• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content

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

  • 2,975 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,975
Views on SlideShare
2,975
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
94
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