RBST Adoption in the United States: A Retrospective Look at a "Juggernaut" Agricultural Biotechnology
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
rBST Adoption in the United States:
A Retrospective Look at a “Juggernaut” Agricultural
Biotechnology
Forthcoming in Choices
Bradford L. Barham, Jeremy D. Foltz, and Sunung Moon
Program on Agricultural Technology Studies
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Email: Barham@aae.wisc.edu
Foltz@aae.wisc.edu
Moon@aae.wisc.edu
Executive Summary
The rBST controversy was arguably the most intense recent public debate about an
emerging agricultural biotechnology. Eight years after its release, it is abundantly clear
that rBST has fallen well short of being a juggernaut technology: nationally only 17% of
the cows are treated with it, disadoption rates are substantial, and it has created at most a
3.5% increase in milk production. RBST adoption is size biased with larger farms more
likely to adopt the technology, but that bias changes depending on the farm structure in
each state.rBST Adoption in the United States:
A Retrospective Look at a “Juggernaut” Agricultural Biotechnology
Ten years ago, a political firefight was bigger than it might have been if that
raging in the United States over particular agricultural biotechnology had
Monsanto’s intent to market been trotted out after some of the
recombinant bovine somatotropin genetically modified crops that were also
(rBST), a genetically engineered under development, the opposition was
hormone that stimulates treated cows to broad and deep in its commitment to
produce more milk. The Food and Drug block the commercial release of rBST.
Administration was enmeshed in a The breadth came from coalitions that
several year review process that formed at various levels among farmers
produced more documentation than any (especially from populist farm
agricultural technology before or after. organizations and certain regions of the
Congress was considering legislation country), environmental and consumer
that would ban or restrict rBST’s release, organizations, and animal welfare
and eventually did vote to delay rBST’s activists. The depth came from the
commercial release by half a year until intensity of their opposition to this
the Executive Branch provided a “juggernaut” technology and its
comprehensive assessment of the anticipated effects on family farms,
technology that sanctioned its consumers, the environment, and animal
introduction (U.S. Government). State health. And, a large proportion of the
legislatures around the country were debate hinged on what would happen to
debating labeling laws that would family farms if rBST were introduced.
require milk products to identify whether Ironically, even the very academic
they came from cows treated with rBST, positions held by the authors of this
and Vermont, Wisconsin, and Maine paper are a historical product of that era,
actually passed them, though when the Wisconsin State Legislature
Wisconsin’s was strictly voluntary. created an institute at the University of
Elsewhere (e.g., California), some state Wisconsin to address the implications of
agencies tacitly encouraged bottlers and rBST and other emerging technologies
processors to identify products as on family farms.
coming from cows not treated with At the core of the debate was the
rBST. view held by both proponents and
The rBST controversy was opponents that rBST would be very
arguably the most intense public debate widely adopted, especially by larger
that has ever occurred in the United dairy farms, because of its highly touted
States about an emerging agricultural productivity gains, on the order of 20%
technology. Although the battle was or more for treated cows. Opponentsthen argued that the ensuing expansion attempted to enter. Thus, despite their
of milk production, especially in a being a number of potential other sellers
broader context of declining federal milk of the technology, Monsanto’s PosilacTM
price support programs, would result in is currently the only form of rBST on the
disastrous declines in dairy prices and market.
hence ruinous competition for dairy
farmers, lots of surplus cheese and Not the Juggernaut
butter, and unnecessarily large Eight years after the release of PosilacTM
government payments. Small and it is abundantly clear that rBST has
moderate-sized family farms were fallen well short of being a juggernaut
thought likely to be the hardest hit, both technology. According to Monsanto, in
because they would be less likely to 2002, rBST is used on about 15-17% of
adopt rBST and they would be more the nation’s dairy farms. But, farm level
vulnerable to falling prices. numbers understate the actual use of
Underlying this dismal picture rBST, because they do not account for
were several assumptions: high rBST the size of farms where rBST is adopted.
adoption rates, major increases in milk Figure 1 uses data obtained from
productivity, and a size-biased Monsanto to show rBST’s adoption path
technology adoption process. A few in terms of the percent of the cows
analysts at the time, such as Larson and nationally that are on farms where rBST
Kuchler, warned that rBST adoption is being used. The initial figure in 1994
could be much less profitable than was 14%, which doubled by 1997 to
anticipated, but opponents and 29%. But, over the next five years,
proponents, including Monsanto, each rBST adoption growth slowed
had their reasons for sustaining the considerably so that in 2001, 35% of the
juggernaut idea, the former to strengthen nation’s cows were on farms using
their dire forecasts and the latter to boost rBST.
early sales and rapid adoption of the This level of adoption gives rise
product. Thus, the political debate rarely to rather moderate estimates of its
engaged the possibility that rBST might impact on national milk production.
not be much more than a relatively Given that, on average, 50% of the herd
minor addition to the technology options is treated with rBST, that means that
available to dairy farmers. But, ten about 17% of the nation’s dairy cows are
years later that is essentially what the being injected with rBST. Even with a
research finds. liberal assumption of 20% production
One often overlooked aspect of response, that is only a 3.5% boost in
the long rBST controversy is that it has total milk production associated with
served effectively as a huge barrier to rBST use. That increase is equivalent to
entry for all potential competitors to a bit more than two years of the secular
Monsanto. Indeed in the 1980s, several trend in milk productivity growth over
companies including Monsanto, Eli- the past two decades associated with
Lilly, Upjohn, and American Cynamid other improvements in genetics,
were working on a form of rBST for the nutrition, and management practices.
market. Given the tremendous costs that Simply put, these adoption figures are
Monsanto incurred to secure FDA not ones of a juggernaut technology.
approval, no other competitor has They are more akin to the kind ofadoption path one might expect for a the entry barriers associated with
dairy technology that was only profitable regulatory approval.
for a relatively small portion of the
farmers. rBST Adoption Patterns are Size-
Biased Within and Across the U.S.
State samples of rBST adoption: What Recent on-farm studies (using
is holding back rBST adoption? data from California, Connecticut,
Farm-level adoption and Idaho, Minnesota, New York,
disadoption rates are reported in Figure 2 Wisconsin, Idaho, Utah, and Texas)
for samples that were undertaken in show that both larger herd-size (or scale)
different states as part of a USDA and higher use of complementary
regional study of structural change in (productivity-enhancing) technologies,
dairy farming and its impacts on local such as herd records and improved
communities. What is most striking feeding techniques, strongly increase the
about this figure is that in those the likelihood that farmers will try rBST on
states for which data were gathered on their herds. In some states, younger and
disadoption of rBST, between one- better-educated farmers are also more
quarter and forty percent of those who likely to adopt rBST, but these effects
have tried rBST no longer use it. In are not as prevalent or as significant as
other words, disadoption has been the herd size and complementary
extensive. Moreover, as reported in technology use factors.
Barham, Foltz, Moon, and Jackson- The size bias in rBST adoption is
Smith, the disadopters look very much illustrated across different states in
like the adopters in terms of farm size Figure 3, which shows the predicted
and technology use, and they are quite probability of rBST adoption as a
distinct from the non-adopters along function of herd size for data from a
those same criteria. number of states. While most of the
Part of the explanation for this curves show a strong positive
high level of disadoption is likely to be relationship between herd size and
the profits associated with use of the probability of adoption, the more
technology. While rBST was shown to extreme degree of size bias occurs in
be profitable in experiment station trials, those states, such as Wisconsin, New
simulations, and in the literature York, and Connecticut, with smaller
distributed by Monsanto, on-farm average farm sizes whose curves rise
studies of rBST profitability have not more rapidly and to higher levels.
found that farms that use rBST are more Nonetheless, the fact that a significant
profitable than those that do not size bias in rBST adoption is evident
(Stefanides and Tauer). This modest across states with quite disparate average
profitability impact of rBST then herd sizes means that the herd size bias
appears to be reflected in the relatively is relative and not absolute. In other
high levels of disadoption of rBST. One words, in Wisconsin where the average
possibility is that many more of these herd has about 60 cows, the probability
farmers might have stuck with rBST if it of adoption rises to 50% for farms with
were priced competitively as might have 250 cows and to nearly 100% with farms
happened had other potential producers of 500 cows. Meanwhile, in Utah,
of this technology not been dissuaded by where the average herd size is about 250,a 250-cow farm has only a 25% impact of rBST on milk production
predicted probability of adopting rBST, levels has been the functional equivalent
and a 500 cow farm has only a 50% of two years of secular growth trends in
probability. milk productivity associated with other
This evidence confirms the idea improvements in herd management,
that larger farms are more likely to adopt genetics, and feeding practices. As such,
rBST, but presents the puzzle that what it would be hard to argue that it has
is a “larger farm” is determined relative played much of a role in shaping the
to other farms in the state, not to some structure of dairy farming in the U.S.
absolute size across states. This puzzle Moderate rBST adoption rates
can probably best be explained by the can be explained in part by the fact that a
different organization of production sizable proportion of farmers who have
across states. It could be that farms that tried rBST have since decided to stop
have specialized their labor tasks are using it. While some might argue that
more likely to adopt rBST, because such these disadopters could adopt again,
specialization may be critical for interviews with Wisconsin farmers
managing the herd in a way that makes suggest that disadopters are not inclined
rBST use profitable. For example, it to return to the technology. And,
may be that due to less effort being spent econometric studies from elsewhere
on cropping, nutrient management, and underscore this view by finding no
certain types of animal care, a non- significant impacts of rBST adoption on
specialized family labor farm in the dairy farm profitability. The slowing
West or South would have, on average, down of rBST adoption in the U.S. can
400 cows while in the Upper Midwest also be explained by the significant
and Northeast a fully integrated, non- differences between adopters and non-
specialized livestock and crop adopters of rBST in terms of herd size
cultivation operation might have 75 and complementary technology use.
cows. By contrast, operations that rBST appears to be a technology
specialized over the different ranges of that has a place especially on larger
tasks across those two states might have, farms that have already invested in
on average, 800 and 150 cows, complementary productivity-enhancing
respectively. technologies. But, rBST adoption also
seems unlikely to grow much in the
What Does This All Mean? years ahead without major changes in
Nearly a decade later, we can say the price of the technology, the structure
the following things about rBST of dairy farming, or the price of milk
adoption in the United States. It has not that attract back disadopters and make
been the juggernaut technology that adoption attractive for those that have
contending sides imagined it might be. not yet adopted rBST. It seems safe to
Indeed, its adoption has been limited to a say now that rBST will be remembered
relatively small proportion of the in the historical annals of agricultural
nation’s farmers (15%) and to a biotechnologies as the juggernaut that
significant minority but not a majority was not.
(35%) of the nation’s cows. The overallFor Your Information:
Barham, B. L., J. D. Foltz, S. Moon, and D. Jackson-Smith, “A Comparative Analysis of
rBST Adoption and Disadoption Across Major U.S. Dairy Regions,” Mimeo,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Program on Agricultural Technology Studies.
Available at http://www.wisc.edu/pats
Larson, B. and F. Kuchler. “The Simple Analytics of Technology Adoption: Bovine
Growth Hormone and the Dairy Industry.” Nor. Cent. J. Ag Econ. 12, 1 (January,
1990): 109-123.
Stefanides, Z. and L. Tauer. “The Empirical Impact of Bovine Somatotropin on a Group
of New York Dairy Farms.” Amer. J. Ag. Econ. 81 (February 1999): 95-102.
U.S. Government, Executive Branch. “Use of Bovine Somatotropin (BST) in the United
States: Its Potential Effects,” January, 1994.Figure 1.
Percentage of Cows Nationally in Herds Treated with rBST (1994-2001)
40
35 %
35
33 % 33 %
31 %
30 29 %
25 %
25
Adotion Rates (%)
20 19 %
15 14 %
10
5
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
YearFigure 2.
Adoption & Dis-adoptions of rBST by State Sample
70.0
60.0
50.0 14.0
Percent of Dairy Farmers (%)
40.0
20.7
9.4 13.8
14.3 Dis-adopters
30.0 Current Adopters
48.6
44.0
20.0 7.5
31.6
27.7 29.3
26.8
10.0
16.5
0.0
Connecticut Ontario County Stearns County Wisconsin Four Counties Cache County Erath County
(1999) New York Minnesota (2001) in Idaho Utah Texas
(1998) (2000) (2001) (2001) (2000)*
State (Year of Survey)
* Dis-adoption rates are not available in Texas.Predicted Probability of Adoption (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
510
Figure 3
540
Herd Size (cows)
570
600
630
660
690
720
750
Predicted Probability of Adopting rBST by Herd Size
780
810
840
870
900
930
960
990
ID
WI
TX
UT
CT
NY
MNYou can also read
