Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Annual Sampling Program Plan 

Fiscal Year 2021 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1 
 

 

 

 

Contents 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Background.............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Table 1: Planned Number of Microbiological Analyses (tests) and Analytes FY 2019-FY 2021................ 5 

Table 2: Planned Number of Chemical Residue Analyses and Analytes Reported FY 2019-FY 2021........ 6 

Significant Changes for the FY 2021 Plan..................................................................................................... 7 

Table 3: FY 2021 Sampling Priorities ...................................................................................................... 7 

Table 4: Rationale for Changes in Sampling Allocations ......................................................................... 9 

Appendix A: Microbial Sampling Numbers by Product............................................................................... 15 

Table A2: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for Raw Beef........................................................... 16 

Table A3: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for Raw Pork........................................................... 17 

Table A4: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for Raw Siluriformes............................................... 17 

Table A5: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for Raw Poultry....................................................... 18 

Appendix B: Chemical Residue Sampling Numbers by Product................................................................... 20 

Table B1: FY 2019 and FY 2020 Sample Numbers for Chemical Residues............................................. 20 

Appendix C: National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) Programs........................... 25 

Table C1: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for NARMS............................................................. 25 

Appendix D: Other Sampling Programs ..................................................................................................... 26 

Table D1: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for FSIS Sampling Programs Other than 

Microbiological and Chemical Residues................................................................................................. 26 

Appendix E: Terms, Definitions and References......................................................................................... 27 

References................................................................................................................................................. 28 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspects meat, 

poultry, and egg products to verify whether the food produced is safe, wholesome, and properly labeled. 

Verification activities serve to protect the public from foodborne hazards. A key FSIS inspection verification 

activity is the sampling of product for microbiological contaminants or chemical residues. 

This report identifies changes planned for fiscal year (FY) 2021 to FSIS’ various sampling programs and 

describes the Agency’s overall strategy for directing its sampling resources. 

Background 

FSIS Agency Planning 

The FSIS published Strategic Plan for FY 2017-2021 includes an objective to strengthen FSIS sampling 

programs. The activities in the FY 2021 Annual Sampling Plan directly align with the FSIS FY 2021 Annual 

Plan. 

In FY 2019, FSIS concluded a comprehensive internal evaluation of all sampling projects called the Strategic 

Assessment of Sampling Resources (SASR). During this evaluation, FSIS developed several new tools to help 

optimize the benefits provided by each sampling project. In conjunction with these tools, the evaluation 

provided several recommendations that helped improve internal procedures. In FY 2020, FSIS began 

implementing those recommendations. 

FSIS Process for Scheduling, Collecting, and Analyzing Samples 

The Agency’s process of scheduling, collecting, and analyzing routine domestic samples typically begins with a 

sampling task assigned to FSIS inspection program personnel(IPP) through the Public Health Information 

System (PHIS). The number of sampling tasks IPP can receive at a domestic establishment varies greatly 

depending on the types and quantities of products produced. In FY 2020, FSIS investigated ways to improve 

Agency sample allocation with certain measures to be implemented in FY 2021. Additional non-routine 

sampling tasks might be assigned to an establishment, or country for imported product sampling, in response 

to routine results or other establishment performance history. Sampling Type of Inspection (TOI) tasks are 

assigned to imported product from each foreign country and product combination based on the number of 

imported shipments received. 

It is important to note there might be a difference between the number of samples that are anticipated to be 

analyzed and the total number of samples analyzed within the fiscal year. The lack of available products that 

are eligible for a specific project within the collection window is one of the biggest challenges IPP face when 

trying to collect all the samples accounted for in the sampling plan; therefore, the FSIS Annual Sampling Plan 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is based on the number of samples anticipated to be analyzed instead of those assigned. For those projects 

that do not have a required monthly frequency, FSIS can adjust the number of samples assigned throughout 

the year to reach the sample target numbers. Additionally, differences between the planned number and 

analyzed number of samples may be due to changes in the number of inspected establishments producing 

eligible products. In order to collect samples from infrequent producers and optimize the total number of 

annual planned samples collected and analyzed, FSIS adjusts the number of samples assigned based on the 

average number of samples collected throughout the sampling year. The estimates for each sampling 

program are based on current plans, FSIS policies, and industry practices and are therefore subject to change 

over the course of the fiscal year. 

After receiving the sampling tasks and verifying eligible product availability, IPP collect and ship the samples to 

one of three FSIS testing laboratories, where the sample is tested for specified analytes. An analyte is a 

substance whose constituents are identified and measured, and the FSIS laboratories perform different tests 

depending on the sampling program and target analytes. The Agency increases sample resource efficiency by 

maximizing the number of analytes evaluated per sample collection and test. 

Data Sharing and Analysis 

FSIS routinely analyzes sampling data. The results of these analyses are used in a variety of ways, including 

monitoring the effectiveness, where applicable, of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points programs, 

informing Agency policy making, estimating public health impact, and advising strategic and performance 

planning. FSIS posts most of the sampling data on the Agency’s website and shares the data with 

establishments through quarterly letters, as well as directly sharing sampling results with establishments. 

FSIS engaged with federal partners to use whole genome sequencing (WGS) data for regulatory and public 

health purposes. FSIS aligns WGS-related projects with the goals and objectives of the FSIS Strategic Plan and 

other policies. FSIS laboratories performed WGS on all pathogens isolated from FSIS-regulated products. The 

information gathered from WGS helps FSIS to detect and investigate outbreaks of foodborne illness, identify 

potential instances of harborage, and identify unique genes, including antimicrobial resistance genes. In FY 

2020, FSIS modernized Salmonella serotyping by using WGS data to determine the serotype. This update 

created efficiencies within the Agency by reducing the number of analyses required to determine the same, if 

not more, information. Moving forward, FSIS will explore new ways to expand the use of WGS data to support 

the regulatory and public health efforts of FSIS more effectively. Potential future efforts include exploring 

how to use genomic data to assess pathogen adaptability and persistence as well as the potential for 

pathogenicity and virulence of Salmonella. These efforts will build off public health, regulatory, and research 

partners’ efforts in support of FSIS Research Priorities. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Microbiological and Chemical Residue Sampling Planned Changes from FY 2019 to FY 2021 

Table 1 and Table 2 summarize, for microbiological and chemical residue programs, respectively, the total planned number of analyses and 

corresponding planned number of analytes tested for during FY 2019, FY 2020, and FY 2021 by product class. Data is based on the proposed 

number of samples and actual analyses performed during the previous fiscal years. 

Table 1: Planned Number of Microbiological Analyses (Tests) and Analytes FY 2019-FY 2021 

Difference1 

Planned for FY 2019 Planned for FY 2020 Planned for FY 2021 (FY 2021-FY2020) 

Samples Tests Analytes Samples Tests Analytes Samples Tests Analytes Samples Tests Analytes 

Product Class Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned 

Raw Beef 18,762 49,416 197,664 18,762 49,416 94,488 19,233 51,240 99,336 471 1,824 4,848 

Raw Pork 11,040 22,080 110,400 11,040 22,080 33,120 11,040 22,080 33,120 0 0 0 

Raw Poultry 47,736 64,416 64,416 47,736 64,416 64,416 47,892 64,248 64,248 156 -168 -168 

Raw 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 0 0 0 Siluriformes 

Ready- 15,919 29,616 29,616 15,919 29,616 29,616 15,919 29,616 29,616 0 0 0 To-Eat 

RLm 5,437 5,437 5,437 5,437 5,437 5,437 5,437 5,437 5,437 0 0 0 

Eggs 1,600 3,200 3,216 1,600 3,200 3,200 1,600 3,200 3,200 0 0 0 

NARMS 6,400 16,600 441,100 7,780 18,600 443,100 7,780 18,600 443,100 0 0 0 RTE/Eggs 

Imports2 6,804 16,176 29,376 6,804 14,976 29,376 6,312 13,884 27,893 -492 -1,092 -1,483 

Total 114,358 207,601 881,885 115,738 208,391 703,413 115,873 208,616 706,741 135 564 3,197 

1 The differences betweenFY 2020and FY 2021 plans include the following: realignment in imports for poultry and Siluriformes, discontinued samplingother raw chicken 

parts, and cessation of the most probablenumber enumeration analysis. For a full list of allocation changes, please see Table 4. 

2 Import microbiology testing analyses estimates are driven by expectedshipment frequency and volume-based TOI assignments. 

5 
 

 

 

 

Table 2: Planned Number of Chemical Residue Analyses and Analytes Reported FY 2019-FY 2021 

Planned for FY 2019 Planned for FY 2020 Planned for FY 2021 Difference3 (FY 2021-FY2020) 

Product Class 

Samples 

Planned 

Tests 

Planned 

Analytes 

Planned 

Samples 

Planned 

Tests 

Planned 

Analytes 

Planned 

Samples 

Planned 

Tests 

Planned 

Analytes 

Planned 

Samples 

Planned 

Tests 

Planned 

Analytes 

Planned 

Domestic Residues 

Beef Cows 712 3,240 121,320 712 3,240 121,320 752 2,646 132,678 40 -594 11,358 

Bob Veal 356 1,620 60,660 356 1,620 60,660 400 1,428 71,604 44 -192 10,944 

Dairy Cows 712 3,240 121,320 712 3,240 121,320 788 3,152 144,992 76 -88 23,672 

Heifers 356 1,620 60,660 356 1,620 60,660 340 1,218 61,074 -16 -402 414 

Steer 356 1,620 60,660 356 1,620 60,660 328 1,176 58,968 -28 -444 -1,692 

Sows 712 2,160 111,600 712 2,160 111,600 788 3,152 144,992 76 992 33,392 

Market Swine 712 2,880 119,880 712 2,880 119,880 728 2,912 133,952 16 32 14,072 

Young Chickens 712 2,160 110,880 356 1,030 55,440 356 1,182 53,190 0 152 -2,250 

Whole Chickens - - - 356 1,030 55,440 356 1,576 90,620 0 546 35,180 

Young Turkeys 712 2,160 110,880 712 2,160 110,880 788 2,772 137,808 76 612 26,928 

Sheep 150 546 25,584 100 357 16,728 100 300 16,728 0 -57 0 

Lamb - - - 100 357 16,728 100 300 16,728 0 -57 0 

Goats 300 1,050 49,200 300 900 35,100 300 600 35,100 0 -300 0 

Roaster Swine 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 150 150 0 -150 -150 

Veal - Other 150 640 19,890 150 640 19,890 150 588 29,484 0 -52 9,594 

Egg Product 400 400 22,378 250 500 37,296 250 500 38,637 0 0 1,341 

Siluriformes 650 2,130 103,290 650 2,130 103,290 650 2,455 116,075 0 325 12,785 

State-Inspected 

Establishment Sampling 

for U.S. National Residue 720 2,760 128,208 720 2,760 128,208 300 1,050 52,614 -420 -1,710 -75,594 

Program 1 

Other 

2

Imports 5,600 24,828 963,114 4,000 20,076 773,892 3,400 18,276 675,805 -600 -1,800 -98,087 

KISTM 4,000 8,000 424,000 4,000 8,000 424,000 4,000 8,000 468,936 0 0 44,936 

Total 17,610 61,354 2,613,824 15,910 56,620 2,433,292 15,174 53,433 2,480,135 -736 -3,187 46,843 

Abbreviation: KISTM, Kidney Inhibition Swab. 1 State sampling adjusted to reflect number of eligible state establishments. 2 Importresidue testing analysesestimates are driven by expected shipment frequency and volume-basedTOI assignments. 3 The differences between the FY 2020 and FY 2021 plans include: adjustment of state sampling allocations, cessation of the avermectin stand-alone method, addition of 

polyfluoroalkyl substances(PFAS) analysis to more commodities, and the expansion of multi-residue methods to include more analytes. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Significant Changes for the FY 2021 Plan 

The following table consists of key priorities FSIS plans to implement in FY 2021. Each row describes the challenges that the Agency faces moving 

into FY 2021, what process is impacted and the objective(s) to achieve during the fiscal year. This table will also include modifications that may 

have taken place during FY 2020 after the FY 2020 Plan was published. 

Table 3: FY 2021 Sampling Priorities 

Cause or Challenge that Prompted Change 

Impacted Sampling, 

Related Process, or 

Analyte FY 2021 Planned Agency Goal, Target Objective, or Activity 

Support sampling plan, design, analysis, and 

future decision-making 

Sampling resource 

planning and 

allocation 

• Explore strategies to modernize sample task assignment in PHIS. 

This effort will focus on how the Agency can further support sample 

assignment and collection success at an establishment throughout 

the year. Focus will be on the low volume establishments as this 

group faces unique challenges. 

• Evaluate options for reduced Campylobacter sample screen test 

time. 

• Explore strategies for increasing the number of actual risk-based 

Listeria monocytogenes (RLm) sampling events completed to more 

closely meet the planned targets. 

• Explore options to reduce gaps in establishment profile 

information to better identify eligible establishments for all label 

verification projects. 

• Explore options to develop an allergen sampling program. 

Changes to the National Residue Program (NRP) PFAS (per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl 

substances) 

• In FY 2020, FSIS implemented a testing method for per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of persistent organic 

environmental contaminants that include perfluorooctanoic acid 

and perfluoro octane sulfonate. The exploratory testing aimed to 

gather data on the frequency and levels of PFAS in beef muscle. In 

FY 2021, PFAS monitoring will be expanded to include beef, pork, 

Siluriformes fish, and chicken sampling. 

7 
 

 

 

 

Cause or Challenge that Prompted Change 

Impacted Sampling, 

Related Process, or 

Analyte FY 2021 Planned Agency Goal, Target Objective, or Activity 

State-inspected 

establishments in the 

domestic NRP 

• In FY 2020, FSIS evaluated sample tasks distribution to Stateinspected establishments in the domestic NRP program and in FY 

2021 will modernize distribution of sampling tasks. 

Modernization of pathogen enumeration 

methodology 

Most Probable 

Number (MPN) 

analysis of microbial 

pathogens 

• The current enumeration method (MPN) can underestimate target 

pathogen numbers, thus reducing the method’s effectiveness as an 

indicator of process control. 

• FSIS will discontinue the currently suspended MPN analysis. 

• FSIS will evaluate modern enumeration methods. 

Utilizing WGS to obtain determinations 

previously done through other methods 

WGS • FSIS will deploy the use of long-read sequencing technology to 

supplement WGS data to completely sequence the genomes and 

plasmids from isolates of interest. 

• FSIS will explore transitioning from antimicrobial susceptibility 

testing to inferred resistance derived from WGS data where 

possible. 

Address feedback on communicating sample 

results to industry 

Result Reporting • Modernize LIMS Direct reporting. 

• Increase transparency of how National Antimicrobial Resistance 

Monitoring System (NARMS) results impact industry. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4 contains the rationale for changes in sampling number allocations between FY 2020 and FY 2021 sampling plans. Each row identifies 

where the change will occur in the sampling program, a description of that program, and the Agency’s reasoning for the changes. 

Table 4: Rationale for Changes in Sampling Allocations 

Sampling by 

Program/Commodity Program Description 

Rationale for Any Changes from the FY 2020 Sampling 

Allocations 

Beef Products • FSIS conducts Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) 

sampling for product produced in domestic 

establishments, imported products, and raw ground 

beef collected at retail. 

• Raw non-intact beef products and raw beef 

products intended for raw non-intact use are eligible 

for sampling, including ground beef, bench trim, 

beef manufactured trimmings, and other raw ground 

beef components. 

• FSIS analyzes all raw beef products collected under 

the routine and follow-up sampling programs, 

including raw ground beef, bench trim, beef 

manufactured trimmings, and other raw ground beef 

• Increase sampling for beef manufacturing trim, MT60, 

to 4,000 samples. FSIS needs the extra 250 samples to 

calculate prevalence estimates. 

• Expand non-O157 STEC analysis to all other beef 

samples in addition to beef manufacturing trimmings. 

• Evaluate alternative surface sampling method to N60 

pathogen detection. Assessment analyte options 

include aerobic counts and Salmonella. 

• Evaluate potential alternate beef slaughter inspection 

procedures comparing carcass microbial load. 

components for E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella. 

Additionally, FSIS analyzes beef manufacturing 

trimmings for non-O157 STEC as well. 

• Evaluate the options for enumeration of positive E. coli 

O157:H7 and Salmonella samples. 

Pork Products • FSIS analyzes raw intact, non-intact, and 

comminuted domestic and imported pork for 

Salmonella. 

• No allocation changes planned for FY 2021. 

• Evaluate the options for enumeration of positive 

Salmonella samples. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sampling by 

Program/Commodity Program Description 

Rationale for Any Changes from the FY 2020 Sampling 

Allocations 

Poultry Products • FSIS analyzes young chicken and turkey carcasses, 

comminuted chicken and turkey, and chicken part 

samples for Salmonella and Campylobacter. 

• Implemented Salmonella and Campylobacter analyses 

of fowl carcasses slaughtered under New Poultry 

Inspection System (NPIS) with waiver exploratory 

project in FY 2020. 

• Evaluate product volume calculation to ensure 

consistency in sample task assignment. 

• Analyze the results of the remaining poultry 

exploratory sampling projects and determine next steps. 

This effort will include conducting an analysis to 

determine uses for mechanically separated poultry. 

• Formally end exploratory sampling for currently 

suspended other raw poultry parts. 

• Evaluate options for enumeration of samples positive 

for Salmonella and Campylobacter. 

Siluriformes • FSIS analyzes raw fish of the order Siluriformes for 

Salmonella. 

• No allocation changes for FY2021. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sampling by 

Program/Commodity Program Description 

Rationale for Any Changes from the FY 2020 Sampling 

Allocations 

Ready-To-Eat (RTE): Meat, • FSIS also conducts microbiological testing for • Modernized egg products sampling by consolidating 

Poultry, and Egg Products Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) and Salmonella in both 

domestically produced and imported egg products in 

addition to other RTE products. 

• Product sampling is scheduled every month under 

random sampling and risk-based sampling projects 

under 2 RTEPROD projects. 

• RLm sampling program is performed in 

establishments producing post-lethality exposed RTE 

product. An RLm sampling event includes samples, 

consisting of product, contact surfaces, and the 

processing environment, collected and sampled for 

Lm under 3 RLm project codes. 

• Intensified Verification Testing (IVT) is performed 

whenever an eligible establishment has a positive 

sample collected under the RLm sampling program 

projects, or either one of the RTEPROD sampling 

projects. 

the seven separate projects into two and allocating 

samples based on production volume to relieve burden 

on smaller establishments. The maximum egg product 

sample allocation reduced from 7 to 3 samples per 

establishment per month in this project. 

• Evaluate the options for enumeration of positive Lm 

and Salmonella samples. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sampling by 

Program/Commodity Program Description 

Rationale for Any Changes from the FY 2020 Sampling 

Allocations 

National Residue Program 

(NRP) 

• The NRP sampling plan guides the collection of 

domestic and imported meat, poultry, and egg 

product samples. The domestic sampling plan 

includes surveillance sampling, inspector-generated, 

and special project sampling in both Federal and 

State-inspected slaughter establishments. 

• FSIS IPP perform inspector-generated sampling 

(KIS) in livestock slaughter species as per FSIS 

Directive 10,800.1. Per this directive, a positive 

sample is submitted to the FSIS laboratory for 

confirmatory testing. 

• PFAS monitoring will be expanded to include beef, 

pork, Siluriformes fish, and chicken sampling. 

• FSIS will update NRP State sample allocations. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sampling by 

Program/Commodity Program Description 

Rationale for Any Changes from the FY 2020 Sampling 

Allocations 

Import Sampling • FSIS analyzes imported raw beef for E. coli 

O157:H7 and Salmonella. 

• FSIS analyzes imported beef manufacturing 

trimmings for non-O157 STEC, which includes the 

following six O-antigen groups: O26, O45, O103, 

O111, O121, and O145. 

• FSIS analyzes imported poultry for Salmonella and 

Campylobacter. 

• FSIS analyzes imported raw pork products for 

Salmonella. 

• FSIS analyzes imported RTE and egg products for 

• Realign samples allotted for sampling of imported egg 

products from 150 to 120 to adjust for expected volume 

and sampling rate. 

• Realign samples allotted for imported Siluriformes 

products from 1,000 to 700 to adjust for the expected 

import volume and sampling rate. 

• Realign samples allotted for imported raw pork 

products from 600 to 400 to adjust for the expected 

volume and sampling rate. 

Lm and Salmonella. 

• FSIS analyzes imported raw fish of the order 

Siluriformes for Salmonella. 

• FSIS analyzes imported raw meat and poultry 

products and imported Siluriformes products for 

chemical residues. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sampling by 

Program/Commodity Program Description 

Rationale for Any Changes from the FY 2020 Sampling 

Allocations 

NARMS Cecal and 

Expansion Project Sampling 

• FSIS analyzes cecal content from beef, swine, 

young chicken, turkeys, veal, sheep, goat, and lamb 

for the presence of Salmonella, Campylobacter, 

generic E. coli, and Enterococcus to monitor trends in 

antimicrobial resistance. 

• FSIS analyzes Siluriformes for the presence of 

generic E. coli and Enterococcus. 

• FSIS analyzes cattle mesenteric lymph nodes for 

the presence of Salmonella. 

• No allocation changes. 

Other Sampling • FSIS performs verification of species claims on 

domestic and imported product. 

• FSIS performs label verification sampling for 

certain labeling claims on domestic product. 

• No allocation changes. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendices A–C outline the sampling plan grouped by product group and broken out by the 

individual sampling programs. Information for changes from previous years is provided in the 

preceding tables to the appendices. Totals in the appendices’ tables have been rounded. Each 

table contains the following information: 

1. Planned number of samples to be analyzed in FY 2020; 

2. Number of samples actually analyzed in FY 2020; and 

3. Planned number of samples to be analyzed in FY 2021. 

Appendix A: Microbial Sampling Numbers by Product 

This appendix summarizes the numbers of samples in FSIS’ microbiological sampling program and 

presents the number of samples planned and actually analyzed in FY 2020, and the number of 

samples planned to be analyzed in FY 2021, by product type. Raw products are presented first, 

beginning with beef (Table A2), followed by pork (Table A3), fish of the order Siluriformes (Table A4) 

and poultry (Table A5). Ready-to-eat (RTE), not ready-to-eat (NRTE), and egg product sampling 

numbers are presented in Table A6. 

Table A1 is a quick reference guide of the microbiological analytes by various FSIS regulated products 

in FY 2020. For a more in-depth review, the tables in the “Sampling by Product” section contain the 

stratification of the different analytes by product classes. 

Table A1: Summary of Analyte tested by Product 

Microbiological Analyte 

L. E. coli Non-O157 Indicator 

Product Salmonella Campylobacter monocytogenes O157:H7 STEC Organisms 

Raw Beef √ √ √1 √2 

Raw Pork √ √2 

Raw √ Siluriformes 

Raw Poultry √ √ √2 

RTE Products √ √

Egg Products √ √

1 Only domestic raw beef manufacturing trim and imported raw beef trim. All other raw beef products are tested for 

Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 only. 2 Dependent upon the program as not all beef, pork, and poultry projects are analyzed for indicator organisms. 

15 
Table A2: FY2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for Raw Beef 

Number of Samples Number of Samples 

Sampling FY 2020 FY 2021 

Product Class Project Code Pathogen(s) Planned Actual Planned 

Raw ground beef 

Follow-up testing to a ground 

beef E. coli positive1 

Raw ground beef 

components other than 

trim 

Bench trim 

Beef manufacturing trim 

Follow-up testing at 

supplier establishments 

following MT43, MT44, or 

MT65 positive1 

Follow-up testing to 

an MT60, MT64, 

MT65, or MT52 

positive1 

Raw ground beef at retail 

stores 

Follow-up testing to a MT05 

sample1 

Imported raw ground beef2 

Imported trim and other 

raw ground beef 

components2 

MT43 E. coli O157:H7 and 

Salmonella 

11,500 10,539 11,500 

MT44 and 

MT44T 

E. coli O157:H7 and 

Salmonella 

TBD 76 TBD 

MT64 E. coli O157:H7 and 

Salmonella 

1,250 1,294 1,250 

MT65 E. coli O157:H7 and 

Salmonella 

1,500 1,386 1,500 

MT60 E. coli O157:H7, 

Non-O157 STEC 

and Salmonella 

3,750 4,141 4,000 

MT52 E. coli O157:H7, 

Non-O157 STEC 

and Salmonella 

TBD 11 TBD 

MT53 E. coli O157:H7, 

Non-O157 STEC 

and Salmonella 

TBD 756 TBD 

MT05 E. coli O157:H7 and 

Salmonella 

575 524 500 

MT06 E. coli O157:H7 and 

Salmonella 

TBD 0 TBD 

MT08 E. coli O157:H7 and 

Salmonella 

50 70 50 

MT51 E. coli O157:H7, 

Non-O157 STEC and 

Salmonella 

1,200 2,4783 1,200 

1 Dependent on positive findings from other E. coli O157:H7 or non-O157 STEC sampling projects. 2 Lab sampling for Imports depends on the number of shipments received by country and product. 3 Two unanticipated, intensified import sampling events increased the number of samples for MT51. 

16 
 

 

 

Table A3: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for Raw Pork 

Number of Samples Number of Samples 

FY 2020 FY 2021 

Sampling 

Product Class Project Code Pathogen(s) Planned Actual Planned 

Comminuted Pork EXP_PK_COM02 Salmonella and Indicator 0 132 0 

Exploratory Sampling2 Organisms 

Comminuted Pork HC_PK_COM01 Salmonella and Indicator 8,640 5,515 8,640 

Organisms 

Intact Pork Cuts EXP_PK_ICT02 

Exploratory Sampling2 Salmonella and Indicator 0 116 0 

Organisms 

Non- Intact Pork Cuts EXP_PK_NCT02 Salmonella and Indicator 0 94 0 

Exploratory Sampling2 Organisms 

Intact and Non-Intact HC_PK_CUT01 Salmonella and Indicator 2,400 1,800 2,400 

Cuts Organisms 

Imported Pork1 IMP_PORK Salmonella 600 327 400 

1 Sampling for imports depends on the number of shipments received by country and product. 2 FSIS discontinued exploratory pork sampling early in FY 2020 and replaced them with two new ones. 

Table A4: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for Raw Siluriformes 

Number of Samples Number of Samples 

FY 2020 FY 2021 

Sampling 

Product Class Project Code Analyses Planned Actual Planned 

Domestic Raw Fish EXP_FI_MIC01 Salmonella 650 598 650 

of the Order 

Siluriformes 

Imported Raw Fish IMPFISH_MI Salmonella 1,000 649 700 

of the Order 

Siluriformes1 

1 Sampling for imports depends on the number of shipments received by country and product. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A5: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for Raw Poultry 

Number of Samples Number of Samples 

FY 2020 FY 2021 

Sampling 

Product Class Project Code Pathogen(s) Planned Actual Planned 

Young Chicken HC_CH_CARC01 

Carcasses 

Salmonella, 

Campylobacter 

9,630 9,601 9,630 

Ground and Other HC_CH_COM01 Salmonella, 2,500 2,041 2,500 

Comminuted Campylobacter 

Chicken (not 

Mechanically 

Separated) 

Exploratory - EXP_CH_MSK01 Salmonella, 150 82 150 

Mechanically 

Separated Chicken 

Campylobacter 

Chicken Parts – Legs, HC_CPT_LBW01 

Breasts, Wings 

Salmonella, 

Campylobacter 

16,300 13,799 16,300 

Chicken Parts – EXP_CPT_OT01 

Other Parts 

Salmonella, 

Campylobacter 

80 134 03 

Chicken Parts – EXP_CPT_QH01 

Quarters, Halves 

Salmonella, 

Campylobacter 

120 63 120 

Turkey Carcasses HC_TU_CARC01 Salmonella, 1,730 1,718 1,730 

Campylobacter 

Ground and Other HC_TU_COM01 Salmonella, 1,500 1,402 1,500 

Comminuted Turkey 

(not Mechanically 

Campylobacter 

Separated) 

Exploratory EXP_TU_MSK01 - Salmonella, 150 87 150 

Mechanically Campylobacter 

Separated Turkey 

Imported Raw Intact IMP_POULTRY 

Chicken and Turkey2 Salmonella, 

Campylobacter 

800 761 800 

NPIS Fowl Carcass HC_HF_CAR01 

Exploratory 

Salmonella, 

Campylobacter 0 58 240 

Follow-up Sampling F_CPT_LBW01 

for Chicken Parts, F_CH_COM01 

Salmonella, 

Campylobacter 

Carcasses, F_TU_COM01 

Comminuted F_CH_CARC01 TBD 2,280 TBD 

Chicken and Turkey1 F_TU_CARC01 

1 Dependent on findings from other Salmonella and Campylobacterprojects. 2 Sampling for imports depends on the number of shipments received by country and product. 3 FSIS discontinued sampling of other raw chicken parts in FY 2020. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A6: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for RTE, NRTE, and Egg Products 

Number of Samples Number of Samples 

FY 2020 FY 2021 

Sampling 

Product Class Project Code Pathogen(s) Planned Actual Planned 

Both post lethality- RTEPROD_Rand Lm& Salmonella 7,400 6,620 7,400 

exposed and non-post 

lethality- exposed 

RTE products 

Post lethality-exposed RTEPROD_Risk Lm& Salmonella 7,400 7,538 7,400 

RTE products 

RLmproduct samples RLMPRODC Lm 423 (2,125)2 165 (825)4 423 (2,125)2 

(Composited5-

sample Units) 

RLmfood contact RLMCONT Lm 4,218 16344 4,218 

surface samples 

RLmnon-foodcontact RLMENVC Lm 423 (2,125)2 164 (820)4 423 (2,125)2 

environmental 

samples (Composited 

5-sample Units) 

Intensified INTPROD Lmor Salmonella TBD 270 TBD 

Verification Testing 

(IVT) product 

samples1 

IVT food contact INTCONT Lmor Salmonella TBD 558 TBD 

surface samples1 

IVT non-food contact INTENV Lmor Salmonella TBD 305 TBD 

environmental 

samples1 

Imported intact RTE IMVRTE Lm& Salmonella 3,000 2,819 3,000 

product3 

Follow up testing to FLISTERIA Lm TBD 0 TBD 

imported RTE product 

Follow up testing to FRTESALMONEL Salmonella TBD 0 TBD 

imported RTE product 

Egg Products EM31-EM37 Lm & Salmonella 1,600 1,072 05 

Egg Products EGG_DY_MIC01 Lm & Salmonella 0 487 1,600 

EGG_LQ_MIC01 

Pasteurized imported EGGIMP Lm & Salmonella 150 111 120 

liquid, frozenor dried 

egg products 

Abbreviations: RTE,ready-to-eat; NRTE, not-ready-to-eat. 

1 Dependent on positive findings from RTEPROD_RAND, RTEPROD_RISK, and RLmsampling projects. 2 The number in parenthesis represents the number of samples collected by OFO to generatethe compositenumber of 

samples planned. 3 Sampling for imports depends on the number of shipments received by country and product. 4 Restrictions put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the ability to collect some RLmsampling. 5 Egg product sampling projectmodernization resulted in the discontinuation of these projects. 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Chemical Residue Sampling Numbers by Product 

This appendix summarizes the numbers of samples in FSIS’ chemical residue sampling program for FY 

2020 and FY 2021. Table B1 presents the number of samples by production class. Tables B2 and B3 

present the number of analyses performed by method used in each production class broken out by 

domestic and import sampling. 

Table B1: FY 2019 and FY 2020 Sample Numbers for Chemical Residues 

Number of Samples Number of Samples 

FY 2020 FY 2021 

Sampling 

Production Class Project Code Planned Actual Planned 

Beef Cows NRP_BC 712 731 752 

Beef Cow – State1 NRP_BC_S 88 56 48 

Bob Veal NRP_BV 356 390 400 

Bob Veal - State1 NRP_BV_S 44 0 0 

Dairy Cows NRP_DC 712 743 788 

Dairy Cows – State1 NRP_DC_S 88 60 12 

Heifers NRP_HF 356 418 340 

Heifers – State1 NRP_HF_S 44 53 60 

Steer NRP_ST 356 390 328 

Steer - State1 NRP_ST_S 44 63 72 

Market Swine NRP_MS 712 722 728 

Market Swine - State1 NRP_MS_S 88 88 72 

Sows NRP_SW 712 628 788 

Sows – State1 NRP_SW_S 88 45 12 

Young Chicken NRP_YC 356 354 394 

Young Chicken- State1 NRP_YC_S 88 23 12 

Whole Chicken NRP_WC 356 181 394 

Young Turkey NRP_YT 712 615 788 

Young Turkey – State1 NRP_YT_S 88 7 12 

Sheep NRP_SH 100 103 100 

Lambs NRP_LA 100 114 100 

Goats NRP_GO 300 281 300 

Roaster Swine NRP_RS 300 277 300 

NRP_FFV, Veal other than bob veal 150 116 150 

NRP_NFFV 

Feral Swine NRP_FS 75 53 75 

Egg Products NRP_EG 250 158 250 

Siluriformes – Domestic RES_FI 650 578 650 

Siluriformes – Imports4 IMPFISH_CH_E and 1,000 1,293 700 

IMPFISH_CH_W 

20 
 

 

 

 

Number of Samples Number of Samples 

Sampling 

FY 2020 FY 2021 

Production Class Project Code Planned Actual Planned 

KISTM Test2 KIS NA 136,576 NA 

KISTM Test – Laboratory Confirmation3 KIS NA 2,779 NA 

Collector Generated Residues Various NA 122 NA 

Import Residue Various 2,000 5,3595 2,000 

Abbreviations: KISTM, Kidney Inhibition Swab; NA, non-applicable. 

1 FSIS updated allocationsfor state establishments, which are part of the state meat and poultry inspection (MPI) program,that 

producethe same species as those at federally inspected establishments to be based off the number of qualifying 

establishments and not a standard percentage as done previously. 

2 These KISTM tests are performed by FSIS Office of Field Operations (OFO) IPP in the field and not by the laboratories. 3 FSIS in-plant inspection personnel send positive KISTM tests to FSIS laboratories for confirmation. 

4 Sampling for imports depends on the number of shipments received by country and product. 

5 Two unanticipated, intensified import sampling events increased the number of samples for import residue testing. 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B2: Planned Number of Chemical Residues Analysis by Production Class: Domestic Residue Plan 

Methods 

Beef Cows 

Number 

of 

Animals 

N= 800 

Aminoglycosides 

800 

Antifungal 

Dyes 

-

Βagonist 

400 

Carbadox 

-

Metals 

100 

Multiresidue 

800 

Nitrofurans 

-

Pesticides 

400 

PFAS 

-

Sulfonamides 

-

Bob Veal N= 400 400 - 200 - 100 400 - 200 - -

Dairy Cows 

Heifers 

N= 800 

N= 400 

800 

400 

-

-

400 

200 

-

-

100 

100 

800 

400 

-

-

400 

200 

-

-

-

-

Steers N= 400 400 - 200 - 100 400 - 200 - -

Roaster 

Swine 

N= 300 - - - 300 - - - - - -

Market 

Swine 

N= 800 800 - 200 - 100 800 - 400 200 -

Sows N= 800 800 - 200 - 100 800 - 400 200 -

Feral Swine N= 75 - - - - - - - 75 - -

Young 

Chickens 

N= 400 400 - - - 150 400 - - - -

Young 

Whole 

Chickens 

N=400 400 - - - - 400 400 400 400 -

Young 

Turkeys 

Goats 

N= 800 

N= 300 

800 

300 

-

-

-

-

-

-

150 

-

800 

300 

400 

-

400 

-

-

-

-

-

Siluriformes N= 650 - 325 - - 325 650 325 325 150 -

Egg 

Products 

FormulaN= 400 

N= 75 

-

75 

-

-

-

37 

-

-

-

-

250 

75 

-

-

250 

-

-

-

-

-

22 
 

 

 

 

Ffed Veal 

Non- N= 75 75 - 37 - - 75 - - - - FformulaFed Veal 

N= 100 100 - - - - 100 - 50 - - Sheep 

N= 100 100 - - - - 100 - 50 - - Lamb 

6300 325 1800 300 1325 7200 1125 3575 950 0 Total 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B3: Planned Number of Chemical Residues Analysis by Production Class: Import Residue Plan 

Methods 

Beef, Raw 

Beef, Processed 

Chicken, Raw 

Aminoglycosides 

200 

-

50 

Antifungal 

Dyes 

-

-

-

Avermectins 

-

25 

-

Βagonist 

100 

-

-

Carbadox 

-

-

-

Metals 

50 

12 

25 

Multiresidue 

200 

-

50 

Nitrofurans 

-

-

25 

Pesticides 

100 

-

25 

PFAS 

-

-

-

Sulfonamides 

-

25 

-

Chicken, 

Processed - - - - - 5 - - - - 5 

Turkey, Raw 40 - - - - 10 40 25 25 - -

Turkey, 

Processed - - - - - 5 - - - - 5 

Veal, Raw 

Veal, Processed 

Goat, Raw 

Goat, Processed 

Lamb, Raw 

Lamb, Processed 

Mutton, Raw 

70 

-

25 

-

20 

-

5 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 

-

5 

-

5 

-

35 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

70 

-

25 

-

20 

-

5 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

35 

-

25 

-

10 

-

5 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mutton, 

Processed - - 5 - - - - - - - -

Pork, Raw 

Pork, Processed 

200 

-

-

-

-

25 

100 

-

-

-

50 

12 

200 

-

-

-

100 

-

-

-

-

25 

Siluriformes, 

Raw 

- 350 - - - 350 700 350 350 150 -

Egg Products - - - - - - - - 40 - -

Total 610 700 70 235 0 869 1310 750 1065 150 60 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System 

(NARMS) Programs 

The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) is an interagency, collaborative 

partnership with state and local public health departments, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). This national public health surveillance system tracks changes in antimicrobial susceptibility 

of select foodborne enteric bacteria found in ill people (CDC), retail meats (FDA), and food animals 

(USDA FSIS). The NARMS program at USDA focuses on two sampling points: samples collected from 

intestinal (cecal) content from food animals and carcass or food commodity samples. While the 

carcass or food commodity results are derived by co-analyzing samples collected for existing 

sampling programs, the cecal sampling program involves collection of cecal content samples from 

food animals at slaughter facilities. This appendix summarizes the number of samples needed to 

execute cecal sampling through a collaborative program with the FDA. Table C1 summarizes how 

resources are attributed to each commodity. 

Table C1: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for NARMS 

Number of Samples Number of Samples 

FY 2020 FY 2021 

Sampling 

Sampling Project Description Project Code Planned Actual Planned 

NARMS-Beef Cows NARMS_BC 456 478 456 

NARMS-Veal (Bob Veal, Formula-Fed Veal, and NARMS_BV, 

Non-Formula-Fed Veal) NARMS_FFV, 480 416 480 

NARMS_NFFV 

NARMS-Dairy Cows NARMS_DC 980 982 980 

NARMS-Heifers NARMS_HF 456 494 456 

NARMS-Steers NARMS_ST 1,368 1,168 1,368 

NARMS-Mesenteric Lymph Nodes in Beef 

Cow, Dairy Cow, Heifer, and Steer 

NARMS_BC_MLN, 

NARMS_DC_MLN, 

NARMS_HF_MLN, 300 230 300 

NARMS_ST_MLN 

NARMS-Market Swine NARMS_MS 860 791 860 

NARMS-Sows NARMS_SW 410 420 410 

NARMS-Goat NARMS_GO 100 97 100 

NARMS-Lamb NARMS_LB 100 97 100 

NARMS-Sheep NARMS_SH 100 97 100 

NARMS-Young Chickens NARMS_YC 690 638 690 

NARMS-Young Turkeys NARMS_YT 435 397 435 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D: Other Sampling Programs 

Table D1 summarizes the numbers of samples in FSIS’ sampling programs other than microbiological 

and chemical residue sampling programs for FY 2020 and FY 2021. 

Table D1: FY 2020 and FY 2021 Sample Numbers for FSIS Sampling Programs other 

than Microbiological and Chemical Residues 

Number of Samples Number of Samples 

FY 2020 FY 2021 

Sampling 

Sampling Project Description Project Code Planned Actual Planned 

Domestic AMR – Beef1 AMR01 150 92 150 

Import AMR – Beef 1 IMPAMRBEEF 10 0 10 

Follow-up AMR01 – Beef1,2 FAMR01 NA 0 NA 

Foodborne Illness and Outbreak Sampling3,4 Various 7,000 530 7,000 

Label Verification for Nutrient Content – Raw Ground Beef EXP_LV_NUTR 200 28 200 

Label Verification– Allergens5 EXP_LV_SOY 200 5 200 

Label Verification– Antibiotic Free5 EXP_LV_ABX 400 175 400 

Label Verification– Hormone Free5 EXP_LV_HORM 200 7 200 

Species Identification– Collector Generated SPECID NA 0 NA 

Import Species Identification IMPSPECIESID 250 391 250 

Food Chemistry – Collector Generated5 FOODCHEM NA 0 NA 

Compliance Testing3,6 COMPLIAN NA 34 NA 

Pathology – Collector Generated3,7 Various NA 3,361 NA 

Import – Abnormal Container IMPABNCONT and NA 4 NA 

ABNCONT 

Abbreviation: AMR, advanced meat recovery. 1 FSIS collects samples in regulated establishmentsto test for AMR processes to verify that industry is preventing beef spinal 

cord material from entering the food supply and being misrepresented as meat. If an AMR sample is positive, additional 

samples are assigned to the establishment in PHIS through the FAMR01 sampling. 

2 Dependent on positive findings from the AMR01 sampling project. 3 Samples for these projects are not planned in advance, but rather an inspector in the field can collect a sample on the basis 

of their findings or other circumstances. The planned samples for the Foodborne Illness and Outbreak Sampling are a 

baseline of 2,000 samples plus a calculated projected number of samples that includesthe follow-up sampling. Since followup sampling is notated as TBD throughout the appendices, this notates the allocations set aside for all follow-up sampling 

and outbreak events. Actual valuesfor follow-up sampling are located within their respective product class tables. 4 FSIS collects and analyzes food samples potentially related to foodbornedisease outbreaks. Analyses are conducted to 

identify and further characterize organisms in outbreak samples. 5 FSIS performs foodand residuechemistry analysesto identify mislabeling, economic fraud, and adulteration of meat, 

poultry, and egg products. 6 FSIS investigators collect compliance samples at in-commerce businesses on a “for-cause” basis in response to complaints, 

allegations, and observations during routine or for-cause surveillance activities. 7 FSIS carries out diagnostic and consultative pathology services to identify diseases, parasites, and related conditions in 

response to the needs of field operations. 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E: Terms, Definitions, and References 

Terms and Definitions 

Analyses: A target detection methodology is applied to a sample based on the sampling project. 

Analytes: The target of detection in the analysis, whether it is for microbiological pathogens, 

chemical residues, pathology diagnoses, or other various analyses. 

Analyzed: A sample was processed by the laboratory. 

Beef Manufacturing Trimmings: Product trimmings produced from cattle slaughtered onsite. 

Bench Trim: Product trimmings derived from cattle not slaughtered onsite (i.e., purchased 

product). 

Comminuted: Product that has been ground, mechanically separated, or hand- or mechanically 

deboned and further chopped, flaked, minced, or otherwise processed to reduce particle 

size. 

Distributed: FSIS sampling task scheduling algorithm results in a sampling task to appear in PHIS. 

The algorithm may set to over distribute samples in order to compensate for predicted under 

performance in a particular sampling project. This excess distribution is often referred to as 

“over scheduling.” 

Follow-up sampling: Sampling that is a result of failed standards or moving windows. 

Performed: A sample was collected and submitted to the laboratory. 

Planned: Quantity of samples identified by the workgroup and annual FSIS Sampling Plan. 

Routine Sample: Sample collected for sampling projects which are planned with predicted 

collection frequencies based on establishments’ regular operations. Positive routine 

samples, or other unpredicted events, may trigger additional sample collections whose 

samples would not be considered “routine.” 

Sampling Plan: A comprehensive annual Agency issuance which identifies the planned sampling 

programs, including statistical and policy basis, for a fiscal year. The data-driven strategic 

planning effort for microbiological and chemical residue sampling activities are aligned with 

the Agency’s Strategic and Annual Plan priorities. 

Sample Scheduling Frequency: The sampling frequency targeting the number of samples 

collected on an annual basis instead of focusing on specific collection rates. In order to 

collect samples from infrequent producers and optimize the total number of samples 

collected and analyzed, FSIS adjusts the number of samples being scheduled based on the 

average number of samples collected throughout the sampling year. 

Scheduled: A sample is specifically designated a collection date by the FSIS user in PHIS. A FSIS 

user may not be able to schedule all of the samples distributed to a particular establishment 

due to factors such as eligible project availability and other inspection activities. 

Windows: An established timeframe FSIS uses to calculate categorization. For example, poultry 

performance standards use the results from the past 52 weeks to determine what category 

the establishment is. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

Links to Agency Planning Documents 

FY 2017-2021 FSIS Strategic Plan: //www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/317d14d6-1759-448e941a-de3cbff289e5/Strategic-Plan-2017-2021.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 

Past Annual Plans: //www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/informational/aboutfsis/strategic-planning 

Links to Agency Sampling Plans and Programs 

Past Annual Sampling Plans: //www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/data-collection-andreports/fsis-data-analysis-and-reporting/data-reporting 

Food Safety and Inspection Service Microbiological and Residue Sampling Programs: 

//www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/0816b926-c7ee-4c24-9222-

34ac674ec047/FSIS_Sampling_Programs_Report.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 

Links to Posted Sampling Datasets 

FSIS Data Collection and Reports webpage: //www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/datacollection-and-reports/data-collection-and-reports 

Links to Agency Directives 

FSIS Directive 10,400.1: //www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/09bf6ed8-1e4b-4ef5-a3e1-

fa454b116b8e/10400.1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 

Links to NARMS information 

CDC NARMS website: //www.cdc.gov/narms/reports/ 

FDA NARMS website: 

//www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResi 

stanceMonitoringSystem/default.htm 

USDA NARMS website: 

//www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/data-collection-andreports/microbiology/antimicrobial-resistance/narms 

28