Tasmania is leading the charge when it comes to virtual fencing in Australia. Victorian and NSW farmers want to follow suit but, as RICK BAYNE discovered, they have to overcome state animal welfare legislation.
Virtual fencing is being adopted at a brisk rate in Tasmania and is now a familiar part of the farming landscape in New Zealand — but will it ever be allowed commercially across mainland Australia?
Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content
Within two years of its introduction, 23 per cent of Tasmanian dairy cows are being managed with the technology. However, historic legislation is preventing its use in other states.
New research coming out of Tasmania shows the benefits of the technology for the environment, people and animals — and farmers on the mainland are campaigning for its introduction.
However, state and territory animal welfare legislation determines where and what type of electronic devices can or cannot be used to contain livestock.
While electronic collars have been trialled on farms in most mainland states as part of research, they cannot be used commercially in Victoria, South Australia, NSW or the ACT.
Virtual fencing is when livestock wear collars that communicate with GPS and reception towers to form a virtual fence, controlling the movement and location of animals within an area without the need for a physical fence, although external fences are still mandatory.
The system can also be extended to virtual herding to move animals from one location to another, rather than simply containing them to one area.
New Zealand-based company Halter is the leading provider of the technology.
There are now 207,000 kilometres of virtual fences set and the Halter system is being used by more than 1000 farmers. More than 200,000 cattle in New Zealand are managed using virtual fencing.
Australian trials
While mainland Australian farmers are bemoaning the slow progress of introducing virtual fencing, there has been progress with trials.
In December 2024, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said that in response to a referral from agriculture senior officials, the Animal Welfare Task Group (AWTG) was examining the use of virtual fencing technology.
The AWTG agreed to develop an Australian Animal Welfare Guide for Virtual Fencing as the preferred approach for harmonisation. Drafting is currently under way for the guide.
In July 2024, Agriculture Victoria and Halter announced a one-year trial in the use of virtual fencing technology at the government’s Ellinbank SmartFarm.
Victorian Agriculture Minister Ros Spence recently inspected the technology in action at Ellinbank SmartFarm.
“‘The virtual fencing demonstration at Ellinbank SmartFarm is an important step in understanding this technology and its potential to transform the way Victorian farms work in monitoring their cows,” Ms Spence said.
“We’re working alongside other states and territories in the national Animal Welfare Task Group to examine the welfare implications of virtual fencing technology and the regulatory considerations that come with it.”
Dairy cattle at the SmartFarm are wearing solar-powered smart collars, giving farmers the opportunity to guide their animals within virtual fences through a mobile phone app.
Under Victoria’s animal welfare laws, electronic collars are currently only permitted for livestock when a scientific procedures licence is in place with Animal Ethics Committee approval.
Agriculture Victoria is engaging with industry, manufacturers (including Halter) and researchers on virtual fencing to inform advice to government to consider changes that could allow wider use of the technology in Victoria.
Last December, Dairy NSW said recent legislative efforts and stakeholder support suggested that NSW may soon consider legalising virtual fencing, providing dairy farmers with a new tool for productivity, animal welfare and environmental stewardship.
A recent inquiry in NSW Parliament recommended permitting virtual fencing and herding for livestock, with consideration of the substantial evidence provided on its safety and benefits.
Halter said that while it was encouraging the NSW report recommended permitting virtual fencing, there were several recommendations in the report that presented significant challenges that would inhibit adoption of virtual fencing in NSW and could inadvertently lead to worse outcomes for animals.
Research shows benefits
Senior researcher for the Tasmania Institute of Agriculture at the University of Tasmania, Dr Megan Verdon, leads the Animal Production and Welfare research group and has been studying virtual fencing since 2017.
Addressing a recent Food and Fibre Great South Coast’s inaugural Southwest Showcase of Dairy Innovation, Dr Verdon said her research into the Halter system looked to quantify the potential benefits for the environment, animals and people.
This research is funded by the Tasmanian Government.
Separate research funded by Halter looks at the welfare of animals in their management system.
“They understood the importance of independent validation of their product and the need to demonstrate social licence and that any new technology meets or surpasses current animal welfare standards,” Dr Verdon said.
The research involved 160 mid-lactation cows split into four groups, two managed with normal electric fencing and two with virtual fencing.
“Firstly, we found that the technology works,” Dr Verdon said.
“The cows stayed behind the virtual fence 99.85 per cent of the time. When they did cross over, they only walked a metre then turned around, which is consistent with getting a stimulus and then reacting.”
In the first week, all cows received stimulus pulses, which Dr Verdon said was needed for the animals to learn the association between audio and shock, but they were quick to learn and respond to the sound cue.
After four weeks, half of the cows received zero shocks for the whole week.
For the cows getting shocks, on the first day of training they got between eight and 10 shocks, after that they got less than one shock per day.
“For every 100 interactions with the virtual fence, they got one shock,” Dr Verdon said.
She showed a video of virtual herding, with cows responding to an additional vibration stimulus to keep them moving forward.
“People are blown away when they see it happen in real life and how calm it is.”
For herding, after four weeks of the study, 40 per cent got zero shocks for the entire week.
Dr Verdon’s research took a range of measures to check animal welfare and productivity and found no evidence that cows lost weight or produced less milk. There was only a slight reduction in grazing time but no difference in pasture utilisation or rumination time.
Researchers used milk to assess the physiological level of stress in cows.
“When cows become stressed, they release a hormone called cortisol into their blood and some of that gets into the milk, Dr Verdon said.
“We analysed 2500 milk samples and there was no evidence of more stress between the electric fence group and virtual fencing group.
“Our research based on a relatively simple grazing system shows that it’s not having a negative impact on their welfare as long as the technology has the right safety mechanisms to protect the animal, the right training regimes and the right design.”
Dr Verdon said her role was not to promote the technology but to provide data about the benefits or challenges to inform decisions of farmers and legislators.
Research is investigating benefits to the environment, including improved soil health, waterway protection, reduced greenhouse gases and redistribution of nutrients.
It is also seeking to quantify if the technology improves work-life balance, upskills staff and allows more time for high-value tasks and reduces lameness in animals, improves reproduction, reduces culling and leads to better calving management.
“There are so many of the benefits we can’t put a dollar value on ... like getting a bit more sleep, going on holidays with your family,” Dr Verdon added.
However, some continue to have doubts.
Concerns raised
The RSPCA says although there are claims that virtual fencing is an animal-friendly technology, there is a lack of research regarding the long-term impacts of the technology on animal welfare.
“One of the main welfare concerns of virtual fencing is the use of an electric shock, which, in order for the technology to be effective, must be sufficiently aversive that animals actively try to avoid it,” the RSPCA states.
“Another welfare concern of this technology is that it initially exposes animals to an environment of low predictability and controllability, which can lead to anxiety and psychological stress during the learning period
“As the virtual fence is not visible, it may be more difficult for some animals to learn compared with an electric fence, as there are no visual cues to guide them.”
Farmers want it
Victoria’s dairy farmers are adamant that virtual fencing is right for the industry.
“We want it yesterday,” Victorian Farmers Federation United Dairyfarmers of Victoria president Bernie Free said.
Mr Free said virtual fencing led to environmental and animal welfare benefits and improved workplace health and safety for employees.
“It should have happened when the technology became available,” he said.
Mr Free attended the showcase conference and said after hearing Dr Verdon’s findings, allowing virtual fencing in Victoria was a “no-brainer”.
“It ticks so many boxes for all the things governments say they want to do, but for some reason they’re not walking the talk. They’re clearly not listening to what agriculture needs and wants.”
He dismissed any animal welfare concerns.
“Dr Verdon’s research is showing the cows are less stressed when they have the opportunity to use virtual fencing,” he said.
Mr Free also visited Ellinbank to view the research taking place in Victoria.
“I was extremely impressed with the way the cows could be moved, just by signalling to them that the fence had changed, and the amount of movement without a rush or concern from the cows,” he said.
“We’ve been lobbying the government for it at every possible opportunity and will continue to do so.
“My only reservation is that it can’t come quick enough. The advancement to animal health through this technology is phenomenal.
“I can only see an upside to it for animal health and for workers who don’t have to go out at 4am to round up cows.”
Mr Free said the system could be used remotely in bushfires or floods to get cows to safe areas.
“Every way you look at it, there are advantages for the community, the environment, the cows and the dairy farmer,” he said.
On a recent study tour to New Zealand supported by the DemoDAIRY Foundation and LIC, south-west Victorian AI technician Sam Wilson got to see virtual fencing in action.
The tour group visited farmer Pete Morgan, who outlined the benefits of using virtual fencing.
Mr Wilson was impressed with what he saw.
“We turned up not long after milking time and the cows were sitting happily in the paddock,” he said.
“The cows’ collars just vibrate and they all stood up and started walking to the gateway. They could go out either one of two gateways. They started walking towards one and it beeped again and they slowly turned and started walking to the other gateway.
“The cows were all calm. They walked in their own time and weren’t under pressure. It seems like a much better way to round them up rather than on a motorbike.”
DNA writer