2025 Survey of Pennsylvania Beef Producers

Conducted by Penn State Extension
Tara Felix, PhD
in collaboration with the Center for Survey Research, Penn State Harrisburg

Survey Completed 2025

Executive Summary

The Pennsylvania Beef Producers Working Group (PABPWG) comprises four key beef cattle organizations in the state: Penn State Extension, Pennsylvania Beef Council, Pennsylvania Cattleman's Association, and the Center for Beef Excellence.  Their mission statement is "PA producers and stakeholders working together to monitor beef industry needs in order to create educational opportunities that improve performance and production."  In late 2016, the PABPWG commissioned a survey with two purposes: create baseline data about beef producers to help the working group characterize the complex and varied beef industry in Pennsylvania and identify specific challenges and opportunities for producers.  The previous survey was conducted in the spring of 2017. The PABPWG, recognizing the industry shifts post-COVID, commissioned a second survey in 2024. Thus, in the spring of 2025, Penn State Extension in collaboration with the Center for Survey Research at Penn State Harrisburg, and with the support of the PA Department of Agriculture through the PABPWG, used this second survey to evaluate changes that occurred in the beef industry in PA from 2017 to 2025.

A total of 745 producers responded to the survey. Using the last published NASS figure, of 11,800 beef producers, the respondents constitute 6.3% of Pennsylvania producers. Because the survey was distributed through multiple methods and was not a random sampling, this 6.3% is not necessarily representative or generalizable to all of the 11,800 beef producers in Pennsylvania. However, many of the survey findings confirm national trends in the beef industry as well as trends observed by beef professionals on the ground in Pennsylvania.

This report provides detailed examination of characteristics such as location, type and size of operation, age of producers and their tenure in the beef industry, future plans, greatest challenges, preferred methods of education and outreach and topics for educational programming. Production and marketing data provide a wealth of information on housing and confinement, pasture management, nutrition, how producers buy and sell calves and finished cattle, and specialty marketing.

Some major findings have not tended to differ much since 2017:

• Most producers have multiple operations, whether commercial cow-calf, retail fresh or freezer beef, or beef for personal use.
• Many producers are keeping their cattle from birth to slaughter and need outreach and education to support life-cycle production.
• Producers want more information about the business of beef production, ranging from farm business management to markets and farm succession.
• Nutrition was listed as the number one educational program producers wanted more of.
• A large number of respondents reported they are targeting both grass fed and natural markets, and the data raise questions about appropriate use of pasture management and supplementation on pasture.
• Producers still cite online videos, farm tours, regional meetings and one-on-one consultation as preferred methods of education, but the most preferred outreach method has shifted.

Some findings that appear to have changed since 2017:

• There is a slight upward trend in the average size of cow-calf operations in PA, with proportionally fewer 11 to 20 head herds and more 101 to 500 head herds.
• There is a slight upward trend in the average size of feedlot operations in PA, with proportionally fewer operations with less than 50 head and more operations with 51 to 100 head on feed.
• Fewer producers are targeting specialty markets in 2025 when compared to 2017.
• Government regulations were not cited as a primary challenge in 2025, as they were in 2017, rather respondents to the survey cited access to land and capital as their greatest challenges.
• The most preferred method of receiving education was through Penn State Extension.

These and other findings, along with accompanying recommendations, will inform the work of the PABPWG in making a positive impact on the Pennsylvania beef industry.

Introduction

The following is a summary of survey data commissioned by the Pennsylvania Beef Producers Working Group (PABPWG) through Penn State Extension. The PABPWG comprises four key beef cattle organizations in the state: Penn State Extension, Pennsylvania Beef Council, Pennsylvania Cattleman's Association, and the Center for Beef Excellence. The PABPWG's mission statement is "PA producers and stakeholders working together to monitor beef industry needs in order to create educational opportunities that improve performance and production."

In 2024, with funding from the PA Department of Agriculture (PDA), the PABWG commissioned Penn State Extension to conduct a survey in collaboration with the Center for Survey Research at Penn State Harrisburg.

The survey's purpose was twofold. The first purpose was to follow-up on baseline data from beef producers in the state that was gathered in 2017. The second was to build on that data to better serve the needs of beef cattle producers in the state of PA. These data will have great value in helping the working group characterize the complex and varied beef industry in Pennsylvania.

This report summarizes the data collected in the surveys, identifies important findings and provides recommendations for the PABPWG. Ultimately the survey findings should be useful in guiding education and outreach to sustain the Pennsylvania beef industry.

Materials and Methods

Overview

The 2024-25 Pennsylvania Beef Industry Survey was conducted by the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at Penn State Harrisburg at the request of the Pennsylvania Beef Council.

At the conclusion of the data collection period, a total of 745 respondents completed the survey: 434 via web and 311 via paper. All data were collected between September 20, 2024, and March 21, 2025.

The study protocol was submitted to Penn State University's Office for Research Protections and was subsequently approved under Penn State IRB #00025714.

Instrument Development

In summer 2024, CSR worked with Dr. Tara Felix to develop the survey instrument for collecting data from Pennsylvania’s beef producers. CSR formatted the survey for paper distribution and programmed it for web distribution via Qualtrics web survey software.

One of the major challenges in conducting this survey was understanding the size of the PA beef industry.  The best available information is drawn from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), whose most recent survey data are from 2012. NASS identified 25,100 cattle operations in Pennsylvania, of which 11,800 were directly involved in beef production. The remaining 13,300 are principally dairy operations. 

Identifying contact information for even a small number of the nearly 12,000 beef producers in the state proved a daunting task. As the survey data indicate, there are many very small producers (less than 10 cattle) and many others whose main source of on-farm income is from non-beef operations. These producers may not be working with any of the organizations represented in the PA Beef Producers Working Group and do not necessarily show up on industry listings. Thus, the initial survey sample was drawn from various mailing lists obtained by Penn State Extension. The lists were used to send survey invitations via mail to 2,276 records and via email to 6,417 records. Additional outreach and recruiting efforts were completed by Penn State Extension. A postcard with information about the survey was developed and extra paper surveys were printed for in-person distribution.

Data Collection

Web surveys were monitored during the survey fielding period, and paper surveys were entered by CSR staff upon receipt. Ineligible and partial survey responses were removed from the final data set. At the conclusion of the data collection period, a total of 745 respondents completed the survey: 434 via web and 311 via paper. Because the survey was open to other beef producers who were not part of the initial sample, the final sample size is unknown. As a result, it is not possible to calculate a response rate for this survey. We can say that 434 of the participants responded by web – 58% of the total that responded – suggesting there was still a strong use of the paper surveys. 

Representativeness of the Data

How much of the PA beef industry is represented in the survey? A total of 745 producers responded to the survey (although not every respondent answered every question – one question may have 725 responses, another 742: the total number of responses varies by question). Using the NASS figure of 11,800 beef producers, the respondents constitute 6.3% of producers. However, this 6.3% is not necessarily representative of the 11,800 beef producers in Pennsylvania. This is because in statistical terms, the survey distribution methods did not produce a random sampling of producers. For instance, we cannot say with certainty that the proportion of cow-calf producers among survey respondents is representative of the number of cow-calf producers in the state. Nor can we say that because a high number of respondents are from one county that there is actually a higher concentration of beef producers in that county than in other counties. 

However, many of the survey findings confirm national trends in the beef industry as well as trends observed by beef professionals on the ground in Pennsylvania. These data provide a better understanding of the characteristics of the state's beef industry and serves as a tool for developing targeted education and outreach to address specific practices.

More importantly, the survey's goal of identifying both topics and methods for outreach and education provides the working group with the data it needs to set a clear direction for improving beef industry production and performance in Pennsylvania. The survey identifies trends in beef production, such as the combination of operations under one roof, an interest in expanding herd size, and a growing interest in specialty marketing.

Geographic Categories

Survey responses were received from producers in 62 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties (no responses were received from Philadelphia, Forest, Monroe, Delaware, or Pike counties). This results in small numbers of respondents per county (if divided equally, there would be roughly 12 operations, or less than 2%, in each county). To make the geographic distribution of respondents more meaningful, the county data were combined into multi-county areas based on the method Penn State Extension employed to define service areas. There are ten Extension Areas (plus the three major metropolitan counties of Allegheny, Philadelphia and Delaware). Figure 1 shows the Penn State Extension Areas, some of which are quite large and include up to nine counties. For the purposes of survey reporting, the 3 major metropolitan areas were combined within their respective Extension Areas (e.g., Allegheny joined Area 6.)

These ten areas have been used consistently in the analysis of the survey data and appear throughout this report. They are helpful in identifying regional trends. 

Characteristics

Type of Beef Operation

To understand the breadth of operations for Pennsylvania beef producers, the survey asked respondents to identify their primary operation along with other beef operations in which they are involved. Both questions were posed as multiple-choice. Respondents could choose only one operation as their primary, but could choose several operations as others in which they are involved. The distribution of primary beef operations generally follows expected patterns, with the exception of background/stocker which seems to be disproportionately low at only 28 respondents (3.9%; Figure 2). 

The low number of respondents identifying backgrounder/stocker as a primary operation is a somewhat interesting finding giving the abundance of forage in PA; however, when primary and other operations are combined, the number of backgrounder/stockers increases from 28 to 84 (Figure 3). Therefore, we believe that respondents who are engaged in backgrounder/stocker operations just don’t consider it their primary beef operation, but rather a secondary operation.

There is a notable increase in all types of operations when primary and other operations are combined. This confirms that many beef producers are involved in more than one type of operation (for instance a commercial cow-calf producer may also have a small retail freezer beef operation). The number of respondents with these types of blended operations indicates the need for continuing blended, or life-cycle, education and outreach events, as methods that target specific operations may be missing a number of producers.

Location of Beef Operation

Survey respondents represented all but 5 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties: there were no respondents from Philadelphia, Forest, Monroe, Delaware, or Pike counties. There were 718 responses to this question. The largest numbers of respondents by county are shown in Figure 4 below:

While it may be tempting to draw conclusions concerning the distribution of beef operations in Pennsylvania from the survey data, such conclusions would be conjecture at best. As discussed in the Materials and Methods section, the survey may not have been distributed equally across Pennsylvania, and, therefore, does not produce a representative sample. For example, data showing a larger number of respondents in Berks, Bedford, Westmoreland, and Lancaster counties means those just might have been areas where producers chose to respond to the survey. Despite these uncertainties, the location data when used with caution (and in terms of areas rather than counties) can inform outreach and education efforts. 

The Extension area map was used to reduce respondents to areas as opposed to the 67 counties.  Area 7 has the most respondents followed by Areas 6 and 8 (Figure 5).  The same Extension Area map is used to show survey respondents by type of primary beef operation. Figure 6 shows the location of survey respondents who identified commercial cow-calf as primary operation which was the largest proportion of survey respondents (note if respondents did not cite a county, they could not be split into Areas). Area 6 had the most respondents followed by areas 1 and 7. 

As discussed above, these data must be used with caution.  However, there are some clusters among the respondents who identified a geographic location, as can be seen in Figures 6 and 7.  

• There were over 90 survey respondents, 67.0% of the total, in each Extension Area 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Figure 5).
• Western PA (Areas 1, 6 and 7) has over 49% of the 237 respondents who identified as commercial cow-calf and 49% of the 139 respondents who identified purebred cow-calf as their primary operation. Targeted cow-calf programs are critical in this area (Figure 6).
• Southeastern and southcentral PA (Areas 8 and 9) had 56% of the 98 respondents who identified feedlot/finisher as their primary operation (Figure 7).
• Respondents who identified their primary operation as retail fresh or freezer beef appear to be growing across the state. Area 2 and Area 3 respondents identified heavily with retail fresh or freezer beef as their primary operations, 31 and 24% in each area respectively. Interestingly, retail fresh and freezer beef seems to be growing among younger producers with 26% of 18- to 34-year-olds identifying it as their primary operation while just 12% of respondents over 65 identified it as their primary operation (data not shown).

Size of Beef Operation

The size of a beef producer's operation can have implications for operations ranging from herd health to marketing and business planning.  Survey respondents were asked to identify herd size in the following question 'On average, how many cattle do you run per year? (For instance, cattle marketed through a feedlot, breeding age females and bulls, stocker capacity).'

Of the 740 producers who responded to this question, 84.2% have 100 cows or fewer on average, of which nearly 14.5% are truly small herds of less than 10 cattle (Figure 8). It may seem intuitive that those with small numbers of cattle are raising them for personal use, but a more detailed analysis of the data reveals that this is not necessarily the case. Figure 9 shows the number of respondents who run an average of 50 or fewer cattle, sorted by their primary beef operation. As would be expected, 100% of survey respondents who raise beef primarily for personal use have less than 50 cattle. However, there is also a high number of commercial cow-calf operations running 50 or fewer cattle: 147 of the 237 survey respondents who are primarily commercial cow-calf.

NOTE: The data displayed in Figure 9 is sorted to show the primary beef operation of survey respondents, but the number of cattle reflects all of the operations that a respondent is involved in. For instance, a respondent may have 25 cattle in commercial cow-calf and 20 in retail freezer beef. All 45 cattle would be counted as commercial cow-calf when answering the question 'on average how many cattle do you run' even though 20 of the cattle are in freezer beef. This can cause an artificial inflation in the number of cattle per primary operation.

One way to use these data is to look at the average herd size for each primary operation. Figure 10 shows that, according to survey data, 38% of commercial cow-calf operators run between 21 and 50 cattle on average. Also, 109 survey respondents reported that they have commercial cow-calf as an 'other operation' in addition to their primary operation but they are not represented on this chart (their cattle were counted under a different primary operation, see note on Figure 8 above). But, clearly there are enough commercial cow-calf operators with small herds to justify targeted programming. Depending on the nature of the education and outreach, it may make more sense to target those cow-calf operations who run 100 cattle or less.

Another example is shown below (Figure 11) for respondents whose primary operation is feedlot/finisher.  In addition to the 98 survey respondents who identified feedlot/finisher as their primary operation, 138 respondents reported feedlot/finisher as a secondary operation and are not represented in this chart.  In other words, more respondents reported feedlot/finisher as a secondary operation (138) than as a primary operation (98). In this instance, more data collection may be warranted if the number of cattle run is a critical factor in planning education and outreach for feedlot/finishers.

On-Farm Income from Beef Operation

The survey asked producers what percentage of on-farm income is derived from beef production. Of those that generate on-farm income, 68.2% derive less than half of their income from beef production, as compared to 25.1% who make more than half of on-farm income from beef (Figure 12). These respondents may have other on-farm operations that support their beef operations, or conversely, they may be using their beef operations to support other on-farm operations. Either way, it's worth noting that many beef respondents have other on-farm operations which can affect business plans, succession planning, and a variety of production practices such as housing and grazing.

These data raise more questions than they answer, such as how does on-farm income compare to off-farm income? Can we consider a beef operation profitable that brings in less than 50% of on-farm income? While it is not possible to determine whether an operation is profitable from these data, it is useful to look at what types of beef operations seem to be bringing in higher levels of on-farm income. Figure 13 shows us the variation among operation type for percentage of on-farm income generated by beef. These data may help explain the growth of certain markets (i.e. stocker/backgrounded and beef from dairy) among PA producers.  

Age of Respondents and Tenure in Beef Production

The average age of survey respondents is 57.1 years (n = 739). These data are quite consistent with other sources of information on the age of farmers, both nationally and within Pennsylvania. According to the NASS 2012 Census of Agriculture, the average age of farmers in the nation in 2012 was 56.3 years, and in Pennsylvania the average age was 53.7 years (quickstats.nass.usda.gov). 

The age responses were grouped into categories to make the data more usable.  Figure 14 shows that the largest number of responses is in the age categories '65 & Older' and '35 to 54'. A majority of survey respondents (58.5%) are age 55 and over. This actually represents a numeric decline in these combined categories from 2017 from 63.2% at that time. More "newer" producers are entering the business with a nearly 5% unit increase in the category age 18 to 34.

Age is closely related to tenure – length of time – in the beef business, but not entirely. The survey respondents are mostly long-time producers (Figure 15). Over 59% reported they have been in the business for more than 15 years.

It seems intuitive that older producers have been in the business longer. The survey data support this premise: a large majority of respondents who are 65 and older have been in the beef business for more than 15 years. However, as Figure 16 shows, a large majority of younger respondents, age 35-54 and 55-64, have also been in the business for more than 15 years, so it would be inaccurate to equate experience with age for beef producers.

Thus, if education and outreach strategies are based in part on the age of the target audience, consideration should be given to reaching producers in across multiple age groups. However, just as with national data, our data suggest that the average beef producer is generally older. Thus, additional efforts to reach this demographic should be made.  

Future Plans

In order to better understand and assist with the future operational pursuits of beef producers in Pennsylvania, we asked about their 5-year beef production plans. Survey respondents were asked to choose one response.

Two different figures are shown below to explain the results.  Figure 17 provides information on the overall categories for future plans. These include: getting out of production, decreasing cattle, keeping the number of cattle the same or adding cattle.  For this figure, the various levels of adding cattle (less than 10, 10 to 50, etc.) have been combined into one category of 'add cattle'.

The results show that respondents overwhelmingly plan on retaining or expanding their cattle numbers.  Most respondents plan on adding cattle.  This was reported by 328 of the respondents (45.1%), slightly ahead of the 320 that plan to keep the number of cattle the same (44%). Decreasing their cattle herd is planned by 59 producers (8.1%), while only 20 plan to get out of beef production (2.8%).

Figure 18 includes all of the categories that respondents were able to choose from and provides a breakdown of the number of cattle respondents are planning to add.  This allows more detail and review as to the degree by which producers plan to add cattle.

The 38.6% of respondents that are interested in adding 50 cattle or less to the operation suggest a desire for gradual expansion. It should be noted that respondents seeking opportunities for growth appear to be more optimistic than they were in 2017.

The fifth ranked category is adding 51 to 100 cattle, (34 respondents or 4.7%). The remaining three categories in order of rank are: get out of beef production (20 respondents or 2.8%), adding 101 to 500 cattle (12 respondents or 1.7%) and adding 500 +cattle (2 respondents or 0.3%).

While nationwide, the beef cattle industry has been contracting since 2020 with cow herd numbers reduced to the lowest population since the 1950’s, the self-reported metrics collected in this survey suggest that beef producers in PA are expanding or hoping to expand.

A look into 5-year producer plans by specific operation types gives a more in-depth view of how to plan for future educational and service needs.  It’s important to note that the figures reported in this section are based on the reported primary beef operation, and do not reflect secondary operations.

Overall results for future plans by primary beef operation predominantly show stability and expansion.  As shown on Figure 19, adding cattle and keeping the number of cattle the same are the top two plan types for every primary beef operation type. Those with 'adding cattle' as the most reported plan and ‘keeping the number of cattle the same’ as second include: dairy beef, purebred cow-calf and commercial cow-calf operations. Those with 'keeping the number of cattle the same' as the top plan type and 'adding cattle' as second are: personal use, retail or freezer beef, backgrounder/stocker and feedlot/finishers. 

Survey results show that future plans for adding cattle well exceed plans for getting out of the beef business.  However, there is variation when looking at factors such as length of time in the beef industry or age of producer.  For example, adding cattle is the top plan for four out of five categories of beef operations based on time in the beef business. Keeping the number of cattle the same was the top category for producers that have been in the beef business more than 15 years (Figure 20).

Just as length of time in the beef industry affects future plans, so does the age of the respondents. Survey results show that adding more cattle is the top future plan for the two youngest age categories -- 18 to 34 year 

olds and 35 to 54 year olds (Figure 21). Respondents 55 to 64 years old and those 65 or older reported their top plan as keeping the number of cattle the same. However, adding cattle was their second highest plan.

Also worthy of note is the number of respondents 65 or older that plan on getting out of beef production. This number is well above the next highest age category (55 to 64) with 2 respondents getting out of the beef business. Overall, the data for producers 65 or older reveal an important and varied role that this age group plays in the beef industry. While they are most likely to get out of the beef business (17 out of 241 producers or 7.0%), they also have the highest number of respondents that plan on keeping their number of cattle the same (130). In addition, they report 55 producers that plan on adding cattle.

The data from the length of time in the beef cattle business and age categories provide a few items for consideration. First, a few respondents (primarily with the most experience or age) will be getting out of the beef industry and may require materials or training on how to plan for their transition and farm succession.

In 2017, recommendations were made for an effort of recruiting or mentoring new and younger beef producers. The growth in this category is evidence of success with the 18- to 34-year-olds and those in the beef business for less than 1 year and 1 to 5 years are already relatively strong, programming for these younger producers is a growing need.

To show geographical dispersion of producers that plan to retain or expand their herd size, Figure 22 contains the number of respondents that plan on keeping their number of cattle the same or adding cattle.  Overall, the Extension Areas in the southern and western part of the state contain the greatest interest in expansion. This figure illustrates the need for programmatic efforts geared toward expansion in Area 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

When respondents do plan on adding cattle, the degree to which they plan on doing so is predominantly for '10 or less' or '10 to 50 cattle'.  Many of the educational materials and services for beef operations will be similar no matter what the size. However, encouraging this continued trend of growth may require concerted efforts in grant support and facilities design, like those that have been offered by the Center for Beef Excellence in recent years.

Production and Marketing

General Herd Management – Housing, Confinement and Grazing

The general herd management of Pennsylvania beef producers is dependent on what they responded was their primary operation. Most respondents use a combination of grazing and confinement with 58.6% (n = 431) in their operations (Figure 23). The most common type of housing used by survey respondents was an outdoor lot, with 38% of respondents (Figure 24). However, a close second was bank barns followed by bedded pack barns. Bank barns and bed packs are excellent facilities for cattle in cold climates which is likely why they rank highly in this Pennsylvania survey. However, both can have a buildup of moisture and poor ventilation and these issues should be addressed with producers using these facilities. The prevalence of outdoor lots in Pennsylvania is likely due to producers utilizing winter feeding lots to conserve pastures. Therefore, the interpretation of this number as 'confinement' should be used cautiously. The fact that housing types add to more than 100 means that producers in PA are using a variety of housing practices to meet the needs of their operations.

Of the 736 respondents that responded to the survey questions on herd management, over 89% are using some grazing in their operations. Interestingly enough, there remain a large number of respondents utilizing continuous grazing (Figure 26). This highlights the need for continued education surrounding the advantages of rotational grazing systems. Rotational grazing is a preferred best management practice to improve land use and forage quality.   

Impact of Specialty Markets

Confinement is also widely utilized in Pennsylvania. While climate likely plays a role in the combination of confinement and grazing, another possible explanation may be the number of specialty markets in Pennsylvania. Most of the respondents targeting specialty markets are targeting natural markets, which are largely undefined by organizations or individuals using them, although some well-defined commercial, natural programs exist in 

Pennsylvania. Although there is a lot of popular press and commercialization of organic foods, only 1% (n=3) of the beef producers surveyed are targeting markets in a certified organic market, and 2 of those operations are purebred cow-calf operations. This may mean that efforts focused on certified organic farming at this time may not be worthwhile to the Pennsylvania beef industry at large. The remainder of the specialty markets were grass-fed (35.5%), breed-specific markets (like Certified Angus Beef, 38.5%), and others (15.1%). Due to the heavy influence of grazing and the fact that almost 40% of respondents are targeting grass-fed markets, this is an area of programming that could benefit many producers in Pennsylvania.

When producers target specialty markets, such as grass-fed or natural programs, this may slightly shift to use both grazing or confinement (Figure 27). It is important to note that respondents could select multiple specialty markets when answering the survey. For example, there may be some overlap in those marketing for grass-fed and natural cattle, two of the largest groups.

NOTE: The data displayed in this chart are sorted to show the general marketing of survey respondents targeting specialty markets, but a producer could be involved in more than one specialty market. For instance, a producer may market his beef as both grass-fed and natural.  Each response would be counted as an individual response. This can cause an artificial inflation in the number of respondents targeting specialty markets.

Of the producers surveyed, the vast majority, 64.7% (n = 461), do not target specialty markets. For those marketing finished cattle through specialty markets, 19.5% (n=138) are being marketed as natural beef. The next largest outlet for these specialty calves is through grass-fed beef (15.1%; n=107). Marketing through specialty markets may be an area for greater emphasis in programmatic efforts. Specifically, where to target sales and the economics of the specialty markets should be addressed with each program.

Supplements on Pasture

While many respondents use some combination of housing and grazing, 90% of respondents feeding cattle on pasture provide some type of supplement, and most provide multiple options (Figure 27). In many cases, the pasture supplement is supplemental hay (83.3%). Unfortunately, we do not know if this is due simply to a need 

for winter feeding or if perhaps this number is representative of a great deal of overstocked summer pastures and the need for year-round supplementation of energy on pasture. A great deal of respondents mentioned that they also supplement with grain (47.8%). Again, whether this is representative of growing cattle being left on pasture and supplemented with addition feed, or if this represents some deficiency of pasture to meet the energy needs of the Pennsylvania cattle population, we cannot say from this survey. The number of respondents that supplement hay or grain on pasture as operation size increase is likely just caused by the shift to increased confinement when producers have over 100 head of cattle and the relatively low proportion of respondents with cattle farms over 100 head (Figure 28).

NOTE: The data displayed in this chart are sorted to show the supplementation strategies of survey respondents by herd size, but a producer could feed both hay and grain. Each response would be counted as an individual response. This can cause an artificial inflation in the number of respondents who supplement with either hay or grain mix. Still, the most common supplement, regardless of operation size, is grain mix.

The most popular type of mineral supplementation is a loose mineral, at 53.3% of respondents; however, mineral blocks were used by 53.1% of respondents so the difference between those two is really negligible (Figure 27).  From a nutritionist’s viewpoint, the loose minerals are preferable to mineral blocks as animals tend to consume them better and they are freshened more often. As the size of the cattle operation increases, respondents use proportionately more loose minerals and fewer mineral blocks (P < 0.01; Figure 29). Just 3 respondents reported they do not use any supplementation on pasture. In 2017, 7 respondents had reported not using mineral supplementation on pasture. This appears to represent an improvement likely due to the emphasis in nutritional education provided following the 2017 survey. In Pennsylvania, all cattle on pasture need at least mineral supplements. This point should continue to be stressed in future meetings wherever possible. Many producers will cite the cost of minerals ($700 to $800 per ton) as a reason not to feed them. This is a falsely inflated number because minerals are most typically fed at a rate of 4 ounces per animal each day. Thus, minerals currently cost beef producers 2 cents per head per day. The advantages in reduced morbidity (and mortality), reduced fertility issues, and increased rates of gain far out way this cost.

NOTE: The data displayed in this chart are sorted to show the supplementation strategies of survey respondents by herd size, but a producer could be using more than one supplementation strategy. These 3 in particular were separated out because, in general, we would not expect producers to feed multiple mineral supplements. Thus, this shows the increasing use of loose minerals as herd size increases.

When the producers were questioned about the conservation techniques they use when grazing cattle, many replied they used stream bank fencing (42.7%) and winter sacrifice lots (42.6%). Only 15.6% of respondents reported not using any conservation techniques. In 2017, we reported that the use of conservation techniques is closely tied to the size of the operation. Many very small operations, less than 10 head, do not have the land or resources to employ certain practices. Regardless, the fact that many beef cattle producers in PA employ not just one, but multiple conservation practices, is a hallmark for the industry and should be noted. The most popular conservation techniques across the board are stream bank fencing, sacrifice lots for the winter, and manure storage (Figure 30).

Management of Pre-weaned Calves

The management of pre-weaned calves (use of two stage weaning, creep feeding and vaccinations) is dependent on how many cattle the respondents run per year. For respondents that run less than 50 head per year, the management technique most used is creep feeding which is used by over half the respondents. Although management depends on herd size, the duration from wean to ship does not. The majority of respondents hold calves 45 days or more (72.0%) prior to shipping, and only 5% of producers ship the calves directly to the feedlot. Holding calves prior to feedlot entry is an important management tool to mitigate sickness in the feedlot. Nationwide, less than 45% of calves are held after weaning prior to shipment to the feedlot (Ohio State University Extension, 2017).

Sales and Markets for Calves and Cows

Typically, sale of cattle is dependent on the primary beef operation of the respondent (P < 0.01). The majority of respondents who produce feedlot/finisher cattle (99%), retail fresh or freezer (93.4%), and dairy cattle for beef (81.1%) sell them as finished. As one would expect, the majority of backgrounded cattle are sold as yearlings (61.5%). Although the majority of respondents that are selling from their commercial cow-calf operations sell the most of their animals as weaned calves (n =148; Figure 31), many also sell their cattle as finished cattle (n = 127). These values shift dramatically when we look at the purebred cow-calf operations (Figure 32). Purebred cow-calf operations are selling predominantly breeding stock (64.0%).

Note: There were 232 respondents from commercial cow-calf operations that responded to the question regarding how they sell their feeder calves out of the 237 respondents that identified cow-calf as their primary operation. This data show that many producers must be using a variety of outlets for their cattle. However, the 2 most common sales appear to be either as weaned calves or as finished cattle. This graph further illustrates the number of respondents that may be birth-to-finish operations which is not common nationwide.

Note: It is important to note that the obvious greatest difference between the commercial and the purebred cow-calf operators is the sale of breeding stock, but there are also fewer purebred operations (139 purebred operation respondents to this question vs 232 commercial cow-calf for the same question). Proportionately, purebred respondents are just as likely to take calves all the way to finish as commercial (59.0% of purebred vs 54.7% of commercial cow-calf respondents take calves all the way to finish)

The sale of cattle appears to be dependent on area, but area differences are difficult to dissect, suggesting cattle producers are using a wide array of options to sell their cattle.

The difficulty in dissecting the sales by area may have to do with the fact that many Pennsylvania producers are raising their own feeder calves and selling them as finished cattle off their operations, as discussed more later. This may be part of the reason that more counties appear to be selling finished cattle (Figure 35) than weaned calves (Figure 34).

This is important to programmatic efforts because there may be the temptation to generalize programming and offer feedlot meetings in the Southeast and cow-calf meetings in the West simply based on location of the primary operations (Figure 3), when in fact, programmatic efforts probably should be more diverse throughout the state. The fact that over 67.1% of survey respondents are selling finished cattle represents the tremendous need for programming related to feedlot nutrition and management as well as marketing finished cattle (Figure 35).

Most producers surveyed are selling cattle direct to consumer (59.6%; Figure 36). However, since 2017, the proportion of respondents that use online markets to sell their cattle has nearly tripled, up to 5.7% from just 2.1% in the previous survey. This 185% increase reflects similar national shifts in marketing.

Incredibly, 59.9% of respondents are raising their own animals to market (Figure 37). This scenario of raising one's own cattle for finish is a little bit unique to the state of Pennsylvania and may be driven by a) the plethora of small scale slaughterhouses in the state, and b) the proximity of farms to the populace.

The fact that many respondents are raising their own cattle may have also driven the low response to the question regarding how many cattle were sourced from Pennsylvania. Two thirds of the respondents source their cattle from Pennsylvania, but this only represents 288 producers. Only 77 respondents reported buying cattle outside of PA and of these, most purchased from VA.

The majority (72.4%) of respondents sell their cattle in Pennsylvania, but this represents only 293 respondents, again likely driven by the retention of one's own feeder cattle. Only 57 respondents reported selling cattle outside of PA and of these, most are sold to states surrounding PA.

Education and Outreach

Greatest On-Farm Challenges

Producers were asked to identify the greatest on-farm challenges they face. Respondents were given a choice of eight common challenges in the PA beef industry: government regulations, access to land, access to capital, direct marketing, access to USDA-inspected packers, neighbor relations, access to veterinary care, and dairy-to-beef transitions.  Respondents could also choose 'other' and write down their challenges.

In 2017, 'government regulations' is an issue that was seen as a challenge by the greatest number of producers at 303 (43.7% of respondents). However, it has now shifted to 3^rd. Respondents in 2025 view access to land (42%) and capital (36%) as the 2 greatest challenges they face (Figure 39). This may be indicative of shifts toward increasing beef production in PA. Access to veterinary care was ranked as the next greatest challenge, being reported by 169 producers (25% of respondents) as one of their greatest on-farm challenges.

This challenge associated with veterinary access may be because the majority of respondents are seeking out their veterinarians as at least one source of consultation (Figure 40, respondents could select multiple options). This need for the veterinarian to be the "point person" for the farm is a novel finding in 2025 as this question was not asked in 2017. Penn State Extension is being sought as a source of consultation, second only to the operation's veterinarian.

It’s important to view the 'other' category from the on-farm challenges questions not only because it had 116 respondents, but also because it can expand upon unique producer experiences and/or perspectives. Some comments addressed topics from the selected response again (e.g., "availability of butcher"). The top categories related to marketing and production. Similar to the 2017 survey, age and weather still weighed heavily on producers that responded to "other".

Education Topics of Interest

Producers were asked about eleven common topics of interest in the PA beef industry (Figure 41). Respondents could also choose 'other' and write down their own topics.

Respondents are interested in more education – only 11% of respondents indicated that they were not interested in learning about any topics. The topic generating most interest is nutrition, with 320 producers (45% of respondents) wanting to learn more about it. The second highest topic area was handling facilities (35%; n=246), followed by farm business management at 220 (31 % of respondents), then genetics (29% of respondents) and housing facilities (29% of respondents).  The only predetermined categories that do not have over 100 interested producers were 'none – not interested in learning more about other topics' and 'preconditioning'.

Additionally, 51 respondents (7% of respondents) chose to write-in other topics. After the survey was closed, these topic areas were put into categories by the survey team. The 'other' topics heavily emphasized the desire for conservation and land management practices. This is valuable considering the large number of farms currently using continuous grazing practices.

Preferred Methods of Receiving Information

The survey also addressed preferences for receiving information, which is an important program component. Education and service providers can have valuable information, but if it is not made available by accessible and effective means, it will have a limited audience and impact.

By using a scale of 1 (Not at all Likely) to 5 (Extremely Likely), the survey asked producers about their likelihood of using various educational methods. The mean values (average scores) of the results are shown in Figure 43. It is worth noting that, in general, there is a strong desire for information among respondents as 7 out of the 11 types of information scored over the mean value of 3, indicating respondents would be likely to access information. However, one particular source stood out. Respondents to this survey had a strong preference for receiving information from Penn State Extension (mean value = 3.94). While this may be somewhat related to the distribution of the survey, it highlights the need for continued collaboration across beef organizations in Pennsylvania to serve all the needs of producers.

It's important to point out the mean value differences between similar delivery methods. For example, regional meetings received a 3.23 mean value but statewide meetings received only a 2.71 mean. This is also applicable to webinars.  Webinars that can be watched at any time received a 3.17 mean value, while online webinars at a scheduled time received a 2.57 mean value.

The data for delivery methods provide insight into ways to best reach producers. There are a number of methods that have a high likelihood that respondents will use them. Case in point: the top four rated methods, after Penn State Extension, only have a 0.3 difference in mean value. In contrast, respondents report they would be unlikely to use online webinars at a scheduled time. The target audience is an important factor when planning the method for outreach and education. The survey results can assist educators in making well-informed decisions on the method(s) most likely to best serve the intended audience. 

New in 2025, we asked survey respondents to discuss the timing they would most prefer for meetings. Two questions split these responses into timing of weekday meetings and Saturday meetings (Figure 44). Overwhelmingly, producers surveyed preferred in-person meetings during the week to be in the evening. In addition, respondents preferred morning meetings for Saturday workshops. These responses align with the fact that the majority of respondents (89%) do not rely on the beef farm for their primary income stream for their household (data not shown). 

Other Survey Comments

In order to provide ample opportunity for producers to provide information they deemed important, an open ended question concluded the survey. This question asked for any additional information that the respondent wanted to share.  A total of 114 responses were provided. The fact that over 15% of respondents chose to share additional thoughts – and took the time to write them in – indicates confidence on the part of the respondents that this survey has value and will ultimately benefit them. Most of the comments shared were additional information about individual farms. For examples, one poignant comment shared was "It doesn't pay for itself. If I didn't make $100,000 plus off the farm I would have lost it a long time ago. The only way I think it could be profitable is if you were given the operation with no debt from your father or grandfather."

Findings and Recommendations

The following major findings and recommendations are based on survey responses and are intended to guide future educational programming.

Major Findings

1. Most producers have multiple operations. Over 75% of survey respondents answered the question 'What other beef operations are you involved in?' which indicates they run at least two types of beef operations. The 2 most prevalent responses were retail fresh or freezer be at 31% of those with secondary operations and feedlot/finisher at 24% of respondents.  (see figures 2 and 3)
   Recommendations:
   • Outreach efforts should continue to be widespread and not targeted by type of operation. Because so many producers run more than one type of operation, programmatic efforts should be more diverse throughout the state.
   • Outreach and educational messages should 1) use language that acknowledges multiple operations, and 2) encourage producers to identify themselves by more than one operation.
   • Notably, the fewest number of respondents to primary operations identified as backgrounder/stocker operations. While programmatic efforts in these areas should not be overlooked, they should be coupled with other programs to ensure adequate diversity.
   • There were more cow-calf respondents than feeders, highlighting the growth of this particular segment of the industry in PA.
2. Fewer producers are keeping their cattle from calf to slaughter than in 2017. In 2017, over 78% of survey respondents reported raising their own feeder cattle but in 2025 just 47.5% of respondents reported keeping their feeder cattle. This may be a sign of the economic times. However, out of all respondents (n = 733) 68% of survey respondents sell finished cattle. (see figures 35 and 36, p.29)
   Recommendations:
   • There is a need for programming addressing multiple aspects of cattle production, for instance managing cows and calves on a single operation.
   • There is a need for programming related to feedlot nutrition and management as well as marketing finished cattle.
3. Education for veterinarians is needed. When asked about their preferred consultant, 67% of survey respondents cited that they are asking for more information about beef production.  However, respondents also noted that access to vets was limited.
   Recommendations
   • We need to provide more beef specific training at a level specifically for veterinarians.
   • Place more emphasis on "training-the-trainer" programs.
4. Nutrition was once again listed as the number one educational program producers wanted more of (same as 2017), but handling facilities was a close second at 35%.  Nutrition should continue to be a central topic across programs for both pasture-based beef production systems and those in confinement. (see figure 42)
   Recommendations
   • The current programmatic emphasis on nutrition should be continued/expanded.
   • There is a need for more education on facility design and handling.
5. The greatest challenges cited in the survey were access to land (42%) and capital (36%). This differs from "government challenges" cited in 2017 and aligns with producers interest in expansion. (see figure 30 and figure 20) 
   Recommendations
   • Develop programming that could include grants programs or wealth management to discuss farm expansion.
   •  The PABPWG should consider educational materials or programs that include land management discussion and opportunities to add ground in alternative ways, i.e. negotiating lease agreements.
6. The most preferred outreach cited in the survey was Penn State Extension. This highlights respondents' desire for non-biased, scientific insights. (see figure 43)
   Recommendations
   • Educational efforts should consider including Penn State Extension as trusted speakers/sources.
7. The most preferred time for meetings was evenings Monday through Friday, or in the morning on Saturdays. This aligns with current practices and need not be altered. (see figure 44)
   Recommendations
   • Schedule programming during weekday evenings or Saturday mornings to align with respondent availability.
8. Expansion plans: 320 respondents (42.7%) are interested in adding cattle. Two of them plan to add more than 500.  (see figure 18)
   Recommendations
   • While many of the educational materials and services for beef operations will be similar no matter what the size, there are additional considerations for very large or very small operations.  
9. Age is notably different than in 2017. There were more younger (18 to 34 year old) respondents, when compared to 2017 and fewer 65+ respondents. (see figure 14)
   Recommendations
   • Producers may be in need of materials or trainings on how to start a farm enterprise.
   • Programs or information should be considered to connect with new and beginning producers.