U.S. Grass-Fed Beef Producers: Goal Structure and Reasons for Enterprise Selection

Sitienei, Isaac; Gillespie, Jeffrey M.; Scaglia, Guillermo

doi:10.1017/aae.2019.36

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beef cattle, equine, poultry, and swine Extension Facebook pages had similar follower demographics; most followers were female, middle-aged, and from the United States. Beef and dairy cattle followers in this study tended to be younger than average ages previously reported for U.S. beef (55 to 70 years) and dairy cattle producers (>50 years; Martin et al, 2018;Sitienei et al, 2020;USDA NASS, 2015Wagner et al, 2020). In contrast, age demographics observed for equine, poultry, and swine followers were consistent with past reports for U.S. equine caretakers (45 to 60 years) and poultry (35 to 64 years) and swine producers (averaged 37 to 51 years; American Horse Council, 2018; Simpson et al, 2020;Stowe, 2012;USDA NASS, 2014, 2020.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 45%

“…Gender demographics for dairy cattle and equine followers aligned past U.S. producer and caretaker demographic reports that found a majority were female (American Horse Council, 2018;Stowe, 2018;USDA NASS, 2019;Wagner et al, 2020). However, previous reports show the majority of U.S. beef cattle, poultry, and swine producers are male (Simpson et al, 2020;Sitienei et al, 2020;USDA NASS, 2014, 2015, 2020. While the primary target audiences of livestock Extension Facebook pages are producers and caretakers, social media sites allow for a more expansive audience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Audience engagement when disseminating livestock information through infographics on social media

Lochner

Swenson

Martinson

2021

Natural Sciences Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infographics utilize visuals to narrate complex information in a simple and concise manner and may represent an educational opportunity for Extension professionals. The objective of this project was to evaluate the effect of communication mode on audience engagement and reach through social media. We hypothesized infographic posts would elicit a greater number of reactions, comments, shares, and people reached compared to webpage link posts. Four informational webpages for five different livestock species (n = 20) were selected from the University of Minnesota (UMN) Extension website and were utilized to create corresponding infographics.Two infographic-webpage pairs were systematically assigned to a month and posted to the associated UMN Extension livestock Facebook page (www.facebook.com).Posts occurred on the first and third Mondays of the month with a one-week washout period between post types. Facebook metrics were recorded at 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 168 h following posting. Results were compared using mixed-effect negative binomial regression models and reported as estimated marginal means following back transformation. Overall, posts containing infographics tended to elicit more reactions, comments, shares, and reach compared to posts containing webpage links; however, significance varied among audiences. These findings support infographics as a valuable tool for Extension professionals to effectively disseminate science-based, livestock information on social media.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 45%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audience engagement when disseminating livestock information through infographics on social media

Lochner

Swenson

Martinson

2021

Natural Sciences Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They identify six themes that are critical to social sustainability in the beef industry: human health; learning/adaptation; community relations; equity and inclusion; land ownership, tenure, and succession; and industry structure [12]. While the research on these themes is sparse, a recent study by Sitienei et al (2020) found that social sustainability goals, and specifically human health, was a leading reason U.S. grass-fed beef (GFB) producers chose to participate in the grass-fed enterprise, rather than economic or environmental [38]. Recently, social sustainability themes have also been covered in popular media, raising a new level of public awareness and concern.…”

Section: Sustainability and Beef Production In The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. beef producer perspectives on “sustainable beef” and implications for sustainability transitions

Smith,

Metcalf,

Metcalf

et al. 2024

Discov Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beef production systems are at the center of ongoing discussion and debate on food systems sustainability. There is a growing interest among beef producers, consumers, and other beef supply chain stakeholders in achieving greater sustainability within the industry, but the relationship of this interest to general sustainability issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, food security, livelihood risks, and animal welfare concerns is unclear. Specifically, there is very little research documenting how beef producers define and view the concept of sustainability and how to achieve it. Producer perspectives are critical to identifying constraints to sustainability transitions or to help build agreement with other producers about the shared values such transitions may support. Through a secondary analysis of survey data of U.S. beef producers (n = 911) conducted in 2021 by the Trust in Food division of Farm Journal, a corporation that provides content, data, and business insights to the agricultural community (e.g., producers, processors/distributors, and retailers), we investigated what “sustainable beef” means to U.S. beef producers, highlighting the key components and constraints they perceive to achieving desirable sustainability outcomes. Leveraging the three-pillar model of sustainability as a framework for analysis, we identified key themes producers use to define “sustainable beef.” We found that producers collectively viewed sustainability as: (1) multidimensional and interconnected; (2) semi-closed and regenerative; (3) long-lasting; and (4) producer-centered, although an integrated perspective uniting these aspects was rare. We discuss how these perspectives may be the basis for sustainability efforts supported by producers and raise future research considerations toward a shared understanding of what sustainability is and what is needed for enduring sustainability solutions in the U.S. beef industry.

show abstract

“…We rely heavily on this approach and nomenclature, as it is directly relevant to sustainable working grasslands in the U.S. However, van Calker et al's [126] purpose was to derive a sustainability function, while our purpose is to demonstrate the need to explicitly understand tradeoffs among multiple sustainability indicators for working grasslands Management requires allocating resources that are typically finite to achieve a desired outcome. A single objective management problem is relatively simple to solve-find the action or set of actions that leads to the best desired outcome.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Tradeoffs For Working Grasslandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Birds and the Bees: Producing Beef and Conservation Benefits on Working Grasslands

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, grasslands have been heavily degraded, more so than any other biome. Grasslands of the eastern U.S. are no exception to this trend and, consequently, native biota associated with the region’s >20 million ha of agricultural grasslands are under considerable stress. For example, grassland associated breeding bird populations have declined precipitously in recent decades as have numerous species of pollinators. Although there is increasing awareness of the role grasslands can play in global carbon cycles and in providing high quality dietary proteins needed by an increasing global population, there is a lack of awareness of the alarming trends in the sustainability of the native biota of these ecosystems. Here, we present the status of this conservation challenge and offer prospective solutions through a working lands conservation approach. Such a strategy entails maintaining appropriate disturbances (i.e., grazing, fire, and their combination), improved grazing management, an increased reliance on native grasses and forbs, and improved plant diversity within pastures. Furthermore, we note some examples of opportunities to achieve these goals, offer suggestions for agricultural and conservation policy, and provide a framework for evaluating tradeoffs that are inevitably required when pursuing a multi-purpose grassland management framework.

show abstract

U.S. Grass-Fed Beef Producers: Goal Structure and Reasons for Enterprise Selection

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Audience engagement when disseminating livestock information through infographics on social media

Audience engagement when disseminating livestock information through infographics on social media

U.S. beef producer perspectives on “sustainable beef” and implications for sustainability transitions

The Birds and the Bees: Producing Beef and Conservation Benefits on Working Grasslands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About