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 potential of virtual fencing technology to facilitate sustainable livestock grazing management

Virtual fencing (VF) technology is gaining interest due to its potential to facilitate sustainable grazing management. It allows farmers to contain grazing livestock without physical fences, thereby reducing the time and labour associated with the implementation of conventional fences. From a conservation perspective, some sensitive areas within uplands should not be grazed during certain periods of the year, and VF provides an invisible and moveable fence line that can exclude livestock from these areas. However, there are also concerns associated with its use, including animal welfare impacts, cost-effectiveness, and public perception. The extent to which VF can contribute to make livestock systems more sustainable remains to be investigated. To address this gap, this study investigates the potential of VF to promote sustainable grazing management using the Efficiency, Substitution, and Redesign framework, which has been used for the first time in this context. The framework is particularly relevant in taking an active and normative approach to identify key aspects to focus on to help achieve sustainability. We consulted stakeholders including farmers, wildlife inspectors, veterinarians, policy officers, researchers, NGOs, farm advisors or certification managers, through focus groups (N = 4) and in-depth, semi-structured interviews (N = 5). Stakeholders have highlighted the potential of VF to provide new opportunities to increase the efficiency and sustainability of livestock grazing systems, enabling their redesign, and contributing to improved environmental and animal welfare outcomes, as well as higher financial and social performance. However, there are important aspects that remain to be addressed to achieve such redesign, including issues of reliability due to poor network signal, animals' ability to learn, biosecurity and safety issues related to the absence of physical fences, farm suitability and farmers' ability to use the systems effectively. This study highlights the need to ensure that the development and uptake of VF are mutually beneficial to farmers, animals, and the wider farming industry. This includes a highlight on the importance of participative approaches to involve key stakeholders to address concerns and maximise the potential of the technology.

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.

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.

The Effectiveness of Virtual Fencing of Bull Calves in a Holistic Grazing System

Large grazers are essential for nature conservation. In order to prevent grazers from moving to unintended areas, it may be necessary to keep them inside enclosures. Physical fences present a number of problems, such as fragmenting the landscape. Virtual fencing, however, is a possible replacement for physical fencing, making it possible to enclose grazers without physical boundaries. Virtual fencing systems utilise collars with GPS technology to track animals and deliver auditory warnings and electric impulses to keep animals within predefined boundaries. This study examines how effective the virtual fencing system Nofence© is at enclosing calves in a holistically managed setting. Holistic management is a rotational grazing technique where an enclosure is grazed in small strips at a time. It is investigated whether the calves become habituated to the virtual fence and whether there is a correlation between the number of warnings received by every two calves in order to explore potential herd behaviour. Finally, this study examines which calves interact the most with the virtual fence by investigating the relationship between physical activity and number of interactions. Seventeen calves were fitted with a GPS collar from the company Nofence© and placed in a holistically managed enclosure. Data were gathered from 4 July to 30 September 2022. The study found that virtual fence was able to contain calves inside the designated enclosure, and over time the calves received notably fewer electrical impulses compared to auditory warnings. The results of Pearson's correlation between auditory warnings received by two random calves were inconclusive, but the use of a sliding window analysis should be further explored. Lastly, the most physically active animals were the ones who received the most auditory warnings, but they did not receive more impulses. No significant correlation was found between the number of electric impulses received and the physical activity of the animals.

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

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.

Is Virtual Fencing an Effective Way of Enclosing Cattle? Personality, Herd Behaviour and Welfare

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.

Review: Precision Livestock Farming technologies in pasture-based livestock systems

Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) encompasses the combined application of single technologies or multiple tools in integrated systems for real-time and individual monitoring of livestock. In grazing systems, some PLF applications could substantially improve farmers' control of livestock by overcoming issues related to pasture utilisation and management, and animal monitoring and control. A focused literature review was carried out to identify technologies already applied or at an advanced stage of development for livestock management in pastures, specifically cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry. Applications of PLF in pasture-based systems were examined for cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and poultry. The earliest technology applied to livestock was the radio frequency identification tag, allowing the identification of individuals, but also for retrieving important information such as maternal pedigree. Walk-over-weigh platforms were used to record individual and flock weights. Coupled with automatic drafting systems, they were tested to divide the animals according to their needs. Few studies have dealt with remote body temperature assessment, although the use of thermography is spreading to monitor both intensively reared and wild animals. Global positioning system and accelerometers are among the most applied technologies, with several solutions available on the market. These tools are used for several purposes, such as animal location, theft prevention, assessment of activity budget, behaviour, and feed intake of grazing animals, as well as for reproduction monitoring (i.e., oestrus, calving, or lambing). Remote sensing by satellite images or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) seems promising for biomass assessment and herd management based on pasture availability, and some attempts to use UAVs to monitor, track, or even muster animals have been reported recently. Virtual fencing is among the upcoming technologies aimed at grazing management. This system allows the management of animals at pasture without physical fences but relies on associative learning between audio cues and an electric shock delivered if the animal does not change direction after the acoustic warning. Regardless of the different technologies applied, some common constraints have been reported on the application of PLF in grazing systems, especially when compared with indoor or confined livestock systems. Battery lifespan, transmission range, service coverage, storage capacity, and economic affordability were the main factors. However, even if the awareness of the existence and the potential of these upcoming tools are still limited, farmers' and researchers' demands are increasing, and positive outcomes in terms of rangeland conservation, animal welfare, and labour optimisation are expected from the spread of PLF in grazing systems.

Dairy Cattle Response to a Virtual Fence When Pasture on Offer Is Restricted to the Post-grazing Residual

Pasture-based dairy systems rely on the accurate allocation of pasture to both meet livestock requirements and maintain the growth of herbage. Currently, physical fences are used to contain livestock however they can be labor-intensive to shift and maintain. Alternatively, virtual fence (VF) systems offer flexibility and real-time control of livestock location. Pre-commercial neckbands (eShepherd®, Agersens, Melbourne, VIC) emit a warning audio tone (AT) when a cow approaches a VF boundary, paired with an electrical pulse (EP) if the cow continues forward into the exclusion zone (EZ). However, the ability of VF technology to control animal location when pasture is restricted to the previous day's residual, remains unknown. Ten non-lactating Holstein-Friesian dairy cows were trained to use a VF system for 6 days before strip grazing a 1.2 ha paddock of annual ryegrass. Over 10 days the cows grazed eight pasture allocations at a pre-grazing pasture mass of 2,324 ± 81 kg DM/ha (mean ± SE) and post-grazing pasture-mass (post-grazing residual) of 1,649 ± 48 kg/DM/ha with a front VF. The allocations had a physical backing fence that included the fresh allocation and a small area of residual to cater for any GPS drift of the front VF. On each day, with the exception of days 5 and 10, the VF was moved forward, and the cows were provided a new pasture allocation. On days 5 and 10, the VF was not shifted, and cows were only offered the previous allocation's residual pasture. The location of each animal (inclusion, buffer, and exclusion zones) and number of stimuli (AT and EP) delivered were recorded. The number of stimuli delivered between the grazing and hold-off days was similar. Cows spent 89% of time within the inclusion zone (IZ), with significant peaks observed on day 5 and 10. Distance that cows traveled into the EZ reduced across time. There was also evidence of individual variation in the number of stimuli and thus time spent in each zone. Overall, the VF system was successful in containing the dairy cows during strip grazing even when only offered the previous days post-grazing residual.

A Case Study on the Use of Virtual Fencing to Intensively Graze Angus Heifers Using Moving Front and Back-Fences

Virtual fencing contains and controls grazing cattle using sensory cues rather than physical fences. The technology comprises a neckband-mounted device that delivers an audio cue when the animal nears a virtual boundary that has been set via global positioning system, followed by an electrical stimulus if it walks beyond the boundary. Virtual fencing has successfully been used to intensively graze cattle using a simple virtual front-fence, but a more complex intensive grazing system comprising moving virtual front and back-fences has not been assessed. We studied the effectiveness of virtual fencing technology to contain groups of Angus heifers within grazing cells defined by semi-permanent electric side-fences and virtual front and back-fences, compared to groups of heifers contained in cells defined only by electric fencing. Four groups of 10 Angus heifers were randomly allocated to a “control” (grazed with a conventional electric front and back-fence, n = 2 groups) or “virtual fence” treatment (grazed with a virtual front and back-fence, n = 2 groups). The groups of heifers grazed four adjacent experimental paddocks that were established using TechnoGrazing™ infrastructure. An estimated 9.5 kg pasture DM/heifer.day was offered in each of three 3 day allocations (9 day study period). Data collected include cues delivered by the neckbands, time beyond the virtual boundaries, pasture consumption for each allocation and heifer live weight changes over the study period. The virtual front and back-fences successfully contained one group of heifers in their grazing cell, but the second group of heifers spent an increasing amount of time in the exclusion zone during the second and third allocations and consequently received an increasing number of audio and electrical stimuli. There were no effects of electric or virtual-fence treatment on live weight change or pasture utilization. By grazing heifers in adjacent paddocks our experimental design may have produced a motivation for some heifers to cross the virtual boundary to regain close contact with familiar conspecifics. Despite this, valuable learnings were gained from this study. Most notably, virtual fencing should not be used to manage cattle that have close visual contact to other mobs. We conclude that the successful application of virtual fencing technology needs to accommodate the natural behaviors of cattle.

Virtual fencing technology to intensively graze lactating dairy cattle. I: Technology efficacy and pasture utilization

Virtual fencing is promoted as the next advancement for rotational grazing systems. This experiment compared the capacity of conventional temporary electric versus virtual fencing to contain a herd of 30 lactating dairy cows within the boundaries of their daily pasture allocation (inclusion zone). Cows were moved each day to a new rectangular paddock that was divided crosswise into an inclusion and exclusion zone by a single linear electric (first 10 d) or virtual (second 10 d) front-fence. A 3-d virtual fence training period separated the 2 treatments. Virtual fences were imposed using a pre-commercial prototype of the eShepherd virtual fencing system (Agersens Pty Ltd.). Neckband-mounted devices replaced the visual cue of an electric fence with benign audio cues, which if ignored were accompanied by an aversive electrical stimulus. Cows learned to respond to the audio cues to avoid receiving electrical stimuli, with the daily ratio of electrical to audio signals for individual cows averaging (± standard deviation) 0.18 ± 0.27 over the 10 d of virtual fence deployment. Unlike the electric fence, the virtual fence did not fully eliminate cow entry into the exclusion zone, but individual cows were generally contained within the inclusion zone ≥99% of the time. Pasture depletion within the inclusion zone reduced the efficacy of the virtual fence in preventing cows from entering the exclusion zone, but the magnitude of this effect was insignificant in practical terms (i.e., increased time spent in the exclusion zone by ≤28 s/h per cow). This highlights the potential for virtual fences to control grazing dairy cow movement even when pasture availability is limited (i.e., 1 kg of dry matter/cow above a target residual of 1,500 kg of dry matter/ha), but requires confirmation under longer and more complex virtual fencing applications. Within each treatment period, uniform daily pasture utilization (% of pasture consumed above a target residual of 1,500 kg of dry matter/ha) within inclusion zones indicates that cows did not avoid grazing near electric or virtual front-fences. Overall, this study demonstrated a successful simple application of this virtual fencing system to contain a herd of grazing lactating dairy cows within the boundaries of their daily pasture allocation.

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Assess the Welfare Impacts of a New Virtual Fencing Technology

Virtual fencing involving the application of audio cues and electrical stimuli is being commercially developed for cattle. Virtual fencing has the potential to improve productivity through optimized pasture management and utilization by grazing animals. The application of virtual fencing initiates public concern for the potential welfare impacts on animals due the aversive nature of using an electrical stimulus. It is therefore important to provide welfare assurance of the impacts of virtual fencing on livestock. In this paper, we provide an overview of the welfare assessment and validation stages for virtual fencing which could be applied to other new technologies utilizing novel systems. An understanding of stress measures and their suitability for use in specific contexts is discussed, including the use of glucocorticoids to measure both acute and chronic stress, and behavioral responses and patterns to indicate welfare states. The importance of individual differences in relation to learning and cognition are also highlighted. Together, this multi-disciplinary approach to welfare assessment provides a tool kit that may be applied for welfare assurance of some new technologies and systems for farm animals.

The Effects of Dairy Heifer Age at Training on Rate of Learning and Retention of Learning in a Virtual Fencing Feed Attractant Trial

A better understanding of factors that influence learning of cattle with respect to new virtual fencing technology is required to inform the development of best practice training protocols and guide the introduction of the technology to naïve dairy cattle. This experiment examined the effect of age on (1) the efficiency of associative pairing of audio and electrical stimuli in dairy heifers and (2) the retention of this associative pairing over a long period of time without use. Fifty-nine Holstein dairy heifers were used in feed attractant trials where audio cues and electrical stimuli were delivered through manually controlled training collars. Heifers were allocated to four treatments that differed in the age at which naïve animals underwent training; these were 6-months (“6M”; n = 15), 9-months (“9M”; n = 15), 12-months (“12M”; n = 15), or 22-months of age (“22M”; n = 14). Animals in the 6, 9, and 12M treatments underwent a second round of training at 22-months of age (i.e., at the same time as naïve 22M heifers). Heifers received an audio stimulus (2 s; 84 dB) when they breached a virtual fence after which a short electrical stimulus (0.5 s; 3 V, 120 mW) was administered if they continued to move forward. If the animal stopped moving forward no further stimuli were applied. There were no effects of age treatment on the total number of interactions with the virtual fence (P &gt; 0.05). During initial training, 22M heifers received a lower proportion of electrical stimuli (i.e., responded to audio without requiring the electrical stimulus; P &lt; 0.001) and more frequently stopped walking (P = 0.01) and turned back (P = 0.008) following administration of the audio cue compared to younger heifers. Previous training at an early age did not improve the responsiveness of heifers to virtual fencing when re-trained at 22-months of age (P &gt; 0.05). We conclude that dairy heifers should be trained to virtual fencing technology close to calving age rather than earlier in their ontogeny and that stock be re-trained following an extended period without virtual fencing technology.