Fit livestock with protective collars to reduce risk of predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of fitting livestock with protective collars to reduce human-wildlife conflict on rates of livestock killings by predators. This study was in South Africa.





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

  1. A replicated, before-and-after study in 2006–2009 of seven livestock farms in savanna and shrubland in Eastern Cape, South Africa (McManus et al. 2015) found that using livestock protection collars reduced livestock fatalities caused by predators, compared to the rate when predators were controlled by lethal means. Results were not tested for statistical significance. When livestock collars were used, 1–12% of livestock were killed each year by predators. When not using livestock collars but, instead, carrying out lethal predator control, 6–31% of livestock were killed. Costs of using livestock collars (3.5 USD/livestock animal) were comparable to those of lethal control (0.7–6.0 USD/livestock animal). In August 2006–August 2007, all seven farms used lethal methods, including trapping and shooting, to control black-backed jackals Canis mesomelas, caracals Caracal caracal and leopards Panthera pardus. In September 2007–September 2009, all farms fitted animals with epoxy–metal mesh collars that protected the animal’s neck from predator bites. Farmers reported numbers of livestock killed by predators, and associated costs, in September in 2007–2009.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 20

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered speciesVincet Wildlife Trust