Cargando…

Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior and Welfare

Virtual fencing technology restricts animal movement via communicated signals without physical boundaries. Specifically, the eShepherd™ automated virtual fencing system operates via GPS technology and provides stimuli via a neckband device. An audio warning tone is emitted at the virtual boundary wh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Campbell, Dana L. M., Lea, Jim M., Keshavarzi, Hamideh, Lee, Caroline
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6927273/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31921906
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00445
_version_ 1783482274929442816
author Campbell, Dana L. M.
Lea, Jim M.
Keshavarzi, Hamideh
Lee, Caroline
author_facet Campbell, Dana L. M.
Lea, Jim M.
Keshavarzi, Hamideh
Lee, Caroline
author_sort Campbell, Dana L. M.
collection PubMed
description Virtual fencing technology restricts animal movement via communicated signals without physical boundaries. Specifically, the eShepherd™ automated virtual fencing system operates via GPS technology and provides stimuli via a neckband device. An audio warning tone is emitted at the virtual boundary which is followed by an electrical pulse if the animal continues moving forward. Animal welfare is a priority consideration for the commercial implementation of virtual fencing systems. The current study assessed the effects of a virtual fence, in comparison to an electric tape fence, to contain eight groups of eight 12–14 month old steers within a 6-ha area across eight separate paddocks for 4 weeks following 1 week acclimation to the paddocks. Cattle were assessed across two cohorts (four groups/cohort) from January until March 2019 in Australia. Body weight and fecal samples from each animal were taken weekly. Fecal samples were processed for fecal cortisol metabolite (FCM) concentrations. IceQube R®'s fitted to the leg measured individual lying and standing time and the virtual fencing neckbands recorded GPS location and all administered audio and electrical stimuli. Cattle were maintained within their allocated area by both fence types across the 4-week period and those with the virtual fences were responding correctly to the audio cue with an average of 71.51 ± 2.26% of all cues across all animals being audio only. There was individual variation in rate of learning. The electric tape groups in cohort 1 showed a greater increase in body weight over 4 weeks than the virtual fence groups (P < 0.001) but this difference was not confirmed in cohort 2. The fence type statistically influenced the total daily lying time (P = 0.02) with less lying in cattle from the virtual fence groups but this difference equated to an average of <20 min per day. There were no differences between fence types in FCM concentrations (P = 0.39) and the concentrations decreased across time for all cattle (P < 0.001). These results indicate that virtual fencing technology effectively contains animals in a prescribed area across 4 weeks without substantial behavioral and welfare impacts on the cattle.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6927273
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69272732020-01-09 Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior and Welfare Campbell, Dana L. M. Lea, Jim M. Keshavarzi, Hamideh Lee, Caroline Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science Virtual fencing technology restricts animal movement via communicated signals without physical boundaries. Specifically, the eShepherd™ automated virtual fencing system operates via GPS technology and provides stimuli via a neckband device. An audio warning tone is emitted at the virtual boundary which is followed by an electrical pulse if the animal continues moving forward. Animal welfare is a priority consideration for the commercial implementation of virtual fencing systems. The current study assessed the effects of a virtual fence, in comparison to an electric tape fence, to contain eight groups of eight 12–14 month old steers within a 6-ha area across eight separate paddocks for 4 weeks following 1 week acclimation to the paddocks. Cattle were assessed across two cohorts (four groups/cohort) from January until March 2019 in Australia. Body weight and fecal samples from each animal were taken weekly. Fecal samples were processed for fecal cortisol metabolite (FCM) concentrations. IceQube R®'s fitted to the leg measured individual lying and standing time and the virtual fencing neckbands recorded GPS location and all administered audio and electrical stimuli. Cattle were maintained within their allocated area by both fence types across the 4-week period and those with the virtual fences were responding correctly to the audio cue with an average of 71.51 ± 2.26% of all cues across all animals being audio only. There was individual variation in rate of learning. The electric tape groups in cohort 1 showed a greater increase in body weight over 4 weeks than the virtual fence groups (P < 0.001) but this difference was not confirmed in cohort 2. The fence type statistically influenced the total daily lying time (P = 0.02) with less lying in cattle from the virtual fence groups but this difference equated to an average of <20 min per day. There were no differences between fence types in FCM concentrations (P = 0.39) and the concentrations decreased across time for all cattle (P < 0.001). These results indicate that virtual fencing technology effectively contains animals in a prescribed area across 4 weeks without substantial behavioral and welfare impacts on the cattle. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6927273/ /pubmed/31921906 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00445 Text en Copyright © 2019 Campbell, Lea, Keshavarzi and Lee. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Veterinary Science
Campbell, Dana L. M.
Lea, Jim M.
Keshavarzi, Hamideh
Lee, Caroline
Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior and Welfare
title Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior and Welfare
title_full Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior and Welfare
title_fullStr Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior and Welfare
title_full_unstemmed Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior and Welfare
title_short Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior and Welfare
title_sort virtual fencing is comparable to electric tape fencing for cattle behavior and welfare
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6927273/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31921906
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00445
work_keys_str_mv AT campbelldanalm virtualfencingiscomparabletoelectrictapefencingforcattlebehaviorandwelfare
AT leajimm virtualfencingiscomparabletoelectrictapefencingforcattlebehaviorandwelfare
AT keshavarzihamideh virtualfencingiscomparabletoelectrictapefencingforcattlebehaviorandwelfare
AT leecaroline virtualfencingiscomparabletoelectrictapefencingforcattlebehaviorandwelfare