Use negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Livestock feed might also attract wild herbivores. This could produce a financial cost to farmers, through added feed costs and through transmission of disease, such as bovine tuberculosis, between wild and domestic herbivores (Phillips et al. 2003). Disease transmission may be greater where animals share foodstuffs. Hence, if wild herbivores can be effectively deterred from accessing livestock feed, this may reduce motivations for carrying out lethal control of wild herbivores.

Phillips C.J., Foster C.R., Morris P.A. & Teverson R. (2003) The transmission of Mycobacterium bovis infection to cattle. Research in Veterinary Science, 74, 1–15.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of using negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA.

KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (1 STUDY)

Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that white-tailed deer presence at cattle feeders was usually reduced by a device that produced a negative stimulus.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, controlled study in 2005 of captive deer on a farm in Michigan, USA (Seward et al. 2007) found that a deer-resistant cattle feeder device reduced white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus presence at feeders for the first five of six weeks. Fewer deer were recorded on camera traps within 1 m of feeders with active devices (0–0.2 deer/activation) than of feeders without devices (0.7–1.9 deer/activation) during the first five treatment weeks. There was no significant difference during the sixth week (active device: 0.4 deer/activation; no device: 1.2 deer/activation). During four weeks before device activation, deer number recorded on camera traps were similar between feeders with (2.3–2.9 deer/activation) and without (2.1–2.7 deer/activation) devices. Three feeders each were protected and unprotected by devices. Devices entailed a 3.4-m horizontal bar with a 1.6-m arm hanging on chains at each end, down to 45 cm above the ground. The rig rotated on a central pivot for 45 s, when an animal entered an infra-red-surveillance zone. Hanging arms struck animals within 1 m of feeders, startling, but not hurting, them. Monitoring, using camera traps, spanned 10 February to 10 March 2005 (devices inactive) and 13 May to 23 June 2005 (devices active).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Seward N.W., Phillips G.E. Duquette J.F. & Vercauteren K.C. (2007) A frightening device for deterring deer use of cattle feeders. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 271-276.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Fit livestock with protective collars to reduce risk of predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Provide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	6	Synopsis Link
Use fencing/netting to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link