Is Virtual Fencing an Effective Way of Enclosing Cattle? Personality, Herd Behaviour and Welfare

Abstract

In modern nature conservation and rewilding there is a need for controlling the movements of large grazers in extensively managed areas. The inflexibility of physical fencing can be a limitation in nature management, and the physical boundaries created by physical fencing can have detrimental effects on wildlife. Virtual fencing systems provide boundaries without physical structures. These systems utilise collars with GPS technology to track animals and deliver auditory or electric cues to encourage the animals to stay within the predefined boundaries. This study aims to assess the use of virtual fencing (Nofence©) to keep twelve Angus cows (Bos taurus) within a virtual enclosure without compromising their welfare. As such, the study examines inter-individual differences between the cows as well as their herd behaviour, when reacting and learning to respond appropriately to virtual fencing. Moreover, the activity of the cows was used as an indicator of welfare. The virtual fencing was successful in keeping the herd within the designated area. Moreover, the cattle learned to avoid the virtual border and respond to auditory cues, where the cows received significantly more auditory warning and electric impulses per week throughout the first 14 days than the remaining 125 days (p < 0.001). The cows were found to express both inter-individual differences (p < 0.001) and herd behaviour. The cattle did not express any significant changes in their activity upon receiving an electrical impulse from the collar. Thus, indicating that there were little to no acute welfare implications associated with the use of virtual fencing in this study. This study clearly supports the potential for virtual fencing as a viable alternative to physical electric fencing. However, it also shows that both individual differences in personality and herd structure should be considered when selecting individuals for virtual fencing.

How do we feed grazing livestock in the future? A case for knowledge‐driven grazing systems

“…However, at the time of writing, there were four upcoming startups worldwide developing and commercializing virtual fencing systems, but no widespread market release has been realized. Agersens Nevertheless, the upcoming results in high efficiency in herding cattle in certain pasture areas, together with no obvious negative impacts on either animal behaviour and welfare, or on animal performance (i.e., no adverse effects on live weight gain) are therefore promising (e.g., Aaser et al, 2022;Campbell et al, 2019Campbell et al, , 2020Lomax et al, 2019). The agronomic and ecological benefits of VF for both intensive and extensive production systems still need to be assessed under different socio-economic and ecological conditions of dairy and beef cattle farms across different grazing systems.…”

Cortisol in Manure from Cattle Enclosed with Nofence Virtual Fencing

“…Virtual fencing systems utilise GPS collars. Each collar is composed of a GPS, loudspeaker, and battery that collect and send information about the animal’s position, number of auditory cues, and electrical impulses emitted upon the animal approaching a virtual invisible boundary using a smartphone or tablet [ 12 ]. So far, the use of virtual fencing is not yet legal in Denmark or other European countries However, preliminary behavioural studies do not suggest poor animal welfare in this case [ 12 ].…”

“…Each collar is composed of a GPS, loudspeaker, and battery that collect and send information about the animal’s position, number of auditory cues, and electrical impulses emitted upon the animal approaching a virtual invisible boundary using a smartphone or tablet [ 12 ]. So far, the use of virtual fencing is not yet legal in Denmark or other European countries However, preliminary behavioural studies do not suggest poor animal welfare in this case [ 12 ]. Therefore, regarding animal welfare, there is a need for more studies on stress in relation to virtual fencing and if it affects fenced animals’, for example, stress hormones such as cortisol [ 12 ].…”

“…So far, the use of virtual fencing is not yet legal in Denmark or other European countries However, preliminary behavioural studies do not suggest poor animal welfare in this case [ 12 ]. Therefore, regarding animal welfare, there is a need for more studies on stress in relation to virtual fencing and if it affects fenced animals’, for example, stress hormones such as cortisol [ 12 ].…”

“…Cattle and sheep welfare in virtual enclosures is comparable to that of traditional physical electric fencing mainly due to adaptation [ 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. However, when assessing animal welfare, it is important to consider not only the behavioural responses and learning abilities of the animals, but also the physiological indicators of stress.…”