Use of transgenic crops has spread rapidly among agricultural producers in the United States. However, there are differences in adoption rates for varieties of the three major transgenic crops currently available (corn, cotton, and soybeans) between individual farmers, geographical areas, and climates. The study reported here provides an attempt to provide an empirical assessment of determinants of transgenic crop adoption rates at the farm level.

South Dakota, a predominantly agricultural state in the northwestern tier of the US Corn Belt, ranked first in the proportion of total cropland area devoted to transgenic corn and soybean varieties among the major US corn and soybean producing states in both 2001 and 2002. While the state is not representative of US agriculture in general, the widespread adoption of these transgenic crop varieties in the state begs the question of what the reasons for the high adoption rates are. Attempts to answer this question may also help provide insights into attitudes among US farmers in general.

To assess farmer attitudes towards transgenic varieties and to analyze factors contributing to the adoption of transgenic crops among agricultural producers, we conducted a survey among agricultural producers in South Dakota in spring 2002. The random sample consisted of 1,000 corn and soybean farmers in the state, yielding 367 usable surveys.

The respondents were evenly divided in their views about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology in general, but largely expected the technology to benefit local agriculture. Not surprisingly given the widespread adoption of the crops in the state, the majority of the respondents did not express principled objections against using GM crops. Fewer than one-tenth of the respondents stated that growing the crops is unethical. Most survey respondents indicated they expected that South Dakota farmers would benefit from agricultural biotechnology, but many had mixed views about biotechnology's benefits to agriculture in general.

There was an almost even split among those who agreed, were not sure, or disagreed that biotechnology will help solve farm surpluses by finding new uses for crops and livestock, and also that biotechnology will hurt American farmers by increasing farm surpluses. The respondents' opinions about the benefits of biotechnology for themselves were much more positive—nearly two-thirds indicated that biotechnology would provide benefits to most South Dakota farmers. Further, greater returns from biotechnology for large farm operations than for small ones were expected.

Many producers were concerned about a shift in power away from production agriculture and towards agricultural input firms, making farmers become more dependent upon large corporations. On the other hand, nearly half of the respondents indicated expecting that biotechnology will help enable farmers to become less dependent upon agricultural chemicals, but others were not convinced—over a quarter expected that biotechnology contributes to greater farmer dependence on agricultural chemicals.

Even though transgenic crops are widely used in the state, more than two-thirds of the respondents were particularly concerned about foreign—and slightly fewer about domestic—consumer acceptance of genetically modified crop products. Nearly half of the respondents expected biotechnology to increase foreign competition in US export markets. Nevertheless, most respondents stated that consumer concerns about food products made from transgenic crops are generally exaggerated. Over half stated that biotechnology would benefit consumers, but nearly one-third was uncertain about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology to consumers. Just over one-tenth stated consumer attitudes towards biotechnology would not affect their future planting decisions.

There was an even division between those expressing a need for, uncertainty about, and no need for the segregation of GM from non-GM crops. Similarly, those stating they were not intending to plant GM crops if they were required to segregate crops were similar in number to those expressing uncertainty about, and those favoring, the planting of transgenic varieties. Ironically, a majority of the respondents stated that GM food at the retail level should be labeled as such, but also indicated that segregating transgenic crops from conventional crops at the farm level is not practical.

Several factors influenced—sometimes in opposing ways—farmers' decisions about adopting transgenic crops. Over half of the respondents indicated that the costs involved with technology fees affect their planting decisions, whereas nearly one-third of the respondents stated that their transgenic crop planting decisions are not affected by these fees. The respondents were evenly split between those indicating that seed companies' restrictions on saving seed affect the next year's planting decisions and those stating that they were not influenced by these restrictions. The respondents were similarly divided between those indicating that lawsuits filed by seed companies against farmers affect, and those indicating that they do not affect, their choice of growing transgenic crops. Further, although the StarLink case had occurred long before the survey, nearly one-third of the respondents indicated that it had reduced their motivation to grow GM crops.

Even though transgenic crops are widely used by South Dakota farmers, fewer than half of the respondents indicated they were well informed, and more than one-fifth of the respondents stated they were not well informed about biotechnology. Less than one-third stated that farmers in general have sufficient knowledge, and another one-third suggested that farmers do not have sufficient relevant knowledge, of biotechnology. Nearly a third of the respondents attributed the lack of knowledge of agricultural biotechnology to the difficulty in gaining access to objective information.

Pronounced differences occur between the adoption patterns of Bt corn, herbicide tolerant (HT) corn, and HT soybeans, satisfaction with these varieties, and reasons for their adoption. The performance of Bt corn is generally viewed more favorably than that of HT corn and HT soybeans. Over half indicated that per acre profits increased as a result of growing Bt corn, while less than half of the respondents believed that profits had increased in comparison to their conventional counterparts as a result of using HT corn and HT soybeans. More than two-thirds stated that Bt corn yields were higher, but only one-third found higher yields for HT corn. Only one-fifth stated that HT soybeans provided higher yields than conventional varieties.

A large majority of respondents stated they incurred higher expenses associated with growing Bt corn over conventional corn, but the perceived expenditure increases were less pronounced among users of HT corn and HT soybeans. Nearly three-quarters experienced less pest damage with using Bt corn, while fewer than one-third and one-fifth, respectively, experienced less pest damage growing HT corn and HT soybeans. Pesticide usage associated with Bt corn and HT corn decreased for more than half of the respondents, and more than two-thirds used less pesticide due to growing HT soybeans, compared to conventional varieties.

Overall, the producers' bottom line experience with the three transgenic crops was positive. Nevertheless, approximately one-half of the respondents indicated that profits associated with each of the three transgenic crop varieties are no better or worse than those of conventional varieties. These results are similar to findings by Chen and Buttel (2000) and indicate that both market and performance factors contribute to the high adoption rates of these three transgenic varieties.

In general, improved pest control is the most important determinant of transgenic crops usage. Improved yields was also a major factor in deciding whether to grow Bt corn, but was not nearly as important for farmers in deciding to grow HT corn and HT soybeans. A reduction in herbicide application and a decrease in costs were cited as major factors contributing to the choice of transgenic over conventional soybeans.

The two main reasons for non-adoption or for reverting back to conventional crops are satisfaction with current varieties and dissatisfaction with the new varieties. In the case of HT soybeans, an important reason for not adopting the crop is dissatisfaction with crop yields. Other reasons for not adopting the crops are concerns about segregation, the ability to sell the crops, concerns about the environment, and the potential for receiving a lower price.

Frequency analyses indicate that the adoption of Bt corn varies by operator age (whether or not the operators engage in off-farm work), farm size (based on both acreage and receipts), and the presence of livestock on the respondents' farms. No statistically-different Bt corn adoption rates were found between the respondents' level of education and whether or not farms were organized as a sole proprietorship. Frequencies of HT corn adoption patterns suggest that only farm size is statistically positive related to the planting of HT corn. No statistically significant determinants were found in the adoption of HT soybeans.

Logistic regression results indicate that the odds of adopting Bt corn decrease in the presence of livestock, relative to farms without livestock, and the odds of adopting Bt corn increase for increasing levels of income. The odds of adopting Bt corn also decrease with the age of the respondents. Consistent with the results discussed above, the determinants of HT corn adoption are difficult to identify. Finally, the odds of adopting HT corn statistically decrease only due to an increase in off-farm income.

By representing Bt corn adoption rates as a continuous variable, preliminary analysis regressing the share of Bt corn acres out of the total corn area on a comprehensive set of independent variables indicates that profits per acre, improved insect control, reduced insecticide use, and improved yields are each statistically significant determinants of Bt corn adoption. On the other hand, the presence of livestock, increased farm receipts, and whether the respondents were seed dealers were statistically significant impediments of Bt corn adoption. For HT corn, only farm income receipts are a statistically significant negative determinant of adoption. Both technology fees and profits per acre are statistically significant impediments to adopting HT soybeans.

References