U.S. patent application number 11/103191 was filed with the patent office on 2005-09-29 for animal sorting and grading system using mri to predict maximum value.
Invention is credited to Ellis, James S..
Application Number | 20050211174 11/103191 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 34423498 |
Filed Date | 2005-09-29 |
United States Patent
Application |
20050211174 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Ellis, James S. |
September 29, 2005 |
Animal sorting and grading system using MRI to predict maximum
value
Abstract
A system that compares, ranks, sorts and grades animals or
carcasses into groups of like kinds according to previously
determined predicted maximum values. For live animals, the system
uses magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on a single occasion to
evaluate the animal and determine a number of days the animal must
be fed to reach a maximum value. For carcasses, the system
evaluates the carcass to grade the quality and quantity of meat the
carcass will provide. The system also combines MRI imaging with a
three-dimensional system to refine the number of days remaining for
the animal to reach a maximum value, and the system, when used in a
feedlot, will direct the animal to a feed pen based on the number
of days remaining for the animal to reach maximum value.
Inventors: |
Ellis, James S.;
(Broomfield, CO) |
Correspondence
Address: |
James R. Young
Patent Attorney
P.O. Box 2898
Georgetown
TX
78627-2898
US
|
Family ID: |
34423498 |
Appl. No.: |
11/103191 |
Filed: |
April 11, 2005 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
11103191 |
Apr 11, 2005 |
|
|
|
10713629 |
Nov 14, 2003 |
|
|
|
6877460 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
119/14.08 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A01K 29/00 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
119/014.08 |
International
Class: |
A01J 003/00; A01J
005/00 |
Claims
1. (canceled)
2. (canceled)
3. (canceled)
4. (canceled)
5. (canceled)
6. (canceled)
7. (canceled)
8. (canceled)
9. (canceled)
10. (canceled)
11. (canceled)
12. (canceled)
13. (canceled)
14. (canceled)
15. (canceled)
16. (canceled)
17. (canceled)
18. (canceled)
19. (canceled)
20. (canceled)
21. (canceled)
22. (canceled)
23. (canceled)
24. (canceled)
25. (canceled)
26. (canceled)
27. (canceled)
28. (canceled)
29. (canceled)
30. (canceled)
31. (canceled)
32. A method for determining a muscle size and quality in an animal
carcass, said method comprising the steps of: (a) acquiring an
image of a muscle at a predetermined internal location within the
carcass; (b) determining said muscle size and muscle quality value
from said image acquired in step (a); and (c) sorting the carcass
into a predetermined class of carcasses when said quality value
meets predetermined criteria.
33. (canceled)
34. (canceled)
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0001] This invention relates to a process for comparing, ranking,
grading and sorting animals or carcasses into groups of like kinds
by using internal evaluations on a single occasion and predicting a
timeframe in which an animal or carcass reaches a predetermined
maximum value. More particularly, the invention uses magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) for those evaluations that result in
predicting the time frame for the desired maximum value. Even more
particularly, this invention relates to the use of MRI on a single
occasion, preferably in concert with structured light, light
pattern triangulation and/or laser light three-dimensional animal
surface modeling systems, 3-D systems (3DS), to evaluate an animal
or carcass to predict the timeframe to achieve a desired
predetermined maximum value and compare, rank, grade or sort them
accordingly.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] One of the greatest challenges facing the meat producing
industry today is to provide consistent uniform quality and
conformity for their end products. In beef cattle feeding the
inconsistencies are the number of days an animal is fed (days on
feed) to reach its maximum potential carcass value at which time
the animal is referred to as finished. During the cattle feeding
period the average number of days on feed for an entire pen of 300
animals is approximately 120 days. The entire pen is then marketed
to a beef processor.
[0003] The inconsistencies arise because a few animals are finished
after being fed only 85 days, others 95 days and still others 105
days. Larger portions of the animals are finished between 105 days
and the 120-day average. These animals are over-fed and continue to
gain additional unwanted body fat until the entire pen of cattle is
marketed on the 120.sup.th day. Within a pen of animals, an average
of 5% or 15 head are over-fed resulting in being too fat. The
results are reduced prices called yield grade discounts or "Heavy"
for the carcasses at the processing plant. The yield grade discount
average can reduce the value of the carcass by 15-20%. An
additional 10% or 30 head can be over-fed resulting in reduced
carcass prices in the range of 3-5% per animal.
[0004] It might seem that a logical approach to reduce yield grade
discounts would be to sort out the 30 animals on day 110 for
example and deliver them to market. This solution creates two
additional problems. First of all, a human visual sorting will only
be partially accurate when compared to the results at the
processing plant, therefore, one may not find the correct 30
animals. Secondly, the disturbance of sorting 30 animals out of the
pen and the disturbance as the remaining animals re-align the
pecking order within the pen can cause several days of no weight
gain for the remaining 270 animals. This likely will cost the
cattle feeder more than the yield grade discounts.
[0005] Another inconsistency is the portion of animals within the
pen that need more than 120 days on feed to reach their maximum
potential carcass value. There are an average of 115 under-fed
animals that are marketed with the entire pen. At the processing
plant their carcasses are lighter in weight, not finished and they
receive carcass discounts when they are designated by the plants as
"lites". An average of 2% or 6 animals within the entire pen of 300
animals are lites and receive carcass discounts that reduce the
value of each carcass as much as 15-20% per animal.
[0006] There is also a hidden added value within this group of 115
under-fed animals. An average of 70% or 80 animals of the 115
under-fed group could be fed an additional 5-20 days allowing them
to reach their maximum potential carcass value. Instead of
receiving a reduced carcass value, these animals would actually
receive an additional increase in carcass value of 5-10% per head
as they reach their maximum carcass value.
[0007] A final inconsistency is caused by a lack of genetics that
prevent a portion of the animals from reaching even the minimum
carcass values. An average of 12% or 36 animals within the entire
pen of 300 animals are genetically unable to attain carcass values
that would provide a profit for cattle feeders. Additional days on
feed will only result in additional unwanted backfat. This would
not improve the quality of the meat within the carcass nor the
potential carcass value. These genetic related carcass losses can
range from 5% to nearly 30% per animal.
[0008] The over-fed yield grade discount losses plus the under-fed
carcass discount losses plus the hidden added value plus the
genetic losses combine for a total uncaptured added value potential
of over 4-5% for the entire pen of 300 head of cattle. With over 25
million beef cattle fed annually, these uncaptured values are
costing the industry well over $1 billion.
[0009] Historically, in that last half century, the use of
individual animal identification combined with the animal's weight
on the day they entered the feedlot was one of the factors used to
sort the cattle into pens. As feedlots grew larger the cattle
feeders soon found that an added step of having a visual human
appraisal (the keen eye of a good "cattle feeder") was helpful in
sorting the cattle by size; tall and long, middle sized, or short
and compact. Not unlike grouping the 1.sup.st graders, 2.sup.nd
graders and 3.sup.rd graders, this procedure allowed similar sized
animals to increase their daily rate of gain adding value to the
bottom line.
[0010] There is another segment of the beef industry called the
cow-calf operations. These operations with beef cow herds annually
produce a crop of calves. The female calves are usually retained
for herd replacements, however, some can go on to the feedlots and
eventually to the processing plants. The majority of the male
calves are raised and sold to feedlots to be fattened and then on
to the processing plants. Cow-calf operators also face the
challenge to provide consistent uniform quality and conformity for
their calf crops that eventually become the selected meat cuts on
the store shelf.
[0011] Annually, cow-calf operators struggle with critical
decisions that directly effect their profits at the point of sale
of their male calf crop. Other decisions effect their future herd
profits when selecting female herd replacement from their female
calf crop. Perhaps one of the most critical decisions that cow-calf
operations make is that of bull selections. The bull selection
decisions will have the greatest single impact on the future
production of their cow-calf herd by introducing improved genetics
into their herd. Historically, several factors have been used to
make these decisions, including the keen eye of a good "cow-calf
operator", the individual identification of the bulls, cows and
calves combined with live weight measurements.
[0012] Finally, the need continues within the processing (packing)
plants to improve the uniform quality and conformity for the end
meat products. Meat orders often consist of sorting carcasses or
carcass segments that are within a certain size, weight range and
quality of meat. The quality of the meat is determined by the USDA
(U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) meat inspectors (graders). The carcass
is severed between the 12.sup.th and 13.sup.th rib allowing the
USDA grader to view a cross-sectional area of the internal
longissimus dorsi muscle that is commonly referred to as the ribeye
because it eventually becomes a cut known as the ribeye steak.
[0013] By using a template device and subjective visual appraisal,
the USDA grader evaluates both the surface area of the ribeye and
the flecks of intramuscular fat (I. Fat) within the ribeye. Flecks
of I. Fat (a.k.a. marbling) or the percentage of I. Fat that is
found in the ribeye area is used to grade the entire carcass. The
percentage of I. Fat can vary dramatically from one carcass to
another. The range of I. Fat can be as low as 1% in one carcass and
as high as 12% in another carcass that would receive the highest
grading as USDA Prime. More marbling within the muscle has a very
positive correlation to the tenderness, juiciness, palatability and
cooked flavor of the meat. The USDA grader rates each carcass as
USDA Prime, USDA Choice, USDA Select, etc. With a very few
exceptions, feedlot operators receive the highest price for USDA
Prime carcasses and receive a lesser price with each respective
grading. In turn, processing plants with very few exceptions,
receive the highest price in the retail market for USDA Prime meat
cuts with each respective grading a lesser price.
[0014] Historically, the USDA grader is on for one hour grading an
average of 400 carcasses and then off for one hour. The question
is, how exacting is the grading when comparing the beginning of the
hour with the end of the hour or does the grader's accuracy in the
first hour in the morning hold true after making 1600 grading
decisions by the end of the day? Similar inconsistencies can be
found within segments of the swine and poultry industries. Although
the variance in the degrees of inconsistency and the value placed
thereon may vary, the need for consistent uniform quality and
conformity remains.
[0015] The dairy cattle industry (milking cows) continually
searches for means to increase milk production as well as improve
correct functional conformations so that the milking females can
have more productive years within the milking herd. The need to
improve predicted future milk production potential in younger
heifers is at the top of the priority list. Historically, there
have been numerous means for predicting milk production using
genetic breed improvement formulas for a small portion of the dairy
cattle population. In this small portion of the population the
producers maintain rigorous identification records that allow them
to calculate predicted future milk production formulas from
ancestor's pedigree performances. However, there are 2.4 million
bred heifers sold annually into dairy herds that have no history of
ancestor performance and very little or no identification.
[0016] The developing mammary system of dairy heifers (a.k.a. bred
heifers) that are 30 to 60 days away from their first calving can
be used to predict future milk production for that large group of
bred heifers lacking identified ancestor performance. It is well
known that the milk secretion cell count continually increases
within the mammary system as the heifer approaches calving. It is
also known that there is a positive correlation between the number
of milk secretion cells in a bred heifer and her potential for
future milk production. By accurately evaluating the number of milk
secretion cells and providing stage of pregnancy adjustments, it is
then possible to formulate predicted future milk production.
[0017] More recently, systems have evolved using two-dimensional
video techniques in an attempt to measure external animal
conformation, however, these systems have been very limited in that
they are only able to measure a few linear conformation traits.
Other systems have evolved using ultrasound technologies in an
attempt to measure internal traits of an animal or carcass such as
the size of a ribeye muscle, the percentage of I. Fat and the
thickness of the backfat on an animal. However, ultrasound has a
very low accuracy for determining the percent intramuscular fat
within the animal/carcass because of an unsolvable problem referred
to as "speckle", wherein the sound waves splash in all directions
when encountering a fat cell. An ultrasound system also relies
heavily on a highly skilled technician to interpret the images.
[0018] Additionally, other systems combine several of the above
systems for beef animals during a feedlot period using feedlot
entry day images and subsequent images in combination with several
age-old measuring techniques such as animal weight to calculate an
optimum slaughter date and thereafter sort the animals into groups
with similar slaughter dates. However, it is possible, that when
several systems with limited accuracies are combined it produces a
multiplying effect on the inaccuracies of the entire system.
[0019] Still other systems explain the use of a high-resolution
color video camera viewing (in two-dimensional) a sliced
cross-section of a carcass ribeye muscle. Using video color
readings and 2-D pictorial digitized surface images, the system
attempts to determine the percentage of intramuscular fat for USDA
grading which is then translated in nomenclature to palatability,
tenderness and yield. In addition to the low accuracy with 2-D
measuring, the muscle must be severed to acquire the video
images.
[0020] Thus, there is a tremendous need within the feedlot segment
of the livestock industry to use the most accurate internal and
external evaluations to predict a timeframe in which the animal
reaches a predetermined maximum value and to sort those animals
into groups of like kinds. There is also a tremendous need within
the production segment (i.e. cow-calf) of the livestock industry to
use the most accurate internal and external evaluations to compare
offspring to parentage for genetic improvement evaluations, to
compare and sort offspring with like kinds for market and future
sales, to compare female offspring with like kinds to sort and
determine herd replacements, and to compare potential sires with
like kinds for future use in the herd with all of the above
evaluations designed to achieve a predetermined maximum value.
There is an additional need to use the most accurate internal and
external evaluations within the processing plants to evaluate and
compare carcasses to like kinds, provide grading/grading assistance
and sort them for predetermined maximum value for future sales.
There is still a further need within the dairy cattle industry to
use the most accurate internal and external evaluations to
determine the number of milk secretion cells in the developing
mammary system of a bred heifer along with the over-all body
conformation to predict future milk production and longevity within
the milking herd.
[0021] One method for combining individual animal identification
and sorting cattle is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,617,876 issued
Oct. 21, 1986 to Hayes, entitled, "Animal Identification and
Control System". This method describes identifying cattle
(previously given identification or I.D.) at a water source and
sorting cattle for various reasons into an "exit way pen" or an
"exit way path" and then sorting them further into "holding pens".
The exit way pen or exit way path may be an unnecessary step in the
sorting process. Additionally, the exit way pen, the exit way path
or the holding pens provide no feed, no water and added stress for
the sorted animal.
[0022] Other methods for evaluating animals is shown in U.S. Pat.
No. 4,745,472 issued May 17, 1988 to Hayes, entitled, "Animal
Measuring System". This method uses a video camera to take a
picture of the animal with plastic patches placed on several points
of the animal. The pictured is processed by a computer system to
determine a few linear measurements between these points. Another
method of evaluating an animal is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 5,483,441
issued Jan. 9, 1996 to Scofield, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,576,949 issued
Nov. 19, 1996 to Scofield and Engelstad, with both Patents
entitled, "System for Evaluation Through Image Acquisition" along
with U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,643 issued Jul. 1, 1997 to Scofield and
Engelstad, entitled, "Chute For Use With An Animal Evaluation
System". The above systems use a video camera for an external
evaluation, so they can only measure in two-dimensions and make no
reference to three-dimensional measuring. None of the above systems
include any reference for internal evaluations of an animal.
[0023] An additional method for compiling animal conformation and
sorting cattle into groups of like kinds by calculated slaughter
dates is shown in the following U.S. Pat. No. 5,673,647 issued Oct.
7, 1997, U.S. Pat. No. 6,000,361 issued Dec. 14, 1999, U.S. Pat.
No. 6,135,055 issued in Oct. 24, 2000, U.S. Pat. No. 6,318,289
issued Nov. 20, 2001 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,516,746 issued Feb. 11,
2003 all issued to Pratt and all entitled, "Cattle Management
Method and System". The methods described in all of these patents
use an initial external measuring and an internal measuring of the
animals as they enter the feedlot and then a remeasuring or
subsequent external and internal measuring of the animals at a
later point in time in the feedlot. The change from the initial
measurements to the subsequent measurements are used to determine
the slaughter date for the animal and then the animals are again
sorted into groups of like kinds. Again, the above methods and
systems rely on two-dimensional external measuring and make no
reference to three-dimensional external measuring of an animal.
These methods also describe the use of ultrasound for the internal
measuring of animals and make neither reference to, nor provide any
description of, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a means for
internal measuring of animals.
[0024] Still other methods using ultrasound for internal measuring
of animals and carcasses are described in the following U.S. Pat.
No. 5,573,002 issued Nov. 12, 1996 entitled, "Method and Apparatus
for Measuring Internal Tissue Characteristics in Feed Animals", and
U.S. Pat. No. 5,836,880 issued Nov. 17, 1998 entitled, "Automated
System for Measuring Internal Tissue Characteristics in Feed
Animals", and U.S. Pat. No. 6,200,210 issued Mar. 13, 2001
entitled, "Ruminant Tissue Analysis at Packing Plants for
Electronic Cattle Management and Grading Meat" with all issued to
Pratt. Again, these methods also describe the use of ultrasound for
the internal measuring of animals/carcasses and make neither
reference to nor provide any description of any means of using MRI
for internal measuring of animals/carcasses.
[0025] Another method using a high-resolution color video camera to
record various colors of a severed surface cross-section of the
ribeye area in a carcass to determine palatability and yield is
described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,198,834 issued Mar. 6, 2001 to Belk
entitled, "Meat Imaging System for Palatability Yield Predictions".
Belk's system describes many of the same techniques as used
visually by USDA graders, including the measuring of intramuscular
fat within the ribeye area as the foundation for grading carcasses
and then with nomenclature translations derives palatability and
yield. Belk did not describe or suggest the use of ultrasound or
MRI as a means to determine palatability and yield in his original
application which was filed Feb. 20, 1998. However, in his
continuation-in-part application filed Aug. 19, 1999, Belk includes
both ultrasound and MRI along with several other imaging means as
possible systems for his image analysis (IA) system. In his
Description of Illustrative Embodiment, Belk thoroughly explains
the use of a color video IA system to determine palatability and
yield. He also provides a very limited and very brief explanation
of the use of tomographics (CAT or PET) and ultrasound for his (IA)
system to secure the palatability and yield results. Belk fails to
describe in any manner the means by which the MRI would be used in
his image analysis (IA) system and makes no attempt to explain the
method or means in which MRI could determine or provide
palatability and yield predictions of meat. Additionally, Belk
fails to explain that one advantage of MRI technology is the fact
that the carcass does not need to be severed to attain
intramuscular fat distribution, I. Fat percentages and ribeye
surface area measurements that are used in part to determine
palatability and yield.
[0026] It is thus apparent that there is a need in the art for an
improved process for comparing, sorting and grading animals in to
groups of like kinds by evaluating and predicting a timeframe in
which an animal or carcass reaches a predetermined maximum value.
There is a further need in the art for such a process to secure
internal evaluations of animals or carcasses with improved
accuracy. Another need in the art is to secure internal evaluations
without severing a carcass. And still a further need in the art is
for such a process to secure external measurements of an animal or
carcass in three-dimensions. A further need is for such a process
that does not require that patches be affixed to the animal before
measuring. A still further need is for such a process that can
measure with improved accuracy in three-dimensional means to
provide linear, volume and angular measurements. An additional need
in the art is for such a process that can sort animals without
unnecessary exit way pens, exit way paths or holding pens all of
which may not provide feed and water for the animals. There is a
further need in the art for such a process with an internal
evaluation that may preferably be combined with an external
evaluation conducted on a single occasion that could predict a
timeframe for the animal to reach a predetermined maximum value and
compare or sort that animal into groups of like kinds without
remeasuring or subsequent imaging the animal at a later time in the
feedlot. Another need in the art for a process that can evaluate
milk secretion cells within the developing mammary of a female,
predict future milk production and compare and sort that animal
into groups of like kinds. The present invention meets these and
other needs in the art.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0027] It is an aspect of the present invention to compare, rank,
sort and grade animals or carcasses with a computer system into
groups of like kinds according to previously determined predicted
maximum values.
[0028] Another aspect of this invention is to provide an internal
evaluation of the animal or carcass with magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) on a single occasion.
[0029] Still another aspect is to predict a timeframe with a
computer system in which an animal or carcass can reach a
predetermined maximum value.
[0030] Yet another aspect is to provide an external evaluation when
applicable of the animal or carcass with a three-dimensional system
(3DS) on a single occasion in concert with the MRI.
[0031] And still another aspect is to use the MRI/3DS evaluations
and a computer system that will compare the animal or carcass to
groups of like kind and thereby predict a timeframe in which an
animal or carcass will reach a predetermined maximum value and the
computer systems will sort and direct the animal or carcass into
groups of like kind.
[0032] Within the feedlot segment of the beefindustry, cattle are
compared, ranked, and sorted using MRI/3DS evaluations on a single
occasion. The MRI evaluations include a very accurate internal
measuring of the longissimus dorsi muscle, referred to as the
ribeye, between the 12.sup.th and 13.sup.th rib area of an animal.
The evaluation using MRI measures the size of the ribeye, percent
of intramuscular fat (I. Fat) and the I. Fat distribution within
the ribeye muscle. MRI evaluations account for nearly every single
I. Fat cell within the image area. Even microscopic I. Fat cells
(a.k.a. marbling flecks) that can not be seen with the human eye,
would not show on an ultrasound image and would probably be missed
by a high resolution 2-D cameras are accounted for in the percent
of intramuscular fat data in the MRI evaluations. The 3DS
evaluation includes the use of a three-dimensional animal measuring
system to measure linear, volumetric and angular conformation
traits of an animal. A computer system used for the MRI/3DS
evaluations can be unique to the MRI/3DS evaluations or can be
combined with most computer systems within the industry.
[0033] The MRI portion of the MRI/3DS evaluation is used to
accurately determine the percent I. Fat of an animal which in turn
is in used to provide the basic timeframe (number of days) needed
to reached maximum carcass value. Numerous other factors add to or
subtract from the number ofdays that the animal needs to remain on
full feed in the feedlot to reach maximum carcass value. These
factors with numerous variations include but are not limited to the
external 3DS evaluation of the animal's conformation, sex, feedlot
entry weight, ration, regional climate and, if known, the breed
type and age. Beginning with the feedlot entry date, the timeframe
or number of days on feed is adjusted for the various factors and a
predicted days to maximum value (PDMV) is calculated for the
animal.
[0034] As animals enter the feedlot they are evaluated with the
MRI/3DS and given a PDVM. The PDMV is then recorded by a unique tag
for the animal or with the animal's feedlot identification means
used throughout the feedlot computer system. The computer system
then sorts the animal by PDMV and directs the animal to a pen with
animals that have identical PDMVs or similar PDMV ranges. The
result is that all of the animals in a particular feedlot feeding
pen go to market on or about the same PDMV day which dramatically
reduces, if not eliminates, the dollars lost with the
over-fed/under-fed dilemma.
[0035] The present invention also has advantages in the cow-calf
segment and the carcass segment of the beef industry. Using similar
techniques the cow-calf operators can evaluate their calf crop
using MRI/3DS along with computer means to rank, compare and sort
the offspring for future sales, herd replacement and herd sire
selection. Carcasses can be accurately measured using the MRI/3DS
evaluations along with computer systems to rank, compare and sort
carcasses in a grading system that is like or similar to the
current USDA grading system.
[0036] There are additional advantages of the present invention in
the dairy cattle industry. Using a MRI evaluation of the developing
mammary of a bred heifer, the milk secretion cell count can be
determined with the same accuracy as found when evaluating the beef
ribeye. The cell count with adjustments for stage of pregnancy
determines predicted future annual milk yield. Thereafter, along
with a computer system, the milk yeild predictions are used to
compare, rank and sort heifers into groups of like kinds. The 3DS
external evaluations can also be merged with the MRI evaluations to
allow the computer sorting system to evaluate and sort individual
bred heifers by conformation traits relating to herd life
longevity.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0037] The above and other aspects, features, and advantages of the
invention will be better understood by reading the following more
particular description of the invention, presented in conjunction
with the following drawings, wherein:
[0038] FIG. 1 shows a view of the present invention where the
MRI/3DS chute apparatus is placed within the area that is used to
process the cattle when entering the feedlot;
[0039] FIG. 2 shows a view of the placement of the MRI and 3DS
evaluation systems within the MRI/3DS chute apparatus;
[0040] FIG. 3A-3F shows a series of consecutive scenes with the
steps involved in the workings of the MRI/3DS chute apparatus as
the 3DS and MRI evaluations occur;
[0041] FIG. 4 shows a graph of the marketing day distribution of
300 head of cattle in a feedlot feeding pen using present day or
traditional sorting means;
[0042] FIG. 5A-5I shows a series of graphs of the marketing day
distribution of 2,700 head of cattle in nine different feeding pens
with 300 head in each pen using present day or traditional sorting
means;
[0043] FIG. 6 shows a view of sorting pens used to sort cattle into
various groups by their Predicted Days to Maximum Value (or PDMV
range) as they leave the chute following their initial entry day
processing;
[0044] FIG. 7 shows a graph of the marketing day distribution of
300 head of cattle in a feedlot feeding pen that have received
MRI/3DS evaluations in which all PDMV are within a three day range
and the cattle have been sorted into this pen by their PDMV;
[0045] FIG. 8A-8I shows a series of graphs of the marketing day
distribution of 2,700 head of cattle in nine different feeding pens
with 300 head in each pen wherein all have received MRI/3DS
evaluations in which all PDMV are within a three day range for each
of the nine different pens and the cattle have been sorted into
these pen by their PDMV;
[0046] FIG. 9 shows a block diagram of the computer system of the
present invention;
[0047] FIG. 10 shows a drawing of cattle (200 head or less) in a
feeding pen as desired animal path movement is developed so that
individual animals can be sorted by their PDMV on the proper
day;
[0048] FIG. 11 shows a drawing of cattle (200 head or more) in a
feeding pen as they are sorted by their PDMV on the proper day;
[0049] FIG. 12A-12D shows a series of consecutive scenes that show
the steps involved in the working 3DS and MRI apparatus in a
processing (packing) plant as carcass evaluations occur;
[0050] FIG. 13 shows a drawing of an MRI image of the cross-section
of thin voxels of an animal muscle; and
[0051] FIG. 14 shows numerous individual voxels of an MRI image of
a cross-section of thin voxels of the animal muscle of FIG. 13.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
[0052] The following description is of the best presently
contemplated mode of carrying out the present invention. This
description is not to be taken in a limiting sense but is made
merely to describe the general principles of the invention. The
scope of the invention should be determined by referencing the
appended claims.
[0053] Cattle are sorted into groups in the feedlot segment of the
beef industry with a computer system by predicting a timeframe in
which each animal will reach a predetermined maximum value. The
timeframe, commonly called "days on feed", is the number of days
from the date that the animal enters the feedlot until the date
that animal reaches a predetermined maximum value. The
predetermined maximum value or Predicted Days to Maximum Value
(PDMV) in the feedlot segment is when that animal is referred to as
"ished". Finished is a term used that indicates that the animal has
reached full potential carcass value. This means the animal has
been feed the optimum number of days to maximize growth resulting
in the maximum quantity of muscle (meat) and the maximum quality of
the meat that can be measured by percent intramuscular fat (I. Fat
%). If fed beyond the finished date, the result is that the animal
gains unwanted fat surrounding the internal organs and unwanted
subcutaneous fat, commonly referred to as backfat and may receive
carcass discounts in addition to feed cost losses.
[0054] As part of the sorting process, each animal is evaluated
using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to examine the animal
internally. The MRI internal evaluation is usually taken but not
limited to the area between the 12.sup.th and 13.sup.th rib of the
animal. The evaluation usually includes but is not limited to,
measuring the surface area of a cross-section of thin voxels of the
ribeye muscle, percent of 1. Fat within each thin voxel of the
ribeye cross-section, distribution of I. Fat within the ribeye
cross-section and the thickness of the backfat along with, if
necessary, the thickness of hide in that area. See, for example,
U.S. Pat. No. 6,084,407 issued Jul. 4, 2000 to Ellis, entitled,
"System for Measuring Tissue Size and Marbling in an Animal", and
U.S. Pat. No. 6,288,539 issued Sep. 11, 2001 to Ellis, entitled,
"System for Measuring an Embryo, Reproductive Organs, and Tissue in
an Animal", incorporated herein by reference for all that is
disclosed and taught therein.
[0055] The 3DS external evaluation of the animal is completed using
any three-dimensional system designed for measuring animals such as
laser technology, structured light technology or light pattern
triangulation. With a 3DS evaluation, the computer system creates a
three-dimensional surface modeling of an animal that can thereafter
measure a single linear conformation trait such as stature at the
hip. The 3DS evaluation can also include but is not limited to
numerous other linear, volumetric, and angular conformation trait
measurements such as the volume of the round (rump muscle), volume
of the belly, angle of the hip, width of hip, width of shoulder,
length of barrel, etc. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,412,420
issued to Ellis, May 2, 1995 entitled, "Three-Dimensional
Phenotypic Measuring System for Animal", and U.S. Pat. No.
6,377,353 issued to Ellis, Apr. 23, 2002 entitled,
"Three-Dimensional Measuring System for Animal Using Structured
Light", and U.S. Pat. No. 6,549,289 issued to Ellis, Apr. 15, 2003
entitled, "Three-Dimensional Measuring System for Animal Using
Light Pattern Triangulation", incorporated herein by reference for
all that is disclosed and taught therein.
[0056] Cattle arrive at the feedlot from various locations in
various numbers with the groups usually averaging 700 pounds per
animal. Feedlots can receive a few hundred head per week or up to
thousand per day that eventually are sorted into feeding pens
holding 200 to 400 head per pen. Normally, the first procedure at
the feedlot is to individually process each animal in a traditional
chute apparatus. This processing can vary but usually includes
inserting or attaching various means of individualized
identification (I.ID) which could be various forms of ear tags,
electronic identification (EID) tags, implanted electronic systems,
internally injected electronic systems or any others means of
identification. It is also possible to use the individual animal's
MRI image, which is unique to each animal, for I.ID purposes. The
entire MRI image or any portion of the referenced pixels or voxels
can be solely used for I.ID as well as cross-referenced with any of
the above I.ID means. The I.ID is then recorded in many cases, by
input to a feedlot computer system, along with various information,
facts and data collected for each animal on the entry day process.
The information recorded on each individual animal may include but
is not limited to the animal's weight, health status, vaccinations,
animal health products if administered, health records, inserted
implants, etc. all of which is usually recorded by animal I.ID in a
feedlot computer data base. This information data for the I.ID
animal can be maintained in a history file and additional
informational data may be include as the animal progresses through
the feeding process and into the processing plant. During this
initial process, in the traditional chute apparatus or preferably
in an additional chute apparatus placed prior to and in-line with
the existing traditional chute, the MRI internal evaluation can be
completed on a single occasion. Preferably, but not absolutely
necessary, the 3DS external evaluation can be completed in concert
with the MRI evaluation.
[0057] During this feedlot entry day processing, the MRI portion of
the MRI/3DS evaluation which includes but is not limited to ribeye
surface area, I. Fat percentage, I. Fat distribution and backfat
thickness are used to determine the average days on feed needed for
the animal to reach maximum carcass value. For example, previously
compiled data would indicate that an animal with 8.2% I. Fat
(potential USDA Choice) would commonly require an average of 123
days on feed to reach maximum carcass value. Another animal with
3.5% I. Fat (potential USDA Select) would require an average of 131
days on feed to reach maximum carcass value. The MRI evaluation is
used to determine the I. Fat % of each animal and the average
number of days on feed (MRI I. Fat % Days) needed to reach their
maximum carcass value.
[0058] Other factors with numerous variations can add to or
subtract from these average days on feed. These factors included
but are not limited to the 3DS external evaluation of 3-D surface
modeling for animal conformation, sex, feedlot entry day weight,
breed type, and age. For example, taller animals need 4 to 8
additional days to reach maximum carcass value when compared to an
average sized animal. Shorter more compact animals require 4 to 8
less days to reach maximum carcass value when compared to an
average animal. Females require an average of 15 fewer days on feed
compared to males (steers). Animals that weigh more than the
average 700 pounds when they enter the feedlot will need less days
on feed (averaging one less day for each three pounds) while the
animals weighing less on entry day will need additional days on
feed to reach maximum carcass value. Various breed types such as
Semintal, Charlois, Gelbveigh and Limousin, commonly referred to as
Continental Breeds (referring to the European Continent), will need
8 to 12 additional days on feed when compared to the traditional
English Breeds such as Angus, Hereford and Shorthorn. There are
numerous combinations of crossbreds of all of the above breeds that
can make it very difficult to assign an exacting variation in days
for this factor. If the Continental Breeds or Continental
crossbreds (Cont.X) are the predominant breed type parentage then
an average of 10 additional days on feed are used for this factor
when compared to the English Breeds or English crossbreds (Eng.X).
Animals taken to a feedlot in there first year will need an average
of 10 additional days on feed to reach maximum carcass value when
compared to those animals held over into their second year.
[0059] It is also important to consider additional variation
factors such as the rations to be fed to the animals and the
general climate conditions for the region in which the feedlot is
located. The majority of the cattle are fed in feedlots during the
spring run and fall run which may have different rations. The
spring rations can add five days to the total days on feed.
Regional climate differences can also effect the number of days on
feed needed to reach maximum carcass value. For example, the
severity of winter in the northern U.S. states can add 7 to 14 days
to the days on feed (due to a reduced daily rate of weight gain per
animal) when compared to the central U.S. states. In a similar
fashion the heat in the summer months in the southern U.S. states
can add 7 to 14 days to the days on feed (due to a reduced daily
rate of weight gain per animal) when compared to the central U.S.
States.
[0060] Using the MRI I. Fat % Days as a basis, it is then possible
to add or subtract all of the above mentioned factors with numerous
variations being expressed in days to arrive at a total days on
feed needed for the individual animal to reach a potential maximum
carcass value. Using the feedlot entry date and adding the total
days on feed, the animal is then given a Predicted Day to Maximum
Value (PDMV). The PDMV formula for the required days on feed to
reach maximum carcass value is as follows: Feedlot Entry Date+[MRI
I. Fat % Days+(3DS variation)+(sex variation)+(entry weight
variation)+(breed type variation)+(age variation)+(ration
variation)+(climate variation)]=PDMV date. The PDMV formula factors
that are expressed in days (+ or -) are listed in the following
table:
1 PDMV Formula Factors Variations Expressed in Days (+ or -) 3DS
ENTRY BREED Surface Modeling SEX WT. TYPE AGE RATION CLIMATE
Tall-lean +8 M 0 >800# -33 Cont.X +10 1.sup.st yr. +10 Spring +5
(far)N. U.S. +14 Tall-ave. +6 775# -25 (Sem./Char./Gelb. Tall-wide
+4 F -15 750# -17 or Limo., etc.) 2.sup.nd yr 0 Fall 0 N. U.S. +7
Med-lean +2 725# -8 Med-ave. 0 700# 0 Eng.X 0 C. U.S. 0 Med-wide -2
675# +8 (Angus/Hereford Short-lean -4 650# +17 Shorthorn, etc.) S.
U.S. +7 Short-ave. -6 625# +25 Short-wide -8 <600# +33 (far)S.
U.S. +14
[0061] Those animals that are genetically unable to attain a
profitable carcass value due mainly to very low percentage of I.
Fat or possibly small muscle size or poor conformation or any
combination of the three are recorded for the feedlot operator as
genetic rejects. Some factors such as breed type or age may not be
known for an animal or a group of animals in which case a zero is
used in the formula to represent that factor.
[0062] An example of two animals that both enter the feedlot on the
same day, for example October 10.sup.th, with different PDMV
factors is shown in the following table:
2 Example: Animal A MRI I. Fat Days Med.-wide M 650# Eng.X 1.sup.st
yr. Spring N. U.S. PDMV Date +123 -2 +0 +17 +0 +10 +5 +7 = March 19
Example: Animal B MRI I. Fat Days Tall-wide M 725# Cont.X 1.sup.st
yr. Spring C. U.S. PDMV Date +131 +4 +0 -8 +10 +10 +5 +0 = March
4
[0063] The evaluations for PDMV are performed on a single occasion
for an animal, which usually and preferably is at the time of
feedlot entry. Animals with MRI/3DS evaluations that indicate that
they are genetic rejects can be removed from the feedlot if so
desired. The MRI/3DS and PDMV date information is recorded
electronically on a unique PDMV tag, similar in design to an EID
ear tag, that includes exclusive PDMV data information for that
particular animal. It is also possible that the MRI/3DS and PDMV
data information for each animal is recorded and cross-referenced
with the I.ID of the animal along with all of the computer animal
history file data base information (discussed above) commonly used
in a feedlot.
[0064] Once the PDMV is assigned to numerous animals, as they leave
the feedlot entry process, the computer system sorts and direct the
animals into pens with animals having identical PDMVs or a similar
range of PDMVs. For example, an entire pen of 300 head of cattle
could be sorted so that all of them are predicted to go to market
on a particular date, for example March 12.sup.th. Another entire
pen of 300 head could be sorted so that all of them are predicted
to go to market on a later date, for example March 13.sup.th,
another on March 14.sup.th, another on March 15.sup.th and so on.
It is also possible that an entire pen of 300 head could be sorted
so that all of the animals in the pen are in a similar PDMV range,
for example, the range may be between PDMV March 11.sup.th and PDMV
March 13.sup.th. In this case the cattle would be delivered to the
processing plant on March 12.sup.th which is the average PDMV date
for the three-day range. As feedlots grow larger and those feedlots
with a capacity of 10,000 head or more may have five to ten pens
feeding 300 head of cattle each that have the same PDMV. The 3DS
evaluations then becomes more important in that the animals within
those five to ten pens can additionally be sorted by
size/conformation and gain the advantage discussed earlier with the
concept of grouping animals much like the 1.sup.st graders,
2.sup.nd graders, 3.sup.rd grader, etc.
[0065] Some absentee owners with cattle in a feedlot may request
that the operator put all of their 900 head into three pens of 300
head each so that feed costs can be tracked more accurately for
their cattle. The 900 head of cattle can be evaluated with the
MRI/3DS and given PDMV dates (with PDMV tags or I.ID
cross-reference) on an individual basis as they are processed upon
entering the feedlot. Using traditional sorting means the cattle
are then put into the three feeding pens. The cattle are then
sorted out of their main feeding pens individually as they reach
their PDMV range allowing the feedlot operator to market them
relatively close to or on the date of their PDMV.
[0066] These PDMV sorting means will greatly reduce the
inconsistencies related to the over-fed/under-fed dilemma. The
MRI/3DS evaluations will also reduce the losses associated with
cattle that are genetically unable to attain profitable carcass
value.
[0067] FIG. 1 shows the system of the present invention that
provides a MRI evaluation, preferably in concert with the 3DS
evaluation, on a single occasion, that being the initial feedlot
entry processing, to provide a predicted day to maximum value used
for sorting cattle. Referring now to FIG. 1, the animal 102 shown
in FIG. 1 is a beef animal, standing in the MRI/3DS chute apparatus
104. In this example, the MRI/3DS chute apparatus 104 is placed
directly behind and in-line with the traditional chute apparatus
106 that has traditionally been used to process the animals as they
enter the feedlot as previously described.
[0068] The cattle arrive at the feedlot in trucks that are unloaded
at the unloading chute 108 into a holding pen 110. From the holding
pen 110 the cattle are then moved into a smaller pen 112. These
smaller pens 112 have various designs that allow the feedlot
operators to move the cattle into a narrow lane 114. The narrow
lane 114 can have some additional gates but it is designed to allow
the animals to line up in single file to enter the MRI/3DS chute
104. After the animal is evaluated in the MRI/3DS chute 104, the
evaluation data is transferred to the feedlot computer system 116
and the PDMV is calculated. The animal is ready to move forward to
the traditional chute 106. When arriving in the traditional chute
106 the animal is processed which includes recording I.ID,
weighing, vaccinations, administering health products, etc. as
previously described. The MRI/3DS and PDMV date are then either
combined with the I.ID processed history data or the unique PDMV
tag is placed in or on the animal.
[0069] After the processing is completed the feedlot computer
system 116 uses the PDMV information to sort the animal into a pen
of animals with identical or similar range PDMV dates. The animal
exits the traditional chute 106 and is directed to the pen by
commonly used computerized electronic gates and lane systems (not
shown). The animal can be directed to the PDMV assigned pen
manually if so desired and the computer PDMV selection/sorting
system can be adjusted manually by the operator if so desired. In
addition, after receiving a PDMV date, the animal may be directed
to feeding pens in a traditional manner with plans to be sorted out
individually at the end of the feeding period as was previously
described for the absentee owner.
[0070] The MRI/3DS chute 104 can also be placed in-line so that the
cattle pass through the MRI/3DS chute 104 after being processed in
the traditional chute 106. Whereas the MRI/3DS chute 104 apparatus
is designed for permanent installation in most feedlots, it can
also be portable with a self-contained computer system to travel to
smaller feedlots or remote locations. Additionally, the MRI/3DS
chute 104 can be placed at virtually any location that may or may
not be associated with the feedlot entry processing, however, only
one MRI/3DS evaluation on a single occasion is needed to calculate
the PDMV.
[0071] FIG. 2 shows a view of the placement of the MRI and 3DS
evaluation systems within the MRI/3DS chute apparatus. Referring
now to FIG. 2, the animal 102 is a beef animal, standing in the
MRI/3DS chute apparatus 104. A restraining chute apparatus with a
headlock to be shown later in FIG. 3 is inside the MRI/3DS chute
apparatus 104. The evaluation MRI unit 202 is above and slightly to
one side of the spine of the animal 102. The MRI unit 202 is guided
into place for the evaluation and then returned by robotic arms 204
guided by commonly used computer robotic systems. Electric power,
robotic systems guidance control cable and MRI evaluation
control/data transfer cables are within a flexible cable housing
206. The evaluation 3DS unit 208 remains stationary and is placed
on a standard 210, tripod or similar device. An electric power
source and 3DS evaluation control/data transfer cables are within a
flexible cable housing 212. The entire MRI/3DS chute 104 is
enclosed except for robotic arms, entry means in the rear and exit
means in the front. There are several reasons for the enclosure; 1)
to prevent inadvertent stray metal objects (such as a hammer or
pitchfork) from interference with the magnetic sensitivities of the
MRI unit 202, 2) the entire MRI/3DS unit 104 may need to be cooled
in southern hotter climates exceeding 100.degree. Fahrenheit to
prevent any very slight variances in the MRI unit 202 evaluations,
3) if the MRI unit 202 is within a mile of a radio transmitting
station then the MRI/3DS chute 104 will need to be lined with
copper to prevent radio transmitting from interfering with the MRI
unit 202, and 4) the 3DS unit 208 performs more consistently
without ambient light or stray beams of sunlight.
[0072] FIG. 3A through 3F show a series of consecutive scenes of
the steps of the MRI/3DS unit as evaluations occur. Referring now
to FIG. 3A-3F, all of the series of consecutive scenes of the beef
animal 102 are shown inside the MRI/3DS chute apparatus 104. In
FIG. 3A the animal 102 enters the restraining chute 302 and the far
side wall 304 moves inward applying a slight pressure on the animal
102. In FIG. 3B the 2.sup.nd bar 306 from the top moves down into
alignment with the 3.sup.rd bar and the 4.sup.th bar 308 from the
top moves down below the panel. The top bar has been removed for
the purpose of easy viewing of the drawings in FIG. 3B-3D. In FIG.
3C the rear yoke 310 applies a very light pressure and the external
3DS evaluation (3DS unit 208 is out of view) is completed. The rear
yoke 310 as well as any part of the restraining chute 302 can be
padded to ease the handling of the animal 102. It is also possible
to use a pressure sensitive airbag type system in conjunction with
or instead of the rear yoke 310, the far side wall 304, or any
portion of the restraining chute 302 to ease in the handling of the
animal 102. The row of light spot pixels that land on the 2.sup.nd
bar 306 which covers the 3.sup.rd bar are precalibrated in the 3DS
system and are eliminated from the 3-D surface modeling of the
animal. In FIG. 3D additional pressure is applied to the animal 102
from the rear yoke 310 and the distance from the rear yoke 310 to
the headlock 312 is a calibrated distance 316. The MRI evaluation
unit 202 is then positioned vertically by moving the unit to a
known percentage distance 314 from the rear yoke 310 to the head
lock 312. The known percentage 314 is usually 55% but this may vary
and can be adjusted if necessary. By using a known percentage
distance 314 to vertically position the MRI unit 202, all animals
will be evaluated equitably between the 12.sup.th and 13.sup.th rib
area. For example, in larger or longer animals the 55% distance
would be greater and in smaller animals the 55% distance would be
less, respectively. In FIG. 3E the MRI unit 202 lowers to the
animal's back and the evaluation is completed in several seconds.
The MRI unit 202 then returns to the original neutral position. In
FIG. 3F the rear yoke 310 is released, the bars 306 and 308, and
side wall 304 return to the original position. The MRI evaluation
data and the 3DS evaluation data are then transferred to the
feedlot computer system 116 and the PDMV is computed. The animal
102 remains in the MRI/3DS chute 104 and is then released by
opening the headlock 312 allowing the animal to move forward to the
processing chute 106.
[0073] FIG. 4 shows a graph representing the actual marketing day
distribution of 300 head of cattle in a feedlot feeding pen using
present day or traditional sorting. Referring now to FIG. 4, each
of the 300 smaller circles 402 would represent an animal in an
average feedlot feeding pen. The vertical axis to the left
represents the number of animals in one particular row. The
horizontal axis on the bottom represents the number of days on
feed. The days on feed are the number of days that an animal is in
the feeding pen from the time the animal enters the feedlot until
the animal reaches maximum carcass value. One should understand
that any particular group of animals in a feedlot pen could vary
dramatically. Occasionally, an animal may reach maximum carcass
value in 80 to 85 days while another animal may exceed 160 to 165
days. However, this graph and the following graphs (FIG. 5A-5I)
represent a conceptual explanation of an average set of cattle in
feeding pen(s) of an average feedlot.
[0074] This actual marketing day distribution using traditional
sorting represents a bell-shaped curve 404. The average days on
feed for the entire pen is the 120 day average 406, which is the
outlined column, including 24 animals. On or about the 120 day
average 406, the entire pen of cattle would be loaded on trucks and
transported to the processing plant. In a purest form, it would be
ideal to load and transport each animal(s) on the day that they
reach maximum carcass value. For example, the animal that has
reached maximum carcass value of day 105 could be loaded and
transported to the processing plant therein achieving a maximum
carcass value on that day. On day 106, one animal could be
transported and on day 107 one animal could be transported to the
processing plant and on day 108 two animals could be transported
and so on, as could all of the animals on each consecutive day as
they reach their maximum carcass value. Then nearing the final days
on feed, one animal would reach maximum carcass value and could be
transported to the processing plant on day 135.
[0075] Prior art systems cannot determine precisely which animal is
finished on which day, so the entire pen is market on the 120 day
average 406. The results are the hidden losses included with the
dilemma discussed previously, which are those animals that would be
found within the group of over-fed cattle 408 and the group of
under-fed cattle 410. The percentage of animals that are genetic
rejects and never reach a profitable carcass value would be found
randomly throughout the entire pen.
[0076] FIG. 5A through 5I shows a series of nine graphs of the
marketing day distribution of 2,700 head of cattle in nine
different feeding pens with 300 head in each pen using present day
traditional sorting methods. Referring now to FIG. 5A-5I, each of
the nine graphs do not contain sufficient detail to illustrate all
of the features shown in FIG. 4 but are intended to represent
graphs similar in manner to those shown in FIG. 4. In each graph
the vertical axis to the left represents the number of animals in
one particular row in the same manner as shown in FIG. 4. The
horizontal axis on the bottom of each graph, shown in the same
manner as was shown in FIG. 4, represents the number of days on
feed or the number of days that an animal is in the feeding pen to
reach maximum carcass value. Each graph has a bell-shaped curve
that represents the market day distribution of the animals in a
similar manner to the bell-shaped curve 404 shown in FIG. 4. Also
each graph shows the 120 day average 406 represented in a similar
manner as was shown in FIG. 4. FIG. 5A, FIG. 5B, and FIG. 5C
represent three graphs of heavier animals that have been sorted
into pens with 300 head in each pen. Although not scientific, those
skilled in the art would recognize that these pens of cattle might
be finished as a group several days before the 120 day average 406.
FIG. 5D, FIG. 5E, and FIG. 5F represent three graphs of medium
weight animals that have been sorted into pens with 300 head in
each pen. Although not scientific, those skilled in the art would
recognize that these pens of cattle might be finished as a group
very close to the 120 day average 406. FIG. 5G, FIG. 5H, and FIG.
5I represent three graphs of lighter animals that have been sorted
into pens with 300 head in each pen. Although not scientific, those
skilled in the art would recognize that these pens of cattle might
be finished several days after the 120 day average 406. The point
of this series of graphs is to easily show that even with the best
present day or traditional sorting methods, the bell-shaped
marketing day distribution remains within each pen.
[0077] FIG. 6 shows a view of sorting pens used to sort cattle into
various groups by their PDMV or PDMV range as they leave the chute
following their initial entry day processing. Referring now to FIG.
6, each of the 10 sorting pens as viewed from above have a water
source 602, fence-line feedbunk 604, a sorting pen exit gate 606, a
sorting pen solid entry door 608, and a restraining gate 610
similar to those shown in Pen #1. There could be more or less than
10 sorting pens depending on the total capacity of the feedlot and
the desired needs of the feedlot operator. Each individual sorting
pen would have a capacity that would be equal to the feedlot's
largest feeding pens. For example, if a feedlot had feeding pens
that hold 300 head of cattle during the feeding process, then the
sorting pens would have a capacity of 300 head. Each individual
sorting pen is assigned a date by the feedlot operator that
corresponds to the PDMV or PDMV range of dates. For example, Pen #1
would correspond to a PDMV range of March 2.sup.nd-4.sup.th, Pen #2
would correspond to a later PDMV range of March 5.sup.th-7.sup.th,
Pen #3 on March 8.sup.th-10.sup.th, and so on.
[0078] During the initial entry day processing, similar to drawings
shown in FIG. 1, the animal 102 passes from the MRI/3DS chute
apparatus 104 to the traditional chute apparatus 106 and receives a
PDMV date that is combined with an I.ID. In this example, the
animal 102 has been assigned a PDMV for March 7.sup.th which
corresponds to Pen #2. When the animal 102 is ready to be released
from the traditional chute apparatus 106, the computer system 116
(not shown) directs the sorting pen solid entry door 608 to open
for Pen #2 while all other sorting pen entry doors remain closed.
As the animal 102 leaves the traditional chute 106, all other
sorting pen entry doors appear to be a solid wall. The animal can
only see one opening (entry door 608 opening for Pen #2) and other
animals beyond the opening. Two natural instincts, to escape danger
and to return to the herd, cause the animal to enter the opening
through entry door 608 into Pen #2. After passing through the entry
door 608 into Pen #2, the entry door is then closed and the
computer system 116 maintains a record by I.ID of the inventory of
animals in each sorting pen. As additional animals are processed
the sorting is repeated with each individual animal being sorted
into the sorting pen that corresponds to their PDMV. If the MRI/3DS
evaluation determines that an animal is a genetic reject then the
animal can be removed through the side gate 612 and not sorted into
the sorting pens if the feedlot operator so desires.
[0079] Some individual sorting pens may fill to the feedlot
operators desired capacity in a single day. Other sorting pens may
take several weeks to complete the sorting process and fill to
capacity. The time needed for filling any particular sorting pen
will depend on the volume of animals entering the feedlot on a
daily basis and the variation of the animal's PDMV(s). In either
case, the animals have access to a water source 602 and the feedlot
operators can begin feeding their rations as so desired for each
individual sorting pen. When the computer recorded inventory shows
a particular sorting pen to be at full capacity the feedlot
operator can then have the animals moved (usually manually) from
the sorting pen through the exit gate 606 to the desired
traditional feeding pen where they will remain until finished. For
example, when the computer system 116 would show Pen #2 at the
desired full capacity with 300 head, the feedlot operator would
then have the cattle moved out of the sorting Pen #2 through exit
gate 606 into an alley way (not shown) where they are then moved to
the entry gate of their traditional feeding pen. Thereafter, Pen #2
would be assigned a new PDMV date which would correspond to the
next PDMV date in the series of continued PDMV dates. During this
moving process, the Pen #2 restraining gate 610 could be closed (as
shown in Pen #3) allowing the sorting process to continue. Once all
of the animals have been moved and the Pen #2 exit gate 606 has
been closed, then the restraining gate 610 would be reopened
allowing the newly sorted PDMV animals access to feed and water as
the sorting process is repeated to fill the sorting Pen #2 to
capacity.
[0080] All of the sorting pens are continually filled with animals
by their PDMV date(s) and then the animals are moved to traditional
feeding pen. Thereafter, the sorting pens are assigned a new PDMV
date or range of dates and the sorting process continues until the
feedlot reaches full capacity. At any time the feedlot operators
can change any portion of the system to fit any particular need.
For example, if a feedlot consists mostly of feeding pens with a
capacity of 300 head but also has several feeding pens holding 200
head then the sorting pen inventories can be adjusted accordingly.
If the feedlot has a very large capacity then cattle can be sorted
initially by their PDMV and then secondly by their 3-D surface
modeling. Most importantly, this sorting means allows feedlot
operators to sort large volumes of cattle into individualized
feeding pens of like-kind according to their predicted day to
maximum carcass value.
[0081] FIG. 7 show a graph of the marketing day distribution of 300
head of cattle is a feedlot feeding pen that have received MRI/3DS
evaluations and calculate PDMV dates in which all PDMV dates are
within a three day range and the cattle have been sorted into this
pen by their PDMV. For FIG. 7 and all of the following figures with
references to PDMV sorted cattle/pens, it is assumed that the
genetic rejects determined by the MRI/3DS evaluations have been
eliminated from the feeding pens, graphs, or example thereof.
Referring now to FIG. 7, each of the 300 smaller circles 402 would
represent an animal in a feedlot feeding pen that has been sorted
using the PDMV date that was calculated from the MRI/3DS
evaluation. The PDMV range is March 11.sup.th, 12.sup.th, and
13.sup.th. Again, the vertical axis to the left represents the
number of animals in one particular row. The horizontal axis on the
bottom represents the PDMV dates 608. In this example, all 300
animals represent a skewed bell-shaped curve 702. The average PDMV
date for the entire pen is the March 12.sup.th 704 which is the
outlined column including 96 animals.
[0082] Given the sorting of cattle by their PDMV date in FIG. 7,
the entire pen is loaded on trucks that transport them to the
processing plant on March 12.sup.th 704. Nearly every animal in the
pen is delivered to the processing plant within a day of their
predicted maximum carcass value. It is well known that when working
with animals, it isn't a perfect science and a few animals will
fall outside the three-day PDMV range. However, the
over-fed/under-fed/genetic dilemma is dramatically reduced.
[0083] FIG. 8A through 8I shows a series of nine graphs of the
marketing day distribution of 2,700 head of cattle in nine
different feeding pens with 300 head in each pen. All animals have
received MRI/3DS evaluations in which all PDMV dates are within a
three-day range for each of the nine different pens and the cattle
have been sorted into these pens by their PDMV date 608. Referring
now to FIG. 8A-8I, each of the nine graphs do not contain
sufficient detail to illustrate all of the features shown in FIG. 7
but are intended to represent graphs similar in manner to those
shown in FIG. 7. In each graph the vertical axis to the left
represents the number of animals in one particular row in a similar
manner as shown in FIG. 7. The horizontal axis on the bottom of
each graph, in a similar manner as was shown in FIG. 7, represents
the PDMV 608 or the date that each animal is predicted to reach
maximum carcass value. Each graph has a skewed bell-shaped curve
that represents the PDMV date of the animals in a similar manner as
the skewed bell-shaped curve 702 was shown in FIG. 7. Also each
graph shows a different PDMV date that corresponds to the average
PDMV date for the 300 head represented in that pen. Referring now
to FIG. 8A, this graph represents a pen of 300 head sorted into a
three day PDMV range with the average PDMV of March 3.sup.rd 802.
Referring now to FIG. 8B, this graph represents a pen of 300 head
sorted into a three day PDMV range with the average PDMV of March
6.sup.th 804. Referring now to FIG. 8C, this graph represents a pen
of 300 head sorted into a three day PDMV range with the average
PDMV of March 9.sup.th 806. Referring now to FIG. 8D, this graph
represents a pen of 300 head as shown in FIG. 7, sorted into a
three day PDMV range with the average PDMV of March 12.sup.th 704.
Referring now to FIG. 8E, this graph represents a pen of 300 head
sorted into a three day PDMV range with the average PDMV of March
15.sup.th 808. Referring now to FIG. 8F, this graph represents a
pen of 300 head sorted into a three day PDMV range with the average
PDMV of March 18.sup.th 810. Referring now to FIG. 8G, this graph
represents a pen of 300 head sorted into a three day PDMV range
with the average PDMV of March 2.sup.th 812. Referring now to FIG.
8H, this graph represents a pen of 300 head sorted into a three day
PDMV range with the average PDMV of March 23.sup.rd 814. Referring
now to FIG. 8I, this graph represents a pen of 300 head sorted into
a three day PDMV range with the average PDMV of March 26.sup.th
816. Given the sorting of 2,700 head of cattle into nine feeding
pens by their PDMV dates, the 300 head are loaded into trucks on
each respective PDMV date and transported to the processing plant
according to their date. Again, the over-fed/under-fed/genetic
dilemma is dramatically reduced.
[0084] With annual trends showing feedlots continually increasing
the number of head per feedlot, the present invention has
additional advantages. Larger feedlots that have a capacity over
5,000 head (some now exceeding 100,000 head capacity), will have
numerous pens with the same Predicted Day to Maximum Value date.
For example, a feedlot with a capacity of 12,000 head may have six
to eight pens that have the same PDMV date. The 3DS portion of the
MRI/3DS evaluations will allow feedlot operators to sort those
cattle that have the same PDMV dates into pens by similar body
size, thus gaining the 1.sup.st grader, 2.sup.nd grader, 3.sup.rd
grader advantage that was discussed earlier.
[0085] FIG. 9 shows a block diagram of a computer system including
the MRI, 3DS and robotic units of the present invention. Referring
now to FIG. 9, the computer system 116 contains a processing
element 902. The processing element 902 communicates to the other
elements of the computer system 116 over a system bus 904. A
keyboard 906, a MRI unit 202, a 3DS unit 208, and various robotic
units 204 allow input to the computer system 116. A mouse 910
provides input for locating specific points on or within the animal
as displayed on graphics display 908, which also provides a display
of any other information to be viewed by the user of the computer
system 116. A printer 922 allows for output to paper to be viewed
by a user of the computer system 116, and allows printing of
identification tags. IID writer 924 allows other types of
individual identification devices to be created, for example data
could be written to a memory device and the memory device placed in
a capsule for insertion under the skin of an animal. A disk 912
stores the software and data used by the system of the present
invention, as well as an operating system and other user data of
the computer system 116.
[0086] A memory 920 contains an operating system 916, and as
application program 918, comparing, ranking, grading and sorting
system for animals. Those skilled in the art will recognize that
the operating system 916 could be one of many different operating
systems, including many windows-type operating systems, and that
many application programs could be performing in a multi-tasking
operation system.
[0087] Gate Opening device 926 allows the computer system 116 to
open gates of pens, for example as shown in FIG. 6 above. This is
used, for example, to allow the computer system 116 to direct an
animal to a specific pen after evaluating the animal as discussed
above.
[0088] FIG. 10 shows a drawing of cattle in a feeding pen as
desired animal path movement is developed so that individual
animals can be sorted on the proper day by their PDMV after
completing the feeding period. FIG. 10 describes a sorting means of
individual animals by PDMV date after the animals have completed
the feeding process, if for example, an absentee owner (discussed
previously) or any owner for any reason has requested that their
cattle are placed in pens in the traditional sorting means.
Referring now to FIG. 10, the feedlot feeding pen 1002, shows a
view from above, of a pen of approximately 200 animal or less that
are all represented by small black symbols. Each of the animals
received their PDMV dates during the feedlot entry processing. The
PDMV date of each animal is electronically coded on the unique PDMV
tag. Alternatively, the PDMV date can be cross-referenced with or
include within the I.ID. The various animals within the feeding pen
1002 would each have PDMV dates that would range in a similar
fashion to the bell-shaped curve in FIG. 4. The outline of the pen
1002 represents fencing. The portion of the pen 1002 that has
numerous animals standing side by side represent the feeding bunks
that are built into a containing fence. A water source is supplied
in a water tank 1004. The pen gate 1006 allows the animals to enter
the pen 1002 after being processes at feedlot entry time. The pen
gate 1006 is also used as an exit gate for the animals after the
feeding period is complete at which time they are moved down alleys
(not shown) to loading chutes to be loaded onto trucks for
transport to the processing plant. Gate 1008 and gate 1010 are open
when the animals originally enter the pen 1002 and are closed just
prior to transferring the first individual animal into the PDMV
sorting pen 1012. The initial transferring of animals into the PDMV
sorting pen 1012 will usually begin after the animals have been in
the feeding pen approximately 90 days. By closing the gate 1008 and
gate 1010 the PDMV sorting pen 1012 is created. Gate 1008 is
adjustable and can move to the right to allow additional bunk
feeding space if 10 or more animals are to be sorted into the PDMV
sorting pen 1012. The PDMV sorting chute 1014 has a robotic
sidewall gate 1016 and a robotic sidewall gate 1018. The PDMV
sorting chute 1014 also has an entry robotic turnstile 1020 that
allows an individual animal, in search of the water tank 1004, to
enter the PDMV chute 1014 only after a previous animal has exited
the PDMV chute 1014 leaving the chute empty. The PDMV chute 1014
also has an antenna apparatus 1022 in the front corner. This
antenna apparatus 1022 electronically reads the unique PDMV tag or
I.ID of each animal as it approaches to drink. The individual PDMV
data is then transferred to the feedlot computer system 116. The
grayarrow shows the desired animal path movement (DAPM) 1024.
[0089] Animals are creatures ofhabit and have a tremendous tendency
to follow patterns using sight, hearing, smell and taste as key
indicators of their habits. Any dramatic change in these indicators
can be express by animal stress and can cause some animals to "shut
down" for hours or days. If for example, you change water or the
water tank, some animal will refuse to drink for as much as a day
or two. If you drastically change feed rations or feeding bunks,
some animals will "go off feed" or dramatically reduce their feed
intake for a day or two resulting in weight loss. Creating DAPM
with very slight changes over a period of months can prevent "shut
down" within the group of cattle being fed.
[0090] When the cattle initially enter the feeding pen 1002, the
internal pen gates 1008 and 1010 are in the open position. The
robotic sidewall gates 1016 and 1018 are also in the open position
and the turnstile 1020 swings freely so that the cattle have
complete access to the water tank 1004 and the area that will
become the PDMV sorting pen 1012. In this example the water source
and water tank 1004 are used to entice the animals to develop the
DAPM 1024 which includes a PDMV sorting chute 1014 with an
adjoining PDMV sorting pen 1012. It is also possible to develop the
DAPM 1024 around the feeding bunks, salt or mineral licks,
individuals feeding chutes or any other means that would entice the
animals to move through an area on a periodic basis that would
include a PDMV sorting chute 1014 with an adjoining PDMV sorting
pen 1012.
[0091] To begin the development of the DAPM 1024, the robotic
sidewall gate 1016 in closed at the end of the first month. At the
end of the second month, the robotic sidewall gate 1018 is closed
and the robotic turnstile 1020 becomes operational by allowing an
animal to enter only after the previous animal has exited. After
drinking at the water tank 1004 animals are only released through
robotic sidewall gate 1018 to return to the feeding pen 1002. At
the end of the third month any animals in the PDMV sorting pen 1012
area are moved to the main feeding pen 1002 and the internal gates
1008 and 1010 are closed creating the emptyPDMV sorting pen 1012.
Shortly thereafter, the antenna apparatus 1022 data via the
computersystem 116 begins to recordthe presence of the animal,
records the date/time when each animal drinks, and after allowing
sufficient time to drink, directs the robotic sidewall gate 1018 to
open if the animal is to remain in the feeding pen 1002. If at any
time within a 24 hour period, the animal's individual PDMV date
indicates that the animal is to be marketed that day, then the
computer system 116 directs the robotic sidewall gate 1016 to open
so that the animal enters the PDMV sorting pen 1012. The feedlot
operators can then remove the cattle from the PDMV sorting pen 1012
to the alleys (not shown) and on to trucks for transport to the
processing plant. All reports concerning PDMV cattle can be
provided daily as well as listings for future PDMV marketing dates.
The feedlot operator can review the list of animals passing through
the PDMV sorting chute 1014 at any time.
[0092] The animals that are sorted into the PDMV sorting pen 1012
will act far different than those sorted into an exit way path, an
exit way pen or a holding pen as discribed in prior art. In the
PDMV sorting pen 1012, the cattle will experience virtually no
stress because the sights and smells are the same around the pen
and fences. The smells of the water tank and feed bunk are the
same. The water will taste the same and the ration will be exactly
the same within the PDMV sorting pen 1012.
[0093] FIG. 11 shows a drawing of more than 200 cattle in a feeding
pen as they are sorted by their PDMV dates on the proper day.
Referring now to FIG. 11, all of the concepts that are explained in
FIG. 10 remain the same in FIG. 11. The only difference is that in
feedlot feeding pens that are larger and hold more than 200 head,
the animals need to have access to water in greater numbers. There
are at least one but preferably more turnstiles 1106 allowing more
animals to enter the water tank area for drinking. The sorting
mechanism 1104 is still directed from the feedlot computer 116 and
uses robotics to shift either left or right allowing animals to
return to the feeding pen 1002 or sorted to the PDMV sorting pen
1012. The desired animal path movements shown with gray arrows 1102
is still created on a gradual basis over several months by closing
internal gates between the feeding pen 1002 and the PDMV sorting
pen 1012. Again, in this example, the water source and water tank
1004 are used to entice the animals to develop the DAPM 1024 which
includes a PDMV sorting chute 1014 with an adjoining PDMV sorting
pen 1012. It is also possible to develop the DAPM 1024 around the
feeding bunks, salt or mineral licks, individuals feeding chutes or
any other means that would entice the animals to move through an
area on a periodic basis that would include a PDMV sorting chute
1014 with an adjoining PDMV sorting pen 1012.
[0094] Referring now to the carcass segment of the beef industry, a
carcass is evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as
previously discussed. Again, the evaluation usually includes but is
not limited to, measuring the surface area of a cross-section of
thin voxels of the ribeye muscle, percent of I. Fat within each
thin voxel of the ribeye cross-section, distribution of I. Fat
within the ribeye cross-section and if applicable the thickness of
the backfat along with the thickness of hide in that area. The MRI
evaluations detect even microscopic flecks of I. Fat that could be
missed by the human visual USDA grading or a high-resolution 2-D
color video camera. It is also possible to use the individual
carcass's MRI image, which is unique to each carcass, for I.ID
purposes. The entire MRI image or any portion of the referenced
pixels or voxels can be solely used for carcass I.ID. Additionally,
the MRI images can be used for identification purposes within the
packing plant as well as tracking from the previous I.ID within the
feedlot or cow-calf operations.
[0095] The MRI evaluations relating to ribeye muscle size (yield)
and I. Fat percentage along with I. Fat distribution within the
ribeye (grade) have a very positive correlation to the grade and
yield evaluations (USDA Prime, USDA Choice, USDA Select, etc.)
provided by the USDA graders in the processing (packing) plant.
Although the MRI evaluations have the advantage in that the carcass
does not need to be severed, it is possible that the MRI
evaluations could assist USDA graders.
[0096] The MRI evaluations can again, preferably be used in concert
with the 3DS evaluations, however, it is possible for the MRI
evaluations will provided adequate information for grading the
carcasses. The 3DS evaluations add several advantages, such as
overall carcass volume (related to weight) that compares each
individual carcass to a standard or to various other carcasses of
like kind. The 3DS evaluations measure the volume of segmented cuts
such as the round in beef, ham in pork, loin, shoulder cuts, etc.
3DS evaluations also provide various linear carcass length
measurements used to guide the robotic arms of the MRI apparatus
and assist in determining the major or smaller cuts of the
fabrication processing of the carcass.
[0097] MRI/3DS evaluations are achieved with an individual computer
system or jointly with an existing processing plant computer
system. The evaluations can be completed on several different
occasions throughout the processing routine. For example, the
MRI/3DS evaluations could occur just prior to processing when the
live animal is waiting to be processed, just after hanging the
carcass, before or after the aging process, or before or after the
fabrication process. The carcass is usually hanging during an
evaluation but could be evaluated from any of a number of
positions.
[0098] In the carcass segment of the beef industry the MRI
evaluations along with the 3DS evaluations (if and when applicable)
do not require any formulas as the evaluations are measuring the
values that have been previously predicted with the PDMV formulas.
Once the MRI/3DS carcass evaluations are completed the computer
system can compare, rank and rate the carcass to any standard such
as a previously determine maximum value that could include USDA
grading or any like system. Carcasses as well as segments of
carcasses are then sorted by computer system for certain orders,
packaging, predetermined fabrication processing, or any applicable
means and then directed accordingly within the plant by the
computer system.
[0099] FIGS. 12A though 12D shows a series of consecutive scenes
that show the steps involved in the workings of 3DS and MRI
apparatus in a processing plant as evaluations occur. Referring now
to FIG. 12A-12D, the carcass 1202 in this example is a beef carcass
hanging from a hock 1204 that is attached to a chain 1206 that is
moving through a processing plant. In FIG. 12A the carcass 1202
passes into the 3DS evaluation scene area and triggers the 3DS
evaluation unit. In FIG. 12B the external 3DS evaluation is
completed (the 3DS unit 208 is out of view because it would block
the view of this drawing) and data is transfer to the plant
computer system (not shown) and the 3-D surface modeling is
completed. In FIG. 12C the length of the carcass 1208 is calculated
from the 3DS evaluation. Various predetermined MRI apparatus
positions 1210 are also calculated from the 3DS evaluation. Various
plant predetermined fabrication cuts can also be calculated at this
time. In FIG. 12D the robotic arm 204 positions the MRI unit 202
against the carcass 1202 and the internal MRI evaluation is
completed for at least one location and evaluation data is
transferred to the computer system. After the MRI evaluation(s) is
completed the robotic arms 204 return the MRI unit 202 to the
original neutral position.
[0100] Referring now to the use of the MRI image for an animal's
individualized identification (I.ID) and other purposes. The MRI
image used for I.ID is usually taken but not limited to the area
between the 12.sup.th and 13.sup.th rib of the animal which
includes the longissimus dorsi muscle, commonly referred to as the
ribeye. The MRI image used for I.ID is accomplished simultaneously
with the MRI evaluation data that is compiled for determining
predicted maximum values and carcass values in the meat industry.
It is also possible to use the MRI image independently with any
animal for the sole purpose of I.ID. In either case, the MRI image
data includes but is not limited to, measuring the surface area of
a cross-section of thin voxels of the ribeye muscle, percent of I.
Fat within each thin voxel of the ribeye cross-section,
distribution of I. Fat within the ribeye cross-section and if
applicable the thickness of the backfat along with the thickness of
hide in that area.
[0101] FIG. 13 shows a drawing of an MRI image of the cross-section
of thin voxels (also referred to as pixels) of an animal muscle.
Referring now to FIG. 13, the muscle 1302, shown in black in this
example, is the longissimus dorsi muscle, commonly referred to as
the ribeye muscle in the beef animal. It should be noted that the
backbone which is located vertically to the left of the drawing
outside the view, the rib bone which is located horizontally below
the drawing outside the view, and the hide along with a portion of
the backfat which is located above the drawing are outside the
view, and are not shown in this drawing to simplify the conceptual
explanation of deriving the I.ID from the MRI evaluation image.
Those skilled in the art will recognize that of the total MRI
image, only those voxels that include the ribeye muscle 1302 are
referenced herein. The capital letters that are listed vertically
along the left side of the drawing as well as the lower case
letters listed horizontally along the bottom of the drawing are use
to identify various voxel co-ordinate locations. The numerous
flecks of intramuscular fat or I. Fat 1304 as shown by example in
voxel B-g are represented by the various white irregular shaped
spots throughout the black background of the ribeye muscle 1302.
Each voxel is outline with white or black lines and a cubed effect
is used along the bottom and right side of the drawing to represent
the entire drawing as a thin cross-section of voxels of the ribeye
muscle 1302.
[0102] FIG. 14 shows numerous individual voxels of an MRI image of
a cross-section of the ribeye muscle. Referring now to FIG. 14, the
referenced ribeye muscle 1302 as shown in FIG. 13 has been blown
into numerous individual voxels to explain the use of the MRI
evaluation for I.ID and other purposes. The vertical capital
letters along the left side of the drawing and the horizontal lower
case letters along the bottom of the drawing correspond to those
used in FIG. 13 to identify various voxel co-ordinate locations. A
cubed effect is used along the bottom and right side of each
individual voxel of the drawing to represent that the entire
drawing is a thin cross-section of voxels of the ribeye muscle
1302. The figure does not have sufficient detail to show the cubed
effect of each individual voxel as either muscle tissue, shown as
black, or as flecks of I. Fat, shown as irregular white spots. Even
though it appears that there is no I. Fat in voxel B-e, for
example, those skilled in the art would recognize that the flecks
of I. Fat within voxel B-e could be near the far side of the voxel
or entwined throughout the voxel. The MRI evaluation for the
percentage of I. Fat within any voxel includes the percentage of I.
Fat throughout the entire voxel and not just the I. Fat at the
surface of the voxel.
[0103] Those voxels that are totally within the muscle, for example
inside the dotted line, contain both muscle and I. Fat. In this
example, horizontal rows of voxels B-c through B-f, C-c through
C-h, D-c through D-i, E-c through E-e and E-g through E-i contain
both muscle and I. Fat. The MRI evaluation determines the
percentage of I. Fat within each voxel that is within the muscle
area. The percentage of I. Fat is then recorded by corresponding
coordinate locations for all voxels within the muscle area. In this
drawing the I. Fat percentages are listed below each voxel. The
percentage of muscle is also known and can be listed if needed for
any purpose.
[0104] Those voxels that surround the outer edge of the muscle, for
example outside the dotted line, are used to define the surface
area of a cross-section of thin voxels of any muscle including the
ribeye muscle. In this example, the voxels that surround the outer
edge of the muscle are shown as some muscle, partially in black,
and some outlying fat, partially in white. Most of the voxels
surrounding the muscle contain some muscle that includes I. Fat and
some outlying fat (O.F.). In some cases the surrounding voxels
contains outlying material (O.M.) such as fascia, cartilage or bone
which are not shown. Within each voxel the MRI evaluation records
the percent of all fat, the percent of muscle, and if applicable
the percent of outlying material (non-muscle and non-fat). Using
C-i as an example, approximately 50-55% of that voxel is muscle to
be included in the cross-section surface area calculations. The MRI
evaluation for voxel C-i is 51.4% all fat, 44.6% muscle and 4.0%
O.M. (fascia not shown). Since the closest voxel within the muscle
to voxel C-i is voxel C-h which is 8.4% I. Fat, the amount of fat
in the muscle portion of voxel C-i also contains 8.4% I. Fat. From
the MRI reading of voxel C-i that recorded all fat as 51.4%, it is
then possible to subtract 8.4% I. Fat from the all fat data and add
8.4% I. Fat to the 44.6% muscle data. Thus, the result is that the
percentage of muscle that includes the I. Fat within the muscle is
then 53.0%. A figure of 53% is then used for calculating the
cross-section surface area of the voxels of the ribeye muscle. The
percent muscle including I. Fat is then calculated for each voxel
surrounding the outer edge of the muscle. Referred to as the outer
edge percentage (O.E. %), each voxel is recorded by their
corresponding co-ordinate locations. In this drawing the muscle
percent including I. Fat or O.E. % is listed below each voxel.
[0105] After calculating the O.E. % for each voxel surrounding the
muscle the system can then calculate the total surface area of the
muscle. Initially, all of the voxels within the muscle having a
known surface area are added together for a sub-total. Thereafter,
the O.E. % is taken times the known surface area of each voxel
surrounding the muscle and added to the subtotal of those voxels
within the muscle resulting in the total surface area of a thin
cross-section of the muscle. Those skilled in the art would
recognize that it is possible to use larger voxels or smaller
voxels for the MRI evaluation and the above technique would still
result in deriving the surface area of any muscle. It is also
possible to determine the general shape of the muscle for any
reason by combining the voxel surface areas within the co-ordinate
locations. After performing the calculations, the individualized
identification is stored within the computer system (FIG. 9) where
it can be retrieved and used to select any animal each time the
animal is scanned again.
[0106] Using the MRI evaluation, the system can determine the
distribution of I.Fat within the muscle area. This is done by
comparing the various voxels or a representative sampling of voxels
within the muscle area from side to side and top to bottom. Various
distributions of I. Fat can add to the uniqueness of the I.ID.
Uniform distribution of I. Fat throughout the muscle is desirable
for marketing the meat. The value of measuring the distribution of
I. Fat allows the user to detect those less desirable young
animals, feedlot animals or carcasses that have a lower percentage
of I. Fat in one area when compared from side to side or top to
bottom.
[0107] When using the MRI evaluation for individualized
identification (I.ID) it is important to note the possibilities
that any two animals would have identical MRI voxel data readings.
FIG. 14 shows 47 voxels within the muscle area and each voxel can
range from a percent of I. Fat as low as 1.0% to as high as 12.0+%.
Along with the percentage of I. Fat, the distribution of the I. Fat
adds another set of numerous multiples. The voxels surrounding the
muscle can range from 1.0% to 99.0%, adding more multiples. By
further considering muscle shape, the number of combinations is
very large, thus no two animal would have identical MRI readings,
thus the MRI evaluation provides a unique I.ID for each animal. The
size of voxels used in creating the individualized identification
can vary such that more than 47 voxels can be used, increasing the
number of possible combinations of voxel locations and percentages
of I. Fat used in the individualized identification.
[0108] Given that the percentage I. Fat and I. Fat distribution
does not change throughout the normal life of an animal it is then
possible to track any animal by their unique MRI I.ID from a very
young age through their entire herd life. The same I.ID tracking
can be used to follow animals as they change ownership. For
example, those animals that are born and raised in meat producing
livestock herds can be tracked to and through the feeding process
even when sold several times. Processing plants can use the MRI
I.ID to identify and track live animal as they enter the plant or
hanging carcasses as they move throughout the plant for processing
and fabrication.
[0109] In addition to the above listed I.ID uses for MRI
evaluation, it should be noted that the same evaluations are used
for determining predicted maximum values and carcass values in all
segments of the entire meat industry. Also, the MRI evaluations can
measure the backfat thickness and hide thickness of animals or
carcasses for any applicable need in the meat industry. Those MRI
measurements use voxels (not shown) that are above and to the right
of those voxels shown in FIG. 14.
[0110] Referring now to the cow-calf segment of the beef industry,
young calves 4 to 6 months old, weanlings (after being weaned from
the cow), yearling or virtually any age can be evaluated with
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as previously discussed. Again,
the evaluation usually includes but is not limited to, measuring
the surface area of a cross-section of thin voxels of the ribeye
muscle, percent of I. Fat within each thin voxel of the ribeye
cross-section, distribution of I. Fat within the ribeye
cross-section and the thickness of the backfat along with, if
necessary, the thickness of hide in that area. The surface area of
a cross-section of thin voxels of the ribeye of a calf may only be
two to three square inches and it is possible that the human eye
could not even see or detect any I. Fat. However, the MRI will
provide a very accurate evaluation of the percentage of I. Fat
within the ribeye area even if the I. Fat cells are
microscopic.
[0111] It is important to note that any animal, including a beef
animal, is born with a certain percentage of I. Fat cells along
with a certain percentage of muscle cells within any particular
muscle bundle. This does not change throughout the normal life of
an animal. Excluding the normal growth process, as the animal gains
body weight the subcutaneous fat that is commonly referred to as
backfat increases in thickness and the I. Fat cells within the
muscle bundles individually increase in size but new I. Fat cells
are not created. This is true the longissimus dorsi or ribeye
muscle between the 12.sup.th and 13.sup.th rid area. The only
exception is when an animal approaches obesity. At that time, the
brain (by way of nature's rules) says there is an excess of food
here and signals to add additional I. Fat cells. This brain
signaling for additional I. Fat happens the last few days of
feeding in a feedlot. The exact increase in the number of or
percentage increase of I. Fat cells has not been measured to date.
In the past it was necessary to kill the animal to measure the I.
Fat accurately. Obviously, with the animal dead, they could not
measure what the I. Fat had been in previous weeks nor could they
measure the I. Fat in future weeks to come.
[0112] The MRI evaluations can again, preferably be used in concert
with the 3DS evaluations, however, it is possible for the MRI
evaluations will provided adequate information for sorting,
comparing and predicting future maximum values. MRI/3DS evaluations
of young stock provide numerous advantages to cow-calf operators.
Included among but not limited to the advantages are MRI/3DS
evaluations to compare, rank and sort individuals within the herd,
across breeds, within the U.S. beef herd population and with
competing international beef herds.
[0113] For example, the cow-calf herd operator is able to use
internal MRI evaluations to measure his young male calf crop
(considering age adjustments) for ribeye muscle size, percentage
and distribution of I. Fat, and backfat thickness. The external age
adjusted 3DS evaluation for growth patterns, stature and body shape
would be combined with the MRI evaluations with the data compiled
in a computer system. This would allow the operator to rank and
compare his male calf crop within his herd and sort the elite males
to be used for future herd sires or sell them at a premium value.
He will also be able use the data with genetic formulas to compare
the current sires and dams in his herd. His MRI/3DS data will allow
him to compare and rank his calves with the national beef herd. His
young male calf crop will be rated as future predicted Prime,
predicted Choice or predicted Select animals or any similar rating
system. Predicted grade and yield rankings would add value to the
higher predicted animal on sale day.
[0114] The cow-calf operator could also use MRI/3DS evaluation to
compare, rank and sort the cows in his herd and his female calf
crop. Being able to select the top MRI/3DS ranking females for herd
replacement and culling the lower ranked females would add
tremendous genetic improvement to his herd. Genetic improvement
through sire selection adds the most rapid herd improvement because
the bulls have more offspring than any female in the herd. The
cow-calf operator can use MRI/3DS evaluations for comparing,
ranking and selecting future herd sires. Entire MRI images or any
portion of referenced pixel or voxels can be used to permanently
I.ID the young cattle and track them throughout their herd life or
through the feedlot process and into the packing plant.
[0115] All of the above comparing, ranking and sorting applications
can be easily formulated to predicted maximum values (PMV) by
simply using the MRI and 3DS evaluations as a base and adjusting
the data with age adjustment factors. Additionally, as the calves
grow older, many factors may be used which included but are not
limited to those factors used in the feedlot segment such as sex,
weight, breed type, age, ration and climate. The MRI/3DS chute
apparatus and evaluation process as described in FIG. 1, FIG. 2 and
FIG. 3. are similar for the cow-calf segment needs except the
actual chute itself is smaller when applicable to accommodate the
younger animals. Whereas the MRI/3DS chute apparatus is designed
for permanent installation in the feedlot segment, it can also be
portable with a self-contained computer system to travel to remote
cow-calf operations and smaller feedlots.
[0116] Referring now to the dairy industry, the present invention
has numerous applications that include the milk secretions cell
count of bred heifers. Even though the milk secretion cells in the
developing mammary system may only be seen under a microscope, an
internal MRI evaluation provides a very accurate cell count within
the image area.
[0117] The MRI evaluation is used to determine the milk secretion
cell count for I.ID bred heifers as their mammary systems develop
prior to first calving. The cell count has a positive correlation
to future annual milk production yields. In a similar fashion to
the variation factors used in the feedlot segment of the beef
industry, the main variation factor in the milk secretion cell
count is the "stage of pregnancy". The number of cells increases as
the bred heifer approaches calving. For example, if a heifer 40
days from calving has the same number of milk cells as a second
heifer 20 days away from calving, then the 40 day heifer would be
adjusted to have a higher milk cell count. Again, in the dairy
segment the predicted maximum milk yield (PMMY) formula is very
simple. The basic cell counts are then adjusted taking into
consideration the stage of pregnancy. Once completed bred heifers
are compared, ranked, graded and sorted into groups of like kinds
by their PMMY for annual milk production. For example, groupings
could include but are not limited to heifers with predicted annual
milk production averages as follows; A. greater than 35,000 pounds
of milk, B. 35,000 to 25,000 pounds of milk, and C. less than
25,000 pounds of milk.
[0118] Again, the 3DS external evaluations add additional
advantages to the sorting process. A 3DS evaluation for each heifer
can be accomplished at anytime but is preferably done in concert
with the MRI evaluation. The 3-D surface modeling of the animal
measures linear, volumetric and angular conformation traits.
Included in but not limited to these measured traits are stature,
width of chest, depth of heart, width of rump, volume of body
(belly), angle of rump, mammary and correct angle of feet and legs.
All of these functional traits either directly or indirectly
provide the animal with strength, the ability to convert large
volumes of feed to milk, ease of calving annually and add longevity
to maintaining high levels of milk production within the herd. It
is also possible to incorporate these traits into factors in the
PMMY formula. Heifers as well as young milking cows can be
evaluated with the 3DS and compared and sorted with like kinds.
Those skilled in the art will recognize that animals that rank in
the highest group for the MRI evaluations for predicted annual milk
production yield and excel in the 3DS evaluations for conformation
traits will have the best chance to achieve maximum lifetime milk
production.
[0119] As explained in the beef feedlot segment, the computer
system can also be used to direct the sorted heifers to pens of
like kinds in larger heifer operations. In addition, a system as
shown and described in FIG. 10 and FIG. 11 is useful for sorting
heifers after a feeding period.
[0120] The computer systems, programming, and software resulting in
the MRI/3DS evaluation(s) can be used independently at any location
or in conjunction with existing industry computer systems and the
MRI/3DS evaluation data, predicted timeframe data, PDMV data, PMV
data, PMMY data, predicted milk production, predicted maximum value
data or any other data deem necessary will be compiled from any and
all locations to a main frame computer. This allows for quality
control, translation, interpretation and any interaction of any
data between any segment of the beef industry and the dairy
industry.
[0121] While the general inventive concepts and systems have been
described in connection with illustrative and presently preferred
embodiments thereof, it is intended that other embodiments of these
general concepts and systems be included with the scope of the
claims of this application and any patent issued therefrom. It is
contemplated that use of the present system will enable an enhanced
knowledge with respect to the correlation between internal and
external measurable characteristics and traits, predictable maximum
values, and timeframes needed to reach those maximum values based
on past maximum performances of carcasses or animal and their
offspring. While the general concepts and systems of the invention
have been illustrated and described by reference to a particular
kind of animal and carcasses, i.e., beef animal, it is to be
understood and it is contemplated that the general concepts may be
applied to other kinds of animals or animal carcasses, such as
swine, buffalo, dairy cattle, horses, poultry, exotic meat
producing animal, etc. for any worthwhile purpose.
* * * * *