Cattle fitted with GPS collars stand in a corral waiting to be released onto pasture in Oklahoma. Virtual fencing utilizes GPS collars to contain livestock within a pasture boundary, without a physical fence. 

Cattle fitted with GPS collars stand in a corral waiting to be released onto pasture in Oklahoma. Virtual fencing utilizes GPS collars to contain livestock within a pasture boundary, without a physical fence. 

Virtual fencing is a new technology on the U.S. agricultural landscape, but it has caught on with livestock producers who graze animals across the vast grasslands of the Midwest.

Can it work on smaller grazing operations in Pennsylvania?

“I believe virtual fencing can provide value to farmers in Pennsylvania,” said Todd Parker, product and programs director for Vence Corp., the only U.S.-based virtual fence company.

Vence’s virtual fencing technology uses GPS-enabled wearable collars to control where livestock can roam. Pasture borders are created digitally and if an animal approaches the virtual boundary, the collar emits a warning noise. If the animal continues closer to the boundary, the collar emits a light electrical shock, just like touching a physical fence.

Based in San Diego, California, Vence hit the U.S. market in 2019 and currently has customers in South Carolina, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, California, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota. Parker said many of the current customers are using virtual fencing technology on landscapes that replicate states in the Mid-Atlantic region, including Pennsylvania. Although Parker said his company hasn’t received much interest from Pennsylvania farmers for the technology, it could change as the virtual fencing concept gains traction.

“Virtual fencing is a tool which can used on a variety of grazing operations to implement use-cases such as rotational grazing, targeted grazing, habitat restoration, riparian area protection, and others,” Parker said. “In rotational grazing systems, virtual fencing is absolutely an enabler for efficient grazing with reduced labor.”

The technology is the subject of several studies, and so far the results have been encouraging. Since 2020, researchers at Oklahoma State University have been studying how virtual fence technology could improve the water quality and ecosystems in pastures along with its effectiveness for rotational grazing. The study will continue for several years and was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Natural Resource Conservation Service.

In the initial study, OSU researchers created two 40-acre virtual paddocks within a 160-acre pasture. Over a two-week period, the cattle remained on the paddocks without venturing into the larger pasture area.

Kevin Wagner, the project’s principal investigator and director of the Oklahoma Water Resources Center, said virtual fencing seems to be effective with rotational grazing, but the study is far from over.

“It works great for two weeks, but how well does it work for two years?” he said. “We’re implementing some rotational grazing systems so we can look at this over the long-term.”

The other part of the OSU study delves into the effectiveness of virtual fencing to protect sensitive areas within a pasture. Wagner said the list includes riparian corridors, nesting areas and pollinator habitat. In short-term trials looking at riparian protection, Wagner said virtual fencing was successful at keeping cattle out of a stream. In addition, there was a 66% reduction in the amount of time the cattle spent near the stream. The findings, he said, could mean an improvement in water quality.

At the very least, the riparian study shows that virtual fence boundaries can be created specifically to protect environmentally-sensitive areas.

Wagner has other examples to prove that point.

“We noticed the cattle were grazing heavily on a ridge, so we established an oblong area to see if we can keep them out,” he said. “We saw a 99% reduction in the time the cattle were spending in that area.”

Parker said the ability to customize a fence boundary to exclude certain terrain types or sensitive areas is a major benefit with virtual fencing. Vence recently worked with a customer to implement a rotational grazing system in an area that also served as a major wildlife migration corridor, allowing livestock to graze while protecting the migration corridor.

Currently, Vence is the only commercially-available virtual fence in the U.S., according to Wagner, but the technology is more established overseas in Australia and Norway.

While studies in the U.S. are proving the technology to be effective, it does have a cost. Parker said the GPS collars are offered as a service, costing $35 per animal annually. In addition, replaceable batteries cost $10 each.

The other component influencing cost is communications technology that’s placed on the property to enable contact to and from collars. Communications technology is established in the form of “base station huts” that cost between $10,000 and $12,500. According to Parker, the number of huts needed depends on the size of the property, land topography and grazing goals. For a typical customer, he said, one to three huts will suffice.

Another consideration is training the animals to learn virtual boundaries as opposed to a physical fence. In the OSU study, Wagner said it takes one to two weeks before the cattle are trained to the virtual fence.

“We start with establishing the virtual boundaries next to an existing fence. As they get closer, there’s a sound cue, then a shock if they continue,” he said, adding if an animal does break through the virtual fence the collar doesn’t continually shock them. Also, an animal can return back through the virtual boundary without getting shocked.

“You want to train them to turn, not run, when they get the sound cue. From what I’ve seen, in one or two weeks they’re ready.”

Another facet of the OSU study is to determine stress levels from the virtual fence. Wagner tested the cortisol levels in the hair and blood of his cattle and found no significant difference in their stress levels with the virtual fence.

So far, the only aspect in the study where the technology didn’t perform well was penning cattle. Wagner said they were able to move cattle to a corner of the pasture and hold them there with a virtual fence, but they couldn’t push them through a gate.

Even though the technology has yet to catch on in the Mid-Atlantic states, Parker expects the use of virtual fencing to continue to grow not only for rotational grazing, but as a tool to improve grasslands, soil health and the environment.

“We started with a handful of customers three years ago who helped us develop the technology and use-cases. In 2022, we are looking to deliver the technology to over 40 commercial producers,” he said. “Our goal is to see virtual fencing technology widely adopted across the ranching and grazing industry.”

Tom Venesky is a staff reporter for Lancaster Farming. He can be reached at tvenesky@lancasterfarming.com

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

The most important Farming stories delivered to your inbox each week.