Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version.

If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, Click here for options.

Evaluation of a Low Cost Thermographic Camera for Poultry Temperature

Published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan

Citation:  10th International Livestock Environment Symposium (ILES X)  .(doi:10.13031/iles.18-143)
Authors:   Márcia Gabrielle Lima Cândido, Ilda de Fátima Ferreira Tinôco, Lucas P Herker, Talissa F. P. Ireno, Rafaella Resende Andrade, Richard S Gates
Keywords:   image analysis, poultry, temperature, thermographic camera

Abstract. Temperature and humidity directly affect poultry performance. To monitor temperature effects on a bird‘s thermal state, different devices and methodologies are currently used, including dataloggers, infrared thermometers and cameras. The use of thermographic cameras is increasing in animal production because it is noninvasive, and not require handling, which reduces stress. Despite these advantages, the equipment cost is still high, being a barrier for popularization of its use. The aim of this study was to verify if a low cost mobile thermographic camera (LC) can replace a high cost one (HC). The research was conducted with 420 pullets (Lohmann LSL Lite) raised in four controlled environments: thermoneutral (TN, 20°C), mild heat (MiH, 25°C), moderate heat (MoH, 30°C) and severe heat (SH, 35°C). Two thermographic cameras were utilized: HC (ThermaCAM® b60), LC (FLIR One), both from the same company (FLIR Systems). Pictures were taken using both cameras in equal time and distance. Images were analyzed using the software FLIR ResearchIR. From each image, temperature of 8 distinct parts were collected, divided into six points and two areas. Data were analyzed by ANOVA using the software SigmaPlot. For all situations HC showed higher temperatures (P<0.001). Images from LC at the SH environment were the hardest to analyze. The leg temperature had the highest difference (ΔT=7.4°C) between the tested cameras. Measurement by area indicated less difference than point measures. The differences found between the thermographic cameras is significant (P<0.001). A calibration procedure is offered that allows the LC to be used with improved accuracy.

(Download PDF)    (Export to EndNotes)