Early detection of problem implants using infrared thermography

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.


Introduction
Problem implants in fed cattle result in with fecal material.Half of each treatment economic 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 the loss is attributed to abscessed implants, miss-right ear.The nonimplanted ear on each calf ing implants and improper implantation tech-served as the control for thermographic nique that causes variation in the surface area comparisons.Thermographic images of the of the implant.Factors affecting implant front and back of the ears of each calf were surface area will alter product release.The obtained on trial days 0, 2, 4, 7, 14, and 21 full 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 a inspection is a major drawback for correcting problem implants.Infrared thermography can

Experimental Procedures
of the ear.Group B (abscessed implant) received a Synovex-Plus implant in which the ear and the implant needle were contaminated distance of about 3 ft, with the animal in functional implanted ears on postimplantation standing restraint in a hydraulic squeeze days 4 and 7 (P<.001).Thermography also chute.Temperature measurements were detected temperature differences between determined from an area on the front of the functional implanted ears and nonimplanted ear or on the back of the ear at the base, control ears on day 2 postimplantation using middle, and tip.
images of either the front or back and on day A randomized, complete block design Figure 1 demonstrates the least square mean was used to investigate the thermographic temperatures of abscessed implanted ears, patterns of cattle with normal, functional functional implanted ears, and nonimplanted growth-promotant ear implants vs. cattle with control ears on day 4 postimplantation at abscessed implants.Repeated measures various locations on the ear.analysis of variance was used to determine the relationships among distribution of tem-Thermal imaging is a remote, nonperature for the entire ear and the zone sur-invasive tool capable of detecting rounding the implant (the response variables) temperature differences between functional and treatment; pen; treatment×pen interac-implanted, abscessed implanted, and nontion; time, treatment×time interaction; and implanted ears.Thermal imaging within the side (ear) of placement (the explanatory first 2 weeks after arrival in the feedyard or at variables) for the front, back, and front/back reimplanting after 60-70 days is a useful tool of each implanted ear.Mean temperatures that can aid in identifying properly placed or between normal implants vs. abscessed im-abscessed growth-promoting implants placed plants were contrasted.
in the ears of feedlot cattle.Its use to assess

Results and Discussion
Images of the front or back of the ear potential lies in the ability of thermal imaging were comparable on postimplantation days 2, to differentiate between functional implants 4, 7, and 14 when used to differentiate ab-and nonfunctional (abscessed or missing) imscessed 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 be affect detection of abscessed vs. functional reimplanted and returned immediately to their implants.Thermal imaging the front of the home pen with a functional implant.ear detected the difference between an abscessed implant and a functional implant on postimplantation days 2, 4, 7, and 14 (P<.001).Abscessed implanted ears imaged from the front were found to be 32.9EF ± 5.02 warmer than functional implanted ears on day 4.
Image of the back of the ear detected temperature differences between abscessed and 4 when the ear was viewed from the rear.the efficiency of implanting by processing crews has the potential to immediately impact quality assurance programs.Far greater

Tip
Middle Base Location on Ear

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Least Square Mean Temperatures by Location on Ear, Day 4 Only, for Abscessed Implanted Ears, Functional Implanted Ears, and Nonimplanted Control Ears.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Thermal Image of Feedlot Heifers Taken in Pen.Heifer in Foreground Has a Functional Implant in Right Ear (4.0°F Warmer than Right Ear).Heifer in Background Has an Abscessed Implant in Left Ear (17.7°FWarmer than Left Ear).(Black=cold, White=hot).