By Alayna Gerhardt-Crile, PhD, agricultural consultant focused on pasture systems and livestock technology
The use of technology in animal production systems has significantly improved to meet the ever-growing consumer demands for sustainable and humanely raised animal products. Since its initial introduction in livestock trials in 1989, precision livestock technology, like virtual fencing (VF), provides notable benefits to livestock systems. (Umstatter, 2011; Campbell et al., 2020).
Virtual fencing is a rapidly emerging precision livestock technology that addresses many challenges in animal agriculture: managing livestock on an individual basis, improving efficiency, reducing labor costs, and increasing performance, while also providing flexibility and adaptability that is not feasible with traditional fences (Anderson et al., 2014; Campbell et al., 2019). Understanding technology, its uses, and potential advantages is crucial. As modern producers adopt VF technology, they must continually evaluate its effectiveness and specific uses to ensure they achieve the desired impact.
Despite the benefits that barbwire and electric fencing have provided for decades, physical fencing has limitations in current livestock management systems. One disadvantage of physical fencing is the lack of flexibility in grazing systems (Tallowin et al., 2005; Langworthy et al., 2021). Once fences are built, they typically stay there for years since the labor or cost of moving and rebuilding physical fences is high. This prevents producers from incorporating new management practices, like rotational grazing, into their operations. Moving physical fences to accommodate frequent changes in grazing practices or improve forage utilization in pastures is not feasible (Aaser et al., 2022; Confessore et al., 2022).
As physical fencing is a semi-permanent structure of a cattle operation, these fences are used long term. However, despite being a long-term investment or feature in production systems, replacements or repairs are needed as physical fences age. While barbwire fencing was once considered an inexpensive solution, the supplies and labor for replacing or adding a fence are now expensive investments. The materials required to replace or repair a physical fence can vary depending on the location across North America. With one mile of barbwire fencing costing between $8,200 and $17,900 today, cattle producers have begun looking for other fencing solutions. Virtual fencing offers a cost-mitigating alternative to producers that are faced with the financial costs of traditional fencing.
Additionally, fences built in prior years, or by a former owner, may no longer address the environmental concerns or needs of the producer, especially in sensitive grazing areas (Tallowin et al., 2005; Langworthy et al., 2021). Previously, many physical fences did not consider the pollution or damage that livestock caused in riparian areas or stream beds. Producers must now find ways to continue to graze their livestock near riparian areas or waterways while excluding cattle from sensitive areas in order to limit pollutants. This, in turn, limits excessive nutrients from cattle fecal matter and displaced soil while also increasing plant biodiversity (Aarons et al., 2013). Increased plant diversity in riparian areas increases animal diversity of small animals or birds (Aarons et al., 2013). Many environmental or government agencies call for improved water and soil quality in riparian areas, so producers must employ physical fencing to reduce usage or keep cattle out.
Electric fencing provides a solution to some of the issues associated with permanent physical fencing. Electric fencing is less expensive in initial expenses and can easily be moved to address necessary or desired changes in grazing management strategies. However, while electric fencing is flexible and temporary, labor and its associated costs are necessary to maintain and update grazing plans.
With the increased availability and adoption of precision livestock management, VF solves many of the downfalls of physical fencing. Richard Peck submitted the first patent for virtual fencing in 1971 after initial trials. Virtual fencing was quickly and widely accepted for the containment of pets by using collars and buried boundary wires. The popularity of this pet technology led to the eventual testing in livestock sixteen years later. Virtual fencing technology for livestock animals has taken various approaches as technology evolved.
As of 2025, at least four different VF companies, including Nofence (Madison, WI), Vence (Merck Animal Health, Rahway, NJ), eShepherd (Gallagher, USA, Riverside, MO), and Halter (Auckland, NZ), are either in the product research-development stage or have products that are commercially available. All VF products available today function similarly because they are all GPS-enabled collars communicating with satellites to determine individual animal locations (Golinski et al., 2023). Despite the collars functioning similarly at a basic level, these products vary widely in how VF boundaries or collar locations are transmitted to user interfaces.
All VF collars come with company-specific software that allows virtual fences to be drawn and assigned to individual animals or an entire herd. While the software differs slightly in functionality between companies, VF management is done online, and data is then communicated to the collar via cellular network or LoRaWAN via base stations. Data communicated to the collar includes GPS coordinates corresponding to VFs designed in the software. The collar simultaneously sends its location back, allowing the producer to see real-time or slightly delayed animal locations. Through VF management, livestock can be managed through multiple types of VFs: inclusion, exclusion, or movement (Golinski et al., 2023).
Virtual fencing technology could replace traditional fencing in many grazing management scenarios after being successfully tested and implemented into beef and dairy cattle, sheep, and goat enterprises. As the costs associated with conventional fencing or labor continue to increase, VF helps to mitigate and reduce the potential expenses for these regular management practices (Campbell et al., 2020; Campbell et al., 2021; Aaser et al., 2022; Sonne et al., 2022; Simonsen et al., 2024). Researchers and producers have explored VF as a way to graze fire breaks, exclude animals from sensitive riparian areas, rotationally or adaptively graze animals, or replace cross-fencing (Campbell et al., 2020; Langworthy et al., 2021; Staahltoft et al., 2023; Vandermark, 2023). Documented uses of VF include:
Table 1. A compiled list of the documented uses for virtual fencing and the publications associated with each.
|
Documented Uses |
Study Example |
Outcome |
||
|
Targeted Grazing |
Braidotti (2025); Boyd et al. (2022) |
Animals equipped with VF targeted areas to reduce on-going weed pressure, control invasive species, graze fire breaks, and restore vegetative habitats. |
||
|
Buffer Zone Management |
Campbell et al. (2020); Grudzinski et al. (2020); Virtual fencing - a riparian exclusion application (2022) |
Virtual fencing successfully excluded cattle from sensitive riparian areas. This decreased pollution caused by defecation, which is strongly associated with reduced water quality. Virtual fencing could positively impact riparian areas without the cost or infrastructure changes that traditional fencing requires. |
||
|
Adaptive Grazing |
Umstatter (2011); USDA Climate Hub: Virtual Fencing as a Climate Adaptation Strategy; Hamidi et al. (2022); Janicka et al. (2022); Xiong and Drewnoski (2025) |
With remote, real-time access, VF allows grazing area size and shape to be quicky altered in response to forage availability, weather events, or herd size. This allows for vulnerable resources to be protected against soil compaction and erosion, while maintaining plant diversity. |
||
|
Herding Livestock |
Butler et al. (2006); Campbell et al., (2021) |
By slowly moving VF boundaries over time, animals can be gathered in a desired location. |
||
|
Improving Wildlife Use |
Jachowski et al. (2014) |
Incorporating VF into production systems removes the physical barrier that limits wildlife use and increases species diversity. |
||
|
Documented Uses |
Study Example |
Outcome |
||
|
In Lieu of Traditional Fencing |
Fay et al. (1989); Tiedemann et al. (1999); Jouven et al. (2012); Anderson et al. (2014); Campbell et al. (2017, 2019); Verdon et al. (2021); Aaser et al. (2022); Confessore et al. (2022); Hamidi et al. (2022); Janicka et al. (2022); Malson (2025) |
Locations that need repairs or never implemented cross-fencing turn to VF instead. This technology allows individuals to implement new grazing strategies. Recently VF provided a fencing solution in areas devastated by wildfires and other natural disasters. |
||
|
Improving Pasture Utilization |
Langworthy et al. (2021); Golinski et al. (2023) |
Virtual fencing software identifies heavily used or grazed locations across pastures and producers can design grazing systems for a more even distribution of animal use. Improving pasture utilization can improve the quality of the consumed forage, as regrowth of forage is more nutritionally favorable. |
||
|
Excluding Livestock from Feed Sources |
Campbell et al. (2018); Gerhardt-Crile (2025) |
Virtual fence successfully deters livestock from accessing unallocated feed sources. Additionally, VF provides a novel solution to creep grazing, by allowing calves access to forage that cows are excluded from, which in turn boosts average daily gain. |
||
|
Remote Grazing |
Bohnert (2024); Versluijs et al (2024) |
Lands that were once inaccessible for grazing due to constraints of building fences are now valuable grazing resources, as VF requires no infrastructure and can be managed online. |
||
Continued evaluation of VF, from producers and universities alike, will only deepen the understanding of this revolutionizing precision livestock management tool. Reflecting on the initial technology from the early 1970s, VF continues to grow, adapt, and meet the needs of today’s modern producers. As we implement VF into livestock production systems in unique ways, we will continue to see it benefit the livestock, producers, and grazing lands. With further experimentation and documentation, we can celebrate the successes of VF technology while simultaneously understanding its limitations and the necessary improvements.
Alayna Gerhardt-Crile, PhD, is an agricultural consultant focused on pasture systems and livestock technology that helps producers improve efficiency and sustainability. She will be a panel member of the Emerging Technology to Enhance Organic Dairy Production at the 25th Annual NODPA Field Days. She can be reached at alayna.gerhardt@okstate.edu
Aarons, S. R., A. R. Melland, and L. Dorling. 2013. Dairy farm impacts of fencing riparian land: Pasture production and farm productivity. Journal of environmental management. 130:255–266.
Aaser, M. F., S. K. Staahltoft, A. H. Korsgaard, A. Trige-Esbensen, A. K. O. Alstrup, C. Sonne, C. Pertoldi, D. Bruhn, J. Frikke, and A. C. Linder. 2022. Is virtual fencing an effective way of enclosing cattle? Personality, herd behaviour and welfare. Animals. 12:842. doi:10.3390/ani12070842. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/7/842
Anderson, D. M., R. E. Estell, J. L. Holechek, S. Ivey, G. B. Smith, D. M. Anderson, R. E. Estell, J. L. Holechek, S. Ivey, and G. B. Smith. 2014. Virtual herding for flexible livestock management – a review. Rangel. J. 36:205–221. doi:10.1071/RJ13092. Available from: https://www.publish.csiro.au/rj/RJ13092
Bohnert, D. 2024. Economically utilizing virtual fence for strategic natural resource management. Available from: https://www.agproud.com/articles/59101-economically-utilizing-virtual-fence-for-strategic-natural-resource-management
Boyd, C. S., R. O’Connor, J. Ranches, D. W. Bohnert, J. D. Bates, D. D. Johnson, K. W. Davies, T. Parker, and K. E. Doherty. 2022. Virtual fencing effectively excludes cattle from burned sagebrush steppe. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 81:55–62. doi:10.1016/J.RAMA.2022.01.001.
Braidotti, G. 2025. Strategic grazing with virtual fencing a viable potential weed control option. GroundCover. Available from: https://groundcover.grdc.com.au/grdc/delivering-impact/strategic-grazing-with-virtual-fencing-a-viable-potential-weed-control-option
Butler, Z., P. Corke, R. Peterson, and D. Rus. 2006. Dynamic virtual fences for controlling cows. In: M. H.Ang and O. Khatib, editors. Experimental Robotics IX. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. p. 513–522.
Campbell, D. L., J. M. Lea, H. Keshavarzi, and C. Lee. 2019. Virtual fencing is comparable to electric tape fencing for cattle behavior and welfare. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 6:445.doi:10.3389/fvets.2019.00445.
Campbell, D. L. M., J. M. Lea, W. J. Farrer, S. J. Haynes, and C. Lee. 2017. Tech-savvy beef cattle? How heifers respond to moving virtual fence lines. Animals. 7:72. doi:10.3390/ani7090072. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/9/72
Campbell, D. L. M., J. M. Lea, S. J. Haynes, W. J. Farrer, C. J. Leigh-Lancaster, and C. Lee. 2018. Virtual fencing of cattle using an automated collar in a feed attractant trial. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 200:71–77. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2017.12.002. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159117303295
Campbell, D. L. M., D. Marini, J. M. Lea, H. Keshavarzi, T. R. Dyall, C. Lee, D. L. M. Campbell, D. Marini, J. M. Lea, H. Keshavarzi, T. R. Dyall, and C. Lee. 2021. The application of virtual fencing technology effectively herds cattle and sheep. Anim. Prod. Sci. 61:1393–1402. doi:10.1071/AN20525. Available from: https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/AN20525
Campbell, D. L. M., J. Ouzman, D. Mowat, J. M. Lea, C. Lee, and R. S. Llewellyn. 2020. Virtual fencing technology excludes beef cattle from an environmentally sensitive area. Animals (Basel). 10:1069. doi:10.3390/ani10061069. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7341198/
Confessore, A., C. Aquilani, L. Nannucci, M. C. Fabbri, P. A. Accorsi, C. Dibari, G. Argenti, and C. Pugliese. 2022. Application of virtual fencing for the management of Limousin cows at pasture. Livestock Science. 263:105037. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2022.105037. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141322002116
CPI Inflation Calculator. 2024. Available from: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
Edwards, W. 2011. Estimated costs for livestock fencing. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. Available from: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/livestock/html/b1-75.html
Fay, P. K., V. T. McElligott, and K. M. Havstad. 1989. Containment of free-ranging goats using pulsed-radio-wave-activated shock collars. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 23:165–171. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(89)90016-6. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168159189900166
Fencing costs. 2022. Government of Saskatchewan. Available from: https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/agriculture-natural-resources-and-industry/agribusiness-farmers-and-ranchers/livestock/cattle-poultry-and-other-livestock/cattle/fencing-costs
Gerhardt-Crile, A. 2025. The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Virtual Fencing in Production Settings [Dissertation]. Oklahoma State University. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/7ca3311b222a6994e762a486859d3c4c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Golinski, P., P. Sobolewska, B. Stefanska, and B. Golinska. 2023. Virtual fencing technology for cattle management in the pasture feeding system—a review. Agriculture. 13:91. doi:10.3390/agriculture13010091. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/1/91
Grudzinski, B., K. Fritz, and W. Dodds. 2020. Does riparian fencing protect stream water quality in cattle-grazed lands? Environmental management. 66:121–135.
Hamidi, D., N. A. Grinnell, M. Komainda, F. Riesch, J. Horn, S. Ammer, I. Traulsen, R. Palme, M. Hamidi,and J. Isselstein. 2022. Heifers don’t care: no evidence of negative impact on animal welfare of growing heifers when using virtual fences compared to physical fences for grazing. animal. 16:100614. doi:10.1016/j.animal.2022.100614. Available from:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731122001677
Jachowski, D. S., R. Slotow, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2014. Good virtual fences make good neighbors: opportunities for conservation. Animal Conservation. 17:187–196. doi:10.1111/acv.12082. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/acv.12082
Janicka, W., I. Wilk, T. Próchniak, and I. Janczarek. 2022. Can sound alone act as a virtual barrier for horses? A preliminary study. Animals. 12:3151. doi:10.3390/ani12223151. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/22/3151
Jouven, M., H. Leroy, A. Ickowicz, and P. Lapeyronie. 2012. Can virtual fences be used to control grazing sheep? Rangel. J. 34:111–123. doi:10.1071/RJ11044. Available from: https://www.publish.csiro.au/rj/RJ11044
Langworthy, A. D., M. Verdon, M. J. Freeman, R. Corkrey, J. L. Hills, and R. P. Rawnsley. 2021. Virtual fencing technology to intensively graze lactating dairy cattle. I: Technology efficacy and pasture utilization. Journal of Dairy Science. 104:7071–7083. doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19796. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002203022100480X
Malson, M. 2025. Vence: Innovative Grazing Solutions Post-Wildfire. Drovers. Available from: https://www.drovers.com/news/beef-production/vence-innovative-grazing-solutions-post-wildfire
Sahs, R. 2022. Oklahoma farm and ranch custom rates, 2021-2022. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. Available from: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/oklahoma-farm-and-ranch-custom-rates-2021-2022.html
Simonsen, P. A., N. S. Husted, M. Clausen, A.-M. Spens, R. M. Dyrholm, I. F. Thaysen, M. F. Aaser, S. K. Staahltoft, D. Bruhn, A. K. Alstrup, C. Sonne, and C. Pertoldi. 2024. Effects of Social Facilitation and Introduction Methods for Cattle on Virtual Fence Adaptation. Animals. 14. doi:10.3390/ani14101456.
Sonne, C., A. K. O. Alstrup, C. Pertoldi, J. Frikke, A. C. Linder, and B. Styrishave. 2022. Cortisol in manure from cattle enclosed with NoFence virtual fencing. Animals. 12:3017. doi:10.3390/ani12213017. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/21/3017
Staahltoft, S. K., M. F. Aaser, J. N. S. Jensen, I. Zadran, E. B. Sørensen, A. E. Nielsen, A. K. O. Alstrup, D. Bruhn, A. C. Linder, C. Sonne, J. Frikke, and C. Pertoldi. 2023. The effectiveness of virtual fencing of bull calves in a holistic grazing system. Animals. 13:917. doi:10.3390/ani13050917. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/5/917
Tallowin, J., A. Rook, and S. Rutter. 2005. Impact of grazing management on biodiversity of grasslands. Animal Science. 81:193–198.
Tiedemann, A., T. Quigley, L. White, W. Lauritzen, J. Thomas, and M. McInnis. 1999. Electronic (fenceless) control of livestock. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Available from: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Electronic_fenceless_Control_of_Livestoc/Ka8qP9EhfjAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA19&printsec=frontcover
Umstatter, C. 2011. The evolution of virtual fences: A review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 75:10–22. doi:10.1016/J.COMPAG.2010.10.005. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169910001997
Posted: to Organic Production on Fri, Sep 5, 2025
Updated: Fri, Sep 5, 2025
