Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33626149›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science2021

ASAS-NANP SYMPOSIUM: Applications of machine learning for livestock body weight prediction from digital images.

Zhuoyi Wang, Saeed Shadpour, Esther Chan, Vanessa Rotondo, Katharine M Wood, Dan Tulpan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Recent Advances in Vision-Based Beef Cattle Body Measurement Technologies.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Impacts of heat stress on growth performance and its mitigation in small ruminants.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Machine Vision Analysis of Ujumqin Sheep's Walking Posture and Body Size.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhuoyi WangDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Saeed ShadpourDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Esther ChanDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Vanessa RotondoDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Katharine M WoodDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Dan TulpanDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
University of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLivestockAnimalsBody WeightMachine LearningSelection, Geneticbiometricsbody weightcomputer visiondigital imagesmachine learningmorphometrics

Identifiers

PMID33626149
PMCPMC7904040
OpenAlexW3132295338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.