Search for: All records

Abstract 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. 

Addressing the challenges of wildland fire requires that fire science be relevant to management and integrated into management decisions. Co-production is often touted as a process that can increase the utility of science for management, by involving scientists and managers in knowledge creation and problem solving. Despite the documented benefits of co-production, these efforts face a number of institutional barriers. Further research is needed on how to institutionalise support and incentivise co-production. To better understand how research organisations enable and constrain co-production, this study examined seven co-produced wildland fire projects associated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), through in-depth interviews with scientists, managers and community members. Results provide insights into how organisational structures and cultures influence the co-production of fire science. Research organisations like RMRS may be able to institutionalise co-production by adjusting the way they incentivise and evaluate researchers, increasing investment in science delivery and scientific personnel overall, and supplying long-term funding to support time-intensive collaborations. These sorts of structural changes could help transform the culture of fire science so that co-production is valued alongside more conventional scientific activities and products. 

Growing demand for water resources coupled with climate-driven water scarcity and variability present critical challenges to agriculture in the Western US. Despite extensive resources allocated to downscaling climate projections and advances in understanding past, current, and future climatic conditions, climate information is underutilized in decisions made by agricultural producers. Climate information providers need to understand why this information is underutilized and what would better meet the needs of producers. To better understand how agricultural producers perceive and utilize climate information, we conducted five focus groups with farmers and ranchers across Montana. Focus groups revealed that there are fundamental scalar issues (spatial and temporal) that make climate information challenging for producers to use. While climate information is typically produced at regional, national, or global spatial scales and at a seasonal and mid- to end-of-century temporal scales, producers indicated that decision-making takes place at multiple intermediate and small temporal and spatial scales. In addition, producers described other drivers of decision-making that have little to do with climate information itself, but rather aspects of source credibility, past experience, trust in information, and the politics of climate change. Through engaging directly with end-users, climate information providers can better understand the spatial and temporal scales that align with different types of agricultural producers and decisions, as well as the limitations of information provision given the complexity of the decision context. Increased engagement between climate information providers and end-users can also address the important tradeoffs that exist between scale and uncertainty.