Visual Sensor Placement Optimization with 3D Animation for Cattle Health Monitoring in a Confined Operation.

Abstract

Simple SummaryThis paper introduces a new method of finding the best locations to place video cameras inside large cattle barns to monitor the behavior and health of the animals. Current approaches to livestock video monitoring rely on mounting cameras in the most convenient places for installation, but those locations might either be impractical for actual barns and/or might not capture the best views. This work showed that there is short list of the best placement options for the cameras to choose from which will provide the best camera views.Computer vision has been extensively used for livestock welfare monitoring in recent years, and data collection with a sensor or camera is the first part of the complete workflow. While current practice in computer vision-based animal welfare monitoring often analyzes data collected from a sensor or camera mounted on the roof or ceiling of a laboratory, such camera placement is not always viable in a commercial confined cattle feeding environment. This study therefore sought to determine the optimal camera placement locations in a confined steer feeding operation. Measurements of cattle pens were used to create a 3D farm model using Blender 3D computer graphic software. In the first part of this study, a method was developed to calculate the camera coverage in a 3D farm environment, and in the next stage, a genetic algorithm-based model was designed for finding optimal placements of a multi-camera and multi-pen setup. The algorithm’s objective was to maximize the multi-camera coverage while minimizing budget. Two different optimization methods involving multiple cameras and pen combinations were used. The results demonstrated the applicability of the genetic algorithm in achieving the maximum coverage and thereby enhancing the quality of the livestock visual-sensing data. The algorithm also provided the top 25 solutions for each camera and pen combination with a maximum coverage difference of less than 3.5% between them, offering numerous options for the farm manager.