with reference now to the figures , fig1 is a pictorial representation of a distributed data processing system in which the present invention may be implemented . distributed data processing system 100 is a network of computers in which the present invention may be implemented . distributed data processing system 100 contains a network 102 , which is the medium used to provide communications links between various devices and computers connected together within distributed data processing system 100 . network 102 may include permanent connections , such as wire or fiber optic cables , or temporary connections made through telephone connections . in the depicted example , a franchiser computer or server 104 is connected to network 102 along with storage unit 110 . in addition , clients 106 , 108 and 110 also are connected to network 102 . these clients 106 , 108 and 110 may be , for example , personal computers or network computers representing a feedlot , a beef packer and contract growers , respectively . for purposes of this application , a network computer is any computer coupled to a network , which receives a program or other application from another computer coupled to the network . in the depicted example , server 104 provides data , such as boot files , operating system images , and applications to clients 106 , 108 , 110 . clients 106 , 108 and 110 are clients to server 104 . distributed data processing system 100 may include additional servers , clients , and other devices not shown . in the depicted example , distributed data processing system 100 is the internet , with network 102 representing a worldwide collection of networks and gateways that use the tcp / ip suite of protocols to communicate with one another . at the heart of the internet is a backbone of high - speed data communication lines between major nodes or host computers , consisting of thousands of commercial , government , education , and other computer systems that route data and messages . of course , distributed data processing system 100 also may be implemented as a number of different types of networks , such as , for example , an intranet , a local area network ( lan ), or a wide area network ( wan ). fig1 is intended as an example and not as an architectural limitation for the present invention . with reference now to fig2 information related to the various usda yield and meat grades assigned to slaughter cattle are shown . slaughter cattle are graded according to the quantity and quality of meat produced from the cattle carcass . as such , the grades are based on two factors ( 1 ) the quality or palatability of the beef which are indicators of the meat lean referred to as “ quality grade ” and ( 2 ) the quantity or cutability of the meat based on the percentage of the carcass containing the major retail cuts of trimmed boneless meat which is identified as the “ yield grade .” usda quality grades are used to predict the palatability of meat from a beef animal or carcass , using carcass physiological maturity and marbling to determine the usda grade . beef quality refers to the expected eating characteristics ( tenderness , juiciness , and flavor ) of the cooked product . usda quality grades are used to reflect differences in expected eating quality among slaughter cattle and their carcasses . the eight usda quality grades for beef are shown in fig2 . eating quality generally is most desirable for “ prime beef ” and least desirable for “ canner beef .” the quality grade of a beef carcass is determined by evaluating carcass indicators of physiological maturity and marbling . the age of a beef animal has a direct effect on tenderness of the meat it produces . as cattle mature , their meat becomes progressively tougher . to account for the effects of the maturing process on beef tenderness , evaluations of carcass maturity are used in determining usda quality grades . beef carcass maturity is determined by evaluating ( a ) the size , shape and ossification of the bones and cartilages in the carcass , and ( b ) the color and texture of the ribeye muscle . in younger animals , there is a piece of cartilage on the top of each bone in the vertebral column . during maturation , these regions of cartilage gradually change to bone . this ossification process normally occurs in a definite measurable pattern . the sacral vertebrae usually show the first signs of ossification . ossification gradually progresses toward the head through the lumbar region and , finally , through the thoracic regions of the backbone . within a maturity group , marbling ( the amount and distribution of intramuscular fat ) within the ribeye is the primary determinant of usda quality grade . visual evaluations of marbling in the ribeye are related to differences in eating quality of beef . beef cuts with high levels of marbling are more likely to be tender , juicy and flavorful than cuts with very low levels of marbling . market studies suggest that beef from carcasses grading at least usda select is likely to be acceptable in eating quality for most consumers . after maturity and marbling are determined , these two factors are combined to determine usda quality grade . generally , the prime , choice , select and standard grades are restricted to beef from young cattle . the commercial , utility , cutter and canner grades normally are comprised of carcasses produced by cattle of advanced maturity . carcasses produced by bullocks are eligible only for the prime , choice , select , standard and utility grades , while mature bulls are ineligible for quality grading . usda yield grades estimate beef carcass cutability , which is defined as the combined yield of closely trimmed , boneless retail cuts (% ctbrc ) from the round , loin , rib and chuck . this is an estimate of the relative amount of lean , edible meat from a carcass . there are five yield grades for slaughter cattle and beef carcasses . the lower the numerical value of the usda yield grade , the higher the yield of closely trimmed , boneless retail cuts . usda yield grades are used to estimate the expected edible lean meat , with a usda yg 1 being the leanest and a usda yg 5 being the fattest . the yield grade of a beef carcass is determined by evaluating the following factors : ( 1 ) external fat thickness over the ribeye , ( 2 ) ribeye area , ( 3 ) estimated percentage of kidney , pelvic and heart fat (% kph ), and ( 4 ) hot carcass weight . fat thickness is measured at a point three - fourths of the distance of the length of the ribeye from its chine bone side . this single measurement is a reasonably accurate predictor of overall carcass fatness ; however , to improve the accuracy of the predictions of overall carcass fatness , the fat thickness measurement usually is adjusted up or down by the grader to account for visible differences in the distribution of external fat in other areas of the carcass . the relationship between ribeye area and carcass weight is used in yield grading beef carcasses to reflect differences in cutability stemming from carcass muscularity . ribeye area normally ranges from about 9 to 17 square inches among carcasses of common weights and can be measured using the plastic grid . fat deposits around the kidney and heat , and in the pelvic cavity , typically are left in the carcass during the slaughter process and affect carcass cutability . most carcasses have 1 % to 4 % of the carcass weight represented as kidney , pelvic and heart fat . yg = 2 . 5 + ( 2 . 5 × adjusted   fat   thickness ,  in . ) + ( . 20 × kph   % ) - ( . 32 ×  ribeye   area ,  sq .  in . ) + ( . 0038 × hot   carcass   weight ,  lbs . )   while the usda grader may use this equation occasionally , most determinations are based upon the grader &# 39 ; s experience and training , checking occasionally with the formula when requested to do so . the same holds true for the grader &# 39 ; s determination of the usda quality grade . consumers and producers often do not have a clear understanding of beef grading . beef grades are of two types , quality grades and yield grades . most consumers are familiar with the names of several quality grades and may use them as a selection criterion when purchasing at retail . however , yield grades have less direct impact on consumer selection decisions . producers , on the other hand , depend greatly on both quality and yield grads as a marketing tool for beef cattle and carcasses . [ 0033 ] fig3 is a flow chart depiction of the present invention showing the method of cattle production designed by the franchiser for implementation by the contract grower . initially , the franchiser and contract grower enter into a contract governing the relationship between the parties ( step 302 ). next , proprietary cattle breeding , genetics and vaccination programs developed by the franchiser are instituted by the contract grower ( step 304 ). in return , the franchiser guarantees a sale price for a selected yield and / or quality grade of cattle produced by the contract grower for that particular season ( step 306 ). alternatively , the contract grower may retain the calves produced that season and “ stock ” the contract grower herd with genetically superior bulls and heifers for calf production the following year . the cattle selected for sale that season are sent to a feedlot for weight maximization , while a sale price is negotiated between the franchisor or contract grower with the beef packer and / or feedlot based on live carcass weight and other physical characteristics . the cattle are then processed and carcass data is provided to and recorded by the franchiser directly from the packer or by a third party service ( step 308 ). this data is stored in the franchisor &# 39 ; s database and a copy may be relayed to the contract grower for his records . from this data , the franchiser makes determinations on future breeding and vaccination program adjustments to optimize calf production for the next season by retaining cattle which display desired beef quality characteristics for future breeding ( step 310 ) and culling and selling off cattle with little or no reproductive or genetic value ( step 312 ). [ 0034 ] fig4 is a flow chart showing the economic maximization of profit for both the franchiser and contract grower arising from the method disclosed herein . initially , the franchiser and contract grower have entered into an agreement whereby the contract grower produces cattle according to the proprietary fertility , vaccination , and stress reducing methods of production developed by the franchisor ( step 402 ). for example , a consistent cattle vaccination program will minimize sickness and death among the herd . improving the uniformity of the calving “ season ” will aid in the recognition and sale of poor quality or non - producing cows and replacing them with more efficient and younger heifers . likewise , reducing the environmental stress by uniform and consistent watering , feeding and vaccination improve the overall health of the herd and beef quality characteristics . after the cattle selected for sale and processing have been identified , the market price of the sale cattle is considered by the contract grower ( step 404 ). if the producer &# 39 ; s cattle sell at a price above existing market prices , the producer sells the cattle and retains a percentage of the profits ( step 406 ), while the remaining profit is paid to the franchiser as a royalty under the franchise agreement ( step 408 ). alternatively , if the producer &# 39 ; s cattle price at or below existing market prices , the producer sells a predetermined number of cattle to the franchisor at a guaranteed price at or above market prices ( step 410 ). likewise , the franchiser still profits from this sale as the franchiser has very little , if any , capital expenses and costs in the actual management of the contract grower &# 39 ; s cattle herd ( step 412 ).
the present invention relates to an improved cattle management method utilizing a franchised cattle management system licensed to contract cattle producers . the contract grower contract producers manage cattle according to given production guidelines from the franchiser that increases the carcass value at sale . the cattle producer retains a profit from the increased market value of the cattle produced according to the franchisor &# 39 ; s cattle production method . the franchiser receives a royalty from the contract cattle producer with little or no capital expenses or costs associated with the maintenance and production of the cattle herd operated by the contract cattle producer .