AgBioForum, vol. 05, no. 1 (Feb. 2002)
Permanent URI for this collection
Click on one of the browse buttons above for a complete listing of the contents of this issue.
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Reply : Economic Impacts Associated With Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) Use(AgBioForum, 2002) Ott, Stephen L.; Rendleman, C. MatthewLosinger's criticism of our paper pertains to the following key points: the use of national estimates, the functional form employed, making multiple uses of the model, not considering all the costs, and the use of NAHMS data for economic analysis. We briefly address each one below.Item Comment : Economic Impacts Associated with Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) Use(AgBioForum, 2002) Losinger, Willard C.The article "Economic Impacts Associated with Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) Use," which appeared in AgBioForum 3(2&3), merits somewhat closer scrutiny. The article was based on a pair of regression models which Ott and Rendleman (2000) had developed for herd milk production and for herd "nonmilk productivity." These regression models are quite similar to a series of models that Ott, Wells, and Wagner (1999) and Ott and Novak (2001) had created to examine economic losses associated with Johne's disease and with bulk-tank somatic cell counts, respectively. Either Ott and Novak (2001) need to retract the square root of the percent of rBST use as an explanatory variable for milk production, or Ott and Rendleman (2000) ought to reconsider the quadratic expression for the percent of rBST use in their model for milk production. Both models lead to very different conclusions about the relationship between rBST use and milk production, and both cannot be correct.Item Biotechnology's Future Benefits : Prediction or Promise?(AgBioForum, 2002) Burkhardt, Jeffrey, 1951-Much current research and development (R&D) in agricultural biotechnology is focused on the so-called "next generation" of biotech. There is an assumption that this work is ethically justifiable because the expected outcomes are ethically sound. However, people in the agricultural biotechnology enterprise must prove that the "promise of biotechnology" justifies their efforts.Item A Tale of Two Mergers : What We Can Learn from Agricultural Biotechnology Event Studies(AgBioForum, 2002) King, John L. (John Leitner), 1972-; Wilson, Norbert; Naseem, AnwarThis study employs event study analysis to examine two mergers and acquisitions (M&A) of publicly traded firms. The stock price effect of these combinations in the agricultural biotechnology industry indicates a market expectation of their profitability. The paper also discusses the broader context of agricultural biotechnology M&A activity in the 1990s, focusing on innovation and competition.Item Efficiency of Alternative Technologies and Cultural Practices for Cotton in Georgia(AgBioForum, 2002) Ward, Clayton W.; Flanders, Archie; Isengildina, Olga Yurievna; White, Fred C.Transgenic cotton varieties and conservation tillage practices are evaluated for technical and allocative efficiency, as well as net returns above variable costs. Data Envelopment Analysis is applied to a survey of Georgia cotton producers. Results support production with transgenic cotton varieties having greater net returns and efficiency rankings than conventional cotton. Net returns and efficiency rankings are greatest with conservation tillage. Conservation tillage benefits are associated with cotton varieties having herbicide resistant technology.