Table 2.
The body weight and FCM in dry feces for cattle exposed to a virtual or electric tape fence within a 5-week period across two test cohorts1.
| Variable | Fence | Placement | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (kg)2 | Virtual C1 | 385.8 | 395.1 | 403.6 | 408.8 | 410.3 | 418.2 |
| Tape C1 | 395.2 | 419.8 | 422.3 | 438.7 | 435.5 | 444.1 | |
| Virtual C2 | 387.0 | 399.3 | 403.4 | 405.9 | 407.2 | 398.6 | |
| Tape C2 | 369.6 | 383.4 | 390.1 | 390.8 | 386.6 | 381.85 | |
| FCM (ng/g)3, 4 | Virtual | 25.19a | 17.72b, c | 14.84c, d | 13.76d, e | 10.46e | |
| Tape | 23.75a | 22.17a, b | 18.87b, c | 16.15c, d | 10.24e |
1
The fences were set at the beginning of week 2, fecal samples were collected at the end of each week.
2
Values are presented as the least squares means ± 5.6 as the standard error in cohort 1 (C1) and 5.9 as the standard error in cohort 2 (C2).
3
Values are presented as the least squares means ± 1.13 as the standard error of the mean.
4a−e
Dissimilar superscript letters indicate differences between fence types across the trial weeks (P < 0.005).
5
The electric tape was shifted to expose more pasture during week 5 for cohort 2.