Across Europe, vast stretches of farmland rely on traditional physical fences—miles of wire often punctuated by electric shocks—to keep livestock contained. But a new technology is poised to revolutionize pasture management: virtual fencing. Replacing physical barriers with digital ones, this system promises greater flexibility and efficiency for farmers while raising questions about its impact on animal welfare.
The concept gained traction globally in recent years, spearheaded by Norwegian startup Nofence. Their GPS-enabled collars act as invisible boundaries, gently guiding animals to stay within designated grazing areas.
When a cow or sheep ventures too close to the virtual perimeter, the collar emits an initial audio cue. If ignored, a mild pulse follows. Over time, livestock learn to associate these signals with staying safely within their designated pasture. Farmers can remotely adjust these digital boundaries through a smartphone app, eliminating the time and labor spent on mending physical fences.
This newfound flexibility has several advantages. It allows farmers to utilize marginal lands—wetlands, rocky terrain, dense vegetation—previously unsuitable for traditional fencing. This opens up more grazing space while minimizing pressure on arable land devoted to food crops.
“Virtual fencing makes it possible to graze more land than before and also use areas that are not suitable for crop production for human consumption,” explains Lotten Valund, a researcher at RISE Research Institutes of Sweden who has studied virtual fencing since 2019. “So we can use other types of land for producing meat.”
Animal Welfare: A Key Concern
But the question remains: is this digital approach truly humane? Nofence maintains that their system benefits animal welfare compared to traditional electric fences by employing gentler pulses. They emphasize a training process where animals initially learn within a physical fence with superimposed virtual boundaries.
A 2022 study conducted by Valund, while limited in scope due to the scarcity of data on traditional electric fence impacts, found no evidence of increased stress hormone levels (cortisol) in animals using Nofence collars compared to those confined by physical fencing. Most interactions with the virtual boundaries occur through the audio cue alone, with pulses used sparingly after initial training.
Yet Valund advocates for continued research and cautious implementation. “It’s important to have a clear definition of what function the virtual fence should include to ensure high animal welfare standards,” she stresses. “The system needs to allow animals ample time to react to cues.” She adds, “For some farmers, it will work very well and they will use it fully. For others, it may serve as a complement to their existing systems. One approach should not exclude another.”
A Technological Evolution
While Nofence boasts over 7,000 users predominantly in Norway, with expansion into the US and Canada underway, virtual fencing faces regulatory hurdles in many European countries. Sweden’s Board of Agriculture previously banned it due to welfare concerns but recently reversed its stance, paving the way for legalization next year. Denmark will follow suit shortly after, setting a precedent for potential wider adoption across the continent.
Despite promising benefits, researchers like Valund caution that virtual fencing is unlikely to completely replace traditional methods. Network connectivity issues and battery limitations in remote areas can create challenges.
“I don’t see this system as something that should be used as the only alternative for grazing management,” she observes. The technology appears poised to become a valuable tool within an evolving agricultural landscape, offering greater efficiency and potentially increasing the sustainability of livestock farming practices, but careful consideration of animal welfare remains paramount.
