Abstract
Group-living can be socially advantageous where the behavior of individuals may be modified by group members through socially facilitative processes. Virtual fencing contains cattle by providing audio and electrical signals via a neckband device. However, little is known about social influences on learning to appropriately respond to the virtual fence (VF) cues. This study aimed to determine whether cattle respond to the behavior of conspecifics during their initial interactions with a VF across 3 days. Sixty-four Angus steers, naïve to virtual fencing, were placed into 8 paddocks (8 animals/group), divided with a VF into two areas- an inclusion and exclusion zone. The animals received an audio cue if they approached the VF followed by an electrical pulse if they continued into the exclusion zone. The GPS and audio and electrical stimuli data were recorded. To quantify social facilitation, individual VF interactions were grouped into 179 “events” across 3 days; starting from when the first animal (leader) approached the VF. The responses of other animals were categorized as (1) followed the leader to move into the exclusion zone (followers, F), (2) accompanied the leader back into the inclusion zone (facilitated, Fa), (3) did not show any reaction (non-facilitated, NFa). A social facilitation score (SFaS) was calculated as SFaS (%) = (F/(Fa+NFa+F)) * 100. A single leader animal led on average 37% of events with 76.2% of all reactions categorized as facilitated by other individuals. Animals responded to the behavior of conspecifics more during the VF implementation compared with facilitated movement during natural grazing patterns when no VF was present (P < 0.001). On average, cattle stopped or turned away to 3.8 (± 2.9 SE) audio cues before ever receiving their first electrical pulse. There was a positive correlation (R = 0.34, P = 0.006) between the number of audio cues received prior to the first electrical pulse and the proportion of all audio cues that were not followed by an electrical pulse. In conclusion, cattle stayed within the inclusion zone based on the response of conspecifics, including some social impacts on individual rates of associative learning between the audio and electrical cues.
Highlights
Social animal species live in groups which is thought to have several advantages for predator protection, improved foraging success [1] and may confer other social benefits such as keeping warm, mate access [2], allo-grooming [3, 4], and improved reproduction through maternal kinship [5]
Groups 1–4 were part of a larger trial assessing the behavior and welfare of cattle exposed to electric tape or virtual fences conducted at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Chiswick site in Armidale, NSW from January through March 2019 and full details of that experimental protocol can be found in Campbell et al [29]
This study aimed to determine whether naïve beef cattle in small groups were socially facilitated in avoiding the exclusion zone in a virtual fencing (VF) system as well as in their associative learning between the audio and electrical cues
Summary
Social animal species live in groups which is thought to have several advantages for predator protection, improved foraging success [1] and may confer other social benefits such as keeping warm, mate access [2], allo-grooming [3, 4], and improved reproduction through maternal kinship [5]. Some individuals may move away from the group or vary in their proximity to other individuals [6] in group-living animals, there are collective processes occurring and the individuals. The influence of animals on moving group members into new areas can be related to their dominance status, age, or position in a social network [10, 11]. Animal species in groups can be influenced by conspecifics through watching or interacting with other individuals which can facilitate choosing what food to eat, or how to access it, and predator avoidance [12, 13]. There are multiple types of defined processes regarding the social transmission of behavior and information with varying degrees of evidence across different livestock species [reviewed in [14]]. Social facilitation is in contrast with social learning where an individual is stated to have socially learned a new behavior if it is retained when the demonstrator is absent [14]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
