Virtual Fencing Technology for Cattle Management in the Pasture Feeding System—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In review of this paper, I consider it to be a very good and worthwhile paper. It is very well written and is presented in a clear and focused manner. While it does not present novel trial information, it represents a very important contribution in this area. Having engaged with this work area previously,  I know there are different studies ongoing, however there is also much confusion about both the overall technological approach involved and also the different systems of virtual fencing. This paper addresses and clarifies these points very well. Good use of references, and particularly recent references has been employed.

 I just have a few comments :

 

1.       Line 5 of the Introduction: “…………………..making it imperative to maximize annual pasture consumption (t DM/ha) without unduly compromising individual cow performance”. As maximizing annual pasture consumption would normally improve cow performance (in terms of milk yield and /or milk solids), I suggest a more appropriate term may be wellbeing, i.e. “…………………..making it imperative to maximize annual pasture consumption (t DM/ha) without unduly compromising individual cow wellbeing”.

2.       Line 8 of Section 2 – General concept………………. “It was first used to control the lactation of livestock in 1987…..” – I am not sure how virtual fencing technology would control the lactation of livestock, therefore maybe this sentence should be worded differently or clarified.

3.       Line 15 of Section 2 – General concept………………. “pastures availability, quality, and cattle performance…” – probably should be ………………. “pasture availability, quality, and cattle performance…”

4.       Lines 24-26 of Section 3 – Innovative Systems The sentence starting with Cambell et al [35] and ending with each approach would benefit from rewording justto make it clearer.

5.       Line 45 of Section 3.1 eShepard – “…………..and greater motivation of locating versus dry and beef cattle to feed.” This needs to be checked – it possibly should read…………“…………..and greater motivation of lacating versus dry and beef cattle to feed.”

Author Response

All comments and suggestions have been taken into account:

1. A more appropriate term suggested by the reviewer was introduced into the text.
2. The misspelled word "lactation" was used; the correct word "location" has been entered into the text.
3. The correction suggested by the reviewer has been implemented.
4. The sentence has been reworded.
5. The wrong word was used; the correct “lactating” was introduced into the text.

We thank Reviewer 1 for corrections and improvements of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, researchers have aim to present an innovative concept of virtual fencing technology for pastures, compare currently available systems of this type, and indicate areas where further research and development should be carried out using Internet of Things (IoT) systems. The review is correctly citing important discoveries in the field. General readers can be able to learn from the article what has been firmly established and what are significant unresolved questions about virtual fencing technology for cattle management in the pasture feeding system. On the other hand, no cost analysis research has been presented regarding the claim that the virtual fencing system, which is constantly emphasized in the article, reduces costs. The most important detail is the cost analysis of virtual fence systems.  A comparative review of cost analysis of virtual fence systems should be found in the article.

Comments and Suggestions:

 

1.      I think it would be good to provide the images about virtual fence applications described in sections in the article.

 

2.      The bullet point is missing from the 3rd item on page 3.

 

3.      In general, I think that the article will contribute to the scientific literature collectively on the subject. However, I believe that a discussion on cost analysis of systems should be included in the article.

Author Response

The comparative analysis of the costs of virtual pasture systems proposed by the Reviewer is difficult to carry out. It could be conducted on the basis of commercial offers of companies selling virtual fence systems on the market. For this purpose, however, it is necessary to provide farm data, the size of the cattle herd and the area of available pasture where virtual fences are to be used. As a result of the inquiry, the sales representatives of the companies do not want to provide specific information about the costs of the systems right away, but strive for interpersonal contact in order to negotiate and prepare a system project for a specific farm. Therefore, the work of cost analysis of systems was limited to the study of the available literature in order to obtain information on the costs of collars or other elements of the virtual pasture system. These data are included in the descriptions of individual systems. However, in Table 2, the costs of 1 collar (except Halter) are given.

Another comment by the Reviewer regarding images of virtual fence applications was taken into consideration. In the article we have included two figures presenting the general concept of the virtual fence (Figure 1) and the response of grazing animals to the virtual fencing (Figure 2).

Other minor corrections suggested by Reviewer have been done.

We thank Reviewer 2 for comments and improvements of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented a work with a clear methodology of system development and implementation. In general the work is well structured after revision. Figures and tables are sufficient. Cost analysis is a difficult and laborious process. I can understand this situation. Required edits have been made in the article.