PS7-17. Assessing Kentucky Beef Producers for Demographics and Extension Needs.

Clicks: 11
ID: 330096
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #527 of 847 articles by views in italian journal of animal science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 847 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract To inform the development of targeted Extension programming, a survey was conducted to characterize demographics, production practices, and educational preferences of beef cattle producers in Kentucky. A 12-question questionnaire was administered during a producer event in October 2025. Information collected included county of residence, age, land area managed, operation type, herd size, management practices, and preferred program topics and delivery formats. Of 38 attendees, 16 responses were received (42%). All respondents resided in Franklin County; most were ≥60 yr (56.3%), followed by 40–60 yr (31.3%). The majority (93.3%) managed ≥20.2 ha of pasture, with approximately half managing >40.5 ha. All operations were cow–calf, and 18.8% included additional livestock species. Herd size distribution was similar between 26–50 head and 50–100 head classes (41.2% each). Predominant grazing strategies included moderate rotational grazing (7–21 d intervals; 40%), continuous grazing (26.7%), and slow rotational grazing (≥28 d intervals; 26.7%). Preferred Extension delivery formats were field tours (36.8%) and weekday evening programs (31.6%), whereas Saturday sessions, weekday daytime programs, virtual formats, and multi-day hands-on workshops were less preferred (10.5%, 10.5%, 5.3%, and 5.3%, respectively). Primary areas of interest included breeding management (87.5%), grazing management and fencing (43.8%), herd health (37.5%), and forage management topics, including selection and conserved forages (hay, baleage, and silage; 31.3% each). Overall, these findings indicate strong demand for applied education in reproductive and pasture management and provide direction for aligning Extension programming with producer priorities and preferred delivery methods to maximize participation and impact.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214700930 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ibukunoluwa S Salako, Abbigail R Hines, Jinniah Ali
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal italian journal of animal science
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jas/skag272.475
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skag272.475
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.