AgBioForum, vol. 08, no. 2 & 3 (2005)
Permanent URI for this collection
Special Issue: Innovation and Dynamic Efficiency in Agricultural Biotechnology. The papers contained in this issue arose out of an IFAFS grant (# 00-52100-9619) and the capstone conference for this grant, “Innovation and Dynamic Efficiency in Agricultural Biotechnology” (Oct. 14–15, 2004, Washington., DC).
Click on one of the browse buttons above for a complete listing of the contents of this issue.
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item GM Crops : The Global Economic and Environmental Impact -- The First Nine Years 1996-2004(AgBioForum, 2005) Brookes, Graham; Barfoot, Peter2005 represents the tenth planting season since genetically modified (GM) crops were first grown in 1996. This milestone provides the opportunity to critically assess the impact this technology is having on global agriculture. This study examines specific global economic impacts on farm income and environmental impacts of the technology with respect to pesticide usage and greenhouse gas emissions for each of the countries where GM crops have been grown since 1996. The analysis shows that there have been substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to a cumulative total of $27 billion. The technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 172 million kg and has reduced the environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by 14%. The technology has also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, which is equivalent to removing five million cars from the roads.Item Technology Fees Versus GURTs in the Presence of Spillovers : World Welfare Impacts(AgBioForum, 2005) Lence, Sergio H. (Sergio Horacio); Hayes, Dermot JamesA two-country extension of an ex ante simulation model of research and development (R&D) in agriculture developed by Lence, Hayes, McCunn, Smith, and Niebur (2005) is used to analyze issues regarding intellectual property (IP) protection, spillovers, and genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) in the context of the United States and South America soybean sectors. The model is used to examine how various IP protection levels in the United States and South America might have impacted on the level of innovation, market equilibrium and the welfare of market participants had they been in place prior to the introduction of Roundup Ready technologies. The results indicate that technology fees that are charged in the United States but not in South America are harmful to US producers. Neither producers in the United States nor US-based R&D firms have incentives to support or develop technologies such as Roundup Ready that can be easily adopted in countries with low IP protection. However, total world welfare is higher when this type of transferable R&D is conducted. Equalizing IP protection across countries gives R&D firms a strong incentive to conduct R&D of relevance to both countries. Surprisingly, the introduction of a low level of IP protection in South America does not necessarily improve expected welfare of US producers. To the extent that GURTs contribute toward IP protection harmonization, they can be world-welfare enhancing. However, the positive impact of GURTs could be greatly reduced if they increase IP protection beyond a certain level. The use of GURTs to impose IP protection in South America generally increases the expected welfare of US producers.Item Perceptions of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Cotton Varieties : A Case Study of the Cotton Industry in Gujarat, India(AgBioForum, 2005) Bennett, Richard M.; Ismael, Yousouf; Kambhampati, Uma S.; Morse, Stephen, 1957-The paper reports the findings of a study designed to consider the impact of the adoption of Bt cotton on markets, businesses, and institutional arrangements in India. Given that evidence to date suggests that widespread adoption of Bt cotton by farmers is likely to increase production, this study aims to assess possible implications for markets (access to inputs, prices of inputs and outputs, etc.) and local industries and to identify potential winners and losers. The results suggest that there are impacts on the cotton industry following from the release of Bt hybrids, and so far the impacts are most noticeable "upstream" (i.e., the input suppliers), where companies are rapidly moving away from the sale of bollworm insecticide and attempting to sell Bt seeds. Seed companies are looking for partnerships with Monsanto, the owner of the Bt gene. One reason that companies are keen to move away from insecticide is so they can avoid the need for credit supply to their customers. Seed purchase is not normally through credit, whereas insecticide purchase is. Issues for companies "downstream" (gins, textile manufacturers) relate more to the better quality of Bt cotton and the need for adequate segregation of Bt and non-Bt cotton.Item Bt Corn Farmer Compliance with Insect Resistance Management Requirements in Minnesota and Wisconsin(AgBioForum, 2005) Hurley, Terrance M.; Goldberger, Jessica; Merrill, JeanneThe United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-registered Bt corn in 2001 with mandatory insect resistance management (IRM) requirements in order to promote sustainable use by farmers. Since then studies have reported IRM compliance rates ranging from 79% to 96%. Using survey data from Minnesota and Wisconsin, we show that previous compliance rate estimates are likely too high because they do not use a comprehensive measure for compliance. With a more comprehensive measure, we find compliance rates ranging between 72% and 76%. We also explore the relationship between IRM awareness, farm size, and IRM compliance.Item Second-Generation GMOs : Where to from Here?(AgBioForum, 2005) Jefferson-Moore, Kenrett Y.; Traxler, Greg (Gregory J.)The driving force behind the growth of the agricultural biotechnology industry is the potential to increase efficiency in the production of commodities and to provide benefits to consumers and producers as well as profits for industry. Value-enhancedh genetically modified crops have the potential to provide new momentum to the industry. Using the US high-oil corn (HOC) industry as a case study, welfare measures indicate that those benefiting from HOC are HOC seed suppliers and conventional seed suppliers. Farmer gains are only attributed to larger premiums at the elevator level without technology fees and monopoly power.