Supporting rotational grazing systems with virtual fencing: paddock transitions, beef heifer performance, and stress response
Animal welfare is integral to sustainable livestock production, and pasture access for cattle is known to enhance welfare. Despite positive welfare impacts, high labour requirements hinder the adoption of sustainable grazing practices such as rotational stocking management. Virtual fencing (VF) is a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Animal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731124003537 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1823856811942346752 |
|---|---|
| author | N.A. Grinnell D. Hamidi M. Komainda F. Riesch J. Horn I. Traulsen R. Palme J. Isselstein |
| author_facet | N.A. Grinnell D. Hamidi M. Komainda F. Riesch J. Horn I. Traulsen R. Palme J. Isselstein |
| author_sort | N.A. Grinnell |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Animal welfare is integral to sustainable livestock production, and pasture access for cattle is known to enhance welfare. Despite positive welfare impacts, high labour requirements hinder the adoption of sustainable grazing practices such as rotational stocking management. Virtual fencing (VF) is an innovative technology for simplified, less laborious grazing management and remote animal monitoring, potentially facilitating the expansion of sustainable livestock production. VF uses Global Navigation Satellite System technology, wireless communication, and stimuli (auditory and electrical) to manage livestock movements and contain animals without physical barriers. Training animals to associate the auditory cue with the subsequent aversive stimulus enables effective livestock containment without physical barriers. While previous studies have largely dispelled concerns about adverse effects on cattle behaviour associated with the use of VF collars, there is limited knowledge regarding the impacts on animal physiology, particularly in rotational stocking systems. Addressing this knowledge gap, this study investigated differences in diet digestibility, livestock performance, and stress response of beef heifers on pastures using a VF compared to a physical electric fence. The study was conducted over 8 weeks, subdivided into two grazing cycles, with 32 heifers in four groups. Each experimental pasture was subdivided into four paddocks. The study monitored the interaction with the VF by analysing the temporal development of the ratio of auditory and electrical cues (success ratio and confidence ratio) emitted by the collars. Additionally, the grassland herbage quality, BW gain, and concentrations of faecal cortisol metabolites (FCMs) were assessed, as well as the time required for animals to cross into a new paddock. VF success ratios increased in the second grazing cycle, reflecting enhanced adaptation over time. Similarly, the reduction in time taken to cross into new paddocks in the VF groups indicated that animals learned to interact with the VF and rely on the auditory cues for directing movements. The absence of a significant effect of the fencing system on FCMs suggested that stress was unrelated to the VF technology. Further, animal performance was not affected as indicated by similar BW gains under both fencing systems. This study also attempts to establish a benchmark threshold for successful responses to the auditory cues, allowing comparative evaluation of VF systems. Overall, under rotational grazing, VF did not adversely impact animal welfare or performance compared to physical fencing, opening avenues for further exploration of VF technology in diverse grazing conditions. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-32e282a1dde649d3925ae89fef38dc15 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1751-7311 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-02-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animal |
| spelling | doaj-art-32e282a1dde649d3925ae89fef38dc152025-02-12T05:30:55ZengElsevierAnimal1751-73112025-02-01192101416Supporting rotational grazing systems with virtual fencing: paddock transitions, beef heifer performance, and stress responseN.A. Grinnell0D. Hamidi1M. Komainda2F. Riesch3J. Horn4I. Traulsen5R. Palme6J. Isselstein7Department of Crop Sciences, Grassland Science, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Strasse 8, 37075 Göttingen, Germany; Corresponding author.Department of Crop Sciences, Grassland Science, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Strasse 8, 37075 Göttingen, GermanyDepartment of Crop Sciences, Grassland Science, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Strasse 8, 37075 Göttingen, GermanyDepartment of Crop Sciences, Grassland Science, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Strasse 8, 37075 Göttingen, Germany; Centre for Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use, Büsgenweg 1, 37075 Göttingen, GermanyDepartment of Crop Sciences, Grassland Science, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Strasse 8, 37075 Göttingen, GermanyInstitute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 40, 24118 Kiel, GermanyExperimental Endocrinology, Department of Biological Sciences and Pathobiology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, AustriaDepartment of Crop Sciences, Grassland Science, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Strasse 8, 37075 Göttingen, Germany; Centre for Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use, Büsgenweg 1, 37075 Göttingen, GermanyAnimal welfare is integral to sustainable livestock production, and pasture access for cattle is known to enhance welfare. Despite positive welfare impacts, high labour requirements hinder the adoption of sustainable grazing practices such as rotational stocking management. Virtual fencing (VF) is an innovative technology for simplified, less laborious grazing management and remote animal monitoring, potentially facilitating the expansion of sustainable livestock production. VF uses Global Navigation Satellite System technology, wireless communication, and stimuli (auditory and electrical) to manage livestock movements and contain animals without physical barriers. Training animals to associate the auditory cue with the subsequent aversive stimulus enables effective livestock containment without physical barriers. While previous studies have largely dispelled concerns about adverse effects on cattle behaviour associated with the use of VF collars, there is limited knowledge regarding the impacts on animal physiology, particularly in rotational stocking systems. Addressing this knowledge gap, this study investigated differences in diet digestibility, livestock performance, and stress response of beef heifers on pastures using a VF compared to a physical electric fence. The study was conducted over 8 weeks, subdivided into two grazing cycles, with 32 heifers in four groups. Each experimental pasture was subdivided into four paddocks. The study monitored the interaction with the VF by analysing the temporal development of the ratio of auditory and electrical cues (success ratio and confidence ratio) emitted by the collars. Additionally, the grassland herbage quality, BW gain, and concentrations of faecal cortisol metabolites (FCMs) were assessed, as well as the time required for animals to cross into a new paddock. VF success ratios increased in the second grazing cycle, reflecting enhanced adaptation over time. Similarly, the reduction in time taken to cross into new paddocks in the VF groups indicated that animals learned to interact with the VF and rely on the auditory cues for directing movements. The absence of a significant effect of the fencing system on FCMs suggested that stress was unrelated to the VF technology. Further, animal performance was not affected as indicated by similar BW gains under both fencing systems. This study also attempts to establish a benchmark threshold for successful responses to the auditory cues, allowing comparative evaluation of VF systems. Overall, under rotational grazing, VF did not adversely impact animal welfare or performance compared to physical fencing, opening avenues for further exploration of VF technology in diverse grazing conditions.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731124003537Cattle welfareGlucocorticoidsGrazing managementPrecision grazingSustainable grazing |
| spellingShingle | N.A. Grinnell D. Hamidi M. Komainda F. Riesch J. Horn I. Traulsen R. Palme J. Isselstein Supporting rotational grazing systems with virtual fencing: paddock transitions, beef heifer performance, and stress response Animal Cattle welfare Glucocorticoids Grazing management Precision grazing Sustainable grazing |
| title | Supporting rotational grazing systems with virtual fencing: paddock transitions, beef heifer performance, and stress response |
| title_full | Supporting rotational grazing systems with virtual fencing: paddock transitions, beef heifer performance, and stress response |
| title_fullStr | Supporting rotational grazing systems with virtual fencing: paddock transitions, beef heifer performance, and stress response |
| title_full_unstemmed | Supporting rotational grazing systems with virtual fencing: paddock transitions, beef heifer performance, and stress response |
| title_short | Supporting rotational grazing systems with virtual fencing: paddock transitions, beef heifer performance, and stress response |
| title_sort | supporting rotational grazing systems with virtual fencing paddock transitions beef heifer performance and stress response |
| topic | Cattle welfare Glucocorticoids Grazing management Precision grazing Sustainable grazing |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731124003537 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nagrinnell supportingrotationalgrazingsystemswithvirtualfencingpaddocktransitionsbeefheiferperformanceandstressresponse AT dhamidi supportingrotationalgrazingsystemswithvirtualfencingpaddocktransitionsbeefheiferperformanceandstressresponse AT mkomainda supportingrotationalgrazingsystemswithvirtualfencingpaddocktransitionsbeefheiferperformanceandstressresponse AT friesch supportingrotationalgrazingsystemswithvirtualfencingpaddocktransitionsbeefheiferperformanceandstressresponse AT jhorn supportingrotationalgrazingsystemswithvirtualfencingpaddocktransitionsbeefheiferperformanceandstressresponse AT itraulsen supportingrotationalgrazingsystemswithvirtualfencingpaddocktransitionsbeefheiferperformanceandstressresponse AT rpalme supportingrotationalgrazingsystemswithvirtualfencingpaddocktransitionsbeefheiferperformanceandstressresponse AT jisselstein supportingrotationalgrazingsystemswithvirtualfencingpaddocktransitionsbeefheiferperformanceandstressresponse |