Examining U.S. military veteran farmers’ agricultural characteristics

Pamela Weiler; Courtney Meyers; Jason Headrick; Darren Hudson; Rudy Ritz

doi:10.37433/aad.v7i3.721

Authors

Pamela Weiler Central State University, Ohio, USA https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0079-6973
Courtney Meyers Texas Tech University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9099-3613
Jason Headrick Texas Tech University, USA https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1981-2513
Darren Hudson Texas Tech University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5332-2327
Rudy Ritz Texas Tech University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5086-1181

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v7i3.721

Keywords:

agricultural education, agricultural policy, capability approach theory, access theory, veteran farmer, SDG 4: Quality Education

Abstract

Most research regarding veteran farmers emphasized the mental health benefits of farming for military veterans, leaving a gap in understanding their production roles and educational needs. The study aimed to describe the production interests, challenges, motivations, and farm-generated income of military veterans engaged in agriculture using capability approach theory and access theory together as a conceptual framework. A national online survey was distributed through nonprofit organizations that received federal funding to deliver nonformal agricultural education to veterans. The survey collected data on veteran demographics, military history, agricultural background, current production activities, land access, and income from farming. Respondents also identified their top motivations to farm and challenges faced when farming. Findings showed a higher representation of commissioned officers than enlisted personnel among the respondents. Nearly half of respondents had access to less than 50 acres of land, and most had early-life exposure to agriculture. Vegetables were the most produced commodity. Respondents often cited altruistic motivations for farming, while fewer emphasized therapeutic reasons. Common challenges included limited time, labor, land, and equipment. Over half of respondents reported that a significant portion of their income came from agricultural operations. These results can help develop more effective agricultural educational programming for this audience.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ahearn, M. (2011). Potential challenges for beginning farmers and ranchers. Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, 26(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.109475

Auburn, J. S., Ebodaghe, D., Rucker‑Ross, D. K., & Dean, W. R. (2016). Beginning farmer and rancher development program – Accomplishments in the making. Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, 31(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.246156

Beguin-Fernald, C. A. (2022). Cultivating post-traumatic growth and community reintegration: A veteran-to-farmer program evaluation. [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona]. The University of Arizona Campus Repository.

Besterman‑Dahan, K., Chavez, M., & Njoh, E. (2018). Rooted in the community: Assessing the reintegration effects of agriculture on rural veterans. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 99(2S), S72–S78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.06.035

Biemer, P. P. (2010). Total survey error: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(5), 817–848. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq058

Bjornson, L., & Forman, J. (2020). Veterans in agriculture: A path forward. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Economic Opportunity.

Boyadjieva, P., & Ilieva-Trichkova, P. (2021). The heuristic potential of the capability approach in studying (adult) education. In Adult education as empowerment: Reimagining lifelong learning through the capability approach, recognition theory, and common goods perspective (pp. 47–78). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67136-5_3

Calo, A., & De Master, K. (2016). After the incubator: Factors impeding land access along the path from farmworker to proprietor. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 6(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2016.062.018

Da Silveira, F., Da Silva, S. L. C., Machado, F. M., Barbedo, J. G. A., & Amaral, F. G. (2023). Farmers' perception of the barriers that hinder the implementation of agriculture 4.0. Agricultural Systems, 208, 103656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103656

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.

Donoghue, D. J., Goodwin, H. L., Mays, A. R., Arsi, K., Hale, M., Spencer, T., O’Gorman, M., Jose, S., Gekara, O., Burke, J., & Donoghue, A. M. (2014). Armed to farm: Developing training programs for military veterans in agriculture. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 29(2), 82–93. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jrss/vol29/iss2/5

Egdell, V., & Robertson, P. J. (2021). A critique of the capability approach’s potential for application to career guidance. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 21, 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-020-09445-0

Elam, R. (2019). Everyone can grow! Winter programming using an indoor horticulture environmental education program to benefit military veterans [Master’s field project, Western Washington University]. Western Washington University.

Fleming, L. L. (2015). Veteran to farmer programs: An emerging nature-based programming trend. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, 25(1), 27–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24865257

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2021). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw Hill.

Garlock, T., Anderson, J. L., Anderson, T. M., & Kumar, G. (2025). Aquaculture in the United States: An analysis of seven aquaculture sectors from the aquaculture performance indicators perspective. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 29(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2025.2455411

Goodwin, J. N., & Gouldthorpe, J. L. (2013). Small farmers, big challenges: A needs assessment of Florida small-scale farmers’ production challenges and training needs. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 28(1), 54–79. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jrss/vol28/iss1/3

Iles, I. A., Smalley, S. W., & Hall, J. (2023). Beginning farmers’ motivations, challenges, and training needs: Implications for program development. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2023.123.003

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

Mishra, A., Wilson, C., & Williams, R. (2009). Factors affecting financial performance of farmers. Agricultural Finance Review, 69(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1108/00021460910978661

Oldendick, R. W. (2012). Survey research. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 877–881). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n432

Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x

Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266.

Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Open Book Publishers.

Schuman, H., & Ludwig, J. (1983). The norm of evenhandedness in surveys as in life. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095149

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Story, D. A., & Tait, A. R. (2019). Survey fatigue and non-response: Strategies for improving response rates and data quality. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 57, 94–96.doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002436

Tidball, K. G. (2018). Farming and veterans — Why agricultural programs resonate with returning combatants. Journal of Veterans Studies, 3(1), 85-88. https://doi.org/10.21061/jvs.v3i1.6

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (ERS). (2022). Farm labor—Background. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2022). 2022 census of agriculture: United States summary and state data. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. (2023). Enhancing Agricultural Opportunities for Military Veterans (AgVets). U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/enhancing-agricultural-opportunities-military-veterans-agvets

U.S. Department of Defense. (2020). 2020 demographics report: Profile of the military community. Military OneSource. https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2020-demographics-report.pdf

Van Dyke, M., & Rickard, B. (2021). Healing on the farm: A review of veteran therapeutic agriculture programs. Journal of Rural Mental Health, 45(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/rmh0000147

Walker, M., & Unterhalter, E. (2007). The capability approach: Its potential for work in education. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 1–18). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230604810

Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest, 158(1S), S65–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012

Weiler, P., Meyers, C., Headrick, J., Odilla, G., Hudson, D., & Ritz, R. (2026). Examining U.S. military veteran farmers’ learning needs relevant to agricultural education. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 7(3), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v7i3.723