DCS-Oriented IoT Architecture for Enhanced Cattle Feed Precision
Authors: 
Guilherme Augusto Defalque, Ricardo Ribeiro Santos, Pedro Arfux, Marcio Pache, Ricardo AguiarAuthors Info & Claims
Guilherme Augusto Defalque, Ricardo Ribeiro Santos, Pedro Arfux, Marcio Pache, Ricardo AguiarAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 545 - 552
Abstract
In precision livestock, efficient supplementation is crucial for achieving productivity and quality targets, especially with fluctuating feed availability due to environmental changes. Modern farm machinery has significantly reduced cattle's supplemental feed losses and treatment time. However, estimating the precise supplement quantities remains a static, stakeholder-driven process. Integrating intelligent perception technologies, remote sensing, environmental sensors, and IoT can revolutionize supplement parameter estimation, increasing accuracy. This work presents a comprehensive and Dynamic Cattle Supplementation (DCS) IoT architecture tailored to estimate cattle supplement requirements based on environmental, forage, and cattle variables. We have also designed an Application Programming Interface (API-DCS) that works as the engine for decision-making within the IoT architecture. Our results from the API-DCS simulations in a real beef cattle production scenario showcased the architecture's ability to determine the proportion of nutritional needs according to nutritional programs---10.92%, 10.84%, and 10.92% via supplementation and 89.08%, 89.16%, and 89.08% via pasture.
References
[1]
Ricardo S. Alonso, Inés Sittón-Candanedo, Óscar García, Javier Prieto, and Sara Rodríguez-González. 2020. An intelligent Edge-IoT platform for monitoring livestock and crops in a dairy farming scenario. Ad Hoc Networks 98 (2020), 102047.
[2]
Lida Andalibi, Ardavan Ghorbani, Mehdi Moameri, Zeinab Hazbavi, Arne Nothdurft, Reza Jafari, and Farid Dadjou. 2021. Leaf Area Index Variations in Ecoregions of Ardabil Province, Iran. Remote Sensing 13, 15 (2021), 2879.
[3]
Jason Barnetson, Stuart Phinn, and Peter Scarth. 2020. Estimating Plant Pasture Biomass and Quality from UAV Imaging across Queensland's Rangelands. AgriEngineering 2, 4 (2020), 523--543.
[4]
Igor L. Bretas, Domingos S. M. Valente, Fabyano F. Silva, Mario L. Chizzotti, Mário F. Paulino, André P. D'Áurea, Domingos S. C. Paciullo, Bruno C. Pedreira, and Fernanda H. M. Chizzotti. 2021. Prediction of aboveground biomass and dry-matter content in Brachiaria pastures by combining meteorological data and satellite imagery. Grass and Forage Science 76, 3 (2021), 340--352.
[5]
Jordano R. Celestrini, Renato N. Rocha, Estêvão B. Saleme, Celso A. S. Santos, José G. P. Filho, and Rodrigo V. Andreão. 2019. An architecture and its tools for integrating IoT and BPMN in agriculture scenarios. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (Limassol, Cyprus) (SAC '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 824--831.
[6]
de Gabriel S. Oliveira, José M. Junior, Caio Polidoro, Lucas P. Osco, Henrique Siqueira, Lucas Rodrigues, Liana Jank, Sanzio Barrios, Cacilda Valle, Rosângela Simeão, et al. 2021. Convolutional Neural Networks to Estimate Dry Matter Yield in a Guineagrass Breeding Program Using UAV Remote Sensing. Sensors 21, 12 (2021), 3971.
[7]
Guilherme Defalque, Ricardo Santos, Davi Bungenstab, Diego Echeverria, Alexandre Dias, and Cristiane Defalque. 2024. Machine learning models for dry matter and biomass estimates on cattle grazing systems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 216 (2024), 108520.
[8]
Guilherme A. Defalque, Ricardo Santos, Marcio, and Cristiane Defalque. 2023. A review on beef cattle supplementation technologies. Information Processing in Agriculture (2023).
[9]
Guilherme A. Defalque, Ricardo Santos, Victor L. Yoshimura, and Fabiana V. Alves. 2020. Ingestive Behaviour Activities Based on Bioacoustic Signals in Grazing Cattle. International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS) 11, 4 (2020), 69--83.
[10]
Marcela G. dos Santos, Darine Ameyed, Fábio Petrillo, Fehmi Jaafar, and Mohamed Cheriet. 2020. Internet of things architectures: A comparative study. arXiv e-prints abs/2004.12936 (2020), arXiv-2004.
[11]
Sebastião C. V. Filho, Luiz F. C. Silva amd Mateus P Gionbelli, Polyana P. Rotta, Marcos I. Marcondes, Mario L. Chizzotti, and Laura F. Prados. 2010. BR-Corte: nutrient requirements of Zebu and crossbred. Suprema Grafica Ltda, Viçosa, MG (2010), 314.
[12]
Rigas Giovos, Dimitrios Tassopoulos, Dionissios Kalivas, Nestor Lougkos, and Anastasia Priovolou. 2021. Remote Sensing Vegetation Indices in Viticulture: A Critical Review. Agriculture 11, 5 (2021), 457.
[13]
Amarendra Goap, Deepak Sharma, A. K. Shukla, and C. R. Krishna. 2018. An IoT based smart irrigation management system using Machine learning and open source technologies. Computers and electronics in agriculture 155 (2018), 41--49.
[14]
V Gokul and Sitaram Tadepalli. 2017. Implementation of smart infrastructure and non-invasive wearable for real time tracking and early identification of diseases in cattle farming using IoT. In 2017 International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud)(I-SMAC). IEEE, 469--476.
[15]
Paul L. Greenwood. 2021. An overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increase. Animal 15 (2021), 100295. Sustainable livestock systems for high-producing animals.
[16]
José A. Imaz, Sergio García, and Luciano A. González. 2019. Real-Time Monitoring of Self-Fed Supplement Intake, Feeding Behaviour, and Growth Rate as Affected by Forage Quantity and Quality of Rotationally Grazed Beef Cattle. Animals 9, 12, Article 1129 (2019).
[17]
Series Y ITU. 2001. global information infrastructure, internet protocol aspects and next-generation networks next generation networks-frameworks and functional architecture models. C:/Users/11598004/Downloads/T-REC-Y (2001), 2060--201.
[18]
Raquel A. Oliveira, Roope Näsi, Oiva Niemeläinen, Laura Nyholm, Katja Alhonoja, Jere Kaivosoja, Lauri Jauhiainen, Niko Viljanen, Somayeh Nezami, Lauri Markelin, Teemu Hakala, and Eija Honkavaara. 2020. Machine learning estimators for the quantity and quality of grass swards used for silage production using drone-based imaging spectrometry and photogrammetry. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020), 111830.
[19]
Open-Meteo 2022. Open-Meteo. Retrieved September 09, 2023 from https://open-meteo.com/
[20]
Open Weather MAP 2012. Open Weather MAP. Retrieved September 09, 2023 from https://openweathermap.org/
[21]
Junyong Park, Jang-Ho Choi, Yong-Ju Lee, and Okgee Min. 2017. A layered features analysis in smart farm environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Big Data and Internet of Thing. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 169--173.
[22]
Junxiang Peng, Niklas Zeiner, David Parsons, Jean-Baptiste Féret, Mats Söderström, and Julien Morel. 2023. Forage Biomass Estimation Using Sentinel-2 Imagery at High Latitudes. Remote Sensing 15, 9 (2023), 2350.
[23]
Reddy R. Pullanagari, Robyn A. Dynes, Warren M. King, Ian J. Yule, Susanne Thulin, Nichola M. Knox, Abel Ramoelo, D Michalk, G Millar, and W Badgery. 2013. Remote sensing of pasture quality. In Proc. 22nd International Grasslands Congress 2013. 6.
[24]
Minwoo Ryu, Jaeseok Yun, Ting Miao, Il-Yeup Ahn, Sung-Chan Choi, and Jaeho Kim. 2015. Design and implementation of a connected farm for smart farming system. In 2015 IEEE sensors. IEEE, 1--4.
[25]
Ricardo R. Santos, Fabiana V. Alves, Patrik O. Bressan, Ricardo E. Aguiar, Wellington O. Santos, and Rafael A. Costa. 2020. A physiological-monitoring electronic platform for cattle grazing systems. International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS) 11, 3 (2020), 1--12.
[26]
João Serrano, Sara Mendes, Shakib Shahidian, and José M. da Silva. 2023. Pasture Quality Monitoring Based on Proximal and Remote Optical Sensors: A Case Study in the Montado Mediterranean Ecosystem. AgriEngineering 5, 1 (2023), 380--394.
[27]
João Serrano, Shakib Shahidian, and José M. da Silva. 2019. Evaluation of normalized difference water index as a tool for monitoring pasture seasonal and inter-annual variability in a Mediterranean agro-silvo-pastoral system. Water 11, 1 (2019), 62.
[28]
João Serrano, Shakib Shahidian, José M. da Silva, Luís Paixão, Emanuel Carreira, Rafael Carmona-Cabezas, Julio Nogales-Bueno, and Ana E. Rato. 2020. Evaluation of Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) and Remote Sensing (RS) for Estimating Pasture Quality in Mediterranean Montado Ecosystem. Applied Sciences 10, 13 (2020), 4463.
[29]
Gamaliel Simanungkalit, Roger S. Hegarty, Frances C. Cowley, and Malcolm J. McPhee. 2020. Evaluation of remote monitoring units for estimating body weight and supplement intake of grazing cattle. Animal 14, S2 (2020), s332--s340.
[30]
Sharad P. Singh, Vinesh Kumar, Akhilesh K. Singh, and Shalini Singh. 2020. A Survey on Internet of Things (IoT): Layer Specific vs. Domain Specific Architecture. In Second International Conference on Computer Networks and Communication Technologies: ICCNCT 2019. Springer, Springer International Publishing, 333--341.
[31]
Onur İleri and Ali Koç. 2022. Monitoring the available forage using Sentinel 2-derived NDVI data for sustainable rangeland management. Journal of Arid Environments 200 (2022), 104727.
Index Terms
- DCS-Oriented IoT Architecture for Enhanced Cattle Feed Precision
Recommendations
Cattle Care: An IoT Cattle Health Monitoring System (CHMS) for Backyard Dairy Cattle Farmers
CCIOT '23: Proceedings of the 2023 8th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Internet of ThingsCattle health monitoring is not unusual in today's time, there are techniques or practices used to monitor their health conditions consistently to maintain wellness to be able to produce as much milk as they can. Unfortunately, it is laborious and time-...
Sound analysis in dairy cattle vocalisation as a potential welfare monitor
Calls and behaviour were recorded and analysed.Calls by heifers have higher pitch than calls by dairy cattle.Calls related to 'lying/ruminating' have a lower pitch than calls related to other behavioural groups.It might be possible to apply call ...
Calving and estrus detection in dairy cattle using a combination of indoor localization and accelerometer sensors
Highlights- Automatic detection of calving and estrus in dairy cattle.
- Combination of ...
AbstractAccelerometers (neck- and leg-mounted) and ultra-wide band (UWB) indoor localization sensors were combined for the detection of calving and estrus in dairy cattle. In total, 13 pregnant cows and 12 cows with successful insemination ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
April 2024
1898 pages
Copyright © 2024 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 21 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
- FUNDECT
- Siafem
- CAPES
Conference
SAC '24
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,650 of 6,669 submissions, 25%
Upcoming Conference
SAC '25
- Sponsor:
- sigapp
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 25Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)25
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 25 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in