We hosted a workshop prior to the 76th annual Society for Range Management meeting in 2023 to highlight ongoing work on virtual fencing.

Our topics included case studies, research efforts, Extension programming, economics, industry and federal agency perspectives, and data management.

This special issue of Rangelands features articles from presenters of the workshop.

Virtual fence (VF) is an emerging system to control and confine animals using Global Positioning System (GPS) and communication technologies rather than physical boundaries such as barbed wire or electric fence.

Animals in a VF system wear a device (e.g., a collar) that emits an audible cue when the animal approaches the virtual boundary and an electrical cue if the boundary is crossed.

VF provides an adaptive grazing management tool to intensify grazing in some areas or minimize animal use in other areas for specific conservation or production goals.

Several challenges currently exist with emerging VF technologies and include failure of devices, animals that do not respect the boundary, and excessive time and money to implement.

VF promises increased flexibility for managing rangelands in response to ecosystem disturbances such as wildland fire, variable forage availability due to climate change, facilitating restoration practices, reducing conflicts between livestock and wildlife, and accommodating human uses on public lands.

Virtual fencing (VF) is a recent development in agriculture technology with a high potential to improve management outcomes on public and private grazing lands. Adoption is expected to accelerate as the technology improves in providing safe and effective management capabilities for diverse operating contexts.

Although the applications of VF are numerous, it is not a silver bullet to solve grazing management issues and is not always beneficial for farm and ranch operations.

We reflect on the operational characteristics that tend to lead to successful VF deployment based on direct experience using VF on working ranches in the United States over the last three years.

We provide a set of questions and considerations and a decision tree to help producers determine their suitability for adopting and benefiting from VF as well as highlight when producers may need to adapt to realize the full potential of VF. These questions also elucidate when producers may be better served to look to other management approaches or tools rather than investing in VF at this time.

Our goal is to provide realistic expectations of what VF can and cannot do and help producers be well prepared and succeed with deploying and using VF.

Most virtual fence (VF) devices use the Global Positioning System (GPS) to locate and track the position of livestock.

VF devices transmit GPS data across the internet to the VF software, and users can monitor the location and distribution of livestock across a pasture or grazing allotment in near real time.

Data from VF devices can be used to address resource management concerns as they occur rather than after, and managers can potentially use VF devices to alter livestock distribution if an undesirable grazing distribution occurs.

Users of VF devices should be aware of GPS errors and screen for erroneous data points when interpreting data from VF devices.

Large datasets generated by VF devices and lack of standardization present challenges for users of VF device data.

The emergence of virtual fence (VF) as a precision livestock technology presents an opportunity to move beyond physical fences and alter grazing distribution over expansive arid and semi-arid rangelands.

VF can be used to gather and move livestock through a grazing rotation by using passive capture techniques, which enhance predictability and reliability in rotation management.

VF can effectively influence livestock distribution by dividing large, expansive pastures into smaller sub-pastures and help reduce livestock access to riparian ecosystems.

Although preliminary results suggest VF has promise as a dynamic grazing-management tool, more controlled research in the desert Southwest is needed to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the system.

In a production setting, the accuracy of virtual fence (VF) collars is crucial, particularly when dealing with small-scale pastures or making precise management decisions.

Without a clear understanding of the accuracy associated with VF collars, some intended uses may be limited, or inadvertent problems may be created.

With a better understanding of a VF collar's accuracy, users can design and implement more effective VFs into their production system.

The initial introduction of animals to VF plays a crucial role in training and influences the success of implementing future VF scenarios.

Riparian area protection, critical habitat protection, and rotational grazing are conservation practices with important ecosystem benefits, but they often require a large amount of physical fencing to implement.

Virtual fencing (VF) technology is effective for protecting small areas of critical habitat from cattle grazing in areas containing highly desirable forage.

VF technology is effective in excluding cattle from riparian areas; therefore, research is needed to understand how VF may benefit other ecosystems.

VF technology may be effective for implementing rotational grazing, and research is needed to understand the management of VF for rotational grazing across a wide range of grazing conditions.

Overall, VF technology has promise for protecting riparian areas and critical habitats from cattle grazing as well as for implementing rotational grazing.

Virtual fencing (VF) has multiple potential uses, including managing grazing lands to advance conservation.

The first 2 years of our before-after-control-impact experiment showed promising results in tallgrass prairie uplands and streams.

Vegetation height, some bird abundances, and stream invertebrates responded to the experiment as predicted despite high collar failure and interannual variability in weather.

Collar refinement and additional years will provide more information on the utility of VF for conservation

Virtual fence (VF) technology is rapidly developing and being adopted, but many ranchers and consumers have questions about its effect on the welfare of range beef cattle.

We conducted two studies using either VF collars or conventional electric fencing to rotationally graze beef cattle. We measured several common physiological and behavioral indicators of stress and correlated these indicators with the number of electric stimuli received from the VF collars.

Physiological and behavioral indicators of stress were not different between cattle rotated within the two types of fencing. No correlations were evident between the number of electrical stimuli received and stress indicators. From the perspective of cattle welfare, we concluded that continued development and use of VF is warranted.

Virtual fence (VF) technologies can aid cattle producers in applying grazing management for land resource objectives.

Acute stress and animal welfare are important factors to consider when adopting VF on rangelands.

VF did not cause increased heart rate (HR) to mature, lactating beef cows when receiving audio or electric cues during a 30-minute period.

Increased HR was observed when cattle interacted with the electric cue boundary, but HR typically returned to levels observed during a control period within 30 seconds to 4 minutes.

Overall, VF caused minimal acute stress to the mature cows with calves and cattle learned to respond to audio cue warnings and avoid electric cues after being trained.

Containing cattle with a virtual fence (VF) has gained considerable attention. VF technology uses auditory and electric stimuli to contain or exclude cattle from predetermined areas, which has raised concerns over cattle welfare.

We evaluated blood markers associated with stress and inflammatory response when naive cattle were fitted with VF collars.

We detected no major changes in blood markers. Cattle were able to quickly identify and adapt to VF boundaries and over time reduce the number of stimuli.

Our results indicate VF technology can contain cattle within a pre-established boundary and does not negatively impact cattle welfare.

Virtual fencing (VF) for livestock is being commercialized by several companies in the United States.

Ranchers and land managers are interested in the potential benefits of VF but have reservations about its cost.

Cost structures of VF systems vary and are different from physical fencing, making direct comparisons difficult.

We explore relevant costs and outline scenarios where VF systems are likely to be cost effective.

We discuss practical considerations for livestock producers and rangeland managers who are considering adopting VF.

Extension can fill a gap between understanding virtual fencing (VF) technology and implementing it on the landscape by providing unbiased information to stakeholders.

Kolb's experiential learning theory (ELT) focuses on how individuals learn best by doing, which can help learners enhance critical thinking, develop a deeper understanding of the material, and support lifelong learning.

We advocate that Extension educators leverage ELT by also considering different customer types as they relate to technology adoption: early adopters, early majority, and late majority.

Extension educators can focus outreach efforts on awareness campaigns, field demonstrations, peer learning groups (PLG), and research to foster the adoption of new precision ranching technologies such as VF.

PLG can foster a learning community in which producers share experiences using VF, allowing the PLG to then become a successful network of individuals with common goals and establish communication, honesty, trust, and a shared worldview.

ELT can be extended to teaching college students about precision ranching technologies because these students are future rangeland management professionals who will encounter further advancements and offerings of precision ranching technology such as VF.