (2.6) 29.7 (2.3) 16.0 (1.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

28 / Beef 2007-08

Once an NAIS premises ID is obtained, an operation has the option of obtaining

officially recognized individual animal ID, as outlined in AIN guidelines.

Among operations that had a unique NAIS premises ID, a higher percentage with

200 or more cows had implemented an individual ID system utilizing AIN

guidelines than those with fewer than 100 cows.

c. For operations with a unique NAIS premises ID, percentage of operations that

had implemented an individual animal ID system utilizing AIN guidelines, by herd

size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

6.8 (3.0) 5.5 (2.7) 18.8 (4.7) 22.6 (3.7) 9.6 (1.8) 

A higher percentage of operations in the Central region had a unique NAIS

premises ID (20.2 percent) compared with operations in the South Central region

(11.6 percent).

b. Percentage of operations with a unique NAIS premises ID assigned by their

State Department of Agriculture, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

14.7 (2.6) 20.2 (1.9) 11.6 (1.8) 17.1 (1.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

The percentages of operations that implemented an individual ID system utilizing

AIN guidelines were similar across all regions.

d. For operations with a unique NAIS premises ID, percentage of operations that

had implemented an individual animal ID system utilizing AIN guidelines, by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

8.3 (3.4) 9.6 (2.4) 15.2 (6.3) 6.6 (2.1) 

8. Contributions to income and labor input

The majority of operations (71.9 percent) reported that the cow-calf operation

was a supplemental source of income. The percentage of operations in which

the cow-calf operation was the primary source of income increased as herd size

increased. Overall, 13.8 percent of operations operated for reasons other than

primary or supplemental income, such as pleasure.

a. Percentage of operations by reason for operating the cow-calf operation and

by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Reason Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Primary 

source of 

income 5.3 (0.8) 24.1 (2.5) 42.8 (2.8) 65.0 (2.6) 14.3 (0.7) 

Supplemental 

source of 

income 78.0 (1.5) 68.3 (2.7) 50.9 (2.9) 31.7 (2.6) 71.9 (1.2) 

Other 16.7 (1.4) 7.6 (1.5) 6.3 (1.8) 3.3 (0.9) 13.8 (1.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

30 / Beef 2007-08

The cow-calf operation was a primary source of income on a higher percentage

of operations in the West and Central regions (24.6 and 21.0 percent,

respectively) than for operations in the South Central and East regions (11.3 and

9.3 percent, respectively). Only about 1 of 10 operations in the Central region

(9.0 percent) operated cow-calf operations for reasons other than primary or

supplemental incomes.

b. Percentage of operations by reason for operating the cow-calf operation and

by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Reason Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Primary source 

of income 24.6 (2.1) 21.0 (1.6) 11.3 (1.4) 9.3 (1.1) 

Supplemental 

source of 

income 55.4 (3.8) 70.0 (2.2) 73.8 (2.5) 76.0 (2.0) 

Other 20.0 (3.6) 9.0 (1.7) 14.9 (2.2) 14.7 (1.7) 

Operators were asked to consider all the hours worked on and off farm and then

estimate the percentage of work time devoted to the cow-calf operation.

The operation average percentage of the operator’s work time devoted to the

cow-calf operation increased as herd size increased, ranging from 28.9 percent

of operations with fewer than 50 beef cows to 68.2 percent of operations with

200 or more.
USDA APHIS VS / 31

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

c. Operation average percentage of operator’s work time devoted to the cow-calf

operation, by herd size:

Operation Average Percent 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

28.9 (1.0) 47.3 (1.8) 55.5 (1.9) 68.2 (1.8) 35.9 (0.8) 

Operations in the West region devoted a higher percentage of work time to the

cow-calf operation than did operations in the other regions.

d. Operation average percentage of operator’s work time devoted to the cow-calf

operation, by region:

Operation Average Percent 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

46.1 (2.8) 37.6 (1.5) 32.2 (1.6) 35.3 (1.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

32 / Beef 2007-08

A higher percentage of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows had operators that

devoted less than 25.0 percent of their time to the cow-calf operation compared

with operations with 50 or more beef cows.

e. Percentage of operations by percentage of operator’s work time devoted to the

cow-calf operation, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Percent Time Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 25.0 57.8 (1.8) 27.4 (2.6) 19.0 (2.5) 11.5 (2.2) 47.6 (1.4) 

25.0 to 49.9 19.4 (1.5) 26.9 (2.6) 22.7 (2.4) 15.4 (1.9) 20.6 (1.1) 

50.0 to 74.9 10.8 (1.1) 19.9 (2.4) 21.7 (2.3) 18.8 (2.0) 13.5 (0.9) 

75.0 to 99.9 3.7 (0.7) 7.2 (1.3) 14.1 (2.0) 19.3 (2.0) 5.9 (0.6) 

100.0 8.3 (1.0) 18.6 (2.3) 22.5 (2.3) 35.0 (2.4) 12.4 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

9. Dehorning

Nearly twice the percentage of calves born alive in the South Central region had

or were expected to have horns, compared with the other regions.

a. Percentage of calves born alive during 2007 that had or were expected to

have horns, by region:

Percent Calves 

Region 

West Central 

South 

Central East 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

11.1 (1.3) 7.1 (0.7) 22.8 (1.5) 9.8 (1.1) 12.4 (0.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

The East region had the highest percentage of operations in which no calves had

or were expected to have horns. The percentage of operations in which all calves

had or were expected to have horns was higher in the South Central region than

in the East region.

b. Percentage of operations by percentage of calves born alive in 2007 that had

or were expected to have horns, and by region:

Operations in the West and Central regions dehorned a higher percentage of

calves in 2007 (73.8 and 67.3 percent, respectively) than operations in the East

and South Central regions (39.5 and 35.8 percent, respectively).

c. Of calves born alive in 2007 that had or were expected to have horns,

percentage that were or would be dehorned on the operation, by region:

Percent Calves 

Region 

West Central 

South 

Central East 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

73.8 (5.7) 67.3 (4.3) 35.8 (3.5) 39.5 (6.0) 48.8 (2.4) 

Percent Operations 

Region 

 West Central 

South 

Central East 

All 

Operations 

Percent Calves Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 55.2 (3.9) 68.3 (2.3) 50.3 (2.9) 74.9 (2.0) 63.8 (1.3) 

0.1 to 24.9 25.9 (3.4) 20.2 (1.9) 18.3 (2.1) 15.7 (1.7) 18.6 (1.0) 

25.0 to 49.9 3.2 (1.0) 4.1 (1.0) 7.9 (1.5) 2.5 (0.6) 4.6 (0.6) 

50.0 to 74.9 5.1 (1.8) 3.2 (0.9) 10.0 (1.7) 2.8 (0.8) 5.3 (0.7) 

75.0 to 99.9 2.6 (1.3) 0.2 (0.1) 4.2 (1.1) 1.3 (0.5) 2.1 (0.4) 

100.0 8.0 (2.4) 4.0 (1.1) 9.3 (1.8) 2.8 (0.8) 5.6 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

34 / Beef 2007-08

About 6 of 10 operations in the South Central and East regions (62.9 and

60.8 percent, respectively) did not dehorn any horned calves during 2007,

compared with about 3 of 10 operations in the West and Central regions (31.0

and 26.3 percent, respectively). Conversely, a higher percentage of operations in

the West and Central regions dehorned all calves born with horns, compared

with operations in the South Central and East regions. Regardless of region,

most operations either dehorned all or none of their calves.

d. Percentage of operations by percentage of horned calves born alive during

2007 that were or would be dehorned on the operation, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 West Central 

South 

Central East 

All 

Operations 

Percent 

Calves Dehorned Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 31.0 (5.9) 26.3 (4.1) 62.9 (3.8) 60.8 (4.3) 50.7 (2.3) 

0.1 to 24.9 5.2 (2.3) 8.9 (2.1) 11.0 (2.3) 6.2 (2.1) 8.7 (1.2) 

25.0 to 49.9 0.4 (0.3) 1.3 (0.8) 2.2 (1.2) 0.2 (0.2) 1.3 (0.5) 

50.0 to 74.9 4.1 (2.6) 3.0 (1.3) 3.3 (1.5) 2.9 (1.4) 3.2 (0.8) 

75.0 to 99.9 1.7 (0.9) 1.6 (1.0) 1.7 (1.0) 1.2 (0.8) 1.6 (0.5) 

100.0 57.6 (6.0) 58.9 (4.3) 18.9 (2.9) 28.7 (4.0) 34.5 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

The average age that calves were dehorned was similar across all herd sizes.

However, the operation average age of dehorning was lower on operations with

100 or more beef cows compared with operations that had fewer than 100 beef

cows.

e. For operations with horned calves, average age and operation average age (in

days) that calves were dehorned:

Of operations that dehorned calves, 43.0 percent reported an average age at

dehorning of 92 days or less, while 41.6 percent of operations reported an

average age at dehorning of 154 days or more.

f. For operations that dehorned calves, percentage of operations by average age

(days) calves were dehorned:

Average Age (Days) Percent Operations Standard Error 

1 to 31 6.2 (1.2) 

32 to 61 17.2 (2.2) 

62 to 92 19.6 (2.4) 

93 to 122 7.8 (1.5) 

123 to 153 7.6 (1.5) 

154 to 183 15.8 (2.3) 

184 to 214 7.8 (1.7) 

215 or more 18.0 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 

Average (Days) 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Measure* Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Average age 143.9 (16.9) 138.7 (12.6) 110.3 (10.3) 108.6 (5.3) 118.6 (4.5) 

Operation 

average age 157.6 (11.2) 159.1 (10.7) 121.1 (7.4) 119.4 (5.3) 146.8 (6.0) 

*See Terms Used in This Report, p 3, for definitions of animal average and operation average. 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

36 / Beef 2007-08

About 5 of 10 operations in the West region (51.7 percent) used an electric

dehorner/debudder, hot iron as the primary method for dehorning calves. The

majority of operations in the East region (59.2 percent) used saws, barnes, or

keystone (guillotine) as the primary method of dehorning calves. Relatively few

operations across regions used caustic paste to dehorn calves.

g. Percentage of operations by primary method used to dehorn calves, and by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 West Central 

South 

Central East 

All 

Operations 

Primary Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Caustic paste 8.2 (3.0) 8.1 (2.6) 3.2 (2.5) 3.4 (2.3) 5.7 (1.3) 

Electric 

dehorner/debudder, 

hot iron 51.7 (6.4) 29.5 (4.1) 13.5 (3.9) 12.0 (3.8) 24.5 (2.4) 

Spoons or gouges 25.7 (5.4) 28.9 (4.3) 37.8 (5.8) 25.4 (5.4) 30.6 (2.7) 

Saws, barnes, or 

keystone (guillotine) 14.4 (4.9) 33.5 (4.6) 45.5 (6.1) 59.2 (6.4) 39.2 (3.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Both washing with water and chemically disinfecting dehorning equipment were

implemented by similar percentages of operations across regions.

h. For operations using spoons or gouges, or saws, barnes, or keystone

(guillotine), percentage of operations that routinely cleaned dehorning equipment,

by method and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 West Central 

South 

Central East 

All 

Operations 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Washed with water 

after each animal 21.4 (8.6) 29.3 (5.8) 40.0 (6.6) 46.0 (7.6) 36.6 (3.7) 

Chemically 

disinfected after 

each animal 47.8 (10.3) 45.0 (6.2) 59.6 (6.5) 37.2 (7.5) 49.1 (3.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

10. Castration

The percentage of operations that castrated any bull calves prior to sale

increased as herd size increased.

a. Percentage of operations that castrated any bull calves born in 2007 before

sale, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

50.3 (1.8) 75.0 (2.5) 85.1 (2.3) 95.3 (1.2) 59.2 (1.4) 

A higher percentage of operations in the West and Central regions (92.3 and

84.2 percent, respectively) castrated any bull calves born in 2007 before selling

them than did operations in the South Central and East regions (43.9 and

46.0 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations that castrated any bull calves born in 2007 before

sale, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

92.3 (2.4) 84.2 (2.1) 43.9 (2.8) 46.0 (2.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

38 / Beef 2007-08

The overall percentage of bull calves castrated differed in each region. A higher

percentage of calves in the West region (95.6 percent) were castrated than in

any other region. The percentage castrated in the Central region (88.5 percent)

was higher than the percentage castrated in the South Central or East regions

(65.9 and 58.1 percent, respectively).

The operation average percentage of bull calves castrated was higher in the

West and Central regions (85.2 and 81.2 percent, respectively) than in the South

Central and East regions (39.7 and 42.8 percent, respectively).

c. Of bull calves born in 2007, percentage and operation average percentage of

bull calves that were or would be castrated before sale, by region:

Percent Bull Calves 

Region 

 West Central 

South 

Central East 

All 

Operations 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Percent bull 

calves 95.6 (0.8) 88.5 (1.3) 65.9 (2.4) 58.1 (2.1) 77.1 (0.9) 

Operation average 

percent 85.2 (2.8) 81.2 (2.1) 39.7 (2.7) 42.8 (2.2) 55.4 (1.3) 

Most operations either castrated none of their bull calves before sale

(40.8 percent) or all of their bull calves before sale (49.5 percent).

d. Percentage of operations by percentage of bull calves that were or would be

castrated before sale:

Percent Castrated Percent Operations Standard Error 

0 40.8 (1.4) 

0.1 to 24.9 1.7 (0.3) 

25.0 to 49.9 0.9 (0.2) 

50.0 to 74.9 2.7 (0.4) 

75.0 to 99.9 4.4 (0.5) 

100.0 49.5 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

The average age that bull calves were castrated was similar across all herd

sizes.

e. Average age (days) of bull calves when castrated, by herd size:

Average Age (Days) 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

78.0 (3.7) 87.4 (5.1) 76.7 (3.5) 72.6 (2.5) 76.8 (1.7) 

Most operations (74.5 percent) castrated bull calves at an average age of less

than 93 days, but almost one of five operations (18.4 percent) did not castrate

calves until they were over 122 days old.

f. For operations that castrated bull calves born in 2007 before sale, percentage

of operations by average age (days) when bull calves were castrated:

Average Age (Days) Percent Operations Standard Error 

1 to 31 33.2 (1.7) 

32 to 61 20.0 (1.3) 

62 to 92 21.3 (1.4) 

93 to 122 7.1 (0.8) 

123 or more 18.4 (1.3) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

40 / Beef 2007-08

For operations that castrated bull calves, the percentage of operations that used

a blade ranged from 44.5 percent of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows to 63.5

percent of operations with 200 or more. A higher percentage of operations with 1

to 49 cows castrated bull calves with a rubber band or tubing at 3 months old or

less than did operations with 100 or more cows.

g. Percentage of operations by primary method of castration and by herd size:

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Remove testicles 

with a blade 44.5 (2.5) 51.0 (3.3) 60.9 (3.0) 63.5 (2.7) 49.2 (1.7) 

Clamp/burdizzo 2.7 (0.8) 6.1 (1.5) 3.6 (1.1) 2.7 (0.7) 3.5 (0.6) 

Rubber band or 

tubing at 3 months 

of age or less 44.5 (2.5) 36.0 (3.2) 25.7 (2.6) 29.7 (2.7) 39.5 (1.7) 

Rubber band or 

tubing at more than 

3 months of age 8.3 (1.4) 6.9 (1.6) 9.8 (1.9) 4.0 (1.0) 7.8 (0.9) 

Other 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section I: Population Estimates—A. Management Practices

11. Source of female replacements

Of the heifers and cows that calved in 2007, 83.0 percent of heifers and

75.6 percent of cows were raised on the operation where they calved.

For heifers and cows that calved in 2007, percentage of heifers and cows by

source:

Source 

Percent 

Heifers 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Raised on the operation 83.0 (2.0) 75.6 (1.1) 

Purchased 17.0 (2.0) 24.4 (1.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management

42 / Beef 2007-08

B. Nutrition

Management

1. Source of nutrition information

The highest percentage of operations reported that either a feed salesperson or

veterinarian was the most important source of animal nutrition information

(31.7 and 27.3 percent of operations, respectively). Across herd sizes, similar

percentages of operations used primarily feed salespersons or veterinarians for

nutrition information. Other producers and extension agents or specialists were

the next most important sources of nutritional information. Private nutritionists

were not commonly considered as the most important source, but a higher

percentage of operations with 200 or more cows used a private nutritionist than

did the smaller sized operations.

Percentage of operations by most important source of animal nutrition

information, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Source* Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Private 

nutritionists 2.7 (0.6) 3.7 (0.9) 8.0 (1.6) 15.5 (1.8) 4.0 (0.5) 

Feed 

salespersons 

or retailers 31.4 (1.7) 33.8 (2.8) 33.4 (2.7) 27.6 (2.2) 31.7 (1.3) 

Veterinarians 27.3 (1.7) 28.0 (2.6) 26.3 (2.6) 27.2 (2.6) 27.3 (1.3) 

Extension 

agents or 

specialists 11.3 (1.2) 14.5 (2.1) 11.9 (1.9) 9.1 (1.4) 11.7 (0.9) 

Other 

producers 16.6 (1.4) 10.7 (1.9) 11.8 (1.8) 10.6 (1.6) 15.0 (1.0) 

Producer 

magazines 3.4 (0.7) 5.1 (1.2) 5.6 (1.7) 4.4 (0.9) 3.9 (0.5) 

Other 7.3 (1.0) 4.2 (1.1) 3.0 (0.9) 5.6 (1.3) 6.4 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Other than producer’s personal knowledge or education. 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management

44 / Beef 2007-08

2. Implanting practices

Overall, a relatively low percentage of operations (11.9 percent) implanted any

calves with a growth promotant prior to or at weaning during the previous

12 months. Also, when any implant prior to or at weaning was considered, a

lower percentage of operations with 1 to 49 cows implanted either heifers

intended for replacement or other calves than did operations with 50 or more

cows. Almost 1 of 3 operations with 200 or more cows (31.1 percent) implanted

at least some calves, but only 7.0 percent of operations with 1 to 49 cows

implanted at least some calves. A higher percentage of operations with 200 or

more cows implanted other calves than did operations with 50 to 99 cows (30.8

and 19.7 percent, respectively). A lower percentage of operations with 1 to 49

cows implanted replacement heifers and other calves prior to weaning than did

operations with 50 or more cows. Similarly, a lower percentage of operations with

1 to 49 cows implanted either heifers intended for replacement or other calves at

weaning than did operations with larger herd sizes.

a. Percentage of operations that implanted any calves with a growth promotant

prior to or at weaning during the previous 12 months, by implant practice and by

herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Implant Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Prior to Weaning 

Any calves 5.5 (0.8) 16.4 (2.1) 24.8 (2.4) 26.9 (2.3) 9.8 (0.7) 

Heifers intended for 

replacement 1.9 (0.5) 5.5 (1.3) 8.5 (1.7) 9.0 (1.5) 3.3 (0.4) 

Other calves 

(nonreplacement) 5.2 (0.8) 15.7 (2.1) 22.9 (2.4) 26.8 (2.3) 9.4 (0.7) 

At Weaning 

Any calves 4.2 (0.7) 12.1 (1.9) 12.1 (1.9) 18.3 (2.0) 6.8 (0.6) 

Heifers intended for 

replacement 1.0 (0.4) 2.9 (1.0) 3.2 (1.3) 3.8 (1.0) 1.7 (0.3) 

Other calves 

(nonreplacement) 3.8 (0.7) 11.6 (1.9) 11.6 (1.9) 17.4 (2.0) 6.3 (0.6) 

Prior to or at Weaning 

Any calves 7.0 (0.9) 19.9 (2.3) 27.3 (2.5) 31.1 (2.4) 11.9 (0.8) 

Heifers intended for 

replacement 2.1 (0.5) 6.7 (1.4) 9.7 (1.8) 9.8 (1.5) 3.8 (0.4) 

Other calves 

(nonreplacement) 6.7 (0.9) 19.7 (2.3) 25.2 (2.4) 30.8 (2.4) 11.4 (0.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management

46 / Beef 2007-08

About 9 of 10 operations (90.2 percent) did not implant replacement heifers or

other calves with a growth promotant prior to weaning. A higher percentage of

operations with 1 to 49 cows did not implant calves prior to weaning

(94.5 percent) compared with all other herd sizes. A lower percentage of herds

with 200 or more cows did not implant calves prior to weaning (73.1 percent)

than did operations with fewer than 100 cows.

b. Percentage of operations by growth-promotant implanting practice during the

previous 12 months for preweaned replacement heifers and for preweaned

calves not intended for replacement, and by herd size:

Percent Operations* 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Implant Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Implant other 

calves, but not 

heifers for 

replacement 3.6 (0.7) 10.9 (1.8) 16.1 (2.0) 17.9 (2.0) 6.5 (0.6) 

Implant other calves 

and heifers for 

replacement 1.6 (0.4) 4.8 (1.2) 6.8 (1.5) 8.9 (1.5) 2.9 (0.4) 

Implant heifers for 

replacement but not 

other calves 0.3 (0.2) 0.7 (0.6) 1.7 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 

Implant neither 94.5 (0.8) 83.6 (2.1) 75.4 (2.4) 73.1 (2.3) 90.2 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Compared to table B.2.a, small differences in estimates due to rounding.
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management

More than 9 of 10 operations (93.2 percent) did not implant any replacement

heifers or other calves with a growth promotant at weaning during the previous

12 months. A higher percentage of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows implanted

no calves at weaning (95.8 percent) compared with all other herd sizes.

c. Percentage of operations by growth-promotant implanting practice at weaning

during the previous 12 months for replacement heifers and for calves not

intended for replacement, and by herd size:

Percent Operations* 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Implant Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Implant other 

calves, but not 

heifers for 

replacement 3.2 (0.6) 9.1 (1.7) 8.9 (1.5) 14.5 (1.8) 5.1 (0.5) 

Implant other calves 

and heifers for 

replacement 0.6 (0.3) 2.5 (0.9) 2.7 (1.3) 2.9 (0.9) 1.2 (0.3) 

Implant heifers for 

replacement but not 

other calves 0.4 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) 0.5 (0.4) 0.9 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 

Implant neither 95.8 (0.7) 87.9 (1.9) 87.9 (1.9) 81.7 (2.0) 93.2 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Compared to table B.2.a, small differences in estimates due to rounding.
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management

48 / Beef 2007-08

Overall, more than 9 of 10 operations (96.2 percent) did not implant replacement

heifers either prior to or at weaning during the previous 12 months. A higher

percentage of operations with 1 to 49 cows (97.9 percent) did not implant

replacement heifers either prior to or at weaning compared to all other herd

sizes.

Almost 9 of 10 operations (88.6 percent) did not implant other (nonreplacement)

calves either prior to or at weaning. A higher percentage of operations with 1 to

49 cows did not implant other (nonreplacement) calves either prior to or at

weaning compared to all other herd sizes.

d. Percentage of operations by timing of implanting growth promotant during the

previous 12 months, and by herd size:

Percent Operations* 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Timing Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Heifers Intended for Replacement 

Only prior to 

weaning 1.1 (0.3) 3.8 (1.1) 6.5 (1.3) 6.0 (1.2) 2.2 (0.3) 

Only at 

weaning 0.3 (0.2) 1.2 (0.6) 1.2 (0.7) 0.9 (0.4) 0.5 (0.2) 

Prior to and at 

weaning 0.7 (0.3) 1.7 (0.8) 2.0 (1.2) 2.9 (0.9) 1.1 (0.3) 

Neither prior to 

nor at weaning 97.9 (0.5) 93.3 (1.4) 90.3 (1.8) 90.2 (1.5) 96.2 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Other Calves 

Only prior to 

weaning 2.9 (0.6) 8.1 (1.5) 13.6 (1.9) 13.5 (1.7) 5.1 (0.5) 

Only at 

weaning 1.4 (0.4) 4.0 (1.2) 2.4 (0.8) 4.0 (0.9) 2.0 (0.3) 

Prior to and at 

weaning 2.4 (0.5) 7.6 (1.5) 9.2 (1.7) 13.3 (1.9) 4.3 (0.5) 

Neither prior to 

nor at weaning 93.3 (0.9) 80.3 (2.3) 74.8 (2.4) 69.2 (2.4) 88.6 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

*Compared to table B.2.a, small differences in estimates due to rounding.
USDA APHIS VS / 49

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management

For the 9.8 percent of operations that implanted any calves prior to weaning

(table 2a, p 44), approximately two of three operations (66.3 percent) did not

implant replacement heifers prior to weaning. Approximately one of three

operations (32.8 percent) implanted replacement heifers one time prior to

weaning.

e. For operations that implanted any calves with a growth promotant during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by number of times unweaned

replacement heifers were implanted prior to weaning, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Number 

Implants Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 66.5 (7.0) 66.6 (6.7) 65.5 (5.6) 66.6 (4.7) 66.3 (3.6) 

1 33.5 (7.0) 30.1 (6.4) 34.5 (5.6) 33.1 (4.7) 32.8 (3.5) 

2 or more 0.0 (0.0) 3.3 (3.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.3) 0.9 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management

50 / Beef 2007-08

For the 9.8 percent of operations that implanted any calves prior to weaning,

more than 8 of 10 (84.5 percent) implanted nonreplacement calves 1 time prior

to weaning. Approximately 1 of 10 operations (10.5 percent) implanted

nonreplacement calves 2 times prior to weaning. The percentages of operations

that implanted calves were similar across all herd sizes.

f. For operations that implanted any calves with a growth promotant during the

previous 12 months, percentage of operations by number of times unweaned

calves not intended for replacement were implanted prior to weaning, and by

herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Number 

Implants Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 5.1 (3.0) 4.3 (3.3) 7.0 (2.9) 0.5 (0.3) 4.6 (1.6) 

1 86.9 (4.8) 82.8 (5.1) 79.9 (4.8) 87.1 (3.1) 84.5 (2.6) 

2 8.0 (3.9) 12.0 (4.0) 13.1 (4.1) 11.5 (3.0) 10.5 (2.1) 

3 or more 0.0 (--) 0.9 (0.9) 0.0 (--) 0.9 (0.8) 0.4 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section I: Population Estimates—B. Nutrition Management

3. Creep feeding

Overall, calves had access to creep feed on more than one in four operations

(27.4 percent). The West region reported the lowest percentage of operations

(13.3 percent) that provided calves access to creep feed compared with the

other regions.

a. Percentage of operations in which unweaned calves had access to creep feed,

by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

13.3 (3.0) 35.7 (2.5) 22.9 (2.4) 29.2 (2.1) 27.4 (1.2) 

For operations in which calves had access to creep feed, approximately one in

three operations (31.2 percent) allowed access for 61 days or less, and almost

one-half (45.1 percent) allowed access for 93 or more days.

b. For operations in which unweaned calves had access to creep feed in 2007,

percentage of operations by average number of days calves had access:

Number of Days Percent Operations Standard Error 

1 to 31 10.8 (1.6) 

32 to 61 20.4 (2.1) 

62 to 92 23.7 (2.3) 

93 to 122 14.2 (2.0) 

123 or more 30.9 (2.5) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

52 / Beef 2007-08

C. Productivity

and Marketing

1. Weaning weight

For operations with 1 to 49 cows, the average weaning weight of bull and steer

calves (512 lb) was lower compared with operations with 50 to 99 (561 lb), 100 to

199 (561 lb), and 200 or more beef cows (554 lb). Operations with 1 to 49 cows

also had the lowest average weaning weight for other heifers (473 lb).

a. Average weaning weight (lb), by calf group and by herd size:

Replacement heifer average weaning weights were similar across all regions.

However, average weaning weights of other (nonreplacement) heifers were lower

in the East region than in the West region (474 and 510 lb, respectively) or the

Central region (502 lb). Average weaning weights for bull and steer calves were

lower in the East region (523 lb) than in all other regions.

b. Average weaning weight (lb), by calf group and by region:

Average Weight (lb) 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 

200 

or More 

All 

Operations 

Calf Group Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Replacement 

heifers 492 (7) 540 (8) 548 (5) 543 (4) 532 (3) 

Other heifers 496 (5) 522 (5) 526 (5) 518 (4) 515 (2) 

Bulls and 

steers 532 (5) 565 (5) 572 (5) 564 (4) 559 (2) 

All 499 (5) 536 (5) 542 (5) 539 (4) 530 (2) 

Average Weight (lb) 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Calf Group Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Replacement 

heifers 540 (6) 537 (4) 534 (8) 532 (3) 

Other heifers 531 (6) 515 (4) 519 (5) 496 (4) 

Bulls and steers 572 (6) 565 (4) 560 (5) 531 (5) 

All 545 (6) 533 (4) 535 (5) 503 (5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

2. Weaning age

The average age of calves at weaning was similar across all herd sizes.

a. Average age (days) of calves at weaning, by herd size:

Average Age (Days) 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More All Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

201.2 (1.9) 207.8 (2.3) 207.7 (2.7) 209.0 (1.8) 206.7 (1.1) 

b. Average age (days) of calves at weaning, by region:

Average Age (Days) 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

211.0 (2.1) 208.3 (1.8) 206.5 (2.7) 199.9 (2.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

54 / Beef 2007-08

The average weaning age on the majority of operations (75.5 percent) was less

than 230 days.

c. Percentage of operations by average weaning age (days):

Average Age (Days) Percent Operations Standard Error 

Less than 170 12.9 (1.1) 

171 to 199 32.2 (1.4) 

200 to 229 30.4 (1.4) 

230 to 259 14.7 (1.0) 

260 to 289 5.7 (0.7) 

290 or more 4.1 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 55

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

3. Factors determining when to wean calves

The majority of operations (53.8 percent) used calf age and/or weight to

determine when to wean calves. Tradition was the next most common reason

used to determine when to wean calves (11.9 percent of operations).

Percentage of operations by most important factor for determining when to wean

calves:

Reason Percent Operations Standard Error 

Calf age/weight 53.8 (1.4) 

End of grazing lease or permit 2.1 (0.3) 

Forage availability 8.1 (0.7) 

Physical condition of cow 9.3 (0.9) 

Market price or contract 5.6 (0.6) 

Cash flow 3.0 (0.5) 

Tradition 11.9 (0.8) 

Other 6.2 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 

Photo courtesy of Dr. Dave Dargatz
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

56 / Beef 2007-08
USDA APHIS VS / 57

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

4. Type of calves weaned

The percentages of calves weaned or expected to be weaned in each class were

similar across all herd sizes. All herd sizes weaned or expected to wean a higher

percentage of heifers than bulls and steers.

Percentage of all calves weaned or expected to be weaned in 2007, by calf

group and by herd size:

Percent Calves 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Calf Group Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Replacement 

heifers 15.2 (0.9) 13.5 (0.9) 13.5 (0.9) 16.3 (0.7) 15.0 (0.4) 

Other heifers 38.2 (0.9) 38.1 (1.0) 40.5 (1.1) 35.2 (0.7) 37.4 (0.4) 

Bulls and 

steers 46.6 (0.8) 48.4 (0.7) 46.0 (1.0) 48.5 (0.4) 47.6 (0.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

5. Information provided to buyers

The percentage of operations that usually provided information regarding their

calf health program to buyers increased as herd size increased. Large

operations may be more likely to provide information if they engage in direct

marketing to other industry segments.

a. Percentage of operations that usually provided buyers with information about

their calf health programs, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

28.2 (1.6) 43.4 (2.7) 57.5 (2.8) 74.0 (2.5) 35.2 (1.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

58 / Beef 2007-08
USDA APHIS VS / 59

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

Of operations that usually reported information to buyers regarding their calf

health programs, the percentage that usually provided written documentation

ranged from 32.6 percent of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows to 53.1 percent of

operations with 200 or more.

b. For operations that usually provided buyers with information about their calf

health program, percentage of operations by method used to convey information

and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows) 

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Written 

documentation 32.6 (3.2) 47.6 (4.0) 51.9 (3.6) 53.1 (2.8) 40.2 (2.1) 

Told buyer orally 65.1 (3.2) 51.5 (4.0) 47.6 (3.6) 45.4 (2.8) 58.1 (2.1) 

Other 2.3 (1.0) 0.9 (0.6) 0.5 (0.3) 1.5 (0.7) 1.7 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

The percentage of operations in which the same people or companies tended to

buy weaned calves from the operation each year increased as herd size

increased, ranging from 27.2 percent of operations with 1 to 49 cows to

60.3 percent of operations with 200 or more.

c. Percentage of operations in which the same people or companies tended to

buy weaned calves from the operation each year, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

27.2 (1.6) 37.1 (2.8) 39.8 (2.8) 60.3 (2.6) 31.5 (1.3) 
Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

60 / Beef 2007-08

6. Forward pricing

The percentage of operations that marketed calves using forward pricing

increased as herd size increased, ranging from 2.3 percent of operations with

1 to 49 beef cows to 15.4 percent of operations with 200 or more. Similarly, the

percentage of the 2007 calf crop forward priced ranged from 2.2 percent of the

calf crop on operations with 1 to 49 beef cows to 18.7 percent of the calf crop on

operations with 200 or more.

a. Percentage of operations (and percentage of 2007 calf crop) using forward

pricing of calves, by herd size:

Percent 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Measure Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Operations 2.3 (0.5) 3.1 (0.8) 6.9 (1.3) 15.4 (1.7) 3.5 (0.4) 

Calf crop 2.2 (0.6) 3.1 (0.9) 7.6 (1.5) 18.7 (2.1) 9.7 (0.9) 

On operations using forward pricing, more than two-thirds of the calf crop was

forward priced.

b. For operations that forward priced calves, percentage of calf crop forward

priced:

Percent Calf Crop Standard Error 

68.4 (2.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section I: Population Estimates—C. Productivity and Marketing

For operations that forward priced calves, 63.1 percent forward priced threefourths or more of the 2007 calf crop.

c. For operations using forward pricing, percentage of operations by percentage

of calf crop forward priced:

Percent Calf Crop Forward Priced Percent Operations Standard Error 

0.1 to 24.9 10.6 (4.3) 

25.0 to 49.9 10.3 (3.7) 

50.0 to 74.9 16.0 (3.8) 

75.0 to 99.9 30.4 (5.4) 

100.0 32.7 (6.2) 

Total 100.0 

For operations using forward pricing, about two-thirds forward priced some

calves using the cash market, while about one-fourth of operations used futures

contracts. These percentages were similar for calves.

d. For operations using forward pricing, percentage of operations (and

percentage of forward-priced calves), by type of forward pricing used:

Type of Forward Pricing 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Forwardpriced 

Calves 

Standard 

Error 

Forward cash 64.9 (5.4) 61.9 (5.7) 

Futures contract 25.1 (4.7) 25.4 (4.9) 

Options 4.8 (1.6) 4.8 (1.7) 

Other 7.5 (3.2) 7.9 (3.4) 

Total 100.0 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Beef Quality Assurance Program

62 / Beef 2007-08

D. Beef Quality

Assurance Program

1. Familiarity

Overall, more than one-half of operations (51.3 percent) had heard of the Beef

Quality Assurance (BQA) program. A higher percentage of operations with 200 or

more beef cows had heard of the BQA program compared with operations with

fewer than 200 beef cows. A lower percentage of operations with 1 to 49 beef

cows had heard of the BQA program compared with the other herd sizes.

a. Percentage of operations that had heard of the BQA program, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

44.3 (1.8) 65.5 (2.7) 69.2 (2.7) 79.0 (2.0) 51.3 (1.4) 

The Central region reported the highest percentage of operations that had heard

of the BQA program (66.9 percent), while the South Central region reported the

lowest percentage of operations that had heard of the BQA program

(37.0 percent). The percentage of operations that had heard of the BQA program

was similar in the West and East regions (53.9 and 52.2 percent, respectively).

b. Percentage of operations that had heard of the BQA program, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

53.9 (3.9) 66.9 (2.5) 37.0 (2.8) 52.2 (2.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 63

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Beef Quality Assurance Program

Of the 51.3 percent of operations that had heard of the BQA program,

approximately one in five (22.2 percent) had attended a BQA meeting or training

session. A lower percentage of operations with 1 to 49 cows had attended a BQA

meeting or training session compared with operations with 100 or more beef

cows.

c. For operations that had heard of the BQA program, percentage of operations

that had attended a State or local BQA meeting or training session, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

17.8 (2.0) 26.4 (3.2) 29.8 (3.1) 35.6 (2.9) 22.2 (1.5) 

Of the 51.3 percent of operations that had heard of the BQA program, a higher

percentage in the East region (34.8 percent) had attended a meeting or training

session compared with operations in the Central or South Central regions

(13.2 and 14.7 percent, respectively).

d. For operations that had heard of the BQA program, percentage of operations

that had attended a State or local BQA meeting or training session, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

23.2 (3.8) 13.2 (1.8) 14.7 (3.1) 34.8 (2.9) 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Beef Quality Assurance Program

64 / Beef 2007-08

2. Management practices

More than one in three operations had used each BQA management practice

before attending training. The majority of operations that attended BQA training

were either using BQA practices or switched to them after training.

For operations that attended BQA training*, percentage of operations that, as a

result of BQA training, changed any of the following management practices to

follow BQA recommendations:

Percent Operations 

Change 

Changed to BQA 

Practice After 

Training 

Used BQA 

Practice Before 

Training 

Did Not Change 

to BQA Practice 

Management 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Storage and 

handling of vaccines 21.8 (2.8) 42.0 (3.6) 36.2 (3.7) 100.0 

Use and care of 

needles and 

syringes 26.5 (3.0) 40.2 (3.6) 33.3 (3.7) 100.0 

Injection site 

selection (SQ 

and IM) 44.3 (3.7) 33.6 (3.4) 22.1 (3.3) 100.0 

Antibiotic selection 

and use 21.6 (3.1) 40.9 (3.6) 37.5 (3.7) 100.0 

Record keeping 23.8 (3.1) 33.7 (3.4) 42.5 (3.7) 100.0 

Cattle handling and 

transportation 16.9 (2.6) 43.4 (3.6) 39.7 (3.7) 100.0 

*Attended a State or local BQA meeting or training session. 
USDA APHIS VS / 65

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Beef Quality Assurance Program

3. Certification

Overall, nearly 6 of 10 operations (57.2 percent) that had attended BQA training

were BQA certified. A higher percentage of operations with 50 to 99 beef cows

(72.9 percent) were certified than were operations with 1 to 49 beef cows

(45.7 percent). For all other herd sizes, the percentages of operations that were

BQA certified were similar.

a. For operations that attended BQA training*, percentage of operations that

were BQA certified, by herd size:

The percentages of operations that had attended BQA training and were BQA

certified were similar across regions.

b. For operations that attended BQA training*, percentage of operations that

were BQA certified, by region:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

45.7 (6.2) 72.9 (5.8) 66.3 (5.9) 62.6 (4.6) 57.2 (3.7) 

*Attended a State or local BQA meeting or training session. 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

56.4 (9.3) 50.0 (6.9) 35.4 (10.6) 65.7 (5.0) 

*Attended a State or local BQA meeting or training session. 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Beef Quality Assurance Program

66 / Beef 2007-08

A county agent was the primary provider of BQA certification on nearly 6 of 10

operations (57.6 percent) that were BQA certified.

c. For operations that were BQA certified, percentage of operations by primary

provider of BQA certification:

Provider Percent Operations Standard Error 

County agent 57.6 (4.5) 

Local cattlemen’s association 7.6 (2.3) 

State cattlemen’s association 6.7 (2.1) 

State BQA 10.6 (2.5) 

University 12.3 (3.3) 

Other 5.2 (1.5) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 67

Section I: Population Estimates—D. Beef Quality Assurance Program

More than 5 of 10 operations (51.2 percent) had not heard of the National Beef

Quality Audit, and less than 1 of 5 (17.0 percent) reported they knew the basics

of the audit or were fairly knowledgeable about it.

d. Percentage of operations by familiarity with the results of the National Beef

Quality Audit:

Familiarity Percent Operations Standard Error 

Have not heard of it before 51.2 (1.4) 

Recognize the name, not much else 31.8 (1.3) 

Know some basics 12.4 (0.9) 

Fairly knowledgeable 4.6 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 

4. Standardized performance analysis

Less than 1 of 25 operations (3.5 percent) utilized Standardized Performance

Analysis (SPA) to determine the profitability of producing beef calves. The

percentages of operations that used SPA were similar for all herd sizes.

a. Percentage of operations that used the SPA, sponsored by the National

Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the USDA Extension Service, to determine the

profitability of producing beef calves, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

3.0 (0.6) 3.9 (1.2) 5.8 (1.3) 6.0 (1.0) 3.5 (0.5) 
Section I: Population Estimates—D. Beef Quality Assurance Program

68 / Beef 2007-08

Across all regions, a similar percentage of operations used SPA to determine the

profitability of producing beef calves.

b. Percentage of operations that used the SPA, sponsored by the National

Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the USDA Extension Service, to determine the

profitability of producing beef calves, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error Percent 

Std. 

Error 

4.2 (1.7) 2.0 (0.5) 2.7 (1.0) 5.2 (1.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

E. General

Management

1. Water sources

A pond was the most common water source for all herd sizes. The percentage of

operations that used a pond as a water source ranged from 75.0 percent of

operations with 1 to 49 beef cows to 88.5 percent of operations with 200 or more.

Across herd sizes, about 3 of 10 operations used a municipal water source. Over

half of operations (55.8 percent) used a stream for a water source.

a. Percentage of operations by type of water source and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Pond 75.0 (1.6) 85.4 (2.0) 85.6 (1.9) 88.5 (1.7) 78.1 (1.2) 

Stream 52.5 (1.8) 61.2 (2.9) 63.4 (2.8) 75.0 (2.3) 55.8 (1.4) 

Cistern 4.5 (0.8) 5.9 (1.2) 6.9 (1.3) 11.9 (1.5) 5.3 (0.6) 

Deep well 

(101 ft or more) 40.1 (1.8) 46.9 (2.9) 52.7 (2.9) 63.6 (2.6) 43.4 (1.4) 

Shallow well 

(up to 100 ft) 21.0 (1.5) 29.3 (2.6) 40.4 (2.7) 50.3 (2.6) 25.3 (1.2) 

Municipal 

source 28.9 (1.6) 30.0 (2.7) 32.3 (2.7) 29.1 (2.5) 29.4 (1.3) 

Photo courtesy of Judy Rodriguez
Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

70 / Beef 2007-08
USDA APHIS VS / 71

Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

The type of water sources used varied by region. A higher percentage of

operations in the South Central and East regions (83.9 and 80.6 percent,

respectively) used ponds, compared with operations in the West region

(63.2 percent). Conversely, a higher percentage of operations in the West region

used streams for water (71.2 percent) than did operations in the South Central

and East regions (46.7 and 56.8 percent, respectively). A higher percentage of

operations in the West region used deep wells for water than did operations in

the East region (53.6 and 32.7 percent, respectively), and a higher percentage of

operations in the West region used a shallow well than did all other regions. In

the East region, only 14.6 percent of operations used a shallow well. A lower

percentage of operations in the West region used a municipal water source than

did all other regions.

b. Percentage of operations by type of water source and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Source Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Pond 63.2 (4.0) 73.2 (2.2) 83.9 (2.3) 80.6 (1.8) 

Stream 71.2 (3.8) 60.1 (2.6) 46.7 (2.9) 56.8 (2.3) 

Cistern 11.9 (2.4) 5.3 (1.2) 5.9 (1.3) 3.1 (0.8) 

Deep well 

(101 ft or more) 53.6 (4.0) 52.8 (2.6) 44.7 (2.9) 32.7 (2.1) 

Shallow well 

(up to 100 ft) 44.7 (3.9) 31.7 (2.2) 26.2 (2.5) 14.6 (1.6) 

Municipal source 14.0 (2.9) 29.0 (2.2) 27.1 (2.5) 35.7 (2.2) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

72 / Beef 2007-08

Overall, nearly 9 of 10 operations that used a stream or pond for water

(87.9 percent) reported that cattle drank directly from the source. This

percentage was similar across regions.

c. For operations that used a pond or stream for a water source, percentage of

operations in which cattle ever drink directly from the source, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

All 

Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

82.7 (3.3) 85.3 (2.1) 93.3 (1.6) 86.5 (1.7) 87.9 (1.0) 

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Number of 

Days Between 

Cleaning Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 19 20.7 (2.2) 14.7 (2.8) 9.9 (2.2) 9.5 (2.4) 18.1 (1.6) 

20 to 49 17.3 (2.0) 21.8 (3.5) 24.5 (3.5) 15.0 (2.4) 18.5 (1.6) 

50 to 99 16.2 (2.0) 15.9 (3.2) 10.6 (2.1) 13.1 (2.4) 15.5 (1.5) 

100 to 199 23.3 (2.4) 17.2 (2.9) 22.3 (3.3) 25.5 (3.4) 22.3 (1.7) 

200 or more 22.5 (2.3) 30.4 (3.7) 32.7 (3.4) 36.9 (3.4) 25.6 (1.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

A higher percentage of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows (20.7 percent) cleaned

water troughs or containers every 1 to 19 days, compared with operations with

100 to 199, or 200 or more beef cows (9.9 and 9.5 percent of operations,

respectively). A higher percentage of operations with 200 or more beef cows

cleaned water troughs or containers every 200 or more days compared with

operations with 1 to 49 beef cows (36.9 and 22.5 percent, respectively).

d. For operations that used a trough or other separate container, percentage of

operations by number of days between cleanings and by herd size:
USDA APHIS VS / 73

Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

2. Grazing

More than 9 of 10 operations (93.7 percent) used their own land for grazing, and

of these only 7.8 percent commingled their cattle with cattle from other

operations. Although a low percentage of operations grazed their cattle on public

land or grazing association land, a relatively high percentage of these operations

commingled their cattle (21.7 and 60.7 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of operations by type of grazing used during the previous

12 months, and percentage of these operations that commingled their cattle with

cattle from other operations:

Grazing Type 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent 

Operations 

That 

Commingled 

Cattle 

Standard 

Error 

Public land 

(State or Federal) 4.2 (0.3) 21.7 (3.4) 

Grazing 

association land 0.5 (0.1) 60.7 (13.3) 

Leased, private land 30.1 (1.2) 13.0 (1.6) 

Own land 93.7 (0.7) 7.8 (0.8) 

e. For operations that used a trough or other separate container, percentage of

operations by number of days between cleanings and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Number of 

Days Between 

Cleaning Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 19 9.0 (3.0) 16.1 (2.7) 12.7 (2.6) 31.1 (3.7) 

20 to 49 14.1 (3.8) 21.3 (2.8) 14.3 (2.8) 22.8 (3.2) 

50 to 99 21.7 (4.4) 16.9 (2.6) 11.3 (2.6) 16.3 (2.8) 

100 to 199 28.2 (4.7) 20.1 (2.8) 26.4 (3.6) 17.0 (3.1) 

200 or more 27.0 (3.8) 25.6 (2.8) 35.3 (3.9) 12.8 (2.3) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

The East region had the highest percentage of operations in which water troughs

were cleaned every 1 to 19 days and the lowest percentage of operations in

which water troughs were cleaned every 200 or more days.
Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

74 / Beef 2007-08

b. Percentage of operations by type of grazing used during the previous 12

months, and by herd size:

More than 9 of 10 operations across all regions used their own land for grazing.

Operations in the West region reported the highest percentage of grazing on

public land (27.1 percent). The percentage of operations that utilized leased

private lands for grazing was similar in the West and Central regions (51.3 and

42.9 percent, respectively), which was higher than in the South Central and East

regions (25.7 and 19.2 percent, respectively).

Across all herd sizes, more than 9 of 10 operations used their own land for

grazing. The percentage of operations that grazed cows on public land increased

as herd size increased. The percentage of operations that grazed cows on

leased, private land ranged from 68.9 percent of operations with 200 or more

beef cows to 21.5 percent of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows.

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

Grazing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Public land 

(State or 

Federal) 1.5 (0.4) 5.2 (1.0) 11.1 (1.6) 29.3 (2.1) 

Grazing 

association land 0.3 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 1.9 (0.8) 3.2 (0.8) 

Leased, 

private land 21.5 (1.5) 46.2 (2.9) 51.4 (2.9) 68.9 (2.4) 

Own land 93.1 (0.9) 94.6 (1.2) 96.9 (0.8) 95.2 (1.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 75

Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

A higher percentage of operations in the East and South Central regions did not

move cattle to a noncontiguous area for grazing (89.5 and 89.5 percent,

respectively), compared with operations in the West and Central regions

(63.5 and 67.3 percent, respectively). A higher percentage of operations in the

West region moved cattle more than 10 miles to grazing areas compared with all

other regions. A higher percentage of operations in the Central region moved

cattle more than 10 miles to grazing areas compared with operations in the

South Central and East regions (4.7 and 2.3 percent, respectively).

d. Percentage of operations by average number of miles (one way) cattle were

moved to grazing areas not contiguous with the operation, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

 West Central 

South 

Central East 

All 

Operations 

Average 

Number of Miles Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

0 (not moved) 63.5 (3.7) 67.3 (2.2) 89.5 (1.7) 89.5 (1.4) 81.6 (1.0) 

0.1 to 0.9 0.9 (0.7) 1.8 (0.8) 0.9 (0.6) 1.0 (0.5) 1.1 (0.3) 

1.0 to 3.9 3.8 (1.4) 7.2 (1.3) 2.0 (0.7) 3.3 (0.8) 3.9 (0.5) 

4.0 to 9.9 7.8 (2.1) 10.1 (1.4) 2.9 (0.9) 3.9 (0.9) 5.5 (0.6) 

10.0 or more 24.0 (3.1) 13.6 (1.5) 4.7 (1.2) 2.3 (0.7) 7.9 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Grazing Type Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Public land 

(State or Federal) 27.1 (2.7) 5.6 (0.9) 0.2 (0.1) 0.7 (0.4) 

Grazing 

association land 3.3 (1.0) 0.5 (0.2) 0.0 (--) 0.3 (0.3) 

Leased, 

private land 51.3 (3.9) 42.9 (2.4) 25.7 (2.4) 19.2 (1.7) 

Own land 94.9 (1.9) 93.1 (1.5) 94.1 (1.4) 93.5 (1.1) 

c. Percentage of operations by type of grazing used during the previous

12 months, and by region:
Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

76 / Beef 2007-08

3. Fly and rodent control

About 8 of 10 operations (82.0 percent) used fly control during the previous

12 months. Topical products were the most commonly used control method

(57.6 percent of operations) followed by environmental fly control (30.5 percent

of operations). Treated ear tags were used by only 2 of 10 operations

(19.7 percent).

a. Percentage of operations by fly control methods used during the previous 12

months:

Method Percent Operations Standard Error 

Environmental fly control 

(sprays, foggers, strips, zippers) 30.5 (1.3) 

Topical products 

(dust bags, dips, sprays, backrubs) 57.6 (1.4) 

Treated ear tags 19.7 (1.1) 

Biological control 

(e.g., predator wasps) 1.5 (0.3) 

Oral products (e.g., feed troughs) 14.5 (1.0) 

Other 0.5 (0.2) 

Any 82.0 (1.1) 

The average number of miles cattle were moved to graze was higher for

operations in the West region than in any other region.

e. For operations that moved cattle for grazing, operation average number of

miles (one way) cattle were moved, by region:

Operation Average Number of Miles 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

All 

Operations 

Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

35.4 (5.7) 14.3 (2.2) 19.1 (4.3) 7.6 (1.5) 17.7 (1.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 77

Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

4. Manure disposal

More than 4 of 10 operations (41.6 percent) did not dispose of manure. This

relatively high percentage probably represents operations in which at least some

cattle grazed on remote sites, and cattle density and manure deposition on these

sites were too low to justify spreading or disposing of the manure.

Percentage of operations (and percentage of beef cows on these operations) by

method used to dispose of manure:

Disposal Method 

Percent 

Operations 

Standard 

Error 

Percent Beef 

Cows 

Standard 

Error 

Drag or 

harrow pastures 36.7 (1.3) 41.2 (1.3) 

Haul and spread onto 

land used for grazing 

or forage production 

for the operation 20.0 (1.0) 29.5 (1.1) 

Haul and spread 

onto other land 13.8 (0.8) 21.0 (1.0) 

Other 5.4 (0.7) 4.2 (0.6) 

No disposal 41.6 (1.3) 34.1 (1.2) 

Nearly two of three operations (65.0 percent) routinely used some kind of rodent

control during the previous 12 months. Nearly 5 of 10 operations (48.0 percent)

used cats for rodent control, and more than 3 of 10 (31.5 percent) used

chemicals or bait.

b. Percentage of operations by rodent control methods used routinely during the

previous 12 months:

Method Percent Operations Standard Error 

Chemicals/bait 31.5 (1.3) 

Traps 13.7 (0.9) 

Cats 48.0 (1.4) 

Other 3.0 (0.5) 

Any 65.0 (1.4) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

78 / Beef 2007-08

a. Percentage of operations by frequency that equipment used for manure

handling was also used to handle feed on the operation, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Regularly (at 

least weekly) 2.6 (0.6) 3.2 (1.0) 6.0 (1.3) 6.9 (2.1) 3.2 (0.4) 

Occasionally 

(less than 

weekly) 8.6 (0.9) 16.9 (2.0) 22.5 (2.2) 25.3 (2.1) 11.8 (0.8) 

Never 88.8 (1.1) 79.9 (2.2) 71.5 (2.4) 67.8 (2.6) 85.0 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Across all herd sizes, slightly more than 1 of 10 operations had shared heavy

equipment with other livestock operations during the previous 12 months. The

percentages of operations that shared heavy equipment were similar across herd

sizes.

b. Percentage of operations that shared any heavy equipment (e.g., tractors,

feeding equipment, manure spreaders, trailers) with other livestock operations

during the previous 12 months, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

10.9 (1.1) 14.0 (2.0) 13.6 (1.8) 11.6 (1.6) 11.6 (0.9) 

5. Equipment cleaning and sharing

Overall, the majority of operations (85.0 percent) never used the same

equipment for manure handling and feed handling. About 1 of 4 operations with

100 to 199 and 200 or more beef cows occasionally used the same equipment

for manure and feed handling, (22.5 and 25.3 percent of operations,

respectively).
USDA APHIS VS / 79

Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

For operations that shared heavy equipment, approximately two of three did so

only one to four times per year. The number of times per year that equipment

was shared was similar across herd sizes.

c. For operations that shared any heavy equipment with other livestock

operations during the previous 12 months, percentage of operations by number

of times equipment was shared, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Number of 

Times Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 4 66.8 (5.4) 61.9 (7.6) 66.2 (6.9) 66.0 (6.9) 65.8 (3.9) 

5 to 9 16.8 (4.4) 16.5 (5.7) 17.0 (5.6) 20.1 (5.9) 16.9 (3.2) 

10 or more 16.4 (4.2) 21.6 (6.4) 16.8 (5.5) 13.9 (4.7) 17.3 (3.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

For operations that shared heavy equipment, approximately one of three

(35.6 percent) cleaned shared equipment prior to use. The percentages of

operations that cleaned shared equipment prior to use were similar across herd

sizes.

d. For operations that shared equipment, percentage of operations that cleaned

equipment prior to use, by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More All Operations 

Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

36.1 (5.5) 35.0 (7.9) 32.4 (6.7) 36.2 (7.0) 35.6 (4.0) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

80 / Beef 2007-08

For operations that cleaned shared heavy equipment prior to use, 80.0 percent

used only water or steam for cleaning. Only 5.0 percent of operations washed

and chemically disinfected shared heavy equipment prior to use.

e. For operations that cleaned heavy equipment prior to use, percentage of

operations by primary cleaning procedure:

Primary Cleaning Procedure Percent Operations Standard Error 

Wash equipment with 

water or steam only 80.0 (5.6) 

Chemically disinfect only 2.3 (2.3) 

Wash equipment and 

chemically disinfect 5.0 (2.6) 

Other 12.7 (4.9) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 81

Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

6. Natural resource management

A higher percentage of operations with 200 or more cows kept records of natural

resource conditions than did smaller operations. Otherwise, the percentages of

operations that used specified natural resource management practices were

relatively low and similar across herd sizes.

a. Percentage of operations by specified natural resource management

practices, and by herd size:

Percent Operations 

Herd Size (Number of Beef Cows)

 1-49 50-99 100-199 200 or More 

All 

Operations 

Management 

Practice Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Restrict access of 

cattle to flowingwater sources 18.9 (1.5) 19.3 (2.4) 24.3 (2.8) 24.0 (2.3) 19.7 (1.2) 

Restrict access of 

cattle to timber 13.9 (1.4) 14.0 (2.1) 18.2 (2.8) 11.1 (1.7) 14.1 (1.1) 

Keep written, 

computer or pictorial 

records of natural 

resource conditions 4.4 (0.8) 9.4 (1.7) 4.4 (1.1) 17.9 (1.9) 5.9 (0.6) 
Section I: Population Estimates—E. General Management

82 / Beef 2007-08

A lower percentage of operations in the South Central region (8.1 percent)

restricted access of cattle to flowing water compared with all other regions. A

higher percentage of operations in the West region (17.7 percent) kept records

of natural resource conditions than did operations in all other regions.

b. Percentage of operations by specified natural resource management

practices, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region 

West Central South Central East 

Natural Resource Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Restrict access of 

cattle to flowingwater sources 25.3 (3.4) 25.3 (2.6) 8.1 (1.8) 23.3 (2.0) 

Restrict access of 

cattle to timber 15.3 (3.3) 17.2 (2.3) 9.4 (2.0) 15.4 (1.7) 

Keep written, 

computer, or 

pictorial records of 

natural resource 

conditions 17.7 (2.9) 7.1 (1.3) 4.5 (1.1) 3.1 (0.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 83

Section II: Methodology

Section II: Methodology

A. Needs Assessment NAHMS develops study objectives by exploring existing literature and contacting

stakeholders about their informational needs and priorities during a needs

assessment phase. Stakeholders for NAHMS studies include industry members,

allied industry representatives, other government agencies, animal health

officials, and many others. The objective of the needs assessment for the

NAHMS Beef 2007-08 study was to collect information about the most important

health and productivity issues for cow-calf production. A driving force for the

needs assessment was the desire of NAHMS to receive as much input as

possible from a variety of producers, as well as from industry experts and

representatives, veterinarians, extension specialists, universities, and beef

organizations. Information was collected via interviews with key industry figures

and through a needs assessment survey.

The needs assessment survey was designed to ascertain the most critical

information gaps regarding animal health, and health and production

management from producers, veterinarians, extension personnel, university

researchers, and allied industry groups. The survey, created in SurveyMonkey,

was available online from September 9, 2006, through February 15, 2007, and

was promoted via electronic newsletters, magazines, and Web sites.

Organizations/magazines promoting the study included “Beef Magazine”,

“Drovers”, “Feedstuffs”, “Bovine Veterinarian”, and “The National Cattleman”.

E-mail messages identifying the online site and asking for input were also sent to

State extension personnel as well as State and Federal animal health officials. A

total of 94 people completed the questionnaire. Universities/extensions

accounted for 41.5 percent of respondents and veterinarians/consultants

accounted for 31.9 percent.

Draft objectives for the Beef 2007-08 study, using input from interviews, literature

searches, and the online survey, were drafted and circulated to stakeholder

groups. Following this review, six final study objectives were identified:

y Describe trends in beef cow–calf health and management practices,

y Evaluate management factors related to beef quality assurance,

y Describe record-keeping practices on cow-calf operations,

y Determine producer awareness of bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) and

management practices used for BVD control,

y Describe current biosecurity practices and producer motivation for

implementing or not implementing biosecurity practices, and

y Determine the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns of potential

food safety pathogens.
Section II: Methodology

84 / Beef 2007-08

B. Sampling

and Estimation

1. State selection

The preliminary selection of States to be included in the study was done in

October 2006, using the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) “Cattle

Report”. A goal for NAHMS national studies is to include States that account for

at least 70 percent of the animals and producer population in the United States.

The initial review of States identified 24 major States representing 87.8 percent

of the beef cow inventory and 79.6 percent of the operations with beef cows

(cow-calf herds). The States were: 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.

A memo identifying the States was provided in November 2006 to the

USDA-APHIS-VS CEAH Director and, in turn, the VS Regional Directors. Each

Regional Director sought input from the respective States about being included

or excluded from the study.

2. Operation selection

The list sampling frame was provided by NASS. Within each State a stratified

random sample was selected. The size indicator was the number of beef cows

for each operation. NASS selected a sample of beef producers in each State for

making their January 1 cattle estimates. The list sample from the January 2007

survey was used as the screening sample. Those producers in the 24 States

reporting 1 or more beef cows on January 1, 2007, were included in the sample

for contact in October 2007.

3. Population inferences

a. Phase I: General Beef Management Report

Inferences cover the population of beef producers with at least 1 beef cow in the

24 participating States. As of January 1, 2008, these States accounted for

87.8 percent (28.6 million head) of beef cows and 79.6 percent (603,000) of

operations with beef cows in the United States. (See Appendix II for respective

data on individual States.) All respondent data were statistically weighted to

reflect the population from which they were selected. The inverse of the

probability of selection for each operation was the initial selection weight. This

selection weight was adjusted for nonresponse within each State and size group

to allow for inferences back to the original population from which the sample was

selected.
USDA APHIS VS / 85

Section II: Methodology

C. Data Collection 1. Data collectors and data collection period

a. Phase I: General Beef Management Report

From October 22 through November 30, 2007, NASS enumerators administered

the General Beef Management Report. The interview took slightly over 1 hour.

D. Data Analysis 1. Phase I: Validation—General Beef Management Report

Initial data entry and validation for the General Beef Management Report were

performed in individual NASS State offices. Data were entered into a SAS data

set. NAHMS national staff performed additional data validation on the entire data

set after data from all States were combined.
Section II: Methodology

86 / Beef 2007-08

A total of 4,001 operations were selected for the survey. Of these operations,

3,648 (91.2 percent) were contacted. There were 2,872 operations that provided

usable inventory information (71.8 percent of the total selected and 78.7 percent

of those contacted). Of those, there were 2,159 operations (54.0 percent) that

provided “complete” information for the questionnaire. Of operations that

provided complete information and were eligible to participate in the veterinary

medical officer phase of the study (2,159 operations), 1,033 (47.8 percent)

consented to be contacted for consideration/discussion about further

participation.

E. Sample Evaluation The purpose of this section is to provide various response performance

measurement parameters. Historically, the term “response rate” was used as a

catchall parameter, but there are many ways to define and calculate response

rates. The table below presents an evaluation based upon a number of

measurement parameters, which are defined with an “x” in categories that

contribute to the measurement.

 Measurement Parameter 

Response Category 

Number 

Operations 

Percent 

Operations Contacts Usable1 Complete2

Survey complete and 

Veterinary Services 

(VS) consent 1,033 25.8 x x x 

Survey complete, 

refused VS consent 1,126 28.1 x x x 

No beef cows on 

October 1 and 

July 1, 2007 469 11.7 x x 

Out of business 244 6.1 x x 

Out of scope 7 0.2 

Refusal of GBMR 776 19.4 x 

Office hold (NASS 

elected not to contact) 46 1.2 

Inaccessible 300 7.5 

Total 4,001 100.0 3,648 2,872 2,159 

Percent of total 

operations 91.2 71.8 54.0 

Percent of total 

operations weighted3

 92.9 77.8 52.1 1

Usable operation—respondent provided answers to inventory questions for the operation (either zero or 

positive number on hand). 

2

Survey complete operation—respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions for at least one 

operation. 

3

 Weighted response—the rate was calculated using the initial selection weights. 
USDA APHIS VS / 87

Appendix I: Sample Profile

Appendix I: Sample Profile

Responding

Operations

1. Total beef cow inventory, by herd size

Herd Size 

(Total Beef Cow Inventory) Number of Responding Operations* 

1 to 49 819 

50 to 99 386 

100 to 199 381 

200 or more 573 

Total 2,159 

* Respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions for at least one operation. 

2. Number of responding operations, by region

Region Number of Responding Operations* 

West 370 

Central 612 

South Central 483 

East 694 

Total 2,159 

* Respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions for at least one operation. 
Appendix II: U.S. Beef Cow Population and Operations

88 / Beef 2007-08

Appendix II: U.S. Beef Cow Population and Operations

Number of cows on January 1, 2008*

Region State 

Beef Cow 

Inventory 

Jan. 1, 2008 

(Thousand Head) 

Beef Cow 

Operations 

2007 

West California 655 11,200 

 Colorado 730 9,900 

 Idaho 460 7,100 

 Montana 1,523 11,000 

 New Mexico 460 5,900 

 Oregon 605 11,500 

 Wyoming 733 4,800 

 Total 5,166 61,400 

Central Iowa 1,015 25,000 

 Kansas 1,511 26,000 

 Missouri 2,080 54,000 

 Nebraska 1,883 20,000 

 North Dakota 922 10,500 

 South Dakota 1,644 14,500 

 Total 9,055 150,000 

South Central Oklahoma 2,053 48,000 

Texas 5,240 130,000 

Total 7,293 178,000 

East Alabama 677 23,000 

Arkansas 943 26,000 

Florida 936 15,500 

Georgia 553 17,500 

Kentucky 1,159 38,000 

Louisiana 513 12,100 

Mississippi 519 18,500 

Tennessee 1,079 42,000 

Virginia 692 21,000 

Total 7,071 213,600 

Total (24 States) 28,585 603,000 

Percentage of U.S. 87.8 79.6 

Total U.S. (50 States) 32,553 757,900 

*Source: NASS Cattle report, February 1, 2008, and NASS Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock 

Operations 2007 Summary report, February 2008. An operation is any place having one or more 

head of beef cows, excluding cows used to nurse calves, on hand at any time during the year. 
USDA APHIS VS / 89

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

Appendix III: Study Objectives and Related Outputs

1.Describe trends in beef cow-calf health and management practices

• Part I: Reference of Beef Cow-calf Management Practices,

 October 2008

• Part II: Reference of Beef Cow-calf Management Practices, January 2009

• Part III: Changes in the U.S. Beef Cattle Industry, 1993-2008, expected

March 2009

• Part V: Reference of Beef Cow-calf Management Practices, expected

spring 2009

• Info sheets, expected spring 2009

2.Evaluate management factors related to beef quality assurance

• Part I: Reference of Beef Cow-calf Management Practices,

 October 2008

• Info sheets, expected fall 2008

3.Describe record-keeping practices on cow-calf operations

• Part I: Reference of Beef Cow-calf Management Practices,

 October 2008

• Part III: Changes in the U.S. Beef Cattle Industry, 1993-2008, expected

March 2009

4.Determine producer awareness of bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) and

management practices used for BVD control

• Part IV: Reference of Beef Cow-calf Health and Health Management,

expected spring 2009

• BVD Control on U.S. Beef Cow-calf Operations, Interpretive Report,

expected spring 2009

• Info sheets, expected spring 2009

5.Describe current biosecurity practices on cow-calf operations

• Part IV: Reference of Beef Cow-calf Health and Health Management,

expected spring 2009

6.Determine the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns of potential

food-safety pathogens

• Info sheets, expected spring 2009