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

Global 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 vi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Dana L. M. Campbell, Jim M. Lea, William J. Farrer, Sally J. Haynes, Caroline Lee
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2017-09-01
Series:Animals
Subjects:
GPS
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/9/72
id doaj-07d7d59d0c584d45b51fd36778f6ee52
record_format Article
spelling doaj-07d7d59d0c584d45b51fd36778f6ee522020-11-25T00:40:22ZengMDPI AGAnimals2076-26152017-09-01797210.3390/ani7090072ani7090072Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence LinesDana L. M. Campbell0Jim M. Lea1William J. Farrer2Sally J. Haynes3Caroline Lee4Agriculture and Food, CSIRO, New England Highway, Armidale, NSW 2350, AustraliaAgriculture and Food, CSIRO, New England Highway, Armidale, NSW 2350, AustraliaAgersens, Pty Ltd., Melbourne, VIC 3000, AustraliaAgersens, Pty Ltd., Melbourne, VIC 3000, AustraliaAgriculture and Food, CSIRO, New England Highway, Armidale, NSW 2350, AustraliaGlobal 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.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/9/72GPStechnologywelfareassociative learningactivitybehavioural patterns
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Dana L. M. Campbell
Jim M. Lea
William J. Farrer
Sally J. Haynes
Caroline Lee
spellingShingle Dana L. M. Campbell
Jim M. Lea
William J. Farrer
Sally J. Haynes
Caroline Lee
Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence Lines
Animals
GPS
technology
welfare
associative learning
activity
behavioural patterns
author_facet Dana L. M. Campbell
Jim M. Lea
William J. Farrer
Sally J. Haynes
Caroline Lee
author_sort Dana L. M. Campbell
title Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence Lines
title_short Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence Lines
title_full Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence Lines
title_fullStr Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence Lines
title_full_unstemmed Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence Lines
title_sort tech-savvy beef cattle? how heifers respond to moving virtual fence lines
publisher MDPI AG
series Animals
issn 2076-2615
publishDate 2017-09-01
description Global 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.
topic GPS
technology
welfare
associative learning
activity
behavioural patterns
url https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/9/72
work_keys_str_mv AT danalmcampbell techsavvybeefcattlehowheifersrespondtomovingvirtualfencelines
AT jimmlea techsavvybeefcattlehowheifersrespondtomovingvirtualfencelines
AT williamjfarrer techsavvybeefcattlehowheifersrespondtomovingvirtualfencelines
AT sallyjhaynes techsavvybeefcattlehowheifersrespondtomovingvirtualfencelines
AT carolinelee techsavvybeefcattlehowheifersrespondtomovingvirtualfencelines
_version_ 1725290619226554368