Virtual fencing is a precision livestock farming tool consisting of invisible boundaries created via Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) and managed remotely and in real time by app-based technology. Grazing livestock are equipped with battery-powered collars capable of delivering audio or vibration cues and possibly electric shocks when approaching or crossing an invisible boundary. Virtual fencing makes precision grazing possible without the need for physical fences. This technology originated in the US in the 1980s. To-date, virtual fencing products such as eShepherd®, Halter®, Nofence® and Vence® are available worldwide. There are more than 3,000 virtual fencing adopters globally, with this figure expected to grow in forthcoming years. Despite its growing adoption rate, economic and environmental implications of virtual fencing are largely undocumented in public research.

The present study is a multi-objective optimisation analysis of virtual fencing in UK beef cattle precision grazing systems. It uses the Hands Free Hectare Multi-Objective Linear Programming model (HFH-MOLP) developed at Harper Adams University, Newport, UK. The HFH-MOLP model is a decision-making support tool suited for whole-farm resource planning in situations of conflicting farmer priorities. This analysis simulated two grazing farms producing beef either via set or rotational stocking and using different fencing types, including woven wire, electric, and virtual fencing. The first farm was assumed to be a lowland mixed farm with an intensive beef finishing enterprise located in the UK West Midlands. The second farm consisted of an extensive suckler cow grazing farm situated in the Welsh uplands. On each farm type, the economic and environmental performances of different stocking methods were compared to quantify trade-offs between monetary returns and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across fencing strategies.

Results showed that, regardless of the ecological orientation of the decision-maker, the preferred scenarios were rotational stocking managed with electric fencing on the lowland mixed farm, and set stocking on the upland extensive grazing farm. The electric fencing scenario generated an annual return of £ 97,685 compared to £ 85,907 in the virtual fencing counterpart, with both systems emitting 222 MgCO2eq. On the extensive grazing upland farm, set stocking achieved an annual return of £ 5,310 compared to £ 1,614 in the virtual fencing scenario, though the latter produced slightly lower GHG emissions and prevented animals from grazing an ecologically sensitive area.

Despite its lower economic competitiveness, virtual fencing provides some advantages in terms of increased work flexibility, improved ecology conservation in remote habitats, and simplified animal welfare standards compliance. Further technical improvements related to data collection may transform virtual fencing into a multi-purpose technology. For example, additional economic value could be generated if the technology enabled farmers to detect certain diseases quicker than conventional methods. Recommendations for virtual fencing providers include a reduction in collar and mobile application subscription costs, the extension of the useful life of the collars, and the potential of having virtual fencing subsidised by Government schemes such as the UK Farm Investment Fund. The study concludes with methodological improvements to be addressed in future research.