STILLWATER, Okla. – New research presented at the American Geophysical Union conference in December demonstrated that virtual fencing for cattle could ease ecological impacts on grassland vegetation.

Timothy Olsen, a graduate research assistant at Oklahoma State University, worked on a project that investigated vegetation structure along physical fences and virtual fences. The idea was to understand if virtual fencing technology could be valuable in protecting patches of habitat for pollinators and birds by limiting livestock access.

To study this, Olsen and other collaborators set up six study sites at the OSU Bluestem Research Range. Three sites crossed a physical fence, while the others crossed a virtual fence. Using drone imagery, Olsen compared the sites to understand the differences in vegetation.

“At the physical fence sites, you’d see high and very homogenous grasses on one side, and then on the grazing side, you’d see very low and also homogenous grasses – a sudden and drastic change,” he said. “With the virtual fences, there was a much more gradual transition, with the auditory zone becoming a connecting zone between grazing and exclusion zones…It creates a much more heterogenous habitat that is more natural looking and more suitable and appealing to grassland birds and pollinators.”

While many are familiar with invisible fences for dogs, virtual fences are quite different. Invisible fences use an underground wire to create a boundary for animals, while virtual fences use GPS technology to define boundaries. Virtual fences have three zones: the grazing area, a boundary/auditory zone, and an exclusion zone. Cattle receive auditory and electrical cues in the boundary zone so they do not cross into the exclusion zone. Virtual fencing is a relatively new technology being researched and trialed for livestock, and typically, a physical boundary is still used well beyond the virtual fence to prevent unwanted visitors into pastures.

“The collars that the cattle wear are at their core GPS collars, but it has the ability to have programmable boundaries that will provide auditory and electrical cues to dissuade livestock from crossing these boundaries,” Olsen said. “As far as creating the virtual fence boundaries, that’s all done using software. The software has an output that looks kind of like Google Earth; you’re able to zoom in and create points to set up your boundaries and design how wide you want the electric and auditory zones to be.”

Of course, cattle must be trained to recognize an association between auditory and electrical cues. A resource published by University of Arizona Cooperative Extension states that recognition of these cues is learned through training with classical conditioning and negative reinforcement. The virtual fence is often paired with a traditional one during initial training. As cattle approach the boundary zone, the collar emits a warning sound or vibration. They will receive a mild electric pulse if they continue to approach the boundary. When cattle demonstrate the desired behavior, moving away from the boundary when they hear the auditory cue, they are rewarded by grazing within the allowed area. The physical boundary is removed once cattle respond to the virtual boundary cues reliably.

Many scientific studies have pointed toward the success of training herds to recognize virtual fencing. For example, one Australian study reports that the virtual fence contained cows within a predetermined area 99 percent of the time when grazing dairy cattle. Still, there are notable challenges in training large herds, like individual variability between animals and the time and labor commitment.

The USDA’s Northwest Climate Hub touts virtual fencing as a climate adaptation strategy. For example, in areas with frequent wildfires, ranchers and rangeland managers can quickly and easily reestablish boundaries for livestock to keep them away from spreading fire and recently burned areas. Additionally, virtual fencing can improve soil and water quality in combination with managed and rotational grazing. While physical fences can also be used to practice managed grazing, it requires more planning and labor. Other advantages include precise livestock movement control, reduced labor costs in rugged or remote terrain, and minimized disruptions to wildlife movement.

The technology is still new, with more research being conducted to understand the feasibility of large-scale implementation. In the future, Olsen and his lab members plan to study differences in grazing when using virtual fencing and continue to investigate vegetation health.