History of the National CUP Lab™

1. History of the National CUP Lab™

2. Definitions • CUP – Centralized Ultrasound Processing • UGC – Ultrasound Guidelines Council • The Governing body of beef ultrasound in the USA/NA • The CUP Lab™ - Walter & Associates • Lab Tech – image interpreter • Field Tech – image collector

3. History of CUP • 1997 began at Iowa State University (AAA funded project) • Initially set up to be technician driven • Protocols and standards established • Fall 2000 – CUP Lab must leave ISU • January 2001 - Walter & Associates begins operation

4. The “CUP Lab™” System • Standardized carcass ultrasound image collection and interpretation • Used to insure uniformity and accuracy of carcass ultrasound data for genetic evaluations • Field and lab techs must be UGC certified

5. UGC • Prior to UGC – ISU controlled all aspects of software, staff, protocols and certifications • July 2001 – US Beef Breeds Council adopts basic structure for UGC • Test and certify both lab and field technicians • Test and certify interpretation software

6. The National CUP Lab™ • Exclusive CUP software • Hires only UGC Certified Lab Techs • CUP interpretation methods & image quality scoring • Extensive data cross-checking, verification and quality control • Database - consistent data transfer to associations • Archives data and images • Holds field and lab technicians accountable

7. From the Field • Images collected and sent to Lab • CORF = Chute Order Recording Form • Barn sheets contain ID, scan wt., sex, mgmt., grouping, etc. • Images, barn sheets, CORF, and payment sent to CUP Lab™ (mail, express, FTP, fax) • UICS simplifies this process

8. Equipment Used • 4 frame grabbers • USB • PXC200 • CX100 • VCE • 4 Ultrasound systems • Aquila • Pie 200 (Classic) • Old Aloka • New Aloka

9. Images Collected • % IMF – 4-5 images • Ribeye • Rump

10. Rump

11. REA

12. Pfat

13. Arrival at the CUP Lab™ Images Received Hold Image Loading Interpretation Hold Weights/Matching Cross-Check Reports Association/Breeder

14. www.cuplab.com

17. Full Time Staff

18. Board of Directors

19. CUP Lab Technicians

20. Our Lab Technicians • The best and the brightest applicants • Rigorous training • UGC Certified • Ongoing training and oversight

21. UGC Lab CertificationPass Rate

22. 2006 Aloka SEP

23. 2005 Aloka SEP

24. Centralized Interpretation Advantages • Bias minimized • Interpretations much more consistent • Data reported in standardized electronic format • Added level of integrity due to the unbiased nature of the system

25. IMF Models

26. Models History • 1995– ISU Old Aloka • 1997– ISU Classic/Pie 200 • 2001– ILIA Models – Aloka Only • 2007– CUP Lab True Grade IMF models used exclusively

27. 2002 UGC Software Certification Correlation

28. IMF Model Problems/Challenges • Dark images • Compressed data (not identifying outlier animals) • Model development on one machine one type of cattle • Box size (ROI) • New frame grabbers and ultrasound machines (PXC200, New Aloka, etc.)

29. New IMF Model R & D • 2005 our project began to improve models • Sought out highly recognized medical ultrasound expert & software developer • Consulted with respected statistician from ISU to design models

30. Data collection • 3 types of scanners with 2 frame grabbers each • Scanned within one week of harvest • Angus & X-bred feedlot steers and heifers • 24 hours post-slaughter ribeye slivers were collected and EE analysis was conducted at Iowa State University Meat Lab

31. Results • Resulting models were tested for fit against multiple systems • Mixed results

32. Additional Data • Scanned more cattle • Multiple scanners incorporated

33. Results • New models were just as accurate as the first attempt models (error) • However - more robust IMF calculations across multiple systems • Preliminary research was submitted to UGC Statistical Subcommittee for evaluation

34. UGC Certification • 76 animal were scanned at 2 Iowa feedlots fall of 2006 • Group 1 - 40 crossbred steers • Group 2 - 36 primarily Angus steers • Ether Extract and our IMF Interpretations submitted to UGC • Statistics were reviewed by UGC Statistical Subcommittee

35. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2006 Harvest Group #1

36. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2006 Harvest Group #2

37. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2006 Overall Statistics

38. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2006Correlation

39. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2006Standard Error

40. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2006%IMF Spread

41. Other IMF Software Differences

42. Percent Intramuscular Fat Prediction Models • Dramatic improvement in spread • Lower Standard Error of Prediction • Higher Rank Correlation • Improved Region of Interest (ROI) • Higher Correlation with EE %IMF • USDA Quality Grade Correlation

43. 2007 IMF Models • Evaluate the new USB frame grabber on the Aquila, Old and New Aloka, and Pie 200 (Classic) at 5 FPS for all traits • UGC evaluated data from 46 steers • Same procedures as 2006

44. 2007 CUP Lab UGC Software Certification

45. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2007Correlation

46. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2007Standard Error

47. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2007Rank Correlation

48. UGC CUP Software Certification Winter 2007IMF Spread

49. UICS