Virtual fencing becomes reality

The line is invisible. The results are not.

Gaining more grazing days per acre. Moving animals multiple times daily to fresh forage. Capturing extra value from cover crops and cornstalks. Tracking down a wayward mama cow with her new calf.

Those are just a few of the advantages early adopters are seeing from virtual fencing—a new technology that’s now being studied by the University of Missouri’s Center for Regenerative Agriculture in a groundbreaking pilot program. Five private producers and four university research farms are testing these systems to better understand how they perform in real-word conditions across diverse landscapes, management approaches and herd sizes.

“The goal is to promote cover crop grazing and regenerative farming, and virtual fencing is an easier way for producers to implement those practices,” said Kaitlyn Dozler, who is managing the project along with the center’s director, Rob Myers. “We’re using this pilot program to learn more about the technology and educate producers about all the things they can do with it.”

Funded with a $900,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Conservation Partners Program, the virtual fencing pilot officially began in October 2024. After a year of designing the program, enrolling farmers and partnering with technology companies, the center distributed 50 GPS-enabled collars to each participant last fall and provided training on the mobile and desktop app that controls each system.

“We wanted people to be able to see it with their own eyes,” Dozler said. “It’s a big investment. And because every livestock operation is different, we needed this technology tested in all the different types of terrain and grazing systems in Missouri.”

Though each system has its own unique features and costs, they all operate on the same general principle. Dozler compares it to invisible fencing for dogs. The livestock wear solar-powered collars that guide them with a series of beeps to indicate they’re approaching the virtual fence, followed by a mild shock if they cross the line.

Essentially, animals learn to respond to audio cues rather than a physical barrier.

“The first time they hear that sound and get zapped, they’re going be confused. I’ve seen cows learn it in as fast as three to five hours, but on average, they say it takes five to seven days,” Dozler explained. “The pitch starts out low and gets higher and faster the longer the animal has been over the line. They’ll stick their heads over to eat the new, fresh grass right up to that last pitch, and then they swing back so they don’t get shocked.”

The digital barriers are programmed from the collar’s corresponding app on a smartphone, tablet or computer. Once users learn the features, setting up or moving virtual fences takes only a matter of minutes or even seconds. Paddocks can be drawn to include or exclude any part of a pasture or field, and the system can automatically shift those boundaries on whatever schedule producers choose.

“When you typically think about rotational grazing, it’s in squares because that’s the easiest way to make fencelines,” Dozler said. “Now, with virtual fence, you can make the craziest shapes imaginable—within some limitations. You’re able to use your pastures in ways you never thought were possible.”

There is one important caveat, Dozler points out.

“I tell every producer they must have perimeter fencing for liability and for the safety of other people and their animals,” she said. “There are going to be stubborn cows, collars are going to fall off, and sometimes systems are going to go down. And, the technology is so new, there are no official laws in the state of Missouri about virtual fencing. You always want something between your animals and a roadway.”

Tech on trial

The Mizzou pilot program is testing four commercially available brands: Halter, eShepherd (by Gallagher), Monil and Nofence. Participating producers were allowed to choose the one that best fit their farms and management styles.

By default, Josh Payne of Concordia—the lone sheep producer in the pilot—is using Nofence collars, the only brand currently designed for small ruminants.

“I’ve heard about virtual fencing for a while, and I’m always interested in technology,” Payne said. “The thought was that we have this opportunity through Mizzou to try these for free, so let’s see if they work. It’s low cost, low risk. Honestly, I really like the way they perform.”

Farming alongside his sister and brother‑in‑law, Payne raises 1,000 sheep on 300 acres using the practice of silvopasture, which integrates trees, forage and livestock on the same land. Virtual fencing has become a natural fit in this stacked system. Payne outfitted 50 of his Katahdin and Dorper ewes with Nofence collars and is strip‑grazing the trial group through a young chestnut orchard. He uses the virtual fence to make daily moves to new strips of forages, never touching wires or posts.

For sheep, the health benefits are immediate. Parasite pressure means ewes need to be rotated every few days at a minimum to break the cycle. Payne said the collars make that easy and nearly eliminate the need to deworm the flock.

“Normally, it would take four or five 300‑foot reels of wire and more than an hour to set up a temporary paddock to graze,” he said. “Now, it takes about two minutes on a phone to move the sheep every day. It’s keeping them healthier and saving us time and money.”

Grazing flexibility is also what prompted Gavin Talmadge of Rosendale to join the Mizzou pilot program. He is testing the Halter system on the diversified cattle and row-crop farm he operates with his father-in-law, Gary Hughes.

Talmadge received the collars in November and placed them on 50 cows that were due to calve in late winter. Later this spring and summer, he plans to transfer the units to a group of cattle that will be grazing cover crops.  

“I’d wanted to try the collars, just to save on the labor, expense and hassle of building cross fences so we could do more rotational grazing,” Talmadge said. “It takes a lot of time, so we don’t ever mess with it. With virtual fencing, it just takes the click of a button. It’s so much easier, and they do work!”

Producers are also discovering benefits that go far beyond simple boundary control, from creating virtual alleyways for sorting cattle to sectioning off streambanks and other erosion-prone areas. Real-time tracking is especially useful. Pilot participant Chris Hudson was harvesting soybeans last fall on his farm near Middletown, Mo., when his app showed that one of the last cows still due to calve had separated herself from the herd. Without shutting off the combine, Hudson called his dad, who quickly found the mama and her newborn calf.

“I like how the app allows me to see where each individual cow is at all times,” Hudson said. “The convenience is a real benefit.”

Cost and cost-share

Cost is one of the first questions prospective users ask—and often the biggest barrier to adoption, Dozler said. Companies vary widely on whether collars are subscription-based or bought outright, and some require towers, an additional expense.

Generally, at current pricing, collars range from roughly $250 to $350 each if purchased, while annual subscription fees range from about $70 to $100. Other fees and costs vary by brand and connectivity needs.

Like most emerging innovations, Dozler noted, cost and accessibility will likely go down as the technology matures and more companies enter the market. For now, state and federal support is increasing to help defray the expenses. The Natural Resources Conservation Service offered its first EQIP special initiative for virtual fencing this year, with cost-share payments per collar and a base infrastructure stipend. Applications can be submitted for this continuing program year‑round.

Payne applied for EQIP funding to expand the system on his farm, hoping to add 240 more collars to graze sheep on rented row‑crop land a few miles away.

“We’re set up well to rotationally graze here, but when we graze on other farms, we can use the collars without having to build interior infrastructure,” he said.

Pilot to possibilities

Even in its first year, MU’s virtual fencing pilot is proving that boundaries don’t have to be built from posts and wire to be effective. But there have been a few glitches along the way. Missouri’s extreme winter temperatures stressed some batteries. One of Talmadge’s cows was zapped while standing in a head chute because the metal barn distorted the signal. Satellite drift caused Payne’s sheep to be shocked when they bedded down too close to the perimeter fence.

Education is a crucial component of the pilot, and the producers are encouraged to regularly report these challenges as well as the successes and creative ways they’re using the systems. In turn, Dozler is sharing that information with the virtual fencing companies to help improve their products.

“The companies have been great to work with, and they’re very receptive of feedback because all of the tech is so new,” Dozler said. “And every time something happens, we learn something new.”

As intriguing as the technology may be, however, virtual fencing isn’t suited for everyone, Dozler added.

“Whether it’s herd size, grazing goals or the structure they already have set up, there are producers who won’t need this,” she said. “You have to go into it with a solid plan for a better return-on-investment situation.”

As for the future, Dozler believes the next frontier will go beyond grazing to animal health. Companies are testing features for heat detection, calving alerts and rumination tracking. She also sees potential for managing wildfires, protecting wildlife, and reducing conflicts between ranchers and wildlife—already seen in western states.

But for now, Missouri’s virtual fencing pilot is doing what it was designed to do: help producers imagine new possibilities.

“Producer interest exploded almost overnight,” she said. “From 2024 to 2025 we went from people asking, ‘What is virtual fence?’ to people saying, ‘I know exactly how I’d use this on my farm.’ Now they’re brainstorming paddock shapes, asking how many moves a day are realistic, or whether they can finally graze fields they never could before. Producers aren’t just learning the tech—they’re innovating with it.”

For more information, visit MU’s Center for Regenerative Agriculture online at 
cra.missouri.edu/virtual-fence-grazing-program. For details on EQIP cost-share opportunities, visit with your local NRCS office or online at nrcs.usda.gov.

Dozler and another farmer in the pilot, Daniel Bonacker, also joined MFA’s Made For Agriculture podcast in late March to further explain the opportunities with virtual fencing. You can find and listen to that episode, #106, by visiting mfa-inc.com/podcast.