The behavioral response of dairy cows to different shock energies delivered during virtual fencing training

IF 2.4
JDS communications Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-20 DOI:10.3168/jdsc.2026-1025
Megan Verdon
{"title":"The behavioral response of dairy cows to different shock energies delivered during virtual fencing training","authors":"Megan Verdon","doi":"10.3168/jdsc.2026-1025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The uptake of virtual fencing (VF) technologies to manage grazing dairy cattle is increasing, but little empirical evidence exists to support acceptable thresholds for the electric shock delivered by these systems. This study quantified the behavioral responses of dairy cows to 4 shock energy levels delivered by the Halter VF system. Forty early-lactation multiparous dairy cows, naïve to VF, were studied in 5 groups of 8 animals. Within each group, cows were randomly allocated to receive one of 4 shock energies (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.45 J) via a collar-mounted VF unit. Behavioral responses to shock were recorded and classified using a 6-point reaction score: (1) stop, pause, or no response with no steps taken; (2) fewer than 3 steps taken away from the VF; (3) more than 3 steps taken at a normal walking pace; (4) more than 3 steps taken at a fast walking pace and or head shake; (5) move away at a trotting pace; and (6) jump, vocalization, or 360-degree turn. Linear mixed models were used to assess the effects of shock energy, group, and individual cow on behavioral responses. Most reactions (84%) were classified as scores 1 to 3. Shock energy was not associated with reaction score, the number of shocks received, or the time taken to resume grazing within the 0.1 to 0.45 J range studied. Individual cow accounted for 46% of the variation in behavioral response and 34% of the variation in latency to resume grazing. Individual cow characteristics were more influential than shock energy in determining behavioral responses to shock, reinforcing the importance of delivering the lowest effective stimulus for an individual cow in VF systems, without exceeding tested energy thresholds.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94061,"journal":{"name":"JDS communications","volume":"7 ","pages":"Pages 230-235"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JDS communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666910226000803","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The uptake of virtual fencing (VF) technologies to manage grazing dairy cattle is increasing, but little empirical evidence exists to support acceptable thresholds for the electric shock delivered by these systems. This study quantified the behavioral responses of dairy cows to 4 shock energy levels delivered by the Halter VF system. Forty early-lactation multiparous dairy cows, naïve to VF, were studied in 5 groups of 8 animals. Within each group, cows were randomly allocated to receive one of 4 shock energies (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.45 J) via a collar-mounted VF unit. Behavioral responses to shock were recorded and classified using a 6-point reaction score: (1) stop, pause, or no response with no steps taken; (2) fewer than 3 steps taken away from the VF; (3) more than 3 steps taken at a normal walking pace; (4) more than 3 steps taken at a fast walking pace and or head shake; (5) move away at a trotting pace; and (6) jump, vocalization, or 360-degree turn. Linear mixed models were used to assess the effects of shock energy, group, and individual cow on behavioral responses. Most reactions (84%) were classified as scores 1 to 3. Shock energy was not associated with reaction score, the number of shocks received, or the time taken to resume grazing within the 0.1 to 0.45 J range studied. Individual cow accounted for 46% of the variation in behavioral response and 34% of the variation in latency to resume grazing. Individual cow characteristics were more influential than shock energy in determining behavioral responses to shock, reinforcing the importance of delivering the lowest effective stimulus for an individual cow in VF systems, without exceeding tested energy thresholds.
虚拟击剑训练中奶牛对不同冲击能量的行为反应
越来越多的人采用虚拟围栏(VF)技术来管理放牧奶牛,但很少有经验证据支持这些系统产生的电击的可接受阈值。本研究量化了奶牛对Halter VF系统提供的4种冲击能量水平的行为反应。选取40头初泌多胎奶牛(naïve ~ VF),分为5组,每组8头。在每一组中,奶牛被随机分配通过安装在项圈上的VF装置接受4种冲击能量(0.1、0.2、0.3或0.45 J)中的一种。对电击的行为反应进行记录,并使用6分反应评分进行分类:(1)停止,暂停或没有采取任何措施的反应;(2)距离VF小于3步;(三)以正常步速行走三步以上的;(四)以快步伐迈步超过三步及/或摇头;(五)快步走开;(6)跳跃、发声或360度转身。采用线性混合模型评估冲击能量、群体和个体对奶牛行为反应的影响。大多数反应(84%)被划分为1到3分。冲击能量与反应分数、受到的冲击次数或恢复放牧所需的时间在0.1至0.45 J范围内无关。个体奶牛的行为反应差异占46%,恢复放牧潜伏期差异占34%。奶牛个体特征比冲击能量更能决定奶牛对冲击的行为反应,这就加强了在不超过测试能量阈值的情况下,在VF系统中为奶牛个体提供最低有效刺激的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JDS communications
JDS communications Animal Science and Zoology
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书