Download:
pdf |
pdfUnited States
Department of
Agriculture
National Agricultural
Statistics Service
September 2020
National Animal
Health Monitoring
System (NAHMS)
Health Management on
U.S. Feedlots 2020 Study
Phase I Questionnaire
Interviewer’s Manual
January 2020
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
NASS Phase I Questionnaire
Table of Contents
Page
Definitions ..............................................................................................................................3
I. Before the NASS Visit: Background Information and Training Requirements ............... 6
II. The NASS Visit: Completing the Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Phase I
Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................... 14
Questionnaire and Appendices A, B, and C .................................................................... 14
General Instructions ....................................................................................................... 27
Section A—Cattle on Feed ............................................................................................. 29
Section B—Antibiotic Use and Stewardship .................................................................... 33
Section C—Veterinary Feed Directive Final Rule Implementation ................................... 39
Section D—Office Use Only ............................................................................................ 40
III. The NASS Visit: Completing the Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Consent to
Contact Form........................................................................................................................ 41
IV. The NASS Visit: Completing the Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 NASS
Informed Consent for Feedlots in the State of California Form ........................................ 43
2
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Definitions
Antibiotic: A chemical compound generally produced by molds that inhibits and/or kills certain
bacteria. Antibiotics are very effective against illnesses caused by bacteria.
Antimicrobial: Any substance of natural, semisynthetic, or synthetic origin that kills or inhibits
the growth of microorganisms but causes little or no damage to the host. Technically, all
antibiotics are antimicrobials, but not all antimicrobials are antibiotics. For the purposes of this
questionnaire, however, the terms “antimicrobial” and “antibiotic” are considered synonymous,
and the term antibiotic is used in the questionnaire because it is more familiar to Producers.
Antimicrobial use definitions (excerpted from American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA) website - https://www.avma.org/policies/avma-definitions-antimicrobial-use-treatmentcontrol-and-prevention):
Antimicrobial prevention of disease (prophylaxis): On a population basis, prevention is
the administration of an antimicrobial to a group of animals, none of which have evidence
of disease or infection, when transmission of existing undiagnosed infections, or the
introduction of pathogens, is anticipated based on history, clinical judgement, or
epidemiological knowledge.
Antimicrobial control of disease (metaphylaxis): On a population basis, control is the
use of antimicrobials to reduce the incidence of infectious disease in a group of animals
that already has some individuals with evidence of infectious disease or evidence of
infection.
Antimicrobial treatment of disease: Treatment is the administration of an antimicrobial
as a remedy for an individual animal with evidence of infectious disease.
Backgrounded cattle: An intermediate step in cattle production that begins after weaning,
usually at a location different from the farm or ranch of origin. Producers who background cattle
help the animals through the stress of weaning and get them ready for placement at their next
destination, which could be a feedlot or pasture. Sometimes the terms backgrounder or stocker
are used interchangeably, but cattle generally spend a longer time at a stocker operation than a
backgrounder operation. In general, backgrounded cattle present a lower risk of introducing
disease upon arrival at the feedlot.
Beef Quality Assurance (BQA): A national program that raises consumer confidence through
offering proper management techniques and a commitment to quality within every segment of
the beef industry. Nearly every U.S. State has an active BQA program. The program links all
beef Producers with livestock production specialists, veterinarians, nutritionists, marketers, and
food purveyors interested in maintaining and improving the quality of the beef they produce.
BQA principles are based on good management practices designed to meet the need of the
Nation’s food production system. In addition, BQA programming focuses on educating and
training cattle Producers, farm advisors, and veterinarians on animal husbandry practices as
well as issues regarding food safety and quality.
BQA Feedyard Assessment: An onsite educational tool that allows for assessing and
benchmarking key indicators of animal care and welfare as well as feedyard conditions. The
assessment has three main areas of focus: animal records, protocols, and facilities/ equipment.
Assessments might be utilized as a self-assessment, completed by a second party, or
conducted by a third-party assessor.
3
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Cattle on feed: Cattle being fed a high-energy ration consisting of components such as grain,
silage, hay, and/or protein supplement before being sent to slaughter. Operations with cattle
being “backgrounded only” for later sale as feeders or for placement in another feedlot were
excluded from this study. This questionnaire only collects information about steers and heifers.
Cattle placed/placement: This questionnaire is restricted to steers and heifers placed in a
feedlot and fed a ration that will produce a “select or better” carcass at slaughter. Placement
refers to the time that cattle entered the feedlot.
Feeding period: The time span beginning when cattle enter the feedlot and ending when cattle
are marketed (i.e., shipped for slaughter).
Feedlot: An operation that feeds cattle for the slaughter market.
Feedlot capacity: The total number of cattle that could be accommodated in the feedlot at one
time. For this study, feedlots were categorized as small or large:
Small: Feedlot capacity of 50 to 999 head.
Large: Feedlot capacity of 1,000 or more head.
Heifer: A young female bovine that has not calved.
Group administration of antibiotics: For purposes of this questionnaire, administration of an
injectable antibiotic to cattle on a population basis rather than on an individual animal basis, that
is to the majority of the animals in a pen. Group administration can be for prevention, control, or
treatment of disease (see “Antimicrobial Use Definitions”), while individual administration is for
treatment only of individual sick animals. In the 2017 Veterinary Services Antibiotic Use
Questionnaire for Cattle on Feed, group administration was defined as administration of an
injectable antibiotic to at least 90% of cattle in a pen for the prevention, control, or treatment of
disease.
Ionophore: A drug administered in feed that promotes the efficient use of feedstuff s by altering
the fermentation pattern in the rumen. Monensin, lasalocid, and laidlomycin are the three
ionophores approved for use in cattle. All three are approved for improving feed efficiency.
Monensin and lasalocid are also approved for prevention and control of coccidiosis. Ionophores
are not categorized by the FDA as medically important antimicrobials for humans and do not
require a veterinary feed directive.
Medically important antimicrobial: Any antimicrobial the FDA deems medically important with
respect to the use of that class of antimicrobials for therapeutic use in human medicine. As of
January 1, 2017, medically important antimicrobials are no longer approved by the FDA for use
in food producing animals for growth promotion purposes, and medically important antimicrobials
used in animal feed or water require veterinary oversight (i.e., a veterinary feed directive). Many
injectable medically important antimicrobials already require veterinary oversight, although some
are available over the counter in many States. All medications formulated for individual bolus
dosing to cattle (e.g., sulfamethazine or Supra Sulfa III) are currently available over the counter
in most States.
Preconditioned cattle: Preconditioning refers to a management practice designed to prepare
calves to better adapt to a new location. Preconditioned calves are usually held on the operation
of origin for a set period (e.g., 1-2 months) after weaning, allowing calves to recover from the
stress of weaning before they leave the operation of origin. Practices typically used in a
4
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
preconditioning program include vaccination, castration, dehorning (if necessary), and
introduction to a feed bunk. Preconditioned calves present a lower risk of having disease upon
arrival at a feedlot.
Pulse dosing: Using the same antibiotic (usually chlortetracycline for feedlot cattle) on the same
group of animals multiple times during the feeding period, usually interspersed with (a) period(s)
with no antibiotic administration.
Steer: A male bovine castrated before sexual maturity.
Stocker cattle: Refers to cattle typically put on pasture after weaning and before being placed in
a feedlot. Stocker cattle are often sent to a location other than the farm or ranch of origin and are
often sold as yearlings, which have a low risk of disease upon feedlot placement.
Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD): A written order (paper or electronic) by a licensed veterinarian
approving the use of an antimicrobial in feed, in the context of a valid veterinarian-client-patient
relationship. Since the full implementation of FDA Guidance for Industry #213 on January 1,
2017, a VFD is required for use of medically important antimicrobials in feed. The use of
medically important antimicrobials for production purposes (e.g., growth promotion) is illegal.
Medically important antimicrobials may only legally be used for therapeutic purposes.
People involved in questionnaire administration: Described below are the individuals
involved in administration of this questionnaire:
Data Collector: Refers to the individual administering (i.e., asking the questions) for the
NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Phase I Questionnaire. Throughout this
manual, the data collector is often referred to as “you.”
Regional Field Offices (RFO): NASS has 12 regional offices across the country, each of
which is responsible for the statistical work in several states.
Respondent: The individual who answers the questions in the NAHMS Health Management
on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Phase I Questionnaire. Throughout this manual, the Respondent is
often referred to as the “Producer.”
Supervisor: The NASS supervisor who oversees the Data Collector.
5
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
I. Before the NASS Visit: Background Information and Training Requirements
Study Objectives
This study will survey feedlots about cattle health and health management practices from
September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. Feedlots in the participating States 1 with a
capacity of 50 head or more are eligible to participate.
This collection will support the following objectives:
1. Describe health management practices on U.S. feedlots with 50 or more head
2. Estimate the prevalence of important feedlot cattle diseases
3. Describe antibiotic use and stewardship practices on U.S. feedlots
4. Describe Producers’ overall preparedness for changes to the Veterinary Feed
Directive
5. Describe trends in feedlot cattle health management practices and important
feedlot cattle diseases
Background Information
The NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 study is being conducted jointly
by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the National Animal Health
Monitoring System (NAHMS). NAHMS is a non-regulatory information gathering and
disseminating program within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The purpose of the NAHMS program is to collect and analyze animal health data to
provide scientifically sound and current information on the health status of U.S. livestock
and poultry. The information is intended to benefit both livestock Producers (by
facilitating efficient production and animal welfare) and the general public (by facilitating
a safer and higher-quality food supply). Special emphasis is placed on obtaining valid
estimates of management practices, production levels, and disease status of the
national herd.
The NAHMS program is not designed to detect, regulate, or eradicate major epidemic
diseases, but rather to learn about other less-well-known health problems and food
safety and quality issues. As the food-animal industry grows more sophisticated, and
production becomes more concentrated in large, confined facilities, demand increases
for information on the impact of health problems. These problems are often related to
animal genetics, herd management practices, the environment in which the herd is
located, and exposure to infectious agents. The NAHMS program attempts to measure
the occurrence of these conditions and to report the findings to the livestock industry, as
well as to the general public. Additionally, as the livestock industry addresses concerns
with food quality and food safety, it needs valid information on which to base decisions.
1
Large (≥1000 head) only: MT, OK, UT, and WA
Small (50–999 head) only: IN, MI, OH, PA, and WI
Both large and small: CA, CO, ID, IL, IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD, TX, and WY
6
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
The NAHMS program compiles some of its information from sources other than surveys
of Producers. These sources include other government agencies, livestock industry
organizations, and universities. Surveys of livestock Producers are conducted to
assemble data that are not available elsewhere.
NAHMS was started in 1983. In the first few years after it was established, animal health
and economic data were collected for various types of livestock through several State
programs. Since 1989, surveys have been national in scope and have focused on hogs
from farrowing to market, dairy cattle, cow-calf operations, cattle-on-feed operations,
equids, catfish, poultry, goats, sheep, bison, and cervids. NASS State offices and
NASDA field enumerators were involved in most of these projects.
NAHMS has conducted multiple studies on feedlot cattle, including the Cattle on Feed
Evaluation 1994 study, the Feedlot 1999 study, the Feedlot 2011 study, and the
Antibiotic Use and Stewardship on U.S. Feedlots 2017 study.
The NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 study is designed to provide a
snapshot of current cattle health management practices. The information collected will
also allow for the analysis of trends in specific topics related to cattle health, based on
previous NAHMS feedlot studies. Priority issues facing the industry regarding feedlot
cattle health were identified via responses to a needs assessment survey conducted by
NAHMS in 2019 and from discussions with representatives of various segments of the
feedlot industry, including Producer associations, feedlot veterinarians, and university and
extension experts.
Benefits to Participating
Reports published from this study will benefit the U.S. feedlot industry by providing
current and scientifically valid estimates to:
• Aid in understanding disease preparedness strengths and vulnerabilities;
• Help policymakers and industry stakeholders make informed decisions;
• Identify research and development needs on vital issues related to feedlot cattle
health;
• Enable economic analyses of the health and productivity of the U.S. feedlot
industry;
• Identify educational needs and opportunities related to feedlot cattle health;
• Provide benchmark data on important feedlot cattle health management
practices to inform quality assurance programs; and
• Provide transparent, credible, independent information on U.S. feedlot industry
practices that is not collected by the industry itself.
These points may be useful in persuading a reluctant Producer to participate in the
survey.
7
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Overview of Phase I Data Collection Conducted by NASS
NASS will conduct on farm interviews for the NAHMS Health Management on U.S.
Feedlots 2020 study from September 28 through November 20, 2020. A random sample
of about 5,393 feedlots with a capacity of 50 or more head will be taken. State offices will
mail a pre-survey letter and the study launch sheet to sampled operations. The Regional
Field Office (RFO) will provide you with copies of these materials so that you may refer
to them during the interview.
Eligibility criteria: There are two components to the study: the large capacity
component will include all operations with 1,000 or more head capacity in 17 States, and
the small capacity component will include selected operations with 50-999 head capacity
in 18 States.
All feedlots with 1,000 or more head capacity will be selected to participate in the
study, about 2,200 total in the 17 States.
A sample of about 3,193 feedlots with 50-999 head capacity will be selected from
an estimated population of about 14,000 operations with 50-999 head capacity in
the 18 States.
Cattle on feed are defined as steers and heifers being fed a ration of grain, silage,
hay, and/or protein supplement for the slaughter market that are expected to
produce a carcass that will grade select or better. It excludes cattle being
“backgrounded only” for later sale as feeders or later placement in another feedlot.
It also excludes cows and bulls being fed for the slaughter market.
Enumerators will contact these operations to schedule a face-to-face interview with the
feedlot producers.
The last page of the Phase I Questionnaire is Section D—Office Use Only. All
operations should have this section filled out, even if they are ineligible for the
study, refuse, or are inaccessible.
Information provided in this manual will focus on Phase I of the study, the Phase I
Questionnaire, and your role in the data collection process.
At the conclusion of the Phase I interview, enumerators will ask Producers who complete
the Phase I Questionnaire to sign a consent form that gives NASS written permission to
release the Producer’s name and contact information to APHIS-Veterinary Services
(VS)-NAHMS for possible participation in an additional farm visit and questionnaire. In
trying to obtain the signed consent form, enumerators will briefly talk about Phase II of
the study and will provide the Producer with informational material that explains Phase II
and the benefits of participation in this phase of the study. All Producers that provide
consent to participate in Phase II will be contacted by USDA-APHIS-VS.
Overview of Phase II Data Collection Conducted by Veterinary Services
Phase II of the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 study will take place
February 1 through March 31, 2021, and involves a face-to-face interview by a
8
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO) or an Animal Health Technician (AHT). Feedlots with
50 or more head capacity that completed the Phase I questionnaire are eligible to
continue to Phase II. If the Producer is interested in learning more about Phase II of the
study and agrees to have a VMO or AHT contact them about the option to participate,
the enumerator will ask the Producer to sign a consent form to release the Producer’s
name and individual data to NAHMS.
The Phase II questionnaire includes questions about general health management
practices, important feedlot cattle diseases, antibiotic use, nutrition, and biosecurity.
Participation in the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 study is
voluntary. A Producers may choose to answer every question, skip certain questions or
sections, or end the interview at any time.
NAHMS has designated one (or two in some States) VMO in each State to serve as the
State NAHMS Coordinator for Phase II of the NAHMS Health Management on U.S.
Feedlots 2020 study. The State NAHMS Coordinator will be available to assist you and
the State NASS office. A list of the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
study State coordinators will be provided to you during training and can also be obtained
from your State NASS office.
Forms
The following materials, which you will receive from the Regional Field Office, are
described more fully in this manual. These are the materials that need to be
completed at the NASS visit.
1. NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Phase I Questionnaire
This is a paper questionnaire that will be administered by a NASS enumerator to
selected feedlots to collect data on cattle inventory and characteristics, general
antibiotic use and stewardship, and implementation of the Veterinary Feed Directive
rule changes. The questionnaire is to be administered during the personal interview
by NASS enumerators in September, October, and November of 2020.
2. NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Consent to Contact
The “Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Consent to Contact” is a paper
form that a NASS enumerator will administer to Producers who complete Phase I to
obtain consent to be contact by an APHIS-designated data collector for Phase II of
the study.
3. NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 NASS Informed Consent
for Feedlots in the State of California
This is a paper form that a NASS enumerator will administer only to California
Producers who complete Phase I to obtain consent to release California state level
aggregate data obtained from the Phase I Questionnaire to the California
Department of Food and Agriculture for purposes of fulfilling California Food and
Agricultural Codes 13300-14408.
Only to be completed by operations in California.
9
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
CIPSEA Information
NAHMS is a recognized statistical unit by the Office of Management and Budget. All
information acquired for the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 study
will be used for statistical purposes only and will be treated as confidential in accordance
with the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA). Only
summary estimates based on the inference population will be reported. Data collected
under CIPSEA are protected from Freedom of Information requests.
CIPSEA allows NASS agents to collect data that are limited to statistical use only. All
information collected during the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
study is protected from disclosure in identifiable form (i.e., the identity of the Respondent
will not be disclosed). All identifiable information must be secured when not in use. All
publications will use statistical aggregates and must clear a disclosure review process
prior to distribution. No individual-level responses will be published.
Please note that the protection provided by CIPSEA only applies to this feedlot health
study. Activities initiated by the Producer unrelated to this feedlot health study, such as
testing for movement or sale, may cause unrelated regulatory action.
Who to Interview
Interview the feedlot owner, manager, or veterinarian if possible. Information collected
from other people is often less accurate. If the Producer says someone else is more
knowledgeable, interview that person. There may be sections of the questionnaire that
require the response of a different person who is knowledgeable about that section.
Encourage Producers to have the operation records on hand. If records are used,
information provided will likely be more accurate, and the interview will take less time.
Initial Contact with Respondent
Thoroughly familiarize yourself with the “NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots
2020 Phase I Questionnaire” before you call the Respondents, so you can give them an
idea of the kind of information that will be collected. Use this manual to familiarize
yourself with the questionnaire. The Phase I Questionnaire asks about cattle inventory,
sourcing of cattle, general management including housing and identification, antibiotic
use and stewardship, and implementation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Veterinary Feed Directive rule changes on January 1, 2017.
Familiarize yourself with the Respondent’s feedlot capacity and location given to you by
the Regional Field Office.
Call the Respondent and identify yourself. Explain how you obtained the Respondent’s
name and ask if you can make an appointment either to talk to him/her at a more
convenient time over the phone or set up a time to meet for a visit.
Make an appointment for the interview. Explain what will be covered and the time
involved (about 45 minutes to complete the “Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Phase I Questionnaire”). Tell the Respondent that it will help to if he or she has records
available during the interview. For example, specific records for cattle inventory may
expedite the interview. Let the Producer know that they can access the Phase I
10
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Questionnaire on the NAHMS website to get a preview of the interview.
Items to take on the NASS visit
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Phase I Questionnaire—NASS
Visit Manual
NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 study launch sheet
NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Phase I Questionnaire
Two copies of the Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Confidentiality Pledge
Pen/pencils
Calculator
Business card—leave with the Respondent
11
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
12
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
13
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
II. The NASS Visit: Completing the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Phase I Questionnaire
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0579-0079. The time required to complete
this information collection is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, including the time to review
instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the
information collected.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION
SERVICE
VETERINARY SERVICES
NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING SYSTEM
2150 CENTRE AVE, BLDG B
FORT COLLINS, CO 80526
State FIPS
2-digits
Operation #
4-digits
OMB Approved
0579-0079
EXP: XX/20XX
HEALTH MANAGEMENT ON
U.S. FEEDLOTS 2020
PHASE 1 QUESTIONNAIRE
Interviewer
Initials
Date
/ /
(mm/dd/yy)
Beginning time (military)……………………………………………………………..
Ending time (military)…………………………………………………………………
c100
The information you provide will be used for statistical purposes only. In accordance with the Confidential
Information Protection provisions of Title V, Subtitle A, Public Law 107–347 and other applicable Federal laws,
your responses will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed in identifiable form to anyone other than
employees or agents. By law, every employee and agent has taken an oath and is subject to a jail term, a fine,
or both, if he or she willfully discloses ANY identifiable information about you or your operation. Response is
voluntary.
Please make corrections to names, address, and Zip code, if necessary.
Unless otherwise noted, all questions refer to the time period of September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020.
Don’t Know = DK
Not Applicable = NA
We would like to know about all cattle and calves placed during that time period on feed for the slaughter
market, regardless of ownership, on this particular feedlot.
•
•
•
•
Include cattle being fed by you for others.
Exclude any of your cattle being custom fed in feedlots operated by others.
Exclude cattle being “backgrounded only” for sale as feeders, for later placement on feed in another
feedlot, or to be returned to pasture.
Exclude cows and bulls being fed by you for the slaughter market.
14
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Section A – Cattle on Feed
Number of cattle
1. From September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, how many steers and heifers were placed on
feed for slaughter on this feedlot? [Include cattle born and raised on this operation]
[If Question 1 = 0, SKIP to Section D]
ic0100
Number of cattle
2. What is the one-time capacity of this feedlot?
ic0101
3. For cattle placed on feed from September 1, 2019 to August 31, 2020, on this feedlot, report
the number of cattle by breed type and arrival weight.
Number of cattle
a. Beef breeds with arrival weight less than 400 lb
ic0102
b. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight less than 400 lb
ic0103
c. Beef breeds with arrival weight 400 to 699 lb
ic0104
d. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight 400 to 699 lb
ic0105
e. Beef breeds with arrival weight 700 to 899 lb
ic0106
f. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight 700 to 899 lb
ic0107
g. Beef breeds with arrival weight equal to or greater than 900 lb
ic0108
h. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight equal to or greater than 900 lb
ic0109
i. Total cattle placed [Add all lines – should equal number from Question 1]
ic0110
4. Report the average days on feed (from placement to marketing) by breed type and arrival weight for cattle on this
feedlot.
a. Beef breeds with arrival weight less than 400 lb
ic0111
b. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight less than 400 lb
ic0112
c. Beef breeds with arrival weight 400 to 699 lb
d. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight 400 to 699 lb
days
(-3)DK
days
(-3)DK
ic0113
days
(-3)DK
ic0114
days
(-3)DK
e. Beef breeds with arrival weight 700 to 899 lb
ic0115
days
(-3)DK
f. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight 700 to 899 lb
ic0116
days
(-3)DK
g. Beef breeds with arrival weight equal to or greater than 900 lb
ic0117
days
(-3)DK
h. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight equal to or greater than 900 lb
ic0118
days
(-3)DK
5. What percentage or number of cattle on feed on this feedlot died
from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, by breed type and
arrival weight?
a. Beef breeds with arrival weight less than 400 lb
Percent of cattle
Number of cattle
ic0119
ic0125
(-3)DK
b. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight less than 400 lb
ic0120
ic0126
(-3)DK
c. Beef breeds with arrival weight 400 to 699 lb
ic0121
ic0127
(-3)DK
d. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight 400 to 699 lb
ic0122
ic0128
(-3)DK
e. Beef breeds with arrival weight equal to or greater than 700 lb
ic0123
ic0129
(-3)DK
ic0124
ic0130
f. Dairy or dairy cross breeds with arrival weight equal to or
greater than 700 lb
OR
(-3)DK
15
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Percent of cattle
Number of cattle
6. What percentage or number of cattle placed on feed were born and
OR
ic0131
ic0132
raised on this operation?
[If Question 6 = 100% or # of cattle is equal to inventory of cattle reported in Question 1, SKIP to Question 11]
7. In terms of the source of the cattle placed on feed (the last place
they were before they came to this feedlot), what percentage or
number of cattle were:
a. Obtained directly from a cow-calf operation, including cow-calf
operations owned by or associated with this feedlot?
b. Obtained directly from a backgrounding or stocker operation or grow
yard (i.e., includes cattle purchased by video auction)?
c. Obtained through a sale barn?
Percent of cattle
ic0133
ic0139
ic0134
ic0140
OR
ic0135
d. Obtained directly from a dairy operation, including dairy breed calf
raiser?
e. Obtained from other sources?
(specify: ic0137oth; ic0143oth____________________________________)
f. Source unknown?
ic0141
ic0136
ic0142
ic0137
ic0143
ic0138
ic0144
g. Total [should equal 100% or total inventory from Question 1 less
cattle born and raised on this operation]
8. On average, what percentage or number of cattle traveled the
following distances to the feedlot from their most recent location?
a. Equal to or less than 50 miles
Number of cattle
100%
Percent of cattle
Number of cattle
ic0145
ic0151
b. 51-250 miles
ic0146
ic0152
c.
ic0147
251-500 miles
OR
ic0153
d. 501-1000 miles
ic0148
e. Greater than 1000 miles
ic0149
ic0155
f.
ic0150
ic0156
Distance traveled not known
g. Total [should equal 100% or total inventory from Question 1
less cattle born and raised on this operation]
9. What percentage or number of cattle were sourced from each
region? [Reference the map in Appendix A]
a. Region 1 [CA, OR, WA, ID, NV, AK, HI]
ic0154
100%
Percent of cattle
Number of cattle
ic0157
ic0166
b. Region 2 [MT, ND, SD, WY, NE, UT, CO, KS]
ic0158
ic0167
c.
Region 3 [AZ, NM, TX, OK]
ic0159
ic0168
d. Region 4 [MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH]
ic0160
ic0169
e. Region 5 [AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, FL, NC, SC, TN, KY, WV, VA]
ic0161
f.
Region 6 [MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, ME]
OR
ic0170
ic0162
ic0171
g. Region 7 [Mexico]
ic0163
ic0172
h. Region 8 [Canada]
ic0164
ic0173
i.
Region of origin unknown
ic0165
ic0174
j.
Total [should equal 100% or total inventory from Question 1
less cattle born and raised on this operation]
100%
16
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
10. After cattle arrived at this feedlot, what percentage or number of cattle were commingled with cattle from different
sources during the first 45 days of feeding?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Cattle with arrival weights less than 400 lb
Cattle with arrival weights 400 to 699 lb
Cattle with arrival weights 700 to 899 lb
Cattle with arrival weights greater than 900 lb
Percent of cattle
Number of cattle
ic0175
ic0179
(-3)DK
ic0180
(-3)DK
ic0177
ic0181
(-3)DK
ic0178
ic0182
(-3)DK
ic0176
OR
11. What percentage of the cattle on feed were identified with an individual identification
eartag placed either at this feedlot or prior to arrival at this feedlot?
[Exclude stickers or slap on tags]
[If Question 11 = 0 or DK, SKIP to Question 14]
Percent of cattle
(-3)DK
ic0182
12. Which of the following best describes the type of individual identification used on most of the cattle?
1
2
3
4
5
ic0183
Electronic (RFID) eartag (ultra high frequency)
Electronic (RFID) eartag (high frequency)
Electronic (RFID) eartag (low frequency)
Visual (non-electronic) eartag
Other (specify: ic0183oth_____________________________________________________________________)
13. Official USDA eartags can be either visual or electronic and are characterized by the
official U.S. shield (see Appendix B). What percentage of the cattle on feed on this
feedlot were identified with an individual official identification eartag?
Percent of cattle
(-3)DK
ic0184
14. What was the primary housing type used for cattle on this feedlot? (see Appendix C for examples)
ic0185
[Check one only]
1 Open dry lot without barn or shed (with or without shade structures)
2 Open dry lot with open shed/loafing shed
3 Shed/barn with slatted floors (i.e., confinement barn) with no open lot
4 Shed/barn with solid floor (i.e., confinement barn) with no open lot
5 Other (specify: ic0185oth ____________________________________________________________________)
[If Question 14 = 3 or 4, answer Question 15. Otherwise, SKIP to Question 16]
ic0186
15. How was the shed/barn ventilated? [Check one only]
1 Natural ventilation from ridge vents
2 Natural ventilation from large side openings
3 Natural ventilation from both ridge vents and large side openings
4 Mechanical ventilation system
5 Other (specify: ic0186oth_____________________________________________________________________)
16. What was the target weight for finished cattle on this feedlot? [Check one for heifers and one for steers]
For heifers?
For steers?
1 1099 lb or less
1 1199 lb or less
2 1100 to 1199 lb
2 1200 to 1299 lb
3 1200 to 1299 lb
3 1300 to 1399 lb
4 1300 to 1399 lb
4 1400 to 1499 lb
5 1400 lb or greater
5 1500 lb or greater
17. How many cattle were marketed from this feedlot between September 1,
2019, and August 31, 2020?
Number of heifers
ic0189
ic0187/ic0188
Number of steers
ic0190
17
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Section B—Antibiotic Use and Stewardship
1. What percentage of cattle are typically placed on this feedlot with the intention to feed to meet the
following specific marketing label claims?
a. Marketing label claim of Certified USDA Organic
b. Marketing label claim of no or limited antibiotic use (excluding Certified USDA organic)
c. Marketing label claim of no hormone use (non-hormone treated cattle program)
d. No specific marketing label claims regarding antibiotics or hormones
Percent of
cattle
ic0200
ic0201
ic0202
ic0203
[If the percentage of cattle in 1d = 100, SKIP to Question 4]
2. What percentage of cattle that start the feeding period in a management program to meet the
following specific label claims typically finish in that program?
a. Marketing label claim of Certified USDA Organic
b. Marketing label claim of no or limited antibiotic use (excluding Certified USDA organic)
c. Marketing label claim of no hormone use (non-hormone treated cattle program)
Percent of
cattle
ic0204
ic0205
ic0206
[If the percentage of cattle in 2b = 0, SKIP to Question 4]
3. Which of the following are part of the marketing label claim regarding antibiotic use under which your
cattle are marketed as described in Question 2b? [Check all that apply]
1
No antibiotics ever (includes “raised without antibiotics”)
2
No medically important antibiotics ever (e.g., only ionophores were used)
3
No antibiotics in the last 100 days prior to slaughter
4
Other claim regarding antibiotic use (specify:
ic0207oth______________________________________________)
4. Were any antibiotics used in cattle on this feedlot (e.g., injectable, in feed, and/or in
water) from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020?
[If Question 4 = NO, SKIP to Question 13]
5. Were injectable antibiotics administered to cattle as a GROUP (i.e., the majority of
the cattle in the pen were given injectable antibiotics at the same time, e.g., for
treatment, prevention, or control of bovine respiratory disease)?
[If Question 5 = NO, SKIP to Question 7]
ic0208
ic0209
ic0207
1 Yes 3 No
1 Yes 3 No
6. For cattle that were administered injectable antibiotics as a GROUP, how frequently was the following information
available OR captured/calculated in a record-keeping system? Available information must also include the pen
number, lot number, and/or individual identification number of the animal(s) to which antibiotics were administered.
[Place one X per row in the appropriate column below.]
Never
a.
b.
c.
d.
Date(s) treated
Antibiotic given
Antibiotic dose, regimen, or protocol
Date animal has completed antibiotic withdrawal period
and may be shipped to slaughter
5 If no withdrawal period for any antibiotic used,
check here for not applicable and leave this row blank
ic0210
ic0211
ic0212
Sometimes
Most of
the time
Always
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
ic0213
7. Were any INDIVIDUAL cattle that became sick on this feedlot treated with
injectable antibiotics?
ic0214
1 Yes 3 No
18
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
[If Question 7 = NO, SKIP to Question 9]
8. For cattle treated as INDIVIDUALS with injectable antibiotics, how frequently was the following information
available OR captured/calculated in a record-keeping system? Available information also must include the
individual identification number of the animal(s) treated.
[Place one X per row in the appropriate column below.]
a.
b.
c.
d.
Date(s) treated
Antibiotic given
Antibiotic dose, regimen or protocol
Date animal has completed antibiotic withdrawal period
and may be shipped to slaughter
5 If no withdrawal period for any antibiotic used,
check here for not applicable and leave this row blank
ic0215
ic0216
ic0217
Never
Sometimes
Most of
the time
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
Always
ic0218
9. Were any cattle on this feedlot given any type of antibiotics IN FEED? Consider medically important
antibiotics that DO require a veterinary feed directive (VFD) such as chlortetracycline or tylosin AND
non-medically important antibiotics that DO NOT require a VFD, such as ionophores (e.g., Rumensin®),
bambermycin, and bacitracin. [Check one only]
1
Cattle were given BOTH medically and non-medically important antibiotics in feed.
2
Cattle were given ONLY medically important antibiotics in feed.
3
Cattle were given ONLY non-medically important antibiotics in feed.
4
Cattle were NOT given any antibiotics in feed.
ic0219
[If Question 9 = “Cattle were NOT given any antibiotics in feed”, SKIP to Question 11]
10. For cattle given any antibiotics IN FEED (medically important or non-medically important) how frequently was the
following information available OR captured/calculated in a record-keeping system? Available information also
must include the pen number, lot number, and/or individual identification number of the animal(s) to which
antibiotics were administered.
[Place one X per row in the appropriate column below.]
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Date antibiotic use began
Date antibiotic use ended
Antibiotic given
Antibiotic dose, regimen, or protocol
Date animal has completed antibiotic withdrawal period
and may be shipped to slaughter
5 If no withdrawal period for all antibiotics used, check
here for not applicable and leave this row blank
ic0220
ic0221
ic0222
ic0223
Never
Sometimes
Most of
the time
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
Always
ic0224
11. Were any cattle on this feedlot given antibiotics IN WATER during this time period?
ic0225
1 Yes 3 No
[If Question 11 = NO, SKIP to Question 13]
19
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
12. For cattle given any antibiotics IN WATER, how frequently was the following information available OR
captured/calculated in a record-keeping system? Available information also must include the pen number, lot number,
and/or individual identification number of the animal(s) to which antibiotics were administered.
[Place one X per row in the appropriate column below.]
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Date antibiotic use began
Date antibiotic use ended
Antibiotic given
Antibiotic dose, regimen, or protocol
Date animal has completed antibiotic withdrawal period
and may be shipped to slaughter
5 If no withdrawal period for any antibiotic used, check
here for not applicable and leave this row blank
Never
Sometimes
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
ic0225
ic0226
ic0227
ic0228
Most of
the time
Always
ic0229
13. Do you use electronic record-keeping systems to store production and/or animal
health related information?
1 Yes 3 No
ic0230
[If Question 13 = NO, SKIP to Question 16]
14. Which of the following was the primary electronic record-keeping system used? [Check one only]
ic0231
1 Commercially available software designed for use in feedlots
2 Custom software, specifically designed for use by consulting practice or by this feedlot
3 Other spreadsheet or general database software (e.g., Microsoft Excel or Access)
4 Other (Specify: ic0231oth ____________________________________________________________________)
15. How important to this feedlot are these electronic record-keeping
systems for:
a. Comparing your feedlot to other feedlots?
b. Comparing current information to historical information for this
feedlot?
c. Determining and recording when animals have completed
antibiotic withdrawal periods?
d. Tracking production?
e. Tracking economic records?
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
ic0232
1
2
3
ic0233
1
2
3
ic0234
1
2
3
ic0235
1
2
3
ic0236
1
2
3
16. During the previous 5 years, have you or someone representing this feedlot
attended or completed a Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) meeting or training session
(online, national, State, or local)?
17. During the previous 5 years, has this feedlot participated in a Beef Quality
Assurance (BQA) Feedyard Assessment?
ic0237
ic0238
1 Yes 3 No
4 Don’t Know
1 Yes 3 No
4 Don’t Know
[If Question 17 = NO, SKIP to Question 19]
18. During the previous 5 years, how many times has this feedlot participated in a Beef Quality
Assurance (BQA) Feedyard Assessment?
19. Did your feedlot use the services of a veterinarian from September 1, 2019, to
August 31, 2020?
ic0240
Number
ic0239
1 Yes 3 No
20
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
[If Question 19 = NO, ANSWER Question 20 and then SKIP to Section C.
[If Question 19 = YES, SKIP Question 20 and ANSWER Questions 21-23.
20. (For feedlots that did NOT use the services of a veterinarian during this time period) Which of the
following was the primary reason for not using a veterinarian? [Check one only]
1
2
3
4
5
ic0241
Veterinarian was available in the local area but not knowledgeable about beef cattle
Veterinarian was not available in the local area
Too expensive
Not needed
Other (specify: ic0241oth______________________________________________________________________)
21. (For feedlots that DID use a veterinarian during this time period) Was the primary veterinarian or
veterinary clinic you used a:
[Check one only]
ic0242
1 Full-time veterinarian(s) on staff (includes if the owner of the feedlot is a veterinarian)
2 Private veterinary clinic or consulting practice whose veterinarian(s) made routine visits for preventive care
and could also be called as needed
3 Private veterinary clinic or consulting practice whose veterinarian(s) DID NOT make routine visits for preventive
care but could be called as needed
4 Other (specify: ic0242oth______________________________________________________________________)
22. (For feedlots that DID use a veterinarian during this time period) From September 1, 2019, to
August 31, 2020, how many times was a veterinarian physically present on the feedlot?
23. (For feedlots that DID use a veterinarian during this time period) From September 1, 2019, to
August 31, 2020, how frequently was your feedlot in contact with a veterinarian, e.g. by
telephone, video conference, or data transfer?
Number
ic0243
Number
ic0244
21
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Section C—Veterinary Feed Directive Final Rule Implementation
The following questions ask about the implementation of U.S. Food and Drug Administration Drug Guidance for
Industry (GFI) #213 and the revised Veterinary Food Directive (VFD) final rule on January 1, 2017. We want to better
understand the impact of the label changes on producers like yourself, and this is your opportunity to share about your
experience implementing the label changes on this feedlot.
1. Some antibiotics used on feedlots now require a VFD; these are called
medically important. Examples of antibiotics that DO require a VFD include
chlortetracycline and tylosin. Antibiotics that DO NOT require a VFD are
ionophores, (e.g., Rumensin®), bambermycin, and bacitracin; these are
called non-medically important.
1 Yes 3 No
Prior to the label changes resulting from the implementation of the revised
VFD final rule on January 1, 2017, did you medically important antibiotics in
feed on this feedlot?
[If Question 1 = No, SKIP to Section D]
2. Following the label changes, did this feedlot stop using medically important
antibiotics in feed, in other words in-feed antibiotics that now require a VFD?
[If Question 2 =Yes, SKIP to Section D]
ic0300
1 Yes 3 No
ic0301
3. Overall, the transition of implementing the label changes on this feedlot was:
Very
Mostly
Somewhat
Neither
Somewhat
Mostly
Very
ic0302
Easy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Difficult
ic0303
Convenient
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Inconvenient
ic0304
Affordable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Unaffordable
4. Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement:
On January 1, 2017, I felt I had all the resources (e.g., access to veterinarians knowledgeable about the VFD,
training, finances) necessary to manage the label changes on this feedlot.
ic0305
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
Thank you for your help in completing this survey. Please feel free to use this space or the back
of this questionnaire to communicate comments about the survey or any other information about
health management on your feedlot that you think is relevant.
22
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Section D—Office Use Only
1. For operations that complete this questionnaire, request signature on CONSENT TO CONTACT FORM to be
contacted for participation in Phase 2 of the study.
2. Total time for interview..……………………………………………………………….
min
c301
3. Total travel time [round trip]………………………………………………………….
c302
4. Interview response code
c303
[Check one only.]
1 Complete, Consent to Contact Form signed – Go to Item 6
2 Complete, Consent to Contact Form refused – Continue to Item 5
3 Refused – Continue to Item 5
4 Zero cattle on feed – Go to Item 6
5 Out of business – Go to Item 6
6 Backgrounder/stocker operation only – Go to Item 6
7 Otherwise out of scope – Go to Item 6
8 Office hold – Go to Item 6
9 Inaccessible – Go to Item 6
5. Refusal response code
min
Code
c304
[Check one only.]
1 Does not want to commit time to the project
2 Does not want involvement with government veterinarian or has had
previous bad experience with veterinarian
3 Does not have necessary records available
4 Has participated in too many surveys
5 Does not want outside people on the feedlot
6 A bad time of year (planting, harvesting, second job, etc.)
7 Currently has or recently had a disease problem with herd
8 Believes that surveys and reports hurt the farmer more than help
9 Could not get owner’s permission
10 No reason given or other (specify: c304oth____________________________)
Code
6. Which of the following best describes the respondent’s position with this operation?
c305
[Check one only.]
1 Owner
2 Manager
3 Family member (other than owner or manager)
4 Other hired employee (non-veterinarian)
5 Veterinarian on staff (e.g., company veterinarian)
6 Herd veterinarian or other veterinarian
7 Other (specify: c305oth____________________________)
7. Did the respondent use records to assist in answering this survey?.......................
Response
1-Comp
2-R
3-Inaccesible
9901
Respondent
Mode
1-Op/Mgr
9902
2-Sp
3-Acct/Bkpr
4-Partner
9-Oth
2-Telephone
9903
3-Face-to-Face
8-CAPI
19-Other
Enum.
0098
Eval.
0100
c306
Rpt. Unit
0921
1 Yes 3 No
Office Use for POID
0789
__ __ __ - __ __ __ - __ __ __
Optional Use
0407
0408
23
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Appendices
Appendix A. Reference Map for Section A, Question 9
(AK and HI are not pictured and are included in Region 1)
24
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Appendix B. Examples of USDA official ID methods
(From Animal Disease Traceability Framework, Official Eartags – Criteria and Options,
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/ADT_eartags_criteria.pdf)
Official Vaccination Eartag (Brucellosis)
National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES) Tag (“Silver” or “Brite” tag)
Animal Identification Number (AIN) Tags with 840 prefix (Visual and Electronic)
25
Appendix C. Examples of Types of Housing
Open dry lot
Wind fence
(photograph courtesy of Dr. Paul Morley)
(photograph courtesy of Dr. Paul Morley)
Confinement barn with slatted floor
Confinement barn with bedded pack
(photograph courtesy of Dr. Grant Dewell)
(photograph courtesy of Dr. Grant Dewell)
26
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
General Instructions
You can now begin completion of the questionnaire with the Producer. The questionnaire includes
questions about cattle on feed, antibiotic use and stewardship, and Veterinary Feed Directive Final Rule
implementation. Read all questions as written and follow instructions carefully. DO NOT LEAVE ANY
QUESTIONS BLANK unless instructed to skip or the Producer does not wish to answer.
If the response is zero (0), enter the number 0; do not leave the response blank. If the Producer
does not know, work with him or her to try to estimate the answer.
If the Producer does not know an answer, write “DK” (Don’t Know) in the answer space to indicate
why the question was not answered. If the Producer refuses to respond to a question, write “R”
(refused) in the answer space to indicate why the question was not answered.
Please write notes in the margins to explain unusual answers.
If the answer is unusual or quality of the data is questionable, record the answer and write comments next
to the question. Do not hesitate to write comments directly on the questionnaire. We would rather have a
lengthy explanation for a perplexing answer than no explanation at all. If an answer doesn’t make sense
and has no explanation, we may have to ask your Supervisor to ask you to explain the answer, delaying
data entry.
NAHMS is a voluntary program. If the Producer does not want to answer a question, respect this
request, make a note on the questionnaire, and move on to the next question.
At times during the interview, a Respondent may feel uncomfortable providing the requested data without
consulting records. Respondents should be given additional time to look up the information or report it by
telephone to you later as long as the timeliness of data submission is not adversely affected. Also, some
Respondents may be reluctant to provide estimates if they don’t have records. In this case, the
Respondent should be encouraged to respond, and the circumstances for the response should be noted in
the margin next to the pertinent question. However, if the Respondent is unable to provide an accurate
estimate, “DK” can be entered. If the Producer declines to answer, “R” can be entered.
Return the completed questionnaire to your Supervisor within 3 working days.
State FIPS
Enter the 2-digit FIPS code for the State: CA-06, CO-08, ID-16, IL-17, IN-18, IA-19, KS-20, MI-26, MN-27,
MO-29, MT-30, NE-31, ND-38, OH-39, OK-40, PA-42, SD-46, TX-48, UT-49, WA-53. WI-55, WY-56.
Operation #
Enter the 4-digit ID number assigned by NASS. It is found on the Producer consent form.
The 6-digit combination of the State and Operation numbers is often referred to as the farm ID or
NAHMS ID. For example, 05 0123.
Interviewer’s initials
Enter up to three initials.
27
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Date
Enter the interview date in MM/DD/YY format.
Make sure you write the NAHMS ID in all of the blanks at the top of each page. This is needed in
case pages get separated.
Nonrespondent documentation
We must account for all farms selected by NASS. If a Respondent declines to participate, complete the
“Office Use Only” section on page 10 of the questionnaire. Include the State and operation numbers;
interviewer’s initials; date; time spent talking with the Respondent (question 1); travel time (question 2); and
the Respondent’s reason for declining (question 4).
Send this page to your Supervisor within 3 working days.
Cattle types for inclusion in study
Unless otherwise noted, all questions refer to the 12 month period from September 1 2019, to August 31,
2020.
Questions in this survey ask about all cattle and calves placed on feed during that time period on feed for
the slaughter market, regardless of ownership, on this particular feedlot.
•
•
•
•
Include cattle being fed by you for others.
Exclude any of your cattle being custom fed in feedlots operated by others.
Exclude cattle being “backgrounded only” for sale as feeders, for later placement on feed in another
feedlot, or to be returned to pasture.
Exclude cows and bulls being fed by you for the slaughter market.
Why is NAHMS excluding backgrounder/stocker cattle and cows and bulls on feed? We are not
attempting to provide cattle health estimates for all segments of the beef industry. Instead, we are
providing estimates for the largest segment (steers and heifers in terminal feedlots destined for
slaughter). Health management practices for cows and bulls are likely to be different compared with
steers and heifers, and we want to capture the most commonly used practices, not all practices.
What if this feedlot is owned by a company with additional feedlots in other States or locations?
Complete the questionnaire for this feedlot only. The additional feedlots owned by the company could
have been selected for participation in the study separately.
28
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Section A-Cattle on Feed
Unless otherwise noted, all questions in this section refer to the period from September 1, 2019, to
August 31, 2020.
Question 1. Steers and heifers placed on feed
Enter the total number of steers and heifers placed on feed for the slaughter market on this operation
during the period from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. “Placed on feed” means the cattle
entered the feedlot. Make sure you follow the instructions on the previous page on what types of cattle to
include. Include cattle born and raised on this operation.
[If question 1 = 0, the operation is ineligible for the study. SKIP to section D and complete the
Office Use Only questions.]
Question 2. One-time capacity of feedlot
Enter the maximum total number of steers and heifers that the feedlot can have at any given time. The
total inventory on a feedlot can fluctuate throughout the year, and this question is asking about the
maximum capacity of the feedlot.
Question 3. Cattle breed types and weights at placement
Enter the total number of beef breeds with an arrival weight of less than 400 pounds that were placed on
feed from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. Then enter the number of dairy breeds or dairy cross
breeds (e.g., dairy cattle crossed with beef cattle or Holsteins crossed with Jerseys) with an arrival weight
of less than 400 pounds that were placed on feed from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. Then
repeat this information for cattle with arrival weights of 400 to 699 pounds, 700 to 899 pounds, and equal
to or greater than 900 pounds. Enter the totals as instructed. The number for 3.i should match the
number entered for question 1.
In Section A, many questions will ask for data reported by arrival weight categories. A similar format has
been used in previous NAHMS studies, and we use these categories so comparisons can be made
across studies. In previous NAHMS studies, we have used categories of less than 700 lb at arrival or
greater than or equal to 700 lb at arrival. We wanted to learn more details about cattle at different weights
at arrival in this study, so we created a total of four categories for this survey: 400 lb at arrival, 400 to 699
lb at arrival, 700-899 lb at arrival and equal to or greater than 900 lb at arrival. The 700-899 lb at arrival
and equal to or greater than 900 lb at arrival categories are combined for most questions; they are only
asked for separately in this question (Question 3) and in Question 4 (Average days on feed). We expect
that some health management practices will differ among the arrival weight classes:
• Cattle less than 400 lb at arrival at the feedlot are often dairy or dairy cross breeds, and they
have different risk factors for disease.
• Cattle 400 to 699 lb at arrival at the feedlot are more likely to be coming to the feedlot shortly
after weaning. These cattle may be affected by the stress of weaning, making them more
susceptible to disease.
• Cattle 700-899 lb at arrival or equal to or greater than 900 lb at arrival to the feedlot are more
likely to have been backgrounded after weaning. Backgrounded (or stocker) cattle are
typically put on pasture or put on feed after weaning at a location different from where they
were born. After gaining a few hundred pounds, these cattle are moved to the feedlot. These
cattle have recovered from the stress of weaning, so they are at lower risk for developing
disease.
Question 4. Average days on feed
Enter the average number of days on feed, i.e., from placement to marketing, for cattle of the listed breed
29
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
types and arrival weights placed on feed from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. The numbers
used to estimate these averages should be for the entire feeding period for all cattle. For example, for
cattle placed in August 2020, do not just record the days these cattle spent in the feedlot in August—
either record the entire period these cattle would spend in the feedlot extending into 2021, or exclude
these cattle from the estimates. If the Producer is unable to estimate the average days on feed for any of
the breed type and arrival weight categories, check “DK” for “Don’t Know.”
Question 5. Percentage or number of deaths from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020 by breed
type and arrival weight
For each of the breed type and arrival weight categories listed, enter the number that died from
September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. Note that this includes deaths from the time cattle were placed
on feed through marketing if that occurred during that time period. Producers can report either the
number of cattle of each category that died or the percent of cattle that died; record this information in the
appropriate column. Note that this question and all following questions that ask for data by weight class
combine the 700-899 lb at arrival category and the equal to or greater than 900 lb at arrival category. If
the Producer is unable to estimate the percentage or number of cattle that died for any of the breed type
and arrival weight categories, check “DK” for “Don’t Know”.
Question 6. Percentage or number of cattle placed on feed born and raised on the operation
Of the cattle placed on feed from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, record the percent or the
number of cattle that were born on raised on the same operation. Some Producers raise their own cattle
from birth to marketing for slaughter on the same operation, and we want to capture this information.
[If question 6 = 100% or # of cattle is equal to the inventory of cattle reported in question 1, SKIP
to question 11. In other words, if all cattle placed on the feedlot are also born and raised on the
same operation, SKIP to question 11.]
Question 7. Percentage or number of cattle placed on feed by source
Of the cattle placed on feed from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, record the percent or the
number of cattle by the source of the cattle (the last place they were before they were came to this
feedlot). Exclude any cattle that were born and raised on the same operation (question 6). Options
include:
a. Obtained directly from a cow-calf operation, including cow-calf operations owned by or
associated with this feedlot but not in the same location as this feedlot
b. Obtained directly from a backgrounding or stocker operation or grow yard (i.e., did not pass
through a sale barn; includes cattle purchased by video auction)
c. Obtained through a sale barn
d. Obtained directly from a dairy operation, including dairy-breed calf raiser
e. Obtained from other sources – be sure to record what other sources are used
f. Source unknown
g. Total – the total should equal 100% if they record the percentages of cattle obtained from each
of the listed sources. If recording numbers of cattle, the total total should equal the total
inventory from question 1 less any cattle born and raised on this operation and recorded in
Question 6.
Question 8. Percentage or number of cattle placed on feed by distance traveled from their most
recent location
Of the cattle placed on feed from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, record the percent or the
number of cattle by the number of miles they traveled from their most recent location to the feedlot.
Options include equal to or less than 50 miles, 51-250 miles, 251-500 miles, 501-1000 miles, greater
than 1000 miles, and distance traveled not known. The total should equal 100% if they record the
30
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
percentages of cattle by distance traveled or the total should equal the total inventory from question 1
minus any cattle born and raised on this operation.
Question 9. Percentage or number of cattle placed on feed by region of the country cattle were
sourced
Of the cattle placed on feed from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, record the percent or the
number of cattle by the region of the country the cattle were sourced (map shown below and included in
Appendix A). The total should equal 100% if they record the percentages of cattle by region or the total
should equal the total inventory from question 1 minus any cattle born and raised on this operation.
Appendix A. Reference Map for Section A, Question 9
(AK and HI are not pictured and are included in Region 1)
Question 10. Percentage or number of cattle commingling with cattle from different sources
during the first 45 days of feeding by arrival weight categories
Of the cattle placed on feed from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, record the percent or the
number of cattle that were commingled with cattle from different sources during the first 45 days of
feeding for each arrival weight category. If the Producer cannot answer for any of the arrival weight
categories, check “DK” for “Don’t Know”.
Question 11. Percentage of cattle with an individual identification eartag
Record the percentage of cattle on feed that are identified with an individual identification eartag, placed
either at this feedlot or prior to arrival at this feedlot. If the Producer cannot answer this question, check
“DK” for “Don’t Know”.
[If Question 11 = 0 or DK, SKIP to Question 14.]
31
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Question 12. Type of individual identification used on most of the cattle
Check the response that best describes the type of individual identification used on most of the cattle on
the feedlot. Electronic or RFID eartags are available in 3 different frequencies: ultra-high frequency, high
frequency, and low frequency. Visual eartags are also used. If the Producer uses some other form of
individual identification, check “other” and record what they are using.
Question 13. Percentage of cattle placed on feed identified with an individual official identification
eartag
Record the percentage of cattle on feed that are identified with an official USDA individual identification
eartag, which are characterized by the official U.S. shield. See example photos in Appendix B. If the
Producer cannot answer this question, check “DK” for “Don’t Know”.
Question 14. Primary housing type
Check the response that best describes the primary housing type used for cattle on this feedlot. See
example photos in Appendix C. If the Producer uses some other housing type, check “other” and record
what they are using.
[If question 14 = 3 or 4, answer question 15. Otherwise, SKIP to question 16. In other words,
answer question 15 if the Producer uses some type of shed/barn as their primary housing type.]
Question 15. Ventilation in the shed/barn
Check the response that best describes the ventilation system used in the barn/shed for cattle on this
feedlot. If the Producer uses some other ventilation type, check “other” and record what they are using.
Question 16. Target weight for finished cattle
Check the response that best describes the target weight for finished steers and finished heifers on this
feedlot. This is the weight at which the Producer typically ships cattle to slaughter. If he Producer does
not know the target weight, write in “DK.” If the Producer does not feel comfortable responding to this
question, write in “R” for refusal. This could be sensitive information for some Producers. Please specify
a target weight for heifers and steers.
Question 17. Number of cattle marketed
Record the number of steers and the number of heifers marketed from this feedlot between September 1,
2019, and August 31, 2020.
32
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Section B—Antibiotic Use and Stewardship
Unless otherwise noted, all questions in this section refer to the period from September 1, 2019, to
August 31, 2020.
For reference: Antibiotics by FDA Category of Medical Importance
The FDA categorizes antibiotics with respect to their use in human medicine, published in Guidance for Industry #152,
Appendix A1. The table below shows the current ranking of medically important or not of the drug classes mentioned in
this questionnaire. According to Guidance for Industry #213, FDA stated that it will periodically reassess and publish
updates to GFI #152 Appendix A as necessary.
Drug/drug class
Not medically important
Medically important
Ionophores (e.g., monensin, lasalocid, laidlomycin)
Bambermycin
Bacitracin
Tetracyclines (e.g., oxytetracycline, chlortetracycline, tetracycline)
Aminoglycosides (e.g., neomycin, spectinomycin)
Beta lactam-natural penicillins (e.g., penicillin G)
Phenicols (e.g., florfenicol)
Aminopenicillins (e.g., amoxicillin)
Streptogramins (e.g., virginiamycin)
Macrolides (e.g., tilmicosin, tylosin, tulathromycin, gamithromycin,
tildipirosin)
Fluoroquinolones (e.g., enrofloxacin, danofloxacin)
Third generation cephalosporins (e.g., ceftiofur)
Trimethoprim/sulfamethazine
Feedlot Producers sometimes market their cattle to meet specific label claims in order to get a premium
for their product. The first 3 questions in this section ask about cattle raised with specific marketing label
claims related to antibiotic use, organic labeling, and use of hormones.
Question 1. Percentage of cattle with specific marketing label claims
Certified USDA organic requires no antibiotic use ever. There are other labels related to limited or no
antibiotic use that are not Certified USDA Organic. Some labels require no hormone use in the cattle. The
remaining cattle should have no specific marketing label claims.
[If the percentage of cattle in 1d = 100, SKIP to question 4.]
Question 2. Percentage of cattle that complete a management program to meet specific marketing
label claims
Of the cattle that start the feeding period in a management program to meet specific label claims
(Certified USDA Organic, no or limited antibiotic use, or no hormone use), what percentage typically
finish in that program? For example, if all cattle that start out as Certified USDA Organic complete the
program and are marketed as organic, then 2a would be 100%. Sometimes cattle in these specific
management programs must be treated with antibiotics. If they are treated, they are removed from the
program, and marketed as conventionally raised beef. If 5% of cattle that start out as Certified USDA
Organic are removed from the program, then 2a would be 95% completed the program (100% - 5% =
95%).
[If the percentage of cattle in 2b = 0, SKIP to question 4.]
Question 3. Marketing label claims regarding antibiotic use
33
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
For feedlots that raise cattle to meet specific marketing label claims related to antibiotic use, there are
several different options. Select the option that best describes the marketing label claim for the cattle in
question 2b. The options include no antibiotics ever (including “raised without antibiotics”), no medically
important antibiotics ever (in other words, only ionophores, bambermycin, or bacitracin are used), and no
antibiotics used in the last 100 days prior to slaughter. If the cattle are marketed with some other claim
related to antibiotic use, check “other” and record what the label claim entails.
The next 9 questions ask about antibiotic use and record-keeping of antibiotic use. The questions will
appear similar, though they differ by the route of administration being asked about, including injectable
antibiotics administered as a group, injectable antibiotics administered individually, in feed antibiotics,
and in water antibiotics.
Question 4. Any antibiotics used in cattle
If any antibiotics were used in cattle on this feedlot from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020,
including injectable, in feed, and/or in water antibiotics, select “yes”. If no antibiotics were used, select
“no”.
[If question 4 = NO, SKIP to question 13.]
Question 5. Injectable antibiotics administered to cattle as a group
Of cattle that entered the feedlot from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, were any cattle
administered antibiotics as a group with an injectable antibiotic? Cattle can be administered antibiotics on
a population basis, meaning the majority (typically at least 90%) of the cattle in the group were given
injectable antibiotics at the same time, such as for the treatment, prevention, or control of bovine
respiratory disease. If the feedlot administered injectable antibiotics to cattle as a group, select “Yes”. If
they do not administer injectable antibiotics to cattle as a group, select “No”.
[If question 5 = NO, SKIP to question 7.]
What if all cattle in a pen were run through a chute, the temperature for each animal was taken,
and only the cattle with a high temperature were administered antibiotics (i.e., temp and treat)?
Unless the majority of the pen was administered antibiotics, do not count these cattle as administered
antibiotics as a group, but count these cattle as individually treated with antibiotics. It is unlikely that the
majority of these cattle would have an elevated temperature and be treated.
Why are we saying that the majority of cattle need to be administered an injectable antibiotic for
these cattle to be considered as “administered as a group”? We want to capture information on the
therapeutic use of injectable antibiotics on a population basis, which is typically performed at initial
processing of cattle after arrival to the feedlot. This entails the administration of antibiotics to all or most
of the cattle in a group; some may be at high risk of disease, some may be subclinically ill, and some may
be showing clinical signs of disease.
What is the advantage of administering antibiotics to cattle in a group by running them through a
chute? Why not administer antibiotics in feed? Antibiotics available for in-feed use are older
antibiotics and are not likely to be as effective as the newer antibiotics available only by injection, such as
Draxxin® or Zuprevo™. In addition, when cattle are sick, feed intake is decreased.
Question 6. Record-keeping for injectable antibiotics administered as a group
Enter how frequently antibiotic use information was available or captured/calculated in a record-keeping
system for injectable antibiotics administered as a group. It does not matter if the information was
34
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
recorded by paper records or data entered into a computer. For each row, check one box indicating
whether the information was recorded never, sometimes, most of the time, or always. Note that some
feedlots may use the term “lot” and some may use the term “pen.” Row (d) asks if the date that the
animal has completed an antibiotic withdrawal period and may be shipped to slaughter. There is an
option to check in row (d) if there is no withdrawal period for any antibiotic used; if this applies, check the
box and leave the rest of the row blank.
Question 7. Injectable antibiotics administered to individual sick cattle
Check “Yes” or “No” to indicate whether any individual cattle became sick and were treated with
injectable antibiotics. Individual cattle treated with injectable antibiotics will typically be cattle that appear
sick and are sorted out for treatment, and sometimes moved to a treatment pen. The purpose of this
question is to determine whether the Producer should complete the table in question 8.
[If question 7 = NO, SKIP to question 9.]
What if a cattle from a pen were run through a chute, the temperature of each animal was taken,
and only the cattle with a high temperature were treated? These cattle would be considered
individual steers and heifers that were treated, so “Yes” should be marked for question 7.
Question 8. Record-keeping for injectable antibiotics administered to individual sick cattle
Enter how frequently antibiotic use information was available or captured/calculated in a record-keeping
system for injectable antibiotics administered to individual sick cattle. It does not matter if the information
was recorded by paper records or data entered into a computer. For each row, check one box indicating
whether the information was recorded never, sometimes, most of the time, or always. Note that some
feedlots may use the term “lot” and some may use the term “pen.” Row (d) asks if the date that the
animal has completed an antibiotic withdrawal period and may be shipped to slaughter is recorded. There
is an option to check in row (d) if there is no withdrawal period for any antibiotic used; if this applies,
check the box and leave the rest of the row blank.
Question 9. Antibiotic use in feed
The FDA has designated some antibiotics as medically important based on their use in human medicine,
including chlortetracycline and tylosin, and some antibiotics as non-medically important, such as
ionophores (e.g., Rumensin®), bambermycin, and bacitracin. Medically important antibiotics require a
veterinary feed directive (VFD) from a veterinarian for use in feed while non-medically important
antibiotics do not require a VFD. Select only one option that best describes the antibiotic use in feed on
this feedlot: cattle were given both medically important and non-medically important antibiotics in feed,
cattle were given only medically important antibiotics in feed, cattle were given only non-medically
important antibiotics in feed, or cattle were not given any antibiotics in feed. The purpose of this question
is to determine whether the Producer should complete the table in Question 10.
[If Question 9 = “Cattle were NOT given any antibiotics in feed”, SKIP to Question 11.]
Question 10. Record-keeping for antibiotic use in feed
Enter how frequently antibiotic use information was available or captured/calculated in a record-keeping
system for antibiotic use in feed. It does not matter if the information was recorded by paper records or
data entered into a computer. For each row, check one box indicating whether the information was
recorded never, sometimes, most of the time, or always. Note that some feedlots may use the term “lot”
and some may use the term “pen.” Row (d) asks if the date that the animal has completed an antibiotic
withdrawal period and may be shipped to slaughter is recorded. There is an option to check in row (d) if
there is no withdrawal period for any antibiotic used; if this applies, check the box and leave the rest of
the row blank.
35
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
For many of the larger feedlots (e.g., 1,000-head capacity and larger), antibiotic use in feed will be
recorded during ration development in feedlot software programs. Examples of these programs include
TurnKey, Micro Beef Technologies, Beef Tracker, Walco International, CattleXpert, and Hi-Plains
Systems.
Question 11. Antibiotic use in water
Check “Yes” or “No” to indicate whether any cattle were given antibiotics in water from September 1,
2019, to August 31, 2020. It is likely that many feedlots will answer “No” to this question; antibiotic use in
water is uncommon on feedlots. In the 2017 NAHMS Antibiotic Use Survey on U.S. Feedlots, only 8.5%
of feedlots reported using antibiotics in water (9.1% of small feedlots and 1.1% of large feedlots). The
purpose of this question is to determine whether the Producer should complete the table in Question 12.
[If Question 11 = NO, SKIP to Question 13.]
Question 12. Record-keeping for antibiotic use in water
Enter how frequently antibiotic use information was available or captured/calculated in a record-keeping
system for antibiotic use in water. It does not matter if the information was recorded by paper records or
data entered into a computer. For each row, check one box indicating whether the information was
recorded never, sometimes, most of the time, or always. Note that some feedlots may use the term “lot”
and some may use the term “pen.” Row (d) asks if the date that the animal has completed an antibiotic
withdrawal period and may be shipped to slaughter is recorded. There is an option to check in row (d) if
there is no withdrawal period for any antibiotic used; if this applies, check the box and leave the rest of
the row blank.
The following 3 questions ask about electronic record-keeping systems.
Question 13. Electronic record-keeping systems
Check “Yes” or “No” to indicate whether the feedlot uses an electronic record-keeping system to store
production and/or animal health related information.
[If question 13 = NO, SKIP to question 16.]
Question 14. Primary electronic record-keeping system used
Select the electronic record-keeping system that best describes the primary electronic record-keeping
system used on this feedlot. Options include: commercially available software designed for use in
feedlots, custom software specifically designed for use by consulting practice or by this feedlot, or other
spreadsheet or general database software (such as Microsoft Excel or Access). If the feedlot uses some
other type of electronic record-keeping system, check “other” and record what type of system they use.
Question 15. Importance of electronic record-keeping systems
Select the level of importance: very important, somewhat important, or not important; for each of the
listed factors. The questions include: comparing your feedlot to other feedlots, comparing current
information to historical information for this feedlot, determining and recording when animals have
completed antibiotic withdrawal periods, tracking production, and tracking economic records.
36
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
The following 3 questions ask about participation in Beef Quality Assurance trainings and Feedyard
Assessments.
Question 16. Participation in Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) training (online, national, State, or
local)
Check “Yes”, “No”, or “Don’t Know” to indicate if the respondent or anyone representing this feedlot has
attended or completed a Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) meeting or training session (online, national,
State, or local), during the previous 5 years.
Question 17. Participation in a Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Feedyard Assessment
Check “Yes”, “No”, or “Don’t Know” to indicate if this feedlot has participated in a Beef Quality Assurance
(BQA) Feedyard Assessment during the previous 5 years.
The BQA Feedyard Assessment is an educational tool that allows for assessing and benchmarking key
indicators of animal care and well-being, as well as feedyard conditions. The Feedyard Assessment
focuses on three main areas: 1. Animals, 2. Records, and 3. Protocols, facilities, and equipment. The
Feedyard Assessment may be performed as a self-assessment, completed by a second party (e.g.,
consulting veterinarian, nutritionist, feedyard staff, extension personnel, BQA coordinator, etc.), or
conducted by a third-party assessor.
[If Question 17 = NO or Don’t Know, SKIP to Question 19.]
Question 18. Number of times participating in BQA Feedyard Assessment
Indicate how many times the feedlot has participated in a BQA Feedyard Assessment during the previous
5 years.
The following 5 questions ask about veterinary use.
Question 19. Use of a veterinarian from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020
Check “Yes” or “No” to indicate whether the feedlot used the services of a veterinarian from September 1,
2019, to August 31, 2020. It is expected that most feedlots will answer “Yes” to this question.
[If question 19 = NO, ANSWER question 20 and then SKIP to Section C.]
[If question 19 = YES, SKIP question 20 and ANSWER questions 21-23.]
Question 20. Why wasn’t a veterinarian used from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020
For feedlots that did not use the services of a veterinarian, check the appropriate response to capture the
primary reason why the feedlot did not use a veterinarian during this time period.
Question 21. Type of veterinarian use from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020
For feedlots that did use a veterinarian, check the appropriate response to capture the type of primary
veterinarian or veterinary clinic used.
What if the feedlot uses a veterinary consultant who makes routine visits? This veterinarian may
work as part of a group of veterinary consultants rather than as part of a veterinary clinic, but he or she is
not “on-staff” at the feedlot. Select option 2 for a veterinarian who makes regular or routine visits.
37
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Question 22. Number of times this feedlot was visited by a veterinarian
Enter the number of times a veterinarian visited this feedlot (physically present on the feedlot) from
September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, for reasons related to the feedlot operation.
Question 23. Number of times this feedlot was in contact with a veterinarian
Enter the number of times a veterinarian was in contact with this feedlot, including by telephone, video
conference, or data transfer, from September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, for reasons related to the
feedlot operation.
38
Section C—Veterinary Feed Directive Final Rule Implementation
This section is to capture how the changes by FDA to the Veterinary Feed Directive on January 1, 2017,
impacted this feedlot, including changes in antibiotic use practices, and how the transition period went for this
feedlot. The FDA changes included eliminating the use of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion
purposes in food-producing animals and requiring veterinary oversight for use of medically important
antimicrobials in animal feed and water (GFI #209 and GFI #213). This section could be sensitive for some
Producers, though this information will be used to better prepare Producers for any future regulatory changes
related to antibiotic use on their feedlots.
Question 1. Use of medically important antibiotics on this feedlot before implementation of
revised VFD final rule on January 1, 2017
Medically important antibiotics require a Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) from a veterinarian to be used,
and examples include chlortetracycline and tylosin. Non-medically important antibiotics do not require a
VFD, and include ionophores (Rumensin®), bambermycin, and bacitracin.
Check “Yes” or “No” to indicate if this feedlot used medically important antibiotics in feed BEFORE the
label changes resulting from the implementation of the revised VFD final rule on January 1, 2017.
[If question 1 = NO, SKIP to Section D.]
Question 2. Stop using medically important antibiotics
Some Producers could have stopped using antibiotics that now require a VFD. Check “Yes” or “No” to
indicate if this feedlot stopped using medically important antibiotics in feed (antibiotics that now require a
VFD) AFTER implementation of the revised VFD final rule on January 1, 2017.
[If question 2 = YES, SKIP to Section D.]
Question 3. Transition of implementing the label changes on this feedlot
This question captures how the transition of implementing the label changes went on this feedlot, and it
utilizes a Likert scale. There are three rows: easy vs. difficult, convenient vs. inconvenient, and affordable
vs. unaffordable, and options include very, mostly, somewhat, or neither for each end of the spectrum.
For each row, ask the Producer to decide which of the options best represents the transition period of
implementing the label changes on this feedlot.
Question 4. Resources to manage label changes on this feedlot
Indicate how strongly the Producer agrees or disagrees with the following statement, with options
including strongly agree, agree, neither, disagree, or strongly disagree.
“On January 1, 2017, I felt I had all of the resources (e.g., access to veterinarians knowledgeable about
the VFD, training, finances) necessary to manage the label changes on this feedlot.”
Please thank the Producer for their help completing this survey. Use the back of the
questionnaire to communicate comments about the survey or any other information about health
management on this feedlot that the Producer wants to share.
39
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Section D—Office Use Only
Complete this page and send to your Supervisor.
1. Consent form
For operations that complete this questionnaire, request a signature on the CONSENT FORM to be
contacted for participation in Phase 2 of the study.
2. Interview time
Include the time reviewing the NAHMS program and completing the agreement and survey; report in
minutes. Do not include time spent discussing other topics such as the weather. Include the time for
everyone who is traveling with you. For example, if an intern is shadowing you, include his/her time at
the interview.
3. Travel time
Include the time it took you to travel from your office, home, or other operation and the time to return
back or go to the next operation; report in minutes. Include the time for everyone who is traveling with
you. For example, if you bring an intern who is shadowing you, include his/her travel time.
4. Interview response code
Select one response code that best applies to this feedlot. If option 3 – refused, complete question 5. If
any other option, skip to question 6.
5. Refusal response code
Select one response code that best applies to this feedlot and why they refused to complete the survey.
6. Respondent’s position on this operation
Select one response code that best describes the respondent’s position on this operation.
7. Use of records
Check “yes” or “no” to indicate if the respondent used records to assist in answering this survey.
40
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
III. The NASS Visit: Completing the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Consent to
Contact Form
Once you have completed the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Phase I
Questionnaire, you will ask the Producer to sign the “Consent to Contact” form. The “Consent to
Contact” form provides written consent from the Producer to share their contact information with APHIS
to be contacted to participate in Phase II of the study.
Review the form with the Producer and answer any questions he or she may have regarding Phase II of
the study.
Completing the Consent to Contact Form
For release of information for: Fill in this box with the name of the operation.
EPAID: Fill in this box with the feedlot operation number.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Operation Address: Fill in the physical address of the operation
Operation phone number: Fill in the best phone number to contact the Producer
Operation e-mail address: Fill in the Producer’s e-mail address
Notes regarding the operation: Record any relevant information, such as the animals located in a
different state or changes to the address or contact information
Signature of Consenting Operator: If the Producer consents, ask them to sign the “Consent to
Contact” form and date.
Signature of NASDA/NASS Enumerator: The NASS enumerator signs and dates in the appropriate
boxes.
What to do with the Consent to Contact Form
Submit the signed Consent to Contact form to your supervisor, along with the completed Phase I
Questionnaire (unless directed otherwise).
41
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0579-0079. The
time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 10 minutes per
response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data
needed, and complete and review the information collected.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
VETERINARY SERVICES
NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING SYSTEM
2150 CENTRE AVE, BLDG B
FORT COLLINS, CO 80526
For release of information for:
OMB Approved
0579-0079
EXP: XX/20XX
HEALTH MANAGEMENT ON U.S.
FEEDLOTS 2020 CONSENT TO
CONTACT
EPAID:
(Consenting Operator: Hereafter referred to as YOU)
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is
conducting a study of U.S. feedlot operations with a capacity of 50 or more cattle. NAHMS studies are voluntary and
nonregulatory. This study will take an in-depth look at U.S. feedlots and provide new and valuable information regarding animal
health and management practices in the U.S. feedlot industry. To initiate the study, a sample was selected from the confidential
list of operations maintained by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Your feedlot was selected for
participation and will represent a number of unselected feedlots.
By signing this Consent Form, you are agreeing to allow USDA–NASS staff to provide the following information to the
State NAHMS Coordinator, who is employed by USDA–APHIS: your name, address, phone number, email address,
inventory, and operation type. All data from this questionnaire will be shared with NAHMS state coordinators.
The NAHMS Coordinator will share this information with a Federal or State veterinary medical officer (VMO), who will contact
you to administer a phase II questionnaire. Only the Federal or State VMOs collecting the data know the identity of study
participants.
Confidentiality of your data is crucially important to us. No name or contact information will be associated with
individual data, and no data will be reported in a way that could reveal the identity of a participant. Data are presented
only in aggregated summaries.
When you are contacted by a Federal or State VMO and asked to participate in the study, you are free to accept or decline
participation at that time. A copy of the questionnaire that will be administered when you’re visited by the Federal or State VMO
can be found at: www.aphis.usda.gov/nahms. If you have been selected but have not been contacted or if you have
questions regarding the study, please call: (866) 907-8190.
1.
Operation Address: _____________________________________________ 2. Operation phone #: _________________
3.
Operation Email Address: ____________________________________________________________________________
4.
Notes regarding the operation, (e.g. animals located in different state, changes to address or contact information):
Signature of Consenting Operator:
Date:
Signature of NASDA/NASS Enumerator:
Date:
42
IV. The NASS Visit: Completing the Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 Informed
Consent for Feedlots in the State of California
Only for operations in California
Once you have completed the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
Phase I Questionnaire, you will ask the Producer to sign the “NASS California Informed
Consent” form. The “NASS California Informed Consent” form provides written consent
from the Producer to release California state level aggregate data obtained from the
Phase I questionnaire to the California Department of Food and Agriculture for the
purposes of fulfilling California Food and Agricultural Codes 13300-14408.
Review the form with the Producer and answer any questions he or she may have
regarding the NASS California Informed Consent form.
Completing the NASS California Informed Consent Form
Signature of U.S. Department of Agriculture or California Department of Food and
Agriculture Employee: The NASS enumerator signs and dates in the appropriate
boxes.
Signature of Producer or authorized representative: If the Producer consents, ask
them to sign the “NASS California Informed Consent” form and date.
What to do with the NASS California Informed Consent Form
There are three copies of the NASS California Informed Consent form. Submit one copy
of the signed NASS California Informed Consent form to your supervisor, along with the
completed Phase I Questionnaire (unless directed otherwise). Leave one copy with the
Producer, and retain one copy for yourself.
43
NASS Phase I Manual – NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control
number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0579-0079. The time required
to complete this information collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the
time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete
and review the information collected.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
VETERINARY SERVICES
NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING SYSTEM
2150 CENTRE AVE, BLDG B
FORT COLLINS, CO 80526
OMB Approved
0579-0079
EXP: XX/20XX
HEALTH MANAGEMENT ON U.S.
FEEDLOTS 2020 INFORMED CONSENT
FOR FEEDLOTS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the State of California, and the Producer hereby enter
into this National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 INFORMED
CONSENT, the terms of which are set forth below.
1.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is mandated by California Food and Agricultural Codes
14400-14408 to monitor antimicrobial use and management practices in livestock. The California Law furthermore directs that,
when applicable, this information be gathered in coordination with NAHMS. The California Law stipulates that these data are
collected in a voluntary manner. The collected data will be used for monitoring and educational, not regulatory, purposes.
2.
Since the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 study will include collection of data regarding
antimicrobial use and health management in feedlot cattle in California, CDFA has requested that NAHMS share aggregate
data collected in the NAHMS Health Management on U.S. Feedlots 2020 study from California cattle feedlots with them for the
purposes of fulfilling California Food and Agricultural Codes 14400-14408.
3.
Only aggregate (summary) data, not individual data, will be shared with CDFA. The identity of the Producer will be
withheld. No individual responses will be shared or published.
Signature of U.S. Department of Agriculture or California Department of Food and
Agriculture Employee :
Date:
Signature of Producer or authorized representative:
Date:
44
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Perpiparturient Cow Clinical Evaluation Record |
| Author | APHIS:USDA |
| File Modified | 2020-01-17 |
| File Created | 2020-01-17 |