Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40542014›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Multistage pig identification using a sequential ear tag detection pipeline.

Martin Wutke, Damiano Debiasi, Shobhana Tomar, Jeanette Probst, Nicole Kemper, Kai Gevers, Marc-Alexander Lieboldt, Imke Traulsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Martin WutkeInstitute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, 24118, Germany. mwutke@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de.
Damiano DebiasiInstitute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, 24118, Germany.
Shobhana TomarInstitute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, 24118, Germany.
Jeanette ProbstInstitute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior (ITTN), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Nicole KemperInstitute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior (ITTN), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Kai GeversChamber of Agriculture Lower Saxony, Division Agriculture, Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Marc-Alexander LieboldtChamber of Agriculture Lower Saxony, Division Agriculture, Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Imke TraulsenInstitute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, 24118, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reliable animal identification in livestock husbandry is essential for various applications, including behavioral monitoring, welfare assessment, and the analysis of social structures. Although recent advancements in deep learning models have improved animal identification using biometric markers, their applicability remains limited for species without distinctive traits like pigs. Consequently, synthetic features such as ear tags have become widely adopted. However, challenges such as poor lighting conditions and the complexity of ear tag coding continue to restrict the effectiveness of Computer Vision and Deep Learning techniques. In this study, we introduce a robust, lighting-invariant method for individual pig identification that leverages commercially available ear tags within a sequential detection pipeline. Our approach employs four object detection models in succession to detect pigs, localize ear tags, perform rotation correction via pin detection, and recognize digits, ultimately generating a reliable ID proposal. In a first evaluation stage, we assessed the performance of each model independently, achieving a mAP0.95 value of 0.970, 0.979, 0.974 and 0.979 for the pig detection, ear tag detection, pin detection and ID classification model, respectively. In addition, our method was further evaluated in two different camera environments to assess its performance in both familiar and unfamiliar conditions. The results demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves a very high precision of 0.996 in a familiar top-down camera scenario and maintained a strong generalization performance in an unfamiliar, close-up setup with a precision of 0.913 and a recall of 0.903. Furthermore, by publicly proposing three custom datasets for ear tag, pin, and digit detection, we aim to support reproducibility and further research in automated animal identification for precision livestock farming. The findings of this study demonstrate the effectiveness of ID-based animal identification and the proposed method could be integrated within advanced multi-object tracking systems to enable continuous animal observation and for monitoring specific target areas, thereby significantly enhancing overall livestock management systems.

Indexed as

Animal Identification SystemsEarAnimal HusbandryAnimalsDeep LearningSwineAnimal identificationComputer visionYOLOv10

Identifiers

PMID40542014
PMCPMC12181370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.