Topic Editors

Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Instituto Literario 100, Toluca 50000, CP, Mexico
Departamento de Anatomía, Producción Animal y Ciencias Clínicas Veterinarias, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Facultad de Veterinaria, Campus Terra, Lugo, Spain
Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Periférico R. Aldama Km 1, Chihuahua 31031, Mexico

Precision Feeding and Management of Farm Animals, 2nd Edition

Abstract submission deadline
30 June 2024
Manuscript submission deadline
31 August 2024
Viewed by
1892

Topic Information

Dear Colleagues,

The increase in demand for animal products, due to recent demographic and dietary changes, as well as societal concerns related to the environment (climate change), reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGe), human health (non-use of antibiotics and synthetic growth promoters) and animal welfare (increase in organic production systems) has led to the development of precision livestock farming (PLF) technologies, which provide farmers with a real-time monitoring and management systems that could monitor real-time performance parameters, animal health and welfare, grazing patterns and animal feeding in a continuous and automated way, which offers the opportunity to improve productivity, evaluate production parameters and thus develop genetic selection strategies and/or detect health problems at an early stage.

The aim of this Topic is to address the above issues by exploring the potential of PLF and to discuss the possible benefits and risks arising from the use of such technologies.

Prof. Dr. Manuel Gonzalez-Ronquillo
Prof. Dr. Marta I. Miranda Castañón
Prof. Dr. Einar Vargas-Bello-Pérez
Topic Editors

Keywords

  • precision livestock farming
  • animal welfare
  • bolus
  • satellite image
  • sensor
  • sound based
  • radio frequency identification
  • modelling
  • sustainable agriculture

Participating Journals

Journal Name Impact Factor CiteScore Launched Year First Decision (median) APC
Agriculture
agriculture
3.6 3.6 2011 17.7 Days CHF 2600 Submit
Animals
animals
3.0 4.2 2011 18.1 Days CHF 2400 Submit
Poultry
poultry
- - 2022 25.1 Days CHF 1000 Submit
Ruminants
ruminants
- - 2021 20.9 Days CHF 1000 Submit

Preprints.org is a multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that is dedicated to sharing your research from the start and empowering your research journey.

MDPI Topics is cooperating with Preprints.org and has built a direct connection between MDPI journals and Preprints.org. Authors are encouraged to enjoy the benefits by posting a preprint at Preprints.org prior to publication:

  1. Immediately share your ideas ahead of publication and establish your research priority;
  2. Protect your idea from being stolen with this time-stamped preprint article;
  3. Enhance the exposure and impact of your research;
  4. Receive feedback from your peers in advance;
  5. Have it indexed in Web of Science (Preprint Citation Index), Google Scholar, Crossref, SHARE, PrePubMed, Scilit and Europe PMC.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Journals
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
13 pages, 511 KiB  
Article
Evaluation of Precision Ingredient Inclusion on Production Efficiency Responses in Finishing Beef Cattle
Ruminants 2024, 4(1), 112-124; https://doi.org/10.3390/ruminants4010007 (registering DOI) - 22 Feb 2024
Viewed by 74
Abstract
Two randomized complete block design experiments evaluated the influence that varying degrees of ingredient inclusion accuracy in a finishing diet have on growth performance and carcass traits. Treatments included (1) normal inclusion tolerance with a 0.454 kg tolerance for all ingredients (CON) or [...] Read more.
Two randomized complete block design experiments evaluated the influence that varying degrees of ingredient inclusion accuracy in a finishing diet have on growth performance and carcass traits. Treatments included (1) normal inclusion tolerance with a 0.454 kg tolerance for all ingredients (CON) or (2) variable inclusion tolerance where each ingredient was randomly increased or decreased but the targeted as-fed quantity for the daily delivery was met (VAR). In Experiment. 1, black Angus heifers (n = 60; initial shrunk BW = 460 ± 26.2 kg) were used in a 112 d experiment. Ten pens in total (5 pens/treatment, 6 heifers/pen) were used. The targeted diet (DM basis) consisted of high-moisture ear corn (75%), dried distiller’s grains (20%), and a liquid supplement (5%). As-fed inclusion rates for DDGS and LS varied from formulated targets by −20, −15, −10, −5, 0, +5, +10, +15 or +20%. The HMEC inclusion was adjusted so that the targeted as-fed amount of the diet was delivered daily. Treatment did not alter ADG, DMI, G:F, HCW, dressing percentage, rib-eye area, rib fat, USDA marbling score, KPH, yield grade, retail yield, empty body fat, or body weight at 28% estimated EBF, nor liver abscess prevalence or severity (p ≥ 0.15). In Exp. 2, Charolais–Angus cross steers (n = 128; initial shrunk BW = 505 ± 32.1 kg) were used in a 94 d experiment. Steers were assigned to pens (8 pens/treatment; 8 steers/pen) and one of the two management strategies used in Exp. 1 was employed. Ractopamine HCl was fed (300 mg per head daily) during the final 28 d. Diets consisted of (DM basis) dry-rolled corn (63%), dried distiller’s grains plus solubles (15%), liquid supplement (5%), grass hay (7%), and corn silage (10%). Ingredient inclusions were randomized in the same manner as Exp. 1, except LS inclusion was held constant. Corn silage inclusion was adjusted so that the targeted as-fed amount of the diet was delivered each day. Steers from VAR had increased (p = 0.01) DMI, but similar (p = 0.75) ADG resulting in reduced (p ≤ 0.02) G:F and growth-performance-predicted Net Energy for maintenance and gain. Treatment did not influence (p ≥ 0.38) HCW, dressing percentage, rib-eye area, rib fat, KPH, yield grade, retail yield, empty body fat, or body weight at 28% estimated EBF. A tendency for an increased USDA marbling score (p = 0.08) was noted in VAR. Under the conditions of this experiment, randomly altering ingredient proportions can impact growth performance and efficiency measures depending upon the type of finishing diet fed. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 3871 KiB  
Review
Computer Vision-Based Measurement Techniques for Livestock Body Dimension and Weight: A Review
Agriculture 2024, 14(2), 306; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020306 - 14 Feb 2024
Viewed by 407
Abstract
Acquiring phenotypic data from livestock constitutes a crucial yet cumbersome phase in the breeding process. Traditionally, obtaining livestock phenotypic data primarily involves manual, on-body measurement methods. This approach not only requires extensive labor but also induces stress on animals, which leads to potential [...] Read more.
Acquiring phenotypic data from livestock constitutes a crucial yet cumbersome phase in the breeding process. Traditionally, obtaining livestock phenotypic data primarily involves manual, on-body measurement methods. This approach not only requires extensive labor but also induces stress on animals, which leads to potential economic losses. Presently, the integration of next-generation Artificial Intelligence (AI), visual processing, intelligent sensing, multimodal fusion processing, and robotic technology is increasingly prevalent in livestock farming. The advantages of these technologies lie in their rapidity and efficiency, coupled with their capability to acquire livestock data in a non-contact manner. Based on this, we provide a comprehensive summary and analysis of the primary advanced technologies employed in the non-contact acquisition of livestock phenotypic data. This review focuses on visual and AI-related techniques, including 3D reconstruction technology, body dimension acquisition techniques, and live animal weight estimation. We introduce the development of livestock 3D reconstruction technology and compare the methods of obtaining 3D point cloud data of livestock through RGB cameras, laser scanning, and 3D cameras. Subsequently, we explore body size calculation methods and compare the advantages and disadvantages of RGB image calculation methods and 3D point cloud body size calculation methods. Furthermore, we also compare and analyze weight estimation methods of linear regression and neural networks. Finally, we discuss the challenges and future trends of non-contact livestock phenotypic data acquisition. Through emerging technologies like next-generation AI and computer vision, the acquisition, analysis, and management of livestock phenotypic data are poised for rapid advancement. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 2551 KiB  
Article
Farmers’ Perceptions on Implementing Automatic Milking Systems in Large USA Dairies: Decision-Making Process, Management Practices, Labor, and Herd Performance
Animals 2024, 14(2), 218; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14020218 - 09 Jan 2024
Viewed by 1011
Abstract
Automatic Milking System (AMS) installations are increasing in the USA despite the higher investment cost than conventional systems. Surveys on AMSs conducted outside the USA focused on small–medium herds, specific regions, or aspects of AMS milking. This study described farmers’ perceptions about the [...] Read more.
Automatic Milking System (AMS) installations are increasing in the USA despite the higher investment cost than conventional systems. Surveys on AMSs conducted outside the USA focused on small–medium herds, specific regions, or aspects of AMS milking. This study described farmers’ perceptions about the decision-making process of adopting an AMS in the USA’s large dairies (≥7 AMS boxes) regarding changes in technology, housing, management practices, labor, herd performance, and health. After being contacted, 27 of 55 farmers from large AMS herds completed the survey. The main reasons for adopting an AMS were labor costs, cows’ welfare, and herd performance. Most farms constructed new barns, used a free-flow traffic system, and changed their feed management. Increases in water and energy use were perceived by 42% and 62% of farmers, respectively. Farmers estimated decreases in labor costs of over 21%, and AMS employees worked 40–60 h/week. Milk production increases were reported by 58%, with 32% observing higher milk fat and protein content. Easier sick cow detection, better mastitis management, and improvements in pregnancy rates were reported. Thus, farmers transitioning to AMSs perceived altered resource utilization, labor cost savings, and improvements in employee quality of life, animal welfare, and farm management. While 54% of respondents would recommend an AMS to other farms, 38% suggested considering additional aspects prior to adoption. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop