Study Sample
A total of 354 farmers and ranchers participated in the study. The average age of participants was 40.04 years (SD = 12.73), and ranged from 18 to 82 years. Nearly half of the participants were men (n = 164, 46.3%), and the majority were married or in a committed relationship (n = 303, 85.6%) and the owner/operator of their farm (n = 243, 68.7%). The majority of participants indicated that their primary commodity type was beef farming (n = 98, 27.7%) or oilseed/grain farming (n = 97, 27.4%), which are the two most common commodities produced in the province. While urban farmers were included (n = 15, 4.2%), a fifth of the sample was relatively remote and lived over two hours driving distance from an urban area (n = 38, 10.7%). Table 1 presents the sample characteristics.
Farm Stress Survey
The EFA revealed that the stress survey had five underlying factors. Inspecting the factor loadings showed that four items cross-loaded onto two factors. We removed the four items and re-ran the EFA with 16 items (Table 2). The returned solution again showed a five-factor solution that accounted for 61.60% of the variance. We reviewed the items on each factor for conceptual clarity and gave each a label. Factor 1 was the most prominent, consisted of four items and accounted for 14.50% of the variance. The items on Factor 1 included unexpected equipment breakdowns, time pressure, lacking manpower to complete the work, and dealing with volatile weather, and was labeled Unexpected Work Disruptions. Factor 2 accounted for 12.92% of the variance, and reflected items about handling hazardous chemicals and machinery, and was labeled Occupational Hazards. Factor 3 accounted for 12.71% of the variance and included items about getting financial loans, planning retirement, and succession planning, which we labeled Farm and Financial Planning. Factor 4 accounted for 11.84% of the variance, and included items about having few neighbors, a limited social network, having to volunteer in the community, and being far from shopping centers, which we labeled Isolation. Factor 5 accounted for 9.63% of the variance, and included items related to government policies, regulations, and the public’s perception of farming, which we labeled Regulations and Public Pressure. As shown in Table 2, Unexpected Work Disruptions was rated most stressful among farmers, followed by Farm and Financial Planning, and Regulations and Public Pressure.
The total stress score for the 16 items was calculated, and scores could range from 0 to 64. A score of 32 or greater was interpreted as experiencing multiple stresses on a regular basis (i.e., > 2 for each item). The average farm stress score was 27.27 (SD = 10.22), and ranged from 0 to 56. We found that 34.1% of participants had a total stress score of 32 or greater.
Farm Stress and Mental Health
The five farm stress categories were significantly related to depression and anxiety. In Table 3, whereas all five farm stresses were positively associated with depression (rs ranging between .13 to .40, ps < .05), only Unexpected Work Disruptions (r = .39), Farm and Financial Planning (r = .33), and Isolation (r = .15) were positively associated with anxiety. Likewise, Unexpected Work Disruptions, Farm and Financial Planning, and Isolation were all positively associated with emotional exhaustion and cynicism (all ps < .05). Whereas Occupational Hazards (r = -.11), Farm and Financial Planning (r = -.13), and Isolation (r = -.38) were negatively associated with professional efficacy, high levels of Unexpected Work Disruptions was associated with a high professional efficacy score (r = 21) suggesting that farmers persevere through hardships. Low levels of resilience were associated with high levels of Farm and Financial Planning (r = -.21), and Isolation (r = -.25).
Farm Stress, Well-Being, and Gender
For men, higher levels of mental well-being was related to lower levels of Unexpected Work Disruptions (r = -.33, p < .05) and Farm and Financial Planning (r = -.23, p < .05). A similar pattern was found for women (r = -.22, p < .05 and r = -.28, p < .05, respectively) with exception to a positive correlation between perceived mental well-being and Occupational Hazards (r = .22, p < .05). Next, an independent t test examined potential gender differences for each type of stress category, and the results revealed a significant gender difference for Unexpected Work Disruptions, t(329) = -2.82, p < .05, with women reporting a higher level of worry (M = 2.47, SD = 0.82) than men (M = 2.20, SD = 0.82). There were no other differences for the other four types of stresses.
Farm Stress and Commodity
We conducted an ANOVA to examine potential differences in the stress categories across the commodity groups. We found significant differences for Unexpected Work Disruptions, F(8, 315) = 2.61, p < .01 and Isolation, F(8, 315) = 5.33, p < .01. Post-hoc comparisons using a Bonferroni correction showed that beef farmers reported significantly higher levels of worry (M = 2.55, SD = 0.83) compared to poultry farmers (M = 1.93, SD = 0.88) for Unexpected Work Disruptions. With regards to Isolation, dairy farmers reported significantly higher levels of worry (M = 1.89, SD = 0.90) compared to beef farmers (M = .87, SD = .80), grain farmers (M = .93, SD = .84), horticulture (M = .86, SD = .94) and beekeepers (M = .61, SD = 1.14). Likewise, Isolation stress was rated higher for pig (M = 1.69, SD = .87) and poultry (M = 1.45, SD = 1.06) farmers compared to beef farmers.
Depression
The mean depression score for farmers in Alberta (M = 8.17, SD = 5.89) was significantly higher than the population scale norm (M = 2.91, SD = 3.5) and the score reported for the Canadian farmers in 2021 (M = 5.89, SD = 5.3; Thompson et al., 2022), as shown in Table 4. Depression scores were marginally higher for men (M = 8.64, SD = 6.04) than women (M = 7.64, SD = 5.67), t(349) = 1.62, p = .06. Fig. 1 presents the distribution of depression scores for participants in relation to Canadian farmers [5] and the general public in Canada [30]. As shown in Fig. 1, a third of the sample reported no depressive symptoms (n = 118, 33.3%), but approximately 36.4% (n = 129) reported moderate to severe levels of depressive symptoms.
Question 9 of the PHQ-9 (i.e., Thoughts that you would be better off dead or of hurting yourself in some way) was used as a proxy for suicide ideation. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of responses to the PHQ-9 self-harm question. As shown in Fig. 2, 27.4% (n = 97) of participants had these thoughts at least several times in the past two weeks. A chi-square goodness of fit test was performed to determine whether the proportion of farmers who had these thoughts was equal across genders. The proportions did differ by gender, X2(2, N = 351) = 12.46, p < .01. Men were significantly more likely to have thoughts of suicide than women (12.2% vs. 2.7%), more than half the days in the past two weeks.
Anxiety
The mean anxiety score for farmers in Alberta was 8.77 (SD = 5.12), which was significantly higher than the scale norm (M = 2.91, SD = 3.5) and the score reported for the Canadian farmers in 2021 (M = 6.12, SD = 4.88), as shown in Table 4. Anxiety scores were significantly higher for women (M = 9.22, SD = 4.96) than men (M = 8.23, SD = 5.37), t(349) = -1.81, p < .05. Fig. 3 presents the distribution of anxiety scores for participants in relation to Canadian farmers [5] and data on the general public in Canada [30]. As shown in Fig. 3, more than three quarters of the sample reported experiencing anxiety symptoms, at mild (36%), moderate (28%) or severe (14.7%) levels.
Burnout
The average emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy subscale scores of the participants were 2.98 (SD = 1.52), 2.59 (SD = 1.38), and 4.17 (SD = 1.42). As shown in Table 4, Alberta farmers reported significantly higher levels of emotional exhaustion and cynicism and significantly lower levels of professional efficacy when compared to the sample of Canadian farmers and the normative sample. Among Alberta farmers, women reported higher levels of emotional exhaustion (M = 3.23, SD = 1.5) than men (M = 2.69, SD = 1.5), t(341) = -3.35, p < .05, and they did not differ on the cynicism or professional efficacy subscales.
Resilience
The mean resilience score for participants was 25.53 (SD = 6.5). As shown in Table 4, this score was significantly higher compared to the Canadian sample of farmers (M = 24.66; SD = 6.2) but significantly lower than the normative sample (M = 31.80, SD = 5.4). Upon further inspection, men farmers in our sample reported significantly higher resilience scores than men in the Canadian sample of farmers, but there was no significant difference among the women in the two samples. Among Alberta farmers, men reported higher levels of resilience (M = 26.46, SD = 6.79) than women (M = 24.74, SD = 6.15), t(347) = 2.49, p < .05.