Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38619181›Full record

SynthesisJournal of animal science2024

How do grazing beef and dairy cattle respond to virtual fences? A review.

Lisa Wilms, Martin Komainda, Dina Hamidi, Friederike Riesch, Juliane Horn, Johannes Isselstein

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of animal science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lisa WilmsGrassland Science, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-4277-8813
Martin KomaindaGrassland Science, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6284-4506
Dina HamidiGrassland Science, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5273-7862
Friederike RieschGrassland Science, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5266-0313
Juliane HornGrassland Science, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2740-2846
Johannes IsselsteinGrassland Science, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8010-9238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual fencing (VF) is a modern fencing technology that requires the animal to wear a device (e.g., a collar) that emits acoustic signals to replace the visual cue of traditional physical fences (PF) and, if necessary, mild electric signals. The use of devices that provide electric signals leads to concerns regarding the welfare of virtually fenced animals. The objective of this review is to give an overview of the current state of VF research into the welfare and learning behavior of cattle. Therefore, a systematic literature search was conducted using two online databases and reference lists of relevant articles. Studies included were peer-reviewed and written in English, used beef or dairy cattle, and tested neck-mounted VF devices. Further inclusion criteria were a combination of audio and electrical signals and a setup as a pasture trial, which implied that animals grazed in groups on grassland for 4 h minimum while at least one fence side was virtually fenced. The eligible studies (n = 13) were assigned to one or two of the following categories: animal welfare (n studies = 8) or learning behavior (n studies = 9). As data availability for conducting a meta-analysis was not sufficient, a comparison of the means of welfare indicators (daily weight gain, daily lying time, steps per hour, daily number of lying bouts, and fecal cortisol metabolites [FCM]) for virtually and physically fenced animals was done instead. In an additional qualitative approach, the results from the welfare-related studies were assembled and discussed. For the learning behavior, the number of acoustic and electric signals and their ratio were used in a linear regression model with duration in days as a numeric predictor to assess the learning trends over time. There were no significant differences between VF and PF for most welfare indicators (except FCM with lower values for VF; P = 0.0165). The duration in days did not have a significant effect on the number of acoustic and electric signals. However, a significant effect of trial duration on the ratio of electric-to-acoustic signals (P = 0.0014) could be detected, resulting in a decreasing trend of the ratio over time, which suggests successful learning. Overall, we conclude that the VF research done so far is promising but is not yet sufficient to ensure that the technology could not have impacts on the welfare of certain cattle types. More research is necessary to investigate especially possible long-term effects of VF.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimal WelfareAnimalsBehavior, AnimalCattleLearninganimal welfaregrazinglearning behaviorprecision livestock farmingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38619181
PMCPMC11088281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.