The use of virtual fencing can be a valuable tool for conservation grazing, but the technology is not without risks, according to a new report.
Using a combination of Global Positioning System (GPS) sensors, wireless technologies and remote mapping, virtual fencing aims to keep animals contained in certain areas.
When the livestock approaches the virtual boundary, a GPS collar will emit a sound that increases in volume. The animal gets an electrical pulse from the collar if they cross the coordinates of the perimeter fence.
In order for the technology to be successful, the training process for the animals and farmers is a key factor to ensure that animal welfare and environmental obligations are to the fore.
Up to now, the development and uptake of the technology has been limited, but there is now significant interest in the systems for controlling grazing management and animal movement.
Virtual fencing
A review has been published detailing the results of a three-year pilot study overseen by Barry O’Donoghue from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) involving Nofence virtual fencing technology.
The project, focused on the environment, livestock and farmers, was undertaken across 12 sites totaling almost 7,200ha of grazing ground.
These sites were located in counties Leitrim; Sligo; Donegal; Galway; Waterford; Wexford; and Tory Island.
Image: Shaunie Boyle
Each farmer participating in the project had a farming system that has been specifically adapted to their land.
There was a range of breeds included in the project: Connemara Mayo Blackface sheep, Dexter cattle, Kerry cattle, Galloway cattle, Hereford cattle, Angus cattle and Charolais cattle.
Animals of varying ages were used across the different sites, but the project did not include those under 12 months.
The farmers did not have very large herds and knew the individual animals and their behavioural characteristics well.
Pilot project
In total, the 15 participating herd owners were given a combined total of 101 cattle collars and 71 sheep collars.
All farmers received training sessions on the use of the technology which included site visits, webinars and support from those involved in the project.
This pilot study, the first of its kind in Ireland and one of the very first in northwest Europe, was deemed a success in examining the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of virtual fencing.
“There is no doubt that when used correctly and working correctly, it can be a valuable tool for conservation grazing, it can support farmers in various ways and add to the safety and welfare of animals,” the report said.
The report outlined that the opportunities for virtual fencing are as vast as the combined knowledge of farmers who have been on the land for generations and ecologists who can give direction on the “ideal” habitat or landscape.
However, the review noted that “the technology is not without risk” and can be prone to technical issues.
“While virtual fencing allows livestock to be checked more regularly and remotely, it is not a substitute for checking animals up close to see how they are.”
During the project, it was observed that individual animals “adapted to the virtual fence technology in different ways”.
“Some individuals challenged the virtual fence more than others. Some were not as quick to adapt or ‘learn’ as others,” the report said.
“This is a key consideration; not all animals should be considered the same and virtual fencing may not be appropriate for certain individuals.”
The report found that the technology can be used to deliver greater environmental outcomes for habitats in terms of grazing.
Sensitive soils, including peat soils, and wet grassland received less poaching where the animals were kept away from areas prone to poaching.
Coastal grasslands were grazed systematically during winter to clear out rank vegetation and allow floral species to thrive during the summer and autumn.
Wet grasslands were grazed in a measured way, allowing for control in grazing levels and timing.
The farmers in the project said that the technology had helped make their lives easier, especially when it came to moving fences which could be done through an app on their phone.
The report noted that “the overall costs of the system are not cheap” and the overall longevity of the collars and batteries in this country remains to be seen.
Future use
The report recommends that the virtual fencing is worth advocating and supporting in the context of conservation grazing with low stocking rates.
It advised that any farmer seeking to use the technology should have to undertake an accredited training course “to ensure appropriate understanding, management and care of the technology, particularly as it relates to animal welfare”.
“A pilot offered the opportunity to intimately engage with participating farmers, but if scaled up to hundreds or thousands of farmers, the risks of poor practice or individual technical difficulties could be significant.”
The report said that if funding is provided for the technology, as is the case with physical fencing, a data sharing agreement should be part of any grant.
It also said that Knowledge Transfer Groups focused on conservation grazing should be facilitated to include the use of virtual fencing and discuss its merits for particular areas.
“Precision Livestock Management, including virtual fencing, is only ever likely to be part of a wider equation that considers the environment, the animals and the farmers.
“For any conservation efforts, a holistic approach must always be considered, and this will include matters beyond grazing (or exclusion of grazing),” the report said.