As summer sets in, so does the routine of checking pasture fencing. Driving through cattle turned out on pasture usually entails some combination of looking at the water, counting cattle, watching for watery eyes, and checking fences. If the headcount is right, some will bypass the perimeter check assuming the weather hasn’t caused a rogue tree limb to raise concern. For those dependent on electric fences, a quick confirmation the energizer is maintaining the expected “charge” may also save running the whole fence.
There are several factors influencing the need to check fences regardless of type. The first is pasture availability, and the second is likely the cattle’s familiarity with the perimeter. This month, we look at cattle’s ability to adapt to virtual fencing as an alternative to permanent or electric fence perimeters.
Virtual fencing occurs in several ways and will vary by manufacturer. The systems use a GPS derived perimeter and cattle are fitted with battery or solar powered devices that communicate with the perimeter and provide audible warnings and electrical stimulation in the event audible warnings are not sufficient. Three Journal of Animal Science articles highlighted cattle’s ability to learn and adapt to the system while evaluating any related welfare issues.
The first time cattle are turned out in any new pasture they explore the perimeter and test the fences regardless of type—this is true of virtual fences as well. During the virtual fence training period, cattle required 7.9 paired (audible and electrical) stimulations to identify the perimeter boundary. As one might expect during the training period, the number of electrical cues cattle receive is higher than later in the grazing period. For cattle new to virtual fencing systems two principles are being learned: Audible signals indicate the perimeter is near and failure to respond to those audible signals results in an electrical correction.
This is not unlike a traditional electric fence training. Cattle unfamiliar with electric fences commonly test the boundaries and learn the consequences of “trying” the fencing. Once cattle learn the visual cue associated with a hot wire, most producers can get by for a few days even if the energizer fails due to the visual cue of the hot wire.
As the grazing period progressed, the ratio of audible to electrical signals increased, suggesting the cattle were learning to use the sounds to define the grazing boundaries. In these experiments not only was the perimeter effective at containing the cattle but the distribution of grazing was not different for electrical compared to virtual fencing. This suggests that regardless of visual or audible cues cattle stay about the same distance away from the fence on average.
Another hypothesis tested in these experiments was that cow age would influence the rate of adaptation to virtual fencing. I will let you decide whether young or old cows were expected to learn faster. Results suggest that while there was individual cow variation in adaptation rate to virtual fencing systems, age was not a significant factor in these individual animal differences. Young and older cows learned at comparable rates. In both age groups as the grazing period increased the number of electrical cues also declined. The authors indicated a cow’s ability to adapt to alternative fencing systems should not be influenced by age.
In addition to virtual fencing adaptation, cows were monitored for productivity and stress. Activity, lying behavior, milk production, body weight, and milk cortisol levels (stress measure) did not differ due to fencing method. The cow’s ability to learn cues and identify virtual boundaries suggest the stress of virtual fencing is not different from traditional fencing models. Uniform grazing distribution relative to the boundaries is key to ensuring ability to graze forage, gain weight and produce milk similar to cows in traditional fencing systems.
Virtual fencing is not likely to replace permanent perimeter fencing due to a host of risks related to cattle not responding to cues or respecting boundaries. However, the ability to use virtual fencing within an operations permanent boundary to expand grazing areas or implement managed grazing systems with reduced labor and less permanent or temporary infrastructure continues to show promise. As you find yourself repairing fence this summer, consider the possibility of checking and moving cattle using a virtual option.
For additional reading on virtual fencing:
Colorado Rancher Uses Grant Money for Virtual Fencing
Unleashing the Benefits of Virtual Fencing for Beef Producers
