Halter! Who goes there?

The news in March 2026 that the New Zealand technology company “Halter” had successfully raised  a new tranche of funding, to expand its operations into Australia and further afield, attracted considerable interest not all of which was positive. The company produces solar powered collars which, when worn by cattle, allow virtual fencing and finely tuned monitoring of grazing, as well as heat detection, all controlled from the farmer’s cell phone or laptop. While the system focuses on grass based systems, the company claims that the resulting improvements to grazing and reproductive performance can bring more sustainable farming, as well as improving profitability. As of July 2025, over 400,000 animals were wearing Halter collars and the company was declared to be the fastest growing in New Zealand by Deloites. Other systems of “virtual fencing” are also available and the “cow wearables” market is a rapidly growing field.

It was always likely that such dramatic growth came  with some controversy. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has banned the use of virtual collars on farms operating under their revised dairy cattle welfare standards. It should however be noted that, the same standards emphasise that cows must have access to pasture at least 120 days of the year, and that grazing is fundamental to the Halter system. VetSalus has a fundamental interest in both animal welfare and sustainable farming and this article will examine the pros and cons of this exciting new technology.

The collars, which are fitted comfortably around the necks of cows, are solar powered and rely on the generation of an audible signal and vibration when animals stray outside a pre-defined area. Persistent offenders are “disciplined” by a small electric shock and it is this feature which has generated resistance from bodies like the RSPCA. The use of electric fencing in farming is, of course, not new with some of the early development also originating in New Zealand in the early 1900’s. Electric fencing, which can be permanent or temporary, is now utilised worldwide and modern systems are more effective and humane than the originals but still fundamentally rely on the administration of an electric shock, without an audible early warning. For some time, opinions have recognised that electric fencing can bring possible welfare issues and that these could potentially also apply to products like Halter?

When judging animal welfare it is of course always important to apply factual criteria and avoid anthropomorphism and other more emotional aspects. The fundamentals of animal welfare are generally based on aspects of the five freedoms, which have been established since the 1990’s and are:

• Freedom from hunger and thirst

• Freedom from discomfort

• Freedom from pain, injury or disease

• Freedom to express normal behaviour

• Freedom from fear and distress

Approaches to animal welfare have steadily moved forwards with advances in scientific knowledge, with some authors suggesting alternative approaches and considerations, including “a life worth living” are more relevant. Presumably it is concerns around pain, distress and discomfort that have given rise to the current collar debate? There is growing evidence that animals quickly learn to respond to audible signals and also observe the behaviour of herd mates: the number of electric shocks experienced by livestock rapidly reduces. There is a useful summary of virtual fencing systems and welfare aspects in a recent article in UK Vet Livestock. A detailed discussion of animal welfare theory is beyond the scope of this article.

But what of other sustainability concerns? There are a number of aspects to consider here including the impacts on grazing and animal health. Collars can be used in more extensive grazing system and allow for variations in grazing pressure which can have positive effects on undesirable grass species . Should claims of improved reproduction (by for example better heat detection) or improved cow condition (from the provision of adequate quantities of pasture) be proven, the flow on to reduced carbon foot prints becomes obvious. The reduction in the quantities of fencing materials and potentially, fossil fuels, on farms using collars should also result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. 

Possibly the most authoritative review to date on the new virtual fencing technology has been produced by the Animal Welfare Committee of the U.K. government. Their conclusion, that:

“ Virtual fencing systems for livestock have several potential welfare advantages over conventional electric fencing. With appropriate provider safeguards and operator use, these include livestock nutrition, health and welfare benefits, and benefits to the land being grazed. ” ⁹

The report has been based on extensive research and it is a conclusion with which VetSalus can agree.