Thermal imaging of feedlot cattle ears is a noninvasive diagnostic tool that aids in identifying properly placed or abscessed growth-promoting implants. Thirty-two calves were used to determine if abscessed and normal, functional implants could be identified and differentiated using infrared thermography. Infrared images were taken at implantation on days 2, 4, 7, 14, and 21 after implantation. Abscessed implants were easily identified. Use of thermal imaging can verify implant administration and, thus, has the potential to immediately impact feedlot quality assurance programs

Drouillard, James S.

Galland, J.C.

Spire, M.F.

English

Kansas State University

Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports Volume 0 Issue 1 Cattleman's Day (1993-2014) Article 522 1998 Early detection of problem implants using infrared thermography M.F. Spire J.C. Galland James S. Drouillard This report is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. Copyright 1998 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned. K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr  Part of the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Spire, M.F.; Galland, J.C.; and Drouillard, James S. (1998) "Early detection of problem implants using infrared thermography," Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 0: Iss. 1. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.1925 Early detection of problem implants using infrared thermography Abstract Thermal imaging of feedlot cattle ears is a noninvasive diagnostic tool that aids in identifying properly placed or abscessed growth-promoting implants. Thirty-two calves were used to determine if abscessed and normal, functional implants could be identified and differentiated using infrared thermography. Infrared images were taken at implantation on days 2, 4, 7, 14, and 21 after implantation. Abscessed implants were easily identified. Use of thermal imaging can verify implant administration and, thus, has the potential to immediately impact feedlot quality assurance programs. Keywords Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station contribution; no. 97-309-S; Report of progress (Kansas State University. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service); 804; Cattlemen's Day, 1998; Beef; Infrared thermography; Feedlot cattle Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This research report is available in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: https://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr/vol0/iss1/522 The authors express their appreciation to Ft. Dodge Animal Health for providing grant1support of this research.Food Animal Health and Management Center, College of Veterinary Medicine2118Cattlemen’s Day 1998EARLY DETECTION OF PROBLEM IMPLANTSUSING INFRARED THERMOGRAPHY1M. F. Spire , J. C. Galland ,2 2and J. S. DrouillardSummaryThermal imaging of feedlot cattle ears is remotely and non-invasively detect problema noninvasive diagnostic tool that aids in implants. This experiment was designed toidentifying properly placed or abscessed determine if variation over time exists in thegrowth-promoting implants. Thirty-two thermographic appearance of ears implantedcalves were used to determine if abscessed with normally functioning growth-promotantand normal, functional implants could be implants and improperly functioningidentified and differentiated using infrared abscessed implants.thermography. Infrared images were taken atimplantation on days 2, 4, 7, 14, and 21 afterimplantation. Abscessed implants were easilyidentified. Use of thermal imaging can verify A total of 32 calves was assignedimplant administration and, thus, has the randomly to one of two treatment groups.potential to immediately impact feedlot qual- Group A (normal implant) received aity assurance programs. Synovex-Plus implant following disinfectionIntroductionProblem implants in fed cattle result in with fecal material. Half of each treatmenteconomic losses ranging from $2.70 to $4.94 group received the implant in the left ear.per head implanted. Much of the observed The remaining calves were implanted in theloss is attributed to abscessed implants, miss- right ear. The nonimplanted ear on each calfing implants and improper implantation tech- served as the control for thermographicnique that causes variation in the surface area comparisons. Thermographic images of theof the implant. Factors affecting implant front and back of the ears of each calf weresurface area will alter product release. The obtained on trial days 0, 2, 4, 7, 14, and 21full extent of the problem rate can be assessed using an Amber Engineering Radiance PM,only by observing 100% of implant sites 7 to high resolution, shortwave length (3-5 Fm),21 days after implanting. The repeated han- radiometric, infrared, thermal-imaging unit.dling of feedlot cattle necessary for 100% All thermographic images were taken from ainspection is a major drawback for correctingproblem implants. Infrared thermography canExperimental Proceduresof the ear. Group B (abscessed implant)received a Synovex-Plus implant in which theear and the implant needle were contaminated119distance of about 3 ft, with the animal in functional implanted ears on postimplantationstanding restraint in a hydraulic squeeze days 4 and 7 (P<.001). Thermography alsochute. Temperature measurements were detected temperature differences betweendetermined from an area on the front of the functional implanted ears and nonimplantedear or on the back of the ear at the base, control ears on day 2 postimplantation usingmiddle, and tip. images of either the front or back and on dayA randomized, complete block design Figure 1 demonstrates the least square meanwas used to investigate the thermographic temperatures of abscessed implanted ears,patterns of cattle with normal, functional functional implanted ears, and nonimplantedgrowth-promotant ear implants vs. cattle with control ears on day 4 postimplantation atabscessed implants. Repeated measures various locations on the ear.analysis of variance was used to determinethe relationships among distribution of tem- Thermal imaging is a remote, non-perature for the entire ear and the zone sur- invasive tool capable of detectingrounding the implant (the response variables) temperature differences between functionaland treatment; pen; treatment×pen interac- implanted, abscessed implanted, and non-tion; time, treatment×time interaction; and implanted ears. Thermal imaging within theside (ear) of placement (the explanatory first 2 weeks after arrival in the feedyard or atvariables) for the front, back, and front/back reimplanting after 60-70 days is a useful toolof each implanted ear. Mean temperatures that can aid in identifying properly placed orbetween normal implants vs. abscessed im- abscessed growth-promoting implants placedplants were contrasted. in the ears of feedlot cattle. Its use to assessResults and DiscussionImages of the front or back of the ear potential lies in the ability of thermal imagingwere comparable on postimplantation days 2, to differentiate between functional implants4, 7, and 14 when used to differentiate ab- and nonfunctional (abscessed or missing) im-scessed ears from the nonimplanted ear. The plants in the pen (Figure 2). Once identified,side (left or right) of implantation did not cattle with nonfunctional implants can beaffect detection of abscessed vs. functional reimplanted and returned immediately to theirimplants. Thermal imaging the front of the home pen with a functional implant.ear detected the difference between an ab-scessed implant and a functional implant onpostimplantation days 2, 4, 7, and 14(P<.001). Abscessed implanted ears imagedfrom the front were found to be 32.9EF ±5.02 warmer than functional implanted earson day 4.Image of the back of the ear detected temper-ature differences between abscessed and4 when the ear was viewed from the rear.the efficiency of implanting by processingcrews has the potential to immediately impactquality assurance programs. Far greaterFront  Tip  Middle BaseLocation on EarFigure 1. Least Square Mean Temperatures by Location on Ear, Day 4 Only, forAbscessed Implanted Ears, Functional Implanted Ears, and NonimplantedControl Ears.Figure 2. Thermal Image of Feedlot Heifers Taken in Pen. Heifer in Foreground Hasa Functional Implant in Right Ear (4.0°F Warmer than Right Ear). Heiferin Background Has an Abscessed Implant in Left Ear (17.7°F Warmer thanLeft Ear). (Black=cold, White=hot).120

Early detection of problem implants using infrared thermography (1998)

https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1925&amp;context=kaesrr

Early detection of problem implants using infrared thermography

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Kansas State University