Virtual fencing to build soil health, range productivity, and rancher wellbeing in drought-prone ranches

Virtual fences have become one more tool that a rancher can employ to fulfill their financial, ecological, and quality of life aims. There are several options for virtual fencing entering the market, and what most of them have in common is the use of a GPS device attached to a collar, which allows the rancher to know where each animal is at any time. Together with the GPS, each collar has a signal receiver that will trigger a sound and/or an electric impulse when the GPS gets close to a virtual line that the rancher is able to create as he pleases.

As with any other fence, the way to evaluate a virtual fence is according to its capacity to contain cattle, in relation to its cost and the labor it demands. What advantages can a virtual fence show against barbed wire and electric fences? The ease of “building” them, moving them, fencing inaccessible areas, or areas where other kinds of fencing are not allowed or not possible to build. Will it hold the cattle as good as a barbed wire fence? Maybe not, but since they are going to be built on top of the existing net of fences, the worse case scenario will be that some cattle might get out of the virtual fence, but they will be held by the current fences; since they have to go to the same drinker than the rest of the herd, they will gather themselves with the rest of the herd. The next question we need to ask is: If the virtual fence holds 70 or 80 or 90% of the herd, will the management of the herd fulfill the purposes of the rancher? That should be the guideline to evaluate this technology. On the other hand, it must be understood that the evaluation of the ecological impact resulting from the use of the virtual fence will be a reflection of the ranchers' work, knowledge, and use of the fence, more than the fence itself.

Objective 1. Compare the costs of rotational grazing using traditional infrastructure (permanent and electric fencing) and emerging virtual fencing technologies. 

I have grazing and management records for the duration of time owning and managing Taiban Creek Ranch. I will continue to track my family’s time, use of machinery such as trucks off-road vehicles, use of horses, use of tools for fence repair etc. These costs will be combined to compare the costs of current rotational grazing to the costs of the tower purchase and continued rental of the collars. I will also track emerging costs such as additional power or connectivity needs.

We hypothesize that after the first year, which is likely to require additional effort to set-up the system and train the animals, the amount of time (moving animals between pastures) and resources (tools and materials to fix fences) will decrease. With the virtual fence technology, the rancher gets it easier and more enjoyable, since he is able to design, build and move the fences to manage his cattle, from the comfort and the versatility of a phone, ipad or computer, almost from anywhere.

Objective 2. Compare the benefits to livestock behavior and health of rotational grazing using traditional infrastructure and emerging virtual fencing technologies. 

Some metrics, including sale weight and body condition score at different times of year, will use a "before-after" design and compare existing records to those that will be collected through the next three years after adding the virtual fencing. Others metrics will include distances traveled, rest periods, etc. will be compared using data from the virtual fencing receivers after virtual fencing is put in place and animals become accustomed to it, so we will compare year 1 with years 2 and 3. 

I hypothesize that animals will have a higher sale weight and better body condition score after the virtual fencing. I will be able to compare animals that are lame and not walking as much as others or animals that are sick and require more rest and will be able to remove them from the herd, and thus we expect that we will have more consistent animal behavior in years 2 and 3 as we use data to manage both the grazing but also stocking.

Objective 3. Compare the benefits to plant community (using functional groups) and in turn soil health of rotational grazing using traditional infrastructure and emerging virtual fencing technologies.  

I will leverage open source, satellite- and model-based data repositories such as rangelands.app to compare plant functional diversity (annual vs. perennial forb and grass, shrub, bare ground, etc.) and biomass both through time (1980s - present) and compared to neighboring ranches. I have used this app previously and already noticed changes to bare ground from before to after I took over stewardship of this ranch. Rangelands.app also includes precipitation data, an important covariate for understanding vegetation performance over a given time period. The use of this response is a major reason for the study to extend three years so that we can compare through time and over a wide extent.

We hypothesize that virtual fencing will improve soil health and plant performance because the management aligns with Healthy Soil Principles. Tracking bare ground across an entire ranch is an important metric for understanding risk of wind and water erosion as well as gauging how well management is aligned with the Healthy Soil Principle “keep the ground covered.” Additionally, tracking annual vs. perennial vegetation and relative abundance of different functional groups (forb/gras vs. shrub vs. tree) all help understand how management is aligned with additional Healthy Soil Principles “maintain a living root” and “maximize biodiversity.” Finally, moving animals in real time based on ambient conditions can "minimize disturbance" - for example, keeping animals off of an area of high clay content during a rainy day can keep the soil protected and the plant performance optimal.