Virtual Fencing Technology Excludes Beef Cattle from an Environmentally Sensitive Area

Simple Summary The eShepherd® virtual fencing system being commercialized for cattle has the potential to exclude cattle from environmentally sensitive areas. Animals are given audio cues to indicate a fence line via a neckband device. An electrical pulse is administered if the animal continues moving forward following an audio cue. A commercial trial was conducted in South Australia to assess whether virtual fencing technology could exclude 20 cattle from an area of regenerating saplings, across 44 days, using a contoured fence line. The results demonstrated that the cattle were able to rapidly learn the virtual fencing cues, responding primarily to the audio cue alone, and were excluded from the regenerating area for 99.8% of the trial period. Behavioral time budgets measured by automated devices on the leg changed across the trial duration, but in no consistent pattern. At the trial conclusion, the feed available in the protected zone was double the quantity and quality of the grazed zone. Thus, virtual fencing technology using pre-commercial prototypes was shown to protect an environmental asset within a paddock from cattle grazing in the presence of a large feed differential. Abstract The eShepherd® virtual fencing system being commercialized for cattle has the potential to exclude cattle from environmentally sensitive areas. Animals are given audio cues to indicate a fence line via a neckband device. An electrical pulse is administered if the animal continues moving forward following an audio cue. A commercial trial was conducted in South Australia to assess whether virtual fencing technology could exclude 20 cattle from an area of regenerating saplings; across 44 days; using a contoured fence line. The results showed that the cattle were able to rapidly learn the virtual fencing cues; responding appropriately to the audio cue for 74.5% of 4378 audio signals; and were excluded from the regenerating area for 99.8% of the trial period with the more complex fence line (contoured; not straight) in place. IceQube R’s® measuring lying time and bouts showed no consistent increasing or decreasing pattern of change. At the trial conclusion; the feed available in the protected zone was double the quantity and quality of the grazed zone. Technical issues occurred with some of the pre-commercial prototype devices; but those versions are now obsolete. This study observed a single group of cattle in one paddock; further testing of the virtual technology is warranted.

[1]  A. Robertson,et al.  Riparian bird communities in relation to land management practices in floodplain woodlands of south-eastern Australia , 2001 .

[2]  Caroline Lee,et al.  A Framework to Assess the Impact of New Animal Management Technologies on Welfare: A Case Study of Virtual Fencing , 2018, Front. Vet. Sci..

[3]  Rick Llewellyn,et al.  Controlling Within-Field Sheep Movement Using Virtual Fencing , 2018, Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.

[4]  Caroline Lee,et al.  Virtual fencing of cattle using an automated collar in a feed attractant trial , 2017 .

[5]  Caroline Lee,et al.  Virtual Fencing Is Comparable to Electric Tape Fencing for Cattle Behavior and Welfare , 2019, Front. Vet. Sci..

[6]  J. Morgan,et al.  A framework to predict the effects of livestock grazing and grazing exclusion on conservation values in natural ecosystems in Australia. , 2007 .

[7]  P. Flinn,et al.  Low-cost pepsin-cellulase assays for prediction of digestibility of herbage , 1982 .

[8]  D M Weary,et al.  Lying behavior: assessing within- and between-herd variation in free-stall-housed dairy cows. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[9]  P. Vercoe,et al.  Broad near-infrared spectroscopy calibrations can predict the nutritional value of >100 forage species within the Australian feedbase , 2020 .

[10]  T. Wark,et al.  Associative learning by cattle to enable effective and ethical virtual fences , 2009 .

[11]  A. Jansen,et al.  Frog communities and wetland condition: relationships with grazing by domestic livestock along an Australian floodplain river , 2003 .

[12]  R A Sweeney,et al.  Comparison of LECO FP-228 "nitrogen determinator" with AOAC copper catalyst Kjeldahl method for crude protein. , 1987, Journal - Association of Official Analytical Chemists.

[13]  J. Humphrey,et al.  Effects of late summer cattle grazing on the diversity of riparian pasture vegetation in an upland conifer forest , 2000 .

[14]  J. Pykälä,et al.  Plant species responses to cattle grazing in mesic semi-natural grassland , 2005 .

[15]  Sabrina Lomax,et al.  Does Virtual Fencing Work for Grazing Dairy Cattle? , 2019, Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.

[16]  Caroline Lee,et al.  Methods of training cattle to avoid a location using electrical cues , 2007 .

[17]  D. Renter,et al.  Determination of lying behavior patterns in healthy beef cattle by use of wireless accelerometers. , 2011, American journal of veterinary research.

[18]  A. Robertson,et al.  Relationships between livestock management and the ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river , 2001 .

[19]  Lindsay R. Matthews,et al.  The effects of feed restriction and lying deprivation on pituitary–adrenal axis regulation in lactating cows , 2002 .

[20]  Caroline Lee,et al.  Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence Lines , 2017, Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.

[21]  Robert J. Kilgour,et al.  In pursuit of "normal": A review of the behaviour of cattle at pasture , 2012 .

[22]  R. Sibly,et al.  Animal behaviour at electric fences and the implications for management , 1988 .

[23]  Karin E. Schütz,et al.  Effect of solar radiation on dairy cattle behaviour, use of shade and body temperature in a pasture-based system , 2008 .

[24]  Caroline Lee,et al.  Temporary Exclusion of Cattle from a Riparian Zone Using Virtual Fencing Technology , 2018, Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.