Participants agreed that stress, depression, and suicide were prevalent among farmers. All participants identified financial difficulty as a main stressor and recognized chronic stress could lead to depression and suicide.

[W]e are working a lot to try to help these producers get through … the stress, the depression, the suicide risk. And pretty much most of the farmers I talk to in the county right now, they’re all under severe financial stress, which obviously leads to family stress, their own personal stress, with depression. (P12)

I guess the suicide rate is really increasing and stress lines are getting a lot of calls. (P9)

The extension educator explained that financial hardship, relationship conflicts, and health of family members contribute to suicide ideation:

I had a situation where a person called here just asking me… “what’s the price a cow is going for?” …. She was very depressed… even had some suicidal thoughts just because of the family situation, with having to sell the cows. Her kids being mad at her, how she was going to divide stuff up. Her husband is in the nursing home, so she had the health stress. (P12)

Participants consistently described financial problems as a key trigger for heightened stress among farmers. A co-op manager and farmer stated that declining commodity prices have exacerbated indebtedness and uncertainties among farmers.

We’re in the fifth year of low prices on the dairy side and on the crop side they’re in their fourth year now for low prices. So anytime you see that many years before you have a good year, … your asset values start dropping. That’s when the banks start to put pressure on you, … how are you going to pay that bill next year when you haven’t been paid up for everything from last year, … (P7)

Unprofitable commodity prices can escalate into bankruptcies when farm assets begin depreciating and banks restrict lending. Two retired farmers explained that farmers without working capital typically borrow from banks to plant crops, hoping for a profitable harvest to repay the loan. When market prices declined for several years, banks lose confidence in a farmer’s ability to repay loans and reduce lending. The ability to secure operating loans can prevent a farmer from farming.

Other stressors participants identified were spousal disputes over financial decisions, crop failure, sick animals, severe weather, heavy workload, lack of leisure, equipment breakdown, isolation, and loneliness (P2, P4, P6, P7, P9, P10). Participants felt that ongoing farm consolidations worsen isolation as fewer farmers are left for interactions. Loneliness refers to the lack of satisfying social connections, including feelings of being alone, undervalued, or not being perceived truthfully.³⁰ Farmers believe that their work and land ethics are undervalued: “We figure out once what he [farmer-spouse] made on an hourly basis was negative $5 dollars….” (P2). They felt they were being misrepresented publicly: “We have been looked down upon for years because of the subsidies that farmers received.” (P7). Participants linked this misrepresentation to inequitable farm policies promoting consolidation and dismantling market competition for small producers.

Participants underscored that market access, decision-making opportunities, and co-op missions are key attributes attracting farmers to co-ops. A retired farmer explained that distributing through co-ops allows farmers to “bargain for a better price [and] … have a better chance of retaining their market” (P6). Members’ financial interests are further protected through profit sharing. Members valued profit redistribution and considered it as “a pension almost for a farmer’s retirement” (P8). Participating in co-op decision-making also draws farmers to co-ops, which is characterized as “hav[ing] a say in the co-op” (P4). A co-op’s annual meeting was highlighted as an important activity for members to voice perspectives and build connections. In addition, co-ops organize engagement events at locations convenient to members throughout the year.

“Grassroots” and “true co-op values” are other features that appealed to farmers. They are defined as true farmer representation, equitable pay, and valuing farmers’ perspectives. Participants believe that small co-ops can better uphold these characteristics than large co-ops. They claim that large co-ops managed by non-farmer leadership are not representative of farmers’ experiences or interests.

[T]here are a lot of us, …, grassroots feel that some of the co-ops gotten too big, and they lost their grassroots…. Their directors or their CEOs are not farmers. They are not down to the level the rest of us are, and they are getting a very high paycheck. (P5)

Several members revealed that they switched from a large co-op to their current co-ops because: “our voices weren’t being heard and we weren’t getting a fair price. So, …, I joined [co-op name] to get back to the true co-op values.” (P1)

The concepts of trust, relatability, and representation were reiterated by multiple participants. In this study, all the included co-ops were structured so that only farmers can serve on the board of directors. Participants affirmed that this criterion ensures that they can elect leadership that is relatable, trustworthy, and representative of their experiences. The shared identity as a farmer between members and the board of directors creates that trust and relatability. One member disclosed, “we are talking with the actual board of directors which are other dairy farmers, our neighbours that are working just as hard as we are, and they are making the decisions you know” (P5).

In addition to having farmers in leadership positions, co-ops may protect farmers’ production and marketing interests. A co-op manager emphasized that marketing co-ops commit to sell members’ products profitably. A retired farmer contrasted the co-op market stability to the uncertainty encountered by non-co-op farmers: “If you’re selling to a private buyer and he decides he doesn’t need your milk any more he could drop you, whereas in a cooperative that probably won’t happen.” (P6). A board member elaborated that co-ops with successful marketing strategies were paying farmers premium prices at “several times more … maybe … twice as much what regular milk is being sold for” (P8).

Another manager highlighted an additional core co-op service: farm visits. Field staff deliver various on-farm supports, ranging from checking milk quality, discussing farm plans, to preparing for inspections.

We keep pretty close eyes on the quality bacterial counts.… We see trends if farms going up with counts, then we send people out there to help them fix.… Like right now we are going to have … federal inspections on farms, and our field people, … have visited all those farms like a pre-inspection. (P4)

The on-farm service scope can vary across operations. A manager explained: “There could be technical needs like, they would like some help developing their pasture arrangement, and their grazing plan, or they’re having health issues with their livestock…. So, all along that range of topics.” (P11)

Co-ops also encourage members to participate in governance and social events. A manager stated that meetings and social activities were designed to gather feedback, assess needs, and “build a network between our farms, to connect one to another and to the co-op” (P11). He emphasized that education is an important engagement program: “We provide regular educational meetings to farmers, we travel around doing that, and then we take one on one consultation.”

Members appreciate opportunities to be informed of and share their views on co-op policies and outlooks. They repeated that having farmers as board members was necessary to promote transparency and ensure a sense of control. The shared experience as a farmer between members and board members creates an accessible and relatable environment for co-op engagement.

They have … open meetings for us farmers [to] get together. And it gives us a chance to talk, to discuss different kind of pay schedules, what’s marketing, how does the future look for products, …. I just like that we have an openness, and we are talking with the actual board of directors…. (P5)

Members also discussed engagement activities related to advocating for legislative issues affecting farming communities:

[W]e had our lobby day, … lobbying our elected officials on water issues, healthcare, hemp, and anti-trust issues.… We also encourage our members to do that on their own …, but then also [attend] our local meetings. (P7)

We try to hold a variety of events. … we sometimes have field days where we invite elected officials and leaders to come, … so that they can pretend to be a farmer for a day or talk to farmers. (P8)

Distressed farmers have sought help from co-op staff and board members, who connected them to professional services accordingly. For example, a board member described that a call to the co-op “is probably the first call they would make because it is somebody you were familiar with. I refer them to the crisis hotline too because it is not just for mental health, but it is also for financial crisis and counseling too….” (P1) Field staff farm visits may also be a much-needed social interaction for farmers as the visits often lasted longer than scheduled:

[A] lot of the times my visit should be an hour, …, visiting through their protocols for their herd or their farm, …, and they turn into a two-and-half-hour conversation because we got talking about other things and …, I think it’s good because it, …, bouncing ideas off, maybe makes them feel like they are not so alone. (P3)

A field staff participant recalled her interactions with a newly widowed farmer who was accused of animal abuse. The field staff found that the complaint was the result of “a neighbour war”. As she indicated, the grieving farmer was under stress and needed empathy and support. Her example suggests that field staff are critical for farmers who may otherwise not seek help.

I would say that’s probably one [of] the most stressful people that I have been in contact [with] for a while. So, …, he never really said “I am really stressed.” … “This is really hard on me.” But you could see it.… I tried to relate to him, to understand. …, by the time I left, I felt like he was feeling better about what’s going on in his world. (P3)

In addition to the field staff, participants identified assistance from board members and other members as part of their overall support networks: “There is a good network in the co-op, … farmers helping other farmers, …, you can call the board members, and they understand exactly what you are going through.… That’s really a big plus.” (P4). Board members play a key role in building the support networks by being available to members and sharing information on co-op affairs and market conditions.

I talked to the board members quite often.… We talk about almost anything. It can be from the weather to church. It could be about milk, how is the market going …, how are the other farmers in our co-op? …, some of them are really stress out.… We talk about if we get extra feed, pass the word…. So, it is a pretty good network. (P5)

Participants emphasized that peer support is an important part of the networks. They recounted stories of members who separately developed and shared solutions for stray voltage and lungworm infection (common issues in livestock farming). The voltage solution was “thousands of dollars savings for members” (P1). Peer support could also be demonstrated through feeling a sense of belonging. One manager reported that members attending the co-ops’ financial management events were more interested in social interactions than consultations. He described that members were looking for “camaraderie, not being on an island, [and] supporting one another” (P11).

In addition to support networks, co-op board members and managers indicated that co-ops are interested in facilitating mental health discussions. A co-op board member stated that their organization has started to raise mental health awareness by offering stress management information and encouraging members to discuss mental health. For example, “I do know that [co-op name] is talking more and more sharing the methods of rural mental health and try to encourage other farmers to speak, give them tools to address individual mental health issues.” (P8) A co-op manager also expressed interest in disseminating mental health information to farmers: “I think we definitely be interested. If we can help some of the farmers, we for sure be interested in doing that.” (P4). A manager of another co-op pointed out the need for appropriate interventions and co-ops’ involvement in mental health could potentially benefit all farmers regardless of membership: “We try to figure out that model that could work, that we could help our members out and even non-members too.” (P7). In parallel, farmer-participants stated that members typically are willing to discuss mental health issues with board members:

They absolutely do. The board gets calls, the members of the board get calls all the time. (P5)

So many people [are] calling him [board member], he is in contact with different co-op members daily. … farmers are used to having issues and just dealing with it, but it got to so bad where they actually going to pick up the phone, th1en it’s really bad. (P2)

A board member confirmed that distressed farmers feel comfortable revealing their emotions: “A lot of the phone calls they are brutally honest how stress they are.” (P1)

Despite participants descriptions of co-ops as important support networks, different perspectives were reported on whether co-ops protect farmers’ mental health when asked directly. Some members perceived a protective impact because co-op resources provide a stress buffer. Co-ops contribute to financial stability through internal pricing and quota systems and redistributing profit to members. Collectively, co-ops can spread market risks among members and thus lighten the burden on individuals. Furthermore, the co-op support networks provide a sense of community and remind farmers that they are not alone in tough times. Knowing that one is not alone could potentially lower stress: “It can be absorbing a little easier because we all [are] absorbing it…. We are … all one.” (P5)

Furthermore, a co-op manager and retired farmer (who founded one of the participated co-ops with six other farmers) explained that co-ops offer an economic and grassroot solution to mitigate stress: “Farm crisis was somewhat a foundation for my involvement in the cooperative in the 1980s because that was also a very stressful time.” (P10)

Members who disagreed on co-ops’ protective impact reasoned that co-ops could not remove financial problems. Specifically, co-ops were unable to offer operating loans to farmers facing bankruptcy:

[W]e try to help each other out…. With the economies, it would be nice if we could write that check out … to keep everybody in business, but with not having that availability [it] is very frustrating. (P7)

Co-ops’ inability to shape banking policies underscores an ongoing financial barrier for small producers. Participants suggested that banks preferred lending to bigger farms with more assets, even if they have a higher per cow debt than small producers (e.g., $12,000 versus $3,500). These practices accelerate farm consolidations and challenge small family farms.

[I]t is a little frustrating because the bigger operations they are it seems they have more debt per cow, and the small guys … trying to make a living, promoting that community awareness the most, is the first guy that got run out of business most of the time. (P6)