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

Virtual Fencing (VF) can be a helpful technology in managing herds in pasture-based systems. In VF systems, animals wear a VF collar using global positioning, and physical boundaries are replaced by virtual ones. The Nofence (Nofence AS, Batnfjordsøra, Norway) collars used in this study emit an acoustic warning when an animal approaches the virtual boundaries, followed by an aversive electrical pulse if the animal does not return to the defined area. The stimuli sequence is repeated up to three times if the animal continues to walk forward. Although it has been demonstrated that animals successfully learn to adapt to the system, it is unknown if this adaptation changes with animal age and thus has consequences for VF training and animal welfare. This study compared the ability of younger and older dairy cows to adapt to a VF system and whether age affected activity behavior, milk yield, and animal long-term stress under VF management. The study was conducted on four comparable strip-grazing paddocks. Twenty lactating Holstein-Friesian cows, divided into four groups of five animals each, were equipped with VF collars and pedometers. Groups differed in age: two groups of older cows (>4 lactations) and two groups of younger ones (first lactation). After a 7-d training, paddock sizes were increased by successively moving the virtual fence during four consecutive grazing periods. Throughout the study, the pedometers recorded daily step count, time spent standing, and time spent lying. For the determination of long-term stress, hair samples were collected on the first and last day of the trial and the hair cortisol content was assessed. Data were analyzed by generalized mixed-effect models. Overall, age had no significant impact on animal responses to VF, but there were interaction effects of time: the number of acoustic warnings in the last period was higher in younger cows (P < 0.001), and the duration of acoustic warnings at training was shorter for older cows (P < 0.01). Moreover, younger cows walked more per day during the training (P < 0.01). Finally, no effects on milk yield or hair cortisol content were detected. In conclusion, all cows, regardless of age, adapted rapidly to the VF system without compromising their welfare according to the indicators measured.

Stress indicators in dairy cows adapting to virtual fencing

Virtual fencing (VF) enables livestock grazing without physical fences by conditioning animals to a virtual boundary delimited with an audio tone (AT) and an electric pulse (EP). The present study followed the adaptation process of lactating dairy cows to a VF system with changing virtual boundaries and investigated its impact on animal welfare. Twenty cows were divided into stratified groups (2× VF; 2× electric fencing, EF) of five individuals. Each group grazed half-days in a separate EF paddock of comparable size during 3 d of acclimation (P0), followed by 21, 14, 14, and 7 d of experimental treatment (P1 to P4). At the start of the trial, all cows were equipped with an IceQube pedometer (Peacock Technology Ltd, Stirling, UK) and a VF collar (Nofence AS, Batnfjordsøra, Norway). During P0, cows were accustomed to their first paddock with a deactivated virtual boundary and wearing the sensors. In P1 to P4, an active virtual boundary for the VF groups, and a second EF for the EF groups was set up parallel to an outer EF within their paddock. Throughout the trial, the sensors continuously tracked cow positions and activity behavior at 15-min intervals. From P1 onwards, the VF collars additionally recorded each AT and EP per cow with a georeferenced time stamp. During P0 to P4, daily feed intake, body weight, and milk yield were recorded in the barn. A total of 26 milk samples were collected per cow to determine milk cortisol levels. Behavioral observations were conducted for 2 h on day 23 to record agonistic behaviors, vocalizations, and excretions. The total number of stimuli per cow ranged from 37 to 225 ATs (mean ± SD: 1.9 ± 3.3 per day) and 3 to 11 EPs (mean ± SD: 0.1 ± 0.7 per day) throughout the trial. The maximum number of EPs per day was 8 for an individual cow and occurred once on D1. Mean EP/AT decreased by 55% during the first three half-days of grazing and with each paddock change from 0.2 EP/AT in week 1 to 0.03, 0.02, and 0 EP/AT in weeks 4, 6, and 8, respectively. Linear and generalized mixed effects models revealed that milk yield and cortisol, feed intake, body weight, and activity and lying behavior did not significantly differ between VF and EF groups. A higher number of agonistic behaviors were observed in the VF groups when the VF system was activated. However, due to the short observation periods only few contacts were observed in total. Overall, all cows adapted to the VF system without evidence of lasting adverse effects on animal welfare.

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

Virtual fencing (VF) is a modern fencing technology that requires the animal to wear a device (e.g., a collar) that emits acoustic signals to replace the visual cue of traditional physical fences (PF) and, if necessary, mild electric signals. The use of devices that provide electric signals leads to concerns regarding the welfare of virtually fenced animals. The objective of this review is to give an overview of the current state of VF research into the welfare and learning behavior of cattle. Therefore, a systematic literature search was conducted using two online databases and reference lists of relevant articles. Studies included were peer-reviewed and written in English, used beef or dairy cattle, and tested neck-mounted VF devices. Further inclusion criteria were a combination of audio and electrical signals and a setup as a pasture trial, which implied that animals grazed in groups on grassland for 4 h minimum while at least one fence side was virtually fenced. The eligible studies (n = 13) were assigned to one or two of the following categories: animal welfare (n studies = 8) or learning behavior (n studies = 9). As data availability for conducting a meta-analysis was not sufficient, a comparison of the means of welfare indicators (daily weight gain, daily lying time, steps per hour, daily number of lying bouts, and fecal cortisol metabolites [FCM]) for virtually and physically fenced animals was done instead. In an additional qualitative approach, the results from the welfare-related studies were assembled and discussed. For the learning behavior, the number of acoustic and electric signals and their ratio were used in a linear regression model with duration in days as a numeric predictor to assess the learning trends over time. There were no significant differences between VF and PF for most welfare indicators (except FCM with lower values for VF; P = 0.0165). The duration in days did not have a significant effect on the number of acoustic and electric signals. However, a significant effect of trial duration on the ratio of electric-to-acoustic signals (P = 0.0014) could be detected, resulting in a decreasing trend of the ratio over time, which suggests successful learning. Overall, we conclude that the VF research done so far is promising but is not yet sufficient to ensure that the technology could not have impacts on the welfare of certain cattle types. More research is necessary to investigate especially possible long-term effects of VF.

Current and Future Approaches to Mitigate Conflict between Humans and Asian Elephants: The Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices

Simple Summary

Conflict between humans and Asian elephants is a major conservation issue. Here we discuss common tools used to manage human-elephant conflict (HEC) in Asia and the potential of animal-borne satellite-linked shock collars or Aversive Geofencing Devices (AGDs) for managing problem elephants. Most current HEC mitigation tools lack the ability to be modified to accommodate needs of elephants and therefore are sometimes unsuccessful. AGDs currently used to manage livestock movement can be adapted to mitigate HEC to overcome this problem. AGDs can constantly monitor animal movements and be programmed to deliver sound warnings followed by electric shock whenever animals attempt to move across virtual boundaries demarcated by managers. Elephants fitted with AGDs are expected to learn to avoid the electric shock by associating it with the warning sound and move away from specified areas. Based on the potential shown by studies conducted using AGDs on other wild species, we suggest that experiments should be conducted with captive elephants to determine the efficacy and welfare impact of AGDs on elephants. Further, assessing public opinion on using AGDs on elephants will also be important. If elephants can learn to avoid virtual boundaries set by AGDs, it could help to significantly reduce HEC incidents.

Abstract

Asian elephants are a principal cause of human-wildlife conflict. This results in the death/injury of elephants and humans and large-scale crop and property damage. Most current human-elephant conflict (HEC) mitigation tools lack the flexibility to accommodate the ecological needs of elephants and are ineffective at reducing HEC in the long-term. Here we review common HEC mitigation tools used in Asia and the potential of Aversive Geofencing Devices (AGDs) to manage problem elephants. AGDs can be configured to monitor animal movements in real-time and deliver auditory warnings followed by electric stimuli whenever animals attempt to move across user-specified virtual boundaries. Thus, AGDs are expected to condition elephants to avoid receiving shocks and keep them away from virtually fenced areas, while providing alternative routes that can be modified if required. Studies conducted using AGDs with other species provide an overview of their potential in conditioning wild animals. We recommend that the efficacy and welfare impact of AGDs be evaluated using captive elephants along with public perception of using AGDs on elephants as a means of addressing the inherent deficiencies of common HEC mitigation tools. If elephants could be successfully conditioned to avoid virtual fences, then AGDs could resolve many HEC incidents throughout Asia.