Comparison of electric fence and a simulated fenceless control system on cattle movements

Simple SummaryVirtual fencing has the potential to increase the implementation of spatial grazing management and targeted grazing without the use of conventional fencing. Current virtual fencing that uses an algorithm that is patented through CSIRO involves a collar that emits a warning audio when an animal approaches a set boundary. If the animal continues walking towards the boundary, an electric stimulus is applied. Using manually operated collars to implement a similar virtual fence, a small group of sheep were restricted from accessing a section of a small paddock. Sheep were successfully kept out of the excluded zone of the paddock. By the third day, the sheep were able to avoid receiving an electrical stimulus by turning away from the boundary when the warning audio was applied. When the sheep were allowed full access to the paddock again, then they were quick to use the once restricted area.AbstractVirtual fencing has the potential to greatly improve livestock movement, grazing efficiency, and land management by farmers; however, relatively little work has been done to test the potential of virtual fencing with sheep. Commercial dog training equipment, comprising of a collar and GPS hand-held unit were used to implement a virtual fence in a commercial setting. Six, 5–6 year-old Merino wethers, which were naïve to virtual fencing were GPS tracked for their use of a paddock (80 × 20 m) throughout the experiment. The virtual fence was effective at preventing a small group of sheep from entering the exclusion zone. The probability of a sheep receiving an electrical stimulus following an audio cue was low (19%), and declined over the testing period. It took an average of eight interactions with the fence for an association to be made between the audio and stimulus cue, with all of the animals responding to the audio alone by the third day. Following the removal of the virtual fence, sheep were willing to cross the previous location of the virtual fence after 30 min of being in the paddock. This is an important aspect in the implementation of virtual fencing as a grazing management tool and further enforces that the sheep in this study were able to associate the audio with the virtual fence and not the physical location itself.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Controlling Within-Field Sheep Movement Using Virtual Fencing

Marini

Llewellyn

Belson

et al. 2018

“…This is in contrast to what has been found in smaller experimental settings, where heifers were trained to avoid specific areas via either electric collars (virtual fences but with no audio cues-manually controlled), or visual electric fences. Following the removal of the physical and virtual barriers, the cattle trained with the virtual fence showed a higher avoidance of the previously learned aversive area [ 16 ]. However, experiments in different paddock environments could assess how a preference for an area within the exclusion zone impacts interactions with virtual fence lines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence Lines

Campbell

Lea

Farrer³

et al. 2017

Simple SummaryPhysical fences are not always possible, thus automated technology called “virtual fencing” provides a potential solution. Virtual fencing uses Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and animals wear collar devices. As animals approach the virtual fence line, the collar emits an audio tone; if the animals walk further forward, they receive an electrical stimulus. If the animal turns around after the audio tone, they receive no electrical stimulus. However, no studies to date have looked at how animals respond when virtual fences have moved to different paddock locations. Virtual boundaries were set up to restrict six beef cattle wearing collars to different paddock areas. Within a few days, the animals were able to avoid the electrical stimulus by learning to turn away from the fence when they heard the audio tone. Over several weeks, the virtual fence was moved to three different locations within the paddock, and the animals rapidly learned it had moved, turning away at the audio tone the majority of the time. This shows that animals can learn the different collar signals and avoid moving virtual boundaries via the audio tone. The application of virtual fencing to farms enables improved animal management and animal exclusion from environmentally sensitive areas.AbstractGlobal Positioning System (GPS)-based virtual fences offer the potential to improve the management of grazing animals. Prototype collar devices utilising patented virtual fencing algorithms were placed on six Angus heifers in a 6.15 hectare paddock. After a “no fence” period, sequential, shifting virtual fences restricted the animals to 40%, 60%, and 80% of the paddock area widthways and 50% lengthways across 22 days. Audio cues signaled the virtual boundary, and were paired with electrical stimuli if the animals continued forward into the boundary. Within approximately 48 h, the cattle learned the 40% fence and were henceforth restricted to the subsequent inclusion zones a minimum of 96.70% (±standard error 0.01%) of the time. Over time, the animals increasingly stayed within the inclusion zones using audio cues alone, and on average, approached the new fence within 4.25 h. The animals were thus attentive to the audio cue, not the fence location. The time spent standing and lying and the number of steps were similar between inclusion zones (all p ≥ 0.42). More lying bouts occurred at the 80% and lengthways inclusion zones relative to “no fence” (p = 0.04). Further research should test different cattle groups in variable paddock settings and measure physiological welfare responses to the virtual fencing stimuli.

“…The application of virtual fencing has been well demonstrated on beef breed cattle in extensive grazing systems [3,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12], and may enable the implementation of intense and complex grazing regimes in pastoral dairy systems [13,14]. There is considerable variation between individual beef heifers [6,10] and dairy cows [14] in associative learning of audio and electrical stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre-Exposure to an Electrical Stimulus Primes Associative Pairing of Audio and Electrical Stimuli for Dairy Heifers in a Virtual Fencing Feed Attractant Trial

Verdon

Marini

et al. 2020

This experiment examined whether pre-exposure to an electrical stimulus from electric fencing attenuates associative pairing of audio and electrical stimuli in dairy heifers. Two treatments were applied to 30 weaned heifers naive to electric fencing. Heifers in the ‘electric-fence’ treatment were exposed to an electrified perimeter fence and two periods of strip-grazing using electrified poly-wire. Control heifers remained naïve to electric fencing. The pairing of audio and electrical stimuli was assessed in a feed attractant trial using manually controlled training collars. Heifers received an audio stimulus (2 s; 84 dB) when they breached a virtual fence after which a short electrical stimulus (0.5 s; 120 mW) was administered if they continued to move forward. If the animal stopped moving forward no further stimuli were applied. By the third training session, electric-fence heifers received a lower proportion of electrical stimuli than control heifers (p = 0.03). The more exploratory interactions a heifer had with the electric fence, the lower the proportion of electrical stimuli she received during training (rs = −0.77, p = 0.002). We conclude that experience with electrical fencing enhanced the salience of the electrical stimulus delivered by manual collars used for virtual fence training.