How to Use Virtual Fencing to Improve AMP Grazing

Virtual fencing presents new options for leveraging grazing to restore landscapes and build natural capital

Virtual fencing and animal tracking are emerging as transformative technologies. These tools - which broadly help track, position, and adapt livestock’s land use patterns - mean that producers’ can combine thousands of years of pastoral tradition and insight with labor saving technologies that cost less than traditional fencing. 

Furthermore, the ability to see, refine, and control timing for livestock on pasture changes both how profitable grazing livestock can be and further grazings’ use as an effective tool to manage fires and vegetation, build soil carbon, and enhance biodiversity. 

The Concept of Virtual Fencing

Virtual fencing leverages GPS technology and wearable devices to manage livestock movement without the need for physical barriers. These systems may involve setting digital boundaries and using audio cues followed by mild electric stimuli to keep cattle within designated grazing areas based on their GPS location. 

Advantages of Virtual Fencing

1. Cost Efficiency: Traditional fencing can be extremely costly, with expenses ranging from $15,000 up to $40,000 per mile not to mention the on-going maintenance costs. Virtual fencing eliminates these costs by removing the need for extensive physical fence construction and maintenance, particularly in challenging terrains where physical fences are impractical.

2. Labor Focus: Ranchers spend countless hours looking for breaks, fixing, and moving fence lines. This time could be better utilised on other critical ranch tasks.  In addition, in more difficult terrain areas, livestock that escape can take days to track down and bring back in. While it’s possible for livestock to break through the virtual fence, their GPS location will update every hour allowing for more straightforward recapture. 

3. Environmental Benefits: By avoiding physical barriers, virtual fencing helps preserve natural landscapes and wildlife corridors. It also supports better grazing management, which can optimise carbon storage in soil and reduce the risk of overgrazing.

4. Adaptability: Virtual fencing allows for dynamic adjustments to grazing areas based on environmental conditions and grazing needs. This flexibility is crucial in managing rotational grazing and adapting to changes in vegetation growth and weather patterns.

Limitations and Considerations for Virtual Fencing

1. Water Sources: Ensuring access to water within virtual boundaries is crucial for cattle welfare. Strategic placement of water points can influence cattle distribution and grazing patterns. 

2. Terrain and Slope: The effectiveness of virtual fencing can be affected by the terrain. Systems need to account for slope and other geographical features to accurately predict and manage cattle movement. 

3. Connectivity: Most virtual fencing systems today rely on strategically placed towers that provide coverage to the collars (a few use direct to satellite). Connectivity can be mapped out beforehand but is not always perfect. Ranches should ensure proper perimeter fencing and never plan to be 100% reliant on virtual fencing.  

4. Battery: Collars rely on a battery (some have solar recharge) which means that they can die in the field. This is impacted by the intensity of the grazing use case (i.e. more audio cues uses more battery), temperature, and other environmental factors. Check-in with your supplier to evaluate battery durability based on your operations’ needs. 

Implementing Virtual Fencing in Grazing Management

1. Installation: Most ranchers put up their own towers - it usually takes a half-day to assemble and place a tower. The towers are very robust (100 MPH winds, snowstorms, etc.) and should last 10+ years in the field. The cattle are typically collared during preg checks or branding events - typically they take about 30-60 seconds per animal in the chute. 

2. Training Livestock: Initially, cattle need to be trained to recognize and respond to the audio cues and stimuli associated with virtual boundaries. This process typically takes 4-5 days guided by an operations support team at the virtual fencing company. Over time, cattle learn to stay within the designated areas guided by the audio cues, minimising the need for corrective stimuli.

3. Establishing Digital Boundaries: Using digital maps and GPS coordinates, ranchers can set up virtual boundaries that define the grazing area. This process involves mapping out the terrain and designating specific regions for cattle grazing. The virtual fences can be set in advance and placed on timers to allow for herd movements. 

4. Monitoring and Adjustment: Virtual fencing provides powerful data insights into herd movements and can be a great time saver. But it is not a perfect “set it and forget it” system. Ranchers should continue to evaluate their grasses, water, and herd dynamics to update the virtual boundaries throughout the season. 

Implications for Carbon Sequestration 

Kateri believes technologies like virtual fencing can accelerate regenerative grazing increase soil carbon sequestration. 

First, GPS tracking livestock allows for a very granular view of herd dynamics so we can understand what grasses they were consuming and how long they were impacting those pastures. A pasture could be 1,000 acres but if there’s only water in one corner, ranchers know well that the livestock will hang out in that corner and crush the grasses there. By comparing livestock GPS location against the hundreds of soil measurements we take, we can thoroughly understand the impacts of livestock grazing on soil carbon. 

Second, the flexibility and adaptability of virtual fencing allows ranchers to divide up their properties in ways that are not limited by terrain. This allows for more exact grazing that can optimise grazing management around cool season vs. warm season grasses, perennials vs. annuals, and changing water and soil conditions in ways that are not possible with static, physical fences. 

Lastly, with the time ranchers save from not building and repairing fences constantly, they can focus on other critical projects on their property that can improve their animal and soil health like water management. 

Evaluating Different Providers

There are three primary providers of virtual fencing in the US today. 

Vence, based in San Diego, is the largest provider of virtual fencing in the US today. They were acquired by Merck Animal Health in the fall of 2022 but still operate under the Vence brand. The rancher does not buy the hardware but instead “subscribes” to the product. The collar is $40 per head per year and a $10 battery that lasts from 6-10 months in most cases. The product uses base stations that cost $10,000 and generally cover ~6,000-10,000 acres. 

Pros: Most affordable virtual fencing product. Largest US network
Cons: Battery life can be limiting especially in regions that graze year round. 

eShepherd, based in Australia, has entered the US and Canada markets recently and is well supported by the US operations of their parent company Gallagher.  They were formally known as Agersens before being acquired by Gallagher in 2016. Their product is more expensive upfront at about ~$250 per collar but then has minimal on-going costs. The product uses a solar panel on the collar to extend battery life for multiple seasons. They have a tower option around $10,000 as well but also have a direct to satellite collar option that adds $2-3 per head per month. 

Pros: Extended battery life through solar panels. Direct to satellite can be more cost effective than towers on smaller herds.
Con: High cost upfront

Halter, based in New Zealand, has also recently entered the US market. Unlike Vence and eShepherd, Halter is not owned by a large ag retailer. Their original product focused on dairy cows in New Zealand but they are expanding to beef operations in US and Australia. Their collar costs $60 per head per year and also uses a ~$10,000 tower. They also use solar panels on the collars to extend battery life. Halter includes some additional advanced features like heat detection for health and fertility monitoring in their dairy product that may extend to their beef product as well. 

Pros: More advanced technology options like heat detection with reasonable price point
Cons: New to beef and US landscape, previously dairy and NZ based 

An additional consideration - not all operations are a good fit for virtual fencing, but having GPS tracking is a big unlock for any operation. We believe GPS-only tracking solutions like Moovement are a huge boost for operations that may already have great fence infrastructure or who want to take a slower transition into new technologies in their operations. 

Conclusion: A Revolutionary Approach to Cattle Grazing Management   

Virtual fencing and animal tracking offer a revolutionary approach to cattle grazing management, providing a flexible, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable alternative to traditional fencing. By leveraging this technology, ranchers can improve grazing patterns, enhance soil health, and reduce fire risks. As research and practical applications continue to evolve, virtual fencing is poised to become an integral part of modern agricultural practices.As part of our carbon program, Kateri pays for ranchers virtual fencing system because we believe it will significantly accelerate results. Connect with us today to learn more.