Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:05:27.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ability of ewes with lambs to learn a virtual fencing system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2017

E. I. Brunberg ,
I. K. Bergslid ,
K. E. Bøe  and
K. M. Sørheim
E. I. Brunberg
Affiliation:
NORSØK – Norwegian Institute for Organic Agriculture, Gunnars veg 6, N-6630 Tingvoll, Norway NIBIO – Norwegian Institute for Bioeconomy Research, Gunnars veg 6, N-6630 Tingvoll, Norway
I. K. Bergslid
Affiliation:
NORSØK – Norwegian Institute for Organic Agriculture, Gunnars veg 6, N-6630 Tingvoll, Norway NIBIO – Norwegian Institute for Bioeconomy Research, Gunnars veg 6, N-6630 Tingvoll, Norway
K. E. Bøe
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway
K. M. Sørheim*
Affiliation:
NORSØK – Norwegian Institute for Organic Agriculture, Gunnars veg 6, N-6630 Tingvoll, Norway NIBIO – Norwegian Institute for Bioeconomy Research, Gunnars veg 6, N-6630 Tingvoll, Norway
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The Nofence technology is a GPS-based virtual fencing system designed to keep sheep within predefined borders, without using physical fences. Sheep wearing a Nofence collar receive a sound signal when crossing the virtual border and a weak electric shock if continuing to walk out from the virtual enclosure. Two experiments testing the functionality of the Nofence system and a new learning protocol is described. In Experiment 1, nine ewes with their lambs were divided into groups of three and placed in an experimental enclosure with one Nofence border. During 2 days, there was a physical fence outside the border, during Day 3 the physical fence was removed and on Day 4, the border was moved to the other end of the enclosure. The sheep received between 6 and 20 shocks with an average of 10.9±2.0 (mean±SE) per ewe during all 4 days. The number of shocks decreased from 4.38±0.63 on Day 3 (when the physical fence was removed) to 1.5±0.71 on Day 4 (when the border was moved). The ewes spent on average 3%, 6%, 46% and 9% of their time outside the border on Days 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. In Experiment 2, 32 ewes, with and without lambs, were divided into groups of eight and placed in an experimental enclosure. On Day 1, the enclosure was fenced with three physical fences and one virtual border, which was then increased to two virtual borders on Day 2. To continue to Day 3, when there was supposed to be three virtual borders on the enclosure, at least 50% of the ewes in a group should have received a maximum of four shocks on Day 2. None of the groups reached this learning criterion and the experiment ended after Day 2. The sheep received 4.1±0.32 shocks on Day 1 and 4.7±0.28 shocks on Day 2. In total, 71% of the ewes received the maximum number of five shocks on Day 1 and 77% on Day 2. The individual ewes spent between 0% and 69.5% of Day 1 in the exclusion zone and between 0% and 64% on Day 2. In conclusion, it is too challenging to ensure an efficient learning and hence, animal welfare cannot be secured. There were technical challenges with the collars that may have affected the results. The Nofence prototype was unable to keep the sheep within the intended borders, and thus cannot replace physical fencing for sheep.

Keywords

virtual fencesheepbehaviouranimal welfaregrazing
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 11 , November 2017 , pp. 2045 - 2050
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, DM 2007. Virtual fencing – past, present and future. The Rangeland Journal 29, 65–78.Google Scholar
Bishop-Hurley, GJ, Swain, DL, Anderson, DM, 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.Google Scholar
Brunberg, EI, Bøe, KE and Sørheim, KM 2016. Testing a new virtual fencing system on sheep. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A: Animal Science 65, 168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouven, M, Leroy, H, Ickowicz, A and Lapeyronie, P 2012. Can virtual fences be used to control grazing sheep? The Rangeland Journal 34, 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C, Henshall, JM, Wark, TJ, Crossman, CC, Reed, MT, Brewer, HG, O’Grady, J and Fisher, AD 2009. Associative learning by cattle to enable effective and ethical virtual fences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 15–22.Google Scholar
Lee, C, Prayaga, K, Reed, M and Henshall, J 2007. Methods of training cattle to avoid location using electrical cues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiedemann, AR, Quigley, TM, White, LD, Lauritzen, WS and McInnis, ML 1999. Electronic (Fenceless) control of livestock. Research Paper PNW-RP-510, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
Umstatter, C 2011. The evolution of virtual fences: a review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 75, 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umstatter, C, Brocklehurst, S, Ross, DW and Haskell, MJ 2013. Can the location of cattle be managed using broadcast audio cues? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 147, 34–42.Google Scholar