Farmer says virtual fencing ‘appropriate’, but RSPCA says electric shock causes ‘acute stress’ to animals

Momentum is growing in one of Australia’s largest cattle-producing states to overturn a ban on virtual fencing technology.

Virtual fencing is the containment of animals without fixed fences.

The technology provides signals to the animals, including audio cues, which tell the animal it is approaching the invisible boundary before the animal receives an electric shock once it crosses over.

The legislation restricts the use of virtual fencing in NSW, Victoria, SA, NT and ACT, with exceptions for research purposes.

However, the uptake from farmers in jurisdictions where it is legal has highlighted how much interest there is in the technology.

In New Zealand, more than 150,000 cows are using virtual fencing collars, and in Tasmania, about 20,000 are using the technology.

NSW Farmers Dairy Committee chair Phil Ryan said it ‘just makes sense’ to have it approved for use in NSW.

“There is a growing body of evidence that this is appropriate technology for animal welfare,” he said.

“I think that there’s a real potential there for labour saving, and time efficiencies, and probably better pasture utilisation and possibly even better animal welfare outcomes.

“The only way this works for farmers is if it also works for cows.”

No stranger to adopting ag tech on his property in the Bega Valley, Mr Ryan is already using satellite mapping to measure pasture quality and collars to monitor the health of his cows.

“I’ve got collars on my cows now, not for electric fencing purposes,” he said.

“It’s the equivalent virtually of a Fitbit-type device for a cow, which gives me real-time wireless information on that cow’s activity and health.”

Push for regulatory change

Last year, independent member for Orange Phil Donato tabled a notice of motion to NSW Parliament aimed at amending the act, which currently restricts the use of virtual fencing in the state due to animal welfare concerns.

It is expected to be debated in February and Mr Donato is confident it will garner enough support.

“I have had discussions with the government and hope to have their support,” Mr Donato said.

“Allowing virtual fencing will mean farmers can save on the cost of fencing and allow livestock to be tracked.”

Mr Donato visited farms in Queensland to inspect virtual fencing.

He said he was confident animal welfare was not an issue that should prevent virtual fencing being introduced in NSW.

“We want to ensure welfare of animals is paramount,” Mr Donato said.

“That animals aren’t subjected to electric pulses unnecessarily … but it’s no different to electric fences or farmers using electric cattle prods.”

Animal welfare concerns

The RSPCA declined an interview with ABC Rural but, in a statement, reiterated its opposition to the technology.

“RSPCA is opposed to the use of electronically activated devices that deliver an electric shock to animals, as these are aversive,” the spokesperson said.

The RSPCA said using electric shocks to train animals raised significant ethical and animal welfare concerns.

The animal welfare charity said electric shock had been shown to produce an acute stress response in animals.

In addition, pain, aversion and chronic stress may occur, it says.

NZ tech startup Halter was the first to introduce the virtual fence technology to farmers in Tasmania in 2022, offering subscriptions starting at $8.50 per month per cow.

Halter partnerships manager Steve Crowhurst told ABC Rural last year the solar-powered, GPS-enabled equipment now hitting the Australian market was a “far cry” from the brutal dog collars that triggered bans in multiple Australian states. 

“It’s not there to hurt the cow,” he said.

“It’s actually 100 to 200 times less than a standard electric fence on a farm.”

Caroline Lee, senior principal research scientist at CSIRO, said the key principle in measuring animal welfare was designing a system that assisted rapid learning among livestock.

“We’ve found that if you have these two important elements of predictability and controllability — then animals have minimal welfare impacts,” Ms Lee said.

“The research has shown that after around on average three interactions with the virtual boundary, we are seeing that animals learn to avoid receiving the electric shock, and they respond to the audio cue alone.

“The research that we’ve done and others have done to date does show that the welfare impacts of virtual fencing are minimal.”

Caroline Lee said studies indicated virtual fences were no worse for cattle than a standard electrical fence.

However, she conceded more research was needed to ensure long-term animal impacts are properly understood.