Answer first
Prepare five connected yard records before the cameras go live
Organize five records first: the pen map, expected head counts, cattle IDs, movement events, and exception reviews. Use one time standard across every system.
Cameras can then give the crew a time-stamped view to compare with the records already used in the yard.
Here, an exception means a difference between the camera view and the yard record.
Why the records come first
A camera can show what happened, but it needs a record for comparison
A visible head count has little value if the expected count is old. Gate activity is hard to review if pen names differ across systems.
The same problem appears when a transfer has no time, destination, or completed count. The source record must be clear before software can point to a useful difference.
Current Beef Quality Assurance materials call for receiving, inventory, transfer, movement, and treatment records. They also use pen maps during feedyard assessments.
Iowa State's 2026 cattle feeder program makes the same practical point. Feedlot technology works best when digital records support the decisions the yard needs to make.
Five records to prepare
Give the crew one reliable reference for each review
Use one pen map and one set of names
Give every home pen, receiving pen, hospital pen, alley, gate, chute, bunk, and water point one stable name. Use those names in the yard system and camera review.
Keep the expected head count current
Record the expected count by lot, owner, and pen after receiving, processing, transfers, pulls, returns, shipments, and confirmed losses.
Connect the cattle IDs already in use
Preserve EID or RFID, visible tag, lot, manifest, and chute records. Camera references should sit beside these sources, not replace them.
Record every movement event
Keep the time, from-pen, to-pen, gate, reason, expected count, completed count, and crew member for each move.
Close every exception with a named review
Record what differed, which source was checked, who resolved it, what changed, and when the record was closed.
Connect camera views to yard questions
Each observation should point to one record and one decision
| Camera observation | Record to compare | Crew question |
|---|---|---|
| Observed cattle in a pen | Expected pen inventory | Does the observed count match the current yard record? |
| Activity at a covered gate | Transfer or movement log | Did the move occur through the expected route and time window? |
| Chute passage and visible tag | EID, RFID, manifest, or lot record | Do the visual reference and source identity belong together? |
| Cattle at a bunk or water zone | Pen, feed, and water records | Does the visible activity fit the time and cattle group under review? |
| Source image or review clip | Exception and correction log | What evidence supports the final correction? |
How Livestock Technologies helps
Compare observed cattle with the count and movement records you trust
Livestock Technologies configures fixed cameras around pens, gates, alleys, chutes, bunks, and water zones. Each covered view keeps time and location with the source image or clip.
The system can organize observed counts and possible movement events for review. A crew member compares that view with the expected pen inventory or movement record.
If the records differ, the reviewer sees the source material before making a correction. The closed review keeps the person, reason, source, and time together.
The cameras work alongside EID, RFID, visible tags, manifests, and feedlot software. Coverage, camera state, weather, obstruction, and record timing still matter.
See the complete feedlot inventory and movement workflow and what the cameras can record before choosing the first review question.
Field evidence
The Tuskegee deployment shows the installed observation mechanism
Livestock Technologies documented a June 2026 research feedlot deployment at Tuskegee University. It covers 60 cattle across four pens.
The installation includes fixed RGB and thermal cameras, solar field nodes, wireless links, and on-site processing and storage. Controlled chute capture adds face, muzzle, and visible-tag references.
This field record proves the installed cameras and data path. Each feedlot still needs its own coverage map, source records, review rules, and validation plan.
Review the Tuskegee field evidence and the camera and on-site technology behind the workflow.
A focused first pilot
Start with one pen question the crew already answers
- Name the person who owns each source record.
- Use one time zone and align system clocks.
- Map the pens, gates, alleys, chutes, bunks, and water points under review.
- Start with one count or movement question.
- Define who reviews an exception and how it is closed.
- Set a practical period for keeping source images, clips, and corrections.
A useful first question may be: does the observed count match the expected count after morning moves?
Keep the pilot narrow enough to review every exception. Expand only after the crew trusts the record, source view, and closeout step.
Sources and current guidance
Read the records guidance behind the checklist
- Iowa State University Extension: 2026 Cyclone Cattle Feeder Days and electronic data capture
- Beef Quality Assurance: National Manual for feedyard receiving, inventory, and movement records
- Beef Quality Assurance: animal movement and daily biosecurity record resources
- Beef Quality Assurance: feedyard assessment and pen observations
A practical next step
Bring one pen map and one inventory question
We can map camera coverage, source records, review ownership, and exception closeout around one feedlot workflow.
Plan a focused feedlot assessment