Virtual fencing has been legalized in New South Wales, and supporters are already calling it a lifesaver for managing livestock without physical barriers. The concept lets farmers move or confine animals using a collar system that emits sounds and, if necessary, a mild electric pulse when an animal crosses a pre-set boundary. Boundary adjustments and individual animal data can be monitored through a mobile app, giving farmers real-time oversight.
Australia already allows virtual fencing in several states, where many farmers praise its effectiveness. Yet in NSW, opinions are mixed. One farmer, Angus McIntosh, sees clear benefits but worries about the collar maintenance, technology reliability, and the resilience of the system during emergencies when networks might fail.
Cost is another major consideration. McIntosh runs around 2,000 sheep and 100 cattle on roughly 1,400 hectares in Molong and notes that affordability is key, especially for managing a few hundred head at a time. The upfront outlay includes hundreds of dollars per cow for the collars and additional towers to establish virtual boundaries. Pamela Lawson of the Kondinin Group notes a typical tower can cost about $6,000, depending on land topography and how many towers are needed. Ongoing costs include an app subscription of roughly $2 to $2.50 per cow per month.
How the system works varies by provider. Halter, a virtual fence manufacturer, describes its collars as an “Apple Watch for cows,” using solar power to monitor health and fertility indicators while guiding movement. A central tower on the property connects to the farmer’s internet or cellular service, with satellite-backed backup to ensure operation if one link fails. In Tasmania, virtual fencing is already in use on about 23% of dairy herds, though broader adoption in beef production, especially on extensive grazing farms, may take longer due to the number of collars and area involved.
Supporters point to potential cost savings. Traditional fencing can cost around $12,000 per kilometre, and farmers may install two to three kilometres of new fencing annually. Virtual fencing costs depend on animal numbers and land topography but could, in the first year, approach a farmer’s typical fencing budget, with significant reductions in subsequent years. Phil Donato, the Orange MP who has championed NSW legalization, cites examples from other states of reduced fuel expenses and more family time; he even quotes a Tasmanian farmer whose fuel bill dropped from $1,000 to about $100 per month after switching to virtual fencing.
Emergency performance is a central concern. Proponents argue the system excels in dangerous conditions by enabling remote management of livestock, potentially reducing risk to people during bushfires or floods. Still, some NSW observers worry about relying on mobile networks in rural areas. The case for satellite connectivity as a backup is strong, and many in the sector believe satellite navers are more reliable for maintaining boundary supervision when terrestrial networks falter. Overall, virtual fencing appears poised to be a disruptive tool for large farms and smaller operations alike, but its ultimate value will hinge on cost, reliability, and how well it integrates with existing farm practices.
