Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

GMO.ppt - Agricultural Biotechnology

on

  • 3,089 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,089
Views on SlideShare
3,089
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
98
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

GMO.ppt - Agricultural  Biotechnology GMO.ppt - Agricultural Biotechnology Presentation Transcript

  • GMO Crops: To Grow or Not to Grow? Marshall A. Martin Professor and Associate Head Department of Agricultural Economics Purdue University Crop Production Clinic Madison County, Indiana December 7, 2000
  • Organization of Today’s Presentation
    • GMO crops
  • Organization of Today’s Presentation
    • GMO crops
    • Public attitudes towards GMO crops
  • Organization of Today’s Presentation
    • GMO crops
    • Public attitudes towards GMO crops
    • Economics of transgenic corn adoption
  • Organization of Today’s Presentation
    • GMO crops
    • Public attitudes towards GMO crops
    • Economics of transgenic corn adoption
    • Crop segregation
  • Organization of Today’s Presentation
    • GMO crops
    • Public attitudes towards GMO crops
    • Economics of transgenic corn adoption
    • Crop segregation
    • The Starlink case
  • What is a GMO crop?
    • Transfer of a gene from a soil bacteria that codes for a protein
  • What is a GMO crop?
    • Transfer of a gene from a soil bacteria that codes for a protein
    • Protein becomes a toxin and kills selected insects
  • Insect Control with Biotechnology
    • Insect resistant crops commercially available, e.g., Bt corn, cotton, and potatoes
  • Insect Control with Biotechnology
    • Insect resistant crops commercially available, e.g., Bt corn, cotton, and potatoes
    • Transgenic corn for rootworm control under development
  • Crop Applications of Biotechnology
    • Herbicide tolerant crops, e.g., Roundup Ready corn and soybeans
  • U.S. Crop Biotechnology Adoption
    • ( USDA Survey ) 1999 2000 2000 US US IN
      • Corn 33% 25% 11%
      • Soybeans 57% 54% 63%
  • Biotechnology Critics What are the public concerns?
  • Monarch Butterfly
    • Cornell and Iowa State University laboratory studies of adverse Bt corn pollen impact
  • Monarch Butterfly
    • Cornell and Iowa State University laboratory studies of adverse Bt corn pollen impact
    • Recent field studies suggest minimal adverse impact
  • Undesired Gene Flow
    • Cross pollination
  • Undesired Gene Flow
    • Cross pollination
    • Organic farmer concerns
  • Undesired Gene Flow
    • Superweeds
  • Food Safety • Allergenicity
  • Food Safety • Allergenicity • Unknown diseases or future health consequences
  •  
  •  
  • Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology
    • Strong environmental movement
  • Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology
    • Strong environmental movement
    • No coherent regulatory system
  • Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology
    • Strong environmental movement
    • No coherent regulatory system
    • Weak public trust in government since mad cow disease (BSE)
  • Many Europeans uneasy about biotechnology
    • Strong environmental movement
    • No coherent regulatory system
    • Weak public trust in government since mad cow disease (BSE)
    • EU consumers perceive no benefits with potential risk
  • Many Europeans uneasy about agricultural biotechnology
    • Strong environmental movement
    • No coherent regulatory system
    • Weak public trust in government since mad cow disease (BSE)
    • EU consumers perceive no benefits with potential risk
    • Protectionist farm policies
  • Many Europeans uneasy about agricultural biotechnology
    • Strong environmental movement
    • No coherent regulatory system
    • Weak public trust in government since mad cow disease (BSE)
    • EU consumers perceive no benefits with potential risk
    • Protectionist farm policies
    • Strong support for labeling
  • U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology
    • About 3/4 Americans have heard of biotechnology
  • U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology
    • About 3/4 Americans have heard of biotechnology
    • About 1 out of 3 consumers know that GMO foods are now in our supermarkets
  • U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology
    • About 3/4 would buy a GMO food if less pesticide use
  • U.S. Consumer Attitudes towards Food Biotechnology
    • About 3/4 would buy a GMO food if less pesticide use
    • About 3/4 support FDA labeling of biotechnology foods with health and nutrition information
  • My Biotechnology Research
    • Economics of Corn Insect Control
      • graduate student research
      • ID-219 (extension pub)
      • Review of Agricultural Economics 21(2):1999
      • AgBioForum, 3(1):2000
      • 1998, 1999, & 2000 AAEA Selected Papers
  • European Corn Borer
    • $1 billion annual damage in U.S.
  • European Corn Borer
    • $1 billion annual damage in U.S.
    • Physiological damage
  • European Corn Borer
    • $1 billion annual damage in U.S.
    • Physiological damage
    • Mechanical damage
  • European Corn Borer Infestation
  • Multi-State Study
    • Indiana
    • Illinois
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
  • Decision Analysis Model
    • A decision tree
  • Data
    • Collaborative arrangements
      • Indiana: Bledsoe and Obermeyer
      • Illinois: Steffey
      • Iowa: Hellmich
      • Kansas: Buschman and Higgins
  • Data
    • Scouting and spraying costs
  • Data
    • Scouting and spraying costs
    • Spraying efficacy
  • Data
    • Scouting and spraying costs
    • Spraying efficacy
    • Corn planting dates
      • Probability distribution
      • Yield losses for late planting
  • Data
    • Scouting and spraying costs
    • Spraying efficacy
    • Corn planting dates
      • Probability distribution
      • Yield losses for late planting
    • ECB yield damage by planting date
  • Data
    • Probability of number of ECB given plant date and infestation
  • Data
    • Probability of number of ECB given plant date and infestation
    • Probability of number of ECB per plant given infestation
  • Data
    • Probability of number of ECB given plant date and infestation
    • Probability of number of ECB per plant given infestation
    • Overall probability of infestation
  • Results – Indiana and Iowa
    • Returns to spraying less than per acre scouting costs
  • Results – Indiana and Iowa
    • Returns to spraying less than per acre scouting costs
    • Compare Bt corn to non-Bt without a spraying program
  • Results - Indiana
  • Results - Indiana
    • Risk Neutral
  • Results - Indiana
    • Risk Averse
  • Results - Iowa
  • Results - Iowa
    • Risk Neutral
  • Results - Iowa
    • Risk Averse
  • Conclusions
    • Value of Bt corn increases from east to west in Corn Belt
  • Conclusions
    • Value of Bt corn increases from east to west in Corn Belt
    • Very valuable where SWCB are present
  • Conclusions
    • Value of Bt corn increases from east to west in Corn Belt
    • Very valuable where SWCB are present
    • Resistance may occur if farmers do not comply with EPA 20% refuge requirement
  • Corn Rootworm Control
  • Corn Rootworm Larvae Damage
  • Western Corn Rootworm Variant in Northern Indiana
  • Soil Insecticides
    • One-time proactive application to protect roots
    • Benefits Limitations
    • • Simplicity • Efficacy variability
    • • Known cost • No adult control
    • ($13-$17/acre) • Environmental concerns?
    • • Secondary pests • Grower exposure to
    • chemicals
  • Transgenics
    • Insertion of Cry gene from Bacillus thuringiensis into corn genome-root expression leads to root protection
    • Benefits Limitations
    • • Simplicity • Resistance development
    • • Consistency/efficacy • Refuge requirements
    • • Reduced insecticide use • GMO marketing concerns
    • and chemical exposure
  • Root Protection
  • Indiana Research Sites http://www.aes.purdue.edu/AgResearch/AgCenters.html
  • Indiana: 1990-1999 (excluding 1996)
  • Conclusions
    • Based on cost to the producer, yield benefits, efficacy/consistency, simplicity, and environmental implications, transgenics potentially hold the most economic value for producers
  • Conclusions
    • Based on cost to the producer, yield benefits, efficacy/consistency, simplicity, and environmental implications, transgenics potentially hold the most economic value for producers
    • But must have a refuge management plan
  • Some Considerations Before Adopting Transgenic Corn
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Production Considerations
    • Technology fee
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Production Considerations
    • Technology fee
    • Pest infestation probabilities
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Production Considerations
    • Technology fee
    • Pest infestation probabilities
    • Yield drag
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Production Considerations
    • Technology fee
    • Pest infestation probabilities
    • Yield drag
    • Reduction in pesticide costs
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Environmental Considerations
    • Refuge requirements
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Environmental Considerations
    • Refuge requirements
    • Impacts on beneficial insects
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Environmental Considerations
    • Refuge requirements
    • Impacts on beneficial insects
    • Tillage system adjustments
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Marketing Considerations
    • Potential premiums or discounts
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Marketing Considerations
    • Potential premiums or discounts
    • Market segregation costs
  • Adopting a Transgenic Crop: Marketing Considerations
    • Potential premiums or discounts
    • Market segregation costs
    • How much premium?
  • How much premium needed to segregate?
    • Recent Midwest commercial farmer survey (Norm Larson of AFS Services)
    • Premium per Bushel
    • < $0.10 2%
    • $0.10 - $0.20 22%
    • $.020 - $0.30 28%
    • $0.30 - $0.40 26%
    • $0.40 - $0.50 11%
    • >$0.50 12%
  • What does it take to segregate your crop?
    • Seed source
  • What does it take to segregate your crop?
    • Seed source
    • Planting considerations
  • What does it take to segregate your crop?
    • Seed source
    • Planting considerations
    • Harvesting considerations
  • What does it take to segregate your crop?
    • Seed source
    • Planting considerations
    • Harvesting considerations
    • Storage challenges
  • What does it take to segregate your crop?
    • Seed source
    • Planting considerations
    • Harvesting considerations
    • Storage challenges
    • Hauling and shipping
  • What does it take to segregate your crop?
    • Seed source
    • Planting considerations
    • Harvesting considerations
    • Storage challenges
    • Hauling and shipping
    • Beyond the farm gate
  • The Starlink Case
    • Aventis request to EPA- April ’97
  • The Starlink Case
    • Aventis request to EPA- April ’97
    • EPA approved- May ’98 for domestic feed and industrial use only
  • The Starlink Case
    • Aventis request to EPA- April ’97
    • EPA approved- May ’98 for domestic feed and industrial use only
    • Grower agreements required
  • The Starlink Case
    • Aventis request to EPA- April ’97
    • EPA approved- May ’98 for domestic feed and industrial use only
    • Grower agreements required
    • Acres planted
      • 2,000 in ’98
      • 248,000 in ’99
      • 340,908 in ‘00
  • U.S. Starlink Corn Acres: 2000
    • Iowa 134,910
    • Nebraska 41,529
    • Minnesota 35,691
    • S.Dakota 34,290
    • Kansas 21,390
    • Illinois 17,466
    • INDIANA 3,564
    • U.S. 340,908
  • Indiana Starlink Corn Acres: 2000
    • La Porte 594
    • Starke 507
    • Marshall 339
    • Knox 288
    • Jasper 279
    • Delaware 189
    • Lake 180
    • Bartholomew 171
    • Owen 141
    • Randolph 108
  • The Starlink Case
    • Sept ’00 found in taco shells and recalls initiated
  • The Starlink Case
    • Sept ’00 found in taco shells and recalls initiated
    • Oct ’00 processors stop using Cry9c corn
  • The Starlink Case
    • Sept ’00 found in taco shells and recalls initiated
    • Oct ’00 processors stop using Cry9c corn
    • Nov ’00 disruption in grain industry
  • The Starlink Case
    • Sept ’00 found in taco shells and recalls initiated
    • Oct ’00 processors stop using Cry9c corn
    • Nov ‘00 disruption in grain industry
    • Nov ’00 USDA/Aventis agreement to locate and purchase Starlink corn
  • The Starlink Case
    • Sept ’00 found in taco shells and recalls initiated
    • Oct ’00 processors stop using Cry9c corn
    • Nov ’00 disruption in grain industry
    • Nov ’00 USDA/Aventis agreement to locate and purchase Starlink corn
    • Nov ’00 new data submitted to EPA
  • The Starlink Case
    • Sept ’00 found in taco shells and recall s initiated
    • Oct ’00 processors stop using Cry9c corn
    • Nov ‘00 disruption in grain industry
    • Nov ’00 USDA/Aventis agreement to locate and purchase Starlink corn
    • Nov ’00 new data submitted to EPA
    • Dec ’00 report from SAP says “medium risk” with Cry9c and “low probability” of risk to consumers
  • The Starlink Case
    • Sept ’00 found in taco shells and recall starts
    • Oct ’00 processors stop using Cry9c corn
    • Nov ‘00 disruption in grain industry
    • Nov ’00 USDA/Aventis agreement to locate and purchase Starlink corn
    • Nov ’00 new data submitted to EPA
    • Dec ’00 report from SAP says “medium risk” with Cry9c and low probability of risk to consumers
    • EPA action expected in a few weeks
  • Questions