Introduction
The Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC) traditionally provided detailed expert advice to Ministers in Defra and the Scottish and Welsh Governments on the welfare of farm animals on farm, at markets, during transport and at slaughter. In October 2019, FAWC was renamed the Animal Welfare Committee (AWC) and its remit was expanded to include companion animals and wild animals kept by people, as well as farm animals. This enables it to provide authoritative advice, which is based on scientific research, stakeholder consultation, site visits and experience, on a wider range of animal welfare issues.
Conclusions
Virtual fencing systems for livestock have several potential welfare advantages over conventional electric fencing. With appropriate provider safeguards and operator use, these include livestock nutrition, health and welfare benefits, and benefits to the land being grazed. These benefits are due to easy fenceline movement, the ability to apply audio and/or vibration cues prior to an electric shock, the ability of the system to deliver a known level of electrical pulse to an individual animal and associated monitoring functions.In addition to containment and exclusion, systems may be used dynamically to move livestock from one location to another, to divide or combine suitable groups and to monitor location. Movement functions may either use a dynamic virtual fenceline or activate vibration or audio cues on the collar or neckband, delivering an electric shock if the animal does not respond to these. The welfare issues related to the use of virtual fencing are likely to vary according to context.
Virtual fencing systems are superseding previous loop-based invisible fencing, which had limited take-up. They have developed over the past 5–10 years with accelerated UK interest and take-up since 2019. There are likely to be ongoing improvements in collar design, battery lifespan and software functionality. Because the systems are new and developing, long-term outcomes are at present uncertain.
Before livestock are virtually fenced a training period is essential so they may become familiar with the cues given by the system and learn appropriate behavioural responses.
Additional sensors adding new data to the real time smartphone application as part of additional full herd management systems provide further uses and potential welfare gains by alerting livestock owners and/or keepers to potential health and welfare issues.
If held in the UK or accessible from within the UK under a duty of disclosure by a person other than the stock keeper, monitoring data could potentially be used as objective evidence of poor welfare or care as well as to demonstrate that welfare standards have been met.
Further research is needed to reliably assess the probability and importance of potential welfare gains resulting from virtual fencing, as well as the risk and magnitude of possible negative welfare impacts on livestock health and mental state.
Virtual fencing forms part of a shift in livestock management practices towards greater automation. If used in combination with other systems, such as automated milking, automated feed dispensing systems and drone observation, it could contribute to a highly technological management infrastructure in which ongoing contact with humans is greatly reduced. This may have unintended negative livestock welfare impacts.
Although virtual fencing, movement and monitoring systems have the potential to reduce ongoing human contact with livestock, they could also potentially improve the usage of stockperson time with livestock, reducing the time spent on locating and monitoring and increasing targeted engagement with welfare problems and issues.
Collars that are currently available are not suitable for lambs, kids or young calves, nor for farmed species other than cattle, sheep or goats. Further research would be required before the welfare implications of their use on other species could be considered.
There is significant scope for livestock welfare to be compromised if users of virtual fencing systems do not fully understand how the technology works, its technical limitations and how to respond in the event of problems.
Recommendations
The virtual fencing and remote monitoring of livestock should not replace regular human inspection.Land managers and stock keepers should not rely on virtual fencing in preference to physical fencing in situations that are high-risk to livestock or humans (for example, to keep stock off a main road or railway line or away from a steep incline; to safeguard against biosecurity hazards).
Collar and system design parameters
Any collar placed on a livestock animal for containment or any other purpose should have a verifiable physical breaking point, which is reached before significant harm is caused to the animal wearing it, and be designed to be non-abrasive.Any future significant weight increases in collars should be subject to welfare review.
Except for research purposes, no livestock animal should be double collared around the neck (for example, be fitted with a virtual fencing collar and a separate monitoring collar).
No virtual fencing system should be manufactured to allow a user to deliver an intentional electric shock to any individual livestock animal or group of animals.
Manufacturers should design all systems to set a maximum strength, number and duration of electric shocks that a livestock animal can receive according to strict parameters that a user may reduce, but not exceed. Electrical pulse strength should be the minimum necessary to control the individual animal, such as by means of algorithmic reduction, and should always be preceded by auditory and/or vibration cues.
Livestock that cross a boundary should always be able to return without experiencing an audio cue or electric shock while so doing.
Manufacturers should ensure that systems permit immediate cancellation of collar control by the user when inspection of livestock by the owner or other stockperson reveals adverse welfare effects.
Manufacturers should ensure that, in an emergency, all systems permit immediate remote cancellation of collar control by the user.
Battery capacity and solar charging capability should be sufficiently large to avoid livestock having to be brought into handling facilities frequently for battery replacement. Handling for this purpose should ideally be performed at the same time as other husbandry tasks requiring restraint.
Manufacturers should design applications used to set fencelines to require users to identify and prevent configurations that are likely to lead to welfare problems, such as lack of a drinking water point, exposure to hazards (such as lack of shelter from sun, snow or heavy rain), or the possibility of becoming trapped in a flooded area.
Collar and system use
Manufacturers should clearly specify the species, type, sex and age of livestock for which their collars and systems are designed.Virtual fencing collars should not be used on calves aged under six months or on lambs or kids aged under four months. Research would be needed to support any alteration to these recommended minimum ages, including into psychological and developmental aspects.
The livestock owner or keeper is responsible for any consequences resulting from the use of virtual fencing.
Stockpersons should check collars used on growing youngstock frequently to ensure that they do not become too tight.
All persons using virtual fencing to contain or move livestock should receive full training and appropriate evaluation, including in welfare aspects, from providers.
Subject to further research, all weaned/adult livestock in a virtually fenced group should normally be collared. If one or more bulls is included in a virtually fenced area, an additional form of fencing should be required for safe containment.
Bulls should only be virtually fenced using collars manufactured specifically for them.
Prior to being virtually fenced, all livestock should be trained for a sufficient time period in a safe, controlled and predictable environment, taking into account their behaviour, temperament and site conditions.
If, during training or later, an individual livestock animal consistently fails to respond to the virtual system, the stockperson should transfer it into an alternative containment system. Virtual fencing systems should be able to identify such animals through monitoring.
Research should be undertaken to find livestock training methods that could replace the current use of aversive electric shocks. If these new methods are demonstrated to be reliable, electric shock training methods should be rapidly phased out of use on livestock.
A dynamic fenceline should move outwards in order to allow access to new pasture or other space and only move inwards when all livestock have vacated the area to be closed such that no animals receive any audio cues or electric shocks as a result of its inward movement.
In small containment areas without significant hazards, in order to reduce the risk of separation of dams from their young it is recommended that the virtual fencing function of collars on livestock be deactivated at calving and lambing, with only the monitoring function remaining in use. In large areas where potential hazards are present, it is recommended that the virtual fencing function not be deactivated at calving or lambing.
When dams with youngstock are virtually fenced within a larger area that is physically contained, a collar should be deactivated if the dam displays separation anxiety.
To avoid livestock receiving cues and potentially electric shocks, the virtual fencing function of collars should be deactivated whenever they are transported.
In case of GPS drift, water points and necessary shade and shelter should not be located close to a virtual boundary.
Manufacturers should design applications to prevent fencelines being set narrower than GPS resolution (for example, narrow corridors along tracks) and allowance should be made for GPS drift.
All current and future users of virtual fencing systems for containment and/or movement should have an alternative method or methods for providing these in place in case the virtual system malfunctions or fails.
Legal, regulatory and assurance aspects
Governments should review and clarify whether virtual fencing systems fall under the legal definition of an automated system used in the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations, and are therefore subject to the inspection, repair and welfare requirements in these Regulations.Expectations for virtual fencing systems should be included in the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock for cattle, sheep and goats.
Manufacturers should publish electric shock parameters (voltage, energy, pulse duration and waveform characteristics) and acceptable levels should be included in the Codes of Recommendations for relevant species.
To guard against the risk of harm being caused to livestock, virtual fencing systems marketed in the UK should be manufactured to a consistently assured standard.
As the use of virtual fencing systems significantly increases, develops and diversifies, an approvals process may be needed.
The ownership of data generated by virtual fencing systems and access rights to it require legal clarification.
Farm assurance schemes should consider including specific requirements for virtual fencing, based on latest best practice, in their published standards.
If members of the public are likely to be legally on land where virtually fenced livestock are present, visible signage should be in place explaining the system.
Read the full report here:
