COVID 19 Impact on Farmers and Ranchers Report 2021

NMCEWL

NEW MEXICO COALITION TO ENHANCE WORKING LANDS

COVID 19 IMPACT ON FARMERS AND RANCHERS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 PURPOSE OF SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 OVERVIEW OF STUDY AND RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 7 AGRICULTURAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 8

IN-DEPTH FINDINGS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

IMPACT ON SUPPLY CHAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 IMPACT ON PRODUCER MARKETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 IMPACT ON PRODUCER FINANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 IMPACT ON WORKFORCE AND WORKFLOW . . . . . . . . . 13 IMPACT ON PRODUCER NETWORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 IMPACT ON PRODUCER OUTLOOK AND MORALE . . . . . .

15

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT NEEDS . . . . . . . . . 16 ONGOING PRODUCER NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 PREDICTED LONG-TERM IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

METHODS .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2

INTRODUCTION This study grew out of efforts initiated by the New Mexico Coalition to Enhance Working Lands members to understand how best to support and respond to the needs of farmers and ranchers as they navigated (and continue to navigate) the COVID-19 pandemic. In May of 2020, a dozen organizations ranging from NM First, the Quivira Coalition, Natural Resources Conservation Service, NM Farmers Marketing Association, Thornburg Foundation, and others began meeting weekly to share information and updates regarding new government emergency response programs, shifting restrictions that might impact those

producing and selling food, and dramatic shifts in processing or distribution that might have long term impacts on farmers and ranchers in the state. The group then worked together to translate and disseminate this information through our various networks in an effort to make sure farmers and ranchers had access to information about these programs. In September, understanding that the impacts would continue long after the hardest months of the pandemic, we decided to survey farmers and ranchers about their experiences and perspectives of the pandemic, to inform how to tailor our collaborative efforts moving forward.

3

PURPOSE OF SURVEY The COVID-19 pandemic has presented farmers and ranchers with unprecedented changes and challenges to the way they grow their produce, raise their livestock, and get their products to market.

It has affected countless nodes within agricultural supply chains, compelled creative solutions to new operational demands such as social distancing, and catalyzed new relationships between producers, markets, and agricultural providers across different sectors.

Further, it has prompted a wave of new emergency assistance programs designed to keep producers afloat during this precarious and uncertain time.

New social distancing measures have not only affected some agricultural operations but have also impacted the frequency and availability of service providers’ on-field visits with producers. Given this diminished ability to learn firsthand what producers are experiencing in this moment, new efforts of data collection are imperative to stay up to date with emerging producer needs and challenges. This survey is intended to help fill this new gap. Faced with a unique growing season and increased market uncertainty, it is critical to discern the new and ongoing demands and challenges that producers are facing across the Intermountain West region. By gathering information about these challenges, agricultural organizations and agencies can better understand how best to direct their efforts to meet the shifting needs of farmers and ranchers with the resources they have available.

Following the efforts of earlier producer surveys and interviews, this survey aims to:

• Understand how producers in the Intermountain West are navigating the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

• Provide agricultural support organizations and agencies information about the impacts of COVID-19 on farmers and ranchers so that they can tailor their work, advocacy, and services in the coming months and years to better meet the needs of the farmers and ranchers they serve.

4

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Support remediation efforts for the meat processing industry:

• Support livestock producers’ access to local and regional processing and markets.

• Expand processing capacity by sustaining

existing small and medium-sized meat packing plants and supporting the creation of new ones.

• Support resilience of the entire supply

chain through market creation and support.

Support and strengthen direct markets and CSA efforts, including building out online sales and advertisements. Promote messages for people to purchase local food:

• Provide technical assistance and/or mini

grants for developing online presence and sales platforms.

• Support rural internet and broadband infrastructure.

• Support consumer education about the

benefits of purchasing and eating locally.

Increase funding and opportunities for schools and charities to continue purchasing local food at a fair and just price in order to grow local food supply chains:

• Build out farm to institution networks to

facilitate connections between food needs and available produce.

• Increase governmental or private funding for institutional purchases of local food.

• Support the expansion of farm to institution infrastructure and programs.

• Cover increased purchasing costs directly

Support farmer collaborations and networking efforts that build more robust CSAs and direct markets as well as support labor sharing efforts:

• Support new aggregated CSAs in development of food safe pack houses where produce processing, washing, and packaging complies with food safe practices.

• Assist farmer aggregation networks with access to value chain software or apps.

• Support farmers in establishing communication, crop planning, and growing for aggregation so as not to flood the market with same crops.

• Develop systems for large infrastructure/tool/refrigerated vehicle sharing to assist in produce distribution.

• Support education for farmers and the general public about mission-driven aggregation networks such as CSAs working with low-income community members.

related to the COVID-19 epidemic.

5

Continue to support producer access to COVID-19 relief programs through education and outreach efforts. Increase the amount of aid available for producers through these relief programs:

•

Identify federal, state, and private relief or assistance opportunities and share these with producer groups, farmers, and ranchers.

• Provide assistance to producers on how and where to apply for assistance programs.

Support farmer access to mental and emotional health services and improve rural producer internet access:

• Support producer access to telemedicine

programs to help rural communities connect with mental health providers and with each other.

• Provide producers with mental health

resources and access to mental health programs, including financial assistance to access these programs.

• Provide outreach and educational

• Assist producers in accessing loans and

Support drought and climate change adaptation/mitigation education, resources, and strategies:

Conduct outreach and education for producer vaccines:

resources, such as virtual workshops and webinar series that benefit and target agricultural producers.

•

Promote drought planning as a key part of ranch plans.

• Support outcome-based management

which may allow for more adaptability in management on federal and state lands.

• Support and promote programs and

networks to connect drought inflicted graziers with grazable lands.

Support producer access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE):

• Support outreach plans to assess the PPE

needs of different types of producers and determine how best to deliver PPE to producers.

• Recommend protocols for PPE use to

reduce risk of exposure to COVID-19 for producers and consumers.

grants for the costs of construction, improvement, or acquisition of infrastructure and equipment needed to provide broadband service in rural areas.

• Ensure that producers are made aware of their priority status (producers are considered for Phase 1B).

• Provide information about how producers can receive vaccines.

• Provide adequate compensation to

individuals involved in personalized outreach and education messaging efforts.

• Support more drought insurance resources and support installation of approved weather stations for drought monitoring.

6

OVERVIEW OF STUDY AND RESPONDENTS This report highlights the ongoing assistance that producers need and contributes to the overall understanding of the impacts of COVID-19 on the food and farm economy.

The data and key findings in this report are based on 38 online survey responses and extended interviews collected from farmers and ranchers between September and December, 2020. Overall, 28 respondents reported having their operation based in New Mexico, while three respondents were based in Colorado and Montana each, and two were based in Wyoming. Two respondents did not report their location.

Producer responses represented here may reflect the moment of data collection during the busy fall harvest season of 2020, particularly producer outlook. Our sample size was majority white (52.6%), followed by non-reporting (21%), Hispanic/Latinx (10.5%), Native American (5.3%), and biracial (2.6%).

Gender division was roughly equal between women, men, and non-reporting (34.2%, 36.8%, 26.3%, respectively) with a small minority identifying as non-conforming. Similarly, respondents’ ages were widely distributed with

the majority being over 60 years old (36.9%), 13.9% being 50-59 years, 15.8% being 30-39 and 40-49 years respectively, and a minority being 18-29 years of age (5.3%).

This report utilizes a small sample size, however, it aligns with similar studies in terms of outcomes and can contribute to the overall understanding of COVID-19 impacts the food and farm economy. Despite these limitations, this report represents a diverse range of production types and producer experiences across the Intermountain West region. New Mexico has particularly strict regulation of sales, marketing, and distribution of food for preventing spread of the disease, which also influences survey results.

Non-Conforming 3% No Answer 26%

Female 34%

GENDER

No Answer 13%

18 - 29 5% 30 - 39 16%

70 - 79 5%

AGE 16% 40 - 49 32% 60 - 69

Native American 5%

13% 50 - 59

Hispanic 10%

Bi-Racial 3%

ETHNICITY

21% No Answer

37% Male 8% Other

53% White

7

AGRICULTURAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF STUDY The respondents identified as predominantly the owners/operators of their production (52.6%) followed by managers (10.5%), directors (7.9%), and other (7.9%), while 21.1% of respondents did not identify their role.

Most, 18 respondents, have been in operation between four and 20 years, while 11 have been in operation for over 20 years, and four have been in operation for four years or less.

Out of the 38 survey respondents and their operations, 15 were involved with vegetable production, 25 raised livestock, five were involved with grain production, and 11 reported other production activities such as hay, fruits, nuts, and honey. It is important to note that only 15 operations reported a single product, whereas the rest reported a mix of products generated from their operations.

RESPONDENTS PER PRODUCTION TYPE

Director 8%

Vegetables 15

Manager 11%

Owner/ Operator 53%

Livestock 25 ROLE

Grain 5 21% No Answer

Other Hay, fruits, nuts, honey 11 0

8% Other

10

15

20

25

RESPONDENTS PER MARKET TYPE

RESPONDENTS PER YEARS IN OPERATION

Similarly, of the 38 survey respondents 24 sold their products through wholesale markets, 17 through retail markets, four through community supported agriculture (CSA) markets, seven through direct markets, and 11 other types of markets and outlets (such as through auction, contracts, brokers, etc). Here, again, most respondents engaged in multiple types of markets.

5

Wholesale 24

More than 20 years 11

Retail 17 Community Supported Agriculture 4

4 to 20 years 18

Direct Markets 17 Fewer than 4 years 4 0

5

10

15

20

25

Other Auction, contracts, broker 11 0

5

10

15

20

25

8

IN-DEPTH FINDINGS Overwhelmingly, respondents reported that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected their operation in one way or another (92%). Below we examine in depth how producers have been impacted as well as how they have responded to the

changes brought about by the pandemic.

Each section outlines the qualitative and quantitative data gathered from the online surveys and interviews conducted via phone and concludes with some key recommendations.

9

IMPACT ON SUPPLY CHAINS One of the most pressing and evident impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the strain it has placed on food system supply chains, and how producers acquire, process, and distribute their products: 91.7% of respondents report having had their supply chains impacted as a result of the pandemic. Commonly cited impacts included: difficulty in sourcing seed and animal feed; extended wait times to process meat due to packing house closures and backed-up orders; and a loss of sales outlets such as farmers markets and restaurants. These combined effects have, in certain instances, resulted in lower sales prices, most notably in beef.

Amid these difficulties, 71% of respondents have been able to address some of these impacts, adapting to and mitigating some of the deleterious effects of the pandemic.

These strategies have included shifting from restaurant sales to community supported agriculture (CSA) programs, farm stands, and selling to local schools, as well as pivoting to online sale platforms and new advertising efforts. Others have reported traveling farther distances and across state lines to purchase needed seed, animal feed, and to process meat.

This pandemic has shown the immense adaptive capacity of intermountain west producers, yet new strategies developed during an emergency require careful attention in order to continue in a post-COVID world.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Support remediation efforts for the meat processing industry.

• Support strengthening direct markets and CSA efforts, including building out online sales and advertisements.

Promote messages for people to purchase local food.

• Grow local food and supply chains by

increasing funding and opportunities for schools and charities to continue purchasing local food at a fair and just prices. in order to grow local food supply chains.

10

IMPACT ON PRODUCER MARKETS Respondents overwhelmingly felt that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted their markets (89.9%). Producers engage in a plurality of different markets based on the type of their operation, each with differing demands and adaptabilities. As such, respondents’ opinions about the impacts on their specific markets are as follows:

• Impacts on retail markets were

predominantly identified as negative (52.8%) followed by having no effect (22.2%), a neutral impact (16.7%), and a positive impact (8.3%).

• 62.2% of respondents reported wholesale markets as being negatively impacted, respondents, followed by 13.5% who characterized the impacts as neutral and positive, respectively, and 10.8% who reported no effect.

These impacts included gaining new customers who sought out local produce as a result of the national supply chain disruptions during the onset of the lockdowns as well as a higher demand for CSA programs.

Respondents also cited previously reliable market outlets failing, including dramatically decreased restaurant orders. They reported depressed prices for meat and a lack of processing options for livestock, echoing national stories of beef supply chain disruptions.

To cope with these impacts of the pandemic, 66.7% of respondents said that they modified how they market their products or services.

Many producers pivoted to CSA programs and direct sales to make up for lost revenue from

% RESPONDENTS

• Impacts on farm stands fared slightly

better with 40.6% of respondents reporting no effect on this market, 28.1% who characterized the effects as negative, and 15.6% who reported the effects as neutral and positive, respectively.

NEGATIVE NEUTRAL

61

POSITIVE NO EFFECT

53

41 29 22

17

14 14 8

Retail

11

Wholesale

15 15

Farm Stand

restaurant sales and dwindling markets. Some producers reported aggregating their products with other farms to create more robust CSAs and cope with increasing or shifting local food demands. Others increased their efforts for value-added products to supplement income.

Producers also reported shifting to selling to schools and charitable food outlets as restaurant orders came to a near halt.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Support remediation efforts for the meat processing industry.

• Support strengthening direct markets and CSA efforts, including building out online sales and advertisements.

Promote messages for people to purchase local food.

• Grow local food and supply chains by

increasing funding and opportunities for schools and charities to continue purchasing local food at a fair and just prices. in order to grow local food supply chains.

• Support farmer collaborations and

networking efforts that build more robust CSAs and direct markets as well as support labor sharing efforts.

IMPACT ON PRODUCER MARKETS

11

IMPACT ON PRODUCER FINANCES A large majority of respondents reported that the pandemic had a negative impact on their income (66.7%). 12.1% reported that their income increased as a result of the pandemic and an equal percentage of respondents (12.1%) felt that it had a net neutral effect on their income (i.e., their net income remains roughly the same but comes from new or different sources). 9% reported no impact on their income.

Over half of respondents attempted to access COVID-19 relief programs in 2020. The most common program that respondents reported applying for was the Payroll Protection Program (PPP). Others applied to various foundation grants, regional small business grants, the

COVID-19 Food Assistance Program, Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and other loan programs. Most learned of these programs through email listservs, Farm Service Agency or USDA offices, online searches, or personal connections.

73.9% of those who tried to access these programs reported that they received adequate technical assistance to apply to assistance programs and were able to access funds provided through these programs. A little more than half (52.6%), however, felt that the fund amounts were not adequate to meet their needs.

Increased 12%

Neutral 12% PRODUCER INCOME 9% No Effect

67% Decreased

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Continue to support producer access

to COVID-19 relief programs through education and outreach efforts. Increase the amount of aid available for producers through these relief programs.

12

IMPACT ON WORKFORCE AND WORKFLOW Over half of respondents (63.6%) reported that their workforce has been impacted by the pandemic, and an identical proportion (63.6%) have been able to address these impacts.

Impacts such as a lack of labor due to stayat-home orders, fear of illness, new domestic demands resulting from distance learning, as well as low morale among staff were a few of the examples cited by respondents. While a small minority characterized their workforce impacts as positive (2.8%) or unaffected (19.4%), most reported that the impacts on their workforce have been negative (50%) or neutral (27.8%). Changes in producers’ personal work demands were similarly characterized as negative (60%) or neutral (22.9%), followed by a small minority who felt the changes were positive (5.7%) or unaffected (11.4%).

NEGATIVE

81.3% of respondents reported that their workflow, or how they perform their agricultural and/or ranching tasks, needed to change as a result of new regulations and norms related to COVID-19. Examples of these changes include transitioning to individually packing products and maintaining social distancing practices during food pickups and deliveries. Producer sentiments toward these changes varied slightly when looking at where these changes take place. On the farm, 38.9% of respondents characterized these changes as negative, while 33.3% felt they were neutral, 11.1% felt they have been positive, and 16.7% reported that there has been no change.

Off farm, a greater percentage of producers (58.3%) characterized these changes as negative, followed by 30.6% as neutral, 5.6% as

POSITIVE

58

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Support farmer collaborations and

networking efforts that build more robust CSAs and direct markets as well as support labor sharing efforts.

• Support farmer access to mental and

emotional health services and improve rural producer internet access.

Increased 6%

% RESPONDENTS

NEUTRAL NO EFFECT

positive, and 5.6% as no change. Finally, 57.6% of producers felt that the workflow changes at market have been negative, followed by 18.2% who felt there has been no change, 12.1% who felt the changes were neutral, and 12.1% who felt they have been positive.

58

Increased 3% Neutral 23%

39 33

Neutral 28%

31 17 11

On-Farm

12 12 6

PERSONAL WORK DEMANDS

18

6

Off-Farm

At Market

IMPACT ON PRODUCER WORKFLOW

60% Decreased

WORKFORCE IMPACTS 11% No Effect

50% Decreased

19% No Effect

VALUES %

13

IMPACT ON PRODUCER NETWORKS A majority of respondents reported that the pandemic impacted the way they work and/ or interact with other producers (64.5%) and other members of their community (80.7%).

More specifically, producers explained that, while they see their colleagues in person far less frequently due to health and safety concerns (many have turned to Zoom), there have been new and growing collaborations with other producers. This has involved working with fellow producers to collectively meet the demands of shifting markets by aggregating products for sale on the market, selling products through one another’s market channels, purchasing other farms’ products at retail price, as well as coordinating and sharing labor, PPE, and markets. For some, this increased their sense of community with friends and neighbors. As one respondent noted, “amongst vegetable growers there is more cross-talk about collaboration, education, and the long-term imperative of reducing dependence on [centralized]/ industrialized supply chains.”

Meanwhile, producer relationships with other members of their community, such as customers, consumers, and service providers, changed in similar ways. Namely, respondents reported an increase in demand for local food and charitable connections.

As one respondent explained, it ‘has been an

opportunity to build new relationships [with] the community, in providing safe food access.”

While some producers have reduced their inperson interactions at the market, with service providers, and on-farm events such as volunteer workdays and workshops, others reported that interactions remained constant or increased, perhaps due to new business demands.

As noted above, respondent sentiment toward these changes varied slightly when considering who these changes impacted.

36.8% of respondents characterize these changes with other producers as negative, while 31.6% feel they are neutral. 18.4% feel they have been positive, and 13.2% report that there has been no change. With customers, a greater percentage of respondents (47.4%) NEGATIVE

51

47

for Schools and Charities to continue purchasing local food at a fair and just price, to grow local food supply chains.

• Support farmer collaborations and

networking efforts that build more robust CSAs and direct markets as well as support labor sharing efforts.

37 26

32 24

21

13 5

Other Producers

• Increase funding and opportunities

62

POSITIVE NO EFFECT

18

RECOMMENDATIONS:

% RESPONDENTS

NEUTRAL

32

characterized these changes as negative, followed by 26.3% as neutral, 21% as positive, and 5.3% as no change. Most respondents felt that recent changes in their relationships with service providers and extension agents have been negative (51.4%), 32.4% felt that they have been overall neutral, 5.4% believed they have been positive, and 10.8% saw no change.

Finally, 61.8% respondents felt that their relationships with other community members have been negatively impacted, followed by 23.5% who believed they have been neutral, 8.8% who say they are positive, and 5.9% who saw no change.

Customers

5

11

Service Providers

8

6

Other Community Members

• Support farmer access to mental and

emotional health services and improve rural producer internet access.

•

Support producer access to adequate PPE.

IMPACT ON PRODUCER WORKFLOW VALUES %

14

IMPACT ON PRODUCER OUTLOOK AND MORALE 83.3% of respondents report that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted their overall outlook and well-being. Examining this response more closely, we found that 70.6% of respondents reported that the impact on their outlook has been negative, followed by 17.7% who felt it has been neutral, and 11.8% felt it has been positive. When asked about the impact on respondents’ physical well-being, 51.4% reported that the pandemic has had a negative impact, 34.3% say it had a neutral impact, 11.4% say it had a positive impact, and 2.9% reported no effect. Physical impacts that arose as consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic have also been varied. These have included injurious impacts directly resulting from the virus and indirect consequences of choosing to quarantine rather than seeking medical attention for less pressing physical ailments.

and the difficulty of changing the status quo.

Concerns about ongoing regional drought and climate change overlay on the COVID-19 impacts, compounding stressors for some. Yet, while producers have struggled with these concerns and issues, there is also recognition that the pandemic “has brought awareness to the value of buying locally and that is a good thing” (Respondent comment). Some producers are also looking back at the changes they made out of necessity to cope with the pandemic as positive outcomes, be they business expansions, reorganizing farm priorities, or onboarding new staff.

Placed in a larger context, most respondents felt that this past year has been an average to the worst year compared to other years of their operation: 16.2% said that this year has been the worst; 37.8% said that it has been bad, and 29.7% felt that it has been average. Meanwhile, 13.5% believed that it was better compared to past years, and 2.7% said that it was the best.

The impacts of COVID-19 on producer outlook and morale have been varied, and they undoubtedly continue to fluctuate with each turn of the pandemic’s progress. Many producers reported that it has been difficult 18% to keep up motivation and morale due to the volatility of the markets coupled with perennial uncertainty of COVID-19 impacts 12% and responses. Others expressed frustration over the underlying issues in the food system that have been laid bare during the pandemic, such as the consolidation of the beef industry

3%

71%

• Support remediation efforts for the meat processing industry.

• Support strengthening direct markets

and CSA efforts, including building out online sales and advertisements. Promote messages for people to purchase local food.

• Support farmer access to mental and

emotional health services and improve rural producer internet access.

• Support drought and climate change adaptation/mitigation education, resources, and strategies.

Good 14%

51%

34%

30% Average

11% NEUTRAL

POSITIVE

Best 8%

Worst 17%

2020 COMPARED TO PAST YEARS

IMPACT ON PHYSICAL WELLBEING

IMPACT ON OUTLOOK

NEGATIVE

RECOMMENDATIONS

38% Bad

NO EFFECT

15

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT NEEDS Slightly over half of the respondents (56.8%) reported that the COVID-19 pandemic created a need for additional personal protective equipment, such as masks and gloves. However, most (79.4%) were able to acquire adequate amounts of PPE throughout the course of the pandemic. While PPE was difficult or expensive to obtain at the outset of the pandemic, many have since been able to find PPE, including handmade masks.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Support producer access to adequate PPE.

ONGOING PRODUCER NEEDS At the time of this survey (September - December 2020), slightly less than half of respondents (46.9%) felt that they needed additional support. These needs varied from producer to producer, yet common requests included financial assistance for infrastructure investments including office space, storage, and greater processing capacity. A majority of respondents (79.3%), however, believed that others in their sector needed support as a result of the pandemic.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Continue to support producer access

to COVID-19 relief programs through education and outreach efforts. Increase the amount of aid available for producers through these relief programs.

16

PREDICTED LONG-TERM IMPACTS The majority of respondents felt that the pandemic would have lasting impacts on their production (55.9%) or could possibly have lasting impacts (35.3%). Respondents shared mixed opinions about how long they believed these impacts would last: some believed that they would only last a few years, while others were confident that the impacts would precipitate permanent changes for their operations. When considering the long-term impacts of COVID-19, many respondents cited other environmental and social factors that played into how long the impacts may linger for. These included the availability of a COVID-19 vaccine, the outcome of political elections, the continuation of a consolidated meatpacking industry, and the consequences of prolonged regional droughts. Overall, uncertainty loomed in the vast majority of respondents’ estimates.

In characterizing the overall impact of the pandemic on respondents’ operations, 16.2% said it was very negative; 37.8% said it was negative; 18.9% said it has been neutral; 24% said it has been positive; and 2.7% said it was very positive.

Very Positive 8% Positive 24%

Very Negative 16%

IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON PRODUCER OPERATIONS

19% Neutral

38% Negative

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Support remediation efforts for the meat processing industry.

• Support drought and climate change adaptation/mitigation education, resources, and strategies.

• Conduct outreach and education regarding producer vaccination.

17

METHODS This COVID-19 survey was developed by New Mexico Coalition to Enhance Working Lands (NMCEWL) and the Quivira Coalition along with the input of partner stakeholder organizations such as the Agri-Cultura Network, Holistic Management International, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, New Mexico Farmers’ Marketing Association, New Mexico First, New Mexico Farm to Table, New Mexico State Land Office, and Western Landowners Alliance. The data in this survey summary report is based on voluntary survey responses of 38 producers and operators from four states (NM, CO, WY, MT) in the Western United States, the majority being from New Mexico.

The survey was administered from September through December 2020. Survey outreach was conducted through a combination of emails to producers using participating organizations’ listservs as well as through direct calls to producers. The survey questions were a mix of multiple choice and short responses that

were collected anonymously via a Google Form. Survey response data was compiled and organized in MS Excel and statistical analysis was done using MiniTab 19, a statistical software. Questions that were left unanswered were omitted during statistical calculation of survey responses. Therefore, reported percentages reflect the opinions of those respondents who answered each particular survey question. Every question was answered by a majority of participants.

A second analysis was conducted for producers exclusively from New Mexico, thereby reducing the total sample size from 38 to 28. Statistical analysis was again performed using MiniTab 19. Statistical differences that were within a margin of +/- 8.5% from the total sample size analysis (n=38) were considered similar enough and were not noted in the report. A comprehensive breakdown of statistical differences exceeding 3.5% can be found here: bit.ly/nmfarmcovidstats

CREDITS STUDY AUTHORS AND EDITORS Jenna Davis

Research Coordinator, Quivira Coalition

Tyler Eshleman

Program Coordinator, NMCEWL

Sam Hinkle

Communications and Development Director, Quivira Coalition

Sarah Wentzel-Fisher

Executive Director, Quivira Coalition

PHOTOGRAPHY CONTRIBUTORS Quivira Coalition New Mexico Farmers Marketing Association FUNDING SUPPORT PROVIDED BY New Mexico Zone Grant Initiative

18

THANK YOU

WWW.NMCEWL.ORG coordinator@nmcewl.org 505-393-1425