Where the bison managers learn: Extension and outreach as a tool for manager success

Bison managers in the U.S. represent a growing, but often underserved, segment of the livestock industry, facing unique challenges in animal behavior, infrastructure, market access, and limited species-specific research. Despite increasing interest driven by ecological, economic, and cultural motivations, significant gaps exist in educational resources and support networks. Extension and outreach programs can address these gaps by providing targeted, science-based information and fostering peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. The beef cattle industry offers successful Extension cohort program models that can be adapted for bison, incorporating adult-learning preferences and experiential learning. An informal needs assessment revealed distinct regional differences: Western bison production focuses on large herds and landscapes with whole-herd management approaches, while Eastern operations involve smaller herds where individual animal management is feasible, along with different marketing opportunities. The industry’s primary challenge is insufficient peer-reviewed research and Extension programs to disseminate knowledge to managers. Mimicking successful beef cattle outreach programs for managers can help bridge this gap, by focusing on program aspects such as in-person workshops and webinars, out-of-state learning experiences, ranch-to-rail opportunities to retain ownership, and networking and mentoring. The proposed framework provides researchers, Extension specialists, and industry groups ideas and avenues of potential formats for programs, how to incorporate interdisciplinary approaches, and the importance of integrating traditional ecological knowledge. Leveraging these approaches will strengthen bison manager capacity and contribute to long-term industry sustainability, supporting the continued growth of this ecologically and culturally significant sector.

1 Introduction

North American bison (Bison bison) have occupied most of the continent for at least 160,000 years. Their abundance as a species in North America has risen, fallen, and partially recovered again over the last 150 years from 30 million individuals to fewer than 1,000 individuals, to more than 400,000 individuals (Shamon et al., 2022). Since the 1960s the bison industry been recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The “bison industry” only encompasses the private sector of bison ownership and management, whereby bison are primarily raised as provisioning ecosystem services. There are also public agencies (national, regional, and local governments) owning and managing bison herds for non-provisioning ecosystem services as a wildlife species (public sector), sovereign Tribal nations owning and managing bison herds primarily for cultural ecosystem services (Tribal sector), and non-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs) owning and managing bison herds for all four ecosystem services (NGO sector) (Martin and Cammack, 2022; Martin et al., 2021). Each of these sectors are detailed further in this Special Topics Collection (Martin, this volume) and are collectively the bison management system (BMS, Martin et al., 2021). Overwhelmingly, the private sector owns and manages 85% of the bison population in the U.S. and Canada. Yet, because bison are considered a non-amenable (i.e., non-domesticated) species to USDA, no taxpayer dollars are allocated to offsetting production and slaughter inspection costs (i.e., lack of subsidies for non-amenable species) and limited taxpayer dollars are allocated to research and outreach to enhance bison production management (Martin and Blair, 2023).

The bison is largely considered one of the most charismatic megafaunas that people think of when they envision “wide open spaces.” Despite their ubiquitous presence in national parks such as Yellowstone or the Badlands, and prairies of the Great Plains, the number of bison is far surpassed by beef cattle in these geographic areas. For example, there are approximately 400,000 bison in North America and over 50% are located within the U.S (Martin, 2024). The most recent USDA Census of Agriculture (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022b; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022c) revealed a peak of bison numbers in 2002 at 231,950 head nationally, decreasing to 162,110 head in 2012, and increasing to 192,477 head in 2022, demonstrating a growing industry. This includes Indigenous producers’ bison on Native American Indian Reservations, where counts ranged from 99 to 3,960 head (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022a; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022b; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022c). Native American tribes, as sovereign nations, do not report assets to USDA – the InterTribal Buffalo Council (ITBC) reports approximately 20,000 bison on 86 Tribal Nations (ITBC, 2022; Shamon et al., 2022). In comparison, there are approximately 29.2 million head of beef cattle nationally, and inventory on Native American Indian Reservations ranges from 15 to nearly 70,000 head (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022b; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022c).

The impact of bison is multifaceted – they support biodiversity, ecosystem function regulation, and provisioning production performance traits that can be manipulated, and their economic value is immense (Tielkes and Altmann, 2021). Specifically, moderate grazing by bison increases and promotes biodiversity as animals move across the landscape because they consume competing dominant plant species (Knapp et al., 1999; Olff and Ritchie, 1998; Ratajczak et al., 2022). Further, bison are considered a keystone species as their grazing and wallowing behaviors promote biodiversity for both flora and fauna to such an extent in the Great Plains that the impact of bison is greater than that of modern beef cattle grazing (Freese et al., 2007; Fuhlendorf et al., 2010; Nickell et al., 2018). Although bison have a lower growth rate and lower production efficiency compared to conventional livestock species like beef cattle (Koch et al., 1995; Simpson et al., 2024; Towne, 1999), demand for bison meat has increased the integration of cattle production practices, with “nature-based management” often the default choice (Tielkes and Altmann, 2021). Finally, the entire bison animal (i.e., meat, skulls, leather, hides, organs, bones, tallow, tourism) is marketable with considerable premiums (Tielkes and Altmann, 2021), providing managers a plethora of options to diversify revenue streams.

There are limited formal resources available to support managers in areas such as animal husbandry, veterinary care, grazing management, and other topic areas (Table 1), despite there being 1,986 bison operations in the U.S. in the 2022 Census, that represent 2.6% of U.S. farms (out of 58,000 total farms, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022b; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022c) and the species’ potential to contribute positively to both ecological and economic outcomes. This is ~12% increase from the 2017 Census, which reported 1,775 bison operations. The lack of available resources for bison managers is further compounded when considering all but four states reported bison operations with sales (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022b; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022c). Extension is well-positioned to fill this void by expanding existing bison outreach efforts and adapting proven strategies from beef cattle programming to meet the unique needs of bison managers.

Table 1

Table 1. Results from Google and Web of Science searches conducted in 2025 for relevant terms associated with both bison and beef cattle.

Consequently, this paper first provides information on bison managers gathered during an informal needs-assessment of bison operations across the U.S., primarily focusing on Western and Eastern U.S. managers and operations. Next, we describe a highly successful beef cattle Extension program and how it can be adapted for bison managers across different BMS sectors. We also detail potential challenges, as well as solutions, to implementing bison outreach programs.

2 Informal needs-assessment highlights bison operation similarities and differences

Martin et al. (2021) conducted a national survey of 132 bison managers and reported minimal differences between the values, attitudes, and practices for bison operations, across the BMS, regardless of region and grassland type. However, to expand on that original national survey, an informal needs-assessment of bison managers was conducted by co-author Urso in fall 2024. The needs-assessment was conducted in-person while attending various bison operations during their annual wellness checks (i.e., “round ups”) starting in early October, spanning from western South Dakota to western Pennsylvania. Some of the information below weaves information from Martin et al. (2021) with Urso’s observations of 20 bison operations. While no specific demographic questionnaire was given, 85-90% of the bison managers were starting or had started bison ranching within the last 5 years. In general, Urso found that bison managers appreciate and apply aspects of the “land ethic” described by Leopold (1939, 1949). Further, managers east of the Mississippi River operate in different, smaller economies of scale than bison operations in the West. Consequently, Extension and outreach programs require tailoring to adequately address the varied needs for bison managers in different regions.

2.1 Western U.S. production

Bison production in the Western U.S., here defined as west of the Mississippi River, occurs on extensive landscapes. Production on many of these ranches is focused on efficiency and numbers as herds are typically more than 1,000 head on greater than 2,000 ha (Martin et al., 2021). As a result, bison on Western operations roam extensive landscapes and are generally untouched for most of the year. Advantages to this management are that animals are treated similarly to how they were historically — minimal human contact. However, the needs of the many often outweigh the needs of the few, with management decisions needing to consider the entire herd over a single cow who is underperforming. This is driven, in part, by economics, as larger herds operate as one entity. In addition, the ever-present threat of disease outbreaks can sometimes translate to a single symptomatic cow finding herself a sacrificial diagnostic necropsy. Despite this mindset, Western managers still have animals whom they have named, feed treats, and routinely check on their well-being.

Managers who share and elevate this attitude include the Tribal Nation’s herds that scatter the West. In these herds, animals are sacred and part of the tribe. The care for Buffalo Nation is so profound, that the longstanding respect and care for bison has engrained itself into the attitudes of all managers. Moreover, due to economic efficiency, there are typically cultural herds that operate in tandem with production herds. These cultural herds are major focal points of cultural significance of bison and are treated as equals.

There are some economic differences between Western bison managers and Western Tribal Nation managers. While Tribal Nation managers are subject to the bison economy, non-tribal managers essentially solely operate within the free market of the U.S., wherein profits are a function of the ebb and flow of supply and demand. Western managers can generate large numbers of bulls and cows for the meat animal market yearly. They use the large scale of their operations and work within the confines of prices dictated by agricultural markets.

2.2 Eastern U.S. production

Bison managers east of the Mississippi River differ in scale and economic opportunities. In general, operations are fewer than 100 head. Often, Eastern operations average 50 head on less than 25 ha because net primary productivity is higher than the arid West. Even though much of the East is highly fragmented into small parcels, some larger herds may exist on lands greater than 400 ha. Highly productive, yet fragmented, lands result in higher potential for nose-to-nose contact of bison with other wildlife and livestock species that may induce contraction of various zoonotic diseases. Also, Eastern managers may have daily interactions with their bison that would otherwise be difficult to achieve in the west. Daily human interactions with bison in the East result in bison that have grown accustomed to and are less reactive to human presence. However, round ups are still often only conducted annually.

A central difference between Western and Eastern bison production is the available market opportunities. While the U.S. free market exists for both groups, Eastern managers have an additional outlet to sell products at – farmer’s markets. Farmer’s markets exist across the country; however, most Eastern managers live relatively close to larger cities with a customer base willing to pay premiums for bison products. Moreover, market premiums are a necessity, as operating at a smaller scale means fewer animals are processed, despite the considerable costs of starting, running, and maintaining a bison ranch. Eastern managers still follow supply and demand economics, pricing bison products for what Eastern consumers will pay. Urso also noted that Eastern managers are more apt to take risks on alternative and unique bison products, such as tomahawk steaks and hot dogs, that may be harder to sell in mainstream markets.

2.3 Southern managers

The aforementioned groups are the ones that have had the most interaction with this author team. However, bison are present in all 50 states. Specifically, Texas leads the country in the number of bison ranchers (USDA NASS, 2022; SDSU Bison COE, 2021). A blend of attributes from Western and Eastern managers exists in southern states such as Texas, Oklahoma, and North Carolina, where there’s a myriad of herd sizes, from >250 head, Tribal herds, and smaller ‘hobby farms.’

2.4 Challenges faced by bison managers

Although regional differences exist among bison producers, conferences such as the National Bison Association (NBA) annual meeting serve as a melting pot of the different BMS sectors. Information is shared through Extension publications and conference talks (Martin and Brooke, 2021). Managers are well-read and eager to learn, with some receiving their information from textbooks and academic papers. There is an open exchange of information among managers, academics, and researchers. Despite this, the grand challenge facing the bison industry – particularly managers with < 5 years of experience – is a lack of both peer-reviewed research and Extension and outreach programs to disseminate that knowledge to managers. Managers have questions about topics such as health issues like parasites and diseases, addressing nutritional disorders like mineral deficiency or toxicity, best practices for safe handling and shipping, and minimizing cost while balancing animal well-being and welfare. Therefore, mimicking successful beef cattle outreach programs for managers can help bridge this gap.

3 Role of extension

Cooperative Extension (hereafter referred to as “Extension”) is one of the three pillars of the land-grant university system in the U.S., with the other pillars of research and education (NIFA, 2025). The directive of Extension is for land-grant universities to “offer their resources to address public needs” (NIFA, 2025). Despite this, as mentioned above, there are few resources available for bison managers compared to beef cattle managers. Furthermore, a Web of Science search (Table 1) underscores the need not only for resources for bison managers but also for Extension specialists and industry leaders. The beef cattle industry has several successful programs for managers, one of which, “beefSD”, (Ehlert et al., 2024) provides a strong framework for helping bison managers understand the entire bison industry. Below, we combine the knowledge gained through the informal needs assessment with aspects of the beefSD program to provide an outline of what successful bison Extension and outreach can look like within the U.S., with consideration given to the four parts of the BMS.

Since its inception in 2010, the beefSD program has had measurable impact on young and beginning beef cattle managers (Ehlert et al., 2025), due to its unique structuring. In brief, the beefSD program is operated as a cohort of 15–25 individuals over 2 years and involves exposing participants to tools and knowledge that allows them to make informed management decisions that translate to economic, social, and environmental sustainability for their operation (Ehlert et al., 2024, 2025). Aspects of the program that make this possible include funding, team members, participant recruitment and selection, and core curriculum components. We refer readers to Ehlert et al. (2024) for information on the three former aspects and focus on translating the curriculum components to being applicable to the bison industry.

Based on the informal needs assessment conducted by Urso, we suggest that a comprehensive Extension and outreach program for bison managers have five central goals. First, the program should increase manager knowledge in bison biology, husbandry and welfare, grazing systems, and land stewardship. Second, there is a strong need to enhance the economic viability of the bison industry through market development, business and ranch/farm planning, and cooperative partnerships. Third, the program should support conservation and cultural values of bison and bison managers alongside operational goals. Fourth, the program should foster a connected bison community across the BMS. Lastly, the program should center itself as a peer-learning group (PLG), focused on five commonalities of successful networks: common goals, communication, honesty, trust, and shared world views (Dunn, 1997). We acknowledge these are broad goals but feel that Extension specialists can tailor them to their specific region and locally identified needs. These goals lend themselves to four components of the beefSD curriculum (Ehlert et al., 2024) that can be readily adopted for a manager outreach program: 1) in-person workshops and interactive webinars, 2) out-of-state learning experiences, 3) a ranch-to-rail program, and 4) networking and mentoring (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. An overview of an Extension and outreach program for bison managers that highlights four different components: in-person workshops & webinars, out-of-state learning experiences, a ranch-to-rail program, and networking and mentoring. Topic ideas, sectors of the bison management system (BMS) represented, and regional differences are detailed.

3.1 In-person workshops and webinars

Workshops can cover several topic areas (Figure 1) and be conducted at bison ranches that use innovative strategies. This naturally creates a mentor-mentee relationship between the operation owner and/or manager and program participants. Further, adults value learning information from those with applied, real-life experiences (Phillips et al., 2017). As an example, one workshop could focus on grazing management by visiting a bison operation that leverages how bison historically grazed on the landscape to implement year-round grazing, high-intensity/short-duration grazing or other strategies such as rotational grazing. We argue that a program could have a minimum of four different workshops that represent each pillar of the BMS, as it is critical for participants to understand how grazing management and animal handling or ecotourism/agritourism, for example, differ between public wildlife agencies vs. Tribal entities vs. NGOs vs. private operations, etc.

3.2 Out-of-state learning experiences

Participants in the beefSD program expressed gratitude and excitement about out-of-state learning experiences (Ehlert et al., 2025), which can expose participants to different ways of knowing and broader perspectives of the entire U.S. bison industry. In addition, Rothwell (2020) found that adults prefer interactive and stimulating learning environments compared to traditional learning (i.e., “death by PowerPoint”). Out-of-state learning experiences embody this and all sectors of the BMS are represented through the topics we suggest in Figure 1.

3.3 Ranch-to-rail

“Ranch-to-Rail” (TAMU, 2000; USU, 2000) allows bison managers to retain ownership of their animals after weaning and through slaughter. Participants can visit each segment of the private sector industry to gain understanding of a full cycle of a bison’s life: cow/calf, feeders/feedlots, slaughterhouses, and distributors. This may be able to be conducted in state or can be integrated into the out-of-state experiences. Aspects of Ranch-to-Rail can focus on carcass quality grading and yield, supply chain dynamics, or pricing strategies and value-added products (Figure 1). This is a critical component of our proposed program for bison managers, as these aspects vary widely by region as discussed above.

3.4 Networking and mentoring

Networking and mentoring should be woven throughout all components of the program and are central to developing a strong PLG with the participants. Sharing personal experiences and having open, strong two-way exchanges of information are highly valued by adult learners (Philips et al., 2017; Rothwell, 2020). Options exist for how this part of the program functions – either through formal mentor-mentee pairings to groups specifically focused on a specific topic area (e.g., marketing or conservation) to virtual discussion groups (Figure 1).

4 Discussion and recommendations

The U.S. bison industry has expanded over recent years, with growth opportunities in conservation, cultural revitalization, and enterprise diversification. Despite this, bison managers face a critical gap: limited access to Extension and outreach programs tailored to their unique, local management challenges. The beef cattle sector has long-standing Extension programs that provide technical, business, and networking support; bison managers, in contrast, often rely on fragmented information and informal networks. Consequently, the long-term success of the bison industry is dependent on building Extension programs for bison managers that build on proven models from the beef cattle sector – adapting programs to the ecological, cultural, market, and regional differences that make bison production distinctive.

While bison operations have increased, they are unevenly distributed, with far more in Western states (e.g., 105 in South Dakota, 69 in Montana) than in the Southeast (e.g., 18 in Georgia, 8 in Mississippi) or East (e.g., 9 in Connecticut, 5 in New Hampshire) (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022a; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022b; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022c). This limited geographic distribution makes in-person outreach programs challenging, suggesting that incorporating online learning could be valuable for some aspects of an outreach program. Although some research indicates adult learners may feel isolated without face-to-face interaction (Kaiser et al., 2023), these concerns can be addressed through effective course design, instruction quality, and promoting interaction (Grant and Thornton, 2007). Online asynchronous education offers collaborative and flexible learning opportunities, can enable in-depth discussions, and allows learners to balance education with other responsibilities (Hoon et al., 2018). Thus, we suggest that a given state consider the makeup of its bison operations and managers when considering how specifically to adapt a model such as ‘beefSD.’ In addition, there may be some aspects of the program, such as “Ranch-to-Rail” that may be more difficult in smaller footprint states, and likewise some components may be harder to translate to bison, while other topics such as grazing management concepts are relatively universal to most livestock species.

Extension specialists, researchers, and bison managers must collaborate to design and deliver robust, co-produced, evidence-based programming (Ehlert et al., 2024) and resources for bison managers. Paramount to this is the inclusion of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) where applicable, and the co-production or support from entities such as the InterTribal Buffalo Council and Tanka Fund (Gray et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2017; Norström et al., 2020). Universities, agencies, and partner organizations should prioritize hiring bison-focused Extension professionals to lead these efforts. By investing in both Extension professionals and bison managers, we can strengthen manager knowledge, advance ecological stewardship, expand markets and networks, and support the continued growth and resilience of the bison industry. Additionally, if there are 1994 land grant Tribal college and universities that lack this capacity, they should consider hiring bison-focused Extension staff for their local communities so that materials are culturally sensitive to their inter-relational connections with bison.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because Original, unpublished data is included in this manuscript through an informal needs assessment. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to Krista Ehlert, a3Jpc3RhLmVobGVydEBzZHN0YXRlLmVkdQ==.

Author contributions

KE: Visualization, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PU: Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. JM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work and JMM were supported in part by a USDA-NIFA Hatch project award no. 1026173 and a USDA-NIFA Multistate project award no. 7004803. KAE was supported in part by a USDA-RREA project award no. SD00RREA-22.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge and thank the National Bison Association (NBA) for their efforts to educate bison enthusiasts and bison stewards alike over the last three decades, which is largely a grassroots effort, without contributions from any Land Grant Extension agencies.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Dunn B. (1997). Networking people," in Proceedings, Range Beef Cow Symposium XV, 157. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1156&context=rangebeefcowsymp.

Google Scholar

Ehlert K. A., Blair A. D., Hadrick S., and Olson K.(2024). BeefSD: an integrated and intensive Extension curriculum for beginning beef cattle producers. Journal of Extension 62, 14.

Google Scholar

Ehlert K. A., Blair A. D., Harick S., and Olson K. (2025). South Dakota State University Extension's two-year beefSD program has high impact on beginning beef cattle producers. Trans. Ani. Sci.9, txaf020.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Freese C. H., Aune K. E., Boyd D. P., Derr J. N., Forrest S. C., Cormack Gates C., et al. (2007). Second chance for the plains bison. Biol. Conserv. 136, 175–184. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.019

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fuhlendorf S. D., Allred B. W., and Hamilton R. G. (2010). “Bison as keystone herbivores on the great plains: can cattle serve as proxy for evolutionary grazing patterns?,” in American bison society working paper series (Wildlife Conservation Society, New York).

Google Scholar

Grant M. R. and Thornton H. R. (2007). Best practices in undergraduate adult-centered online learning: mechanisms for course design and delivery. J. Online Learn. Teach. 3, 346–356.

Google Scholar

Gray M., Micheli E., Comendant T., and Merenlender A. (2020). Climate-wise habitat connectivity takes sustained stakeholder engagement. Land 9, 413. doi: 10.3390/land9110413

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hoon S., Wilkins P., and Perry A. (2018). Adult learning and the advantages of the online learning experience. Westcliff. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2, 31–36. doi: 10.47670/wuwijar201822PWSH

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

InterTribal Buffalo Council (ITBC) (2022). Producer Handbook - Transitioning from cattle to bison: An introduction (Rapid City, SD: InterTribal Buffalo Council).

Google Scholar

Kaiser L., McKenna K., Lopes T., and Zarestky J. (2023). Strategies for supporting adult working learners in the online learning environment. New Dir. Adult. Contin. Educ. 23, 53–56. doi: 10.1002/ace.20502

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Knapp A. K., Blair J. M., Briggs J. M., Collins S. L., Hartnett D. C., Johnson L. C., et al. (1999). The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie. BioScience. 49, 39–50. doi: 10.2307/1313492

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Koch R. M., Jung H. G., Crouse J. D., Varel V. H., and Cundiff L. V. (1995). Growth, digestive capability, carcass and meat characteristics of Bison bison, Bos taurus, and Bos × Bison. J. Anim. Sci. 73, 1271–1281. doi: 10.2527/1995.7351271x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leopold A. (1939). The farmer as a conservationist. Am. For. 45, 1–17.

Google Scholar

Leopold A. (1949). “The upshot,” in A Sand County Almanac: and sketches here and there (Oxford University Press, Oxford), 201–226.

Google Scholar

Martin J. M. (2024). Interpretive summary: Current overview of bison ranching in the US. Available online at: https://www.asas.org/taking-stock/blog-post/taking-stock/2024/08/08/interpretive-summary-current-overview-of-bison-ranching-in-the-us (Accessed August 1, 2025).

Google Scholar

Martin J. M. and Blair A. D. (2023). Are bison amenable or non-amenable? How does the definition of bison affect harvest systems and quality of meat and carcasses? South Dakota State University Extension. Available online at: https://extension.sdstate.edu/are-bison-amenable-or-non-amenable-how-does-definition-bison-affect-harvest-systems-and-quality (Accessed August 1, 2025).

Google Scholar

Martin J. M. and Brooke C. T. (2021). Getting started with bison ranching. South Dakota State University Extension. Available online at: https://extension.sdstate.edu/getting-started-bison-ranching (Accessed August 15, 2025).

Google Scholar

Martin J. M. and Cammack K. M. (2022). The North American bison management system: Reintroduction of a species with ecological, economic, and cultural roles in a changing climate. Jt. Am. Soc Anim. Sci. (ASAS)-Canadian. Soc Anim. Sci. (CSAS)-WSASAS. Conf. 100, 78. doi: 10.1093/jas/skac247.153

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Martin J. M., Zarestky J., Briske D. D., and Barboza P. S. (2021). Vulnerability assessment of the multi-sector North American bison Bison bison management system to climate change. People Nat. 3, 711–722. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10209

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Miller B. W., Symstad A. J., Frid L., Fisichelli N. A., and Schuurman G. W. (2017). Co-producing simulation models to inform resource management: a case study from southwest South Dakota. Ecosphere 8, e02020. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.2020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) (2025). What we do: Extension. Available online at: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/what-we-do/extension#:~:text=Through%20extension%2C%20land%2Dgrant%20institutions,%2C%20ranches%2C%20and%20rural%20business (Accessed August 13, 2025).

Google Scholar

Nickell Z., Varriano S., Plemmons E., and Moran M. D. (2018). Ecosystem engineering by bison (Bison bison) wallowing increases arthropod community heterogeneity in space and time. Ecosphere 9, e02436. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.2436

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Norström A. V., Cvitanovic C., Löf M. F., West S., Wyborn C., Balvanera P., et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Olff H. and Ritchie M. E. (1998). Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 261–265. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01364-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Phillips L. A., Baltzer C., Filoon L., and Whitley C. (2017). Adult student preferences: instructor characteristics conducive to successful teaching. J. Adult. Contin. Ed. 23, 49–60. doi: 10.1177/1477971416683488

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ratajczak Z., Collins S. L., Blair J. M., Koerner S. E., Louthan A. M., Smith M. D., et al. (2022). Reintroducing bison results in long-running and resilient increases in grassland diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, 725–757. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2210433119

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rothwell W. J. (2020). Adult learning basics (Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development).

Google Scholar

Shamon H., Cosby O. G., Andersen C. L., Augare H., BearCub Stiffarm J., Bresnan C. E., et al. (2022). The potential of bison restoration as an ecological approach to future tribal food sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.826282

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Simpson B., Hilken T., Martin J. M., Whitman L., Boll T., Green S., et al. (2024). Conservation planning with bison producers. U.S. Dep. Agric. Nat. Resour. Conserv. Serv., 1–41. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14250.12489

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

South Dakota State University (SDSU) and Bison Center of Excellence (COE) (2021). Available online at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6cc9ee1b777447128d811238babfe1ed (Accessed August 15, 2025).

Google Scholar

Texas A&M University (TAMU) (2000). 1999–2000 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail – north/south summary repor. Available online at: https://agrilife.org/animalscience/files/2012/04/beef-r2r-992000.pdf (Accessed August 1, 2025).

Google Scholar

Tielkes S. and Altmann B. A. (2021). The sustainability of bison production in North America: a scoping review. Sustainability. 13, 13527. doi: 10.3390/su132413527

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Towne E. G. (1999). Bison performance and productivity on tallgrass prairie. Southwest. Nat. 44, 361–366.

Google Scholar

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (2022a). Census of Agriculture: producer characteristics – national. Available online at: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Online_Resources/Demographic_Profiles/cpd99000.pdf (Accessed August 1, 2025).

Google Scholar

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (2022b). Census of agriculture. Available online at: https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/9DB7E002-7AA9-3FA1-BB03-2BF7EEAF5029 (Accessed August 1, 2025).

Google Scholar

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (2022c). United States summary and state data. Available online at: https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/ (Accessed August 15, 2025).

Google Scholar

Utah State University (USU) (2000). Determining the genetic potential of beef cattle through ranch to rail programs. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1027&context=extension_histall (Accessed August 1, 2025).

Google Scholar