Simple SummaryVirtual fencing is a new technology that uses audio signals and electrical stimuli to spatially control animals without the need for fixed fencing. It involves avoidance learning whereby the animals learn to respond to an audio cue (conditioning stimulus) to avoid receiving an aversive electrical stimulus (unconditioned stimulus). The audio cue is used to warn the animal that it is approaching the boundary and should be benign and not perceived as aversive to the animal. While a positive punishment stimulus is necessary for learning, it should not be so aversive to the animal that it impinges on its welfare. This study aimed to determine how the stimuli used in virtual fencing are perceived by the animal when they are first encountered. The audio and electrical stimuli were compared to other commonly encountered stimuli in normal sheep production systems, including a barking dog and a restraint procedure. The physiological and behavioral responses of sheep indicated that sheep were no more adversely impacted by virtual fencing stimuli than they were by other commonly encountered stimuli. The least to most aversive treatments were: Control < Beep < Barking Dog < Electrical stimulus < Restraint.AbstractTo understand the animal welfare impact of virtual fencing stimuli (audio cue ‘beep’ and electrical stimulus) on naïve sheep, it is necessary to assess stress responses during the animal’s first encounters with these stimuli. Eighty Merino ewes were exposed to one of the following treatments (n = 16 animals per treatment): Control (no stimuli), beep, dog bark, manual restraint, and electrical stimulus. Collars were used to apply the audio and electrical stimuli. The restraint treatment showed an elevated cortisol response compared with the control (p < 0.05), but there were no differences between the other treatments and the control. There were no differences between treatments in vaginal temperature (p > 0.05). For behaviors, the sheep receiving the bark and beep treatments were more vigilant compared to the control (p < 0.05), there were more aversive responses observed in the electrical stimulus treatment compared to the control. Together, the responses showed that the beep stimuli were largely benign, the bark stimuli was minimally aversive, the electrical stimuli was acutely aversive, and the restraint was moderately aversive. These data suggest that, for sheep, their first exposure to the virtual fencing stimuli should be perceived as less aversive than a commonly used restraint procedure.

Few data exist on direct greenhouse gas emissions from pen manure at beef feedlots. However, emission inventories attempt to account for these emissions. This study used a large chamber to isolate NO and CH emissions from pen manure at two Australian commercial beef feedlots (stocking densities, 13-27 m head) and related these emissions to a range of potential emission control factors, including masses and concentrations of volatile solids, NO, total N, NH, and organic C (OC), and additional factors such as total manure mass, cattle numbers, manure pack depth and density, temperature, and moisture content. Mean measured pen NO emissions were 0.428 kg ha d (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.252-0.691) and 0.00405 kg ha d (95% CI, 0.00114-0.0110) for the northern and southern feedlots, respectively. Mean measured CH emission was 0.236 kg ha d (95% CI, 0.163-0.332) for the northern feedlot and 3.93 kg ha d (95% CI, 2.58-5.81) for the southern feedlot. Nitrous oxide emission increased with density, pH, temperature, and manure mass, whereas negative relationships were evident with moisture and OC. Strong relationships were not evident between NO emission and masses or concentrations of NO or total N in the manure. This is significant because many standard inventory calculation protocols predict NO emissions using the mass of N excreted by the animal.

Early virtual fencing trials have effectively contained small groups of sheep within set areas of a paddock when all animals were wearing manual electronic collars. With sheep farming commonly involving large flocks, a potential cost-effective application of virtual fencing would involve applying equipment to only a proportion of the flock. In this study, we tested the ability of virtual fencing to control a small flock of sheep with differing proportions of the group exposed to the virtual fence (VF). Thirty-six Merino sheep were identified as leaders, middle or followers by moving them through a laneway. The sheep were then allocated to groups balanced for order of movement. The groups (n = 9 per group) included applying the VF to the following proportions of animals within each group: (1) 100% (n = 9 VF) (2) 66% (n = 6 VF; n = 3 no VF) (3) 33% (n = 3 VF; n = 6 no VF) (4) 0% (no VF; free to roam the paddock). The groups were given access to their own paddock (80 × 20 m) for two consecutive days, six hours per day, with the VF groups prevented from entering an exclusion zone that covered 50% of the north side of the paddock. During these hours, VF interactions, behavioural time budgets, and body temperature were recorded as measures of stress, and location was tracked with GPS. Group 100% VF and Control were tested on the first two days and groups 33% VF and 66% VF were tested on the following two days. During VF implementation the 100% VF and 66% VF group were successfully prevented from entering the exclusion zone. Having only 33% of the flock exposed to the virtual fence was not successful, with the sheep pushing forward through the VF to join flock mates in the exclusion zone. For learning to respond to the audio cue, sheep in the 33% group received more electrical stimuli with a 0.51 proportion for the ratio of electrical stimuli to audio cue, compared to 0.22 and 0.28 for the 100% and 66% groups, respectively. There were small differences in behavioural patterns of standing and lying on both days of testing, with the 100% VF and 66% VF groups spending more time lying. Although stress-induced hyperthermia did not occur in any of the VF groups, body temperature differed in the 33% VF group. There were no differences in temperature measures between the control and 100% VF animals. This study demonstrates that for a short period, controlling two-thirds of the flock was equally as effective as virtually fencing all animals, while controlling one-third of a flock with a virtual fence was not effective. For the short term, it appears that implementing the VF to a proportion of the flock can be an effective method of containment. Due to the limitations of this study, these results warrant further testing with larger flocks and for longer periods.