Virtual fencing technology to intensively graze lactating dairy cattle. I: Technology efficacy and pasture utilization

The effectiveness of a virtual fencing technology to allocate pasture and herd cows to the milking shed

Virtual fencing technology provides an opportunity to rethink the management of intensive grazing systems in general, yet most studies have used products developed and applied to more extensive livestock systems. This research aimed to assess the application of a virtual fencing technology developed for the intensive pastoral dairy industry. The Halter system uses 2 primary cues, sound and vibration, and one aversive secondary cue, a low energy electrical pulse, to confine cows to a pasture allocation and remotely herd cows. Two groups of 40 mid-lactation multiparous dairy cows were studied (Bos taurus, predominantly Friesian and Friesian × Jersey, parity 1-8). Cows were milked twice per day and provided 9 kg pasture DM/day in a 24-h allocation, supplemented with 7 kg silage and 6 kg grain DM/day. Training to the Halter system occurred over 10 d after which cows were managed with the technology for a further 28 d. The type and time of cues delivered was recorded by each collar and communicated via a base-station to cloud data storage. Cows took less than a day to start responding to the sound cues delivered while held on a pasture allocation and were moving to the milking parlor without human intervention by d 4 of training. On training d 1, at least 60% of sound cues resulted in an electrical pulse. Across training d 2-10, 6.4% of sound cues resulted in a pulse. After the 10-d training period, 2.6% of sound cues resulted in a pulse. During the management period, 90% of cows spent ≤1.7 min/d beyond the virtual fence, received ≤ 0.71 pulse/d in the paddock and received ≤ 1 pulse/d during virtual herding to the parlor. By the final week of the management period, 50% of cows received zero pulses/week in the paddock and 35% received zero pulses/week during virtual herding. The number of pulses delivered per day and the pulse:sound cue ratio was lower in this study than that previously reported using other virtual fencing technologies. We conclude that the Halter technology is successful at containing lactating dairy cows in an intensive grazing system as well as at remotely herding animals to the milking parlor.

Stress indicators in dairy cows adapting to virtual fencing

Virtual fencing (VF) enables livestock grazing without physical fences by conditioning animals to a virtual boundary delimited with an audio tone (AT) and an electric pulse (EP). The present study followed the adaptation process of lactating dairy cows to a VF system with changing virtual boundaries and investigated its impact on animal welfare. Twenty cows were divided into stratified groups (2× VF; 2× electric fencing, EF) of five individuals. Each group grazed half-days in a separate EF paddock of comparable size during 3 d of acclimation (P0), followed by 21, 14, 14, and 7 d of experimental treatment (P1 to P4). At the start of the trial, all cows were equipped with an IceQube pedometer (Peacock Technology Ltd, Stirling, UK) and a VF collar (Nofence AS, Batnfjordsøra, Norway). During P0, cows were accustomed to their first paddock with a deactivated virtual boundary and wearing the sensors. In P1 to P4, an active virtual boundary for the VF groups, and a second EF for the EF groups was set up parallel to an outer EF within their paddock. Throughout the trial, the sensors continuously tracked cow positions and activity behavior at 15-min intervals. From P1 onwards, the VF collars additionally recorded each AT and EP per cow with a georeferenced time stamp. During P0 to P4, daily feed intake, body weight, and milk yield were recorded in the barn. A total of 26 milk samples were collected per cow to determine milk cortisol levels. Behavioral observations were conducted for 2 h on day 23 to record agonistic behaviors, vocalizations, and excretions. The total number of stimuli per cow ranged from 37 to 225 ATs (mean ± SD: 1.9 ± 3.3 per day) and 3 to 11 EPs (mean ± SD: 0.1 ± 0.7 per day) throughout the trial. The maximum number of EPs per day was 8 for an individual cow and occurred once on D1. Mean EP/AT decreased by 55% during the first three half-days of grazing and with each paddock change from 0.2 EP/AT in week 1 to 0.03, 0.02, and 0 EP/AT in weeks 4, 6, and 8, respectively. Linear and generalized mixed effects models revealed that milk yield and cortisol, feed intake, body weight, and activity and lying behavior did not significantly differ between VF and EF groups. A higher number of agonistic behaviors were observed in the VF groups when the VF system was activated. However, due to the short observation periods only few contacts were observed in total. Overall, all cows adapted to the VF system without evidence of lasting adverse effects on animal welfare.

A matter of age? How age affects the adaptation of lactating dairy cows to virtual fencing

Virtual Fencing (VF) can be a helpful technology in managing herds in pasture-based systems. In VF systems, animals wear a VF collar using global positioning, and physical boundaries are replaced by virtual ones. The Nofence (Nofence AS, Batnfjordsøra, Norway) collars used in this study emit an acoustic warning when an animal approaches the virtual boundaries, followed by an aversive electrical pulse if the animal does not return to the defined area. The stimuli sequence is repeated up to three times if the animal continues to walk forward. Although it has been demonstrated that animals successfully learn to adapt to the system, it is unknown if this adaptation changes with animal age and thus has consequences for VF training and animal welfare. This study compared the ability of younger and older dairy cows to adapt to a VF system and whether age affected activity behavior, milk yield, and animal long-term stress under VF management. The study was conducted on four comparable strip-grazing paddocks. Twenty lactating Holstein-Friesian cows, divided into four groups of five animals each, were equipped with VF collars and pedometers. Groups differed in age: two groups of older cows (>4 lactations) and two groups of younger ones (first lactation). After a 7-d training, paddock sizes were increased by successively moving the virtual fence during four consecutive grazing periods. Throughout the study, the pedometers recorded daily step count, time spent standing, and time spent lying. For the determination of long-term stress, hair samples were collected on the first and last day of the trial and the hair cortisol content was assessed. Data were analyzed by generalized mixed-effect models. Overall, age had no significant impact on animal responses to VF, but there were interaction effects of time: the number of acoustic warnings in the last period was higher in younger cows (P < 0.001), and the duration of acoustic warnings at training was shorter for older cows (P < 0.01). Moreover, younger cows walked more per day during the training (P < 0.01). Finally, no effects on milk yield or hair cortisol content were detected. In conclusion, all cows, regardless of age, adapted rapidly to the VF system without compromising their welfare according to the indicators measured.

How do grazing beef and dairy cattle respond to virtual fences? A review

Virtual fencing (VF) is a modern fencing technology that requires the animal to wear a device (e.g., a collar) that emits acoustic signals to replace the visual cue of traditional physical fences (PF) and, if necessary, mild electric signals. The use of devices that provide electric signals leads to concerns regarding the welfare of virtually fenced animals. The objective of this review is to give an overview of the current state of VF research into the welfare and learning behavior of cattle. Therefore, a systematic literature search was conducted using two online databases and reference lists of relevant articles. Studies included were peer-reviewed and written in English, used beef or dairy cattle, and tested neck-mounted VF devices. Further inclusion criteria were a combination of audio and electrical signals and a setup as a pasture trial, which implied that animals grazed in groups on grassland for 4 h minimum while at least one fence side was virtually fenced. The eligible studies (n = 13) were assigned to one or two of the following categories: animal welfare (n studies = 8) or learning behavior (n studies = 9). As data availability for conducting a meta-analysis was not sufficient, a comparison of the means of welfare indicators (daily weight gain, daily lying time, steps per hour, daily number of lying bouts, and fecal cortisol metabolites [FCM]) for virtually and physically fenced animals was done instead. In an additional qualitative approach, the results from the welfare-related studies were assembled and discussed. For the learning behavior, the number of acoustic and electric signals and their ratio were used in a linear regression model with duration in days as a numeric predictor to assess the learning trends over time. There were no significant differences between VF and PF for most welfare indicators (except FCM with lower values for VF; P = 0.0165). The duration in days did not have a significant effect on the number of acoustic and electric signals. However, a significant effect of trial duration on the ratio of electric-to-acoustic signals (P = 0.0014) could be detected, resulting in a decreasing trend of the ratio over time, which suggests successful learning. Overall, we conclude that the VF research done so far is promising but is not yet sufficient to ensure that the technology could not have impacts on the welfare of certain cattle types. More research is necessary to investigate especially possible long-term effects of VF.

Behavioral Adaptations of Nursing Brangus Cows to Virtual Fencing: Insights from a Training Deployment Phase

Virtual fencing systems have emerged as a promising technology for managing the distribution of livestock in extensive grazing environments. This study provides comprehensive documentation of the learning process involving two conditional behavioral mechanisms and the documentation of efficient, effective, and safe animal training for virtual fence applications on nursing Brangus cows. Two hypotheses were examined: (1) animals would learn to avoid restricted zones by increasing their use of containment zones within a virtual fence polygon, and (2) animals would progressively receive fewer audio-electric cues over time and increasingly rely on auditory cues for behavioral modification. Data from GPS coordinates, behavioral metrics derived from the collar data, and cueing events were analyzed to evaluate these hypotheses. The results supported hypothesis 1, revealing that virtual fence activation significantly increased the time spent in containment zones and reduced time in restricted zones compared to when the virtual fence was deactivated. Concurrently, behavioral metrics mirrored these findings, with cows adjusting their daily travel distances, exploration area, and cumulative activity counts in response to the allocation of areas with different virtual fence configurations. Hypothesis 2 was also supported by the results, with a decrease in cueing events over time and increased reliance with animals on audio cueing to avert receiving the mild electric pulse. These outcomes underscore the rapid learning capabilities of groups of nursing cows in responding to virtual fence boundaries.

Precision technologies to improve dairy grazing systems

Pasture-based dairy herds continue to grow around the world as demand increases for sustainable farming practices. Grazing dairy farmers may benefit from the utilization of precision dairy technologies because these technologies have the potential to improve animal welfare, increase farm efficiency, and reduce costs. Precision dairy technologies have provided novel information about activity, rumination, and grazing behavior of various breeds in pasture-based systems. Previous research with wearable technologies has indicated that rumination, eating, and no activity have moderate to high correlations (r = 0.65 to 0.88) with visual observation; however, activity may be difficult to record in grazing herds. However, many grazing dairy farmers around the world are using activity monitors with generally positive success. Grazing is a complex behavior to define because cows may walk to an area and stop to eat or continuously walk and take bites of grass from the pasture. Wearable technologies can detect whether a cow is grazing with reasonable accuracy. However, the challenge is to determine pasture intake as bite rate and bite size because these can vary as the pasture is grazed to a low residual height. Nevertheless, grazing behavior data collected with wearable technologies was highly correlated (r = 0.92 to 0.95) with visual observations. Grazing is a behavior that should continue to be explored, especially with precision dairy technologies. As healthy and productive pastures are integral to grazing systems, accurate forage biomass measurements can improve efficiency and production of pastured dairy cows. However, few farms use technology to determine forage availability. Therefore, using dairy technologies to monitor forage dry matter from pasture may provide a potential benefit for grazing-based dairy farms. Current satellite technology with the normalized difference vegetation index and electronic rising plate meters may provide new technologies for farms to monitor forage biomass and fine-tune grazing within pastures. In the future, pasture-based dairy farms may rely on virtual fencing, drones to detect animal health issues and forage availability, and autonomous vehicles to move cattle and to detect weeds on pasture.

Invited review: integration of technologies and systems for precision animal agriculture-a case study on precision dairy farming

Precision livestock farming (PLF) offers a strategic solution to enhance the management capacity of large animal groups, while simultaneously improving profitability, efficiency, and minimizing environmental impacts associated with livestock production systems. Additionally, PLF contributes to optimizing the ability to manage and monitor animal welfare while providing solutions to global grand challenges posed by the growing demand for animal products and ensuring global food security. By enabling a return to the "per animal" approach by harnessing technological advancements, PLF enables cost-effective, individualized care for animals through enhanced monitoring and control capabilities within complex farming systems. Meeting the nutritional requirements of a global population exponentially approaching ten billion people will likely require the density of animal proteins for decades to come. The development and application of digital technologies are critical to facilitate the responsible and sustainable intensification of livestock production over the next several decades to maximize the potential benefits of PLF. Real-time continuous monitoring of each animal is expected to enable more precise and accurate tracking and management of health and well-being. Importantly, the digitalization of agriculture is expected to provide collateral benefits of ensuring auditability in value chains while assuaging concerns associated with labor shortages. Despite notable advances in PLF technology adoption, a number of critical concerns currently limit the viability of these state-of-the-art technologies. The potential benefits of PLF for livestock management systems which are enabled by autonomous continuous monitoring and environmental control can be rapidly enhanced through an Internet of Things approach to monitoring and (where appropriate) closed-loop management. In this paper, we analyze the multilayered network of sensors, actuators, communication, networking, and analytics currently used in PLF, focusing on dairy farming as an illustrative example. We explore the current state-of-the-art, identify key shortcomings, and propose potential solutions to bridge the gap between technology and animal agriculture. Additionally, we examine the potential implications of advancements in communication, robotics, and artificial intelligence on the health, security, and welfare of animals.

Cortisol in Manure from Cattle Enclosed with Nofence Virtual Fencing

Simple Summary

To increase the efficiency and geographic expansion of nature conservation, large grazers have recently been used, either in the form of wild hoof-bearing animals or as domesticated ruminants including cattle. As part of this, controlling the movement of these animals is essential using either physical or virtual fences to manage the areas of interest. Physical fencing limits migrating wildlife, while using virtual fences with GPS technology paired with collars emitting auditory and electric cues encourages the animals to stay in the desired area without physical restrictions for wild animals. However, virtual fences raise ethical questions regarding the electric impulses emitted by the collar and stress in the fenced animals, we show that the stress hormone cortisol in cow mature is not associated with the use of virtual fencing. We, therefore, conclude that there is no evidence suggesting that cows are stressed from the use of virtual fencing, thus making virtual fencing a reasonable alternative to traditional electric physical fencing for cows. We recommend using manure as a noninvasive physiological measure of large grazer stress during virtual fencing to survey and understand animal welfare.

Abstract

To increase the efficiency and geographic expansion of nature conservation, large grazers have recently been used, either in the form of wild hoof-bearing animals or as domesticated ruminants including cattle. Using physical fencing limits migrating wildlife, while virtual fences encourage the animals to stay in the desired area without physical restrictions on wild animals. However, virtual fences raise ethical questions regarding the electric impulses emitted by the collar and stress in the fenced animals. Here, we tested if keeping twelve Angus cows (Bos Taurus) in a virtual fencing (Nofence©) compromised their welfare. For this purpose, we collected manure samples from five cows every second day prior to and after the transition from traditional to virtual fencing over a period of 18 days. Cortisol concentrations were 20.6 ± 5.23 ng/g w/w (mean ± SD), ranging from 12 to 42 ng/g w/w across individuals and concentrations did not change over the study period. We, therefore, conclude that there is no evidence suggesting that the cows were stressed from the use for virtual fencing, thus making virtual fencing a reasonable alternative to traditional electric physical fencing of cows.

Current and Future Approaches to Mitigate Conflict between Humans and Asian Elephants: The Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices

Simple Summary

Conflict between humans and Asian elephants is a major conservation issue. Here we discuss common tools used to manage human-elephant conflict (HEC) in Asia and the potential of animal-borne satellite-linked shock collars or Aversive Geofencing Devices (AGDs) for managing problem elephants. Most current HEC mitigation tools lack the ability to be modified to accommodate needs of elephants and therefore are sometimes unsuccessful. AGDs currently used to manage livestock movement can be adapted to mitigate HEC to overcome this problem. AGDs can constantly monitor animal movements and be programmed to deliver sound warnings followed by electric shock whenever animals attempt to move across virtual boundaries demarcated by managers. Elephants fitted with AGDs are expected to learn to avoid the electric shock by associating it with the warning sound and move away from specified areas. Based on the potential shown by studies conducted using AGDs on other wild species, we suggest that experiments should be conducted with captive elephants to determine the efficacy and welfare impact of AGDs on elephants. Further, assessing public opinion on using AGDs on elephants will also be important. If elephants can learn to avoid virtual boundaries set by AGDs, it could help to significantly reduce HEC incidents.

Abstract

Asian elephants are a principal cause of human-wildlife conflict. This results in the death/injury of elephants and humans and large-scale crop and property damage. Most current human-elephant conflict (HEC) mitigation tools lack the flexibility to accommodate the ecological needs of elephants and are ineffective at reducing HEC in the long-term. Here we review common HEC mitigation tools used in Asia and the potential of Aversive Geofencing Devices (AGDs) to manage problem elephants. AGDs can be configured to monitor animal movements in real-time and deliver auditory warnings followed by electric stimuli whenever animals attempt to move across user-specified virtual boundaries. Thus, AGDs are expected to condition elephants to avoid receiving shocks and keep them away from virtually fenced areas, while providing alternative routes that can be modified if required. Studies conducted using AGDs with other species provide an overview of their potential in conditioning wild animals. We recommend that the efficacy and welfare impact of AGDs be evaluated using captive elephants along with public perception of using AGDs on elephants as a means of addressing the inherent deficiencies of common HEC mitigation tools. If elephants could be successfully conditioned to avoid virtual fences, then AGDs could resolve many HEC incidents throughout Asia.

Electric shock control of farmed animals: Welfare review and ethical critique

The available methods of electric shock control or containment of farmed animals are increasing and potentially include: (i) fixed and movable electric fencing; (ii) cattle trainers; (iii) prods or goads; (iv) wires in poultry barns; (v) dairy collecting yard backing gates; (vi) automated milking systems (milking robots); and (vii) collars linked to virtual fencing and containment systems. Since any electric shock is likely to cause a farmed animal pain, any such control or containment must, to be ethically justifiable, bring clear welfare benefits that cannot be practicably delivered in other ways. Associated areas of welfare concern with ethical implications include the displacement of stockpersons by technology, poor facility design, stray voltage, coercive behavioural change and indirect impacts on human society and values.

Heifers don't care: no evidence of negative impact on animal welfare of growing heifers when using virtual fences compared to physical fences for grazing

Virtual fencing (VF) represents a way to simplify traditional pasture management with its high labour and cost requirements for fencing and to make better use of the 'beneficial' agronomic and ecological effects of livestock grazing. In this study, the VF technology (® Nofence, AS, Batnfjordsøra Norway) was used with Fleckvieh heifers to investigate possible welfare impacts on the animals compared to conventionally fenced animals when they were trained to respond correctly to the system. The Nofence® collars (attached to the neck of the heifers) send acoustic signals as a warning when the animals approach the VF line, which was set up by GPS coordinates within the Nofence®-App, followed by an electric pulse when they do not stop or return. The heifers had no experience with VF prior to the study. Two treatments (VF versus physical fencing (PF)) were applied to six groups of four heifers each (three groups per treatment) over three 12-day time replicates. One VF line separated the pasture of the VF group into an accessible or non-accessible area. The control group had a PF line. Both groups were equipped with Nofence® collars (deactivated for the PF group). The trial took place on two adjacent paddocks of 1 000 m² each following a 12-day schedule which was divided into three sections: visual support of the VF line by a physical barrier (first 2 days), only virtual border without visual support, moving the VF line (on day 8). Each time replicate followed the next successively on different paddocks with two new groups of heifers, which were grazed 5 h daily. During the whole experiment, the behaviour of each of the four animals per group was continuously observed; 2 h a.m., 2 h p.m. Exclusion by the VF line was effective in our trial. None of the heifers crossed the virtual boundary, i.e. the time spent in exclusion zone was zero. The heifers received 2.70 ± 2.63 acoustic signals and 0.30 ± 0.36 electric pulses (mean ± SD) per heifer and hour during all time replicates. Main cattle behaviour on pasture was not affected by the fencing system. Live weight gain, herbage consumption and faecal cortisol metabolites also revealed no significant differences. The duration until the heifers restarted grazing after an electric pulse from the Nofence® collar was significantly shorter than after an electric pulse from the physical fence. We can summarise that in our study, cattle well-being on pasture was not negatively affected by VF compared to PF.

Is Virtual Fencing an Effective Way of Enclosing Cattle? Personality, Herd Behaviour and Welfare

In modern nature conservation and rewilding there is a need for controlling the movements of large grazers in extensively managed areas. The inflexibility of physical fencing can be a limitation in nature management, and the physical boundaries created by physical fencing can have detrimental effects on wildlife. Virtual fencing systems provide boundaries without physical structures. These systems utilise collars with GPS technology to track animals and deliver auditory or electric cues to encourage the animals to stay within the predefined boundaries. This study aims to assess the use of virtual fencing (Nofence©) to keep twelve Angus cows (Bos taurus) within a virtual enclosure without compromising their welfare. As such, the study examines inter-individual differences between the cows as well as their herd behaviour, when reacting and learning to respond appropriately to virtual fencing. Moreover, the activity of the cows was used as an indicator of welfare. The virtual fencing was successful in keeping the herd within the designated area. Moreover, the cattle learned to avoid the virtual border and respond to auditory cues, where the cows received significantly more auditory warning and electric impulses per week throughout the first 14 days than the remaining 125 days (p < 0.001). The cows were found to express both inter-individual differences (p < 0.001) and herd behaviour. The cattle did not express any significant changes in their activity upon receiving an electrical impulse from the collar. Thus, indicating that there were little to no acute welfare implications associated with the use of virtual fencing in this study. This study clearly supports the potential for virtual fencing as a viable alternative to physical electric fencing. However, it also shows that both individual differences in personality and herd structure should be considered when selecting individuals for virtual fencing.

Dairy Cattle Response to a Virtual Fence When Pasture on Offer Is Restricted to the Post-grazing Residual

Pasture-based dairy systems rely on the accurate allocation of pasture to both meet livestock requirements and maintain the growth of herbage. Currently, physical fences are used to contain livestock however they can be labor-intensive to shift and maintain. Alternatively, virtual fence (VF) systems offer flexibility and real-time control of livestock location. Pre-commercial neckbands (eShepherd®, Agersens, Melbourne, VIC) emit a warning audio tone (AT) when a cow approaches a VF boundary, paired with an electrical pulse (EP) if the cow continues forward into the exclusion zone (EZ). However, the ability of VF technology to control animal location when pasture is restricted to the previous day's residual, remains unknown. Ten non-lactating Holstein-Friesian dairy cows were trained to use a VF system for 6 days before strip grazing a 1.2 ha paddock of annual ryegrass. Over 10 days the cows grazed eight pasture allocations at a pre-grazing pasture mass of 2,324 ± 81 kg DM/ha (mean ± SE) and post-grazing pasture-mass (post-grazing residual) of 1,649 ± 48 kg/DM/ha with a front VF. The allocations had a physical backing fence that included the fresh allocation and a small area of residual to cater for any GPS drift of the front VF. On each day, with the exception of days 5 and 10, the VF was moved forward, and the cows were provided a new pasture allocation. On days 5 and 10, the VF was not shifted, and cows were only offered the previous allocation's residual pasture. The location of each animal (inclusion, buffer, and exclusion zones) and number of stimuli (AT and EP) delivered were recorded. The number of stimuli delivered between the grazing and hold-off days was similar. Cows spent 89% of time within the inclusion zone (IZ), with significant peaks observed on day 5 and 10. Distance that cows traveled into the EZ reduced across time. There was also evidence of individual variation in the number of stimuli and thus time spent in each zone. Overall, the VF system was successful in containing the dairy cows during strip grazing even when only offered the previous days post-grazing residual.

The Effect of a Restricted Feed Ration on Dairy Cow Response to Containment From Feed Using a Virtual Fence

Dairy cattle are offered varying amounts of feed which they deplete through time. A reduction in the amount of feed allocated to cows may impact on their containment using a virtual fence (VF). Pre-commercial neckbands (eShepherd®, Agersens, Melbourne, VIC) deliver an audio tone (AT) to the individual cow when it reaches the VF, and this is followed by an electrical pulse (EP) if they continue forward movement. No further stimuli are delivered if the cow stops or turns around. Thirty-four non-lactating dairy cows were used across three blocks in a controlled field experiment evaluating the impact of feed restriction on the exclusion of cows from a lucerne cube feed source using a VF. Within each block cows were pre-trained to the VF system for 6-days on pasture before being fed either a (1) Restricted (R, 12 ± 0.3 kg) or (2) Above maintenance (+M, 20 kg) lucerne cube ration each day. The treatment groups were then tested for four 30 min tests (T1–T4) in test paddocks of 100 × 20 m. For testing, a VF was set at 30 m from the paddock entry and 2 kg per cow of lucerne cube feed was placed at 90 m. Only R cows crossed the VF to access the feed, thereby receiving more AT and EP stimuli in T1 and T2 as compared to +M cows (P ≤ 0.03). However, there was no difference between treatments in T3 and T4 as cows learned the test routine and to remain within the VF in the paddock context. These results suggest that feed restriction may impact the exclusion of dairy cows from feed using a VF, but this effect is limited, and cows can learn to remain within a VF even when fed a restricted ration.

A Case Study on the Use of Virtual Fencing to Intensively Graze Angus Heifers Using Moving Front and Back-Fences

Virtual fencing contains and controls grazing cattle using sensory cues rather than physical fences. The technology comprises a neckband-mounted device that delivers an audio cue when the animal nears a virtual boundary that has been set via global positioning system, followed by an electrical stimulus if it walks beyond the boundary. Virtual fencing has successfully been used to intensively graze cattle using a simple virtual front-fence, but a more complex intensive grazing system comprising moving virtual front and back-fences has not been assessed. We studied the effectiveness of virtual fencing technology to contain groups of Angus heifers within grazing cells defined by semi-permanent electric side-fences and virtual front and back-fences, compared to groups of heifers contained in cells defined only by electric fencing. Four groups of 10 Angus heifers were randomly allocated to a “control” (grazed with a conventional electric front and back-fence, n = 2 groups) or “virtual fence” treatment (grazed with a virtual front and back-fence, n = 2 groups). The groups of heifers grazed four adjacent experimental paddocks that were established using TechnoGrazing™ infrastructure. An estimated 9.5 kg pasture DM/heifer.day was offered in each of three 3 day allocations (9 day study period). Data collected include cues delivered by the neckbands, time beyond the virtual boundaries, pasture consumption for each allocation and heifer live weight changes over the study period. The virtual front and back-fences successfully contained one group of heifers in their grazing cell, but the second group of heifers spent an increasing amount of time in the exclusion zone during the second and third allocations and consequently received an increasing number of audio and electrical stimuli. There were no effects of electric or virtual-fence treatment on live weight change or pasture utilization. By grazing heifers in adjacent paddocks our experimental design may have produced a motivation for some heifers to cross the virtual boundary to regain close contact with familiar conspecifics. Despite this, valuable learnings were gained from this study. Most notably, virtual fencing should not be used to manage cattle that have close visual contact to other mobs. We conclude that the successful application of virtual fencing technology needs to accommodate the natural behaviors of cattle.