Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Animal Patents pp 117–133Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Perspectives of Farmers

  • Chapter

  • 19 Accesses

Abstract

The issue of whether or not transgenic animals should be patented and what the effect will be on US agriculture has been actively debated for over a year. At first, the idea of transgenic animals caught many by surprise. Although genetic improvement of livestock is an important component of production agriculture, the idea of inserting a foreign gene successfully into an animal and subsequently having a novel trait expressed was difficult to grasp. In addition, the concept of patents, what they do and don’t do, was also novel. Just thinking about the sheer mechanics of collecting royalties on offspring was staggering. But now, after we have had a chance to collect our breath, agriculture is speaking out, although not always with a united voice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Callow, E. H. (1961) Comparative Studies of Meat. VII. A Comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn, and Friesian Steers on Four Levels of Nutrition. J. Agric. Sci., 56: 265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, T. C., G. F. Ellis, Jr., W. E. Kruse, and E. K. Crouch (1964) Hybrid Vigor in Brahman Hereford Crosses. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Monogr., no. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1979) Impact of Government Regulations on the Beef Industry. Report no. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1980) Food from Animals: Quantity, Quality and Safety. Report no. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1982) The US Sheep and Goat Industry: Products, Opportunities, and Limitations. Report no. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, G. (1970) Efficiency of Animal Production—Molding the Biological Component. J. Anim. Sci., 30: 849–859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dikeman, M. E. (1983) Animal Production Systems to Meet Consumer Demands—US and Canada. In: Meat Science and Technology International Symposium Proceedings. Chicago: National Livestock and Meat Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasley, J. F. (1978) Genetics of Livestock Improvement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1981) Beef Cattle Production. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Dairy Policy (1988) Report and Recommendations. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notter, D.R., J. O. Saunders, G. E. Dickerson, G. M. Smith, and T. C. Cartwright (1979) Simulated Efficiency of Beef Production for a Midwestern Cow-Calf-Feedlot Management System. II. Mature Body Size. J. Anim. Sci., 49: 83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oltjen, R. R. (1982) Breeding, Feeding and Management of Bulls for Meat Production. Paper presented at the US Beef Symposium, Beef from Young, Intact Males, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimund, D. A., N. L. Brooks, and P. D. Velde (1986) The US Farm Sector in the Mid-1980’s. ARED/ERS/USDA. Agricultural Economic Report no. 548. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, G. B., L. A. Voss, W. L. Hensen, and H. B. Jones (1977) Marketing and Integration in the Poultry and Egg Industries. US Department of Agriculture, Poultry and Egg Situation, PES 294, p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwulst, F. J. (1982) Production by Crossbred Ewes (Finn-Dorset × Rambouillet) in Northwestern Kansas. Kansas Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull., no. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1982) Impacts of Applied Genetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Agriculture (1982) Agricultural Statistics 1982. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

Additional Reading

  • McAnelly, L. (1988) Ownership of Genes—Who Will Control the Raw Materials of Agriculture? Grassroots (spring): 3, 4, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raines, L. J. (1988) The Mouse That Roared. Iss. Sci. Technol., 70 (summer): 64–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, A. A. (1987) Animal Patents: Agriculture’s Perspective. Park Ridge, Illinois: American Farm Bureau Federation.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1989) New Developments in Biotechnology: Patenting Life. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. A. Ann Sorensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cornell University, USA

    William H. Lesser (Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics) (Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics)

Copyright information

© 1989 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sorensen, A.A. (1989). Perspectives of Farmers. In: Lesser, W.H. (eds) Animal Patents. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10769-8_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation