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

Abstract

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.

Controlling Within-Field Sheep Movement Using Virtual Fencing

“…When the virtual fence was removed the sheep were quick to approach the original virtual fence boundary and cross it when no audio cues or electrical stimulus were given. Results of our study were similar to recent work by Campbell, et al [ 16 ], which looked at implementing a virtual fence with cattle in a similar paddock situation as well as implementing changes in the virtual fences location within the paddock. Cattle were restricted from using 60% down to 20% of the paddock, with the location of the virtual fence changing every few days.…”

“…The final fence change implemented a fence line to split the paddock lengthways rather than across as had been done previously. The cattle were successfully restricted within their allowed grazing zone during the study, when the fences were moved cattle would cross the old boundary and interact with the new one within 5 h of the fence being relocated [ 16 ].…”

Welfare Assessment on Pasture: A Review on Animal-Based Measures for Ruminants

“…Most ABMs (68.85%) are recorded by direct assessment, followed by video-recording (22.95%, that also include vocalizations collected by sound recording), and sensors (in only 8.20% of cases). The use of sensors was only limited to those papers that investigated activities such as walking (e.g., [34,37,47]) and consists of data loggers attached to the hind legs or neck of the animals. Pedometers are not expensive and are already commonly used in many farms to record heat or to allow animals to be milked by automatic systems.…”

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

“…The following procedures determined the application of the audio and electrical stimuli by the researcher and were adapted from the research using automated virtual fencing collars [3,10]. Based on the researcher's visual estimation, the audio stimulus was applied for 2 s as the heifer entered the exclusion zone.…”

“…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. This variation may be associated with the specific environment and events than an individual has experienced, particularly during the developmental period [15].…”