Dana Hoag , Anthony G. Vorster , Krista Ehlert , Paul Evangelista , Lily Edwards-Callaway , Daniel F. Mooney , Josh Virene
{"title":"肉牛生产商对虚拟围栏的看法","authors":"Dana Hoag , Anthony G. Vorster , Krista Ehlert , Paul Evangelista , Lily Edwards-Callaway , Daniel F. Mooney , Josh Virene","doi":"10.1016/j.rama.2024.06.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Virtual fencing (VF) is a rapidly expanding technology that uses global positioning technologies to send audible and electrical cues to livestock that create invisible boundaries to replace physical fencing. The technology portends several benefits, from replacing costly and hazardous physical fencing to being an additional tool to contain, exclude, or move livestock. While researchers and VF providers work to improve the technology and applications, little is known about producer perceptions of its capabilities and what they most want in a system. We conducted phone and in-person interviews with beef cattle producers to ask them about their views and experiences related to virtual fencing technology. We included producers that already use the technology (including producers currently installing the technology) and producers not actively considering or using the technology. Our findings identify benefits and barriers of VF from the cattle producers’ perspective. These perspectives can guide new research, improve VF technology, guide educational programs, and help producers considering a VF system. Survey responses are organized into eight themes: animal stress and welfare; effectiveness, function, and technology; management impacts; financial and economic perspectives; improvements and advice; learning; privacy; and implementation. Producers who use the technology had greater optimism about the applications and economics and have found creative applications of VF specific to their operations. While they have more confidence in the technology, they still report issues such as collars falling off or base stations not working. Producers new to VF should expect a learning period both for themselves and their animals. Producers from all groups cite potential benefits from better use of forages, reduced wildlife conflicts, more flexibility and convenience, to the ability to better manage sensitive landscapes such as riparian areas or other areas affected by fire or drought.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49634,"journal":{"name":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","volume":"96 ","pages":"Pages 143-151"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742424000861/pdfft?md5=61722b26c4c3e84616553cb86f71cfa1&pid=1-s2.0-S1550742424000861-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beef Cattle Producer Perspectives on Virtual Fencing\",\"authors\":\"Dana Hoag , Anthony G. Vorster , Krista Ehlert , Paul Evangelista , Lily Edwards-Callaway , Daniel F. Mooney , Josh Virene\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rama.2024.06.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Virtual fencing (VF) is a rapidly expanding technology that uses global positioning technologies to send audible and electrical cues to livestock that create invisible boundaries to replace physical fencing. The technology portends several benefits, from replacing costly and hazardous physical fencing to being an additional tool to contain, exclude, or move livestock. While researchers and VF providers work to improve the technology and applications, little is known about producer perceptions of its capabilities and what they most want in a system. We conducted phone and in-person interviews with beef cattle producers to ask them about their views and experiences related to virtual fencing technology. We included producers that already use the technology (including producers currently installing the technology) and producers not actively considering or using the technology. Our findings identify benefits and barriers of VF from the cattle producers’ perspective. These perspectives can guide new research, improve VF technology, guide educational programs, and help producers considering a VF system. Survey responses are organized into eight themes: animal stress and welfare; effectiveness, function, and technology; management impacts; financial and economic perspectives; improvements and advice; learning; privacy; and implementation. Producers who use the technology had greater optimism about the applications and economics and have found creative applications of VF specific to their operations. While they have more confidence in the technology, they still report issues such as collars falling off or base stations not working. Producers new to VF should expect a learning period both for themselves and their animals. Producers from all groups cite potential benefits from better use of forages, reduced wildlife conflicts, more flexibility and convenience, to the ability to better manage sensitive landscapes such as riparian areas or other areas affected by fire or drought.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rangeland Ecology & Management\",\"volume\":\"96 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 143-151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742424000861/pdfft?md5=61722b26c4c3e84616553cb86f71cfa1&pid=1-s2.0-S1550742424000861-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rangeland Ecology & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742424000861\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rangeland Ecology & Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742424000861","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Beef Cattle Producer Perspectives on Virtual Fencing
Virtual fencing (VF) is a rapidly expanding technology that uses global positioning technologies to send audible and electrical cues to livestock that create invisible boundaries to replace physical fencing. The technology portends several benefits, from replacing costly and hazardous physical fencing to being an additional tool to contain, exclude, or move livestock. While researchers and VF providers work to improve the technology and applications, little is known about producer perceptions of its capabilities and what they most want in a system. We conducted phone and in-person interviews with beef cattle producers to ask them about their views and experiences related to virtual fencing technology. We included producers that already use the technology (including producers currently installing the technology) and producers not actively considering or using the technology. Our findings identify benefits and barriers of VF from the cattle producers’ perspective. These perspectives can guide new research, improve VF technology, guide educational programs, and help producers considering a VF system. Survey responses are organized into eight themes: animal stress and welfare; effectiveness, function, and technology; management impacts; financial and economic perspectives; improvements and advice; learning; privacy; and implementation. Producers who use the technology had greater optimism about the applications and economics and have found creative applications of VF specific to their operations. While they have more confidence in the technology, they still report issues such as collars falling off or base stations not working. Producers new to VF should expect a learning period both for themselves and their animals. Producers from all groups cite potential benefits from better use of forages, reduced wildlife conflicts, more flexibility and convenience, to the ability to better manage sensitive landscapes such as riparian areas or other areas affected by fire or drought.
期刊介绍:
Rangeland Ecology & Management publishes all topics-including ecology, management, socioeconomic and policy-pertaining to global rangelands. The journal''s mission is to inform academics, ecosystem managers and policy makers of science-based information to promote sound rangeland stewardship. Author submissions are published in five manuscript categories: original research papers, high-profile forum topics, concept syntheses, as well as research and technical notes.
Rangelands represent approximately 50% of the Earth''s land area and provision multiple ecosystem services for large human populations. This expansive and diverse land area functions as coupled human-ecological systems. Knowledge of both social and biophysical system components and their interactions represent the foundation for informed rangeland stewardship. Rangeland Ecology & Management uniquely integrates information from multiple system components to address current and pending challenges confronting global rangelands.