Livestock Management Statistics

Livestock Management Statistics 2023: Facts about Livestock Management outlines the context of what’s happening in the tech world.

LLCBuddy editorial team did hours of research, collected all important statistics on Livestock Management, and shared those on this page. Our editorial team proofread these to make the data as accurate as possible. We believe you don’t need to check any other resources on the web for the same. You should get everything here only 🙂

Are you planning to form an LLC? Maybe for educational purposes, business research, or personal curiosity, whatever the reason is – it’s always a good idea to gather more information about tech topics like this.

How much of an impact will Livestock Management Statistics have on your day-to-day? or the day-to-day of your LLC Business? How much does it matter directly or indirectly? You should get answers to all your questions here.

Please read the page carefully and don’t miss any words.

Top Livestock Management Statistics 2023

☰ Use “CTRL+F” to quickly find statistics. There are total 122 Livestock Management Statistics on this page 🙂

---

Livestock Management “Latest” Statistics

• A small percentage of New Zealand respondents mentioned swelling at 2.9%, fatalities at 1%, infections at 0.7%, or bleeding at 0.6%, especially after surgical castration.^[1]
• In a prior study of U.S. dairy producers, it was discovered that 67% of dairies utilized gas or electric dehorning irons, and 67% of respondents said calves were dehorned by the time they were 8 weeks old.^[1]
• Using lethal multivalent viral vaccines against (BRB) is 19% in perinatal calves and vaccination against Mannheim Haemolytica and Histophilus Somni (19%) was also mentioned by a lower percentage of these responders.^[1]
• Even though it is required in the United Kingdom to administer local anesthetics at the time of castration, only 43% of British veterinarians were found to utilize local anaesthetic in calves older than 8 weeks of age.^[1]
• 90% of the 171 respondents said they castrate certain perinatal calves that weigh less than 90 kg.^[1]
• In lightweight calves, bands were the most often utilized nonsurgical castration technique, followed by the burdizzo clamp (22%) and elastrator rubber rings (15%).^[1]
• 87 respondents said that Beta-lactams were the most often used antibacterial class when given prophylactically (46%), followed by tetracyclines (22%), macrolides (4%), and florfenicol (3%), in that order.^[1]
• Prior to castration, the two most often used disinfectants were chlorhexidine (15%) and iodine (13%).^[1]
• To perinatal calves, modified live multivalent virus vaccinations against pathogens of bovine respiratory disease were the most often provided vaccines (140/171; 82%).^[1]
• A recent study of veterinarians in Australia indicated that 22% of all severe injuries recorded by veterinarians included cattle, which is a cause for concern for operator safety.^[1]
• Only 83% of them administered local anesthetic before surgical castration; the remaining 17% did so before both surgical and nonsurgical castration.^[1]
• In calves weighing less than 90 kg, elastator rubber rings were the most often utilized nonsurgical castration technique (84/44% ).^[1]
• Experience with the castration method was valued highly by 64 respondents (34%) and critically essential by 56 respondents (29%).^[1]
• 58 respondents 31% said they don’t castrate any lightweight dairy calves, while 48 respondents 25% only castrate one to twenty-four lightweight dairy calves annually.^[1]
• Of the 24/42 people who said they provided local anesthetic, 57% did not provide it to perinatal calves.^[1]
• Of 62 responders, 1 to 24 heavy-weight beef calves are castrated annually 27%, whereas of the 26 responders, 14% said they castrate 100 to 249 heavy-weight calves annually.^[1]
• The majority of respondents, 70; 37%, said that the danger of operator harm was the most crucial factor in choosing the castration technique, with 65 respondents saying it was extremely significant.^[1]
• 45% of 18/40 had analgesia only after surgical castration, whereas the remaining 55% of these 22/40 received both surgical and nonsurgical castration.^[1]
• Considerably more responders reported bleeding over 50% of the time after surgical castration in lightweight calves (7%) compared to perinatal calves (3%).^[1]
• Over 30% of respondents were alumni of Iowa State University (14%), Kansas State University (13%), and the Ohio State University (8%).^[1]
• However, 68% of UK farmers who castrated older calves surgically said that veterinarians were responsible for doing so.^[1]
• 16.5% of manufacturers in New Zealand boil their equipment. 8.4% of men cleaned their scrotums, and 4.5% of them only used antibiotics with surgical castration.^[1]
• On the other hand, of the 129 responders, 68% said that a veterinarian castrated calves that weighed greater than 270 kg.^[1]
• In comparison, 26% of responders gave local anesthetics to 91-100% of castrated high-weight calves before castration (11/42).^[1]
• In comparison, 91-100% of lightweight calves received regular antimicrobial prophylaxis from 34 respondents (18%), whereas 91 10% of castrated heavy-weight calves received the same treatment from 34 respondents (18%).^[1]
• In comparison, 28% or 53 respondents said edema was seen more often than not after nonsurgical castration.^[1]
• Contrarily, U.S. beef producers claim that saws, Barnes, or keystone guillotine dehorners are used in over 40% of instances, with the average age of dehorning stated to be about 120 days.^[1]
• Only 27% of New Zealand farmers said they utilized a veterinarian to execute castrations, in contrast to the UK survey’s findings.^[1]
• The most popular dehorning techniques used in lightweight (153; 81%) and high weight (135; 71%).^[1]
• Horn removal in newborn calves using cutting blades the most popular dehorning techniques were the Barnes dehorner (99; 52%), disbudding using an electric disbudding device (83; 43%), the gas disbudding (44; 23%), and caustic paste disbudding (12; 6%).^[1]
• At the time of castration, weaning (4%), hormone implanting (35%), tagging (51%), freeze branding (2%), and hot iron branding (24%).^[1]
• Despite this, just 10% of New Zealand farmers claim to castrate calves under local anesthetic.^[1]
• In the British study of cattle producers, 90% of farmers tried to manage or avoid infection following surgical castration, and 20% gave injectable antibiotics as a preventative measure.^[1]
• It is significant that 92% of the veterinarians polled for this study said they dehorn calves at the same time they castrate them.^[1]
• It is interesting to notice that almost 90% of responders say they castrate and vaccinate calves at the same time.^[1]
• It is interesting to note that while the British and New Zealand producer surveys did not ask about banding heavy-weight calves, over 53% of U.S. vets said they castrate these animals using banders.^[1]
• Notably, just 13% of veterinarians believed that the level of discomfort during the castration process was a crucial factor in their decision.^[1]
• British farmers favoured nonsurgical castration procedures, according to research by Kent and colleagues; burdizzo clamp castration was mentioned by 43% of respondents.^[1]
• The majority of respondents said they were either not involved in beef backgrounder activities (50; 26% ).^[1]
• Of them, 82 (43%) said they exclusively provide antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgical castration, whereas 21 (11%).^[1]
• At the time of castration, only % of responders habitually employed tetanus antitoxin, with 6% saying that this was exclusively for nonsurgical treatments.^[1]
• Only 28% of responders regularly gave perinatal calves tetanus toxoid. 54% of the 102 heavy-weight calves and 48% of the 90 low-weight calves.^[1]
• Other surgical castration techniques that were employed less often included incising the scrotum with a Newberry knife (32%) or a regular knife (14%) and removing the testicles using a Henderson castration tool (8%) or surgical ligation (8%).^[1]
• Other surgical castration techniques employed were manual twisting to remove the testicles (23%), surgical ligation (28%), the Henderson castration tool (14%), and a traditional knife (8%).^[1]
• In their operations, producers were mostly in charge of executing castrations on perinatal calves weighing less than 90 kg, according to over 83% of respondents.^[1]
• According to the NAHMS poll, over 50% of beef producers in the united states castrate their cattle by removing the testicles with a blade.^[1]
• 37% of respondents said the typical dairy herd size in their area was between 100 and 499 heads.^[1]
• Seventy-seven of respondents said they don’t often clean the scrotum before castration, while 23% , said they only do so before surgical castration.^[1]
• Among the 76 responders, 40% said they don’t castrate any heavyweight dairy calves, and 55% said they only do it between one and twenty-four times a year.^[1]
• 72 people responded. 38% of respondents said the average size of their practice’s beef breeding herds was between 1 and 49 heads, while 62% said the typical herd size was between 100 and 499 heads.^[1]
• Similar to how 30% of respondents who take analgesics did so for 11% of high-weight calves, while 28% of respondents said they did so for 91.1% of instances regularly.^[1]
• Similarly, out of 51 respondents, 27% said that dairy activities accounted for 11.2% of their total practice revenue.^[1]
• The majority (61% ) of those 111 said that equipment was only disinfected after surgical castration, whereas the minority (25% ).^[1]
• Sixty-four of responders said they waited 0-5 minutes after administering lidocaine before castration, whereas 36% said they waited 5-10 minutes for the anaesthetic to kick in.^[1]
• 62% of the respondents said they didn’t use surgical gloves for castration, while 35 respondents, or 19%, said they exclusively wore gloves during surgical castration.^[1]
• Given the study’s very low crude response rate of 9.6%, which may have introduced some nonresponse errors, some care is advised when interpreting the findings.^[1]
• According to Stafford and colleagues, 18% of New Zealand farmers favoured surgical castration, on older calves, whereas 85% chose rubber rings, particularly during the first three months of life.^[1]
• Following subclassification, it was discovered that 14% of respondents did not provide antibiotics prior to perinatal calf castration, and 15% of respondents were, but only 11% of perinatal calves.^[1]
• The most popular castration technique was similarly surgical castration using a knife (100; 53%), followed by testicular removal with an emasculator (96; 50%).^[1]
• Only 66% of members are listed on the current AABP membership list as having a connection to veterinary clinics.^[1]
• The frequency of castration-related difficulties reported by British farmers was minimal, with 28% of them reporting that surgical castration was most often involved.^[1]
• District 7 Iowa was represented by 54; 29% of respondents were from Minnesota, Colorado, Nebraska, Dakotas, North and South.^[1]
• The bulk of research participants was from Iowa and Minnesota. Colorado, Nebraska states North Dakota and South Dakota, which together make up about 24% of the U.S. cattle stockpile.^[1]
• One (53; 28%) or two (32; 17%) veterinarians were present in most of the offices.^[1]
• According to the survey’s findings, vets favored Barnes cutting blade dehorners for all classes of cattle, however, 43% said they disbudded newborn calves’ horns using electric dehorning irons.^[1]
• District 6 Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, as well as District 9 Arizona and Colorado, had the second highest participation rates (26;14% ).^[1]
• The participants’ biggest subgroup was 29 of the 15%, relatively recent grads made up 15%.^[1]
• These outcomes are consistent with those of the current research, which found that only 22% of respondents usually use local anesthetics and only 21% utilize systemic analgesics prior to castration.^[1]
• These findings are consistent with those reported here, where 68% of respondents said that castrating heavy-weight calves was a primary responsibility of veterinarians and 58% said they preferred surgical castration techniques.^[1]
• A total of 5-10 ml of lidocaine was given by 38% of respondents who had local anesthetic before castration, with 38% using 2-5 ml and 9% using 10 ml.^[1]
• Thirty-one of those who began the survey did not respond to all of the questions, and their data were not included in the study.^[1]
• 36 respondents said that they only castrate between 1 and 24 light beef calves per year, while the same number said they castrate between 100 and 249 light calves annually.^[1]
• Analgesics were not given to perinatal calves, according to 33% of respondents who used them, whereas analgesics were administered by 35% of respondents in only 11% of instances.^[1]
• This discrepancy is most likely brought on by the UK’s legal requirement that older calves be castrated by a veterinarian 20.^[1]
• Contrastingly, only 9.1% of responders from New Zealand farmers said that they disbud or dehorn calves at the time of castration.^[1]
• This also applied to high-weight calves, with the most common immunizations being modified live viral BRD vaccines (76%) and clostridial vaccines (81%).^[1]
• 24% of 10/42 reported either not giving local anaesthetic or giving it to just 11% of lightweight calves, while 14% of the 6/42 reported consistently giving local anesthesia to 91.1% of light.^[1]
• Twenty-seven percent of the respondents—51—stated that beef cattle provided 11-20% of their total practice revenue.^[1]
• 42 respondents, or 22%, said they frequently use local anesthetics, such as lidocaine, before castration.^[1]
• Following Spain, Romania and Greece had the second and third largest sheep populations in the EU, with respective percentages of 16.8% and 13.2%.^[2]
• Given the growing trend, this represented an additional 23% increase in output over the previous year of 20.19.^[2]
• Among these important manufacturers, output levels increased in Poland (4%) and Germany (1.8%), stabilized in Spain (0.2%), and fell in France (1.3%).^[2]
• The EU’s overall livestock count for pigs, cattle, sheep, and goats decreased by an anticipated 8.9% between 2001 and 2020.^[2]
• In France, there were between a fifth and a quarter (23.3%) of the EU’s cattle, while Spain had comparable percentages of the EU’s pig (22.4%) and sheep (24.8%).^[2]
• For instance, in 2020 Ireland represented 8.5% of the EU’s cattle, nearly at the same level as Spain, while Denmark represented 9.2% of the EU’s pig population, almost at the same level as France.^[2]
• Following a very steep decline in 2016, poultry production prices stabilized somewhat in 2018 and into the first half of 2019 before declining once again in 2020. The average price for the whole year was 2.9% less than the average in 2019.^[2]
• It increased EU output by around 4.2 million tonnes above what was seen in 2004, representing an increase of nearly 45% overall.^[2]
• According to the most recent assessment on the composition of agricultural holdings, livestock surveys encompass enough agricultural holdings to account for at least 95% of the country’s livestock population.^[2]
• Pigmeat production peaked in 2020. According to the EU, there were 23.0 million tonnes of pig meat produced in 2020, a modest increase of 1.2% from the previous record.^[2]
• In 2020, the EU produced about 6.8 million tonnes of beef and veal carcasses, which was 1.2% less than in 2019.^[2]
• While the number of cattle decreased by 10% in 2020, the number of sheep almost remained the same, declining by only 1%.^[2]
• Spain produced 27.4% of the sheep meat consumed in the EU in 2020, followed by France, 19.1% in Ireland, and 15.8% in Greece.^[2]
• The output prices for sheep and goats stayed below their average level for 2015 from 2016 to 2019, however, they quickly increased in 2020, rising a preliminary 7.8% as a year-over.^[2]
• While output in Germany continued to fall in 2020, falling 2.2%, marking the fourth consecutive yearly loss, it increased rapidly once again in Spain, rising 7.8%, marking the seventh straight year of growth.^[2]
• On livestock grazing administration, the government spent 362 million, or 46%, of that total.^[3]
• According to this calculation, the grazing cost cannot be less than $1.35 per AUM, and no fee change may be more than a 25% increase or reduction from the previous year’s level.^[3]
• Cattle are the animal species most responsible for emissions, accounting for around 65% of emissions from the livestock industry. Cattle are bred for both meat and milk production and for non-edible outputs including dung and draw power.^[4]
• Fossil fuel usage throughout supply chains, which cuts across all activities and species, is responsible for around 20% of the emissions from the cattle industry.^[4]
• According to the FAO’s latest study, closing the emission intensity gap within the current production systems might reduce emissions by roughly 30%.^[4]
• Enteric fermentation from ruminants and feed production and processing, which includes land use change, are the two largest sources of emissions, accounting for 45% and 39% of total emissions, respectively.^[4]
• In terms of commodities, beef and cattle milk account for the greatest share of emissions, each contributing 41% and 20% of the sector’s total GHG outputs.^[4]
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O), makes up 29% of livestock emissions, and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), makes up 27%.^[4]
• Pig meat accounts for 9% of emissions, followed by buffalo milk and meat, 8%, chicken meat, 8%, and small ruminant milk and meat, 6%.^[4]
• Global livestock emissions total 7.1 Gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent per year or 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions.^[4]
• Urbanization rates range from less than 30% in South Asia to approximately 80% in industrialized nations and Latin America as of the end of 2008, with more people living in urban environments than in rural ones.^[5]
• Animal food chains are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing up to 18% of all anthropogenic emissions.^[5]
• The yearly growth rate of the world’s per capita income was 21% between 1950 and 2000.^[5]
• According to Bruinsma 2003, restricted systems will account for at least 75% of the overall output increase through 2030, however, this expansion will be substantially slower in Africa.^[5]
• Compared to today’s 38%, 64% of the world’s population would reside in basins with limited water resources in 2025.^[5]
• Camel and sheep carcass weight gains per head throughout this time span are substantially smaller, just around 5%.^[5]
• Between the early 1960s and the middle of the 2000s, the weight of chicken and beef cow carcasses climbed by around 30%, while the weight of pig carcasses increased by about 20%.^[5]
• Future economic growth is anticipated to persist, often at rates between 1.0% and 3.1%, and others.^[5]
• 53% of agricultural GDP in developed nations is accounted for by the production and sale of cattle.^[5]
• A maximum of 20% of yearly CO2 emissions might be offset by global agriculture, with costs ranging from $20 to $100 per tCO2 eq equivalent.^[5]
• Only 2.5% of the world’s water resources are fresh water, making them comparatively rare.^[5]
• For cows, gains in milk output per animal have been about 30%, almost equal to increases in chicken egg production per animal during the same time period.^[5]
• Already 33% of its GDP is derived from agriculture, and that percentage is rising significantly.^[5]
• With the rising demand for livestock-related goods, the anticipated human population in 2050 is 9.15 billion, with a range of 7.96-10.46 billion.^[5]
• The state ranks third nationwide in terms of overall prime agricultural acreage with almost 89% of its agriculture being classified as prime farmland.^[6]
• Illinois has 72,000 farms as of April 2019 according to the United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service.^[6]
• About 75% of the state’s total land area, or 27 million acres, is used for agriculture in Illinois.^[6]
• Marketing of soybeans makes up 27% of the total, while marketing of livestock, dairy products, and poultry as a whole make up 13%.^[6]

Also Read

How Useful is Livestock Management

One of the primary benefits of livestock management is the optimization of resources. By carefully monitoring and managing livestock, farmers can ensure that animals are provided with the necessary feed, water, and shelter to thrive. This not only leads to healthier and more productive animals but also reduces waste and inefficiencies in the farming process. Proper management can also help farmers identify and address health issues early, reducing the risk of disease outbreaks and the need for antibiotics or other medications.

Livestock management is also crucial for maintaining the sustainability of farming practices. By implementing sustainable practices such as rotational grazing, manure management, and land conservation measures, farmers can minimize the environmental impact of livestock production. Proper waste management and emissions control can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution, while improving soil health and biodiversity. Sustainable livestock management practices can help ensure that farming remains viable for future generations.

Livestock management also plays a key role in ensuring food security and resilience in the face of challenges such as climate change and disease outbreaks. By practicing good biosecurity measures and preventive health care, farmers can protect their livestock from infectious diseases and other health threats. Proper management can also help mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events and other environmental challenges, ensuring a stable and reliable food supply.

In addition to its practical benefits, livestock management also has broader economic and social impacts. Livestock farming is a major source of employment and income in many rural areas, providing livelihoods for millions of people around the world. By ensuring the productivity and sustainability of livestock production, effective management can help support rural economies and communities, lifting people out of poverty and promoting social development.

Livestock management also plays a critical role in global food security and nutrition. Livestock products such as meat, milk, and eggs are key sources of protein and essential nutrients for billions of people around the world. By managing livestock effectively, farmers can ensure a consistent and reliable supply of these vital food products, helping to address hunger, malnutrition, and food shortages in many parts of the world.

In conclusion, livestock management is an essential component of modern agriculture with far-reaching benefits for farmers, consumers, and society as a whole. By practicing good management techniques, farmers can maximize productivity, reduce environmental impact, and ensure the sustainability of livestock production for generations to come. Livestock management is not just useful; it is indispensable for a thriving and sustainable agricultural sector.

Reference

---

1. biomedcentral – https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-6148-6-12
2. europa – https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agricultural_production_-_livestock_and_meat
3. blm – https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-grazing/livestock-grazing
4. fao – https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
5. nih – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935116/
6. illinois – https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/agr/About/Pages/Facts-About-Illinois-Agriculture.aspx