ArticleJournal of animal science2026
Differential response of Angus-Hereford and Rarámuri Criollo cattle to a dynamic feeding challenge during the training to an autonomous virtual fencing collar.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy of virtual fencing to manage two groups of cattle with adjacent virtual boundaries.Translational animal science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual fencing (VF) is an emerging concept for managing livestock distribution using smart-tracking collars. The collars apply Global Navigation Satellite System technology to emit sound alerts that warn animals of virtual boundaries enforced by electric pulses. Behavioral differences may explain how individuals and breeds respond to this technology. This work compared behavioral responses of non-lactating Rarámuri Criollo (RC) and Angus-Hereford (AH) cattle to a commercial VF system during the training phase. Thirty RC and 30 AH cows naïve to VF were fitted with Nofence collars and assigned by breed to rectangular pens (n = 3 per breed) in a completely randomized design. Wheat hay was provided ad libitum at feeding stations located on the east and west ends of each pen, which were made accessible or restricted via VF schedules applied across six 3-day periods. Period 1 had no restrictions; periods 2 and 3 restricted access to the west and east feeding stations, respectively; and periods 4-6 repeated these configurations. Behavioral responses, including number of auditory warnings, electric pulses, electric pulses to auditory warnings ratio, animal activity, and spatial distribution in pens, were evaluated using repeated measures mixed model ANOVA (α = 0.05). AH cows received more auditory warnings and electric pulses on day 1 of period 2 and a greater ratio of electric pulses to auditory warnings throughout the study. RC cows spent more time within the designated VF containment zone on day 1 of period 2. AH cows exhibited consistently greater movement activity throughout the study. Overall VF containment was 97%, indicating that both breeds successfully learned and adapted to shifting virtual boundaries. These results suggest that breed-specific behavioral traits, including vigilance, risk assessment, feeding motivation, and activity, may underline differential responses to VF during early training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.