Campbell Dana L M, Lea Jim M, Keshavarzi Hamideh, Lee Caroline
Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Front Vet Sci. 2019 Dec 11;6:445. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00445. eCollection 2019.
Virtual fencing technology restricts animal movement via communicated signals without physical boundaries. Specifically, the eShepherd™ automated virtual fencing system operates via GPS technology and provides stimuli via a neckband device. An audio warning tone is emitted at the virtual boundary which is followed by an electrical pulse if the animal continues moving forward. Animal welfare is a priority consideration for the commercial implementation of virtual fencing systems. The current study assessed the effects of a virtual fence, in comparison to an electric tape fence, to contain eight groups of eight 12-14 month old steers within a 6-ha area across eight separate paddocks for 4 weeks following 1 week acclimation to the paddocks. Cattle were assessed across two cohorts (four groups/cohort) from January until March 2019 in Australia. Body weight and fecal samples from each animal were taken weekly. Fecal samples were processed for fecal cortisol metabolite (FCM) concentrations. IceQube R®'s fitted to the leg measured individual lying and standing time and the virtual fencing neckbands recorded GPS location and all administered audio and electrical stimuli. Cattle were maintained within their allocated area by both fence types across the 4-week period and those with the virtual fences were responding correctly to the audio cue with an average of 71.51 ± 2.26% of all cues across all animals being audio only. There was individual variation in rate of learning. The electric tape groups in cohort 1 showed a greater increase in body weight over 4 weeks than the virtual fence groups ( < 0.001) but this difference was not confirmed in cohort 2. The fence type statistically influenced the total daily lying time ( = 0.02) with less lying in cattle from the virtual fence groups but this difference equated to an average of <20 min per day. There were no differences between fence types in FCM concentrations ( = 0.39) and the concentrations decreased across time for all cattle ( < 0.001). These results indicate that virtual fencing technology effectively contains animals in a prescribed area across 4 weeks without substantial behavioral and welfare impacts on the cattle.
虚拟围栏技术通过通信信号限制动物活动，无需物理边界。具体而言，eShepherd™自动虚拟围栏系统通过全球定位系统（GPS）技术运行，并通过颈带设备提供刺激。在虚拟边界处会发出音频警告音，如果动物继续向前移动，随后会有电脉冲。动物福利是虚拟围栏系统商业应用的首要考虑因素。本研究评估了与电围栏相比，虚拟围栏在将八组每组八头12 - 14月龄的阉牛圈养在一个6公顷区域内的八个单独围场中4周的效果，此前动物在围场中适应了1周。2019年1月至3月在澳大利亚对两个队列（每个队列四组）的牛进行了评估。每周采集每头牛的体重和粪便样本。对粪便样本进行处理以测定粪便皮质醇代谢物（FCM）浓度。安装在腿部的IceQube R®测量个体躺卧和站立时间，虚拟围栏颈带记录GPS位置以及所有施加的音频和电刺激。在4周时间内，两种围栏类型都能将牛维持在其分配的区域内，佩戴虚拟围栏的牛对音频提示的反应正确率平均为所有动物所有提示的71.51 ± 2.26%，且仅为音频提示。学习速度存在个体差异。队列1中的电围栏组在4周内体重增加幅度大于虚拟围栏组（<0.001），但在队列2中未得到证实。围栏类型对总每日躺卧时间有统计学影响（=0.02），虚拟围栏组的牛躺卧时间较少，但这种差异平均每天小于20分钟。两种围栏类型在FCM浓度方面没有差异（=0.39），并且所有牛的FCM浓度随时间下降（<0.001）。这些结果表明，虚拟围栏技术在4周内有效地将动物圈养在规定区域内，对牛的行为和福利没有实质性影响。
