Aust. Wildl. Res.

, 1983, 10, 499-505

Evaluation of Fencing to Control

Feral Pig Movement

Jim

one* and Bill ~ t k i n s o n

" New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Research Station, Glenfield, N.S.W.;
present address: School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1,
Belconnen. A.C.T. 2616.
"ew
South Wales Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre, Trangie, N.S.W.;
present address: Agricultural Research Station, Cowra, N.S.W. 2794.

Abstract
Eight fence designs with and without electrification were tested for their ability to stop feral pigs crossing
from one paddock to another.Fences of 8:80: 15 hingejoints were pig-proof, whereas fences of 6:70:30
hingejoint or plain wires allowed some pigs to cross. Electrification of the fences significantly reduced
the frequency of pig movement through fences to as little as 6.3% of test pigs. The behaviour offeral pigs
relative to the fences and their implications are described.

Introduction
Fencing is used to protect crops, pastures and lambs from damage due to feral pigs. In
Australia a number of authors have suggested fence designs to restrict the movement offeral
pigs into crops and lambing paddocks (Pharoah 1976; Giles 1977; Mitchell et al. 1977; Plant
1980). In California electric fencing is used to restrict feral pig movement onto irrigated
summer pasture (Barrett 1971; Patton 1974) and elsewhere to protect crops near wildlife
refuges (Thompson 1977). Snethlage (1967) suggested two designs for pig-proof fences in
Germany.
Despite the widespread use of a variety of fence designs none have been systematically
tested. This paper reports a study to determine the effectiveness of eight fence designs in
controlling feral pig movement. The fences were tested with and without electrification
under controlled conditions to enable their effectiveness and pig behaviour to be clearly
observed. A similar experimental appproach was used to test fences for coyote control
(Gates et al. 1978; Thompson 1979), and rat control (Shumake et al. 1979).
Methods
Experimental Design
Eight fences were tested in a randomized block design. The fences were arranged serially in a straight
line consisting of two blocks each of eight fences. Each test fence was constructed as a 20-m side of a
rectangular paddock 30 by 20 m. The other three sides were hingejoint fencing. The eight designs were
tested as non-electrified fences twice, then as electrified fences twice. The interval between time
replicates was 1 week. Electric fences were charged by a battery-powered energizer delivering 6000 V,
and were checked daily.
Fence Deslgn
Eight fence designs were selected for testing, on the basis of those reported in the literature and used
on farms. Not all reported fence designs could be tested because of logistical problems.

J. Hone and B. Atkinson

DESIGN

:;rd

DESIGN

LIVE

32

s ,j

25
12

0
w

EARTH

40

EARTH

DESIGN

DESIGN

I I

EARTH

DESIGN

I I

DESIGN

WOOD

- 5 8

DESIGN

Fig. 1. Fence designs tested with feral pigs. View is from pig-side of fences, showing live stand-offwire in
designs 1, 2, 5-7 and 8. Arrows indicate plain wires holding top and bottom of hingejoint. Hingejoint
6 : 70 : 30 had six horizontal wires and a total height of 70 cm, with 30 cm between vertical wires. The
bottom of the hingejoint in design 7 was staked to the ground midway between posts. Post intervals are
not to scale.

Fencing to Control Feral Pigs

The fences are shown in Fig. 1. Designs 1-4 consisted of plain wires with wooden or steel posts.
Designs 5-8 consisted of hingejoint with wooden or steel posts. In all fences the plain wire was 3.15 mm
galvanized. All posts were 5 m apart, and for electrification the existing fence was earth-connected.
Stand-off wires were placed 15 cm on the pig side of the fence. Design 1 was similar to a fence reported
by Pharoah (1976). Design 4 was similar to that outlined by Plant (1980), and design 8 (unelectrified)
similar to a fence reported by Tilley (1973).

Experimental Animals
Four feral pigs were simultaneously placed in each paddock: one adult male, one adult female, one
juvenile male and one juvenile female. This was equivalent to 67 feral pigs per hectare; a very high
density, providing a severe test of each design. The pigs were aged on the basis of weight, those over
30 kg were classed as adults, and those less than 30 kg as juveniles. All pigs were individually ear-tagged
and randomized with respect to the fence behind which they were placed, both within and between time
replicates. The pigs were allowed 100 h to cross the fence. Pasture and water was available in each
paddock but no natural or artificial shelter or supplementary feed was provided. The experiment was
conducted in winter and spring 1980.
Observations
The presence and absence of pigs and their behaviour relative to the test fences were recorded during
the daytime observation periods, usually of 1-2 h. The behaviour of the pigs remaining in the paddocks
was recorded at 1-min intervals. Six types of behaviour were recorded: feeding, resting, walking,
aggression, sexual behaviour and self-care (drinking, urinating, defaecating, scratching and wallowing).
A total of 16 141 observations were recorded.
Analysis
The efficiency of the fences in controlling pig movements was evaluated by three methods, which
evaluated the results differently though the analyses were not independent. The first analysis was of the
percentage of pigs crossing fences, and the other two examined the time taken by pigs to cross fences.
Pigs could cross very soon after being placed behind a fence or take many hours to cross. The interval
could be ~mportantin feral pig control, suggesting how frequently fences should be inspected and when,
after a fence is built, pigs that have crossed the fence should be controlled. Differences could be expected
between pigs in their ability to cross fences. Two statistics were analysed: the time till the first pig crossed
the fence, and a measure of how long all pigs took to cross a fence. The latter was calculated by adding the
total pig-hours that pigs were in a paddock behind the test fences. As each of four pigs had 100 h to cross
a fence, the maximum of pig-hours was 400.
The percentages of pigs crossing fences were examined by a fixed-factor analysis of variance. The
data were pooled over time replicates, because of small samples, and transformed to arcsine. Zero and
100% data were adjusted as outlined by Snedecor and Cochran (1967). The effects of design,
electrification, blocks, design X electrification and design X blocks were tested against an error of 821
divided by the mean number of pigs per cell. This is the estimated theoretical error in the angular scale
when all error variance is binomial (Snedecor and Cochran 1967, p. 328).
The second analysis tested the time, in hours, until the first pig in a treatment crossed its fence. The
data were examined by a fixed-factor analysis of variance after adding 1 .O and transforming to common
logarithms. The effects of design, electrification, blocks, time and the design X electrification interaction
were tested against a pooled estimate of error. The third analysis tested the total pig-hours that pigs were
behind the fences. The data were examined as in the second analysis. In each analysis differences
between means were tested by least significant differences, if the analysis of variance showed a
significant effect at the 5% level (Snedecor and Cochran 1967).
Costs
The costs of materials for each design (excluding labour, strainer posts and electric fence energizer)
were calculated as the cost of materials per kilometre per pig restrained from crossing. The latter was
estimated from data pooled over times and blocks.

Results
The hingejoint mesh of design 8 was the only pig-prooffence tested (Table 1). Other fence
designs allowed at least 6.3% of feral pigs to cross. There were highly significant (P<O. 005)

J. Hone and B. Atkinson

502

effects of fence design on the percentage of feral pigs that crossed fences (Table 1). More pigs
crossed the plain wire fences (designs 1-4) than the hingejoint fences (designs 5-8). The
percentage of pigs crossing was highly significantly ( P t 0 . 0 0 5 ) lower (11.6%) with
electrification than without (79.5%). All pigs crossed the non-electrified designs 1, 3 and 4.
In contrast, when the fences were electrified the maximum percentage of pigs crossing was
25.0% (Table 1). There was a significant ( P t 0.05) effect of blocks on the percentage
crossing. There were no significant interactions of design X electrification or blocks X design.
Design 8 was not included in this or subsequent analyses, because no pigs crossed this
fence.
Table 1. The percentage of feral pigs crossing each fence, and the number of pig-hours that pigs remained
behind each fence
Within columns. percentages followed by the same letter are not significantly different. Values for pig-hours are
geometric means: maximum possible hours. 400.0
Design
No.

Total

Percentage of pigs crossing

Non-electrified

Electrified

Number of pig-hours
Non-electrified
Electrified

With electrification, the average time till the first pig crossed a fence (67.4 h) was highly
significantly ( P t 0 . 0 0 5 ) longer than with no electrification (8.4 h). There were no
significant effects of design, blocks, time or design X electrification.

Fig. 2. Frequency of electric shocks

received by feral pigs in the first 5 h of
exposure to electric fences. Solid and
broken lines show the numbers of shocks
in replicates 1 and 2 respectively.

Time since pigs placed behind fence (h)

There were highly significant effects of design and electrification (PtO.005) and their
interaction ( P t 0.05) on the pig-hours that pigs were behind the test fences. Table 1 shows
the pig-hours for the design X electrification interaction. The data are geometric means
calculated by retransforming the logarithmic-transformed data used in the analysis of
variance. The significant interaction was due to differing increases in pig-hours following
electrification. For example, there was a large increase for fence 4 but a much smaller
increase for fence 6.

Fencing to Control Feral Pigs

503

Pigs crossed the fences by passing between wires, most commonly (1 3 of 25) between the
bottom and second wires, which were at heights similar to a pig's snout. Eleven crossings
were between the second and third wires and one between the third and fourth wires. No pigs
were observed to go under or over fences. Not all crossings were observed or could be
classified according to the wires between which pigs crossed.
Pigs placed behind the electrified fences received 60.7% (54 of 89) of electric shocks in the
first half-hour and fewer thereafter (Fig. 2). Of the 89 shocks observed 30 involved adult
females, 2 1 adult males and 19 each for juvenile females and males. In response to these and
other electric shocks, 89.8% ( n = 88) of feral pigs vocalized and ran from the fence and
10.2% (n = 10) ran from the fence but did not vocalize. Some feral pigs repeatedly challenged
the electric fence, but did not cross, while others then charged through it. There were no
apparent effects of sex or age on the time taken by pigs to cross fences or on their reaction to
electric shocks.
The hingejoint mesh designs (5-8) were the most expensive (Table 2). However, the
electrified version of design 4 had the lowest cost per kilometre per pig restrained. The
results show that the effect of electrification was to greatly reduce this cost.
Table 2. Costs per kilometre of fences tested, and their cost efficiencies
Design
No.

Mater~al
cost ($1

Non-electrified
Cost per kilometre
per pig restrained

Material
cost ($)

Electrified
Cost per kilometre
per pig restrained

The most common activity pattern of the pigs behind the fences was resting (50.4%), then
feeding (43.6%) and walking (5.2%). Other behaviour patterns were aggression (0.4%),
self-care (0.3%) and sexual behaviour (0.1%). There were few differences between sexes and
ages, except that adult males were more often involved in aggression.
Discussion
The results show that electrification significantly reduced the number of feral pigs
crossing fences. Most of the fence designs tested were not pig-proof. On the basis of these
results the fences reported by Wright (1972), Pharaoh (1976). Giles (1977), Mitchell et a/.
(1 977), Venamore and Hamilton (1 978) and Plant (1980) are probably not pig-proof. These
fences should, however, significantly reduce pig movement. A netting design with small
holes, similar to that reported by Snethlage (1967) and Tilley (1973) is necessary to prevent
pigs crossing.
Farmers considering using fencing to control feral pig damage have to choose between
modifying an existing fence or building a new one. Electrification is the cheapest and
simplest method of modifying existing fences. Results from this study show that modifying
existing fences by use of a stand-off live wire will significantly reduce the percentage of pigs
crossing fences and increase the time taken to do so. The electrified fences of designs 5 , 6 and
7 were virtually pig-proof, but those of designs 1, 2 and 3 were not.
Better results in terms of pig control and economics can be achieved by constructing new
fences. Plant (1980) reported that he found no satisfactory method of electrifying existing
fences, because of practical problems of wire placement and insulation. Farmers building a
new fence will have to choose between an expensive pig-proof fence (design 8 unelectrified)

504

J. Hone and B. Atkinson

and a cheaper, virtually pig-prooffence (design 4 electrified). Individual farmers will choose
either fence on the basis of their own financial situation, and the level of feral pig
damage.
The economics of a fence depend on such factors as its efficiency at preventing crossing,
initial and annual costs, area enclosed, perimeter length, life (in years) of the fence and the
density and value of sheep, plants or whatever object is being protected inside the fence
(Caslick and Decker 1979; Caslick 1980). Lambs and maturing crops are susceptible to feral
pig damage for only 1-3 months per year. Protection could be provided by enclosing a small
area for lambing or around individual crops, as has been suggested for protecting lambs from
feral pigs (Plant 1980) and coyotes (De Calesta and Cropsey 1978). The size of the area
enclosed is determined by lambing or cropping needs and by considering that the fencing
costs per unit area decline exponentially as the area enclosed increases (Shumake et al. 1979).
The frequency of pigs crossing most electric fences means that other control methods may be
needed to supplement fencing for control of pig damage.
The three analyses used in this study gave differing results. That was not unexpected,
given the types of data and the factors measured. The percentages of feral pigs that crossed
fences were the most useful statistics. The data on time showed that pigs crossed a fence very
soon after being placed behind it. This indicates that feral pigs may be expected to cross a
fence soon after it is built, and hence any control of those pigs should be conducted at that
time. The data on the total pig-hours showed that some pigs stayed behind the fences for
much longer than others. The results indicate the need to complete building fences well
before cropping or lambing. Plant (1980) suggested fences should be completed 3-4 weeks
before lambing.
The way pigs crossed the fences was surprising, because they passed through rather than
under. Feral pigs have been seen by both authors to pass under and through fences in the
wild, and so designs 7 and 8 had the bottom of the hingejoint on the ground. On uneven
ground the space between the wires and the ground varies and pigs may then be more likely
to go under fences. The observations of pigs running through an electric fence after receiving
repeated shocks were noteworthy. The pigs did not vocalize before crossing. McCutcheon
(1980) implied that such crossing behaviour (with vocalization) had not been reported.
It was clear from the observations that pigs quickly learn to avoid electric fences. Similar
behaviour has been reported with rats (Shumake et al. 1979) and cattle (McDonald et al.
1981). Such learning is important to the long-term effectiveness of electric fencing. The
activity data indicated that the pigs did not spend 100 h ofinactivity behind the test fences,
but showed daily behaviour patterns like those expected of feral pigs in similar
situations.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the farm staff, manager and director of research at the
Agricultural Research Station, Trangie, for invaluable assistance throughout the study.
H. Bryant, A. Burns and R. Pither in particular are thanked for braving the wet, icy winds
of the plains. We also thank Mr P. Nicholls for statistical advice and J. Morris for drawing
Fig. 1. Financial assistance was provided by the Australian Meat Research Committee.
References
Barrett, R. H. (1971). Ecology ofthe feral hog in Tehama County, California. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of California, Berkeley.
Caslick, J. W. (1980). Deer-proof fences for orchards: a new look at economic feasibility. Proc. 9th
Vertebr. Pest Conf., Fresno, California. pp. 161-2.
Caslick, J. W., and Decker, D. J. (1979). Economic feasibility of a deer-proof fence for apple orchards.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 7 , 173-5.
De Calesta, D. S., and Cropsey, M. G. (1978). Field test of a coyote-proof fence. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6 ,
256-9.

Fencing to Control Feral Pigs

505

Gates, N. L., Rich, J. E., Godtel, D. D., and Hulet, C. V. (1978). Development and evaluation of
anti-coyote electric fencing. J. Range Manage. 31, 15 1-3.
Giles, J. R. (1977). Control of feral pigs. Wool. Technol. Sheep Breed. 25, 29-3 1.
McCutcheon, J. (1980). Electric fence design principles. (Electrical Engineering Department, University
of Melbourne.)
McDonald, C. L., Beilharz, R. G., and McCutcheon, J. C. (198 1). Training cattle to control by electric
fences. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 7 , 113-21,
Mitchell, T. D., Kearins, R. D., Marchant, R. S., and Plant, J. W. (1977). Electric fences to control feral
pigs. Agric. Gaz. A:S. W. 88, 10.
Patton, D C. (1974). Feral hogs - boon or burden Proc. 6th Vertebr. Pest. Conf., Anaheim, California.
pp. 210-16.
Pharaoh, D. M . (1976). Permanent electric fencing. N.S.W. Dep. Agric. Inf. Bull. No. 76.1. Rev.
Ed.
Plant, J. W. (1980). Electric fences will give feral pigs a shock. Agric. Gaz. N S . W. 91, 38-40.
Shumake, S. A., Kolz, A. L., Reidinger, R. F., and Fall, M. W. (1 979). Evaluation ofnon-lethal electrical
barriers for crop protection against rodent damage. In 'Vertebrate Pest Control and Management
Materials'. ASTM, STP 680. (Ed. J. R. Beck.) pp. 29-38.
Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G. (1 967). 'Statistical Methods.' 6th Ed. (Iowa State University Press:
Ames, Iowa.)
Snethlage, K. (1967). 'Das Schwarzwild.' (Verlag Paul Pareg: Hamburg.) [Cited in: Bratton, S.P. (1974).
An integrated ecological approach to the management of European wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. U.S. Natl Park Serv. Manag. Rep. No. 3.1
Thompson, B. C. (1979). Evaluation of wire fences for coyote control. J. Range Manage. 32,
457-61.
Thompson, R. L.(1977). Feral hogs on national wildlife refuges. In 'Research and Management of Wild
Hog Populations, Proceedings of Symposium.' (Ed. G. W. Wood.) pp. 11-15.
Tilley, L. G. W. (1973). Pig fencing in Mossman. Cane Grow. Q. Bull. 36, 132-3.
Venamore, P. C., and Hamilton, W. D. (1978). Don't let feral pigs eat your profits. Queensl. Agric. J. 104,
4 19-22,
Wright, J. W. (1972). Electric fences to keep out wild pigs. Queensl. Agric. J. 98, 371-2.

Manuscript received 15 October 1982; accepted 11 January 1983