ASAS-NANP SYMPOSIUM: Applications of machine learning for livestock body weight prediction from digital images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring, recording, and predicting livestock body weight (BW) allows for timely intervention in diets and health, greater efficiency in genetic selection, and identification of optimal times to market animals because animals that have already reached the point of slaughter represent a burden for the feedlot. There are currently two main approaches (direct and indirect) to measure the BW in livestock. Direct approaches include partial-weight or full-weight industrial scales placed in designated locations on large farms that measure passively or dynamically the weight of livestock. While these devices are very accurate, their acquisition, intended purpose and operation size, repeated calibration and maintenance costs associated with their placement in high-temperature variability, and corrosive environments are significant and beyond the affordability and sustainability limits of small and medium size farms and even of commercial operators. As a more affordable alternative to direct weighing approaches, indirect approaches have been developed based on observed or inferred relationships between biometric and morphometric measurements of livestock and their BW. Initial indirect approaches involved manual measurements of animals using measuring tapes and tubes and the use of regression equations able to correlate such measurements with BW. While such approaches have good BW prediction accuracies, they are time consuming, require trained and skilled farm laborers, and can be stressful for both animals and handlers especially when repeated daily. With the concomitant advancement of contactless electro-optical sensors (e.g., 2D, 3D, infrared cameras), computer vision (CV) technologies, and artificial intelligence fields such as machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), 2D and 3D images have started to be used as biometric and morphometric proxies for BW estimations. This manuscript provides a review of CV-based and ML/DL-based BW prediction methods and discusses their strengths, weaknesses, and industry applicability potential.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".