» Articles » PMID: 35405832

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.

Citing Articles

Spatial Distribution and Hierarchical Behaviour of Cattle Using a Virtual Fence System.

Lund S, Jacobsen J, Nielsen M, Friis M, Nielsen N, Mortensen N Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(14).

PMID: 39061583 PMC: 11274020. DOI: 10.3390/ani14142121.


Using Activity Measures and GNSS Data from a Virtual Fencing System to Assess Habitat Preference and Habitat Utilisation Patterns in Cattle.

Aaser M, Staahltoft S, Andersen M, Alstrup A, Sonne C, Bruhn D Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(10).

PMID: 38791723 PMC: 11117224. DOI: 10.3390/ani14101506.


Effects of Social Facilitation and Introduction Methods for Cattle on Virtual Fence Adaptation.

Simonsen P, Husted N, Clausen M, Spens A, Dyrholm R, Thaysen I Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(10).

PMID: 38791673 PMC: 11117360. DOI: 10.3390/ani14101456.


A matter of age? How age affects the adaptation of lactating dairy cows to virtual fencing.

Confessore A, Schneider M, Pauler C, Aquilani C, Fuchs P, Pugliese C J Anim Sci. 2024; 102.

PMID: 38743503 PMC: 11141297. DOI: 10.1093/jas/skae137.


How do grazing beef and dairy cattle respond to virtual fences? A review.

Wilms L, Komainda M, Hamidi D, Riesch F, Horn J, Isselstein J J Anim Sci. 2024; 102.

PMID: 38619181 PMC: 11088281. DOI: 10.1093/jas/skae108.


References
1.
Lee C, Colditz I, Campbell D . A Framework to Assess the Impact of New Animal Management Technologies on Welfare: A Case Study of Virtual Fencing. Front Vet Sci. 2018; 5:187. PMC: 6110809. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00187. View

2.
Santicchia F, Wauters L, Dantzer B, Westrick S, Ferrari N, Romeo C . Relationships between personality traits and the physiological stress response in a wild mammal. Curr Zool. 2020; 66(2):197-204. PMC: 7233610. DOI: 10.1093/cz/zoz040. View

3.
Brunberg E, Bergslid I, Boe K, Sorheim K . The ability of ewes with lambs to learn a virtual fencing system. Animal. 2017; 11(11):2045-2050. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731117000891. View

4.
Azevedo C, Young R . Animal Personality and Conservation: Basics for Inspiring New Research. Animals (Basel). 2021; 11(4). PMC: 8065675. DOI: 10.3390/ani11041019. View

5.
Kearton T, Marini D, Cowley F, Belson S, Lee C . The Effect of Virtual Fencing Stimuli on Stress Responses and Behavior in Sheep. Animals (Basel). 2019; 9(1). PMC: 6356644. DOI: 10.3390/ani9010030. View