preprints202007.0040.v1

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 July 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202007.0040.
v1
Review: Digitalization of Animal Farming
Suresh Neethirajan1*
1Ajna Consulting, 42 Edwards Street, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1E 0B3
* Corresponding author: Suresh Neethirajan. E-mail: sneethir@gmail.com
Running title: Digitalization of Animal Farming
Abstract
As the global human population increases, animal agriculture must adapt to provide more
animal products while also addressing concerns about animal welfare, environmental
sustainability, and public health. The purpose of this review is to discuss the digitalization
of animal farming with Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) technologies, specifically
biosensors, big data, and block chain technology. Biosensors are noninvasive or invasive
sensors that monitor an animal’s health and behavior in real time, allowing farmers to
monitor individual animals and integrate this data for population-level analyses. The data
from the sensors is processed using big data-processing techniques such as data
modelling. These technologies use algorithms to sort through large, complex data sets to
provide farmers with biologically relevant and usable data. Blockchain technology allows
for traceability of animal products from farm to table, a key advantage in monitoring
disease outbreaks and preventing related economic losses and food-related health
pandemics. With these PLF technologies, animal agriculture can become more
transparent and regain consumer trust. While the digitalization of animal farming has the
potential to address a number of pressing concerns, these technologies are relatively new.
The implementation of PLF technologies on farms will require increased collaboration
between farmers, animal scientists, and engineers to ensure that technologies can be
1
© 2020 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 July 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202007.0040.v1
used in realistic, on-farm conditions. These technologies will call for data models that can
sort through large amounts of data while accounting for specific variables and ensuring
automation, accessibility, and accuracy of data. Issues with data privacy, security, and
integration will need to be addressed before there can be multi-farm databases. Lastly,
the usage of blockchain technology in animal agriculture is still in its infancy; blockchain
technology has the potential to improve the traceability and transparency of animal
products, but more research is needed to realize its full potential. The digitalization of
animal farming can supply the necessary tools to provide sustainable animal products on
a global scale.
Keywords: Digitalization, sensor technology, block chain technology, data models,
livestock
Implications
Advanced technologies can help modern farms optimize their contribution per animal,
reduce the drudgery of repetitive farming tasks, and overcome less effective isolated
solutions. There is now a strong cultural emphasis on reducing animal experiments and
physical contact with animals in-order-to enhance animal welfare and avoid disease
outbreaks. These restrictions have the potential to fuel more research on the use of
sensors, big data and blockchain technology for the benefit of farm animals. Farmers'
autonomy and data-driven farming approaches compared to experience-driven animal
management are just a few of the several barriers that Digitalization must overcome before
it can become widely implemented.
2
Introduction
By the year 2050, the global human population is projected to reach over 9 million (FAO,
2011), approximately 2 million more than the current population (UN, 2019). This
population growth will occur primarily in underdeveloped countries, particularly in sub-
Saharan Africa (UN, 2019). As a result of population growth and increased development
in these countries, there will be an increased demand for animal products. Livestock
production in developing countries provides stable food sources, jobs, and opportunities
for increased income. Much of the demand for animal products will be met by local
production in these countries. However, despite the growing population and demand for
animal protein, consumers are becoming more concerned about the negative impacts of
livestock farming on the environment, public health, and animal welfare (Baldi and
Gottardo, 2017; Ochs et al., 2018). Water and land will become competitive resources,
meaning livestock producers will need to maximize production while using their limited
resources sustainably (Baldi and Gottardo, 2017).
In order to meet the growing demand for animal protein while addressing concerns about
environmental sustainability, public health, and animal welfare, farmers and animal
scientists may rely increasingly on precision livestock technologies to digitalize animal
agriculture. The purpose of this review is to showcase the influence and impact of sensor
technology, block chain technology, and big data on livestock farming, particularly as they
relate to animal health and welfare.
3
Current trends in livestock farming
The last decade has seen major improvements in maximizing production efficiency
through animal breeding, genetics, and nutrition. However, in light of burgeoning concerns
over animal welfare, transparency, and environmental sustainability, there is growing
interest in digitalizing animal agriculture through precision livestock farming technologies
(Klerkx et al., 2019). Confined livestock systems are necessary to meet the increasing
demand for animal products, but the crowded nature of these systems makes it difficult
for farmers to closely monitor animal health and welfare (Helwatkar et al., 2014). As
climate change intensifies, the risk of disease, heat stress, and other health issues among
livestock animals will increase (Bernabucci, 2019). This will create a greater need to
identify health issues and disease outbreaks early on, understand disease transmission,
and take preventative measures to avoid large-scale economic losses (Thornton, 2010;
Neethirajan, 2017). Precision livestock farming (PLF) technologies provide solutions to
these growing issues in animal agriculture.
PLF technologies utilize process engineering principles to automate animal agriculture,
allowing farmers to monitor large populations of animals for health and welfare, detect
issues with individual animals in a timely manner, and even anticipate issues before they
occur based on previous data (Benjamin and Yin, 2019). Examples of recent
developments in PLF technologies include monitoring cattle behavior, detecting
vocalizations such as screams in pigs, monitoring coughs in multiple species to identify
respiratory illness, and identifying bovine pregnancy through changes in body temperature
(Neethirajan, 2017). PLF technologies can also help farmers monitor infectious diseases
within animal agriculture, improving food safety and availability (Neethirajan et al., 2018).
4
The use of PLF technologies will ultimately improve animal health and welfare while
reducing food safety issues and maximizing efficient resource use (Norton et al., 2019).
Challenges of traditional business models
One major challenge in monitoring animal welfare is that most available methods are time-
consuming, labor-intensive, and costly (Benjamin and Yik, 2019; Jorquera-Chavez, 2019).
Livestock farmers often rely on observations from stock people to detect health and
welfare issues, but many commercial facilities have large stockperson-to-animal ratios.
For example, a commercial pig farm may have one stockperson for every 300 pigs
(Benjamin and Yik, 2019). Even vigilant and well-trained stock people might overlook
animals in critical condition. Third-party auditing programs offer comprehensive welfare
assessments, but these programs can also be time-consuming, costly inconsistent across
auditors. For example, the Common Swine Industry Audit (CSIA) uses 27 criteria,
including direct observation of animals to monitor body condition score, lameness, and
lesions, all of which can be subjective measures. The CSIA contains criteria for critical
failures such as animal abuse or animals in critical condition that need to be humanely
euthanized (Benjamin and Yik, 2019). Ideally, these conditions would be rectified long
before reaching the point of registering as a critical failure in a third-party audit. The use
of PLF technologies, particularly biosensors, would contribute to consistent, objective, and
regular welfare monitoring in real time, allowing farmers to address concerns and
implement preventative measures to avoid critical failures. Precision technologies could
also help reduce resource use; a more proactive and individualistic approach to animal
health would ultimately reduce the need for medications, particularly antibiotics
(Neethirajan, 2017).
5
Another major issue with current welfare monitoring techniques is their invasive nature.
Animals typically must be approached and restrained by stock people when monitoring
physiological signs of stress such as heart rate, cortisol levels, and body temperature,
causing additional stress and potentially influencing the physiological measures being
taken (Jorquera-Chavez et al., 2019). Even with non-invasive observations, animals will
react to the presence of a person nearby, making these observations useless for
monitoring ‘typical’ behavior (Jorquera-Chavez et al., 2019). Precision livestock
technologies allow for non-invasive sampling, helping farmers and researchers obtain
realistic measures that can be used to address welfare concerns (Jorquera-Chavez et al.,
2019).
As consumers become more concerned with the sustainability and welfare of animal
products, they will demand more transparency from livestock farmers (Figure 1). Modern
technologies such as blockchain will allow farmers to be transparent with consumers
about where food is traveling without requiring more of the farmers’ time. The time saved
here can be better spent monitoring animal welfare, public safety, and environmental
sustainability issues (Benjamin and Yik, 2019). The following sections will address PLF
technologies that can help farmers increase production while addressing consumer
concerns, including biosensors, big data, and blockchain technology.
Biosensing
Biosensors monitor behavioral and physiological parameters of livestock, allowing farmers
to evaluate an animal’s health and welfare over time (Helwatkar et al., 2014; Neethirajan,
2017; Benjamin and Yik, 2019). The animal production industry adopted the use of sensor
6
technology as a way to monitor more animals without having to increase contact time and
number of employees, and to provide reliable, objective measures of animal health and
welfare (Helwatkar et al., 2014; Neethirajan, 2017). The sensors collect data that is then
stored and processed by algorithms, sets of instructions or calculations that are followed
in sequence to solve specific problems. With livestock sensors, algorithms process the
raw data to provide biologically relevant information such as the total time animals spend
on specific behaviors on a certain day or how activity level changes over specific time
periods (Benjamin and Yik, 2019). These sensors can also monitor behaviors within
specific ranges and alert farmers when an animal’s behavior is abnormal, allowing them
to check the animal and respond appropriately to improve health and welfare (Neethirajan
et al., 2017). Combining biosensors with other technologies, such as those used in
genomics, could identify animals with desirable qualities and select them for breeding
programs (Ellen et al., 2019).
The use of biosensors in livestock farming and other animal health sectors is expected to
increase in the next decade (Neethirajan, 2017). These sensors can be used to monitor
body temperature, behavior, sound, and physiological measures such as pH, metabolic
activity, pathogens, and the presence of toxins or antibiotics in the body. The overuse of
antibiotics in animal agriculture is currently a huge concern with serious repercussions for
human health (Mungroo and Neethirajan, 2014). Being able to monitor the presence of
antibiotics allows farmers to treat animals for illness while providing safe, nutritious animal
products to the global population (Mungroo and Neethirajan, 2014; Neethirajan et al.,
2018). Biosensing technologies can also be used to detect problematic pathogens such
as avian influenza, coronavirus (Ahmed et al., 2017; Ahmed et al., 2018; Weng and
7
Neethirajan, 2018), and Johne’s disease, a detrimental bacterial infection in ruminants
that can result in huge economic losses for farmers (Chand et al., 2018). Biosensors can
also detect biomarkers of inflammation for widespread disease monitoring (Tuteja and
Neethirajan, 2018). Ultimately, they will allow farmers to improve animal productivity and
welfare while cutting costs.
Biosensors such as heart rate monitors can even detect affective states in animals. With
the use of biosensors, researchers were able to detect changes in heart rate in response
to both positive and negative stressors in real time, compare individual responses across
animals, and track how heart rate changed over time in response to different stressors. In
a study with pigs, a negative stressor caused an elevated heart rate for one minute
following a loud noise. A positive stressor, a towel to play with, also caused an elevated
heart rate for two minutes after the stressor was provided. More traditional or delayed
measures of welfare may not be able to detect these subtle differences (Joosen et al.,
2019). Heart rate monitors are also useful for monitoring overall health and metabolic
energy production. Biosensors, such as photoplethysmographic sensors, can easily be
added to ear tags to continuously monitor livestock heart rates (Nie et al., 2020).
Today’s wide variety of available sensors can be broken down into non-invasive and
invasive. Non-invasive sensors include sensors around the barn, such as surveillance
cameras or sensors in the feeding systems to monitor weight and feed intake. Non-
invasive sensors also include sensors easily placed on animals, such as pedometers,
GPS (global positioning system) sensors, and MEMS (microelectromechanical)-based
accelerometers that can be used to monitor behavior (Helwatkar et al., 2014). Invasive
8
sensors are typically swallowed by or implanted in an animal (Helwatkar et al., 2014), and
are less commonly studied in livestock. These types of sensors are useful for monitoring
physiological measures within an animal, such as rumen health, body temperature, and
vaginal pressure in dairy cows (Helwatkar et al., 2014).
The most common non-invasive sensors used for monitoring livestock animals are
currently thermometers, accelerometers, microphones, and cameras. They allow farmers
to monitor temperature, activity levels, sound levels in the barn (i.e., vocalizations,
sneezing, and coughing), and specific behaviors (i.e., aggression in pigs) (Benjamin and
Yik, 2019). Thermal infrared (TIR) imaging can be used to monitor body temperatures in
place of invasive thermometers that require restraint and handling of animals. TIR of the
area around the eye and general skin temperature can monitor stress and detect disease
4-6 days earlier than traditional methods. TIR has also been used on images of feet to
detect foot disease (Jorquera-Chavez et al., 2019). Physiological monitors such as TIR
and heart rate monitors can measure stress in animals prior to slaughter and be compared
with meat quality metrics to improve the consistency and quality of consumer products
(Jorquera-Chavez et al., 2019). Algorithms for video images can detect changes in
animals’ posture that may indicate lameness and other health concerns (Jorquera-Chavez
et al., 2019). Image analysis from cameras can monitor animal weight, gait, water intake,
individual identification, and aggression (Norton et al., 2019). Sound analysis using
microphones can be used to monitor vocalizations and coughing, alerting farmers to
welfare issues before they become severe. Microphones also have the advantage of being
easily placed in barns to monitor large groups of animals without worrying visibility
(Mahdavian et al., 2020). Livestock farmers are increasingly utilizing radio-frequency

9
identification (RFID), which may be placed in ear tags and collars or implanted in animals
directly to monitor a wide variety of behaviors such as general activity, eating, or drinking
(Neethirajan, 2017).
Facial detection technology is another growing area of interest in automated animal
welfare monitoring. Facial detection technologies rely on computer algorithms and
machine learning to detect features on an animal’s face for identification or to monitor
changes related to affective states (Marsot et al., 2020). Many animal welfare researchers
are developing grimace scales for animals to help researchers and animal managers
better monitor affective states in animals, particularly pain (Viscardi et al., 2017). Livestock
animals are frequently subjected to painful procedures such as dehorning, tail docking,
and castration (Viscardi et al., 2017; Müller et al., 2019). Facial expression is also specific
enough to determine behavioral intent in animals. Camerlink and colleagues (2018)
noticed distinct facial differences in pigs initiating aggression and those retreating or
avoiding aggression (Camerlink et al., 2018). Facial detection is also being proposed as
a lower-cost alternative to RFID tags for individual animal identification (Marsot et al.,
2020).
Cattle
The use of sensors in the dairy industry has allowed for better monitoring of major welfare
concerns such as mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, and
ketosis, among others (Helwatkar et al., 2014). Sensor technology is particularly useful in
monitoring dairy herd health and productivity measures such as general activity, affective
state, estrus detection, and milking behavior (Helwatkar et al., 2014). The most beneficial
10
sensors for the dairy industry include temperature, accelerometer, and microphone
(Helwatkar et al., 2014). Examples include pedometers, which are useful for detecting
dairy cow estrus (Helwatkar et al., 2014), and thermal infrared images, which have been
used to noninvasively monitor stress in cattle, using the temperature around the eye as
an indicator (Jorquera-Chavez et al., 2019). MooMonitor is a wearable biosensor
developed specifically to measure the grazing behavior of dairy cows. It has so far
demonstrated a high correlation with traditional observation methods (Werner et al.,
2019). Biosensors can also be used to monitor cattle water intake – a study by Williams
and colleagues (2020) using RFID tags and accelerometers observed 95% accuracy with
animal behavior.
A recent study by Röttgen and colleagues (2019) investigated the use of automated
detection of individual vocalizations as a method of monitoring dairy cow estrus. The
researchers used collar-based cattle call monitor microphones and an algorithm that
matched vocalizations to individual cows. With reported sensitivity at 87% and specificity
at 94%, this study shows that advancements in technology and automated systems may
allow farmers to monitor animals at the level of the individual, even with complex measures
such as vocalizations (Röttgen et al., 2019). Sensor technologies also have the potential
to give animals a new degree of autonomy over their own husbandry practices, as has
been observed in robotic milking systems for dairy cattle. Robotic milkers utilize wearable
sensors on the cow to record her milking and feeding behavior (Neethirajan, 2017). These
milkers are becoming increasingly popular in the dairy industry as they allow remote
monitoring of cow health (Klerkx et al., 2019).
11
In dairy cattle, nutrition and energy balance are essential to efficient milk production.
Circulating levels of non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) indicate negative energy balance
and can be indicative of other health risks that need to be addressed immediately.
Metabolic disorders, indicated by high levels of NEFA in the blood, can lead to loss of
appetite, decrease in milk production, reproductive issues, mammary infections, and
immune system dysfunction. Currently in development, biosensors that can monitor NEFA
have the potential to be extremely useful on dairy farms (Tuteja and Neethirajan, 2017).
Ketosis is another serious health concern on dairy farms that is often preceded by elevated
levels of -hydroxybutyrate (HBA). Research by Weng and colleagues (2015) developed
a quantum-based biosensor to detect HBA. When Tuteja and colleagues (2017)
investigated 2D MoS2 nano-structure-based electrochemical immunosensors for the
detection of HBA in dairy cattle, they found that this method had high specificity and
sensitivity, was reproducible, and stood its ground against commercially available kits.
Additionally, Veerapandian and colleagues (2016) successfully used electrochemical
biosensors of ruthenium dye-sensitized GO nanosheets to detect HBA. Screen-printed
electrode (SPE) sensors are also being developed to detect NEFA and HBA (Tuteja et
al., 2017). Field-based devices for HBA (Weng et al., 2015) and smartphone-based
technologies will soon allow for rapid on-farm testing and response; one particular model
designed by Jang and colleagues (2017) is able to detect progesterone in milk. The
development of sensors that would allow for rapid biomarker detection and a proactive
farmer response would ultimately improve dairy cattle health and welfare while reducing
overall resource use.
12
Consumers grow increasingly concerned about the carbon footprint of livestock
production, especially when it comes to cattle. Biosensors are being investigated as a way
to monitor methane emissions (Muñoz-Tamayo et al., 2018), thus improving the
environmental sustainability of industrialized animal agriculture.
Swine
Major welfare challenges in the swine industry include lameness, aggression in group-
housed animals, body condition, and health issues like prolapse and illness. Benjamin and
Yik (2019) provide an overview of how precision livestock farming is being implemented
in the swine industry to address these welfare concerns. Sensors being used for swine
include 2D and 3D cameras, microphones, thermal infrared imaging, accelerometers,
radio frequency identification (RFID), optical character recognition, and facial recognition.
Pressure-sensing mats have been used to detect lameness in pigs, primarily by putting
the mats within electronic sow feeders and in gestation or breeding crates.
Accelerometers can also be used to detect lameness by monitoring overall activity levels,
posture, and gait. Pigs are likely to chew devices that are placed almost anywhere on the
body or in the pen, making ear-tag RFID technology the most promising in swine. Future
research hopes to incorporate motion tracking and thermal imaging to detect lameness
and aggression in sows (Benjamin and Yik, 2019). To monitor and address concerns over
aggression, researchers are investigating the use of automated video monitoring and
depth imaging tracking. These technologies are generally able to monitor overall activity
patterns but cannot yet track individual behavioral patterns (Wurtz et al., 2019). Infrared
thermography has been used to identify illness in piglets (Benjamin and Yik, 2019).
13
Sound detection technologies have been successful in detecting differences in
vocalizations and coughs in swine (Benjamin and Yik, 2019; Friel et al., 2019). The
implementation of sound detection software in a barn would help farmers identify welfare
issues such as aggression, tail biting, heat stress, and respiratory illness (Benjamin and
Yik, 2019). The use of sound analysis to detect coughing can allow farmers and
veterinarians to diagnose respiratory illnesses up to two weeks before they could without
the use of sensors (Norton et al., 2019). Sound analysis can also distinguish different
coughs, such as those of a healthy pig with minor irritation from dust or those of pigs with
respiratory illness (Norton et al., 2019).
Pig vocalizations are distinct and indicate their affective state (Friel et al., 2019). For
instance, pig screams often indicate pain or distress and would be cause for concern.
These screams could indicate a pig in pain due to tail-biting or ear-biting, or a piglet being
crushed in the farrowing crate. Indicators of positive welfare are growing in popularity as
people concerned with animal welfare strive to provide positive environments for animals
rather than simply remove painful and stressful events. Pig barking, for example, can be
an alert sound to potential danger but is also used during periods of play. The sounds of
pig barking during play can be used as an indicator of positive welfare (Norton et al., 2019).
A study by Friel and colleagues (2019) found that the duration of vocalizations was also
an important indicator of affective state. Longer calls, especially long grunts, were used in
situations of negative valence, whereas shorter duration vocalizations were more common
in situations of positive valence (Friel et al., 2019).
14
Researchers are also investigating automated detection and monitoring of pig body size,
especially in relation to space allowance. They hope to use 3D technology to provide
weight estimates based on a pig’s size and shape, rather than needing to run individual
animals through scales, which is time-consuming and can be stressful for the pigs
(Benjamin and Yik, 2019).
One of the major welfare issues in the swine industry is aggression among group-housed
pigs. There are a number of researchers working on solutions to this issue, including
decoding hours of video of pigs fighting in order to learn more about how to intervene to
reduce aggression. Image analysis and the use of automated detection technologies are
being explored as a way to efficiently decode aggression in videos (Norton et al., 2019).
RFID tags in pigs are used to monitor individual feeding and drinking behavior, which are
important indicators of health and welfare in swine (Norton et al., 2019). As pig farmers
transition to group-housing gestating sows, they are implementing electronic sow feeders
using RFID tags as a way to monitor feeding behavior in large groups of sows. Due to
pigs’ curious nature, sensors typically have to be placed in the ear tag, which can present
challenges for sensors such as accelerometers. Wireless sensor networks are being
implemented in barns to allow communication between ear tags and a base station that
will provide data to the farmer regarding pig activity levels, alerting them to issues with
locomotion for individual animals, and providing temperature readings at pig level
(Benjamin and Yik, 2019).
15
Poultry
Sound analysis can provide important information about poultry welfare. Chicken
vocalizations can indicate issues with thermal comfort, social disturbances, feather
pecking, disease, or growth (Du et al., 2020; Mahdavian et al., 2020). Chicken
vocalizations also have a distinct diurnal pattern (Du et al., 2018). Increased vocalizations
within a barn or deviations from normal diurnal patterns can be used an indicator of stress
in chickens, especially stress related to thermal comfort (Du et al., 2018; Du et al., 2020).
Recent research determined that the use of machine learning to monitor chicken
vocalizations was a reliable way to noninvasively monitor welfare and detect warning signs
early on (Du et al., 2020). Sound analysis can also use the sound of pecking to monitor
feed intake in chickens (Norton et al., 2019), monitor exploratory pecking in turkeys
(Nasirahmadi et al., 2020), or detect sneezes to monitor respiratory illness (Carpentier et
al., 2019).
In a study by Mahdavian and colleagues (2020), a voice activity detection algorithm was
used to identify healthy and ill chickens by extracting animal vocalizations from ambient
noise in the environment. The algorithm had a high rate of accuracy in differentiating
between healthy chickens and chickens with respiratory illness. Two factors that increased
error in sound detection included age and onset of illness; detection accuracy was lower
for chickens with respiratory illness than for healthy birds, at 95% and 72%, respectively
(Mahdavian et al., 2020). One possible explanation for the decreased accuracy of
vocalizations for ill chickens is that chickens with respiratory disease produce abnormal
vocalizations. A study by Liu and colleagues (2020) investigated a group of broiler
chickens’ coughs and scores, vocalizations made when suffering from respiratory
16
diseases, and reported 93.8% accuracy. Multiple studies have shown that sound analysis
correlates well with overall activity observed in video monitoring (Carpentier et al., 2017;
Du et al., 2017). Carpentier and colleagues (2017) found that sound correlated highly with
broiler chicken activity, ranging from 58.6%-80.5% – this suggested that sound can be just
as useful for monitoring chicken behavior and welfare as video. Video analysis can also
be used to monitor foot health in broiler chickens by observing activity and occupancy
patterns (Norton et al., 2019).
Temperature control is an important component of poultry management, from preventing
heat stress in broilers (Bloch et al., 2019) to promoting the proper environment for
embryonic development (Andrianov et al., 2019; Phuphanin et al., 2019). Biosensors have
the potential to monitor temperature in animal environments and alert farmers to intervene
as needed. Infrared thermometers have been used to monitor the body temperature of
broilers with high accuracy compared with implanted temperature loggers (Bloch et al.,
2019). Non-invasive heart rate monitors have been used in chicken embryos to monitor
incubation temperature (Andrianov et al., 2019) and detect cardiovascular defects
(Khaliduzzaman et al., 2019). Smartphone technology has been developed for easy
monitoring of embryo heart rate, which will allow farmers to intervene as needed to prevent
the loss of embryos during incubation (Phuphanin et al., 2019).
Pathogens in poultry can spread quickly between farms, so researchers have been
investigating how to use biosensors to monitor disease outbreak in poultry populations.
Optoelectronic sensors using gold nanobundles were highly sensitive in detecting
adenovirus in fowl and were about 100 times more sensitive than conventional methods
17
(Ahmed et al., 2018). Nanocrystals (chiral zirconium quantum dots) have been used in
biosensors to detect coronavirus in chickens (Ahmed et al., 2018). Chiro-immunosensors
utilizing chiral gold nanohybrids are promising technology for the detection of multiple
chicken pathogens including avian influenza, fowl adenovirus, and coronavirus (Ahmed et
al., 2017).
Big data
The use of sensors for monitoring the health and welfare of livestock results in large
amounts of data that need to be processed in order to provide meaningful biological
outputs for animal management. This has led to advances in big data, or large, complex
sets of data (Wolfert et al., 2017). Big data is defined as data sets with large numbers of
rows and columns that prevent visual inspection of the data and a large number of
variables or predictors that make the data messy and unsuitable for traditional statistical
techniques (Morota et al., 2018). Big data is defined by four key attributes known as the
four V model. These attributes include volume, the quantity of data; velocity, the speed of
accessing or using the data; variety, the different forms of the data; and veracity, cleaning
and editing the data (Wolfert et al., 2017; Koltes et al., 2019). Value is also considered an
important attribute to ensure high-quality data through improvements in methods and
technology (Wolfert et al., 2017; Koltes et al., 2019). Data models contribute to the
efficiency of sensor technology by sorting through data to provide meaningful output for
farms, including predictions for future events (Wolfert et al., 2017).
Precision livestock farming (PLF) relies on proper use of big data and data modeling to
inform management of nutritional needs, reproductive status, and changes in productivity

18
that may indicate welfare issues. It may even allow farmers to group animals based on
needs, leading to greater utilization of resources (Koltes et al., 2019). Data models extract
information from sensors, process it, and then use it to detect abnormalities in the data
that may be affecting the animals. Sensor data can be broken down into animal-oriented
data and environment-oriented data. These two types of data should be monitored
simultaneously, as they both affect animal health and productivity. Sensors and big data
models can function to combine this information, improving farmer response and decision-
making. Digitalizing animal agriculture by using animal- and environmental-oriented data
will improve overall health management, nutrition, genetics, reproduction, welfare,
biosecurity, and emissions (Piñeiro et al., 2019).
There are two primary types of data modeling: exploratory models and predictive models.
Exploratory models take data from previous events and determine which factors were
influential, while predictive models use data to predict future occurrences based on certain
criteria (Sasaki, 2019). Proper use of data modelling is important when using big data sets;
the variability in data means there are a number of variables that need to be accounted
for in the models, and data will need to be cleaned up to remove noise (Koltes et al., 2019).
The use of predictive models is highly valuable, as it would allow farmers to predict future
outcomes and implement a more proactive management approach (Wolfert et al., 2017).
Big data technologies can also be useful in monitoring disease transmission by creating
contact networks and identifying high-risk populations (VanderWaal et al., 2017).
Machine learning is a growing area of interest in precision livestock farming as it allows
computer algorithms to learn from the data sets and improve themselves accordingly,
19
eliminating the need for a human coder (Benjamin and Yik, 2019). Machine learning is a
branch of artificial intelligence that uses algorithms for statistical prediction and inference
(Morota et al., 2018). Data mining is similar, but the focus is on teaching databases to
identify patterns in order to generate information (Morota et al., 2018).
Machine learning techniques are frequently used in animal genetics research to predict
phenotypes based on genotypic information, identifying outliers in a population, and
genotype imputation. Machine learning has also been used to detect mastitis from
automated milking technologies on dairy farms, estimate body weight through image
analysis, and monitor microbiome health (Morota et al., 2018). Machine learning and big
data analytics have the potential to improve welfare and productivity in dairy cattle. They
can be used to monitor and predict lameness and mastitis in dairy cattle, huge welfare
issues that can have severe negative consequences on milk production (Ebrahimi et al.,
2019; Taneja et al., 2020; Warner et al., 2020).
Based on data obtained from sensors and sensing technologies, big data analytic
technology prediction models can build digital farming service systems that enhance
animal production capacity, productivity, and livestock welfare. Digital footprints from the
animals’ wearable sensors and livestock barn sensors will help to create a digital
fingerprint that can establish predictive models for forecasting through adaptive decision-
making models (Figure 2). The 3 'F's (Footprint, Fingerprint and Forecast) will not only
guide the livestock farmers (Tsay et al., 2019) for animal production management but will
also establish integrated application models of the agricultural chain.
20
Big data techniques can also be used to integrate data across farms in order to optimize
production systems (Aiken et al., 2019). The value of big data will depend on automation,
accessibility, and accuracy of the data provided. Error checking and quality control will
need to be implemented to ensure data quality (VanderWaal et al., 2017). As PLF
becomes widely implemented on farms, it will also be necessary to develop software,
quality control mechanisms, database systems, and statistical methods to summarize and
visualize the data, and identify the most appropriate data models. (Koltes et al., 2019).
Another major challenge with big data obtained on farms is privacy and security (Wolfert
et al., 2017). Data collection on farms is currently underutilized (Table 1) because farmers
prioritize privacy (Wolfert et al., 2017).
Block chain technology
As food systems become more global, animal products have to remain compliant on
numerous animal welfare and sustainability protocols. Documentation on compliance
must be accessible for regulators and third-party inspectors, which can be complicated
when this information is stored on paper or in private databases (Motta et al., 2020).
Consumers are also more concerned about the sustainability and ethical concerns of
animal agriculture. and they demand transparency in how food animals are raised. Food
safety is also a major concern among consumers – according to the World Health
Organization, 1 in 10 people experience food-related illness every year, with over 420,000
people dying annually (WHO, 2020). Digitalization of animal agriculture, especially
through blockchain technology, would provide solutions for these issues (Motta et al.,
2020). As of 2020, animal agriculture remains one of the world’s least digitalized
industries, leaving plenty of room for improvement (Motta et al., 2020).

21
A blockchain is a decentralized network where each transaction creates a node. These
nodes are organized into blocks based on consensus from participating parties, and
blocks are linked to create a chain. Each time there is a new transaction, another node is
created in real time with information about that transaction to contribute to the blockchain
(Chattu et al., 2019; Motta et al., 2020). The four pillars of blockchain technology are that
the information systems within the blockchain are distributed, transparent, immutable, and
democratic (Motta et al., 2020). Within animal agriculture, this means that a unique ID
would be provided to each animal at the farm. That ID would remain with that animal
throughout its life and collect data on the farm(s) it lived in, the transportation used to move
the animal from the farm(s) to the slaughterhouse, the veterinarian checking the animal at
the slaughterhouse, the quality check after slaughter, the transport of the meat product,
and finally the packager and retailer (Motta et al., 2020).
Blockchain technology would provide a number of benefits to animal agriculture, including
decentralized, automated transactions that could contribute to automated and more
efficient auditing systems for certification and regulatory organizations (Motta et al., 2020),
system integration, organized records of chain transactions throughout the life of an
animal from farm to table (Motta et al., 2020), and greater traceability and transparency
within animal agriculture (Picchi et al., 2019; Motta et al., 2020). Recently, there has been
growing distrust between farmers and consumers. Blockchain technologies could improve
that trust by providing consumers with transparency about the lifecycle of an animal.
Blockchain technology could be extremely useful in detecting and tracking disease
breakouts within animal agriculture. Food safety is a huge concern to consumers,

22
especially in light of a number of recent outbreaks including the H1N1 flu of 2009, Foot-
and-Mouth and Mad Cow diseases in Europe, Avian influenza (Lin et al., 2018), and recent
increases in salmonella outbreaks (Dyada et al., 2020). Other food practices are harmful
to the health safety of consumers as well (Lin et al., 2018). Modern technologies such as
blockchain technology could help trace harmful foods back to the source, increasing
accountability for problematic practices within animal agriculture (Lin et al., 2018). The
real advantage of blockchain is that it can be shared across a network rather than be
controlled and managed by one group (Figure 3). In the event of a disease outbreak within
animal agriculture, farmers from around the globe could input and access disease data,
actively helping to control the outbreak or prepare farmers for an outbreak they know will
reach their farm (Chattu et al., 2019).
Blockchain technology is still in early stages of development for widespread application
(Table 2) within animal agriculture, with few studies investigating its impacts on animal
agriculture (Picchi et al., 2019; Motta et al., 2020). A large number of platforms can be
used, each with its own strengths and weaknesses that should be considered based on
the context)in which the platforms are needed. In the future, data scientists must create
criteria for deciding which blockchain platform will be the most beneficial for particular
markets (Picchi et al., 2019).
Future trends and gaps
Precision livestock techniques such as biosensors, block chain technology, and big data
models have the potential to provide huge improvements to environmental sustainability
and animal welfare in animal agriculture. As technology advances, these technologies will
23
become more accessible to farmers around the world, but particularly to farmers in
developing countries as they expand to feed a growing population (Alonso et al., 2020).
Biosensor data has the potential to provide great improvements for livestock farming, but
one of the primary struggles of implementing technology on farms is the conditions on
these farms. Animal barns have a number of environment conditions that need to be
addressed in order to successfully implement technology on farms – these conditions
include moisture, dust, ammonia, and pests (Berckmans and Norton, 2017). The use of
sensors also requires a wireless sensor network that may have to function over long
distances to transmit data from an animal room to the base computer (Xuan et al., 2017).
Oftentimes, the engineers building these technologies have not physically been on farms
or worked around livestock, so their sensors may fail in real farm conditions. Increased
collaboration between farmers, animal scientists, bioengineers, and other professionals
would help encourage and create technology that will be long-lasting and functional on
farms (Koltes et al., 2019). Because precision livestock farming and the use of big data
are in their infancy, there are few experts in the area and a growing need to train an
existing and future workforce in these technologies and skills (Koltes et al., 2019).
Automated video detection software is largely nonfunctional within animal agriculture at
the moment (Wurtz et al., 2019). Image analysis of aggression in pigs currently struggles
to distinguish between different behaviors, such as play and aggression. These
technologies also cannot yet track individual animals, at least not for a long enough period
of time to obtain meaningful information about behaviors of interest. Some technologies
may be able to track individuals when they are up and moving but cannot track individuals
when they lie in a pile and then get up again (Wurtz et al., 2019). There are also issues
24
with distinguishing animals from the background of the environment; many video
technologies were developed in specific test arenas where there was good contrast
between the pen structures and the animals, so the technology can fail when applied in
real-life farm situations (Wurtz et al., 2019). Additionally, many of the studies testing these
technologies have been done on pigs, so more work is needed to assess the applicability
on other species (Wurtz et al., 2019).
Data gathered from sensors on farms allows farmers to monitor their animals and use the
information they obtain for proactive management. This information could also be shared
between farmers to help both farms improve management or respond to specific animal
health, welfare, or environmental issues (Papst et al., 2019). Big agriculture companies
could combine data from multiple sources to answer questions about prevalent
management issues, and the use of machine learning and other technologies could
provide data-driven solutions back to farmers (Papst et al., 2019). However, a number of
issues must first be addressed, the most important being data privacy. Farmers are
typically protective of their information and would need to trust that the data from their farm
would be secure before offering to share it (Papst et al., 2019). Another obstacle to big
data integration is the proprietary algorithms used by sensor manufacturers. Not only
would the manufacturers be reluctant to share their algorithms, but it may be difficult to
compare data coming from sensors built by different manufacturers if the sensors use
different measures and frequencies to collect data (Papst et al., 2019). New advances in
machine learning are addressing these privacy concerns by developing privacy-
preserving data exchange systems.
25
Consumers and farmers alike may be hesitant to implement PLF technologies
(Berckmans and Norton, 2017). Some consumers fear that PLF will contribute to the
‘factory farming’ aspects of intensive animal agriculture, where animals are treated like
commodities rather than sentient animals (Norton et al., 2019). Farmers may also be
hesitant due to wariness of technology and a fear that they will be further removed from
their animals (Klerkx et al., 2019). The use of technology on farms also has the potential
to create inequalities within animal agriculture, creating socio-economic or socio-cultural
tensions and unfairly penalizing workers that are not tech-savvy. There also appears to
be gender bias in the implementation of on-farm technologies (Klerkx et al., 2019).
Farmers in rural areas may also be at a disadvantage due to broadband access (Koltes
et al., 2019). In order to implement PLF on farms, the tech and data industries must
consider these issues and push to create easy-to-use software and data visualization.
These goals will be key to widespread use by farmers and veterinarians (Koltes et al.,
2019). The use of cell phones to get real-time alerts of on-farm issues is currently being
implemented on some farms as easy-to-use technology (Neethirajan, 2017).
Along those same lines, much of the literature on PLF technologies is coming from North
America and Europe. As the global population grows, there will be an increasing number
of farms in underdeveloped countries with unique challenges that cannot be addressed
with data and information from North American and European farms. As global population
growth continues and the demand for animal products increases, solutions for how to
make livestock farming efficient in other global regions will become more critical than ever
(Wolfert et al., 2017).
26
Conclusions
Digitalization of animal agriculture through precision livestock farming technologies has
the potential to address consumers’ increasing concerns about animal welfare,
environmental sustainability, and public health, while also preparing to meet the increasing
demand for animal products as a result of the growing human population. Some of the
most promising PLFs include biosensors, big data, and blockchain technologies.
Biosensors allow farmers to collect real-time data on animal health and welfare, helping
them implement proactive management strategies to maintain a sustainable and safe food
supply. Big data programs take data from these sensors and turn it into meaningful
biological outputs for farmers. Blockchain technology makes animal agriculture more
transparent and traceable, increasing consumer trust and improving food safety. Of
course, no major advances in animal agriculture come without drawbacks. PLF
technologies are still in the early stages of implementation on farms, and a number of
issues will need to be rectified before these technologies can be widely accepted by
farmers and consumers around the world.
Acknowledgement
The author thanks the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for funding this study.
Declaration of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Software and data repository resources
Not applicable.
27
References
Ahmed SR, Mogus J, Chand R, Nagy E and Neethirajan S 2018. Optoelectronic fowl adenovirus
detection based on local electric field enhancement on graphene quantum dots and gold
nanobundle hybrid. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 103, 45–53.
Ahmed SR, Nagy E and Neethirajan S 2017. Self-assembled star-shaped chiroplasmonic gold
nanoparticles for an ultrasensitive chiro-immunosensor for viruses. RSC Advances 7,
40849.
Aiken VCF. Dórea JRR, Acedo JS, de Sousa FG, Dias FG and de Magalhães Rosa GJ 2019.
Record linkage for farm-level data analytics: Comparison of deterministic, stochastic and
machine learning methods. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 163, 104857.
Alonso RS, Sittón-Candanedo I, García O and Prieto J 2020. An intelligent Edge-IoY platform for
monitoring livestock and crops in a dairy farming scenario. Ad Hoc Networks 98, 102047.
Andrianov EA, Sudakov AN, Andrianov AA and Skolznev NY 2019. Non-invasive monitoring of
avian embryo heart rate. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology 7, 119–122.
Astill J, Dara RA, Fraser EDG, Roberts B and Sharif S 2020. Smart poultry management: Smart
sensors, big data, and the internet of things. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 170,
105291.
Baldi A and Gottardo D 2017. Livestock production to feed the planet. Animal protein: a forecast
of global demand over the next years. Relations 5, 65–71.
Benjamin M and Yik S 2019. Precision livestock farming in swine welfare: A review for swine
practitioners. Animals 9, 133.
Berckmans D and Norton T 2017. Vision for precision livestock farming based upon the EU-PLF
Project. International Symposium on Animal Environment and Welfare 408–413.
Bernabucci U 2019. Climate change: impact on livestock and how can we adapt. Animal Frontiers
9, 3–5.
28
Bloch V, Barchilon N, Halachmi I and Druyan S (In press). Automatic broiler temperature
measuring by thermal camera. Biosystems Engineering.
Camerlink I, Coulange E, Farish M, Baxter EM and Turner SP (2018). Facial expression as a
potential measure of both intent and emotion. Scientific Reports 8, 17602.
Carpentier L, Fernández AP, Norton T, and Berckmans D 2017. Preliminary study to assess
activity of broilers using sound analysis. International Symposium on Animal Environment
and Welfare 414–420.
Carpentier L, Vranken E, Berckmans D, Paeshuyse J and Norton T 2019. Development of sound-
based poultry health monitoring tool for automated sneeze detection. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture 162, 573–581.
Chand R, Wang YL, Kelton D and Neethirajan S 2018. Isothermal DNA amplification with
functionalized graphene and nonparticle assisted electroanalysis for rapid detection of
Johne’s disease. Sensors and Actuators B 261, 31–37.
Chattu VK, Nanda A, Chattu SK, Kadri SM and Knight AW 2019. The emerging role of blockchain
technology applications in routine disease surveillance systems to strengthen global health
security. Big Data and Cognitive Computing 3, 25.
Du X, Carpentier L,Teng G, Liu M, Wang C and Norton T 2020. Assessment of laying hens’ thermal
comfort using sound technology. Sensors 20, 473.
Du X, Guanghui T, Lao F and Du X 2017. Fusion of depth image and sound analysis for monitoring
poultry behaviors. International Symposium on Animal Environment and Welfare 421–427.
Du X, Lao F and Teng G 2018. A sound source localization analytical method for monitoring the
abnormal night vocalisations of poultry. Sensors 18, 2906.
Dyada A, Ngyuyen PY, Chughtai AA and MacIntyre CR 2020. Changing epidemiology of
Salmonella outbreak associated with cucumbers and other fruits and vegetables. Global
Biosecurity 1.
29
Ebrahimi M, Mohammadi-Dehschedhmeh M, Ebrahimie E and Petrovski KR 2019.
Comprehensive analysis of machine learning models for prediction of sub-clinical mastitis:
Deep learning and gradient-boosted trees outperforms other models. Computers in Biology
and Medicine 114, 103456.
Ellen ED, van der Sluis M, Siegford J, Guzhva O,Toscano MJ, Bennewitz J, van der Zande L, van
der Eijk JAJ, de Haas EN, Norton T, Piette D, Tetens J, de Klerk B, Visser B and
Rodenburg TB 2019. Review of sensor technologies in animal breeding: Phenotyping
behaviors of laying hens to select against feather pecking. Animals 9, 108.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2011. World Livestock 2011 –
Livestock in Food Security. Rome.
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Full%20Report_421.pdf.
Friel M, Kunc HP, Griffin K, Asher L and Collins LM 2019. Positive and negative contexts predict
duration of pig vocalizations. Scientific Reports 9, 2062.
Helwatkar A, Riordan D and Walsh J 2014. Sensor technology for animal health monitoring.
International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems 7, 1–6.
Jang H, Ahmed SR and Neethirajan S 2017. GryphSens: A smartphone-based portable diagnostic
reader for the rapid detection of progesterone in milk. Sensor 17, 1079.
Joosen P, Norton T, Marchant-Ford J and Berckmans D 2019. Animal welfare monitoring by real-
time physiological signals. Precision Livestock Farming 337–344.
Jorquera-Chavez M, Fuentes S, Dunshea FR, Jongman EC and Warner RD 2019. Computer
vision and remote sensing to assess physiological responses of cattle to pre-slaughter
stress, and its impact on beef quality: A review. Meat Science 156, 11–22.
Khaliduzzaman A, Fujitani S, Kashimori A, Suzuki T, Ogawa Y and Kondo N 2019. A non-invasive
diagnosis technique of chick embryonic cardiac arrythmia using near infrared light.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 158, 326–334.
30
Klerkx L, Jakku E and Labarthe P 2019. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart
farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS –
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90-91, 100315.
Koltes JE, Cole JB, Clemmens R, Dilger RN, Kramer LM, Lunney JK, McCue ME, McKay SD,
Mateescu RG, Murdoch BM, Reuter R, Rexroad CE, Rosa GJM, Serão NVL, White SN,
Woodward-Greene MJ, Worku M, Zhang H and Reecy JM 2019. A vision for development
and utilization of high-throughput phenotyping and big data analytics in livestock. Frontiers
in Genetics 10, 1197.
Lin J, Shen Z, Zhang A and Chai Y 2018. Blockchain and IoT based food traceability for smart
agriculture. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Crowd Science and
Engineering. Singapore, July 2018 (ICCSE’18), 6 pages.
Liu L, Li B, Zhao R, Yao W, Shen M and Yang J 2020. A novel method for broiler abnormal sound
detection using WMFCC and HMM. Journal of Sensors 2020, 2985478.
Mahdavian A, Minaei S, Yang C, Almasganj F, Rahimi S and Marchetto PM 2020. Ability
evaluation of a voice activity detection algorithm in bioacoustics: A case study on poultry
calls. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 168, 105100:
Marsot M, Mei J, Shan X, Ye L, Feng P, Yan X, Li C and Zhao Y 2020. An adaptive pig face
recognition approach using Convolutional Neural Networks. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture 173, 105386.
Morota G, Ventura RV, Silva FF, Koyama M and SC Fernando. Big data analytics and precision
animal agriculture symposium: Machine learning and data mining advance predictive big
data analysis in precision animal agriculture. Journal of Animal Science 96, 1540–1550.
Motta GA, Tekinerdogan B and Athanasiadis IN 2020. Blockchain applications in the agri-food
domain: The first wave. Frontiers in Blockchain 3, 6.
Müller BR, Soriano VS, Bellio JCB and Molento CFM 2019. Facial expression of pain in Nellore
and crossbred beef cattle. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 34, 60–65.
31
Mungroo NA and Neethirajan S 2014. Biosensors for the detection of antibiotics in poultry industry
– a review. Biosensors 4, 472–493.
Muñoz-Tamayo R, Ramirez Agudelo JF, Dewhurst RJ, Miller G, Vernon T and Kettle H 2018. A
parsimonious software sensor for estimating the individual dynamic pattern of methane
emissions from cattle. Animal 13, 1180–1187.
Nasirahmadi A, Gonzalez J, Sturm B, Hensel O and Knierim U 2020. Pecking activity detection in
group-housed turkeys using acoustic data and a deep learning technique. Biosystems
Engineering 194, 40–48.
Neethirajan S 2017. Recent advances in wearable sensors for animal health management.
Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research 12, 15–29.
Neethirajan S, Ragavan KV and Weng X 2018. Agro-defense: Biosensors for food from healthy
crops and animals. Trends in Food Science and Technology 73, 25–44.
Nei L, Berckmans D, Wang C and Li B 2020. Is continuous heart rate monitoring of livestock a
dream of is it realistic? A review. Sensors 20, 2291.
Norton T, Chen C, Larsen MLV and Berckmans D 2019. Review: Precision livestock farming:
building ‘digital representations’ to bring the animals closer to the farmer. Animal 13, 3009–
3017.
Ochs DS, Wolf CA, Widmar NJO and Bir C 2018. Consumer perceptions of egg-laying hen housing
systems. Poultry Science 0, 1–7.
Papst F, Saukh O, Römer K, Grandl F, Jakovljevic I, Steininger F, Mayerhofer M, Duda J and
Egger-Danner C 2019. Embracing opportunities of livestock big data integration with
privacy constraints. In 9th International Conference on the Internet of Things (IoT 2019),
October 22-25, 2019, Bilbao, Spain. ACM, New York, NY, USA.
Phuphanin A, Sampanporn L and Sutapun B 2019. Smartphone-based device for non-invasive
heart-rate measurement of chicken embryos. Sensors 19, 4843.
Picchi VV, de Castro EFJ, Marino FCH and Ribiero SL 2019. ICBTA 2019, 9-11.
32
Piñeiro C, Morales J, Rodríguez M, Aparicio M, Manzanilla EG and Kokestsu Y 2019. Big (pig)
data and the internet of the swine things: a new paradigm in the industry. Animal Frontiers
9, 6–15.
Röttgen V, Schön PC, Becker F, Tuchscherer A, Wrenzycki C, Düpjan S and Puppe B 2019.
Automatic recording of individual oestrus vocalisation in group-housed dairy cattle:
development of a cattle call monitor. Animal 14, 198–205.
Sasaki Y 2019. Detection and prediction of risk factors associated with production losses using
production records on commercial pig farms. Food Agricultural Policy Platform Article.
Accessed on June 7, 2020 on: http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=1066.
Taneja M, Byabazaire J, Jalodia N, Davy A, Olariu C and Malone P 2020. Machine learning based
fog computing assisted data-driven approach for early lameness detection in dairy cattle.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 171, 105286.
Thornton PK 2010. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science 365, 2853–2867.
Tsay J, Lu C and Tu T 2019. Application of common information platform to foster data-driven
agriculture in Taiwan. Food Agricultural Policy Platform Article. Accessed on June 7, 2020
on: http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=1073.
Tuteja SK and Neethirajan S 2017. A highly efficient 2D exfoliated metal dichalcogenide for the
on-farm rapid monitoring of non-esterified fatty acids. Chemistry Communication 53,
100002.
Tuteja SK and Neethiragan S 2018. Exploration of two-dimensional bio functionalized
phosphorene nanosheets (black phosphorous) for label free haptoglobin electro-
immunosensing applications. Nanotechnology 29, 135101.
Tuteja SK, Duffield T and Neethirajan S 2017. Graphene-based multiplexed disposable
electrochemical biosensor for rapid on-farm monitoring of NEFA and HBA dairy
biomarkers. Journal of Materials Chemistry B 5, 6930.
33
Tuteja SK, Duffied T and Neethirajan S 2017. Liquid exfoliation of 2D MoS2 nanosheets and their
utilization as a label-free electrochemical immunoassay for subclinical ketosis. Nanoscale
9, 10886.
UN (United Nations) Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2019. World
population prospects 2019: Highlights. ST/ESA/SER.A/423.
VanderWaal K, Morrison RB, Neuhauser C, Vilalta C and Perez AM 2017. Translating big data
into smart data for veterinary epidemiology. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 4, 110.
Veerapandian M, Hunter R and Neethirajan S 2016. Ruthenium dye sensitized graphene oxide
electrode for on-farm rapid detection of beta-hydroxybutyrate. Sensors and Actuators B:
Chemical 228, 180-184.
Viscardi AV, Hunniford M, Lawlis P, Leach M, and Turner PV 2017. Development of a piglet
grimace scale to evaluate piglet pain using facial expressions following castration and tail
docking: A pilot study. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 5, 51.
Warner D, Vasseur E, Lefebvre DM and Lacroix R 2020. A machine learning based decision aid
for lameness in dairy herds using farm-based records. Computers and Electronics in
Weng X, Chen L, Neethirajan S and Duffield T 2015. Development of quantum dots-based
biosensor towards on-farm detection of subclinical ketosis. Biosensors and Bioelectronics
72, 140–147.
Weng X and Neethirajan S 2018. Immunosensor based on antibody-functionalized MoS2 for rapid
detection of avian coronavirus on cotton thread. IEEE Sensors Journal 18, 4358–4363.
Werner J, Leso CUL, Kennedy E, Geoghegan A, Shalloo L, Schick M and O’Brien B 2019.
Evaluation and application potential of an accelerometer-based collar device for measuring
grazing behavior of dairy cows. Animal 13, 9.
34
Williams LR, Moore ST, Bishop-Hurley GJ and Swain DL 2020. A sensor based solution to monitor
grazing cattle drinking behaviour and water intake. Computers and Electronics in
Wolfert S, Ge L, Verdouw C and Bogaardt MJ 2017. Big data in smart farming – A review.
Agricultural Systems 153, 69–80.
World Health Organization 2020. Food Safety. Retrieved on June 6th, 2020 on:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-safety.
Wurtz KE, Camerlink I, D’Eath RB, Fernández AP, Norton T, Steibel J and Siegford J 2019.
Recording behaviour of indoor-housing farm animals automatically using machine vision
technology: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 14, e0226669.
Xuan CZ, Wu P, Zhang LN, Ma YH, Liu and Maksim YQ 2017. Compressive sensing in wireless
sensor network for poultry acoustin monitoring. International Journal of Agriculture and
Biological Engineering 10, 94–102.
35
Figure Captions
Figure 1: Prosumer values and concerns that then links the Precision Livestock Farming
technologies that addresses them. Digital technologies in modern animal farming aims to (b) avoid
risks and enhance welfare/productivity by providing reactive to predictive approaches, (c) bridge
the scales including social, ecological and political factors in moving beyond the notion of animal
productivity and beyond one-dimensional focus, and (d) move from the gross to the subtle in
finding unconventional solutions.
Figure 2: Big Data for Animal Farming: The chain of sensors-based big data applications in
precision livestock farming.
Figure 3: Prairies to Plate: Livestock supply chain depicting origin, storage, and flow of
information as the animal products move from the farm and through processing and distribution
channels to consumers. Blockchain platform enhances the supply chain visibility, product
traceability and build consumer confidence.
36
Table 1: List of Companies that use Big Data in Animal Farming
Company Big Data Technology Website Location

Name
Cargill Inc Dairy Enteligen Application https://www.cargill.com/animal- Italy

nutrition/feed-4-thought/industry-
insights
Cattle Watch Uses Location Tracking http://www.cattle-watch.com/ Israel
System and Big Data to count
the herd and enable users to
pinpoint the location of
individual animals.
Vence Artificial Intelligence and http://vence.io/ United
Sensors and Sensor based States
big data for controlling
animal movement, monitor
wellbeing and creating virtual
fence lines during grazing
Connecterra Big Data for predicting real https://www.connecterra.io/ Netherlands
time behavior of dairy farm
animals using sensors and
cloud based machine learning
Cainthus Computer vision and deep https://www.cainthus.com Ireland
learning to monitor animal
behaviour
Rex Animal Big Data for Precision http://rexanimalhealth.com/ United
Health Medicine to the Animal Health States
Sector
Chitale Dairy RFID tags and Sensors to http://www.chitaledairy.com/ India

collect data on how much the
37
dairy cow eats, and track the

health of cow
Porphyrio Predictive Egg Flow, https://www.porphyrio.com/ Belgium
Predictive Poultry Feedstock
Management, Flock
Management, Early Warning
System, and Optimized
Slaughter Planning
SmartShepherd Collar based sensor and https://www.smartshepherd.com.au/ Australia
sensor data for building
maternal pedigree (livestock
breeding) through
identification of relationships
between
animals.
Merck Animal Biometric and behavioral https://quantifiedag.com/ United
Health (formerly based big data from ear tag States
QuantifiedAg) sensors to identify sick
animals’ outliers
Alan-It Cloud-based analytical https://www.alan- Russia
service Smart4Agro; it.ru/wkpages/default.aspx
Livestock Decision Making
AgriWebb Cloud based cattle https://www.agriwebb.com/au Australia
management software for
connecting data from farm to
supply chain
BovControl Tool for data collection and https://www.bovcontrol.com United
analysis for improving States
performance on meat, milk
and genetics production;
Connects farmers,
processors, brands, ranchers,
and technical consultants.
AgriSyst PigExpert App for recording https://agrisyst.com/en/ Netherlands
sow, rearing, piglet, and
finisher big data.
38
PoultryMon Big data from sensors for http://www.poultrymon.com/ India

remote monitoring and
process monitoring for poultry
hatchery operations
Yingzi Big Data collected from ID https://m.yingzi.com/#/frontPage China
Technology cards for individual animals
and traceability of the whole
processes from the farm to
the fork.
Parmigiano Big data using tags to track https://www.parmigianoreggiano.com Italy
Reggiano products, ensure quality and
reduce fraud
39
Table 2: List of blockchain companies and their technologies employed in Livestock Industry
Company Block Chain Website Location Animal and Veterinary Applications

Name Technology
OriginTrail Ethereum Mainnet https://origintrail.io/about- Slovenia & Traceability solution for dairy, poultry, organic beef
us Hong Kong products.
Hunimal Vein Recognition http://www.hunibit.com/ Hong Kong & Animal identification technology, currently for pet
Blockchain Technology South Korea companion looking to expand to other animal sector
Limited
Ripe R3 Corda Enterprise https://www.ripe.io/ San Francisco, Food traceability platform to avoid counterfeits and
USA food fraud and measure freshness
Acoer Open APIS https://www.acoer.com/ Atlanta, USA ‘Hashlog’ technology to determine disease
transmission from livestock and farm animals to
prevent pandemics
Vetbloom Internet Based https://vetbloom.com/ Massachusetts In collaboration with IBM, Vetbloom established
Education Platform , USA application of blockchain for learning credentials in
the veterinary industry
RippleNami Visualization platform https://www.ripplenami.c Kenya Real-time livestock identification and traceability
that consolidates big om/ program
data
Ultimo Digital 5G NB-IoT Digitized https://www.ultimodt.com Sydney, Trace animal welfare and stop counterfeiting and
Technologies Supply Chain .au/ Australia measuring conditions for livestock
(UDT) Ecosystem
CattleChain FIWARE Open Source https://cattlechain.eu/ Madrid, Spain Decision making and traceability of the beef and dairy
Platform (Sentinel) cattle supply chain
VeChain VeChain Thor Block https://www.vechain.org/ Shanghai, Supply chain problems in the meat export industry
Chain - Proof-of- China
Authority (“PoA”)
consensus algorithm,
meta transaction
features
Version1 Hyper-Ledger Fabric https://www.version1.co London, United Trace individual cuts of meat back to the cows from
Model m Kingdom which they came, and share that data through QR
40
codes, mobile apps, and smartphones with

consumers in exchange for their feedback about the
taste.
Investereum Building Block Chain https://www.investereum. Belgium Combat fake food and enhance animal welfare
Knowledge Platform com/ through tracking and tracing
and Software
Development
BatchBlock Batch Block Extensible https://batchblock.com/ Surrey, United Avoiding counterfeit in veterinary pharmaceutical
Platform Kindom sector and thereby enhance animal welfare
BeefChain Azure Block Chain https://beefchain.com/ Wyoming, USA Enhance traceability and humane handling; Enabling
service unique animal identification and ensuring origin;
Rancher to Retail supply chain tracing system.
BeefLedger BeefLedger Platform https://beefledger.io/ Australia Product authenticity, brand value protection, disease
Ltd developed based on prevention, and consumer access to the source of
Ethereum technology animal origin
AgriLedger Distributed ledger http://www.agriledger.io/ London, United Digital Identity, traceability of food origin, record
technology and mobile Kingdom keeping
apps
AgriDigital Cloud based https://www.agridigital.io/ Australia Food traceability and Supply chain provenance
management platform; products/blockchain
Algorithm for calculating
the cost of delivery
using Google Maps
integration.
AgriChain Network based https://agrichain.com/ Australia Enhance transparency, Food traceability, manage
transactional software logistics
platform and distributed
ledger system
41
42
43
44

preprints202007.0040.v1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

preprints202007.0040.v1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

preprints202007.0040.v1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 July 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202007.0040.

Review: Digitalization of Animal Farming

1Ajna Consulting, 42 Edwards Street, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1E 0B3

* Corresponding author: Suresh Neethirajan. E-mail: sneethir@gmail.com

Running title: Digitalization of Animal Farming

of animal farming with Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) technologies, specifically

The implementation of PLF technologies on farms will require increased collaboration

© 2020 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Keywords: Digitalization, sensor technology, block chain technology, data models,

autonomy and data-driven farming approaches compared to experience-driven animal

it can become widely implemented.

population growth will occur primarily in underdeveloped countries, particularly in sub-

resources sustainably (Baldi and Gottardo, 2017).

scientists may rely increasingly on precision livestock technologies to digitalize animal

relate to animal health and welfare.

Current trends in livestock farming

over animal welfare, transparency, and environmental sustainability, there is growing

interest in digitalizing animal agriculture through precision livestock farming technologies

Neethirajan, 2017). Precision livestock farming (PLF) technologies provide solutions to

these growing issues in animal agriculture.

PLF technologies utilize process engineering principles to automate animal agriculture,

developments in PLF technologies include monitoring cattle behavior, detecting

vocalizations such as screams in pigs, monitoring coughs in multiple species to identify

Challenges of traditional business models

animals in critical condition. Third-party auditing programs offer comprehensive welfare

of PLF technologies, particularly biosensors, would contribute to consistent, objective, and

implement preventative measures to avoid critical failures. Precision technologies could

monitoring ‘typical’ behavior (Jorquera-Chavez et al., 2019). Precision livestock

technologies such as blockchain will allow farmers to be transparent with consumers

concerns, including biosensors, big data, and blockchain technology.

Biosensors monitor behavioral and physiological parameters of livestock, allowing farmers

programs (Ellen et al., 2019).

Neethirajan, 2018), and Johne’s disease, a detrimental bacterial infection in ruminants

welfare while cutting costs.

energy production. Biosensors, such as photoplethysmographic sensors, can easily be

GPS (global positioning system) sensors, and MEMS (microelectromechanical)-based

vaginal pressure in dairy cows (Helwatkar et al., 2014).

currently thermometers, accelerometers, microphones, and cameras. They allow farmers

microphones can be used to monitor vocalizations and coughing, alerting farmers to

(Mahdavian et al., 2020). Livestock farmers are increasingly utilizing radio-frequency

Facial detection technology is another growing area of interest in automated animal

welfare monitoring. Facial detection technologies rely on computer algorithms and

machine learning to detect features on an animal’s face for identification or to monitor

enough to determine behavioral intent in animals. Camerlink and colleagues (2018)

an indicator (Jorquera-Chavez et al., 2019). MooMonitor is a wearable biosensor

demonstrated a high correlation with traditional observation methods (Werner et al.,

detection of individual vocalizations as a method of monitoring dairy cow estrus. The

monitoring of cow health (Klerkx et al., 2019).

appetite, decrease in milk production, reproductive issues, mammary infections, and

levels of -hydroxybutyrate (HBA). Research by Weng and colleagues (2015) developed

a quantum-based biosensor to detect HBA. When Tuteja and colleagues (2017)

investigated 2D MoS2 nano-structure-based electrochemical immunosensors for the

Additionally, Veerapandian and colleagues (2016) successfully used electrochemical

biosensors of ruthenium dye-sensitized GO nanosheets to detect HBA. Screen-printed

overall resource use.

Consumers grow increasingly concerned about the carbon footprint of livestock

to monitor methane emissions (Muñoz-Tamayo et al., 2018), thus improving the

environmental sustainability of industrialized animal agriculture.

include 2D and 3D cameras, microphones, thermal infrared imaging, accelerometers,

Sound detection technologies have been successful in detecting differences in