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. We studied 2 groups of 40 mid-lactation multiparous dairy cows (Bos taurus, predominantly Friesian and Friesian × Jersey, parity 1-8). Cows were milked twice per day and provided 9 kg of pasture DM/d in a 24-h allocation, supplemented with 7 kg of silage and 6 kg of grain DM/d. 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 were 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 to 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 pulses/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 0 pulses/week in the paddock and 35% received 0 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.

Stakeholder Challenges and Opportunities of GPS Shock Collars to Achieve Optimum Welfare in a Conservation or Farm Setting

Virtual fences for livestock facilitated by a GPS shock collar (GPS-SC) and phone app were introduced to the UK in cattle herd trials in 2020. Technology which uses aversive shocks to control livestock movement on farms and in other settings poses a significant risk to livestock welfare. There are currently no welfare protocols in place in the UK to ensure the ethical use of GPS-SCs. The objective of this study was to understand how GPS-SCs were being used in practice in the UK and gather data to assist researchers and policymakers in the future research and development of a welfare protocol for the UK. We studied how the technology performs in terms of welfare challenges and opportunities, covering extensive livestock production, conservation settings, "rewilding", and regenerative farming practices, where the technology is currently being applied. Semistructured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. In-depth interviews (n = 8) supported the previous literature that the use of GPS-SCs in restricted grazing settings poses a risk to animal welfare. This is due to the wavering virtual fence boundary line (which is affected by satellite movements), a lack of visual markers, and, in some "rewilding" and conservation settings, livestock keepers, which require training and support to enable optimal welfare in practice and prevent misuse of the technology. Results also indicated that there are opportunities for enhancing livestock welfare with GPS-SCs in very extensive farm settings, where targeted care can be facilitated by using the data to monitor and track livestock using GPS-SCs, and which can also prevent cattle injury or fatality through virtual pastures designed to protect livestock from hazards such as roads or bogs. Future research is needed to focus on minimising shocks in the training period and to better understand the value of visual electric fences in the training process.

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.

Animal board invited review: Grassland-based livestock farming and biodiversity

Grasslands dominate land cover nationally and globally, and their composition, structure and habitat value are strongly influenced by the actions of domestic and wild grazing animals that feed on them. Different pastures are characterised by varying opportunities for selective feeding by livestock; agronomically improved, sown swards generally consist of a limited range of plant species whereas longer-term leys and semi-natural grasslands are characterised by a more diverse mixture of plants. In the case of botanically diverse permanent pastures/grazing lands, the dietary preferences of different grazers have a more pronounced effect on the botanical composition of the sward in the longer term. Selection of a dominant species within the sward can give less abundant components a chance to compete, increasing community evenness and species richness. Conversely, the selection of minor components reduces sward compositional heterogeneity and hence plant species richness and evenness. Body size, gut type (foregut vs hindgut fermentation), physiological status (growing, pregnant, lactating), metabolic status (extent of body reserves) and environmental conditions all influence the nutrient requirements of a given animal and related foraging priorities. The diet selected is also strongly influenced by the availability of preferred food items, and their vertical and horizontal distribution within the sward. In general, larger animals, such as cattle and horses, are less selective grazers than smaller animals, such as sheep and goats. They are quicker to switch to consuming less-preferred sward components as the availability of preferred resources declines due to their greater forage demands, and as a result can be very effective in controlling competitive plant species consistently avoided by more selective grazers. As a result, low-intensity mixed grazing of cattle and sheep has been shown to improve the diversity and abundance of a range of taxa within grazed ecosystems. Mixed/co-species grazing with different animals exploiting different grassland resources is also associated with increased pasture use efficiency in terms of the use of different sward components and related improvements in nutritional value. In situations where cattle are not available, for example if they are not considered commercially viable, alternative species such as goats, ponies or South American camelids may offer an opportunity to diversify income streams and maintain productive and biodiverse pastures/grazing lands. Stocking rate and timing of grazing also have a considerable role in determining the impact of grazing. Regardless of the species grazing or the pasture grazed, grazing systems are dynamic since selective grazing impacts the future availability of sward components and subsequently dietary choices. New technologies under development provide opportunities to monitor plant/animal interactions more closely and in real time, which will in future support active management to deliver targeted biodiversity gains from specific sites.

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.

Mapping Welfare: Location Determining Techniques and Their Potential for Managing Cattle Welfare—A Review

Several studies have suggested that precision livestock farming (PLF) is a useful tool for animal welfare management and assessment. Location, posture and movement of an individual are key elements in identifying the animal and recording its behaviour. Currently, multiple technologies are available for automated monitoring of the location of individual animals, ranging from Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) to ultra-wideband (UWB), RFID, wireless sensor networks (WSN) and even computer vision. These techniques and developments all yield potential to manage and assess animal welfare, but also have their constraints, such as range and accuracy. Combining sensors such as accelerometers with any location determining technique into a sensor fusion system can give more detailed information on the individual cow, achieving an even more reliable and accurate indication of animal welfare. We conclude that location systems are a promising approach to determining animal welfare, especially when applied in conjunction with additional sensors, but additional research focused on the use of technology in animal welfare monitoring is needed.

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

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.

A Farmer’s Perspective on the Relevance of Grassland-Related Innovations in Mediterranean Dehesa Systems

Grasslands are of key importance for the provision of ecosystem services (ES). Suitable management is essential to guarantee their persistence and functionality. There is a growing interest in innovations such as new technologies aimed at facilitating and improving the management of grasslands while increasing their provision of ES. The uptake of innovations by farmers is a complex process, and relevant socio-economic or technological factors that are crucial to farmers are often overlooked. This information can be useful for increasing the adoption of these innovations through the design of public policies to facilitate them. This paper analyses the relevance of the main innovations that can be applied to the management of the grasslands of Dehesa farms for the farmers and the factors that might affect this relevance. Through questionaries, we gathered information on the relevance that farmers give to the selected innovations and analysed it by cumulative link models. The results show that innovations aimed at increasing the biomass production of grasslands and resilience such as the use of seed mixtures and the use of forage drought-resistant species are considered highly relevant by Dehesa farmers. However, high-tech innovations such as GPS collars were poorly rated which could denote low applicability to the context of Dehesas or the existence of barriers hindering the adoption but also a need for further development and better information on their potential. Characteristics of the farmer and farm such as age, education level, and stocking rate seem to be related to the relevance given to some of the innovations. These results provide insightful information for the implementation and research of relevant grassland-related innovations in the context of Mediterranean Dehesa/Montado systems, as well as for the design of policies supporting them.

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.

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

Virtual fencing is promoted as the next advancement for rotational grazing systems. This experiment compared the capacity of conventional temporary electric versus virtual fencing to contain a herd of 30 lactating dairy cows within the boundaries of their daily pasture allocation (inclusion zone). Cows were moved each day to a new rectangular paddock that was divided crosswise into an inclusion and exclusion zone by a single linear electric (first 10 d) or virtual (second 10 d) front-fence. A 3-d virtual fence training period separated the 2 treatments. Virtual fences were imposed using a pre-commercial prototype of the eShepherd virtual fencing system (Agersens Pty Ltd.). Neckband-mounted devices replaced the visual cue of an electric fence with benign audio cues, which if ignored were accompanied by an aversive electrical stimulus. Cows learned to respond to the audio cues to avoid receiving electrical stimuli, with the daily ratio of electrical to audio signals for individual cows averaging (± standard deviation) 0.18 ± 0.27 over the 10 d of virtual fence deployment. Unlike the electric fence, the virtual fence did not fully eliminate cow entry into the exclusion zone, but individual cows were generally contained within the inclusion zone ≥99% of the time. Pasture depletion within the inclusion zone reduced the efficacy of the virtual fence in preventing cows from entering the exclusion zone, but the magnitude of this effect was insignificant in practical terms (i.e., increased time spent in the exclusion zone by ≤28 s/h per cow). This highlights the potential for virtual fences to control grazing dairy cow movement even when pasture availability is limited (i.e., 1 kg of dry matter/cow above a target residual of 1,500 kg of dry matter/ha), but requires confirmation under longer and more complex virtual fencing applications. Within each treatment period, uniform daily pasture utilization (% of pasture consumed above a target residual of 1,500 kg of dry matter/ha) within inclusion zones indicates that cows did not avoid grazing near electric or virtual front-fences. Overall, this study demonstrated a successful simple application of this virtual fencing system to contain a herd of grazing lactating dairy cows within the boundaries of their daily pasture allocation.