.png){kind=icon}
Return
Visual Cues Improve Awareness but Decrease Compliance to Virtual Fence in Cattle
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1016/j.animal.2026.101944.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Virtual fencing (VF) offers an alternative to physical fences for managing livestock, but its effectiveness may be influenced by animals’ ability to perceive and respond to virtual boundaries. We examined whether supplemental visual cues—traffic cones paired with the audio warning—modify cattle responses to a commercially available VF technology. We included three group-level replicates per treatment, located in adjacent paddocks separated by temporary electric fencing. Twenty-seven Angus heifers were randomly assigned to one of six paddocks (N=4-5 animals/paddock). Control animals were subject to eShepherd® VF, while treatment animals were subject to the same VF with supplemental visual cues placed along all virtual boundaries. The first phase—training—consisted of three 24-hour grazing periods. The next phase—exclusion zone testing (EZT)—consisted of four 24-hour periods, where each circular exclusion zone contained hay bales as attractants. The final phase consisted of conditioned-response extinction, during which the VF was disabled, but visual cues were left in place. We analysed animal locations, and auditory and electrical cues. Visually cued animals received fewer audio cues (p = 0.024), grazed more in proximity to the virtual boundary (p = 0.035) and were generally quicker to learn which hay bale-containing exclusion zones were open (no active VF) and utilize that forage resource. However, visually cued animals were generally less responsive to the auditory cue and more likely to be located outside the designated grazing area (p = 0.007). Virtual fencing with or without visual cues was an effective method for managing grazing access to resource-rich patches, but visual cues enhanced the ability for virtually fenced resource patches to influence animal movement and distribution. Ultimately, these results suggest that visual cues can supersede auditory cues and lead to a behavioural trade-off in which spatial awareness of the virtual boundary is improved while compliance is reduced. Longer term and larger scale studies will be helpful in understanding how this trade-off applies in other management contexts.
Keywords:
Beef cattle
containment
learning
conditioning
grazing
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
IF:
4.2
Papers:
5.2K
Citations:
1.5W
Organization
Cited Papers
ShareSaveShareSaveEffectiveness of virtual fencing in a mountain environment and its impact on heifer behavior and welfare.png)
animal
OAAI
animalIF4.2
OAAIShareSaveShareSaveShareSaveThe potential of virtual fencing technology to facilitate sustainable livestock grazing managementANIMALOAAI
ANIMALIF4.2
OAAIShareSave
View more