































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 4, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 
1. Creigh Rourke, Content Specialist, Eldon C. Stutsman, 350 Oak Crest Hill Rd SE, Hills, IA 52235, creighr@ksu.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2320-525X  
2. Rachel Waggie, Manager of Marketing & Communications, Kansas Livestock Association, 6031 SW 37th Street, Topeka, KS 

66614, rwags@ksu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0093-6014 
3. Nellie Hill, Assistant Professor, Kansas State University, 301 Umberger Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, nlhill@ksu.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8987-3259 
4. Jason D. Ellis, Department Head & Professor, Kansas State University, 301 Umberger Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, 

jdellis@ksu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-4815 
5. Katie Starzec, Assistant Professor, Kansas State University, 301 Umberger Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, kstarzec@ksu.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-4815 
10 

 

Risk Information Sufficiency and Seeking of Southeastern U.S. 
Beef Producers 

 
C. Rourke1, R. Waggie2, N. Hill3, J. D. Ellis4, K. Starzec5 

 
 

Article History 
Received: March 16, 2023 
Accepted: September 27, 2023 
Published: October 23, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
cow-calf; quantitative; risk 
management; small operations; risk 
information seeking and processing 
model  

Abstract 
Of all cow-calf producers in the United States, one-third reside in the 
Southeast where operations face unique challenges and risks due to their 
geographical location. Cow-calf herds in the region are relatively small in 
terms of head counts as well as percentage of household incomes, 
making their operators less likely to participate in risk-reducing programs. 
Targeted risk communication is one way to help producers better 
understand and manage the multiple and complex risks they face. This 
study adapted the risk information seeking and processing model to 
inform a quantitative survey method that examined southeastern U.S. 
beef cow-calf producers’ perceived risks area knowledge gaps and the 
communication channels participants used to seek risk information. 
Participating producers were found to have gaps in knowledge for all risk 
areas in beef cow-calf management; the largest was economic and 
marketing/selling animals risks. No matter the risks area, producers 
prefer their risks information from magazines and Extension publications. 
Therefore, communication practitioners are encouraged to tailor risk 
management communications that help southeastern U.S. cow-calf 
producers fill their largest knowledge gaps in marketing/selling and 
economic risk management. Furthermore, this information is of the 
greatest need for producers with more beef production experience and 
larger herd sizes. Magazines and Extension publications offer 
communicators the best channels to readily reach southeastern U.S. cow-
calf producers as this is where they are currently seeking risks 
information.   

mailto:creighr@ksu.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2320-525X
mailto:rwags@ksu.edu
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0093-6014
mailto:nlhill@ksu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8987-3259
mailto:jdellis@ksu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-4815
mailto:kstarzec@ksu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-4815


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   11 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Beef producers strive to manage a host of interrelated operational risks (Komarek et al., 2020). 
These factors impact producers’ production practices, profits, and their use of risk management 
tools (Adkins et al., 2012; Drouillard, 2018). Risks are “things, forces, or circumstances that pose 
danger to people or to what they value” (Stern & Fineberg, 1996, p. 215). Risk communication 
warns of potential danger with the goal of influencing positive behavior change (McComas, 
2006) by empowering the use of pragmatic and constitutive “locally relevant decision support 
tools” (Rickard, 2021, p. 474). Risk management tools and educational programs have 
historically targeted crop farmers more than beef producers (Hall et al., 2000). Understanding 
beef producers’ risks information needs would help communication practitioners develop 
targeted outreach strategies to fill these deficits (Hall et al., 2003).   
 
Risks are beef sector- and region-specific (Adkins et al., 2012). The beef life cycle begins within 
the cow-calf sector, which uniquely consists of herds with breeding cows and their offspring 
that must be simultaneously managed (Martinez et al., 2020). Of the national cow herd, 20% 
reside in the Southeast region and are owned by one-third of the nation’s beef cow-calf 
producers (Asem-Hiablie et al., 2018; Drouillard, 2018). Smaller than average cow-calf 
operations, common in the southeast region, are less likely to engage with programs that help 
mitigate operational risks (Drouillard, 2018; USDA APHIS, 2020). The multiple sources of risks 
managed simultaneously by beef producers at differing scales have received little scholarly 
attention (Komarek et al., 2020). The unique risks faced by Southeastern U.S. cow-calf 
operations necessitated an investigation of their risks information sufficiency and relevant 
channel beliefs (Asem-Hiablie et al., 2018). 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The risk information seeking and processing (RISP) model served as the conceptual framework 
for this study. The most studied variables in the model are information gathering capacity, 
relevant channel beliefs, information sufficiency, and informational subjective norms (Griffin et 
al., 2013). Variables in the RISP model have been studied as predictors of risk information 
seeking, risk information avoidance, and systematic and heuristic processing (Griffin et al., 
2004). Three factors in the RISP model—information insufficiency, relevant channel beliefs, and 
information gathering capacity— “are expected to combine to affect individuals’ seeking, 
avoidance, and processing of risk information” (Griffin et al., 2013, p. 333). We pulled data from 
a larger study to focus on two of those factors: information insufficiency and relevant channel 
beliefs. 
 
Within the RISP model, information sufficiency is a person’s satisfactory level of knowledge and 
information to cope with the risk, measured as a threshold (Griffin et al., 2013). Alternatively, 
information insufficiency is the “gap between what one already knows and what one desires to 
know” (Griffin et al., 1999 as quoted in Kahlor et al., 2019, p. 2). People will strive to fill the gap 
between their current level of knowledge and their desired level of knowledge to achieve 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   12 
 

information sufficiency and inform decision making about risks. Gaps in knowledge, or 
information insufficiency, drive varying levels of motivation in information seeking (Griffin et 
al., 1999). Achieving information sufficiency depends on the usefulness and trustworthiness of 
available information (Griffin et al., 2013).  
 
Relevant communication channel beliefs are usually related to what an individual expects to 
result from using the specific channel for seeking information about risks (Dunwoody & Griffin, 
2014). In the context of the beef industry, channels providing risks information include print 
magazines, Extension publications, live demonstrations, conferences, and newsletters, among 
others (Vergot III et al., 2005). Information sufficiency and relevant channel beliefs are 
impacted at varying levels by the characteristics of the individual (Griffin et al., 2013), which 
may include relevant hazard experiences, political philosophies, and demographic/sociocultural 
variables (Griffin et al., 1999). This study focuses on information sufficiency and relevant 
channel beliefs in an effort to support risk communicators’ efforts to target risks area 
information to beef producers who are attentive to such information through their channels of 
choice.  
 
The RISP model has been applied in varying contexts, including industrial chemical risks (ter 
Huurne et al., 2009), food choices (Fischer & Frewer, 2009), health risks (Hovick et al., 2011; 
Hubner & Hovick, 2020; Yang et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2020), climate change (Yang et al., 
2014b), wildlife disease management (Cross et al., 2018), and genetic modification information 
(Holt et al., 2020). Information sufficiency has been found to be the strongest predictor of 
information seeking behaviors, even when other variables in the RISP model are controlled 
(Cross et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2022). Current knowledge, a variable in information sufficiency, 
has been found to consistently influence behavioral outcomes (Yang et al., 2014a). Relevant 
channel beliefs can have an interaction effect on the relationship between information 
sufficiency leading to systematic information processing (Yang et al., 2022). Risks exist outside 
of informational knowledge gaps, but in this study, we focused on risks related to information 
insufficiency and relevant channel beliefs in relation to RISP and their connection to successfully 
seeking and processing new information about risks (Griffin et al., 2013), or what we refer to in 
this study as “risk areas.”   
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to identify southeastern U.S. beef cow-calf producers’ risks 
information sufficiency and relevant channel beliefs, guided by these research questions: 
1. To what extent did perceived risks area knowledge gaps exist for producers?  
2. What communication channels did producers use to seek risks information? 
 
Answers to these research questions add to the current understanding of risks information 
needs of southeastern U.S. beef cow-calf producers. Answers to these questions also give 
communication practitioners information needed to (a) better understand on which topics and 
to what extend risks-related knowledge gaps exist, with an opportunity to better focus their 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   13 
 

messaging, and (b) better understand which communication channels to use to reach producers 
seeking risks information. 
 

Methods 
 
Our population of interest was cow-calf producers who operated in the states of Alabama, 
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Virginia, and West Virginia (Adkins et al., 2012). University departments, state Extension 
systems, and cattlemen’s associations sent a recruitment email to producers through their 
organizations’ communication channels. In the 11 states studied, there were 199,106 farms 
with an inventory of beef cattle (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2017). Due to the 
number of operations and logistical and financial restrictions, the sample was compiled using 
nonprobability sampling, thus the results are not generalizable to a larger population (Baker et 
al., 2013; Wimmer & Dominick, 2014). Data collection occurred from February 8 to March 16, 
2020, resulting in 504 responses. We acknowledge the data is three years old from the time of 
collection to publishing. However, past research on agricultural producers’ information seeking 
also has a publishing timeframe of 2-3 years (e.g. Diekmann & Batte, 2009; Jensen et al., 2009; 
Rients et al., 2022). Cases were included in the data analysis of each question if the respondent 
answered more than half of the variables needed for analysis, resulting in 418 usable 
responses. Participants’ (n = 355) ages ranged from 23 to 85, (M = 52.58, SD = 14.10). Most 
participants (n = 325; 86%) indicated 51% or more of their income is from off-farm sources, 
consistent with national U.S. statistics (USDA Economic Research Service, 2022). Description of 
individual characteristics is in Table 1. 
 
  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   14 
 

Table 1 
 
Individual Characteristics of Respondent Southeastern Beef Cow-Calf Producers 

Characteristics n % 
Gender (n = 378)     

Male 311 81 
Female 67 18 

Household income (n = 368)     
Less than $19,999 1 .2 
20-39,999 11 3 
40-59,999 36 9 
60-79,999 59 17 
80-99,999 70 14 
Greater than $100,000 191 46 

Source of household income (n = 377)     
51+% off-farm 325 86 
51+% on-farm 52 14 

Education level (n = 381)     
Some high school 1 .2 
High school/GED 63 15 
Associate degree 40 10 
Trade/technical school 29 7 
Bachelor’s degree 123 29 
Master’s degree 69 17 
Doctorate degree 56 13 

Cattle production experience (n = 418)     
0-9 92 22 
10-19 79 19 
20-29 60 14 
30-39 62 15 
40-49 65 16 
More than 50 60 14 

Herd size (n = 418)     
1-10 24 6 
11-25 75 18 
26-50 91 22 
51-75 68 16 
76-100 54 13 
101-299 75 18 
More than 300 31 7 

Race/Ethnicity (n = 383)     
Caucasian 373 89 
African American 3 .7 
American Indian or Alaska Native 2 .5 
Asian 1 .2 
Hispanic/Latino 1 .2 
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander - - 
Other  3 .7 

State of operation (n = 418)     
Alabama 8 2 
Florida 24 6 
Georgia 25 6 
Kentucky 140 33 
Louisiana 14 3 
Mississippi 2 .5 
North Carolina 13 3 
South Carolina 1 .2 
Tennessee 99 24 
Virginia 83 20 
West Virginia 9 2 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   15 
 

 
The online Qualtrics questionnaire consisted of 49 questions in seven sections. Questions were 
asked using yes/no, multiple choice, checklist, sliding scale, and Likert-type questions. Sections 
of the questionnaire reported for this study were individual characteristics, beef risks 
management information channels, as well as current knowledge and perceived needed 
knowledge levels in the risks areas. The risks areas were animal health, breeding management, 
calving management, animal growth, weaning, economics, and marketing/selling animals (Hall 
et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2019a; Martin et al., 2019b). 
 
Individual characteristics questions included cattle production experience, operation location, 
and herd size. Participants were asked to indicate their use of communication channels for 
seeking risks management information. Participants were asked to rate their current knowledge 
level of risk areas on a scale of 0 to 100 (Cross et al., 2018; Griffin et al., 2008). A selection of 
100 represented being an expert on the risk area, and zero meant having no knowledge of the 
risk area. Perceived needed knowledge for the risk areas were also measured on a scale from 0 
to 100 (Cross et al., 2018; Griffin et al., 2008). A selection of 100 on the scale represented an 
expert level of knowledge needed to address a risk area, and zero indicated no knowledge was 
needed to address a risk area. The survey questions were developed based on the RISP model 
and a review of beef risks management literature (e.g. Hall et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2019a; 
Martin et al., 2019b), then reviewed by a panel of experts to confirm face validity. Due to time 
constraints and the accessibility of an alternative population, the survey was not pilot tested for 
content validity and reliability. The panel of experts consisted of two agricultural 
communications professors and one animal science professor with experience in animal health, 
beef herd management, and risk communication. Panel review resulted in revisions made to 
the original questionnaire to improve readability and ensure item clarity (Colton & Covert, 
2007).  
 
To address question one, knowledge gaps for each risk area were the difference between the 
current risk area knowledge level and the perceived needed risk area knowledge level, known 
as sufficiency threshold (Griffin et al., 2013). A negative number result indicated a deficiency. 
The respondent’s current knowledge was insufficient to address operational risks. Descriptive 
statistics addressed question two. Analysis was conducted using SPSS v28. 
 

Findings 
 
RQ1: To what extent did perceived risks area knowledge gaps exist for producers? 
The risk areas producers perceived they had the least current knowledge of were 
marketing/selling animals (M = 58.9) and economic (M = 58.7). The risk areas about which 
producers indicated they had the most current knowledge of were weaning (M = 71.1) and 
calving management (M = 71.0). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   16 
 

The risk areas for which producers needed the least amount of knowledge were weaning (M = 
72.3) and animal growth (M = 72.9). The risk areas for which producers needed the most 
amount of knowledge were marketing/selling animals (M = 79.0) and animal health (M = 77.8). 
 
Gaps in knowledge were the largest for the marketing/selling animals risk area, with a gap of -
20.1, and the economic risk area, with a gap of -18.9. The risk areas with the smallest gap in 
knowledge were weaning, gap of -1.2, and calving management, gap of -5.0. The risk areas with 
the largest gaps were the same areas for which respondents reported the lowest current 
knowledge. The smallest gaps were the same risk areas for which respondents indicated the 
highest current knowledge, displayed in Table 2. 
 
Table 2 
 
Southeastern U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Producers’ Current, Sufficiency, and Gap Knowledge by Risks 
Area 

Risks Area Knowledge M SD Skewness Kurtosis 
Current knowledge         

Animal health 68.72 19.18 -.62 .01 
Animal growth 66.15 19.81 -.58 -.33 
Breeding management 68.64 20.16 -.71 -.05 
Calving management 71.21 19.75 -.80 .13 
Economic 58.46 22.19 -.17 -.71 
Marketing/selling animals 58.63 22.69 -.29 -.51 
Weaning 71.15 20.68 -.91 .19 

Sufficiency threshold       
Animal health 78.33 18.46 -1.16 1.51 
Animal growth 73.01 20.26 -.82 .28 
Breeding management 75.92 19.08 -.95 .76 
Calving management 76.25 19.30 -.99 .73 
Economic 77.61 19.79 -.98 .63 
Marketing/selling animals 79.02 20.20 -1.22 1.22 
Weaning 72.47 21.66 -.90 .32 

Knowledge gap       
Animal health -.96 22.30 .51 2.35 
Animal growth -6.86 23.91 .39 1.47 
Breeding management -7.28 22.43 .26 1.72 
Calving management -5.04 23.27 .44 2.07 
Economic -19.15 26.86 -.10 .49 
Marketing/selling animals -20.39 28.39 -.17 .26 
Weaning -1.33 25.03 .24 1.50 

Note. N = 363. Current knowledge and sufficiency threshold were measured on a scale of 0 to 
100 on which 0 means knowing nothing and 100 means knowing everything one could possibly 
know about the topic (Cross et al., 2018; Griffen et al., 2008). 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   17 
 

RQ2: What communication channels did Southeastern U.S. beef cow-calf producers use to 
seek risk information?  
Participants were asked to select all the communication channels they used to collect 
information on each risk area. As shown in Table 3, frequencies and percentages were 
calculated from this data to determine the use of communication channels by risks area. 
Magazines and Extension publications were consistently chosen by respondents as their 
preferred communication channels, regardless of risk area. The only category of difference was 
the animal health risk area, in which respondents indicated they also preferred live 
demonstrations and newsletters.  
 
Table 3 
 
Communication Channels Used by Southeastern U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Producers to Seek Risks Area 
Information 

Communication Channels 

Animal  
health 

Animal 
growth 

Breeding 
mgmt. 

Calving  
mgmt. Economic 

Marketing/ 
 selling 
animals Weaning 

% % % % % % % 
Conferences 44 32 33 32 34 30 30 
DTN or similar service 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 
Extension publications 68 50 54 57 51 44 51 
Live demonstrations 61 21 27 25 14 15 21 
Magazines 75 56 60 60 58 45 52 
Newsletters 52 35 36 38 43 37 34 
Podcasts 7 5 5 5 6 6 5 
Social network 

channels 
21 13 14 15 18 23 13 

Research journals 26 25 22 22 18 14 23 
Does not use a channel 2 12 10 10 10 15 17 

Note. N = 418. Percentages reflect the proportion of respondents who reported using the 
channel.   
 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Our findings suggest responding southeastern U.S. cow-calf producers perceived their current 
levels of knowledge were not enough to address any of the potential risks studied (Griffin et al., 
2013). In agreement with previous research (Hall et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2019a), 
marketing/selling and economics were areas the participants expressed needing more 
knowledge to effectively manage those potential risks. In addition to having the largest 
knowledge gaps, these two risk areas had the lowest average levels of current knowledge. 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   18 
 

This study updated understanding of the communication channels cow-calf producers use to 
acquire risk information in the southeastern portion of the U.S. As previously found, the 
primary communication channels producers used for seeking risk information were magazines 
and Extension publications (Vergot III et al., 2005). Podcasts and social networks were the least 
used channels. This finding aligns with Yang et al. (2022), who found traditional media channels 
were viewed more positively than social media channels. Traditional channels may be seen as 
more trustworthy than social media channels, leading to higher relevant channel beliefs (Griffin 
et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2022). While most respondents sought risks-related information, a few 
did not, as was most evident in the areas of weaning, marketing/selling, and animal growth. 
Further investigation should identify if producers perceive they have the information-gathering 
capacity to use channels for reaching information sufficiency and how individuals’ 
characteristics impact relevant channel beliefs (Griffin et al., 2013).  
 
This study was limited to beef cow-calf producers located in the defined southeastern region of 
the U.S. who had internet and were accessible through relationships with the organizations 
who disseminated the study. A pilot study was not possible but would improve instrument 
validity. This study’s instrument contained no multi-item constructs and respondents were not 
tested/retested, so data reliability could not be determined (Netermeyer et al., 2003). 
Additionally, the data was collected in 2020, three years prior to publishing. The COVID-19 
pandemic may have changed participants’ information seeking behaviors. However, our results 
reflect long-term trends in information channels used by livestock producers. Jensen et al. 
(2009) found that in addition to veterinarians, main channels of information collection among 
Tennessee livestock producers were Extension and magazines. Though it is unlikely that 
channels used have changed, the types of information beef producers are seeking related to 
marketing and economics may have as the pandemic affected marketing and selling of beef 
(Langusch et al., 2023).  
 
Future research should measure the RISP model constructs holistically to assess interactive 
affects and outcomes for cow-calf producers (Griffin et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2022). Expanding 
the sample to include all U.S. beef cow-calf producers could enhance understanding of the 
differences in risk information seeking and processing habits and needs of producers (Adkins et 
al., 2012; Drouillard, 2018). Practitioners and researchers should seek to understand beef 
producers within their contexts through audience segmentation to develop tailored education 
and outreach strategies (Hall et al., 2003; Warner et al., 2017).  
 
We suggest practitioners provide risks management information, especially in the areas of 
marketing/selling animals and economics, through the channels most used by respondents: 
magazines and Extension publications. Marketing/selling topics may include value-added 
marketing and when to sell cattle versus when to retain ownership based on the producer’s 
aversion to risk (Martin et al., 2019b). Economic management risk topics include managing 
price variability risk related to cattle prices and inputs (Hall et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2019b). 
While social networks and podcasts are trending, these beef cattle producers were still using 
traditional media for their risk management information needs.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   19 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
C. Rourke - writing-review and editing, formal analysis; R. Waggie - writing-original draft, 
investigation; N. Hill - writing-review and editing, formal analysis; J. D. Ellis - writing-review and 
editing; K. Starzec - writing-review and editing. 
 

References 
 
Adkins, T. S., Riley, J. M., Little, R. D., & Coatney, K. T. (2012, February 5-8). Cow-calf operations 

in the Southeastern United States: An analysis of farm characteristics and production 
risks [Paper presentation]. Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual 
Meeting, Birmingham, AL, United States. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.119757 

 
Asem-Hiablie, S., Rotz, C. A., Stout, R., & Place, S. (2018). Management characteristics of beef 

cattle production in the Eastern United States. The Professional Animal Scientist, 34(4), 
311–325. https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2018-01728  

 
Baker, R., Brick, J. M., Bates, N. A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M. P., Dever, J. A., Gile, K. J., & 

Tourangeau, R. (2013). Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability 
sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 1(2), 90–143. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smt008 

 
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science,1(3), 98–

101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783  
 
Colton, D., & Covert, R.W. (2007). Designing and constructing instruments for social research 

and evaluation. Jossey-Bass. 
 
Cross, M., Heeren, A., Cornicelli, L. J., & Fulton, D. C. (2018). Bovine tuberculosis management in 

Northwest Minnesota and implications of the risk information seeking and processing 
(RISP) model for wildlife disease management. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5, Article 
190. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00190  

 
Diekmann, F., & Batte, M. T. (2009). Examining information search strategies of Ohio farmers. 

Journal of Extension, 47(6), Article v47-6a8. 
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2009december/a8.php  

 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 
 
Drouillard, J. S. (2018). Current situation and future trends for beef production in the United 

States of America – A review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 31(7), 
1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0428     

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.119757
https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2018-01728
https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smt008
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00190
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2009december/a8.php
https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0428


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   20 
 

 
Dunn, O. J. (1964). Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6, 241–252. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1964.10490181  
 
Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, S. J. (2014). The role of channel beliefs in risk information seeking. In J. 

Arvai & L. Rivers III (Eds.), Effective risk communication (1st ed., pp. 220–233). 
Routledge.  

 
Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed., North American ed.). 

SAGE. 
 
Fischer, A. R. H., & Frewer, L. J. (2009). Consumer familiarity with foods and the perception of 

risks and benefits. Food Quality and Preference, 20(8), 576–585. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.008  

 
Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk 

information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. 
Environmental Research, 80(2), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1998.3940 

 
Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Yang, Z. J. (2013). Linking risk messages to information seeking 

and processing. Annals of International Communication Association, 36(1), 323–362. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679138 

  
Griffin, R. J., Powell, M., Dunwoody, S., Neuwirth, K., Clark, D., & Novotny, V. (2004, August 4-

7). Testing the robustness of a risk information processing model [Paper presentation]. 
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, 
Toronto, ON, Canada. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3856.0960  

 
Griffin, R. J., Yang, Z., ter Huurne, E., Boerner, F., Ortiz, S., & Dunwoody, S. (2008). After the 

flood: Anger, attribution, and the seeking of information. Science Communication, 29(3), 
285–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007312309  

 
Hall, D. C., Knight, T. O., Coble, K. H., Baquet, A. E., & Patrick, G. F. (2003). Analysis of beef 

producers’ risk management perceptions and desire to further risk management 
education. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 25(2), 430–448. 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9353.00148 

 
Henry, G. W., Boyer, C. N., Griffith, A. P., Larson, J., Smith, A., & Lewis, K. (2016). Risk and 

returns of spring and fall calving for beef cattle in Tennessee. Journal of Agricultural and 
Applied Economics, 48(3), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2016.11  

 
Holt, J., Lamm, A. J., Gibson, K., Lamm, K., Ellis, J. D., & Rumble, J. N. (2020). Animating science 

communication: Measuring U.S. consumers’ recall about genetic modification with 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309
https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1964.10490181
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.008
https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1998.3940
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679138
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3856.0960
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007312309
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9353.00148
https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2016.11


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   21 
 

animated infographics. Journal of Applied Communications, 104(3), 1–23. 
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2327  

 
Hovick, S. R., Freimuth, V. S., Johnson-Turbes, A., & Chervin, D. D. (2011). Multiple health risk 

perception and information processing among African Americans and whites living in 
poverty. Risk Analysis, 31(11), 1789–1799. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-
6924.2011.01621.x  

 
Hubner, A. Y., & Hovick, S. R. (2020). Understanding risk information seeking and processing 

during an infectious disease outbreak: The case of Zika virus. Risk Analysis, 40(6), 1212–
1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13456  

 
Jensen, K. L., English, B. C., & Menard, R. J. (2009). Livestock farmers' use of animal or herd 

health information sources. Journal of Extension, 47(1), Article 1FEA7. 
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2009february/pdf/JOE_v47_1a7.pdf  

 
Kahlor, L. A., Wang, W., Clement Olson, H., Li, X., & Markman, A. B. (2019). Public perceptions 

and information seeking intentions related to seismicity in five Texas communities. 
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 37, Article 101147. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101147  

 
Komarek, A. M., De Pinto, A., & Smith, V. H. (2020). A review of types of risks in agriculture: 

What we know and what we need to know. Agricultural Systems, 178, 1–10. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102738  

 
Langusch, L., Cartmell, D., & Settle, Q. (2023). The steaks are high: COVID-19’s impact on direct-

to-consumer marketing in the Oklahoma beef industry. Journal of Applied 
Communications, 107(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2457  

 
Liu, Z., Yang, J. Z., & Feeley, T. H. (2022). Reduced Risk Information Seeking Model (RISK): A 

meta-analysis. Science Communication, 44(6), 787–813. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221144453  

 
Martin, M. S., Grau, S. A., Rutherford, B. W., Grandin, T., & Edwards-Callaway, L. N. (2019a). 

Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry 
challenges. Part 1: Handling practices, and health and industry challenges. Translational 
Animal Science, 3(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txy138   

 
Martin, M. S., Grau, S. A., Rutherford, B. W., Grandin, T., & Edwards-Callaway, L. N. (2019b). 

Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry 
challenges. Part 2. Marketing and selection decisions. Translational Animal Science, 3(1), 
225–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txz010   

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2327
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01621.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01621.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13456
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2009february/pdf/JOE_v47_1a7.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101147
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102738
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2457
https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221144453
https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txy138
https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txz010


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   22 
 

Martinez, C. C., Maples, J. G., & Benavidez, J. (2020). Beef cattle markets and COVID-19. Applied 
Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(1), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13080  

 
McBride, W. D., & Mathews, K. (2011). The diverse structure and organization of U.S. beef cow-

calf farms (Economic Information Bulletin No. 73). USDA Economic Research Service.   
 
McComas, K. A. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. Journal 

of Health Communication, 11(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500461091  
 
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and 

applications. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985772  
 
Rickard, L. N. (2021). Pragmatic and (or) constitutive? On the foundations of contemporary risk 

communication research. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 466–479. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13415 

 
Rients, E., VanDerWal, A., Loy, D., Reynolds, M., & Hansen, S. (2022). Survey of feedlot 

nutritionists gives insight on information-seeking behavior. Translational Animal Science 
6(4), Article txac114. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txac114  

 
Stern, P. C. & Fineberg, H. V. (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic 

society. The National Academies Press. 
 
ter Huurne, E. F. J., Griffin, R. J., & Gutteling, J. M. (2009). Risk information seeking among U.S. 

and Dutch residents: An application of the model of risk information seeking and 
processing. Science Communication, 31(2), 215–237. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009332653 

 
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (2020). Beef 2017: Beef cow-calf 

management practices in the United States, 2017. United States Department of 
Agriculture. https://tinyurl.com/2t4fz5hk  

  
USDA Economic Research Service. (2022). Wages and salaries are largest contributors to off-

farm income. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=105567   

 
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2017). Census of agriculture. United States 

Department of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/  
 
Vergot III, P., Israel, G., & Mayo, D. E. (2005). Sources and channels of information used by beef 

cattle producers in 12 counties of the Northwest Florida Extension district. Journal of 
Extension, 43(2), Article 2RIB6. https://archives.joe.org/joe/2005april/rb6.php 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309
https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13080
https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500461091
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985772
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13415
https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txac114
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009332653
https://tinyurl.com/2t4fz5hk
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=105567
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=105567
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/
https://archives.joe.org/joe/2005april/rb6.php


Rourke et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309   23 
 

Warner, L. A., Chaudhary, A. K., Rumble, J. N., Lamm, A. J., & Momol, E. (2017). Using audience 
segmentation to tailor residential irrigation water conservation programs. Journal of 
Agricultural Education, 58(1), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01313  

 
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2014). Mass media research: An introduction (10th ed.). 

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.  
 
Yang, J. Z., Aloe, A. M., & Feeley, T. H. (2014a). Risk information seeking and processing model: 

A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 20–41.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12071  

 
Yang, J. Z., Dong, X., & Liu, Z. (2022). Systematic processing of COVID-19 information: Relevant 

channel beliefs and perceived information gathering capacity as moderators. Science 
Communication, 44(1), 60–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211044781 

 
Yang, J. Z., Rickard, L. N., & Seo, M. (2014b). Applying the risk information seeking and 

processing model to examine support for climate change mitigation policy. Science 
Communication, 36(3), 296–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014525350  

 
Zhou, Y., Acevedo Callejas, M. L., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2020). Targeting perceptions of risk from 

injudicious antibiotic use: An application of the risk information seeking and processing 
model. Journal of Health Communication, 25(5), 345–352. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1762140 

 
 
© 2023 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i4.309
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01313
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12071
https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211044781
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014525350
https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1762140

