Columbia, Missouri
May, 2007
AgBioForum
Volume 10 Number 1
Partial table of contents of interest for seed professionals
(Links are to the original articles)
-
The Net Gain to Cotton Farmers of a Natural Refuge Plan for
Bollgard II® Cotton
Nicholas E. Piggott and Michele C. Marra, North Carolina
State University
This paper presents an evaluation of the initial potential
economic benefit at both the farm level and to Monsanto
Company of a change in refuge policy for Bollgard II cotton.
The proposed policy change is to eliminate the cotton refuge
requirement for Bollgard II cotton in favor of a natural
refuge. We first present an evaluative model that is
appropriate for any cotton state. We then present an
empirical application of the model for North Carolina. We
estimate the annual per acre, farm level benefit to North
Carolina cotton farmers, based on 2005 data as the
counterfactual, to be $22.82 and the total farm level
benefit to be $13,037,614 when non pecuniary benefits are
not considered.
When non pecuniary benefits are taken into account, the per
acre benefit is estimated to increase to $26.90 and the
total benefit to $15,379,129. The increase in revenue
accruing to Monsanto Company is estimated to be $2,427,620.
-
The Long-Run Impact of Corn-Based Ethanol of the Grain,
Oilseed, and Livestock Sectors with Implications for Biotech
Crops
Amani Elobeid, Simla Tokgoz, Dermot J. Hayes, Bruce A.
Babcock, and Chad E. Hart, Iowa State University
The ongoing growth of corn based ethanol production raises
some fundamental questions about what impact continued
growth will have on US and world agriculture. Estimates of
the long run potential for ethanol production can be made by
calculating the corn price at which the incentive to expand
ethanol production disappears. Under current ethanol tax
policy, if the prices of crude oil, natural gas and
distillers grains stay at current levels, then the break
even corn price is $4.05 per bushel. A multi commodity,
multi country system of integrated commodity models is used
to estimate the impacts if we ever get to $4.05 corn. At
this price, corn based ethanol production would reach 31.5
billion gallons per year.
Supporting this level of production would require 95.6
million acres of corn to be planted. Total corn production
would be approximately 15.6 billion bushels, compared to
11.0 billion bushels today. Most of the additional corn
acres come from reduced soybean acreage. The demand for
biotech corn varieties that allow for continuous corn
production would increase dramatically as would the demand
for corn, soybean, and wheat varieties that can be grown in
marginal areas.
-
The Cost of Product Development of Bt Corn Event MON810 in
the Philippines
Abraham J. Manalo and Godfrey P. Ramon, Biotechnology
Coalition of the Philippines (BCP)
The estimated total cost of developing Bt corn MON810 in the
Philippines is $2.6 million (128 million Philippine pesos)
at 2004 discounted prices.
This includes the entire process of product development,
from concept initiation done in the US in 1985 to
implementation of post commercial approval requirements in
2004. Lindahl pricing was employed to allocate the share of
total relevant cost incurred in the US to the Philippines.
Costs were converted into corresponding 2004 year
equivalents and capitalized using literature recommended
values to reflect base year real monetary value. The biggest
costs were incurred in the conduct of post commercial
application activities followed by the 17 multi location
field trials across the country. Project spending was
highest in 2002 when field trials and supporting studies
were being completed and the product stewardship plan was
being developed. The study discovered that two thirds of
total cost went into activities conducted in compliance and
support of government regulatory requirements.
-
Insect Resistance Management Plans: The Farmers' Perspective
Corinne Alexander, Purdue University
Farmers are required to implement insect resistance
management (IRM) plans for all Bt crops in order to reduce
the probability that insects susceptible to Bt will develop
resistance. These IRM plans require farmers to plant at
least 20% of the corn acreage to a non Bt hybrid, and in
specific configurations. In order for IRM plans to be
effective, farmers must correctly implement these refuge
requirements both in terms of acreage and configuration.
This article reports survey results which show that farmers
believe refuges will be effective in managing resistance,
but that they would not implement them if they were not
required. The article also reports survey and focus group
data on farmers perceptions of each refuge configuration.
These data show that farmers who have experience with
implementing refuges report less time and effort associated
with refuges, which is partly due to having learned how to
implement refuges more efficiently.
-
Inequality and GM Crops: A Case-Study of Bt Cotton in India
Stephen Morse, Richard Bennett, and Yousouf Ismael,
University of Reading (United Kingdom)
Critics of genetically modified (GM) crops often contend
that their introduction enhances the gap between rich and
poor farmers, as the former group are in the best position
to afford the expensive seed as well as provide other inputs
such as fertilizer and irrigation. The research reported in
this paper explores this issue with regard to Bt cotton
(cotton with the endotoxtin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis
conferring resistance to some insect pests) in Jalgaon,
Maharashtra State, India, spanning the 2002 and 2003
seasons.
Questionnaire-based survey results from 63 non adopting and
94 adopting households of Bt cotton were analyzed, spanning
137 Bt cotton plots and 95 non Bt cotton plots of both Bt
adopters and non adopters. For these households, cotton
income accounted for 85 to 88% of total household income,
and is thus of vital importance.
Results suggest that in 2003 Bt adopting households have
significantly more income from cotton than do non adopting
households (Rp 66,872 versus Rp 46,351) but inequality in
cotton income, measured with the Gini coefficient (G), was
greater amongst non adopters than adopters. While Bt
adopters had greater acreage of cotton in 2003 (9.92 acres
versus 7.42 for non adopters), the respective values of G
were comparable. The main reason for the lessening of
inequality amongst adopters would appear to be the
consistency in the performance of Bt cotton along with the
preferred non Bt cultivar of Bt adopters Bunny. Taking gross
margin as the basis for comparison, Bt plots had 2.5 times
the gross margin of non Bt plots of non adopters, while the
advantage of Bt plots over non Bt plots of adopters was 1.6
times. Measured in terms of the Gini coefficient of gross
margin/acre it was apparent that inequality was lessened
with the adoption of Bunny (G = 0.47) and Bt (G = 0.3)
relative to all other non Bt plots (G = 0.63).
Hence the issue of equality needs to be seen both in terms
of differences between adopters and non adopters as well as
within each of the groups.
-
A Review of International Labeling Policies of Genetically
Modified Food to Evaluate India's Proposed Rule
Guillaume P. Gručre, International Food Policy Research
Institute S.R. Rao, Ministry of Science and Technology
This paper provides a comprehensive review of existing
international labeling policies of genetically modified (GM)
food and associated relevant international agreements in
order to evaluate India's proposed mandatory labeling rule.
Existing evidence from developed countries shows that
mandatory labeling regulations have resulted in no
additional consumer choice or information. Among the few
developing countries with labeling policies, most have not
effectively implemented their regulations.
We show that India's proposed labeling rules for GM food
would be among the most stringent globally and could
potentially result in low consumer benefits at a high cost
both domestically and internationally. India's proposed
regulation also lacks a number of elements to be
implemented. However, these conclusions are based on
experiences from other countries and limited available
information from India. More studies are needed to evaluate
the potential economic effects of GM food labeling in India.
|
|
