Virtual fencing systems can provide greater flexibility, reduce labor associated with interior fencing, and create new opportunities for grazing management. However, the systems differ in how they communicate with collars, the pasture scale they can accommodate, battery or solar power requirements, additional features, and pricing.
The right choice depends on where cattle will be grazing, local network coverage, how frequently cattle will be moved, herd size, and how the producer intends to use the technology. Virtual fencing also should not be treated as a replacement for a secure perimeter fence and sound grazing management. The University of Arizona has a virtual fencing vendor comparison table that can help you visualize some of the differences among systems at a glance.
Below, we examine several of these considerations in greater detail.
Which communication method fits your grazing operation?
Virtual fencing systems transmit boundary updates and collar information through one of three primary communication methods: a locally installed base station, a cellular network, or satellite communication. The best option depends on the terrain, available cellular connectivity, and whether cattle remain on one contiguous property or are moved among several locations.
Base-station systems may be well suited to contiguous grazing areas. Virtual fencing systems with locally installed base stations utilize Internet of Things (IoT) networks to communicate with the collars. Basically, radio signals that work like a large-scale walkie talkies scenario. Base station communication is offered through eShepherd and Vence. A properly located base station can provide dependable communication over approximately 2,000 to 10,000 acres, with coverage depending on terrain, tower placement, and other obstructions such as hills and trees. Producers grazing noncontiguous properties or in rough terrain may need more than one base station at each location.
Cellular systems offer greater flexibility. Because they do not require a base station to be installed on each property, collars can be moved among pastures or locations with less additional infrastructure. This may be especially useful for producers grazing leased land, crop residue, annual forages, or other noncontiguous fields. The systems using cellular networks include eShepherd, Monil, and NoFence.
Collar connectivity depends on a different bandwidth than our cellphones, allowing collars to have service in areas where our cellphones may not. Cellular connectivity allows the collar to use a different bandwidth from multiple carriers, switching automatically when one becomes less available. Cellular systems work with all major providers such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and US Cellular. The best network provider is automatically managed by the virtual fence system and requires no additional action on the user side. In areas where cellular reception is questionable or spotty, new boundaries, shifts/moves, and other updates may be delayed until the collar reconnects. However, once a boundary has been configured and communicated, the collar can continue containing (for a set duration) cattle during a temporary loss of communication.
Satellite communication offers many of the mobility advantages of cellular systems, with the added benefit of working in areas with little or no cellular coverage. Halter is currently the only system offering a satellite option.
Does the system fit your grazing scale?
Virtual fencing systems also differ in the size of the grazing areas they can create. Producers interested in intensive grazing management should consider the minimum size of a virtual pasture or allocation. Nofence, eShepherd, Monil, and Halter can create allocations of approximately one-half acre or less, allowing producers to make relatively small and frequent grazing moves. Vence is designed primarily for more extensive grazing systems and has a stated minimum pasture size of 200 acres.
Maximum acreage may also matter for large operations. Nofence lists a maximum of 25,000 acres, while the other systems do not state a maximum acreage. However, that does not necessarily mean their coverage is unlimited. For systems that depend on base stations, the practical area covered will depend on terrain and the number and placement of base stations. Individual systems may also have limitations related to boundary length or map design rather than total acres. For example, eShepherd limits each virtual-fence segment to 25 miles.
What maintenance will the collars require?
Most systems rely on a battery that is solar powered and do not require additional charging while on the animal. Solar-powered collars are generally designed to maintain their charge while on cattle under open-sky conditions. Extended shade, such as heavy tree cover, may create a need for supplemental charging. Currently, Monil and NoFence are the only companies that have chargers available for their collars, though they are not normally required.
Producers using solar-powered systems should allow time for collars to charge before placing them on cattle. Depending on their charge when delivered, collars may need to sit in direct sunlight for approximately three to seven days.
The Vence system is unique and does not rely on a solar powered battery but rather a lithium-ion battery that typically needs to be replaced in each collar every 3 months to 1 year. The frequency of replacement depends on the cattle’s distance to and the amount of interactions with the virtual boundaries. Thus, the smaller the pasture, the greater frequency of replacement, adding labor because cattle must be handled to replace batteries.
What else can the system tell you?
The information collected by virtual fencing collars can be one of the technology’s greatest benefits. Many producers find real-time cattle locations useful because they can provide peace of mind and make it easier to locate animals for health checks.
Many systems provide users with location maps or heat maps, allowing the user to see where cattle spend most of their time. This can allow users to modify their allocations to reduce over grazing and encourage cattle to use areas of the pasture they are not grazing as heavily. Halter offers two plans, BeefBase and BeefPro, with some additional features within Halter, including heat maps, requiring the BeefPro plan.
Additionally, most systems provide animal alerts. Some systems generate alerts when an animal has not moved for a specified period. An inactivity alert may indicate a lost collar, an animal that needs attention, or another issue that should be checked. These alerts can help producers prioritize animal checks, but they do not diagnose illness or confirm the cause of reduced activity. Alerts are also provided when animals have escaped the boundary, if/when they have returned within the boundary, or collars have a low battery level.
Companies continue to develop additional monitoring capabilities, including potential estrus and calving alerts. Though these are still under development.
What is the pricing model that best suits me?
Virtual fencing companies generally offer collars through one of two models: purchasing the collars outright or leasing them. Both models typically include ongoing subscription fees for software, connectivity, or data services. There are pros and cons to each pricing model.
Companies offering collars for purchase include eShepherd, Monil, and Nofence. Purchasing gives the producer ownership of the collars and avoids multiyear collar lease agreements, although an ongoing subscription is still required. Purchasing does allow second-hand sale opportunities if the need arises.
The purchase price of collars can vary depending upon the number of collars that you are purchasing. For example, eShepherd and NoFence have a lower purchase price if you buy a certain number of collars. However, Monil has a flat collar purchase price with subscription fees differing depending upon the number of collars purchased. NoFence allows for the upfront purchase of collars, as well as a lease-to-own option if you purchase 100 or more collars. An additional consideration if you own or manage a smaller herd, is the companies who would be willing to work with you. The companies which use a purchase model (eShepherd, Monil, and NoFence) have purchase minimums at or below 6 collars.
Companies where collars are strictly available for lease include Vence and Halter. With collars on lease, the company may assume responsibility for maintenance and replacement costs. But leasing collars generally requires a contract with a time commitment and a specific minimum of collars (usually 100). With Vence, where base stations are required, the producer is responsible for purchasing the base station outright. However, the collars remain on lease.
Regardless of pricing model, each company has a required, varying subscription fee that can be paid monthly or annually. Subscription fees are different across companies and different depending on the number of collars that you require a subscription for. Some companies, like NoFence, offers the first year of subscription fees for free, but have more expensive collar prices.
Given these differences in pricing models, we have put together a Virtual Fence Cost Estimator Tool to allow you to evaluate what the costs may look like for your herd. Because products, pricing, and service plans continue to change, producers should confirm current specifications with the company before making a purchase or signing a lease.
How easy is the system to use, and what support is available?
The program interface and level of customer support can strongly influence how useful a virtual fencing system is in day-to-day management. Some systems allow producers to create and modify boundaries from a cellphone, while others rely primarily on a computer; some offer both options. Producers should consider where and how they expect to make pasture moves, especially if boundaries may need to be changed while they are away from the office.
Before selecting a system, ask a company representative to demonstrate common tasks such as creating a new pasture, moving a boundary, locating cattle, and reviewing alerts. Producers should also ask what training is provided, how customer service is accessed, and how quickly help is typically available. A system may have the right technical capabilities, but it also needs to be convenient to use and supported when problems arise.
Final thoughts
Choosing a virtual fencing system is more than finding the lowest-cost option. Begin by identifying which communication method will work where your cattle graze, then consider whether the system fits your grazing scale and herd size, the maintenance it will require, the information it can provide, and how easily you can use it. Ultimately, the best system is the one that fits your operation, supports the way you want to manage cattle, and provides dependable help when you need it. Because products and services continue to evolve, visit with company representatives and confirm current capabilities before making a final decision.
For producers in Nebraska and Missouri, there is an opportunity to cost share some of the expense of virtual fencing through the Heartland Virtual Fencing Project. Please visit the website for more information or reach out to Marissa Eekhoff at meekhoff2@unl.edu.
