Last week we looked at the decision framework Joel Yelich presented at Copper Mountain and asked who ends up owning the data from a collar. The takeaway was simple: don’t start with the technology, start with the problem you’re trying to solve.

This week is the practical follow-up.

A producer in Montana’s Madison Valley uses virtual fencing to sort cattle without gathering them. Another uses it because conventional fence doesn’t pencil out on the country he’s trying to manage. Those are the kinds of operations getting value from virtual fencing today. They had a specific management problem before they bought the collars.

At the same time, producers are being asked to sort through a growing list of vendors, subscription models, coverage claims, and price points.

Fortunately, two recent resources help cut through the noise: a September field assessment from NCAT/ATTRA specialists Darron Gaus and Tracy Mumma, and an August vendor comparison from Kansas State beef systems specialist Jaymelynn Farney. Together, they provide something producers rarely get in one place: an independent assessment of whether virtual fencing works and a side-by-side look at what is actually for sale.

We've condensed both, added the pricing the extension summaries leave out, and framed it for the way most of our readers run cattle.

First time reading? Sign up for free here