Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/29974
Title: Virtual Fence Responses Are Socially Facilitated in Beef Cattle
Contributor(s): Keshavarzi, Hamideh (author); Lee, Caroline  (author); Lea, Jim M (author); Campbell, Dana L M  (author)
Publication Date: 2020-09-30
Open Access: Yes
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.543158
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/29974
Abstract: Group-living can be socially advantageous where the behavior of individuals may be modified by group members through socially facilitative processes. Virtual fencing contains cattle by providing audio and electrical signals via a neckband device. However, little is known about social influences on learning to appropriately respond to the virtual fence (VF) cues. This study aimed to determine whether cattle respond to the behavior of conspecifics during their initial interactions with a VF across 3 days. Sixty-four Angus steers, naïve to virtual fencing, were placed into 8 paddocks (8 animals/group), divided with a VF into two areas- an inclusion and exclusion zone. The animals received an audio cue if they approached the VF followed by an electrical pulse if they continued into the exclusion zone. The GPS and audio and electrical stimuli data were recorded. To quantify social facilitation, individual VF interactions were grouped into 179 "events" across 3 days; starting from when the first animal (leader) approached the VF. The responses of other animals were categorized as (1) followed the leader to move into the exclusion zone (followers, F), (2) accompanied the leader back into the inclusion zone (facilitated, Fa), (3) did not show any reaction (non-facilitated, NFa). A social facilitation score (SFaS) was calculated as SFaS (%) = (F/(Fa+NFa+F)) * 100. A single leader animal led on average 37% of events with 76.2% of all reactions categorized as facilitated by other individuals. Animals responded to the behavior of conspecifics more during the VF implementation compared with facilitated movement during natural grazing patterns when no VF was present (P < 0.001). On average, cattle stopped or turned away to 3.8 (± 2.9 SE) audio cues before ever receiving their first electrical pulse. There was a positive correlation (R = 0.34, P = 0.006) between the number of audio cues received prior to the first electrical pulse and the proportion of all audio cues that were not followed by an electrical pulse. In conclusion, cattle stayed within the inclusion zone based on the response of conspecifics, including some social impacts on individual rates of associative learning between the audio and electrical cues.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: Frontiers in Veterinary Science, v.7, p. 1-12
Publisher: Frontiers Research Foundation
Place of Publication: Switzerland
ISSN: 2297-1769
Fields of Research (FoR) 2008: 070203 Animal Management
060801 Animal Behaviour
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: 300302 Animal management
310901 Animal behaviour
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2008: 830301 Beef Cattle
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: 100401 Beef cattle
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Environmental and Rural Science

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
openpublished/VirtualFenceLeeCampbell2020JournalArticle.pdfPublished version1.8 MBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
View/Open
Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

29
checked on Nov 30, 2024

Page view(s)

1,046
checked on Jun 4, 2023

Download(s)

106
checked on Jun 4, 2023
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons