by Celia Baerwalde and Jonathan Vivas, Michigan State University Extension

Effective policymaking in agriculture depends on supporting systems that are profitable and environmentally sound, but also promote the well-being of producers. For cow-calf operations, especially in rural areas where beef production anchors local economies, challenges like social isolation, financial instability and increasing climate extremes threaten both producer livelihood and community resilience.

Understanding the situations to which farmers and ranchers have adapted and from which they have recovered might offer valuable insights for strengthening the long-term viability of cow-calf systems and their resilience. With such a goal in mind, our social science team, as part of the Metrics, Management and Monitoring (3M) project, are looking into the experiences of cow-calf operations across three distinct eco-regions: Michigan, Oklahoma/Texas and Wyoming/Colorado.

In 2023, the social science team of the 3M project carried out a participatory activity called World Café, following Jennifer Hodbod’s methodology, to gather details about producer experiences with stressor events and response strategies. These events were grouped into four categories. For instance, prices or market disruptions were labeled as financial. The clusters were also categorized as “press” if they were long-term processes (e.g., laws or regulations, etc.) or “pulse” if they were one-time events (e.g., fires, COVID-19, etc.). Producers collaboratively reconstructed the shocks they experienced in a timeline.

What we learned

The study revealed a certain level of variation in disturbances experienced by producers across regions. Social factors were the most frequently experienced (33.16% of total events), underscoring the importance of community dynamics, cultural shifts and societal perceptions. Environmental (27.46%) and financial (23.83%) factors also played major roles, while policy-related challenges (15.54%) were the least persistent. Of all events, 44.55% were categorized as “press” stressors (e.g., rising input costs) and were just slightly less frequent than sudden “pulse” events (e.g., droughts; 55.55%).

Regional differences shaped the types of challenges and suggested targeted resilience strategies (see Fig. 2). In Michigan and Wyoming/Colorado, social and environmental challenges were the two prominent categories. For instance, producers in Michigan reported bovine tuberculosis breakouts and farm succession challenges, while in Wyoming/Colorado urban encroachment and the challenges of ecotourism were commonly cited by producers. In Oklahoma/Texas we observed a strong focus on social and financial stressors, such as monopolies in processing and packing options, or the modern shift to technology and social media.

We differentiated between ongoing press stressors and sudden pulse events. In Michigan and Oklahoma/Texas, pulse events were more common — more reports of wildfires and droughts, for example. In Wyoming and Colorado, producers reported an equal number of press and pulse events. Those producers felt stress from the chronic threat of invasive species or federal-level policies implementing land use restrictions for ranchers. This pattern suggests producers must navigate both chronic pressures and sudden disruptions. With these indicators, producers can be guided by common disruptions to understand where their approaches to adaptability could be focused.

Why does this matter?

Workshops provided rich, qualitative insights, helping producers identify key themes and connections to strengthen resilience. Notable concerns included soil health and ecological monitoring (Michigan), interconnected well-being (Wyoming/Colorado), or the effects of extreme weather and the need for data-driven decision-making (Oklahoma/Texas). These findings emphasize the central role of social networks in supporting producer resilience through shared knowledge, emotional support and collaborative learning.

The regional policy, climate and social differences have shaped the types of challenges and suggest various resilience strategies. Michigan showed an equal distribution across all factor types, calling for a holistic resilience approach. Wyoming/Colorado emphasized social and environmental challenges, indicating a need for strategies focused on community cohesion and ecological adaptation. Oklahoma/Texas reflected a strong focus on social and financial stressors, highlighting the importance of market access, financial stability and social support.

While the data reflects the views of voluntary participants and limits broad generalization, the producer-driven process highlighted valuable, region-specific resilience insights to inform future research, outreach, and policy efforts.

Editor’s note: This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. It is the first in a series of articles describing the hardships to which cow-calf producers in three regions of the United States have adapted. For more information, visit https://extension.msu.edu.

Funding for this research was provided by the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR grant number: DSnew-0000000028), the Noble Research Institute, Greenacres Foundation, the Jones Family Foundation and Butcherbox. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of our funders.

Angus Beef Bulletin EXTRA, Vol. 17, No. 6-B