Abstract
The use of virtual fencing (VF) in pasture-grazed farm systems is currently close to commercial reality but there are no studies applying the principles of responsible research and innovation, such as foresighting, to this technology. This paper reports results of a study aimed at foresighting potential implications associated with virtual fencing of cattle. A Delphi method was used to survey the opinions of farming practitioners and researchers, using pasture-grazed cattle farming in New Zealand as a case study. The key benefits were identified as environmental protection, improved feed allocation, access to previously unavailable grazing areas, labour savings and individual animal management. The five most important potential barriers identified were device reliability, farmer perception of a value proposition, ethical issues related to community perception of negative animal welfare, lack of feed budgeting skills of farmers, and excessive training time. We suggest that more knowledge is needed on ethical issues associated with VF, including understanding public opinions of such technology developments. We suggest that development and use of VF has been focussed primarily on technical features and user benefits and needs to include consideration of wider socio-ethical principles to ensure responsible innovation processes. The findings from this study will aid focussed research and development to incorporate ethically acceptable development alongside technical factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, D. M. (2007). Virtual fencing past, present and future. The Rangeland Journal, 29(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ06036.
Archer, R. (2009). Fenceless New Zealand dairy farming. In A. Emerson & J. Rowarth (Eds.), Future food farming (pp. 9–16). Wellington: NZX Ltd.
Ashworth, P., Lacey, J., Sehic, S., & Dowd, A.-M. (2019). Exploring the value proposition for RRI in Australia. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6(3), 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1603571.
Asveld, L., Ganzevles, J., & Osseweijer, P. (2015). Trustworthiness and responsible research and innovation: The case of the bio-economy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(3), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9542-2.
Ayre, M., Mc Collum, V., Waters, W., Samson, P., Curro, A., Nettle, R., et al. (2019). Supporting and practising digital innovation with advisers in smart farming. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91, 100302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.05.001.
Bishop-Hurley, G. J., Swain, D. L., Anderson, D. M., Sikka, P., Crossman, C., & Corke, P. (2007). Virtual fencing applications: Implementing and testing an automated cattle control system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 56(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2006.12.003.
Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications (pp. 19–35). Cham: Springer.
Blok, V., & Long, T. B. (2016). The role of responsible innovation in the technology assessment of smart farming technologies in Europe. Paper presented at the Food futures: Ethics, science and culture, Porto, Portugal, 29 September–1 October 2016.
Borchers, M. R., & Bewley, J. M. (2015). An assessment of producer precision dairy farming technology use, prepurchase considerations, and usefulness. Journal of Dairy Science, 98(6), 4198–4205. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8963.
Boyland, N. K., Mlynski, D. T., James, R., Brent, L. J. N., & Croft, D. P. (2016). The social network structure of a dynamic group of dairy cows: From individual to group level patterns. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 174, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.016.
Brady, S. R. (2015). Utilizing and adapting the Delphi method for use in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1609406915621381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621381.
Bronson, K. (2018). Smart farming: Including rights holders for responsible agricultural innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(2), 7–14.
Bruijnis, M. R. N., Blok, V., Stassen, E. N., & Gremmen, H. G. J. (2015). Moral “lock-In” in responsible innovation: The ethical and social aspects of killing day-old chicks and its alternatives. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(5), 939–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9566-7.
Brunberg, E. I., Bøe, K. E., & Sørheim, K. M. (2015). Testing a new virtual fencing system on sheep. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, A, 65(3–4), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2015.1128478.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, D. L. M., Haynes, S., Lea, J., Farrer, W., & Lee, C. (2018a). Temporary exclusion of cattle from a Riparian zone using virtual fencing technology. Animals, 9(1), 5.
Campbell, D. L. M., Lea, J. M., Farrer, W. J., Haynes, S. J., & Lee, C. (2017). Tech-savvy beef cattle? How heifers respond to moving virtual fence lines. Animals, 7(9), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7090072.
Campbell, D. L. M., Lea, J. M., Haynes, S. J., Farrer, W. J., Leigh-Lancaster, C. J., & Lee, C. (2018b). Virtual fencing of cattle using an automated collar in a feed attractant trial. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 200, 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.12.002.
Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1994.04031.
Driessen, C., & Heutinck, L. (2015). Cows desiring to be milked? Milking robots and the co-evolution of ethics and technology on Dutch dairy farms. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9515-5.
Eastwood, C. R., Ayre, M., Nettle, R., & Dela Rue, B. (2019a). Making sense in the cloud: Farm advisory services in a smart farming future. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.04.004.
Eastwood, C. R., & Dela Rue, B. (2017). Identification of performance attributes for pasture measuring devices. Journal of New Zealand Grasslands, 79, 17–22.
Eastwood, C. R., Jago, J. G., Edwards, J. P., & Burke, J. K. (2016). Getting the most out of advanced farm management technologies: Roles of technology suppliers and dairy industry organisations in supporting precision dairy farmers. Animal Production Science, 56(10), 1752–1760. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN141015.
Eastwood, C., Klerkx, L., Ayre, M., & Dela Rue, B. (2019b). Managing socio-ethical challenges in the development of smart farming: From a fragmented to a comprehensive approach for responsible research and innovation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32(5), 741–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9704-5.
Eastwood, C. R., Klerkx, L., & Nettle, R. (2017). Dynamics and distribution of public and private research and extension roles for technological innovation and diffusion: Case studies of the implementation and adaptation of precision farming technologies. Journal of Rural Studies, 49, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.008.
Eastwood, C. R., & Renwick, A. (2020). Innovation uncertainty impacts the adoption of smarter farming approaches. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00024.
Fay, P. K., McElligott, V. T., & Havstad, K. M. (1989). Containment of free-ranging goats using pulsed-radio-wave-activated shock collars. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 23(1), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90016-6.
Fielke, S., Taylor, B., & Jakku, E. (2020). Digitalisation of agricultural knowledge and advice networks: A state-of-the-art review. Agricultural Systems, 180, 102763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102763.
Hansen, B. G. (2015). Robotic milking-farmer experiences and adoption rate in Jæren, Norway. Journal of Rural Studies, 41, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.08.004.
Hasson, F., & Keeney, S. (2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1695–1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.005.
Hayward, M. W., & Kerley, G. I. H. (2009). Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biological Conservation, 142(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.022.
Jachowski, D. S., Slotow, R., & Millspaugh, J. J. (2014). Good virtual fences make good neighbors: Opportunities for conservation. Animal Conservation, 17(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12082.
Jago, J., Eastwood, C. R., Kerrisk, K., & Yule, I. (2013). Precision dairy farming in Australasia: Adoption, risks and opportunities. Animal Production Science, 53(9), 907–916. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN12330.
Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., & Labarthe, P. (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91, 100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315.
Krigsholm, P., Zavialova, S., Riekkinen, K., Ståhle, P., & Viitanen, K. (2017). Understanding the future of the Finnish cadastral system—A Delphi study. Land Use Policy, 68, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.032.
Kuehne, G., Llewellyn, R., Pannell, D. J., Wilkinson, R., Dolling, P., Ouzman, J., et al. (2017). Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy. Agricultural Systems, 156, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.007.
Lee, C., Colditz, I. G., & Campbell, D. L. M. (2018). A framework to assess the impact of new animal management technologies on welfare: A case study of virtual fencing. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00187.
Lee, C., Henshall, J. M., Wark, T. J., Crossman, C. C., Reed, M. T., Brewer, H. G., et al. (2009). Associative learning by cattle to enable effective and ethical virtual fences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 119(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.03.010.
Lomax, S., Colusso, P., & Clark, C. E. F. (2019). Does virtual fencing work for grazing dairy cattle? Animals, 9(7), 429.
Marini, D., Meuleman, M., Belson, S., Rodenburg, T., Llewellyn, R., & Lee, C. (2018). Developing an ethically acceptable virtual fencing system for sheep. Animals, 8(3), 33.
Meijer, I. S. M., Hekkert, M. P., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2007). How perceived uncertainties influence transitions; the case of micro-CHP in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 519–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.02.007.
Millar, K., Thorstensen, E., Tomkins, S., Mepham, B., & Kaiser, M. (2007). Developing the ethical Delphi. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-006-9022-9.
Ministry for the Environment. (2016). Next steps for fresh water: Consultation document. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002.
Rose, D. C., & Chilvers, J. (2018). Agriculture 4.0: Broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming [perspective]. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00087.
Shepherd, M., Turner, J. A., Small, B., & Wheeler, D. (2018). Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9346.
Stahl, B., Eden, G., Jirotka, M., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2014). From computer ethics to responsible research and innovation in ICT: The transition of reference discourses informing ethics-related research in information systems. Information & Management, 51(6), 810–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.01.001.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
Umstatter, C. (2011). The evolution of virtual fences: A review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 75(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2010.10.005.
Umstatter, C., Morgan-Davies, J., & Waterhouse, T. (2015). Cattle responses to a type of virtual fence. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 68(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2014.12.004.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank participating experts for their valuable time and opinions. This research was conducted as a research assignment as part of the requirements to complete an MBA through Massey University. This research was conducted under the guidelines of the ‘Code of ethical conduct for research, teaching and evaluations involving human participants’ provided by Massey University, New Zealand.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brier, D., Eastwood, C.R., Dela Rue, B.T. et al. Foresighting for Responsible Innovation Using a Delphi Approach: A Case Study of Virtual Fencing Innovation in Cattle Farming. J Agric Environ Ethics 33, 549–569 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-020-09838-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-020-09838-9