Can virtual fences be used to control grazing sheep?
M. Jouven A B D , H. Leroy B , A. Ickowicz C and P. Lapeyronie A BA SupAgro, UMR SELMET, 2 Place Pierre Viala, F-34060 Montpellier, France.
B INRA, UMR 868 SELMET, 2 Place Pierre Viala, F-34060 Montpellier, France.
C CIRAD, UMR 112 SELMET, 2 Place Pierre Viala, F-34060 Montpellier, France.
D Corresponding author. Email: jouven@supagro.inra.fr
The Rangeland Journal 34(1) 111-123 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ11044
Submitted: 29 July 2011 Accepted: 9 January 2012 Published: 29 February 2012
Abstract
Virtual fences (VF) are based on sensory cues delivered to domestic animals with the aim of controlling their spatial behaviour without any physical barrier. VF represent an approach for controlling the distribution of free-ranging large herbivores in large rangeland areas where the implementation of human control or the use of physical fencing is made impossible by their cost, environmental concerns or specific regulations.
The potential of using VF for sheep was investigated by studying the spatial behaviour of groups of 5 or 32 ewes submitted to a commercial animal-borne VF device aimed at containing them in a defined area in a series of experiments. All tests were performed in pasture alleys virtually divided in their centre by a 4-m-wide warning/punishment zone). The ewes were introduced on one side of the zone, the other side being made attractive by the presence of tall grass (feed attractant), the presence of peers (social attractant) or being made unattractive by the presence of short grass (same feed as in the alley). In a first experiment, ewes were trained in groups of 5 with a feed attractant, following a 3-stage procedure: 30-min adaptation, 90-min training with a visual cue (three white strings above the wire of the VF) and 30-min test without a visual cue. In a second experiment, the test stage was repeated for each group with feed, social and zero attractants. In a third experiment, the test with feed attractant was performed with groups of 32 ewes comprising previously trained and equipped ewes mixed in different percentages of trained: naïve (untrained and unequipped) ewes (100 : 0, 75 : 25, 50 : 50 and 0 : 100%). One year later, this test was repeated with a feed attractant either close (30 m) or far (60 m) from the punishment zone. By increasing the distance to the feed attractant, it was anticipated that this would stimulate the conflict of motivation between feed and peers.
Ewes learned readily the concept of VF after a couple of contacts with the punishment zone. In the second experiment in the test with a social attractant, a few trained ewes penetrated the VF to re-associate with peers located in the pen opposite the VF. Expression of the behaviour to challenge or cross the punishment zone differed widely among individuals. In mixed groups, naïve ewes crossed the punishment zone and lead part of their trained peers across the punishment zone, regardless of the distance of the feed attractant from the punishment zone.
The results suggest that VF can be used to alter the distribution of grazing sheep within large fenced areas although they cannot replace conventional fences for absolute control.
Additional keywords: conditioned stimulus, grazing management, social attraction, virtual fencing.
References
Anderson, D. M. (2006). Virtual fencing – a concept into reality. In: ‘Proceedings of the Spatial Grazing Behavior Workshop’. (Ed. G. J. Bishop-Hurley.) pp. 61–91. (J. M. Rendel Laboratory: Rockhampton.)Anderson, D. M. (2007). Virtual fencing – past, present and future. The Rangeland Journal 29, 65–78.
| Virtual fencing – past, present and future.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Anderson, D. M., Nolen, B., Fredrickson, E., Havstad, K., Hale, C., and Nayak, P. (2004). Representing spatially explicit Directional Virtual Fencing (DVF) data. In: ‘Proceedings of the 24th Annual ESRI International User Conference’. (ESRI: San Diego, CA.)
Arnold, G. W., and Pahl, P. J. (1974). Some aspects of social behaviour in domestic sheep. Animal Behaviour 22, 592–600.
| Some aspects of social behaviour in domestic sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Arnold, G. W., Wallace, S. R., and Rea, W. A. (1981). Associations between individuals and home-range behaviour in natural flocks of three breeds of domestic sheep. Applied Animal Ethology 7, 239–257.
| Associations between individuals and home-range behaviour in natural flocks of three breeds of domestic sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bailey, D. W. (2004). Management strategies for optimal grazing distribution and use of arid rangelands. Journal of Animal Science 82, E147–E153.
Bishop-Hurley, G. J., Swain, D. L., Anderson, D. M., Sikka, P., Crossman, C., and Corke, P. (2007). Virtual fencing applications: implementing and testing an automated cattle control system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 56, 14–22.
| Virtual fencing applications: implementing and testing an automated cattle control system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boone, R. B., and Thompson Hobbs, N. (2004). Lines around fragments: effects of fencing on large herbivores. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 21, 147–158.
| Lines around fragments: effects of fencing on large herbivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Comis, D. (2000). The cyber cow whisperer and his virtual fence. Agricultural Research 48, 4–7. Available at: www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov00/ (accessed 1 June 2010).
Dumont, B., and Boissy, A. (2000). Grazing behavior of sheep in a situation of conflict between feeding and social motivations. Behavioural Processes 49, 131–138.
| Grazing behavior of sheep in a situation of conflict between feeding and social motivations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fay, P. K., McElligott, V. T., and Havstad, K. M. (1989). Containment of free-ranging goats using pulsed-radio-wave-activated shock collars. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 165–171.
| Containment of free-ranging goats using pulsed-radio-wave-activated shock collars.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jouven, M., Lapeyronie, P., Moulin, C.-H., and Bocquier, F. (2010a). Rangeland utilization in Mediterranean farming systems. Animal 4, 1746–1757.
| Rangeland utilization in Mediterranean farming systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jouven, M., Ickowicz, A., Leroy, H., and Lapeyronie, P. (2010b). Les clôtures virtuelles: un outil pour gérer le pâturage en élevage ovin allaitant (virtual fencing: a tool for managing pastures in meat sheep systems)? Rencontres Recherche Ruminants 17, 53–56.
Lee, C., Prayaga, K., Reed, M., and Henshall, J. (2007). Methods of training cattle to avoid a location using electrical cues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108, 229–238.
| Methods of training cattle to avoid a location using electrical cues.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lee, C., Henshall, J. M., Wark, T. J., Crossman, C. C., Reed, M. T., Brewer, H. G., O’Grady, J., and Fisher, A. D. (2009). Associative learning by cattle to enable effective and ethical virtual fences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 15–22.
| Associative learning by cattle to enable effective and ethical virtual fences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Markus, S., Jensen, D., Bailey, D. W., and Price, M. (1998a). Effect of location and intensity of electrical shock on cattle movements. Journal of Animal Science 76, 97. [Abstract].
Markus, S., Bailey, D. W., Jensen, D., and Price, M. (1998b). Preliminary evaluation of a fenceless livestock control system. Journal of Animal Science 76, 103. [Abstract].
McKillop, I. G., and Sibly, R. M. (1988). Animal behaviour at electric fences and the implications for management. Mammal Review 18, 91–103.
| Animal behaviour at electric fences and the implications for management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Molenat, G., Lapeyronie, P., Vincent, M., and Gouy, J. (1995). Variations de l’état corporel en système d’élevage méditerranéen transhumant (Changes in body condition score in transhumance animal production systems in the Mediterranean region). Recherches sur les Systèmes Agraires et le Développement 27, 123–136.
Monod, M. O., Faure, P., Moiroux, L., and Rameau, P. (2009). Stakeless fencing for mountain pastures. Journal of Farm Management 13, 697–704.
Nolte, D. L., Vercauteren, K. C., Perry, K. R., and Adams, S. E. (2003). Training deer to avoid sites through negative reinforcement. In: ‘Proceedings of the 10th Wildlife Damage Management Conference’. (Eds K. A. Fagerstone and G. W. Witmer.) Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ (accessed 31 May 2011).
Rouda, R. (2003). The development of farming technology solutions. In: ‘Proceedings of the Beef Products Program: Technology – Our Future’. (Paterson, NSW.)
Siegel, S. (1956). ‘Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.’ International Student Edition. (McGraw-Hill: New York.)
Tiedemann, A. R., Quigley, T. M., White, L. D., Lauritzen, W. S., Thomas, J. W., and McInnis, M. L. (1999). ‘Electronic (Fenceless) Control of Livestock.’ Research Paper PNW-RP-510. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR.)
Umstatter, C. (2011). The evolution of virtual fences: a review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 75, 10–22.
| The evolution of virtual fences: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
