Drawing the line: Virtual versus physical fences

Researchers at Göttingen University show value of invisible boundaries in field trials with cattle

University of Göttingen

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Cattle are grazing within a pasture area defined by the "Nofence" virtual fencing system on Göttingen University's farming area to carry out research in Relliehausen (2021).

view more 

Credit: Göttingen University / Natascha A. Grinnell

Virtual fences could make managing grazing livestock on farms more flexible and more efficient whilst improving animal welfare. A new study by the University of Göttingen shows that virtual fences trigger similar behaviour in cattle, in terms of how they move around in the field, to conventional electric fences. This finding clearly puts the concerns, which are commonly expressed about animal welfare, into perspective. The results were published in the journal Animal.

 

In previous research on this theme, cattle wore collars which emitted acoustic signals – and, where necessary, electrical pulses – when they approached the boundary. During the learning process, the animals associated the warning tone with the unpleasant stimulus and subsequently, mostly respected the virtually defined boundary simply as a response to the noise. As previous analyses of the experiment had not revealed any significant behavioural differences between animals in virtual and conventionally fenced enclosures, the researchers decided to take a closer look in their current study. In order to map the distance to the fence – and identify any effect on the cattle’s behaviour that might only occur in the vicinity of the virtual boundary – they used GPS to assign the movement data of the 31 cows to two different zones (peripheral zone and centre of the pasture) and compared them.

 

The key finding was that it was not the type of fence that made the difference, but the boundary itself – regardless of whether it was visible or not. Regardless of the system used, the animals were less likely to be found at the edges of the field, moved more slowly there, and tended to use the centre of the pasture. Virtual fences also led to a more even distribution of the animals across the area.

 

“Our findings show that it is not the type of fence that is the deciding factor, but rather the animals’ perception of the boundary of the pasture,” says lead author Dr Natascha Grinnell at Göttingen University’s Institute of Grassland Science. “Virtual fences are respected by cattle just as reliably as conventional electric fences and are not fundamentally more problematic from an animal welfare perspective. This opens up new opportunities for farmers to manage grazing in a modern and flexible way.”

 

Researchers from the University of Göttingen will also be presenting their findings at the ‘Virtual Fencing’ field day on Monday 6 July in Alt Madlitz, Brandenburg. Further information about the event can be found here (in German): https://shop.gutundboesel.org/products/grosser-feldtag-mit-hoftour-virtual-fencing-6-juli-2026.

Original publication: Grinnell, N.A. et al. “Drawing the line: Comparing zone-specific spatial behaviour of heifers on pasture with virtual and physical fences”. Animal (2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2026.101820.

---

Journal

animal

DOI

10.1016/j.animal.2026.101820 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Drawing the line: Comparing zone-specific spatial behaviour of heifers on pasture with virtual and physical fences

 

Cattle are resting in the field at Göttingen University’s farming area to carry out research in Relliehausen during a trial of grazing using the "Nofence" virtual fencing system (2021).

 

Dr Natascha Grinnell and Dr Dina Hamidi in front of a cow wearing a "Nofence" collar. The photograph was taken in 2021 at Göttingen University’s farming area to carry out research in Relliehausen during a trial of grazing using the "Nofence" virtual fencing system.

Credit

Göttingen University / Natascha A. Grinnell