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