HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Steiner, R. Articles by Smith, G. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Steiner, R. Articles by Smith, G. C.

Real-time augmentation of USDA yield grade application to beef carcasses using video image analysis^1,2

R. Steiner^*,3, A. M. Wyle, D. J. Vote^*, K. E. Belk^*,4, J. A. Scanga^*, J. W. Wise, J. D. Tatum^* and G. C. Smith^*

^* Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523-1171; and Research Management Systems, Inc., Fort Collins, CO 80526; and and USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock and Seed Program, Livestock and Meat Standardization Branch, Washington, DC 20090-6456

⁴ Correspondence: 7C Animal Science Bldg. (phone: 970-491-5826; fax: 970-491-0278; E-mail: Keith.Belk{at}colostate.edu).

In two phases, this study assessed the ability of two video image analysis (VIA) instruments, VIASCAN and Computer Vision System (CVS), to augment assignment of yield grades (YG) to beef carcasses to 0.1 of a YG at commercial packing plant speeds and to test cutout prediction accuracy of a YG augmentation system that used a prototype augmentation touch-panel grading display (designed to operate commercially in real-time). In Phase I, beef carcasses (n = 505) were circulated twice at commercial chain speeds (340 carcasses per hour) by 12 on-line USDA graders. During the first pass, on-line graders assigned a whole-number YG and a quality grade (QG) to carcasses as they would normally. During the second pass, on-line graders assigned only adjusted preliminary yield grades (APYG) and QG to carcasses, whereas the two VIA instruments measured the longissimus muscle area (LMA) of each carcass. Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat (KPH) was removed and weighed to allow computation of actual KPH percentage. Those traits were compared to the expert YG and expert YG factors. On-line USDA graders’ APYG were closely related (r = 0.83) to expert APYG. Instrument-measured LMA were closely related (r = 0.88 and 0.94; mean absolute error = 0.3 and 0.2 YG units, for VIASCAN and CVS, respectively) to expert LMA. When YG were augmented using instrument-measured LMA and computed either including or neglecting actual KPH percentage, YG were closely related (r = 0.93 and 0.92, mean absolute error = 0.32 and 0.40 YG units, respectively, using VIASCAN-measured LMA; r = 0.95 and 0.94, mean absolute error = 0.24 and 0.34 YG units, respectively, using CVS-measured LMA) to expert YG. In Phase II, augmented YG were assigned (0.1 of a YG) to beef carcasses (n = 290) at commercial chain speeds using VIASCAN and CVS to determine LMA, whereas APYG and QG were determined by on-line graders via a touch-panel display. On-line grader YG (whole-number), expert grader YG (to the nearest 0.1 of a YG), and VIASCAN- and CVS-augmented YG (to the nearest 0.1 of a YG) accounted for 55, 71, 60, and 63% of the variation in fabricated yields of closely trimmed subprimals, respectively, suggesting that VIA systems can operate at current plant speeds and effectively augment official USDA application of YG to beef carcasses.

Key Words: Augmentation • Beef • Carcass Grading • Carcass Yield • Image Analysis