Social networks in complex human and natural systems: the case of rotational grazing, weak ties, and eastern US dairy landscapes

Social networks in complex human and natural systems: the caseof rotational grazing, weak ties, and eastern US dairy landscapes

Kristen C. Nelson • Rachel F. Brummel •

Nicholas Jordan • Steven Manson

Accepted: 2 July 2013 / Published online: 2 August 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Multifunctional agricultural systems seek to

expand upon production-based benefits to enhance family

wellbeing and animal health, reduce inputs, and improve

environmental services such as biodiversity and water

quality. However, in many countries a landscape-level

conversion is uneven at best and stalled at worst. This is

particularly true across the eastern rural landscape in the

United States. We explore the role of social networks as

drivers of system transformation within dairy production in

the eastern United States, specifically rotational grazing as

an alternative management option. We hypothesize the

importance of weak ties within farmer social networks as

drivers of change. In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New

York, we conducted 53 interviews with confinement, low-

intensity, and rotational grazing dairy producers as well as

35 interviews with associated network actors. Though

confinement and grazier networks had similar proportions

of strong and weak ties, confinement producers had more

market-based weak ties, while graziers had more weak-ties

to government agencies and other graziers in the region.

These agency weak ties supported rotational graziers

through information exchange and cost sharing, both cru-

cial to farmers’ transitions from confinement-based pro-

duction to grazing systems. While weak ties were integral

to initial innovation, farmers did not maintain these rela-

tionships beyond their transition to grazing. Of equal

importance, grazier weak-tie networks did not include

environmental organizations, suggesting unrealized poten-

tial for more diverse networks based on environmental

services. By understanding the drivers, we can identify

barriers to expanding weak tie networks and emergent

properties in order to create institutions and policies nec-

essary for change.

Keywords Multifunctional agriculture �Social networks � Dairy production � Resilience �Landscape transitions

Introduction

Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) is proposed as a mode

of agriculture that can support societal efforts to adapt to

and ultimately mitigate social and biophysical aspects of

global change in addition to providing staples of food,

fiber, and fuel. Agriculture is increasingly called to sub-

stantially improve production of standard commodities

while better maintaining the integrity of environmental

quality. More broadly still, agriculture is called to help

create public goods, such as water quality or improved

human wellbeing. MFA may help meet these goals because

it is defined by joint production of both agricultural com-

modities and a range of ecological services, including

beneficial effects on pest and nutrient management, water

K. C. Nelson (&)

Departments of Forest Resources and Fisheries, Wildlife,

and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota,

115 Green Hall, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

R. F. Brummel

Environmental Studies, Lafayette College,

Quad Drive, Easton, PA 18042, USA

N. Jordan

Department of Agronomy, University of Minnesota,

411 Borlaug Hall, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA

S. Manson

Department of Geography, University of Minnesota,

414 Social Sciences, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

123

Agric Hum Values (2014) 31:245–259

DOI 10.1007/s10460-013-9462-6

quality and quantity, biodiversity, and amenity values

(Wilson 2007). MFA may also work to strengthen human

wellbeing through promoting healthy food, safe labor

conditions, respect for human rights, and greater socio-

economic resilience in rural areas. To enable such joint

production, MFA develops a complex land-use/land-cover

strategy that can meet multiple human needs from diverse

ecosystems while sustaining these systems over multiple

generations.

Adoption of production systems that are substantially

more multifunctional than currently predominant systems

has been slow in the US (Jordan and Warner 2010). And

understanding of the biophysical and social processes that

underlie MFA in the US and its adoption, attributes, and

extent is quite limited. Joint production of commodity and

non-commodity outputs is a key attribute of MFA that has

been assessed in just a handful of cases (Lyons et al. 2000;

Zimmerman et al. 2003; Boody et al. 2005; Polasky et al.

2011). Social factors underlying development of multi-

functional agriculture have also been explored but there is

limited understanding of transition dynamics and linkages

between social and biophysical factors (Batie 2003; Wis-

kerke et al. 2003; Che et al. 2005; Lamprinopoulou et al.

2006).

The theoretical framework for this paper envisions

reinforcing feedback in a particular ecosocial system in

which multiple human subsystems respond to, and feed-

back upon, multiple biophysical subsystems (Verburg

2006). As argued by several scholars, the principle emer-

gent property of this system may be conceptualized as

enterprise development, i.e., the emergence of new agri-

cultural enterprises via feedback loops that link MFA

farmers to commodity markets and also to broader incen-

tives (e.g., brokers for ecological services produced by

MFA) (Jordan and Warner 2010; Belletti et al. 2003; Sel-

man and Knight 2006). These multiple linkages are pos-

sible because of the characteristic joint production aspect

of MFA, i.e., of both agricultural commodities and other

outputs. Insofar as a range of stakeholders and institutions

benefits from these outputs, these actors have incentive to

provide support for MFA farmers, thereby creating rein-

forcing feedback loops. In our conceptual framework, this

ecosocial system of enterprise development interacts with a

supersystem of public opinion and policy, where stake-

holders support a revisioning of agriculture by encouraging

elements of the supersystem to increase support for MFA.

The enterprise development system also interacts with, and

is supported by, a subsystem comprised of ‘‘agroecological

partnerships’’ (Warner 2006), meaning multi-sector efforts

to improve the quantity and quality of ecosystem services

produced by MFA production systems. Supportive insti-

tutions such as non-governmental organizations and sci-

entific groups exchange knowledge across the supersystem

and subsystems and via the latter to key actors such as land

managers. In essence, this structure of interactions across

scales constitutes a hypothesis about how MFA can

increase its degree of multifunctionality and spatial extent,

by reinforcing feedback among social and environmental

elements.

Ecosocial feedback is a key construct in this conceptual

framework. In the context of this framework, such feed-

back occurs when multiple social actors reinforce the

production of goods and services from MFA via interac-

tions between biophysical and social factors (Matthews and

Selman 2006). For example, from local to regional and

national scales, social infrastructures and networks may

respond to biophysical signals with sufficient force to shift

institutions and sociopolitical organization so that they

capitalize upon and enhance the multiple benefits of

emerging biophysical systems, thus creating a reinforcing

feedback process (Berkes et al. 2003; Geyer 2003).

A variety of scholars have posited that such ecosocial

feedback depends on cross-sector networks of social actors.

Via such networks, these actors organize a collective

response to the biophysical outcomes of MFA. Alternately,

network actors may identify common goals and work

together to produce biophysical outcomes associated with

environmental services in agricultural systems. Causality

may occur in either direction. Such networks are seen as

central to the emergence of ‘‘strong’’ multifunctionality,

which is posited as resulting from the interconnection and

mutual reinforcement of environmental, economic, and

social capital (Wilson 2010). Collins et al. (2011) envision

that when multiple effects on human wellbeing result from

a managed ecosystem, multiple dimensions of human

behavior are likely affected, creating a basis for cross-

sector activities that produce the reinforcing effects sug-

gested by Matthews and Selman (2006). Certain institu-

tions may coordinate such cross-sector networks in order to

help them function better; these include boundary organi-

zations, which straddle divides among different institutions

(Franks 2010), and intermediary regimes, in which farming

becomes a medium for integrating agriculture with other

social goods (Caron-Flinterman et al. 2010). The central

argument for the effectiveness of cross-sector networks and

associated social institutions has gained support from a

number of cases in which these networks (Ison et al. 2007)

were evidently able to sustain or expand biophysical

attributes key to production of multiple goods and services

from MFA (Olsson et al. 2007; Steyaert et al. 2007; Ortiz-

Miranda et al. 2010; Caron-Flinterman et al. 2010).

The strength of ties among network actors is a key

aspect of cross-sector networks and their impact on eco-

social feedback, are not created equal in terms of cross-

sector networks result from interpersonal exchanges at

diverse scales. These exchanges can be fluid (Thompson

246 K. C. Nelson et al.

123

2004) and thus be able to respond to changing conditions

and evolve over time (Brummel et al. 2012). Such fluidity

in network ties between and among people can be evalu-

ated based on network characteristics such as the types of

exchange, amount of time spent together, the degree of

confidence, and emotional closeness. Strong ties, or close

bonds, connect like-minded people and allow them to act in

concert. Weak ties are more fluid relationships that act as

bridges among a diversity of people that allow communi-

cation, resource transfers (Portes 1998), and collaboration

on shared initiatives. Granovetter (1983) argues that it is

the degree of looseness in the ties that ironically

strengthens networks supporting stability and robustness.

Strong ties, however, provide the social capital required to

defend the actors against negative influences (Putnam

2000). Burt (2000) proposed the existence of structural

holes, or gaps within social networks, that give rise to

critical opportunities for weak ties to ‘‘broker’’ information

and other resources in a way that brings actors together

from opposite sides of the hole. This effort to connect

structurally isolated actors can enhance systems by creating

non-local networks across scales or between strong and

weak tie networks. Weak ties also define a particular form

of social network that can provide resilience in the turbu-

lence and uncertainty of complex systems, while at the

same time generate creative energy sufficient for system

transformation. Yet, weak ties require several components

of ‘‘meetingness’’ (or the desire or expectation of gathering

in physical proximity instead of at a distance) and

exchange for them to be maintained over time, including

face-to-face interactions that require intermittently travel-

ing to meet, less formal relationships but with normative

expectation of attention, temporary occasioned encounters,

and associated with lifestyle interactions (Urry 2004). The

interplay of strong- and weak-tie relationships is seen as

critical to ecosocial feedback in social-ecological systems

(Putnam 2000).

In this study, we characterized development of social

networks and associated actor behavior associated with

three management strategies for dairy farming in eastern

North America, with specific attention to rotational grazing

dairy farming.1 This management strategy has higher

potential to be multifunctional (Boody et al. 2005; Vond-

racek et al. 2005) than the other strategies, termed low

intensity-grazing and confinement dairy farming. This

paper is part of a broader examination of social and envi-

ronmental attributes of these three management strategies

in three states of the eastern United States—Wisconsin,

Pennsylvania, and New York. Based on the conceptual

framework articulated above, we examined the configura-

tion of strong- and weak-tie relationships in these systems

with the expectation that rotational grazing systems may

manifest weak-tie connections to a range of stakeholders

and institutions that might benefit from the multifunctional

nature of rotational grazing, whereas such weak-tie con-

nections are not expected in social networks associated

with the other management strategies. Little is known of

the structure of cross-sector networks in US grazing dairy

systems, although these are among the most prominent

examples discussed by advocates of MFA (Boody et al.

2005). But we would expect diverse weak-tie networks

across scales to be associated with well-established rota-

tional grazing farmers. But there is limited understanding

of the structure of social networks in dairy production,

much less among rotational graizers.

To address this knowledge gap, we assessed the struc-

ture and relative importance of networks composed of

strong versus weak ties, motivated by the hypothesis that

increased multifunctionality in dairy farming requires

diverse weak-tie networks for ecosocial feedback. We

asked the following questions:

1. What is the structure of farmer social networks across

different dairy management strategies: confinement,

low-intensity graziers, and rotational graziers in three

areas of the eastern United States?

2. What is the relationship between strong and weak tie

networks for rotational graziers?

3. What role do weak-ties (nodes and exchanges) play for

rotational graziers overtime, specifically in their tran-

sition from confinement to rotational grazing?

4. Do we see differences in rotational graziers’ weak-tie

networks in areas with a longer history of rotational

grazing?

5. What implications do these findings have for under-

standing the dynamics of various dairy management

strategies, ecosocial feedback, as well as challenges for

regional shifts to rotational grazing as a viable

multifunctional system?

Materials and methods

Study system background

In dairy production systems, rotational grazing (RG)

involves intensification of pasture management (Taylor and

Foltz 2006). Farmers using this system ‘‘rotate’’ a herd

through a series of temporary paddocks where livestock

graze for several hours to several days, depending on the

intensity of the grazing system and management style of

the farmer. RG is regarded as potentially multifunctional

1 For this article we use the term rotational grazing but this

management type is also referred to as management intensive

grazing, grazing, and animals are labeled as grass-fed.

Human and natural systems 247

123

because it can create a range of socioeconomic and pro-

duction benefits.

We will first outline potential socioeconomic benefits.

RG has been found to allow start-up or expansion of dairy

operations with about half the capital costs of other man-

agement strategies (Jensen 1995), and lower production

costs, improved animal health, and reduced veterinary care

costs (Kriegel and Frank 2005). These potential advantages

make RG a production mode available to small and medium

dairies that usually milk fewer than 150 cows. RG eco-

nomics may be attractive to confinement dairy producers

who want another management option because their current

operation is not profitable, does not met their personal val-

ues, or lacks sufficient quality of life for their family. RG

may also be attractive to new farmers who wish to begin

dairy farming, as often young people or new immigrants are

not able to invest in confinement dairy because of financial

and time constraints. This aspect of RG may support

maintenance of rural farming populations and communities

in the face of ongoing reductions in number of farms and

farmers. For example, dairy farms in Minnesota declined by

25 % from 1998 to 2002 and few new farmers were entering

the business. This is an on-going trend across agriculture, as

farmers aged 34 and younger are now only 6 % of less of the

nation’s farmers (USDA Census of Agriculture).

In terms of biophysical impacts, RG could have bene-

ficial effects on several aspects of environmental quality.

Perennial grass-based cropping systems such as RG have

far lower soil-erosion rates than row-cropping systems

(Gantzer et al. 1990; Randall 2001) and can improve fish

and wildlife habitat (Lyons et al. 2000; Sovell et al. 2000;

Paine and Ribic 2002; Vondracek et al. 2005; Raymond

and Vondracek 2010). Despite these indications of socio-

economic and biophysical multifunctionality and the con-

sequent appeal to a range of stakeholders and institutions

that might benefit from its multifunctional nature, RG

remains relatively uncommon in most dairy areas. Some

analysts have concluded that the growth in RG systems

could depend on lowering farm-level barriers related to

farmer resources, increasing motivation and knowledge, as

well as attenuating risks associated with a system that has

few policy supports (Mariola et al. 2005). In this study, we

examine the role social networks might play in addressing

such barriers, on the supposition that a network providing

social, technical, and market support could promote RG

systems via ecosocial feedback.

Context and sampling

We examined social networks of dairy producers in three

areas of the eastern United States: Wisconsin (WI), Penn-

sylvania (PA), and New York (NY). States were selected to

cover the range of eastern dairy in the US along a historical

gradient from recent to longer-established areas. Wisconsin

on the western edge has seen growing interest in rotational

grazing. Pennsylvania in the mid-Atlantic area has estab-

lished grazing and New York in the northeast has a well-

established history of rotational grazing. The study farms

were selected based on biophysical, management, and

social characteristics for the broader study. In each of the

states, we selected a study area of one to four counties

recommended by extension agents as areas with rotational

grazing activity (Fig. 1). In each area we obtained USDA

dairy producer address lists to construct our sample along

with land parcel data. Using a geographic information

system and US Geological Survey hydrology data, we

identified dairy farms with streams bordering or within the

farm parcel, resulting in 684 total farms in the three states.

(Stream proximity was a requirement for the aquatic

ecologist’s component of the broader study.) We sent a

letter to all 684 farmers associated with the parcel address,

inviting them to be part of a selection pool for the study. By

returning a postcard, they would become part of the study

pool to evaluate farm management, quality of life, and

environmental attributes. We were general in the study

description, required one-day of field work on the farm, up

to 2 h of the farmer’s time, and offered a $200 stipend as

well as farm specific results and aggregated data analysis

about all the farms. The return postcard asked a few

detailed questions about their management type (rotational

grazing/confinement), farm acres, current herd size, con-

firmation of a stream on or bordering the farm, and contact

information (phone/email address). One hundred-sixty

postcards were returned, and 76 farmers agreed to be part

of the study selection pool. To keep farm size moderately

similar, we identified an upper limit of 300 milk cows and

lower limit of 30 milk cows, eliminating ‘‘hobby’’ farms

and much larger operations. We created groups of rota-

tional grazing and confinement farms for each state then

randomly sorted the farms in each group for phone calls. If

a contact was not made after five attempted calls at diverse

times, we moved on to the next farm address in an effort to

establish a time to visit. The original sampling goal was 10

rotational grazing farms and 10 confinement farms in each

state. Given the study topic and selection method there are

limitations in this intensive study: farmers in this sample

may be more interested in environmental issues, research,

and/or small financial incentives than the general popula-

tion of dairy producers. With the small sample size, the

research objective was to develop rich, qualitative data in

relation to each farm and observe if patterns emerged

across management types and/or states. Additional studies

need to be done to generalize these findings to a broader

population.

In the summer of 2009, we spent approximately one day

on each selected farm, interviewing farmers as well as


123

sampling physical characteristics of stream structure, bird

biodiversity, land use, and landscape erosion ‘‘hot spots.’’

In total we visited 53 dairy farms (20 in WI, 16 in PA, and

17 in NY). All counties had a high density of dairy pro-

duction but differed in the physical landscape and cultural

history. In Wisconsin, Clark County is a relatively flat

agricultural landscape that experienced a growth in rota-

tional grazing over the past twenty years; by 2005, rota-

tional dairies represented approximately 26 % of all

Wisconsin diaries (PATS 2007). The four study site

counties in Pennsylvania are composed of rolling hills,

river valleys, and forested areas. Many of these counties

include strong communities of Amish and Mennonite

farmers. In New York, the three counties are very hilly,

forested on the ridge tops, have streams in the valleys, are

marked by granite outcroppings. Northeast dairy farms

using rotational grazing are estimated at 10–22 % of dairy

production (Nott 2003; Winsten et al. 2010).

We grouped the farms in three management strategy

typologies after we had completed data collection on cow

diets: confinement, low-intensity grazing, or rotational

grazing. Confinement farms were those on which pasture

provided little to none of the milking herd’s nutrition; cows

were typically fed hay or corn silage, grains, and/or total

mixed rations (TMR) in the barn and, if pastured, were not

moved between different paddocks. Low-intensity grazing

farms included those on which milk cows received\50 %

of their nutrition from grazing, but were largely kept on

pasture during the grazing season and were moved to a

fresh pasture or paddock on a semi-regular basis. Rota-

tional grazing farms were those that met three specific

criteria: (1) milk cows received C50 % of their nutrition

from pasture during the growing season, (2) cows were

rotated to a new paddock or given a new break of grass at

least every 12 h, and (3) the farmer spoke during structured

interviews about actively managing pasture soils and/or

vegetation.

Dairy producer and farm factors

In this purposeful sample, socioeconomic factors indicate a

range of small to medium size operations. Net income

averaged 13 % of gross income but varied tremendously in

all management types (Table 1). The average primary

farmer age was 49 years old, with rotational grazing

farmers being slightly younger than those in other man-

agement types. Amish/Mennonite families in Pennsylvania

and Wisconsin were more prevalent among grazing types

which partially explains the increased the average number

of family members living and working on grazing farms.

Study farms covered a range of herd sizes (Table 1):

confinement dairies had the largest lactating cow average

and low-intensity grazing the smallest. Farm size varied

from 46 to 1,322 acres, with an average of 281 acres. Land

Fig. 1 Farm management types and study sites in eastern United States dairy production


123

cover on the primary farm site reflected the dairy cow diet

of corn silage and grains; rotational graziers had the highest

percent of land in pasture. Number of lactating cows and

herd size per acre of pasture reflected management types

with confinement having many more animals per acre of

pasture than graziers. In addition to the farm site, con-

finement producers and rotational graziers rented land, 42

and 60 % of the farmers respectively. In both management

types, of those who rented land, the number of acres rented

varied from 10 to 526 acres. Confinement dairy farmers

averaged 160 rented acres, dominated by crops (corn,

soybeans, alfalfa) and then hay. The rotational graziers

averaged 129 rented acres, substantially dominated by hay

and then to a lesser extent crops. Rented pasture was rel-

atively minimal in both management types, ranging for

none to 38 acres.

Farmer interviews

At each farm, we conducted an extensive, semi-structured

interview with the primary decision-makers and managers,

most often a single individual, but on occasion this also

included husband-wife or father-son partnerships. Inter-

views ranged between 2 and 5 h (averaging 3.5 h) and

covered farm history, personal motivations, innovations in

farm management, land management, herd health, as well

as questions regarding social networks. In examining

importance of social networks, we asked farmers what

organization, businesses, or individuals were most impor-

tant in supporting them and the farm. For farmers that had

transitioned from one form of production to another (con-

finement to rotational grazing, for example), we also

focused the interview on what social entities were impor-

tant for supporting their transition. During the interview,

we documented the specifics on each farmer’s social net-

works, including the nature of the relationship (family,

neighbor, veterinarian, extension agent, etc.), the type of

exchange, and additional descriptive details such as the

frequency of interaction.

Social landscape interviews

In addition to farm case studies, we conducted interviews

with individuals identified by the farmers as being integral

to their production and dairy management at the broader

social landscape. These included key informant interviews

that we identified through asking farmers about people who

would have a good idea about how dairy works in their

region. Across states, the people farmers offered were

typically veterinarians, nutritionists, extension specialists,

dairy companies, Natural Resource Conservation Service

employees (NRCS), bankers and farm loan officers, Farm

Service Association employees, and Soil and Water Con-

servation District employees (SWCD). While striving to

talk to a cross-section of this broader dairy support land-

scape, we interviewed those people most often mentioned

by farmers. Ultimately, we conducted 35 interviews with

these key informants across our three study areas. These

interviews ranged between 30 and 90 min and provided

a broader view of the social landscape and social networks

important to supporting dairy within the areas we studied.

Analysis

All interviews were transcribed verbatim and we analyzed

text for social network themes by coding with the quali-

tative analysis software NVivo 8. Regarding social net-

works, we focused on the type of node and tie of the

Table 1 Sociodemographic and land use factors by management type: confinement, low-intensity grazing, and rotational grazing in eastern

United States dairy production

Confinement Continuous grazing Rotational grazing Total Min Max

Average age of primary farmer 50.6 51.2 45.4 49.1 28 72

Average family size living on farm 4.5 5.9 6.1 5.2 1 15

Percent married 87 % 100 % 100 %

Percent Amish/Mennonite 17 % 42 % 40 % 27 %

2008 average gross income $419,691 $187,286 $300,830 $352,530 $60,000 $1.6 mil

2008 average net income $26,177 $60,714 $41,619 $36,196 -$46,000 $184,000

Percent of net/gross income (min/max) 9 % (-34 %/28 %) 24 % (-8 %/45 %) 14 % (-25 %/58 %) 13 % -34 % 58 %

Average no. animals: milking/total herd 90/192 50/101 81/151 82/168 25/50 275/754

Average farm size in acres 302 284 327 281 46 1,322

Average no. acres: corn/pasture 60.8/40.2 42.6/29.4 49.7/49.7 55.3/41.5 0/0 380/190

Percent land cover in corn 20 % 15 % 20 % 20 %

Percent land cover in pasture 13 % 10 % 20 % 15 %

No. milking/total herd per acre pasture 9.2/19.8 1.19/2.34 .98/1.98

N 31 7 14 52


123

relationship (e.g., family, vet, loan officer), the nature of

the relationship exchange (e.g., information, money, ser-

vice), the directionality of the exchange (bi-directional,

uni-directional), and the quality of the tie (weak tie vs.

strong tie). In his seminal work on the ‘‘strength of weak

ties,’’ Granovetter characterizes tie strength as ‘‘the amount

of time, emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confid-

ing), and reciprocal services which characterize the tie’’

(1973, p. 1361). Granovetter specified that the operational

assignment of a tie as either ‘‘weak’’ or ‘‘strong’’ as a

combination of these four factors; thus, we used these

elements to evaluate whether a particular farmer relation-

ship was a ‘‘strong’’ or a ‘‘weak’’ tie. We coded relation-

ships as strong ties where they were generally redundant,

highly dense, frequently used, involved reciprocal

exchange, and evoked a sense of intimacy or ‘‘we’’ in the

interviewee, as within families, church groups, or locally

based clubs. We characterized relationships as weak ties if

they were generally non-emotional or non-intimate,

involved relatively infrequent interaction, did not involve

symmetric reciprocal exchange, and if they evoked ‘‘them’’

rather than ‘‘we.’’ Most often, weak ties were with repre-

sentatives of an organization, business, or government

agency and acted as ‘‘bridges’’ by connecting the farmer to

a new network or source of information. Relying upon

indications of frequency, intimacy, density of exchange,

and emotional intensities to operationalize weak and strong

ties is common in the literature, and many other studies

across disciplines have taken similar approaches (e.g.,

Granovetter 1983; Hansen 1999; McPherson et al. 1992).

Ultimately, we compiled the social network data and

compared characteristics (number of ties, type of exchange,

strong tie/weak tie) across management types and states

using basic descriptive statistics and ANOVA. We used

both SPSS and STATA for the analysis.

Results

Network structure among management types

Evaluating farmer social networks, we identified number

and type of nodes, tie exchange characteristics, and node

types that did not occur. Rotational graziers’ networks were

slightly larger than confinement farmer networks, meaning

that on average they were linked to more nodes. Rotational

graziers reported an average of 9.87 network ties, while

confinement farmers reported an averaged of 8.87 ties.

Low-intensity graziers had the fewest average ties at 6.7.).

A one-way ANOVA indicated that the network ties were

significantly different at the p \ .10 level (F[2,50] = 2.74,

p = .07). In all cases these networks focused on ties with

primary service actors, friends/off-farm family, church

groups in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and a small selec-

tion of government agencies. See Table 2 for a list of the

15 most common node types as well as for a comparison of

the percentage of farmers who mentioned each node type,

differentiated by management type. Significant differences

existed in the nodes most closely associated with the pri-

mary diet requirements of the management type: low-

intensity graziers were more similar to confinement pro-

ducers in these cases. Furthermore, rotational graizers’

mentions were significantly different from low-intensity

and confinement farmers for feed coop, agronomist, and

grazing group (p = .05 or better).

Notably, there were no environmental or conservation

organizations in any of the farmer networks as anticipated if

there was a robust MFA network with ecosocial feedback

focused on environmental services. Fifty-one of the farmers

never mentioned a link with an environmental organization

when asked with whom they interact, both frequently and

infrequently, either narrowly in relation to production or

more socially. A single farmer, in low-intensity grazing,

mentioned that he had spent time attending watershed

council meetings some years back, in part because he wanted

them to realize that problems in urban areas are as important

to water quality as other land uses. In a few cases, including

both confinement producers and rotational graziers, the

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) or a natural

resources state agency served as an intermediary node with a

conservation organization. For example, in one case they

arranged for a Trout Unlimited group to help with stream-

bank fencing and a small wetlands restoration project in

another. This kind of intermediation happened mostly with

farms in Pennsylvania and to some extent in New York. But

these were onetime exchanges and in all cases it had hap-

pened 10–20 years previously.

Comparing weak tie versus strong tie relationships in the

networks, there were no apparent differences in the number

or type of strong tie relationships among the management

types (F[2,50] = .12, p = .88). But there were significant

differences between the proportion of weak ties

(F[2,50] = 3.73, p = .03) and ties with government agency

staff (F[2,50] = 3.29, p = .05). In both of these cases,

rotational grazing farmers had the highest proportion of

weak ties (mean of 7.3, compared to 4 for low-intensity and

5.9 for confinement) and the greatest proportion of ties with

government agency staff (0.25, compared to 0.10 for low-

intensity and 0.13 for confinement). In Pennsylvania, rota-

tional graziers preserved the farm over time through Lan-

caster Farm Land Trust easements. In New York, graziers

would sit down with NRCS staff to discuss how to start

grazing or what it meant to do intensive grazing. Rotational

graziers had the lowest proportion of weak ties with market-

based service nodes (0.44, compared to 0.73 for low-inten-

sity and 0.70 for confinement [F[2,50] = 8.58, p = .00).


123

Confinement operators mentioned numerous service-for-fee

exchange relationships with nutritionists, veterinarians, and

agronomists, among others, emphasizing the importance of

these individuals to their dairy operation.

[my nutritionist is] like an employee. I change the diet

and he knows what I want, knows my forage and where I

want to be. … It’s a convenience thing and I trust him

…I have two vets. One does reproductive work only and

he … does all my reproduction about every 3 weeks. I

have another vet who does sick cow work. [if] I need her

it’s to do a DA surgery … My mechanic—he is just as

needed. (NY confinement producer)

Overall, farmers practicing different dairy management

types differed in who they had weak ties with, often in part

determined by the cow diet. As shown in Table 2, con-

finement producers more frequently reported weak tie

relationships with nutritionists, feed coop representatives,

agronomists, 4H or Future Farmers of America, and their

neighbors. Low-intensity graziers were similar to confine-

ment producers in weak tie measures. Rotational graziers

more frequently reported a grazing group, organic milk

distributor, or the NRCS representative.

Rotational grazier strong versus weak tie networks

In our focus on rotational graziers, we ask whether social

networks matter in their adoption, conversion, expansion,

and/or survival. We found a difference in the type of social

network ties in their networks. Comparing the weak tie

exchange relationships for rotational graziers, we found the

graziers received more new information through their weak

ties (mean of .45 for rotational, compared to .20 for both

low-intensity and confinement; F[2,50] = 9.32, p = .00)

and had fewer market-based services supporting their pro-

duction system (mean of .42 for rotational, compared to .57

for low-intensity and .61 for confinement; F[2,50] = 3.83,

p = .03). Graziers mentioned numerous ways in which they

learned about rotational grazing that influenced their tran-

sition to or development of this alternative production

system. Over time as they shifted to the new management

strategy, they found they had fewer ties with market-based

services, such nutritionists, agronomists, and veterinarians

who traditionally support the complex diet of confinement

dairy production.

I think first is my grazing group because that’s where

I get my ideas. The beginning of this grazing and

even organic you couldn’t even go and ask any

county agent without hearing ‘‘What?’’ They thought

no way, not a serious farmer would consider doing

what you are doing. (PA rotational grazier).

For rotational graziers the importance of strong versus

weak tie networks depended on where they were in their

transition to grazing from confinement operations (Fig. 2).

Strong ties with a grazing neighbor or grazier groups

supported the initial idea to switch to rotational grazing. As

one dairy producer mentioned,

Mike down the road…He was a dairy farmer, but he

crunched a lot of money and I talked to him a lot

Table 2 Percentage comparison of farmers reporting node types in their social network for the 15 most common node types (n = 44)

Node type Rotational

grazing

(n = 15) (%)

Low

intensity

(n = 7) (%)

Confinement

(n = 31) (%)

Chi square

p value

Fisher’s exact

p value

Nutritionist 47 57 77 .10 .12

Veterinarian 67 29 68 .14 .15

Feed co-op 7 43 55 .00 .00

Church group 47 43 52 .89 1.00

Family 47 57 52 .89 1.00

Banker, loan officer 27 14 39 .40 .50

Cooperative extension 33 14 39 .47 .59

4H, FFA 13 29 39 .21 .23

Neighbor 13 29 35 .30 .34

Agronomist 0 29 32 .05 .02

Friend 27 43 32 .75 .84

Soil and water conservation district 33 14 32 .62 .76

Milk co-op/distributor/processor 47 57 29 .27 .28

Grazing group 60 14 3 .00 .00

Natural resource conservation service (NRCS) 60 0 3 .00 .00

Bold indicates significance at p = .05 or better


123

before I [transitioned to rotational grazing]. I got

some advice and pointers on what to look for, what to

do, what not to do. And he made it work. (NY rota-

tional grazier)

But for the majority of rotational graziers, weak tie net-

works emerged as they sought out new information and

worked with government agency staff on cost-sharing pro-

jects. Most dairy farmers faced a steep learning curve as they

made the transition. Many did not have neighbors who had

tried grazing as a central component of the cow diet, so they

found groups and programs at the county or regional scale.

Especially when we first started…if you stick to the

group and your group only stays within the group,

you only learn and know what that group knows. If

you step out and go to another group, they have

different ideas and different ways of doing things,

and we kept bringing new ideas to our group. And we

always would find at least one thing every pasture

walk…I feel we have the Cadillac of grazing farms,

because we pick all the good things from all the other

graziers. (WI rotational grazier).

Government cost sharing programs helped these dairy

producers with some of the difficult financial and infra-

structural transitions necessary for intensive grazing.

I couldn’t have done it without them (NRCS). I guess

that was, getting the parlor, and having them help

with the fencing, probably the main reason I could do

it. (PA rotational grazier)

Referring to the importance of the grazier groups during

the transition, farmers pointed to an openness in sharing

ideas and trying new things out.

We saw a big support system that was very positive.

It wasn’t competitive: it wasn’t based on chemical

companies trying to sell us something… people being

able to share information. It’s incredible the way you

can call people up and ask you know, ‘‘What do you

use for whatever?’’ Or ‘‘What’s working for

you?’’…And you go to meetings and find out, just

bring back one thing that could work for us. (NY

rotational grazier).

This period for the producers was rich with problem

solving and experimentation supported by new information

from others who had tried something and shared their

experiences. This lead to innovations and more organized

learning events in conferences and workshops through

grazing networks as well as consultation with state agen-

cies that supported specific projects with cost-sharing for

barn conversion, pasture enhancement, waste management,

and water quality.

As rotational graziers became established, the number of

network ties diminished and rotational graziers became more

self-sufficient. In several cases, a weak tie network evolved

into a strong tie learning network defined by a group of

producers who helped each other in multiple exchanges of

everything from shared labor for a barn conversion to joining

together in product distribution or diversification. But in

other cases, weak ties dwindled without being replaced by

strong ties, as one person mentioned:

The NRCS helped when we were starting out. And

they’ll check in on me every now and then to see how

we’re doing. (PA rotational grazier)

Notably, among those who had been practicing rota-

tional grazing for over ten years, stories about grazing

Fig. 2 Conceptual diagram of

the importance of weak and

strong ties in network and

exchanges at different stages in

farmers’ transition to rotational

grazing from confinement dairy

systems


123

groups and information exchange were stories about the

past. In many cases, these farmers spoke needing to get

‘‘back in touch,’’ but expressed also that life was ‘‘just too

busy.’’ Others had become mentors to a few younger

farmers in their areas. These farmers stated that they would

provide advice if requested, but also stated the view that

these younger farmers must be allowed to make their own

decisions, and therefore they would only provide advice if

asked.

Grazier networks in complex human and natural

systems

While understanding rotational grazier networks provides

rich insights at the micro scale, it also suggests the nature

of system level effects within complex human and natural

systems. In complex human and natural systems, recipro-

cal effects and feedback loops reflect interactions and

reciprocity among human actions and natural system

responses overtime (Liu et al. 2007). The new information

and innovations exchanged through rotational grazing

weak tie networks responded to observed ecological and

social changes at multiple scales; both within the daily and

seasonal experience of a single dairy as well as across

landscapes (both natural and social) through the grazing

groups and grazing events. For example, as graziers

established their pastures, they observed the cow response

in milk production and overall health. If they saw a change,

for the better or the worse, they shared these observations

with other graziers, adjusting pasture characteristics or

rotation timing to maintain the improvements and provide

additional information for others in a similar circumstance.

These exchanges filled critical gaps for graziers during

initial production transition periods and provided evidence

that could be compared across landscapes as well

exchanges of values and ideas that gradually established

social norms.

I think that one of the things you should know about

the graziers…is that they have this great ability to

share things with each other. They’re really willing to

say, ‘‘This works for me, you should try it!’’ The

conventional guys go, ‘‘Oh, I’m not going to give

away my secret.’’ I’m doing well and I don’t want

you to, sort of thing. It’s a little more competitive.

(Wisconsin Cooperative Extension)

In addition there was some evidence of weak tie net-

works improving system resilience among these multi-

functional agricultural initiatives, defined as enhancing the

capacity to return to similar structures and functions after a

disturbance, or in some cases create a system level trans-

formation (Folke 2006). Weak tie networks supported

exchanges about innovations to respond to problems that

emerged in grazing practices, gradually building micro-

scale resilience within a dairy operation and to some

extent, across dairies in a region. For example, grazing

specialists in Soil and Water Conservation Districts or

NRCS served as important weak ties for individual farm-

ers, but were also critical in organizing RG farmers and

promoting grazing across the regional rural landscape.

While individual farmers may have only used these types

of weak ties for information and funding during the critical

transition period, the agency employee remained a well-

known contact in the broader dairy landscape and experi-

enced graziers would direct other farmers interested in

rotational grazing to agency grazing specialists. In this

way, grazing specialists served as an important actor in

weak tie networks, promoting grazing across regional

landscapes. Over time, some capacity for resilience

remained in a few strong tie networks that persisted among

graziers. For example, Amish famers formed strong tie

networks among siblings or with uncles who helped them

recover from problems with their pasture during a drought

or to cover a debt during a difficult year. But in general

rotational graziers did not maintain the qualities of the

weak tie networks that supported resilience. During the

transition period rotational graziers gathered to share

information and problem solving discussions, as expressed

in the quote below, but the majority spoke of jointly

solving problems that would help them return to functions

after a disturbance as a thing of the past.

We more or less asked, what do you do about this?

How does this work for you? How do you solve this

problem?…When there was something we needed to

know and wanted some specialist to come in, then

we’d call somebody up and set a date. (Wisconsin

Grazing Network farmer)

The greatest threats to the persistence and expansion of

a landscape-scale rotational grazing system remain the

legacy effects—the influence of historical human-environ-

ment relationships on what is happening today—which in

this case are most represented and influenced by the

dominant confinement dairy production networks and the

lack of diversity in dairy producer social network nodes.

For example, we expected to find more diverse weak-tie

networks for rotational graziers in areas of eastern dairy

production (New York and Pennsylvania) that had a longer

history of rotational grazing than our Wisconsin site. We

expected that this longer history might have provided

greater opportunity for establishment of weak ties with

multiple stakeholders that might benefit from rotational

grazing. Via such weak ties, rotational grazing might be

established as a robust alternative to the dominance of

confinement dairy production. These expectations con-

cerning weak ties were not supported: comparing weak tie


123

relationships of rotational graziers across states, the mean

number of weak ties per farm was 8.6 in New York, 6.0 in

Pennsylvania, and 6.5 in Wisconsin, and these differences

were not statistically significant (F[2,12] = 1.79, p = .21),

although we acknowledge that inferences from this result

are limited by the small sample size (15 rotational grazing

farms). Even among rotational graziers, we found social

networks were narrowly centered on production. For

example, no environmental non-government organizations

were reported as a part of the grazier networks, even

though they likely share goals with producers regarding

multi-functional agriculture such as promoting biodiver-

sity, water quality, or locally produced food. In the tran-

sition stage, conservation and natural resource agencies did

fill gaps in the producers’ weak-tie networks but these ties

were often reported as ‘‘a thing of the past’’ once the

grazing system had been established. At a more macro-

scale, the legacy effects of strong and weak-tie networks

with confinement operations dominated the landscapes.

Confinement operations, Holstein dairy associations and

market-based services for intensive dairy production were

the norm in the social and natural landscape, within the

county and across the state. Confinement networks sur-

rounded most rotational graziers, and some graziers even

had ties with these networks through past financial obli-

gations as well as family, or friendship with neighbors

using confinement dairy management systems.

Discussion and conclusion

What is the structure of farmer social networks across

different management strategies? We found there was no

difference in type of strong ties but there was in the pro-

portion of weak ties. In this eastern United States study,

dairy producer social networks were based on production

and family ties that supported their respective management

strategies. Thompson (2004) has argued that through

exchange, social networks allow actors to respond to

changing conditions and in the process create social norms

that increase connectivity and exchanges that continue into

the future. To some extent, this is what was happening

across all the farms. During the period of our study, fuel

and corn prices were at an all-time high and milk prices

had dropped below operating expenses for confinement

operations. Along with economic factors, dairy producers

are constantly adjusting to variations in weather, animal

health, and their own personal health. Our findings suggest

that strong ties provided exchanges in times of need for all

producers, by creating social capital that helped defend

against negative consequences, as Putnam (2000) suggests.

Our informants reported a number of such instances. For

example, brothers shared labor or bought calves from each

other on credit. Farmers with large herds hired neighbors,

who were struggling, to help with corn cultivation so they

could get by one more year. In some cases milk distributors

waited a bit longer for payment or extension workers made

suggestions on how to adjust the cow diet to use less

expensive inputs or improve the pasture vegetation to

enhance milk production.

What is the relationship between strong and weak tie

networks for rotational graziers? What role do weak ties

play for rotational graziers overtime? It was the weak-tie

networks that made the difference in transitions for rota-

tional graziers. Burt (2000) argues that weak-tie networks

create brokering across structural holes in networks; often

producing non-local networks that incorporate information

and resources as well as nodes from multiple scales. In

these cases, we found that information exchanges expanded

across scales as graziers transitioned from the complex diet

of a confinement operation to the intensive pasture diet of

rotational grazing, or in a few cases started a new grazing

operation. In all study sites, farmers from different counties

gathered to exchange their observations about animal or

pasture responses to different management techniques with

other farmers who were ‘‘non-local,’’ from distant counties.

Non-Mennonite farmers (referred to as ‘‘English’’ opera-

tors) began consulting with Mennonite farmers who were

well known in the area for using a pasture diet in a cost

effective manner. Less frequently these exchanges hap-

pened in ‘‘grazing groups’’ or during seasonal pasture

walks with experts from the University or government

agencies, creating ‘‘meetingness’’ within the network

through face-to-face events (Urry 2004). Especially

important cross scale bridging occurred with the NRCS

staff, grazing experts who provided advice for groups of

farmers and often some cost sharing for infrastructural

conversion such as fencing, milk parlors, or water systems

during periods of transition.

However, our results suggest that weak tie ‘‘looseness’’

(Granovetter 2005) that creates strength through flexibility

(Thompson 2004) has not yet expanded beyond the nodes

associated with dairy production and traditional agricul-

tural management in general. If the multifunctional eco-

system service production that has been observed in

grazing dairy systems (e.g., Randall 2001; Paine and Ribic

2002; Vondracek et al. 2005) occurs broadly in such sys-

tems, then environmental and conservation organizations

would be expected to provide critical nodes in weak tie

networks during periods of transition from confinement

dairies to rotational grazing operations. However, organi-

zations with environmental goals did not appear to be

acting on the potential environmental benefits of land-

scape-level changes through rotation grazing. One possible

explanation for this observed inaction is the actual or

perceived level of multifunctional performance of the dairy


123

farms we observed. In our broader study, we assessed the

relative performance of grazing and other dairy farms on a

range of attributes relevant to ecosystem service

production.

In analyses of biophysical attributes of these dairy

operations, we found that rotational grazing farms differed

substantially from non-grazing dairy farms with respect to

land use/land cover only in PA, where well-managed

perennial vegetation occurred more frequently on slopes

and riparian areas than was the case in non-grazing farms

(Jordan, personal communication). Otherwise, grazing

farms did not appear to be more multifunctional in bio-

physical terms than non-grazing farms, acknowledging that

the research design may limit the ability to detect differ-

ences, especially landscape-level effects. We did not

observe substantial differences between grazing and non-

grazing farms with respect to grassland bird abundance

(Clower and Arnold, personal communication); plant spe-

cies conservation (Brand and Jordan, personal communi-

cation) or stream/streambank integrity (Brand and

Vandracek, personal communication). Assuming that our

grazier sample is reasonably representative, this limited

level of multifunctionality may figure significantly in the

failure of environmental and conservation organizations to

participate in the networks we observed. Future research is

necessary to access whether environmental and conserva-

tion organizations are aware of the apparently modest

capacities of grazing dairy farms for multifunctional pro-

duction and do not think the benefits are sufficiently robust

to justify participation in the weak-tie networks. If so, this

awareness would provide an explanation for the observed

disconnection in our study.

For example, one influential factor could be the histor-

ical influence of grazier networks overtime in one place.

Do we see differences in rotational graziers’ weak-tie

networks in areas with a longer history of rotational graz-

ing? In this study, we did not find a statistical difference in

weak-tie network nodes across the three study areas with

different periods of rotational grazing in the region.

More broadly, the demonstration of ecosystem services

from rotational grazing, especially the commoditization of

these services in a neoliberal global economy, is contested

terrain in the environmental movement and food sover-

eignty movement (McMichael 2011), or at best unrecog-

nized conservation potential among environmental groups.

Therefore, we may find that some environmental or food

sovereignty groups would not develop network ties with

rotational grazing farmers in order to achieve common

goals. Our results suggest that state and federal agencies

focused on conservation were the primary weak-tie net-

work nodes during periods of farm transition from con-

finement to rotational grazing, but these agencies appeared

to have played transient roles.

Transient role of networks for grazing farmers

What implications do our findings have for understanding

the dynamics of dairy management strategies, ecosocial

feedback, as well as challenges for regional shifts to

regional shifts to rotational grazing as a viable multifunc-

tional system? We found weak-tie networks facilitated

transitions through shared learning. Along with cross cut-

ting goals, weak-tie networks can facilitate boundary-

spanning learning as a consequence radical innovation (Dal

Fiore 2009). In grazing agriculture, this innovation is often

initiated between scientists and farmers (Frost and Lentz

2003) or among farmers. In her analysis of the emergence

of Wisconsin graziers in dairy and beef production, Has-

sanein and Kloppenburg (1995) argued that grazing groups

became knowledge networks that generated creative

energy sufficient to challenge the dominant dairy system

and eventually to drive a social movement that generated

organizations such as Grass Works, Inc. and collaborations

with milk processing companies such as Organic Valley.

These grazing groups focused on local knowledge,

exchange between farmers in different regions, and a

technical emphasis designed to help farmers develop key

skills that developed into a wisdom mentioned as the

‘‘grass eye.’’ By 1998 there were 23 Grazing Networks in

Wisconsin (Paine et al. 2000): most of which are now

supported by agency network coordinators and grazing

experts. Ten years later, during our conversations with

rotational graziers, we heard how important pasture walks

and grazing conferences had been during the learning curve

of their transition, but most of the stories were about their

past. Also, grazing networks were most often administered

or organized by an agency representative from NRCS or a

SWCD, while in the past they have been farmer-led and

initiated. In upstate New York, Kroma (2006) tells a sim-

ilar story about organic learning networks, many of which

include dairy farmers. Events sponsored by these networks

support innovation through critical adult learning vehicles

such as sharing local information, practical insights and

then experimentation, all focused on enhancing ecological

and alternative innovations.

Our findings about the limited temporal dimension and

scope of social networks among the eastern US dairy

producers in our sample have implications for this complex

human and natural system. Most importantly is the risk that

this production mode may have limited capacity for

transformative resilience, going beyond a return to the

status quo or modest adjustment but instead achieving a

significant change in its organization, relationships, and

production (Magis 2010; Folke 2006). At a relatively micro

scale, rotational graziers reported making transitions

adjusting to absorb disturbance by reorganizing. However,

more substantial and systemic transformations at a macro


123

scale may be impeded unless graziers and potential part-

ners develop and maintain more diverse weak tie networks

overtime. In recent agricultural cases, such networks have

supported qualitative changes in production systems in

response to existential challenges to these systems that

resulted from changes in the social, economic or bio-

physical context of these systems (Olsson et al. 2007;

Steyaert et al. 2007; Ortiz-Miranda et al. 2010). In partic-

ular, the absence of environmental groups from grazing and

dairying networks is likely to limit the opportunity for

exchanges that can produce social capital, shared norms,

and other elements of ‘‘intermediate regimes.’’ As con-

ceptualized by Caron-Flinterman et al. (2010), intermediate

regimes serve to organize exchanges of resources and other

support between separate social sectors, e.g., agriculture

and health care in the case of the emergence of ‘‘care

farming’’ in the Netherlands portrayed by these authors.

We did observe weak tie exchanges with organic and local

food distributors who acted on common goals and potential

shared benefits with rotational graziers: these common

interests were evidently related to shared interests in healthy

food and to some extent agroecological farming. Thus, it is

likely that emerging healthy and local food organizations

will be a more promising option than environmental orga-

nizations for diversifying weak tie networks centered on

rotational grazing. Within the organic movement we see

emerging networks (Kroma 2006) based on commodities

and motivated by diverse values such as healthy food, animal

rights, food sovereignty, among others.

Focusing on the spatial dimension, eastern US dairy

production appeared to have limited heterogeneity

expressed as variation in production systems and associated

land use. At the time of the study, 2009, confinement dairy

production dominated the landscape even in counties with

pockets of rotational grazing. Organic dairy systems were

building production networks focused on healthy food and,

in a few cases, local food. In addition, cultural groups such

as Amish and Mennonite farmers had diversity that sup-

ported a broader range of dairy operations, including

grazing. The graziers’ strong and weak-tie networks

appeared to be a mechanism for preserving this alternative

despite the homogeneity of socioeconomic and natural

systems organized around confinement production.

In our conceptual framework, we hypothesize that weak

ties were necessary to generate ecosocial feedback robust

enough to overcome systemic barriers to multifunctional

agriculture adoption. Our analysis of weak tie networks

suggests that they were critical for many graziers in their

transition from confinement to rotational grazing manage-

ment. However, many graziers returned to more isolated

strong tie networks after the transitional period. In reflec-

tion, this presents a potential challenge for these farmers as

they confront new problems or imagine working on issues

beyond the scale of their own farm. We propose that more

diverse weak-tie networks will be needed to achieve more

extensive adoption of grazing in eastern dairy operations.

Moreover, we hypothesize that current confinement-based

networks are insufficient to provide transformative resil-

ience. An important question is whether environmental and

conservation organizations will have opportunity and

incentive to build weak-tie networks with rotational gra-

ziers, and if so, what would cause such a change in the

participation of these organizations in social networks.

There is still much to understand in these complex

human and natural systems, both at the applied and theo-

retical levels. If weak-tie networks can be mechanisms, or

‘‘vibrant arenas of fluid exchange,’’ for system shifts then

we need to better understand what value exists in these

networks, from the perspective of a range of stakeholders

and social actors. As well, we will need to better under-

stand whether and how systemic barriers related to weak-

tie networks are important limits to the expansion and

enhancement of multifunctionality. In the eastern US, we

found that rotational grazier weak-tie networks were criti-

cal during transition periods but these ties disappeared as

the graziers worked to maintain the grazing operations over

time. The status of weak tie networks may contribute in

part to the limited expansion of grazing, but much more

needs to be explored in relation to factors and emergent

behaviors critical in shaping this complex human and

natural system.

Acknowledgments We recognize the critical support of the

National Science Foundation Dynamics of Coupled Natural and

Human Systems (BCS-BE: CNH-0709613) program as well as NIFA

through the University of Minnesota. We thank the farm families and

community members who shared their experiences with us. We

appreciate B. Vondracek and T. Arnold as long term collaborators on

this project; A. Slaat for figure preparation; N. Martini for statistical

advise; S. Campbell for interviewing assistance; S. Graves, A. Nessel,

S. Huerd for logistical support; K. Clower, A. Berland, D. Bonsal, G.

Brand, and J. Immich for fieldwork, GIS, intellectual engagement,

and team support over the years.

References

Batie, S.S. 2003. The multifunctional attributes of northeastern

agriculture: A research agenda. Agricultural and Resource

Economics Review 32: 1–8.

Belletti, G., G. Brunori, A. Marescotti, and A. Rossi. 2003.

Multifunctionality and rural development: A multilevel

approach. In Multifuncitonal agriculture: A new paradigm for

European agriculture and rural development, ed. G. Van

Huylenbroeck, and G. Durand, 55–80. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (eds.). 2003. Navigating social-

ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and

change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Boody, G., B. Vondracek, D.A. Andow, M. Krinke, J. Westra, J.

Zimmerman, and P. Welle. 2005. Multifunctional agriculture in

the United States. BioScience 55: 27–38.


123

Brummel, R., K.C. Nelson, and P. Jakes. 2012. Burning through

organizational boundaries? Examining inter-organizational com-

munication networks in policy-mandated collaborative bushfire

planning groups. Global Environmental Change 22: 516–528.

Burt, R.S. 2000. The network structure of social capital. Research in

Organizational Behavior 22: 345–423.

Caron-Flinterman, J.F., D. Roep, and A. Luijer. 2010. Bridging

incompatible regimes: How the formation of intermediary

regimes drives system innovation. Si Agro Workshop Proceed-

ings 16–18 June, Lelystad, Netherlands, 2010-06-182010-06-18.

Che, D., A. Veeck, and G. Veeck. 2005. Sustaining production and

strengthening the agritourism product: Linkages among Mich-

igan agritourism destinations. Agriculture and Human Values 22:

225–234.

Collins, S.L., S.R. Carpenter, S.M. Swinton, D.E. Orenstein, D.L.

Childers, T.L. Gragson, N.B. Grimm, J.M. Grove, S.L. Harlan,

J.P. Kaye, A.K. Knapp, G.P. Kofinas, J.J. Magnuson, W.H.

McDowell, J.M. Melack, L.A. Ogden, G.P. Robertson, M.D.

Smith, and A.C. Whitmer. 2011. An integrated conceptual

framework for long-term social-ecological research. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment 9: 351–357.

Dal Fiore, F. 2009. Communities versus networks: The implications

on innovation and social change. American Behavioral Scientist

50: 857–866.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for

social-ecological systems analysis. Global Environmental

Change 16: 253–267.

Franks, J. 2010. Boundary organization for sustainable land manage-

ment: The example of Dutch environmental co-operatives.

Ecological Economics 70(2): 283–295.

Frost, J.N., and R. Lentz. 2003. Rooted in grass: Challenging patterns

of knowledge exchange as a means of fostering social change in

a southeast Minnesota farm community. Agriculture and Human

Values 20: 65–78.

Gantzer, C.J., S.H. Anderson, A.L. Thompson, and J.R. Brown. 1990.

Estimating soil erosion after 100 years of cropping on Sanborn

Field. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45: 641–644.

Geyer, R. 2003. Beyond the third way: The science of complexity and

the politics of choice. British Journal of Politics and Interna-

tional Relations 5: 237–257.

Granovetter, M. 2005. The impact of social structure on economic

outcomes. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 33–50.

Granovetter, M. 1983. The strength of weak ties: A network theory

revisited. Sociological Theory 1: 203–233.

Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of

Sociology 78: 1360–1380.

Hansen, M.T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak

ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits.

Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 82–111.

Hassanein, N., and J. Kloppenburg Jr. 1995. Where the grass grows

again: Knowledge exchange in the sustainable agriculture

movement. Rural Sociology 60: 721–740.

Ison, R., N. Roling, and D. Watson. 2007. Challenges to science and

society in the sustainable management and use of water:

Investigating the role of social learning. Environmental Science

& Policy 10: 499–511.

Jensen, K.C. 1995. Grazing trend changes feed company opportuni-

ties. Feedstuff 17 July.

Jordan, N., and K.D. Warner. 2010. Enhancing the multifunctionality

of US agriculture. BioScience 60: 60–66.

Kriegel, T., and G. Frank. 2005. A ten-year economic look at

Wisconsin dairy systems. Madison, WI: Center for Dairy

Profitability.

Kroma, M.M. 2006. Organic farmer networks: Facilitating learning

and innovation for sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustain-

able Agriculture 28: 5–28.

Lamprinopoulou, C., A. Tregear, and M. Ness. 2006. Agrifood SMEsin Greece: The role of collective action. British Food Journal

108: 663–676.

Liu, J., T. Dietz, S.R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A.N.

Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, Z.

Ouyang, W. Provencher, C.L. Redman, S.H. Schneider, and

W.W. Taylor. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural

systems. Science 317(5844): 1513–1516.

Lyons, J., B.M. Weigel, L.K. Paine, and D.J. Undersander. 2000.

Influence of intensive rotational grazing on bank erosion, fish

habitat quality, and fish communities in southwestern Wisconsin

trout streams. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55: 271–276.

Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: An indicator of social

sustainability. Society and Natural Resources 23: 401–416.

Mariola, M.J., K.E. Stiles, and S. Lloyd. 2005. The social implications

of management intensive rotational grazing: An annotated

bibliography. Madison, Wisconsin: Center for Integrated Agri-

cultural Systems, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Matthews, R., and P. Selman. 2006. Landscape as a focus for

integrating human and environmental processes. Journal of

Agricultural Economics 57: 199–212.

McPherson, J.M., P.A. Popielarz, and S. Drobnic. 1992. Social

networks and organizational American. Sociological Review 57:

153–170.

McMichael, P. 2011. Food system sustainability: Questions of

environmental governance in the new world (dis)order. Global

Environmental Change 21: 804–812.

Nott, S.B. 2003. Evolution of dairy grazing in the 1990 s. Staff Paper

#2003-07. East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Agricultural

Economics, Michigan State University.

Olsson, P., C. Folke, V. Galaz, T. Hahn, and L. Schultz. 2007.

Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: Creating

and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the

Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve. Sweden. Ecology

and Society 12(1): 28.

Ortiz-Miranda, D., O.M. Moreno-Perez, and A.M. Moragues-Faus.

2010. Innovative strategies of agricultural cooperatives in the

framework of the new rural development paradigms: The case of

the Region of Valencia (Spain). Environment and Planning 42:

661–677.

Paine, L.K., R.M. Klemme, D.J. Undersander, and M. Welsh. 2000.

Wisconsin’s grazing networks: History, structure, and function.

Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education 29:

60–67.

Paine, L.K., and C.A. Ribic. 2002. Comparison of riparian plant

communities under four land management systems in south-

western Wisconsin. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 92:

93–105.

Polasky, S.E., D.Pennington Nelson, and K.A. Johnson. 2011. The

impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity,

and returns to landowners: A case study in the State of

Minnesota. Environmental & Resource Economics 48: 219–242.

Portes, Alejandro. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in

modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.

PATS (Program on Agricultural Technology Studies). 2007. Struc-

tural change in WI dairy 1987–2007: Divergence in size and

system. Fact Sheet No. 25. Madison, WI: College of Agricultural

and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin.

Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of

American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Randall, G.W. 2001. Present day agriculture in southeastern

Minnesota—Is it sustainable?. Waseca, Minnesota: University

of Minnesota Southern Research and Outreach Center.

Raymond, K.L., and B. Vondracek. 2010. Relationships among

rotational and conventional grazing systems, stream channels,

and macroinvertebrates. Hydorbiologia 669: 105–117.


123

Selman, P., and M. Knight. 2006. On the nature of virtuous change in

cultural landscapes: Exploring sustainability through qualitative

models. Landscape Research 31: 295–307.

Sovell, L.A., B. Vondracek, J.A. Nerbonne Frost, and K.G. Mumford.

2000. Impacts of rotational grazing and riparian buffers on

physicochemical and biological characteristics of southeastern

Minnesota, USA, streams. Journal of Environmental Manage-

ment 26: 629–641.

Steyaert, P., M. Barzman, J.-P. Billaud, H. Brives, B. Hubert, G.

Ollivier, and B. Roche. 2007. The role of knowledge and

research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in

natural resource management in the French Atlantic coastal

wetlands. Environmental Science & Policy 10: 537–550.

Taylor, J., and J. Foltz. 2006. Grazing in the dairy state: Pasture use

in the Wisconsin dairy industry, 1993–2003. Madison, Wiscon-

sin: Program on Agricultural Technology Studies.

Thompson, G.F. 2004. Is all the world a complex network? Economy

and Society 33: 411–424.

Urry, J. 2004. Small worlds and the new ‘‘social physics’’. Global

Networks 4: 109–130.

Verburg, P.H. 2006. Simulating feedbacks in land use and land cover

change model. Landscape Ecology 21: 1171–1183.

Vondracek, B., K.L. Blann, C.B. Cox, J.F. Nerbonne, K.G. Mumford,

B.A. Nerbonne, L.A. Sovell, and J.K.H. Zimmerman. 2005.

Land use, spatial scale, and stream systems: Lessons from an

agricultural region. Environmental Management 36: 775–791.

Warner, K.D. 2006. Extending agroecology: Grower participation in

partnerships is key to social learning. Renewable Agriculture and

Food Systems 21: 84–94.

Wilson, G.A. 2010. Multifunctional ‘‘quality’’ and rural community

resilience. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers

35: 364–381.

Wilson, G.A. 2007. Multifunctional agriculture: A transition theory

perspective. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.

Winsten, J.R., C.D. Kerchner, A. Richardson, A. Lichau, and J.M.

Hyman. 2010. Trends in the Northeast dairy industry: Large-

scale modern confinement feeding and management-intensive

grazing. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 1759–1769.

Wiskerke, J.S.C., B.B. Bock, M. Stuiver, and H. Renting. 2003.

Environmental co-operatives as a new mode of rural governance.

Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 51: 9–25.

Zimmerman, J.K.H., B. Vondracek, and J.V. Westra. 2003. Agricul-

tural land use effects on sediment loading and fish assemblages

in two Minnesota (USA) watersheds. Environmental Manage-

ment 32: 93–105.

Author Biographies

Kristen C. Nelson PhD, is Professor in the Department of Forest

Resources and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation

Biology, University of Minnesota, United States. As an environmen-

tal sociologist, her research contributes to the growing interdisciplin-

ary understanding of environmental change and its dynamic with

human systems. Current research includes sociological questions

associated with multifunctional agriculture, urban ecosystems, multi-

stakeholder dialogues, and environmental risk assessment. Previous

research focused on community participation in natural resource and

wildfire planning, conservation management, and sustainable devel-

opment. Her international work has concentrated on Latin America,

as well as recent comparative work in Kenya, Brazil, and Vietnam.

She is a University of Minnesota H.T. Morse Distinguished Faculty

member.

Rachel F. Brummel PhD, is Assistant Professor of Environmental

Studies at Lafayette College, Pennsylvania, United States. Her

research examines the ways environmental governance systems seek

to manage social and ecological complexity in the context of

environmental change. This work has taken the form of examining

policy-mandated collaboration and social learning in collaborative

wildfire groups in the US; investigating the development of inter-

organizational networks and collaborative understandings of ‘‘nature’’

in bushfire planning groups in Australia as a Fulbright Scholar; and

exploring social networks, farmer motivations, and conceptions of

multifunctionality in rotational grazing dairy. She teaches in the areas

of environmental studies, governance, and policy with a focus on

promoting interdisciplinary understandings of environmental issues.

Nicholas Jordan PhD, is Professor in the Department of Agronomy

and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, United States. His

research program in agricultural ecology addresses use of biological

diversity to improve on-farm productivity and resource efficiency,

while reducing harmful environmental effects of agroecosys-

tems. Recent projects focus on multifunctional agriculture, effects

of soil fungi on weeds, soil-occupancy effects of invasive versus

grassland species, and TMDL implementation in agricultural land-

scapes. Research, instruction and many service/outreach activities are

integrated around this theme. He is a Resident Fellow at the

University of Minnesota, Institute on the Environment.

Steven Manson PhD, is Associate Professor in the Department of

Geography, University of Minnesota, United States. He directs the

Human-Environment Geographic Information Science lab. He com-

bines environmental research, social science approaches, and geo-

graphic information science to understand complex human-

environment systems. He is a Resident Fellow at the University of

Minnesota, Institute on the Environment and is a past NASA New

Investigator in Earth-Sun System Science and NASA Earth System

Science Fellow. He received the Young Scholar Award from the

University Consortium for Geographic Information Science, the

Sustainability Science Award from the Ecological Society of

America, and a University of Minnesota McKnight Land Grant

Professorship.


123

Social networks in complex human and natural systems: the case of rotational grazing, weak ties, and eastern US dairy landscapes

Documents