Advertisement

Economic and Environmental Impacts of Herbicide Tolerant and Insect Resistant Crops in the United States

  • Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo
  • Cassandra Klotz-Ingram
  • Ralph Heimlich
  • Meredith Soule
  • William McBride
  • Sharon Jans

Abstract

Genetic engineering refers to the genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques. By a precise alteration of a plant’s traits, genetic engineering facilitates the development of characteristics not possible through traditional plant breeding techniques. The genetic modifications considered in this chapter include herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.

Keywords

Genetically Modify United States Department Conventional Tillage Genetically Modify Crop Conservation Tillage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burrows, T.M. (1983). Pesticide demand and integrated pest management: A limited dependent variable analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65, 806–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belknap, J., & Saupe, W.E. (1988). Farm family resources and the adoption of no-plow tillage in southwestern Wisconsin. N. C. J. Agr. Econ., 10(1), 13–23Google Scholar
  3. Carpenter, J.E., & Gianessi, L.P. (1999). Herbicide tolerant soybeans: Why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties. AgBioForum, 2(2), 65–72.Google Scholar
  4. Culpepper, A.S., & York, A.C. (1998). Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. The Journal of Cotton Science, 4, 174–185.Google Scholar
  5. Diewert, W.E., & Ostensoe, L. (1988). Flexible functional forms and global curvature conditions. In W. Barnett, E. Berndt, & H. White (Eds.), Dynamic Econometric Modeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ervin, D.E., Batie, S.S., Welsh, R., Carpentier, C.L., Fern, J.I., Richman, N.J., & Schulz, M.A. (2000). Transgenic crops: An environmental assessment. Henry Wallace Center for Agricultural & Environmental Policy at Winrock International.Google Scholar
  7. Ervin, C.A., & Ervin. D.E. (1982). Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: Hypotheses, evidence and policy implications. Land Econ., 58(3), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farm Bureau/Philip Morris. (2000). Sharing knowledge: An analysis of the Farm Bureau/Philip Morris 1999 gap research: Consumer and farmer opinions about food and agriculture. Roper Starch Worldwide Inc. on behalf of the Philip Morris family of companies and the American Farm Bureau Federation.Google Scholar
  9. Falck-Zepeda, J.B. & Traxler, G. (1998). Rent creation and distribution from transgenic cotton in the U.S. Prepared for the symposium Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Research Impacts, NC-208 and CIMMYT, El Batan, Mexico. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Alabama.Google Scholar
  10. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (1996). The microeconomic impact of IPM adoption: Theory and application. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 25, 149–160Google Scholar
  11. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (1998). Environmental and economic consequences of technology adoption: IPM in viticulture. Agricultural Economics, 18, 145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (2000, July). GM crop adoption and changing farm practices. Presented at the Workshop on Ecologically Monitoring of Genetically Modified Crops. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.Google Scholar
  13. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & Jans, S. (1995). Quality-adjusted price and quantity indices for pesticides. Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 77, 645–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & McBride, W.D. (2000). Genetically engineered crops for pest management in U.S. agriculture: Farm-level effects (AER-786). Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
  15. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & Klotz-Ingram, C. (1998, June). Economic, environmental, and policy impacts of using genetically engineered crops for pest management. Selected Paper presented at the NAREA meetings, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  16. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Klotz-Ingram, C., & Jans, S. (1999a, June). Farm-level effects of adopting genetically engineered crops in the U.S.A (NE-165). Paper presented at theInternational Conference Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  17. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Klotz-Ingram, C., & Jans, S. (1999b, August). Farm-level effects of adopting herbicide tolerant soybeans in the U.S.A. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  18. Fuglie, K.O. (1999). Conservation tillage and pesticide use in the cornbelt. J. of Agr. and Applied Econ., 31(1), 133–147.Google Scholar
  19. Fuglie, K.O., & Klotz, C.A. (1994, June). Adoption of conservation tillage in the lower Susquehanna basin. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, Newark, DE.Google Scholar
  20. Gianessi, L.P., & Carpenter, J.E. (1999). Agricultural biotechnology: Insect control benefits. Washington, DC: National Center For Food And Agricultural Policy.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, J.W. IV, et al. (1997). Comparison of costs and returns associated with heliothis resistant Bt cotton to non-resistant varieties. Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences.Google Scholar
  22. Gould, B.W., Saupe, W.E., & Klemme, R.M. (1989). Conservation tillage: The role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Land Econ., 65(2), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene, W.H. (1997). Econometric analysis (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  24. Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, 25, 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayenga, M. (1998). Structural change in the biotech seed and chemical industrial complex. AgBioForum, 1(2), 43–55.Google Scholar
  26. Heckman, J.J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Econ. and Social Means., 5, 475–491.Google Scholar
  27. Heimlich, R.E., Fernandez-Cornejo, J., McBride, W.D., Klotz-Ingram, C., Jans, S., & Brooks, N. (2000a). Adoption of genetically engineered seed in U.S. agriculture: Implications for pesticide use. In C. Fairbairn, G. Scoles, & A. McHughen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (pp. 56–64). University Extension Press: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Heimlich, R.E., Fernandez-Cornejo, J., McBride, W.D., Klotz-Ingram, C., Jans, S., & Brooks, N. (2000b). Genetically engineered crops: Has adoption reduced pesticide use? Agricultural Outlook, August, 13–17.Google Scholar
  29. Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy. (2000, January). Agricultural biotechnology and the environment: A review of research and other information for policy. Interim report to W.K. Kellogg Foundation and US Department of Agriculture. Greenbelt, MD: Winrock International.Google Scholar
  30. Kott, P.S. (1998). Using the delete-a-group jackknife variance estimator in NASS surveys (Research Report No. RD-98-01). Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service.Google Scholar
  31. Kott, P.S., & Fetter, M. (1997, August). A multi-phase sample design to co-ordinate surveys and limit response burden. Paper presented at the 1997 Joint Statistical Meetings (ASA, ENAR, WNAR, IMS, SSC).Google Scholar
  32. Long, J.S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Lynne, G.D., Shonkwiler, J.S., & Rola, L.R. (1988). Attitudes and farmer conservation behavior. Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 70(1), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maddala, G.S. (1983). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Marra, M., Carlson, G., & Hubbell, B. (1998).Economic impacts of the first crop biotechnologies.Google Scholar
  36. McBride, W., & Brooks, N. (2000). Survey evidence on producer use and costs of genetically modified seed. Agribusiness, 16(1), 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rahm, M.R., & Huffman, W.E. (1984). The adoption of reduced tillage: The role of human capital and other variables. Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66(4), 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ReJesus, R.M., Greene, J.K., Hamming, M.D., & Curtis, C.E. (1997). Economic analysis of insect management strategies for transgenic Bt cotton production in South Carolina. Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences, 1, 247–251.Google Scholar
  39. Royal Society. (1998). Genetically modified plants for food use. London, UK: Carlton House Terrace.Google Scholar
  40. Sandretto, C. (1997). Crop residue management. In US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (Agricultural Handbook No. 712, pp. 155–174). Washington, DC: USDA.Google Scholar
  41. Smale, M., & Heisey, P.W. (1993). Simultaneous estimation of seed-fertilizer adoption decisions: An application to hybrid maize in Malawi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43(3/4), 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soule, M., & Klotz-Ingram, C. (2000, July-August). The simultaneous adoption of conservation tillage and herbicide tolerant seeds by U.S. soybean producers. Selected paper presented at the 2000 AAEA national meeting, Tampa, FL.Google Scholar
  43. Stark Jr., C.R. (1997). Economics of transgenic cotton: Some indications based on Georgia producers. Beltwide Cotton Conference Proceedings. Cotton Economics and Marketing Conference, 1.Google Scholar
  44. United States Department of Agriculture. (1999d, July 13). New crops, new century, new challenges: How will scientists, farmers, and consumers learn to love biotechnology and what happens if they don’t? (Release No. 0285.99). Secretary of Agriculture Daniel Glickman before the National Press Club, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  45. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (1997a, July). Agricultural resources and environmental indicators, 1996–97 (AH-712).Google Scholar
  46. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (1997b, July). Pesticides. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996–97 (AHB-712, chapter 3.2).Google Scholar
  47. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (1997c, May). Agricultural outlook report.Google Scholar
  48. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (1999b). Genetically engineered crops for pest management (Issues Center Web Briefing, June 25).Google Scholar
  49. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (1999c). New U.S. farm resource regions (Issues Center Web Briefing, June 28,1999). Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/regions/index.htm.Google Scholar
  50. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1991, March). Agriculture chemical usage: 1990 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  51. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1992, March). Agriculture chemical usage: 1991 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  52. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1993, March). Agriculture chemical usage: 1992 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  53. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1994, March). Agriculture chemical usage: 1993 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  54. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1995, March). Agriculture chemical usage: 1994 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  55. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1996, March). Agriculture chemical usage: 1995 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  56. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1997d, September). Agriculture chemical usage: 1996 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  57. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1998a, July). Agriculture chemical usage: 1997 summary.Google Scholar
  58. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1998b, September). Agriculture chemical usage: 1997 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  59. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1999a, May). Agriculture chemical usage: 1998 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  60. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (1999e, October). Crop production.Google Scholar
  61. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service. (2000a, May). Agriculture chemical usage: 1999 field crops summary.Google Scholar
  62. Wu, J., & Babcock, B.A. (1998). The choice of tillage, rotation, and soil testing practices: Economic and environmental implications. Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 80(3), 494–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method for estimating seemingly unrelated regression and test of aggregation bias. Journal American Statistical Association, 57, 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo
    • 1
  • Cassandra Klotz-Ingram
    • 1
  • Ralph Heimlich
    • 1
  • Meredith Soule
    • 1
  • William McBride
    • 1
  • Sharon Jans
    • 1
  1. 1.Economic Research ServiceUS Department of AgricultureUSA

Personalised recommendations